The humble receipt gets a redesign - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90347782/the-humble-receipt-gets-a-brilliant-redesign <comment><USER2> Struggling to understand the use case for this. I stare at my grocery receipts like everyone else, but it's to verify the prices I bought them at; sometimes I pick up an item that I think is marked on sale, when it's actually the adjacent item that's been discounted. As a whole, the bubble chart doesn't tell me anything. Meat costs more than an equivalent amount of fruit. Unless you're looking to go vegetarian for financial reasons, you're not going to learn much from that chart.

Splitting up items into a taxonomy is somewhat useful, but not when it only exists on a printed receipt that will go into the trash. It's also not that useful if you make multiple trips a week, as single people often do.

Finally, it's not useful at all if the categories are based on the company's SKU/ERP nomenclature, as opposed to a human-centric approach. If one brand of Ice Cream appears under "Eggs & Dairy" but another under "Confectionery/Bakery" what value do you get by having that itemized on a receipt?

<comment><USER3> I like it more than the old fashioned receipt it seeks to replace. I would look at it and it would bring me a small, fleeting bit of joy.

I prefer no receipts at all, but that doesn't seem to be a universal option. So if I'm going to get the paper receipt anyway, may as well have some pleasing design applied to it, and a thought-provoking categorization for me to reflect upon before I crumple and toss the thing. Beats the pants off of the old version.

If I was reading a business plan and being asked to invest, yeah, I'd respond to it your way too. As a "thing that could exist", though, I appreciate it.

<comment><USER2> I just don't think groceries are the right market for this. For "joy", the differentiator has to be in-person customer service, because grocery margins are razor-thin, and the last thing any exec wants to propose is to modify the ERP (there be dragons) so it generates the clean data that's required for visualizations.

At my store, they are pushing to reduce checkout staff by "encouraging" customers to use self-checkout. It hasn't been going well, but this is a retail-wide trend, and cost-cutting pressures are immense.

Again, because this is so data-centric, the visualizations will generate errors and miscategorizations that will confuse customers more than if they had ye olde dot matrix printed receipt.

<comment><USER4> > At my store, they are pushing to reduce checkout staff by "encouraging" > customers to use self-checkout. It hasn't been going well, but this is a > retail-wide trend, and cost-cutting pressures are immense.

This infuriates me so much, I started to see if I could game the system. Fruit is the easy part, you fill your bag with the expensive fruit, and select apples or something cheap on the checkout scale. Works better on larger stores, the minimum wage person overseeing 6 self-checkout machines can't watch everything, maybe half the people need help, or the scale borks for some reason.

My local supermarket replaced pre-packaged bread bags, weighted by the employees with a complete alacarte system which is complete shitshow. You pick the bread on one place, do your entire shopping and then have to remember what kind of SKU have you chosen. It's a complete waste of time for everyone, and I'm pretty sure the surrounding traditional bakeries won here, the bread selection has lowered substantially on the supermarket.

<comment><USER5> So you're "infuriated" that retail stores have to cut staff in order to survive, yet in the next breath you boast about how simple it is to steal from the store? I see you also didn't forget to belittle the hapless "minimum wage person" who you're purporting to care about.

<comment><USER4> > yet in the next breath you boast about how simple it is to steal from the > store?

> I see you also didn't forget to belittle the hapless "minimum wage person" > who you're purporting to care about.

That's my point. The employees are valuable, even in a pure profit-driven analysis.

> retail stores have to cut staff in order to survive

This is completely false, "surviving" is not the word to describe retailers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's my opinion:

What she got right

\- see items within categories from most expensive category to least, each category showing a percent of your total grocery bill

\- see relative price within a category at a glance (even if you buy wine, that's within your alcohol category, so it won't mess up the relative pricing of your dairy or snacks)

What might not go so well

\- the bubble chart is less universal and intuitive (and it's "quirky")

\- does volume (of what's printed) matter for thermal printing costs?

\- would waiting to print the receipt at the end cause a big slowdown vs printing as you ring items up? (I believe with most current systems, items can be added and removed, and they show up as 'add' and 'remove' line items, because it does print as you scan.)

Many people mentioned digital/CSV breakdowns. I know Home Depot quietly connected my credit card to my email address after asking me if I wanted a digital receipt, and I typed in an email. So this seems like a reasonable option, for anyone that grants permission. (Home Depot annoys me because I say "Yeah! E-mail me!" and then they hand me a receipt anyway. Ungh!)

<comment><USER7> The print volume matters. These new receipts would be at least 3x longer than they need to be, and thermal paper:

a) costs money

b) is considered to be highly toxic

c) often isn't accepted by local recycling programs (but people still throw receipts in anyway)

d) ultimately end up in the garbage, or even just littering street corners.

<comment><USER8> > 3x longer

I used to work for a large payment processing company that supplied POS systems to retailers, I was surprised to find that receipt length does matter a lot to some retailers.

The department that shipped till rolls liked long receipts, it made enough of a financial difference to them to matter.

The retailers hated long receipts, because obviously that meant they needed to buy more till rolls.

(It's worth remembering that the customers for most POS solutions are retailers, not the person who buys something in a shop)

<comment><USER9> > The retailers hated long receipts, because obviously that meant they needed > to buy more till rolls.

Changing out the printer roll is very annoying as well, for a retailer's cashiers. It's slightly time consuming and it doesn't always go smoothly. It inevitably results in a customer having to wait longer, slowing the checkout process further. The less often that action is needed to be performed, the better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What's the incentive for a shop to provide this info? From their PoV they provide it in the itemizations. You can do with that what you will.

It's in the shop's interest to use an antipattern that _obscures_ detail so you don't reflect on where your money is going, and possibly choose to spend less.

<comment><USER11> The company interest is also to give customers value

<comment><USER12> Value as judged by the customers, not rational actors. Useful as this is, drawing more focus to costs would drive customers to shop elsewhere. A version of this I could see shops actually implementing would be a graph of the "savings" per-item, a metric which is essentially meaningless but gives people savvy feelings.

<comment><USER13> I disagree. I would prefer to shop at a place that showed me this. It would increase my loyalty to that grocer. The downside to the grocer is that I might be less inclined to buy meat, but maybe that still works because I instead gravitate to expensive veg options and look at my percent spend and celebrate my good decision making.

The only way this would drive me to use a different grocery is if it did a price comparison vs other grocers and I discovered I was getting screwed...but even then, if it was marginal, I'm not sure I would change grocer.

Edit: currently, as a shopper, you are most likely to just look at the bottom line. I think you are right that grocer adoption would be complicated from a business decision perspective, but I think implementation of this would hit "brand names" more than anyone else. It's in both the grocers and shoppers best interest.

<comment><USER12> I never said _no one_ would like it, so your counterexample isn't a basis to disagree unless you think most people are as rational as you [think you are] in the checkout line (they aren't).

Besides, our own assessments of our preferences are notoriously inaccurate. It would be _logical_ for you to like it, but I'll believe you actually do when you make choices reflecting the preference. Which you'll never have a chance to do unless some store's marketing department thinks this is a good idea.

<comment><USER13> You are right, I am disagreeing on the basis of speculation based on my own experiences and preferences. I assumed you were making an argument from the same place? That said, you are right, we will likely never have the opportunity to test this particular preference.

So, from the place of my personal experience: I am sucker like everyone else, and prefer stores that tell me a per-unit price that I can compare like-to- like brands, often to the point of irrationality. I will also grant that I could have a backlash on this if it makes the receipts unduly long, which is a reason for me to prefer RiteAid over CVS. Plenty of reasons not to like this. I just don't _personally_ believe that drawing attention to price would be a reason for me to stop shopping at a place, although it would (hopefully) alter my buying habits within said store.

<comment><USER12> > You are right, I am disagreeing on the basis of speculation based on my own > experiences and preferences. I assumed you were making an argument from the > same place?

Actually, no. I too think I have logical preferences and would prefer the additional information--but I don't think typical shoppers would respond well to it, possibly including myself (because I don't know if I would act in accordance with my estimation of my hypothetical preferences). So I'm making my argument from psychological principles, and in particular by inferring what supermarkets know about the psychology of typical shoppers (because I'm not an expert, but I assume the people the big supermarkets consult to stay competitive are the best in the field).

> So, from the place of my personal experience: I am sucker like everyone > else, and prefer stores that tell me a per-unit price that I can compare > like-to-like brands, often to the point of irrationality.

If that's what people actually want, stores have no idea what they're doing. The supermarket where I usually shop uses different units for the "unit prices" of different brands, so if I want to compare unit prices I have to do the math myself. The information they highlight tends to be the "sales", which serve to: convey a feeling of beating the system (even when they're so common, taking the sale obviously just means not paying the sucker price); and constantly invalidate all previous price comparisons for commodities like coffee where in-depth price comparison would otherwise make sense.

> I just don't _personally_ believe that drawing attention to price would be a > reason for me to stop shopping at a place, although it would (hopefully) > alter my buying habits within said store.

I wouldn't expect anyone would think they'd be unhappy to have the additional information, because people consistently assume their behavior is logical. Ha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This might be a local thing, but in my experience shops work hard to obfuscate the receipts as much as possible. If they're competing on price, their tactic is usually to promote a few random products they have the best price on and then hope you'll pick their store to buy all your groceries. For that reason, they are absolutely against giving you raw data, because that would allow you to make a shopping list and find the store with the best total price.

I remember some people tried to do an app that would let you scan receipts and make comparisons, but they gave up. Even stores from the same huge chain would have different prices for the same item and a different name on the printed receipt as well. I don't want to get into conspiracy theory territory, but it looked very deliberate.

Eastern Europe here BTW.

<comment><USER15> My thoughts exactly? Why would any store ever want this? It's completely against their interests. They want to sell high priced/high margin items. They don't want customers shamed into spending less on bakery and alcohol and other non-essentials.

Likewise customers might feel alienated seeing how much data they're giving to the store and feeling bad for spending 20 percent of their meat budget on a rib eye.

If you want to follow this closely your food buying habits, get an app. I think it'd be weird to have this receipt. I mean I'd have to shred the thing before I'd even be comfortable throwing it away!

<comment><USER16> For what it is worth, Føtex, one of the largest supermarket chains in Denmark prints the receipt with the items ordered in categories.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm surprised by the reception this is getting.

I may be wrong here, but my approach to this would be completely counter to the one taken. Instead of overhauling POS systems (which are painful/tedious to do), I would try to build an OCR app that reads the items and does all that viz in the app, saving some paper and ink in the process.

In addition to above constraint with POS systems, I don't have one stop shop for getting all items in one category (say groceries).

<comment><USER18> Your solution may be the better product, but info on receipt has 100% user adoption compared to the extreme minority that will put in the extra work to download the app, scan the receipt, etc. Distribution is the big win here.

<comment><USER19> If you overhaul the system to provide those data via an API (instead of OCR- ing receipts or printing these relatively useless visualizations), then not only could DIY folks like the parent and myself do the analyses ourselves, but any number of personal finance tools could also support the system to make it easy for their customers to visualize their own data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was hoping was this about removing the toxic chemicals from thermal printer paper used for receipts. I refuse to touch that stuff and I warn cashiers that they should wash their hands often.

<comment><USER21> So you're that person. I love it. keep it up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand how a bubble chart based on percentage of the total from various departments fixes receipts? Knowing the percentage of my total that comes from a specific department isn't a problem I have, though maybe it is for others. I'd be more interested in being able to self categorize my purchases and breaking down the percentage that way.

</comment><comment><USER23> I rather have them digitally. Also, can we leave it with the "just did x" titles.

<comment><USER24> how do you contest wrong quantity scanned, while in person? Less effective to seek reimbursement to do so after leaving the shop.

Are you suggesting an app that is connected to register that shows the scanning activity live, and somehow retaining that entirely in digital copy??

<comment><USER25> If you pay by card it could just be handled by Visa for instance. That would be neat.

And it doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to get a paper copy in addition if you want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I usually like fresh takes on traditional, utilitarian design. But this has left me cold. For two main reasons:

1\. This is trying to fix a problem which doesn't exist for 99% of people. A family struggling to figure out the math of feeding their kids with ~$0 will not recognise "mindful" shopping.

2\. There are much better problems to solve in retail. Store design is confrontational and manipulative. Fix that first. Then fix packaging and presentation so that we all understand a bit more about what we're buying and how we can cook stuff. Then create meal deals which match ingredients, rather than pre-packs.

But I think the main reason this idea felt like the lowest of low-hanging fruit, is this: I'm severely sight impaired, and, on ocassion, I still get shouted at by staff when I can't negotiate an automated checkout easily, or I don't understand a chocolate-pimping deal they are pushing at checkout. Customer service is focused on "service", not "customers". Fix that first, then create pretty reciept graphs.

</comment><comment><USER27> Love it.

It's missing a qrcode with a date, uuid, total, tax and unguessable url to the items list and prices (or gzipped json of it) so that we can finally scan import receipts with software.

Qr codes should be mandatory on most paper docs IMO. Forms, invoices, contracts, etc.

<comment><USER28> You'd like to mandate that all stores keep a permanent record of every purchase ever made?

<comment><USER29> No need for that.

30 bits to represent the 13 digit IAN.

3 bytes for prices up to 167772.16. If you frequently buy things more expensive than that, just have one of your servants transcribe the recipe to your favorite format.

1 byte for the number of items. If you buy more than 255 of one thing, we'll just add another line to the recipe.

That's 60 bits per line item. A QR code holds up to 23,648 bits. That makes up to 394 line items per QR code, without compression, which ought to be enough for anyone.

If you do buy more than that, the POS crashes^H prints another QR code.

<comment><USER30> >3 bytes for prices up to 167772.16. If you frequently buy things more expensive than that, just have one of your servants transcribe the recipe to your favorite format.

>1 byte for the number of items. If you buy more than 255 of one thing, we'll just add another line to the recipe.

You could split prices greater than 167772.16 into chunks, delimited by using zero for the number of items in the subseqent line items.

<comment><USER29> I think it's simpler to make the field variable length. The same is necessary for the count field, buying >= 256 grams of something is common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Instead, what if receipts just include a QR code to a web page giving all kinds of details? customer could save or integrate with their personal financial management service.

<comment><USER32> My thoughts exactly, this approach helps with the issue of anonymous purchases (i.e. retailers linking payments with email addresses[0]) although presumably retailers will try and make up for it by shoving analytics on the receipt display page, though that can also be disabled with an adblocker.

[0]: [https://www.theguardian.com/travel/shortcuts/2016/oct/16/sho...](https://www.theguardian.com/travel/shortcuts/2016/oct/16/shops- sign-up-e-receipts-proof-of-purchase)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Receipt should be just data. Mixing analytics in it seems to be overkill. Making it easy to feed the data to a separate analytics app seems to be a better idea so that consumers can analyze their spending not only for that particular instance of purchase but also over a period of time.

</comment><comment><USER34> Good on Susie! There's something really cool and fun about integrating data visualisation into an old school receipt.

My question is, what prevents itemisation in bank statements directly?

I have always wanted for my itemised purchases to show up directly in my bank account (instead of just the total). From there, I could see how much I am spending by either automatically generated or manually defined categories. One step further would allow me to budget my money not into separate accounts but by category (think sub-folders within your accounts). You can define the limits of a category and transactions are declined when you've hit your budget and attempt a purchase of that category / product type.

Is there any argument to be made for the bank not having access to the individual purchases (e.g. privacy concerns, too much data)?

Are account holders with a grasp and control of their money and spending not more beneficial to a bank / businesses (not an expert, so forgive me if this is a bit naive)?

I think some third party apps attempt to solve this, but as far as I'm aware they are more of a view of your accounts and not able to control transactions / spending limits. Personally I'd also rather not give my buying information to another entity.

<comment><USER35> > I have always wanted for my itemised purchases to show up directly in my > bank account (instead of just the total).

I 100% do not want this, ever, period.

<comment><USER36> Why not?

<comment><USER37> See the sibling comment in this thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19903991](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19903991)

> _I can 't get my head around the fact that you are actually suggesting this. > Do you want your bank to know that you buy 30-40 bottles of beer each week? > Do you want them to know that you buy medicine for a terminal disease during > your visit to discuss a family home loan?_

<comment><USER36> Seems like the store could use your public key to encrypt the data it uploads to your bank, they get the full data, you decrypt it. It's then just using the current channels.

But, I imagine it's easier to have the store make a temporary xml/json file on their servers, give you the QR code to access it, then you can control the data flow from then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have wondered before why it is that you can't buy groceries with a 'compelling receipt' that shows you other database fields. Everything has calories/sugar/salt/fat etc. in a per 100g form (measurements are different in USA). So you could checkout some online shopping and see how many calories you are getting for your money.

If you wanted to improve your shopping you could see what was being wasted on 'empty calories' and remove it from the order. Just being to sort the checkout by 'most salt/100g' would be interesting to me and plenty of people who do diets.

However, this would not help most people to click the 'buy now' button.

So it is for this reason this receipt idea has to go. Receipts only really have to be read by people who do tax expense forms. Fancy receipts have been possible for years now - you could have a full colour receipt with pictures of everything, all fonts 'on brand', as fancy as it gets. But no retailer has decided to do this, there is something for the receipt we know being the throwaway thing it is.

</comment><comment><USER39> My self-service supermarket kiosk has option for "no receipt".

I register with my bonus card and can look all my receipts online.

No need to waste paper. It is 2019 after all.

</comment><comment><USER40> A QR code or something similar I could scan and get the receipt in csv would fix receipts for me.

<comment><USER41> Exactly what I want out of a receipt. Exactly.

Just a QR code that translates to a csv of items and their costs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't quite get the bargraph. So it's charting the price of everything relative to the most expensive item in the ticket?

What happens if I buy a $100 bottle of wine and the rest is small priced cheeses and vegetables for a party? It becomes useless.

<comment><USER43> > What happens if I buy a $100 bottle of wine and the rest is small priced > cheeses and vegetables for a party? It becomes useless.

Do you find this an everyday event?

<comment><USER42> No, just an outlier example. A way to show that graphing things like this would make Tufte's teeth grind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Flux [0] in the UK are currently trying to irradiate the paper receipt. It's integrated with Monzo bank too. IIRC there's an API to do whatever you like with the data. I imagine Monzo will start doing cool data visitations to help your spending habits.

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

<comment><USER28> Irradiate?

<comment><USER45> eradicate

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would be content if there was an easy way to get the raw itemization info so I could load it into any system I want to do any analysis I want. Instead of breakdowns per trip I could get breakdowns per month or per annum. I could also choose from a variety of visualizations instead of being beholden to whatever is printed on the receipt.

</comment><comment><USER46> This reminds me of a design competition a few years ago that I saw in a magazine, where prominent designers were hired to redesign the simple, common, every day invoice layout.

The results were a hideous, arty, mess that almost every business surveyed with the samples said were unreadable and would increase the workload on their accounts staff. All they wanted was a simple layout with the invoice number and date somewhere on the top right, then the total amount and the tax breakdown somewhere on the bottom right.

That facilitated data entry into their own accounting system for later processing. If they wanted to query a specific thing on the invoice, that was a secondary consideration, but even then, they wanted things laid out simply so they could find the line item, see the price (and quantity) and the line total. That was it. Something the common, every day invoice layout does well today.

The problems I have with this concept (and this comes from over 20 years of installing Point of Sale systems), is that a lot of POS systems these days still print the receipt items as they are scanned (to save time, I guess). So having the bubble chart at the top would be impossible as you don't have all that data until the entire transaction is finished.

Also, when the customer gets this receipt, the transaction is over. This is after the fact. It is really hard to 'undo' anything, and any learning about spending patterns will be forgotten by the time they next do a shopping run in a few days.

Another thing - I frequently have blow outs in my shopping, but that is usually when I tend to treat myself to a special item, or perhaps purchase a new frying pan etc. as part of my normal food shopping. This would result in a large bubble or bar on my receipt, whilst negating other more important things to a much smaller scale.

For example, last week my fresh veg bar looked like: [</comment><comment>....] but today it looks like [==.......] next to my very expensive tub of foie gras that I impulsively purchased as a treat or for a party. I may have bought the same _quantity_ of vegetables, but visually it looks like I really skimped on them this time around.

I applaud designers such as this OP who try and push the traditional boundaries and expectations, but sometimes, a little more real world experience and application would save everyone a lot of time. This is akin to a non-pilot enthusiastically putting forward and promoting that circular runway idea from a couple of years ago.

</comment><comment><USER47> When i find a receipt the first thing I often wish to know is when it is dated, so if it's old I can just dump it. It can be really frustrating as it can be anywhere on tiny piece of paper. There should be a receipts standard that all should have to comply with so everything is always in same place.

<comment> frosted-flakes Anywhere, and in one of a dozen formats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The only utility of a receipt for me is just so that I can make returns. Otherwise I simply trash them.

</comment><comment><USER48> But don't touch the paper!

[https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2016/12/23/is-...](https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/pft/2016/12/23/is- bpa-on-thermal-paper-a-health-hazard)

</comment><comment><USER49> Looks like a lot of ink wasted on a visualisation which is of limited benefit to the consumer, and likely to result in lost revenue for the retailer, as people become more aware of how much they are spending on particular product categories.

<comment><USER50> Thermal paper does not use ink, nothing would be wasted even if printing 100% black.

<comment><USER51> A waste of ink, no, but somewhat a waste of thermal paper.

<comment><USER52> If we're going to talk about wasting thermal paper CVS should be the company we're going after.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Thermal printers are the ones where the text becomes invisible over time I believe. They should be outlawed as a way of providing anything of record. My credit union gives them as their way of giving you your statement.

<comment><USER54> there are other papers from as recent as the early 1990s which were used for receipts, in the US anyway, which also fade.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Interesting seeing so many people asking for digital receipt data.

Cooklist lets you connect your loyalty cards and automatically download all your past and future purchases into one place. (like Mint.com for grocery)

You can see aggregations of all your grocery spending across retailers plus see recipe ideas to cook with the groceries you bought.

We've thought about introducing more advanced visualization of grocery spending or an export tool if anyone is interested.

Disclaimer: I'm a cofounder at [https://cooklist.co](https://cooklist.co)

</comment><comment><USER56> What people don't get is:

receipts are not for customers.

They prevent a crooked cashier from pretending to ring something up and pocketing the cash.

Ever seen those signs? "If you didn't get a receipt, your meal is free"

<comment><USER35> > They prevent a crooked cashier from pretending to ring something up and > pocketing the cash.

How?

A receipt would only be useful for that if the customer diligently looks for an omission. I'll bet that rarely happens. What seems more likely is that the customer will notice that they were charged more than what the total on the receipt said, and will demand that the store refund the "extra charge".

<comment><USER56> I meant everything you just purchased, not a line item (although that's a clever variation but you might still be caught)

The idea is that there's a history of the transaction in the register to get the receipt (so it happened), and it was handed to someone and they might read it.

<comment><USER35> I still don't understand how a receipt helps for this use case. Can you explain in a bit more detail?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I feel a better solution would be a QR code at the bottom that combines each product's UPC and price with the name of the store, date, etc. From there it would be easy to feed that into an app. Whomever created the app could fund it by selling the consumer spending habit data. They could incentivise the app's use by providing analytics, directing consumers to cheaper alternatives and integrating coupons.

<comment><USER58> It'll have to be a link to a webpage/API. Thermal printers won't get you good enough resolution to put that much in a QR code for anything but a very small purchase with only a few items.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The visualizations aren't particularly useful, and it creates a longer and thereby slower to scan receipt. Overall, it's a negative to me.

</comment><comment><USER60> Receipt designs from an employee of a company that does not create receipts, I can't think of better evidence of boredom.

The most helpful receipt redesign is already here at Raley's: print on both sides of the paper.

[https://www.raleys.com/news/raleys-register-receipts-go- doub...](https://www.raleys.com/news/raleys-register-receipts-go-double- sided/)

</comment><comment><USER61> Were I do most of my grocery shopping they send me the receipts to my email. I guess you could make a third party service to better visualize them. Any suggestions for other improvements or companies that already has great receipts?

I know there are services that can connect to your bank and categorize your purchases but it would be great to have a finer granularity. Perhaps you could just forward all receipt emails.

</comment><comment><USER7> Adding these black bars and bubble charts makes the receipt three times longer than it needs to be. Printing millions of these a year would be a huge waste for something that hardly anyone would look at. The side-by-side picture in this article has the "new" receipt cropped off at the bottom, showing only _half_ of the things that were purchased on the same amount of paper. Add all of the pricing information, addresses, etc. and that full receipt would be insanely long.

Receipt paper is already an environmental nightmare. Let's not add more of it.

<comment><USER33> I certainly don't want them on my CVS receipts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I came for a QR code that scanned to some new open standard for receipts. Instead, I am disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER63> I would love to see this design adopted by major retailers. If that were to happen, could Ms. Lu receive any compensation for her contribution? I gather that the profit motive was far from her mind but this idea could still turn out to be a major contribution to commerce.

</comment><comment><USER64> This is great. We should use this. Listing items in order of cost alone is a win. The bar plot is a nice touch. The category breakdown is also nice (minus he bubble plot). I feel like this would help people budget and reduce waste.

</comment><comment><USER65> This is a solution to a non-existent problem, and not even a good one.

<comment><USER66> Disagree, I look at my grocery shopping receipt every time to look where I spent more than expected and I love the look of this, would even pay a couple pennies extra to have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> This is brilliant, and I hope it gets taken up by some companies.

Sadly, I think some of them are going to look at total printing time, and they're not going to accept longer print times.

</comment><comment><USER68> I like some of the concepts, but in general this just seems to take more paper (and the side-by-side photo is mildly deceptive by not showing that).

</comment><comment><USER69> Would be nice if they also didn't print them with thermal transfer ink, which is really bad for you when it gets on your hands (BPA).

</comment><comment><USER35> That's a really interesting idea. I have to admit, though, that I doubt it would make the receipt any more useful to me.

</comment><comment><USER70> Why do receipts exist? Why aren't they emailed to the address attached to my card?

<comment><USER35> > Why aren't they emailed to the address attached to my card?

I don't know how many people are like me, but no retailer has my email address, and I don't use affinity cards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I sure wish there was an app, or banking service, that automatically collects receipts.

</comment><comment><USER72> Where's the tax info? Has this designer ever met an accountant?

</comment><comment><USER73> Square please send me an itemized email receipt.

</comment><comment><USER74> this looks expensive.

a good design would be cheaper and make better use of the space - not waste it

</comment><comment><USER66> I love it and want it!

</comment><comment><USER75> are they BPA-free ?</comment>


Posture for a Healthy Back - <AUTHOR> http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/ns_overview/hic_Posture_for_a_Healthy_Back <comment><USER3> Something people underestimate (I think) is that having a correct posture requires having strong enough support muscles so that you can maintain said posture without getting tired, or even thinking about it.

By far the biggest benefit of going to the gym has been that my core muscles got stronger, which in turn has cured all back pains I had.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for saying this - another reminder to do more core (got down and planked).

What exercises did you find most beneficial for strengthening?

On a related note -- I periodically do stretches where I stand on one leg and roll my hip & waist out to the side extending it behind me -- that helps alleviate tension in the side.

Similar - hanging on my forearms from chairs or those ab machines at the gym.

Pain Free (a method for stopping chronic pain) has 4.5 stars over 800 reviews @ [http://www.amazon.com/Pain-Free-Revolutionary-Stopping- Chron...](http://www.amazon.com/Pain-Free-Revolutionary-Stopping- Chronic/dp/0553379887/)

<comment><USER5> The deadlift will get you the most results for the amount of time you put in. It directly strengthens all the muscles involved in keeping you upright and in a normal anatomical position. A barbell and plates will put you back about $250-$300. Then, if you spend 20 minutes every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday deadlifting and just increase the weight on the bar by 5-10 pounds each workout, you'll be a totally different (better, stronger) person in about 2 months.

<comment><USER6> yes - in my opinion, everyone should do barbell training, including (especially) women. it fundamentally changes you for the better. physically and mentally.

beware the person who warns against it - they have an agenda. it's unquestionably good for you when done properly and within your limits of capability.

i've heard less of the "but i don't want to get huge and bulky like a bodybuilder" these days, probably because as resistance training increases in popularity, people are realizing how incredibly, ridiculously, ludicrously, unreasonably difficult it is to build and maintain muscle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently hurt my back and got interested in the anatomy of the lumbar spine and ended up reading the textbook _Low Back Disorders_ by Stuart McGill. McGill is a professor of kinesiology at the University of Waterloo and has spent his ~30 yr research career studying the lower back. It was an informative and surprisingly interesting read!

He made the point throughout the book that a lot of "common sense" clinical wisdom regarding the low back has little basis in the scientific literature. Among these was that there really is no "correct" sitting posture. All sitting postures are damaging to the low back over long periods of time. Instead he recommends varying the sitting posture at least every ~10 minutes or so, and standing up for a few minutes at least once an hour. Acceptable sitting postures could be anything from sitting up straight as in the illustration in the article, leaning back, sitting cross-legged in the chair, or putting your feet up on the desk. All are fine as long as you change it up every now and again.

There were a few other bits of wisdom in the book. A few I remember off the top of my head:

\- Don't do sit-ups under any circumstances. They are among the worst exercises you can do for your back. The traditional back extension exercise (e.g., [http://lifestyle.beiruting.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/su...](http://lifestyle.beiruting.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/superman-exercise.jpg)) also puts the lower back under a huge amount of stress.

\- Muscle strength is not well correlated with having a healthy back. Muscle endurance is much better correlated with back health.

\- Don't do anything to exert your back within an hour or two after waking up (including stretching the back to extreme flexion by, for instance, trying to touch your toes). The hydrostatic pressure in the discs after rising from bed is much greater, which increases the risk of herniation. (This is why one is ~1/2 an inch taller in the morning than in the evening.)

\- If the spine is flexed for a long period of time (e.g., one is sitting slouched over for twenty minutes), the ligaments become lax and remain lax for some time afterwards. Only 50% of the intervertebral joint stiffness remains two minutes later, and even 30 minutes later some residual laxity remained. So if you've been sitting slouched over, don't immediately go and exert your back by lifting a heavy object. Stand up for a few minutes before exertion.

\- Squatting is not necessarily better than stooping when picking up an object. It's most important to keep the spine in a neutral posture.

\- When picking up a light object, it's best to use the golfer's lift if possible (e.g., [https://liftingtechniques.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/golf.p...](https://liftingtechniques.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/golf.png?w=300))

<comment><USER8> Is there an appropriate exercise for extending the muscle endurance of the back?

<comment><USER7> There were a few that were recommended:

1\. Side bridge. Laying on your side, raise the hips up with your weight on your feet and elbow. Hold until failure. This improves the endurance of the lateral musculature.

2\. This requires a box with an incline of ~55 degrees. Get in a sit-up position with the back against the incline and with the feet secured to the ground. Have someone pull the box back a few inches. Support yourself as long as possible until any part of your back touches the box. This improves endurance of the flexors.

3\. The upper body is cantilevered over the end of a bench or table with the feet secured. The arms are held across the chest with the hands on the opposite shoulders. Failure occurs when the body drops below horizontal.

4\. Bird-dog exercise. Starting on your hands and knees, raise one leg and the opposite arm out to horizontal and hold for ~10 seconds at a time.

5\. Curl-up. NOT a sit-up. Lie on your back with one leg at 90 degrees and the other flat on the floor. With NO cervical or lumbar flexion, lift your head an inch or two off the floor and hold.

<comment><USER8> >3\. The upper body is cantilevered over the end of a bench or table with the feet secured. The arms are held across the chest with the hands on the opposite shoulders. Failure occurs when the body drops below horizontal.

Face up or down?

<comment><USER7> Face down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a very insufficient article. Almost useless. It doesn't mention anything about hip and sacral alignment, which is absolutely critical to having correct posture. Unfortunately, sitting in a chair, as well as various other modern activities, completely messes up not only the alignment of the hip and sacrum, but conditions the soft tissue in those areas to hold a bad position. That's why it's so hard to have good posture for modern people - <USER2> bodies are molded into the wrong shape and are holding it.

Suppose an arch's keystone is pushed out of the place? The arch collapses, and can't support anything on top of it. The sacrum is that keystone.

For real progress towards fixing posture, have a look at the explanation presented by the Olympic athlete in this video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MIZ6Fl2BTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MIZ6Fl2BTY)

<comment><USER10> What really confused me was the following tip: _Try to avoid sitting in the same position for more than 30 minutes._ So is there a correct sitting position? Or is the correct sitting position "sitting differently" every 30 minutes? Those are two mutually exclusive things.

<comment><USER11> Kelly Starret has a great quote about this: "your best position is your next position".

Which is really another way of staying that you should be moving and changing positions frequently. Sitting to standing, on a stool, one foot up, then the other, etc.

You can really run in to problems when you are sitting in the same horrible posture for hours on end. One side benefit of a standing desk is that it makes it a lot harder to stay in one position for hours because you can't slump back against a char. So you actively have to find ways to support your own weight, or at _least_ you realize you are slumping forward in an awkward way onto the standing desk and you change position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's some conflicting data out there about this: [http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/08/41231470...](http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/06/08/412314701/lost- posture-why-indigenous-cultures-dont-have-back-pain)

<comment><USER13> This one says sitting straight is bad, that a 35% lean back is ideal: [http://mashable.com/2011/05/09/sitting-down- infographic/](http://mashable.com/2011/05/09/sitting-down-infographic/)

I have 2 blown lumbar disks, and for me at least, the 35% lean back, even if it means slouching on the couch, eliminates pain when I do have to sit for extended periods.

<comment><USER14> I work for a standing desk company ([http://www.focaluprightfurniture.com/](http://www.focaluprightfurniture.com/)) that also makes "leaning seats" to pair with standing desks. The seats keep your hips open at a 130-135° angle - like the "lean back" approach, but while standing. I've been using the setup since I started and I love it. Definitely the ideal.

<comment><USER8> I switch every hour between standing at my desk and leaning on the Mogo stool you can buy from this company. Great alternative to standing all day (tiresome, sometimes painful) to sitting all day (bad posture, induces weight gain from being sedentary). And you can still wiggle around a bit with it. I keep some blocks under my desk to help stretch my calves with while doing either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> this should be our computer desk: [https://kokyun.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/5531_130311939574...](https://kokyun.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/5531_130311939574_650844574_3354901_434869_n.jpg)

this is reality (if you are working with laptop or notebook or macbook): [http://www.parkavenuespine.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/iS...](http://www.parkavenuespine.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/09/iStock_000024935989_Medium.jpg)

<comment><USER16> I work on a desk without trays - the keyboard too high is a big problem for me. And trays (IIRC) aren't very sturdy/mouse friendly. So I'm thinking about having a low table when I move again.

Also, it seems to me that the old rule "top of monitor in the same height as your eyes" is actually a more personal "whatever works for you" thing. See discussion at [http://superuser.com/questions/231377/whats-the-correct- moni...](http://superuser.com/questions/231377/whats-the-correct-monitor- height-for-large-monitors)

<comment><USER15> Yes, you have right! :-) I always put the monitor over the height of my eyes. To do that, I put an object under the monitore and I set the chair at the minimum height. So the chair is lower and in proportion the desk seems to be higher, and also the keyboard. This generates shoulder problems, too...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I work on a docked laptop with 2 screens (3 in total, I keep the laptop open) We all have USB keyboards for if we want to have the laptop closed, but lately I've been typing with both. My left hand on the USB keyboard and my right on the laptop. My hands are a natural distance apart from one another and my shoulders are more relaxed. It means that there's uneven wear on both keyboards, but I'm quite a bit more comfortable.

<comment><USER18> I have wanted an Ergodox* keyboard for a while. They would certainly solve that problem. I think your situation with the different key styles would really bother me, however.

* [http://ergodox.org/](http://ergodox.org/)

<comment><USER17> They are different, but similar enough not to be annoying. The feel is different, but the curve is the same and so is the actuating force, so all in all not too bad. Both Dell keyboards. You could just as easily do this with 2 USB keyboards, it's the poor man's solution :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> everywhere in the past, those list of hints without references said to sleep on your site with the legs pulled close to the chest with a a pillow between three knees. this one says to explicitly avoid that and provide no explanation

</comment><comment><USER20> If you really want to go further than just healing basic ailments, check out eastern forms of energy cultivation.

The evidence is finally starting to accumulate in the west for why this cultural phenomenon has somehow stuck around for thousands of years, exciting!: [http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/05/tai-chi- master...](http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/05/tai-chi-master- studied-for-power-to-control-body.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> For those who have to sit, I'd recommend [http://www.amazon.com/Original- McKenzie-Lumbar-Roll-Standard...](http://www.amazon.com/Original-McKenzie- Lumbar-Roll-Standard/dp/B000H48WYA) (which was recommended by my Dr. and physical therapist after I bulged a disc trying to He-Man a kids playground up onto a truck bed)

I carry mine between my desk and car. Makes a big difference in how long I can drive

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys I'm posting a follow-up article here and I submitted the link through HN: [http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/posture-power-how-to- correct...](http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/posture-power-how-to-correct-your- body-alignment.html)

This was the first article that led me to the Cleveland Clinic website. I hope you find it worthwhile.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've always driven with the most (comfortable) distance between me and the steering wheel. My reasoning has been that maybe I'm safer when there's more space between me and the windshield, steering wheel, etc. and that there's a tiny bit more time for that airbag to inflate should the need arise.

<comment> a-priori In general more space between you and the airbag is safer. You want it to be fully inflated before you hit it. But they're designed to inflate in the time it takes a typical person to impact the airbag. Basically all you need to do is sit back in your seat and in a comfortable position and you should be okay.

Every now and then you see nervous drivers sitting forwards in their seat with their face near the wheel. It's scary to think what would happen if the airbag were to deploy. Just don't be that person.

Also, be careful sitting too far away that you're not locking your elbows. You might cause serious injury to your arms in even a minor crash.

<comment><USER23> Well, I do know what happens in that situation. My friend used to be one of those drivers, with the steering wheel literally on her chest, holding the steering wheel as if she was hugging it. She always said that's what was comfortable for her. Until she had an accident - and obviously the airbag had nowhere to go and pushed pieces of plastic from the steering wheel directly in her chest, avoiding the heart by millimeters, and also cracked nearly every rib in her chest. She had to have multiple operations to remove the little bits of plastic form multiple points in her body. Suffice to say, she drives like a normal person now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A physical therapist once told me that you need to to sit and stand as if a string is connected to the middle of your sternum and being pulled skywards. Apparently this is what they teach in Ballet schools. For me it worked well and my back pain, over a 4 week period vanished.

</comment><comment><USER4> Rolling up t-shirts or a jacket under my wrists while I type has been tremendous for avoiding wrist pain in the day.

For my back, I practice rolling my hips forward (roll your groin towards the chair), which changes which muscles are use and can alleviate low back pain.

<comment><USER25> After a lot of screwing around with desks and trays and other things, I finally just gave up and started typing with my keyboard in my lap. This has worked quite well now for a long time; everything seems to be in the correct ergonomic position, with a basic ergonomic split keyboard (though even the non-split keyboard on my laptop isn't too bad). For mouse usage, I just use it infrequently enough for this to be practical, by having a keyboard-heavy setup.

<comment><USER4> Are you hunched over? I use a kinesis freestyle 2 keyboard to avoid hunching over (arms spread out)

<comment><USER25> No, I lean back in my chair. There's also some evidence to suggest that the "chaise longe" position is quite ergonomic, though I'm not quite that far back. I'm fairly tall, so sitting pretty & straight as the pictures show is generally not an option as even with chairs adjusted to full height I can't sit with my knees at a right angle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not liking the first reference here from the "American Chiropractic Association."

<comment><USER27> why not?

<comment><USER26> Because subluxation is not based in science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've been wanting a harder mattress for a while. Now I have a great excuse.

</comment><comment><USER29> I remember seeing an electronic gizmo that would supposedly remind you to correct your posture throughout the day. Has anybody tried something like that? I feel like the gentle constant feedback might actually work.

<comment><USER30> One place I worked, they installed a program that reminded people every few minutes to take breaks and have good posture.

The longer you worked, it showed a different color for how fatigued you were. Taking regular breaks kept you at green, constantly typing made it go toward red.

I found that the program displayed the colors by just displaying different picture files of just that color. I changed those files to pictures of your character from Doom as he takes more damage. The longer I typed without a break, the bloodier the guys face got.

Oh, as for your question, no it didn't work. I just saw it as a distraction so removed the program (which I wasn't supposed to be able to do.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Went to the physio with RSI and she recommended I take up swimming. Totally worked.

<comment><USER32> Effectiveness aside, how skeptical were you when you heard that? It's easy to hear these explanations in hindsight, but I bet at the time you'd be, like, "What kind of advice is that? Are you just using a medical-grade magic 8 ball? 'Swim more'? "

<comment><USER31> Sorry, my original answer was cut short by an interruption!

She was a great physio -- afterwards I asked her to come back about another complaint (running injury) and she was the only physio (of 3) to improve that too. So it wasn't just "go swim more" but "do a bunch of things".

First she explained why I was getting RSI, which was due to overreaching caused by bad posture, laptop usage, etc. Gave me advice on how to stop it getting worse, which worked. I bought an ergonomic mouse, avoid some keyboard shortcuts, changed my chair.

Then she advised me to swim and walk (!) more. I had no expectations, just followed her instructions. I was particularly surprised to find that walking helped so much, but without doubt swimming was key. Swimming is so good because it works out so many muscle groups and stretches and expands your body. A colleague later told me that he'd had RSI and took up swimming to cure it.

My RSI is pretty much gone now, even working very long hours, but I've continued to swim every day. I'd recommend it, as it's much better than running for your joints and also avoids lifting weights, which I've never been keen on due to the competitive (slightly obsessive!) attitudes of those who attend crossfit, etc. Being able to swim well is a really useful skill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> That is an incorrect lifting position because that guy's huge chin makes him top-heavy, he'll just fall over the box.</comment>


Heroes Give, Superheroes Borrow - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@blakeross/heroes-give-superheroes-borrow-74205349de69#.rwk4o2rrd <comment><USER2> Not much going on here... and sponsored content to boot.</comment>


Dividing Infinity – Distributed Partitioning Schemes - <AUTHOR> http://eventql.io/blog/dividing-infinity-distributed-partitioning-schemes/ <comment><USER2> >Within the keyspace, identifiers are well-ordered [6]. That means each ID has a successor and a predecessor.

Minor nitpick, but really it only guarantees a successor. In particular the natural numbers are well ordered, but 0 (or 1, depending on what convention you're using) doesn't have a predecessor.

Edit: worse the keyspace depicted doesn't appear to be well ordered since it doesn't seem to have a lower limit. It's possible the author meant "totally ordered" although strictly speaking that also doesn't guarantee a predecessor or successor.

<comment><USER3> > Minor nitpick, but really it only guarantees a successor.

That's from the consistent hashing chapter. That uses a ring usually [0,2^p-1]. With p=160 if SHA is the hash algorithm. Then the predecessor of 0 is then 2^p-1.

<comment><USER2> In that case it's still neither well ordered, or even 'ordered' in any mathematical sense. I was merely pointing out that 'well ordered' doesn't convey whatever it was the author was trying to say.</comment></comment></comment>


RFC: Replace Java with Go in default languages - <AUTHOR> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00153.html <comment><USER2> This "default languages" issue seems to be mostly about testing the gcc backend. Looks like the consensus forming in that thread is that Ada would be better than Go for this purpose.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ian Lance Taylor (GCC Go maintainer) replies with a bunch of reasons why that wouldn't make sense[1]. Even as a golang fan, I have to agree with him that maybe it's not yet time for Go to be a default language.

[http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00155.html](http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00155.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> If GCJ is to be removed as a default, and GCC-Go added as one, (I don't really have the expertise to say if doing those things is merited) then they should be done as two discrete changes: _" GCJ was removed as a default. Incidentally, GCC-Go was added."_

Trying to frame it as one discrete change is just going to get people needlessly emotional _(if it hits the 'technews sphere' where editorializing and sensationalism reign supreme. Everyone seems level-headed in the mailing- list discussion for now.)_

<comment><USER5> But there is a technical justification for making both changes at once.

Specifically, there is worry that removing GCJ and associated test suite will exercise fewer code paths in the collection, and the claim is that adding go will cover one obvious subset of these (-fnon-call-exceptions).

If you read down the thread further, Ada has been suggested as a better replacement than Go to keep test coverage, since it builds on more machines and actually does a better job of exercising otherwise unused code paths.

<comment><USER6> Honestly? The mailing list makes it sound like GCC is so convoluted it requires an entire front-end implementation as a test suit.

I'm not saying it's true or anything. Just calling it like I see it...

<comment><USER7> How would you run a test suite without a programming language?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I worked on gcj many years ago, and while I suppose it is sad to see it fade from view, I think most of us really felt like we had achieved our goal when Sun created OpenJDK and adopted the license we created (GPL + Classpath Exception).

<comment><USER9> I always thought the goal was to have a AOT compiler for Java.

There are lots of those for Java, but OpenJDK isn't one of them.

<comment><USER8> An AOT compiler was definitely the primary goal in the early years (my employer was contracted to deliver one for embedded developers). However, for a few of us at least, the main driver eventually became just to have a Free Software implementation of a high-performance Java-compatible toolchain and runtime for Linux. An AOT compiler based on GCC seemed like the best way to get there at the time. And for a while we were right. The GCJ compiled Eclipse was faster than any JIT-compiled Eclipse a few years back.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the feedback.

I still remember downloading Blackdown Java.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like gcj should just be killed off.

They clearly recognise the test suite takes too long to run, but it takes time to fix.

<comment><USER11> Why use gcj now that [http://www.robovm.org](http://www.robovm.org) exists?

<comment><USER9> Because RoboVM is mostly concerned to compiling Java to native code for iOS devices.

Other backends are not as mature.</comment></comment></comment>


No Battery – LED Flasher (2013) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STPej7VQNzI <comment><USER2> That's just powered by a battery with dissimilar metals, isn't it? Kids do this kind of thing in science class all the time making potato batteries.

</comment><comment><USER3> Did anyone else use the LM3909 chip to build an LED flasher, back in the day? It would blink once a second for 2+ years on a single D-cell battery.

[https://hackaday.com/2018/01/04/there-once-was-an-ic- dedicat...](https://hackaday.com/2018/01/04/there-once-was-an-ic-dedicated-to- blinking-an-led/)

</comment><comment><USER4> OK, how does this work exactly?

<comment> pi-rat It's a battery-cell using ferrite (the rock) and aluminium foil as electrodes and his hand as electrolyte. This produces ~0.7v which he then steps up using something like a joule thief circuit[1].

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief)</comment></comment>


In Denmark's Train Dream, the Next Big City Is Only an Hour Away - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/07/denmark-train-travel-times-copenhagen-aarhus-odense/593557/ <comment><USER2> I recognize this scheme because it's already implemented in Switzerland. Trains are not high-speed but rail links have been optimized to multiples of 30 minutes. At hubs, trains arrive just before minute 0 or 30 and leave after the clock has ticked over. At major centres, trains depart on a 30 minute cycle in all directions.

Arriving at a hub you know you'll catch your connection to the next hub without even consulting a schedule. Feeder trains are also synced up so you get little layover in general. If you're sitting at a hub station, it's easy to tell time by the ebb and flow of passengers.

Now what they should do is just run everything 50 percent faster at high speed to get the cycles down to 20 minutes. Have everybody walk 50% faster at hubs too. What could go wrong?

<comment><USER3> The clock-face scheduling system is really neat and convenient for many people, but sometimes really tight. A bus in Papiermühle (near Bern) leaves 1 (one) minute after arrival of the train. This works because the bus is waiting at the train platform.

But sometimes you would like to buy something at the railway station or there are older people or families with small children or you need to find out where to walk to first. Then you are out of luck. Mostly you just wait 30 minutes for the next train, but there are lines with one hour cadence and very rarely with two-hour cadence.

<comment><USER4> I haven't found it tight in my Gemeinde, which also has a bus home that departs 1 minute after the train arrives. I view it as liberating: instead of trying to rush in a grocery store I get an excuse to fill the time and shop slower, text the wife if I need to pick anything else up, socialize with locals in the store, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For those who don't know Denmark, the title is really overselling the reality here. Denmark is tiny. You can cross the entire country by car in 5 hours and it only takes that long because water seerpates the major island and peninsula. The largest city in denmark has a population of 600k. The entire population of Denmark is less than New York.

Arguably there are no big cities in Denmark at all. Looking for lists of populations of "big cities" across the world I can't even find one that includes Copenhagen to make a comparison of just how far down the list it is.

In any case this is all just silly nonsense. The reason people don't prefer the train vs. almost every other mode of transportation is because its extremely expensive. Making it faster isn't going to solve the root problem. But of cause just like everything else in government, the main aim of the future is to build up huge infrastructure projects with individual companies who stand to gain billions... and just so happen to have some senior exec positions open for the politicians running the sham.

If they'd taken the money they would have spent on this large project and instead just lowered fares, that would be an overall much better reality, but then no individual company is making billions and there's no promise of that sweet executive position.

<comment><USER6> > In any case this is all just silly nonsense. The reason people don't prefer > the train vs. almost every other mode of transportation is because its > extremely expensive. Making it faster isn't going to solve the root problem.

Citation please. This strike me as being very NA centric.

<comment><USER7> I, for one, have a car for this exact reason. Trains are unreliable, slow and pricey in Denmark. Well, maybe not unreliable, but they're not reliable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've lived in Aarhus and I was quite surprised how small part of Denmark's rail network is electrified, it's only 642 km of 2560 km ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Denmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Denmark)), so almost all long-distance trains run on diesel which is quite remarkable in a country that otherwise has a very green view on the environment.

Most of the long-distance trains are of model IC4, the delivery of these trains took ages and one of the missing trains was found in Libya, Italy's former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi had given it as a gift to the Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi ([http://cphpost.dk/news/international/ic4-train-a- gift-from-b...](http://cphpost.dk/news/international/ic4-train-a-gift-from- berlusconi-to-gadaffi.html)).

<comment><USER9> The success of the IC3 from the 1980s lead politicians in the 1990s to decide not to electrify the tracks, but instead count on diesel, and so the IC4 project was initiated. It was a bad decision then, particularly because the IC4 project was vastly different than the IC3 project. So one could not count on it having the same success.

It's a worse decision in retrospect. Fortunately, though, both the former and the current government agree that the tracks need to be electrified along all major routes, and that we should purchase electric locomotives that are already rolling in other European countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> TheTvBuzz is the world's top rated independent information social media business, which leverages evidence and creativeness to connect with 100s of millions of people globally. Our large cross-platform network consists of: TheTvBuzz Originals, which provides articles or blog posts, lists, quizzes, and video clips; TheTvBuzz Media Brands, which comprises a portfolio of identity-driven lifestyle brands comprising of Nifty, Goodful, As/Is, and Tasty, the world's largest social food network; TheTvBuzz Studios, which delivers unique content across broadcast, cable, SVOD, film and digital platforms; and TheTvBuzz News, consisting of world-class reporting and investigative journalism. The enterprise also consists of ThtTvBuzz Commerce, which develops products and solutions and experiences, as well as licensing and other strategic partnerships. We keep working an international news organization headquartered in Chicago and an entertainment studio situated in Los Angeles, with global offices in international locations all over the world. Our greatest work generates authentic audience engagement that fosters real-world impact, like Yanny vs. Laurel, Tasty, the popular exploding watermelon, award-winning research from TheTvBuzz News, and our main lists and quizzes. visit [https://thetvbuzz.com/](https://thetvbuzz.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I always found the dutch railway system remarkable. It just works, you can easily just live one city away and work in another. Not having to drag around a car with you can be extremely nice.

<comment><USER12> And you can pay for ALL public transit in the WHOLE COUNTRY with one card. Meanwhile in the U.S. we struggle to do that even in one city - I'm looking at you, New York!

(Yes I have a MetroCard, which already has the worst form factor among all transit cards in the world, and why I can't pay for LIRR, Metro-North or NJ Transit with it is beyond me)

<comment><USER13> At least NYC is finally fixing that with Omny. Full rollout won't be for a few years but it'll support the entire regional transit system like Clipper in the Bay Area does.

[https://omny.info/](https://omny.info/)

<comment><USER14> It's also worth noting that it will support standard NFC payments, so you don't even need a separate card; standard contactless cards or mobile pay will do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I sadly fear for this lofty ambition. The purchase of IC4 trains from Italy has to be one of Europe's worst (or at least barely told) transport procurement debacles. The 83 trains were the wrong size for Danish tracks and took 13 years to get passengers on some half-working versions, while most never worked at all and others went missing only to turn up in other countries: [http://cphpost.dk/news/some-danish-trains-falling-to- pieces-...](http://cphpost.dk/news/some-danish-trains-falling-to-pieces-on- the-tracks.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Typical politician-think.. Thing is, people in major cities rarely need to travel to other major cities, and people outside major cities most often need to travel to the closest major city.. (dane, works in nearest major city, 30 km drive from home)

<comment><USER17> Yea. Sounds like pointless grand standing.

A country of about 5.5 million people. About half all live near one particular city.

2.7 million people have a job.

Most of those live near the place they work. Tourists aren't going to these places

No indication that the inter city links are operating anywhere near capacity, or there is a real need to do this. Are politicians tired of having to go back and forth from the capital to their region perhaps?

<comment><USER18> There is a _lot_ of traffic between Copenhagen and Aarhus in particular, and from most of the major cities to Copenhagen Airport.

A good proportion of that traffic is by car, and by reducing train travel times, it becomes more desirable to take the train and leave the car at home.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Instead of being able to travel from Aarhus to Copenhagen in one hour, I would much rather prefer that I didnt have to WAIT for one hour everytime I have to catch a connecting train at Bramming station...

</comment><comment><USER20> I think Switzerland's train/railroad system is much more impressive although sometimes it seems a lot of money is spent on it.

</comment><comment><USER21> Denmark is so small that traveling one hour in any direction is likely to either put you in the ocean, or in another country. Or maybe put you through the ocean and then into another country.

<comment><USER22> "It takes four hours and 21 minutes by train from Copenhagen to the northern city of Aalborg, a distance of 258 miles"

Was it really necessary to try to make a clever comment based on the headline alone? Did that advance the discussion and make us all smarter, better people in some way?

<comment><USER17> It takes four hours because they are on different Islands that aren't near each other or connected well. You are insinuating that it is just a slow train.

There isn't much you can do other than spend tens of billions building a bridge or tunnel. Cars often get the ferry to make that journey.

A train has to travel in the opposite direction, across several islands and then back up. 4 hours is pretty good considering that. Even then there is so little demand for this journey it is infrequent.

[https://goo.gl/maps/SZeteqJRc1ng49go8](https://goo.gl/maps/SZeteqJRc1ng49go8)

<comment><USER23> Actually, it seems to only take 2h:50min by train Copenhagen to Aarhus[0], while by car it takes 3 hours with the ferry from Sjællands Odde to Aarhus[1].

[0][https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Copenhagen/Aarhus,+Denmark/@...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Copenhagen/Aarhus,+email@example.com,9.9314748,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8!2m2!1d12.5683372!2d55.6760968!1m5!1m1!1s0x464c4cb15397788b:0x8c4dd7d9912ea2af!2m2!1d10.203921!2d56.162939!3e3)

[1][https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Copenhagen/Aarhus,+Denmark/@...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Copenhagen/Aarhus,+email@example.com,9.9425642,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8!2m2!1d12.5683372!2d55.6760968!1m5!1m1!1s0x464c4cb15397788b:0x8c4dd7d9912ea2af!2m2!1d10.203921!2d56.162939!3e0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> congratulations! it's a wonderful thing! [https://coolmaps.io](https://coolmaps.io)</comment>


How I Removed Email From My Life - <AUTHOR> http://roverdotcom.github.io/blog/2014/04/16/how-i-removed-email-from-my-life/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand everyone's race to move from an asynchronous communication method (email) to synchronous (IM/phone/in-person).

With email, _I_ choose when I get interrupted. With any other communication, _you_ choose when I get interrupted, and that is horrible.

Set your email sync to 1hr and ignore it if you've become a pathological email checker. And use the delete key/mail filters aggressively.

</comment><comment><USER3> email is such an abused tool, i have backlogs of email each morning in the 200+ range, of which i have to actually respond to 50-70.

shameless plug, but i've been working on this app to help reduce the clutter [https://getsdone.io](https://getsdone.io)

<comment><USER4> 1\. Use capital letters. Please. There's a reason they're there, and it makes a big difference for readability. And professionalism.

2\. There really isn't a good description of what your site does or why I'd want to use it. I tried the about page, and didn't get any clarity out of it.</comment></comment>


Artificial Intelligence Could Be on Brink of Passing Turing Test - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/turing-test-revisited <comment><USER2> Comments on an earlier submission:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836683>

 _Meta: OK, I'm finding myself doing the cross-referencing thing again. I'm going to chill and (again) stop doing it. Sorry for the inconvenience._

<comment><AUTHOR> D'oh. I should've searched before submitting.</comment></comment>


Volvo Bets Its Future on Small, Turbocharged Engines - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/10/volvo-turbo-engine-concept/?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER3> It seems an odd choice to say three turbochargers in an article that references superchargers when it reads as an electric supercharger plus sequential turbos.

Personally, I'd much rather see advancement / acceptance of self-drivers even if limited to highways than incremental improvements to traditional cars.

The main, perhaps only reason I really care about response and acceleration is the generally selfish, adversarial behavior of human drivers.

The contrast between the same daily drive in a 4-cyl compact and torquey V8 is stark. In the former, every lane change has to come with permission - <USER2> drivers are often unwilling to give. In the latter, I'm in complete control.

I'd much rather the third possibility - to know we're all on autopilot gliding along at a safe, predictable rate to our destinations.

<comment><USER4> It isn't all about the commute. There's also towing, high mountain passes, and plain fun to consider.

It's amazing how gutless my old 140hp/150lb-ft wagon was at 10,000ft. Foot to the floor, 3rd gear, barely maintaining speed.

<comment><USER5> The plain fun aspect isn't a reason to keep the human driven automobile around as a legal activity on public roads. We segregate fun from business and competition for a number of activities. We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons, why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to work?

<comment><USER6> > why do people get to engage in fun with ridiculously overpowered vehicles > when I'm in a more practical commuting vehicle right next to them driving to > work?

Why do people get to tell me what I can and can't drive? Lots of people manage to drive safely on public roads with cars far far more powerful than they technically need.

> We don't go hunting with fully automatic weapons

Then you're clearly not having as much fun as you could be ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I own two Volvos and I can tell you that with the new insanely complicated engines no mechanic will touch the car. You will be stuck servicing it at Volvo dealership at lawyers hourly rates. And this will be aggravated by the fact that with more moving parts the car will break more often. Plus the cost of the new engine is much higher. The base price of the 2016 XC90 with the new engine is well above what the previous model cost. The fuel efficiency savings are unlikely to come close to offsetting the increased cost of ownership.

It seems that Volvo adopted the "differentiation" strategy of some hardware manufacturers - needlessly boosting the specs which looks good on paper but doesn't do squat for the end user.

In my opinion it's move in the wrong direction for Volvo that used be known for it's simplicity.

<comment><USER8> I would disagree with you there. Yes there is something to be said for simplicity, however advancement often comes with complexity.

I think the engineering model is going to have to take into account the new economics of selling cars. Last month I brought a new BMW, I negotiated a 5 year servicing deal which means I am only liable for tires, brake pads and possibly the clutch if it is burnt out but not if there is a mechanical fault. BMW have a vested interest in making cars that can last for as long as possible.

We should all be considering how we can place the liability of equipment makers back on the manufacturers. We'll end up with a less throw away society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Volvo isn't the only one. One of the new Ford Mustangs is running a 2.3L turbo 4-cyl. Some Mustang fans complain because they like that classic V8 rumble but I don't think the people buying Volvos are too worried about showing off at the each red light.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who _isn 't_ betting its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high- revving, naturally-aspirated engine).

Volvo does appear to be distinguishing themselves though. Namely in the fact that they're coming to market with an e-booster (electric turbo). There are plenty of dual-inlet turbocharged engines on the market, and Mercedes pushed the envelope with their M133 engine found in their performance oriented version of the CLA, but no one, that I'm aware of, has brought an e-booster to market. There was quite a bit of speculation that BMW would use one on their latest M3, but instead they went with a dual-turbo setup and some cool electronic wastegate management software that improves spool-up time.

The combo supercharger/turbochargers setup is crazy exciting though. The last car I can remember with that kind of setup was Lancia's group B rallye submission, the Delta S4. That car made, ostensibly, 480 HP from about 1.8L. In reality, the output was more in the area of 550 HP, and legend has it that engineers pushed the powerplant close to 1000 HP.

Every auto manufacturer is staring down a future of emissions and fuel economy standards that are going to require some fundamental shifts in the way cars are built and powered. Most manufacturers are moving in the direction of hybrid technology. BMW is betting the farm on mass-produced carbon fiber technology. Everyone has a strategy, and most involve lower displacement, forced-induction engines, often coupled with hybrid drivetrain components.

<comment><USER4> A "twincharger" (super+turbo) is notable for different reasons than you suggest. A turbo can hit stupid peak power numbers all by itself.

The addition of the supercharger to the turbo dramatically improves low RPM power and often peak torque as well. In doing so, it also makes a larger turbo more practical as it reduces the problem of "turbo lag" (wherein a large turbo paired with a small engine doesn't engage until very high RPM)

Race engines, of course, often aren't quite as worried about turbo lag because many cars spend their entire time at peak power.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I didn't mean to use the output of the Delta S4 as a statement of intent for the system. In fact, the purpose of the supercharger on the S4 was the same as is mentioned here (by you) and in the article. All group B cars suffered from sever turbo lag, and the combo setup on the S4 was considered a significant advantage for Lancia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My current ride is a 1992 Volvo 740 Wagon. It only has 12 volts, 1 turbo, and 192,000 miles. In another twenty years from now maybe I'll upgrade to one of these fancy 3 turbo, 24 volts cars, but only if my current Volvo has stopped running ;)

</comment><comment><USER12> I have to admit that it comes close to Volvo's best achievement today. But not quite. I've managed to cram a 2m (6.6 ft) ladder into my 15 years old S40. Which makes me even more fond of it than ever before.

It has no touch screens - just terrific hardware controls. No fancy electronics, manual transmission, a 2.0l petrol engine without turbos (not even one). All this makes me believe that this incredibly sleek and calm vehicle has its best days ahead of it! I got a bit carried away, still, that durability and utility of these older Volvos... There is something refined about them even when carrying ladders around.

</comment><comment><USER13> A three-stage compressor for reciprocating engines. The "turbo lag" is why we don't use turbines in cars.

<comment><USER14> The lag is there because turbines are powered by exhaust gases and theres no increase in exhaust without increase in intake, and the turbine is responsible for increasing the air intake but it can't because there's not enough exhaust - a hen and egg problem... But Volvo did something interesting - they used an electric turbine that doesn't have to wait for the exhaust to increase, it can be spinned almost instantly when you press the pedal, so there should be no lag

<comment><USER4> Turbo lag is a non-problem with a turbo that is sized to match the engine.

Too small of a turbo hits peak flow too early, cutting the peak power

Too large of a turbo doesn't get enough exhaust flow to develop boost until 4000RPM or higher

A properly sized turbo begins to develop boost between 2000-3000RPM, which is just right for most cars. When you are just puttering around town you are not developing boost, but the steep power curve of boost is only a moment away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sure offhand how well this will work, but it is good to see real innovation in car engines, in a time when most manufacturers seem content to punch out the same stuff with a few percent more efficiency.

<comment><USER16> This isn't about energy per unit of fuel, but max output per unit of engine weight. It's more exciting, but less important, really.

Anyway, I really hope every car manufacturer out there has CAD drawings and plans ready for the moment we get a breakthrough in battery technology. Teslas are nice, but the batteries are holding them back. Once they get good batteries, though, they will walk over every other kind of car. The BMW i3 is sad but it's the closest competitor.

<comment><USER17> Yes. Turbos make sense but if Volvo is betting on them they are only joining VW, BMW, and Subaru.

Your remark about the i3 is due to its range? Otherwise it is a good car. Tesla's products are very attractive partly because of Tesla's commitment to supercharger networks (which are no cost to use) and other recharging infrastructure. BMW's story seems weak by comparison but their EVs are good so far.

<comment><USER16> They just look like BMW took some inspiration from Fisher-Price. It screams "we don't take this car seriously". Teslas look good, like they're /meant to sell/ rather than just making an eco-statement. It might be a nice car in the practical sense but it's not a serious entry in the EV space. The only electric cars that matter is Tesla Model S and Nissan Leaf, period.

<comment><USER18> It's the "takes this car seriously" part that matters a lot. I've seen one or two i3s around the Seattle area, but Teslas and Nissan Leafs fill the roads around here, so there's bound to be a few BMW early adopters. Is the i3 going to sell in Indianapolis, though?

I already have a Nissan Leaf. But if I were to have never owned an electric car and were to go buy one today, it'd be a Leaf or a Tesla. Why? Because I've already bought a lifetime of half-assed, soon-to-be-unsupported tech. Those items were typically less than $1000 (though I've purchased some duds that were more pricey). If I'm dropping $30K or more, it's for damned sure going to be from a company that I'm confident is in it for the long haul (and not, as you say, making an "eco-statement"). Right now Nissan and Tesla are the only ones that have convinced me that they fit that requirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Kawasaki has their 300hp turbo 4 cylinder coming too. Super similar [http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R](http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/2015-Ninja-H2R)

</comment><comment><USER20> No doubt a result of all those Saab engineers finally infecting Volvo.

</comment><comment><USER21> Having driven a Tesla, IMO if this engine still burns fossil fuels, it has no future (edit, folks, where "future" is the "5 to 10 years" noted in this article). Tesla should be proving that the combustion engine [will within the next 5-10 years, note this article is titled "Volvo _bets its future_ "] no longer have a legitimate reason to exist for passenger cars.

<comment><USER22> > engine still burns fossil fuels

It does, it's just centralised and called a power station... it's incredibly naive to think a Telsa isn't contributing to burning fossil fuels - it's just not in front of your face.

Also I am not sure whether any modern power grid in the world could cope if even 10% of cars became PHEV, imagine the spike when everyone got home and plugged in their car - would be like a "TV Pickup[0]" on steriods, they usually cover these with short term solutions such as hydro pump but this wouldn't run the time it takes to charge a car.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup)

<comment><USER21> well then Elon Musk himself is "incredibly naive".

[http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-ted-talk-on- tesla-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-ted-talk-on-tesla-spacex- and-solarcity-2013-3)

> First of all, he said, burning fossil fuels in a plant to generate > electricity is more efficient that burning them in a combustion engine in a > car. Because it is large and stationary, the plant can use the fuel much > more efficiently:

> In a stationary power plant, you can afford to have something that weighs a > lot more, is voluminous, and you can take the waste heat and run a steam > turbine and generate a secondary power source...

> Even using the same source fuel, you're at least twice as better off.

> Part two of Musk's argument is not based on numbers, but on the fact that > electricity can be produced from renewable sources, most notably solar > power:

> We have to have sustainable means of power generation anyway, electricity > generation. So given that we have to solve sustainable electricity > generation, then it makes sense for us to have electric cars as the mode of > transport.</comment></comment></comment>


Boosted Boards Review – One month in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://www.jisiguo.com/blog/boosted-boards-review <comment><USER2> Went in expecting the board to cost around $200-400, came out extremely disappointed when I saw the preorder was around $2000.

Product looks awesome but not so much at that price point. How much do they actually expect to sell?

<comment><USER3> Echoing the article and what another response said: "It's quite expensive, but if you think of the board as a vehicle, I think it's a wise purchase."

I'd definitely think of it more like a scooter or a bike. I used to commute by bike a lot and wouldn't flinch spending $900 - $1200 on a commuting bike, but my bike also completely replaced my car, so money saved on gas, repair bills, parking, etc was well worth it.

I imagine this is the kind of thing that would only be worthwhile to most people if you're really going to integrate into your lifestyle as a primary mode of transit.

There are obviously a lot of ways this is different from a bike but a few that seem important to me (mostly compared to a bike, and this is all pretty subjective and just my opinion on how it looks):

Pros \- If you don't push at all, less (almost no?) effort to get where you're going. Possibly less sweaty. \- More portable/compact (than most bikes); not having to stop to lock up a bike seems pretty nice, especially if you have a bag you just clip/slide the board into.

Cons \- Battery life; bikes don't have batteries, and while you're putting more energy into a bike, they make super efficient use of that energy if you have a geared bike \- Last I checked, the board couldn't be used in the rain; not sure if that's still true. Seems like it'd be more difficult to make this your lifestyle if you live somewhere it rains often (this is a big one for me) \- Terrain; this less than the others, but there are a lot of obstacles I can deal with smoothly on a bike with large diameter wheels that seems like they might be annoying on a board

as always, ymmv

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >One caveat is the board can't engage regenerative braking when it's fully charged. [...] I'm not sure why the board can't just continue braking without the regen.

The power generated by braking has to go somewhere. If not to the battery, it would have to be shunted to a big resister array, and wind up as waste heat that might require cooling fins. This would add weight and cost.

I remember riding a metro car with regenerative braking that dumped the power to a resistive array on the roof that made a kind of buzzing noise when braking.</comment>


BRU-3, the Logo Generator - <AUTHOR> http://brutalism.rs/2015/09/30/bru-3-the-logo-generator/ <comment><USER2> As a fellow lover of Brutalist architecture and Novi Beograd in particular, I'm looking forward to the game! [0]

[0]: [http://brutalism.rs/2015/09/22/spomenik/](http://brutalism.rs/2015/09/22/spomenik/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Link seems to be down, so here is the project on Github [https://github.com/BRUTALISM/BRU-3](https://github.com/BRUTALISM/BRU-3)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a link to a static HTML page, it might load faster (sorry) [http://brutalism.rs/logo.html](http://brutalism.rs/logo.html)</comment>


Fedora to simplify filesystem hierarchy - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/print/218847

<comment><USER2> I'm not 100% sure about the reasoning for the original split, but wasn't it something like: /bin, /lib and others provide enough functionality to do some more interesting startup actions that can mount /usr from other storage? [edit: just found in the proposal that it was indeed the idea]

Was there some other big reason? If this is the one, it doesn't seem as relevant today as it would be a couple of years ago, so maybe that change is good...

<comment><USER3> The argument in Fedora is that split /usr doesn't work.

It does in Debian, because they actually test that configuration. But you need to keep testing it because it keeps getting broken.

In any case, just about any minimal embedded device has enough space to put /usr on the root partition. I'm sure you'll point to a BeagleBoard or whatever where this is not true, but then off-the-shelf Linux desktop distros don't run on these either.

<comment><USER4> My /usr is 6.7GB large. That does _not_ fit into any minimal embedded device. By far.

Of course, you can strip /usr to make it fit into a 128MB root device (which seems a bit more typical to me). Hell, you should be able to remove it, that's the whole point of having it in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Then there's the convention used to override shell built-ins by calling the > full path to the non-built-in version. If the full path is used and the > built-in has been relocated, that's going to break, too.

I don't understand this part. If you specify _any_ path then you will not be running a shell built-in. Relocating a built-in makes absolutely no sense since built-ins have no path. That's what makes them built-in.

<comment><USER2> There are some built-ins which also have a corresponding command. For example "true" is a built-in in bash, but there's also "/bin/true". So some people might prefer to use /bin/true for whatever reason. I believe this is what that quoted fragment referred to.

<comment><USER6> Correct, but his point was that the sentence says built-ins can be relocated, which makes no sense.

<comment><USER2> I think it was just a mistake, or a mental shortcut for:

"If the full path is used and the [binary or script reimplementing said] built-in has been relocated"

<comment><USER6> Built-ins don't call a separate binary or script - they are literally implemented as a part of the shell. That is, if you look at the shell source code, you will see functions that implement the built-ins. As I pointed out elsewhere, I think they mistakenly said "built-ins."

<comment><USER2> That's why I said "reimplementing" not "implementing": "/bin/true" script and "true" built-in being examples.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, that wasn't clear to me on my first reading, which is why I think it's better to phrase it similar to how I did above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is not definitely going to happen. In fact it's the subject of lengthy and colourful arguments on Fedora-devel list[0].

Personally I think it's a good idea, but I'd like to see agreement across the major distros first.

[0] [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October...](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-October/thread.html#158599)

</comment><comment><USER7> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why they want to bring everything into /usr/ instead of bring everything in /usr/ out? While we're simplifying, it seems counterintuitive to put everything deeper in the filesystem. Why not move /usr/bin into /bin, /usr/lib into /lib, etc?

<comment><USER8> Because it provides a nice top-level split between /etc (configuration), /usr (package-manager's domain, read-only), /var (persistent read-write data), /home (user data), and /run (temporary runtime data). /usr contains a pile of directories other than /usr/bin and /usr/lib, which shouldn't necessarily spread across /.

<comment><USER9> What is /opt historic for? I usually install 3rd party software there.

<comment><USER8> "stuff outside the domain of the package manager". Almost entirely redundant with /usr/local, except that /usr/local works for relatively well-behaved software that uses the standard directories like bin and lib, while /opt mostly contains software so broken that it wants to install in one big directory named after the software package.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not sure this is a good idea. I would side with separating system executables from user level executables.

<comment><USER2> How do you define a "system executable"? And why would you keep them separate?

In case you mean "apps" and "system management utilities" - isn't that what start menu links are for?

<comment><USER3> Indeed .. is /sbin/ifconfig a system executable.

Well, yes because the sysadmin can use it to modify interfaces.

Or is it a user executable. Well yes too, it is frequently used by non-root to list interfaces.

In any case it makes no sense since in Fedora for about 4 years the PATH has contained /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin and /usr/bin for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can see the benefit to this, but as file systems become more transparent to the user, does it really matter?

<comment><USER6> Yes, it still matters, even if the filesystem is completely transparent to the user. System services may expect particular files to live in particular places.</comment></comment>


Canada's Two Largest Cinema Chains Closed Due to Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cineplex.com/covid-19-update <comment><USER2> I read that the video game industry thrived during the 2008 recession. I think this time, the streaming companies will come out alright

<comment><USER3> I recently spoke to someone in a big streaming company, and the biggest unexpected benefit has been increased datacenter efficiency. They usually size machines for the evening traffic peak, and the rest of the day are overprovisioned. Recently, traffic has been smeared over the whole day, so they're effectively serving those videos for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nooo, not the cinemas! /s</comment>