OnLive Sold To OnLive And Nothing Will Change - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/19/onlive-sold-to-onlive-and-nothing-will-change-heartbreaking-transition-notwithstanding/ <comment><USER2> There's rightfully a fair amount of noise being made about this as many on HN can imagine themselves in a similar situation. But there may be another lesson to take here.

For me, the key phrase in this article is the first one: "Faced with a dire financial situation...". The nature of working for a startup where you trade current income for potentially huge future income implies a level of risk. Looking at the breathless press coverage, it's easy to imagine that most startups are a raging success. The truth is that most will be in a "dire financial situation" and have no choice but to perform some juggling if there's any chance that they'll stay in business.

It's quite possible that the owners were deliberately trying to screw the employees, but more likely is that it's a desperate move by desperate management who are trying to salvage their dream.

<comment><USER3> Why was it in a dire financial situation if it had millions of subscribers?

I can't find any descriptions of the cause of the crap finances, especially with millions of subscribers. A likely scenario seems possible: their financiers/vcs decided they didn't like the direction the company was taking/unhappy with growth and called in their loans and forced everyone out.

Everyone, except the vcs, takes a haircut.

(Was there a more straightforward reason?)

<comment><USER4> There was a rumor about 8,000 servers with only 1,600 simultaneous users; in other words an out-of-control burn rate.

<comment><USER5> That rumor was reportedly a rhetorical question asked by Perlman during the last company meeting. Anybody know why they didn't use a flexible virtual server solution like Amazon EC2?

 _"There's no way to exactly estimate how many servers we'd need. So we literally bought thousands of them, and all the equipment and networks to go with it," Perlman told employees. Those servers, he said, came with lengthy contracts -- contracts that tied OnLive's capital up in maintaining servers that few (if any) users were actually using. "If you've got 8,000 servers and 1,600 users, how could we ever get to cash flow positive, right?"_

\-- [http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/18/documenting-the-death- of-o...](http://www.joystiq.com/2012/08/18/documenting-the-death-of-onlive- notes-from-the-companys-final/)

<comment><USER6> As the other guys here have mentioned, they basically need CDN-level latency virtually everywhere for OnLive to properly work and while Amazon does have a CDN (Cloud Front), their normal datacenters only have a few regions within the United States (which aren't close to any major metropolitan hubs (except maybe DC)).

The other big thing is that GPUs have very limited scheduling (i.e. no pre- emptive multitasking), so it's virtually impossible to virtualize into multiple VMs efficiently. So when you get a GPU machine you end up with isolated hardware which doesn't share the same economics as other Amazon solutions. As GPGPU become more popular, this should, however, improve.

<comment><USER7> You don't need preemptive multitasking for a known set of games, though; context switching can occur at frame boundaries (or even finer-grained than that, the GPU just has to go idle in some sense). It's necessary for GPGPU because you may have one kernel that runs for 10 minutes, but that's not the case with graphics apps (especially not a known set).

I also question the need for one VM per client. There's a very small set of inputs (input devices from the client) and a lot of static output (rendered frame). Why not share the same VM for a set of games that share the same GPU?

<comment><USER6> I have no inside knowledge into OnLive, but you're correct, you could certainly context switch for games. I would assume that the limiting factor would likely be texture bandwidth if you were switching between too many different scenes (on the same or multiple VMs). It might be that some of OnLive's IP is smartly managing resources in n->1 VM->GPU configurations (and maybe why games IIRC require some adaptation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> HN is focusing far too much on the employee stock options. Once any company gets into a "dire financial situation", the options are already completely worthless.

The worse alternative would have been to not restructure and just shut down the company leaving everyone without stock options, jobs and probably without severance either.

<comment><USER9> How exactly does screwing the employees out of stock options help the company not shut down? Outstanding stock options have zero effect on a company's profitability/burn rate.

In any event, OnLive might as well just shut down anyway. It has completely poisoned its name and nobody worth a damn would go work there after this stunt. And it's far too ambitious a project to have any chance to thrive with B-level engineering talent working on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They're going to give stock options to former employees in exchange for consulting work? Stock options similar to the ones the just forcefully discarded from said employees?

I'd be camping out to take them up on that offer!

<comment><USER11> if that is true, that's just a mess. They would not have any product without them.

I really wonder how you can face your fired employes and tell them that all their stocks are gone but that they can do some consulting do get those back.

<comment><USER12> Options in the old company would have been worth even less given the preference overhang from existing investors! The new company is actually good news for employees as a clean cap table and a reasonable (lower) valuation gives employees a realistic chance that their options will ever be "in the money."

The old OnLive was poison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > and that rumors of Steve Perlman cashing out of the old company were not > true.

Gee techcrunch, I wonder who started those rumors?

</comment><comment><USER14> > All of OnLive, Inc.'s assets (e.g. technology, patents, trademarks, etc.) > were transferred to an assignee, which then sold the assets to the new > company. There was no transfer to any other party.

What is the name of this assignee? They seem very motivated to not state that piece of information, or how much he was paid by the OnLive Mk II company for these assets.

<comment><USER15> From the press release quoted in the article:

"An affiliate of Lauder Partners was the first investor in the newly- structured company..."

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

Edit: Ah, I just realized that isn't exactly the answer to your question, but may be relevant at least...

<comment><USER16> Actually it is Lauder Partners also invests in a Comapny called "Active Video Networks."[1]

Active Video Networks has for years been trying to do the same thing on Cable Set Top Boxes what Onlive has been doing with Games to PCs. Which is basically move all the processing to the cloud with low end thin clients in the home. In the TV Case they'd push interactive apps (via an MPEG frame over your cable infrastructure) to your cable box and basically you could get a whole interactive TV system on crappy old cable boxes.

Looks like Gary Lauder (who's the main guy at Lauder Partners) is doubling down on this strategy.

[1] <http://www.activevideo.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sooner or later, you gotta make money. Hype doesn't pay the bills (and all I heard about is hype about OnLive). There's no free lunch.

</comment><comment><USER18> Huh, I wonder how many startups are going to start pulling this to stay 'competitive'. Can't just let the plebes think they can get shares without being a founder or investor.

<comment><USER19> It looks like both the founders and investors were wiped out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A transaction like this is sure to raise the confidence of any enterprise thinking of using the onlive desktop product. :)

</comment><comment><USER21> If it was a pure asset transfer and not ownership. Did the investors and other share holders get burned?

</comment><comment><USER22> If the company is effectively bankrupt, then your equity is worth nothing. That's the risk you take when you accept shares in a company as payment.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's more of a restructuring?</comment>


Why I was tempted to discriminate against women - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/11/why-i-was-tempted-to-discriminate-against-women/

<comment><USER2> _Rather than extending maternity leave, I would favour extending it as parental leave and making it exchangeable between both parents, however they like._

This is done in some fields already, like academia, where both parents can elect to take leave. Not even close to equal numbers of men and women use it. If you make it exchangeable, only women will take maternity leave, and the reasons are fairly obvious.

* Giving birth is physically very traumatic, and requires a certain amount of recovery time.

* Breastfeeding makes working from the office difficult, to say the least.

* It's very difficult for many women to spend long periods of time away from their infants. This may not be PC, but it's true. Men may love their newborns, but they don't spend every minute away from them obsessively imagining their mother-in-law dropping their kid on the head.

<comment><USER3> It may tend to have different effects if paternity leave is available state or country wide. Then social norms may begin to change. See, for example, Iceland:

"…if you are in a job the state gives you nine months on fully paid child leave, to be split among the mother and the father as they so please. 'This means that employers know a man they hire is just as likely as a woman to take time off to look after a baby,' explained Svafa Grönfeldt, currently rector of Reykjavik University, previously a very high-powered executive. 'Paternity leave is the thing that made the difference for women's equality in this country.'"

[http://economicwoman.com/2008/05/21/human-development-and- pa...](http://economicwoman.com/2008/05/21/human-development-and-paternity- leave/)

<comment><USER4> This is not a changing social norms. It is just parents trying to get as much money out of the state as possible. It sounds as if the state pays 4.5 months for women and 4.5 months for men. So it makes sense for men to take off the 4.5 months and collect the free money (granted they don't earn their wages during that time, but it is still paid holidays).

<comment><USER3> Do you have proof?

<comment><USER4> Just look at countries where it is optional who takes the maternal leave. Didn't someone further up in the thread give an example?

Edit: reading again what you wrote I am not sure: is the law in iceland that each parent can take up to 4.5 months leave, or is it 9 months they can divide freely (ie 9 months mother, 0 months father or vice versa would be possible?). I thought they can only take at most 4.5 months each.

I only just know read the article you linked, and it didn't actually give numbers for the proportions of men and women taking the leave. So the claim in the article is worthless (it sounds like just some politician justifying their policies).

I have read before that things in iceland are quite different, though. I think it is much more common that the whole family (grandparents) takes care of children and divorced women, so maybe there is less pressure on them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I googled and found something online: [http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/maternity-leave-laws- forbes...](http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/04/maternity-leave-laws-forbes-woman- wellbeing-pregnancy.html)

According to the article the law grants 12 weeks _unpaid_ time off to care for a newborn baby. The old job is guaranteed on the mother's return. The woman must also have worked at the company for at least one year. Moreover, companies with less than 50 employees are exempt from this law so most startups are not bound.

I don't find this law unreasonable.

<comment><USER6> I do not believe the author is covered by US law.

<comment><USER5> Ahh... the author of the gamesbrief article seems to be talking about the situation in the UK. It seems a lot different in the US. I wonder if the gender discrimination the author talks about happening in the UK also happens in the US despite considerably laxer laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> _# Only about half of women return to their previous jobs, a figure largely unchanged since maternity protection was introduced in the 1970s.

# Sixty per cent of women signalled their intention to return to work, but research suggests that two-thirds of those that pledge to return had no intention of doing so (I struggle to reconcile this point with the previous one)._

It's easy. 40% of women signaled their intention to return to work and failed to. 20% of women signaled their intention to return to work and did. 10% of women did not say they would come back to work, and did not. 30% of women did not signal their intention to return to work, but did.

Conclusion: 70% of pregnant women are indecisive.

<comment><USER7> We just need a control group measurement and we'll have a scientific study relating to the effect of pregnancy on decision making.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Also relevant:

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

The seller knows more about the quality of the good provided than the buyer, and has an incentive to hide this information. There is no effective warranty procedure (indeed, such a procedure would probably be illegal). The criteria for a lemon market are satisfied.

<comment><USER9> This seems to plague all employers in software.

See Paul Graham's essay about how the only way to spot a good hacker is to hack with them. Which puts all programmers in a lemon market.

<comment><USER8> It's less of an issue for programmers. The only sure way to spot a good hacker is to hack with them, but there are still pretty decent signaling and warranty mechanisms. Look at what the programmer has done in the past and fire them if they suck.

In the US, signaling and warranty mechanisms are illegal in the context of maternity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Research has suggested that maternity leave of of around three to four months helps women's employment but longer periods lead to what economists call 'statistical discrimination' against women in general._

One solution would be offer equal length paternity leave for men to minimize that effect. That said though, the bill mandating three years of maternity leave that the post alludes to does sound a bit excessive.

<comment><USER11> _> One solution would be offer equal length paternity leave for men to minimize that effect._

That will probably just extend the effect to potential fathers as well. It's probably a "you just can't win" situation :-/

<comment><USER12> But every one is a potential father or mother. I guess another solution would be to require employees to put up a bond that covers the companies expenses in case they go on absence. The cost of a risk of absence has to be paid by out of the gross salary anyway, so we might as well make it more explicit.

(I do not know whether you could then put up a (possibly subsidisied) insurance company to cover the bonds in case of having children. The problem is, that having children does not work like accidents or fire.)

<comment><USER11> _> But every one is a potential father or mother._

Not really. It's a sliding scale, but at some age the "new child probability" drops dramatically. People who already have children over a certain age are unlikely to have more children too.

<comment><USER12> That's right. But here you are saver with older women than older men.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find this issue interesting. I'm a single male with no intention of having children any time within the next 5 to 10 years, if at all. I have many coworkers with families, and I completely agree that family should come first. However, why should it be taboo for a business to recognize the difference between the career-driven and the family-driven employees, regardless of their gender? If I'm willing to sacrifice a few weekends here and there for a project's success, isn't that worth something? If a position requires a higher level of dedication, is it that bad for a business to screen out those they know have family obligations that will prevent them from putting in the extra effort? I think many businesses do this informally right now, but why should it be a questionable thing to recognize? Some tasks are a better fit for less- rounded individuals.

</comment><comment><USER14> It may have escaped games developers attention whilst rushing between deadlines, but the human race wasn't just beamed down like something out of star trek. Women occasionally give birth to...shock!...new humans. New games developers even.

It's just a reality today that many parents are single, so maternity benefits are essential if you don't want to cause harm to children at an age when they're especially vulnerable. Any business which can't deal with the realities of modern human civilization isn't really a viable business, in my opinion.

I agree that maternity and paternity benefits should be equalised, so that the costs of employing a man or a woman become similar. These days it's not only women who choose to stay home to raise young children.

<comment><USER15> Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them.

Turning companies into charities is a terrible idea, because it is companies who are the ones who fund the charities, in the end. Forcing them to become charities leads to the effects described in the article, where a company is more reluctant to hire a woman in the first place due to the potential expenses they may end up with. _Something_ has to be generating wealth, if you want to spread the wealth around; be very careful about directly fiddling around with companies. You can't necessarily let them do whatever they want, either... I'm saying, be _careful_. Some people reach for simplistic regulations almost by instinct, but you really need to be careful here, because if you don't consider second-order effects, your simple answers will end up hurting, not helping. Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire.

It's a hard problem. I don't have a solution to offer. I just know some of the solutions being offered are bad ones. Showering people with benefits is fine and dandy as long as you only consider the first-order effects, but reality doesn't stop there.

<comment><USER16> _Companies are not charities. Giving out benefits to people not producing value is very bad for them._

These are people that have already produced significant value for a company, so the notion that this is "charity" is really pushing it.

Given that many countries are having serious economic problems because of low birth rates, there is a strong need to encourage people to have children; ensuring that they don't go broke and lose their jobs as a result of having kids and properly taking care of them is not a knee jerk reaction, it has a very important economic function.

 _Extending a lot of benefits to men will just "equalize" the reluctance to hire._

...and the market should correct for this by reducing wages by exactly the amount necessary to cover the lost productivity.

While we're on the topic of higher order effects: removing these benefits from women would cause an increase in wages, as well as a disincentive to have children. That disincentive to have children has a real economic cost, and I'm not seeing any effects that would tend to offset that.

I would question whether this is really a knee-jerk reaction - to me, it seems to have many of the qualities of useful government intervention, in that nobody would be likely to offer it on their own, but it has positive value to the overall economy if everyone does it (in other words, the second order population growth benefits are spread throughout the country, so there's no direct incentive for an individual company to do their part to spend money to cause them, a typical prisoner's dilemma situation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's a crazy (and perhaps illegal) idea: maternity leave insurance. This way the risk gets spread across multiple firms.

<comment><USER18> Why limit it to maternity leave? Just make a general-purpose "valuable employee vanished without warning" insurance. Could apply equally to someone quitting, dying, enlisting in the army, running away to join the circus...

For a company large enough to diffuse the risk internally it wouldn't make much sense, and for small companies it might not be feasible (could a five- person software company afford a large enough insurance policy to mitigate the loss of the lead developer?), but it might make sense for mid-size firms...

If memory serves me, some companies actually do things like take life insurance policies on key employees for exactly this reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think if society wants maternity leave, it should pay for maternity leave. Why should businesses have to compensate for the higher risk of employing women? I don't think it is discrimination to avoid hiring women if hiring women simply is going to cost more. It's certainly not the fault of the business if women get pregnant (also not that women CAN get pregnant - businesses did not invent genders and sex).

<comment><USER7> Blacks have a higher chance of diabetes, should a business be allowed to not employ blacks because they drive up the costs on businesses to provide benefits to its employees?

Your argument is asinine. Men and women are unable to choose their gender, just like they are unable to choose the colour of their skin, thus it is the logical conclusion that neither should benefit from a choice they did not make.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, yes, I think if somebody has a known risk, I should be allowed to take that into account. If SOCIETY wants equality for everyone, then society should pay for it. I don't think diabetes in blacks is such a high factor (never heard of it before), but if it were, then society could create some kind of insurance to compensate the risk.

Same goes for gender - I don't say that they shouldn't have equal chances, but it is the task of society to pay for that, not of individual companies.

I think making companies pay is just an artifact of the mentality that says "companies are evil, they are rich and just exploit us poor bastards. They have so much money that we can just take from them whatever we want". Now maybe there are some companies that are like that, but I don't think it holds for the average small to medium company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Subsidized day care would also mitigate these problems as well. My wife is returning to work in a month at the end of her 1 year (Canada) maternity leave, but the cost of daycare is enough to make the decision difficult. Nearly half her income goes to daycare. If there was daycare in her building, however, that would have made the decision to go back much easier.

<comment><USER20> Quebec has subsidized daycare. You can apply and pay as little as 9$/day or you can get a tax break corresponding to that. Although the program is costly for tax payers, it will pay itself pretty soon. Quebec now has a positive birth rate for the first time in a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How about this possible solution? If you're employed by a company and you want to take maternity or paternity leave beyond a standard period, you have to quit your job. Your employer is given a lump sum payment from the government to cover the cost of finding your replacement, based on some metrics such as the salary of the position. These payments are covered by an increase in payroll tax for all employees.

That way, all companies are shouldering the burden of people having children, so they have no real reason to discriminate against women likely to become pregnant.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a bit of a problem that a law intending to equalise the relation between a larger company and its employees, is likely to upset the balance between a small company and its employee.

If you have 50 people working for you, maternity leave of one employee doesn't affect operations all that much. If you have only one employee, it can destroy your company.

</comment><comment><USER22> This was well-covered in George Gilder's "Sexual Suicide" in the 70's (later re-issued as "Men and Marriage").

It's an unavoidable fact of human nature that X% of women in the workforce are going to drop out to have children, and the market adjusts for this fact.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm trying to figure out why this article is posted, as a UK anti- discrimination bill doesn't seem to matter much to mostly-US programmers.

Additionally, the linked article is simply false; there's no proposal to raise maternity leave to 3 years, and what changes are being proposed to the UK's maternity leave laws (minor tweaks) are not in the mentioned Equality Bill.

For what it's worth, the UK requires employers to pay women 90% of their salary for 6 weeks only, and then a nominal amount for up to a year (which most families will not be able to take, since it's not enough income to live on), and the woman must be offered her job back upon completion of the leave. Most women take six weeks and then return to work, or quit entirely to take care of the kid. It's better than the U.S., but hardly a socialist utopia gouging out the soul of the hard-working noble capitalist, or whatever the linked article was trying to say.

False all around. Nothing to see here, move along.

<comment><USER18> _It's better than the U.S., but hardly a socialist utopia gouging out the soul of the hard-working noble capitalist, or whatever the linked article was trying to say._

What the article was trying to say is that placing burdensome restrictions on companies that have female employees will result in a completely predictable incentive to _hire fewer women_.

If female employees are, on average, effectively more expensive to the company than an equivalent male employee, what do you expect businesses to do?

And no, "it's illegal to discriminate against hiring women" doesn't help. Lots of things are illegal and people do them anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm more tempted to think of people as individuals who make their own life choices, rather than think of all women as 'pregnancy risks'. Especially in technology - a lot of geek women don't have or want kids.

And as an employee, I want at least the illusion that the company cares about us having fulfilling, valuable lives, rather than as producers in a harsh economic calculus. The same way they want me to think of them as something more than a paycheck. This kind of thinking is the fast track to having mercenary workers who constantly jump ship to other companies.

So glad I don't work for this guy.

<comment><USER17> _I'm more tempted to think of people as individuals who make their own life choices, rather than think of all women as 'pregnancy risks'. Especially in technology - a lot of geek women don't have or want kids._

Am I the only one who sees the hint of a contradiction there? Granted, it's not as broad as "all women", but you still seem to be stereotyping.

<comment><USER2> People are individuals, but there are things which hold true, on average, between certain populations.

It's not a contradiction, it's called outliers... or even 1/10th a standard dev, depending on how close the means are.</comment></comment></comment>


Robotic Airplane Flies In Tight Spaces  - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/08/12/robotic-airplane/ <comment><USER2> What's cool here other than the fact that it seems to react really quickly is that it has no universal conception of location, like GPS.

My limited understanding of the topic is thus:

For localizing, they use a particle filter, which is basically a method that helps you figure out latent variables (in this case location) based on multiple observations.

Using the data, it creates a model of how the aircraft moves. In each "tick", you make a prediction about where the aircraft will be in the future (let's say, based on how fast you know the motor goes and which way the rudders are tilted etc). Then, you actually compare it to the data you got from your sensors (in this case a laser rangefinder) and update your model. Thus, your model is better.

The more traditional formulation of this is the Kalman Filter, which is everywhere in classical controls systems. I think the particle filter is just simpler for large numbers of variables whereas for Kalman filters, complexity increases exponentially.

edit:

Another way to look at it is that this is how robots deal with the "real world" where sensors are noisy and slightly off, actuators are unreliable and can't produce smooth and constant output etc. Instead of trying to guess all these factors, it automagically accounts for these on the fly by looking at how the robot behaves and how you expected it to behave.

edit2:

Corrections abound! Read replies below!

<comment><USER3> The difference is not really about the number of variables but the dynamics of the plant...

The classical formulation of Kalman filters assumes gaussian distributions for the variables. This makes the computations much faster since the posterior distributions is a few matrix operations away. This works fine when the model for the plant is linear (since a linear transformation of a gaussian variable is gaussian). In situations where the plant model is not linear estimates can go awry quickly.

In the case of particle filters you sample the prior distribution, simulate the non-linear plant with these initial conditions and then construct the posterior distribution by incorporating the measurements. This process is computationally more expensive than classical Kalman filtering but is more accurate for non-linear plants.

<comment><USER4> Obligatory link to "Probabilistic Robotics" -- generally considered the #1 reference on the subject, written by top roboticists (Thrun, Burgard, and Fox): [http://www.amazon.com/Probabilistic-Robotics-Intelligent- Aut...](http://www.amazon.com/Probabilistic-Robotics-Intelligent-Autonomous- Agents/dp/0262201623)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Source video here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUeKKvKEvYI>

<comment><USER6> Thank you, this is much better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Original story from MIT News Office w/ video: [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/autonomous-robotic- plane-...](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/autonomous-robotic-plane-flies- indoors-0810.html)

<comment><USER8> This is a much better link and admin should change the story link to this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The big "what stopping this from being mainstream" part of this is the need for a prior map. It's absolutely analogous to Google's autonomous vehicles needing to be manually driven through the area in which they're planning to later operate autonomously.

This is great work, but it's not onboard SLAM, only onboard localisation. All up, it's great to see more of the autonomous ground vehicle work becoming small and lightweight enough to go on aerial vehicles. Traditionally the low payload capacity has been a showstopper for UAVs, and laser range finders are often heavy, hence why so many UAVs have used vision-only localisation techniques.

<comment><USER2> For us civilians, slam is Simultaneous Localization and Mapping, which is the equivalent of walking around and exploring an unknown area and committing it to memory (mapping) while also still maintaining your own bearings in there (localization).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some relevant videos on autonomous catastrophic flight recovery by Rockwell Collins:

Continuous AI flight after blowing off one wing:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN9f9ycWkOY>

Continuous AI flight after catastrophic wing loss (showing manual/AI difference):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiPNV1TR5k>

</comment><comment><USER11> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4367650>

</comment><comment><USER12> I am always so happy to see a navigational demonstration that doesn't rely on external positioning, e.g. GPS. Having tried both sides (dead reckoning/sensing and external positioning), I have come to feel like so many GPS-based projects are essentially trivial GPS demos.

</comment><comment><USER13> What happens when it hits a dead end? At least a helicopter can stop and return on exactly the track it came in on.

Presumably one of the reasons for the prebuilt map is so that it doesn't enter a dead end, which some parking garages have.

</comment><comment><USER14> On a sidenote I'd like to add that rc flying is a ton of fun. Especially if you couple it with FPV (first person view) cams, goggles etc...

</comment><comment><USER15> That plane thinks it's Han Solo! (Never tell me the odds!)

</comment><comment><USER16> Cool, but I'd trim "genius" from the title.

</comment><comment><USER17> If we can put a rover the size of a VW beetle on Mars, we can definitely put a couple of these on it too.</comment>


Enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://yongfook.com/enterprise.html <comment><USER4> Barrier of entry is a different in enterprise than in consumer (aka social) space.

In enterprise, the customer _is_ the customer and pays for something. Contracts, SLAs are in play. Who is the customer for Facebook?

In enterprise, the purchasing decision is not made by the end-user. You choose to use Facebook or Dropbox. Some middle manager, sometimes a C-level one made the decision to use Sharepoint for you.

In enterprise, support is expected. 2nd level, 3rd level, something. No support means no contract.

In enterprise, country borders are real. You want to roll out in Spain? You need licenses that cover this, need to define support, need a way to roll out there (requirements, implementation, etc.) and very often you need localization. And, if applicable, you have local data security laws in play.

Essentially, in enterprise:

1., You need sales people. Highly paid sales people that bring in their networks. Your website is worth nothing. 80% of your success in enterprise is sales. Your product is simply not that important.

2., You need to know how to build "product" for your initial target group - the people making purchasing decisions. Which can be diametral to what the end users actually need. You need shiny demo features which do not ruin your product in live use.

3., You need configurability. Nobody, ever, in enterprise uses something out of the box. The beast with many names (Accenture, CapGemini, Deloitte, etc.) needs to be fed with the blood, sweat and tears of hapless victims caught in workshops and UATs. The iPad has disrupted this cycle so profoundly it is amazing to watch. No pure software solution has achieved this so far though.

Dirty little secret: A team of 5-8 top-people can implement and roll out any global system. Reality? Hundreds of various consultants running around creating nothing but confusion. But why does this irrationality exist? Because global companies hire their consultants to be middle managers or even be C-Level IT officers. The business model of the big consultancies is practically HIV - penetrate the customer, infect the host, lower the defenses, repeat. The various alumni orgs of those firms form strong bonds. Look into the LinkedIn history of a IT manager and you know which consultancy is being hired, no matter how bad projects turn out to be.

As stupid as it sounds - enterprise is for grown ups. Garage start ups created by college drop outs have a competitive disadvantage as it is not the product that counts, but the right, expensive sales people. Seniority, experience, personal networks are critical.

<comment><USER5> Most enterprise software is actually small business software that has grown into the role. You can start with a SaaS that charges thousands of SMEs a double or triple digit sum, and slowly work up the food chain to the multi- million dollar contracts.

And there are thousands of such niches. Millions, really. They're all around, everywhere. Find any office, anywhere, in any business. You will find some repetitive-but-business-critical proces being performed by someone following a yellow photocopied guide taped to the wall above the fax machine.

<comment><USER4> you're absolutely right.

but, scaling up is difficult.

start in the wrong country and you have a big barrier. you need to start in the US, no way around it. single biggest homogenic market (language, culture, legal). your 3 sales people can cover a lot of ground. start in France and great, once you have France where do you scale out to? Germany? The US? Your French sales people are likely worthless outside of France.

You see this pattern in enterprise companies. Way fewer in central Europe than there should be. Germany's SAP made it, Software AG follows. Cegedim in France. UK has advantage of US-ties. Eastern Europe? Kill yourself (outliers: Skype, Kasperksy). Qliktech started in Sweden and nearly died. Only after it was re-located to the US it kicked off.

<comment><USER5> I agree that the USA is the market that matters most; but the second best starting position isn't Europe -- it's the Anglosphere. Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in particular and I think in that order.

It's easier to move into the US market from Australia, for example, than it would be from France. Common language, lots of shared history, ease of travel, all that stuff.

<comment><USER4> one could argue that the UK and Ireland are Europe, but I fully agree - <USER2> Commonwealth countries are second best. don't underestimate timezones though. UK has a way better fit than Australia when it comes to covering US and Europe.

<comment><USER5> Oh timezones are crazy. I'm literally on the other side of the planet from the US east coast.

I'm working on a niche business tool at the moment and it's at the back of my mind that upon moving into the middle tier, I'll need to think about having someone in the USA simply to act as level 1 support.

That said, Patrick McKenzie of patio11 fame pointed out that he's using a virtual assistant service to fill that role. That might be my first port of call.

/sorta-kinda-maserati-problem

<comment><USER6> I've had a couple of jobs at places in Europe / the UK who basically had a tiny sales office in the US. One of them was a small business of only around 15 employees total, and they still had a sales guy in LA or NYC.

I guess it would be the same with support. The only job I've worked in a tech support role in, only had enterprise customers in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I made a similar point a few weeks ago, though minus the amusing anecdote:

<http://chester.id.au/2013/01/05/on-selling-to-consumers/>

The point is that most of the money in the world is actually in the hands of businesses. They are using it to do whatever it is they are responsible for doing in the overall structure of production.

And most of the software they rely on is terrible. Or non-existent.

The reason, though, that everyone works on consumer applications it's easy to put yourself in the place of the customer (for a similar reason it seems that by law every dozenth web app firm is peddling some sort of issue tracker tool). Plus all our hero figures are consumer-facing.

<comment><AUTHOR> great post.

you, like me, are in a non-US-sized market so I wonder if that has something to do with it.

perhaps like me you've been watching local, globally-facing B2C startups fail over the last couple of years when there's tons of enterprise problems to solve right at home.

<comment><USER5> It's just that people don't realise how big the non-consumer market is. In the essay I referred to, Hayek fairly neatly demonstrates that quite small increases in a consumer market can have multiplicative effects on the structure of production.

In this very thread people are griping about the "difficulty" of selling to businesses. I don't know what to make of that.

When you sell to a business you still sell to a person, it's just that said person feels like they are paying with monopoly money. They have a psychological distance that a consumer just doesn't have.

I'm interested about your observation on the size of our domestic markets changing our thinking. Possibly. It would be interesting to see where the Chinese startup scene are focusing their efforts; they are already dealing with a USA-sized middle class and it will only get bigger.

<comment><USER7> You are not selling to "a" person. You are selling to a group of people, with a variety of biases and self-interest, not all of whom you will necessarily even meet. That's what makes sales complex.

<comment><USER5> A lot of the time, there is a particular individual who has the cheque-signing power up to $X. For such a person there is a psychological distance from the act of spending -- it's not a _personal_ loss if the purchase doesn't pan out. Whereas for individuals spending their own money, the simulation heuristic makes purchases of unexperienced goods or services much scarier.

Hence my "monopoly money" remark.

I think you have correctly reflected that a purchasing decision may have input from many different parties. But these people matter from a sales perspective only so far as they influence the decision of the person with the chequebook.

<comment><USER8> The flip side of that is there's usually little for that particular individual to personally _gain_ from spending that monopoly money, even if it actually helps department X cut costs or raise sales dramatically, whilst a conspicuously bad _change_ to companies' spending patterns may still get them fired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've had my target on two separate pieces of unsexy enterprise apps. One is the most popular mini-storage management software. It's basically a CRUD to manage and search available units. It also has some basic accounting functionality built-in and credit card processing.

I built an MVP, showed it to a friend whose father's company pays 300k/yr for a 130-site license. It took me about 3 weeks. Even though it worked he told his son that he didn't think it was possible that I could build something in 8 weeks that could match the software he's paying ~28k/mo to license.

I built the MVP as an exercise in learning a language so I wasn't very attached to it. I dropped it and went to working on my current startup.

<comment><USER10> The problem wasn't that he didn't believe you, he just thought your offering was too cheap (price and labor). Next time, tell them it took you 6 months with a larger team and ask a lot more for it.

<comment><USER9> We knew eachother personally before this. The plan was to pique his interest with an MVP and then decide how to proceed. With no interest from him I switched gears to one of my other ideas...and its been going better than expected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I heard Cem Kaner say once that software has the "cat food problem." The people buying it don't consume it, so the quality is low.

I think that sums up the enterprise space well. It's all bought by people who are not using it and want to be as hands off as possible. That is the core problem - you have to look good on paper (read: big feature list) to get attention. It's a space for heavily-bankrolled startups or people who are creatively repurposing existing software. Mostly the latter.

<comment><USER12> I'm finding more and more this isn't the case (I agree with you that it definitely has been that way in the past though).

More and more business people are tech savvy enough to know what they want nowadays, they might get IT in to do some initial work (vendor screening etc), but any real business impacting decisions are made by the people who use/benefit directly from the software investment, unless of course you're selling IT management software to IT departments.

<comment><USER11> True. It is getting better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the culture[1] developing in Silicon Valley around "lean startups" continues to be anti sales and marketing it's going to be challenging to land business from an enterprise customer.

Embrace the sales team. You won't get far without them.

[1] <https://twitter.com/ericries/status/22988803940>

</comment><comment><USER14> Startups, you don't have to start in enterprise. You can start with SME B2B, do that really well, and then look at enterprise. Whole B2B is much larger than the enterprise.

<comment><USER15> Yes.

In my experience, small to medium sized business, experiencing growth, are a great place to start.

Typically they have started out using some sort of closed source industry standard product (Access, Hosted Webshops, eg.) and are now starting to bang their heads against the wall.

Usually the business owner is affected personally by these headaches, so is much more proactive on getting them solved. Also you can get into a nice research/development/feedback/training loop, directly with the handfull of users, who will be using your work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Every day, hundreds of millions of people go to work and hate the piece of shit software they have to use to perform their jobs."

The problem is: they will hate it no matter what. Realizing this is the most important step - IMHO - to understanding why enterprise software sucks so much, and nobody does a thing to fix it (or isn't able to).

When you build Facebook, your users are voluntary. If they hate it, they don't use it and you end up with only the ones which happen to like it.

When you build an accounting application for some corporation, your users _must_ use it to perform their jobs. So... since most of your users would rather be doing something else - anything else - than using your application, you see why they have absolutely no good feelings towards your application, no matter how good it is, no matter what you do. At the very least, for the nicest of your users, it means work... it means no fun at all.

This is why all enterprise software sucks... People simply give up trying to build something nice because, in the end, it doesn't matter. Your users will never _love_ your application, they won't even choose it.

Too negative? Well... just look at any given corporation and cry.

</comment><comment><USER17> I sometimes think that many of the B2B type products are actually best developed as open source solutions.

The company in the example could probably have had massive cost savings and greater efficiency by simply switching this system out for any one of the open source CMSs and hiring a few people experienced in developing on those platforms. Of course I appreciate that such things are not so easy in practice.

Common business requirements are often exactly the sorts of things that are economical to develop as open source. For example over my business career I have developed all kinds of mini frameworks , jquery plugins etc for businesses where these is really little reason (i.e competitive advantage to the company) for not making these things open source.

A big hurdle in selling to business is also "what happens if the three man team behind this product get hit by a bus, go bankrupt etc".

An active open source project or a product from a large vendor like Microsoft gives them peace of mind.

<comment><USER18> I once worked for an enterprise-y software development company. They had an enterprise-y source code control solution. I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but just checking out the latest code took _literally_ an hour.

It was so bad that people who were working together would have one person check out the code, then create a temporary git repository over it, and everybody would branch off that. When they'd finished working, they'd merge all their changes together into one ginormous commit into the "main" SCC.

Actually dealing with merge conflicts and building the software was outsourced, so nobody cared that these enormous commits (usually made months after the initial checkout) took dozens of hours to resolve.

It was the most bizarre thing I've ever witnessed.

<comment><USER17> Some of the big ticket tracking solutions are even worse. For example in the past I have used stuff from "Peregrine systems" (now owned by HP) that was so bad that actual ticket tracking was done via shared .xls files and we dedicated a team member each day to putting the data into Peregrine.

That VCS system sounds a lot like just plain CVS (though perhaps under a different name), I remember checkouts under CVS taking an age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> this sounds great, but my question as a startup developer, is how would we get past the iron curtain of these businesses? You basically need to be on the inside, in order to recognize a problem, and develop the solution. Not to mention the fact that, if the existing thing somewhat works.. why would the business want to change for a "technically" better solution?

<comment><USER20> These are just limiting beliefs.

Don't believe me? Good. Treat them as hypotheses and _test them_. You will be astonished.

(Except for the last bit about why businesses buy; you're right there. The reason that big company decision-makers buy is not that the new product is "technically" better. They buy because they are convinced that the new product will deliver a better return on investment and also convinced that the decision will not blow in their face and get them fired.)

<comment><USER21> You mean, build a statistically relevant sample of B2B products and then "test" selling them to enterprises?

I guess I must have misunderstood, because this is not worthwhile advice :)

<comment><USER20> The example hypothesis is: "you do not need to be on the inside, or have a pre-existing connection on the inside, in order to create a successful B2B product".

How would you test this? Yes, one way is to build B2B products without any input and then try to sell them. Many people try to do this. This is, as you pointed out, a really terrible approach.

A much better approach is just to hit the streets or the phones and talk to potential customers. Maybe you think they'll blow you off (and in my experience, yes, some of them will). But what I'm asking you to test experimentally is that 100% of them will blow you off. I have actually tried this, and the surprising result is that this is simply not the case.

But don't believe me. Try it for yourself.

Once you have people who will talk to you, then you can find out their problems. Once you know what their problems are, you can see if other people in that position have similar problems. Pick the most painful one of these problems, and, with your new industry insider friends to guide you, build an awesome product.

My big point here is that one should not simply accept limiting beliefs about what is and is not possible without actually putting them to the test. Do the uncomfortable thing. Grow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting article and I see where the author is coming from. However, I'm incredibly distracted by the photo of a man clearly about to put a straw in his eye.

<comment><AUTHOR> heh. that would be me.

here's the larger version of that pic:

<http://d3br966ilz90nq.cloudfront.net/assets/images/me.jpeg>

the thing almost poking my eye is part of the plastic hoops that form the handle of the bag. and it's just the perspective - it's not particularly close to my eye :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> One of the problems you're going to run into is simply that the switching costs for an enterprise size company looking to change from a CMS like this are going to be huge. People are going to want retraining and orientation of a level that most early stage startups just can't support. That's why with enterprise software it's not the product that matters as much as the supporting infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER24> There are lots of worthwhile problems to solve in the enterprise space - <USER3> of which can be solved from the comforts of your chair. This is precisely why many people lean towards B2C. They _think_ that yet another photo-sharing app is easier to market.

B2B is hard in a different sense. You need to be involved enough with an industry to learn the way it works and get to know people who you can contact to sell a better product. If you're just starting out, it's going to be very difficult to get medium sized companies to take you seriously. It becomes easier if you already know the decision making person.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is exactly what we do at InvGate - modern tools for enterprise IT management, conceived with a modern approach to deal with problems as old as computers themselves.

</comment><comment><USER26> So true - but it's not just the _end_ products of enterprise software development that are basket cases in the big orgs: on my previous project, literally every piece of (client supplied and mandated) software we had to use - CASE tool, document management system, release management and test / fault tracker - was a multimillion pound pile of shit for which Google would turn up a dozen superior free replacements. Funny old world.

</comment><comment><USER27> Great advice, there are thousands of problems to solve, and so much money to be made.

But it's _hard._ And it ain't fun.

</comment><comment><USER12> Coudln't agree more.

Some comments as a biz dev guy (and very ordinary coder):

1\. Don't feel you need to hire a sales gun with a network. A sales person with an awesome attitude and belief in your product is quite sufficient. I sell to mid-market companies (100-500 employees), that is a pretty huge segment of the AU market and I expect is the same in many other countries. It's literally impossible to expect to hire salespeople who have great connections across such a broad space. The best you will find is they can line up a few "first meetings" in one vertical. Maybe good connections at 1 company, maybe 5, but realistically 15+? Forget it. Any salesperson who tells you differently is talking themselves up more than they should. The job is about cold calling, running events, lots of demo's and lots and lots of discovery, to find real solutions that work for rational business buyers who won't sign off on something until they see its benefits.

2\. Have a look at some of the faster growing software firms. They are moving up to enterprise, but often started in SME and the mid market. Start in the middle rungs and you'll find a big hole - comments on some of these threads seems to suggest the decision is binary - either small SME's or large enterprises. The gap in the middle area is huge. You can also generally skip the complications big consultancies bring with them too, most customers budgets and corresponding demands are too small for them to get interested in.

3\. B2B buyers care more about fixing their problem than the underlying technology. IT buyers always prefer to find a "platform", and take bite size chunks out of the real business problems in a phase 1,2,3,x over months/years. I know big companies using Mailchimp, because it was initially purchased with a credit card by a marketer. A good demo targeted to meet the customers needs (which you have explored previously) gets you much further than trying to build the perfect solution for IT (unless you are Oracle, SAP, salesforce etc).

4\. If you're selling SaaS, it's not about a shiny demo with no product substance underneath. Perhaps if you're asking for $50 per month you can get away with it, but after a month or two you'll lose your renewal. If you're asking for $10k per month at least one person's job will be on the line internally, they will do their research to make sure there is substance to your claims. Same goes for $1k in a smaller business, it is all relative, especially in this post-GFC age.

One final comment. Sales people aren't expensive if you structure their plans right. Their bases should be low, their bonuses should be high. Make it so if they sell $1M they earn about $250k, you can get away with a sub 100k base.

Sales people are expensive if you pay high bases to unmotivated, un-passionate people who are just good talkers.

Knowing this, either make a call that you will build a successful business without salespeople (aka Mailchimp, Atlassian), or ensure your value proposition and price points are tested enough to support a full timer. Elastic which might work as a nice "middle" option as well (I'm not affiliated). <https://elasticsales.com/>

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm going to avoid the obvious stuff, like the importance of a sales team and support, and the fact that the decision-makers will never use the product. Those have already been covered.

The worst thing about trying to sell to the Enterprise is that it's mind- bogglingly _slow_. The feedback cycle is not there. With a consumer app, you can start with a rough demo, A/B test it, roll out new features, and scrap ideas that the market rejects. You don't give a damn about reputation issues because whatever people say about your product will be buried in 3 months. If the market rejects what you are building, it will be merciful enough to do so immediately. Build something else.

When you deal with the Enterprise, expect prospective clients to take _months_ to make up their minds. Half a year isn't atypical. Getting paid on time can be difficult, too. You also have to worry about bad-faith clients who'll use their social connections (to nominally "competing" firms) to black-ball you if they don't get what they want. In B2C, that's some idiot mouthing off on Twitter. Who gives a shit? At scale, there's no such thing as bad publicity. In B2B, it can be lights out.

I worked for an enterprise startup that failed. One of the most frustrating things was that, at the time, I could not evaluate whether the CEO was making the right decisions. I still can't. "The client needs <X>". Well, then <X> is what we do. I wasn't in the room with that client. When you build for consumers, there's enough consistency in aggregate humanity to get a sense of, if nothing else, whether you're doing a good job. With the Enterprise, the feedback is slow, opaque, and polluted by invisible political forces within the clients, so you never know for sure.

This leads into one other thing about the Enterprise. You will hate the word "requirement". It will make you want to throw chairs. Why? Because 90% of so- called requirements are nonsensical features that damage the project's conceptual integrity beyond repair. Ten percent are actually vital, by which I mean you aren't doing your job if you don't address them. Good luck figuring out which are which. Start here: [http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2008/08/business-requirement...](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2008/08/business-requirements-are-bullshit.html)

I am not saying that the Enterprise is a bad place to be. Clients are probably less obnoxious, on the whole, than investors. The client needs you to solve a problem, while the investor sees you as a social inferior (a poor, a prole, a hustler with a hand out). However, I am going to say that the rapid feedback cycle that you might expect in an entrepreneurial environment is not going to be there. You can wait 6 months on a deal, only to have it fall through because of some external event that had nothing to do with you (such as your contact getting fired, moved, or promoted into a less hands-on role).

<comment><USER29> As someone involved in enterprise purchasing occasionally, all of this is true. Particularly notable is the timeframe and the random external events killing the sale.

If you're going to sell to enterprise, be OK with 2 year sales cycles and ensure your salesperson is running lots of leads.</comment></comment>


Declining eyesight improved by looking at deep red light - <AUTHOR> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-06/ucl-dei062620.php <comment><USER2> And green supposedly reduces pain.

And blue keeps you awake.

The guys with their RGB computer gear where right after all...

<comment><USER3> > green supposedly reduces pain

There's a Jasper Fforde book[1] which treats green like an opiod (of course, the book is about a dalton style genetic dystopia - colour vision instead of race, but one with Ford in a Mao style "great leap forward").

The whole book treats colour as a powerful thing to manipulate bodies and minds.

[1] 125-66-53 in - [http://www.jasperfforde.com/grey/chroma.html](http://www.jasperfforde.com/grey/chroma.html)

<comment><USER4> Personal anecdote, I was able to improve my eyesight by getting a 70 inch TV as a monitor and placing it 6 feet away.

I was about -5 and moved to -4.75

<comment><USER5> I am missing the connection here. Why would this improve your eyesight?

<comment><USER4> If you are nearsighted then it's probably because your eyes are adjusting to close objects like reading and looking at a monitor. Your eyes adapt to their focal length. For example, taxi drivers often get farsighted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Discussed extensively: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23685915](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23685915)

</comment><comment><USER7> I am not sure if this is related, but I am heavily short sighted and facing the sun with closed eyes for a couple of minutes sharpens my eyes.

I suspect it is just because I tend to spend too much time in dark rooms and in front of screens and being in the bright sun "fixes" that for a while.

<comment><USER8> It's forcing your pupils to constrict. Decreasing the aperture size on a lens increases the field of view. So, while your eye might not be able to accommodate at the correct distance given the current convergence point, there is more room for error. It's a fairly common method in photography, in cases where one might have difficulty getting a correct focus on a subject. It's not a "fix", but a compensation.

<comment><USER9> > Decreasing the aperture size on a lens increases the field of view.

No, the aperture has no effect on the field of view. They are orthogonal features of how a lens works.

<comment><USER10> I think the commentator meant "depth of field"

<comment><USER8> yes, didn't have my first coffee yet

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There are several comments here pointing out that RGB devices such as phones and monitors usually cannot make a narrow band of light around 670 nm.

But the article ties this to light absorption by mitochondria, which it says absorb [1] 650-1000 mm light.

Two questions:

1\. If you use a narrow band source of light, does it really need to be around 670 nm, or will anything in that 650-1000 range likely do?

2\. Would it actually matter if there is also light outside this band?

If it doesn't actually have to be narrow and only contain 650-1000 nm, then it might actually work with some RGB devices. There seems to be significant variation among RGB devices, though.

jlokier linked to spectra for iPhone X [2] and iPad Pro 9.7/iPad Air 2 [3]. The iPhone X with Night Shift at maximum has a significant output about 650 nm. The iPads have very little above 650 nm.

This suggests that RGB devices might work for this, but there is no easy way of knowing for a given RGB device unless you can get its spectrogram.

From what I've been able to find, it looks like Philips Hue bulbs just miss, with their red falling off rapidly near 650 nm.

Candles look really good for this [4], and I'd guess similar for fires. I wonder if this means that ancient people tended to keep better eyesight in old age then us, because every significant light source they had (sunlight, moonlight, firelight) had a lot of its energy above 650 nm?

[1] OT, but why the heck does the "b" in "absorb" become a "p" in "absorption"?

[2] [http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_41a.html](http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_41a.html)

[3] [http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_35.html](http://www.displaymate.com/Spectra_35.html)

[4] [http://dev.informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2015/NovemberDec...](http://dev.informationdisplay.org/IDArchive/2015/NovemberDecember/FrontlineTechnologyCandleLikeEmission.aspx)

<comment><USER12> > 2\. Would it actually matter if there is also light outside this band?

Your pupils will adjust to perceived intensity. So if the bulk of the light comes in at shorter wavelengths it'll contract and you'll get even less of the already small fraction in the range of interest.

On the other side in the infrared it's more a question of safety. You don't want to overload your retina.

So you want it visible but long wavelengths only, which boils down to a fairly narrow range.

That's assuming it actually works. Single studies and all that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > ...simple brief exposures to light wavelengths that recharge the energy > system that has declined in the retina cells, rather like re-charging a > battery.

If retina cells' energy absorbing properties are so selective, then how such treatment is different from daily exposure to ambient or dusktime sunlight? Or this 'recharging' stops in presence of 'wrong' wavelengths in the spectrum?

<comment><USER14> I think it's about intensity. It's well known that powerful light in the morning from the sun is good for you. But it needs to be above a certain intensity.

<comment><USER15> I currently have the morning sun blasting through my window every morning, and it feels like it's having the opposite effect: reduced sleep quality and a foggier brain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is one of used methods of improving (or preventing from declining, depending how you look into this) eyesight for children in Ukrainian (and probably many other post-Soviet) clinics.

I'm 30 now, I have been myopic since 6-7 years old. Every year from around 1998 to 2008 I went (well, was forced to go by my mother, she didn't like the idea of glasses) to clinic, where during 10-14 days I and other children did lots of exercises, which presumably had to improve my eyesight. Staring into a device, which emitted red light, was one of such exercises.

It usually happened one time a day, a doctor collected all children (10-15) into a group, we went into dark room, where the doctor pointed a light beam from that device (it was semi-portable) into child's eyes. There were 3-4 sessions, 1-2 minutes each. We were also encouraged to look into the sun in the evening, when it is close to the horizon and is red (for a few minutes each day).

The only problem with all those exercises is that they didn't really worked. I remember that during the first few years I at least was able to see some marginal improvements (like being able to see at the end of 2 week period 5-7 lines out of 10 instead of 4-5 on the standard chart).

However, all subsequent years I (and most children there) just imitated the progress due to the pressure from doctors ("Don't you see that line? You saw it yesterday. Have you watched TV again?") and parents ("Darling, look more carefully, you probably will see at least some letters there."). I still remember the first 7 lines (+ the last line) of that table by heart, more than 10 years since I saw/used it the last time.

Nothing worked: \- neither exercises with lenses (you look though +lenses, then though -ones, than again though +ones and so on) \- nor direct shots of vitamins and actovegin into your butt and under eyes (not as unpleasant experience as it sounds, they just enter a thin needle 1-2 cm below each of your eyes and administer a shot, it doesn't hurt all that much). \- nor special eye treatment, where you hold small reservoirs with hot Riboflavin (vitamin B2) contacting your eyes for 30 minutes each day (there were electrodes there, with small current going through your eyes, probably to make the absorption better) \- nor neck massage (What the hell neck massage has to do with eyesight? We were told, that it somehow improves blood circulation in the neck, and it is somehow better for blood circulation close to your eyes). The most pleasant exercise, by the way, you just seat for 5-7 minutes and a lady doctor does a massage.

Doing that as a child, without parents (I was dropped of in the morning and taken out closer to 16.00-17.00), waiting in queues for all those exercises (sometimes - 30-60 minutes for each). It was as close to hell as I got under my childhood.

The result - I got more or less the same -4 and -5 until I was 20 years old, just as other children, which just wore glasses. A few years after that I did laser correction, since that time I got 100% eyesight.

So, I don't believe in that "treatment". If it does something - the effect is marginal and quickly disappears a few weeks later. Get good/convenient glasses or contact lenses, if you have enough money - wait until 20-22 years and do laser surgery. It will change your life just as it changed mine.

<comment><USER17> City / organization name in hohlyandiya?

Massages CAN improve circulation. It's just uncertain if it really helps with the issue at hand. For example, head massages increase hair width but don't cure baldness.

<comment><USER16> 1\. "hohlyandiya" is considered as derogatory name of Ukraine, it's strange to see it being used on Hacker News (a link for non-Ukrainian folk here: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/хохол](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/хохол) and [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/khokhol](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/khokhol)).

2\. Ivano-Frankivsk regional hospital/clinic. Well, massages probably can do many things, they just don't cure/slow progressing myopia.

<comment><USER17> Thanks, sorry if I offended you. It was just my way to convey to you why I am asking about the specific hospital.

I honestly consider kazap/hohol to be too comical to be offensive, but apologies if I offended, not my intent.

<comment><USER18> No problem, silly kazap. Sorry if I offended you.

<comment><USER17> I am a hohol too ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "The technology is simple and very safe, using a deep red light of a > specific wavelength, that is absorbed by mitochondria in the retina that > supply energy for cellular function."

Interesting, I would have never thought that we have cells that use light as energy.

Also, is this deep red light found in sunlight as well? As in, does this treatment only work with light that is restricted to this wavelength, or does it work with any light that contains ample amounts of this wavelength?

I know its been coming up here and there that we are just not getting enough sunlight in general with everyone studying indoors, working indoors, exercising indoors, etc. Just seeing if this is a broader issue of people not spending enough time in the great outdoors.

<comment><USER20> Sunlight has tons of red and infrared light (red and near infrared have mostly the same effects on cells, the main difference being penetration distance).

Light is ridiculously important for mitochondrial health, and that effect on mitochondria is one of the main reasons sunlight is so necessary for optimal health. Fun fact, 75% of potential ATP production only results from light exposure, with only 25% from food. We run on light more than we do food (necessary nutrients and minerals aside).

<comment><AUTHOR> > Fun fact, 75% of potential ATP production only results from light exposure, > with only 25% from food. We run on light more than we do food (necessary > nutrients and minerals aside).

This is fascinating. Would you care to share literature that dives into this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Does this have any similarly with staring at a fire?

<comment><USER22> Oooh, good question! Anyone able to answer this?

<comment> core-questions Certainly a fire produces light in this wavelength, but also in many other wavelengths nearby, so since a narrow band seems to be the requirement for the eyesight improvement, it's probably not optimal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Neat. Helps with blue light sensitivity. Ought to help with all those awful blue on black night modes out there. But won't help lens flexibility, so readers will still be needed.

</comment><comment><USER24> Is this advertising? Interesting findings, but it ends with "we're developing a product..."

<comment><USER17> Probably. There is a device that "fixes baldness" that just shines red light at your head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So I should hang deep red LED strips all over my home office, then.

I finally have an excuse...

</comment><comment><USER26> Related -- has anyone here tried [http://www.glassesoff.com/](http://www.glassesoff.com/) and had some success?

It trains the brain rather than affecting the eyes.

<comment><USER17> No. Looks like it's only for nearsightedness anyway.

I have practiced looking at a pencil end / hair follicle / other small object as close to my eye as possible and then looking at a distant object for years now. I have also read about the Bates method, palming, etc and have tried them on and off over the years.

The close-far method seems to be the only reasonable "exercise" \- though no one can tell me for sure whether there is muscles involved (or relaxing said muscles) in looking far away.

Anyway, nothing has helped. I also don't see strong research on the topic however. As an example, doing a one-arm chinup is possible for most people. It can take up to half a decade of structured, regular training.

Maybe fixing eyes is possible, but it requires 30+ mins a day, every day for years. Who knows.

Edit: Also, the strongest studies are the ones comparing Chinese kids in China and Austarlia, where the latter spend more time outdoors and have reliably better eyesight. Not really relevant to adults, but can help when raising your kids.

<comment><USER27> One of my covid projects is improving my nearsightedness, I'm 20/200+. I've been spending 20 minutes a day doing techniques called Eqyptian Black Dot and Egyptian Letter Gazing plus other techniques I got from a book called The Art of Cosmic Vision by Mantak Chia, a well known Taiji master. I've been doing it now for 7 weeks and have noticed significant improvement in my vision. I'm not going to be driving without glasses any time soon, however, I am increasingly able to function without glasses, which was my main goal.

Your point about the outdoors is also made in the book. We are spending our time in near focus on screens and not using our far vision, as in nature. I now make sure to take time during the day to get outside and do distance gazing and expose my eyes to sunlight.

<comment><USER17> I printed out an eye chart and have consistent lighting in a room where I use it. My eyes have not improved in the past 5 years of doing exercises on and off.

I recommend printing an eye chart and testing yourself w/ the same lighting and distance from the chart.

Also, keep me updated please (if you remember to, post here or something), genuinely interested.

I am tempted to buy a huge screen and place it across the room from me to have the focus point further away.

I think part of the problem might be that it's focused on one place, rather than close focus. But I guess it's better to be focused further away.

<comment><USER27> I printed out an eye chart this week to do just that. I also purchased a device for testing and tracking my vision that I just started with: [https://www.eyeque.com/visioncheck/](https://www.eyeque.com/visioncheck/) You can email me (davidwitt415 at gmail) if you want me to keep you updated on my progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Works for mental acuity too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042018](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042018)

</comment><comment><USER29> I need to check the wavelength of the safelight in my dark room, but I sometimes spend hours in deep red light, so I guess that could be good.

</comment><comment><USER30> This seems relevant: [http://jonls.dk/redshift/](http://jonls.dk/redshift/)

</comment><comment><USER31> My ophthalmologist suggested to do similar exercises 10+ years ago, like seeing in 'lazer oculars'.

So I guess this is not new practice.

</comment><comment><USER32> Twenty-four participants of varying ages that found an effect on older people? This study reeks of p-hacking.

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds harmless to try at home.

Anybody know how to make a 670nm deep red light?

Can an iPhone do it or would you want to buy an LED?

<comment><USER34> Be very careful with this. Light sources can emit all kind of peaks of light you might not notice. For example a LED might look red but can also emit some infrared.

<comment><USER35> Could that be harmful to the eye?

<comment><USER36> Yes, just like looking at an eclipse without the proper gear. Your eyes don't register the threat and stay wide open while getting blasted by harmful wavelengths

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Would you get the same impact wearing red-tinted sunglasses in daylight?

</comment><comment><USER38> Sounds like it should be trivial to build a website -- a future Show HN? -- to make the whole screen the correct color for a specific interval of time, fading in an out at the start/finish. The only thing the user might have to do it turn up the screen brightness first.

<comment><USER12> Computer monitors do not work like that. They emit a mix of 3 fixed spectra. You cannot shift the red to an even longer wavelength. At least not without adding some physical filters on top that only let through the long tail (which is fairly inefficient). At that point you might as well buy specialized LEDs.</comment></comment>


WireGuard: fast, modern, secure VPN tunnel - <AUTHOR> https://www.wireguard.com/ <comment><USER2> Note for users in China: you'll still need Shadowsocks in your stack (e.g. shadowsocks + CN2 + dns crypt/mask + IPv6 tunneling), since WireGuard is vulnerable to "deep packet inspection" and this is not a priority for WireGuard, as the author makes clear here:

[https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2016-July/000184...](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2016-July/000184.html)

If anyone has more recent information on dealing with the Great Firewall, I'd love to hear it.

<comment><USER3> I can't imagine shadowsocks will continue to work for long. There's not much traffic like that on the Internet, meaning it is extremely susceptible to identification via machine learning. Add on all the opsec problems associated with point-to-point VPN tunnels and you're going to have a bad time.

See also: [https://github.com/madeye/sssniff](https://github.com/madeye/sssniff)

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h It looks like sssniff just checks whether a handful of packets are smaller size than expected; isn't that completely trivial to fix? Granted, it's one step in a long game of cat-and-mouse.

<comment><USER3> Not really, it's actually measuring entropy of the first few payloads. This is one example of the larger problem; typical wire protocols, even privacy focused ones like TLS/IPsec, tend to have some red content before the black starts.

If your goal is to hide in the noise, the best way is to find a source of noise and sound like it. Just being quiet doesn't do it.

Edit: nvm, can't get the code to paste. Look at the if elif elif elif block at the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was a recent FLOSS Weekly episode with the developer. I thought it was an interesting listen.

[https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/468](https://twit.tv/shows/floss- weekly/episodes/468)

</comment><comment><USER5> I can't wait for WireGuard to take over the VPN world :-)

The whole solution just seems so elegant. It's just not at the point where I can download a GUI app and press one button to just connect. Waiting for that to happen.

<comment><USER6> I think that it would be hard for WireGuard to take over the VPN world. IPsec works virtually everywhere without any additional software. OpenVPN is easier to setup and have many mature clients for every platform, so if you require custom software, why would anyone choose something new, when you have proven and popular OpenVPN. I'm sure that WireGuard has some advantages, but I'm still skeptical.

That said, IPsec is astonishingly hard to setup and diagnose. Recently I installed strongswan on my server and Windows 10 is my client. I didn't figure out how to send intermediate letsencrypt certificate to Windows 10, it wasn't accepting connections without installing intermediate certificate as trusted and I tried very hard, I'm sure that strongswan configuration is correct (I put intermediate certificates into cacerts and it works on macOS). It's especially fun with very little and cryptic information from Windows 10. Now when connection was finally established, routes were not set properly. It turned out that configuring connection via GUI was not enough, I had to change some connection property via powershell script, so client would receive routes from server. Yes, VPN isn't very easy to setup, at least for casual use. But in the end it worked and I don't see any reason to switch.

<comment><USER5> OpenVPN is easier to setup than what exactly?

I found OpenVPN to just feel VERY VERY clunky. The clients look ugly and unpolished. Before anyone says that's superficial, I do think it shows a lack of attention to detail. Setting up the server also wasn't terribly easy (it wasn't too hard either for someone like me who's used Linux for many years).

I think most of OpenVPN's value has come from the fact that it's the last difficult of solutions to implement.

For the record, I wasn't claiming that WireGuard was this easy to setup. But I think the mentality of WireGuard is simplicity. I think it's only a matter of time before someone DOES implement a single click client/server with it.

Right now I use Algo, which is just an excellent set of scripts used to setup VPN servers. This way I don't have to use OpenVPN, and I can actually use IPSec with built-in OS clients.

Update: Also I'd like to add that WireGuard just feels like the kind of thing Apple would've implemented in their OS 10 years ago. But Apple today wouldn't. They just seem to be barely treading water in their MacOS group.

<comment><USER7> > The clients look ugly and unpolished.

Check out Viscosity. I've been a user for a few years now, it's great stuff.

<comment><USER8> Seconded, it's a great client and the support from the devs is good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also discussed here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16326236](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16326236)

(presumably that's why it's on the front page today)

</comment><comment><USER10> the WireGuard protocol has recently been formerly verified and findings are worth checking:

\- [https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7sh3k7/analysis_of_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7sh3k7/analysis_of_the_wireguard_vpn_protocol_is_now/)

has anyone done MFA with it yet?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Multi-factor Authentication? How would you do that with a system that is explicitly designed to use asymmetric keys?

<comment><USER10> see discussion [https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2017-September/0...](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2017-September/001753.html)

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Ah, clever. Thanks for link

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're using Ubiquiti Edgemax routers there are Wireguard packages that work very well for site to site VPN's.

<comment><USER12> Found here: [https://github.com/Lochnair/vyatta-wireguard#vyatta- wireguar...](https://github.com/Lochnair/vyatta-wireguard#vyatta-wireguard) and [https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/Release-WireGuard- for-...](https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX/Release-WireGuard-for- EdgeRouter/td-p/1904764)

<comment><USER13> This should work with USG routers too right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Previously:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wireguard&sort=byDate&prefix=f...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wireguard&sort=byDate&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

<comment><USER15> In particular, the first, which seems to have the most comments.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11994265](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11994265)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> At risk of thread-jacking, may I ask: Why, when, and where should I be using a VPN to practice good, secure use of online content/resources?

I learned a lot from running through 2FA and security practices as explained at Tech Solidarity [1], but I'm still not clear on where VPNs should fit into my workflow on desktop, laptop, and mobile.

[1] [https://techsolidarity.org/resources/basic_security.htm](https://techsolidarity.org/resources/basic_security.htm)

<comment><USER9> I would be careful about using VPNs ever. For the most part, the truism about VPN services is accurate: VPN services give you all the security of coffee shop wifi, but in the cloud.

If you're going to use a VPN, you need to set up your own server. This will probably mean picking a cloud provider to trust, which isn't a fun problem (although it has a simple answer: use AWS). You'll need to set up the serverside to whatever VPN you choose to use on that cloud server.

For this problem, the gold standard is still Trail of Bits's Algo. Hopefully sometime this year we'll get to the point where Algo sets up WireGuard for people on Macbooks and Windows machines.

In the meantime, if you don't know what you're doing or how to set up a VPN, I'd use Algo's strongSwan rather than a shared WireGuard provider.

<comment><USER16> Great advice on technical implementation - thanks for this!

I guess the takeaway I'm getting is that using this AWS-backed, encrypted tunnel will let me:

        Mask my traffic destination (via AWS routing)
        Hide my traffic content (via encryption to AWS)
        Minimize/eliminate tracking (assuming I don't accept cookies)

Are those the benefits I'm looking for out of this? Or am I missing benefits here?

<comment><USER17> The important part is knowing what you're looking for.

Using a VPN isn't inherently going to make you more secure. It is advised to do so when you are in networks where you don't trust someone to not monitor your traffic or inject stuff into unsecured traffic.

If you trust your ISP, then you really don't need a VPN. Unfortunately, most can't be trusted if you're in the US, especially since there was a recent senate action[1] that lets them collect and sell your history.

If you do use a VPN, then the trust problems with ISP will shift towards trust in AWS. There's nothing stopping AWS from doing the same things that your ISP does. It is just that most people trust AWS to not do that.

So to be clear, AWS can still see all your traffic and inject things into unsecured webpages. The VPN will just won't let your local ISP see what you're doing. All they see is encrypted traffic going to your AWS instance.

Also your traffic is not anymore tracking proof when you use a VPN since instead of people storing your home IP address, they can store your AWS VPN's address (which no one really does anymore. They just use cookies and tracking elements).

PS: Note that AWS charges for bandwidth. There are 'lightsail' instances where first 1TB egress is free.

[1]: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/03/how-i...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/03/how-isps-can-sell-your-web-history-and-how-to-stop-them/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there an equivalent to WireGaurd that can be used on Android or IOS?

<comment><USER19> kernel module needs to be integrated into custom Android ROM

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Softether can use in China

</comment><comment><USER21> ...for one specific OS...

Or a userspace implementation written in difficult to bootstrap languages...</comment>


Show HN: LemonTalk – Video calls with customers made easy - <AUTHOR> https://lemontalk.fr/?lang=en <comment><AUTHOR> Hi there !

We are very excited to launch LemonTalk, a video call solution that allows you to talk to your customers, directly from your website.

With LemonTalk :

there's no need to mix several tools to organize a remote client meeting

LemonTalk is an easy-to-use all-in-one solution (no download or plugins required, video call, chat, receiving & sending attachments, remote screen sharing, appointment booking system, note-taking solution, internal tracking and CRM system).

meet the need for an authentic and customized client relationship

Continue to meet and talk to your customers. You won't lose time by doing so, on the contrary. They'll make you save time by telling you what they need and how they need it. So keep communicating. Convert your leads into sales, by understanding them and delivering. Offer an outstanding customer experience.

Here you can find the demo of our product : \- Part 1 | the customer journey : [https://youtu.be/f-Z3mWK2I_k](https://youtu.be/f-Z3mWK2I_k) \- Part 2 | the freelance, sale or CSM interface : [https://youtu.be/Sp4d7LfdnWg](https://youtu.be/Sp4d7LfdnWg) \- Part 3 | the administrator interface : [https://youtu.be/Z5hMe61Evgw](https://youtu.be/Z5hMe61Evgw)

Please, test and love : [https://lemontalk.fr/?lang=en](https://lemontalk.fr/?lang=en) Choose LemonStart | no credit card needed Create and name your discussion space | 2 seconds Create a CTA button on your site and integrate the URL | 5 seconds Congratulations, you rock

Besides... It would be fun that « Lemon me » enters the everyday language !

I hope you'll like the idea.

I will be happy to reply to your questions, suggestions and improvements or your feedback

Thanks :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Lemon may have negative connotations, we have laws called "Lemon Laws" to protect consumers from being sold crappy cars

Also thinking of a Led Zeppelin quote :]

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow ! I didn't know about that :s thanks for sharing ! Are you talking about "the lemon song" ?

We started mainly in France but we want to open it to the world, do you think it could be a blocker for us ?

<comment><USER2> Could be, but if you provide value, early adopters won't care.

It's relatively easy to change a company name, so I'd ask users and make a call with more data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> looks nice. I wonder if you plan to have some integration with other tools like Slack or Hubspot ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks ! :) We don't for now. If you want to import your data to Hubspot you can export in CSV.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are interesting uses of VR? (includes self-created list, Dec. 2018) - <AUTHOR> Dear VR,
It's been a few years. I haven't seen you too much on Hacker News, but that is probably just me. I've seen more about blockchain hype, which I think is a bit odd since I had to do some serious mental gymnastics in order to see valid uses for it. With you I never had this problem.
So I decided to write you this letter and see how you're doing. I've seen some pretty cool things, admittedly mostly via YouTube. I think it is fair to say that you are already doing useful things, albeit a bit niche. I wonder if HN knows about a couple of cool things that you are up to. What apps, games or other cool experiences do you have?
Sincerely yours,
Mettamage
P.S.
1. Creating 3D sculptures with Tilt Brush [brush]
2. Light saber dance battles (similar: Box VR) [saber]
3. Teaching surgeons how to do medical procedures
4. Google Earth [earth]
5. Skyrim VR / Budget Cuts [sky]
6. Amazing video experiences
7. Video/narratives mixed with mini games [nar]
8. Home decoration
9. Drone assisted VR flying
10. Horror experiences
11. Thrilling experiences [thrill]
12. Collaborative blackboard / whiteboard drawing
13. Empathetic experiences (e.g. living like a color blind person)
14. Emergency training (e.g. escaping a building on fire, car crash in water)
15. Virtual doll house type of experiences [doll]
16. Escape room games
---
[brush]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eXwIyZ-H8o
[saber]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E97a-vKJ7o
[earth]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMpXQ_XjPWY
[sky]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAnivVI7258
[nar]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb1efNYhkGI
[thrill]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M92kfnpg-k
[doll]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WntrqX_bg_Y <comment><AUTHOR> I've noticed there are a lot of simulator apps that keep you in one place. I suppose this is because they haven't solved walking in a nice way yet.

<comment><USER2> roads...where we're going we don't need roads...</comment></comment>


How can we make Tasers safer? - <AUTHOR> I saw this article today on Reuters, which talks about incidents in which an individual died during or following a police response when the police used a Taser to subdue the individual. The article asserted that mentally ill individuals, frequent drug users, pregnant women, and individuals with heart problems are all at higher risk for serious injury following a Taser shock. Another cause of serious injury following Taser deployment is trauma resulting from the subject falling and hitting the ground.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-taser-911/>Reuters
Further reading about how Tasers work and affect the body here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/how-a-taser-works
So, to prevent needless deaths and give police an even better tool, how can we make Tasers safer?
My thought is that the shock of the Taser could be improved by tailoring it to the recipient of the shock and the location of the probes, using computer control. The device could decrease the power of the shock for at-risk groups or when the probes are close to the heart. The device could also increase the power for larger subjects, or those who are more resilient. If the device detects that a Taser shock could be lethal to the subject, it could emit a warning of some sort, allowing the user to proceed or abort the shock.
In this line of thinking, would it be possible to use the Taser probes as sensors to briefly analyze the subject? The probes would need to have good contact with the subject to get any results. And in most cases this analysis would have to be very quick, I would say 1 second or less. Would useful information be gained from such an analysis? Many factors, such as mental illness, cannot be assessed this way. But perhaps others, like proximity to heart, can be? Perhaps the device can determine the distance to the heart based on the perceived strength of the electrical signals the heart generates?
Any other ideas for making Tasers safer? <comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR: Can we use the probes of a Taser to briefly analyze each individual, via a smarter Taser device, then tailor the shock with computer control to induce muscle paralysis but not cause serious injury?

Any other ideas for improving the safety and efficacy of Tasers?</comment>