Paul Allen Sues Apple, Others Over Patents - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385241453119382.html <comment><USER2> _"We recognize that innovation has a value, and patents are the way to protect that."_

Innovation has no value to the public if you don't produce and ship a good product. In my opinion the company that actually ships something should always have the upper hand because it's good for consumers. Patent reform should follow a use-it-or-lose-it model. If a company comes up with an innovative idea, ships a product, and that product stays on the market (in one form or another) for many years they probably deserve to own the patent. If people are buying it then it must be halfway decent. If they never produce a shipping product they shouldn't be able to hold the patent hostage. If they decide to stop selling a product that uses the patent someone else should have the opportunity to dust it off.

<comment><USER3> I mostly agree, but patents _were_ partly intended to protect small-fry scientists/inventors who came up with good ideas that they couldn't necessarily commercialize themselves, by providing a legal mechanism to keep manufacturers from just ripping off the idea as they shopped it around. It makes more sense when it's not a portfolio company holding hundreds of patents, though, and when the inventions are genuine breakthroughs: e.g. if a biotech researcher comes up with something that really would improve pharmaceutical research greatly, it seems okay to me if there's a legal mechanism to make pharmaceutical firms pay him licensing fees if they want to use the invention, even if he himself never ramps up into pharmaceutical research. This becomes much more of a minefield if the bar to novelty/nonobviousness is low, though, because then you just get people preemptively "inventing" a bunch of things that other people would've found anyway, and then demanding licensing fees.

<comment><USER4> Patents are good for protecting inventions that require a large amount of capital investment to bring to production.

Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. On the other hand, complicated manufactured goods needed patent protection because the factories needed to produce them would cost millions to build, and a small inventor could never raise the money without patent protection.

In the age of computing, the cost of the equipment to create software is negligible, so it's far more optimal to not grant patent protection.

<comment><USER5> "Fashion and food were traditionally not protected by patents because to make a cake or a dress, one only needed an oven or a sowing machine. "

Is that really true? I don't know I am just asking. I personally don't think capital investment should have anything to do with the patent. It's like giving no value to the innovative technologies made by people in garage. Just doesn't make sense to me.

On a side note, do you consider time as capital investment?

<comment><USER6> > _Is that really true?_

Yes. Or more precisely because clothes and food are too "utilitarian".

"Lessons from fashion's free culture"

[http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion...](http://ca.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html)

"Copyright law's grip on film, music and software barely touches the fashion industry ... and fashion benefits in both innovation and sales, says Johanna Blakley."

<comment><USER7> So then music, software, books, etc. - all requiring low capital, should be in the same realm of fashion - right? If you don't believe that's true: please compare capital of an industrial bakery to a software company of the same revenue/profit.

<comment><USER8> The important distinction between fashion and software is that clothing is useless unless properly manufactured. The materials and manufacturing process are an integral part of the final product. To duplicate a garment is to reverse engineer it, source the materials, and then remarket it as a knock- off, or as some imitation item under another brand.

Fashion doesn't need strict copyright enforcement because by the time you've reverse engineered something and put it into production, it's already wildly out of date.

You can see how Apple applies this principle to their main products, aggressively innovating so that by the time their products are copied, which is inevitable, they have already obsoleted them.

Software can be duplicated at effectively zero cost to produce an identical copy. It also has a much longer lifespan for mature packages (Office, XP, etc.), where people will use the same software, plus or minus patches, for five years or more.

There needs to be some kind of reasonable limitation on what people are able to do with software that they purchase, so at the very least a form of copyright is required, not unlike protections offered to books.

The real thorn is that software patents are mostly preposterous, with very few requiring actual innovation to produce. It's like trying to patent a plot twist or a character quirk and then suing all authors that use it.

<comment><USER6> Copywright != patent

copyright protects the expression of an idea, while a patent protects the idea itself

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's got to be the mother of all patent lawsuits to date.

I hope that it will now become clear to the world at large that a patent without any intention to produce a product is simply a waste of time and money. I'd much prefer it if all these patent filing clowns would keep their 'research' locked up in their vaults and called them trade secrets, that would give nobodies like me a chance at just getting on with our jobs without stepping on someones patented toes.

<comment><USER10> The optimistic side of me hopes that people are seeing the writing on the wall for software patents, and are hoping to extract value before the landscape changes.

<comment><USER11> I have a question: what makes software different from other disciplines/domains with regards to patents? Why are "software patents" more often pointed out as pointless than other kinds of patents?

<comment><USER12> Software patents have a strong tendency to be both vague and obvious. Although these are supposed to make something unpatentable, this doesn't happen in practice with software patents (possibly due to the relative novelty of software and lack of understanding among non-technical people).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is the problem with Patent troll "portfolio companies" like his: It doesn't make anything, so there can never be a countersuit with protective patents.

So, even if we had IBM step in with its portfolio of 30,000 patents (and growing by 5000 each year) and snarl up the entire industry to prove a point, Allen would be like "whatever" and soldier on, because he makes nothing.

<comment><USER14> disclaimer- I'm against software patents in general. However, in this case, to argue against my own opinions:

The research and resultant patents in this case were in the public record for all to see, read, and if they found the idea useable, free to contact the patent holder to discuss a deal.

The patent systems a broken mess - no argument here. But a firm that actually did research on specific items, kept track of a relatively small portfolio and then selectively went after some big boys isn't as much of a patent troll as those who just buy up thousands and thousands of them and muscle people around.)

<comment><USER15> Take your not-so-much-of-a-troll company and allow them to hire not only researcher-employees, but also researcher-independent-contractors. Are they more trollish now? If not, what if some of their researchers band together to lower their insurance costs and improve their tax situation; they establish their own contracting firm which the not-a-troll company pays to supply researchers. Finally, what if this contracting firm works on a part-time or short-term basis with many companies who want research done?

The problem with trolling is not that properties that can be sold and monetized by the new owner. It is that ideas are being treated as (material) property. Ideas can be formed by multiple persons independently, and any given idea can be shared among any number of thinkers without diminishing the strength of the thought. In particular, you can have submarine patents that nobody realizes they're infringing until the day the troll emerges from under his bridge to tell the whole world to pay up. Or, one can be granted a patent on an idea that's actually quite common and obvious, and this patent can back up a threat of costly and risky litigation, effecting the coercive transfer of money from productive members of society to patent-system-abusers.

Innovators need access to scarce material goods and they have limited lifetimes, but extending our effective scheme for managing scarce resources to the ideas they develop is not working so well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sad to see him become a Patent troll.

Also, what could be the point of such a lawsuit? Surely Paul Allen cannot think that he can have out-of-court settlements (no cross-licensing since his company does not produce anything) with all the listed companies. Some of them will surely fight back.

<comment><USER9> > Sad to see him become a Patent troll.

Yes, quite. Paul Allen had an excellent reputation up to this point. He always struck me as the one with the interesting projects, such as backing Burt Rutan.

> Some of them will surely fight back.

 _all_ of them will fight back.

<comment><USER17> Maybe he is trying to destroy the patent system.

If you have valid patents that read on various valuable products, and you can bank roll a credible law suit _asking for injunctions and not accepting any other kind of relief_ , that might create enough chaos to get the attention of law makers.

<comment><USER9> I'll believe that when I see it. But it's a possibility.

The breadth of this is certainly something to give food for thought, this is not an 'ordinary' patent troll lawsuit.

Part of me has Paul Allen as a very nice and visionary guy and part of me reminds me that he didn't exactly distance himself from microsofts illegal practices during the Gates' years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's really odd that Paul Allen is doing this, he certainly doesn't need the money or the hassle. Is it possible that he's suing these high profile companies to spark some kind of legislative reform re: software patents?

<comment><USER19> Little is known publicly about Allen's state of health these days, or who is really in control of his holdings, for that matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some background info from a /. comment: [http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1768970&cid=3340...](http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1768970&cid=33401104)

 _This is amusing. Here's some history on the company. Interval Research was an R &D outfit that Paul Allen founded back in the 1990's. You've never heard of it, because they were incredibly secretive. So hush-hush that when they went belly-up no one outside of the company knew about it. Literally. It took months before the Press finally got wind of it.

The place was a great place to be if you were doing research. Literally "let a thousand roses bloom". Unfortunately, they were horribly mismanaged. Allen blew hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly over budget, before he finally realized that he wasn't getting anything out it. They wanted to be the next version of SRI. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out.

Top management was, at best, incompetent. At worse, downright crooks. They hired some people on certain terms, and then shortly afterwards said "Opps - we really meant to hire you at a lower level". Truly a boneheaded move. Fortunately it didn't happen to me, but the look on people's faces when they found out was unforgettable.

Interval did some really amazing stuff; years ahead of its time. But they could never get the products out to market (though they tried), mostly due to amazing incompetence on the part of the lead engineers. You know the type. Big egos and no talent. Perhaps there was an exception to that rule, but I don't recall it.

I'm not surprised that Paul Allen has turned into a Patent Troll; it will be the only way he can get his money back. The only thing surprising is that it took him so long. But he never impressed me as being the sharpest knife in the drawer. As for other history, they had a number of big names there, from many fields. In tech, you may have heard of Lee Felsenstein if you're familiar with history. Their office was in the Research area of Palo Alto. Near Stanford, down the street from the Wall Street Journal, between Page Mill and Hillview

Despite that unfortunate ending, I still look back fondly on Interval. They paid well, too. I made lots of money off of Paul Allen. Thanks, Paul!_

</comment><comment><USER21> So he's suing Apple, Google, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube.

<comment><USER9> The only one missing from that list is Microsoft, wonder why... and youtube == google.

<comment><USER22> > "The only one missing from that list is Microsoft"

FTA: "Notably missing from the defendants' list are Microsoft, in which Mr. Allen remains a major investor"

<comment><USER9> That was the point.

Wonder if microsoft has a deal with Allen or if he just doesn't want to sue the company he has a stake in.

This could easily be spun as Allen as the attack dog against microsofts competition.

<comment><USER22> If I had to guess, it's because he doesn't want to sue a company he has a stake in. That's like suing yourself. Patent and intellectual property copyright is a funny thing; the owner can enforce (or try to get it enforced) when they feel like it. They usually let it go when it's to their benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'll burn a hundred points but somebody has to say it:

HEY PAUL ALLEN, GO FUCK YOURSELF!

</comment><comment><USER24> It would be really cool if mainstream media would link to the patents the article talks about because their description is horrible.

<comment><USER25> Patents are referenced here: [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://online.wsj.com/pub...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/intervallicensingcomplaint0827.pdf)

U.S. PATENT NO. 6,263,507 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,682 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314 U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652

<comment><USER26> \- 6,263,507: Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular application to browsing information represented by audiovisual data [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,263,507.PN.&OS=PN/6,263,507&RS=PN/6,263,507)

\- 6,034,652: Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6034652)

\- 6,788,314: Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6788314)

\- 6,757,682: Alerting users to items of current interest [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6757682)

<comment><USER27> Just going by titles it sounds like the NYTimes related article popup at the bottom of an article would be covered by these even more than some of the alleged companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I hope such lawsuits bring an end to software patents.

</comment><comment><USER29> Could this be the commencement of the long feared software patent Mutually Assured Destruction?

<comment><USER30> No, because patent trolls that don't make products can't be destroyed by patents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Who cares? It sounds big and scary and really bad... especially to us start-up types but I'd bet that there is nothing that hasn't been patented or could be deemed to be covered by a patent that's been put out on the web.

Seriously, start looking through the patents filed on Google (I started with one of these Paul Allen ones, then moved on to others filed by others but which were cited) and came to the conclusion that this is all ridiculous.

Here we see that Apple could possibly sue anyone for invoking the "mouseover" or "hover" events: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=mPYiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=mPYiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)

While I wholeheartedly agree with protecting IP, to me that is more of a copyright issue (not ripping off code) rather than ideas.

Ultimately what it means for us is: Go forth and code. Create whatever you want and ignore the patents out there. If you are successful, and a patent troll sues you, you can come to an agreement (license or otherwise). Really, no worries here.

</comment><comment><USER32> You know what I think we should do? Institute a law where you can't sue a company for patent infringement unless you do so before they introduce and make a substantial amount of money off that product. Say, 1 million in revenue or something.

<comment><USER33> Company A makes patent infringing product. Company A makes puppet Company B that licenses product for <substantial amount of money>, successfully fulfilling any sort of patent infringement limitation you can think of for the low low cost of a few lawyers.

Any policy you think of is going to have ridiculous loopholes and require companies to have patent 'watchdogs' who will need to search out fledgling products to make sure they're not infringing on any patents. These company watchdogs will have to justify their wages... by making even more patent lawsuits than there are now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Some seem rather obvious:

"The technology behind one patent allows a site to offer suggestions to consumers for items related to what they're currently viewing, or related to online activities of others in the case of social networking sites.

A second, among other things, allow readers of a news story to quickly locate stories related to a particular subject. Two others enable ads, stock quotes, news updates or video images to flash on a computer screen, peripherally to a user's main activity."

</comment><comment><USER27> Another interesting way to look at it, if he did win big in this case then gave it all to worthy causes it could be a net win for society.

Hopefully it draws attention to software patents flaws. If government were hesitant to move away from them altogether maybe they could try a 2 year trail of no new patents or something.

</comment><comment><USER35> > Paul Allen says he owns the technology behind all these ideas

It's hard to imagine Allen owning any technology Google or Apple are using...

</comment><comment><USER36> He should have sued Oracle too.

</comment><comment><USER37> Octopus ain't free, you know.

</comment><comment><USER38> someone should patent being a litigious prick

<comment><USER39> Haliburton tried:

<http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/11/junk-patents.html>

<comment><USER40> Halliburton specifically disclaimed any intent of actually using the patent against anyone but trolls - see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1608302>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Aristocracy is completely out of touch. Good news in a way.

</comment><comment><USER42> Maybe it's performance art?

<comment><USER43> or reverse psychology? I find it hard to imagine that someone who agreed to donate his billions to charity suddenly becoming a patent troll. Maybe he is trying provoke a repeal of business method patents the most direct (and expensive) way possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Paul Allen and Nathan Myhrvold (former-Msft CTO) must be two peas in a pod:<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/1853298215.shtml>

<comment><USER19> Allen, unlike Myhrvold, has done a lot of good. This is a weird move by his previous standards.

<comment><USER44> True, it's just intriguing that they're both high-ups from MSFT.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> my estimation of Mr. Allen has just plummeted

<comment><USER46> Check first who is on the administrative board of his company or who are the big share holders. Mr Allen may just be the visible tip of the iceberg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> point of evidence 5,436 that US software patents are a joke and need to be destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER47> If Larry can, why Paul cannot? ^_^

</comment><comment><USER5> "This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace," a Google spokesman said.

I nearly choked. Are you shitting me? Marketplace doesn't allow you to "steal" others technologies. How would they feel about others infringing their search engine patents. Before anyone go wild on me, let me make it clear I am not supporting Mr. Allen or software patents or even know if there is a patent infringement here. All I am saying is if there is an infringement, I don't get this Googler.</comment>


It's hard to like Android. - <AUTHOR> http://jerakeen.org/notes/2009/07/hard-to-like-android/ <comment><USER2> (Caution: I'm an Android fanboy)

I got two main problems with this article. First, it's mixing the weaknesses of Android with the weaknesses of the G1 hardware. There might not be a lot options available these days when it comes to buying an Android-enabled phone but it looks like this is going to change soon.

Secondly, all platforms have their pathologies and obviously Android is no exception, neither is the iPhone. I honestly think this is a fairly unbalanced presentation of Android. How long did you have to wait to get copy and paste working on the iPhone? Can you run multiple apps at the same time on the iPhone? Can you have widgets on the iPhone? What about the well known problems of the iPhone App Store we all hear a lot about these days? And about the hardware: if you have a problem with the non-standard earphone connectors of the G1 (which can be solved by a $5 adapter), what do you think about not being able to replace the battery of an iPhone yourself? You don't have these problems on Android.

I'm not trying to bash the iPhone here as I truly believe that it's a great phone, all I'm trying to say that this review isn't really fair and balanced. It's alright to be subjective but still, come on, isn't this a bit too much?

<comment><USER3> I know we're not supposed to ding Android for the G1's faults. But it's been, what, over a year and a half since the OHA unveiled the platform? Doesn't Android deserve some blame for being an OS that, in 20 months, only one company has been able to put on one model of one phone?

I'm looking forward to all of the new Android devices that are apparently waiting in the wings, but this long downtime hasn't done the platform any favors.

<comment><USER4> The future that your looking forward to is already here but, as usual, not evenly distributed yet. I live in the UK and have had an HTC magic (<http://www.htc.com/www/product/magic/overview.html>) for a couple of months (with vodafone). It's a really good handset.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love the closing statement:

 _Linux vs Windows/MacOS, all over again. You gain Freedom by using an open platform, making life worse for yourself in a thousand tiny ways, any one of which can easily be dismissed, so they are. But it's still worse._

Zing. I recognize exactly what the author is talking about.

<comment><USER6> I recognize what he's talking about too, but having given both sides a serious whirl, my life is still definitely better for free software.

Years ago Linux desktop usage was a bit of a drag. But at the time, Windows servers were so much worse that as an integrated system, you were still net ahead.

Now that my printers, scanners, and peripherals have all worked without hassle for years there isn't even a trade off. Rather, I shake my head while watching people fight with driver wizard CDs.

<comment><USER7> I agree. Desktop Linux is a great source of hope for struggling platforms. Even if it isn't for Aunt Millie, it has gone from being embarrassingly bad to being [a couple of] my favorite desktop environment[s]. Here's hoping Android follows the same trajectory. (It's certainly starting in the same place.)

<comment><USER8> Linux is only a reasonable desktop if you're only spending your time in a terminal, using emacs/vi/eclipse/netbeans/etc. Before moving to Mac OS X from Linux/BSD desktops, I failed to appreciate the value of polished, non- developer software.

Now, I regularly tear my hair out trying to interact with Linux users. From diagram software (OmniGraffle/Visio) to accounting software (QuickBooks) to billing software (Billings by Marketcircle), Linux just doesn't have the solid, polished applications, and it interoperates exceptionally poorly in environments where Mac OS X and Windows get along just fine.

For example -- I can easily share diagrams with Visio users, but Dia is not a replacement for Visio/OmniGraffle and won't do the trick. How am I supposed to diagram with Linux users? Use dot/graphviz and create remarkably ugly diagrams?

If I had to assign blame for the lack of quality applications, I'd say that the APIs are unstable and inconsistent, there's no standard application API (gnome vs. kde/qt vs. straight qt vs. wxwidgets), the user market just doesn't exist, and that it's difficult to mix the GPL / free software world with expensive development that requires professional UI, design, and art work, and all the other components of a polished _end-user_ product. End-users don't buy 'support'.

Of course, this is an unpopular opinion among free software advocates. As soon as you figure out how we can share diagrams that I want to place in my LaTeX documents, interact with artists producing photoshop/illustrator files, and modify complex word documents sent by lawyers without losing required document meta-data -- let me know.

<comment><USER9> Holy shit, you just called Quickbooks solid and polished.

I'm floored.

<comment><USER8> Compared to the open source alternatives, it is.

It seems to require a paycheck to convince anyone to produce feature complete business accounting software, and even then the A-list individuals are probably otherwise occupied with more enjoyable projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (I'm developing software for Android and i want to add my point of view regarding the Android market and the apps)

The author complains about sloppy apps that sometimes work, sometimes not. I see it the way that the Google/Android approach is even more revolutionary than the one of iPhone, especially for independent developers. They do not have manual reviews of apps.(!) Any developer can just go to the market website, create a new project, add a description and the bundle and click on "publish" -- it's immediately available on the market for users around the world -- and it's up to the users to judge it's quality. Think of it -- no manual reviews -- no approval process. It's a lot of freedom! (in particular if you think about all the iPhone approval process problems we hear of each week)

If the app is poorly executed, it will receive lower ratings and go down the "by date" list without ever being seen again. If it is alright the users vote it up and often leave comments, indicating that it works and hinting at things that could be improved. Apps can really quickly climb the "by popularity" list, so if well made, are seen by a larger number of people.

Therefore for me it's excusable if some apps don't work perfectly, especially because they are having lower ratings and a lot of comments complaining -- all things one knows of before installing.

Finally I think that the apps are _currently_ of a lower overall quality for a variety of reasons, one being the kinda small user-base compared to the iPhone -- i mean it's like 45 million vs. 1.5 m! :P

Around 20 new Android phones were announced for this year, all with a better performance than the G1. This game will be very interesting to follow over the following 5 years (and more). Android is here to stay, and will certainly become more equivalent to the iPhone and it's immense market share over time.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would _love_ to see Android running on some kickass hardware. I'm convinced that's half of why the iPhone is so dominant.

<comment><USER12> Android on the iPhone? Anyone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Actually the fact the G1 uses micro-sd vs internal memory is better, since if all you want is a memory upgrade, you don't need to sell your phone, get a new contract and spends hundreds extra just for that extra 16GB. There are 16GB microSD cards out there, 32GB ones soon to come.

The fact you need a headphone adapter is a major pain.

<comment><USER14> Especially when you want to change the battery and listen to music. Can you use as USB hub? Haven't tried it myself...

<comment><USER15> There are cheap things on ebay that let you connect both power and headphone at the same time. All the accessories for android are very, very cheap on Ebay: batteries, cables, dongles, cases, charging docks, etc.

I personally use a Nokia stereo bluetooth to listen wirelessly so no worries about the headphone socket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'll be happy if people will start blogging about how they like things instead of how they don't. I can write a few lines about Blackberry, iPhone, S60, Android but it won't get me anywhere, apart from spreading bad Karma

</comment><comment><USER17> > I can't listen to music on it. It won't sync with iTunes

Wow, is that really true for most people these days? I had no idea. TBH, that's the #1 reason I _haven't_ got an iPhone yet.

</comment><comment><USER18> Several of these problems are, or could very well be hardware issues.

</comment><comment><USER19> Android is just an OS, no point in saying the G1 is slow as a critic against android. As for the rest, the iPhone OS has its quirks too.

</comment><comment><USER20> _"The browser just isn't up to the standard of the iPhone's."_

Helpful.</comment>


Show HN: Paper Programs – Run JavaScript on pieces of paper - <AUTHOR> https://paperprograms.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I was asked to repost this (a la [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380)), so here goes. I'm JP, and I created this project after visiting Dynamicland a couple of times. I wanted to capture some of the magic there in my living room, and decided to implement the "programs running on pieces of paper" part.

It was super fun implementing this. I ended up using OpenCV.js, which has only just been released, reimplementing an OpenCV algorithm and learning about computer vision, learning about OffscreenCanvas, which is so experimental that it crashes periodically (a bug I was able to isolate and submit to the Chrome dev team), learning about how to mount a projector facing downward, and so on.

Few things are as satisfying as a piece of paper rolling out of a printer literally onto the floor, where it starts executing. And then cutting it up with a pair of scissors to change its shape.

I hope you have as much fun with this as I do!!

PS: If you want more inspiration for building cool stuff with projectors and cameras, check this out: [http://tangible.media.mit.edu/project/pico/](http://tangible.media.mit.edu/project/pico/) :) They have a ton more interesting projects like that!

<comment><USER2> I've been seeing folks get excited about this, and haven't yet been able to see why it is so interesting. However, the people behind it (Bret Victor et al) and who I've seen playing with it are too interesting for me to ignore this...

<comment><USER3> It's a very different kind of interaction than with code on the screen, and fits the way one thinks in a much more concrete way. It's like an embodied metaphor, one that people are intimately familiar with, and the immediacy of it allows you to iterate quickly as you have direct feedback, and the whole structure is made visible for everyone to see, enabling a kind of collaboration unusual for computer programming (image the dynamic of a group of people trying to build a tent together compared to a group of people all staring at a static view of an IDE).

Of course, it's nothing groundbreaking just yet, but I can't help but get excited at the possibilities of this sort of medium.

<comment><USER4> I still don't see how this is true, either in this case or in Dynamicland - neither of those seem to OCR programs from the piece of paper. So you still do classical programming alone, and only get to play with the _results_. A piece of paper may contain the actual program behind system's reaction to it, or it may contain a picture of a cat - the contents are irrelevant; it's the dots that matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you write small programs that interact with other programs, then rearranging them on the floor/table becomes a form of programming (similar to how combining UNIX-style programs in shell scripts is a high-level form of programming).

So even when playing just with the papers, you can be programming.

<comment><USER5> There's also the interplay of arranging papers, and live-editing the code in a particular piece of paper. In Dynamicland, the projector highlights printed code in green/red to visualize diffs.

You can sketch a UI element on the paper (eg a rectangle and token for a numerical slider), then go back to code the interactivity. Units in the code are inches on the table. Subtle things like that break you free from the laptop.

When you want to "commit" your code changes, you print a new version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I work in an elementary school and I'm trying hard to think about how to possibly take advantage of this in my environment. The interaction model is really rich and perfect for the children, but I'm so far coming up empty on the sorts of things we could/should do with it.

<comment><USER7> how About a space game where you move cargo ships around and manufacture and trade goods. You could teach about coordinate systems and math. Players need to figure out optimum things to haul for their amount of available funds. Different players could have different capabilities and teams need to figure out how to work together to accomplish more together as a team than they could on their own. Game space shows what the cargo is and how far a ship can move with its current cargo.

<comment><USER8> It would be great if it could be connected to something like the MIT Media LAb inFORM table and/or some kind of under the table system of magnets. That way physical objects could be moved instead of just the projector displaying an image of the cargo ship. Right now the physical manipulation seems one way, from the physical world to the digital. It is "easy" for the the system to motion track an object as a student moves it, but the system doesn't really have a way for it to move the object itself.

Imagine students exploring gravity by placing spheres on a "magic" table and then the table causes the spheres to orbit around eachother. Students can adjust mass or gravitational constant and see how that affects the system, or even come up with their own laws of gravity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very interesting interaction model. I love the idea of a program being able to read the shape of the paper - lots of cool possibilities.

However - slightly disappointed that the programs are not literally controlled by symbols on the pieces of paper, but rather the paper just holds identifiers who point to a program on a server.

I wonder if you could extend the computer vision system to pick up actual programs from the paper - either by OCRing actual text (perhaps limited to capital letters only, and/or particular shapes for letters such as I-for- India, to make it easier?) or a combination of symbols (each corresponding to a function in the API) and numbers (parameters).

That way you could do really interesting things: modifying somebody's program by literally pasting a scrap of paper on it containing different symbols or parameters, or having programs which interact with other programs (either by treating their program code as input data, or by piping data between the programs).

On the other hand, it's probably easier to write interesting programs with an actual keyboard :)

<comment><USER10> This is how Dynamicland currently works, also, but their goal is what you've stated. It's a hardware limitation.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure how large the paper needs to be to be recognized. Maybe you could have snippets that hold only a single identifier or syntax element and programs would be arranged by puzzling them together. That should be an appropriate granularity for manually placing (no fidgeting with tiny individual letters) while still allowing full programmability with minimal trips to the printer (only to create some new identifier).

<comment><USER9> Something like Scrabble tiles, perhaps?

I wonder if you could create a set of symbols which were sufficiently distinctive enough that you could hand-draw them and stand a chance of the computer recognising them. Difficulty level increasing again...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Are the dots essentially a "barcode" that map to a particular program on the server? How does the projector factor in? Do you adjust the projected image to ensure the result falls in the respective paper's area? Interesting project - did you have a use case in mind for it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, exactly what you said.

I work on software for public transit agencies, and Dynamicland immediately made me think of a workshop that Jarrett Walker (humantransit.org) sometimes runs, which involves physical paper and pieces of coloured strings. So I tried to build something inspired by that ([https://twitter.com/JanPaul123/status/923037721760735232](https://twitter.com/JanPaul123/status/923037721760735232)).

But that experiment didn't involve having programs interact which each other, which is way more powerful as then anyone looking at the table can rearrange the programs differently, which itself becomes a form of programming (when your programs do small enough things).

So anyway, no specific use case yet, I think it's too early for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is awesome work. Great job.

Dynamicland looks awesome. I wish I could visit. I both live on the wrong coast and it doesn't seem to be open to the public yet.

One fascinating aspect I found on this project was compiling OpenCV[1] to web assembly. I find it difficult and frustrating to compile OpenCV for my Mac never-mind compiling it to web assembly and running it in a browser. I love the idea of doing that, I'll have to try it.

[1] Open Computer Vision to save a few people a google

<comment><USER5> Good docs and demos: [https://docs.opencv.org/master/d5/d10/tutorial_js_root.html](https://docs.opencv.org/master/d5/d10/tutorial_js_root.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wondering if this could be done with AR (e.g. Hololens or Glass)?

<comment><USER15> The benefit of physical objects (like paper) is that you don't need to simulate reality in AR. Using physical objects lets you discover things that you wouldn't have otherwise with simulation. One of the neat things about the paper at Dynamicland is that can you "stretch" paper by just tearing it in half (or into quarters) and move those out.

Doing all of that is easy and natural, sometimes you even discover cool things by mistake.

<comment><USER14> Augmented reality headsets can theoretically project onto real piece paper just like a projector (actually, a projector is a form of AR). They don't mask out the current reality like a VR headset does, they have no need (and indeed no capability) to simulate a different reality.

<comment><USER15> Ah. I see what you're saying. I thought you were proposing to replace paper with AR ("this desk is now a screen", etc)

Trying to channel the researchers at Dynamicland, I think the answer would be that they aren't investigating AR because doing so isn't in line with their design principles. The mission statement for Dynamicland includes this phrase "incubating a humane dynamic medium" \- and since most humans aren't equipped with AR hardware, I'm guessing that is why AR isn't an area of research for this particular technology.

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure Bret Victor has been asked this before and responded that it wasn't tangible or collaborative enough. For their purposes, it wouldn't work, but it seems like something that could work for another project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Yes!

I've been similarly enchanted when I first saw Dynamicland (well, on twitter, the actual place being on a different continent) and I've actually started my own experiments (but never finished them :( ). Glad to see someone follow through, I'm definitely going to be watching you closely!

</comment><comment><USER16> One of the coolest things I've seen in a while. GJ!

</comment><comment><USER17> Really interesting, thanks for sharing!</comment>


The Founder Factor - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/01/the-founder-factor.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AVc+%28A+VC%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> While, as a founder I'm loving this idea, I'm pretty sure an omnipotent startup diety could point out 10 where the founder ran it into the ground for every one that succeeded. Michael Dell's comeback has been a noteable failure. The problem here is a sample bias, as it doesn't make for the sort of story that Jobs/Apple has going. That's a real-life movie of the week right there.

There are probably plenty of cases where non-founders were instrumental in success too, in fact Google may be one. Schmidt has undoubtedly been instrumental in Google becoming the juggernaut it is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Google is a unique company and its Founders are in a unique vantage point that I doubt that many of us struggling entrepreneurs would share. However, this article is a thought-provoking good read for anyone who is a Founder/CEO of a startup, who are both the owner and the executive. In fact, in the beginning of the startup, being the Founder means that you own 100% of the company but at the same time, you are also its first employee. Interestingly, these two distinct roles provide two different and potentially conflicting sets of responsibilities. As an owner, your responsibility is to yourself and your family and you are free to make any political statement that you wish to make. On the other hand, being an executive means that you have accepted a fiduciary duty and the mandate to protect the interest of your shareholders. In any case, I beleive Google leaving China would be a devastating blow to the Chinese citizens AND to the Google shareholders.

<comment><USER4> I think one could make two strong arguments that Google leaving China makes good _business_ sense, and is not just a warm-fuzzies thing.

First of all, whoever broke into Google's servers and collected confidential data from them made Google look like a chump. Given that Google's long-term business plans seem to involve convincing lots of people to entrust even more sensitive data to Google's servers, Google has a strong interest in not looking like a chump.

Second, if the PRC government has veto power over what search results Google can show, and Google's ability to compete depends on the quality of its search results, and the government favors Chinese-based companies that it can control more closely... perhaps the deck is just so stacked against Google that it would get more ROI doing business in a less authoritarian country.

<comment><USER3> Google is still the most open search engine in China. In some way, Google is the Voice of America. Should we have shut down VOA just because the other side decides to jam our signal? By the way, I should have edited the end of my comment to say that it is devastating to the Chinese citizens in the short run and devastating to the Google shareholders in the long run since currently Google is getting less than 1% of its revenue from China, so shutting it down really doesn't hurt Google's bottomline. In any case, I grew up in communist China and had lived on the other side until I was a teenager and I really appreciate the benefits that even an suboptimal communication channel would bring to the Chinese people. The alternative is simply unacceptable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Google's board and executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to do what is in the best interest of shareholders -- not Chinese dissidents. It doesn't matter if those executives are founders are not.

All the warm and fuzzy about leaving China won't stop shareholders from suing google if it turns out a decision to leave China has impacted them negatively.

<comment><USER6> That was Fred's point -- Sergey and Larry hold a controlling stake still in Google. So Google's best interest is still to meet _their_ best interests which aren't necessarily financial.

<comment><USER7> Sergey and Larry hold a controlling stake because there is a dual class of Common stock where the Founders' stock has 10x the voting power per share compared to normal Common stock.

Sergey and Larry have something like 30% of the equity combined but held 85% of the voting power.

<comment><USER8> Does "fiduciary responsibility" mean "represent the voting stockholders" or "represent all the stockholders"? I believe the latter. Which puts executives in a bind when those two populations differ.

<comment> daniel-cussen I believe by "voting power" he means the voting power _if everyone turned up to vote._ That's a shitload a stock, huh?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Create your own Version of Microsoft BASIC for 6502 - <AUTHOR> http://www.pagetable.com/?p=46 <comment><USER2> Slightly off-topic: My mother decided that she had to learn about this computer stuff too, now that her children were so involved in it. This was in the late 80's. So she grabbed the manual and started 'computering'. Turned out she took the BASIC manual by accident. After a while she had a small program running that printed some numbers on the screen, but she had no idea why she had to do this or what use this program had. In the end she's still the computer-person of my parental pair.

<comment><USER3> >Turned out she took the BASIC manual by accident.

"Hrm, BASIC. This must be about the basics of computers, sounds like a good place to start."

<comment><USER4> "I read the manual on all the DOS, where's the book with all the DON'TS?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Ric Weiland, Bill Gates and Monte Davidoff at Microsoft wrote MOS 6502 BASIC" as copied from the source code for BASIC for a PDP-8 ..

[http://www.voteview.com/gates.htm](http://www.voteview.com/gates.htm)

[http://thebeezspeaks.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/hasta-la- vista-p...](http://thebeezspeaks.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/hasta-la-vista- part-1-microsofts-final.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> How much money would Microsoft have been paid for basic for a given machine?

<comment><USER7> According to "Commodore: A company on the edge" by Brian Bagnall, Jack Tramiel (then CEO of Commodore) stated that Gates originally offered royalties of $3 per copy, but Tramiel claims he answered "I'm already married" and offered to purchase it outright for $25,000 (some sources give lower numbers).

The license allowed Commodore to make improvements, but did not give Commodore any improvements Microsoft made - people like Bob Yannes at Commodore at the time thinks Microsoft basically assumed Commodore would come back asking for upgrades, and pay them more money, but Tramiel was famously tight with money.

In the end, had Gates managed to get $3 per copy, the C64 alone would have resulted in somewhere between $45m and $60m of income for Microsoft at a time when that actually was a lot of money for them.

I believe it was first when they did the Commodore 128 that Commodore negotiated a new deal with them.

<comment><USER8> The Tramiels were notorious for not caring about software infrastructure, compatibility, and maintenance, to their customer's detriment.

I'm not sure of the details of the deal that Tramiel's Atari Corp signed with Digital Research when they licensed and ported GEM (a Mac/Lisa-like GUI framework) and GEMDOS (a spawn of CP/M 68k) for the Atari ST -- but after the initial port it never received any improvements from DR, though Atari themselves made some relatively minor changes and bug fixes later. But it was a potentially very good operating system that failed to improve significantly until it was too late (Atari hired the author of and acquired a set of open source Unix-like extensions in the early 90s, but by then the writing was on the wall for the platform.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So my first steps into the programming world was guided by Bill Gates?

<comment><USER10> MS has been around far longer than most likely know.

Keep in mind that the company started out supplying a Fortran compiler for the Altair 8800. On paper tape no less.

And their BASIC interpreter was the BASIC to have for a decade or more.

Excel (supposedly the last MS product with actual Gates written code inside) got started on Apple hardware.

<comment><USER11> >the company started out supplying a Fortran compiler for the Altair 8800

I would suppose maybe at some point they did (not sure on this) but it's long been my understanding that BASIC was their start.

Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft): Microsoft was founded by Paul Allen and Bill Gates on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800.

Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800): The computer bus designed for the Altair was to become a de facto standard in the form of the S-100 bus, and the first programming language for the machine was Microsoft's founding product, Altair BASIC.

<comment><USER12> And as we all know, Altair BASIC is the software about which "An Open Letter To Hobbyists" was written.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TF-Coder, a tool that writes tricky TensorFlow expressions - <AUTHOR> https://blog.tensorflow.org/2020/08/introducing-tensorflow-coder-tool.html <comment><USER2> >> First, the tool asks for an input-output example of the desired tensor transformation. Then, it runs a combinatorial search to find TensorFlow expressions that perform that transformation.

Ouch! The combinatorial space of arbitrary programs is huge. This can't work for programs of any but the smallest size.

Indeed:

>> There are limitations to TF-Coder. It can currently find solutions involving 3-4 operations within a minute of searching, but solutions involving 6 or more operations are too complex to find in a reasonable amount of time.

Btw, my PhD research is pretty much on something like this but learning Prolog programs from examples, rather than Python. The problem is extremly hard and all solutions so far look at ways to restrict the large hypothesis search spaces, mainly by imposing some kind of strong inductive or language bias (i.e. restricting what can be learned and how) but there is always a point beyond which any way one tries to search for an arbitrary program will fall into a huge search space and disappear down a myriad winding paths that lead nowhere. So while it's interesting to see this effort (taking hints from natural language is a nice touch) program syntehsis or program learning will not be solved by any search-based algorithm.

Edit: Actually, the bit about how solutions involving 6 or more operations take forever to return, is eerily familiar. An algorithm I was working on at the start of my PhD was pretty much limited to programs of 5 clauses (roughly, 5 function calls). I'm sure it's a coincidence but, golly.

<comment><USER3> I think the intended usage is not to find your whole program from example. Instead the programmer breaks the program down into simple operations, and uses this tool to remember what the name of that operation is. And finding short compositions is a bonus.

<comment><USER2> There is certainly a lot of use that one can make out of a program with this kind of limitation, but it is a limitation- if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a warning about it in the article.

In any case, if there was no such limitation most people here would be out of a job now, so it's an important limitation.

>> And finding short compositions is a bonus.

You mean because they can be easily inspected and debugged and edited by hand if required? If so, yes, I agree. But, for example, the algorithm I worked with, that I discuss above, a big criticism of the underlying technique has always been that _in practice_ it's limited to learning small programs.

<comment><USER3> No, I mean finding short compositions is a bonus feature over finding a single function from example.

<comment><USER2> OK, I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?

<comment><USER4> I can give another example use case.

Say I know math but don't know tf api. I already know how to matrix multiply with `@` but don't know the function for matrix power.

Then in theory it should be fairly quick for me to create a random matrix and feed it `mat @ mat`, `mat @ mat @ mat`, `mat @ mat @ mat @ mat`, etc until it spits out the correct tf function I should call for matrix_power.

This is even better than googling since it guarantees that the function it found is correct for your example (googling returns tf.pow tf.exp tf.expm, none of which are actually what you want!)

<comment><USER2> Thanks, I see what you two mean. It didn't occur to me that programming with tensors can be so challenging and I thought the authors just big it up a little to motivate the work - as one does :)

<comment><USER4> It's more that programming with _math_ is hard.

When communicating in mathematics you often assume the reader can understand _precisely_ which mathematical object you're talking by extrapolating from ellipses "...". For example "the naturals are 1,2,3,4,..." or "the evens are 2,4,6,8,..."

Or I might tell you a shift matrix is something that looks like:

      [0 1 0 0 0]
      [0 0 1 0 0]
      [0 0 0 1 0]
      [0 0 0 0 1]
      [0 0 0 0 0]

And that single example with the suggestive naming should be enough for most people to understand what a shift matrix is for arbitrary size.

But if you want to explain what a shift matrix is to a computer, you must use a formal definition (and to do it idiomatically you need to know esoteric details like that numpy.diagonal takes in an offset parameter so you can do something like [https://stackoverflow.com/a/30230801](https://stackoverflow.com/a/30230801)).

It would be nice if we can talk math with a computer in the same intuitive language we use with humans, just give it a few examples and it will generate the the rest and let you double check the formula is correct.

So I see stuff like tf-coder as a great step, not for synthesizing programs we don't know how to solve, but for language translation: between math notation and programming notation.

<comment><USER2> I wonder whether the same effect could be achieved with a better designed programming language, though. If the problem is ambiguity- there's nothing stopping a programming language from accepting ambiguous statements, which of course it would then interpret unambigously, according to context. It's just that this takes a lot of work and it's really not the done thing in terms of programming languages as far as I can tell- for reasons of eficiency of parsing also, I think.

Anyway I guess I'm turnning into the typical stuffy academic who can't even begin to think of real-world applications, hah. Thanks for pointing out the practical uses of the work described in the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks _amazing_ and if works as advertised will be a huge productivity breakthrough.

The number of times I've sat with 2 developers looking over my shoulder trying to workout _WTF_ my TF (or Numpy or Pytorch) manipulations aren't ending up the correct shape is huge. It's probably $50-100K/year of time for the last 4-5 years.

It's always obvious in retrospect.. until next time you have to read that code.

<comment><USER6> > until next time you have to read that

But how will this tool help? If you put the sample you used in a comment, then your confusion is wondering if that's in sync... and whether the input is like what you wrote.

IMO the sweet spot that's easy both for humans & computers is index notation. Instead of `tf.add(X, tf.expand_dims(Y, 1))` (their example, which I think also applies to 4-tensors in ways not trivial to see from the sample) something like "out_{r,c} = X_r + Y_c" is completely unambiguous, and quicker to type than making a sample.

I don't think you can do that in tf.einsum, nor einops. Is there a Python package which does this? In Julia you can write `@cast out[r,c] := X[r] + Y[c]` (with my package, but several others share this notation).

<comment><USER3> I recommend

X + Y[:, tf.newaxis]

For higher dimensions of Y, you can use (but it might be ill-advised)

X + Y[:, tf.newaxis, ...]

<comment><USER6> Sure! The desire for fancier notation is from more complicated examples, the kind where you write elaborate comments to explain why you're permuting 3rd & 4th dim of B to line up with C and part of D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Combinatorial function look up by example transformation, seriously slick in the 'how has no one thought of this before'[0] kind of way.

[0]imo always a hallmark of something special. Or maybe someone has thought of it and I'm out of the loop, but either way this approach seems seriously useful for streamlining the syntactic process of generalizing a function for a set of known inputs/outputs.

<comment><USER2> Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's basically Inductive Progamming in a nutshell :)

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

The wikipedia article doesn't make it very clear but basically it's what you say. The paper accompanying the system in the article goes through a bit more detail on Program Synthesis, of which Inductive Programming is sometimes considered to be a sub-field, but in any case, Program Synthesis is generating programs from complete specifications while Inductive Programming is learning programs from incomplete specifications- i.e. input-output examples of the target program. Examples are often supplemented by constraints.

The field goes back to the 1970's and is today comprised of two sub-fields, Inductive Functional Progamming, i.e. learning programs in functional languages and Inductive Logic Programming, i.e. learning programs in logic programming languages (and, incidentally, the subject of my PhD research).

In particular, the way you describe TF-Coder reminded me of Algorithmic Debugging:

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

In short, this was a technique first described in 1982 by Euhd Shapiro, that assisted a programmer with finding bugs in a logic program (in Prolog) by taking in examples of true and false statements that the program should prove or disprove, respectively, and identifying program statements that made a true statement unprovable, or a false statement provable. The funny thing is that, once you can do this sort of thing, identify which parts of a program lead to coverage of true and false statements, you can go the other way and also generate those statements.

In any case, it's a huge field that goes way back and there are many pointers on more information in the wikipedia article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Work for Google - have never worked on Tensorflow_

I tried:

      inputs = {
          'matrix': [[10, 20, 30],
                     [5, 5, 10],
                     [2, 2, 1]]
      }
      output = [[85/10, 85/20, 85/30],
                [85/5, 85/5, 85/10],
                [85/2, 85/2, 85/1]]

And got:

      tf.cast(tf.divide(tf.reduce_sum(matrix), matrix),
              tf.float32)

But now I realize that is pretty close to one of the examples. Did anyone try something complex?

<comment><USER4> I tried giving it a problem that required matrix power and it couldn't solve it. (this was a somewhat real task where I couldn't google how to raise a matrix to a power in tf).

        # A dict mapping input variable names to input tensors.
        inputs = {
            'matrix': [[1, 1], [1, 0]],
            'vector': [[1], [0]],
        }

        # The corresponding output tensor.
        output = [[13],
                  [8]]

        # A list of relevant scalar constants, if any.
        constants = [6]

        # An English description of the tensor manipulation.
        description = 'Whatever the equivalent of numpy.linalg.matrix_power is in tf. Calculates fibonacci.'

I was hoping it would at least return

        matrix @ matrix @ matrix @ matrix @ matrix @ matrix @ vector

But it just didn't find anything. (the constant for the exponent is large because smaller numbers give nonsense results)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is neat. However I've rather use einsum and einops [0] to reshape stuff in practice.

[0] [https://github.com/arogozhnikov/einops](https://github.com/arogozhnikov/einops)

</comment><comment><USER10> How does the English description of the task help in running the combinatorial search? Is it running some form of keyword search or natural language inference? Or is it merely to tag the problem for reference/future use?

<comment><USER11> Well there is a dedicated paper on it. The short answer is the English description helps a guided search

[https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09040](https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09040)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice to know how reliable it is as the number of operations needed grows, since the examples shown are quite trivial.

<comment><USER13> Under "Caveats":

> There are limitations to TF-Coder. It can currently find solutions involving > 3-4 operations within a minute of searching, but solutions involving 6 or > more operations are too complex to find in a reasonable amount of time. > Furthermore, TF-Coder currently does not support complex or string tensors, > or RaggedTensors. The full list of supported operations can be found in the > Colab notebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> At some point shouldn't they focus on optimizing for loops and other expressions rather than tensor broadcasting.

<comment><USER15> The way the python interpreter works, there's no way for tensorflow to know you're using a for loop in order to optimize it. With method calls and operator overrides etc, tensorflow can hold off evaluating your graph, see what the final thing looks like, and then compile it efficiently.

You can think of tensorflow like a different language where the syntax tree is constructed of python objects. For loops end up being like a preprocessor macro on that syntax tree. They can add a predetermined set of extra nodes, but the "for loop" part isn't represented in the final syntax tree itself, so tensorflow doesn't know it has anything to optimize.

There are ways out of this: one is dynamic graph execution. But this is less optimizable. Tensorflow doesn't get to see the whole graph so it can't do as many optimizations, and it can't optimize for loops because it's actually executing eagerly on each loop iteration.

Another way is this article: write whatever python code you want to generate some transformation, and tensorflow can try to guess which efficient operations produce it. Then you can paste the efficient operations into your final program.

<comment><USER16> Disclaimer: I worked on AutoGraph @ google.

Your first two paragraphs describe TF 1 perfectly, and you also correctly point out that TF 2 has eager mode, which executes op by op.

The part you missed is that @tf.function lets users tell TensorFlow that TF should execute the entire function, inspect the graph that it produces, and optimize it. On top of this JIT functionality that tf.function provides, AutoGraph will inspect the source code of your program and see that there's a for loop. If the for loop executes over a Python object, then it acts as a preprocessor macro. If it executes over a tensor, then AutoGraph transforms it into a tf.while_loop. So you can have both Eager-style convenience and graph- style optimizations.

Of course, some caveats apply; check out [https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/function](https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/function) for the full guide.

<comment><USER15> Ah wow, that is interesting. I didn't know about tf.function, thank you for the correction</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The live coding language that lets you be an actual rock star - <AUTHOR> https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/01/29/the-live-coding-language-that-lets-you-be-an-actual-rock-star/ <comment><USER2> Sam Aaron has done several talks on Sonic Pi. It's an amazing piece of work. My favorite talk where he scratches the surface of the tech details was a 2018 talk at Goto : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLLwG_SN8oo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLLwG_SN8oo)

He also has saved several of his sessions on youtube.</comment>


Simple Bacteria Offer Clues to the Origins of Photosynthesis - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/simple-bacteria-offer-clues-to-the-origins-of-photosynthesis-20171017/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating. Thanks for posting, rbanffy.

I am not an evolutionary biologist, or an organic chemist, or even someone who studied chemistry beyond high school. I just have some exposure to hardware circuit design, including microprocessor internals, through my vocation as a software engineer, and an interest in science, including evolutionary biology.

For dilettantes like me, this visualisation that shows the electron transfer processes along Photosystem II and Photosystem I, helps contextualise your discussion.

Photosystem 2 and Photosystem 1 by CNUBiochemistry [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hUxKPSNTl0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hUxKPSNTl0)

Just seeing the two systems in series is exciting! It might not have been, as recently as last week, but then I stumbled across this backgrounder from Lynn Margulis which has changed my view of evolution more than I could ever have imagined possible.

Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis [https://www.discovermagazine.com/the- sciences/discover-inter...](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the- sciences/discover-interview-lynn-margulis-says-shes-not-controversial-shes- right)

Thanks again, rbanffy. The work you highlighted has my complete attention.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reminds me of when I first saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_superfamily#/media/Fil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_superfamily#/media/File:Structural_homology_of_the_PA_clan.png) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_superfamily](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_superfamily).

It felt like the biological equivalent of seeing the cosmic background radiation for the first time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Related , scientists think that plants got photosynthesis by subsuming these bacteria into their cells in a symbiotic relationship - similar to how animal cells got mitochondria inside them.

</comment><comment><USER5> For visual learners - there is no educative image in the page.</comment>


Erlang vs. Unintentionally Purely Functional Python - <AUTHOR> http://prog21.dadgum.com/79.html

<comment><USER2> This shouldn't have reached the frontpage. Nothing interesting or new here - Python's memory allocation scheme and garbage collector aren't state of the art.

<comment><USER3> The post isn't even about memory allocation or garbage collection, it's only about Python's strings being immutable, yet being fast enough (nb: Java would probably have been a better choice as its strings are _also_ immutable, though the allocation strategy is probably harder to walk through), therefore functional languages being slow because they don't mutate stuff is a lie.

Pretty much the tl;dr.</comment></comment>


Ask HN:  What is the best ad option for my startup? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a co-founder of a startup that is doing fairly well, 100 days in.  Traffic is growing on almost a daily basis and unique visitors, page views, etc. - while not massive - are promising.  I've been told that ad sales for sites with over 100K unique visitors per month are on another tier in terms of expected CPM and advertising credibility.
My question is:  let's say our site is pulling 25-50K unique visitors per month of a fairly specific audience (demographic-wise).  What would the HN audience recommend for our site to do, in order to maximize ad revenues?  We've tinkered with Google Ads and some other options but, as traffic picks up, we're beginning to look into it more seriously.  The difference between $0.25 CPM and $2.00 CPM is obviously huge, once traffic scales to a certain level.  Do all of the ad networks pay the same (roughly)?  Are all of the ad networks created equal or are there some we should reach out to that might be more selective, and therefore more rewarding?
Another related question (for those who have ad sales/buying experience): what should we project as an expected "going rate" CPM for a site with moderate traffic that reaches primarily college-educated males in the 25-50 age group? <comment><USER2> I would spend a good chunk of time trying out many different ad networks. My traffic is very different, as I mostly have apps on social networks, but I could sometimes find that an ad network performed 2x-10x compared to another one. For example in my case AdSense paid 10x better than Cubics / LifeStreet even though those were geared at social networks.

Not knowing this I wasted thousands of dollars before that I could have had by simply slapping in a different network's ad unit. For my current app I am planning on spending several evenings applying to every ad network I can find and split testing them against each other to make sure I won't lose such easy money this time.

You could also try direct ad sales by simply reaching out to people over email. I only have one data point on this, but I once noticed someone advertising with Reddit self-serve ads that was selling a product very suitable for my audience. I emailed him, he PayPaled me and soon his ads were live on my site as well.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry - I don't think a good job of phrasing my question, although the replies are welcoming for addressing the question of where should we best be advertising.

My actual question was in terms of running ads on our site - I'm trying to determine if all the ad networks are created equal (in terms of payout/CPM) and really what the expected CPM should be for us.

</comment><comment><USER3> Check out Reddit's self-serve if you want to cut out the middleman. There's some overhead though.

</comment><comment><USER4> Facebook Ads has traction as a serious, targeted ad platform. You can drill incredibly far with your demographics and interest groups and still get a very chunky network reach.

By and large, networks are the same but they're completely different at the same. Places like The Deck or BuySellAds you'll more than likely see a lot of blog traffic coming in but you can also expect high bounce rates (this I say from experience). Google AdNetwork/Doubleclick you might get a completely different number, with more varied interests/keyword results, but spend longer time on the site.

I've got a couple of PDFs I will give you that goes into pretty deep detail about FB Ads in specific.</comment>


How Holidify Bounced Back to Hit 5M Users - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@rohitshroff/how-holidify-bootstrapped-and-bounced-back-to-hit-5-million-monthly-users-after-almost-shutting-f29fdcd65c9a <comment><USER2> My first company went through a similarly deep "trough of sorrow." We launched riiiight before the first dotcom crash, limped along for a year or two (product doing well, revenue not so much) then us founders went out and got Real Jobs. But the product kept chugging along and a few years later we came back with some monetization ideas and things took off for real, leading to an acquisition almost 10 years after starting it.

I think the moral is that if you have a working product with no revenue, it may find a way if you can give it enough space and time. Some products need a lot effort/money to keep going, but if your company is built like a cockroach and you have a product that people use, don't shut it down or throw it to the wolves unless you absolutely have to. You don't hear a lot about these phoenix-like companies, but it's good to know that the end isn't always necessarily the end.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for sharing this. This makes so much sense and I also feel that this type of sustainability wouldn't have been possible for all kinds of products/companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To all who are wondering how much a "lakh" is, it's a word in the indian subcontinent meaning 100000.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for the explanation :) I had written this piece keeping Indian audience in mind. Glad it has reached here. I have now updated the article and added figures in USD and international number system :)

<comment><USER4> No problem. Cool you're in here replying BTW. Didn't realise you wrote the article. Good job and very nice to hear these kinds of success stories!

I'm still getting used to counting in Lakh, in Dubai people sometimes say 5 lakh this, 6 lakh that. Even to me as a swede. Then you guys have krore, I dunno what else.

In arabic they also have some old units being used in some countries, like faddaan, and I forget another one I just heard...

Edit: Also, you guys use different decimal points for Lakh I think. like 30 lakh is 30,00,000 I think. Saw it on some bank website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations on bouncing back. There were a lot of good points to learn.

I wish you best for the future.

<comment><USER3> Thank you! :)</comment></comment>


How a New Startup Generated 17,584 Visitors in One Day - <AUTHOR> http://backlinko.com/viral-marketing

<comment><USER2> Identify gaps... isn't that what startups do anyway? Fill a gap?

<comment><AUTHOR> Pretty much. It's the same approach, just with content.</comment></comment>


CSS: How to Automatically Number Elements with CSS Counters - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/numbering-with-css-counters/ <comment><AUTHOR> This article tells all that needs to be know to number elements on a webpage working with CSS Counters.</comment>


I worked on an idea for 4 months, found out it already exists - <AUTHOR>

...and is probably being done better than I can do it. My question to HN is whether or not it's worth continuing, and what are your similar experiences (and what did you do).
For context, if I were to finish building out my prototype (at least another 4 months of work) it would essentially be one feature of an existing language learning application. Maybe I could do that one feature better and differentiate on that, maybe not.
I'm just really flabbergasted that this happened, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I mean I learned a fair deal of engineering skills from my work thus far, but I'm unsure how to turn this into a business that I can approach investors with.
"Oh, so what you're building already exists as a part of this other application..."
"But I'm gonna make it much better, I swear!"
Like if I were to continue with this project, I'm not sure how I could convince anyone to invest in it. Given the circumstances, would nothing short of a full prototype (mobile app) that I could put in peoples' hands be sufficient to convince them of the potential?
Thanks for any advice, I've never run into this situation before. <comment><USER2> I've worked on something for four years, then went to market it and saw that it had already existed for a decade.

But, of course, I already knew that I was not unique.

The reason I spent so much time on it is because I have a small but active community of users who like it very much. I am not confident I can monetize it (it's a chatboard service), so I may ditch my "chatboard as a service" plans, but I will continue to work on it.

Maybe I should forge ahead with the CaaS plan anyway, just to see if I can get any takers? A handful of paying customers would be better than none, after all.

</comment><comment><USER3> If it already exists as you say, would you mind sharing what that feature is?

I ran into this problem time and again with my own language acquisition startup. My cofounder and I did what research we could and gleefully discounted all the big names in language learning as true competitors. But as we talked to more people, ones who knew about some other new startup (or worse, a feature on an existing product), I'd run back to my computer with a sinking feeling in my gut.

In the end, financial reasons prevented us from continuing, but we did produce a product that we ourselves used. We were happy for meeting our personal goals. Furthermore, there might be academic/non-profit applications for your technology that might encourage you to continue work. If you can pivot and regain momentum, try it for a little bit.

In the end, if you're too disheartened to go on, you probably won't and you'll be miserable. So figure out a way to address the competition, alter your own path in response, or move on and feel good about the fact that you did four great, solid months of work, learned a ton, and that your time was well spent.

</comment><comment><USER4> I had an idea that I started working on. I found out there was a similar website doing the same thing and I liked their implementation. At the time I thought it was smart and thought "why didn't I think to do it like that?". After being disheartened, I scrapped the idea and went on to think about other things/problems.

I haven't come across that site or that idea in other sites since which leads me to believe that it didn't take off. I can't remember the name of the site either. This either tells me that the idea was flawed or their execution was poor.

Since I (still) like the idea, I logically think that their execution must have been poor. I'll probably start working on my version again soon. Unfortunately that was a lot of time wasted. If I had continued back then instead of stopping, I could have a successful product by now (or not, of course!)

I'm not sure if this comment will help you decide to continue or not but in my opinion is that you should. If it doesn't work out you will have learnt a lot anyway.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER5> "Oh, so what you're building already exists as a part of this other application"

Perhaps it doesn't focus on that component, then? Can you resegment the competitor's market, at a lower price, so that your product does just the one thing but does it better?

I like the strategy of finding one thing that your competitor does and focusing on that but doing it really well. Makes it easier to explain the value prop, too.

So many times, large offerings are very expensive, have 15 components, but the primarily value for a segment of the target market is just the small piece.

Provide value, price accordingly, and you can succeed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Being different is easy: you can always be cheaper. Selling your product as a 'cut-down, cheaper alternative to BrandX' is an age old tactic that really works if your marketing is right. It's not the most glamourous business model ever but it definitely works.

Just because I'm curious, why approach investors after the product is built in 4 months? If you can afford to eat for that long, work twice as hard to get the product done in 2 months, and then spend 2 months doing selling. You won't starve to death and you'll retain full control.

If that isn't an option, you should be setting up investor meetings right now.

<comment><USER2> There are other ways to be different. Be friendlier (or edgier). Be more mobile. Be faster (see: Pinboard versus other bookmarking services). Be exclusive. Be more expensive.

...

The last one is a hard sell, obviously, but said sale is much more valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> For every good idea you are going to have several competing products. Furthermore, the fact that somebody else is trying the same thing should be validation that your idea is good.

Now, you don't seem too convinced that you can compete. That is a more important problem. Is the market small enough for only one company? Will you be able to differentiate your product/service? You might be able to convince the investors that you are able to execute better. But you have too have very concrete ideas on how to do it. Good investors will invest on you, not in your idea.

</comment><comment><USER8> "is probably being done better than I can do it" .. probably you answered your own question with this. How are you going to take him on based on one feature if he is better? IMHO, Get going on another idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant more in terms of the quickest prototype I can launch; their mature product's version of this feature will be superior to my first creation. I do believe that over time I can compete and surpass them though.

<comment><USER8> I might be asking myself these questions... How important would that feature be? Would having the feature make a lot of difference? With this feature would your product be better? Will that feature alone allow you to sell better? How long would it take your competitor to add the feature? Would having this feature help your competitor to sell better?

If competitor will take time and will help him sell better then one option if you develop the feature is you could sell it to him if you can't compete

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you aren't confident you can do it better, then go find something you're more confident in.

Getting a business profitable and scaled is about doing it better. You need to maximize your impact through careful positioning.

Also:

\- If it takes you 8 months to build a prototype, you need to either learn to build things faster or find ideas with a smaller MVP spec. \- Don't be surprised things already exist or people are working on similar things. It happens all of the time. If it doesn't happen to you, you're lucky -- not vice versa.

</comment><comment><USER10> So what? We have 7Billion people on this globe, every niche you can think of probably already has tons of folks there.

Find your unique selling point and COMPETE with them!

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely resonate with this attitude, but I'm unsure how I can raise money from investors like this. And, IMO, raising funds is what will allow me to quit my day job, create a team, and really compete.

<comment><USER11> From my second hand knowledge of investors, I actually believe that competition actually works in your favor when seeking investments. It is a good for establishing that the idea is viable and can really help them understand the product and vision. It's just important to understand what your competitive advantage is and focus on that.

As much as people seem to believe that all investors are looking for the next new idea that no one has ever seen before, its not really the truth. They are often looking for a high probability of a return and nothing has a higher probability of a return then something that is already working with a different take or a couple improvements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There must be few original ideas out there, or few that are original for long. Maybe get some feedback on what you've done.

</comment><comment><USER13> Facebook wasn't the first social network.

</comment><comment><USER14> There is ALWAYS room for competition.</comment>


Tell HN: The book Principles by Ray Dalio is very good - <AUTHOR> It's very good if you're looking for a book on how to generally be more successful in life / getting the things that you want.
Also, if you'd read the PDF online in the last few years, the book has a substantial additional biographical section at the front, and some new stuff in the middle. I found it more than worth it for the biographical stuff.
I have no association with the company / people involved, just found the principles PDF helpful a few years ago, and think the new book is even better and that it would be good if more people were aware of it. <comment><USER2> I saw Bill Gates recommending the book in his twitter. The overall Goodreads review is also good. Gonna read it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just picked up a copy on Saturday... haven't had time to get into it yet, but I'm glad to hear a positive review already. I'll probably start it later this week.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, enjoy</comment></comment>


Facebook's internal valuation revealed: $3.75 billion - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983579-7.html <comment><USER2> GM: 6 billion Facebook: 3.75 billion

At least they are more sensible now and dropped it from 16 billion. But it kinda makes sense, youtube had less traffic and was more resource intensive and it went for 1.5.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ouch... that has to hurt Microsoft after what they paid for ad rights.

<comment><USER4> Not really. The press reporting a $15 billion valuation was bullshit; it assumed that the only thing Microsoft was getting was the stake. In reality, it got a lot more, including the advertisement contract.

<comment><USER5> Now they just have to find a way to make money and stop operating at a loss :)

I agree, though. Getting a stake in it isn't just about the money. They both (microsoft and facebook) have powerful allies .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> sounds fair, given that LinkedIn recently got a $1B valuation.</comment>


I need a cofounder, so I built okcofounder.com - <AUTHOR> http://okcofounder.com/

<comment><USER2> Did anyone else think he created a solution for everyone and not just for himself?

<comment><USER3> I think that he should pivot his entire startup to build this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a bit disappointed.

I was hoping for a full-blown site for entrepreneurial individuals to find and connect with each other.

<comment><USER5> doesn't angelist do some of the same things?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've added a campaign monitor subscription form to the site for anyone who's interested in potentially using an idea like this. I'm not sure where I'm going to take it, but if you'd actually use okcofounder for real, then I think we should keep in touch.

<comment><USER6> You seem to have gotten many positive comments already but just to respond to this point specifically. If it was a site as the audience was expecting i would have signed up and could have done with something like this a couple of months ago.

I come across people quite often looking for co-founders. They don't necessarily need them, but that's their choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you are sick of co-founder dating and looking for that perfect match, are ready for something serious, why not consider:

eCofounderHarmony.com

(I just made that up. But perhaps the "eHarmony" approach to cofounder matches makes more sense than OkCupid. Since, ya know, you're "married" to your cofounder.)

<comment><USER8> cfHarmony.com ...

<comment><USER9> I don't like that one, reminds me too much of cold fusion.

<comment><USER10> A little too much, you see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This site was not what I thought it was.

I want to find a match-- but nothing too serious... I'm really just looking for a good time. I want to be someone's interim technical co-founder with benefits for a while. Just temporarily. And not for equity (you see, I have a problem with commitment), but for cash.

Just long enough to get their idea from conception to climax.

And then we can part ways and I can find someone else who could benefit from my expertise.

I need a high-end co-founder matchmaker service, and okcofounder was not that.

</comment><comment><USER12> Unintentionally neat idea, but I'd be wary of the legalities behind using that name or any other variation of a popular dating site. They'll be onto you as fast as you gain popularity.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm going to be frank with you, Anthony. I checked out okcofounder.com and read about you. Then I checked out your project, residen.se.

In my humble opinion, I think you should abandon residen.se and work _full time_ on okcofounder. This is not something I'm saying lightly. Consider it this way:

1\. You designed and created okcofounder with a clear need in mind. I don't "feel" the same sort of inspiration and personal connection with residen.se

2\. There are at least three comments at the time of this writing in this thread that express _disappointment_ at okcofounder not being for finding cofounders and being applicable to their lives. You just got user feedback.

3\. Residen.se looks like the perfect web 2.0 model of what a tech startup should be, but okcofounder is something that is immediately relevant and comprehensible on the front page. I had a little trouble figuring out what residen.se was for immediately. Not so with okcofounder.

I'll come out and say that I'd pay for a service like okcofounder. I live in NYC and it's harder to find people than it is in Silicon Valley.

okcofounder satisfies _true entrepreneurial need_ \- despite the odd fact that it's a meta-project, you created it trying to solve a problem for yourself. But there are users saying they'd love the idea on a wider, open scale. So do it.

<comment><USER14> Only problem? The idea's hardly new. Sites like <http://founderdating.com/> <http://collabfinder.com/> <http://www.cofounderslab.com/> <http://techcofounder.com/> already exist. It's not quite a crowded space _yet_ , and there's probably room for innovation, but your comment makes it sound like you think he's hit idea paydirt with okcofounder -- he hasn't.

<comment><USER13> You're right. But the fact that he received so much disappointment so quickly means that those venues aren't working - _yet_...so yes, room for innovation.

<comment><USER15> I really, really want to reiterate Recoil's point above.

The rental market is massive and real and worth a shit-ton of money. Handling the pain of repairs and stuff? it's not even been vaguely tapped! That's a fucking good idea that's going to be hard to sell but it's a domino thing. When one major rental agency starts using it they'll all start using it. 'Your flat doesn't have residee.ce? How lame!'

Finding a co-founder is a tiny market.

Your advice is well intentioned and dog-fooding and all that lovely bullshit nonsense and really, really terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you are looking for a full-fledged site, you might find these guys relevant: <http://www.cofounderslab.com/>

(I haven't used them)

<comment><USER17> <http://founderdating.com> is another one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cute, but think twice about making this the focus of your time as people have advised above. Finding a cofounder is a pain point for many people (myself included) but the market can't be very large. You will also have to address a challenge that regular dating sites have, namely that those who successfully find a match will no longer use your service. Unlike regular dating sites, cofounder-matching sites seem stacked with people looking for help with their idea, perhaps because those willing to work for someone else already have a job and aren't as driven to get involved. Are there really an equal number of people who think "I'd love to work on a startup but don't have an idea of my own that I am passionate about"?

That being said, none of the cofounder-matching sites I've used have solved my problem so I suppose there is room in this space. If you did take a cue from OKC and institute a system of curated user-generated Q&As you might be on to something. The services I've used were primitive in their matching ability (e.g. I am a developer looking for a designer, which tells you nothing about values, principles, working style, etc.) so hey, maybe you could make it work.

</comment><comment><USER5> anthony, just a note, you should also buy the domain residen.ce for the other half of the world that uses a bastardization of the english language :) you can just redirect to residen.se

good luck with your venture. some thoughts on okfounder:

1\. where is the return value of the site, in other words, if i found a great founder on the site and am happy with him/her, what incentive do i have to revisit? maybe your idea is that most people will start something else up, but that number won't necessarily be high. perhaps of more value is to find startup people, not just founders, but initial employees, founders, consultants, advisors, etc.

2\. personally i don't feel some of the content are that relevant, such as your favorite artists/people, books you've read, there's a much better place for this information (facebook, twitter), you should link to those. you should put more things along the lines of what you're trying to build, personally, i don't think ideas need to be secret, that's what will really draw in a cofounder or employee, not whether or not you both like catcher in the rye.

<comment><USER19> First level .ce-Domains are not available for registration. The domain name is not that important anyway. Residen.se is fine in my opinion.

<comment><USER20> IMHO, it's more important to get residense.com than residen.ce

I have a site that uses the '.se' and the (non tech) people who are my target market keep asking '.com?'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Piling on the comments that say you should consider developing this as a general service.

One constituency to keep in mind is the person who has a job but would quit it if they had the right cofounder -- ie some form of anonymous or semi-anonymous matching until both sides choose to reveal.

</comment><comment><USER22> Hey Anthony, If you do pivot and take okcofounder forward as your primary venture, can you do all us solo founders a favour? Can you NOT take on a cofounder for okcofounder? That way the irony of it all will make the startup scene a better place for solo guys like me. All the best!

</comment><comment><USER23> I like this concept and I too was disappointed I couldn't sign up to check it out. I have a co-founder but I would love to try a service like this to bring on early employees.

</comment><comment><USER24> Your website is blocked on any major corporate network with a web-filter for using "dating" in your title, just letting you know.

</comment><comment><USER25> Cool site! Typo on the book The Selfish Hene.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops! Fixed that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I've known Anthony for a while, good developer and fun guy to hang out with, hope this works well for him!

</comment><comment><USER27> There's a typo; the selfish gene.

</comment><comment><USER28> why not something millionaire match maker styled, where you pay an MBA to get you hitched?

</comment><comment><USER29> I get where the domain name comes from, but are you sure the co-founder you're looking for is only "ok"?

<comment><USER30> Do you feel the same way about OKCupid? "Are you sure the boy/girlfriend you're looking for is only 'ok'?"

<comment><USER31> With OKCupid, I thought it was implying the selection process is "just OK" -- as in it's a sort of effective but not perfect matching system. Not that the people found are only OK (I personally only ever found crazy people, but I know a few people who got married from OKC...)

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually don't have an OKCupid account. I deleted it a few weeks ago.

I've heard of other people getting married and a few of my best friends met through a dating website, but yeah. I think that it's not necessarily because of it.

danah boyd's talk here is a good reference: [http://talks.webstock.org.nz/speakers/danah-boyd/culture- fea...](http://talks.webstock.org.nz/speakers/danah-boyd/culture-fear- attention-economy/)

The TL;DR I got from that talk is that "Internet bullying isn't bad as normal bullying, it is just portrayed differently".

In line with that argument, I would say that dating websites in general just bring out those "crazy people" you meet in a different way.

Because at the end of the day, the "crazy people" would still exist.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


High thermoelectric cooling performance of n-type Mg3Bi2-based material - <AUTHOR> https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/07/17/science.aax7792 <comment><USER2> What's the use case for this?

 _Cooling_ things down _to_ room temperature still seems best accomplished via a simple fan...

Generating power from those kinds of systems is still best done with steam based systems...

<comment><USER3> Thermo Electric Peltier coolers (TECs) can be used for refrigeration. They aren't very cost effective though and are less efficient than condenser/evaporator coolers.

I first stumbled across TEC chips here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNFrRsJJ08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNFrRsJJ08)

<comment><USER2> People normally use a TEC for cooling things to below room temperature.

The material in the paper appears to only be useful for cooling things from high temperatures _down_ to room temperature...

Which would be done rather efficiently by a simple fan...</comment></comment></comment>