Facebook Home: Another Android Lock Pick - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2013/04/07/facebook-home-another-android-lock-pick/ <comment><USER3> Until now Google didn't really care about manufacturer skins/customizations, because at the end of the day, they were still getting growth with Android, and to put their services on each one of those devices. So no matter what they might've said to the users that they care most about them, it's been pretty clear that they didn't care _enough_ to force out all OEM customizations.

But this time - well, this time it might be different, because instead of being complementary to their services, this one actually threatens them. It might finally make them ban OEM/3rd party customizations, and get everyone to use stock Android, just like every PC out there has to use the same Windows interface.

As an Android user who would like to see more phones without OEM customizations, Facebook Home couldn't make me any happier, if it actually forces Google into banning it and any other such customizations, starting with Android 5.0.

<comment><USER4> the OS in AOSP stands for open source.

They can't stop anyone from customizing Android outright, but they reserved the right to ban them from the Open Handset Alliance, a lá Amazon.

The closest I've seen to straight up bans from Google are against malware/virus apps and selective bans against violators of their ToS (some ad- blocking apps were banned for using a workaround, but other apps that used that workaround were not banned).

Don't forget that Windows is closed source.

While they could potentially close off the platform going forward, they can't retroactively un-open source code.

<comment><USER5> They control the ability to add Google services (Maps, Gmail, Google Play Store, etc.) on top of Android. So they do have some power that they can exert without destroying the open source concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article seems to miss the main threat of Facebook Home - it's pushing aside Google+ integration and subverting Google's strategy to weave G+ into their user's experience. While that is eventually about advertising, the advertising is a far removed long term goal.

Nonetheless, the Play Store is the beating heart of an android phone, and as long as all the Facebook phones are running it I think Google's going to be pretty philosophical about this. It's a lot better than Facebook launching their own phone or teaming up with Samsung on Tizen or something like that. And while ever Facebook is playing on Google's turf, Google can afford to give them a pretty long leash, knowing they always hold the reigns through the Play Store requirements, and their ability to out code Facebook on their own platform is always going to give them a big advantage.

<comment><USER7> >Google+ integration and ... Google's strategy to weave G+ into their user's experience.

does this exist? i've got the google+ app on my phone, and i quite like it, but i wouldn't call it an integrated experience. i get notifications and it installs itself as a sharing option, but that's just like any other app. google+ isn't deeply integrated with android at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This certainly advances an interesting argument. That Facebook Home could capture an Android device. It raises a really interesting question of where the ad revenue goes. Which is to say if Home starts showing you ads ("Your friend Johnny just got a copy of Halo9 want to buy a copy and play him?") that ad revenue won't go to Google obviously any more than Ad revenue collected by web sites that happen to be accessed by Chrome.

Here's my off the wall prediction, Google makes an equivalent product for Google+ but some how figures out how to credit you with the bandwidth you use while its on your home screen.

Interesting times indeed.

<comment><USER9> " some how figures out how to credit you with the bandwidth you use while its on your home screen."

This is the bothersome part of the ad proposal: who pays for the bandwidth? And I'm guessing facebook is expecting users to bear that cost.

<comment><USER10> Facebook has deals with carriers in countries where mobile data is hard for the average customer to afford that enables free access to Facebook Zero even without a mobile subscription.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't forget that Google's primary goal with Android was to avoid an Apple (or anyone else's) monoculture. That was a serious risk when the iPhone came out and it no longer is.

We're now looking at a market likely split between Apple, Android proper, Android forks and maybe some market share for RIM and Microsoft.

That's a lot less horrific than Google being shut out of mobile entirely which was a not-implausible scenario at one stage.

<comment><USER10> Android started before the iPhone was announced. Google's stated goal with Android was to build a rich, common phone platform to enable the smartphone revolution. Remember that before Android, most phone's came with shitty little browsers and little-to-no room for third-party software.

When Google bought Android, very few people had done any amount of mobile web browsing. Now, mobile makes up a notable fraction of total web usage.

Google's accomplished its goal so far with Android, but it certainly didn't start out to prevent an iOS monoculture - it did to prevent a carrier- dominated oligarchy of shitty web-less feature phones. (More strategically, it's made sure that when the mobile web became important, Google services were still front-and-center.)

<comment><USER12> "Android started before the iPhone was announced."

That's true. They were actually worried about Microsoft and Windows Mobile. I believe Android's runtime was influenced by .NET Compact Framework and the mobile .NET VM. At the time, it was by far the coolest mobile app runtime architecture. ndroid took it several steps farther by figuring out how to run multiple VM instances in (relatively) small memory, among other innovations.

Now that's kind of funny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is interesting for Google. It one way it's huge validation. Afterall, Facebook is working with Android and not Apple. Android still in general suffers from at best apps on par with Apple's and usually they feel a little behind. So this is significant from a simple PR coup perspective. Facebook's big announcement evolves around Android!

Yet as noted in this article it comes with it's own set of challenges which are well documented here. In general, I think Google is the winner here - <USER2> because I don't see Home being that much of a threat as a concept. I think Facebook has now positioned itself as a "necessary evil" in our culture. In general people use it to keep up on friends and family. But embracing the entire experience a la home probably makes you look like more of a dork than a hipster.

</comment><comment><USER14> By my understanding, only the HTC First will have Facebook's lock screen. Without that, Home is just another Launcher.

The upside of HTC First: will be the first HTC device to have native Android UI - if you turn off Home.

<comment><USER12> That is probably correct. There is no kosher way to replace a lock screen if you are not the OEM (or have rooted).

Home is more than another launcher, though. In some ways it defines a new class of application software for Android - a cooperating suite of apps, with a coordinated set of interfaces.

<comment><USER15> I would not say rooting your phone is not kosher. A little inconvinient maybe but nowadays you don't have to be a hacker to unlock your phone. Every tech literate person should be able to do this (as annectodatly wittnessed by me, a couple of my friends flash CW when purchasing a non Nexus Android and they aren't software devs)

<comment><USER12> I should be more specific since there are plenty of apps, even on Google Play, that outright require you to root your phone.

There is no way for an app that expects to be installed normally, using the normal system of permissions, to change out the lock screen. In practical terms, Facebook could not insist their users root their phones. For some debugging tools, that's much less of a problem.

There are "pseudo lock screens" but those are very hacky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> TechCrunch made a good point: Home introduces chat multitasking. That's as innovative as webOS' Synergy.

And we saw that both iOS and Android incorporated Synergy.

So I don't think it'll be too long before both iOS and Android introduce multitasking chat.

If anything, we should thank FB for forcing their hands and moving everyone forward.

Home's advantage might not last for long, in other words.

</comment><comment><USER17> Inqmobile ( <http://www.inqmobile.com> ) were doing this for a while (Deep FB integration into android). It never really took off.

</comment><comment><USER18> FB is in direct competition with Google. So Google _has_ to respond. If they ban it, then everyone will fork the source and it'll be the end of Android as we know it. If FB is successful (which I have serious doubts) then, I suspect the same thing will happen. Everyone will fork and "brand" their version.

And since Android is already Google branded their only choice is to integrate Google +. Google + isn't exactly a runaway success now.

Now that FB has changed the rules.... if I was Verizon I'd be thinking "why the hell am I giving Google ad revenue"?

Google is gonna get squeezed. And the funny thing is, they did it to themselves.

<comment><USER11> Why has this changed the rules? It's a launcher. Google still has a zillion other hooks into the Android ecosystem.</comment></comment>


Gmail Creator Paul Buchheit Leaves Facebook for Y Combinator - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2010/11/12/y-combinator-paul-graham-harj-taggar/ <comment><USER2> Wow. This changes my opinion of Facebook's webmail offering significantly.

Congrats to Mr. Buchheit and YC, you're both making out like bandits.

<comment><USER3> Paul is a very smart guy. He is a tech visionary, and is extremely practical financially. He will be a huge boon for YC even more than he already has been, and a loss for Facebook. He previously stated he was not involved in any e-mail platform for Facebook, but the timing is interesting indeed. Great news.

<comment><USER4> I have no idea what Paul was working on at Facebook, but I believe the timing has to be coincidental, because we drove it. The reason this had to get announced today is that interviews for w2011 start on Monday.

<comment><USER5> Well, he was at FB at least 1 year, so there was some vesting I assume? Not entirely incidental, is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So now hacker news will get a Project-Titan-killing email service?

<comment><USER7> I would LOVE to see that

<comment><USER8> email@example.com

<comment><USER9> Question --- I haven't done much webdev stuff so this may sound silly, but --- why can't PMs work that way? Like, why can't I send markbao a private message by sending an email to email@example.com? And then the site could forward it on to his email address, or if the site wants to get fancy they'd store it in a database and display them as "comments" in the target user's "editing profile" screen (whenever you edit your own profile).

More than that though, I'd like to learn about the nitty-gritty of e-mail. As a game developer I do mostly C++ application code, so everyone else probably has way more knowledge than I... But for example I'd like to be able to embed the ability for my programs to send emails (as a debugging mechanism). Or even receive emails! (Imagine taking down some number of your servers, for patching purposes, by sending a "console command" as an email to email@example.com. Or running queries on your servers by sending the query as an email, and then they email back the response.

How would I write a C++ function like:

      bool SendEmail( const tchar* destination_email_address, const tchar* subject, const tchar* body );

<comment><USER10> A primary reason why a site wouldn't support PMs to firstname.lastname@example.com is that there is no access control. The address would get spammed too easily from senders with no affiliation with Hacker News. The current mechanism of only supporting messaging within the site limits this.

<comment><USER11> Sometimes it's interesting to think about how much better the world could be if we could design things without worrying about griefers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> At a time where Google, FB fight w/ $M to get best people, that's one of the greatest talent win one can imagine.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great, clarifying talk at Startup School 2009:

[http://venturebeat.com/2009/10/24/startup-school-gmail- frien...](http://venturebeat.com/2009/10/24/startup-school-gmail-friendfeed- creator-paul-buchheit-on-winging-it/)

Honestly, a large part of that talk has stayed with me and kept my main outside-of-work project quietly in the background. I'd like to think I had the confidence and motivation before that talk. But somehow that talk just clicked for me. And has encouraged me to keep at it.

His approach is sort of what we all, I think, aspire for. A really clear, honest core outlook. And then entrepreneurship as bottom-up programming. It's actually much more difficult than it seems -- because you have to look ahead compared to a lot of people and then insist on relearning things in a bottom- up approach. You see it with all great founders (Zuck, etc.). On the outside, they seem lucky. But if you look more closely, they have a habit of putting themselves in the right position by looking two or three steps ahead (as I think Adam D'Angelo's talk @ Startup School 2010 was partly getting at). But then they insist on revalidating things from the ground up (e.g., Paul B's 'winging it' and deriving the overgeneralized nature of advice without a particular context, etc.). Anyway, they all make it look easy. But if you're smart, I think you look at them as real inspiration in terms of getting things done the right way.

</comment><comment><USER14> Forget about Facebook, etc, YC is _the_ news. I've been following it (and HN) for close to three years now, it went from a locally cool incubator to a place where people look up for world-class innovation.

Someone should write an in-depth story about the rise of YC, would be an excellent read!

</comment><comment><USER15> Is Y Combinator a full-time job? How long did Paul stayed on Facebook, a couple months? This is odd no?

<comment><USER16> [http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/facebook-acquires- friendfee...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/10/facebook-acquires-friendfeed/)

FF was acquired about 15 months ago, so that's about how long Paul was at Facebook.

Also, I imagine being a partner in YC is very much a fulltime job.

<comment><USER17> rtm and trevor blackwell have other fulltime commitments.

<comment><USER4> PB is going to work full-time though, at least in the spiky sense that Harj and Jessica and I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Y Combinator, the increasingly famous Silicon Valley incubator.."

What an odd modifier.

<comment><USER19> Not particularly. What's odd about it?

It's slightly more complex than desirable for good writing, but it's certainly well within normal bounds for size, especially for news articles. News articles do that sort of thing a lot.

<comment><USER18> Increasingly famous just seems like an odd thing to use to describe YCombinator in the lead of a news story, out of all the things the writer could use to add context.

YCombinator is "famous"?

<comment><USER20> Yep, YCombinator is famous. It's been featured in many mainstream publications, it's known around the globe in pretty much every country that has a startup community. I'd call that famous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Congrats Paul. Great news for startups in general.

<comment><USER22> Actually, that should be "Congrats Paul _s_ ". Great move for both of them (as well as the startup world).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "YC now has a second partner who's pretty famous and respected in the tech world."

Er, 3 + 1 == 2? Or maybe they mean "web startup world"?

</comment><comment><USER24> Wow, very interesting, now there is a whole different angle to FB's Titan killing gmail system.

Why would Paul leave just before launch? To me it means Paul either was never involved even though he was told he would be, or it's crap and he's leaving before the shit hits the fan.

</comment><comment><USER25> So after setting up Project Titan does that mean that news.yc is going to get a brand new messaging system?

</comment><comment><USER26> facebook should have tied him up with a long term contract. I thought ff was acquired for the talent not the platform. big loss esp if they acquired for talent and not platform.

</comment><comment><USER11> PG, Robert Morris and Paul Buchheit all at one company. Talk about hacktastic overload. In a good way. :)</comment>


Show HN: Apache Beam with Docker - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ecesena/docker-beam-flink <comment><AUTHOR> Apache Beam has recently released its first version [1].

I'm following the project with great interest and used it in the past [2].

The project itself is pretty solid despite being so new (not surprisingly, as it's a spin-off of Google Dataflow). Currently, there's a bit of a lack of tooling and precise documentation on how to get started.

I've created this docker image (and related starter repo) to deploy a cluster with Beam and some examples pre-packaged and ready to run. I'll probably write a bit more extensively in the next days/weeks, showing how to run more complex examples than just this basic WordCount.

Hope you find this useful!

[1] [https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/fi...](https://beam.incubator.apache.org/beam/release/2016/06/15/first- release.html)

[2] [http://oscarsdata.github.io/](http://oscarsdata.github.io/)</comment>


Kleiner: Web 2.0 is So Over, Dude - <AUTHOR> http://www.webpronews.com/blogtalk/2007/11/05/kleiner-web-2-0-is-so-over-dude <comment><USER2> I think Tim O'Reilly summed it up pretty well:

"If a company needs to identify itself as a "Web 2.0" company rather than describing the problem they are solving, or the opportunity they are creating, then they are just playing the buzzword game, and aren't worth investing in."

Some of the ideas of "Web 2.0" are definitely worth pursuing, but those alone aren't a replacement for a legitimately good business idea.

Honestly, there's a lot of fluff out there under the "Web 2.0" name, and I think that's what Kleiner wants to stay away from.

</comment><comment><USER3> "As far as I'm concerned, if KP's comment means less money flowing into questionable startups with no business plan and a stupid name that's missing a bunch of vowels, I'm all for that"

I can hear the roar out there now -- "Hey! Add some more vowels in there and crank up the business plan software!"

It's funny that everybody wants you to describe your business in as quick a manner as possible, and then there's this whole subculture of buzzwords either being good or bad. "I'm a YC company" is supposed to be shorthand for one thing (supposedly good), while "We're web 2.0" was at one point hot, but now not.

I know what the point of the pitch is, but after you get through your value proposition, your demo, and your growth plans, you want the other person to understand it's something web-based, interactive, and not an old-fashioned architecture. "Web 2.0" does that.

This is like dating a fickle person! No matter what you do, you never get it right. So I guess you need to come up with an elevator pitch that conveys the maximum amount of useful information _without_ using well-known buzz words that have fallen out of favor. Good luck guessing which buzz words are okay or not with which person.

Might as well throw darts at a dartboard. (grin)</comment>


Don't eat Dungeness crab, California health department warns - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Don-t-eat-Dungeness-crab-California-health-6608939.php <comment><USER2> I realize this is niche within niche, but having just eaten California abalone last night I wondered if it was affected as well.

The answer seems to be no, that since abalone graze on mature seaweed, they do not have elevated levels of the domoic acid produced by pseudo-nitzschia: [http://blog.michaelscateringsb.com/cooking_on_the_american_r...](http://blog.michaelscateringsb.com/cooking_on_the_american_r/2015/06/cultured- abalone-and-the-red-tide.html)

I'm not quite sure how to square this with reports of massive die-offs of abalone in caused by algal blooms in previous years: [http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10897](http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10897)

It's a different toxin, but why would they accumulate one toxin and not the other? Or maybe they are just more susceptible one?

Abalone are mighty tasty snails, by the way. We did these coated with flour and black pepper, dipped in egg, dredged in panko, then fried in olive oil.</comment>


Writing Smell Detector (WSD) - a tool for finding problematic writing - <AUTHOR> http://onlinelabor.blogspot.com/2012/02/word-smell-detector-wsd-tool-for.html?spref=tw

<comment><USER2> I like the idea, but have some remarks/questions:

1\. I don't understand some of the rules at all, possibly because I haven't read "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace". In particular, the that/which rules seem to detect any that or which after two words. Why?

2\. With just the rules that you've implemented and from your example output, it's already very clear that this approach is too crude to be practical. It simply gives too many false positives. For example, of the 5 "smells" found by the a/an rule, 4 are false positives.

To fix this rule, and many others, in a satisfying manner, you'll need to go beyond "knowledge-free" regular expression parsing and add linguistic knowledge to the system (word lists, part of speech tagging, pronunciation, syntactical parsing etc.).

For one example where you'd really need not just annotated word lists but a proper grammar, look at the false positive for the "No serial comma" rule: "In traditional markets, buyers and sellers are responsible for making".

3\. I really like the fact that the rules are easily extensible. It might be challenging to maintain that while allowing for the kind of linguistically rich rules proposed above.

4\. Even in its current form, the system could do with some indication of weight and/or certainty. Obviously, not all rules are equally important, nor equally reliable. After adding linguistic knowledge, this would become all the more important, since linguistic ambiguity makes many rules probabilistic by definition.

<comment><USER3> that/which is probably there to highlight the dubious restrictive vs non- restrictive "rule": <http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html#that>

<comment><AUTHOR> yep - and I agree about the dubiousness (see my comment above).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like a nice tool, but I bet it can't detect the really difficult-to- detect but important kinds of errors, like passive voice (i.e. "the grass was eaten by the cow" -> "The cow ate the grass").

I look forward to the day when these programs become so clever that they cross a threshold and begin to actually teach people how to write effective prose.

<comment><USER5> That's not an error, it's a valid stylistic choice.

<comment><USER6> In scientific writing and inter-office memos the use of passive voice is strongly discouraged by pretty much every style guide. <smirk>

Sure, it's a stylistic choice, but one best adopted by writers whose purpose is entertainment, not conveying information. Active voice is nearly always simpler and clearer.

<comment><USER7> Anything to do with lawyers, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The best way I've seen to get feedback on such issues is while you type. I just saw the result list, and I'm a bit overwhelmed with the output.

I've resorted to writing the draft in MS Word where I get basic grammar checks as I write.

</comment><comment><USER9> Did you release it under an open-source license? I couldn't find any license on the github repo.

Without a license we don't know how we are allowed to use it, and/or modify it.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah - sorry. I'll add a GPL notice to the repository tomorrow.

<comment><USER10> In the betesnoire.json rule file "irregardless" is misspelled as "iregardless" (funny that a non-word can also be misspelled...). Didn't feel like forking for that one character, and unfortunately I couldn't comment via github.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It'd be fun to have this as a Wordpress plugin.</comment>


IPhone 4 costs $188 to make - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/28/iphone-4-costs-188-to-make/

<comment><USER2> Does that include shipping, packaging, marketing, design, research, legal, office space, utilities, software and all the rest?

Didn't think so.

<comment><USER3> This reminds me of the whole thing with pharmaceuticals. pills 2-X cost $.10 to make - the first pill, however, costs millions.

<comment><USER4> Unsourced claim here: saw somewhere that about 75% of the cost of medication goes to advertising. We're taught to believe that it's the R&D that's the expense, but it's not; it's advertising.

<comment><USER5> Sources:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing#Econom...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing#Economics) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The gyroscope chip, for example, apparently costs Apple $2.60 while it costs $2.90 in quantities of 200,000. These disparities pop up in a number of places, which, sadly, lends an air of WTF to the proceedings."

I'm not sure I understand this last statement. Should Apple not be getting a higher volume discount? I assume they're buying over 200,000 single parts.

<comment><USER7> Given that they've already sold 1.7 million of them I imagine they committed to at least an extra 0 on the end of that quantity number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The actual article: [http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc201...](http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100627_763714.htm)

</comment><comment><USER4> It doesn't cost $188 to make; it costs $188 for a buckets of parts :)

the 32GB iPhone 3GS used to retail in Australia for around US$850 ex tax. Assuming Apple's usual margin of 20-30% (let's say 30), and allowing another $50/unit for support/warranty issues, that puts the cost at something like $560 each.

<comment><USER9> The iPhone has a much higher profit margin. Considering they what they sell the iPod Touch for and how similar it is in parts, you can do the math yourself. (The Touch hasn't been updated in a while, so we'll need to see a Touch HD for a good comparison now.) They even give the Touch away if you buy a Mac for college.

Another thing, Apple charges more overseas. The 3GS retailed for a no-commit price in the states for $599/$699 depending on storage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Keep in mind that iSuppli's reports have been described (by daringfireball, as well as others: <http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/isuppli>) as "bullshit". A lot of their price numbers (especially the ones for unusual parts, like the CPU and LCD in the iPhone 4) are pretty much pulled out of thin air.

<comment><USER9> Does John Gruber have any experience in building hardware that would allow him to reasonably claim any such teardown report as bullshit? Or did he just do some simple math in his head and think to himself that Apple doesn't make that much money so it must be BS? Hardware costs are just one piece of the puzzle, manufacturing/IP/shipping/R&D/software/marketing are others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As another commenter noted, design, innovation, packaging, marketing, employees and obviously profit/taxes... aren't counted here.

But yes, the iPhone is pricey if I compare it to other devices. For example, Google Nexus One have a better resolution, memory and processor that the 3GS, but the 3GS is more expensive.

I don't bother paying $1K or more on a phone, but at least this phone comes with cutting edge technology from the inside (speedy processor, large memory, Open OS...) and the outside (High resolution screen and Camera, amazing design...)

<comment><USER12> In what universe does this phone cost $1k or more?

<comment><USER13> Well... If you include the money you'll spend for being in contract for the next two years, you're probably well over $1000. But, I don't think the OP was trying to say the down payment on the phone alone costs $1000.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bill of Materials is not equal to cost but it wouldn't be a Techcrunch headline otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER15> Windows 7 costs $1.20 to make. 20 cent dvd + 20 cent packaging + 80 cent booklet (or whatever is in there.)

A high end CPU costs below $3 in material costs. (Numbers purely guessed)

Given these examples I find it wrong to accuse Apple for selling the iPhone at that price point. At least to me these "Product X costs Y USD in production" articles sound a bit accusing.

<comment><USER16> How can you claim this if your numbers are purely guessed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This seems low, even compared with Apple's usual high margins. Do they bump up the standalone price to make the contract prices look better?

On the other hand it explains the iPod Touch prices which have always seemed cheap by comparison.

</comment><comment><USER18> Software has no value? Crap, I need a new career.

</comment><comment><USER19> If only I could get one at that price :( stuck with LG</comment>


The nerdiest nerd test around - <AUTHOR> http://students.washington.edu/mmccain/nerdtest.html

<comment><USER2> Not that some people wouldn't find it entertaining, but this is just the sort of thing that I was happy _not_ to find at YC.news in the past. The question is: is it just me being a grumpus, or is it indeed not "hacker-worthy"? The expanded scope makes it a little tricker to judge content.

No offense meant, LaurieCheers - it's not like it's some horribly lame and offensive site, just not the sort of 'usual fare' for this one.

<comment><USER3> Bring back voting stories down?

<comment><USER2> I notice that this is a new user. Maybe users shouldn't be able to post stories until they've spent N days on the site. I think I wouldn't be in favor of voting stuff down - that, or have some very consensus oriented approach (lots of people have to vote down to have an effect). One of the problems with reddit is that one or two people vote something down initially and it's gone. They have a disproportionate influence, in other words.

<comment><USER3> I read an estimate somewhere that if you grow a company workforce by more than 25% a year, you risk losing the company culture you've built up.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did European Court Just Outlaw "Massive Monitoring of Communications" in Europe? - <AUTHOR> https://cdt.org/blog/did-the-european-court-of-human-rights-just-outlaw-massive-monitoring-of-communications-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> A great gesture, but sadly I'm sure all these national letter agencies will find a loophole in laws or pass some bills to push their agenda anyway. You know as a usual story goes -- "but terrorists!", "think of the children!" etc. Enforcing EHCR ruling was never a strong side, on the way of it becoming a national law (if ever), it often gets diluted or (purposely) misinterpreted.

<comment><USER3> And even if it does, even after clearly stating, that what they do/did is illegal, our national security agencies (BND in Germany) just go on doing their thing.

What our parliamentarian investigation committee keeps finding does nothing to stop these practices. And why should it - imho they (national security agencies and respective politicians) have clearly left the space of the law, as it does only apply to them on paper, not in reality.

I got cynical and fatalistic during the last years - and I do not see any real chance for a democracy left. We are living in post democratic times, where democracy is only there as a play being shown for the people, to keep them placated.

Sorry, for my mood.

<comment><USER4> > We are living in post democratic times, where democracy is only there as a > play being shown for the people, to keep them placated.

Democracy has _always_ been only a partial implementation of one. The Swiss come closest, every other so-called democratic country is so only in name and always has some provisions to limit the direct impact a vote can have on how society operates.

This has both good _and_ bad side-effects, the bad ones seem to be the majority both in number and gravity. One large problem is that political systems are very slow to change once they are established, their founding documents take on some kind of religious aura and to question them and or those that laid them down is made tantamount to treason.

<comment><USER5> _One large problem is that political systems are very slow to change once they are established_

This is mostly a good thing. However, the boiling frog approach is still available. So society must be vigilant and vocal about every small step in the wrong direction.

Hopefully, this ruling will reinvigorate some of the debates. I know many defenders have become numb to the relentless attacks on individual freedoms (it can be seen in some of the comments here too).

<comment><USER4> I think it's more like a sawtooth curve. Some revolution takes place in a locality. Then, for a long time frustration with the system slowly builds until an overhaul is required, leading to a new point of very rapid change. This then plateaus at a level that fixes some of the old problems and therefore reduces the frustration levels to below where people pay a large amount of interest to the problems in the system.

Depending on the location and the amount of external influences this can happen every so many centuries or every couple of decades (or even years in extreme cases).

The essence of a real democracy is that I think that it forestalls any such desire to revolt in such a way that change is allowed to be gradually absorbed, rather than that it comes to a head, even if such change is perceived as 'unwise' it may be a better solution than to have a bunch of elders/wise guys/connected people to decide 'what is best for the masses'. Give them enough rope to destroy things and they may do so, or they may stop just short of doing it and learn from their mistakes. Take away their opportunity to do so and you get a sham democracy in return.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given that our Home Secretary recently stated that 'the UK does not undertake mass surveillance' to the investigatory powers government committee, I can't see this having any semblance of an effect (over here, at least).

<comment><USER7> I suspect the legal trick they'll rely on is: "we _collect_ in bulk, but _surveillance_ within that giant haystack of data is only ever aimed at particular persons. We don't want or use the totality of it, but we do need it so we can monitor retroactively."

Which I'd understand, but think they are throwing too much away in pursuit of too little. Still it's how they'll try and dodge. Well, that or "we don't need human rights anyway, can't make us, so neener neener."

<comment><USER8> It's a lie, and it's not even certain it's a legal lie until a court has ruled on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Forgive the nitpick, but it's an important distinction: this is the European Court of Human Rights, not the "Eu" [sic] court of anything. It is a separate institution from the EU and has non-EU adherents, like Russia for example.

Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be able to flaunt it with impunity.

<comment><USER10> > Another point: the court has no enforcement mechanism. I suspect if all the > major European powers disagree with one of its rulings, they will easily be > able to flaunt it with impunity.

I don't think that is true. As it stand today, EU members are obliged to integrate these rulings into national law. It is one of the major nitpicks of the British Conservative party backbenchers, who wish to remove the United Kingdom from the "control" of the EHCR. This statement below sums it up better than I can:

> The Council of Europe has also made clear that the European Court of Human > Rights, in Strasbourg, is not a substitute for national courts, but is > subsidiary to national systems that safeguard human rights. The principles > of law of the European Union, known as Community Law or European Union Law, > also have direct effect in national courts, as European Union Law takes > precedence over national law in EU member States. For these reasons, > individuals and groups alleging violations of human rights provisions are > required to first exhaust domestic remedies before a case can be considered > admissible by a European tribunal.

[http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_europea...](http://www.stopvaw.org/enforcement_mechanisms_in_the_european_human_rights_system)

<comment><USER11> Yes, but it can take years before countries have to do anything. Ireland has often waited years before implementing rulings, (e.g. for decriminalisation of homosexuality)

<comment><USER12> Yet it is still better than nothing. After the ECHR decision, the citizens should be able to challenge laws that do not respect their rights, and the governments can't hide behind stupid reasons that ignore the ruling of ECHR.

<comment><USER13> Yes - and this is often the case. There has been cases where legal decisions in Ireland have been appealed to the EUCHR and the decision there has overruled the Irish one. For instance [http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish- news/european-c...](http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish- news/european-court-of-human-rights-underused-in-irish-law-lecturer-1.2083248)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The "Useless Ethereum" Token Crowdsale Netted $300K - <AUTHOR> https://themerkle.com/the-useless-ethereum-token-crowdsale-netted-300k/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how many of these speculative investments were for the sole and explicit purpose of betting that other people would invest out of stupidity?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I expect they will not have problems with the SEC.</comment>


A modest proposal for 500 Y Combinators - <AUTHOR> http://launch.is/blog/2011/1/21/l005-a-modest-proposal-for-america-build-500-accelerators.html I'm sure some of the best feedback to this piece a will occur here. Interested to hear people's thoughts. <comment><USER2> How is this suggestion any different than telling the gov't to choose industries?

i.e. invest in 'clean tech' or 'electric cars' or 'the internet' or 'nuclear energy' or whatever.

The point of the free market is that no one knows where the next major innovation will come from.

Y Combinator is a product of the free market working. Not some government bureaucracy. Encouraging incubators is a bad, bad idea because all that will happen is that a lot of money will be wasted very quickly.

Just simplify the tax code, reduce the marginal corporate tax rate and get out of the way.

Let the private sector handle the rest.

Regulate the industries that need to be regulated of course - finance, health care, etc. But even then, loosen up where is reasonable.

FWIW, I am not a 'political conservative', just a government skeptic. I would much rather the free market decide who the winners are, than some gov't bureaucrat.

This reminds me of trying to 'buy' the top Digg users. Or buy your way onto the 'suggested list' at Twitter. Lame and won't work in the long run.

Edit: Also, when the government 'encourages' Accelerators, then the focus shifts from the entrepreneur to the fund manager (that is essentially what PG, and the partners are). In other words, people stop wanting to start their own company and want to start their own accelerator and they figure out how to game the system so that they can make their 2 & 20\. Basically, it becomes another bubble and valuations would sky rocket. You think we are seeing frothy valuations now? HAH!

<comment><USER3> > Regulate the industries that need to be regulated of course - finance, > health care, etc.

Well, most regulation is really about building Maginot lines. Sarbox didn't prevent the financial crisis, and Finreg is unlikely to prevent the next one.

Similarly, health care regulation can't solve the fundamental problem, which is that we have access to life-saving technologies (like heart transplantation and brain surgery) which require too much in the way of hard-to-make machines and highly trained personnel for us to mass produce on a very large scale.

Over time, cutting edge technology becomes mass produced/cheap (like cars, cell phones, computers), but with health care it particularly stings when you can't afford the latest model. Note that routine healthcare checkups which are based on direct patient-to-doctor payments have always been affordable -- it's the high-tech stuff that can be priced out of reach.

Regulation can't solve that fundamental problem of scarcity, and causes many structural changes that are likely to make it much worse.

Here is a great example:

[http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone- medical-...](http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone-medical-app- denied-510k/)

      "We have determined the device is not substantially
      equivalent to devices marketed in interstate commerce
      prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical
      Device Amendments, or to any device which has been
      reclassified into class I (General Controls) or class II
      (Special Controls).

      This decision is based on the fact that your device has a
      new indication for displaying medical images for
      diagnostic use on a mobile/portable device…that alters the
      diagnostic effect, impacting safety and effectiveness, and
      is therefore a new intended use.

      Furthermore, your device has new technological
      characteristics that could adversely affect safety and
      effectiveness and raise new types of safety and
      effectiveness questions…

      Therefore, this device is classified by statute into class
      III (Premarket Approval), under Section 513(f) of the
      Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act)."

For those who don't speak FDA-ese, what they are saying is that a simple iPhone interface to an existing, FDA-cleared piece of imaging software will require class III approval -- the highest regulatory bar, the same bar as pacemakers and implantable devices, costing more than $250,000 in application fees alone plus countless millions in regulatory consultants.

All this for a free iPhone app which won the WWDC 2008 award.

Obviously it's not worth it for the developers to pursue that kind of clearance, as few iPhone apps will gross enough to justify a $250,000 investment, let alone a multimillion dollar one. Moreover, if you noticed, the FDA language is all based on "precedent" -- so once you take the hit and push something through class III for tens of millions, someone can follow your precedent and get class II clearance for "only" a few million.

So that's a concrete example of structural disincentives to innovation caused by regulation.

And the following study by Stanford professors shows that this kind of action by the FDA is more the rule than the exception:

[http://www.advamed.org/NR/rdonlyres/040E6C33-380B-4F6B-AB58-...](http://www.advamed.org/NR/rdonlyres/040E6C33-380B-4F6B-AB58-9AB1C0A7A3CF/0/makowerreportfinal.pdf)

<comment><USER2> I don't think regulation can solve those problems, but there is no doubt that Regulation helps stop things like virus outbreaks and companies from doing anything they want - like putting the cheapest paint (with the highest concentration of lead) on kid's toys.

Not saying the gov't should regulate everything, obviously not, but there should be some regulation on somethings.

Things to do with health, finance, and food are clear ones. Especially given the current structure of the tax code that provides subsidies and tax incentives/distortions to politically connected parties.

As Milton Friedman says, big business hates the free market. So the government has to protect it - by regulating lightly.

Edit: Btw, your example about the iPhone app, drives my original point home even more. The government is incompetent when trying to pick winners. Their job is to protect wider society from things that can threaten health (cancer causing additives, wide spread infections, virii - not the computer type, etc.). Although, there could be an argument for allowing the companies to do whatever they want and let the market handle them. If a drug company releases a drug that kills a bunch of people, I think that pretty much decides the fate of that company - however, that is predicated on the fact that the drug industry is indeed free and firms can enter and leave at will (without barriers). The issue with that though, is that is politically impossible to have a government stand by and do nothing when 10 - 50 people have been killed by a drug put out by a company. So no politician would dare do that....even though it might work out better for society, assuming of course, that we can avoid those 'fringe' cases where drugs create an infectious disease that kills millions and spreads like crazy (possibly creating zombies, although that would be a pretty Epic scenario IRL assuming I am not one of those zombies and I have a shotgun with unlimited ammo :) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most of the value in YC is in their partners and their alumni network. While there is no question that the YC model can be duplicated, I'd be surprised if 500 clones would result in anything close to 500 able competitors. When you're giving away 10% of your company for $20k and advice, you'd better make sure the advice is top notch. Or at least that you're buying into a helpful brand name.

<comment><USER5> You can't discount the filtering mechanism of Y-combinator that easily ups the valuations of the companies that participate and later seek funding. I'm sure the 2-10% equity stake is largely made up for because of this.

Edit: If there were many more accelerators, they wouldn't all have the same degree of filtering, and thus the valuations companies would get wouldn't be as inflated. It wouldn't be justifiable long-term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jason, in your newsletter in November you said:

 _As these programs have expanded, I've found that the level of intensity and savvy of the founders has come down a notch. Basically, there are a lot of open seats in these programs, so some of the B-level students are getting in.

With the addition of more programs will come the placement of C-level founders, which are basically in the category of "not fundable."_

So with that said, what's the point of starting 500 accelerators when only the about the top 5 matter. I understand the education aspect, but with 500 accelerators the majority of the "mentors" will just be wantrapreneurs.

<comment><AUTHOR> What I've come to realize is that the "B-level" folks are really close to A-level, and if you look at the incubators not as a replacement for VC- fundable companies, but as a training system for YC/TechStars/Fundable startups then they are a huge success.

For example, Founders Institute isn't the same level as TechStars or YCombinator overall, but the progress the individuals make over 12 weeks is STUNNING. Like really STUNNING.

I look at this 500 accelerators as a training program for the top 25!

In other words, go the Founders Institute and then apply to techstars.

Thanks for pointing out my change of heart... I put myself out there and 50% of what i say is wrong.... then i get fact-checked and smarten up! :-p

<comment><USER7> In the research process we also found an interesting program called FastTrac from the Kauffman Foundation (<http://fasttrac.org/>), known for its dedication to entrepreneurship. The program has been around since the late 1980s/early 1990s.

Now, there is a cost ($700 to $1200), but FastTrac is available in 49 states and Puerto Rico, making it a much more realistic option for folks of all ages who want to get their own business launched.

The FastTrac TechVenture program, which started in 2006 and is meant for tech and science-oriented businesses, is in 25 states. FastTrac President Alana Muller shared the following in an email to me:

<<FastTrac TechVenture is not a competitor to incubators/accelerators. Instead, it is complementary to incubators/accelerators and provides the requisite ecosystem – information, resources, networking contacts, frameworks, etc. that an entrepreneur needs in order to know how to get a business started.>>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not sustainable. They key to the accelerators is actually what happens after: ie- how to grow from 18k + simeple product to more people, funding, and a network. That requires yc tuesday dinners, techstars mentor meetings, demo day allocations, etc. Just not possible to have the people that need to be involved there spread out across 500 accelerators.

<comment><AUTHOR> Solid point, and agree.

With open angel forum in 12 cities now we might be able to help fund maybe two or three dozen of these accelerators--but not much more.

The good news is that if even only 1 of 50 companies out of a University accelerator is successful--and the other 49 serve as an education--it's still well worth doing.

the goal of these is to inspire and educate--not have the same batting average as YC or TS.

<comment><USER8> Another useful resource would be something along the lines of "funded founders" dinners with companies you've invested in or really like in order to help them deal with growing the company. YC helps going from zero to funded, but what about after? The zero to funded is a 3 month process thing, but the growing after funded is an indefinite time period. Progression I see being useful:

YC/TechStars

OAF

What I described above.

<comment><USER9> I hear FoundersTable will be kicking off again in 2011. That covers the gap you were discussing: <http://stirr.net/founders-table/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Overheard at a 500 Startups event: _500 startups isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion startups._

</comment><comment><USER11> I admit to only skimming this, but it doesn't seem to be satirical. Is this actually meant to literally be a modest proposal, or is it a "modest proposal" in the Swiftian sense?

<comment><USER12> I think he's being genuine. Remember, he isn't limiting this to the US. Half of current accelerators are outside the US. Projecting 250 by 2016, and the active participation of universities, it's not unreasonable to suppose 500 global accelerators in the foreseeable future.

Now, as alluded to above, the value of YC and the like lie not in their process, but in the experience and expertise that they bring to the table. I honestly doubt there's enough dedicated people in academia with extensive entrepreneurial experience to support jason's vision. It'd be nice to see accelerators at most of the major business and tech schools, but I don't think it's feasible to suppose it will be a ubiquitous phenomenon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's always going to be debate over whether how involved the Government should be in the private sector. On it's merit, to be honest, I don't think that Jason's proposal goes far enough. He's definitely got his eye on an undercurrent that could be a problem if we don't try and do something about it.

The real issue at hand is what's the real expectancy of college. Is college supposed to teach you to think, and make your more well rounded or is it supposed to turn you into a ninja in your space? I always understood that it's academia's responsibility to teach you to think and give you fundamentals that you can take to the market, and have the market shape you. Obviously that's archaic.

My generation (I'm 26) is, in general, a disaster coming out of college now, and it's because they spent 4 years learning the applied physics of throwing a ping pong ball across and 8 foot table and driving vaporizer innovation. Don't get me wrong, there are tons that are graduating, and are doing awesome things right now, but I bet that most of them had some sort of taste of what it was like to work in their space while they were in school.

I think that students would leave school significantly better equipped, if we found a way to make it so that you can't get your degree without spending the last 18 months of college if you don't go work full-time in a startup-like scenario, whether it's an actual startup or something like a Y Combinator. How you pay for it and make sure that students aren't free labor and a tax break for a startup, will be an issue, but overall this would end up being a net- benefit for the economy.

The last 3 years in school, while I was getting my BA in English, I worked at a tech startup, and very quickly I had to come to grips with the brutal reality of where I was, what I knew, and what I had to learn- and quickly. Those three years were a fundamentally life changing experience for me. I was hired to do user quality assurance and content development, and by the time I left, I was the de-facto project coordinator, because I was the one writing all the python to make sure that everyone's content and art assets made it into the system, so the developers could tackle implementing the new features of the software.

The real key to make this proposal work, although funding is important, is the quality of mentorship that is available to students who participate. I'm freelancing now, but I've been able to pay my mortgage for the last 2 years because the lead developer and CTO of that company decided that investing 20 minutes of their day, having lunch and sipping cups of coffee with me was a worthwhile investment of their time. If the quality mentorship component is there, programs like this will be able to help students really step it up a notch or three.

</comment><comment><USER14> While I love the idea, the problems is that the key of success for these accelerators is finding people who really have experience and can help, money isn't enough.

In Miami we see these happening a lot. People from completely other businesses, such as real estate, are jumping in this startup accelerators game without a real direct experience, with the only goal of taking advantage of inexperience young entrepreneurs.

The money isn't the problem, neither creating accelerators. The problem is finding people like PG or you that have a real experience and that are willing to share it, outside of the few well known tech hubs, like SF, NY or Boston.

</comment><comment><USER15> And here I was thinking that someone would propose YC founders eat their children.

</comment><comment> T-R Was anyone else, after seeing the title, expecting a satirical piece about eating babies?

</comment><comment><USER16> Are there enough raw materials to support an infrastructure of 500 accelerators? From investment pool to mentors, is that spreading the butter too thin? Let's take my home state of Louisiana for example. There are several "incubators" in the state. Office space and computer services offered, but few mentoring relationships are build. I don't know of any true accelerators. The incubator success rate is definitely up for argument. They tend to succeed more at wooing startups to move to the region, than really cultivating an educational growth program. It's a mindset that is not as prevalent in the region. I think the OA forum has a better chance of successful ventures, let's say in Baton Rouge, LA, than an accelerator would in the same location. Great ideas exist all over the country, but the quality infrastructure to build these into successes is extremely thin.

</comment><comment><USER17> Calacanis to McClure: "I'll see your 500startups, and raise you 500seedAccelerators."

<comment><AUTHOR> +1 for funny

<comment><USER18> I don't think they like you chief.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why only 500? Why not 5000? Or even 50,000 accelerators?

After all, as the author simply claims that, "it depends" if 500 accelerators can actually succeed.

And if we are going bet, let's bet high. No point playing Roulette and betting on black or red. Let's go with the double 0s. So, I propose that "America" launches 500,000 accelerators. (Each unemployed person in the city of Los Angeles can be made a CEO.) Since, "it depends".

</comment><comment><USER20> Jason - this is an interesting article, but why not release the dataset you used to make your graphs and charts?

A simple listing of accelerators along with website, location, average investment, equity stake, and length of class would be valuable to a lot of people.

</comment><comment><USER21> YC always seemed like a plan to reorganize corporations.

In Capitalism Hits the Fan lecture [http://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/f35gs/capital...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/f35gs/capitalism_hits_the_fan_professor_richard_wolff/) the professor concludes that startups are really communism, because the workers own the "means of production" and directly benefit from the profits made. So capitalism doesn't deserve credit for much of our technological progress.

Startups are also the only solution he knows for fixing what's wrong with the US economy. Bailouts, tax-breaks, regulation and deregulation won't help. The conclusion in his lecture sounds funny and simplistic but 500 startup incubators agrees with his basic premise.

<comment><USER22> I don't mean to derail the thread, and the content of this news is great. But to respond to your post, that's only true in the loosest, vaguest sense of the word communism.

First of all, it's only true in digital start-ups, because once you make the product you can copy it for free forever. In any other start-up you're still paying someone to do the other work.

In every start-up you're also counting on the idea of "property rights", or the right to keep the money you earn, the right to your software, etc. You're still looking to make a profit that's more than the work you actually did, or else you wouldn't be working. In communism, you would be thanked for your contribution and still make as much as a doctor, at most, because that would be "fair". I could go on...

<comment><USER21> I think he uses the word communism to show a contrast with our current form of capitalism. In the current system established corporations keep increasing their profits while keeping the workers' wages flat since 1970. Because of computers, outsourcing, there is a surplus of workers, who generate increasing profits for the corporations. Much of the profits go to a small board of directors, who in turn use them to undermine government that was expected to look out for the workers.

Startups are a holy grail because they share profits with more workers, supposedly.

I'm just summarizing his emotionally charged lecture here, I don't fully agree with his premise, but it's an interesting perspective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 500 Accelerators? Sure, why not? It's a big world. But 500 Y Combinators? There can be only one!

</comment><comment><USER22> Has anyone thought of paying something like Y Combinator $20,000 instead of going to college? It seems the value extracted is enormous...</comment>


GoogleCloud CE / AWS EC2 / DO CPU Benchmark Comparison - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13nMisjZ0WNFxhbSHifliThOd2I61IWlN9irtRXgIeew/edit?usp=sharing

<comment><AUTHOR> Benchmarked using :

sysbench --test=cpu --num-threads=<number of cores> \--cpu-max-prime=40000 run

And the score is the total execution time.

Also prices are based on Europe region pricing.</comment>


Recognizing when two arithmetic expressions are essentially the same - <AUTHOR> https://blog.plover.com/math/24-puzzle-2.html <comment><USER2> Just make the expressions into polynomials with variables x_1..x_k for the k different numbers, and see if they agree at (degree + 1) distinct points.

<comment><USER3> Could you please show the polynomial forms for these, and an example of your technique?

      3*(8*(3/3)) = 24
      3+((3*8)-3) = 24

<comment><USER2> I'm guessing two variables here; I didn't look too closely. x=3, y=8

      x*(y*(x/x)) = f(x,y)
      x+((x*y)-x) = g(x,y)

These are pretty obviously both xy, but rather than solve it, find the maximum degree, which is 2, and make a few points:

(1,1) => 1 _(1_ (1/1)) = 1 = 1+((1*1)-1) (1,0) => 0 for both (1,2) => 2 etc.

It's an old technique; Alan Perlis taught it to me. If two polynomials of degree d agree on more than d points, then their difference (of degree <= d) has more than d roots, so their difference must be 0.

<comment><USER4> But your last sentence is only true among single-variable polynomials, isn't it? For example, f(x,y)=xy and g(x,y)=x^2 agree on infinitely many points.

<comment><USER5> Pick one value for x, now you have a single variable polynomial. Verify that it is equal with above mentioned technique.

Pick another value for x, do the same.

Pick a third...

I didn't prove this works, but I think it should. It is however exponential in the number of variables which may be seen as a downside.

Edit:

This can be proven by induction. Let V = (y, z, ...). Then the polynomial can be expressed as

p = (x-x2)(x-x3)f(V) + (x-x1)(x-3)g(V) + (x-x1)(x-x2)h(V), where x1, x2, x3 are the values we test for x. By inductive hypothesis we can prove each of f, g and h to be zero by testing. But if those are all zero then p is zero.

<comment><USER6> It seems to me that expanding everything to sum-of-products form and checking for equality directly would be simpler than your algorithm and would run about as fast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How would a therom prover like z3 handle this, out of interest? Isn't it the ideal domain for it?

<comment><USER8> Z3 and similar tools use a combination of canonicalization followed by brute force search. The canonicalization uses techniques similar to what the OP describes. (+ a (+ b c)) and (+ c (+ b a)) are both rewritten as (+ a b c). These rewrites rely on pattern matching.

At this point, if the query is syntactically solvable, we are done. Often queries are not, so the solver uses a symbolic decision procedure. The specific decision procedure depends on the formula. For example, Linear Integer Arithmetic (which allows addition of variables and multiplication by only constants) can be solved using Simplex.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Within its domain, that's what the Oppen-Nelson simplifier did. Many provers since can do that.

Amusingly, Plato, the first on-line teaching system, had a solver for that. It was used to check student's answers to math problems. It worked by plugging in some random numeric values and evaluating. If many sets of random values evaluated the same as the desired answer, it was accepted as equivalent.

<comment> Ar-Curunir what kind of math problems were the students supposed to solve? I ask because the approach you mention is still the best way we have of determining whether two polynomials are equivalent:

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

<comment><USER9> Basic high school and college math.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Countdow...](https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Countdown.ipynb)

</comment><comment><USER11> This would have been very useful solving Project Euler's problem 93: [https://projecteuler.net/problem=93](https://projecteuler.net/problem=93).

<comment><USER12> That problem is small enough to just brute force. There are only 1612800 calculations to do.

<comment><USER11> Of course... but for many people, in Project Euler the goal is not just to get a solution, it's to create a beautiful and/or efficient solution. This is why reading the comments and finding other people's solutions after solving a problem is usually as fulfilling as solving it, or even more.

<comment><USER12> For sure, only commenting that for that particular problem, brute force is viable. For many problems brute force is not viable.

I was grinding PE a couple years ago to pick up Haskell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Thank you for sharing! A closely related puzzle was previously discussed at:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14400017)

The present puzzle can be seen as a natural continuation of this earlier thread, and the declarative programming language Prolog is again well-suited for this puzzle.

For example, we can start with a short Prolog program that exhaustively _generates_ all solutions:

        numbers_tree([N], leaf(N)).
        numbers_tree(Vs0, binary(Left, Right)) :-
                permutation(Vs0, Vs),
                append([L|Ls], [R|Rs], Vs),
                numbers_tree([L|Ls], Left),
                numbers_tree([R|Rs], Right).

        tree_op_expr_value(leaf(N), _, number(N), N).
        tree_op_expr_value(binary(Left0, Right0), Op, expr(Op,Left,Right), Value) :-
                tree_op_expr_value(Left0, _, Left, VL),
                tree_op_expr_value(Right0, _, Right, VR),
                op_values_value(Op, VL, VR, Value).

        op_values_value(+, A, B, V) :- V is A + B.
        op_values_value(-, A, B, V) :- V is A - B.
        op_values_value(×, A, B, V) :- V is A * B.
        op_values_value(÷, A, B, V) :- B =\= 0, V is A rdiv B.

We can query it like this:

        ?- numbers_tree([4,6,6,6], T),
           tree_op_expr_value(T, _, Expr, 24).

On backtracking, it generates _all_ solutions, reported as abstract syntax trees Expr.

This is of course not yet the full task. And I won't solve the full task here, because I would like to give others a chance to also have a look. However, I post a hint towards an efficient solution:

In such cases where you want to detect whether something is "essentially the same", consider applying a notion from _term rewriting_ : In term rewriting, we apply rewrite rules, and in strongly normalizing systems, each term has a so-called _normal form_ , which is its _canonical_ representation.

Thus, in the language of term rewriting, when trying to decide if two terms are "essentially the same", you can reduce _both_ of them to their respective normal forms, and then compare the normal forms! The two original terms are the same _iff_ their normal forms are the same.

Here is part of the term rewriting system I have come up with for this task, implemented in Prolog:

        commutative(+).
        commutative(×).

        expr_normal_form(number(N), number(N)).
        expr_normal_form(expr(Op,A0,B0), expr(Op,A,B)) :-
                commutative(Op),
                expr_comparison(A0, B0, Comp),
                smaller_first(Comp, A0, B0, A, B).
        expr_normal_form(expr(Op,A0,B0), expr(Op,A,B)) :-
                \+ commutative(Op),
                expr_normal_form(A0, A),
                expr_normal_form(B0, B).

        smaller_first(=, A0, B0, A, B) :-
                expr_normal_form(A0, A),
                expr_normal_form(B0, B).
        smaller_first(<, A0, B0, A, B) :- smaller_first(=, A0, B0, A, B).
        smaller_first(>, A0, B0, A, B) :- smaller_first(<, B0, A0, A, B).

        expr_comparison(number(A), number(B), C) :- compare(C, A, B).
        expr_comparison(number(_), expr(_,_,_), <).
        expr_comparison(expr(_,_,_), number(_), >).
        expr_comparison(Expr, Expr, =).
        expr_comparison(expr(Op1, _, _), expr(Op2, _, _), C) :-
                dif(Op1, Op2),
                compare(C, Op1, Op2).
        expr_comparison(expr(Op,A0,B), expr(Op,A,B), C) :-
                dif(A0, A),
                expr_comparison(A0, A, C).
        expr_comparison(expr(Op,A,B0), expr(Op,A,B), C) :-
                dif(B0, B),
                expr_comparison(B0, B, C).

It works by imposing an _order_ on terms, and recursively rewriting a single term to its normal form, which is smaller than or equal to the original term according to that (self-imposed) order.

We can now use an additional predicate like the following to collect _all_ solutions, remove duplicates, then rewrite each solution to its respective normal form, and then remove duplicates again:

        all_expressions(Ls, Value, Exprs) :-
                findall(Expr, (numbers_tree(Ls, T),
                               tree_op_expr_value(T, _, Expr, Value)), Exprs0),
                sort(Exprs0, Exprs1),
                maplist(expr_normal_form, Exprs1, Exprs2),
                sort(Exprs2, Exprs).

For example, in the [4,6,7,9] = 24 case, this algorithm reduces the expressions to 5 solutions:

        ?- all_expressions([4,6,7,9], 24, Exprs),
           maplist(portray_clause, Exprs),
           length(Exprs, L).
        expr(×, number(6), expr(÷, expr(+, number(7), number(9)), number(4))).
        expr(×, expr(+, number(7), number(9)), expr(÷, number(6), number(4))).
        expr(÷, number(6), expr(÷, number(4), expr(+, number(7), number(9)))).
        expr(÷, expr(+, number(7), number(9)), expr(÷, number(4), number(6))).
        expr(÷, expr(×, number(6), expr(+, number(7), number(9))), number(4)).
        Exprs = [...],
        L = 5 .

I leave adding more rewrite rules as a challenge.

<comment><USER14> You defined rewrite rules that reduce an expression down to a 'normalized' form such that two expression are equivalent if they reduce to the same 'normalized' form. These rules are obvious for simple arithmetic expressions.

Is it possible to deduce the normalized form and the rewrite rules from a set axioms automatically (e.g. for relational (like SQL) expression with operands like join, project, filter)?

<comment><USER13> In the terminology (may I say: _terms_ ) of term rewriting, you are looking for a so-called _completion_ procedure. This takes a set of axioms and turns it into a convergent term rewriting system (or not, because it may not terminate!).

If the completion procedure succeeds, you end up with rules that always terminate, and which reduce any given term to its normal form. In the literature, search for Knuth-Bendix and Huet completion procedure, if you are interested. For SQL, it may get quite complex, but still doable, potentially with some extensions of the primary method.

There are all kinds of variations on the general scheme. If you are interested in term rewriting, a solid starting point is _Term rewriting and all that_ by Baader and Nipkow.

<comment><USER14> Thank you very much. I checked Wikipedia for Knuth-Bendix and will try to get hold on the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >operator inversion identities like a−(b+c)=(a−b)−ca−(b+c)=(a−b)−c, a−(b−c)=(a−b)+ca−(b−c)=(a−b)+c, and their multiplicative analogues. I don't know names for these algebraic laws either.

Isn't that the distributive property of multiplication over addition? There is a -1 that gets multiplied.

</comment><comment><USER16> > One of my neighbors has the license plate JJZ 4631. «4 6 3 1 ⇒ 24» is one of > the more difficult puzzles.

I'm surprised no-one has posted the solution on here yet. Oh well, back to thinking. about it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Or you could cheat...jam them both into wolfram and see what comes out.

<comment><USER18> Missing the point. The question here is more about how to generate inputs that would yield the same result in wolfram.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This would not work for floating point arithmetic in computing. The order in which you perform a calculation changes the outcome, since not every number can be precisely represented by the IEEE 754 standard.</comment>


Start Charging Users When They are Successful - <AUTHOR> http://atank.interlogy.com/blog/2010/01/start-charging-users-when-they-are-successful/

<comment><USER2> But how do you sell this to the user? "We will give you full, unfettered access to this application for free until you begin to really rely on it, than we will charge you" Doesn't sound quite right from a marketing perspective. And how do you know when your users have reached the stage when they are sold? Ask them? "Are you ready to pay for this now?"

I'm not meaning to be critical, I would really like to know!</comment>


ActiveModel: Make Any Ruby Object Feel Like ActiveRecord - <AUTHOR> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/01/10/activemodel-make-any-ruby-object-feel-like-activerecord/ <comment><USER2> This is a really exciting feature of Rails 3, having Rails as a key library is a great step forward.

I was writing a small sinatra app recently, and really wanted some active record functionality (serialization and validation), this would make this process trivial from now on.</comment>


Ariana Grande Was Updating Pop. Then Billie Eilish Came Along - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/arts/music/ariana-grande-billie-eilish-review.html <comment><USER2> The exciting thing is that removing barriers to popularity make talent and persistence more and more important.

(barriers like the cost of extremely polished production, which is nearly free compared to 30 years ago, and access to an audience, which this article is more about, where there are fewer and fewer gatekeepers)

</comment><comment><USER3> I just could not listen her album, it is so overcompressed [1], this is maybe more annoying by using only few simple (extreme loud) instruments and her voice, like the whole thing is banging in my brain, so stopped before I got headache.

[1] [http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/162536](http://dr.loudness- war.info/album/view/162536)</comment>


Show HN: React, Jeopardy and Speech Recognition - domi-nathan https://reactpardy.herokuapp.com/ <comment> domi-nathan I just built this to help learn react. It's jeopardy with a list of 180,000 actual jeopardy questions and uses speech recognition for you answers. Unfortunately, it only works on Chrome and Android for the speech recognition.

The repository is here if you'd like to check it out.

[https://github.com/dominathan/reactopardy](https://github.com/dominathan/reactopardy)

Some things could use some help, e.g.

1) NLP - better way to score the speech to text input 2) Another library for speech to text that works on all browsers, not webkitSpeechRecognition

Let me know what you think! Criticism and comments all welcome!

Cheers

P.S. Many thanks to egghead for their instructional lessons.</comment>


Soccer Goalkeepers: Action Bias, or Not? - <AUTHOR> http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/09/soccer_goalkeep.html

<comment><USER2> I haven't read the paper yet but I am tempted to believe that the actual placement of football by the kicker wax also considered i.e do striker kicks the ball in the corner disproportionately more.

Also, the utility curve of stopping the ball won't be a straight line. So goalkeeper might chose a high risk high reward scenario.

Seems the author agrees that the goalkeeper acts in an optimal fashion.</comment>


Chart Suggestions -- A Thought-Starter - <AUTHOR> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/3196386402_01d8d12017_b.jpg

<comment><AUTHOR> I've noticed some curious charts and graphs in various posts on HN lately. Trend lines where bar charts are required. Pie charts where they aren't applicable. Etc.

I saw this graphic a while back and found it to be quite insightful. I spent a bit of time searching around for it because I think never hurts to have a refresher in the art of conveying information intelligently.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm sure I've seen this before, though I'm not sure whether it was on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> I found it with a Reddit search</comment></comment>


Grove – Founders helping founders - <AUTHOR> http://www.sequoiacap.com/grove/posts/mfq9-introducing-grove

<comment><USER2> No idea if anyone else did too, but I immediately thought this was about [https://grove.io/](https://grove.io/) , run by the fine folks at Revolution Systems. Thought they were doing something crazy with their chat service.</comment>


The Cloud Hanging Over Skype  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/technology/companies/05nocera.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print <comment><USER2> The article suggests that a workaround to the P2P intellectual property would be difficult. But could a workaround be as simple as switching to standards like SIP? I think the real value in Skype is in its user base, not its technology. Switching to more open standards would enable more advanced functionality (e.g. Skype for offices), which could also be for-pay options.

Or is the Skype tech still much better than what can now be achieved with standards-based approaches?

<comment><USER3> Interesting questions. I hope someone in the know can fill us in on the details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That dumps me on their 'paywall', pity. As for the whole ebay skype thing, I never understood it.

Buying paypal made perfect sense to me, buying skype was like Christies buying at&t, it made no sense to me.</comment>


Zooming into the sci-fantastical world of O.Z. - <AUTHOR> http://www.syfy.com/tinman/oz/

<comment><AUTHOR> This interactive artwork makes me seriously want to watch the show being promoted (Tin Man, a TV miniseries). Many of the pieces in it are stunningly evocative (like the Asian city) and bring to mind some of the best adventure games of yesteryear.

Also of note: the original Zoomquilt, a collaborative art project:

<http://www.zoomquilt.org/>

and Zoomquilt II:

<http://zoomquilt2.madmindworx.com/></comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite tech podcasts? - <AUTHOR> I'm a big fan of podcasts, but I wonder if I miss some cool tech podcast.(I follow a16z, The Twenty Minute VC, Changelog, Developer Tea)
What are your favorite tech podcasts ? (anything related to startups, coding, vc, marketing in startups, design etc...)
Thanks <comment><USER2> Some of my favorites:

\- The Ruby Rogues - [https://devchat.tv/ruby-rogues](https://devchat.tv/ruby- rogues)

\- Complete Developer Podcast - [http://completedeveloperpodcast.com](http://completedeveloperpodcast.com)

\- Coding Blocks - [http://www.codingblocks.net/category/podcast](http://www.codingblocks.net/category/podcast)

\- The Bike Shed - [http://bikeshed.fm](http://bikeshed.fm)

\- The Changelog - [https://changelog.com/podcast](https://changelog.com/podcast)

\- Hanselminutes - [http://hanselminutes.com](http://hanselminutes.com)

\- Developer on Fire - [http://developeronfire.com](http://developeronfire.com)

\- Software Engineering Daily - [https://softwareengineeringdaily.com](https://softwareengineeringdaily.com)

<comment><USER3> Ruby Rogues has really decreased in quality since the 'controversy' [0].

My pick is - GRSIOGR - [http://giantrobots.fm/](http://giantrobots.fm/)

[0] - [https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/5aokv7/what_happened_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/5aokv7/what_happened_to_the_ruby_rogues_podcast_almost/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> \- [https://www.functionalgeekery.com/](https://www.functionalgeekery.com/)

\- [http://www.fullstackradio.com/](http://www.fullstackradio.com/)

\- [http://5by5.tv/rubyonrails](http://5by5.tv/rubyonrails)

\- [https://devchat.tv/](https://devchat.tv/)

<comment><USER5> I want to come back to this on my computer at home and don't know how to save comments on HN.

<comment><USER6> Just upvote it, it will be saved in your profile, upvote stories.

<comment><USER5> Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I launched a development focused podcast directory ([https://programmingpodcasts.com](https://programmingpodcasts.com)) last week. It features over 200 podcasts in the categories you mention.

Some I listen to regularly include:

\- Full Stack Radio - [http://www.fullstackradio.com](http://www.fullstackradio.com)

\- SERadio - [http://www.se-radio.net](http://www.se-radio.net)

\- The Changelog - [https://changelog.com](https://changelog.com)

\- Ruby Rogues - [https://devchat.tv/ruby-rogues](https://devchat.tv/ruby- rogues)

\- The Laravel Podcast - [http://www.laravelpodcast.com](http://www.laravelpodcast.com)

\- Bread Time - [https://breadtime.simplecast.fm](https://breadtime.simplecast.fm)

</comment><comment><USER8> The Security Now podcast from the Twit network is really good. I've really learned a lot about security issues and encryption from that podcast.

Other good podcasts I listen to: \- .NET Rocks \- Coding Blocks \- Hanselminutes \- Javascript Jabber \- Programming Throwdown

<comment><USER9> I've been listening to Security Now for over a decade. There's no doubt it's partly responsible for my current position as a software engineer at a large corporation. I can't recommend it highly enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Stanford eCorner[0]. I particularly like the Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders series[1].

Startups For the Rest of Us[2]

Entreprogrammers[3]

[0] [http://ecorner.stanford.edu/podcasts](http://ecorner.stanford.edu/podcasts)

[1] [http://ecorner.stanford.edu/podcasts/etl](http://ecorner.stanford.edu/podcasts/etl)

[2] [http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/](http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/)

[3] [http://entreprogrammers.com/](http://entreprogrammers.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Accidental Tech Podcast[0].

Cortex[1].

[0]: [http://atp.fm/](http://atp.fm/)

[1]: [https://www.relay.fm/cortex](https://www.relay.fm/cortex)

<comment><USER12> I like CGP Grey and Myke Hurley on other podcasts but Cortex bores me. CGP Grey needs someone different to play-off, like Brady on Hello Internet. On Cortex Myke just seems to play the role of mini-Grey. Also, there's only so much micro-workflow optimisation and productivity-wanking I can stand.

<comment><USER13> To me, HI seems more like a discussion between two friends. It works really well because of Brady's reporting background and interviewing skills. In Cortex, however, Myke has said that he started the podcast because he wanted to see how Grey worked. As such, the podcast is just kind of a continuous explanation by Grey, to Myke about the way he works and what he is doing to improve his productivity. Myke then explains what he is doing off of Grey's advice and Grey improves it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not startup-y, but tech podcasts...

I like the SANS Internet Storm Center daily podcast because it's short, to the point, and gives just enough detail that I can use to follow up on if I need/want to. I listen to some BSD Now episodes that sound interesting. I previously liked TechSNAP but had to quit listening after they recently changed hosts.

</comment><comment><USER15> Software Engineering Radio - [http://www.se-radio.net](http://www.se- radio.net)

</comment><comment><USER16> RR, Ruby Rogues - [https://devchat.tv/ruby-rogues](https://devchat.tv/ruby- rogues) This was the one must fun and favorite, until panel split to [https://www.greaterthancode.com](https://www.greaterthancode.com)

They had around 15 episodes where they discussed books with their authors, for example:

\- RR Book Club: Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns with Kent Beck

\- RR Book Club: Understanding Computation with Tom Stuart

\- RR Book Club: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture with Martin Fowler

\- RR Book Club: Refactoring Ruby with Martin Fowler

Another cool thing was picks at the end of each episode [https://github.com/ryanburgess/ruby-rogues- picks](https://github.com/ryanburgess/ruby-rogues-picks)

Software Engineering Radio - [http://www.se-radio.net](http://www.se- radio.net)

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

The Amp Hour - [http://theamphour.com](http://theamphour.com)

</comment><comment><USER17> \- Software Engineering Daily (hosted by Jeff Meyerson)

\- The Indie Hackers Podcast (hosted by me!)

<comment><USER18> I've been enjoying the podcast Courtland!

<comment><USER17> Glad to hear it! Got some really good episodes on the way with John O'Nolan from Ghost and Nathan Barry from ConvertKit. Can't wait to get those released in mid-to-late March.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Along with the other great suggestions:

\- Daily Tech News Show: [http://www.dailytechnewsshow.com/](http://www.dailytechnewsshow.com/)

\- Tech's Message (UK focused): [http://www.natelanxon.com/podcast/](http://www.natelanxon.com/podcast/)

\- PacketPushers Network: [http://packetpushers.net/series/weekly- show/](http://packetpushers.net/series/weekly-show/)

\- BBC's Click Podcast: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w6r2/episodes/downloads](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w6r2/episodes/downloads)

</comment><comment><USER20> Futurecommerce [0]

ShopTalk [1]

Recode Replay [2]

The Changelog (as you mentioned) [3]

Giant Robots Smashing Into Other Giant Robots [4]

Those are a few that I listen to regularly. I have too many podcasts (but I have a feeling I'll pick up some more from this thread...)

[0] [http://futurecommerce.fm/](http://futurecommerce.fm/)

[1] [http://shoptalkshow.com/](http://shoptalkshow.com/)

[2] [http://www.recode.net/recode-replay- podcast](http://www.recode.net/recode-replay-podcast)

[3] [https://changelog.com/podcast](https://changelog.com/podcast)

[4] [http://giantrobots.fm/](http://giantrobots.fm/)

Edit: [4]

</comment><comment><USER21> The Elixir Fountain - [https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain](https://soundcloud.com/elixirfountain)

Dot Net Rocks - [https://www.dotnetrocks.com/](https://www.dotnetrocks.com/)

Startups For the Rest of Us - [http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/](http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/)

Bootstrapped Web - [http://bootstrappedweb.com/](http://bootstrappedweb.com/)

</comment><comment><USER22> I personally haven't found any quite as good as the Bike Shed([http://bikeshed.fm/](http://bikeshed.fm/)). It does often focus on Ruby, but overall the types of problems they cover are not limited to Ruby in scope. I mainly like it because I get to hear some developers significantly more experienced than myself talk about how they solved certain problems.

<comment><USER23> I would second this. For me, the fact that they often talk about Ruby helps me understand more easily, but I really listen because I like the hosts and it's interesting to hear how people in a successful consultancy and a SaaS company work.

I've also started listening to Go Time: [http://gotime.fm](http://gotime.fm). The hosts are good, and deeply involved in the Go community, so they always get really excellent guests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ubuntu Podcast: [http://ubuntupodcast.org/](http://ubuntupodcast.org/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Python Podcasts:

1\. [https://www.podcastinit.com/](https://www.podcastinit.com/) 2\. [https://talkpython.fm/](https://talkpython.fm/)

Rust Podcast:

1\. [http://www.newrustacean.com/](http://www.newrustacean.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Exponent — tech business analysis: [http://exponent.fm/](http://exponent.fm/)

Release Notes — the business side of being an indie dev: [https://releasenotes.tv/](https://releasenotes.tv/)

</comment><comment><USER27> I like the WAN show: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1DxElRebg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1DxElRebg)

They don't really cover programming/engineering topics, but it's fun to listen to.

</comment><comment><USER28> How I built this is not a tech podcast but I think there is a lot of good lessons to learn.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sorry for self-promoting, but if you like some of the podcasts listed here you might like one I just started: Harajuku Data Lake ([http://hjdl.space](http://hjdl.space)).

</comment><comment><USER30> Anything from Jupiter broadcasting, but specifically the Linux action show and bsd now

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

</comment><comment><USER31> Sorry for hijacking. Is there a podcast which talks about big, distributed systems and their architecture? I'd be really interested in that.

<comment><USER32> Hi Rajath, Dhruv here :) SE daily (mentioned above) is just what you're looking for. [https://overcast.fm/itunes1019576853/software-engineering- da...](https://overcast.fm/itunes1019576853/software-engineering-daily)

<comment><USER31> Good to see you here, Dhruv! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Loving Software Engineering Daily. Jeff makes all of the music. Check out 'The Prion' on Spotify or SoundCloud.

</comment><comment><USER34> Since I'm in DevOps: [http://devopscafe.org](http://devopscafe.org)

</comment><comment><USER35> Late Nights With Trav And Los - It's a Design/Coding podcast covering a wide range of topics.

I really like their perspective.

</comment><comment><USER36> Grabbing coffee w/ AI researchers [0]

[0] http:ai-guild.com

(Self Promo)

</comment><comment><USER37> For the Python-interested, both "Talk Python To Me" and "Python Bytes" are very good.

<comment><USER38> Thanks! I'm really enjoying talk python to me. It has a great mix of topics.

[https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/82/grokking- algorithms-i...](https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/82/grokking-algorithms- in-python)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> RoguelikeRadio -- if you're into that kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER40> Hack To Start is inspiring sometimes

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! added to my list!

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Foundation

The Pitch

Startup

Data Stories

Flux

<comment><AUTHOR> I LOVE The Pitch...instead what is "Startup" ? by who ?

<comment><USER42> It's by Alex Blumberg, former producer on "This American Life" and "Planet Money" by NPR. He recorded the podcast while founding a podcasting company named Gimlet Media and it documents how he got started, chose a name, got investment, found a partner, and various other parts of being a startup. I'd highly recommend the podcast for its amazing story telling and its transparency in including details that most companies would prefer to keep secret.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Data Skeptic

Linear Digressions

Not So Standard Deviations

Partially Derivative

New Books in Mathematics

Talk Python

Podcast.__init__

Ask an Astronomer

</comment><comment><USER44> front end happy hour

javascript jabber

.net rocks

software engineering daily

soft skills engineering

Tech stuff

<comment><AUTHOR> Tech stuff ? any link ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Might find some useful answers at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9836023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9836023)</comment>


When Your Data Wanders to Places You've Never Been - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/technology/personal-data-takes-a-winding-path-into-marketers-hands.html

<comment><USER2> The public should have much control of their online privacy--especially the right to be left alone.</comment>


Nokia Nenya - control your cellphone by a ring on your finger - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jitbit.com/2011/04/nokia-nenya-control-your-cellphone-by.html <comment><USER2> They should probably stop fucking around and start building a real business again.

</comment><comment><USER3> The need for the bracelet makes this a lot less attractive than it could be. I've been waiting for ring-based UIs since Pratchett's The Dark Side Of The Sun.

For example: contactless smart cards. Put them in ring form. Then you just have to wave your hand at the reader for them to work.

</comment><comment><USER4> This tickles my LOTR bone. Good old Galadriel's ring. Nice nice.

The actual product seems a bit shit though. Not to mention pointless.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure how that would be much more practical than just having a special interface on your watch to interact with your phone (buttons or a touch screen for instance).

</comment><comment><USER6> "a real concept product"

Oh, the irony.

</comment><comment><USER7> That's either a really sensitive watch or the ring produces a large magnetic field.

<comment><USER6> It's a concept, which means that the magnetic field explanation is very much akin to the flimsy pretexts used by science fiction shows to provide some plausible sort of excuse for how something like this might perhaps work maybe.

Concepts are basically what happens when a person who can draw goes "dude, wouldn't it be awesome if X?".

<comment><USER8> _It's a concept, which means that the magnetic field explanation is very much akin to the flimsy pretexts used by science fiction shows to provide some plausible sort of excuse for how something like this might perhaps work maybe._

No, it's not: [http://research.nokia.com/files/public/2011-01-12-Ashbrook-C...](http://research.nokia.com/files/public/2011-01-12-Ashbrook- CHI11-Nenya.pdf) [pdf]

<comment><USER6> Ah, then the article was wrong to call it one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Via New Scientist, and posted by jitbit without information added. Hmmm.

</comment><comment><USER10> now that Nokia's going WinMo, these companies should try some Kinectish interfaces.</comment>


Solid: Data ownership as well as improved privacy (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://solid.mit.edu/ <comment><USER2> SOLID is a well intending team, good people.

I'm a little concerned about their security model though:

As of a very recent conversation, they seem to be ok with password being known by POD providers, which would make your data owned by the POD, not you.

I was trying to encourage them to use E2EE with our security tool that several other big dApps in the industry have adopted: (d.tube, notabug.io, Internet Archive, etc.)

[https://gun.eco/docs/SEA](https://gun.eco/docs/SEA)

The only person who seemed interested was Tim Berners-Lee himself when I talked to him, and Ruben.

If either of you, or anyone else in the team see this, PLEASE please contact me urgently, I'm still willing to contribute, but when I tried nobody else seemed to care.

<comment><USER3> They should look into whether they can base it on object capabilities, if they haven't already done that. I think things like sandstorm.io (and others, see: [https://github.com/dckc/awesome-ocap](https://github.com/dckc/awesome-ocap) ) are the future of distributed systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did anything really come out of this since 2017? Genuine question, just haven't seen any news around.

<comment><USER5> The git repo[1] hasn't been updated in a while except for the readme so I guess the project isn't very active but not completely dead either.

[1][https://github.com/solid/solid?files=1](https://github.com/solid/solid?files=1)

<comment><USER6> I think they got funded by someone and now Tim has left MIT and works for the funded version of this. Forgot what it's called. I was in touch w the team in the past. Tried to join forces with [https://qbix.com/platform](https://qbix.com/platform) because I felt we were much further ahead but needed more standards compliance. It never led to anything so I haven't really been following them. But Melvin Carvalho and the team are still activeon github.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Big Projects don't always live or die on their public visibility, but this one feels like it failed at launch in terms of subsequent coverage and news.

</comment><comment><USER8> Data ownership doesn't imply agency and control. In the future I own my data, so what? Does every company simply just demand access to all of it so I can use their services?

For data ownership to really matter users/consumers need to be able to bargain on equal terms with companies, probably collectively.

<comment><USER9> The EU certainly wouldn't allow such demands of its citizens - the GDPR non- compliance fines are starting and will hopefully make people stop collecting and holding data they don't need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Only glanced at this but is this like Urbit without the weird homesteading politics? It seems like a revival of the semantic web with RDF and all.

I just don't think this is ever going to work, because this form of decentralisation just doesn't scale. The complexity that comes with separating data and computation and the standards and protocols that need to be invented to get everyone to talk to each other just don't provide enough utility.

We've put data into companies and silos becaues there's actually value to this division of labour. The hierarchies that Solid and others try to combat emerge naturally.

<comment><USER9> A very broad dismissal of a useful concept, with no real substance. Just because it is easier and cheaper to keep data in company silos doesn't mean that will always be kept there. People are trying to make a difference.

<comment><USER10> I don't think that the dismissal has no substance. If it's cheaper and easier to hand the storage and management of data over to a third party, that's a pretty big reason to do it. If there's two fundamental things people care about, it's price and convenience.

And I'm sorry, but these semantic web ideas are 30 years old. Adoption is practically non-existent. Do you really think the burden of proof where the value is really is on me?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do people really want to own their data? I'm very skeptical about this.

<comment><USER12> Most people don't care... Until they realise some random company knows their address, name, DOB, favourite food, browsing habits, friends and family, personality.........

<comment><USER13> This is all data, not furnitures. You owning it and storing it on your homeserver doesn't prevent a third party from knowing where you live and what you ate for breakfast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It looks like a really ambitious project, but unfortunately looks like it's not gaining progress?

</comment><comment><USER15> it's a movement. sir tim berners-lee is saying that users keep their data in another silo(solid) with payment.

solid, another centralized repository, has the same problem like facebook or more dangerous. because user data is more centralized.</comment>


Looking for early adopters, feedback or any suggestions - <AUTHOR>

www.tripxplore.com <comment><AUTHOR> What are the best ways to get early adopters?</comment>