Matrix HiFi – Blind testing high end full equipment - <AUTHOR> http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm <comment><USER2> "However, some people challenges the use of an external ABX box (usually by people unused to conduct DBT's) arguing that the use of a commuter like the ABX might modify or flatten the response of the systems, masking the differences they so easily claim to hear at home or at an audio store (or even at some shows). This challenge does not hold water, as we can see from the measurements conducted to the ABX we use ..."

Yeah, people pushing blatant magical woo will, eventually, descend to questioning logic and coherent thought itself.

I'll link again to Alan Parsons (recording engineer and recording artist whose records audiophiles are quite fond of): [http://www.cepro.com/article/beatles_pink_floyd_engineer_ala...](http://www.cepro.com/article/beatles_pink_floyd_engineer_alan_parsons_rips_audiophiles/) _Fix the room first._

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be interesting to see this group do a similar test on speakers. They have a nicely designed experimental setup.

A speaker test should show a clear cost/performance relationship.

</comment><comment> mr-mr I must confess, i am an audio tragic and worked out some time ago that for speakers , pro audio was the way to go. ATC and PMC are excellent examples of market leaders in this area and I have listened to systems from 2k to 500k in value, with nothing but disappointment filling me when I have been in the presence of the (100k+) mega dollar setups.

After speakers the biggest gain to be had as correctly stated easily in this thread is in room treatments and that's why I have a dedicated room that's heavily treated.

Each to their own.

I spose I could drive a 20k car as well but I prefer my 200k car because its just better all round, just like my 30k studio monitors :)

</comment><comment><USER4> I used the Behringer A500 for a while because of this test. Good amplifier while it's working, but I've had some problems with signal disappearing. Now I'm using a NAD amp from the 80's that works just as good.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how much good spanish wine these guys have had before the test

<comment><USER6> It was probably a selection of both cheap and expensive stuff.

Joking aside though, your comment adds nothing here. Take the article on merit, and add something constructive here if you have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What these sort of tests always ignore is that placebo effect really works. I refer to a recent study by the University of Manchester in which people who _believed_ that they had better hearing aids objectively scored better on hearing tests. If you spend time and money on a nice high-end system, the love that you put into your setup will be returned to you as better hearing experience.

<comment><USER8> What placebo? It's a bind test.

<comment><USER9> I think that was his point. The test doesn't consider any placebo effects, whereas placebo effects may have an actual effect in real life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> People buy $10,000 handbags without any more functional purpose. Why not luxury electronics? Seriously, if it looks beautiful, and the main purpose is for people to feel good about it, and feel good about other people seeing it - is there any real difference between a luxury handbag (luxury watch) and a luxury HiFi system?

<comment><USER11> The difference is, nobody is arguing that their luxury handbag can carry more stuff and than acheap handbag. On the other hand audiophiles will swear that they are systems sounds better than others.

<comment><USER10> That flies in the face of every A/B test I've ever seen - and I'm not an audiophile - presumably they know 100x more than I do about audio quality. Nobody buys $900 stereo cables because they think they'll perform better than $45 monster cables. They buy those cables for the presentation, the craftsmanship, and the brand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Behringer: 300W YBA: 70W ATC sensitivity: 85db

A rather unfair competition.

<comment><USER13> How is it unfair? The cheap products performed as well as the expensive products.

<comment><USER12> the ATC's need at least 150Watts to perform right. So it doesn't matter if an amp is in the "high end" category if it doesn't have the watts to actually move the speakers.

<comment><USER13> If what you said was true, this supposed lack of power would have shown up as a harmonic distortion artifact in the listening test. The fact that both systems were indistinguishable proves that neither system was suffering in any particular way.

Of course what you have said is nonsense, and shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between an amplifier and speaker. The watt rating of an amplifier simply indicates the operational range where it can perform with near-zero harmonic distortion.

The ATCs are moderately efficient 8 ohm speakers. They barely need 15 watts let alone 150 watts of power to "perform right" at tolerable listening levels. Both amps are capable of delivering ample power with plenty of reserve for transients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I use an Emotiva UMC-200 (HC preprocessor, fine for stereo too),a Crown XLS 1500 amplifier (intended for professional use) and Quad 22L loudspeakers..

The most noticeable upgrade was the automated room correction included in the preprocessor. It more or less removes the room acoustics from the equation, as well as the speakers coloration.

IMHO correct speakers, powerful amplifiers (professional audio power amplifier may be considered) and good room correction makes a great combination.

<comment><USER15> Great list. How did you come to choose these components?

<comment><USER14> Heard several loudspeakers in a local hifi shop and chose the Quad. For the HC preprocessor there wasn't much choice available at Emotiva price point. For the amplifier I was leaning toward a Yamaha from the P-S series ([http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/products/poweramps/p...](http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/products/poweramps/ps_series/)), Crown happened to be more easily available. This one and the Crown have regulated fans. The Yamaha has less distortion and a security cover to lock volume knobs settings..

<comment><USER15> Thanks for taking the time to answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It always buffles me that people who test HiFi audio don't test studio audio equipment, and vice versa. These two categories of hardware try to achieve practically the same result, but just because they target different people (although in a very similar demographic), they are reviewed by different journalists for different magazines and seldom compared to each other.

Why?

<comment><USER17> Recently, thanks to comments on Hacker News, I've learned to think about where money is being made.

In this situation, there are companies competing for business in the studio market, where equipment needs to be functional (easy to move, install, plug stuff into, etc.), not alter the audio signal in a way which is undesirable and - generally - be worth the money in terms of real benefit.

The home market is entirely different. Across the price range, (most) customers care about looks, how it alters the sound of the music / films they care about to match their personal preference and - less often - be worth the money in terms of audio quality and practicality. There's also trendiness, which is much more of a factor in this market.

A 'classic' example (sorry to use that phrase, especially for such a recent phenomenon) is Beats Audio headphones. They are attractive for the home market because people like how they look (including that they're trendy), they make music sound 'good' (I haven't heard them, but I've been told they enhance the bass but otherwise are lacklustre), and are (based on the other factors) not worth the money in terms of audio quality or practicality.

Just because the equipment is made from the same basic components (in fact, much may be made from the same components) doesn't mean that there aren't two separate markets here. They can't be treated as one because the customers are entirely different. Or maybe they can and you should start a company selling to both!

<comment><USER16> Your distinction works with Beats example (which are a great product for it's audience, by the way). But it doesn't really explain the HiFi speakers niche: Beats are not marketed at audiophiles, they are marketed at the market that doesn't care about flac files or good cables, as HiFi buyers do.

Don't people who buy HiFi speakers and amps want to recreate the "original" sound? Why then they don't just buy the same stuff that the audio engineer had when he did the track?

Also, about equipment being functional — I don't see how the requirement of easy installation and movement is more relevant for studio monitor speakers than HiFi speakers. Both are plugged in and put in their place once for a long time (unlike a mobile sound system) and are expected to be moved only when the whole room (studio or your living room) will move.

<comment><USER18> No they don't. Why, I never really understood.

I used to read a lot of studio audio magazines and reviewers would often say "these speakers are great studio speakers, but I would never use them at home"

Part of the explanation, I suppose, is that an album is supposed to sound as good as possible on $5 speakers and $5000, so the studio sound might not be the "optimal" sound

<comment><USER17> I haven't paid much attention to the way studios work recently, but people used to record using flat response headphones (which make music sound, well, flat - great for hearing everything but not pleasant for music) and mix using Yamaha NS10 speakers, which were considered to be a good simulation of the average (slightly rubbish) kit that listeners might have.

If people say 'these are great studio speakers but I would never use them at home', perhaps they're using speakers designed to have a flat response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This justifies my setup: $2000 speakers (noticeable upgrade from previous $500 speakers), $100 receiver amp from eBay, noname cables and accessories.

<comment><USER20> This is basically my set up too.

My advice to anyone looking to get started is to just buy the most expensive speakers you can afford (used market is good for this), pickup an older amp for peanuts on eBay that can power said speakers, and some bargain bin cables from RadioShack.

<comment><USER21> I'm actually in the market for a new pair of speakers, and the _only_ objective advice I've seen is spending more gets you better speakers. While it must be true in some sense, price as an indicator of quality seems like a terrible idea because it's so easily gamed through marketing.

The landscape of local competition seems quite limited (Best Buy seems to dominate everything with B&W and ML), so it feels there's no way of knowing if they're actually worth those prices, or if it's just Best Buy's standard sucker pricing. Going up into that price range I also know there is a whole host of speaker manufacturers that are of course impossible to find locally (not that intense listening room tests are super enjoyable for long periods of time either). And going up in price also makes the price of "screwing up" that much larger.

So I've given up on that idea and figure I'll simply start with a Fry's special and see if I find them objectionable in any way. I'm not looking to make this a hobby, and higher end just seems so damn intractable otherwise.

I've already got the speaker cables from RadioShack (not much time left to obtain them)! Let's hope your exact advice canonizes and I can sell them for Monster cable prices in several years...

<comment><USER19> How will you be using your speakers and what's your price range?

If you really don't know where to start, I could probably suggest something.

I've gotten great recommendations from Don Lindich. I tipped him $20 via PayPal some years back because of all his great advice.

He is/was a newpaper columnist and has some Internet presence. He is honest, and focused on value for money, and has personally tried and reviewed thousands of products.

[http://www.soundadviceblog.com](http://www.soundadviceblog.com)

Better speakers do cost more -- there is fundamental physics there, which is NOT the case for amplifiers or cables. But still, you will find easily 5x variation in price for roughly equal "quality". So even though you should spend most of your money on speakers, it's NOT the case that simply spending more gets you better quality.

<comment><USER21> Price range is undecided. The original plan was something simple off craigslist, but then I found myself looking at new stuff and thinking the $2k/pr B&W at Best Buy sounded pretty damn good, and wanting to hear more of the gamut between.

Use is music (electronic, rock, classical), mainly casual while doing other stuff. Some possible interest in home theatre down the line, but not immediately and not looking to make tradeoffs for it either (eg I want non- satellite full-response speakers, as I'm not a big fan of the dual-humped "subwoofer sound", at least outside of a car).

What specific fundamental physics are you talking about?

How do people generally shop for these things if they aren't available to listen to locally?

<comment><USER19> Yeah, it's definitely tough to try out speakers.

I try to be a little aware of speakers in friend's houses and stores to see what things sound like, but I don't purposely audition them. Although very few of my friends have decent speakers.

It sounds like you know a bit about what you want. My use case is also music. I used to have a surround setup, and it just wasn't worth it. And I agree with you on the subwoofer thing -- I had one and addition to the physical downsides, it felt unbalanced.

In my case I realized I like the imaging of Bose speakers, but they are cheaply made and seem a bit scammy and overpriced. Bose isn't worthless -- they do sound DIFFERENT, on purpose -- but they are flawed. There is real engineering there.

I asked Don Lindich about small speakers with good imaging that are not Bose, and he recommended Mirage Omnisats. It basically gives you a spacious sound like Bose, but they are higher quality in other respects, and I think cheaper.

I used to have Mirage Omnisats with a sub. Now I have Ohm Walsh 1000's:

[http://ohmspeaker.com/speakers/mains/walsh- tall/](http://ohmspeaker.com/speakers/mains/walsh-tall/)

Admittedly this was a blind Internet buy, but they have a long (90 day) return policy, and I trusted Don's recommendation.

They sound fantastic, and people who have come to my apartment love them, and start spontaneously dancing when they hear them. Relatively speaking, they're not super expensive, but most people haven't heard speakers this good in a living room.

I also appreciate a small company that has been around for decades doing the SAME thing -- really refining it. They believe in what they're doing. You can't derive a speaker design from first principles, so you need to have a long history, with lots of trial and error.

Perhaps this doesn't really answer your question, but that's how I got to a set I'm very happy with.

As for the physical aspects, good speakers require fickle and custom manufacturing techniques. And, all things being equal, bigger speakers sound better, and bigger usually means more expensive.

Amplifiers and cables are mostly made of commodity parts as far as I can tell. There is also just more of a potential variance in quality of design with speakers, so I think they require more expertise to design than amplifiers. Bad speakers are really bad, but it's hard to buy an amp that's unlistenable.

So I guess if like me you are short on friends who like quality audio, I would visit stores, ask like-minded people on the Internet, and then make liberal use of return policies. There is also just a bunch of trial and error, and there's a reason why audiophiles tend to own many pairs of speakers that they don't need :)

<comment><USER21> I appreciate the pointer. Reading their website, they sound great. But a sales process where you're half committing without hearing many different competing products is so foreign to me. I'm the kind of person that wants to experience the many different "flavors" of something before I can make a decision. Clearly they would not like it if I were to buy a pair with the intent of definitely returning them before 60 days - hence why they try and work with you to make the sale. If I had to work with that system, I guess the way to do it would be to concurrently order from a few different manufacturers so that I could at least keep the pair I preferred, but that still seems abusive. Maybe I just need to do more Internet research, and then get over it?

Thanks for the advice!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> From my poor knowledge of music production, in that world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth as possible", not necessarily "pleasant to the ear". I wonder if the expensive set of equipment here measure objectively better than the cheap set. That said, I do believe that the speaker and acoustics of the room determine the objective measures much more than the signal chain...

<comment><USER23>
        > From my poor knowledge of music production, in that
        > world "high end" equipment means "as close to truth
        > as possible",

Yes, and no... Because it seems to mean "as close to truth as possible, as judged by human ears".

The deviation from perfect reproduction of sound is something that could be measured and quantified relatively easy, and even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays is able to reach astonishing linearity.

But then people will discuss endlessly about that they feel things sound more "sterile" or "non three dimensional enough" compared to a system that cannot be distinguished by any quantifiable parameter, hence judging them by the tricks that their mind plays on them.

<comment><USER24> > even mediocre equipment (probably with exception to the speakers) nowadays > is able to reach astonishing linearity.

While we have much better cheap amps now than we used to, there's still quite a bit more of noise in the bottom end. You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound (assuming eg: flac audio source, dac and "digital"[1] amplifier). It's not quite that simple. Feeding the whole thing from a battery power source is simple, cheap and can work to reduce the most common/obvious source of noise -- the AC mains (but is only practical for head-phone use).

As for measuring distortion -- it's a little bit like with lossy image codecs: it doesn't really matter what the numbers say, what matters is how we perceive it. In audio-mastering/studio production lossy-ness matters (because if you loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations through the pipeline, the noise crowds out the signal). In testing, it helps guide the development and production (quality assurance).

But in the end, that's just a guide. The trick, is to not buy into the placebo -- while at the same time recognizing a basic fact: the human brain is great at patterns, and filtering out noise. Listen to a badly tuned radio long enough, and you no longer hear the noise. Until someone walks in and adjust it to be on station again.

Listening to really crappy sound (eg: at least two generations old embedded audio from laptops -- not sure about latest generation(s)) -- there'd be a ridiculous amount of noise. Couple it with cheap head-phones with eg, little or no bass -- and listen to music like that for a couple of months -- and you'll be able to convince yourself that that's just fine. Just like if you smeared a thin layer of vaseline on your computer screen and left it on there for months, you'd probably stop actively noticing it was there -- but if you wiped half you would instantly see the difference.

Then compare it to any low-end "hi-fi" set-up, and you'd be surprised how much clearer, and better most things sound. If not, stick with what you like.

It makes absolutely no sense to buy a more expensive setup than what you can tell the difference between. And even if you _can_ buying the best at any price doesn't make sense.

And if you want to sit in a room and really _listen_ to music/soundscapes -- be that classical music, pink floyd, jazz or anything else -- the room is just as important as the gear, as other's have mentioned.

Oh, and if you want to get the most out of your setup - calibration is always good. One reason I prefer stereo is that it is comparatively simple. I'm sure that in _theory_ one could develop a "CalMan"[2] for audio -- given that pretty much every source now is digital, one could probably set up a test track that allowed one to correct for many distortions (created by the system, the speakers, the room...) in real-time.

But I must confess, while I would love to calibrate my monitor to get more correct color -- I'm highly sceptical of the idea of programming my DAC to get "more natural" sound. But that's probably the audioplacebo talking, not the rational mind.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class- D_amplifier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier)

[2] [http://calman.spectracal.com/store/p71/CalMAN_RGB_with_Spect...](http://calman.spectracal.com/store/p71/CalMAN_RGB_with_SpectraCal_C3.html)

<comment><USER23> > You make it sound like $10 of electronics would give great sound

No, that's not what I wanted to convey. But if you get yourself $100/€100 90s HiFi Amps on eBay, you are pretty much there, in my opinion for domestic HiFi use. You might want to blow out the dust, replace the scratchy volume knob, and bypass the rusty input-selector switches, though...

If you talk studios, of course some other factors are getting important such as the proper input connectors (most HiFi has Cinch/RCA, studios will have XLR at +4dBU levels), being able to put into a 19" rack and operate for long times at an elevated temperature, having a stepped, instead of a continuous, gain selector to have repeatability when setting up multi-amp systems..., but that's not really related to the audio quality, noise or distortion. You'll pay for all these features, and for additional build quality.

> loose n% of the signal on every iteration, and you do 100s of iterations

If you do 100s of iterations, you are doing something wrong! People _do_ run 100s of iteratios for fiddling with parameters, but they'll _NOT_ always re- record and play back every time. Just imagine the additional noise, not from the converters, but from the outboard gear mainly, adding up! Especially as people tend to like using outboard gear for the imperfect reproduction and coloring that analog provides.

But also for studio use, there's the crappy end (say, <€50 soundcards/audio interfaces) which will have easily noticeable hiss and spurs from badly shielded DC/DC converters you can easily see in any spectrum analyzer software. As soon as you are above $1000/€800 or so for a name-brand 8-ch in/out converter, I claim that you will not be able to measure any difference to a >€5000 2ch "32-bit, 192kHz, Mastering AD/DA with rubidium clock".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you perform an objective analysis of sound reproduction, it quickly becomes apparent that once you reach a certain price/performance threshold in speakers, the most critical element -- the element that has the greatest influence on the overall sound quality -- is room acoustics.

But it's so much easier to sell expensive cardboard boxes containing obscure brand electronics; there is so much more markup in homeopathic rolls of copper wire, than there is in convincing someone to ruin their marriage over living room decor. Plus, it's just not a sexy investment, and requires expertise to be done properly.

It has become the industry's inconvenient truth.

<comment><USER25> I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the space they are in, then adjust for it properly.

Would basically be a self-modifying ambisonics system. It looks doable, though possibly a bit expensive.

<comment><USER26> I recently bought the equipment to do a similar adaptive-audio job for my living room music / home-theater setup. I have the usual multi-decade collection of once-fashionable home stereo equipment, some in use, some collecting dust in the basement. I decided I needed a bit more bass to enjoy more thoroughly the gunshots and explosions of gameplay and epic action films.

I listened to a stereophile friend eager to give advice, and convinced myself to add a self-powered subwoofer to the existing setup. Adding one shook the house but (to my ear) muddied the sound of music when no explosions were taking place. I could blame the equipment, or more properly myself, and replace some or all of the former. But I thought there must be some way to modulate all this unruly gear so that it produced a provably balanced and pleasant sound.

I will skip over some intermediate steps where I tried to learn the science and engineering of acoustics, using a neutral reference microphone and several fine pieces of audio software available to all of us interwebbily. I learned that I was overdriving the subwoofer, which made sense, but I couldn't seem to go from spectrum graphs and suchlike to an actual balanced sound system. My final setup worked out quite satisfactorily and is an affordable alternative to building the computer-driven speaker cluster for room modeling.

> I have been looking at the idea of doing lots of small speakers with > microphones on them attached to a fat lump of computer hardware, that you > stick all over and they bleep each other and build an acoustic model of the > space they are in, then adjust for it properly.

When I played in a band, we had to work with the club's sound engineer or bring our own to get a balanced sound setup before the audience showed up. The more recent gigs showcased an interesting technology, a system that generated pink noise through the actual sound system, from the original sound sources before the mixing board, all the way through power amplifiers to the speakers at front of house. The engineer put a reference microphone in a strategic position, turned on the pink noise generator, and twiddled equalizer knobs to get a roughly even spectrograph (plus unavoidable "sound-guy magic" to de- equalize somewhat for specific gig purposes like dancing or seated listening) for the whole room, using the actual speakers and sound-reinforcement equipment we would be using.

This seemed to me to be the thing I needed in my home theater setup. It would let me balance and compensate for the (now) ten speaker cabinets in the living room (including the powered subwoofer), their real-life positions, the walls and floor coverings, the furniture, and even the cat. I think I could also do it with some combo of REW (Room Equalization Wizard) software, reference mike, and pink noise streamed through the amplifier. But while I was trying to get that approach figured out, I found a cheap piece of audio hardware with all that functionality built-in – no need to dedicate a computer to EQing the sound.

This is the Behringer DEQ-2496, a configurable digital equalization gizmo. It has a room equalization function built in, which is a home version of the room-equalization setup we saw in the clubs, and as a bonus it basically automates the sound engineer's fingers on the equalizer sliders. I am not sure if it's the latest model supporting this function, as I got mine used, but it was well below $200 and probably the best money I've spent on pretending to be an audiophile.

You set up the room for your listening preference (for me, this involves rolling the softest armchair into the center of the room the best to enjoy all those gunshots and explosions), put the reference mike about where your head will be, activate the automated room EQ process on the DEQ-2496, and sit down in your regular seating position to read for a while. It sends pink noise through the power amplifier and speakers and starts modifying an equalization curve to produce a "flat" room signal across all audible frequencies.

After about 15-20 minutes the EQ settings stop changing and the Behringer has generated the EQ setup for acoustically-neutral room sound. You can save the setup and create others (e.g., for group seating), or modify it manually to match your preferences (bigger bass for film audio, slight high-frequency boost for classical music listening, etc.), and save the modified versions as well. All my digital sound sources pass through it (game consoles, video, and music) in digital format and are equalized before they hit the amplifier and speakers – just as it worked in the clubs.

There are usable reference materials on the web to make up for the DEQ-2496's obtuse user interface and execrable user manual. It's not quite the super- flexible software-driven system I might have gravitated toward, but it does what I needed without tying up a computer.

What I like most is that it deals with the real world sound of my setup and room – if I change my setup or furnishings (as has happened a couple of times), I just re-run the balancing process and use the new settings as the baseline for my preferred room EQ. If my subwoofer, say, is turned too high the Behringer sets up a balancing cut in the affected frequencies. If the carpet soaks up some high-frequency signals, they're boosted to compensate.

If my audiophile buddy gushes about the spectacularly flat frequency response of some new bookshelf system, I relax knowing that even my second-hand and slightly dinged-up speakers have been magically upgraded to subjectively flat (or not, as I wish) frequency responses – in the real world of my living room, not just in the lab or the store. It even has a full panel display of das blinkenlites should I need confirmation things are working properly. Very satisfying!

<comment><USER27> EQ itself adds distortion. You may end up with flat characteristic, but poor sound quality.

Amplifier designers are avoiding capacitors in signal path to minimize harmonic distortion. Now imagine you would put such a beast as EQ in the path...

<comment><USER13> > EQ itself adds distortion.

Modern digital EQ algorithms don't add any distortion worth talking about. But even in the worst case, it's still an infinitely small amount compared to the wild distortions that your room imposes on the sound.

If EQ can compensate for even a modest chunk of the room's influence, the net result is a huge drop in overall distortion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Their version of "low end" is amusing to me. But this is hardly surprising. Hifi suffers from a taxic interaction of diminishing returns and snake oil, and I say that as someone who has spent more than a few dollars myself.

<comment><USER29> After spending a few bucks myself, I second this. The only thing i'd add is, invest in a good pair of speakers, that's where you'd get the best ROI.

<comment><USER30> I'm amazed at the quality of older speakers when it comes to value for money. I'm using a pair of Chadwick executive 12 cabinets in my living room and they're simply the best sounding speakers I've owned and they cost next to nothing. The only expense so far is cleaning and light refurb to remove rot.

<comment><USER31>
        > Chadwick executive 12

That term has no Google footprint

<comment><USER32> Raudio chadwick speakers returns some relevant results.

[http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40792-austr...](http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/40792-australian- made-speakers-how-good/page-4)

> The Executive Monitor from Chadwick Audio Furnishings(NSW) was the top model > in the Chadwick range and used a modified Etone245(300mm) unit in a rear > vented transmission line enclosure with the Audax 160mm mid/range,25mm dome > and an aluminium cone super tweeter. I have no idea how it compared to the > imports,in the early 80,s,but many Australian designed speakers outshone the > competition in performance and value at the top end of the > market;unfortunately there was a cheap product area that supplied bulk > stores and these inferior items still surface from time to time.A bit like > the white van stuff .

<comment><USER30> That sounds quite familiar. I got them from my parents many years ago, and they got them new in an audio store in Sydney. I have the original brochure and manual somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Created my first serious iPhone app, featured by Apple a few days later - <AUTHOR> http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/border-delay-u.s.-canadian/id545526764?ls=1&mt=8

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that has to be the most useless short description field I've ever read of an app on the App Store (and there are some really bad ones on there). I realize your title is pretty descriptive ("Border Delay"), but take advantage of the description field! That's valuable marketing space!

 _"Border Delay is the most useful utility for frequent travellers on the App Store. It has all the information you need, and none of the junk you don't. Check it out and see for yourself."_

This does _not_ qualify as a description! That said, I wish I had this 10 years ago when I was going back and forth on the border by car.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey CG, thanks for checking it out. There's actually a pretty well fleshed-out description. Unfortunately, the app store hides all but the first few sentences by default.

<comment><USER3> Anecdotal evidence seems to suggests that most people don't click that "more..." button. Not much you can do about it, but with an app like yours he's probably right you could include what the app actually _does_ right at the top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In response to feedback here, I've changed the first sentence to "The latest wait times at almost every U.S.-Canadian border crossing. Quick. Easy. Check it out for yourself."

I think it will do better with those who miss the "More..." button. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The app is currently at #12 in the top travel apps in Canada, and has held near that spot for the last few weeks. It's interesting to see how few sales it takes to jump up that chart -- I imagine it takes a lot more in the U.S. store.

</comment><comment><USER4> Awesome!. This would have been my favorite app a year ago. its been a year since I moved out from that small border town.

<comment><AUTHOR> It does end up being a bit of a niche product, but thanks for checking it out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome, and congrats Brian!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks buddy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do you use CBP.gov data?

<comment><AUTHOR> I do, along with data from U.S. border services. When possible, I automatically correct it to be more accurate. For example, "no delay" actually means <= 15 minutes or so.

<comment><USER7> I'm interested in your other data source. I wrote a web app for the U.S-México border a while ago and been using data from the CBP but have found it to not be reliable at all.

<http://garitas-tijuana.com></comment></comment></comment>


The Assassin, The Ghost and The Priest - <AUTHOR> http://rodinhood.com/the-assassin-the-ghost-the-priest <comment><USER2> An assassin, a ghost and a priest walk into a bar. The bartender says, "what is this, a joke?"

Great article, but the themes are nothing we haven't already seen posted on Hacker news many times. Be able to change when your business model is on the path of being destroyed (assasin,) but don't allow yourself to be distracted by every possible threat which hasn't even materialized yet (ghost.)

Personally, I like the idea of the priest the best. Follow your competitors and allow them to pave the way for you by opening new markets and trying new ideas. Then improve on what the competitor is doing. That's my interpretation anyways. ;)</comment>


Inside the 'conflict-free' diamond scam costing online buyers millions - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/05/01/shady-online-diamond-dealer-proves-conflict-free-is-no-guarantee/ <comment><USER2> It needs to become an offensive act, a social faux pas to have bought a diamond, this would fix the problem.</comment>


On the Closing of Living Computers: Museum+Labs - <AUTHOR> http://rottedbits.blogspot.com/2020/07/on-closing-of-living-computers.html <comment><USER2> It's such a shame that an institution like this, backed by an estate that can fund it indefinitely, gets shut down purely because some middle managers saw a dip in cashflow during a pandemic. It's utter idiocy at the core.

</comment><comment><USER3> Used to go there when I had a long-term contract at Starbucks corporate, which is practically next door. I always intended to take a day and take my spouse, who I am sure would have enjoyed it. :-(

For those that didn't make it, you missed a treat. Downstairs was for the kids, the good stuff was upstairs. When you haven't seen a keypunch machine in 30 years, and then there's one right there in front of you, man...

</comment><comment><USER4> :( Stumbled upon this place on a visit to Seattle once and the joy on my face to sit down at an early IBM PC (XT or whatever) and code some BASIC in a wave of nostalgia was magic.

</comment><comment><USER5> Damn it! I told myself I would go here on my next trip to Seattle. Then COVID-19 happened.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was very lucky to see this place on my last trip to Seattle. I'm from Boston, where DEC, Wang, and Data General were part of local lore but I'm too young (32) to have ever seen a minicomputer in the real world.

I hope it stays afloat. It was such a fascinating experience for me.</comment>


Geeks, MOPs, and sociopaths in subculture evolution - <AUTHOR> https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths <comment><USER2> Discussion from 2018:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17433487](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17433487)

And 2015:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9632751](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9632751)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one of those article so riddled with the cliches that people normally believe anyway that's truth is hard to measure. Not saying it's wrong _but..._

Either an article that gave some objective measure of these things would be interesting or a book that gave a lot of anecdotes and details around a particular phenomena like this might worth the read. But for an article like this I can only shrug.

<comment><USER4> I mean, you'd expect some heavy cliches seeing as it's describing a pretty well-known social phenomenon - usually called entryism. And the _really_ sad thing about it all is that it isn't even sociopaths doing it. It's your average "cool" kids, basically MOP's who are just a tiny bit better at the popularity-contest game. Actual sociopaths wouldn't know what to do with your average geeky subculture, even one where the normies have started to show up pretty heavily. So the "filter" is working quite well actually (it's one of the things that attract savvy normies to geeky subcultures in the first place!), it's just not _nearly_ enough.

<comment><USER3> _I mean, you 'd expect some heavy cliches seeing as it's describing a pretty well-known social phenomenon - usually called entryism._

Yes but the point is that the things that people think they already know and understand are the things whose truth we should be most dubious about. These kinds of reactions _could_ just as much be our own automatic, reflexive sorting of people into in and out groups rather than the way things are actually happening at any one time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Isn't this just Crossing the Chasm seen from a different angle?

<comment><USER6> Underrated comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really interesting article as I've seen this at a second degree level for one of my friends.

She was really a "fanatic" (as the article names them) for some "geeks" until the number of "mops" started getting larger and larger and at some point I guess the "sociopaths" also showed up, and the New Thing became the Lite Thing (and I'm imagining that in another 2-3 years it will be run into the ground by said "sociopaths", milked of everything that they can).

It's interesting that at some point said friend was indeed offered the role of a "actual service worker" (to quote the article), presumably by one of the "sociopaths", but she refused it. At that moment I couldn't understand why ("my friend really likes this Thing! why isn't she willing to get more involved with it and even get paid for the privilege?"), but reading articles like this one I can understand why that happened and why the decision she took was for the best.

Later edit: Because I've seen the subculture mentioned in the article's comments, I might as well also mention it here, that is that the New Thing for my friend was in fact a local EDM variant (if you follow ResidentAdvisor religiously you've probably heard of it by now).

It would also be interesting to hear from people a little older than me and who have lived through those times how exactly the same thing happened to the punk scene back in the '80s (at least I suppose that's when punk became mainstream and the "sociopaths" took control over it). A similar history for grunge could also be interesting, even though I guess Cobain's suicide precipitated some things.

</comment><comment><USER8> Bob Dylan: LAST THOUGHTS ON WOODY GUTHRIE

The ones that wheel and deal and whirl and twirl

And play games with each other in their sand-box world

And you can't find it either in the no-talent fools

That run around gallant

And make all rules for the ones that got talent

And it ain't in the ones that ain't got any talent

but think they do

And think they're foolin' you

The ones who jump on the wagon

Just for a while 'cause they know it's in style

To get their kicks, get out of it quick

And make all kinds of money and chicks

[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/last-thoughts-woody- guthrie/](http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/last-thoughts-woody-guthrie/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the main issue is that you are not entitled to compensation for being really into something. If you want to receive value that you create, you have to consciously extract it. A _small_ portion of the population is extremely uncomfortable with this: those with high trait agreeableness. The author is probably a member of this population. These people need to suck it up, or find a less agreeable partner to work with them and help them get money / get laid.

</comment><comment><USER10> > The muggles who invade and ruin subcultures come in two distinct flavors, > mops and sociopaths, playing very different roles.

Alternative theory-- subcultures _already include_ at least one sociopath and get ruined when sunlight exposes the ways in which they abused others in the subculture. (And probably also the ways in which apologists helped them to cover up the abuse.)

</comment><comment><USER11> >A slogan of Rao's may point the way: Be slightly evil. Or: geeks need to learn and use some of the sociopaths' tricks. Then geeks can capture more of the value they create (and get better at ejecting true sociopaths).

That sounds a lot like what's happening to open source. Mops are happy that they get things for free, creators are living on starvation wages, sociopaths at the cloud companies are making hundreds of billions.

>At best you can charge them admission or a subscription fee, but they'll inevitably argue that this is wrong because capitalism is evil, and also because they forgot their wallet.

Yes, open source mops to a t.

<comment><USER12> Although notice here that it's the cloud companies making hundreds of billions off of free labour, not the "mops".

If your take away from that is "we need to charge people money for open source" instead of "use less business friendly licenses like the AGPL" you should really ask yourself why you're doing open source in the first place.

We don't really need more SaaS freemium open source stuff.

<comment><USER11> Yes? That's the point of the article.

The mops nickle and dime you to death "Why aren't you using the MIT license? The GPL isn't really an open source license. How can it be about freedom when it forces me to do things?".

The psychopaths just extract all the value.

At any rate all the current open source licenses are meant for the 80s or 90s. Freedom zero is only for people, not corporations.

The only sane license I've seen for the modern world was this rework of the MIT license:

Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any natural person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software to other natural persons without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit natural persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Subcultures were the main creative cultural force from roughly 1975 to 2000, > when they stopped working. Why?

I suspect the author was 25 at some point in that range of time. It's hard to keep going when an essay starts out that way.

<comment><USER14> Care to explain why that would impact the essay?

<comment><USER15> Subcultures are young people's game, and something you usually grow out of.

<comment><USER14> But if subcultures are dead, and the author was a young person in their heyday; would they not be perfectly qualified to write a postmortem of sorts?

<comment><USER16> But they're really not dead, they're just different. Writing a postmortem on something that isn't dead is difficult.

<comment><USER7> Further down the author acknowledges that subcultures are not in fact really dead, but that they've lost the cultural importance they had between 1975-2000 (to use his time interval). Which I think it's a fair point to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A cynic would say that Stan Lee was the ultimate sociopath: a real creator, but also a self-promoter and all about the Benjamins in the end.

<comment><USER18> According to the article, that would classify him as a genius. Which checks out.</comment></comment>


Ask the admins: Can we get comment reply notifications at last? - <AUTHOR> I've been using HN notify to be notified of replies to my comment by email, but that's a free service and it goes down sometimes (it seems to be down now). Would it be possible to add a way for the site to email us or something when a reply to one of our comments is posted?<p>This is pretty important functionality in a discussion forum, and it has been sorely missing for years. <comment><USER2> Unless one is commenting on a _huge_ number of threads, isn't the "threads" feature adequate? It shows any responses to one's comments.</comment>


A plea for lean software (1995) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://cr.yp.to/bib/1995/wirth.pdf <comment><USER2> Over the years, I've been leaning more and more this way. Designing, writing, developing software using the Unix Philosophy [0], the suckless philosophy [1], cat -v [2], Write Small and Fast Software [3], DJB and libdjb derivatives [4][5] as sources for inspiration, IMO, will lead me to writing more comprehensible, more performant, more secure software. I mention these inspirations when ever I can. And I think software is overdue for a reboot on how we design, write, develop software.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Doug_McIlroy_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Doug_McIlroy_on_Unix_programming)

[1] [http://suckless.org/philosophy/](http://suckless.org/philosophy/)

[2] [http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/](http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/)

[3] [https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/diet.pdf](https://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/diet.pdf)

[4] [https://www.fefe.de/djb/](https://www.fefe.de/djb/)

[5] [https://www.fefe.de/libowfat/](https://www.fefe.de/libowfat/)

<comment><USER3> I don't think more than a tiny fraction of programmers are capable of writing secure software under such an approach; unix's reliance on unstructured interfaces means misunderstandings and "confused deputy" style attacks are inevitable. IMO our industry fetishizes performance to an absurd degree in proportion to how bad we are at correctness and basic security. I do think we're due a reboot (and to a certain extent we already have one in the (typed) functional programming revolution), but one that focuses on writing software that does what was intended, rather than obsessing over shaving pennies-worth of cycles off program runtimes.

<comment><USER4> > IMO our industry fetishizes performance to an absurd degree in proportion to > how bad we are at correctness and basic security.

I completely disagree. Our industry (or at least parts of it) have absolutely no concern for performance or power consumption (electron is one of the main culprits here, but the issue existed with Java/swing before,and im sure it existed before that too). For the most part, our industry is just as bad at security though, you're right.

I disagree about correctnesd though - correctnesd isnt a binary thing, it's a scale. Some things matter more for correctness (it's ok if we miss an animation transition, it's not ok if we have bad rounding in our financial software). Overall we have a decent grasp of the severity of issues and in prioritising what to ensure is correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazingly, Niklaus Wirth still removes code from Oberon:

 _20180720 - Update compiler: ORP.Mod.txt and ORG.Mod.txt_

 _Cash for base adr of global variables "curSB" has been removed from ORG.Mod._

 _Removal of this optimization makes compiler simpler._

[https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/news.txt](https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/news.txt)

<comment><USER6> is there any github mirror of this code base?

<comment><USER7> Oberon is well worth studying. If you're on macOS, you can get it via the App Store (it's free).

As far as github mirrors, I'm not sure there is one. But this looks interesting: [https://github.com/Spirit-of- Oberon/ProjectOberon2013](https://github.com/Spirit-of- Oberon/ProjectOberon2013)

But you may just want to get the original code and read through the books at [http://www.projectoberon.com/](http://www.projectoberon.com/)

<comment><USER8> Can't find it in the App Store. Can you link to it?

<comment><USER7> Sure! [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oberon- workstation/id1057155...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/oberon- workstation/id1057155516?mt=12)

<comment><USER8> NICE!! Cannot wait to use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wirth has reportedly told the joke that, because Europeans pronounce his name properly ("VEER-t"), while Americans pronounce it as "nickel's worth", he is called by name in Europe and called by value in America. --- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth)

</comment><comment><USER10> _A system that is not understood in its entirety, or at least to a significant degree of detail by a single individual, should probably not be built._

<comment><USER11> And yet everyone is voting this claim up from their Web browsers which do not come anywhere near this standard, on operating systems of which the same can be said.

<comment><USER12> I don't think anyone is satisfied with the state of css and javascript.

<comment><USER11> What does that mean? Nobody dislikes those things because they'd prefer them to be more like toy languages.

<comment><USER13> If by toy languages you mean HTML then that's precisely why I dislike those things.

I want my browser to be served marked up text with the occasional embedded hypermedia, that's it.

I don't need fancy layout, I don't need transition effects and I don't need updated data without making another request to the server. If I wanted all those things I'd install an app like I do on my phone.

Of course, that spells doom for advertisers and those that rely on advertising dollars to generate content. But I'd rather pay for content if I think is worth paying for, like the Wall Street Journal for example.

<comment><USER12> I agree but what I has in mind is the horrible complexity of css, with 50 different ways to do somethings, making really hard to do simple things like middle align, etc.

<comment><USER11> I can't imagine a replacement with the same capabilities that's a one-man job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another attempt at minimalism in software was Alan Kay's [http://www.vpri.org/](http://www.vpri.org/) , which aimed to develop an OS and applications in less than 20k lines of code [1]. It operated from 2001 to the start of this year. It is also associated with YC's harc [2].

[1] [http://www.vpri.org/work/ifnct.htm](http://www.vpri.org/work/ifnct.htm)

[2] [https://harc.ycr.org/project/](https://harc.ycr.org/project/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't exactly worship at the altar of Joel on Software, but I think his contradictory article is pretty good: [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-letter- iv...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/03/23/strategy-letter-iv-bloatware- and-the-8020-myth/)

<comment><USER15> It's a pursuasive and fun article and feels convincing, because that's just how Joel writes. But it's kind of funny to imagine the same arguments in any field but software. "We could have optimized and improved the car's design, but you would have had to wait two more months and that cost would have been perceptible. Anyway gas has gotten cheaper, so in 'real' terms the car is 'more' efficient! Fretting about elegant car engineering seems like more of a mental health problem." Not saying Joel is necessarily wrong, but it would be nice if software design had some sense of craft....

<comment><USER11> Perhaps, but the engineering of physical goods is a poor analogy to software, considering the relative ease of changing things in software if you decide they aren't working.

<comment><USER15> (Also to bdhess) just a note that I'm not trying to say the right thing for a car is also the right thing for software, just that the contrast between the design philosophies is funny (haha and/or peculiar).

<comment><USER16> I don't think there actually is a contrast in philosophies. The philosophies are the same for each: do a cost/benefit analysis, and then go with whatever makes the most money.

It just happens that the cost of fixing an automotive defect (i.e., with a recall) is generally way higher than the cost of fixing a software defect (i.e., by shipping an update). So the automotive industry invests more heavily in eliminating defects.

<comment><USER11> Certainly the philosophy when you're developing software for medical devices or rockets is more rigorous and careful, but the speed would be pretty much unacceptable for, say, Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find an interesting contrast between Niklaus Wirth and Bjarne Stroustrup.

Wirth made a bunch of languages that were based on the "right" way to do things: Pascal, Modula, Modula-2, Oberon. The languages either were used and became massively fragmented (see Pascal) or were not used much. Other than Borland (Turbo Pascal and Delphi) no other large company really embraced any of the Wirth languages.

Stroustrup, on the other hand, was more pragmatic, and released a language aimed at professional programmers. In addition, instead of creating new languages, he has spent decades evolving C++. As a result, C++ has been in the top 5 of most used programming languages for years (decades?) and forms the critical infrastructure of many of the largest tech companies. In addition, I bet the evolution between C with Classes, and C++17 is pretty comparable in scope to that between Pascal and Oberon.

<comment><USER18> I have to ask - does anyone actually use half of the C++ features? Exactly how much of C++'s 1600-page specification can be attributed to its success?

<comment><USER19> Does anybody even understand half of it?

<comment><USER20>
        I don't know half of it half as well as I should like; and
        I like less than half of it half as well as it deserves.

        -- B.B.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This was written in 1995, just after the failure of the $3.7 billion attempt to modernize software at the FAA. That was the most expensive failed software effort ever. The amount of bloat on that project was astonishing. It's worth reading about that failure to get some historical context against which this author was writing:

[http://www.smashcompany.com/business/the-worst-software- proj...](http://www.smashcompany.com/business/the-worst-software-project- failure-ever)

<comment><USER22> But this continue still todays, with hundreds-of-million dollars or euros projects being thrown away (or that should be thrown away, given their poor state).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Small Anecdote: A great quote Prof. Wirth made during a talk at the IBM European Networking Centre in Heidelberg somewhen in the late 90s, which I found spot-on already then and very memorable: "Software is getter faster slower than hardware is getting faster." The audience was cheering.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have to commend Google here for bucking the trend. To give two examples:

1\. They recently rolled out an update to GMail that they had worked on for some years. Were these years spent figuring out how to make it fill available memory and processing? No. They were spent figuring out how to streamline.

Today, if you visit mail.google.com, the page loads in about the same time as a ping: that is because they got the login page down to just 56 bytes after compression. That is the size of a ping packet. This is an astounding achievement.

After logging in, 56 bytes isn't enough to present much of a view, but it does the next best thing: in the space of the absolute limit for a single TPC/IP packet, which is 64KB, the interface is rendered enough to see the latest unread emails, and to make the Compose button active. After a single packet! In my tests this took less than 7 milliseconds. This is enough to render both of the main things one would like to do: compose a new mail, or view the latest mail. In other words, after a single packet is received, a fully functional inbox is presented, and a fully functional Compose link. The TCP/IP packets that follow then load some javascript, but you wouldn't know it from the interface, which stays the same as it loads. I've tried manually throttling the interface after the single packet, when it was bare HTML, and could still click to request a view of mail or compose new mail, getting the result instantly. In all, it is possible to enter and exit gmail while consuming a grand total of 2 KB. To put this into perspective, this represents approximately 0.016% of 1 second of a 100 megabit connection. Wow.

2\. The other example I have from Google is Google Chrome. In an era of heavyweight desktop apps like Firefox, Adobe Creative Suite, or text editors like Atom (which uses up to 3 GB just to open a text file)[1], Chrome does the insanely impossible: it uses less than 2 megabytes of memory to fully open, and less than 1 kilobyte of memory on each open tab. Since Chrome has a 32-bit version, I tried running it on an old Pentium I that I had running windows 95. It is a 300 Megahertz computer. While not fast, it was able to open a hundred tabs in about 15 seconds. That is 0.15 seconds for a new tab on a Pentium I. On a modern quad core computer, a new tab is ready by the next screen refresh. And it scales: opening ten thousand tabs takes less than 4.5 seconds and ended up eating 10 megabytes. Wow.

To think about the low-level engineering that must have gone into this is just astounding. Firefox chokes on a few dozen tabs. Windows can't even render a window that fast - they must have literally written more efficient low-level code than the built-in window manager for Windows.

In a world where software struggles to somehow use up all precious 16 gigabytes of RAM that you have, and eat up every cycle like it's some buffet, it's nice to know that there is some serious capability put behind behind small and lean.

It is clearly the right thing.

See for your yourself: [https://web.archive.org/web/20090330212446/http://www.google...](https://web.archive.org/web/20090330212446/http://www.google.com/)

Isn't this the way things should be?

[1] [https://discuss.atom.io/t/excessive-memory-problem-seems- to-...](https://discuss.atom.io/t/excessive-memory-problem-seems-to-be- settings-view/42538)

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

EDIT: three people read what I wrote literally (even though I linked an archive.org link). I was kidding. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a magic GMail. I have to wait 15-45 seconds for the new GMail to load. It is literally the slowest site I use on the entire Internet. The above represents my expression of what I know Google engineers would be capable of. They're smart enough. I believe in them. They can do it!

<comment><USER25> I suddenly got a new Gmail version since a couple of weeks, it is an order of magnitude slower than what I've used for a decade and loads with a pointless animation that, by itself, takes seconds before I can even begin to see my mail. How does one activate this magical Gmail experience you have? If there's any way.

<comment><USER24> Sorry, I actually was describing an alternative universe.

>If there's any way.

Hard work by very talented engineers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Somehow I have the feeling this is mostly the plea of a few purists removed from reality.

Since this was published the bloat went on.

Why? My take is, most people don't care about small software as much as they care about UX, availability and features.

How else would you explain the rise of HTML/JS/Electron and the fall of C++/Qt in the UI world?

<comment><USER27> > How else would you explain the rise of HTML/JS/Electron and the fall of > C++/Qt in the UI world?

Does this "fall" really exist though, or is it just the byproduct of extremely intense marketing from the HTML/JS/Electron software authors ? I'm pretty confident that there are more desktop software being written today in Qt than in Electron - but most of the time they don't end up plastered all over the interwebs for the simplest todo-list app.

<comment><USER26> _" I'm pretty confident that there are more desktop software being written today in Qt than in Electron"_

I'm pretty confident that this is not the case.

There may be a huge amount of legacy software still based on Qt, but new stuff? Only if it is performance critical.

I mean, who wants to pay a C++ dev for something a web-dev can do?

<comment><USER28> Are mediocre C++ devs that much more expensive and rare than mediocre web- devs? Certainly in the field I work in (civil engineering) you're probably far more likely to run across someone who can cobble together a simple GUI tool in C++ than you are someone who could cobble together the same thing in Electron.

<comment><USER26> Hmyes, you may be right.

I know a bunch of civil engineers who also know some C++.

Probably the reason for all these strange UIs in cars these days, hehe.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: MediaRecorder Power Up - <AUTHOR> https://meething.github.io/StreamSwitcher/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi developer here,

I made this small library because I need to switch audio/video tracks while using MediaRecorder.

Normally changing srcObject will stop the MediaRecorder now it wont stop and you can easily change video/audio during recording.

Feel free to comment or improve. All questions are welcome

</comment><comment><USER2> No mobile?</comment>


NASA to abandon Spirit Mars Rover - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/science/space/25rover.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

<comment><USER2> I wasn't aware that Spirit had been incommunicado for a full year. Yep, time to give it up. We got great value out of it.

I _must_ resist the temptation to anthropomorphize it. No, I don't feel sad for the poor rover stuck in a cold sandtrap on another planet, cruelly abandoned after years of faithful service. I do _not_ feel sorry for it. I _know_ that it's no more alive than the computer on which I'm typing this, that it's just a few random bits of electronics and some electric motors.

And yet... _sob_

<comment><USER3> <http://xkcd.com/695/>

<comment><USER4> We'll be back for ya, little guy ... it just may take a hundred or two earth years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While I'm sure they're doing the right thing here, this is a little sad to me on a personal note. At the end of my ninth grade winter break (January, 2004) I spent all day following every bit of info I could find about Spirit's landing. The next day, back at school, I joined the school robotics club where I eventually learned C, began using Linux and decided to pursue Computer Science.

<comment><USER6> I was similarly inspired by the original Pathfinder rover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Imagine, in about 20-30 years time, humans land on Mars. If Spirit still has its data stored to disk, and we can retrieve it, then that would mean that the most expensive rescue operation in human history was made to rescue... a robot that was designed to last 90 days on the Martian surface.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's a nice pic of a Spirit clone together with Sojourner (from 1997) and the successor to Spirit and Opportunity, MSL:

[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images/Dec4_E-3-generation- rove...](http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/images/Dec4_E-3-generation-rovers.jpg)

MSL (Mars Science Laboratory) should launch late this year:

<http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/>

<comment><USER9> That will be one tense Rube Goldberg landing in 2012. A failure would be very disappointing. Phoenix gives at least some hope that NASA has landing with rocket motors on Mars under control.

<comment><USER10> The way it lands is awesomely elaborate, for anybody who hasn't seen it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BudlaGh1A0o>

Watch it in 720p!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mkr-hn (Some NSFW language) [http://www.theonion.com/articles/mars-rover-beginning- to-hat...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/mars-rover-beginning-to-hate- mars,2072/)

<comment><USER11> I wouldn't want to work anywhere that article is NSFW.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How close are the two rovers? A great follow up to the Google Lunar Challenge would be some sort of Mars Rover Challenge. Must make contact with Spirit then drive on to Viking, or some other human lander.

<comment><USER2> Roughly on opposite sides of the planet. If you've got a rover that can drive halfway around Mars, there's a lot more interesting things to look at than that, I'm sure.

<comment><USER13> If Opportunity traveled as fast as it possibly could it would take a century to reach Spirit, though the chances of it lasting that long are low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We'll pick it up sometime in the future. I think that's the more exciting goal.

</comment><comment><USER15> <http://youtu.be/OpSVCL4vxOY>

</comment><comment><USER16> What are the odds we can talk them into releasing the communication frequency and protocol? If it's officially out of service, perhaps the commonwealth can take over the vigil.

<comment><USER17> It's not easy to broadcast to mars. They use the deep space network of satellite dishes for that. I doubt it's something an amateur can do. The frequency is the X band, but I couldn't find info on the protocol.

Also Opportunity is still active and they use the same protocol, and they probably won't want you messing with that :)</comment></comment>


When is it OK to shoot a child soldier? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/americas/21719821-canada-writes-rules-troops-who-face-armed-nine-year-olds-when-it-ok-shoot-child <comment><USER2> > By acknowledging their right to defend themselves, Canada's government may > lessen the trauma of those forced to fight the youngest warriors.

I think the closing line sums it up nicely. Killing children is not, and will never be, OK. It's a truly terrible thing to do, and only a truly monstrous person would ever do it without remorse. But war does, sometimes, force you to do terrible things, and you have to live with that for the rest of your life.

This seems to me like a fine attempt at, at least, saying "we understand".

<comment><USER3> These kind of articles are written in the comfort of an office in London, Paris or New York. I am sure that if I was a soldier and another soldier (absolutely no matter the age) was threatening my life, I would shoot without hesitation. And yes ,I have small children who in an alternative reality could be soldiers and yes, I love them very much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The tragic reality is that in modern conflict you often engage with people you can't readily identify as an adult or child until after the shooting is over. If someone is trying to kill you, often from a distance with an AK-47 or mortar, you're going to act to save yourself and the people around you.

Of course, many people will struggle in the aftermath regardless of how necessary their actions may have been. "Oh I had to kill that kid who could have been my nephew..." can be very cold comfort indeed. In the worst case when someone is trying to kill you with a blade you're going to shoot them, and it's probably going to be pretty traumatic.

</comment><comment><USER5> Treat child soldiers as a threat until they prove they're not a threat. Letting your guard down just because it's a kid is how many soldiers got killed in Vietnam.

</comment><comment><USER6> The adopted doctrine is well-founded: if child soldiers shoot at you, you shoot them. It's not easy, but it's right.

Doing otherwise would not only put you and your own troops in danger; it would also encourage ruthless and immoral warlords to use _more_ child soldiers, since they would have such an advantage.

<comment><USER7> Sadly agreed. And I am a father. However for every child shot, I wish there was a dollar amount we could commit to spending to reach and educate them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't read the article because apparently I've reached my "free limit" or something.

...but the short answer: It's never OK, but perhaps a necessary evil if you're in the me vs them situation. But that should go for adults as well in general.

<comment><USER9> The article is mainly about Canada's armed forces' answer to the question and is in line with your opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> From a moral standpoint, I see no reason the attacker's age matters. If you're morally justified in using lethal force, you're justified whether they are 8, 18, or 88.

<comment><USER11> As a society we hold people responsible for their actions beyond a certain age. That particular age might vary from country to country, but everyone will agree that a 21 year old can face any consequence of a decision they've made. That's why they are allowed to drink, vote, join the military etc. Everyone will also agree that a 12 year old does not understand the consequences of their actions. Such a child might not know anything other than murdering people but also might not be capable of evaluating their own actions with respect to right vs wrong. This is also why there is an alternate legal system for minors accused of crimes.

Now a peacekeeper who shoots an armed child has to live with the knowledge that they probably killed someone who didn't know any better. They've been the judge, jury and executioner in a trial that lasted a split-second, despite the fact that children get a lot of leeway when it comes to most crimes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> When he/she is about to murder your loved ones with a machete.

<comment><USER13> That is easy to be trite and say that in the abstract, sitting at your computer. In in certain situations, it might be that obvious. Most situations, however, are not so clear cut. At what point does it shift to 'about' to murder your loved ones? As soon as you see the kid with the machete? What if he is 300 yards away? Do you shoot him? 200 yards? 50? 10? What if he has a gun, but isn't pointing it at you? What if the kid is 3 years old and holding a gun? 5? 2?

<comment><USER12> That is easy to be trite and say that in the abstract, sitting at your computer.

Right back at'ya.

And a 2 year old child soldier? the hell man, running out of strawman arguments?</comment></comment></comment>


Why Cutting Costs Is Expensive - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/javascript-scene/why-cutting-costs-is-expensive-how-9-hour-software-engineers-cost-boeing-billions-b76dbe571957 <comment><USER2> Its interesting. The goal should always be to increase profit. Whenever a company says they are trying to cut costs, it always seems as if they are focusing on the wrong thing. The fastest way to cut cost is to get rid of the company- now your costs are zero, but so is your revenue. This simplistic way of talking about business and strategy is causing a lot of issues like those discussed in the article - costs don't happen in a vacuum, you need them to get revenues.</comment>


Was Darwin Wrong? - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-darwin-wrong/ <comment><USER2> > To answer the question posed in my headline: Nah. Far from being wrong, > Darwin is as right as ever when it comes to his big idea, natural selection.

Background: this is part of the continuing discussion around horizontal gene transfer and the click-bait (IMO) title "Darwin Was Wrong" that New Scientist used in 2009.</comment>


Ask HN: Is this idea even legal? - <AUTHOR>

Ive built a very basic service which i haven't made available so its not ready for 'Show HN'.
I've put up a landing page and would love some early feedback and help.
One of the big questions for me is if this service leaves me open to being sued if its later found some information attached to an address isn't accurate.
Another big question is 'does this service make sense and seem worthwhile?'
Id really love some feedback please.
The site is www.safelysell.co.uk
Thanks <comment><USER2> Where can you get the data? I can't speak to the legality issue, but practically speaking, you (or businesses that use your service) will have a lot of confused and angry customers who want to know why you won't ship to their address. Do the ratings for an address reset when a person moves out? It seems unfair to punish me because the last guy who lived here was a problem customer.

<comment><USER3> Hi, thanks for getting back.

The search bit would be free, so i was hoping that sellers would share their both their successful and unsuccessful transactions. To prevent spurious data the seller would have to provide postal tracking numbers.

Buyers would be given the chance to claim their address and associated 'delivery' reputation. This lets them take their reputation with them when they move. Periodically the buyers would receive a letter from the service just to confirm they are still at the said address - proof required also.

I guess these are some of the problems that need resolving if this service was to fly. There's definitely a large problem here but maybe this approach isnt the silver bullet.

<comment><AUTHOR> The above comment is from me. I used an old browser session that cached an old username.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The standard answer to the problem of being sued for business reasons is to incorporate. The corporation may be sued and may even go bankrupt as a result, but in certain situations the corporate shield protects you individually. This is in the U.S.; as it appears you are in the UK you can always talk to some lawyers and accountants about best practices.

<comment><USER3> Fair point. I was thinking along the lines of whether posting statistics against unique addresses without consent could lead to successful lawsuits. I didnt originally think this - eg google maps does this with rated restaurants.

I wouldnt use an addressees personal details unless they chose to claim their address.

Your right though, id need some professional legal advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing that I always find with the "rating" sort of systems is that negatives can always sink a site or reputation so instead of allowing negative postings, perhaps allowing people to post the deliveries and then rate them up if they were exceptionally great.

This avoids the negative impact but allows the view to total deliveries and those that were "positive".

In addition, each user has their own opinion so you may need to add variance for the rating.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, i agree with the "positive" approach to rating. I'll think i'll adjust the stats accordingly.

How would you deal with variance of opinions? Mediating between buyer and seller opinions is a problem im not sure how to solve.

<comment><USER5> I think that each person is their own variance. So somebody might rate on a 1 - 10 scale at an average of 7 while others rate at an average of 9 so you have to apply context.

I wouldn't mediate between the two of them, I would simply display the facts and let those viewing the data make their own conclusions the same way that a 1 star rating on Amazon is viewed as less credible than a 2 or 3 star rating because it "seems" more realistic. People who say strong words like Hate and rate 1 star are probably rating a lot of things low.

Make sense?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I get lots of junk mail on my address - people who try to open bank accounts, insurance, buying from catalogs, threats for debt collection (from agencies pursuing fraudsters)... So I'd be pretty annoyed if I ended up on a 'blacklist'.

Possibly your service might even be affected by the UK's defamation law.

(Incidentally, Langley Drive is about 15 minutes' walk from me!)

<comment><AUTHOR> Im in the neighbourhood too, maybe its fate and we should work together on something in the future ;-)

Im trying to avoid the 'blacklist' thing, its a horribly aggressive approach. I wanted to create some visibility on delivery stats in the hope it weeds out anti social behaviour along with allowing the seller to be more selective about customers.

I dont think every buyer is worth servicing just because they are offering to pay you.</comment></comment>


Robinhood Style Fast Charts in React - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Debdut/react-fast-charts <comment><USER2> This follow the most infuriating aspect of Robinhood charts - no Y axis, not even a range to show the scale of the chart.

Totally crappy Robinhood design. This library should right that wrong. But really nice work just the same.

<comment> mongo-db-hater Well said, i thought i was the only one who doesn't like RH chart.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk Wins. Tesla Can Reopen Its Factory - <AUTHOR> https://www.barrons.com/articles/elon-musk-wins-alameda-county-will-let-tesla-reopen-factory-51589373290 <comment><USER2> I appreciate Musk being upset at Alameda county being more conservative in reopening then the state of California, the way he approached it really upset me. The "we'll open in defiance to authorities" approach was wrong and supports a dangerous narrative in the United States (and presumably elsewhere) regarding the response to the pandemic.

More generally, I find the "we'll just ignore laws we find inconvenient and disagree with" approach a lot of SV (Uber springs to mind) or SV derived companies have taken discomforting. Rule of law is important and defiance should be reserved for true injustice, not self-enrichment.

<comment><USER3> Government overreach is dangerous too. His pushing back on this is appropriate.

Also worth noting that he got support from government officials, including the state governor.

<comment><USER4> > _Government overreach is dangerous too._

SpaceX is currently asking for government handouts:

[https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-05-12/spacex- mus...](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-05-12/spacex-musk- california)

There's no honest fight for truth, justice, and the American way in anything Elon is doing. It's just a company trying to get what it can and give as little as possible back.

Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

<comment><AUTHOR> How is SpaceX asking for economic support, _minimal economic support_ (only $600k!?), not reasonable because Tesla pushed back against unreasonable county regulation by Alameda County?

Did we forget the Federal Reserve is dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the bond markets to prop up Boeing [1], Ford [2], and other exceptionally poorly run entrenched businesses who were lucky enough to have large amounts of debt issued?

[1] [https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/the-non-bailout- how-...](https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/the-non-bailout-how-the-fed- saved-boeing-without-paying-a-dime)

[2] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/surging-ford-bonds-lead- credi...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/surging-ford-bonds-lead- credit-143711446.html)

<comment><USER4> How much twitter drama has Ford indulged in lately?

Elon whining about public health measures being "fascist", threatening to leave California, and then going cap in hand for more public money from the state he claims is limiting his "freedoms" is not just a bad joke, it's farcical.

<comment><AUTHOR> The benchmark is results, not your public image. Where is Boeing's Crew Dragon/Falcon Heavy/Reusable Falcon 9/StarLink constellation? Where is Ford's EV manufacturing capacity and charger network?

When you are an innovator, you get some latitude to shit post. The public may not look fondly upon your antics, but shareholders have stood behind Musk (and if results continue, will likely continue to do so). California needs Tesla and SpaceX more than they need California. The rest of the world (China, Germany for Gigafactories, several countries have begged for one), and other states (Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado all have incentives to Tesla on offer), have shown they're willing to accommodate. No one is rushing to do the same for failing behemoths such as Boeing and Ford (both of whom are performing substantial layoffs, [1] [2]).

There is a balance to be struck between operational flexibility and public safety. IMHO, Alameda County overreached.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23021873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23021873)

[2] [https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/11/ford-f11.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/02/11/ford-f11.html)

<comment><USER4> Elon has no loyalty to you. You're wasting your time being so slavishly loyal to him. You need not be his spaniel.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have no loyalty to Elon. It just so happens our interests align (mitigating climate change, electrification of transportation, rapid deployment of utility scale energy storage, the commodification of heavy lift to orbit).

If you were doing these things, I'd support you. But you're not. Most aren't. I support those that are doing this work, necessary work. Elon would not be my first pick, but unfortunately, he's the only pick at this scale. "The Devil You Know."

<comment><USER4> > _It just so happens our interests align_

They don't and never will align. He is a narcissistic attention-seeker. You don't figure into that.

The excuses you're making for him are embarrassing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Appreciate the feedback.

<comment><USER4> Elon's really not worth the effort you put in to edit and re-edit your defenses of him. You're emotional about and are making excuses for someone whose primary interest is himself. It's weird. It really is like you're stuck in an abusive relationship.

<comment><USER5> As an outside observer to this conversation, you come off as more emotional than the OP. Just an FYI.

<comment><USER4> It's because you didn't see all the edits as they happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Elon Musk didn't "win", and the Alameda County didn't "give in".

The County has been in negotiations with Tesla to reopen on May 18th, provided Tesla follows the guidelines, and working with Tesla on a re-opening plan to ensure the safety of its workers.

The Tesla factory will be allowed to reopen on May 18th, as planned.

Musk's tantrum was entirely unnecessary in the first place, but _also_ it was ineffective. Don't give in to the narrative that glorifies the hissy fit theatrics of this particular narcissist.

A better title: Alameda county doesn't fall into Musk's martyr trap[2].

Sources: [1][2]

>Scott Haggerty, the county supervisor for the district in Alameda County where Tesla's Fremont plant is located, said on Saturday that he had been confident that county health officials and Tesla executives were close to an agreement on reopening the plant on May 18[1]

[1][https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/business/coronavirus- elon...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/business/coronavirus-elon-musk- tesla-california.html)

[2][https://electrek.co/2020/05/12/tesla-fremont-factory- alameda...](https://electrek.co/2020/05/12/tesla-fremont-factory-alameda- deescalates-issue-elon-musk-martyr-trap/)</comment>


Let's Give Every NSA Employee an Anonymous Whistleblowing Opportunity - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/lets-give-every-nsa-employee-an-anonymous-whistleblowing-opportunity/278700/ <comment><USER2> While I deeply respect what Snowden has done, I am still skeptical. I hope I am proven wrong as I have been (so far) with my fear with repealing don't ask don't tell but history tells that we should be cautious. Remember the Hundred Flowers Campaign[1].

Quote from the Wikipedia article:

Chairman Mao Zedong: "The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science".

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign)</comment>


Rails 3.2.21, 4.0.12, and 4.1.8 have been released - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2014/11/17/Rails-3-2-21-4-0-12-and-4-1-8-have-been-released/

<comment><USER2> I'm betting most people have this setting already:

        irb(main):001:0> Rails.configuration.serve_static_assets
        => false

But anyhow, it's an easy upgrade since it's just the security fix.

<comment><USER3> Thanks Tom! I was wondering how could this impact our applications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can imagine there could be some files on the file system that would be useful to detect for certain types of undisclosed attacks... But anyone here have ideas about how serious of a threat this is?

</comment><comment><USER4> The web framework that is chock-full of security blunders continues unabated.

How do people persist with it? Inertia?

<comment><USER5> Actually it's probably more secure than the vast majority of frameworks.

And certainly it's more secure by default than most web apps. Have you looked into how many PHP apps still suffer from obvious SQL injection attacks?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is the Y Combinator model dead thanks to Kickstarter-like crowd funding? - <AUTHOR>

As of a few moments ago, the Diaspora project passed $50,000 — five times what they'd asked for, and it seems that people are still giving... there's 20 days left for them to keep doing so!
It's been exciting to see them double their "investment" in less than 24 hours and proves that it is possible to crowdfund startups.
So my question is whether such successes totally invalidate the Y Combinator model?
And, on a related vein, what sort of support infrastructure would people like to see with the crowd funding + social media approach?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I think you're missing a huge benefit to having investors, which is that you're able to consult with them and get advice, and they have a very real motivation to give you good advice and to help you if they can.

YC also has the benefit of a large (and pretty successful) alumni network, and a lot of the YC people I've seen talking/writing about their YC experiences have listed that as a huge positive.

 _edit:_ Nothing's stopping you from applying to YC too, but the original question was whether or not this invalidates the YC model, and this is why it doesn't.

<comment><USER3> Well they are actually getting investors at the moment, and they might get sage advice by people who are willing to do so on the net.

<comment><USER4> I suspect the valuable advice might well be buried in the noise, and take more time to sort out than you would get if you were just dealing with a couple of big investors.

That, and bigger investors have more at stake, so it is in their own interest to see you do things right quickly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes and no. Others have already said 3 times now that the value of YC is not in the money, and I agree with that for the most part. But what Kickstarter does is it allows you to 'divorce' the advisory/networking roles and the funding roles.

There are plenty of people that can mentor but they may not be in a position to fund for a variety of reasons (for instance not being an 'accredited investor'). Like this you could actually hire them to give their advice, rather then to come to them for _both_ money and advice, as well as a network.

So kickstarter may very well spell the end of the incubator, but via a completely different route.

Companies like YC thrive on the scarcity of the combination of people with the money to invest _and_ the time to mentor.

If Diaspora fails the model will likely collapse though, they're a poster child for this model now, they had better succeed or die (figuratively speaking of course) trying.

No going back for them.

edit: and don't underestimate the power of being 'YC funded' for follow up rounds.

<comment><USER6> Kickstarter is a great thing to push people to get things done that they might not otherwise do on their own.

YC is a great way to kick your startup into high gear as well.

But that's where the similarities end.

They are not substitutes for one another. YC is also not a company. It is a pre-seed stage venture firm (with amazing advice from PG, Jessica and co) and a network of entrepreneurs who help each other.

<comment><USER5> I don't even think that it is inconceivable that a group funded through kickstarter knocks on YCs door for guidance in return for 5% + some more dough. The chances of success have already improved because of kickstarter, so kickstarter could be a pre-pre-seed stage idea validator, to see if something has legs or not before you even apply to YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> No.

YCombinator's value isn't the money, it's the vast network of connections and deep experience they can provide.

<comment><USER8> While true, a different interesting question might be: will crowdsourced funding make angel investors who aren't YCombinator less in demand? I don't think every angel investor has the same reputation/connections YC has, and some really do bring mainly money to the table.

<comment><USER7> I would assume it would impact those investors. Investors without connections are sometimes more of a pain in the ass than not having money at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One seems to be a way of throwing some loose change at an idea you think might be neat. The other is a carefully developed way of identifying and assisting projects that have a good chance of developing into profitable businesses.

Losing sight of the fact that someone has to actually make money from these things at some point is precisely what gives you internet bubbles. From everything I've read about YC it's all about focusing down to build something that someone wants to buy. That's a world away from accepting donations from people who think something cool might come of it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Aside from the personal consultations, experience, expertise, and connections that YC offers over Kickstarter (which are all vastly important), I suspect it is much more difficult to raise funding through crowd funding than through angels & VCs, relatively speaking.

There's also the question of whether or not they'll know how to most effectively use that funding. Consultation from experienced people like those at YC would help there too.

Diaspora is an edge case. All the press they've gotten have catapulted their popularity enough to raise this amount. And more power to them too; they have a valiant goal and I hope they can execute on it well.

But I wouldn't try to raise funding for a for-profit startup through crowd funding, unless perhaps your startup has an apparent, believable, and widely- desired benefit to society. I'd love to be proven wrong, but this argument only has a sample size of 1 so far.

</comment><comment><USER11> In this case people are voting with their dollars. Most startups won't have the benefit of a controversy generating a wave of press behind their cause.

Are there already sites that take pledges for software projects (successfully; I think there have been failed attempts)?

</comment><comment><USER12> The value of Y Combinator isn't the money.

</comment><comment><USER13> One obvious disadvantage: with Kickstarter, you're ploppping your business plan on the net at a very early stage. Makes it quite easy to poach.

</comment><comment><USER14> Seems like a very relevant debate. Indiegogo and Kickstarter seem to be paving the way for micro investing.

<comment><USER15> it's not really "investing" though, is it. it's giving people money. there is no exchange of equity involved in the kickstarter transaction (nor is it allowed, according to their TOS, I think).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wave of democratization. Too early to tell.</comment>


Programming a 144-computer Chip to Minimize Power – Chuck Moore - <AUTHOR> https://www.infoq.com/presentations/power-144-chip <comment><USER2> Date of talk was 2013.

Current pricing for GreenArrays products: [http://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.html](http://www.greenarraychips.com/home/products/index.html)</comment>


Show HN: QR Print – backlinking for printouts - <AUTHOR> https://qrprint.me <comment><USER2> What about a version that doesn't need to install anything, like Google Translator? [https://translate.google.com/translate?tl=es&u=https%3A%2F%2...](https://translate.google.com/translate?tl=es&u=https%3A%2F%2Fqrprint.me%2F)

</comment><comment><USER3>
        <style>
          @media print {
            a:after {
              content: ' [' attr(href) '] ';
            }
          }
        <style>

Bonus 1: stays in the text flow, so no weird spacing issues

Bonus 2: no need to scan QR codes

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. You'll have to do the typing though ;)</comment></comment>