Freiburg: Germany's futuristic city set in a forest - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200715-freiburg-germanys-futuristic-city-set-in-a-forest <comment><USER2> _Apparently, owning a car is the easiest way to commit social suicide in Vauban_ — That is the spirit unfortunately.

Unfortunately, because once you allow to degrade strangers/neighbors in public for something malign like that, it doesn't stop there.

Because of this Vauban is not always admired, rather sometimes regarded as tax payer funded dystopia for upper class people to live in.

E.g. your amount of thrash you can dispose per month is highly regulated, via communal key-card opened dumpsters. Once you've reached your threshold, the dumpsters stay closed. If you ever where to forget, say, your toddlers diapers you have two options:

Enjoy the smell for the remaining time period or brace for the walk of shame of asking your neighbors to forgive your sin, alleviate your family from the smell and selflessly take in your diapers. Rest assured that this selflessness will at least come with an inquiry of why you aren't using reusable diapers in the first place.

Alas, people who are annoyed by this leave, with the share of those who think such behavior is ok ever increases.

<comment><USER3> This has been my experience with Germany / Switzerland as well. Very punishment-based

<comment><USER4> Yes, it's called social responsibility.

Vauban is very special and strange even for German eyes. But one thing is abundantly clear among many German communities:

The egocentric individualism where all the problems you produce are offloaded to some ephemeral society funded by taxes you don't want to pay is not sustainable unless you exploit external communities around you.

<comment><USER3> Right. If your job as a Phillip Morris or Nestle exec (both headquartered in Switzerland) makes people's lives a lot worse in some other part of the world but you don't leave your garbage bin out before 8pm the day before it's collected, then you're a model citizen.

Conversely if you need to do laundry in your apartment building on a holiday because you're a single parent, that's an outrage. The person leaving all the racist and xenophobic notes about respecting local traditions is a model citizen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Freiburg is a super nice place as long as you've got disposable income to spend to live in one of the preferred quarters, like Wiehre, Herdern, etc. If you don't, then like in many south-German cities (located in mountain valleys where space is scarce), you're living in a place without any green in sight (ok Freiburg's Stühlinger is quite green, and still affordable, though I'm guessing it's been getting more expensive in recent years). The problem with living in Vauban-style high-tech houses with photovoltaics, ground energy, etc. is the cost of maintenance, or finding people for maintenance in the first place. We really only can tell something about sustainability towards the end of life of polystyrole or mineral wool walls (30 years?).

<comment><USER6> I live in Austria and it's the same. Houses in the urban forests are really picturesque and a marker for high quality of life but unless you're a 10%er millionaire they're out of reach. Everyone else is cramped in concrete blocks but of course, that's rarely shown in photos or articles.

<comment><USER7> Just clicking around on real estate sites, large houses with gardens in nature seem to be rather cheap there. Maybe you are in another region but with mortgage % low, the prices like [0][1][2] are far from needing to be a millionaire.

[0] [https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t67035189/](https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t67035189/) [1] [https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t67126374/](https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t67126374/) [2] [https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t66305759/](https://en.arkadia.com/eden-t66305759/)

<comment><USER6> Of course prices of old houses in need of maintenance, far away from the nearest city, in regions with little to no jobs, next to the border with Eastern European countries, will be cheap.

Nobody wants to live there.

Try looking at homes in the suburbs of desirable cities with jobs and see 10x prices.

If we're just looking for random homes on the internet you can find better deals in villages in southern Europe but there's always at least one catch why cheap homes are cheap.

<comment><USER7> > Nobody wants to live there.

Nobody besides everyone I know... I (nor my friends or family) would never want to live in or close to a city. Let alone in a suburb; if in a city then the center.

But you are right; still, to pay a 2m mortgage, you do not need to be a millionaire. And for 2m I see nice stuff in Vienna.

> catch why cheap homes are cheap.

I live in such a home in southern eu and for me there is no catch. Huge garden, swimming pool, large villa for 130k. Always sunny, nature, no polution. Just not close (40min drive; probably faster than a lot of suburb- center commutes though) to a city, that's a benefit, not a catch.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, you don't need to be a millionaire for a 2m mortgage but you need at least a six figure salary which is nearly unattainable here, especially as an expat.

Yeah, you have swimming pools, but if you live in the cheap areas in Austria that you pointed out you compromise with underfunded infrastructure and public services(shit internet, shit infrastructure, shit schools for your kids without good teachers, almost no doctors, too far from the nearest hospital with specialists, etc.).

Do you know why? Because all good doctors and teachers move to or next to cities with opportunities, not in the middle of nowhere. That's why nobody wants to live there.

<comment><USER7> True, not for a lot of people on HN but yeah, then you are at the 10% or less indeed.

> on infrastructure and public arrives(shit internet, shit infrastructure, > shit schools for your kids, no good doctors, too far from the nearest > hospital with specialists, etc.)

Those things are more relevant for some than others but also true; if any of that matters enough to someone to live in a small concrete box and still work 40 hours a week then sure, go for it. I value other things like quiet, space, no stress, nature over any of the above.

<comment><USER6> Plus, how will you fund your mortgage if you chose to live in a rural area with no tech jobs? Employers here don't accept remote work outside of government mandated quarantine.

<comment><USER7> That is the same in NL and DE, however, I have never worked in an office and I have been professionally coding for 30 years, mostly for Dutch companies. The 'secret' (it is not a secret and it works in Austria too) is to start a limited (or specifically not a 'freelance') company; 30 years ago I borrowed 20k guilders to open it (which used to cost 18k alone) and have cards, leaflets and style for letterheads etc made. Companies hire companies, especially if it looks professional. The company always had 1 employee for 30 years and I never had issues allowing to work wherever; even for large corps like ING, Kluwer and so on.

Also, a guy I hire on upwork sometimes made well over a million in the past years via that site, sitting in his house in ukraine. Without a company or anything like that; in modern times it is not so hard as it was.

<comment><USER6> You have a cool story and thanks for sharing it but how much of that is survivorship bias? Also, out of professional curiosity, how many clients did you get in Austria.

<comment><USER7> > how much of that is survivorship bias?

No idea; it's only anecdotal obviously. But not unheard of; it used to be quite normal in Germany to have small (1-2 person) GMBH's to get rather large contracts for big corps and if you have a 'real company' suddenly no-one expects you to rock up monday morning at 9. In the Netherlands it still works well, as it does in Portugal and Spain; other markets I do not know.

> how many clients did you get in Austria

1 around 17 years ago. But, at least from friends and limited experience, so excuse my personal ignorance, I understand that Austrian business is not very different from eastern germany business and I have (also had) quite a lot of clients there. I have more in the western part, but the eastern part is different in etiquette and I had the same, I guess conservative' feel 17 years ago with the Austrian company (trying to find what they are/were called).

<comment><USER6> But how did you get your customers to just let you be remote from the get go?

Here it would be impossible as, due to the culture, trust is made only through in person meetings. Nobody will just pay company for services without face-to- face meetings and on-prem presence.

<comment><USER7> There are many consultancy bureaus that don't visit. You need to have a face to face (end 80s/beginning 90s there were telephone calls, but indeed you would not get it cross the line like that) meeting(s). I still do that now. But after you discussed basically the ideas, you can go home to build the software. They don't accept that from freelancers sometimes in NL or DE either, but from 'serious companies' they do. I have not had any case where I had to sit in the office; sure, visit once per few months, but that's it. And driving/train-ing/plane-ing that is a small price to pay (company pays ofcourse).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nice to see my neighborhood (Vauban) featured here :) It's an awesome place to raise kids as it provides an almost village-like environment, being right at the edge of the city and hence the edge of the black forest. But it also comes with the immediate benefits of a nearby regional hub and with plenty of next- door daycare/kindergarten institutions, playgrounds and a ton of other kids. This was one of the main factors that made us move back here after two years in SF.

As elsewhere, affordable, or even available housing is now an issue, in particular for families. Prices have been on a sharp increase over the last years, and although the there's quite some construction (and plans to add a whole new district) it's not keeping up with demand.

</comment><comment><USER9> Not ITT: The obvious topic of crime in Freiburg. OK, in 2019 the lost the lead of city with most crimes per 100.000 inhabitants. But Freiburg still scored 3rd place. Freiburg has many faces and the linked article is a very selective subset of what Freiburg is. Don't be fooled.

<comment><USER10> What explains the high rate of crime there?

<comment><USER11> bicycle theft maybe? 34% of people living in Freiburg do their daily commute on a bike and I guess most households own 2-3 bikes. I couldn't find any statistics, but Münster, for example, also has a bike usage of >40% and they have a horrendous crime statistic beacuse of bike theft (on average 13 people will have their bikes stolen each day).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Lived there for about a year, reasonably close to the center; but moved to a smaller country side village once our son was born.

It was very nice to have the Black Forest right around the corner but the city had an icky hipster vibe from my experience.

<comment><USER13> Consider Baden then, my backyard was facing the Black Forrest, I could see what appeared to be a skiing slope lift and on clear day you could see castle from my room and when I was working outdoors. It's my favorite part of Baden- Wuttenberg and of all Germany really. But, as someone above mentioned its rather expensive, not Switzerland expensive, but still pretty expensive.

The recent Netflix series Biohackers [1] was essentially just one big promo for Freiburg, perhaps trying to compete with Berlin in 'coolness' factor for Gen Z?

1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atHBOUvgBI8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atHBOUvgBI8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Also home to SmashingMagazine. Attended their conference there in 2012, and I left with a very positive impression of the city.

<comment><USER15> Didn't know they're based in Germany. Several years ago it is THE web I need to check everyday haha.

<comment><USER14> It was one of the first sites I used even when I was learning the basics of Illustrator and InDesign techniques about 12 years ago. I still get their newsletter and check the site every so often, particularly when it comes to CSS techniques (as well as css-tricks).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 400km of bike trails is an insane amount for a small town, assuming they aren't counting bike lanes. I doubt any of the 1M+ pop cities I've lived in came anywhere close to that in bike or MUTs.

<comment><USER17> I'd call it adequate instead.

> I doubt any of the 1M+ pop cities I've lived in came anywhere close to that

And this sad.

<comment><USER18> > I'd call it adequate instead.

It's above average for sure. As a counterexample, take the city of Münster, which covers twice the area of Freiburg and is often praised as one of the most bike-friendly cities in Germany. It only claims to have 300km of bike lanes.

> > I doubt any of the 1M+ pop cities I've lived in came anywhere close to > that

> And this sad.

There are a lot of 1M+ cities that have more than that. Just from personal experience:

* Munich - 1,200 km

* Berlin - 422 km

* Toronto - 973 km

* Metro Vancouver - 4,600 km

But comparing the cumulative length of bike-paths is a bit of a silly comparison anyway.

<comment><USER19> I don't think it's that silly if you compare it to the cumulative length of roads for cars

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In spite of the obvious conclusion that the rights of pedestrians have won out over cars in Freiburg, the lasting memory I have of my visit is of people waiting obediently on the kerb of an entirely empty road because the green light to cross hadn't come on yet

<comment><USER21> I'm german and I often wait there too.

As long as I can remember thinking about this, I've seen it as habitual practice of self-control, i.e. practising self-control by not giving in to the urge to cross the street early - and automatically on top of that because it became a habit long ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fun fact: There is a new series which places it's stories in Freiburg: [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9849210/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9849210/)

This resembles student life in that city quite good except the fucking housing market. Where it is really a pain to find an affordable shared flat.

</comment><comment><USER23> Do they still have the cool little water channels flowing through the city center streets?

<comment><USER24> Yes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_B%C3%A4chle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_B%C3%A4chle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I found it interesting that an article on a city is chock full of photos but only one has an easily discernible person, and they are a bike rider in the distance with their face blurred. In the photography architecture is preeminent over people.

<comment><USER26> That may be due to privacy laws in Germany, a lot of houses are blurred out on google maps for example.

<comment><USER27> Privacy laws are the same nowaday all over EU more or less (the are some national differences). The difference is that the awareness for privacy in Germany has been much higher at least since the early 1990s when a census was declared unconstitutional in supreme court. A long time becfore surveillance capitalism was thing. Germany probably has the biggest share of people opposing Google in all markets they operate in. And still one of the bigger Firefox market shares.

<comment><USER28> Sad that the awareness makes very little difference. Looking at CryptoAG, Maximator, etc. Germany is one of the worst sinners right below UK and US.

<comment><USER29> What's that about Maximator?

<comment><USER30> Spooks meeting in a pub, backstaging deals, while drinking (strong) beer of that brand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For some reason hyper minimalism comes to mind :) [http://www.cc.com/video- clips/2zifz2/upright-citizens-brigad...](http://www.cc.com/video- clips/2zifz2/upright-citizens-brigade-woodsy-office)

</comment><comment><USER32> When I think of futuristic, I think of anything but Freiburg.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Freiburg: the German citiy whose politics align best with our (the BBC's) ideology" would have been a more accurate title.

They have some bicycles and some solar cells, and the major is from the leftist Green party.

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, yeah. Good luck with that. -- California

</comment><comment><USER35> I lost interest in the city as soon as the article pointed out that the city's "environmentalism" was rooted in opposition to a nuclear power plant. This kind of thinking is backwards and self-destructive.

<comment><USER36> Not just the city, Germany made the decision to shut down ALL of the nuclear power plants when Fukushima happened.

Now they found they're dependent on Russian gas.

<comment><USER13> > Now they found they're dependent on Russian gas.

They always were, maybe you don't recall the shortage in 2009 when Gazprom shut off the gas to Ukraine, which happened 2 years before 3/11 [0].

I jokingly asked if that's why they still kept their wood burning furnaces in the building I lived and why they made it a priority we knew how to keep the backofen going throughout the Winter months and while I got slight a chuckle I knew it didn't go over too well.

0: [https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/international/russia_u...](https://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/international/russia_ukraine/index.htm)

<comment><USER36> wondering if it got worse - if they did manage to build more nuclear plants like French did (75% from nuclear) instead of closing them all down, maybe Germany will be able to heat their homes without CO2 emissions in winter.

<comment><USER13> > wondering if it got worse - if they did manage to build more nuclear plants > like French did (75% from nuclear) instead of closing them all down, maybe > Germany will be able to heat their homes without CO2 emissions in winter.

They don't need to build anymore, they just import it.

I lived 30km away from Alsace, and despite us having a significant amount of solar on all of our buildings, as did most of the local community/neighborhood, it was well understood that a significant amount of Baden-Wuttenberg's energy (the 'greenest-centric' Stat of Germany) needs were just bought from France.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I was there in 2012-13 during the transition, and I lived in an old 7 bedroom old Chateau style home that had its top floor being renovated, which was exposed to the cold winter.

We lived on the bottom floor and mainly relied on wood heat from the backofen in the center of the home to heat the rest, and when we didn't/forget to keep it goin I could literately see my breath while I laid in bed as I lived the furthest away from the source, and as someone born and raised in SoCal it was incredibly terrifying at first.

Before I wised up and figured out the heating method I often made my bed before having a shower and going to bed and I stuck a 2L glassflasch with hot water from those instant water heater kettle's. But it wasn't long before I summoned the inner pyro in me I had suppressed since my early teens.

<comment><USER37> So what was the reason for your house being cold other than the ill-timed rennovation?

Germany is a net electricity exporter, we don't "depend" on French nuclear energy. But of course, Germany is part of an Eurpean grid, so depending on the load distribution and the weather, there is a lot of inporting on exporting, because eletricity is traded across long distances. While often there is a significant amount of elektricity going to Germany, that is usually just transiting to other countries. And at other times Germany is exporting to France (which then often is transiting to the UK).

<comment><USER13> > So what was the reason for your house being cold other than the ill-timed > rennovation?

I was there for my Biodynamic farming apprenticeship, and that was just what it was. It was fine, and I spent quite a bit of time there I enjoyed my time there and it taught me a lot how to cope with issues with older homes and it helped me learn to do repairs where needed.

> Germany is part of an Eurpean grid, so depending on the load distribution > and the weather, there is a lot of inporting on exporting, because > eletricity is traded across long distances.

I figured, but I was there not long after the phasing out period and solar was still being deployed, so much so I actually got to work on a few builds.

> Please stop spreading myths. Germany was an energy exporter for most of the > last years and even to France in the last 5 years

Look at the years I listed, I was there 8 years ago not long after Fukushima. Was that still the case back then?

<comment><USER37> First of all, I want to point out that some parts you "quoted" in your answer were not written by me. It is quite a bit irritating how this appears.

And while the oldest plants were switched off after Fukushima, Germany didn't just "switch off" the nuclear production. The nuclear contribution to the electricity production gradually declined from 19% of all electricity in 2011 to 12% in 2020 so far. The next years should bring a steeper decline though, as more plants get phased out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > why you aren't using reusable diapers in the first place.

A good question indeed?

<comment><USER39> Even the Amish use real nappies rather than messing around with reusables.

Real nappies are better for baby and toddler bums, easier for already stressed parents and more hygienic.

Reusables result in massive energy and water waste, they are a health hazard if not washed properly (many manufacturers washing instructions are very inadequate. They must be washed at a minimum of 60°C whatever your manufacturer said), release loads of microplastics and are a lot more work.

<comment><USER22> Are you Procter and Gamble??

The argument for and against reusable is pretty much undecided. There also services which do the washing for you. And they are probably way more efficient than people washing at home in terms of energy used.

Anyhow, real eco-parents go diaper-less as most parents in the world. Google split-pants, elimination communication! Compared to this letting children sitting in their own feces in reusable or not-reusable nappies is pretty unhygienic.

Downvotes? I know it is a big leap for the western mind, that most human ever lived have never seen a nappy. There is a lot of problems with diapers e.g. rash etc.

<comment><USER40> Have you actually tried that, while living in a urban environment and not in the bush?

Because shit on the floor is also not really hygienic.

<comment><USER22> Lol, your baby tells you that it must go and you hold it over toilet. And yes I raised two child like that.

<comment><USER40> And pee?

... and I know the technic and I know it requires more time. And the people I know applying it .. were only partly succesfull. With the result of shit around. And pee.

<comment><USER22> Obviously for pee it is the same. Does not mean you have to do it everywhere. I would not get in an airplane without a diaper. And obviously western nursery does not work without it either.

About accidents: And then what is more unhygienic?

Feces, urine on the floor or feces, urine all around your bottom? For the first you can use almost any cleaning liquid you want, for the second even to much soap is not good.

<comment><USER40> Well, with poo it is quite easy. If you pay attention to your baby, you know, when he wants to, I can imagine it, doing without (we simply lacked the time).

But peeing he just do without warning. I would have to pay attention to him 100% the whole time - and this is not what I want or can afford.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Pity its genesis was anti-nuclear, but looks like mostly good stuff since.

Ban those cars!

<comment><USER42> Fear has a way of disarming logic.

<comment><USER43> I don't think it's unreasonable to fear nuclear accidents, as history has shown us.

<comment><USER42> Of course it isn't. The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear weapons and improper management. People have erroneously thought that nuclear power technology is similar to nuclear weapon technology when they meltdown. The reality is that a meltdown isn't even close to a nuclear chain reaction. Chernobyl was an example of poor management and Fukushima was an example of poor design. These failures were not do to nuclear material.

Nuclear material is obviously dangerous when used improperly. The fear of 'fallout' has stunted the growth of a superior technology. I believe we would have made a far more significant change to C02 output if society had invested money and effort into nuclear technology instead of renewable technology. Not that I'm anti-renewable but, MSR and other nuclear technologies have the potential to be far more reliable, cost effective, and environmentally beneficial in the long run.

<comment><USER43> > The issue is that the majority of fear against nuclear comes from nuclear > weapons and improper management.

But aren't these valid sources of fear?

War is still a thing and Uranium enrichment can be used for both nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons.

Improper management is something that is hard to control. Usually the people who live nearby a nuclear power plant have absolutely no insight into how the plant is managed. So why should they be confident in everything being fine. Human error is inevitable and has led to numerous accidents. Why shouldn't this happen again?

<comment><USER42> Absolutely, healthy fear is beyond valid. It's the fear from ignorance that I was referencing. A nuclear meltdown is not an explosion. It's literal a meltdown where the material burns through containment... there is no explosion. The fear of nuclear has prevented investment which could of resulted in far safer technologies entering the market. Technologies like Molten Salt Reactors that have passive meltdown protection[1] and thorium reactors[2] which utilized a material that can't be weaponized through enrichment. A passive safety feature in the Fukushima plant could have prevented that catastrophe.

People have a right to not approve of nuclear. I'm only saying that the technology is heavily repressed due to an uneducated public. The truth is that renewable energy will never be as cost effective as gas or oil for base load energy. Nuclear is a clear and viable option for the energy portfolio. It's a shame to see a completely valid option ignored because of unchecked fear.

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

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium- based_nuclear_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium- based_nuclear_power)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


EleVR leaving Y Combinator Research - <AUTHOR> http://elevr.com/elevr-leaving-ycr/ <comment><USER2> Vi Hart here... someone sent me this with confusion that it was at the top of HN yet all the comments are completely irrelevant. My understanding is that HN and YC are usually about startuppy stuff and business models and investors and etc, so I guess it makes sense that everyone's in that mindset.

We're not a startup and not looking to reach a broad audience, get investors, or create a product. We even wrote a thing a while back regarding our not being a startup, because it is an unfamiliar concept to many people: [http://elevr.com/were-not-a-startup/](http://elevr.com/were-not-a-startup/)

The HARC group at Y Combinator Research has/had an ambitious vision of bringing back the basic research model that led to many fundamental innovations in the 60s, including a handful of groups in addition to ours. The kind of research that creates enormous value that cannot be captured by individual investors or companies, but that lifts the industry/people as a whole.

I think if world events had been different, the timing would have worked out well for a resurgence of this kind of research.

Ok nice chat, HN. You're a weird place.

Vi

<comment><USER3> >We're not a startup and not looking to reach a broad audience, get investors, or create a product. We even wrote a thing a while back regarding our not being a startup, because it is an unfamiliar concept to many people: [http://elevr.com/were-not-a-startup/](http://elevr.com/were-not-a-startup/)

Huge respect for the work you guys have done, but I think this is an unfortunate mindset. The real magic sauce for American capitalism that has driven us to such heights of technological achievement has always been about the synthesis of lofty, idealistic goals _combined_ with the desire to make lots and lots of money. I don't think those two things should be separated as an either/or. There is certainly a need for pure basic research funded by private industry. But the real goal should be figuring out how we can do that in a way that is economically sustainable both short and long term.

<comment><USER4> Bell Labs, Xerox Parc, nuff said.

<comment><USER5> Could either of these labs be described as a "startup"? Fundamental research seems hard to do while searching for the revenue to stay alive. You need a stable source of funding, either from a large corporation (like SAP, Xerox or AT&T/Western Electric) or a government department (like DoD/ARPA) -- not VC funding which carries the expectation of near-term growth.

<comment><USER6> That's precisely the point the post you are replying to is making.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone who used to be incredibly interested in VR (until recently I wanted to join Valve to work on it full-time and I followed many of the VR startups), I'd never heard of them. It seems they did a lot of great work, but perhaps they could have marketed themselves better? I've no doubt what they say is true - being non-profit makes fundraising hard. But nothing helps like building a brand, and it seems they focused entirely on making cool things instead of making a name for themselves (which is great, but it's not helpful for fundraising).

<comment><USER8> What made you cool off from VR?

<comment><USER7> I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's more than a gimmick. The tech itself is still a few years away from being where it should be (higher resolution, wireless, better framerate, improved immersion), but more importantly I've yet to see a compelling use case for it. Until somebody can make a case for _why_ VR, it's just an expensive toy, and not even a particularly fun one after a very short period of time.

It reminds me of the Novint Falcon so many years ago. Really cool technology that nobody wanted.

<comment><USER9> A few friends of mine are VR developers, so I've tried every sort of headset and game under the sun. Short of CAD/CAM and video games, I can't see a reason for VR in its current form. And though I love video games, the space requirements, isolation, and setup involved for the Vive lead me to prefer non-VR experiences.

Having tried a Hololens though, I'm certain that AR can improve in a direction where it would replace my laptop. I wouldn't like to use it for games, though.

<comment><USER7> So I haven't tried AR yet, but I do know it has a laws-of-physics limitation - it's impossible to draw black on the screen. Basically, you can only make things brighter than the background, not darker - so if you're already in a bright world, good luck seeing anything. Subtitles become impossible unless you're in a black/dark room because you can't draw black borders on the text, and just outlining things in general (so you can see them) is essentially impossible.

[http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see- hard-...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-ar- anytime-soon/)

<comment><USER10> > laws-of-physics limitation

This is only true if you limit your AR HMD design to beamsplitter + projector. There are existing prototypes [1] which demonstrate quite accurate lcd based occlusion for darkening the environment on a per-hmd-pixel basis.

[1] [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3041178](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3041178)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone aware of an explanation of how YC Research makes choices to fund and defund projects?

</comment><comment><USER12> To be honest, there aren't that many choices left: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and Telsa are probably the only one with deep pocket for VR research...

There is no real non-profit research (unless you really want to go back to become a university research lab); peoole want the results and commericalizd them.

I would be surprised if none have reached out througout the years.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be shocked if Disney isn't on that list, though I have no idea what commercial pressure their imagineering team is under. I'd love to see eleVR continue at Pixar, though I'm not really sure if Vi and the team see that kind of destination as a viable option given their goals.

<comment><USER13> yup Disney should be on the list - Disney Research ([https://www.disneyresearch.com/](https://www.disneyresearch.com/)) have a long history of being involved in multiple areas of VR research.

<comment><USER14> Seems really cool. I wish they had systems openings.

<comment><USER15> You might look through their published papers, find someone in the area you're strong in, and ask them if they need help, or if there are likely openings in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> YC has a research division? What do they work on?

<comment><USER17> You can visit [http://ycr.org/](http://ycr.org/) for more info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It has always appeared to me that VR was like 3D++, a fad inspired by futurists that would never be economically viable or practical. 360 video is a nice novelty but I don't think anyone ever thought that it would be preferable to have all video recorded or viewed in that format.

<comment><USER19> as virtual experience quality gets better, you will see more and more applications starting with anything porn related

<comment><USER20> Real-time 3d graphics started with computer games rather than porn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why is YCR so short-sighted? Isn't this a clear win for everyone involved and good press for Y-Combinator to begin with to keep EleVR alive and funded?

</comment><comment><USER22> So what can we learn from this? Did they tackle more things than their time- constraints allowed? Or was the issue that they thought they had more time than they did and they weren't in clear enough communication with the investors? Would it have been better to just stick with a few really promising projects and build something that they could sell so they wouldn't have to be as dependent on investors which would give them some margin for experimentation?

</comment><comment><USER23> Looks like you have an impressive amount of technical accomplishments.

I know what you mean about irrelevance. Maybe I can be less so.

No surprise that most of your new technology is not within reach of attracting commercial interest since that was not the idea to begin with.

>Unfortunately, a combination of forces in the world make nonprofit long-term research a tough sell right now. It doesn't matter how good we are at what we do. Everyone is overextended trying to solve all the world's problems at once, and we're in the unpopular space of being neither for-profit nor directly and immediately philanthropic.

So true, but I actually feel like it was a much more rare combination of events which made it possible to do what you have done. It's almost never going to be an easy sell. You were so fortunate and wise to have jumped at the opportunity to research in a way that few will ever experience. Even if you did not have very much chance of making it your life's work without appropriate funding over such a term in advance, you seem to have immediately utilized what you did have by devoting the maximum amount toward as much technical progress as possible. From experience I say that carrying on as if you had funding for longer term open-ended projects is the best way to make technical progress without distraction. It can still take many years to get good enough to make even an exponential increase in the breakthrough rate become tangible or useful though.

I'm an extreme alternative researcher where my life's work has been to independently out-research some of the most well-funded petrochemical giants without a PhD myself using the same equipment on my own analytical benches. So I guess that is ambitious too. Took a while to get good here and people didn't think it could be done but experimentation & discovery always was one of my strengths. Paying for it as I go by operating at an insignificant fraction of their cost, and when the opportunity is there, prioritizing commercial projects where money can be made relative to the rate at which it would cost them to do it themself. Having a commercial component in service to such high rollers in their regular operation was the path of least resistance for the young me to gamble on the likelihood of my ships continuing to come in.

I like clean environments, would prefer less toxicity and have always been an extreme energy saver so otherwise I don't need more tankers on my own behalf, but it's our local industry, and the most promising thing for survival when I was young was to get into alternative fuels and additives, so it is what it is. Even though I've been a small-time operator, the environment is a hell of a lot better off than it would be with anyone who would have otherwise replaced me. Battery research seems more promising than ever now, and I feel so bad for having done almost nothing in that field but it would probably take a couple years to get up to speed. Not having actual prosperity I could never start that without giving up my current life's work, but it does seem like an area where butt could be kicked to widespread advantage.

As long as you need to devote excessive effort toward survival activities, you never get to really do what you prefer to do or are best at for enough of the time to accomplish but a fraction of your technical potential.

Anyway, in a situation where a good year still yields only 1% of breakthroughs that could be made profitable over the near term on the commercial side, it was essential to keep the nose to the grindstone maximizing the amount of experimentation. So you end up finding an abundance of excess stuff which would be good for other kinds of businesses or could become the foundation for entirely new businesses, most of which would require capital so that would be out of the question. Without capital having been available to get rolling doing this, there has never been anything like a network in place. When you're making unprecedented progress on technical breakthroughs that can be exploited for survival using the resources you already have, one of the least rewarding gambles you can make is to divert attention to pusuit of elusive new sources of backing rife with dead ends and unfavorable terms to boot when there is interest.

Any way you look at it there's an incredible balance where you can't depend too much on continued good fortune and you can't justify dramatically slowing technical progress by diverting the amout of resources it takes to avoid the ravages of all possible bad fortune with absolute certainty.

You'll get better at this.

You are going to do extremely well, already experienced at getting up on the tightrope without a net not knowing what lies at the other end, tripping up, falling off, badly injured and now very near death in this incarnation.

Even if the Grim Reaper completes the call, you are still willing to try again in the same type situation where a single mistake or miscalculation can be devastating.

Ambitious people you are.

If you want to continue to try it the same way all you are going to need is a better network. You've accomplished a huge milestone with only a single obstacle remaining, not like when you were first getting started any more.

And I'm here to remind you that there are unexplored alternatives however unlikely, with the best option probably not thought of yet.

I would get to work heavily researching both of these possibilities thoroughly. You all need to talk to the maximum people everyday anyway in various network directions and during the hard sell maybe you already have a product or service that could be offered for a fee when you run into someone who could not provide you with financial help otherwise. Salvage from what you have accomplished if possible. Whenever someone doesn't respond positively get two names & numbers from them and you will eventually never be able to call them all.

Seems like the best opportunity would be expected when you find someone who is benevolent and directly has a close relationship with a highly suitable potential partner, and you have their trust to the degree that they will actually make the introduction for you. You would be surprised too when a contact does the opposite and gives you the number of someone they dislike who they want you to bug instead of them. If you expect the unexpected this may also have some potential itself. Benevolence seems to be what you need for mere survival now rather than the overall strength which could give a bigger impact in the long run.

YCR sounded like an interesting concept to me since nonprofits are one of the alternatives I have always considered experimenting with. Extreme money-making under that umbrella can be done where it's perfectly legitimate to optimize for producing new or providing low-cost already-baked technology and licensing it or providing a service around it for much more money since you're just going to use the income no differently than donations for continued operations anyway, with no greedy shareholders to get in the way. With the impression I get of the YC network it just seems like butt could be kicked through YCR somehow unforseen.

It's almost always going to be impossible for most to survive financially as a byproduct of what you do without diverting extreme effort away from what you actually do at least occasionally.

You wouldn't have done this if you weren't going to someday be comfortable enabling other companies to bring in more income or solve more problems leveraging and commercializing your breakthroughs than you would ever expect for yourself to begin with. That's the business model that exists which you can not help finding yourself in without trying.

Not too dissimilar to me who has had no choice but to operate in a capitalist market when I have not been a capitalist, merely an entrepreneur focusing on research overwhelmingly more so than development, according to my resources.

</comment><comment><USER24> We seem to be in an interesting time where everyone is casting around looking for the next "big" idea, regardless of whether it works, and as a result the only way to do useful "small" ideas that work is to fund them yourself or get ordinary, non-import people to help fund them (i.e. crowdfunding or ICOs). All the attention is on flying cars, self-driving cars, killer robots, alternative currencies, artificial intelligence, 600 mph vacuum transportation, and missions to Mars.

The last time I can think of when the tech landscape looked like this was the early 90s, when everybody was hung up on artificial intelligence, pocket computing, handwriting recognition, voice recognition, WebTV, 3D graphics, and virtual reality. We ended up getting many of those, 15 years later, but the real huge story of the decade was the WWW, which was _really_ unimpressive when it first came out (I remember comparing it unfavorably to Gopher in 1993; Gopher at least was semi-organized).

The WWW overshadowed everything else because the _problem_ it was solving - which many people didn't know they had - was more universal than the problems solved by any other technologies that had just entered the market, and its solution was just barely viable enough to solve that problem. Meanwhile, the tech for many of the other much hotter problems of the time was 15-20 years out; they couldn't actually be solved by the processing power available in 1992. I wonder if there's a similar overlooked-but-universal problem that someone in a garage is working on now, that'll spark a new wave similar to the dot-com boom.

<comment><USER7> So what do you think are the big problems being worked on today which people are overlooking because the technology isn't as sexy as self-driving cars? I agree with you that funding chases the flashy stuff, and real businesses are built on substance. I'm just curious what you think will end up breaking out from this era of funding.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I heard an interesting tidbit from a famous investor about the dot com bubble: you either invested in Google or you didn't. I wonder if things will turn out similar this time as I still haven't seen a good IPO from a tech company in years (would love for people to provide counter-examples as I don't track this very closely).

<comment><USER24> If I knew that, I'd a.) be a lot richer than I am and b.) wouldn't tell the Internet.

I just feel that we're looking in the wrong places for the next big idea. The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work. (Gall's Law: "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.")

<comment><USER25> I'm sympathetic to the small idea thing (I wrote a long comment to your original reply). But that doesn't seem true in the case of the web and the PC.

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners- Lee](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee)

 _This project is experimental and of course comes without any warranty whatsoever. However, it could start a revolution in information access._

\- (19 August 1991), the announcement of the first WWW hypertext browser on the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.next.announce.

TBL knew that the WWW would be "world wide". He explicitly designed it that way.

So I would say the web is small TECHNOLOGY, but not a small idea. It was a huge idea.

Although honestly, I don't think the tech was that small for the day either. GUIs + networking was not super easy in 1991. There were still a lot of unsolved problems (e.g. DOS wasn't even a multi-tasking OS, I remember you had to download WinSock or whatever to use NetScape on Windows 3.1).

Likewise, Wozniak wanted to "own his own computer" so he built one. I don't think that's a small idea either. I guess you can say that it is one that most people wouldn't understand the utility of though.

<comment><USER26> Linus Torvald's first email re: Linux belongs here:

> I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and > professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.

<comment><USER25> Yeah that quote definitely crossed my mind. However I think the OP is confusing ideas vs. systems:

 _The next big idea invariably seems to grow out of the next small idea; ideas that are big from the beginning almost never work._

That doesn't really make sense with respect to ideas. The real quote is about SYSTEMS, from this book:

[https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide- Large/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Systems-Bible-Beginners-Guide- Large/dp/0961825170)

The system is the realization of the idea. You can have a big idea, but you can't implement it all at once. TBL had a big idea, which is necessarily a big system. So he grew it from a very small piece of code (HTTP 1.0 was ridiculously simple.) There was an unbroken chain from small system to big system.

The misleading thing about Linux is that it IS IN FACT a big idea -- it's just not a technological idea. We already knew how to write monolithic kernels. But the real innovation is the software development process. The fact that thousands of programmers can ship a working kernel with little coordination is amazing. That Linus wrote git is not an accident; he's an expert in software collaboration and evolution.

Linux is a universal hardware abstraction layer, which is an easy idea in theory, but extremely difficult in practice until Linus figured out how to make it work.

So Linux is a big idea too, as well as a small system that grew into a big system.

\-----

This reminds me of Paul Graham's advice: [http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html)

 _Let me conclude with some tactical advice. If you want to take on a problem as big as the ones I 've discussed, don't make a direct frontal attack on it. Don't say, for example, that you're going to replace email. If you do that you raise too many expectations. Your employees and investors will constantly be asking "are we there yet?" and you'll have an army of haters waiting to see you fail. Just say you're building todo-list software. That sounds harmless._

 _Empirically, the way to do really big things seems to be to start with deceptively small things. Want to dominate microcomputer software? Start by writing a Basic interpreter for a machine with a few thousand users. Want to make the universal web site? Start by building a site for Harvard undergrads to stalk one another._

I think that's pretty much in line with what's said here. You can have a big idea, a big 10 year goal, but you have to break in into steps. Gates had an explicit goal of "a PC on every desk" and Zuckerberg had an explicit goal of "connecting the world" (at some point, not at the very beginning). But they necessarily started small.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lightworks Linux Public Beta Is Now Available To Download - <AUTHOR> http://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=19&id=44717&Itemid=81 <comment><USER3> A while ago they announced that they were going to opensource lightworks. Did they change their minds or is it still in the pipeline?

</comment><comment><USER4> Here's a 15 minute video walkthrough from a couple of weeks ago: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJcPKD9p7A> (no affiliation)

Having only used two consumer open-source non-linear editing systems (OpenShot and PiTiVi), Lightworks as one would expect looks a bit overwhelming. More approachable than I would have hoped, though.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's nice to see more and more proffesional desktop apps on Linux.

<comment><USER6> Nuke, smoke, flame, faire, maya, modo, baselight, resolve are all on linux.

ILM, pixar, Dreamworks, Weta and SPI are all pretty much linux only shops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 40GBP for a pro license .. but add-on cards for 2000GBP or 4000GBP. [http://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Item...](http://www.lwks.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=45)

For generic CUDA or something sneaky and incompatible? The software looks good. I might buy it if the card thing isn't what it looks like: a sneaky post-facto wallet-grab.

(Devs: Please - a clear, no-BS explanation on the value proposition and limitations for those of us who don't want to ship a piece of silicon across the world to use the software! Also, approach taken to distro support ... I'm on gentoo. Ta. Best of luck!)

<comment><USER6> The Addon cards allow you to playout to tape+. Its nothing really to do with cuda, as editing is mostly IO bound (even with some effects)

+yes people still use tape. Everybody can read tape and the colours are going to be correct. Its also really expensive because its a realtime output, you can't have tearing or dropped frames as that will potentially cost you (hundreds)thousands

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I couldn't find too much info about this. What are advantages (and disadvantages) of Lightworks over other distros like Ubuntu?

<comment><USER9> I was wondering the same but then I realized this isn't a linux distro - <USER2> the linux version of a video editing tool.

<comment><USER10> It should be noted that LightWorks is a professional grade tool that has been in development for a long time. It has a lot of features that are shared with some pretty expensive high end packages and has innovated several common features that are standard among packages now days.

<comment><USER6> I would suggest that whilst it _can_ be used for grading, its an editing tool primarily.

Baselight(and davinci resolve) on the other hand is a grading tool, however it can be used as an editor.

<comment><USER11> I think in this case "professional[-]grade" refers to the quality of the software, not color grading. Isn't English fun?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Everything Changes After Lift - <AUTHOR> http://wensing.tumblr.com/post/31523619639/everything-changes-after-lift

<comment><USER2> As someone who has run a company for a decade, there are several meaningful inflection points:

* Becoming cash flow positive (aka Lift) is wonderful and stress relieving.

* Becoming profitable enough to start hiring lots of people and building a team culture marks a sea change in how you must think about your company and how you spend your time.

* Switching from growing to shrinking (albeit still profitable) changes the company culture, as everyone now feels like they're rats on a sinking ship. It's amazing how much people react to directional changes over absolute amounts (i.e., a company with $100K in annual revenue that doubled from last year is more positive than one with $20M that shrank by 20%).

<comment><USER3> _a company with $100K in annual revenue that doubled from last year is more positive than one with $20M that shrank by 20%_

I would expect that more than a predisposition to react to directional changes over absolute amounts, such a reaction would be due to individuals within the organization being concerned with their own personal fate. Being one out of two or three in a company with annual revenue of $100k that's doubling every year puts you personally in a very good position. Being one of 250 in a $20M organization that is shrinking by 20% annually...not so much.

<comment><USER2> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Incredibly timely for me as my company has achieved lift and we are transitioning to the next phase. I am a hacker so my temptation is to sit and hack on things, but that is not what a company needs after it reaches lift, as you say. It's a great learning experience though, and a chance to grow out of your comfort zone.

</comment><comment><USER5> To stretch the airplane analogy some more, it's interesting to think about how breaking contact with the ground allows you to accelerate faster, because you're no longer spending any thrust to overcome rotational friction of wheels on runway. It can all go into increasing your velocity.

Maybe the startup analogue is getting enough people or money in place that you as a founder can avoid the day-to-day distractions of running the business and focus.</comment>


Unity raises $181M round at a reported $1.5B valuation - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/13/unity-announces-181-million-monster-round-led-by-dfj-growth/ <comment><USER2> Unicorn from Europe (Copenhagen, Denmark). Oh wait, they moved to San Francisco.

It looks like there is a lot of talent and founders around the world, but still there is not enough VC and ecosystem to support them outside of Bay Area.

<comment><USER3> Dane here (now expat)

Europe in general have a problem with entrepreneurship. Stockholm, Berlin, London are the exceptions and even they don't really do that well compared to SV.

Zendesk is also Danish originally, Tradeshift is, Podio.. they all end up leaving because the market opportunity in Denmark is very small (6mio) and there isn't easy enough access to talent when you need to scale up

The biggest mistake many entrepreneurs do in Denmark is that they start with Denmark as a test market and so it's very hard for them to actually scale both mentally and practically.

The primary issue in my mind isn't really income taxes (although they do play a role). Denmark have a progressive tax system which means the top bracket pays around 52% or something like that (and cars have 180% taxes on top of the value of the car).

Denmark also have one of the most beneficial holdning company tax rules in Europe which allows for a lot of possibilities for startups.

And keep in mind that it's very easy to be unemployed and build a startup in Denmark. Healthcare is free, education is free, childcare is heavily subsidized, you get social benefits.

What really hinders Denmark is a combination of a small market, small ambitions and the lack of a proper ecosystem with alumni (they leave) and not to forget the in my mind crippling effect of the harmonization of the EU (not the common market which is great) and last but not least. There is very little tradition of scaling a company big (Denmark haven't created a +1000 person company for the last 50 years or something like that)

<comment><USER4> _there isn 't easy enough access to talent when you need to scale up_

Isn't it harder/costlier to find talent in highly competitive SV than it is in Europe?

<comment><USER5> That's what I would figure, as well. My company moved to Seattle when we needed to expand and hire talent. Still a tech culture, but houses are still in the 6-digit range, and you don't have to pay $200k/year for a fresh graduate with a degree from CodeAcademy.

<comment><USER6> Maybe you mean a certificate, but they don't even give that.

<comment><USER5> It was a (lousy) joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Curious side question.

Does anyone know what (if anything) generally happens to employee stock options in the event of these large funding rounds. Most options schemes are effectively designed around the idea of "liquidity event" which used to mean IPO in successful cases.

These days when we see large investment rounds and acquisitions replacing a lot of what IPOs used to do, where does that leave options holders? I suppose this question also applies to early investors and founders too.

<comment><USER8> There will be a new 409a value following the round. The 409a value is the price of common shares that an independent valuation firm determines. An increasing 409a means that future stock options will have a higher strike price. For existing option holders who have options but haven't exercised, a rising 409a means a larger tax bill.

If the option holder decides to exercise, they will have to pay tax on the spread between the strike price and the 409a value at the time of exercise. This can be painful if the 409a value jumps significantly. There are a few companies like Uber, Airbnb, etc where the price jumped so much that many employees were stuck with massive tax bills.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, some funds like the ESOFund can help cover the up front cost and allow you to keep future upside.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't you just sell your stock immediately and use that cash to pay the tax? Perhaps I'm missing something.

<comment><USER10> I think you're missing that the stock might not be liquid. If you're an employee at a pre-IPO startup, you might not be able to just exercise your options and immediately sell some of the stock (since there's no public market and you may be restricted from various private sales). But you may still want to exercise the options (because you're leaving the company, you're worried about a larger tax bill down the road, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just wanted to chime in and say Pokemon Go is another Unity game. Unity games seem to be doing extremely well on mobile.

<comment> jim-greer Unfortunately for Unity, they don't make any more money on a hit game than on a big-budget failure. All that matters is how many seat licenses they sell. Selling developer tools is not a great business.

<comment><USER11> The Unreal Engine has an interesting license. There is no upfront cost but there is a 5% royalty that starts after the first $3,000 of revenue per product per quarter. Which is great for smaller shops, but seems like it would scare away the larger organizations.

<comment><USER12> Larger orgs never use that license. They all negotiate privately and secure a license for a fixed cost and no rev share. IIRC the cost for a AAA game Is around a few hundred thousand.

<comment><USER13> Source? Do AAA games even use that engine? Do most AAA games not have their own engine?

<comment><USER14> Yep there are quite a few on this list: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games)

<comment><USER13> I had no idea! Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder, what are the current opinions about the end game for Unity? What is the goal of seeking this new funding? My understanding was they are profitable.

<comment><USER15> My guess would be Microsoft. Unity uses C# and it would fit into Microsoft strategy.

<comment><USER16> It's worth looking at who's at the helm. You don't make John Riccitiello[1] your CEO just to be bought by Microsoft, unless the price tag is extremely high (possible). He's there to build a huge business, plausibly bound for IPO.

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

<comment><USER17> Actually, Bioware/Pandemic made John Riccitiello its CEO just to be acquired by EA (but not before Riccitiello has resigned and joined the EA as the CEO again). Well, of course, this might have something to do with him being a partner in Elevation, which bought Bioware/Pandemic and, likely, invested in Unity as well (he had been sitting on the Unity board before becoming the CEO after being fired from EA).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For VCs that want to invest in VR this is the logical place; it is too early to invest in apps and too late to get in to the hardware.

<comment><USER19> By no means is it too late to get into hardware. We're very early in the VR/AR wave, and most current hardware sucks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's a big boost for .NET in general, too.

<comment><USER21> Why would you say that? Sorry, I don't know much about Unity Technologies.

<comment><USER22> You can use C# in Unity which is huge (and partly why I'm leaning towards unity if I ever get into that space vs Unreal)

<comment><USER23> Unity's flavor of C# is years behind modern C# though. They're supposed to use IL2CPP to fix that but 2 years later [1] it's still only used in one platform (iOS) and a half (WebGL). They also have some modicum of support for .NET Core but it's unusable since a lot of existing code just doesn't work.

They have some super talented people, but I frankly think they're just strapped for resources. I hope this round of investments will allow them to scale their engineering team and get scripting side of things more solid.

With all the recent C#/.Net open sourcing, they have a lot of tools at their disposal, but from my perspective they're not using them to their full potential.

[1] [http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/05/20/the-future-of- scripting-...](http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/05/20/the-future-of-scripting-in- unity/)

<comment><USER24> Unity joined the .NET Foundation in April and has publicly stated that they are working on support for the most recent versions of C# [1].

[1] [http://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/04/01/unity-joins-the-net- foun...](http://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/04/01/unity-joins-the-net-foundation/)

<comment><USER23> They announced the same thing on the 2014 post.

They do have _some_ kind of mono compiler update in alpha according to their roadmap [1], not for the runtime.

I wouldn't hold my breath, that's all.

[1] [https://unity3d.com/unity/roadmap](https://unity3d.com/unity/roadmap)

<comment><USER25> But now there is an open source and cross platform compiler/runtime that they can use, dot net core. It should be much easier to incorporate that into unity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unity makes no money off the games themselves. Its equivalent to a dev tools company. Does $125/dev/month really make that much money?

</comment><comment><USER27> Congrats to Unity. Maybe they can use some of that case to fix the UI. At modern resolutions it's unusable.

<comment><USER28> Can you be more specific?

<comment><USER29> The text in the Unity Editor is much too small on a high-DPI display like a MacBook Pro Retina or a high-DPI ThinkPad.

In Windows, the only way to run the Editor with any kind of readability is to let the Windows compatibility scaling kick in (as it does by default). So the text is bigger but really fuzzy. If you turn off compatibility scaling the text is much too small to read.

On OSX it's not quite as bad, but the text is still a lot smaller than other OSX apps on this display.

Adding to the trouble is the very poor contrast in both the "personal" (lighter gray) theme and the "pro" (dark) theme. The pro theme is just awful - so little contrast between the text and the background that I can barely read it. The personal theme is better, but still seriously lacking in contrast.

Every other development app I use offers a theme with reasonable contrast and has been updated to work properly on high-DPI displays - except for Unity and Unreal Engine.

<comment><USER30> Unity Editor is awful. Why would you ever use that over VS or an actual text editor?

<comment><USER29> I wonder if we're talking about the same thing? The Unity Editor I'm referring to is Unity's graphical environment where you edit your scenes and stuff.

Of course I use Visual Studio to edit my C# code. And I'm fortunate to be doing more "systems plumbing" than 3D graphics, so I get to spend more time in VS2015 than in the Unity Editor. But there's still no avoiding the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Seems a bit low for a company that seems to be doing so well. Does anyone have insight into why the valuation isn't higher?

For those unfamiliar with it, Unity is the go-to game engine for most smaller companies, and many cross platform (mobile/desktop) games. It also has some of the best support for VR.

<comment><USER32> I suspect that people aren't yet convinced that Unity will triumph over the more sophisticated, more popular, established competitors like unreal and frostbite, even though unity is well-placed for, and well-executing, a disruptive "democraticising" play.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In-browser Unity has horrible performance.

</comment><comment><USER34> Great, now _please_ use some of that cash to hire more developers. We've been waiting for a modern .net runtime update for years!

</comment><comment><USER35> fyi their "crunchbase" profile to the right shows the wrong company (its not [http://www.unity.hr](http://www.unity.hr), but instead [https://unity3d.com/](https://unity3d.com/))

</comment><comment><USER36> I hope they'll catch up on Vulkan support soon.

</comment><comment><USER37> Man .. wish they were a publicly traded company :(

<comment><USER38> Do you wish that because you work there?

<comment><USER39> My assumption was that tostitos1979 wanted to invest in Unity, not cash out.

<comment><USER37> Invest. I took an OpenGL course in college and it was terrible. Ended up dropping out of the course since it seemed a pointless way of doing things. I tried Unity over the Christmas break (hacking around with VR) and was very impressed. I'm not in the games industry btw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> How are they only valued at 1.5? Unity is the most advanced game engine in existence. Leaps and bounds above the competition.

</comment><comment><USER40> After trying Hololens (of which all the demos I tried were built on Unity) I could see it becoming HUGE for AR/VR.

</comment><comment><USER41> Queue Microsoft acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER42> Is Unity Web Player ever going to work in Chrome again?

<comment><USER43> I think they are focussing on WebGL

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This seems like an incredible over valuation for a company in video game technology.

<comment><USER45> What do you think is reasonable?

The video game industry market cap is around 17e9 USD2015[0]. Unity accounts for ~9% of the value. I'm not sure if it's an accurate valuation but it doesn't seem to be a ridiculous percentage given where they are in the production food chain.

[0][http://www.statista.com/statistics/246892/value-of-the- video...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/246892/value-of-the-video-game- market-in-the-us/)

<comment><USER46> That seems odd, Electronic Arts alone has a market cap of ~23.5B: [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EA/key- statistics?ltr=1](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EA/key-statistics?ltr=1)

<comment><USER44> What's odd to me is that Epic Games is majority owned by Tim Sweeney, who has a < $1 billion net worth, and in _serious_ and performance sensitive (VR) applications, UE4 is very difficult contention for Unity.

Other than that, I've really lost track of the values of other game companies, other than knowing that EA and Ubisoft want to eat the sun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Anyone else thought this post was about Ubuntu's Unity and thus relieved?

<comment><USER48> I was thinking Rick James -- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLJ5NHARMk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLJ5NHARMk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLJ5NHARMk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLJ5NHARMk)</comment>


Readable: JS app to make web articles readable. - <AUTHOR> http://readable-app.appspot.com/

<comment><USER2> Does this have any connection with Readability, the JS bookmarklet that, uh, makes web articles readable that was released a couple months ago? I know that was open sourced, so maybe it's a fork and I missed that.

<comment><USER3> Readable has absolutely nothing to do with Readability.

1\. It is not a fork of Readability.

2\. It does not perform the same operations on content as Readability.

3\. It has different options to Readability.

4\. And it wasn't even inspired by Readability. (It was actually inspired by Paul Graham's website; or, actually, with me not enjoying the layout of said website when it comes to reading long, awesome essays.)

Gabriel Coarna, Readable's Developer

P.S.

Readable V2 is coming soon.

<comment><USER3> Readable V2 has launched. Huge improvement.</comment></comment></comment>


WTF? I cannot cancel my NYTimes subscription online? - <AUTHOR> I signed up online and they gladly accepted my credit card, but when I try to cancel my subscription, I am left with 3 choices:
Call us Text us Chat with customer care (which is btw busy at all times)
What kind of BS is that ? <comment><USER2> If you change your address to California to stay in compliance with state law, it should present an option to cancel online. Unfortunately a lot of print journalism websites are like this.

<comment><USER3> Data analyst: "Hmm interesting correlation, 50% of people unsubscribed had moved to California".

They figure it out.

Later.

"Moving to California? We hope you enjoy the change in your life, and hope we can help you celebrate by giving you a 50% discount for a 6 month prepaid subscription, and we hope you stay with us and enjoy this great publication. Thank you for your loyal support."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is so their "customer retention" department can run some scripts on you to try to get you to stay. They will make you wait so I suggest doing the chat and just keep typing "No thanks, I want to cancel."

</comment><comment><USER5> I noticed this too. So, I changed my payment option to Paypal, from credit card. Paypal has option to cancel subscriptions from its user dashboard. Cancelled from there.

</comment><comment><USER6> In cancelling my deceased brother's AT&T landline, I had to call the "customer retention" line. Twice, 30+ minute wait in the queue. When I got through, the CSR had MANY suggestions about why the line was still necessary. I had to decline each one rather than have a fit saying CLOSE THE ACCOUNT. Abuse of power.

</comment><comment><USER7> It should definitely be as easy to unsubscribe as it is to subscribe (or at least through the same mode, i.e. make it possible to cancel on the web if I subscribed there). I think this is already mandatory in the EU.

The worst instance I've seen so far was some big streaming service (HBO or Youtube TV, I don't remember unfortunately), which simply did not allow unsubscribing from outside the US due to their entire site being geoblocked.

</comment><comment><USER8> Same with Washington Post :( But at least they picked up my call and was able to cancel. The online chat rep couldn't do it either. There's a rule by Visa that states that if someone is able to subscribe to something online with their card, they should be able to cancel, apparently the Post or Times are not clued in? There's a class action lawsuit waiting, I will gladly join.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, this is the latest scam. I subscribed to the teaser trial for WSJ for an introductory of $1.00 for the first month. The subsequent monthly fee increased to $40. After three months and not really having time to read the publication (a quality publication, btw), I decided to cancel my subscription. Well you guessed it, easy to sign-up, hell to pay to cancel. You need to call the 800-number, go through an extensive menu of options, finally talk to an operator, who needs to transfer you to... yes you guessed it again, a retention specialist. After three counter-offers (why didn't they just price it at $9.99/month to begin with? ), I just kept saying "... please cancel my subscription."

And yes, the counter offers got better and better until that $40/mo subscription was down to $9.99. I may have kept it at that rate.

Seems like web services and publishers are all adopting this easy-to-sign- up/hard-as-hell to drop strategy. It's the scamifying of America.

</comment><comment><USER10> Same with WSJ, gym memberships, magazines, tv providers, cell phone providers... Lots of things.

While, yes, it is annoying whenever companies do this, it is interesting to me that OP's life has been insulary enough that this is shocking to them.

<comment><USER11> There was a gym chain in Australia call Fitness First that was kind of famous for this BS. You had to go to 'head office' to cancel, then head office would bounce you to your local gym etc etc.

It so severely damaged the brand that the company publicly apologized and fixed it. But there's a glut of gyms so competition may have played it's part - I'm a lot more likely to sign up for something if I know I can pull out easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a dark pattern that's all too common on slightly sketchy small businesses. Slightly disappointed, but not terribly surprised, to see that it's also common in "mainstream" newspapers.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's been like that for a decade. For whatever it's worth, your credit card merchant can block them from issuing future charges. I found that to be simpler than trying to deal with them to cancel.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's notorious. If you call that phone number you will talk to a pushy salesperson who will offer you a discounted subscription for a limited time. It's like the way cable companies would send you to a "retention specialist" a few years ago.

When the tide changes in Washington, look for a crackdown on subscription services.

<comment><USER15> I cancelled recently and was prepared for the hard sell by the support staff. I was able to bypass it quite easily due to this, but they were quite abrupt in their conversation style and essentially hung up on me after they established that I really did want to cancel my sub:

Them: "OK so I am confirming that you wish to cancel your subscription and don't wish to take advantage of the current low rate you are on."

Me: "Yes that's correct, although I did want to..."

\-- DIAL TONE --

Didn't have too much issue getting through to them on the phone (I am in NZ though, so may well have called outside their peak hours).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Your credit card provider might be happy to help you block further transactions with NYT and this is the better path to take. If enough people flag this behavior with their CC provider, it will eventually lead to penalties imposed on the business.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's the same with the WSJ. Just last week I wanted to cancel the paper delivery and get online access only. Even to do only that required a phone call; not even a chat option was available.

<comment><USER18> I loved WSJ online, but I had to temporarily cancel while cutting down on spending a while back. Their cancellation process left a bad taste in my mouth, and I decided to not restart my subscription when I was ready.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> [https://myaccount.nytimes.com/cancel](https://myaccount.nytimes.com/cancel)

Same options when you login?

Why not just do it thru chat? Might be the easiest option.

<comment><USER20> has been on my list for a while...so I just went through this. Juan was clearly multiplexing a few conversations with some macros just so I dropped in every once and a while to see if it was my turn. he asked why, made two special offers, and then said 'ok, I understand, thanks for being nice'

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't know. I guess the most productive thing you can do, instead of texting the times or using the other two methods they provide, is complain about it on Hacker News. That will surely bring about the desired one-click cancellation.

Then you can go to work on "WSJ, gym memberships, magazines, tv providers, cell phone providers..." (tjpaudio)

</comment><comment><USER22> If you actually want the subscription and are slightly stingy, this is also a good way to get a vastly reduced price. The people they make you phone to try get you to stay offer very different deals to what they display on pricing page.

Definitely a really dark pattern though, and should be regulated against.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yeah I experienced this too. It took me a month to cancel my subscription. Had to call several times. They said they'd do it, but I still got a bill next month.

Signup is a breeze online. Cancelling is almost impossible.

Seriously fuck NY times. Such a bad experience, I don't want to get any news subscriptions.

</comment><comment><USER24> Send a certified letter.

[https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft- credit-r...](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2017/09/09/identity-theft-credit- reports/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I was surprised that they didn't implement a "cancel" button too. Probably a strategy to discourage people from cancelling. I've managed to cancel using a chat though and it wasn't that bad.

</comment><comment><USER26> In a previous life, I did some consulting for newspapers and used difficulty of cancelling as an example of how they're out-of-touch w/ customers expectations of a modern, subscription-based organization.

</comment><comment><USER27> BoA used to have temp card numbers that they killed recently since, I think, they didn't want to move the site from flash to html5. It was a great feature.

</comment><comment><USER28> Use [https://privacy.com/gog](https://privacy.com/gog) for a discount on one- time user credit cards.

<comment><USER29> Cancelling the linked credit card is a great idea, via a one time card, but it's not a clean solution.

I remember reading there could be legal implications for this, as the card will bounce and you're still in their contract etc.

<comment><USER30> If you don't formally cancel the subscription, they're probably within their rights to continue to bill you and send it to debt collections at some point - could be years of charges stacked up by then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I just had this with "Malwarebytes" despite the fact that both I and they are in California and this goes against California law.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've had ISPs do this too. As other commenters have said, it's a slimy tactic to give them one last chance to talk you out of it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Protip for these phone calls is to just say you're moving out of the country. Directtv instantly let me cancel without any fuss

</comment><comment><USER34> Economist also makes it very hard to unsubscribe.

</comment><comment><USER35> This should be illegal for CA subscribers, but I still don't see the option to cancel. How do I raise this with regulators ?

<comment><USER36> Is your billing address California, IP access from California, or both? I heard Cali subscribers _do_ have the ability to cancel, but not sure what the access method is.

I have no doubt in my mind that mildly increased barriers to unsubscribe will increase retention. People are lazy, and if you want to end your subscription but the options are "call a number/write an email" vs "read an article (justify your subscription)"/"ignore the problem", then enough of a subset will stay subscribed to make this a valid business decision.

If this makes some subscribers angry, it's an indication that they were going to subscribe anyway so why care?

The only path forward is the California route (widespread explicit regulation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is why I've never signed up for the NYT (or others that have similar asymmetry)

</comment><comment><USER38> One more reason not to partake of the dumpster fire that is the NY Times..

</comment><comment><USER39> Blue Apron does the same thing. You have to email them.

</comment><comment><USER40> Same for my WSJ article. It feels abusive honestly.

</comment><comment><USER41> "Frugality dies in darkness."

</comment><comment><USER42> That's one heck of a dark pattern.

</comment><comment><USER43> Subscription services are "strangely" like that. You call and choose the option to subscribe, someone picks up instantly. You choose the option to cancel, you get a few rings before you get an automated message telling you their operators are busy. The same thing with chat. If you were trying to sign up for the NYTimes, I doubt the chat service would be busy. I sometimes choose the "sign up" option and ask the operator I want to cancel my subscription. 9 out of 10 times, they'll say we can't do that here and transfer you to the cancellation department where you have to wait. But 1 out of 10 times, the "sign up" operator takes your account info and cancels it for you.

Of course it's all part of their shady customer retention practice. Hope their customers get frustrated and give up trying to cancel.

Subscription services are like STDs. Better not to get it in the first place than trying to get rid of it later on.</comment>


Everyone in HN has this ability Perfect time to use it - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/article/19/7/how-make-old-computer-useful-again <comment><USER2> Don't invent a title.

Real title: "How to make an old computer useful again"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip. :) I ll keep that in mind. Any thoughts on the subject?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I fixed an old 2006 macbook pro for my 3 year old with Ubuntu 18.0 . She watch cartoons and have fun decorating her own machine. It took a couple of ours but there are tons of tips online.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a couple old laptops(and phones) lying around and was wondering is there some simple way to just use their Screens from a single Ubuntu desktop?

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a cool idea too, found :[https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to- reuse-the-old-LCD-Sc...](https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-reuse-the- old-LCD-Screen-of-your-broken-Lap/) seems you need a driver that would cost around €30

<comment><USER3> That is cool. Wish I had the hardware chops though.

I'll have to take a sw approach like so - [https://askubuntu.com/questions/136942/extend-desktop-to- mon...](https://askubuntu.com/questions/136942/extend-desktop-to-monitor-over- lan)</comment></comment></comment>


Great keyboard design can be undermined by bad decisions - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/07/great-design-can-be-undermined-by-bad-decisions/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting quote >> This isn't about you needing a learning curve to adjust to a differently designed input mechanism either. It's simply an indictment of how form was prioritized over function. One of Lofree's representatives told me that the company "chose design over the layout," later adding that it thought that "design matters more." <<</comment>


A Night Out in the Twenties - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/01/06/a-night-out-in-the-twenties-2/ <comment><USER2> If this resonates with you and you haven't already, you owe it to yourself to see Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris.

<comment><USER3> If this resonates with you, you should re-read the following passage:

"If you weren't glamorous and beautiful you stayed home. ... the whole idea was to have money, to be striking."

Yeah, life was better when all those damn poor people just stayed home at night.

<comment> k-mcgrady I'm not sure if you've seen the movie but it proves your point.

//

// Overview, potential spolier

//

It's about a man who romanticises the 1920's and then gets to experience them but discovers people in the 1920's are nostalgic for the late 1800's, and that when we romanticise the past we neglect to think about all the things we have that we would lose (e.g. as mentioned in the movie, novocaine).

<comment><USER3> I have not seen the movie. And I don't understand why I'm getting downvoted into oblivion. My comment was not meant to challenge or contradict what the parent comment said.

<comment><USER4> You implied that "if" it resonates... then read "this" as if it was bad for this article to resonate with people. May not be what you meant

<comment><USER3> Well, that is sort of what I meant. If nostalgia for the "glamorous" days of the 1920s resonates with you, then you should remember that it was not all fun and games for everyone, just a select few. Apparently, that's what the parent comment meant as well. So I still don't see the problem.

FYI, my own wife occasionally expresses nostalgia for more glamorous and elegant times. She often laments that, for example, no one gets dressed up to go out any more. So my comment was in no way meant to be judgmental.

<comment> k-mcgrady I didn't downvote you but I did think the comment had an aggressive tone to it. Probably just the sarcasm at the end. Obviously that's not what you intended but maybe others read it that way as well and jumped to downvote rather than respond.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Article seems to neglect the fact that Ruth Gordon was a famous Broadway actress during this time, unless this is common knowledge to most New Yorkers and NYT readers.

Having expensive meals at exclusive clubs and speakeasies was probably a lot easier for her than most other folk.</comment>