Mid-career salaries by college - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-Salaries_for_Colleges_by_Region-sort.html

<comment><USER2> without controlling for the cost of living, this is pretty meaningless

<comment><USER3> or by major -- I'm sure medical and law schools have a big impact on later in life earnings. Especially since it's based on salary and not wealth, stock options etc are probably not counted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most poeple will look at which ones are the biggest. Everyone should take note the fact that Education is the at the bottom in both starting and median salary.</comment>


Man what - <AUTHOR> http://ozmm.org/posts/man_what.html

<comment><USER2> I think the point is "hey people let's stop releasing software without decent user documentation because that's lazy and lame".

And I agree wholeheartedly.

EDIT: For example:

      % gem list | wc -l
      89
      % gem man --all | tail -n +3 | awk '{ print $1 }' | sort | uniq | wc -l
      2

...one of those two is gem-man itself. The other is unicorn.

<comment><USER3> Overall, I think you're right about Chris's point, but I'm not sure about your comparison of how many gems versus how many manpages.

Many gems are libraries rather than binaries/applications, and as such they don't have user-friendly man pages, but they do have documentation in the form of rdoc/yard/what-have-you. On my system, only gem-man and ronn have manpages, but many other gems have documentation via ri - it's just documentation aimed at other programmers rather than end users. For a library, that makes sense to me.

Having said that, it would be nice if Ruby gem authors got into the habit of using ronn and gem-man in the way that Perl CPAN authors use POD.

Also, and this is just nitpicky, but your second command shouldn't need awk, sort or uniq:

        gem man --all | tail -n +3 | wc -l

<comment><USER2> So yes, some of these gems don't need man-pages. I wasn't hoping for 100% man- page coverage (maybe an interesting tool to write, now that I think of it...), but better than one apart from the gem-man quasi-meta-manpage would be a start.

In particular, I'm thinking of things like rails, rspec, heroku, and the like, which, while primarily libraries, have cli components that badly need man pages. I can't tell you how many babies I've punched as a result of typing "man rails" or "man spec". It might be just me, but if it can be the first token in a shell command, I expect it to have a manpage, and it is almost (physically) shocking when that is not true.

(I do need that awk | sort | uniq, because I have multiple versions of unicorn that all show up with that command)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For context, he just created the gem-man gem 2 days ago. Presumably he's just collecting a bunch of basic information in one place as part of the process, including new and specific information on tools for making dealing with man pages in gems. I don't see what the problem is, and feigning shock over someone talking about man pages doesn't make you look cool.

</comment><comment><USER5> Holy crap. Am I just so old that I don't realize that the younger generation has never been exposed to basic unix commands, or is this article as ridiculous as it seems?

<comment><USER6> I think Chris is mainly writing for the Ruby community; in a talk he gave at RubyConf '09 (<http://tr.im/Rbui>) he talked about things that Python did better than they and one big thing he said was how adamant the Python people are on documentation.

I think it's probably 20% newest programmers are getting less and less interested in the command-line, 20% article is ridiculous and 60% dude was bored wanted to write an easy and thorough article on a programming topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Upvoted for a nice collection of tools for composing man pages, and the ruby- man gem, even though some of the information is rather basic.

Also, because I didn't know about the cheatsheet project.

</comment><comment><USER8> also, "ls" lists files in your current directory.

<comment><USER9> That's unfair. I was thinking the same thing when I first started reading, but he provides pointers to excellent resources for producing manpages. I've written manpages before, and I hadn't heard of asciidoc or ronn.

It's easy to posture and and use snark to deride someone for saying something you already know. But I think gentle reminders that our systems are _discoverable_ is a good one. I'm currently TAing a Computer Systems course, and that's a key point I want our students to realize.

<comment><USER8> oh come on. first i wasn't deriding the original post - if i was "deriding" anything, it was whoever decided it was worth posting here (and those that upvoted it). second, if a rather gentle observation like that is enough to get you offended, you're too sensitive. or you get your rocks off "defending" people that don't need it, or whatever...

<comment><USER9> Or I like that HN encourages good discussion. Sarcastic "I already knew that" posts are not good discussion. And I did upvote it, for that reminder and for the pointers to the programs that aid in writing manpages.

<comment><USER8> one good thing about HN is that it's _selective_. there's always some small nugget of information in a post, if you look hard enough. that shouldn't be sufficient for an up-vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "For instance, I've installed node.js via homebrew which means I can type man node"

Hmm. If I release a project, node.hs, can I also name my man page 'node'? What happens if there is a collision?

Are there rules of etiquette when deciding what to call you man pages entry? I.e., what it not have been better for node.js to have it's entry be 'nodejs' or 'node.js'?

</comment><comment><USER11> On OS X Snow Leopard:

        my-macbook:~ user$ man up
        No manual entry for up
        my-macbook:~ user$

</comment><comment><USER12> Awww, troff too hard? It's easier than LaTeX, and honestly if you can't open up a man page and replace its content with your own (since they all follow pretty much the same format), you shouldn't even be writing code.</comment>


Show HN: UnicodeForUs, open-source repository of fun unicode characters - <AUTHOR> http://unicodefor.us/

<comment><USER2> The Unicode characters page on Wikipedia might be of more actual use:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters>

<comment><USER3> Way too much noise on that page. When looking to use a fun character in a message, I would be much less interested in the Wikipedia page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's frivolous, but I've got to admit it's something I'll use.</comment>


Show HN: Google Music Amplify – Chrome Extension for Importing Song Metadata - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-music-amplify/hfpfldmccmeefbdpnoljhpechemonhkn

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

I made this chrome extension because I was tired of importing songs and only sometimes having Google give me the correct suggestion. The metadata comes from Spotify, which was the only reliable open source music API that doesn't require a developer key (so some artists, like Taylor Swift won't show have any results). Please let me know if you have any ideas for other improvements.

Hope you like it.</comment>


I am selling a site with over 80k visits monthly - <AUTHOR> https://flippa.com/3255531-five-years-old-site-with-over-80k-visits-monthly

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not sure, if I can post it on HN. I want to sell this site. [http://www.fullstory.co/](http://www.fullstory.co/)</comment>


Scoble: Filepicker.io helps you offer great cloud-handling features - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/g2wN1fQqXHH

<comment><USER2> I just integrated Filepicker.io with a client site (<http://SetForMarriage.com>), and it works amazingly well. Choosing pictures from Facebook/Dropbox is great for mobile users, and uploading via webcam is awesome for people who don't know how to get their photos onto their computer (a pretty good number of older dating site users).

</comment><comment><USER3> Completely offtopic, but does anyone else find these google-plus "blogs" atrocious, design-wise?

The content _drowns_ in clutter, not even the readability plugin works... I wince in disgust every time I run into one of these abominations.

<comment><AUTHOR> The UX needs work for sure..but think its better than longer blogs and Facebook stories. The interesting thing is that since it doesnt have ads on it now it feels clutter free. Not sure how that will change once Google decides to monetize G+. Right now they are in "establish the platform" phase and that is bound to change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Man. Mentioning Heroku while in the Rackspace offices. Awkward :D

<comment><USER5> Yeah... my bad. Definitely thought he was going to cut that out</comment></comment>


Original implementation of Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js2/semantics/

<comment><USER2> That is not the original implementation. The code you see there was an aborted attempt to specify and implement JS2. Brendan Eich wasn't involved, Waldemar is now at Google, and Netscape burned up somewhere in there.

The original implementation was written in C by Brendan Eich, and shipped in Netscape 2. The code currently used in Mozilla Firefox is a direct descendant of that.

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't really look like the original implementation - the dates on all the files are from late 2005, and the credit is to Waldemar Horwat and not Brendan Eich. I'm guessing this was code for prototyping some JavaScript improvement that went into Mozilla recently.

<comment><AUTHOR> I got the link from <http://bc.tech.coop/blog/030920.html> which got this description from a LtU blog (now dead). I figured if I didn't know any better, keeping the original description would be best.

And looking at it, I'm still not sure it isn't the original (or rather, early descendant of). Late 2005 is only the license change; the first revision I see (in this folder) is 1999-01-29, and the first version of some files says "initial checkin for source reorg" (remember CVS?).

<comment><USER4> The LtU blog moved to <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org> & the quoted discussion is archived at <http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/message8778.html#8782>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whoa, written in Lisp! I wouldn't have guessed it! Very cool.</comment>


What's Special About This Number? - <AUTHOR> http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html <comment><USER2> 2 is the only even prime?

Objection! This amounts to "2 is the only prime not divisible by 2"! How about 2 is the highest solution for N in any equation X^N + Y^N = Z^N?

3 is the number of spatial dimensions we live in?

Objection! This is a mere contingent empirical fact! This is a fact about our universe, not the number 3! You might as well say that your car has three seats in the back. How about "3 is the first number whose factorial does not equal itself"?

<comment><USER3> 3 dimensions is the smallest number of dimensions in which you can make a practical universe. For example photons could not exist in a 2 dimensional universe.

I do get your point that it's not a mathematical property of the number. (But I think you can find some geometrical something that only works in 3 dimensions.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Dont go there if you have the slightest interest in numbers. Your day will evaporate before your eyes. :-)

</comment><comment><USER5> "88 is the only number known whose square has no isolated digits"

Anyone that can explain this?

<comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7744_(number)>

Which also says "There are also very few squares with no unpaired digits", so the 'only number' bit seems erroneous (it did sound hard to believe).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "69 has the property that n2 and n3 together contain each digit once."

Indeed.

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel sorry for 356, the smallest number about which there is nothing "special". But perhaps that is itself special! Repeat.

<comment><USER4> I guess that means that it is the smallest gojomo number. I think 40 is a little forced (only number whose name is spelled in alphabetical order). You should claim 40 too.

<comment><USER9> Agreed about 40. That answer only works in English.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The 897x's are cheating.

</comment><comment><USER10> "9951 is the number of ways to color the vertices of a triangle with 31 colors, up to rotation."

Thank you! I was wondering about that just last night over beer. Now I can sleep easy :-)

Seriously the only thing missing:

1 is the number of web site authors with way too much time on their hands.

<comment><USER11> 1 is the number of web site authors _in evidence_ with way too much time on their hands.</comment></comment>


Hubble Telescope sees predicted delayed supernova flash - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2015/nailed-it-hubble-space-telescope-proves-that-astronomers-can-predict-supernova-flash-in-advance/ <comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien...](http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1525a.pdf)</comment>


An Unexpected Way to Stop People from Quitting - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unexpected-way-stop-people-from-quitting-ryan-holmes?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-hero-22-null&midToken=AQF6311rUAZwXA&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=3ZcD89GfxgYDo1 <comment><USER2> SOme great advices are there in this article!</comment>


Is there a substitute for this Google Reader functionality - <AUTHOR>

Is there a substitute for this google reader functionality?
I would like a bookmarklet that will allow me to "save" whatever web page I am currently viewing, and export a time-ordered list of these bookmarks as an RSS feed.
I use the Share on Google Reader (now deceased) functionality to generate a "Shared Items feed" that I used on my blog.
Is there a substitute that you know of that gives me:
1. One button bookmarklet in my browser 2. Ability to save bookmarks and export an RSS feed
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I built a fairly extensive Pinboard plugin that gives you a keyboard shortcut - Ctrl+D - and other options for Google Chrome: <https://github.com/josegonzalez/pinboard/downloads>

You can then export the bookmarks from your pinboard account quite easily.

</comment><comment><USER3> Pinboard has the ability to give rss (and json) feeds of a users bookmarks (you can even use the tag share and get bookmarks specifically with that tag) see in: <http://pinboard.in/howto/>

Other than that there might be easier ways and pinboard does cost an initial sign up fee.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Anyone know of a free alternative? pinboard.in has a charge (not that I am averse to paying it, just that I would prefer free or freemium)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> my thanks to josegonzalez and wx77 for their comments. I will check out pinboard. Thanks!</comment>


Hacktoberfest is back. Contribute to open source and get a cool T-shirt - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@roshanjossey/hacktoberfest-is-back-contribute-to-open-source-and-get-a-cool-t-shirt-11e50e89afd6 <comment><USER2> This looks quite cool. Has anyone participated in this before?

I'd be interested to hear from the perspective of people submitting PRs and from the perspective of people maintaining repos that got submissions from new contributors because of Hacktoberfest.

<comment><USER3> I wore both hats. Something to note is that PR-ing your own repo counts as well but I digress.

As a submitter: It's a good experience as I don't get an excuse to dive deep into some open source tech every day. Plus I get a comfy t-shirt with a cool design at the end. This month I will try to mess around with .NET Core's core.

As a maintainer: Definitely a non-negligible part of the PRs is garbage. Not everyone is doing this in good spirit. Some PRs are there just fix a typo which is okay I guess but meh. I won't be much of a maintainer this month as my main project's target was php<5.6 but there isn't a better alternative yet. Once again I digress.

I am surprised HF isn't higher on HN right now. It's a cool thing.</comment></comment>


Bringing cron workflows to distributed systems - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/pachyderm-data/pachyderm-1-6-periodic-job-execution-access-control-advanced-statistics-extended-ui-and-more-f3a975867300 <comment><USER2> Please use the original title when submitting something to HN. [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


The Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat aren't healthier - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/impossible-burger-or-beyond-meat-aren-t-healthy-fast-food-ncna1050911 <comment><USER2> God, what a strawman. No one eats fake meat to be healthier. It's about getting away from the appalling cruelty and environmental destruction of factory farming.

However, if you consider that fake meat doesn't create new superbugs from antibiotics overuse, and that the environment is important to your health, you could make a real case that it _is_ healthier.

<comment><USER3> > No one eats fake meat to be healthier.

Beyond Meat is _marketed_ as being healthier. Go to Beyond Meat's website [https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/](https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/) and it begins "Imagine your favorite meaty dishes like burgers and tacos delivering the juicy, delicious taste you know and love, _while being better for you_..."

<comment><USER4> It shouldn't be. Either way, it's not the main reason that people (like myself) are clamoring for plant-based meat alternatives that recreate the meat-eating experience. pkulak is right. It's to prevent animal cruelty and help the environment.

The constant daily reminder from the media that Impossible Burgers aren't any healthier than real burgers are an irrelevant distraction from the point. Animals don't have to be slaughtered to enjoy a hamburger if it's an Impossible burger. The only way to dispute that is if you claim that Impossible Burgers aren't as good as a real one, and dammit if Impossible hasn't done an incredible job at making a tasty burger out of freakin plants.

<comment><USER5> Can you cite research to contrast the fairly well-known unsustainable agriculture practices that industrial complexes have lead to for plant based? I've yet to see an adequately done comparison between properly managed agriculture and properly managed meat production, e.g. non-monocrops vs. non- factory farming.

<comment><USER5> Hoping whoever downvoted me leaves a qualitative comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Actually I can't find any P.R. from Beyond Meat that claims its stuff is healthier. I can't see that Subway said the new stuff was healthier either. Here's a sample press release: [https://www.bloomberg.com/press- releases/2019-08-07/subway-r...](https://www.bloomberg.com/press- releases/2019-08-07/subway-restaurants-and-beyond-meat-unveil-its-strategic- culinary-partnership-and-the-beyond-meatball-marinara-jz155em5)

Impossible Foods is pretty similar, although they do claim they looked for ingredients that are "better for people" which implies being healthier but isn't even that specific. [https://www.whitecastle.com/pdfs/New_Impossible_Slider_FAQ.p...](https://www.whitecastle.com/pdfs/New_Impossible_Slider_FAQ.pdf?language_id=1)

<comment><USER7> Yeah "Better for people" could mean that it's better for people's environment due to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

<comment><USER8> Poe's law in full effect, I'm genuinely unsure if this is a joke. "Better for people" reads to every layperson as "good for you".

<comment><USER6> I'm with tshannon, unsarcastically. It might even mean better for people morally, without affecting the person physically at all.

<comment><USER8> My point though is, if that is what they meant, there is an obvious difference between what was said and what they mean in normal interpretations, and I'm almost inclined to believe it's purposefully deceptive.

There are much clearer ways to state that, like "better for the environment".

<comment><USER6> Yeah it's extremely weaselly no matter what. It doesn't make any particular health claims, plus it says they "looked for" such ingredients and does not claim that they found them or used them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's true that plant-based meat's health claims are overblown, but could this article be any worse at criticizing them?

First of all, as others have mentioned, the main reason people go vegan or vegetarian is ethical concerns with animal cruelty, not health:

[https://vomadlife.com/blogs/news/why-most-people-go- vegan-20...](https://vomadlife.com/blogs/news/why-most-people-go- vegan-2016-survey-results-reveal-all)

[https://faunalytics.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/Fundament...](https://faunalytics.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/Fundamentals_Why-Why-Not-Vegetarian.pdf)

And this is a worthless criticism of plant-based meat:

 _has comparable caloric and fat levels as its meat-based counterpart ... more calories, more fat and more sodium than the meaty original_

Different fats vary wildly in how unhealthy they are. "In fact, some fats actually help promote good health." [1] Saturated fats (mainly found naturally in meat) is much less healthy than unsaturated fats (mainly found naturally in plants) and Omega-3 fats (mainly found naturally in fish) [1].

This doesn't mean it's as simple as meat fats = unhealthy and plant fats = healthy: trans fats are mainly made synthetically from unsaturated plant fats, but are widely considered as unhealthy or worse than saturated meat fats [1]. Coconut oil, even though it comes from a plant, is actually a saturated fat, and the evidence we have suggests it is less healthy for you than other, unsaturated plant fats, although the same evidence also suggests that it's healthier than typical meat fats like butter and lard [2].

[1]: [https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition- and-h...](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy- eating/in-depth/fat/art-20045550) [2]: [https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/coconut- oil](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/coconut-oil)

</comment><comment><USER10> This article uses arguments like "Large quantities of dietary fat, with the potential to clog arteries in an otherwise average American" so casually I'm guessing most people would be shocked to find out it doesn't have much basis.

<comment><USER11> Which is the crux of why many people mistakenly believe fake meats are healthier (or at least "less harmful") than real meat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You think I go to FatBurger for my health, my contrarian journalist? No, here's what those two products aren't: made from slaughtered animals. With a side of onion rings, please, and ranch dressing on the side. Health, _phhhhhht_.

<comment><USER13> I eat food from grocery stores, not from fast food restaurants. I buy burger patties and ground beef regularly, and right next to them in the cooler is a stack of Beyond Meat packages. I'm very influenced in my choice by which I think is healthier for me. It's not my only criteria but it is the primary one. So information about the relative healthiness of cow vs plant based burgers is very relevant to me. Not everyone reading this article is a hypocrite trying to justify their ranch dressing intake.

In the end I think that beef is healthier than pea protein isolate and canola oil. In fact I avoid both legumes and polyunsaturated oils, so this isn't a tough choice for me. The fat and protein profiles of beef are better, it has a lower carbohydrate load which helps to control diabetes, and is better tolerated by people with IBS.

I may be wrong, but don't pretend that people who disagree with you are trivializing this choice. It has a direct effect on how many healthy years we have left.

<comment><USER9> > I avoid ... polyunsaturated oils ... The fat and protein profiles of beef > are better

I'm confused. Every source I can find says that with diabetes, saturated fats are worse for you and unsaturated fats are better for you (same as without diabetes):

[https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-understanding- fat](https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-understanding-fat)

[https://ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2016/09/diet-diabetes- sat...](https://ucdintegrativemedicine.com/2016/09/diet-diabetes-saturated- fats-real-enemy/)

[https://www.joslin.org/info/5-common-food-myths-for- people-w...](https://www.joslin.org/info/5-common-food-myths-for-people-with- diabetes.html)

[https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy- food/eat...](https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating- with-diabetes/food-groups/fats-and-diabetes)

[https://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/diabetes-13/diab...](https://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/diabetes-13/diabetes- management-news-180/diabetes-good-fats-and-bad-fats-644047.html)

Why do you believe that because of your diabetes, the saturated fat in beef is better for you than unsaturated oils?

<comment><USER13> I believe that because of my diabetes lower carb amounts are better for me. Much of the diabetes establishment still doesn't believe this, but going very low carb has had a massive benefit to my personal health. This is a hugely contentious issue in nutrition in recent years, and I find my self firmly on the side of Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz and friends.

I particularly recommend "The Big Fat Surprise" by Teicholz on the subject of the health of various fats. Her research goes flat against a wide variety of authorities ... and I find it very convincing. It sure changed what's on my plate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Eating at a lower trophic level reduces your energy consumption and therefore your pollution output. If you are able to do that with foods that are close to the general macro and vitamin content of a burger, and it tastes about as good (or identical, as I see at times), then shouldn't it be an ethical imperative, given what we know today about climate change?

I mean, I know that humanity will survive climate change, I have every hope & belief, but the earlier that we work on it, both individually and collectively, the better off we'll be. This whole thing about "individual health" is just more tragedy of the commons, especially when the quality of health of the food is so similar - both will get you equally obese.

If we are talking about health and human welfare, there exists a lot of lower hanging fruit than concern about the miniscule differences between beyond meat and that which comes from cattle, but the ecological arguments that can be made are undeniable - impossible and beyond blow beef out of the water.

<comment><USER15> "Water, Pea Protein Isolate*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Pomegranate Fruit Powder, Beet Juice Extract (for color)" vs "Beef" is a minuscule difference?

<comment><USER16> Do you realize that there are many scary-sounding chemicals in a cow's digestive system too? That's not even counting things like artificial growth hormones and antibiotics. Beef is a processed food too. You could feed a lot of these same ingredients to a cow to get beef. How is that really better? One processing system is repeatable and auditable. The other says moo. I'm not saying the organic ambulatory processor is worse, but we need to get past _assuming_ it's better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I speculate that veganism and vegetarianism is strongly correlated with food health consciousness in general, thus fostering a sense of equivalency between veganism and vegetarianism with "healthy". French fries are vegan. Maple syrup is vegan. Chocolate is vegan (as long as it doesn't have animal fat added to it). I can have a very unhealthy vegan meal that consists of french fries dipped in maple syrup and chocolate.

<comment><USER18> >French fries are vegan.

Not if from McD ;)

<comment><USER17> True, if animal based oil is used then anything that gets fried is rendered non-vegan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's healthier for the planet and your conscience.

<comment><USER20> Which is worse for the environment: growing one burger's worth of cow, or burning 15 min of propane to cook the burger?

<comment><USER21> Growing one cow requires many acres of the Amazon rainforest to be chopped down.

You can cook a burger with electric heat, which can be generated with solar or wind power.

<comment><USER22> To say it _requires_ many acres to be chopped down is a stretch.

<comment><USER21> No, it's not a stretch, because that's literally what they're doing in the Amazon right now. They're razing enormous swathes of forest so that they can grow more cows.

<comment><USER22> Yeah. And that's bad. But it's not required to raise beef. See for example British and Irish beef.

<comment><USER21> Yes, but the worldwide beef demand keeps growing, and places like Britain and Ireland are likely tapped out, so now operations are expanding elsewhere.

Your comments is like saying "we don't _have_ to do fracking!", when the answer is, yes, you do, to satisfy the ever-growing demand for oil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'll just leave this here for anyone interested in being informed:

[https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red- meat/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

<comment><USER15> [https://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it- ever-...](https://chriskresser.com/red-meat-cancer-again-will-it-ever-stop/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a vegetarian I can tell you "vegetarian" doesn't always equate to "healthy." But vegetarians also like junk food occasionally and so it's nice that we have more options now. I see it as progress.

</comment><comment><USER25> I used to have a weight problem when I grew up in an American suburb of Philly. I felt guilty eating fast food burgers, etc. Three decades later I live in a European capital and walk nearly everywhere. According to my watch I average over 10km per day, mostly without even trying. Now I eat burgers whenever I want and I'm normal body weight. Living in the city is better for the environment. So is eating plant-based food. The lesson here? You will probably always crave the same food but you have a choice where you live, how much you exercise, and what impact you have on the future of the planet. Fast food is never going to healthy enough for suburban couch potatoes who drive everywhere. That's not what it's for.

</comment><comment><USER26> I do think we need to decouple healthy food and vegetarian/vegan food. After all no expects burgers to be healthy in the first place, and people enjoy eating unhealthy food occasional. Isn't there room for vegan junk/fast food?

<comment><USER27> A lot of junk food is already vegan. Oreos, Doritos, potato chips, most candy other than milk chocolate, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can't get past reading the headline because my BS alarm goes off when I hear "healthier" or "health food."

I have always thought of "health food" as a marketing term selling a lifestyle to people who can afford to pay for premium branded packaged stuff in a grocery store.

If you get past the headline (I peaked), the next thing you see is a KFC bucket. Do people walk into a fast food restaurant thinking they are going to get anything healthy?

</comment><comment><USER29> Really tired of people thinking "healthy eating" is just calorie count and salt content. There's so much more to nutrition than these two numbers.

<comment><USER30> I'm guilty in that I use the sugar content as a proxy for healthy-ness when I'm at the grocery store.

<comment><USER31> That's certainly a much better proxy than fat or sodium, from what I understand.

I'm actively trying to cut sugar (and carbohydrates in general, but especially sugar), and have already noticed I feel a lot better. I don't know if it's actually contributing to weight loss, but not feeling completely worn out after eating a big meal is a benefit in and of itself.

One thing that makes it difficult is how much sugar is in everything (even in things that you'd think shouldn't need it, like jerky). Pork rinds have been a godsend for properly-carb-free snacking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Weird article. Next up: Electric cars don't give you more exercise than combustion ones?

</comment><comment><USER16> I see a constant drumbeat of these kinds of stories/columns, and I've been wondering _why_. I guess there might be a few shills and short-sellers, but that can't be all of it. Ditto for the "contrarians" trying to get clicks or feel smarter by defying what by now is conventional wisdom.

The one group who _really_ seem to take it personally are the long-time vegetarians/vegan advocates who would prefer that everyone switch to a completely unprocessed fat-free salt-free diet. Yeah, sure, wonderful, ain't gonna happen. It's almost like they feel they'll lose their identity if they allow these mere "vege-tourists" to enjoy their Beyond/Impossible burgers, so they do everything they can to maintain some separation and the "it's not really healthier" schtick is just a means to an end.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wouldn't say it's completely not healthier. Red Meat is a class 2 carcinogen (WHO) and replacing it with plant based materials is a great strategy. The problem is all the Oil and sodium they add. I mean, the sodium might be balanced out by the rest of your diet. But, all that oil isn't good for you. Oil, even the best kind, still causes inflammatory effects: everything from canola oil to coconut oil or even olive oil will have an adverse effect on your enothelial cells that line your arteries.

So, on the one hand, removing red meat reduces your succeptibility to cancer. But adding in all that oil will increase inflammation and thus expose you to other health risks.

</comment><comment><USER34> So we re-word this headline to "The Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat are no less unhealthy" and a substantial portion of this content becomes redundant.

It's scarcely news that marketing and PR exist, nor that the world of pop nutrition is an indescribable mess of self-contradiction and snake oil sales. The author (scratch that — " personal trainer and certified nutritionist behind a popular weight loss blog") doesn't mention the fibre content, lipid profile or nitrate content, all of which are relevant risk factors for significant disease.

The only actual nutrition claims seem to be Fat Bad and Salt Also Bad, which are 1980s nutrition touchstones, but don't reflect the current state of research.

</comment><comment><USER31> I love how all the comments here are bagging on the article, while completely ignoring:

1) The article does acknowledge that being "healthier" is not meant to be the goal of meat-replacements like Impossible/Beyond

2) The article serves as clarification for those who erroneously conflate "not made of meat" with "healthy"

3) At least one of the companies (Beyond Meat) does claim on its website that its products are meant to "improve human health" \- ergo, are healthier than eating meat: [https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/](https://www.beyondmeat.com/about/)

</comment><comment><USER35> The author is fairly active on twitter and I understand she replies to questions rather often. Let's ask her? Maybe there's more to her point than what was published.

</comment><comment><USER36> I thought this dumb hot take had been debunked enough times already? People aren't eating this stuff to be healthy, but to avoid being complicit in cowicide.

<comment><USER37> I agree, and that reality, that many people partake to vote against killing animals, scares the shit out of meat "farmers", who have tons of money (government subsidies too) to fight plant-burgers in a full on media war.

At least that seems to be happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "healthy" is a loaded word. The article brings up a few statistics about salt, fat, etc content, but that isn't the whole story about how meat consumption affects the human body.

That said. Yeah, I'm not eating a burger for a healthy lifestyle, but I do like alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER39> Uhhh this seems like a silly article. Nobody has ever claimed these things are healthier. It's always been about producing this "food" without slaughtering animals and all the extremely inefficient processes involved (feedlots, methane emissions, inhumane conditions).

In other news, LED lightbulbs still run on fossil fuels!

<comment><USER40> I agree with your first critique but I think the LED comparison isn't helpful.

Unlike these burgers, which aren't aiming to be healthier, LED lightbulbs aim (and succeed) at using less energy than their competition and thus contribute less to climate change. If the burgers both were healthier and similar to beef then they'd be like LED bulbs!

<comment><USER39> The analogy I was going for:

LED bulbs have the same effect (same brightness), while using 85% less energy. But in spite of that it's like still complaining that they run on fossil fuels as if that invalidates the efficiency gains.

Impossible burgers have the same effect (having a fatty, juicy burger) while ultimately being much less destructive to the environment. (They actually use something like 85% less water). But complaining about the fact that they aren't healthier is an attempt to take away from the other amazing advances involved.

I've had "lab-grown meat" (as I've called it) on my future-world wishlist for at least a decade. It seems like we could get rid of a host of problems (inefficiency, suffering, potential for bacteria and diseases like mad cow from meat, etc), by engineering our meat.

I suspect the health aspects will follow, as the next frontier, now that this stuff tastes close enough to meat, will be to reduce cholesterol and other effects.

After all, if you really think about it, 99% of the sensations related to eating food are before we swallow it. If we can replicate all those things (the touch, the smell, the taste, the sight) and start to engineer the internal effects, we could have our (artificial) cake and eat it too, correct?

I say this as someone who LOVES hamburgers, who is a big foodie. Apart from lack of food poisoning, there is fundamentally no difference in feeling in your stomach between fine dining food and a homemade sandwich. And the same goes for the effects on your health. So we should absolutely try to engineer these things for their effects on our bodies. But first you have to convince people to want to even put this stuff in their bodies. And that's what the appeal to the other 4 senses is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wow, what a garbage journalism

</comment><comment><USER42> One has cholesterol

<comment><USER11> Extracted vegetable oils and soy protein are worse for you.

<comment><USER43> [citation needed]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> > Heart disease and cases of type 2 diabetes are on the rise, no matter where > you look, and research has suggested that cutting red meat and processed > meats (like bologna and other deli meats) might help people facing these > conditions.

> And an excessive amount of salt in one's diet has been linked in several > different ways to

There are so many massive food myths in here. Sugar, carbohydrates and the resulting inflammation are what leads to excessive weight gain, not fat. If we ate similar levels of fat and way fewer carbs, we would be healthier. That's what the diet use to be in many western nations before the obesity trend that started just a few decades ago.

I think what this article highlights more than anything is that people still have no idea what is and isn't healthy in America and the west. It's so difficult to find food in groceries stores in America that isn't loaded down with sugar, starch or high fructose corn syrup.

<comment><USER45> > Sugar, carbohydrates and the resulting inflammation are what leads to > excessive weight gain, not fat.

Weight gain comes from excess calories. Fat has 9kcal/gram, carbs have 4kcal/gram. There are arguments to be made about physiological reactions to certain foods re: gut microbiome, ghrelin, dopamine, etc. but saying "carbs bad, eat fat!" is the kind of over-simplification that marketers love and keeps fat people fat because they want so badly to believe they don't have to suffer to lose weight.

Source: lost and kept off over 150lbs, no thanks to fad diet bullshit.

<comment><USER46> see [https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes- ebook/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-Taubes- ebook/dp/B000UZNSC2/)

<comment><USER45> Is this an appeal to the authority? Gary Taubes, as far as I can tell, has no background in nutritional science whatsoever. In fact, the wikipedia article on him states rather matter-of-factly "Some of the views propounded by Taubes are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Of course they're not. Look at the low fat trends. Low fat foods are entirely unhealthy for you because they're loaded with sugar to make them more palatable (which ironically turns into more fat than just eating the high fat variant since sugar is so much more energy dense).

I don't think these companies ever marketed them as healthier though. They marketed them as more sustainable by not using animals. I feel like a better argument/study is to see how much fuel is used to generate the plant biomatter for this stuff and compare it to the energy/water needed for beef. That's be a more compelling article.

<comment><USER47> >> sugar is so much more energy dense

Nope. Sugar and protein are 4kcal per gram, fat is 9kcal per gram. So fat is over twice the energy density of sugar. It's just not absorbed as easily, and it does not cause insulin spikes.</comment></comment>


No Frills SSL Certificates are Inexpensive and Useful - <AUTHOR> http://www.messagingnews.com/onmessage/ben-gross/no-frills-ssl-certificates-are-inexpensive-and-useful <comment><AUTHOR> "The topic of SSL certificates is a bit arcane, but the much of security of our everyday online purchases depends on SSL. Yet, fewer services use SSL than one might hope. It is possible to buy a basic no-frills SSL certificates from a universally accepted certificate authority very inexpensively–less than $15 a year–if you shop around. In most cases, it makes no sense to use a self- signed certificate, to purchase a certificate from a second tier provider, or to purchase a chained certificate."

I'm interested in any comments. I'll see them here on Hacker News or the version on my personal site. [http://bengross.com/no-frills-ssl-certificates- are-inexpensi...](http://bengross.com/no-frills-ssl-certificates-are- inexpensive-and-useful/)</comment>


A War on the Poor - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opinion/krugman-a-war-on-the-poor.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0 <comment><USER2> It's called class struggle. In the US the rich win the class struggle largely because those in the middle (a.k.a. middle class) considers themselves not yet rich rather than not yet poor.

<comment><AUTHOR> With the persistent difficulties the middle and lower class have faced since the financial meltdown I wonder how long this will be the dominant mindset. It seems strongest among the boomers and weakest among people under 35.

That fact that most Americans seem to put the welfare business and the rich ahead of themselves is hard for me to get my head around.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This might be too political but after seeing another article on basic income I'm curious what other people on HN think about the politics and economic ideas behind the politics.

<comment><USER3> I'm the biggest proponent of basic income, but the US has serious divides along racial and socioeconomic lines that I don't see being resolved in our lifetimes. This will probably prevent any sort of basic income from being implemented.

In any other modern, western democracy, basic income is a no-brainer. The majority of the EU is already discussing exactly such a motion, and the safety net of most developed European nations is unfathomable to Americans.

In conclusion, there's no point in waiting a century in hopes that the USA's crippling structural issues will be solved. Move onto greener pastures like Germany, where you can have that future right now. In Germany, captains of industry are lobbying for basic income as we speak [1].

1\. [http://www.goethe.de/ges/pok/zdk/en4387190.htm](http://www.goethe.de/ges/pok/zdk/en4387190.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is quite a pessimistic assessment but I have to say I agree with it. I have been watching American politics closely for several years now and have little hope that any significant solutions the the widening income/wealth gap will come from there.</comment></comment></comment>


Shutdown 101: What's Going To Happen Tonight At Midnight? - <AUTHOR> http://we-are-star-stuff.tumblr.com/post/62788339584/shutdown-101-whats-going-to-happen-tonight-at

<comment><USER2> Gah - and nearly 19,000 one-line 'notes' (comments) against the article pointing out that someone-or-other has reposted, reblogged or 'liked' it.

Did someone in the dim and distant past really really think this type of feedback mechanism was a good idea?

</comment><comment><USER3> Are the health care reforms really that scary to those who lobby the Republicans?</comment>


I'm scared of anonymous social networks and here's why - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/+pawelkomarnicki/posts/eNQDFEJ7Qzx

<comment><USER2> A tool is just a tool, and any tool can be a weapon. You can use a hammer to build a house, or remove a person from a house. You can cook food, or cook a man alive with fire. A gun can feed you, or kill for you. Objects, ideas, things have no morality to them, we assign morality to them with our action.

Ultimately any decision you make about a tool, or idea is just a reflection of what you see in people. Assuming a tool will be used kill, hurt, or harm mean that's all you expect of people. The realization of that made me want to see the good in people, and trust that when given secrecy more people would rather use it to better themselves, and those around them, then hurt harm their brothers and sisters.</comment>


Fireworks leave toxic metals lingering in the air, study finds - sahin-boydas https://newatlas.com/medical/fireworks-toxic-metals-air-study/ <comment><AUTHOR> Seems like a stretch, as a safety-conscious person would stand back quite a ways from the lit firework?

Professional aerial displays are likely harmful to no-one.

<comment><USER2> I don't think its the professionals one needs to worry about.</comment></comment>


Blackbird's Patent Troll Suit Against Cloudflare Gets Patent Invalidated - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/bye-bye-blackbird/ <comment><USER2> Thank you, Cloudflare, for fighting the good fight.

Someone should start a collective fund for smaller companies to help with legal support so that more troll claims can be fought instead of settled.

Anyhow, I'd be genuinely curious how much it cost to get to this point, and how much you think it would have cost if you'd had a protracted battle.

<comment><USER3> > Someone should start a collective fund for smaller companies to help with > legal support so that more troll claims can be fought instead of settled.

You mean the eff? Probably not exactly what you had in mind, but pretty close I think?

<comment><USER4> > You mean the eff? Probably not exactly what you had in mind, but pretty > close I think?

Well, of course, that requires people to put money in the fund.

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

<comment><USER5> Also, EFF is on option for smile.amazon.com. I've generated $9 for them so far, would have been more if I had remembered to use smile more often. Amazon is nice enough to remind me once in a while to use it, I wish it would just be automatic when I'm logged in, I refuse to install a plug in for that feature.

<comment><USER6> I had the same issue until I discovered there were plugins for Chrome[1] and Firefox[2] that will automatically redirect you to smile.amazon.com anytime you are on amazon.com. I have seen issues with the Firefox one when you aren't actually logged in to Amazon at the time, but the Chrome one works great.

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en)

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazon- smile/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amazon-smile/)

<comment><USER5> Plugins make my skin crawl, especially one from Amazon :) uBO is the only add- on I make an exception for.

<comment><USER7> FWIW, neither linked plugin is from Amazon.

<comment><USER5> I guess saying "especially from Amazon" was pointless because, now that you've pointed that out, I definitely don't feel any better about them :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is great news. Regarding the several comments along the lines of "there should be a way to pool resources across many companies to fight trolls", there are in fact several such orgs (beyond EFF, already mentioned below). The three I'm most familiar with (and of which we are members) are:

1) RPX, which is basically just troll insurance. [http://www.rpxcorp.com/](http://www.rpxcorp.com/)

2) LOT Network (LOT=License on Transfer): [http://lotnet.com/](http://lotnet.com/)

3) My favorite: Unified Patents, which actively files IPRs against NPEs: [https://www.unifiedpatents.com/](https://www.unifiedpatents.com/)

There may be others and I'd be glad to hear about them. I recommend every startup join at least these three - the annual fees are modest (free in some cases) and potential benefit is enormous.

<comment><USER9> In this specific case, Cloudflare crowdsourced prior art research on Blackbird's patents:

[https://blog.cloudflare.com/project- jengo/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/project-jengo/)

Not exactly the same as a generic pool, but still a neat way to fight back against these trolls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This makes me wonder: is there any downside to enacting laws to make patent invalidation due to them being overbroad applicable retroactively and forcing Blackbird to return the money it extorted? It might be challenging to enforce due to limited liability, but I don't see any obvious downsides to trying? It seems like it could provide an incentive for companies to not attempt to create over-broad patents.

<comment><USER11> Why? If it is ruled invalid today then it was also invalid the day it was issued. I would imagine any company who paid for a license under threat of suit would now be telling their legal department to file a suit to reclaim the fee paid plus interest plus any provable damages. So we already have a remedy for this situation, no need to complicate the statutes.

<comment><USER12> Victims would have waived that right when they settled with the patent troll.

<comment><USER13> These waivers should be rendered null by law. I don't see any other way to fix the problem.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I wish there were a special place in hell reserved for patent trolls, but undermining contracts retroactively is not something to be taken lightly.

<comment><USER14> Not sure that it would be undermining contracts retroactively.

IANAL, but the approach I'd consider is fraud/breach of contract. The previous victims settled and paid a royalty to use a patentable technology. It turns out that it was not what was represented. Ergo, refund. How it plays out surely depends a lot on regional courts, precedents, etc.

<comment><USER7> I wonder how air-tight you can make that reasoning. I suspect you could structure the settlement as paying to use the underlying technology _including_ the patents etc., rather than licensing the patent per se (so the fees paid are not directly predicated on the existence of a patent).

Be interesting to see how the courts would react to that though, and if they see it as a sign you are negotiating in bad faith.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is so cool. Obviously it's a big financial risk to take this route, but it's great to have a large company actually fighting the good fight. Mad props to Cloudflare, Newegg, EFF, and all others in this battle.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is it possible that a nonprofit could troll the patent trolls and start proactively suing them to get their patents invalidated? It seems to me that a consortium of above board companies could fund such a thing and come out way ahead of fighting litigation targeted at their business.

<comment><USER17> In addition to the cost of doing this, you have to have legal standing to pursue the suit. You cannot sue to invalidate arbitrary patents unless you can prove harm to yourself. If you cannot demonstrate legal standing, the courts will not hear your case.

<comment><USER16> True, and I could see this becoming a tool of oppression by "big evilcorps" if it were possible to do. I guess its a fun thought experiment though. I generally like the patent idea, if someone comes up with something innovative then they should see the upside. I wonder if a time window would improve matters. Get a patent and you have X number of years to produce something sale-able or publicly available for consumption.

<comment><USER18> Not sure if I misunderstood, but patents do have a time window.

<comment><USER17> I think the wish there is for a "use it or lose it" window.

<comment><USER16> correct- Im thinking a time frame of up to 25% of the patent period is fair. In other words you shouldn't patent an idea, but something that is close to being "available"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For sure, the result is a good news, but it highlight what I believe is a major flaw in the modern court systems : the tax payer and the defender ends up footing the bill for what is essentially abuse of the system and pure incompetency.

Is there any follow up on the body that approved a patent that should never have been granted ? Not per the court order. Is there any punitive damage awarded to the defender against the filer ? Not per the court order.

Having been personally frivolously sued in the past, I can tell you, it's not fun and it's expensive. And even if you win, you have to sue back to pretend to any kind of financial compensation. If you have a settlement saying the opposing party is supposed to give you X amount of money, you have to sue to recover that money. And they can appeal. And even if you have an agreement saying that the winning party is entitled to have their legal fees paid by the opposing party, apparently no judge ever grants the real legal fees.

There's a major amount of work to be done in how we deal with abusive lawsuits and who pays the bill for the shared public legal system.

</comment><comment><USER20> fastly appears to have paid up

[http://ipwire.com/stories/blackbird-technologies-settles- pat...](http://ipwire.com/stories/blackbird-technologies-settles-patent- infringement-case-web-content-delivery-company/)

<comment><USER21> Yuck. I hate the way ipwire.com describes blackbird. They make it seem like they are doing something good.

<comment><USER22> For context, IPWire exists in a state of denial that there is a patent troll problem:

[http://ipwire.com/podcast/ep-14-special-bloomberg-view- stron...](http://ipwire.com/podcast/ep-14-special-bloomberg-view-stronger- bill-article-response-nonsense/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> While this is nice, it's still a game of whack-a-mole. How much were the legal costs for CloudFlare to invalidate this _one_ patent?

I'm glad they did this and they've certainly gained some goodwill from me for this altruistic move. Was that part of CloudFlare's motivation, use it as PR? Because otherwise, the economics still appear to be in favor of the trolls. This battle is won, but how goes the war?

</comment><comment><USER24> Is there any feedback mechanism to prevent the patent office from issuing more bogus patents?

<comment><USER25> You're asking for something impossible. Software patents exactly analagous to Benson, Flook and Diehr are de-facto allowed. Software is such a broad and fast-moving field that you can't expect any patent office to be able to fairly judge novelty and non-obviousness.

If there's any hope for the patent office it involves an act of congress explicitly making software non-statutory material for patents.

<comment><USER26> Honestly, it seems patents discourage competition, and in my opinion are therefore anti-Capitalism. I would not miss them, at least for software.

It's almost a bit arrogant too, how long would it really take for someone else to come to the same realizations?

<comment><USER27> They do discourage competition. Here's why that's important:

Amazon has more money than god. For whatever reason, they decide that your thing is valuable to them, and is extremely easy to create but also extremely novel in its inception (nobody thought of this before). It took you years of work to create, and you're now unable to monetize that work because Amazon/Google/Apple/Walmart/Whoever is able to create it faster using there tens of billions of dollars of muscle to stomp you out. Because they're better positioned to produce, your years of work is now financially useless.

The idea of "how long would it take for someone else to realize the same thing" is silly. They didn't. You did. innovation is a large part of what makes software valuable. Anyone can type code if you gave them a sheet of paper that would make the machine do what you need it to. The only reason software has any value is because it took someone time to figure out what code to type in the first place.

<comment><USER26> Why does doing something first give you the right to sell it? How do you deal with the problem of multiple discovery?

I'm not saying inventors aren't intelligent, but I really think that if they had not existed someone else likely would have invented the same thing.

What your saying though is that some other company could have advanced the product in a way that people would prefer it over the original. The negative effects here seem stifling to innovation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Creating ad hoc microphone arrays from personal devices - <AUTHOR> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/bring-your-phones-to-the-conference-table-creating-ad-hoc-microphone-arrays-from-personal-devices/?ocid=msr_blog_meettrans_interspeech_tw <comment><USER2> Interesting first but unless open source it is just other people research possibilities. Nothing we can act upon it or use it.

</comment><comment><USER3> could probably also be used for gunshot localization</comment>


Hack Day: Eat, Drink and Code with Verizon, MapQuest and DreamFactory - <AUTHOR> https://www.dreamfactory.com/events/hack-day-eat-drink-and-code-verizon-and-mapquest <comment><AUTHOR> Hope to see you there! Participation is free, but space is limited. All participants will get serious swag and we'll be giving away some great bonus prizes. We'll also have experts on hand in case you have any questions and demos will be available for you to experience our current applications/platforms.</comment>


Show HN: StrongDM – 1-click access to any database or server in any environment - <AUTHOR> https://www.strongdm.com/ <comment><USER2> So this is a proprietary system that gates all access to critical systems.

Designed by a company with 1-10 employees (AngelList).

Are we really supposed to believe that their small team totally got security right 100% on their first try without the decades of community auditing vanilla ssh has enjoyed?

Are we supposed to trust no malicious code made it into their repos? That they audit all the third party modules for their Javascript frontend? That the employee that cuts binary releases can't be blackmailed to introduce a subtle flaw that will add a fixed ssh key to all servers their tool manages?

Imagine if SpaceX -did- use this tool. Blackmailing or phishing one employee to gain access to all of SpaceX systems sounds like a state actors wet dream.

Anyone who considers a product like this has no business protecting access to their employers systems IMO.

Maybe if they open source it, place bug bounties for extensive community auditing, allow fully on prem deployments, offer consulting/support contracts, and do all PKI in HSMs end to end...

Then -maybe-.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is their SSO as secure as SSH as their marketing seems to assume? Sure saving time is great, but replacing unbeatable cryptography with bad passwords isn't good.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is interesting but, how much? Can't find the pricing....

</comment><comment><USER5> Love this product - our team can't live without it!

<comment><USER6> Your team can't function without third party software logging database access? What exactly does your team do?

<comment><USER7> Shill, mostly.</comment></comment></comment>


Jack Dorsey: Today Starbucks Signed up for Square - <AUTHOR> https://squareup.com/letters/onward <comment><USER3> This announcement makes me happy, for Square and Jack Dorsey as a young business leader. I love everything about the business idea, execution, design and tone of the overall strategy.

Noteworthy points from the press release

      The partnership terms include:
      - Customers will be able to use Pay with Square, Square's payer application,
      from participating company operated U.S. Starbucks stores later this fall, and
      find nearby Starbucks locations within Square Directory;

      -Square will process Starbucks U.S. credit and debit card transactions, which
      will significantly expand Square's scale and accelerate the benefits to businesses
      on the Square platform, especially small businesses, while reducing Starbucks
      payment processing costs;

      - Using Square Directory, Starbucks customers will be able to discover local
      Square businesses -- from specialty retailers to crafts businesses -- from
      within a variety of Starbucks digital platforms, including the Starbucks
      Digital Network and eventually the Starbucks mobile payment application;

      - Starbucks will invest $25 million in Square as part of the company's Series D
      financing round;

      - Starbucks chairman, president and ceo Howard Schultz will join Square's
      Board of Directors.

<https://squareup.com//news/releases/2012/square-starbucks>

<comment><USER4> "Square will process Starbucks U.S. credit and debit card transactions":

Wikipedia says that Starbucks has $11.7 _billion_ in revenue every year. I would assume that a majority of that revenue is through a card. I am not familiar with Square's revenue but I feel that this will at least double their transactions. Am I correct?

<comment><USER5> Here in Europe (Germany) i have never seen anyone buying a coffee with a credit card. Maybe debit card, but that also is rare, its mostly cash for these small transactions. Most coffee shops dont even take any cards at all, even here in germany!

<comment><USER6> In Pittsburgh, 90% of the businesses that take Square are coffee shops for whatever reason

<comment><USER7> Using Square is easy and has low fixed costs. iPad for under $400, iPad stand for $100, and you don't have to fuck with complicated 1990s credit card processors.

<comment><USER6> No doubt, it's just odd it's all coffee shops and not other small businesses like Pizza, books stores, etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's what's in it for Starbucks: Square's cheaper.

Square loses money on transactions below $6. The reason is for the sake of simplicity they waive the per-transaction fee that Visa/Mastercard charges them and just charge a flat percentage of 2.75%. But even though this is a relatively high percentage, it's not enough to recoup the cost of the per- transaction fee at low transaction sizes.

Take a $2 coffee charged to a Visa credit card. Visa charges Square 1.76% + 6 cents, or 9.5 cents. But at 2.75% Square only collects 5.5 cents.

So even if Starbucks was already paying wholesale Visa/Mastercard rates, they'll save 4 cents or more a cup thanks to Square's "simplicity subsidy".

Now multiply that by a few billion cups. Starbucks saves millions, and Square is happy to pay it to drive their growth into the stratosphere.

Source: [http://feefighters.com/blog/can-square-make-money-with- its-n...](http://feefighters.com/blog/can-square-make-money-with-its-new- pricing/)

<comment><USER9> I would point out that it's unlikely SB's received the same financial terms offered to Mom and Pop vendors who sign up via the website.

<comment><USER8> Maybe, but they wouldn't need to for the deal to be attractive. Square's regular rate is already below wholesale processing for small transactions.

<comment><USER9> The largest retailers though can negotiate less than wholesale. But you raise a point. What attracted SB's to the deal? Lower transaction fees or incremental sales due to a simplified paying process? It can be both but it's probably not 50/50. I suspect one was the driver and the other gravy.

<comment><USER10> The largest retailers can negotiate the processing (merchant acquiring fees), but not the interchange. Components of CC fees are interchange (which goes to card issuing banks), processing (which goes to the merchant's bank), and association fees (which is how visa/mc/etc make their money). Interchange & association fees are fixed, processing is the most negotiable. That said, any >$1B retailer is paying too much if they pay more than a penny/transaction in processing, so there's not much room for improvement because there are real costs in that activity.

I think there are two big reasons why they would do this: 1\. Investment They will likely make a multiple of the $25M when Square IPO's. The best possible evidence of Square's traction is what Starbucks just provided. Smart investment 2\. Focus on core competency World class payment processing is not a significant source of competitive advantage for Starbucks, but it is for Square. This deal allows Square to worry about payment acceptance & processing efficiency, and Starbucks to focus on product/service. Michael Porter would be proud of this deal.

<comment><USER8> What I mean is Square is below interchange for the typical Starbucks purchase. They subsidize them. That's probably an 8 figure value for Starbucks, annually.

But I don't mean to imply that's the only factor. I agree about the investment.

Moreover there's the customer experience of paying with Square. It's nice and you don't have to set up a Starbucks card and put money on it. You just pay. It delights customers and may move lines faster, but perhaps most significantly, it lets Starbucks track loyalty. The business value of that is tremendous.

Starbucks basically just upgraded their app in a big way. Remember they were the earliest pioneers of "pay with your iPhone" with ther Starbucks app.

It doesn't hurt that Square is associated with small scale "craft" businesses either. Starbucks is trying to revitalize their brand right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think more than any other benefit, Square has been validated by a premier American chain. It will be a much easier sell to other large chains. The big money for Square is in having these large customers with multiple POS deployments, where overhead will be small compared to revenues, at least relative to single shop customers.

It will also put their product in front of end customers, many for the first time. I for one have heard/read about Square since they first started shipping readers, but had not actually seen the product in action till last weekend (live in Silicon Valley).

<comment><USER12> Yeah, with this announcement square's sales pitch has effectively become "well, starbucks uses it..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can someone explain me what it means for customers? As far as NYC goes, each Starbucks accepts Visa, Master Card, Discovery and American Express (the card that plenty businesses hate). So what is the benefit for the customers?

<comment><USER14> One cool feature about the Square mobile app is you can set up geofenced "tabs" that automatically get opened if you get close enough to an establishment.

So you keep your phone in your pocket, walk into Starbucks and order a drink as you do every morning. You tell them "put it on John's tab." You get a receipt in your email immediately thereafter, and never have to pull out your phone or wallet.

<comment><USER15> The cashier is just going to look at me totally lost. Even in Silicon Valley, maybe one in 100 customers is going to use Square.

I don't see the value for Starbucks customers either.

<comment><USER16> Tons of small businesses in San Francisco use Pay With Square already, and they don't have the rigorous employee training procedures that Starbucks has.

I use Pay With Square all the time—at tiny bakeries, big coffee shops, and restaurants. No one will look at you lost.

It's convenient because I don't need my wallet, I don't need to sign a receipt, and I don't need to do anything other than order and walk away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Holy grey-on-grey readability disaster, Batman!

And shouldn't 140 characters have been enough?

<comment><USER18> Skeuomorphism can be horrible if it's not done properly!

<comment><USER19> All the cool kids are talking about skeuomorphic design lately.

<comment><USER18> Couple of years back, it was all about "modernism".

<comment><USER17> Modern ain't what it used to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The initial advantage Square had was "green fields" Most of their customers didn't accept Credit Cards so they did not have incumbency issues. That's what makes this win impressive. However, it also highlights just what Square has to go through to win a very large account. SB's had to agree to tear out and replace their existing POS system. That's a big risk, headache and cost and customers will use that leverage (and genuine pain) to drive hard bargains.

Also worth noting is that SB's mentions processing costs will be cheaper. It's hard for me to imagine that SB was overpaying with their last vendor so I worry about the economics on this deal. Maybe it's the anchor tenant though that allows for additional enterprise deals to follow so is worth it. I can imagine other large retail organizations that had any interest were on the sidelines saying "It's one thing to service 10,000 food trucks but come on!" They'll stand up and listen now with this.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow, huge deal for Square. I'm very curious what the terms of the deal are: presumably Starbucks isn't willing to pay much more than what their current processing fees are (maybe a tiny bit more for the premium of being able to use Pay with Square?), so Square must be losing a decent chunk of change in exchange for the huge marketing and growth this gets them.

<comment><USER21> I have heard that Pay With Square causes people to spend more money.

<comment><USER11> Anecdotal, but at a sandwich shop the other day, I tipped $1 when the cashier handed the iPad to me. Not sure if I would have done the same when signing a regular receipt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting. Starbucks is obviously not going to use the error-prone dongles. I suspect Square will provide some sort of custom "Pay With Square" solution, perhaps tied into Starbucks' existing point-of-sale system. Any way you look at it, it's a huge deal for Square, Starbucks is absolutely the best venue for Square and likely the key building block to really push out a new checkout experience such as "Pay With Square".

<comment><USER23> Pay with square app doesn't use the dongle at all.

<comment><USER22> The note talks about processing all Starbucks cc txns.

<comment><USER24> I am assuming at the volume in question they'll just retrofit whatever software to use the card readers Starbucks currently uses. They're pretty well built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> _"... I am pleased and proud to announce that today Starbucks signed up for Square ..."_

Starbucks has a history of taking risks with startups ~ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozmo.com>

<comment><USER26> However, here I feel that Square enhances the Starbucks core value of creating an intimate coffee experience.

# With Square:

"I am Jack and I would like [. . . ]"

 _(clicks name with face on screen to charge; receipt emailed automatically)_ "Ok, Jack, your total was [. . .] and here it is"

# Current Method:

"I would like [. . .]"

"Ok, your total comes to [. . .]"

[exchanges credit card]

"Would you like your receipt?"

"No, thanks"

"What name would you like on the order?" _(while holding credit card with name on it - hence this step is meant to increase intimacy)_

"Jack"

"Ok, here is your drink"

\--

The Square system makes transactions shorter and simpler, and it humanizes the experience

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is this yet another middle man to suck fees out of the system? I have not kept up with Square but despise the though of yet another fee leech that is compiling a list of my purchases to sell to annoying advertising companies.

/shoutAtClouds

<comment><USER18> > yet another fee leech that is compiling a list of my purchases to sell to > annoying advertising companies.

Square's business model is transactional. It's not advertising based!

<comment><USER27> Read closer.

"compiling a list of my purchases" Visa, Amex, Discover, Mastercard... All do this and are transactional.

"to sell to annoying advertising companies" And this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I signed up for square about a month and a half ago. I ordered my little device at the same time and it still has not showed up at my door step. To me, they have been a lousy service so far sadly.

</comment><comment><USER29> Awesome news for square. I am very eager to see how this changes the natures of: 1) The Starbucks App - will square replace it outright or will there be an option to use starbucks or square? 2) Paying with a card at starbucks - <USER2> registers or new registers with square dongles? Hopefully its a better dongle if so...

PS - Anyone noticed how they seemed to be stepping around the idea of those local businesses being other coffee shops? Craft businesses in the Press Release...like craft coffee shops?

<comment><USER24> Android Starbucks app "card" payment was just rolled out to Canada and the UK last month - I doubt it'll go anywhere for a while for these locales. It might be interesting to see if any payment technology roll-outs beyond US/UK/Canada go with Starbucks-powered stuff or Square stuff. I'm guessing Starbucks for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I really do not see the benefit of this deal. Square - sure, another bunch of retailers. Starbux, not so much. NFC will take over and then square is out. can someone explain?

<comment><USER31> NFC hasn't taken over yet. Pay with Square offers something pretty close feature-wise, and is establishing residence in the market. Once NFC works well, Square can adopt it and rule.

<comment><USER32> There is also the chance that Square (and similar geolocation- and photo- based heuristics) will make NFC superfluous. Why NFC when a human-to-human word or gesture is faster, more natural, and just as reliable?

<comment><USER33> Because eventually they will want to get rid of as many humans as they can in your caffe latte experience. Or more prosaicly so that you can order a snack from a snack machine too.

<comment><USER32> If automated vending machines are the remaining hope for NFC, that's pretty weak.

A geofenced app -- if not Square, then Apple Passbook or others -- could prompt me on my own device's screen: "The vending machine here requests $1.50 to dispense your Snickers. Press 'pay $1.50' or 'cancel'."

The soft-interface device screen is much more flexible than the NFC-tap/wave- in-the-right-place gesture. Your own device screen will be better for doing things like:

• pre-authorizing a purchase before buying a tank of gas

• requesting an emailed receipt

• offering immediate feedback (or adding a tip)

• avoiding possible confusion/chargebacks about amounts paid.

That could mean 'app-style' payments have not just usability benefits, but also cost and legal benefits over 'NFC-style'.

<comment><USER34> Geofencing is a good hack, but it's still a hack:

\- constant location polling is a battery drain

\- GPS reliability/speed degrades quite a bit indoors (are you at Starbucks or the shop next door? What happens when another Mr. Gojomo next door orders coffee and the cashier is rushed and doesn't notice the different face?). WiFi isn't much help here either if you're in a large urban area.

You can still do all you listed starting with a NFC handshake instead of playing with GPS. Geofencing is helpful for getting payments onto existing phones (not to downplay Sq's achievement here), but NFC or another more localized technology will be necessary to make payments more reliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Jack's signature is "@jack"? Nice.

</comment><comment><USER36> So does this mean that Starbucks will use the same Square interface that we layfolk use? I find it impractical that they use this, and not something that integrates with their existing systems, but then that would mean that Square has opened up some sort of API to them? When will the rest of us get to see something like this, if so?

</comment><comment><USER37> I really hope square improves their reader. Practically every time I've used this system, as a customer, it seems to take a couple of tries before it actually recognizes the card. This may be okay for lower volume businesses, but for starbucks I could see this backing up lines.

<comment><USER38> They also charge more if you have to key in the card manually (2.75% per scan vs 3.5% + 0.15 USD per manual entry).

<comment> mh- this is because it's processed as a card-present vs card-not-present transaction. different fee (& risk) brackets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Once Starbucks are on the Square system, might that be the perfect opportunity for Square to flip a switch and ask customers for their bank details?

If Square could do a GoCardless with all those consumers that use Square, both Square and merchants could benefit massively...

</comment><comment><USER40> Does this save money for Starbucks over their own branded card? Due to the rewards available, I'd assume many of their highest volume customers are using it, and would be unlikely to switch to Square unless those rewards were transferable.

</comment><comment><USER41> Is this just for Starbucks US stores or is it for all of North America?

If it's just for US stores then the title should probably be amended. Being a Canadian, I've never seen a merchant using a square device.

</comment><comment><USER42> It's a great validation of developing and iterating the business initially with the small 'mom & pop' business to the point where traction allows you capture the really massive customers.

</comment><comment><USER43> This entry is duplicated First entry is in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4353817>

</comment><comment><USER44> The announcement aside (line 1 of 20), this "letter" is some poor PR spew. Jack, if you're listening, you need a personal letter stylist. Letters are like jeans that people read.

</comment><comment><USER45> Can someone explain this to a layman who "only" uses credit cards at the moment? How is whatever this is going to make my checkout at Starbucks quicker or more convenient than a card or a $5?

<comment><USER46> Although there do seem like there are benefits for "laymen" -- paying for something by simply saying your name sounds interesting -- this isn't really directed towards you. Generally, you would likely still use your credit card with it, so your experience wouldn't be much different (positively or negatively).

It's beneficial for business owners who save money by using Square and use various incentives and analytics that come with.</comment></comment>