Calling All Foodies: Y Combinator's Foodoro Launches Online Farmers Market - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/10/calling-all-foodies-y-combinators-foodoro-launches-online-farmers-market/ <comment><USER2> We've been eating these for the last couple weeks, and they're excellent:

[http://deesminiorganicdoughnuts.foodoro.com/products/crazy-e...](http://deesminiorganicdoughnuts.foodoro.com/products/crazy- eight-sampler-45-doughnuts-8-flavors)

You have to be in the Bay Area to get them though.

<comment><USER3> Wow, I've never seen YC fund a direct clone before. I'm not saying that's the case, it just _really_ looks like it to a layperson. Foodoro looks very similar to Foodzie, just better executed (widgets, more shipping options, less cluttered design, easy to use navigation, etc).

But it's so similar that I just can't get over it. And it's not just similar in terms of business model and timing of the startup's launch, but even the home page layout! A big full-width "featured foodmaker" box with a grid of "featured products" right below.

Considering fooddude is aware of other startups from the _"several other competitors in this space"_ comment, I have to ask if this isn't just a blatant rip of Foodzie?

<comment><USER4> Food Sells and when they make it nice looking, it prolly sells a ton more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if there's any value in "solving" the shipping cost problem by having something like Amazon's Prime -- an upfront fee of $80/yr then free 2 day shipping?

It changes shopping psychology. Once Prime is purchased, people want to buy many things to increase the return on their investment. :)

<comment><USER6> We believe there is huge value solving this shipping issue, especially for perishable foods. I've heard from an insider that Amazon Prime hasn't made money yet... and they have massive economies of scale.

We're definitely thinking about how to take steps to making shipping more palatable for consumers.

<comment><USER7> But I've heard that they more than make up for it through the increase in purchase volumes.

<comment><USER8> Nothing like trying to make up for a loss with volume! (Speaking as a prime member, I have a sneaking suspicion they are losing money on a lot of my orders. However more frequent those may be.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was thinking of buying some of the Marvelous Marinara ([http://couplaguysfoods.foodoro.com/products/marvelous- marina...](http://couplaguysfoods.foodoro.com/products/marvelous- marinara-26-oz)), but I'm reluctant to buy food if I can't read the ingredient list, and I didn't see one. I'd excited to see how this develops though, since I'm often trying to buy food online.

<comment><USER6> Great point... if you email me jay@ then I'll get that info for you directly from the "coupla guys" who make the stuff. We'll post it to the product pg, too

<comment><USER9> Done. Thanks very much :-).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Almost ordered something until the shipping costs doubled the price.

<comment><USER6> Shipping perishables can be expensive, especially when you're talking about ice cream or meat or vegan tamales.

What we're hoping to do is get enough foodmakers to sign up so that we can have more regionalized products that don't have to travel as far (and hence, have lower shipping costs). One extreme example we have currently, is Dee's Mini Organic Doughnuts, which have $0 shipping costs for the consumer but also have a limited delivery area (SF Bay Area). Imagine if there were many mini doughnut makers in small and large cities...

<comment><USER11> Yeah, but when you get the ice cream it's packed in dry ice. You can have a Moment of Science as you drop them into warm water.

If you put a fair dollar value on your time, it's shocking how much a trip to the grocery store costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Congrats guys. Looks really good

Edit: Since I got karma for not saying anything, I will add that

a) I stayed over at Foodoros and ate lots of food so I can guarantee it tastes ridiculously nice

b) It is a big market and they are going to be massively successful because they are smart and get it :)

</comment><comment><USER13> Foodoro might have trouble competing with the likes of Zingermans, who offer most of the same benefits, but also act as extremely reputable curators for the goods they offer.

This also goes against the "foodie" trend of "locavorism", trying to source everything from within 100 miles of where you live. On the other hand, that's also a business opportunity; for instance, I'm trying to source a whole side of local heritage pig, and the "sales interfaces" of good local farms is predictably awful.

<comment><USER6> Zingerman's is a terrific store--some refer to them as the tastemakers of specialty food. But we think that Zingerman's represents a different way of doing things.

First, they warehouse and ship products themselves which means added distance, less freshness and limited warehouse/shelf space. The margin structure can be tough for the small producer dealing with a physical retailer.

Second, we want people to connect more directly with foodmakers. Zingerman's makes the products their own in a sense. They don't have any photos on their website, for instance--they illustrate them all in the Zingerman's style. And Zingerman's has been pushing their own private labels heavily.

Finally, you're absolutely right that the tools consumers are forced to use are pretty bad. We want to make it as easy to buy from a small heritage pig farmer as it is buying from Amazon.com.

<comment><USER13> So, you don't carry inventory or have purchasers? How does fulfillment work? Just curious; you're more of an Octoparts than a Dartagnon?

<comment><USER6> You are correct. Although we have a fully integrated e-commerce cart and checkout so users don't have to leave the site. On Octopart, I think it links off to the vendor's website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks pretty tasty.

Do the sellers on the site have to undergo any verification or inspection? I'm not sure, but I would assume that food in grocery stores has to get a license and be inspected by the FDA or something.

Basically, how do I know they aren't putting lead in my food?

I'm not really paranoid just curious how this process works.

<comment><USER15> All our foodmakers on our site are licensed and certified to sell food. We have a pretty rigorous standard on who can list on our site, so it's very unlikely you'll find lead in your product. In fact, most of the food on our site is much healthier than something you'd find at the supermarket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a great idea!!!

Now for another idea that someone may want to run with: a similar concept for local farms that don't ship -- pickup only.

The idea came to me because I live on a small hobby farm and I produce eggs (thinking of getting a few pigs for meat & goats for milk...). Much more than my family needs, but not worth the effort of marketing and selling them, so I just give away the excess; nobody refuses farm-fresh eggs! There's another farm not far from here that sells bison (buffalo) meat, but you must preorder months in advance. His sales are from a big sign out on the road.

What I'm proposing is a site where small farms that want to sell their wares but simply don't have the time to do consumer sales & marketing could list what we have available, customers in the city (we're about 40 minutes outside Minneapolis/St Paul and not far from many suburbs) could prepay online and then pickup what they need when it's ready and the site can take a cut of the proceeds, or better yet, advertise local restaurants, cookbooks, etc to make a profit. Then the "little guys" like me can make a few extra bucks, the consumers get local, fresh meat & produce, and everybody ends up ahead. I'm not very interested in webapps, so I'm not likely to pursue the idea, but I think it's viable.

</comment><comment><USER5> From someone who orders lots of food online -- nice work. I've been wishing a site with this purpose existed for years.

I will note that the prices seem quite high for many items compared to similar items available elsewhere, but from a business standpoint I suspect that's OK. To my knowledge, the demand for organic food has always exceeded supply.

<comment><USER6> The prices for many items are high. But all of this food is literally crafted or gathered or produced by hand. For instance, one lady wakes up on weekends at 4AM to harvest seaweed at a beach.

We think that the gifting will drive a big portion of sales--for the same reason that people by cut flowers to give to people. And food tastes much better, too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sooo ... I (along with partners) have a similar marketplace launching < 2 months. We've already got vendors on board.

That would make 3 startups in the space. I suppose there's nothing to stop a vendor from using more than one place, so it will be exciting to see how this space plays out.

The site looks great–nice job.

<comment><USER6> We've looked at the market and it's pretty big...and there are already several other competitors in this space. But, I'm a believer that competition is good for the consumer and us.

Thanks for the kind words!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty amazing. I would love it if there was a way to view various types of food and merchants by region. I'm from the Raleigh, North Carolina area where we have many awesome local farmers markets. However, i'm at college in the midwest and would love to be able to get some of these items online. I have no doubt that this will take off, but when it does and all the various merchants from nc sign up, being able to find them quickly and easily will be a great addition.

<comment><USER6> we have a filter by state if you click on "Foodmakers" from the top navigation bar. as we get additional merchants to join, we can work to make regional search more useful.

what products from NC do you miss the most?

<comment><USER18> Theres a number of bakeries that I really miss getting stuff from. Also, salsa, coffee, sweet tea, jelly, and barbecue sauce were always the best at the farmers market. I'm going to be down there for my spring break, when I stop by i'll be sure to let some of the merchants know about your site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is amazing! I am reading Omnivore's Dilemma (great read BTW) and it explains how the US food industry causes 1/3 of the carbon emissions, mostly in shipping and farm equipment usage. They call this the hidden cost that we all ignore.

A site like foodoro can connect local producers and consumers.

A example of a farm that sells only locally and never ships their produce ( to reduce carbon foot print ) is <http://www.polyfacefarms.com/>

Congratulations guys!

</comment><comment><USER20> How are you handling the images of the products? Just curious because I find some of the pages (especially the single product pages) really eye catching but some of the product listing pages like this one: [http://foodoro.com/search?filters=c12&sort=popularity](http://foodoro.com/search?filters=c12&sort=popularity) are a bit more visually confusing (at least to me).

Still, nice idea, nice work.

</comment><comment><USER21> I had the little mini dough nuts: [http://deesminiorganicdoughnuts.foodoro.com/products/top- sel...](http://deesminiorganicdoughnuts.foodoro.com/products/top- sellers-3-flavors-45-doughnuts)

Their tasty goodness was well received.

</comment><comment><USER22> Site looks nice. Since you're watching this thread, the front page slideshow doesn't work in the latest Chrome dev build.

<comment><USER6> Gotta love x-browser issues... We'll take a look, though it's probably lower priority for us. It works in Chrome release version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This looks very cool, I can't wait to see if something like this gets adopted to other countries and cities

</comment><comment><USER24> mmmmm... metrosexual homer wants little flavor donuts...

But seriously, congrats on the launch.

My only gripe is that there are too many things to select from, and that the average gluten will go broke wanting to try every damn thing listed on the site.

Wild Nori? Sold!

<comment><USER6> Search and discovery is a tough nut to crack, but we think constantly about how to solve it as we grow the marketplace.

On the flip side, discovery can be very rewarding. I'm glad you like the Wild Nori--I had no idea such things existed until recently...and I spend a healthy chunk of time looking at cool food companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting design choice in your favicon... where have I seen that before?

</comment><comment><USER26> congrats!!</comment>


Ask HN: How do I optimize my career? - <AUTHOR> Hey all. Throwaway for obvious reasons.
I work at a large company as a software developer. Unfortunately, many of the teams are not up-to-date technically speaking.
When I was brought on I was quickly able to pick all of the low hanging fruit. Because of this I have become quite reputable in the company and have been promoted.
Despite this, I still don't feel very strong technically because of the fact that the problems I have been solving really should've been solved before my arrival. Being on here, I have an inferiority complex as my perceived ability is not commensurate with my title at other companies.
In particular -- despite having a few years of experience I haven't actually done anything at scale. Meaning the 100,000s of users (most I've done is 10,000s of internal users and customers). I feel like I haven't actually done serious software engineering work.
I was wondering if anyone has been in this position, being prominent in their company but still feeling poor technically. I feel if I were to interview at say, Dropbox I wouldn't do well just because I'm not practicing the right things at work.
Is quitting the only option, or is there a way for me to introduce solutions to problems that may require more technical expertise, to better not only myself but the company as well?
TLDR: Is it normal to not do "serious" software development work early in your career? Perfect example of this is the NYT article on scaling puzzles. I feel I'm currently not in a position to make those kind of decisions, and can only maybe 50% at most understand the rationale behind them. <comment><USER2> Try to do an internal transfer to an external product team (I assume your large company is actually a large software company, and has some external- facing products). Make friends with someone on the team, ask if there's anything you can help out with, and then once you've completed a small project or two, see if they can help you make a formal transfer. If you've got a good rep internally and have worked on tools the whole company uses, it should be a good foot in the door, and oftentimes revenue centers (i.e. external products) have staffing priority over cost centers (internal tools).

If that fails, yeah, look for a job at another company doing an external product. Note that you often need to take a step backwards in company prestige, eg. doing internal tools for a big company, then the primary product for a startup, then a secondary external product for a big company, then the primary external product for a big company, then founding your own company or something. (My own career progression was pretty similar to this, but with the first couple rungs as internships - my first job out of college was a secondary product for a startup, then was promoted to work on a primary product within 6 months or so.)

</comment><comment><USER3> > is there a way for me to introduce solutions to problems that may require > more technical expertise, to better not only myself but the company as well?

Please do not think this way. You're there to solve business problems. Not to build solutions to scalability problems that don't exist. I've had to inherit the code of people who think like this and it's horrible.

Think about all the problems you could be solving for the company and what those problems _actually are_ and what the actual constraints are. If you can't find any satisfactory career growth in solving those problems then you probably should find a job that does have the kinds of problems you think working on would provide the career growth you want.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't specifically speak to this, but I would like to chime in with one thing:

A lot of your post reminds me of the common traits of Imposter Syndrome [1]. Even if you are actually below the norm, you may be exaggerating the gap through Imposter Syndrome.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> > I work at a large company...

Classic large company problem -- you've become adept at operating the internal corporate machine. Nothing wrong with that.

But if cutting-edge technical challenges give you juice. Start attending meetups & conferences.

Incidentally, these are great places to network and hear about hidden job opportunities > [https://www.meetup.com/ScalingAgileNYC/](https://www.meetup.com/ScalingAgileNYC/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Start a company...</comment>


The New Philosophy of Cosmology - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

<comment><USER2> I find it troubling that many scientist are so hell bent on refuting intuition when it has played such a crucial role in human progress and I think Maudlin is right everyone in the scientific community is doing philosophy, whether they want to call it that or not. Hawkins himself is engaging in philosophizing about time travel. To me the criticisms about philosophy seemed to me a mask criticism about one form of philosophy and that is Theology. I can't help but feel that it philosophy can be knocked down a peg then it also helps to lower theology. Philosophy is not about answering the questions, it is about finding good questions to peruse and at it's core it is about intuition. One branch peruses intuition through science and the other through emotion neither should be trying to discredit the other as the philosophical ambitions are separate and unrelated.</comment>


Have an ecommerce business idea? Pick the right platform to get started - <AUTHOR> http://inbound.org/articles/view/top-5-ecommerce-platforms-for-your-online-store <comment><USER2> Wtf is this garbage website all it does is link you to the actual article.

Not to mention that the article itself doesn't even mention bigger e-commerce platforms like Demandware

<comment><USER3> When you think an submitted website adds no value over the original source you can email the mods with a link to the HN thread and a link to the better source.

They seem responsive and happy to make that kind of change.</comment></comment>


Google's Little Fiber Experiment Could Cost Over $1 Billion - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/02/10/googles-little-fiber-experiment-could-cost-over-1-billion/ <comment><USER2> The "street" is clueless. Not only does Google have plenty of cash to burn, but this could snowball into something that pays off for them. Google has a vested interest in a faster internet, just like shipping companies have a vested interest in better highways.

<comment><USER3> Spot on. The street looks quarter to quarter. Looking ahead for the next big thing is next to impossible for that mindset. This is where google got it right in setting up two classes of shares to keep wall street from messing up the big plans.

<comment><USER4> This is the problem with going public. You are dictated by the street and its short term goals. The street has no vision. And this sucks because they hold the power? (Steve Jobs gets a little leeway because hes proven over and over again.) Investors can vote out board members if they think this is stupid right? And board members out of fear can fire the visionaries. By going public google's balls are in the grip of the street and at its whim? I never plan on going public for this reason, but enlighten me if I'm wrong. To me it seems like "don't be evil"/visionary and being a public company can't go hand in hand.

<comment><USER2> As far as I know Larry and Sergey own a controlling interest in Google. Not a majority interest, but they own most of the controlling stock. So I think they can basically do what they want.

<comment><USER3> they also own shares that have more voting power. I can't recall the details, but one of their votes has more weight than the publicly traded shares do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps Google is going to force the hand of America's existing telcoms to provide more reasonable broadband services. Right now, they're sitting fat, dumb, and happy as oligopolists with no significant incentive to provide faster service -- as long as their competitors don't move first.

These "tests" are strategically similar to the Chrome browser. It's not that Google cares that it provides a fast, standards-compliant browser to the world. Instead, Google simply cares that nobody else can limit progress by sandbagging, as Microsoft did with IE6 for years. So, even if Chrome's market share is relatively low, its existence forces Microsoft to compete. And, when Microsoft does, Google wins because its net-based services are a good user experience.

Phone companies don't want the expense of upgrading their infrastructure to support fast Internet. And, cable companies are surely terrified of gigabit- to-the home. Why would MTV bother with the cable companies when it could just stream its shows on demand via Akamai (or whomever) and sell highly-targeted advertising?

This strategy also reminds me of Google's $4+B bid on the 700mhz spectrum. They didn't actually want to own it, but they wanted to be sure the US government sold it with the open access rules attached which would ultimately benefit themselves.

Five years from now, I think The Street will look back on this move as brilliant.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. The only way I want the terms "fat, dumb, and happy" to be used in reference to telcos is when talking about their pipes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The cost of the rollout - which will involve physically laying cable to > individual homes - he thinks will be somewhere between $3,000 and $8,000 per > household.

Curious numbers considering Verizon spends ~$700 per home to connect their fiber network. I don't see Google spending more than 10x than what their closest competitors spend. Especially when they can cherry pick an easy market for the test.

Still, the capital expenditure is offset by revenues coming in. At $50/mo that's $600 in revenue coming in per year for each household. Finance the construction and pay it off with the monthly revenue.

The toughest part by far will be dealing with the existing players. No telecom company is friendly to a new entrant.

<comment><USER8> There's a difference between fiber to the driveway and fiber to the home itself. I'm guessing the $700 price is fiber to the driveway. Existing players can (and almost always do) run the last few hundred feet over copper even if they call it fiber to the home.

It seems absurd there's such a cost differential, but there you go. If you look at other types of hookups, you'll find they can be equally expensive. Sewer hookups are four digits usually too.

Now we don't know if Google will actually take this approach, but the numbers they quoted aren't completely absurd for some cases. Though I imagine Google has a few neat tricks planned which may upset some long-held assumptions.

<comment><USER7> FiOS is fiber all the way, they rip out the copper that was there previously even. The costs have gotten cheaper as they scaled up, but even their initial costs were on the lowest end of the OP's estimate.

<comment><USER9> For what it is worth, it's actually fiber to the house. But good luck connecting a computer directly to that fiber.

Now, practically speaking, fiber to a gigabit network connection should be all you need, but it's practically not much of a difference from what Comcast offers in our area. It's just a marketing point.

<comment><USER7> It's a big difference because Comcast caps your speed. For FiOS there's an ethernet cable coming out of the box that the fiber cable goes into and it only goes as fast as you pay for, topping out at 50Mbps (for $145/mo). Apparently Google will support gigabit ethernet at uncapped speeds. Huge upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm thinking it would be in the best interest of telecom giants to get in on this experiment. This is inevitably the direction their headed, and they would learn a lot from it.

If anything, telecoms should be bidding on the contract to lay out Googles fiber, and subsequently working with Google to own the next big pipeline infrastructures.

</comment><comment><USER11> Google as an ISP: "We give anonymity to your data but track every website you visit. We do not sell your information but we do use it for our advertising and search results." Just a search for more data with proven annual income?

</comment><comment><USER12> google's got the cash.

i put forth my neighborhood as a potential test candidate... pretty sure we're not gonna win tho.</comment>


Tech Companies Family Tree. Links between company founders and acquisitions - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/07/19/tech-companies-infographic/

<comment><USER2> Very cool!

There seems to be at least one big missing piece: D. E. Shaw & Co. That would have spun off Juno via Charles Ardai (bought by NetZero?), Amazon via Jeff Bezos, Fog Creek for Joel Spolsky, Farsight Financial Services, and probably a few more that I can't remember just now.

(Art of Problem Solving and Two Sigma are significant but aren't in tech).

</comment><comment><USER3> Original source: <http://mashable.com/2011/07/19/tech-companies-infographic/>

</comment><comment><USER4> Notably absent: Yahoo!

</comment><comment><USER5> They left out a pretty major one - Valve.

</comment><comment><USER6> I remember when I was a teenager in 80's there are so many family trees of different British Rock bands was listed. I am wondering someone is going to dig data from LinkedIn, Venture capital fund portfolio history and SEC record to draw a family tree of all technology companies around the world.

</comment><comment><USER7> Even more interesting: Links between acquiring company execs who are limiteds in the venture funds of the VCs who funded the acquiree.

It's a huge undisclosed conflict of interest that screws the shareholders of the acquiring company, so don't expect to see it graphed out anytime soon.

<comment><USER8> I'm assuming you're talking about examples like Google acquiring YouTube, where Sequoia was investor in both and was said by some people to have influenced the deal to see ROI from YouTube?

Do you have examples like this? This would definitely be interesting.

edit: note that I mention the Google/YouTube example from something I remember reading about a few years ago. I don't know what exactly happened…

<comment><USER7> Not exactly.

Look at it this way: Some financial wonk inside Google did a bunch of the due diligence for the acquisition. Now suppose that wonk was a limited in Sequoia: He/She would stand to make a pile of money from the acquisition of a (then) profitless company. How would it affect the analysis?

Now go back through acquisitions that made even less financial sense, like Ebay acquiring Skype for $2.6B. A valid question from the shareholders: Who in the decision-making tree held stock (via a venture fund) in Skype?

I think a lot of the really dumb acquisitions start to make a lot more sense as to how they got completed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-priori Kevin Rose used to work for PayPal? His Wikipedia page doesn't mention this.

</comment><comment><USER9> Going to print and make a poster.</comment>


Cincinnati's Abandoned Subway - <AUTHOR> http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/subway.html <comment><USER2> Construction began on a Detroit subway in either 1928 or 1929 and they built two stations. When I was in college someone got busted for running tours.

But I've been frustrated for the past forty years trying to find more. Current employees working for the city know nothing about it. My Dad watched the construction as a junior high student. The newspaper story about the illegal tour was the only confirmation I've ever seen.

<comment><USER3> Does the Free Press archive not have anything on it? If not, maybe a library search request with the city library or Wayne State would help...

If not any of those, I'm curious what the historical societies or maybe some offbeat publication like the Motor City Muckraker might be able to dredge up.

<comment><USER2> I found articles about the debate on whether to build it or not. They started debating it in 1912 and the car companies vigorously fought it which isn't a surprise.

Tried the archive just now and couldn't find anything around the time of the actual construction but I will keep working on it.

If I can find a little bit bet I could get the Muckracker to do a story. Bet they have resources we both lack.

<comment><USER3> They were looking for funding pretty hard a year or two ago, so while I would expect the Muckraker to do a great job, I'd feel obligated to donate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rochester, NY also used to have an abandoned subway. The tunnel was much shorter and it was actually used. It used to be wide open and easy to explore. A few years ago they closed it up and filled in part of it.

<comment><USER5> Rochester's subway was more like light rail from what I understand (i.e., what they have in Buffalo now). A large portion of it was a re-purposed aqueduct from the Erie Canal, so it wasn't quite the most ambitious subway system. If it had stuck around longer past the 40s though I imagine it could have evolved into quite a formidable system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In Pennsylvania there is a section of the old turnpike that was abandoned [1], including two tunnels, one of them over a mile long. I hiked it several years ago - it is open for public recreation and it is a great place to go biking (bring a headlight). Recommended if you are in the area.

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

<comment><USER7> Another tunnel one can hike through is at Donner Pass: [https://californiathroughmylens.com/donner-pass-summit- tunne...](https://californiathroughmylens.com/donner-pass-summit-tunnel-hike)

<comment><USER8> Sounds like a great place for a party.

<comment><USER9> Bring your appetite

<comment><USER6> ;) Surely you are talking about the Donner party [1] cannibalism incident. Coincidentally, the film The Road, which also featured cannibalism, had a short scene filmed at one of the tunnels on the closed Pennsylvania Turnpike [2].

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_(2009_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_\(2009_film\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not sure if it's an Easter egg from the author but the title of this page is "All you clowns in the Art Dept can kiss my __*":

[http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/subway- portaltour4.html](http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/subway-portaltour4.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Note: contrary to what the linked page says, the tunnel is not immediately usable in its current state because it houses the city water main, that can be seen in the Youtube video byt "The Proper People" channel, linked elsewhere in this comments thread.

<comment><USER12> A redundant water main was built in the 90s partly so the one in the tunnel could be quickly removed if needed.

The new one was built as part of the Fort Washington Way rebuild.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So it's actually legitimately feasible for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to find a home in an abandoned subway station. I had always wondered why on earth there would be abandoned subway stations. The free working electricity may still be a stretch though.

<comment><USER14> London has several abandoned stations.

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

Mostly due to location no longer suitable, ie too close to another station, or issues with access. Or structurally unsafe and uneconomical to refurbish, maybe some was damaged too much from the Blitz.

And not all are passenger stations. Some were for maintenance, post etc.

Royal Mail did have its own tube line: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway)

<comment><USER9> You can ride the postal rail now Google Mail Rail for tickets via the transport museum. It's super fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Growing up in Cincinnati, people constantly talked about this tunnel like it was some kind of holy grail of urban exploration. That fantasy was reduced a little when I found out when I was older that you could buy a tour from the museum center. I've yet to go, but it's on my bucket list.

<comment><USER16> In the last 5-ish years they've discontinued that particular tour, citing insurance reasons. The tour was a lot of fun, and I'm glad I got to do it and bummed that others aren't getting to. I got a bit of a "megalophobia" feeling standing beside the immense water main that runs down the southbound tunnel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Manhattan's 2nd Ave subway was famously shut down by mayor LaGuardia who happened to be a large shareholder in the nascent automobile industry

<comment><USER5> Meh. What you're saying is sort of true although I wouldn't put my tinfoil hat on about LaGuardia. The 2nd Avenue subway was shut down because it wasn't actually a subway, it was an El. El's make a lot of noisy ruckus that people in the surrounding area weren't keen on and trains can't run as fast on their tracks. When the El was torn down it was assumed that a new subway tunnel would be built where it used to be in short order (it's kind of a bit difficult to bore holes under a street that's supporting an elevated structure so it was supposed to be done in phases). Unfortunately due to bureaucratic snafus, lack of funding, and general apathy, the 2nd Avenue Line has only recently sort of come to fruition (but not really).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's also well known that General Motors purchased bus systems in the 50s and 60s and intentionally bankrupted them.

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting! Was there a time when it was thought that every mid-sized city could have a subway? Today even Chicago (the third biggest U.S. city) doesn't have one. I can't imagine there being enough urban space in Cincinnati to sustain one.

<comment><USER20> Chicago certainly has a subway. Sure, only a portion near downtown runs underground, while the rest is elevated (the L) but their system is the second-largest in the US.

<comment><USER7> Well, I think technically BART and the DC Metro have more track miles, but according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership) the "L" narrowly has the second highest ridership.

<comment><USER21> Some of that may be a difference in focus. The L barely extends outside of the city proper, and a separate rail system almost exclusively serves the suburbs.

The division of responsibilities between the rapid transit and commuter rail systems in DC and the Bay Area is different in a way that might account for both the greater total system length and the lower ridership per mile compared to Chicago's system. Or Boston's T, for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why did construction stop?

<comment><USER23> Growing up there I remember hearing that there was some problem with the tunnels being too narrow and the cars not fitting - but that was probably more local folklore than anything else.

Cincinnati is pretty hilly - not San Francisco or Seattle hilly - but enough that I would think developing any sort of system would be pretty expensive and difficult.</comment></comment>


Formal Foundations of Serverless Computing - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05870 <comment><USER2> Would be nice if serverless could standardize on webassembly, and webassembly grew tools that check safety properties such as the ones proposed by this paper.</comment>


Overpopulation: Where Do We Put the Next Billion Humans - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/overpopulation-where-do-we-put-the-next-billion-humans/ <comment><USER2> The next billions should never be born. World population should not continue to grow. Policies that promote smaller populations should be adopted everywhere.</comment>


Problem the government's response to the virus has unleashed: Zombie firms - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/23/economy-debt-coronavirus-zombie-firms/ <comment><USER2> >By this logic, the 609 people who work for Oasis Petroleum and the hundreds of millions of dollars available on its credit line might be put to more productive use elsewhere in the economy.

I'm curious, where are these other non zombie companies that would replace the zombie companies?

Presumably some of the 609 people start them, and thus why they don't exist yet?</comment>


The series of problems in al-Khwārizmī's Algebra - <AUTHOR> http://problemata.hypotheses.org/157 <comment><USER2> >many problems are not solved by algebra, but by a method I call "arithmetical reasoning". Here one merely reasons through the stated operations to find the unknown. No unknown is named, and no equation is set up. The presence of these non-algebrac solutions suggest that al-Khwārizmī did not write all the problems himself. He seems to have taken over a corpus from an oral tradition.

Questions:

1) What did this pre-algebraic reasoning actually look like?

2) Was is al-Khwarizmi that elevated problem solving to a more mechanical process or is it inappropriate to credit one person with that shift?

3) When did Europeans start using algebra (e.g. with named variables and rules for manipulating them)?

4) Did al-Khwarizmi ever think about the algorithmic efficiency of the procedures he proposed or used? For example, is there ever an explicit preference given for a more efficient procedure (in terms of the formula size or magnitude of a number)?

<comment><USER3> 3) around 1590, by Vieta ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Viète](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Viète))

Also noteworthy: [http://jeff560.tripod.com/variables.html](http://jeff560.tripod.com/variables.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We should take this opportunity to mention that al-Khwārizmī's name is the origin of the word "algorithm." So the one word that we probably use more than any other in our field derives from the name of a man who was born in what's now Usbekistan, was an ethnic Persian, and lived and taught in Baghdad.</comment>


Digital Media: What Went Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/business/media/buzzfeed-digital-media-wrong.html <comment><AUTHOR> Layoffs at BuzzFeed, Verizon, now Vice too: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vice-media- reorganize...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vice-media-reorganize- lay-10-percent-staff-1181785)</comment>


Extracting video and audio from used police body cam - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/d0tslash/status/1278414895487365121 <comment><USER2> Ethically, it's inappropriate to post some of these photos without blurring identifying details that are not material to the newsworthiness at hand.

We _don't_ need to see the officers' unblurred faces to confirm that these were successfully extracted from a random eBay purchase, as their precise identities are not relevant to the story.

We _do_ need to see the cop cruiser unblurred, because that's materially relevant to the story and serves as likely (but not certain) evidence of the source of the images.

We _don't_ need to see the exterior shot of someone random person's house, because that could result in their location being identified and the press mobbing them pointlessly.

We _do_ need to see the safe interior shot of someone's house, that doesn't reveal any identifying information, since that protects their identity while supporting the story at hand.

<comment><USER3> I disagree, ethically it is not only fully appropriate but also mandatory to post everything that said cameras contain.

<comment><USER4> Body camera footage has to be reviewed and made public if appropriate. But not all body camera footage should be made public. To protect the rights and privacy of the innocent.

<comment><USER5> It's this exact mechanism that allows police to bury mistakes. Rarely are the innocent truly protected.

<comment><USER4> not really

<comment><USER3> Yes, really. There have been countless cases where the police "accidently" "lost" footage critical to a case.

<comment><USER2> I think that loss of bodycam footage should be treated equivalently to discharge of a police weapon, with the officer assigned to desk duty until forensic analysis by an independent third party can confirm that the loss was caused intentionally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems crazy to me that they don't encrypt the videos on the device given how much personal information about other people can be on there. There is a full video of the inside of someone's house in that feed. Couldn't they just have some kind of public/private key encryption, where they put the public key on the bodycam and have it encrypt all the videos it takes? Then you could just decrypt them at the station with the private key.

<comment><USER7> PKI is insufficient protection in this case. If someone obtains the hardware and has a few years to sit on it, it is possible that private keys can eventually be broken (or compromised via other channels).

<comment><USER8> Maybe so, but not using encryption at all is clearly worse.

What would be a better system?

<comment><USER7> Hardware security. These devices should have been built from day 1 with the idea that they would eventually need to be retired from service. They could be designed to self-destruct their own memories if a certain signal is not received within a certain timeframe. Procedures would be built around this such that cameras would need to be periodically checked-in for audit and refresh of the hardware kill timer. If an officer fails to check in a certain camera (presumably with the intent to expire the hardware timer), you could assume malicious intent and have whatever arbitrary penalties to discourage this behavior. Set the timer at 48~72 hours and it would be virtually impossible for even the most sophisticated attacker to physically breach the HSM in time for extraction of the data/symmetric key.

Combine this with a PKI and you should then have a solid solution. If you want maximum traceability, you could throw in LTE or satellite connectivity for logging major audit events or triggering certain device features remotely.

<comment><USER9> Your Honor, the department misplaced the devices during the chaos of debriefing. By the time we retrieved it the data has self-destructed.

<comment><USER7> You could spin any bullshit story around any device. If you do not have some degree of discipline with your meatspace domain, there's no hope for the hardware domain either. Even the most secure devices on earth can eventually be compromised if you allow all policy to fall away and just let the hardware fend for itself.

The police can and should be held to a higher standard regarding evidence and chain of custody. The tools are only half of this picture. It is a synergistic approach.

<comment><USER10> Shouldn't that policy or standard be about proper data disposal in the first place?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Uh, I'm not sure it's a good idea to post pictures of the camera footage on Twitter? Especially as one also have military personnel in it...

</comment><comment><USER12> There's a few comments about the legal status of doing this. In the US, wouldn't this be considered dumpster diving([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving)) and lawful?

<comment><USER7> I believe if the device is obtained lawfully, there isn't much anyone can do regarding what you then decide to do with it or any of its contents.

This is precisely why you should drill through hard drives and flash media before removing them from your secure areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the link it isn't clear. The guy bought a cam from ebay and found the pictures still on there, which is what he's posting on twitter.

[https://www.azmirror.com/blog/fort-huachuca-police-body- cam-...](https://www.azmirror.com/blog/fort-huachuca-police-body-cam-footage- easily-accessible-after-an-ebay-purchase/)

Its kinda sad, I love the idea of reusing old electronics instead of dumping them, but is usually too difficult to secure.

<comment><USER14> Yea, this is why companies destroy perfectly good hardware- so this doesn't happen :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I this guy opening himself up to a lawsuit by publishing everything like that? Last I remember, people got nailed for simply pointing out there was an issue on a server and with anti-repair laws out there, you never know what's gonna happen.

<comment><USER16> This isn't a remote server; the cameras were acquired legally by the tweeter.

<comment><USER17> Was it legally obtained? Purchasing an illegally obtained good is still illegal in the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I just see two pictures of a disassembled camera. Is there more info?

<comment><USER19> It's all unrolled here:

[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1278413772680507392.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1278413772680507392.html)

Personally, I think this is bad form. He should have quietly told the seller that the data is recoverable rather than broadcast it all over Twitter. The last thing we need is the Police finding reasons NOT to wear bodycams.

<comment><USER20> All police body cam footage should be public. Their work is paid for by tax money, they are supposed to be public servants. Governments, including their police force should be transparent to public they're supposed to be serving.

<comment><USER21> While I agree with the sentiment that public workers should be accountable to the tax payers, let's not forget they are still humans. Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times?

<comment><USER22> >Would you like your employer to point a cam at your desk and have it recording at all times?

You can always... get another job. If you don't accept the surveillance that comes with your power to inflict violence with impunity, maybe you shouldn't be given the power in the first place.

<comment><USER23> I agree with that sentiment, however...

In EU there are shows where TV crew is embedded in highway police (traffic police). They never let people off with a warning. I literally never seen it happen.

And in Europe in real life you have a chance to be caught for small infraction and receive waggle of the proverbial finger of the law.

So having all police live stream their cams might not only curb bad behavior of bad cops, but also good behavior of good cops.

<comment><USER22> I hear this argument a lot (ie. "body cams will eliminate/reduce police discretion"), but I always wonder, is that a bad thing? If the department policy is that everyone that goes 10mph over the limit is ticketed, and you don't get off because of your charisma (or not being a minority), is that a bad thing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'd be scared for my life if I was him... hopefully he posted that stuff anonymously. I've seen some white people getting killed on video in a similar manner to George Floyd's killing, but even worst (i.e.: The police have the medic inject the victim with strong drugs right after he passes out from getting choked to death). This video is very troubling but if someone wants to see it I will post it (what is even more troubling is that no one lost their job).

</comment><comment><USER25> A little further down the thread they post the success! [https://twitter.com/d0tslash/status/1278458524742361089?s=21](https://twitter.com/d0tslash/status/1278458524742361089?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER26> Completely made my day. I can just gush with love for stuff like this.

</comment><comment><USER27> what a doofus.

> Me trying to extract video from this body cam like: OHHHH please work!

more like: "me putting my head in a lion's mouth"

</comment><comment><USER28> A more appropriate medium would have been a technical blog post, with redacted information and blurred photos.

Not an attention seeking twitter thread with lolspeak...</comment>


It's Time to Learn about Quantum Computing - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/time-you-learned-about-quantum-computing <comment><USER2> Here is a shameless plug to my book on linear algebra that comes with an introduction to quantum mechanics (Chapter 9): [https://www.amazon.com/dp/0992001021/noBSLA](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0992001021/noBSLA)

If you know you linear algebra well, learning quantum mechanics is not so complicated, see the book preview here: [https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSguide2LA_previ...](https://minireference.com/static/excerpts/noBSguide2LA_preview.pdf#page=125)

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the collections of current practical problems frequently and continually mentioned as big reasons for developing quantum computers is combinatorial optimization. Right, these problems are commonly in the class NP, and that means that so far, as problem size grows, the guaranteed sufficiently large time and or space on a current, classic digital computer to get optimal solutions of worst case problems grows like an exponential in the problem size.

But practical problems don't need to be so large; approximately optimal solutions might save 90% of the money of optimal solutions and very valuable; real problems commonly are not much like the worst case problems; and we long had lots of methods for combinatorial optimization that do quite well in practice.

Point: If practical problems in combinatorial optimization are of interest, then bring them forward -- they've been coming forward mostly only rarely. Else, let's find other reasons for pressing forward with quantum computers.

<comment><USER4> Per Wikipedia isn't not actually known whether quantum computers will be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time:

> There is a common misconception that quantum computers can solve NP-complete > problems in polynomial time. That is not known to be true, and is generally > suspected to be false.[120]

The citation is from 1997, but I seem to remember that someone came up with a proof sometime in the last decade...? Probably just my faulty memory rather than the Wikipedia being out of date.

<comment><USER5> There is no known proof of separation between BQP and NP.

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BQP) for the relation of BQP to other complexity classes.

<comment><USER4> Ah, thanks.

(I was actually looking at the BQP page,, but then realized that I know far less about the _Q_ classes than I should and found the more general "quantum computing" page where my citation is from.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So many ads and things that prompt for attention on this page! I needed to press "x" on 3 things to be able to read. And once read to the end, it refers to a "video above" that won't open under Chrome for mobile. Wired, calm down on crap!

<comment><USER7> You're not missing much in this 304-word blurb. Outside of name-dropping, there's an introductory snippet that guides you to a video.

> _So how do they work? You may have heard that the normal rules of reality > don't always apply in the world of quantum mechanics. A phenomenon known as > a quantum superposition allows things to kinda, sorta, be in two places at > once, for example. In a quantum computer, that means bits of data can be > more than just 1 or 0, as they are in a conventional computer; they can also > be something like both at the same time.

When data is encoded into effects like those, some normal limitations on conventional computers fall away. That allows a quantum computer to be much faster on certain tricky problems. Want a full PhD, or third-grade, explanation? Watch the video above._</comment></comment>


Looking for advice on finding your own way - <AUTHOR>

What was suppose to be a normal year clearly is going to be anything but.  I returned from Christmas vacation to find myself smack dab in the middle of a surprise merger.  So I have begun contemplating my fate, as it were, and my future in the IT field.  I have worked in the IT field for over 15 years now.  I have been a web designer, web developer, a programmer, and a systems administrator.  Despite all this I find myself coming back to a central issue.  My livelihood is always in someone else's hands.  And I find myself wondering if (and how) I could strike out on my own and be my own man so to speak.  My question is what should I be reading and or looking at before contemplating such a move?  I am not saying that I am going to jump ship today.  I will probably continue to work here until this reaches whatever conclusion (good or bad) it is headed towards.  I am really just tired of putting my future and the things that are important to me in the hands other parties.  I want to know if I can find a way to work independently of that.  Any suggestions on reading materials, articles, or personal experiences would be welcomed.  I am sure this has probably been asked before so forgive me if I am breaking etiquette or something.  The worry, fear, anxiety, anger and lack of sleep are getting to me. <comment><USER2> Hi, You are in the right place on HN. I d suggest you get rid of the anxiety. As tech people we have the ability to create stuff that other 'mere mortals' find amazing and useful. You should think about that more.. not just that but find a problem and solve it. About being your own man it starts from within you and is not just something that happens to you. If you started a business you'd depend on your clients. As Ceo you are answerable to the board- they'd be hoping you dont screw things up. So it never ends.. things important to us will always be in the hands of others- also we need to give them what is important to them by solving problems. You are free first from within!! Good luck!!</comment>


Medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614156/a-doctor-and-medical-ethicist-argues-life-after-75-is-not-worth-living/ <comment><USER2> Sir Patrick Stewart would disagree, having started a new project at 79 years of age.

[https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek- picard/news/1009254/sir-...](https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek- picard/news/1009254/sir-patrick-stewart-reprises-iconic-star-trek-the-next- generation-role-in-star-trek-picard-teaser/)

</comment><comment><USER3> > TFA: _I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, "You know, my > Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …" But as I > said in the article, there are outliers. There are not that many people who > continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It's a very > small number._

This imaginary argument between the subject of the article and a slightly careless person highlights an aspect of his argument that could be a problem for an ethicist to argue.

> TFA: _These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when > I look at what those people "do," almost all of it is what I classify as > play. It's not meaningful work. They're riding motorcycles; they're hiking. > Which can all have value—don't get me wrong. But if it's the main thing in > your life? Ummm, that's not probably a meaningful life._

There is a notion in these statements, which is not "quality of life" unless you define "quality of life" as the degree that the senescent person is contributing to my not-so-senescent life and making it better, and how many such lives are being improved. Enjoying your vast motorcycle collection without costing any tax-payer or mutually-insured any money doesn't seem to be quite good enough for Emanuel.

I am not _that_ far from a position of doubting that keeping myself alive from 85 to 86 is worth as much as keeping a little kid with leukemia alive for almost any amount of time. But I think there are aspects of this ethicist's view that make me feel I am smart to not promote my not-fully-formed view as one everyone should have.

</comment><comment><USER4> My father is 85, and he definitely thinks his life is worth living! My mother is 71. Both of them are in great physical shape because they have avoided fructose and other pitfalls of processed food for the past three decades.

Check out Dr. Robert Lustig's presentation on the topic (he even mentions Ezekiel Emanuel at the 2:55 mark): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHYu8NlWDLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHYu8NlWDLU)

</comment><comment><USER5> My prediction is that he'll feel different when he's 75...

</comment><comment><USER6> Try telling that to my relatives who have lived to 95-105 and were healthy into their 90's and surrounded by loved ones.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think he argues against extending life at the cost of quality of life, the title is a bit misleading.

<comment><USER7> If that's what he's arguing, the title is _completely_ misleading.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, but he covers this in the article:

> Q. But it's called "Why I hope to die …"

> A. As you probably know better than everyone else, it's editors that choose > titles and not authors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> this is an example if why generally 'bio ethicist' and 'medical ethicist' means that whatever you hear next can be safely ignored..</comment>


Update: Internet Explorer IQ story was bogus - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14370878# <comment><AUTHOR> So, after all the stories, all the submissions, and all the hype, perhaps the whole thing was a hoax after all.

Also interestingly, it looks like the BBC have changed the text on the referenced page. Originally it reported the story, but now it claims it's a hoax. Can anyone get the original text? I've not been able to get it from the Google cache.

Here are some of the submissions of the story:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2818847> : aptiquant.com <\- This has all the comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822935> : conceivablytech.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822162> : mashable.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823776> : cnn.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823808> : msn.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823947> : pcworld.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823949> : theatlanticwire.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827618> : theregister.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832782> : telegraph.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832818> : pcmag.com

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2832948> : telegraph.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2833997> : (unknown) : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2837736> : bbc.co.uk : killed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2838228> : npr.org

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2838474> : bbc.co.uk

<comment><USER2> _Can anyone get the original text?_

It is a bit annoying how the BBC non-transparently correct their articles. The old version is cached here: <http://www.webcitation.org/60evsCAry>

<comment><USER3> We run a web content monitoring service, every media organisation changes their articles as they get new info. No reference is ever made to these changes. It's actually really interesting seeing how stories get updated.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry, but there's a difference between changing your article for updates and editor required corrections, and changing your article to look as if you never bit the bullet. BBC did exactly the latter, they didn't put an "Update: It has been determined this was a hoax" or "Please forgive our error, we have made a mistake..." anything.

Reading the cached article, and then going back to the original, I think it is fully within your duty to inform your readers that the article has been updated specifically for the reason of clarification and acknowledging a mistake was made, and that new information has come to the fore.

Trying to hide behind that by virtually rewriting the article is just unsavory, and I expect better from the BBC News.

Sorry if it seems like I'm taking a high road here, but I am; retroactive continuity has NO place in journalism.

<comment><USER3> You're right, and I agree with you. But yes we've seen stories get changed considerably with no reference to the update. Unfortunately retroactive continuity seems to be pretty much the norm. From a publishers perspective, that's the beauty of the web: unlike print you can change your spin at any time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even ignoring the obvious problems with the study as described, it was likely to be a hoax just based on how pat the conclusion was and how it fed into the prejudices of those of us who must deal with IE6 on a daily basis.

It does make for an interesting study as a weaponised meme though; and it's exposure as a hoax is not likely to hobble it's effectiveness in spreading the idea that people who use IE are drooling idiots barely able to finger a computer. As a piece of agitprop it's quite effective, and although it's being called out as a hoax the velocity and intensity of the debunking is much less than that of the original.

I think I speak for more than a few of us if I say that it's veracity is completely irrelevant if it manages to embarrass a company director or two into decreeing upgrades. And it's a damn good prank.

<comment><USER6> Confirmation bias is a tough thing.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs)

I know about confirmation bias, so I should consciously look closer at things that confirm my prejudices, but it's not easy to remember. In this case, was actually wary of the conclusions (unless I'm misremembering, which is a whole other issue), but I think that's largely because it was such an obvious example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "...had invited 100,000 web users to take IQ tests..."

Besides the hoax, someone forgot about: "Voluntary response data are worthless." <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2772603>

Because of that, this should have never even been published.

<comment><USER8> So are you saying that no response data ever should be published, or people should be _forced_ to take surveys and what not?

<comment><USER9> Getting good survey data requires that the subjects agree to take a survey before you tell them what will be surveyed. This still biases respondents, obviously, but it puts all surveys on an equal playing field.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Journalism lives and dies by SEO. And if they take their time to carefully check their sources on every story before posting it, then they'll find themselves on the 6th page of Google b/c everybody has already beaten them to the punch. Speed and verification of sources are in total conflict with each other - it's a tough business.

<comment><USER11> Well, I also heard the report on NPR yesterday during the news highlights. This was big news for more than just the PPC crowd.

Sadly, I don't think the retraction will be more than a blip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I know plenty of scientists and researchers who use windows because their programs run on it. The kind of professor who ask their kids why there are 20 toolbars in their browser, and the same night write up a quick 200 line python program to test some algo they read about in their favorite journal.

<comment><USER13> I'm assuming you mean IE, not Windows

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So the good news is that the use of Internet Explorer is not strongly correlated with IQ. The bad news is that falling for hoaxes is...

<comment><USER15> No, just because it was a hoax doesn't mean it isn't true anyway.

You could make a hoax webpage with bogus information about how the earth is not flat. Doing so would not make the earth flat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it was true, then IE could be the most user friendly browser because even users with lower IQ could use that.

<comment><USER17> You base your statement on the premise lower IQ people use IE correctly. Considering the volume of malware that infects Windows boxes through IE, I'd assume the opposite.

<comment><USER16> You can't say, an application is not user friendly because it has got many security holes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> However IE and IQ are connected, I can't get how this kind of articles are of interest to the Hacker News community.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean any offense, it's only that I see this kind of "news" quite unworthy.

\- "Cool guys wear Nike" \- "Powerful men drive Mercedes" \- "Independent women buy Prada"

etc..

<comment><USER19> The subtext of the story is insulting, and easily disproven: we're supposed to think that choice of browser somehow reflects on a person's intelligence. It is ridiculous that HN picked it up in the first place.

In other words, even if it was true, what can we do with this knowledge? Oh, right: continue to judge people for their choice in a trivial matter.

The tech industry really needs to get over itself.

<comment><USER20> If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X would suggest that you were stupid. Preferring X, however, wouldn't _make_ you stupid if you weren't, just as your IQ won't leak out to 'fill the vacuum' were you to attend a Stupidity Convention.

It's just statistics; it's not black magic. Assertions about groups are not assertions about individuals, so don't just treat one as the other.

> In other words, even if it was true, what can we do with this knowledge?

Advertise differently.

> Oh, right: continue to judge[!]

Falsehoods won't do anything to stop that.

<comment><USER21> > If it were true that stupid people prefer X, then yes: your preference for X > would suggest that you were stupid.

This is not correct. Stupid people prefer eating over starving, but a preference for eating does not suggest that you are stupid.

<comment><USER22> Sure it does. And since most smart people prefer eating over starving as well, that preference also suggests that you are smart. If you combine these suggestions with an assertion of excluded third, you can say that a preference for eating over starving implies a qualifiable intelligence.

That is to say, suggestion is not implication. I can reasonably suggest that you are stupid without it being the most reasonable suggestion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Even if it wasn't a hoax, it's still fairly meaningless. It doesn't seem unlikely that more intelligent users would be more likely to look for other options rather than using the OS-provided default. For the sake of illustration lets simplify: Users with an IQ over 100 look for alternatives, below 100 and they do not. Even if 80% of the higher IQ users ultimately choose Internet Explorer (which would indicate that it is very high quality), there would be a very significant difference of average IQ between IE users and users of other browsers.

I also find it very distressing that the BBC, CNN, and a whole slew of other outlets all reported this without carrying out the kind of basic checks _I_ do when presented with new information, and I'm not a reporter!

<comment><USER24> While I agree that people should look for alternatives, I do not necessarily agree with your analysis. I do research in Physics at the University of Sydney, and the proliferation of Internet Explorer is quite high within the research staff, and I can assure you that the IQ's there are not low...

<comment><USER23> My analysis wasn't meant to be correct in the "this is how things are" sense. I was trying to demonstrate that, given the data "IE users have lower IQs on average" you cannot actually conclude anything about IE, as there are multiple factors that could drive that result. I was just providing one example, showing that a situation where IE is the best browser but still has lower IQ users on average could _potentially_ exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "A story which suggested that users of Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than people who chose other browsers appears to have been an elaborate hoax."

"'It's obviously very easy to create a bogus site like this - as all phishers know it's easy to rip-off someone else's webpages and pictures,' he said."

So setting up a fake site with fake data is elaborate? Seems like these news agencies are the ones with IQs in the ~80s.

</comment><comment><USER26> "free online IQ testing" as the source didn't give it away?

<comment><USER26> Secondly browser use is often contextual. I have reasons for using most major browsers, at any given time I may be falling into any demographic... I'm sure many here are the same.

<comment><USER27> One big one is enterprise portals/software that seem to always be IE-only. It's common at my workplace to use IE + Chrome/Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> My favourite part of this was seeing the report that referred to "less smarter" people.

[http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190038/20110731/less- smarter...](http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190038/20110731/less-smarter- users-tend-to-use-ie-more.htm)

They've since corrected the text, but the URL shows their original headline.

Ah, schadenfreude ...

</comment><comment><USER29> This particular story might be bogus, but a few years ago I remember an online IQ test site that collated data about its users, and people using IE or Windows did have lower average IQs than people who used other browsers or OSes.

</comment><comment><USER30> Faked or not, it helped me convert two IE users to Chrome that day.

</comment><comment><USER31> That's hilarious. What a good high profile prank that was. Well done to whoever perpetrated it :)

</comment><comment><USER32> "I believe these figures are implausibly low - and an insult to IE users."

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

</comment><comment><USER33> Ergo BBC reporters must use IE.

</comment><comment> johnx123-up OT: Did Bill Gates _fixed_ BBC?

</comment><comment><USER34> Well, I thought the "study" to be ridiculous from the start...

</comment><comment><USER35> I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but here goes...

I think there may be some truth to this rumor. I do a lot of advertising on TrafficVance which is basically pop-up advertising on computers with adware. One thing I noticed regarding the traffic I received to my landing pages was that a disproportionately high number of my visitors were using Internet Explorer. The percentages were so disproportionate that some of the advertisers I was working with flagged it as "suspicious." (This was thankfully cleared up when I explained to them how I get my traffic.)

For whatever reason, it seems like more Internet Explorer users have adware on their computer than users of other browsers. To me this shows that users of other browsers are more technologically literate than IE users, as you wouldn't expect a technologically literate person to have adware on his/her computer.

Does technological literacy correlate with intelligence? I don't know, that's not really for me to say, but I don't think we should be so hasty to dispel this notion simply because a study was faked.

<comment><USER6> _I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion for this, but here goes..._

Please don't bring this phrase to Hacker News. The only time to complain about downvotes is when you're sure you've been unjustly downvoted.

I think it's completely reasonable to expect alternate browser users to be more technologically literate than IE users though. Unless their alternate browser was installed by someone else, installing one is a choice that requires enough technical knowledge to find, install, and use another browser. I'd assume these people would be more knowledgeable than most about adware because it would make sense for those skills to be correlated.

On a completely unrelated note from this story, how do you justify supporting adware? I assume this is why you thought you'd be downvoted.

<comment><USER35> I like money.</comment></comment></comment>


Startups And Work/Life Balance - <AUTHOR> http://mygengo.com/talk/blog/startups-work-life-balance/

<comment><USER2> Startup people: don't engage with this idea because it will "improve your quality of life". Relax because it will probably improve your outcome:

* Contrary to popular belief, you cannot indefinitely push yourself like an undergrad cramming for finals week. The analogy to sleep deprivation seems telling: everyone thinks they can run on 4 hours a night, because their brain plays tricks on them. Like, "but I love this dorm-room atmosphere, and when I get stressed out I can go play foosball in the corner".

* Your idea is probably going to fail, because statistically most ideas fail. What if what matters is how you handle things when your project blows up? If you kill yourself trying to execute, you impair your judgement, make it harder to get back on the horse; you may even wind up back at a bigco.

* It's ludicrously hard to recruit and retain talent right now. I've spent the better part of two years with that as my number one biz objective. The 10am-10pm work culture is a market inefficiency. It biases recruiting towards people in their twenties, leaving experienced and capable family people on the table.

<comment><USER3> >> _leaving experienced and capable family people on the table_

Can you elaborate? I'm a family people; hopefully experienced and capable, but don't feel that I'm being biased against by the 10am-10pm work culture.

If anything, I find the typical late starting hours of twentysomethings (10:30 or 11:00) to be wonderful - I usually spend all morning with my kids.

<comment><USER2> If your kids are in school and you work 10a-10p you will probably never see your kids.

I did the crazy startup schedule when my kids were that young too. I hope you're handling things with your partner better than I did. It sure seemed like things were going OK at the time! Heh.

<comment><USER4> Oh, in fairness I'm sure you'd get to see them for about ten minutes while they eat breakfast, bleary-eyed, before trudging off to school.

Children aren't morning people.

<comment><USER5> Neither is Tom. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've worked in Japan with the stereotypical salaryman "work ethic". I completely agree that it's toxic and horrible. Truly horrible. (I eventually rebelled and started leaving at 6PM, choosing to suffer the shame.)

But now I've found working _for myself_ 12 hours per day 5 days per week completely sustainable, enjoyable, and productive.

I certainly never felt this way when working for other people though. I think what makes it work is:

1) No external pressure. I could work 5 hours if I wanted.

2) Comfortable as possible office. I truly can't think of anything to improve.

3) Being able to take a bike ride or walk whenever I want.

4) Probably most important: a deep drive to work on my project. I can't wait to get to work in the morning. This feeling only lasted short times when I worked for other people.

</comment><comment><USER7> I dream of the day I can have work/life balance. This is a huge problem for me and it bleeds into my personal life, psyche, and creativity. Unfortunately, I am a prisoner of my own obligations as I'm sure many are. Obligations mean I need income means I need a job. That doesn't mesh well of my incredible desire to run my own business one day.

My father and his father have run their own businesses. When I graduated college, I made a strange departure from that norm to get a job. The thought wasn't particularly exciting, but we had medical bills in the family that someone had to handle. I hate it because I feel like I've let that magical time where you have no bills and can live on the cheap pass by.

So I'm playing it the only way I know how. I work at day then come home to work on side projects into the early morning. My hope is that one day these can be used to convince an investor to float my living expenses so I can take a real shot. Until that day, what options do those of us with jobs have?

<comment><USER8> Do you still have medical bills? Why can't you live on the cheap for a year, save one year worth of living expenses and then leave your job?

For instance:

1) If you live in a big city, live in a very small apartment. Use public transportation and sell your car if you have one. (Yeah, I know this is hard to do in many parts of US).

2) Cut unnecessary recurrent expenses like cable, netflix, gym, etc. You can still buy movies once in a while. If you wanna exercise, just run outside, play sports at public courts, etc.

3) Don't buy the latest gadgets. Unless you're making software for it, you don't need the latest iPhone/android.

And so on. This is essentially how a junior Japanese salaryman lives. They must, because they earn only around $25~30$k. So if you can earn more than that and still keep a low living cost, you could save quite a bit.

<comment><USER7> I had obligations but now I am essentially debt-free outside of a mortgage (not underwater). I have been saving aggressively however I do spend some of it funding my side projects. I've got around 8 months of expenses saved up and hope to get to two years worth within the next 12 months. Without outside investment, that is when I'll hit my personal comfort zone for going after it.

Until then, I'm focused on building the resume and resources I will need in the future. In fact, that is part of the reason I'm working on Sparkmuse. Working a day job and at night can be brutal but I have no regrets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a few points:

* Your customers/clients don't care how much you work. The only thing they care about is whether you can help them solve their problems. If you do that consistently, you'll be fine.

* More work =/= more quality output; in fact I'd argue that after a certain amount of work, it is an inverse relationship.

* Find ways to solve more with less: write less code and still have features. Have fewer servers and still handle the traffic. Work less and still get things done. It's incredibly empowering.

* Knowledge, experience and honed intuition more than compensates for fewer hours of work. My suspicion is that a lot the extra work performed at startups is needed because of inexperience. I worked at a very early stage startup and it seems that a lot effort was spent on getting systems to work as they were supposed to (usually bleeding edge systems). We also spent a ton of time learning to deal with the data volumes we handled; in hindsight most solutions we arrived at were known and publicly available at the time, we just didn't know (enough) about them.

Background: I'm currently moonlighting on a startup idea while having a family and working 9-5. It can be done but you need to leverage other people's work as much as possible and need to be very disciplined. I use the best systems/libraries/services I know to basically outsource everything that's not core to my startup idea. I also consciously set aside time to be with my loved ones: dinner, bedtime stories, weekend hikes and trips etc. Being successful is only meaningful to me if my kids know me in person, not just as a distant figure.

<comment><USER10> _Your customers/clients don't care how much you work_

This is one of the most important parts of this discussion, and I regret not mentioning it in the post. Your company is a black box which exposes a limited interface to the rest of the world, namely "What you make and what you say." If it doesn't impact making or saying, _nothing_ matters.

The _vast_ majority of efforts in most companies don't matter. It is painful to contemplate how much total waste goes on, and changing even a wee bit of it (like, say, the Lean Startup movement is doing with regards to waste building things that no one actually wants) is a mammoth undertaking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Excellent points in here. If you're planning on working until late tonight because you think you have to (not for some specific item), don't. Go home early. Start work tomorrow and try and analyse what went horribly wrong. Chances are, nothing.

There are very few ideas around which will be world beating if done for 15 hours a day, but failures if done for 7.5.

</comment><comment><USER12> I agree with the points you try to make about the importance of a work/life balance.

I don't come from any kind of start-up background, but I've found that even in regular jobs there is a noticeable productivity cycle that I experience mentally, making the argument for balancing work / life (ie rest).

What I experience is like a life cycle but for my attention span/productivity. I start off fresh, become very creative, critical and able to function at my optimum and then my interest starts to decline. Whenever I would find myself crashing I'd follow my natural instincts and take a break. I'd chat with coworkers or surf the net for something that interested me until I found my interest in these leisure activities start to decline. Then I'd come back to work, refreshed and re-interested. Needless to say that in my department I held the highest amount of workload, I was the most productive and I had by far the best attitude, which was the most important thing of all since those with a bad attitude dragged down everyone else around then, decreasing others' productivity potential, thereby creating compounded productivity problems.

I think this kind of attention-span or mental focus cycle is normal and healthy. It's like our mental microchips over-heat if we dwell on a certain thought train too long. I only wish someone with so-called credentials would "discover" this and bring it to the attention of the human resources corporate-culture gate keepers.

I understand productivity is key in capitalism, but if we're going to make productivity the most important thing, while putting our own human needs aside, then we might as well live in a communist economic system. Whether it's about the "masses" or the "economy" it still all boils down to the same thing: the entity who holds onto the net benefit winds up being the afore mentioned curtains "the masses" or "the economy", not human beings. This inability to enjoy the net benefit is supposedly the reason why we oppose communism as an economic system. And no, stuff is not a net benefit; stuff becomes burdensome due to maintenance needs, gets old and thrown out, and only provides momentary satisfaction anyway. People should ask themselves why China has proven to be the most successful economic power since the birth of capitalism (discounting euro nations & US since they grew only because they siphoned other nation's resources). It's because China fused together two effective resource- allocation systems that are mirror images, complimentary and thus an explosively productive combination: communism and capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER13> It is sad how many people wear exhaustion as a badge of honor. I was raised on a farm where when certainly learned how to work hard but if we could ever find a better or smarter way to do it we did. But even in busiest days, when the dinner bell rang (literally) we stopped what we were doing and came to eat and enjoy each other's company.

</comment><comment><USER14> Great post and good comments too!</comment>


Cool silicone snowboard cover - <AUTHOR> http://www.quirky.com/invent/1103874

<comment><AUTHOR> What do people think of this idea?</comment>


Karl Polanyi - <AUTHOR> http://prospect.org/article/karl-polanyi-explains-it-all <comment><USER2> Dang, just wanted to say thanks for this and I'd like to see more and similar. There's a lot to process (the piece is probably too long for ready assimilation here), and this post is old enough that the HN conversation is dead, but I'm planning to continue the conversation at [http://reddit.com/r/dredmorbius](http://reddit.com/r/dredmorbius)

Briefly:

• Another path in economic thought between market fundamentalists, Libertarians, and Marxists.

• A strong influence on many economic philosophers I've been impressed by, including Galbraith, Stiglitz, and Daly.

• Questioning the value and ubiquity of the free market. The observation that "Primitive economies were built on social obligations. Modern commercial society depended on "deliberate State action" by and for elites" sounds very similar to what David Graeber describes in _Debt: The First 5000 Years_. See also Jonathn Nitzan and his "creorder" concept.</comment>


Global Trumpism - <AUTHOR> https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-trumpism <comment><USER2> Please don't dilute your problem by trying to draw untenable parallels to foreign actors.</comment>


Let's all use webkit  (The IE10 benchmarks say not so fast) - <AUTHOR> http://tiamat.tsotech.com/lets-all-use-webkit

<comment><USER2> Uh.

The `webkitPartialBaseBenchmark` function in the linked JS ([http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/Minesweeper/De...](http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/Minesweeper/Demo.js)) is never called with an argument, so the work loop within is... actually never run.

</comment><comment><USER3> If only IE10 runs on linux, I would give it a try.</comment>