Tesla's Founder Sues Tesla's CEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/06/eberhard

<comment><USER2> When you have a billionaire founder in your board of directors, one who is completely obsessive in whatever he does (Paypal/Space X)... how can you be surprised that you get kicked out when you don't do things his way?

And I don't blame Musk either. If you invest $70 million in a company you should get to say who the CEO is.

<comment><USER3> Not a billionaire yet (I think the NASA deal with SpaceX will help):

Elon Musk — Net Worth: $328 Million According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk> \- More sources »

<comment><USER2> Ah, but then he probably used to be. Source: the opening line in this interview claims that he's a billionaire.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onajosm9PWo>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Eberhard nearly destroyed Tesla. Musk did what anyone who invested 70 million dollars would have done.

A perfect example of Eberhard's arrogance is the whole 2 speed transmission debacle. Eberhard absolutely insisted on having a 2 speed transmission to achieve the performance numbers that he advertised way too early, Magma warned them very early on that was a bad decision but he didn't listen. It almost cost them launching the production model at all (luckily Musk had the idea to launch with a temporary transmission which was upgraded later).

Notice the Model S uses a 1 speed transmission.

In my opinion, the only reason Eberhard was so insistent on the 2 speed transmission was because he DIDN'T have 70 million of his own money invested. Musk saved the company as far as I'm concerned.

Also, isn't it unreal how this company was paying the founder 200K a year with no revenues and a balance sheet that would make most start up founders sick to their stomachs?

<comment><USER5> _Also, isn't it unreal how this company was paying the founder 200K a year with no revenue_

This is par for the course for venture funded startups.

There's a whole class of people in Silicon Valley who make a career out of being the overpaid execs at startups after the first round or two of funding. They typically get paid more than they would ever make if they tried to get a position that matched their skill level at an established company like Apple or Yahoo!. After they do one, they have "Startup CTO" on their resume and then keep bouncing around from startup to startup. What they are doing is financially very low risk (they are making $150K-$200K a year), yet they usually take pride in their entrepreneurial spirit. I would wager that 9 times out of 10 they are hopeless and drive the companies they latch onto into the ground. Their existence is one of the lamer aspects of SV culture that rarely gets mentioned.

Note that the guy in the article was actually the founder, not one of the people I just described. It may or may not be unreasonable, but I certainly don't think it is uncommon for him to take the same salary as the other executives brought in from outside.

<comment><USER6> "Their existence is one of the lamer aspects of SV culture that rarely gets mentioned."

On the contrary, I think that that's one of laymen's first assumptions about C-level positions at startups. I think that most people hear "tech startup" and still think "~2000 era dotcom, doing nothing but living on a cushion of imaginary or scammed cash." When I tell non tech people I work at a tech related startup, I am almost always given a look or a remark which requires me to say "oh ho ho, its not what you think! It's not like _that!_ " almost a decade later.

(The other time I get that sort of look/remark is when I mention that it's also a video game company, but no ho ho, we don't make games where you endlessly decapitate hookers.)

<comment><USER7> that game would probably be a huge success.

Duke Nukem? Winner

Grand Theft Auto Series? Winner

<comment><USER6> We constantly joke about making "Beach Sniper" but I don't see that happening.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/24/575220206/is-there-a-ticking-time-bomb-under-the-arctic <comment><USER2> There could be anything underneath all the permafrost, including new biodiversity which we haven't catalogued yet. NPR ran a story[0] where Russian animals such as reindeer infected with Anthrax had thawed out, and caused outbreaks where people had to get preventative treatments against it. As a future threat model, what if there's new viruses or bacterium contained under previously frozen earth for which modern medicine isn't prepared for?

[0][https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/08/03/4884009...](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/08/03/488400947/anthrax- outbreak-in-russia-thought-to-be-result-of-thawing-permafrost)

<comment><USER3> >There could be anything underneath all the permafrost, including new biodiversity which we haven't catalogued yet.

Hey, that was the plot of H.P. Lovecraft's _At the Mountains of Madness_!

[http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/mm.aspx](http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/mm.aspx)

Spoilers:

"...But we were not on a station platform. We were on the track ahead as the nightmare plastic column of foetid black iridescence oozed tightly onward through its fifteen-foot sinus; gathering unholy speed and driving before it a spiral, re-thickening cloud of the pallid abyss-vapour. It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train—a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and unforming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel- filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. Still came that eldritch, mocking cry—"Tekeli-li! Tekeli- li!" And at last we remembered that the daemoniac shoggoths—given life, thought, and plastic organ patterns solely by the Old Ones, and having no language save that which the dot-groups expressed—had likewise no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters."

<comment><USER4> God that is hard to read. The guy might be thought a genius but I got absolutely nothing from that passage save the penguins.

<comment><USER5> It's no more difficult than Tolkien. Prose from that era was practically poetry.

Of course, I grew up reading a lot of books and short stories from that era, so maybe it's easier for my old brain, like riding a bicycle.

<comment><USER6> That's what I should have responded when my fifth grade teacher always wrote "NEW SENTENCE!" in the margin, if you stacked that many sentence commas.

I should have said "it's practically poetry" :)

<comment><USER7> Basically everything they teach you in school is ignored by successful authors at times, but you've got to know the rules before you can know when to break them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was expecting this to be mentioned somewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

<comment><USER9> The Clathrate gun hypothesis and the thawing of the Arctic ecosystem are two of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" that the US government investigates. These are possible scenarios for abrupt climate change (aka tipping points). The other two involve antarctic ice sheet instability and megadroughts in North America.

[http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2008/09/17/impacts-on-the- threshol...](http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2008/09/17/impacts-on-the-threshold-of- abrupt-climate-changes/)

<comment><USER10> Sounds very similar... Or at least variations of the same idea.

<comment><USER11> It's definitely not the same problem. Clathrates are methane, for one thing, and the permafrost issue will cause CO2 emissions. Clathrates are in the water, permafrost is soil.

They are both associated with historically cold environments that are now warming up, but each has its own mechanism and likely impacts (clathrates may be worse, since methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but the permafrost melting is going to be with us for 1000's of years whereas methane will be with us for "only" a decade. Also permafrost is likely to be a potent methane producer as well while it thaws out.

<comment><USER12> What does "be with us" mean in the case of methane?

<comment><USER13> Methane turns into CO2 and water vapor over time as it reacts with other stuff in the air. It takes about 10 years for atmospheric methane to turn into something other than methane.

<comment><USER11> Yep. The caveat is that we are currently adding methane at a faster rate than it is lost through this process, which obviously means methane concentrations are increasing right now, and early signs are that this may accelerate. Sigh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is not just a bomb that can blow the arctic. It can destroy all human civilization. And at this point, we may have lost any ability to do anything.

Edit: Doom scale...

1 Inconvenient storms.

2 More frequent natural disasters.

3 Destroying coastal cities.

4 Causing hunger, wars and mass migrations.

5 Decimating human population.

6 Destroying human civilization.

7 Destroying all humans on earth.

8 Destroying all life on earth.

9 Destroying earth.

<comment><USER15> The sad thing is that scientists have understood the risks of global warming for decades, and yet our civilization (maybe I'm just speaking for the US here) seems impotent to effectively coordinate a response to this slow-motion threat.

It could be our own Great Filter.

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

<comment><USER16> Are there credible models that suggest Earth will turn into Venus or something? It would take a hell of a lot more to end humanity than it would take to "merely" hurt/kill the most vulnerable segments of our population (which is what I thought the stakes were).

<comment><USER17> No, the Earth has been a lot warmer and colder in the past. We've had massive volcanoes going off for thousands of years, we've had iceball earth, we've had crocodiles and palm trees in the arctic.

The Earth's systems always balance out over the long run. We don't stay trapped in ice ages or hot phases.

<comment><USER18> There's a really good George Carlin bit in one of his stand-ups about how the earth will be fine. Something along the lines of what you're saying; earthquakes, volcanoes, solar flares, etc. She's been around for a looong time folks. It's humanity that might be in for a bad day.

<comment><USER19> There's also this classic page: [https://qntm.org/destroy](https://qntm.org/destroy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Maybe the neglected catastrophists of the 1940s are about to see their day. At any rate, the following article cites -many- sources as regards the 'Alaskan muck'. [https://steemit.com/velikovsky/@harlotscurse/in- alaska](https://steemit.com/velikovsky/@harlotscurse/in-alaska)

</comment><comment><USER21> It seems the only way to combat the thawing permafrost problem is to deploy world-scale carbon capturing schemes of some sort. Here's to hoping that we can develop something like that in time.

<comment><USER22> Suddenly: Snowpiercer.

<comment><USER23> Was that peer-reviewed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Meanwhile, earthers get crazy mining crypto currencies...

<comment><USER25> It really is crazy.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins- insane-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane- energy-consumption-explained/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> We should be investigating ways to sequester that CO2 as quickly as possible, via photosynthesis or industrial uses: [https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at- co...](https://futurism.com/a-plant-1000-times-more-efficient-at-co2-removal- than-photosynthesis-is-now-active/)

</comment><comment><USER27> On the other hand, the first season of Fortitude[1,2] was quite fun.

[1]: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498622/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3498622/)

[2]: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S1VFB36](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S1VFB36)

</comment><comment><USER28> It seems like global climate has low-CO2/low-temperature and high-CO2/high- temperature clusters of attractors. And that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have pushed global climate toward high-CO2/high-temperature. But at least, it seems that there's enough of a barrier from the Venus extreme.

</comment><comment><USER29> For good overviews on what the climate change research actually says, I recommend the potholer54 YouTube channel.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos)

</comment><comment><USER30> I thought this was about methane clathrates. Hasn't there been carbon leaking from permafrost into the atmosphere already? To what degree does the production in the arctic affect that?

</comment><comment><USER31> > But once carbon begins to percolate up through the thawing soil, it could > form a feedback loop

What? This has been happening for years.

<comment><USER32> Yes, but there's a point where the _rate_ hits a critical level that dumps it in a runaway feedback loop. Have we hit that rate already? We don't know enough to say, but it's fairly likely that we'll hit it within the 21st century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is also the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which is already thawing and releasing methane at an increasing pace.

</comment><comment><USER34> So if it all melts, we could see 1200ppm? That doesn't sound that scary.

</comment><comment><USER35> The setting makes for a good sci-fi movie where we will thaw out an Alien.

<comment><USER18> I loved that one! He can take the form of other people but is hive-like or something so if you heat his blood the host goes nuts? Something like that anyway. Kurt Russel. The claymation was excellent: cult classic.

<comment><USER36> That's mostly from John Carpenter's The Thing, the blood reacted to heat as our protagonist's test for detecting infected hosts, not causing the host that was tied up to react, that was just the thing transmogrifying. There's also a Pournelle novel where a research team lands on a green, human inhabitable planet and a native species looks something like a monitor lizard but can engage a hyper mode that speeds up it's metabolism so it generates a lot of heat, this is to enable it to run like a cheetah with the strength of a gorilla or something like that IIRC.

<comment><USER37> "The Legacy of Heorot"

It was a first human colony story. The creature is called "Grendel". No more spoilers...

If there was ever a sci-fi novel that should be made into a movie it's that one, IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Despite the cliche title...frozen up to 1,000 feet down. That caught my eye. Plenty can be hidden in a vault that deep. Perhaps the next ebola? Or worse?

Add this to the list: Climate Change and the Things We're Unprepared For.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wasn't this in An Inconvenient Truth? Old news

</comment><comment><USER40> Betteridge's law of headlines [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER15> Except in this case, the scientific consensus is "yes".

The IPCC report for policy-makers:

[https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FI...](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf)

<comment><USER41> Is scientific consensus incapable of being wrong?

<comment><USER42> Newton`s theory of relativity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "Scientists say New York will be Underwater by 2015"

</comment><comment><USER44> This is not a "time bomb", which implies something being inflicted on us by a malevolent agent. It's a temperature bomb. And we can easily prevent the explosion by simply not making the planet too hot.

<comment><USER45> In all probability, that ship sailed ten years ago. "So doing bad stuff" is no longer a viable strategy by itself. Sure we should do that, but at this point, without adaptation and mitigation strategies, we're fucked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> > In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Douglas says, than all the > carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial > Revolution — first with steam trains, then with coal plants, cars and > planes.

> Scientists don't know yet how much carbon will get released from thawing > permafrost or how fast it will happen.

In a nutshell why not accepting anthropogenic global warming is scientific and accepting it is anti-science, not the other way around.

<comment><USER47> It's also true that there's no _DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE PROOF_ that pressing the nuclear launch button will clause a MAD-style nuclear escalation.

But still, there's good reason to believe it _would_ , so it'd be irresponsible to push the button given other reasonable alternatives.

"You can't ever know FOR SURE that this destroy life as we know it!" has to be the least logical form and most confusing of climate change skepticism out there. The fact that anyone would consider this argument, on its own, even remotely compelling, is... oy.

<comment><USER46> That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.

<comment><USER47> _> That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article._

This has _everything_ to do with your characterization of those quotes. "We don't know for certain, but shit could get bad" is a perfectly reasonable basis for precaution. The precautionary principle is not "anti-scientific".

 _> It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself._

What are you trying to accomplish with this sentence?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Zephyr premium economy airline seat - <AUTHOR> https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/private-lie-flat-seats-for-every-economy-passenger.html <comment><USER2> This appears to be a concept design by an industrial designer. It's a pitch to airliners.

[https://vimeo.com/394558118](https://vimeo.com/394558118) shows (from 00:33) how it works in more detail. Ladder pulls out from between the seats (although see [http://www.zephyrseat.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/Zephyr-...](http://www.zephyrseat.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/Zephyr-Product-Architecture.png) for newer built-in ladder design), and arm rest holds upper chair passengers in place. The cushion that completes the bed appears to fold out from just below tray table.

Luggage goes to upper right of seat, so is securely stored and accessible during flight, a win versus traditional overhead lockers. Seat appears to be a little lower than normal. It looks like there is some additional storage space to the right of the footwell.

Main issues I see are slightly awkward banana shaped sleeping position, and the safety issue for evacuating top deck. The updated built-in ladder design might be sufficient for able-bodied passengers to evacuate quickly enough.

This would be much more attractive than existing premium economy to me and would compete well with business. The main differentiator of business that interests me is the lie-flat bed; the enhanced service and food / beverages, lounge access, and priority boarding and luggage delivery is less important.

More details at [http://www.zephyrseat.com/](http://www.zephyrseat.com/), a few additional videos here [http://www.zephyrseat.com/about/](http://www.zephyrseat.com/about/) and further pictures here [http://www.zephyrseat.com/work/](http://www.zephyrseat.com/work/)

An alternative flat bed in a premium economy cabin with half the density is described here [https://thepointsguy.com/news/new-design-premium-economy- fla...](https://thepointsguy.com/news/new-design-premium-economy-flat-bed/)

<comment><USER3> Just evacuating the top deck? Because the moment a single ladder is in the aisle, no one can move anymore, so it's really a matter of "even having a single one is going to fail FAA regulation".

<comment><USER2> Check the updated design for the built-in ladders - not saying it definitely will work, but it might be possible

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The headline here is quite misleading. This seat is intended to compete with premium economy seats, not with economy.

These seats produce the same cabin density at today's premium economy, while trying to offer a business-class-lite experience.

Airlines might buy these, because if they can differentiate premium economy a bit more from regular economy, they might be able to sell more of it.

Most airlines are installing only 25-30 seats in their premium economy classes, even on big birds like 777-300. If this makes the class more appealing, they may be able to install 40 seats or more instead.

The fact that they are stacked, and that they don't lie flat, will keep them sufficiently distinct from true business class not to cannibalize business class sales.

But, these seats won't leave room for overhead lockers. The seats have an amount of small-item storage that will feel extremely generous in Premium Economy, but without the lockers, there's no storage for bigger bags.

This is also not an unsolvable problem, but airlines are exceptionally risk- averse and change-averse, so it'll take some real convincing.

And then there's the accessibility and safety issues with the ladders to resolve and the question of how people will feel about the low ceiling clearance (will it feel premium? especially to people who aren't regular travelers)

I do hope some airline tries it. There is a ton of room to make air travel different, but airlines are all very fearful, staid entities. For the most part, airlines consider themselves bold if they buy the same Recaro seat as every other airline, but in unique color or fabric combination.

<comment><USER5> The issue is that airlines would simply modify this design to increase passenger density instead of offering the same density but with more space. The solution to ever-shrinking space in the airplane, however, is economic, not technical. Imagine if you could select a 1X-3X room in increments of 0.5X with proportional pricing when you buy a ticket. Airline does not lose money and customers get what they can afford. Right now we only have 1X, 1.15X and 3X options which unfortunately neither sufficient to fit the curve or even have same distribution or pricing.

<comment> crooked-v Well, and it's basically impossible to comparison shop flights with seat space or comfort as a filtering element. Right now the only really usable criteria are price and number of free bags.

<comment><USER5> This. Comparison shopping for airplane tickets is what killed flight comfort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't imagine that with stacked seating and ladders that come out and block the aisle that you could evacuate a plane in 90 seconds or less. That's the standard for the FAA:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/fir...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/first- of-their-kind-tests-are-aimed-at-setting-new-standards-for-airplane- seats/2019/11/28/55bcdd3a-0ae4-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html)

<comment><USER7> Another safety issue seems to be that people would always have to wear a seatbelt in the upper row, otherwise unexpected turbulence could lead to falls and bad injuries.

<comment><USER8> Turbulence that bad would be the kind that causes injuries in normal seats too (by banging heads in the celing for example). Its more common and dangerous than people think and that's why we are instructed to always wear the seatbelt when seated. Cabin staff couldn't really give more than that advice to people in top seats, but perhaps people would believe that warning in this case because they can see the danger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> FTA:

>Will Airlines Buy It?

>Mr. O'Neill says that because the seats are stacked, airlines will not forfeit capacity. The same number of seats in today's wide-body cabins can be accommodated using Zephyr, so it should not impact an airline's bottom line. Mr. O'Neill explained, "The best part of this seat: it has NO heavy mechanical/electronic components. The entire seat has only 2 moving pieces inside, so the weight and direct maintenance costs for the airline are significantly reduced! Using advanced composite materials, we can build this seat at less than 50kg per unit."

This doesn't really answer the question though, right? The real question is if airlines would be willing to invest in the R&D to have stacked seating at all. Personally I'd be fine with it, but I can see a lot of people having problems with it - to say nothing of how expensive it would be to redesign the cabin.

<comment><USER10> I see airlines buying this, but not to redesign their economy cabin layout, but instead to increase the capacity of their premium cabin.

This would never be used in an economy cabin. The whole point of economy is that at times is so uncomfortable that you have moments where you consider upgrading. If they change this to improve economy, people wouldn't have a reason for upgrading to an upper cabin.

<comment><USER11> These seats appear to replace overhead storage. Say goodbye to your free carryon... a plane full of upcharges can outstrip the handful of people who can afford upgrades.

Of course, if you're 7' tall, I'm betting you can't fit at all. If you're north of 300lb, or 70yo, or have physical disabilities, you might not be able to clamber into the upper seats. I don't think that will impede the airlines though.

<comment><USER12> If you're 7' tall, you can't really fit into existing economy seats, either, because your knees would need to transect the seat in front of you. At least in this configuration, you can slouch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this actually going to happen or just a proposal? I can't imagine this is going to pass safety standards. You can't even have your bag sticking out in the aisle or a less than able bodied person sitting in the exit row.

Imagine 20 ladders jutting out into the row as passenger frantically exit an aircraft in an emergency.

<comment><USER14> Find it utterly bizarre the dozens of comments here about a designer who obviously put a lot of effort in didn't consider the very basics and HN commentators are so enlightened/knowledgeable they can point it out in 15 seconds.

How about this counterpoint: the manufacturer knows exactly about the emergency requirements of an airplane and that's included in the design. An average size male need to half turn sideways going down an economy aisle already.

When not in use these aisles would be a joy due to the buffer space, for both those in transit and those sitting.

The rampant Dunning-Kruger that exists on this forum is honestly quite concerning some days. Take a step back and think whether this company has not dealt with this problem? The onus of proof is on all the commentators saying otherwise.

<comment><USER13> I was merely asking. But it is not uncommon at all to see marketing drawings like this that have not and have no intention of becoming a reality and so do not go through any kind of safety vetting process.

In other words, in my case, it's not a matter of thinking I know better than some experts. It's that I question whether this has been vetted by any experts at all. It would not be the first time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can see myself (to say nothing of the elderly) falling off the stairs on long haul journeys after waking up and needing to go to the bathroom. I can see endless instances of people spilling their hot drinks and food on the stewardess as it's being handed to them. This seems like a downgrade from economy, where at least you can comfortably walk down the aisle and not get inadvertently kicked in the head.

<comment><USER16> Reminds me of a hard sleeper bunk on an overnight train. Actually, much better than that considering you can still sit if you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I feel like this is missing something very important -- weight distribution.

Premium economy in my limited experience has been closer to the front. Even if you shift it towards the center, you suddenly have a section of the plane that's far heavier than the rest. (Not to mention higher)

The article was really quite brief, but I'd love to learn how that issue would be addressed.

<comment><USER18> The claimed weight is 50kg per unit - more than a modern aircraft seat but not dramatically so to the extent it's likely to unbalance anything - and they seat the same number of passengers per metre of cabin. The bigger question is how on earth they expect to get an airline safety certification for something involving passengers sitting high above the cabin floor and accessing the aisle by sliding out ladder in the middle of it

<comment><USER19> Trains have bunks and ladders and move around a whole lot more violently than planes.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, I have to disagree here. Trains do not make multi-meter sudden vertical movements.

At any rate, the concern is about egress in an emergency. In a train, every window is an emergency exit. In a plane everyone has to go down the aisle to the nearest exit. The ladders are in the aisle during use and will inhibit that process. They could of course disable the ladders during an emergency so people would have to jump or climb down, but that would certainly lead to injuries and other mishaps that would also inhibit the escape process.

Hard to see the FAA certifying this unless the aisles are made wider. That would reduce overall packing density, so there goes airline's interest in the approach.

It is beautiful in concept. Who wouldn't want to get horizontal during that redeye back to the east coast or the long haul to Japan? Its just hard to see the profitable and safe path to adoption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It looks a terrible design to me. I'd rather go for minimal changes to economy seats to improve the "low hanging fruit" problems that humans have when traveling.

An example? Staggered seats to avoid "elbowing" or "shouldering" \- common problem in the US where people are "bigger" than elsewhere, compared to e.g. Asia.

Who am I? A CS engineer with ~1,000 flights in the last 12 years, ~97% in economy, all over the world except Antartica. My comment here is simply based on some common sense. No specific skillset.

<comment><USER22> "elbowing" or "shouldering" could be eliminated by small vertical separators. These doesn't need to be big - just something separating elbow space and shoulder space to prevent spilling one passenger's body over to another's space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This got announced in tandem with a bunk bed design - see Air New Zealand's skynest. You get more comfy bunk beds, but can't really sit. Would be good for overnight long hauls, I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> The skynest is being proposed as an additional service you can book (not sure if it will be paid or free). So you will have your normal seat, and then get a certain number of hours in the skynest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting, but airlines aren't going to invest in upgrading their planes unless they can raise prices (and get more money). Thus, the best case scenario is that this becomes the new business class or something. The success of low-cost carriers like Spirit have shown that people prefer cheap tickets over better service or more comfort.

Maybe they'll take it to an extreme and start stacking the current seats without increasing the amount of personal space.

<comment><USER25> Correct - the article lists these as premium economy. It may make sense for an airline to replace 15% of sets with these and charge more. I would certainly pay another $100 for one of these on a 12+ hour flight (as would my employer).

<comment><USER26> Premium economy is not typically another $100 - it's generally 2-4x the cost of economy.

<comment><USER27> My biggest "problem" with premium economy is simply that it's always full. My flights are always a week out or less, and every single time it's completely full, leaving me with some near lav middle seat. It's like I want to give them money, but can't.

<comment><USER26> I don't fly regularly any more, but I did for several years (mostly long haul), and I found the same thing - even if economy was only half-full, premium economy was almost always full.

A side effect also meant it was almost impossible to use airline points to upgrade from economy, since the number of "reward" seats is very limited anyway, and always seems to be "zero" on popular routes.

At the time, I always wished they would increase their premium capacity at the expense of losing some economy seats, which I figured would have reduced the cost of premium economy a bit too.

<comment><USER27> Same thought I had. It's crazy to me they aren't expanding premium economy row by row til it's not filling up. It's often nearly double the cost, but doesn't nearly take up double the room. I think they'll actually find they can expand to infinity, as consumers are willing to pay money to not suffer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> In a worst case scenario event, I'm not sure I want to have to evacuate from a smoke filled cabin and have a ladder involved in the process. Seems like a risk for falls/breaks/sprains if you're trying to peace out of the plane quickly.

<comment><USER29> I'd take that chance any day for a much more comfortable flight. Very rarely do you even have the chance to escape when something is wrong with your plane while it's in the air.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> There are clear disability concerns here.

<comment><USER31> Why would there be if you're on the bottom level?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> If this gets adopted, I give it <10 years before someone has the bright idea to return seat size to current values while doubling capacity by adding the second story.

</comment><comment><USER33> If this doesn't require widening the aisle, then a ladder in it is in foul of thousands of airline safety regulations.

If they need widen the aisle, there goes the cost savings for seat capacity, or narrower seats.

</comment><comment><USER34> Pretty much all the margins of a flight come from business class. If you fly economy class, your value to <Airline> comes from walking past business class and maybe being upsold.

<comment><USER35> This is no longer true, as many companies have downgraded employee travel to premium or basic economy.

Many airlines don't even have a business section anymore, and the business fare just confers an earlier boarding priority.

<comment><USER36> You won't find any major international carrier without a proper business class. Business is so good that it essentially killed first class on all but few routes. Ticket prices reflects this, with business class around 5x the cost of economy and premium economy splits them in the middle.

<comment><USER37> Most international flight businesses class experiences are just economy class with very slightly more legroom, earlier boarding, guaranteed use of overhead bins to avoid gate checking bags, and sometimes a really low-quality free alcoholic drink.

5 or 6 years ago it was different and business class had a separate section with much roomier seats with more storage, upgraded entertainment, meals and alcohol options, and for large enough flights sometimes even a separate entrance.

You are right that ticket prices can be 5x economy (probably more like 2x or 3x usually, 5x on crowded flights). But these higher prices are only for the "slightly more legroom and early bin access" tier. The quality has gone down while the prices keep shooting up.

I've also noticed that when I paid for business class flights before, if any delays or issues came up for the flight, I would get comprehensive and immediate customer assistance to rectify it, usually even free transfers to more expensive flights or very generous hotel and meal vouchers, no questions asked.

In the last two years I've had several issues with flight cancellations or delays and business class fares confer no advantage. No customer support, no free upgrades or transfers, and you have to set your dignity aside and act like a crazy angry person if you want even the smallest concession from the airline on hotel or meal vouchers - and this has been consistent across every major international airline.

<comment><USER38> Don't know which airline you've been flying but business class on most of the planes I've been flying is a lie flat bed

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Has there ever been a newspaper article "New seat design" that has actually ended up with a new seat design in production?

If there a list of these weekly stories?

Out their idea, anyone can design seats including aircraft manufactures, so if it works they will just do it themselves, except they know what regulations to follow and what passengers will actually want.

Same with the monthly better boarding stories.

</comment><comment><USER40> How can this possibly work with the (immensely sensible) FAA complete evacuation time rules? It's already challenging to get people evacuated in a sensible amount of time without people having to use ladders. The ladders make leaving the seat harder as it is, and then you have people going against the evacuation flow (they're blocking the aisles while they climb down).

</comment><comment><USER41> Any numbers on how this impacts evacuation in an emergency?

</comment><comment><USER42> Realistically—if this ever gets approved by regulators—airlines will just sell this as business class.

</comment><comment><USER43> One thing that would really help is to charge oversized passengers more than right-sized passengers, and have separate seating areas. One of the most uncomfortable things about flying coach is having to sit next to an oversized person.

</comment><comment><USER44> Deregulation was a mistake. It turns out that flight paths are a scarce resource, and race to the bottom results in planes that are miserable to fly in. Reregulate the prices, add a carbon tax, and bring back in flight meals.

<comment><USER45> If by "race to the bottom" you mean making flying more affordable for everyone, then I agree.

Tickets are a fraction of what they were in the 70's due to deregulation. And in terms of comfort, based on how full flights are, it seem like airlines have struck the right comfort versus price balance.

<comment><USER19> If by "balance" you mean that they found the maximum amount of pain they can inflict before mob violence breaks out.

<comment><USER46> Lower prices and less space per person means more people get to fly. And it's not like air travel is a high-profit industry. Regulating airlines to force them to raise prices and provide more space per customer is obviously evil by any sensible definition. I'm not even some sort of free-market zealot. Forcing an important product to become more exclusionary via regulation to improve the quality for non-marginal users is bad policy and also morally wrong. Raising airfare means that people on the margin are not going to be able to travel to see their dying relatives, visit family on holidays, travel for vacation, etc.

<comment><USER44> Or maybe people won't move as far from their relatives in the first place. You can't just assume that more flying is better. Flying has complicated effects on society. It also has an effect on the environment, and the evidence there is overwhelming that it is a negative effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Hard pass. Just looks way more uncomfortable for everyone.

Way better solution is what's already being rolled out, optional bunk beds below deck.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is seems like a good idea but it's way too dangerous.

<comment><USER49> It's all fun and games until someone spills their hot coffee from the upper level.

<comment><USER50> Coffee? That's not so bad. I'd be worried about it raining vomit. Its already bad enough when fluids start flowing along the floor, hitting the coats and smaller bags stowed below seats.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Is there a link which doesn't use a cookie wall?

</comment><comment><USER52> LOL.

Twice the passengers; same number of restrooms.

I wonder if the extra airline profits will cover the possible payout of a lawsuit where a mother's lap baby twists out of her arms and plonks six feet down onto the hard aluminum floor.

I can't wait for the first flyertalk post asking how many air miles they should get as compensation for being urinated on by a passenger overhead, or dealing with a gassy passenger overhead.

Too funny.

<comment><USER8> It's not twice the number of passengers it's the _same_ amount of passengers as today's premium economy?

Is the article really that cryptic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This doesn't look like an improvement - I'd feel even more closed in with this configuration.

If you're in a bottom seat, you've got someone's, well, bottom, right in your face - not a very appealing prospect.

They also don't recline, which will make sleeping impossible or very difficult on long haul flights.

I also wonder about this from a safety perspective in the even of an evacuation - I imagine you'd have panicked passengers in the top seats jumping down onto those below.

And finally, even if these seats have a bigger pitch (more leg room) as a concept, airlines will simply cram more in, while keeping the same, horrible pitch of 30-32". That's not a problem with any particular design, of course, but it's what any airline is unfortunately going to do.

<comment><USER53> > They also don't recline, which will make sleeping impossible or very > difficult on long haul flights

None of the static images show it, but at the end of the video it shows that there is space on the window side so that you can actually lie down across you seat with your legs going into that space.

<comment><USER26> Ah, OK, I hadn't watched the video - then it might actually be a real improvement.</comment></comment></comment>


Top Ten Things that Math Probability Says about the Real World - <AUTHOR> http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Top_Ten/talk.html

<comment><USER2> I hereby volunteer to help the author set up a word press blog. Interesting stuff, but worst web page ever.

There was no email address on that web site, so maybe someone could forward my offer please.

<comment><USER3> It's not that hard to read. Plain is good - though it does look rather awkward on my widescreen.

Copy and paste the text into Word or OpenOffice if it's that bad :)

<comment><USER2> What about the pdf popups?

<comment><USER4> Those didn't bother me, because I couldn't be bothered with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> good content, horrible presentation. (a fellow academic!)

Simply numbering the list (or bulleting it) would have been an enormous step forward, regardless of whether you use w3m or IE8. Even by conference-poster standards, this is pretty grim.

</comment><comment><USER6> I didn't have a problem with the layout, since I tend to use lynx. I thought it was a shame, though, that the author isn't a better writer. The content is fascinating, but it took some effort to follow along. (I guess I'm too accustomed to PG and JS :)

</comment><comment><USER7> very interesting. thanks for the post.</comment>


Ask HK: How do you design a sql table schema when you expect it to change? - <AUTHOR> An example would be you're doing a prototype for a startup, but you're not sure what the complete schema would look like in the near future.<p>I would normally use nosql or postgresql and put them in a jsonb. However, in this scenario I am stuck with mysql 5.5-5.6 without ORMs <comment><USER2> A lot of the time, I'll use a mapped column that is xml/json, for additional fields that don't need to be queried directly against...

A great example of this for me was with payments where it may be paypal, amazon payments or cc via another vendor. In this way, I don't need a bunch of custom fields that I'll never query on, just a generic additional field. In this way, I'll often write an abstraction class against my ORM to handle this, and then have properties that get/set against the underlying JSON data/object field.

This is what you've done here... that said, any specific features of a single platform will mean pain in migration. If you _must_ support multiple backends, then you should create an abstraction and a factory as appropriate. As much as I hated MS Enterprise Library's Data Application Blocks, supporting multiple backends was a problem it did help resolve.

As nibs mentions, you should probably use an ORM that takes care of most of the differences between backends.

TBH though, depending on the type of data you're using, I might start with a simple record store nosql server (rethinkdb, for example), and only migrate if/when needed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I was thinking of using mysql+nosql. RethinkDb was my main choice, but I'd rather have someone take care of the backend for me like a DAAS, mostly to alleviate the pain of doing a project solo, but compose seems too expensive to use to prototype some ideas.

<comment><USER2> Agreed, if you don't mind getting locked into a platform, AWS, Azure, and Google all have options for varying no-sql/search and/or big-table data stores... but ymmv there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear ya! I'm ultimately going to go with the strategy that you've mentioned. NoSql+Sql with Google and just write my ORMs and wrappers. Thanks for the advice!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Would be to use an ORM that supports PostgreSQL and MySQL, this has helped me with migrations in the past

2\. Would be write really strong tests and migrate the test server database before you push update to production

I am by no means an expert, but doing these things helped me successfully address database model iterations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, I realized I shouldn't use ORMs.

Using a load balancer will be a complementary with #2</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Sources of people for very early app testing - <AUTHOR>

Hi,<p>Does anyone know places for early app testing? E.g People who are just interested in giving something new a try? <comment><USER2> I think the trick is to build something people want, and you'll have plenty of people to test it out for you. If you are having a hard time finding people to test your app, then perhaps it's not something that is going to catch on. Just my $0.02.

</comment><comment><USER3> BetaList is what you're looking for.

[http://betalist.com/](http://betalist.com/)</comment>


Startup Visa - <AUTHOR> http://nat.org/blog/2009/10/startup-visa/

<comment><USER2> I used to be involved in some European youth NGO work. Getting participants from outside the Schengen in, just for non-work visits, is also a big nuisance. So at a meeting we adopted a resolution to be put in front of the relevant EU officials that a special youth NGO visa should be put in place (not surprisingly, nothing happened).

If it was, it would have been nice for us, but I have roughly the same feeling then than I have towards this: "We" (not me since I'm not a US citizen and as such don't really get to lobby the US government) are lobbying for something that good for us and "our" people by arguing it's for the greater good of society. But in fact, were we to get this adopted, we'd only further complicate a complicated and broken system.

"Me too" exceptions are poisoning pretty much all areas of the political system in most of the "first" world, and only serves to get in the way of actual reform.

I'd love to come to the US and work for a startup. But I won't subject myself to the uncertainty of having to leave the country immediately if I were to leave that company. The same goes for a transfer under L1. If you want me, I'll come, but don't make me jump through bureaucracy hoops that no-one remembers what are for anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't have a college degree ... I don't because I didn't had enough money and had to get a job. I also live in a European country, and living in Silicon Valley would be like a dream come true (having around you smart people that share your passion must be great).

Unfortunately the world is still looking up to these college degrees as an exclusive guarantee of some sort. I know that college graduates had opportunities to learn and interact with real mentors and everything, I know some of them worked really hard for that degree ... but there are also many graduates that haven't learned anything and wasted their time and resources, going through exams by gaming the system. I also know that in some colleges in my country you can bribe the dean to get that degree in a couple of days.

One day someone offered to hire me to work for the government ... he was impressed with my online resume. The offered salary was one fourth as I was earning at my job. I told him I didn't had a college degree and he never spoke to me again ... there are times when I consider my lack of a degree as an asset.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you that there are a lot of people who are extremely valuable to an economy despite not having a degree. However I would suggest that a degree is still a good bar to have in place.

\- The average quality of the with-degree pool is subject to a lower bound, which helps reduce the number of applicants to a manageable level. This is important because there are a lot of potential applicants out there, too many to humanly sort through in any kind of fair way.

\- Getting a degree is mostly based on merit and effort. There are exceptions but in a great deal of the world a sufficiently motivated person can scrape together enough money to get a degree. I can't think of another verifiable discriminator that can be used worldwide where that can be said to be true.

Certainly in a European country where degrees tend to be highly subsidized (my BEng and MEng cost me less than $25k in total, all of which was covered by government loans) making someone get one before you look at them for immigration or some types of jobs doesn't seem unwarranted.

<comment><USER5> _I agree with you that there are a lot of people who are extremely valuable to an economy despite not having a degree. However I would suggest that a degree is still a good bar to have in place._

Why is a degree any less of an arbitrary requirement than requiring extensive real-world experience (thus restricting opportunities available to many recent graduates)?

I think it's simply naive and foolish to exclude candidates based _entirely_ on secondary indicators of their skills. First-pass filtering is easy enough based on primary indicators.

Moreover, due to the rapid increase of college attendance post WWII (starting with the introduction of the GI bill), college degrees are no longer a rarity -- without further context, they are not really a suitable secondary indicator of much of anything. Now you have to get a phd to stand out from the crowd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The college requirement on H1-B visas is broken. But believing that doesn't require me to believe that "Startup Visas" are a good idea. If we want to foster more startups in the US, we should fix health care. Far more potential startups are killed because their founders can't give up company health care for their families than are killed because their foreign founders can't get visas.

<comment><USER7> Health care and the complications of the US tax code.

<comment><USER6> What part of the US tax code retards startups? From what I can tell, for people who are aggressive about taxes, it helps them: search YC for "S-Corporation" and "reasonable salary".

I've _never_ heard someone say "I was going to start a company, but the tax situation is all screwed up." On the other hand, I have heard "I was going to join a startup, but I can't give up my health insurance" several times in the last few months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jared Polis of Colorado is already on board. My cofounder is Canadian.

We invite promising college students so I think it's time we stepped up and invited promising people who skip college.</comment>


A Study Path for Game Programmer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/miloyip/game-programmer <comment><USER2> follow your dreams i suppose, but aren't game programmers the most miserable developers, because of market pressures?

i have found that lowly SQL pays the bills quite nicely, and leaves plenty of time for side projects</comment>


Ask HN: What ever happened with the TrueCrypt shutdown? - <AUTHOR> I haven't heard anything since the first few forum posts. Did we ever figure out definitively if it was a hack, information operation, canary, dead man's switch or what? <comment><USER2> Conjecture: TrueCrypt was developed by mainly by one person. This person did write TrueCrypt to encrypt his WinXP Laptop/PC, but does not need it anymore now, because he can now use Bitlocker.

TrueCrypt is a consumer facing Open Source project. Those rarely have a large developer community and seldom get patches. Most successful ones are backed by corporate interests (Firefox, Eclipse, VirtualBox, ...).

Having no need of TrueCrypt himself, no other developer in the community to whom he could entrust the project and faced with drudgery the like he probably also has at his job (except he gets payed there), he probably did not want to continue developing and improving TrueCrypt (e.g. EFI support).

At this point. Since it is a critical security product there is no other option then to warn of all users. If there is a fork, it has to earn its reputation first.

I view truecrypt.ch as a bad development, since a) TrueCrypt is trademarked by the developer and b) the TrueCrypt license explicitly says that you cannot fork the project without renaming it to something other than TrueCrypt.

See [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm](https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm) "And then the TrueCrypt developers were heard from . . ."

<comment><USER3> Who is going to complain if someone uses TrueCrypt's name? Can anonymous people retain copy rights over their work?

<comment><USER4> Yes, they can. Enforcing those rights is more difficult if you wish to _remain_ anonymous, but still possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Steve Gibson has also made the TrueCryptⓇ Final Release Repository at [https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm](https://www.grc.com/misc/truecrypt/truecrypt.htm)

I had to use this mirror recently as there are already bad copies floating about; it is a trusted hosting for the last ungimped version for windows and linux. check the hashes n' sigs!

</comment><comment><USER6> The best of all the conspiracy theories was [http://pastebin.com/9catw4X7](http://pastebin.com/9catw4X7).

<comment><USER7> Wow. I'm going to spread that one around:)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is this person claiming "I can confirm presence of TrueCrypt duress canary as per 2004 conversation."

There were a bunch of other tweets with further details, but those seem to have been deleted.

[https://twitter.com/AlyssaRowan/status/472303977997279232](https://twitter.com/AlyssaRowan/status/472303977997279232)

Note: I am not claiming this is necessarily true.

<comment><USER9> I don't know anyone who works in cryptography who thinks those twerps were credible. Do you? I'd be interested in a name.

<comment><USER8> A developer for tor (@puellavulnerata) retweeted this. That is the only claim to it's credibility that I know of

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Following [http://truecrypt.ch/](http://truecrypt.ch/) and [https://twitter.com/TrueCryptNext](https://twitter.com/TrueCryptNext) is a good resource to get new information on this case at the moment.

I haven't come across any new and definite information since the hack/shutdown.

<comment><USER11> So a random developer with 4 years of experience teamed up with a Drupal developer to take leadership of this project?

This is pretty sad/funny.

<comment><USER12> What about the fact its his first C project on Github?

<comment><USER13> That doesn't necessarily mean anything. Github is very, very new relative to C development. There are programmers who had coded in C for decades before Github even existed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I would encourage you to listen to Steve Gibson's Security Now podcast on Twit. But the gist is TrueCrypt has not been hacked. Take a listen to the "TrueCrypt WTF?" episode.

[http://twit.tv/show/security-now](http://twit.tv/show/security-now)

</comment><comment><USER15> It was discredited. Mission accomplished!</comment>


Turkish student made porno film as his dissertation project - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12142630

<comment><USER2> Actual title (which gives a better idea of what the article is about):

 _Turkish academics sacked over porn dissertation project_

Article closes with:

 _Turkey is now the world's fifteenth biggest economy; its people are more prosperous and more exposed to outside influences than ever before.

Boundaries are constantly being tested. But when they are, sometimes there is a powerful reaction._</comment>


Microsoft Edge gets native ECMAScript 7 async/await support in latest build - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/eternalcoding/archive/2015/09/30/javascript-goes-to-asynchronous-city.aspx <comment><USER2> The first time I heard of async/await was actually with Microsoft C#; so I'm not too surprised to see them prioritize this feature in JS land.

...which is cool, because using async/await in C# made me realize how much simpler dealing with async code could be (compared to my experience with JS callbacks or Java threads).

<comment><USER3> I'm a little sad the async/await model is winning over. I really prefer Go's CSP. It can do everything the async/await model can, plus "streaming" API's. I dig (sorta) C#'s async/await, but I still don't see why it's "winning" over other, better models...

<comment><USER4> The one advantage of C#'s async/await over Go's CSP is that by exposing the underlying Tasks, you can take more control over how the continuations get executed. The result of this is that it's easy to have async code that all runs on the same thread (usually the UI thread) even while it calls a function makes a network request that gets scheduled to a background thread.

Go's model doesn't give you as much control over which thread a particular operation gets assigned to. It's not theoretically impossible, I suppose, but it's hard to imagine what a simple API for it would look like.

But yes, if this particular problem were solved in an elegant way, I would also prefer the CSP model. It makes it so you don't have to worry about which operations are async or not.

<comment><USER5> A huge problem with C#'s Async feature that I hope gets resolved (and, obviously that this failure pattern is not ported to Javascript): Explicitly blocking during a function that uses async somewhere inside (a sub-function) will cause your application to deadlock. It is extremely surprising that .NET does not handle this (abet novice) design mistake in a graceful way. (For example, checking if a thread is blocked before attempting to schedule tasks to it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For anyone unfamiliar with JS, async/await is about the best JavaScript will ever get:

        var orders = await getJSON('/users/joe/orders');

No callbacks, promises etc (Edit: that you have to look at, as other posters note the implementation uses promises in the background).

You still have to explicitly say you want to be async, so it's not quite as good as non-blocking IO in something like Elixir, but it's the future as far as JS goes.

<comment><USER7> _There are promises there_ , it just hides it. All async functions return a promise, and `await` works with promises builtin. It's basically the same thing as generators, without the `function*` syntax.

Which is unfortunate because async/await only works with promises, and if you want any other async model (like one that doesn't eat errors all the time) you can't use it. Luckily, generators are fine.

<comment><USER8> What do you mean by "if you want any other async model you can't use it"? I know you can write whatever code you want, but promises are supposed to be the _standard_ way of signaling completion of asynchronous operations in javascript.

This is the same as saying that "arrow functions only works if you want to represent functions".

Also, promises don't eat errors. It's the code using those promises that _forget_ to handle them.

The async/await fixes that by unwrapping those errors for you. Any errors in an "await expression" will be thrown as exceptions up the stack.

<comment><USER7> > What do you mean by "if you want any other async model you can't use it"?

Promises are not the only way to do async work in JS, as much as some people like to say that. You have observables and channels, which are more powerful because they handle streaming.

There are proposals to make async/await more composable: [https://github.com/jhusain/compositional- functions](https://github.com/jhusain/compositional-functions). TC39 is aware of this but I'm not sure if they are going to fix it or not.

> Also, promises don't eat errors. It's the code using those promises that > forget to handle them.

They literally do. They run your code in a try/catch block and store the error away, and you have to remember yourself to manually throw it later. You shouldn't be forced to run code inside a try/catch. [http://jlongster.com/Stop-Trying-to-Catch-Me](http://jlongster.com/Stop- Trying-to-Catch-Me)

<comment><USER9> > _I don 't care about awkward .then() syntax. I don't mind automatic error > propagation. I don't care having to call .done() on a promise chain. I don't > care about losing the stack (which is inherent in any async work). I care > that promises grab all errors, just like try/catch._

You should stop caring about that and start caring about the other stuff.

"Breakpoint on exception" still works, albeit slightly altered, and in any way it's a minor detail compared to the far better mental model for code execution that async and promises bring.

> _I want to make stupid typo errors and have them appear as normal errors, > not caught by promises._

For stupid typo errors use a linter and/or a transpiler like babel in the first place.

> _It 's cool, I just don't understand why everyone is so excited about a > simple syntactic improvement._

Because better syntax brings code closer to how we think, and reduces errors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those wanting to use async/await _everywhere_ , _right now_ , it can be transpiled using Babel or similar (in Babel you need to enable the "es7.asyncFunctions" feature: [https://babeljs.io/docs/advanced/transformers/#es7-experimen...](https://babeljs.io/docs/advanced/transformers/#es7-experimental-) )

<comment><USER11> Current versions of Babel default to having es7.asyncFunctions enabled.

<comment><USER12> Serms like I still need --optional runtime and babel-runtime though, right?

<comment><USER11> You need to do that, or include the global polyfill: [https://babeljs.io/docs/usage/polyfill/](https://babeljs.io/docs/usage/polyfill/).

If you're writing a library, use the runtime option. If you're writing a website or other standalone app, you should use the polyfill (especially if you use other libraries like React which depend on ES6 globals too).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Firefox has had this for over 6 years through my async.js[1] library that relied in JavaScript 1.7's pythonic iterators and generators. The syntax is similar, as you have to mark/encapsulate functions with async() to use the library.

1\. [https://github.com/eligrey/async.js](https://github.com/eligrey/async.js)

<comment><USER14> You may want to consider renaming your library. There's already a very popular lib with the same name: [https://github.com/caolan/async](https://github.com/caolan/async)

Edit: it appears that the caolan async lib came out after yours. Sorry for the confusion.

<comment><USER13> Don't you mean the other way around? Mine was out years before theirs. They should have googled the words "async.js" (which my lib was the top result for prior to caolan's repo) before naming their project.

<comment><USER15> Years? Really? Not to nit, but the only way "years" is accurate here is if you mean "0.3 years".

Your first commit was that January and Caolan's was that May, and when yours was "out" is debatable anyway since you don't have any releases tagged.

I would hardly feel obligated to rename a project over a 4-month-old Github repository that doesn't even target the same platform (Firefox vs. async being originally Node-only).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I guess I'll take this occasion to post this: [http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color- is-y...](http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your- function/)

Which argues that async/await might not be what we really want in the end. As a user of Promises and async/await in the future, it's a very interesting read!

<comment><USER17> It's a great blog post, but be careful what you wish for. If you have true preemptive threading as in Java or Go, a race condition can happen anywhere. I suspect many JavaScript developers would be sad about not having atomic event handling by default and having to learn to code much more carefully.

Even in Java UI frameworks like on Android or Swing, you have an event loop with a single thread, and when spawning another thread you have to deal with special communication layers [1]. True multithreaded UI's seem like an area for research.

[1] [https://developer.android.com/training/multiple- threads/comm...](https://developer.android.com/training/multiple- threads/communicate-ui.html)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, the event loop can be a constraint but it's easier to think about and harder to mess up compared threads or channels. And really how much are you giving up? Most of the things you actually want to wait on have an async api. Maybe I just haven't built complex enough things, but I've never had to reach for web workers because of performance concerns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We're moving Koa to be ready for async functions. Does anyone know whether async functions will have an arrow function form?

[https://github.com/koajs/compose/pull/27#issuecomment-144868...](https://github.com/koajs/compose/pull/27#issuecomment-144868219)

<comment><USER20> Yes - async functions do have an arrow form: [http://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/#prod- AsyncArrow...](http://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/#prod- AsyncArrowFunction).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you'd like to follow along on the Firefox side, CC yourself on [https://bugzil.la/1185106](https://bugzil.la/1185106)

</comment><comment><USER22> I feel like Microsoft doing this is their new attempt at trying to dominate how the web will be shaped. I know the likelihood of async/await being bundled with ES7/ES2016 is pretty high but lets say it gets delayed for further review, is Microsoft going to wait until these specs are "official" before releasing it into standard non-preview Edge or are they just going to rush it as fast as possible, pat themselves on the back and then shrug their shoulders when their syntax is completely different from the actual ES7 implementation?

async/await is important and highly desired by the community, but I would prefer if it were not Microsoft trying to blast ahead and create yet another separate fragmentation between browsers. Sure they call it an experimental feature, but how long until they decide, "well we're not going to wait for this to get finalized, we're releasing it for everyone!!!" ?

</comment><comment><USER23> Finally, a way out of callback hell. Now, make this work with IndexedDB and I might revisit IDB.

<comment><USER24> Here's some work towards that: [https://github.com/inexorabletash/indexeddb- promises](https://github.com/inexorabletash/indexeddb-promises)

Still a ways to go, though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm surprised to see Microsoft put a higher priority for async/await than finalized ES2015 spec. Some of ES6 stuff are still missing in Edge.

As a side note, I don't like how async/await has to be wrapped in try/catch AND a function for proper error handling

        (async ()=>
          try {
            let result = await fetch('/file.json');
            let json = await result.json();
            console.log(json):
          } catch(error) {
            console.error('Not sure fetch failed or toJson');
          }
        )();

if you want to handle each error separately you need even more try catch!

<comment><USER8> To be fair, all browsers are still missing ES6 features and all of them have newer stuff being implemented.

As for the try catch, you don't NEED to wrap. The sample just shows you can. You can't do:

      try {
          promise.then(() => ...);
      } catch {}

but you can do

      try {
          await promise;
          ...
      } catch {}

async/await is a way to write simpler code the same way you would use a "for" block instead of a "while(iterator.next())" \- because it's easier, all the rest is still the same.

<comment><USER25> You need to wrap in try/catch if you want to handle the errors, which is the same for sync functions that throw to be fair. But most of async operations are somehow expected to fail due to their nature (like network calls) and people usually want to have error handling scenarios. But for sync functions we usually let the error terminate the program because if a sync function throws in runtime it means something is wrong in my program, not in networking...

<comment><USER8> > You need to wrap in try/catch if you want to handle the errors.

Of course, the same way you need to add a second callback to a promise handler if you want to handle errors. There is no difference, really. You're just changing the way you write the code.

Also, you're not forced to choose "await or promises". You can use both as you see fit, in the same block:

       async () => {
          // make 2 requests in parallel
          var p1 = fetchSomething();
          var p2 = fetchAnotherThing();

          // wait for both of them to be done
          await Promise.all(p1, p2);

          // continue when they're both resolved
          // these "await" only get the values since the promises are resolved
          doSomethingWithTheValues(await p1, await p2);
       }

> But for sync functions we usually let the error terminate the program > because if a sync function throws in runtime it means something is wrong in > my program, not in networking

This is just the way you're choosing to see the problem. Promises can be used for anything, it's not tied to networking. I usually write promises that will be resolved when a modal window closes or when an application event happens.

It's just a simpler way to write code. The way you use it is up to you.

Also, async/await makes debugging a lot easier. The debugger can understand that the next expression after an "await" is supposed to be in the same function context. No more adding breakpoints to the callback function because only you know how the code is called at runtime. You debug async functions as normal functions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I wish the we were getting F#'s computation expressions+asynchronous workflows (monad sugar) instead of C#'s async/await.

<comment><USER27> You could try funscript[1]:

"F# to JavaScript with type providers

FunScript is a lightweight F# library that lets you rapidly develop single- page applications. You can connect to external data sources and call REST APIs with intellisense, produce dashboards using JavaScript visualization libraries and write asynchronous computations easily without explicit callbacks."

[1] [http://funscript.info/](http://funscript.info/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'd be curious about one potential downside to this (v8 specific, maybe others too)

Functions that contain a try/catch cannot currently be optimized by V8. If we migrate to using try/catch rather than `.then/.catch`, I wonder if there's going to be any perf implications since previously optimizable functions may no longer be optimized.

</comment><comment><USER29> "await" will not help you if you do not understand the asynchronous nature. I think it's a unnecessary abstraction. And it's much easier to follow callbacks if you abstract them like this:

      socket.on("data", echo); // calls the echo function when data arrives

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm heavy Dart with dart2js user. Dart has await/async from few releases

It is really a relief when it comes to multiple AJAX/UI dependant logic eg.

if(await showDialog("get coffe ?") == "yes"){

      results = await getCoffeFromServer();

} else { ... }

</comment><comment><USER31> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10310932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10310932).

</comment><comment><USER32> Now if they would implement the HTML5 file drag & drop api like _literally every other modern browser_ then may be people would actually use Edge.

<comment><USER33> O the tone of MS harping on about what Edge is doing feels like smoke and mirrors to me whilst IE11 will remain one of our lowest common denominators for some time. I respect that a team would love to forget about IE11, but MS is the only company that has any control over it... so whilst they dazzle people with c# style syntactical sugar and pushing typescript (which we will have to compile down to ES5 anyway) I find it hard to get excited about Edge.

Get the basics done right first imvho. I don't want developers staying late to try and understand why something isn't working in a MS browser anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> But it's still "just IE", right? Right guys?

Seriously though. I think that argument is losing steam every time I do testing with Edge. It gets updated. It _feels_ different.

Unless somebody were to tell me both IE and Edge belong to the same browser family, I wouldn't be and to tell.

I'd say it's fair to call it a new browser.

<comment><USER35> Canvas performance still pretty awful compared to more modern browsers. Source: [http://www.networkworld.com/article/2979845/microsoft- subnet...](http://www.networkworld.com/article/2979845/microsoft- subnet/microsoft-edge-browser-performance-test-chrome-firefox-internet- explorer.html)

<comment><USER8> Just being picky, but because Edge was released after all other browsers, technically there isn't any other "more modern browser". There are just the other browsers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Do we have an ES7 compiler to ES6 that can handle these new features? Whilst I prefer cljs, sometimes the weight of clojurescript output and tooling can be a little offputting for smaller tasks, but callbacks/promises etc.. are rarely enjoyed

<comment><USER37> [https://babeljs.io/](https://babeljs.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Leaving the Edge news aside, that article starts off by defining event listeners as callbacks, which is awfully weird.</comment>


Ask HN: Best setup for small GPU farm - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I'm working on a project that trains neural nets. I've been using EC2 instances to train with but I need something full time in house.
Desktop gaming rigs to start with, I'm thinking. Any recommendations? <comment><USER2> [http://graphific.github.io/posts/building-a-deep-learning- dr...](http://graphific.github.io/posts/building-a-deep-learning-dream- machine/)

[http://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/06/build-deep-learning- box.htm...](http://www.kdnuggets.com/2016/06/build-deep-learning-box.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> What is the budget for hardware?

What is the budget for power?

How many flops are required?</comment>


Why an "unlimited" plan is toxic for your SaaS - <AUTHOR> https://baremetrics.io/blog/never-offer-unlimited

<comment><USER2> I do not entirely agree with Josh here.

The reason why you offer unlimited plans is you have studied your customer lifetime value. If you have scientifically conclude that a your CLV falls X, you can consider playing around offering "unlimited" plans base on CLV averages.

One thing you also have consider is that you can offer some form of limitation on "unlimited" such as, support is free for the first year, or upgrades to major version not included.

There's a lot to mix and match with unlimited, but do not cut it out of the possibilities in marketing.</comment>


Helicopter Takes Off With the Power of Human Thought - <AUTHOR> http://www.healthline.com/health-news/tech-brain-controlled-helicopter-takes-off-in-minnesota-060613

<comment><AUTHOR> Hell yes! I can fly my own goddamn tacos to myself.</comment>


Tips on giving a big speech - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/10/10-tips-for-giving-an-important-speech.html

<comment><USER2> In over a decade of public speaking experience, the biggest bang for the buck I've ever gotten was about eye contact. First, do it. Second, pick three people in the audience (left, center, right) to do it with. Speak individually to each one, rotating to the next after about a paragraph, cycling as many times as required. While you're speaking to someone, they are your proxy for the audience: if she nods the audience is nodding, if she laughs the audience is laughing, if she looks confused the audience is confused. Adjust as required.

Here's how the audience perceives what you're doing: everyone will think you spent roughly one third of the speech talking to them, specifically, which is enough to be flattering but not enough to be creepy. The constant movement of attention means you keep moving [+] and don't stare at one person for the entire speech. Your audience will come away with a feeling of closeness and emotional rapport because you were "listening" to them during the speech via your proxies.

\+ Don't give a speech seated or standing behind a podium/lectern: weak speakers have a tendency to hide, and the body language tends to come across as fidgeting even when it isn't.

<comment><USER3> Likewise, that's some of the best advice on speaking I've gotten too. I always picked five people - front right, front middle, front left, back mid-left, and back mid-right, and just cycle through them. If you know one of the people personally, all the better - they're more likely to give you a little nod or otherwise encourage.

Definitely move around.

Also, people forget - first and foremost, you've got be entertaining. If you're informing but not entertaining, people will tune out. Energy levels higher than normal. It's hard to have too high energy so long as you're not out of control. It's very easy to have too low of energy. Rarely has a speech been bad because the talker was too enthusiastic (I know there's memorable counterexamples, but they're really truly the exception).

<comment><USER4> _Rarely has a speech been bad because the talker was too enthusiastic (I know there's memorable counterexamples, but they're really truly the exception)._

 _Very_ few people even have the capacity to cross the line between "enthusiastic" and "Ballmeresque".

Even then, many of the exceptions only look silly on video, which is naturally out of context. Howard Dean seemed way too enthusiastic in this clip (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc>) but from the crowd itself it was a lot different (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQh0BEUlJWY>).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's easier to give a long speech. In Toastmasters contests, the time limit is 7 minutes and 30 seconds. I used to own a couple DVDs of the World Champion of Public Speaking competition. At that highest level, the content, delivery, timing, story, presentation are all super polished and honed to a sharp edge. Yes, they all tend to be a tad too motivational but that's what the best speeches tend to be (and the best speakers aspire to be...).

Here are a couple examples (from the same guy - most of the winning public speakers seem to now professionally coach speakers for a living and don't share their speech videos online):

[http://darrenlacroix.com/2010/06/darren-lacroixs-winning- toa...](http://darrenlacroix.com/2010/06/darren-lacroixs-winning-toastmasters- speech-at-nsa/)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qovsP1aaEQY>

</comment><comment><USER6> Having talked at many conferences there are a bunch things I do:

# Practice, seems simple but when I don't then it will not be as good as when I do.

# Go early and talk to a couple of the people that will be watching the talk. This calms me down as I now have a couple people on myside. It backfired once when I started talking to someone and they turned out to be a jackass, but I moved onto someone else.

# Use the people I talked to as my eye contact, there now friends I should be able to look at them

# Take everything out of my pockets and anything I might start fiddling with off.

# Slide Remote is key as you can interact with audience better.

# Simple slides - one phrase or simple list is usually best, for tech talks I write a snippet on the slide

# Pause and Breathe, it may seem like a long time since the previous word but its not. This tends to be why people start adding filler words (aww, like...)

</comment><comment><USER7> My biggest speaking advice is to spread your legs a little further than shoulder length. I do not know why, but this simple stance will give you a lot more stability and stop the fidgeting.

</comment><comment><USER8> Recommended for those looking for helpful reading material: [http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Art-Great-Speech-One- How/dp/08144...](http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Art-Great-Speech-One- How/dp/0814470548/)

</comment><comment><USER9> If you find making eye contact unnerving, look directly at the gap between a person's eyebrows whilst speaking - to them it's indistinguishable from actual eye contact.</comment>


Larry and the "Ping of Death" (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2007/10/16/larry-and-the-ping-of-death.aspx

<comment><USER2> I disagree with Larry when he refers to that situation as a "moment of utter stupidity." People are not omniscient. I think it was classy, however, to apologize for the problem.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Everyone makes mistakes, owning up to them shows maturity. Sidenote: I'd much rather find out about something like this before release than have someone exploit it in the wild and force a patch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Before "Ping of Death" there was "Beeping Death" at Microsoft and Larry was involved well.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2005/11/09/490...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2005/11/09/490869.aspx)

And then there was the time Todd Laney took the entire corporate network down by streaming songs using multi-cast UDP...

</comment><comment><USER5> Back in the 1990s, CACM carried an analysis of UNIX programs' robustness against malformed inputs. The authors were motivated to do the study after noise on a modem connection had crashed jobs they were running. Their conclusion was that the robustness wasn't what it should be. I think that DEC's variant tested best of all.

<comment><USER6> A later, expanded version of the study found the GNU utilities to be the most robust: ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/technical_papers/fuzz-revisited.pdf

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Even later, it was trivial to crash NT4 DNS server:

[http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162927](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162927)

[http://support.microsoft.com/kb/169461](http://support.microsoft.com/kb/169461)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Do anyone remember which kind of bug this was?

<comment><USER7> Sending a packet that exceeded the 65535 byte maximum packet size (via fragmentation and reassembly). This would cause a reassembly buffer overflow.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> I am talking about the exact bug talked about in the article I linked.

<comment><USER8> Given that it exposed a bug in a driver Larry wrote, years before the OS was released, likely only Larry knows what the bug was.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the best time to submit a story here on HN? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> This has been discussed many times - have you searched for an answer? If you're really a hacker, why not do some research and tell us your findings.

Define "best".

</comment><comment><USER3> Look at the new page. If the time on the last story is at least an hour ago, then it is probably a fine time to submit. Generally you want more time on the new page (since that is your only hope to get up votes at first).

</comment><comment><USER4> It depends on the story. If it's specific to Silicon Valley, weekday mornings (Pacific Time) are often best. Political or somewhat off-topic? over the weekend. General scienceNighttime in the Pacific.

</comment><comment><USER5> The best time is when you find something interesting that the community might like.

The worst time is optimized for treating HN like it's just a traffic source.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right - but what happens when you have something interesting that the community might like - but there's no one to online to vote it up so that everyone see it!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to start a serverless meetup ? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in starting a monthly or bimonthly meet up to help people get more familiar with serverless technologies back in my country (Kenya). 1. How did you get people to come around?
2. How do I make it more interactive
3. How to make it sustainable. Any tips, advice or suggestions you have are most welcome. <comment><USER2> 1\. Post on the common websites: Meetup.com, Eventbrite, local sites.

2\. Ensure there is time at the beginning and end for networking. If possible, have smaller breakout groups which can work on stuff together (rather than just listening to a speaker). For speakers, encourage interactive Q&A during the talk.

3\. Ask local companies to sponsor you in exchange for putting their logo on your meetup invites, at your events, etc. Get your meetup members to pitch their companies on sponsoring. Companies that are recruiting software engineers for Serverless work are likely ones that would want to sponsor you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very informative. I like your ingenious tips on 3 especially.

So, in your opinion who would be the best people to contact in those companies ?

<comment><USER3> Look for folks who've partnerships, community or evangelists in their title. If not, aim for someone from marketing. If nothing else, make an informed guess.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds good. Thank you for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To answer your questions:

1\. Tap on existing networks. It could range from your first or second-degree contacts to sponsorship programs. Many companies, non-profits and open source organizations have programs which encourage community events. Look for one. Also, social media would be key to generate interest. Register on Meetup and create a Twitter page. If there are existing meetups in your vicinity, collaborate with them.

2\. and 3. Interactivity and participation is key to sustainable community model and isn't just limited to event day. Try to generate some interest on social media (Meetup, Twitter) through a poster, questionnaires and announcements. During the event, allocate time for networking. Organizing an AMA can also help make things interactive.

Most importantly, involve folks who're interested enough to contribute to meetup organization. As you can guess, it can be a lot of work for a single person but will be a breeze when responsibilities are divided.

Last but not the least, have fun!</comment>