The Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-17/what-s-stopping-airlines-from-making-your-seat-more-miserable <comment><USER4> I think the article's premise is wrong:

> Faced with a choice between discomfort and higher fares, most travelers > choose discomfort

Airlines are still in business so the execs think that things are running smoothly. At my peak, I was spending roughly $70k/year on my own flights and probably another $100k for my partner and employees. Now I spend $0. Not a big hit to the airline, but I'm not the only one. Long before airline scandals I ran into the fact that the airlines that I was loyal to made decision after decision that clearly told me they didn't care about my business. So I left. It wasn't an easy decision. But they pushed hard enough that it became a health decision for me and not a business decision. The little stress points that they added to my life compounded enough to the point where they became big. So I stopped.

All around the country companies are finding ways to avoid flying altogether. Web conferencing and video conferencing solutions are better than they were 15 years ago, but not significantly. The acceptance of remote work isn't just a budget decision, it's a productivity one. The decision to fly now involves up to 4 hours a week on top of flight times and time to and from the airport. Internet access is terrible at most airports and on most flights.

Air travel was once something to look forward to. Now, for the most part, it's simply not. TSA has played a big part, making the experience miserable in a way that only a government agency can. But most of the trouble with flying is really due to airline executive decisions.

<comment><USER5> Also, there's the basic fact that most travelers have zero idea how much legroom they'll have (or not have in this case) until they're actually in their seat. It's bait and switch, and varies not just from airline to airline, but from plane to plane. If consumers actually _knew_ they'd have no legroom, and then chose that option, that would be one thing, but they don't know.

I'm 6'3", with long upper legs, so this is a serious issue for me. It's torturous to fly... literally. Either I don't fly, or pay extortionate sums to upgrade.

Airlines should be forced to put the legroom space on the ticket and required to honor it. I bet things would be much different if consumers knew how badly they were getting fucked over in clear detail.

<comment><USER6> So with you. I'm not particularly wide, but I am 6.22 feet tall, with relatively long femurs.

There's nothing I can do about that.

I positively _hate_ flying.

<comment><USER7> Airline seat pitch never bothers me (5-9 and mostly torso) but in any event it's like $50-100 to upgrade to economy+. What's the grievance?

<comment><USER8> I'm 6'4" and economy plus is too small for me. The only way I can fit into the seat is in a completely upright position with my knees pressed into the seat in front of me. It gets even worse once the person on front of me reclines his/her seat.

It's physically painful for me to stay in that position for more than 1-2 hours so I'd only do a business class for long haul flights. And of course business class is very prohibitively priced for me personally so I avoid flying long distances at all.

If the company wants me to fly somewhere further than 2 hours away, I will demand a business class seat. Otherwise I will tell them I'm not going for health reasons and they should send somebody smaller who can fit into the tiny seat more comfortably.

<comment><USER9> > It's physically painful for me to stay in that position for more than 1-2 > hours so I'd only do a business class for long haul flights.

I honestly think that being too tall finally fits the legal definition of a disability: "a physical or mental impairment that _substantially limits one or more major life activities_ of such individual;"

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102)

Air travel definitely meets the criteria for being a major life activity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seats are getting smaller and people (particularly Americans) are getting bigger. Last month I was in a full flight and I had the bad luck of having a 300+ pound man sit next to me. His physique extended beyond the boundary of the seat, taking probably a ~quarter of my space. The situation was ridiculous but all that the flight attendant could do was to be "sorry" because the flight was full. There should be rules against this. Big people out there - buy two seats.

<comment><USER11> There's no guarantee anymore that if the person bought two seats, that they would be together. A basic economy ticket won't even let you pick a seat in advance on some carriers anymore.

I really dislike flying and I avoid it since it's a miserable experience. And I'm not willing to pay 5-8x the economy rates for what I'd consider a tolerable experience in first class.

<comment><USER12> It seems all airlines are starting to get on this. Emirates this year decides to bite the dust and charge fees for seat selection.

I really hope someone makes a website that reflects the true cost of using an airline. So many hidden fees and gotchas. It's a race to the bottom.

<comment><USER13> Even if you pay for specific seats you are not guaranteed those seats. [http://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-seat-assignments- not...](http://www.farecompare.com/news/airline-seat-assignments-not-always- guaranteed/)

<comment><USER14> Maybe, but in 30+ years of flying I've never didn't have the seats. Or is this a US specific thing?

<comment><USER15> I think it's a US thing. I've never not got the seats I'd reserved either.

I've only done two domestic flights inside the US, one from JFK to Miami, and one from Minneapolis to Seattle, and both of them were _utterly_ awful when compared to intra-europe flights I've done (so similar distances).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm almost 6'2" and I basically won't fly coach anymore. It's miserable. I'd rather not go. Now I'm in the rather fortunate position that with some planning I can fly in a premium cabin. Many are not.

For me legroom is one issue but a bigger one is width. I am wider than a standard domestic coach seat such that if fly in one I'm competing for armrests or I'm hanging out into the aisle or I'm sitting in an uncomfortable position of squeezing my arms in. It's incredibly unpleasant.

The biggest problem for most airlines (from my perspective) is that coach continues to shrink and the jump to business can be massive like from $300 to $2000. That's where Premium Economy and things like JetBlue's Even More Legroom are good.

But I will optimize to have a longer trip with a layover than fly direct to avoid this problem. For example, I'll fly on American's older 737s and 767s in "First" transcon via DFW or ORD for ~$1000 return rather than $500 in coach direct or $2000+ in business direct (both of the last two on the newer A321Ts).

Premium Economy is a mixed bag though. Cathay Pacific's is quite good (with some caveats). British Airways I hear is PE in name only (well, name and cost for some reason).

Still, lie flat business class, particularly on international long haul is hard to beat.

<comment><USER17> 6'3" tall and 44" chest here. I fly almost every week. Anything less than Economy Plus/Premium is pure torture. Even in Economy Plus I still usually bump shoulders with the fellow next to me. If he's big like me we might as well be cuddling.

I'm flying Seattle to Boston on Monday. I had to buy first class, there's no fucking way I'm doing that trip in anything less. Did I mention I have back problems (like many Americans).

Thank God I have the means and airline status to travel better. It really is a bus in the sky.

Might as well have standing room too.

<comment><USER16> You mention a point worth highlighting: status.

This is why I fly pretty much exclusively American. Not because American is the best airlines (it is not, but hey it's not United either). But because if I optimized solely for cost I wouldn't have any status on any airline. I'd be the first one bumped. I'd have worse seats and I'd be upgraded less.

People like to bitch about how airlines treat them like crap but at the same time they often don't have any loyalty to any airline. What do you expect?

Just this last flight from NYC to SFO I got upgraded to (lie-flat) business class for "free" (it cost I think 6 500-mile stickers but I have like 100 of those so who cares?). My AA status also multiplies all the miles I earn on AA and oneworld flights. That's worth something.

I just wish AA had PE. Main Cabin "Plus" is not the same thing.

<comment><USER18> People don't really have loyalty to airlines because the requirements for getting any benefits to that loyalty keep going up-up-up, though. If I fly _anywhere_ , I'm paying for it, and the investment is huge before you even start seeing anything for it. And you couple that with the way airlines treat passengers in general, and the idea of loyalty to one is pretty much "...what?".

My business partner, who's been at this longer than me, has JetBlue's Mosaic, but the perks for that are pretty lame given how much money we put through JetBlue.

<comment><USER19> There are status challenges available to address that issue.

<comment><USER18> So I fly at least one round-trip a month and I'd never even _heard_ of this. That probably doesn't help with the notion of airline loyalty, yeah?

<comment><USER19> Most are advertised through large employers or direct marketing emails. So if you're sending everything from United to spam, you won't see it. Some airlines still just hand out free status based on your employer (I have Cathay Pacific status through that sort of program despite having never paid for a CX flight).

American auto-enrolled me in one earlier this year. Gave me free platinum status for three months and 20 500-mile upgrade certs. The certs were mine and I had those three months to fly 5000 miles to extend status for a year.

<comment><USER18> Now that I know about their existence, I'm totally seeing it. My point is more that this is a super-niche thing and so I'm not surprised that nobody has any loyalty to an _airline_ (which rank down there with people who yell at kids on their lawn for customer satisfaction).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This may sound contrarian, but I'm happy that airlines are shrinking seats, and adding a few rows of "Economy Plus" for people that need/want their space back. Flight prices have been falling for the last decade, in part due to these smaller seats, and I've been able to travel much more than I otherwise would have as a result. I'd love to have a bit more space, but I'll take my $600 round-trip tickets from SF to Europe over a marginal increase in comfort any day.

<comment><USER21> I'm 6'4" and I can assure you that for me at least it's not a "marginal" increase in comfort. For me, 10 yrs ago, a standard economy seat on a major airline was OK. My knees grazed the seat in front, but whatever. Now, today, on several major airlines, in standard Econo, my knees not only touch but my upper legs cannot, geometrically, sit straight. My legs have to be splayed apart, because the fwd/back distance is literally too little for my femur bone. With my hips jammed into the seat back, my legs cannot fit, sitting straight ahead. This is insane for me.

Yes I can pay more for one of the Econo-plus seats ... but I should not have to. 6'4" is not average, yes, I realize, but so what---it's a genetic tax then? If I want to fly I have to pay more? If I were too "wide" you might say (though you shouldn't), my fault, I should lose weight. But what am I supposed to do? Saw my ankles off?

If I were the worlds tallest person, sure, you could claim exceptional circumstances. But 6'4" is not that exceptional, I submit to you.

PS I'm not criticizing you of course... only making the point that for many of us, this has become an exceptionally frustrating (and costly) experience.

<comment><USER22> This IS a genetic tax, but I propose to you that even if you are treated unfairly on airlines, that doesn't make up for all the advantages of height over the course of your lifetime.

As someone who is 5 foot 5 inches tall, I receive many benefits, like being able to buy my suits from children's clothing section. But if I was given the opportunity to trade my height for yours, I would pay more for my air travel every day.

<comment><USER23> Advantages? Such as not being able to purchase clothes or shoes anywhere except online? Seriously try to find a pair of 34x36 pants or 16 shoes. You can't anymore. In the 90s a store might have carried a pair of shoes, today they carry none because you can order online. Size Large shirts are too short and XL are too fat. So I need large tall which no one carries in stock. Literally every purchase I make is sight unseen.

Then there's the not really fitting in half the cars out there. Or amusement park rides. Or bowling shoes. Or safety equipment. Or saddles for horses.

You might complain that you can't reach things on the top shelf, try having to bend over for everything. Even to use countertops or bathrooms.

How about furniture always being short and forcing your knees to be elevated above your hips when you sit all of the time.

And beds... always too short. Want to stretch out? Only if it's a king and you lay diagonally.

Being tall is perpetual discomfort because this world is made for people of average height.

<comment><USER24> I'm 5' 9" and I notice that, in a group in which I'm the shortest person, I am less likely to be addressed or listened to than in one in which I'm average or the tallest.

<comment><USER25> I'm 5'8" and I have the same issue, mostly at work. Also I have to have all my shirts altered because I have long arms and broad shoulders, so even extreme slim fitted stuff is a tent below my chest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> [http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-to-getting-a-good- ai...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secret-to-getting-a-good-airline-seat- book-a-better-airplane)

 _" The Embraer offers one of the best antidotes to the shrinking seat in Jet Blue's "Even More Space" rows. The pitch between rows – that's the measurement between one seatback and the next – is 39 inches, plus one of the widest seats at 18.5 inches. The regular coach seat is the same width but the pitch is reduced to 32 inches, in itself not that bad.

... Delta has also annoyed Boeing by placing a huge order for what is a rare phenomenon: an airplane designed from the start to give coach passengers a big break in comforts, the Canadian Bombardier CS300 ... There are three seats on one side of the aisle and two on the other. Aware of the stigma attached to the middle seat Bombardier made it a tad wider, at 19 inches. The other seats are still a generous 18.5 inches wide. Can you imagine, somebody thought the middle seat should, in George's words, be made "more tolerable"?"_

<comment><USER27> I hate to rain on the author's parade, but there's nothing inherent in the design of the newer Embraer jets which makes it so the seats "can't be shrunk".

The reason why the E-jets are so nice is that the big carriers buy them to use on their regional affiliate flights, and the typical pilots' contract puts the dividing line of regional and mainline at 76 seats. So as long as they put exactly 76 seats (or fewer, but that's less common) in the plane, they can farm it out to a much cheaper regional operation and crew. If they put a 77th seat in there, they also have to put a more expensive mainline crew on the plane.

Thus, the E-jets tend to have almost unheard-of amounts of space even in economy, because the airlines have worked out they would lose more money from squeezing seats in and having to pay a mainline crew than they'd make from the extra seats.

<comment><USER28> However, the fuselage is not wide enough to cram in an extra seat per row, so you still have the widest coach seat in the sky. Width matters more than pitch if you're average height, IMO.

You did hit on a good point though. The nice part about the E90 as well is that airlines won't cram in any more seats because they'd have to add a flight attendant as well once they hit 101 seats!

<comment><USER27> The E70/75 _could_ squeeze in more rows of seats without needing another FA, but like I said they're in that strange sweet spot where they're big enough to accommodate more seats but not big enough to make the flight as a whole profitable with the extra seats + mainline crew.

<comment><USER28> Yup, which is why I'd ride an E70/75/90 as far as they'll let me! I'm not particularly tall so I can be fine with 30" of pitch, but I appreciate having more than that. And my shoulders appreciate the extra width.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I just wish that, if they're gonna shrink the seats, they would prevent them from reclining. That, I think is a big part of the reason why the smaller sizes are so terrible.

A few months back, I had a pretty terrible experience on a flight when the woman directly in front of me, who was maybe 5'2 and 120 pounds, decided to recline her seat all the way back. It made what was already a cramped flight for me (I'm definitely not 5'2 nor 120 pounds) pure torture. I did all I could to try to convince her to push it up, but she wouldn't.

The flight attendant—this was Delta, by the way, so screw them-sided with the person in front, saying it was "their right" to recline their seat in a way that makes people uncomfortable.

This was on top of a bad flight situation where I was dropped off to a different city than my luggage because my connecting flight was delayed.

The flight attendant tried to appease me with beer. She would have better appeased me had she ignored her airline's policy in what clearly was an unfair situation.

That's the problem with flying these days. They constantly force passengers to choose between one undesirable choice and another, and nobody is happy as a result.

<comment><USER30> Look mate, I am sorry to break the news for you but the woman in front of you was totally within her rights to push her seat down. This is not something that is granted from the back passenger in a plane. BTW, there are seats with more space near the emergency exits that can be bought for a small fee. If you are big you may want to consider that.

Actually reminds me of a crazy bitch that insisted that I don't push my seat down, while at he same time had her seat pushed down (guess it is called "maximizing space"). But this was nothing that could not get fixed with a short yelling at her.

<comment><USER31> This is why I'm always happy to pay extra for United seat 21D.

<comment><USER32> Sounds interesting. On which model aircraft is this a prime seat?

<comment><USER31> I forget the exact models (I always check seatguru), but some if not most of the 737s.

It's the rear most exit row aisle seat (I've developed some kind of flight anxiety/claustrophobia and medically need the sightline space of the aisle) which can recline, but the ones in front cannot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> >Faced with a choice between discomfort and higher fares, most travelers choose discomfort

That's really bad. Down here in Europe, most good airlines have gone bankrupt, with people preferring budget carries with their shitty service. And even there, i usually pay as little as $25 or so to get emergency exit row with great (~36") pitch as opposed to standard 29"! Seats - just 12 per plane - <USER2> nearly always available! People absolutely vote with their money for the service as shitty as it gets. And that's not because they don't have money - they travel more and more, airlines are booming - they are just that scrappy and don't respect themselves. Bad.

I may sound like a commie but at times i feel that the government must step in and mandate some decent minimum standard of service, like minimum seat width not being narrower than standard on 737 (to prevent airlines from squeezing 8 in a row on 767 or 10 in a row on 777), and minimum 32" pitch. It would be impossible for any particular airline but will be easy for them as a whole. With tickets being so ultra cheap as they are now, nobody will even mention the extra 10 euros per leg or so.

<comment><USER34> I wouldn't put it that easily. I think I've flown 60/40 with "normal" airlines vs budget - when my times are fixed I can't really choose to vote with my wallet and, more importantly, leg room and service have not been better or worse - no matter the airline, it was simply hit and miss - all.the.time.

<comment><USER33> Thing is, people who can pick airline, pick the budget ones. Which cause normal ones to die out. Then, guys like you have to pick a budget airline because there is frequently no normal one on the route any longer...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I suspect that part of the problem is that airline seats aren't advertised in a way that allows consumers to effectively comparison shop. Consumers aren't aware of or can't tell the difference between the "economy" seats offered by different airlines, and so there's a race to the bottom.

Imagine if regulation required describing the seat with a couple of factors such as the "pitch", the width of the seat, and/or the total volume of space dedicated to the passenger. When shopping for tickets, instead of displaying purely the cabin class, the tickets would be characterized by their space and comfort (measured objectively).

Consumers might think twice before selecting the ticket that's cheaper by $25 if they can see up front that it has 3 inches less legroom.

<comment><USER36> Google Flights actually does a great job at this, displaying seat width and pitch and calling out when it's above or below average.

<comment><USER37> Yes! I now exclusively use Google Flight Search because of this (and as a result routinely and happily pay more to fly on airlines that have sane seat pitches)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is one of the few cases where I'm happy to be a stumpy little 5'6" guy. Airline seats aren't fun for anybody, but the savings on tickets are worth the cramped conditions for me.

I just wish the airports had better chairs for napping during long layovers. The airplane has a fixed amount of space, but what the hell is the terminal's excuse? Even the VIP lounge is still upright chairs. Rent me a freaking hammock.

</comment><comment><USER39> > _Most people are just fine for two hours. As the third hour approaches, > stiffness increases and comfort declines. At four hours, however, a sort of > derièrre detente is achieved, and the levels of discomfort recede._

After three? four? hours, my legs _have fallen asleep_ , and I'll need to deal with the inevitable discomfort of waking them up again. Sleep is impossible: the seats offer no neck support, the bulkhead is hard and not built for sleeping on; trying to lie on the tray table causes my intestines to tie themselves into gas filled knots.

> _In emergencies, the Federal Aviation Administration requires fully loaded > planes be emptied in 90 seconds or less._

Well, the FAA is being ignored then. I just can't see that happening.

<comment><USER40> I suspect the testing is only being done on a planeload of people who've just recently sat down.

Keep them in their seats for 3 hours, knees jammed into the backs of seats, passengers with laptops and blankets and slippers, some of them asleep - <USER3> then see if you can evacuate a plane in 90 seconds.

<comment><USER41> Adrenaline is a powerful thing. Are you suggesting that discomfort from sitting in a cramped space will prevent people from saving their own lives?

<comment><USER42> Does adrenaline override numbness and being unable to tell what position your limbs are in?

<comment><USER43> Yes; at least, I've found myself walking on a numb leg when it seemed urgent enough. Seems like it carries a risk of injuring one's leg, but sometimes that's less bad than the alternative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I recently took a 24 hour flight to Asia and chose the cheapest ticket. The seats were very small and very cramped. Economy plus seats had the 35" or 36" of legroom that were standard decades ago, and business class had 40" of legroom and wider seats. It was miserable, but I traveled across the Pacific ocean in less than a day's time. Economy Plus was $300 more expensive, and Business Class was $900 more expensive. I am a young guy, I don't mind packing into an airplane. That is the price I pay.

Cheap flights, big seats. Choose one.

<comment><USER45> A 24 hour flight to cross the Pacific? 14 hours sounds more realistic...

<comment><USER19> Also, a $900 premium for business class on a Singapore Airlines trans-Pacific flight doesn't sound right either. Plus their business class has (gigantic) lie-flat seats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> While suffering on a plane I've often fantasized about taking a common block of nine seats (3x3) and turning them into 3-high bunk beds in the same space instead.

That leaves meal delivery and baggage as two problems to solve. I think the first could be solved with a sliding panel near the head. I think baggage could be put on top of the row or two closest to the aisle.

May be more kinks to iron out (getting in/out) but the thought of laying flat on a long flight sounds so heavenly I'd be willing to suffer other issues. Thoughts?

<comment><USER47> I think that would end up being quite space inefficient, as people tend to be > 3 time taller than they are wider.

<comment><USER48> Isles are 31 inches apart, but seats are only ~17-18 inches wide. Stacking 3 tall gives you ~17.5 x 3 * 31 square inches. If you give 20 inches for bunk width that's 6'8" for bunk height which works out.

I don't think you could safely stack three of these, but it's going to be more comfortable on long flights.

<comment><USER46> > I don't think you could safely stack three of these

They could be attached to each other and the roof as well.

<comment><USER48> I am more concerned with people exiting quickly in an emergency. It might work if everyone was a fit 20 something who practiced it. But, many people would have issues even in normal boarding, crawling over people with a carbon filled with smoke would be a real challenge.

<comment><USER46> It's not substantially different than a current row of packed seats, especially when leaning back.

It might be even easier to stand up with a good design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Airplanes nowadays, at least for the longer routes where poorly fitting seats seems to be the biggest problem, carry so many people that the distribution of heights and weights of the passengers on a given flight should be quite close to the distribution of heights and weights for the flying public as a whole.

So maybe on the large planes they should have a wide range of seat sizes designed to match that distribution, and then sort passengers into their seats based on the passenger heights and weights.

<comment><USER50>
      >> sort passengers into their seats based on the passenger heights and weights.

Weighing passengers might not be universally popular. [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from- elsewhere-37550969](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from- elsewhere-37550969)

        Pair of businessmen say that asking passengers to step on the scales at the check-in desk is discriminatory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This, to me, is a discrimination of sorts. I'm 6'5, and I can't help that. I don't physically even fit on some plane seats because of this pinch. And when these companies shrink economy seats, they offer the old economy size seats for extra. So I end up having to pay a lot of money just not to be in pain. If this gets worse, I'm afraid I won't be able to fly at all anymore....

<comment><USER52> So you're saying a small person should subsidize your comfort?

Don't get me wrong. We often decide it's right for healthy people to pay for the unhealthy. I just want to make sure you agree that's the issue.

<comment><USER53> I wonder if a new kind of airline would be successful where seats were not sold by ID, but by femur length. That way, they could set the seat pitch according to a continuous distribution matched to the passenger height. Now not only would they be able to accommodate--on average--the tall passengers, but they could squeeze in more passengers overall and thus make more money because the shorter passengers would be packed more tightly. That is, everyone would get exactly the same amount of knee clearance.

<comment><USER51> I would invest heavily in this idea. I absolutely do not mind paying more for legroom without the extra services associated with higher classed seats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> OT: I've always wondered why airplane seats are designed that make sleeping in them so uncomfortable, especially if they are not reclined. Is the seat shape due to a safety requirement?

The back of the seat curves forward, with the headrest being forward of the lower back. My neck gets sore just sitting upright sometimes, much less sleeping. Also, there is nothing keeping your head upright; some seats allow you to fold in the sides of the headrest, but the folded part is so far to the side that it really doesn't support my head.

Compare airplane seats to automobile seats, which are much more comfortable for sleeping.

<comment><USER55> I suspect it's because of weight savings. Look at your average car seat, it is way thicker than the average aircraft seat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Forcing me to pay 4x more, because I am taller than 95th percentile is completely unfair. I just don't understand why airlines can't differentiate the seats for smaller and taller (and heavier) people.

Similarly, more airlines should adopt "avatar" selection feature like Virgin airlines - choose to travel among singles, party people, professionals, old or people with kids. Shoving everyone into single monolithic space is pointless.

Finally, adding vending machines would save some costs and stop that demeaning politeness and hospitality theatre.

<comment><USER57> Virgin America was such an amazing airline. I loved the avatars (being able to hint to people on the seat selection map that you want to get work done). And the on-demand food was a huge upgrade - it's really hard to get work done on airlines where they dictate the food schedule (is it time to pack up & put your tray table down? No? Is it now? How soon is now?)

I don't travel to the US now so I don't get to fly Virgin anymore, but I was really sad when I heard Alaska bought them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I thought I'd seen this in Bloomberg a few weeks ago, but it was a very similar article in the Guardian: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/29/incredible-...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/29/incredible- shrinking-airline-seat-us-court-says-seat-size-a-safety-issue) . This article doesn't seem to mention Chuck Schumer's efforts on the issue (at least as of last February; maybe he's forgotten it since): [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/28/charles- sch...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/28/charles-schumer-faa- seat-size-shrinkage) .

<comment><USER59> Thanks for the information! The requirement for the FAA to establish a minimum seat size is in the House and Senate Versions of the FAA Reauthorization Bill. The House version is not passed yet, they have until September to do so before the prior one expires.

If the House Bill passes, the reconciled version that will be sent to the President should have this requirement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Complain mode off.

Solution mode on.

How difficult would it be to get a law passed that effectively deals with this? E.g., by requiring that each passenger should have at least 1 inch of space between their knees and the next seat, or else their money back plus compensation.

How to approach this? A petition? Letters to MOCs/MPs?

PS: budget airlines have these "bag testers" (e.g. [1]), where you have to measure your bag before you can take it on board. Wouldn't it be great if passengers had a "seat tester", which could be a 1 inch wide measurement stick that should fit between your knees and the seat in front?

[1] [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E-ouOe8jIH8/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E-ouOe8jIH8/maxresdefault.jpg)

<comment><USER61> Now, everybody has a choice to choose his own seat class. But with your proposal, passengers that are actually OK and would choice current seat sizes for a little discount would have to pay for everybody's else comfort.

<comment><USER60> > Now, everybody has a choice to choose his own seat class.

Not really. Right now if you need 5% more leg-space, you need to upgrade to business class, and pay 300% more for your ticket. That's not what I would call "a choice".

<comment><USER61> Why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> One cool approach to a solution would be to use data to save the day. Millions of people fly through the carriers each year. The airlines could analyze the statistical heights of their average airline passenger and design the seats accordingly. Then assign seats on the flight based on passenger height. You could have a percentage of your seats configured for short people, a bigger percentage configured for average height, and several set up for tall outliers. Then everyone will be statistically more likely to get a comfortable experience.

</comment><comment><USER63> I wish airlines made business class cheaper, and slightly worse:

\- Reduce the seat pitch a bit, say by 10%.

\- Make the seat narrower by an inch or two.

\- Get rid of the perks, like priority check-in and priority boarding. And the occasional promotions, like a Mercedes to pick you up at home.

\- Give me the same meal and baggage allowance as premium economy.

\- Have one fewer flight attendant.

More of us will be able to afford such a business class.

There's currently too huge a gap between (premium) economy and business. It's almost as if you can travel by a bullock cart or a BMW, with no options in between.

<comment><USER64> I agree entirely with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I'm still wondering if there is a way to build a sleeper 767 that can fit 200 people. All long haul night time flights.

I wish someone would open snooze airlines.

<comment><USER66> Problem with that is that most airlines like to keep their planes in use as much as possible. With a airplane configured for just sleeping it's only useful for a third of the day.

There are also problems with getting the FAA to approve the layouts and safety features for sleeping passengers.

I found this great Quora thread on the same question, with some interesting history and thoughts [https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-any-sleeping- seats-mul...](https://www.quora.com/Why-arent-there-any-sleeping-seats-multi- layers-on-airplanes)

Apparently FAA regulations requires people to be sitting up for takeoff and landings so that adds a bit of a wrinkle too.

<comment><USER65> Yea I have no idea how you'd pack that many people in without making someone have to climb a ladder, which is a non-starter.

 _Apparently FAA regulations requires people to be sitting up for takeoff and landings so that adds a bit of a wrinkle too._

That was my assumption too but I have yet to find any documentation of that anywhere. I've flown since I was 18 and a good portion of my family are Captains or F/As and they haven't run across that either. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

I think a niche airline might be able to make it work, but since running an airline is basically a no margin business, it's not worth taking the risk.

<comment><USER67> Might be related to this, "For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds." [1]

[1] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.803](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.803)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> This might be an unpopular opinion here, but..

It doesn't bother me too much. I would rather pay 10% less than have a 10% bigger seat.

This way the businessmen who care and want to pay for business class can fund the airline, so that I can pay the bare minimum. Airlines are expensive enough, let's not force them to increase seat sizes so they have to raise their prices.

I do feel bad for tall people though.

<comment><USER69> > This might be an unpopular opinion here, but..

Why?

I agree, I'm above average in height (but not super top 5% tall)

Also most airlines I use allow to pay extra for more leg room but I don't, prefer to save a buck.

It sucks if you're tall in this case, but there are benefits to being tall, like higher wages, higher IQ, larger dating pool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm 6'5" and have in enough in-country flights in germany enough space to 'exactly fit'. But than i'm unable to put the tray down.

All thanks too my legs.

I accept thow that my flights are just not that cheap and i have to get the emergency exit or the premium eco.

</comment><comment><USER71> Yes, the seats getting smaller. I just had a flight this week and I am still raving about it. I never been so lucky I had a bunch of flights to get back home: 2h, 2h, 7h and 7h and I got assigned an exit row seat on 3/4 of the flights. Amazing those exit row seats. I am 6"7 so I could use the extra space :D :D :D

</comment><comment><USER72> Is there a difference between domestic and international flights from a same company? I take trans-pacific flights several times a year, and what I notice is that international flights might have less legroom compared. But this could also caused by uneasiness from sitting too long

</comment><comment><USER73> A self-driving car will take you up to 400 miles overnight in what will likely be a sleeper seat. That's the sword hanging over the airlines' heads. If they're not ready for it, there will be much pain, and probably much begging for a bailout.

</comment><comment><USER74> I would ride in a coffin sized box if it was the cheapest option.

</comment><comment><USER75> Air travel is incredibly harmful wrt global warming, so anything that disincentivises flying & lessens passanger-mile impact is a positive change from an utilitarian POV.

</comment><comment><USER76> Anyone notice the same about stadium seats?

</comment><comment><USER77> "Earn $100 for sitting in an airplane seat for eight hours."

No f'ing way for $100, or even $1k. I'm 6'5", 250 LB. I'm dreading a 5 hour flight next week.

Southwest has the best legroom; my knees are only slightly jammed into the seat. Those CRJ-700 regional jets; I cannot physically sit down. Fortunately those usually have economy +. I told my work if they give me any trouble for booking that seat, I'll file an OSHA report.

<comment><USER78> Another 6'5"\+ here. I damaged my left knee while flying from Europe to New Zealand due to tight seats and people in front of me declining their seats as well. Everything is made for average-to-small people :-(

<comment><USER47> Except for those really high shelves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> What is that disturbing animation at the beginning of the article? Is it a "crash-test dummy" type test, an artificial simulation, a joke …?

<comment><USER79> That's the most "wat" thing I've seen in a while. Even the arms look like they're made of rubber...

<comment><USER80> So sort of ragdoll physics apparently. Maybe a Garry's mod production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> maybe seats aren't the best way to fit the most people into an aircraft, what if there lied down across and there were or or 3 levels.

</comment><comment><USER82> One size fits all, doesn't.

Aircraft seat design is literally a form of murder, though it'll never be prosecuted.

</comment><comment><USER83> Of course they are shrinking seats.

Their goal is to make ever-increasing profit, and they will get more and more efficient at it.

Whenever an article like this comes up I am shocked that it is "news". I thought everyone knew by now things are not what they used to be because everyone is trying to make more money. That is how the Western world functions. The sooner you get used to it, the better.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _That is how the Western world functions_

American consumers routinely choose lower-priced tickets over those on more- comfortable airlines. And when ticket prices go down, Americans fly more.

The real price of a ticket has fallen consistently since at least the 1980s [1]. Full-fare ( _i.e._ first-class refundable) ticket prices today remain around where any ticket price was a few decades ago.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra- klein/files/2012/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra- klein/files/2012/10/air12.jpg)

<comment><USER84> Agree with your point, but a question regarding the graph:

I guess care was taken to adjust for shorter (and hence cheaper) flights? If short flight started to become more common, I would expect the average price to fall, even if the "actual" price stayed constant.

I guess they did, but not completely clear from the graph.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _was [care] taken to adjust for shorter (and hence cheaper) flights?_

The graph shows per-mile costs of flying [1].

If we measure same-route costs, we find "in the 50s, a flight from Chicago to Phoenix could cost $138 round-trip — that's $1,168 when adjusted for" 2014 prices [2]. A quick Kayak search shows that route now flies for as little at $65 on Frontier or about $120 on _e.g._ United. That's a 95% price reduction at the lowest tier.

(A P-class full-fare ticket on Delta is about $500. Given $138 in 1955 bought as much as $1,265 today [3], that's still a 60% real price reduction.)

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how- air...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline- ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/)

[2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/15/air- travel-1950s_n_...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/15/air- travel-1950s_n_5461411.html)

[3] [https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Become an Expert in This Before Netflix Unbundles - <AUTHOR> http://rafer.net/post/138323466431/become-an-expert-in-this-before-netflix-unbundles <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I get the title, or maybe it's the content that I'm missing.

What I understand is the author (possibly the poster too) is saying that Netflix will start charging a premium in the future on the media assets it is buying now.

I'm no media expert but I'd suggest this is wrong (sure they may increase prices but I doubt out of a reasonable scope) because 1) there is ALWAYS competition for entertainment, meaning there is a ceiling in how much they can charge. 2) Piracy is too easy, meaning what they are really competing with is free. I think any price gouging in entertainment is likely to run up against this issue.

If netflix is the only place I can watch House of Cards, and it costs $50, I either won't watch it (do I really care that much?) or somebody else who got it will pirate it. But why would somebody pirate it when they paid $50? Simple, if I paid for it, and I thought I over-paid, you are my friend and you didn't pay for it because you thought it was too much, maybe I give you a copy because I'm a good friend. Of course, you know so much more of the world would want to enjoy it, but don't want to pay, so you make it available to more people.

The price of netflix may be artificially low right now, but is it 30% low, or 200% low? I'd suggest 30% and I suspect we'll see marginal increases in subscription fees over the next few years.</comment>


Does Profitability Matter for IPOs? - <AUTHOR> http://www.ipo-dashboards.com/wordpress/2009/09/does-profitability-matter-for-ipos/

<comment><USER2> "We examined a large sample of _successful_ technology companies..."

Please note the flawed approach which makes all their conclusions meaningless.</comment>


Surging online orders slow Wal-Mart delivery network - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-walmart-delays/surging-online-orders-slow-wal-mart-delivery-network-idUSKBN1E0380 <comment><USER2> The dirty little secret is that Walmart (Walmart!) and Costco's online ordering systems work better than Amazon's. Amazon is obsessed with selling you things you don't want. Meanwhile, you don't have to even be a Costco member to shop online at Costco- they charge you a teeny fine. And much stuff you can pick up at Walmart: free shipping, and if there's something wrong, you're right there.

<comment><USER3> Target Red card members get 5% off posted prices and free shipping from target.com. I've been very happy with them. The choice is more limited than Amazon, but it's larger than what they have in store.

<comment><USER4> It's also not flooded with knock offs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been doing ecommerce for years, and I think one of the best-kept secrets of the industry is that their fulfillment systems exist. Even inside of the company, the warehouse guys seem like they're second-class citizens. But I think if you're honest the warehouse management systems are where the science part of computer science really lands. You are doing _literal_ knapsack problems and Eulerian paths. Queues and schedules and producer/consumer problems abound!

Oddly, evidence seems to suggest that companies can get by with treating their fulfillment systems as unimportant, but I have to think there is some value in recognizing their value and getting them tooled up before a surge of orders comes in on the front-end and there's no capacity on the back-end to handle them.

<comment><USER6> It's not really a secret source of benefits, its just that fulfillment is a viewed cost center and doesn't get as much investment as revenue generating activities</comment></comment>


Math Invariants Helped Lisa Piccirillo Solve Conway Knot Problem - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/math-invariants-helped-lisa-piccirillo-solve-conway-knot-problem-20200602/ <comment><USER2> I don't know if it's precisely the same thing, but invariants in the form of conservation laws are quite handy in physics too. They let you take problems with complicated details and turn them into accounting problems. One of my favorites is the optical invariant, which relates the area and divergence of a light beam. It provides a way to work through problems very quickly, say, during a meeting or when considering design options.

<comment><USER3> Invariants are always useful! They were a major software engineering innovation in the 80s with languages such as Eiffel, and Lamport for example suggests teaching concurrency in terms of invariants (for example, conditions that must be respected at the end of all mutual exclusive sections).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Might be better to link to this, which gives a lot more context and explains how she did it & shows the knot she created to solve the problem.

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/graduate-student-solves- decad...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/graduate-student-solves-decades-old- conway-knot-problem-20200519/)

<comment><USER5> That was linked 19 days ago, 479 points

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23236599](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23236599)

This is new/different

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Lisa Piccirillo used math invariants to solve Conway Knot problem"

<comment><USER7> ( this reminded me of the sadly topical [https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide- to-...](https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-ambiguous- grammar) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting introductory talk from her about topology: [https://vimeo.com/66928168](https://vimeo.com/66928168)

</comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone share how big a deal is this proof? I remember seeing one post already about it on quanta.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure about the severity of its impact, but I toyed with the problem when I was learning knot theory. It's a spot where probably hundreds of mathematicians have tried to itch. Advances have been made in attempts to solve it, but didn't quite do the job. Piccirillo's approach is really quite beautiful, and... sorry, this is where mathematics gets weird: the statement of the theorem is what lay-people consume; the method of proof (not even the actual proof, but the ludicrously high-level abstract algorithm that the proof is a concrete instance of) is what mathematicians consume. In that regard, this seems quite buzzworthy.

But if you're a fan of mathematics but still consider yourself a lay person: this stumped John Conway!

<comment><USER11> > ... this stumped John Conway!

Do you have a source for this? Thanks

<comment><USER12> I don't know about a source, but Conway had been compiling knot tables since high school, and as a knot with only 11 crossings, the Conway knot is certain to have been on his radar. It's just such a simple knot, and sliceness such a fundamental property that Conway is sure to have tried to figure it out.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What can I do about someone wrongfully threatening trademark infringement against me? - <AUTHOR>

I am getting a threat from someone claiming that my website is infringing on their trademark. Should I just ignore them? I want to avoid court if possible. <comment><USER2> Are you sure you aren't infringing on their trademark? Ask your lawyer, and if he agrees with you, get him to write a letter to the threatening party.

And really it depends on who is doing the threatening. It's your call as to whether they are serious or not; but if you have a lawyers opinion that you are not infringing, then they are much less likely to waste their time and yours in a legal action they would likely lose.

</comment><comment><USER3> What kin of threat, email from the webmaster, letter from a lawyer? Specifics, including the URL, will better shape the answers here. In any case, advice from a lawyer trumps advice here.

<comment><AUTHOR> the website being threatened is <http://www.recipepuppy.com> by a webmaster with an unranked by quantcast,compete,etc search engine with a dog in its logo

<comment><USER3> Looks like a letter from a lawyer should do the trick. Probably an IP or trademark lawyer is better than the lawyer from your last divorce. ;-) I know it seems like a waste of money, but it will be less hassle in the long run.

FWIW: your dog looks like a dog, not a cutsie cartoon that looks like their cutsie cartoon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ask a lawyer.

You might want to avoid the court, but they might not. Play it safe, ask a lawyer.</comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone doing any significant work with the play framework? - <AUTHOR>

Guys,
Long time Java and Ruby guy here. Most recently have spent much of my time with Rails, which I really enjoy...most of the time. However, I find it infuriating at times to read through some of the code of the framework itself...the magic(tm) of ruby simply makes it difficult to trace at times. To boot, none, and I mean none (including RubyMine) of the available IDEs do a great job of ruby source navigation. They're at times adequate, but a far cry of the capabilities Java IDEs give you.
Four months ago, someone posted a link to playframework.org. I glanced it over, half interested but wary of picking up and learning yet another half-assed attempt at copying Rails to the Java world (I'm looking at you, Grails). However, earlier this week, something made me think of it, and having some spare time, I downloaded it and walked through the tutorial.
I am blown away.
play! supports just about every feature I can think of that I find so appealing in Rails, but it does so in Java. The code is clean. The project seems mature. The layout of a project is almost identical to a Rails project, so it's very easy for a Rails developer like me to grok. It will generate project files for Eclipse, Netbeans, Textmate and Intellij on command. It will walk your dog and make love to your wife, while finishing up the yard work you've recently neglected. Ok, that might be a stretch, but you get the idea.
The only thing I find missing is not really a problem with play! but rather a limitation of Java...I am completely, totally addicted to Ruby's blocks. I love being able to collection.each{|one|} over lists...it just feels right.
That said, play!'s clean code and style make Java palatable again, and the speed is fast(!). It's the first time I've been excited about Java development in a long time. I'm really surprised the buzz around it has been rather quiet. I think it's a Java web development game changer.
So, sorry about the blathering, but I'm curious...are any other HN'ers using play? If so, what's your experience been so far? Have you run into any limitations that would cause you to steer others away from it? Have you deployed to production yet?
Please share your experience or thoughts on play, if you don't mind.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I don't have any systems deployed to production yet, but am in the process of creating an internal app using Play and am liking what I see so far.

There are a few minor problems with the framework being quite immature, and I don't always think the creators have a clear roadmap of where they are going. However in a way this is good for me, because the early adopters can help drive things, but with the core team trying to keep the framework as light as possible.

Coming from a j2ee type background, running each instance as a standalone process, not inside an appserver was a little strange at first. But the process separation has turned out to be a good thing for me, just takes a little more management. But because things are structured in a REST/share nothing architecture, the ability to use a proxy with failover configuration and doing hot deploys via this is nice.

The team are very responsive with help on the google group, and bugs are fixed very quickly, you just have to be prepared to run with nightly builds to keep up to date.

One worry I do have is how the team/community will continue to handle if things do become more popular. I am worried about an influx of new developers clogging the current direct channel to the developers and feel the community will have to split into newbies/users/developers to handle things more efficiently. But they are doing a great job so far so long may it continue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi. We use Play! Framework in production since a year ago.

We have two sites, <http://www.masterbranch.com> which is a site to manage developer CVs and track your open source experience in your CV. The other one is a network about developers, sysadmins, web designers (this one is in spanish) <http://es.debugmodeon.com>

We are happy with Play!. It's easy to use, has lots of built-in features and Play! team is also awesome and their work is exquisite.

Cheers

</comment><comment><USER4> We're building an app that will be going into production in the next few weeks. It's not a huge application, probably around 300 hours of work.

Coming from a framework stack of WebWork/Struts2, Spring and Hibernate, it's a total breath of fresh air. Everything is there that you ask for, even nice little helper methods like encrypting strings, resizing images or serving byte arrays as documents.

We keep expecting to find some big shortcoming that brings about loads of painful refactoring, but it hasn't happened yet!

The templating engine is simple, clean and gets out of your way. The hot reloading really does work. The fact that there is NO XML configuration in our app is blissful and a real wake up call to how absurd Spring and Hibernate configuration used to be. The error messages are almost always enough to show you straight away where the problem is.

The only downside is that it completely shuns the entire Servlet API (although I appreciate that this is where a lot of the simplicity comes from). As a result you cant leverage any servlet-based components. But maybe that's a good thing.

I'm seriously impressed. I thought my company was going to have to make a jump to python or ruby to get such a clean, simple well thought through full-stack framework, but we dont.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious...can you describe a servlet-based component that you might want to reuse? As I've been doing Ruby mostly for the last few years, I'm struggling to think of an example.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what dabeeeenster had in mind, but I know that we previously integrated third party forums and other modules into our servlet based applications. You still have the option to run servlet based components on a subdomain to keep your core Play app clean.

I think because Play is Java, you tend to want to merge it into existing servlet applications, but you have to realise that it's the same as moving to an entirely new language. It might be based on the same core language, but its not really compatible.

Although we were excited about creating something with Play, we had to hold back several months because there was no way to gradually migrate and integrate Play into our existing servlets. It only really works when you are starting a new project. Its not ideal, but as previously said, you have to treat it as completely separate, not linked to servlets and its as though you are moving to Ruby etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I ran across play a couple of months ago and I love it (wrote article on my initial thoughts back in Feb - <http://www.agentcurry.com/2010/02/15/the- power-of-play>).

Like a couple other commenters, I come from the J2EE world and always found the MVC frameworks overkill for most non-enterprise apps (even some enterprise apps for that matter). I really like all the niceties they have integrated into Play. It's intuitive, easy to use and you can get something up and running fast (very fast). To get my feet wet I've created a URL shortener app. It's a pretty simple app, but has allowed me to explore and familiarize myself with the features of Play! It's been a great experience using Play! thus far; I've just started a more "robust" application using Play! and hope it continues to exceed expectations.

</comment><comment><USER6> I am moving from Grails to Play, because i can no longer deal with the half- assed-ness of Grails. It is so buggy and those issues shine thorugh to my product. It is hard to break-dance when walking on eggs.

>> The only thing I find missing is not really a problem with play! but rather a limitation of Java...I am completely, totally addicted to Ruby's blocks. I love being able to collection.each{|one|} over lists...it just feels right.

Absolutely true and that is why they are working hard on making Scala a first class citizen with Play. With Scala you basically get a lot of the conciseness of Ruby but with the static type checking and early error catching that you get from Java.

</comment><comment><USER7> Have you taken a look at another Java-based framework www.scooterframework.com? All your experiences in Rails can be found there: ActiveRecord, associations, routes, named sql queries, i18n, ajax, etc. I particularly like the one-click routes link. I think Scooter's routes which is based on Rails is much better. Also I like Scooter's ActiveRecord over Play's JPA. I just cannot tolerate annotations polluting my Java class everywhere.

<comment><USER8> Scooter is very impressive. I can almost convert my Rails app to Scooter-based app in Java line by line. ActiveRecord is awesome. I think that is probably why it took only 260 lines of Java code to write Twitter in Scooter.

<comment><USER9> Personally I think ActiveRecord is the weak link in Rails (2.x ... I see they are doing some fixing in 3.0).

Coming from Hibernate and such, it may seem like a breath of fresh air, but the result of a find ain't lazy, the query language sucks making you drop to SQL even for sub-selects, and the model definitions look weird ... inferring the columns from the DB schema is the wrong approach IMHO (they should take a look at Django sometimes).

<comment><USER8> Scooter framework allows you to use both ActiveRecord and direct sql queries which you either embed in code or list in sql.properties file. See [http://www.scooterframework.com/docs/lovely_features.html#na...](http://www.scooterframework.com/docs/lovely_features.html#namedsql)

Django is a nice framework. But don't you think that listing table columns in Django model code is a violation of DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)? Database already holds meta data. Repeating it in model code is unnecessary.

<comment><USER9> > _But don't you think that listing table columns in Django model code is a > violation of DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)? Database already holds meta data. > Repeating it in model code is unnecessary._

No, because the columns definitions in Django are complete. You specify their meaning, not their internal representation. And you can also add your own types easily.

In ActiveRecord you have to look at the DB schema for, well, the table definition, and you have to look again at the model's definition for validation rules or for relationship rules. It may be DRY, but it's not KISS.

And I never have to work with the database schema directly, like writing SQL for the schema definition (I only drop to the db's console for debugging purposes, nothing else). A migration utility like South can detect the code- changes I've made and write the migrations for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's perfect, I think, unique in Java world.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone come to play from Rails (as I have)? Is there anything you miss from Rails?

</comment><comment><USER11> never heard of it before. the demo seems to leave itself open to CSRF though. shrug.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, glad you're paying attention, but that's not correct. Play escapes everything for you by default, just as Rails 3.0 does now ([http://www.playframework.org/documentation/1.0.1/releasenote...](http://www.playframework.org/documentation/1.0.1/releasenotes))

<comment><USER11> Not talking about escaping. I'm talking about the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything like an authenticity token backing the POST that's used to create a new item.

<comment><USER12> There is now: [http://groups.google.com/group/play- framework/browse_thread/...](http://groups.google.com/group/play- framework/browse_thread/thread/85d1863ca03af24e/c2aa265c99addb3f)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Playframework is just great..</comment>


Don't Break The Chain - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/software/motivation/jerry-seinfelds-productivity-secret-281626.php Some good advice that can apply to any aspiration <comment><USER2> I found it works for running. After you have a two month streak going, you really don't want to miss a day. You find you make the rest of your life fit around it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This principle is why many Lisp hackers fail to make good web sites or applications. Lisp programming can lead to days and weeks of fun programming, so that you break the chain of doing less-fun but important programming. Sometimes the improvement users want most involves non-fun programming. You really have to push yourself to implement it instead of procrastinating by coding something more fun but less desired.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't have anything to do with Lisp. Depending on what they view as fulfilling, some people veer away from difficult problems regardless of the language they are writing in. Working in a "more fun" language like Lisp doesn't make you more likely to avoid doing hard work, nor does writing in a "less fun" language like Java increase your propensity to actually deal with the difficult segments. Its a matter of self-control, and is, unfortunately, an issue for programmers in every language.

<comment><USER3> I assert that a less fun language _does_ increase your propensity to face up to unpleasant tasks. If your programming language makes facing up to unpleasant tasks a part of your daily routine, you won't "break the chain" by spending a day or a week where programming is all fun and games.

I'm not saying that self-control (a.k.a. passion for doing the right thing) is _not_ an issue if you use a less-fun language, I'm just saying that it becomes _less_ of an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can imagine using multiple colors for various tasks on a single board. I might try this. I use something close to GTD, with a flat text file. I really need a PDA though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seinfeld kept telling the same jokes for years.

<comment><USER7> Actually, his repertoire was pretty huge, he never worked blue, and he's among the most successful comics of all time (economically speaking). The last season of Seinfeld paid him (and his co-stars) $1 million per episode.

He's not my favorite comic (or even in the top ten), but I'll take productivity advice from Seinfeld any day, all day.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It works. I used to do something similar for going to the gym

<comment><USER8> "Don't you understand anything about commitment, about being a pro, about sticking with what you say you wanna be? You don't just do it when you feel good. You do it every day of your life. You do it when it hurts to do it, when it's the last thing in the world you wanna do. You do it because you're a professional." --Teddy Atlas

Said to Michael Moorer when he wanted to skip a day of road-work while training to fight Holyfield.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> would be an alright facebook app...

<comment><USER10> ... the race has begun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah, that's pretty good advice.</comment>


Ask HN: Securely finding the intersection of two lists? - <AUTHOR> I've now three or four times run into the situation where I want to securely and privately find the intersection of a list I have, with a list someone else has – but without either of us seeing one another's full list.
For example, I want to find discover customers with a prospective partner. But they don't want to send us their complete customer list, and we don't want to send ours to them.
There is CS research into the topic of "Private Set Intersection Protocols", but I haven't found a working implementation. And I could pay an accounting or legal firm to do this manually, but that will cost more money and time than it's usually worth.
Have you ever heard of somebody doing an escrow service for this, where party A and party B each send their lists to the service, the esrvice verify the size of each list (so we're not just spamming the service), and then they send back the matches to both parties? Or a tool simple enough to send to someone else to run locally? <comment><USER2> What about exchanging the hashes of the customers? A common hash would mean a common customer.

"What if he sends back my list of hashes, although he has no common customer?"

I would do as follows:

1\. Both pick a hashing function (f and g).

2\. Both share their hashing function.

3\. Both hash their list with two functions.

4\. Both send the list of hashes computed with the other's function.

5\. Common hashes <=> common customer.

For example, my list: Amanda, Patrick

His list: Patrick, Stanley

I choose f, he chooses g.

My list |> f = 12, 54 (mine)

My list |> g = 36, 2 (public)

His list |> f = 54, 7 (public)

His list |> g = 2, 68 (his)

I compare both lists with f, and he does the same with g. I conclude the only common customer is Patrick. He would not be able to send 54 without knowing Patrick or reverse-engineering the function (or being pretty lucky).

<comment><USER3> That scheme has the weakness that if the space of possible values is easy to enumerate (e.g. by buying lists of leaked email addresses off the black market), you can hash them all and find out whether they're on the other person's list without their knowledge, and you can do that at any later point without their cooperation.

<comment><USER4> What possible solution to this problem isn't vulnerable to the first part of this, tho?

<comment><USER3> This is essentially a "secure multi-party computation" problem: if you had a trusted third party that both sides can communicate with using encrypted channels, they could just send their lists to the third party and get the intersection back.

There are standard techniques in secure multi-party computation that can be used to eliminate the need for a trusted third party by replacing it with a cryptographic communication protocol that can only be executed by all participants acting together, for example garbled circuits [0]. Basically, one participant creates an encrypted representation of the computation as a circuit and sends it to the other participant, who can execute the circuit on encrypted inputs to get an encrypted result, which only the sender of the circuit can decrypt, so they need to be sent back. IIRC, there's no way to prevent the sender from simply not sharing the decrypted results with the receiver, but this is super obvious, so it can't happen in secret. Because the encryption prevents either party from executing the complete computation on their own, it's also not possible to secretly try multiple inputs to extract additional information.

The one attack this can't protect against is if one party lies about the contents of the list. (Note that this is different from reporting one's own list honestly, but trying to also get the other list.) While this can't be prevented, you could require the size of each input list to be part of the output, which would make this kind of cheating detectable as well.

I'm sure the research literature on this problem also has some more specific techniques that would be preferable to the generic approach described above.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is one of the many papers on the topic of algorithms to compute set intersection while revealing little or no additional information - but I haven't seen anyone running this as a service or writing a tool to make it possible for two parties:

[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/389d/1af665a5111306e1f118ff...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/389d/1af665a5111306e1f118ff4aa9a1dc073cc1.pdf)

<comment><USER5> There is some similar work in the space of checking if the credentials being used by the user are compromised or not.

Example: [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.13737.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.13737.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I haven't seen an off the shelf thing. It might be possible with PKI incantations but the first that comes to mind without a third party is homomorphic encryption.

Libs like MS SEAL only do limited numeric operations. Without reading the research, that seems fine. Hash each name to a number. Encrypt, then do a compare. (Lots of hand waving here).

Another possible scheme are things like the Google safe browsing update/client side protocol. There you're working against hashes only. Depending on needs it may be good enough.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you can tolerate some error, a bloom filter might work.

Both parties make their own bloom filter and send the results to the other party.

The good part is no personal data goes inside. I mean, you cannot tell beforehand if someone is a customer until you try to store their data into the filter.

Bad news: bloom filters have erros. So, before doing this better guess the monetary value of the error.</comment>


Tell HN: How to run a startup for $6 a year - <AUTHOR> Use this stack.
1. DynamoDB for database
2. AWS Lambda for backend
3. Netlify / Now / Surge for frontend
4. S3 for file/image hosting
5. Cloudinary for image hosting
6. IFTTT to webhook for cron
7. RedisLabs for queues, cache
8. Figma for designing and prototyping
9. Porkbun for $6 .com domains
10. Cloudflare for DNS
This setup is enough to handle ~1M/requests month, more or less, depending on the application.
If you are getting more traffic than that, your startup will be making money so you won't mind upgrading. :) <comment><USER2> Does this count network egress costs (for s3, lambda)? Those are hard to calculate but can add up. Also, you can uses sqs for queues, that has a pretty big free tier.

Finally, I think that bending the architecture of your app around what's free is not the best idea, especially if you are trying to get something out there to see if there is customer demand. (And doubly of you haven't built a cloud native app like is outlined here.)

In my mind the best way to build software for a startup is to build it using what you know as fast as you can. Avoid technical risk, because you have a boatload of business risk.

For me, that'd be using rails on heroku, which is still under $200/year for a fully functional dyno and database. For others it might be some varient of a mvc framework on a hosting provider. For others it might be WordPress (gasp!). For others it might be a cloud native app, as this post describes.

As long as you aren't spending extravagantly, time is more important than money when figuring out what your customers need.

This is true both in companies that have raised money and bootstrapped companies, for different reasons. For the first, you took money and need to figure out your product market for or scaling strategy ASAP. For the second, your time is super valuable because it is tied to your motivation. Doing work directly tied to customer value is a great motivator. (Doing other fun technical things that don't deliver customer value is a good way to learn things, but a bad way to run a bootstrapped business.)

<comment><USER3> I agree, for web apps with modest user requirements, Heroku is great. I am just running static web sites right now but if I start a new project I would probably start with Heroku. Their always on hobbyists dyno is $7/month and adequate.

If you ever grow your customer base it is not that difficult to move to directly using AWS, GCP, Azure, DO, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In most cases it doesn't make a difference if you have costs of $6 or $60 annually, it's still marginal. I'd say speed it's way important - use the tools you know.

It's better to create a startup in 6 days than for $6/yr.

</comment><comment><USER5> The vibe I'm getting in this thread is people are recommending services that are free for developers.. in which case, I recently discovered [https://free- for.dev/](https://free-for.dev/) which is a mammoth list of such things.

<comment><USER6> Wow mammoth indeed ;)

Section I was most interested in "STUN, WebRTC, Web Socket Servers and Other Routers". I like the services like ngrok where you can just create a public ip for locally running web servers from the ide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some possible alternatives/improvements:

The AWS S3 free tier is 5GB for 12 months, with 20,000 GET requests and 2,000 PUT requests. [1]

Backblaze B2 (AWS S3 alternative) provides 10GB of free storage (no expiry date), and is part of the 'Bandwidth Alliance' [2] with CloudFlare. So aside from some pretty generous daily transaction fees (of which 2,500 of each type are free per day) [3], you could have your own free almost-cdn.

Porkbun currently have a 1st year (new domain registration) discount bringing the $6 .com domain cost down to $3,90. [4]

[1] [https://aws.amazon.com/free/](https://aws.amazon.com/free/)

[2] [https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth- alliance/](https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/)

[3] [https://www.backblaze.com/b2/b2-transactions- price.html](https://www.backblaze.com/b2/b2-transactions-price.html)

[4] [https://porkbun.com/tld/com](https://porkbun.com/tld/com)

</comment><comment><USER8> You can use Netlify DNS to simplify your stack. Cloudflare is not needed.

Also, Netlify provides Functions, which is Lambda abstraction. Faster to develop.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is cool for simple ideas but really doesn't scale with complexity, not mentioning the 100% reliance on 3rd party services that could shut down at any time and bleeding potentially sensitive data at every step of the way...

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd just use heroku and pay a bit more(or nothing if no users?), use plugins for what you've mentioned etc.

The cost of running is marginal and if I'm lucky enough to get a lot of users, I can easily switch to anything.

There is a lot of dev cost to wire up everything you've mentioned. Serverless is very devtime-wise consuming, it's state of art tooling is still slow as fuck if you compare writing an app using Rails/Django/etc.

IMHO dev time is what hurts more running a startup, this is what I would try to reduce

</comment><comment><USER11> > 1\. DynamoDB for database 2. AWS Lambda for backend 3. Netlify / Now / Surge > for frontend

I'm evaluating FaunaDB with Zeit Now and so far it looks like a winning combo.

Zeit Now makes your dev much easier as all your application (front(s) + backend) can be in a single repo.

I don't have much experience with Dynamo but Fauna includes authentication + authorization out of the box and I think a more powerful query language. It also has first class support for GraphQL.

</comment><comment><USER12> For marketing emails, Mailerlite has a generous and featureful free tier.

Zoho mail is damn good on the free tier.

Google forms / surveys.

GitHub of course!

Netlify is also a free CD / CI perhaps? You can run a script in a container on every deploy.

For seo, semrush has a good free tier for keyword research. There are other nice free tools like screamingfrog and keyword shitter.

Azure has some free forever tiers for functions and web apps but they are very basic.

</comment><comment><USER13> Thanks for this reminder. My new mantra when currently developing an idea is "cheap MVP".

</comment><comment><USER14> You will spend more while supporting such a stack. If you have enough experience just start with a production-ready stack, otherwise, youse cheap labor force (PHP, Python) to build initial prototype.

</comment><comment><USER15> Do you own any startup that uses this setup? Could you please tell me?

</comment><comment><USER16> Worth noting that the AWS services are typically free for only the first year. (though assuming you don't exceed those limits, would only be in the low dozens of dollars per year)

<comment><USER17> Lambda is free as long as you stay under the (I think monthly?) quota.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > IFTTT to webhook for cron

Could you explain this one a bit for me

</comment><comment><USER19> I got the cheapest one, raspberry pi on my 100 mbps vdsl connection. Unlimited bandwidth/storage for less than 2.88 dollars per year.

</comment><comment> d--b Yes and then AWS free plan rolls off and you're going to be paying quite a lot more!

</comment><comment><USER20> Wait, how you can be free to use Cloudflare if you get 1M requests per month?

</comment><comment><USER21> Are there time limits on these like free for a given time?

</comment><comment><USER22> That's not a startup. That's a hobby.

It's not a business until you register with various levels of government and pay all of their fees, which instantly makes the $6 figure false.

</comment><comment><USER23> awesome, but startups are not measured by requests per month but number of users.

</comment><comment><USER24> i remember buying a domain on namecheap for 1$

<comment><USER25> As always, the devil is in the details. Was it a .com domain? I'm guessing $1 for the first year, is that correct? What is the cost from second year onwards?

Many companies use deceptive marketing selling stuff for such a low cost that it is too good to believe and it often is - you gotta read the fine print. I got my internet connection for $75 and two years later, I am paying 108$ for the exact same thing, with no additional benefit.

<comment><USER26> you can pick very cheap domains with some tlds.

For example, my .ovh is costing me around 4$ per year and there are probably even cheaper tlds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> what about sending and receiving email?

<comment><USER9> With Mailgun[0] you can send 5000 emails for 3 months for free.

The Amazon Simple Mail Service (SES)[1] lets you send 2000 emails per day with the Free Tier...

Sendgrid[2] gives you 40k emails for 30 days and then 100 per day for free forever...

[0] [https://www.mailgun.com/](https://www.mailgun.com/)

[1] [https://aws.amazon.com/ses/](https://aws.amazon.com/ses/)

[2] [https://sendgrid.com/](https://sendgrid.com/)

<comment><USER28> I still get 25K emails / month for free with SendGrid using Azure:

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sendgrid-dotnet- how-t...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sendgrid-dotnet-how-to-send- email#create-a-sendgrid-account)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Invaluable tool to send zip files/code bundles on Gmail - <AUTHOR> https://textonly.github.io/txtmode/ <comment><AUTHOR> I made this quickly ( GitHub pages, see source at: [https://github.com/textonly/txtmode](https://github.com/textonly/txtmode) ), because I needed to email myself backups of code, but GMail did not allow the zips to be sent.</comment>