Ask HN: Would you be inclined to share that moment of genius - <AUTHOR>

I know many hackers here have experienced the moment when they are deep into hacking and in the middle of it wrote a block of code that they felt was just pure genius.
At that moment, tears rolled and cries of joy go on in the background, and after the celebratory moment is over, you go back into hacking.
But wait a minute, at that moment, did you had the urge to share your masterpiece, your creation, with hackers around the world? What if you could?
I know, there's pastie and we all love it. But pastie is unsociable. Hacker's are social beings, we love "social networks", so what I'm proposing is a social network pasties. A twitter for pastie, you follow your favorite hackers. You share code, you optimize code, you do pair programming ( the pastie way ).
Forget any web-based input methods. The way you share your code is through a command line program/script.( or any good methods that the community can come up with )
Does this sound fun to you? Want to get involved? Vote up if you think this is a good idea. Drop a comment if you got ideas or feedback to share!
Email me at email@example.com <comment><USER2> I'm not a god of hacking by any means, so perhaps I've just rarely experienced true code-block Nirvana. But, in my experience, the beauty of software doesn't often arise from isolated, context-free blocks of code, just as it's hard to appreciate a great novel by cutting-and-pasting individual sentences and paragraphs.

The authors of programming books struggle with this problem all the time. A lot of what they have to say only makes sense in the context of projects that are longer than what a book can contain. They can't provide convincing real- world examples, so they are forced to rely on toy examples, which often fail to get the point across.

The pure-genius moments that I respect are the ones where the code blocks themselves are the most boring. When I first encountered (e.g.) jQuery, I realized I was in the presence of true genius. But I find that jQuery code is not very exciting reading, in and of itself. The typical line of jQuery is straightforward and transparent: It pretty much describes exactly what is going on, using idioms that you recognize from other languages (like CSS). The charm of well-written jQuery is that the individual statements are so straightforward that you can _skim_ them -- you can look right past them and concentrate on the big picture, which is where all the important stuff is happening.

It's the assembly of your blocks of code into a marvelous, comprehensible large-scale structure that is the challenge of software. And it takes time to appreciate that. That's why the phrase "deep into hacking" contains the word _deep_. You have to live inside a problem for a while before its true structure -- and the elegance of the best solution -- becomes clear.

Of course, maybe all that I'm saying is that I'm not the intended audience for your proposed project. :) Other people, working on other tasks or with different languages or styles, might find it very useful!

<comment><AUTHOR> "But, in my experience, the beauty of software doesn't often arise from isolated, context-free blocks of code, just as it's hard to appreciate a great novel by cutting-and-pasting individual sentences and paragraphs."

True, I have to agree with you that this applies in certain cases/languages.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hoping to hear from everyone about this idea.</comment>


What are the things that hold us back in life? - andreas-sotnik https://medium.com/@andreas_sotnik/what-are-the-things-that-hold-us-back-in-life-d5846b33b5b <comment><AUTHOR> The Perception towards future and the Past that interfering Present.</comment>


GitHub: Block the Bullies - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/862-block-the-bullies <comment><USER2> Background: <http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1306816425.html>

In all fairness, the guy was being a dick (no pun intended) to Zed. However, Zed should have kept the insults to the troll and left Github, Powerset, Engine Yard, and the Ruby community out.

<comment><USER3> How does anyone in the Ruby "community" have the time to get any actual work done?

No other language community _in the world_ behaves like this.

<comment><USER4> The value proposition of the Ruby community has more to do with their mindshare than their technical merit.

Compare and contrast Scientology with Psychiatry. Both communities make similar value propositions: improve mental health.

Scientology is optimized to gain and keep converts and to spread like a viral meme.

Psychiatry is optimized to achieve good treatment outcomes.

Scientology makes more money despite being a less effective form of therapy.

Virality itself is adaptive, so the Ruby community thrives and survives despite being a mediocre technology. Everything about ruby is optimized for gaining converts, attention and cohesion. Hard technical merit is less important in this case than community cohesion, growth, and publicity. Flamewars bring the ruby community publicity and this leads to growth which leads to the survival and replication of ruby.

Erlang and C++ survive on hard technical merits. They take a different evolutionary strategy that requires less propaganda / groupthink.

Just look at the life cycle of communities as if they were a species and it all makes sense.

<comment><USER5> _Scientology makes more money [than the field of psychiatry]._

This seems really questionable to me. If we assume 13 psychiatrists per 100K people in 2005 ( <http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=523453> ), and just count Europe and the US, that's ~80K psychiatrists, and if they average 120K USD per year, that's nearly 10 billion USD. Scientology had a worldwide income of less than 400 million in 1993 ( [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jD- Xo-q...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jD-Xo- qIcRUJ:www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/history/history44.html+net+worth+of+scientology&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com) ), so it would have had to grow by 20 times to rival psychiatry circa 2005.

I think psychiatry (leaving aside everything but actual practicing psychiatrists) probably dwarfs Scientology in total income.

<comment><USER4> Yeah you're right. I think at one point Scientology may have been richer, but they have gone downhill it seems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a very good feature, but I am also afraid it will make Zed Shaw and others think that his attempt to out-troll the trolls and multiply internet drama was a force for positive change. "If you throw a big enough temper tantrum and incite a large enough shitstorm, developers will address your concerns" is an unfortunate precedent. The fact that controversy and negativity attracts eyeballs and can trigger improvements is understandable, but it also creates perverse incentives.

<comment><USER7> I love how you're this paragon of stoic virtue, and I'm a drama queen, yet, here you are talking about it even more instead of ignoring it and going back to whatever it was you were doing.

<comment><USER8> Theres a difference between discussing the concept of "internet drama" and actually creating "internet drama". Mycroftiv is doing the former whereas you do the latter.

<comment><USER9> You do realize that discussing internet drama is what spurs people to create internet drama, right?

<comment><USER10> Citation needed. This doesn't look self-evident at all to me.

<comment><USER9> The goal of internet drama is to make the instigator and everyone they know laugh at what they've done. The initial 'poke' will generate some of that, but a 'successful' attack will generate days of discussion that 'everyone' laughs at. I get that there are lots of people who don't understand this on this forum, but, asking for citations to understand concepts that are described on wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama>) is a bit ridiculous, don't you agree?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think zed had a reasonable complaint. was he a jerk about it? maybe, but it's a customer's prerogative to complain about a bad experience. github's prompt response to zed has made me a happier (paying) customer. way to go!

<comment><USER12> YEP! Props to Zed. After calling a bunch of people homophobes and writing some code to engage in an asshole war within the confines of GitHub, he got a simple feature implemented that would have probably been fast tracked with a reasonable email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is this due to the recent drama with Zed Shaw being invited to the "DongML" project? Very entertaining as an observer, but very annoying for Zed I'm sure.

Sad that they still haven't added a requirement that you accept an invite to become a collaborator, or at least a profile setting on your account that requires that confirmation.

<comment><USER14> It's interesting to me that so many people want confirmations. You can remove yourself from any repository you wish at <https://github.com/account/repositories> (yes, I know — this is a confusing place. It's something I'd like to improve). But the idea is that "Confirm? Reject." is the same number of steps/interactions as "Added. Reject." Confirmations wouldn't make the experience any better for someone being annoyingly added to projects. They'd just be rejecting invitations instead of rejecting access.

As it stands, when you are added as a collaborator to a project it shows up in exactly one place — your private, logged in dashboard. It doesn't show up publicly anywhere.

Bypassing confirmations keeps the workflow simple for the professionals who use GitHub and want to collaborate with ease.

<comment><USER15> I would disagree. If I happened to be in the job market, and my potential employer were to look at my github profile (yes, we do look at your github profile) and find "bigdicksucker" as one of the repos I'm apparently a "contributor" on, well, that wouldn't look too good, would it?

<comment><USER16> _As it stands, when you are added as a collaborator to a project it shows up in exactly one place — your private, logged in dashboard. It doesn't show up publicly anywhere._

You must make a contribution to a project before you show up in any kind of public fashion.

<comment><USER17> I got "dong markup" in my RSS reader from pull requests to zedshaw/mongrel2 today. So, the trolling was very much in public view.

<comment><USER18> As Zed mentions in the article, he contributed to the project, which is why it showed up in your RSS feed.

<comment><USER17> Actually, the RSS feed was for zedshaw/mongrel2. It showed up because these trolls were spamming pull requests to a legitimate project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is GitHub's response to the (killed) article I posted yesterday:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601342>

</comment><comment><USER20> The implemented solution is impressively elegant. Keep the barrier very low to join another project and provide a mean to block undesirable subsciptions. There is still a possibility for harrasement with multiple projects, but there is a report to staff option now to solve it.

These are very smart, efficient and pragmatic solutions. It's also a demonstration of what is meant by "good execution".

</comment><comment><USER21> It's a logical feature for a site with a social aspect to offer, and I'm surprised github hadn't done so previously. I suppose the audience for the site tends to be mature.

Good for Github for going ahead and doing it. I know of some companies who would have dug their heels in and ignored the issue, or stubbornly maintained that it wasn't needed.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm glad Zed made this an issue. No one should be harassed like that. Honestly, it made github look very unprofessional. I'm glad they stepped-in and fixed it.

</comment><comment><USER23> The profile page needs tidy up - if only it split the projects into tbose you collaborate on,and those you are invited to collaborate on. Its just wording, but it makes it clear that being added to a repo you haven't contributed to will not be shown publicly.

<comment><USER24> There is somethig to that idea: you are only _invited_ to participate in a project until you accept the invitation by actually commiting to the project. Eveyone is happy: Nobody needs to change the code (except for resorting the display of the projects on the private dashboard into two groups) and participation requires an explicit confirmation. Win-win :-).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Zed just seems to react strongly to anyone who tries to intimidate him. Same deal with all the people called out in the classic Rails post. I don't fault him for it.

<comment><USER26> Would you post a link to the referred post?

<comment><USER25> <http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/ruby/rails/is-a-ghetto>

<comment><USER26> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm surprised that this feature wasn't in there to begin with. All social networking (which is primarily what Github is about - the source control really isn't anything new) should include bilateral confirmation.

What they've implemented is adequate, but I'd rather see something much stronger, like active confirmation from both parties before being added to a project.

</comment><comment><USER28> Ah, the age old enmity between nerds and bullies.

</comment><comment><USER29> Now Github became a real social network.

</comment><comment><USER30> convenience and privacy are the issues, github has tried to do a balancing act.

</comment><comment><USER31> That was fast!

</comment><comment><USER32> I flagged this.

It wasn't submitted to let people know about the feature, it was submitted to stir the pot.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hello

</comment><comment><USER34> I think this was a good response to an attention whore.

EDIT: I wasn't trolling. Not even a single response?

<comment><USER35> I never understood why people absolutely loathe Zed Shaw.

<comment><USER36> I don't actively loathe him, but the persona he spends so much time cultivating is brash and irritating. It seems whenever I see his name mentioned, it's because he's making a stink about something, rather than doing something useful. I get that he does useful things, and LPtHW is apparently a great resource, but he (intentionally) attracts far more attention with his antics than his works.

The court jester may make a good point every now and then, but he's still a clown.

<comment><USER7> Oh look, another anonymous troll that has exactly the same validity and standing as my comment.

This place is awesome with the anonymous posters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wish I could block zedshaw from all of the internet. I wrote a web proxy once which cuts out adverts - I think I could extend it to block zedshaw too. But my proxy is old, and had bugs with some webservers.

Maybe a zedblock plugin for firefox would be cool instead?

Even better would be to just integrate it into firefox. But then you'd still have to put up with the character whilst using other browsers.

Which means a WC3 draft would be more appropriate, so that all of the browsers could implement it. I imagine WHATWG have already got something in the works though. They've been doing a lot of good work with the whole html5 thing.

Does it bother anyone else that github appears to be following a Concerned father approach here? I guess it's not that bad. Other internet forums have moderators and such, but github isn't really about the project - but the individual. So I'm not sure how letting other people moderate for you would work within the github garden.

</nonsense></comment>


Net Neutrality is not a good thing. It's not an evil thing, either - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/net-neutrality-is-not-a-good-thing-its-not-a-bad-thing-either-51a9d6baf92c <comment><USER2> Net neutrality is a _necessary thing_ in the context of lack of local competition. But ISPs want their cake and eat it, too: keep their monopolies without any rules putting restrictions on them. Because of course they do - that's what all monopolists desire: free unchallenged reign.

If the "small government party" were true to its words, it would eliminate net neutrality, but it would also open-up Comcast and AT&T's cables to competitors, and get those two to license their cables under fair FRAND- like/near-cost license fees.

The big ISPs would also not be able to force rules on how the smaller ISPs use their internet. So if Comcast wants to block torrents, it may do so for its own service, but it can't demand, nor encourage the smaller ISPs to do the same.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author's example where the wireless ISP's throttling of Facetime was corrected buy market forces doesn't apply to hard wired, monopoly ISPs. If Comcast throttle or effectively blocks [1] my Hacker News access, I have no alternative. There are no market forces to address this situation.

[1] Affectively blocking my access might look like "your cable package includes 'free' access to Comcast Movies and Comcast Search but you have to pay extra for access to Netflix and Google."</comment>


Apple Apologizes over Siri Privacy and Will No Longer Retain Audio Recordings - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-28/apple-apologizes-will-no-longer-retain-siri-audio-recordings <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20820430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20820430)

</comment><comment><USER3> > users will be able to opt in

Would you help make Siri better? Yes|No

<comment><USER4> I feel it's going to be more like,

Would you help make Siri better? Yes | Remind me later</comment></comment>


Blazing a path for women in computer science: the story of Susan Eggers - <AUTHOR> https://egc.yale.edu/how-job-yale-1960s-set-susan-eggers-groundbreaking-path-computer-science <comment><AUTHOR> Did someone submit this more than 11 hours ago?</comment>


Cuba's Startup Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/06/cubas-startup-paradox/ <comment><USER2> It seems like non-cash payments are still a major headache. I wonder if Bitcoin might take off in Cuba if more of the country gets reliable Internet access.</comment>


Porsche 911 GT3 sales halted due to string of fires. - <AUTHOR> http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090400_2014-porsche-911-gt3-sales-halted-due-to-string-of-fires

<comment><USER2> I heard the problem is bolt failure holding the oil cooler which happens to be right above a red hot exhaust system.</comment>


Community votes on new trust features, we build them. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.airbnb.com/brought-to-you-byyou

<comment><AUTHOR> The complete list, idea submission field, and voting mechanism, can be found here: <http://www.airbnb.com/safety#feedback>. Look forward to seeing your submissions. -Joe

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting that the image is of a user called Emma J, smiling and saluting to the camera. Is the implication that this is /the/ EJ?

Just a random name choice?

<comment><AUTHOR> Random. I swapped out the image on the blog post so there is no confusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> From a purely technical perspective, how do you build a voting mechanism like this? What common tools/languages are involved?

Disclaimer: I'm a student trying to learn front-end interactive design.

</comment><comment><USER4> A worthwhile community-driven initiative.

However, it's notable that the community's two most popular requests – mandatory photos, and repercussion-free refusal-to-rent-for-any-reason – would each be arguably illegal for traditional landlords due to antidiscrimination rules. AirBnb may filter out the meth-heads only to have an equally-costly parade of federal regulators and attorneys-general show up.

</comment><comment><USER5> Great! I love amateur-designed security protocols!</comment>


What are some of the great insights that you got from your heatmaps? - <AUTHOR> For example, I found that replacing animated user images with real user images in testimonial section has increased the attention span of the testimonial section by 3X. Looking for similar insights? <comment><USER2> Using heatmaps from the [https://usertrack.net](https://usertrack.net) tool on its own landing page I usually notice:

* What buttons in the header are actually needed/clicked/hovered [https://i.snipboard.io/UShRbI.jpg](https://i.snipboard.io/UShRbI.jpg)

* What non-clickable elements users try to click on (eg. product images, they expect to get a lightbox, but nothing happens)

* If a specific UI element is visible enough and users know it's interactable [https://i.snipboard.io/nJ7AlX.jpg](https://i.snipboard.io/nJ7AlX.jpg)

I personally find the session playbacks a lot more insightful, because heatmaps don't really tell the whole story, but a session playback can show you in what order do your users read the page, what are they trying to do, what are their last actions before they leave your site, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> How did you arrive at this insight using a heatmap?

I am curious to know. This is a problem that is there is general for any analytics feature

<comment><AUTHOR> We created a heatmap and did the comparative study of the same page in two different time periods. One before the changes and one after the changes. The attention heatmap clearly showed a bright red color in the testimonial section which was bluish earlier.

<comment><USER3> OK so it was kind of like AB Testing but using heatmaps

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, but data drives because we knew that the testimonial section has low engagement.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Tube" Blender-animated film launches fundraising campaign - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/submission/2025173/tube-blender-animated-film-launches-kickstarter Bassam Kurdali's free culture 3D animation, "Tube" is nearing the final stages of production. After directing the first of the Blender Institutes "Open Movie Projects", Elephants Dream, Bassam wanted to prove that free software like Blender and PiTiVi are usable for independent filmmakers and that producing free cultural works can be a sustainable living too. The team has just launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the project and if the goal is met then we should see the final release in 7 months! <comment><USER2> Link to kickstarter page: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1331941187/the- tube-open...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1331941187/the-tube-open- movie)

</comment><comment><USER3> For reference. Other open movies made by the Blender Foundation are Big Bucks Bunny:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE7VzlLtp-4>

And Sintel:

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

</comment><comment><USER4> Teaser:

[http://urchn.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/flash-video- player/me...](http://urchn.org/wp/wp-content/plugins/flash-video- player/mediaplayer/player.swf)

Looks great!

</comment><comment><USER5> I remember seeing the teaser for this project about 3-4 years ago back when I was still messing around with Blender. Blender has only gotten better since then and I can't wait to see what they produce.</comment>


Show HN: Lets Encrypt on Netlify – Static CDN Hosting with Free SSL - <AUTHOR> https://www.netlify.com/blog/2016/01/15/free-ssl-on-custom-domains <comment><USER2> KeyCDN also offers Let's Encrypt in combination with HTTP/2 [https://www.keycdn.com/blog/free-ssl- certificates/](https://www.keycdn.com/blog/free-ssl-certificates/)

</comment><comment><USER3> > As the first hosting service in the world netlify offers full integration > with Let's Encrypt

Posted on 15. January. lold hard. Micro local hosters had it built it on launch day, and this is not even the first host i found that bullshits like this.</comment>


Building a Gaming PC for 100$: Is It Possible? - <AUTHOR> https://boilingsteam.com/a-100-usd-quest-to-build-a-linux-gaming-pc/. <comment><USER2> This topic is not new, there are a lot of youtube videos about that(and done in exactly same manner - repurposing used office pc with a new video card). The resulting machine is not well-thought, why buying SFF case, if your video card does not fit?

[https://www.youtube.com/user/BlastMode7/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/BlastMode7/videos)

<comment><USER3> Lease company surplus is always SFF and those SFF always has x16 slot at the bottom

<comment><USER4> The one problem I've run into with retrofits like that is that, even if your GPU will fit and can pull all it needs from the PCIe slot, the PSUs in the machines are often too weak to provide the extra wattage needed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Check out the article. Works with GPU where no external power supply connector is needed.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I saw. Just saying that not all OEM SFF PSUs are sufficient for even the ~75w that a card running on just the power from the slot will draw.

<comment><USER3> Fun fact: "no external supply" cards are supposed to draw no more than 75W, emphasis on supposed to, while your point also standing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I assume you could get better computers by just buying someone's old gaming PC on Craigslist.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe but certainly not all the time at the same price point. The configuration here is widespread and widely available since office computer stocks and 750ti video video cards are easy to find for cheap as well.

<comment><USER6> Considering this is buitl around an existing machine that he didn't pay for, I wouldn't call this an "all the time" build either.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lease machines for offices keep getting recycled after x years so there is an ongoing supply of ever improving office hardware. The same goes for Lenovo laptops, offices get rid of them after 4 or 5 years and they are available at low prices on used markets.

<comment><USER7> the x220 and x230 laptops you can buy for $100 are incredible machines with another like $45 in parts grab 16GB of ram with a 2.5 ssd and its an entirely adequate computer for the vast majority of people. Ports, expandability, and repairability galore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > So, you want a card made for hobbits if you can find one. I did not.

[https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/l577547105](https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/l577547105)

The way you find this, first search for say 750ti low profile: [https://www.google.com/search?q=750ti+low+profile](https://www.google.com/search?q=750ti+low+profile) then get the model numbers and feed them into the yahoo search. There are not that many of these (and if you step up to 1050 Ti , even less).

</comment><comment><USER9> _the secret ingredient is crime_

</comment><comment><USER10> that was really cool. I like the idea of repurposing old office stock. Does anyone else actually prefer the smaller form factor desktop cases? I went for a Fractal Node 202 for current PC build and since then I've taken it in my checked luggage (well-packed and padded) on two international flights. If you move every few months/every year or two, or expect to, it's really nice to have a case that isn't a massive tower and not rely on using your laptop for a desktop PC. You can just sell your monitor when you move and buy the same one or a better one when you get set up in your new place.

<comment><USER11> I like sff machines like the Dell Optiplex. The problem with them though is the lack of compatible graphics cards.

<comment><USER12> sff?

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_form_factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_form_factor)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really like projects like this. My current gaming PC (and work from home PC right now) is an old Dell Precision tower that came with an i7 3770, with an upgraded PSU and a gtx1060. I built it two years ago for about $350 and it runs every game I own.

The old motherboard is a bit limiting (no M.2, and I can't get both PCI slots to work at the same time for some reason), but it was a fun project. It's neat to reuse the old hardware, and I honestly kind of like the look of the dell's business cases.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wonder if it beats the new mac mini. That would be something....

<comment><USER16> It will definitely run games better compared to the integrated Intel graphics on a Mac mini or MacBook.

Believe me, I've been stupid enough to think MacBooks or Minis can play game. You can maybe do 30fps on low settings on an old games like WoW on low setting on those devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Parsec + paperspace. I guess it depends on how many hours you're going to play but $100 is probably going to get you by for months of play.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have been using an oldish Lenovo m900 tiny for some time. It covers most of my needs, in a one litre case. It cost me 130 dollars. A SFF case would mean the non-low-power CPU which would mean even higher performance.

Once you go down the SBC rabbit hole, computers with a lot less power than that easily cost just as much when you have all the stuff you need.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can it run GTA V with a config like this? I haven't played any games in a very very long time but since I got a free copy of gta yesterday, I may as well play it once.

What min gpu do you think will be good enough for it? Fwiw I have a ryzen 3500 / 32gb desktop but a very old graphics card (gt 710 2gb).

<comment><USER20> If that is your old PC, just buy a used RX580 for $100 or so and call it a day.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the recommendation. Pc is not very old but graphics card surely is and I never upgraded it since I hardly play any games on it. Probably just gonna try this game once or twice.

<comment><USER4> An RX 580 would probably run GTA at reasonable frame rates and settings if your display is 1080p. Doubt it would do too too well at any higher resolutions though.

<comment><USER21> Not sure how you're coming to that conclusion. A quick search suggests that a rx 580 should handle 1440p without too much problem. [https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kL32iysKuX2AuJ9ncWaJqU-650...](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kL32iysKuX2AuJ9ncWaJqU-650-80.png)

<comment><USER4> Apparently I have managed to misremember the heck out of RX 580 benchmarks. I must've been thinking of RX 480 4GB results or something. I still run GTX 970s, so haven't kept the greatest tabs on anything much newer. Oops.

<comment><USER22> RX 580 does come in 4GB version, which is cheaper, but the 8GB isn't more pricier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Prices based on amazon in the US of the same parts (or similar available parts) listed.

Computer: $207 Graphics: $55 Ram: $20

Whats interesting is that (s)he was able to buy the computer for cheaper than the graphics card. And wow, prices are great in japan.

<comment><USER24> what about ebay?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've built an x86 box with ssd a few years ago for around a 100 as well,interesting how peripherals and monitors are excluded from the cost.

<comment><USER26> Peripherals are trivial to reuse if you already have them, so that's not a concern for most people. (Emphasis on "most".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Lots more options become available with streaming. Geforcenow and shadow are pretty good FPS at 1080p.

</comment><comment><USER28> Sure, depends on the game. Age of Empires will run wonderfully on $100 of hardware.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h That was my first thought, too:) I've played lots of 0ad and xonotic on $50 machines off eBay; it all depends on your taste for graphics-intensive/new games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Answer: No.

This loose assembly of used parts isn't a gaming pc. Running 5+ year old games at 30fps doesn't really count.

It's an 8 year old GPU that was fairly low end when new, and 4GB for RAM. That isn't meeting close to minimum requriements on most non-indie new releases. This is as much a "gaming PC" as a dusty used PS4.

<comment><USER29> As long as you're enjoying yourself, does it really matter?

In terms of CPU/GPU, my machine isn't much better than the one in the article yet runs plenty of games. I would be hard pressed to provide a list of games that I would want to play that won't run on it because: (a) most of the games that target high end rigs target a particular market segment and (b) there is an abundance of games that cross genres, art styles, etc. that target lower spec hardware. Chances are you're going to find something fun to play on low end hardware if you choose to explore your options rather than limit them.</comment></comment>


Apply HN: Protoship.io – generate entire front end (HTML/CSS/React) from designs - <AUTHOR> You are a web developer - back-end/front-end/unicorn. You're good, you're fast, you have many years under your belt. Yet, building even the simplest of web applications is still a time-consuming chore. It is not the code, programming is always fun. But it is the tedium of writing and tweaking HTML and CSS that takes up most of your time (and money).
Protoship generates clean HTML, CSS, and even reusable React components for you, straight from design. No measuring of margins and paddings, no extracting and assembling of assets, and none of that pixel-perfection worries. Drop in a .sketch file, name your components, and it is done.
We have a video of a really early version here: https://medium.com/sketch-app-sources/code-generator-to-create-react-projects-straight-from-design-with-clean-html-and-css-c399a8189f0d#.kgvfikpvf
Our Homepage: https://protoship.io/#products
We are two developers who want to make useful things on the web without being bogged down by automatable, routine work. To make beautiful software without having to stay up all night.
Our Story: https://protoship.io/story <comment><USER2> Hello, Thanks for sharing your project with HN. I have couple of questions. \- Do you have any usage statistics, or at least Beta signups? \- How is your service different from Zeplin (Which is a YC Startup) and Avocode?

</comment><comment><USER3> The biggest problem is not generating. Generating gets you 50%. The ability to then refactor on what is generate is key.

How are you going to tackle that problem? How much are you going to charge per conversion?

<comment><AUTHOR> \- Fifty percent is already huge. We're starting there, but our larger goal is to make web development easier and faster. This is but a long journey, and we're doing this one niche/tool at a time.

\- We already have a rudimentary bi-directional flow working: from design to code, and from live web applications back to design. We call this Teleport, and here is its demo: [https://medium.com/sketch-app-sources/introducing- protoship-...](https://medium.com/sketch-app-sources/introducing-protoship-s- teleport-convert-websites-into-sketch-documents-5cb527b975dc)

\- Not yet decided on pricing.

<comment><USER3> Saw the video. Its website -> sketch. Seeing the sketch -> website would be great.

Why aren't you guys charging for it right away? That's going to give a good indication whether designer/devs are willing to pay out of pocket.

i.e Give 10 free conversions to new signups so users get a feel whether it solves their problem. There after its $5 per conversion or whatever amount you feel is worth.

Ages ago I used to convert psds to html by hand. There was this Russian tool to convert psd to html for $3 per conversion. It was my best friend. It got me 50% there and then I had to do the rest by hand.

Have you looked into conversion by OCR techniques? i.e someone pastes a screenshot, you recognize the margins, paddings, text, colours, font and spit out html/css</comment></comment></comment>


20,000 concurrent file searches in less than 1 minute with Elixir - <AUTHOR> http://www.automatingthefuture.com/blog/2016/5/10/performing-searches-concurrently-when-one-thread-just-wont-do <comment><USER2> If those 20.000 files are not on 20.000 separate disks the performance gained is marginal over max one process per core because the 20.000 threads are mostly waiting for input to be read from storage.

I'd love to see a benchmark on the same machine and the same data that simply uses "find [...] -type f -exec grep -q ^23$ {} \; -print" \- I'm pretty sure it would take much less time.</comment>


Does China Need Facebook? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-28/does-china-even-need-facebook- <comment><USER2> Facebook is not necessary for Chinese, but Chinese want to use services without censorship.

</comment><comment><USER3> The real question is, "Does Facebook need China?"</comment>


Ask HN: Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for a Public Beta (not incorporated) - <AUTHOR>

I am currently in the development of a public Beta of my product.
I haven't incorporated, yet.
I don't think it's highly probable to mess up and expose someone's data or do anything else that I might be legally liable for, but with all the recent hacks and all of the trolling out-there, I want to protect myself somehow from any personal liability before incorporation.
Could anyone suggest something other than spending lots of money (which I don't have) on lawyers?
Practical question - is there a copyright protection of Privacy Policy and Terms of Use texts? In other words, could I just copy portions of such documents, which I think apply to my case as well? <comment><USER2> check this thread

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6594204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6594204)</comment>


New Yorkers Trying to Flee High State Taxes Find Moving Isn't So Easy - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-23/trapped-in-new-york-salt-cap-haters-find-moving-isn-t-that-easy <comment><USER4> New Yorkers Trying to Evade High State Taxes Find Appearing To Have Moved To Another State Isn't So Easy.

<comment><USER5> Yes, tax collectors are just checking if you really moved or not. So if you really move, then you will have (almost) no problems.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't say "no problems." I've been through a New York State residency audit and it was protracted, stressful, intrusive, and expensive (for representation -- worth every penny), even though I had indeed really moved (long before the audit and not specifically for tax reasons), had loads of evidence to that effect, and was confident I would prevail in the end. (I did.) It was very unpleasant having it hanging over me for the better part of a year and I definitely thought of it as a major problem, perhaps the major problem in my life at the time, until it was resolved.

<comment><USER7> This definitely gives me pause when considering moving to a high tax state like NY. It sounds like the kind of state where you pay your taxes and just hope the government leaves you alone, which is likely untrue if you are or become a high earner.

This kind of stuff will likely be litigated for years, especially as people with means are being harassed in this way. It will be interesting to see which of these tactics ultimately pass muster. I wonder if you could bring a RICO suite.

<comment><USER8> You're buying into a lot of FUD here, there are more high earners in New York and California than many other states and very few have the kinds of problems you're describing.

<comment><USER9> But with pushes to enact higher and higher and higher taxes specifically TARGETING higher earners... the problem is something that will become more pronounced as those higher taxes will drive more away.

Whether we are talking tens... or tens of hundreds... it's still nice to know about a minefield as you work to escape from it.

<comment><USER10> _" But with pushes to enact higher and higher and higher taxes specifically TARGETING higher earners... the problem is something that will become more pronounced as those higher taxes will drive more away."_

Which pushes, can you cite a few or a trend where the distribution of tax load is shifting? Isn't NYS trying like crazy to lower higher income bracket taxes because the Federal deduction for property taxes was decreased?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand how the effective tax rate in NY can be the same as Ontario, Canada - but here in Canada we have at least healthcare for all citizens that gets paid for out of that. It's not A+ care but it's good, and it covers everyone. And it's like 1/3 of the budget, it's a huge line item.

What the heyzeus are you Americans spending all that tax money on?

More on topic: the same issue exists between US and Canada, and it needs to be sorted. Some ports of entry on the US/Mexico border are not properly set up to process TN visas etc..

<comment><USER12> America as a whole? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are 3 mandatory spending programs that make up ~45% of gov't spending. Defense makes up ~15% and is discretionary (albeit also globally projected, though most of which goes to paying soldiers and maintenance/operational costs). [0]

New York? Mostly on healthcare (~22%) and education (~31%). [1]

[0] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/CB...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/CBO_Infographic_2016.png/1280px- CBO_Infographic_2016.png) [1] [https://openbudget.ny.gov/overview.html](https://openbudget.ny.gov/overview.html)

<comment><USER11> The US spends _more_ on _public_ healthcare on a per capita basis than we do in Canada, and for that we get _full coverage for everyone_ \- the US only gets Medicare/Medicaid and some vet stuff.

Technically speaking the US could wipe out all private healthcare spending, _reduce_ public spending on healthcare and _still_ have enough over to cover everyone with 'adequate' care. Granted, it wouldn't be up to par for what many Americans expect.

Americans pay about 2x for services rendered, though often they are better, they are not 2x better. That said, someone who only has to wait 6 weeks for a hip replacement may consider wanting to pay 2x as opposed to waiting 15 months, as they might have to here in Canada.

<comment><USER12> I mean, if you divide the population of the US by 10 then we'd probably get full, above-average coverage for everyone too.

ETA: Maybe not, given less tax revenue and all. The US healthcare system has a lot of waste and bureaucracy after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had this problem between Ohio and Kentucky about 10 years ago: I moved from Ohio to Kentucky, and they both considered me living in their state for the entire year.

I gave up trying to fight it after about 5 years (!!) and just paid the $15K to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and moved on with my life.

I now live in Florida -- legally and physically -- and don't have to deal with the headache of this crazy state income tax drama.

<comment><USER14> What did they make you pay for when you moved from OH to KY?

<comment><USER15> What happens is that both states want income tax like you lived in the state for the full year.

<comment><USER16> Are they so backwards they don't have a simple form to fill out if that is the case? e.g. in my state you file an additional schedule [0] to get exempted from state income tax for the part of the year you were no longer a resident.

[0][https://www.maine.gov/revenue/faq/income_faq.html#faq1040_4](https://www.maine.gov/revenue/faq/income_faq.html#faq1040_4)

<comment><USER17> What's backwards about that? It's a genius way for both state governments to squeeze a little more money out of people, while being able to write it off as a "mistake" if anyone complains too loudly. Real backwardness would be giving citizens a way to pay less money.

<comment><USER16> It may be "genius" for the state revenue service, but it is "backwards" in that it fucks over state residents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't know why anyone would want to appear to leave. Just leave. The property taxes are ridiculous, infrastructure is falling apart, etc.

On a recent trip back up there you can tell when you hit NYS roads - <USER3> bridges and crumbling asphalt pock marked with pot holes that can damage your car.

Maybe they should focus on things to make people want to stay?

It would be like a SaaS business changing the contracts so people can't leave (e.g. can't take data) instead of building features that people want.

<comment><USER19> > On a recent trip back up there you can tell when you hit NYS roads - <USER3> > bridges and crumbling asphalt pock marked with pot holes that can damage > your car.

Genuine question: where else in the US are roads better? I've been to several states and some Canadian provinces, and compared to the developed Gulf nations, all of the roads I saw there were like what described.

<comment><USER20> US roads are generally better in the south where they don't use salt or experience freezing in the winter time.

<comment><USER21> You'd think that but in FL at least, there is ~6 potholes on my route to work every day that have been left there for months.

<comment><USER9> Maybe you should ask Domino's to help with those potholes.

[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/dominos- pizza...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/06/dominos-pizza-is- fixing-potholes-now-and-thats-fine/562829/)

<comment><USER21> I already have. lol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> New York is also aggressive about collecting taxes from remote employees. If you work for a NY-based company, but live in another state, you most likely have to pay NYS income taxes. Depending on how your _actual_ home state deals with things, you might end up double-taxed.

<comment><USER23> Well we wouldn't want important services such as the MTA to run out of money and turn into a dysfunctional and corrupt mess.

Edit: I have a love/hate relationship with NY and NYC in particular.

<comment><USER24> To be fair, the MTA has largely been NYS's piggy bank for decades. That's why it's gotten this bad; it's being used to subsidize all the services upstate that don't generate any revenue.

The New York Times made an interesting video about it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLMODzYX7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COLMODzYX7U)

<comment><USER25> MTA runs as a net loss. It isn't a piggybank if it is dependent on subsidies from somewhere outside fares and ads to pay the bills.

<comment><USER24> I mean, yes, but part of the reason why it runs at a loss is because how it subsidizes the rest of the state. For example, when the MTA wants to issue a bond, it has to pay NYS a bond issuance fee. This has added up to about $105MM since 2006.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> what if two higher tax states both claim they are your home state because they want to fight over your taxes. this must happen. that's different than moving 'mostly' to a lower tax state. and then what's the threshold for ny claiming you moved there? what a mess.

<comment><USER27> It happened to my buddy who happens to be millionaire and flies every few weeks cali versus new york. Two years ago state of california sued him for non payment of taxes. It went down to literally receipts from gas station making difference proving he spent over 183 days in new york versus cali. intresting - credit card purchases were not admitted because state tried to prove he used proxy (he does) so he could be in any state when purchasing off of Amazon. He won and gov appealed Then cali went after new york asking for all the evidence of his taxes knowing new york wont comply. For over year both states fight with each other with my friend being literally non-involved. Eventually cali dropped the suit some 16 months after filing appeal.

<comment><USER28> This is insane. Why don't we just pay the federal government the entirety of our tax obligation and have them partition it out to the states? I'd love to spend less than half the year in any one state or be completely state-less.

<comment><USER29> The whole point of a federal government is to decentralize authority. If the taxation power rests with a single authority in the United States, then federalism would be dead and the central government would have all the power. It's not necessarily wrong (though I believe it would be a bad idea), but this is one of those questions where the answer to "Why can't the world be simple?" is "Because the world is complex."

<comment><USER14> May I introduce you to the 16th amendment:

 _> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, _from whatever source derived _, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration_

The power of taxation has rested with the federal government since the early 20th century.

<comment><USER30> Yes, that is why everyone pays federal income tax. State income tax is an additional right given to state governments.

<comment><USER31> Or, in the American tradition, it is a right not forbidden to state governments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> People aren't moving because the rich would rather pay a little extra and do what they want.

What I find interesting is that, in following the California real estate market for the last two years in preparation to moving there, there is a drop in demand for high-end housing since the tax law took effect. The combination of higher taxes and lower mortgage deductions has kept a lot of people from buying bigger houses. I've also seen a lot of empty-nesters downsizing.

<comment><USER33> New report released today "Southern California home sales crash, a warning sign to the nation": [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/southern-california- home-sal...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/24/southern-california-home-sales- crash-a-warning-sign-to-the-nation.html)

Interestingly enough, the higher priced homes are the only ones somewhat holding up. "Sales below $500,000 dropped 21 percent on a year-over-year basis, while deals of $500,000 or more fell about 3 percent, marking the first annual decline for that price category in nearly two years," said LePage. "Home sales of $1 million or more last month rose just a tad – less than 1 percent – from a year earlier following annual gains of between 5 percent and 21 percent over the prior year."

<comment><USER32> The article cited higher interest rates. I've talked to other people who say we are in the tenth year of an average 8 year real estate cycle. I think the market is peaking now and will downturn in the near future. But, I think it will be short and shallow consistent with national economic growth.

<comment><USER32> Chinese investors realize the market has topped out.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-real-estate- investors-r...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-real-estate-investors- retreat-from-u-s-as-political-pressure-mounts-1532437934)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Article is not about people moving, it's about people trying to get registered in a different state for tax purposes. BIG difference.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you really decide never to set foot in the filthy dump that is NYC, why do you care about their claim on taxing authority anyways? Can they enforce that across state line?

<comment><USER36> Not to be pedantic but the article is about NY state, NJ, CT etc. Many people live in NY state but do not live in NYC. Additionally, as the article explains, some people try to live outside of the state for over half the year in order to avoid paying state taxes. Presumably, there are considerable financial and personal incentives for maintaining some presence in NY state. So, the answer to your question is yes because the people in question are still typically maintaining a residence in a high tax state.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How is the current exceptional focus on taxes a productive policy? Taxes are investment in your (country/locality). While nobody likes the cost of investment, our lives and prosperity and everything else depends on it. And while some investments are worthwhile and some are not (just ask any VC!), to say we should minimize and avoid all investment is, of course, ridiculous. For example, nobody would suggest you minimize investment in your home unless you were leaving soon, or would advice YCombinator to minimize investment in startups unless they simple wanted to close out business now. You can't leave your country (or you must live somewhere) and it's never going out of business, you hope.

Places with low investment (and taxes) in the U.S. and around the world generally have a lower quality of life and don't produce much beyond rent- seeking industries such as fossil fuels. Is the goal to model the U.S. economy on the great successes of places like Alabama,[0] or would it be better to model it on California or New York? Almost all leading industries, as well as education, arts and other things, are in high-investment places like California, New York, Michigan (automobile industry), etc. Successful people from low-investment areas move to high-investment areas to pursue their dreams, for straightforward economic reasons: that is where resources are. Tim Cook, from Mobile Alabama, comes to mind as well as the many entrepreneurs in SV from India. Almost nobody born in SV moves to Mobile to start their business. Smart kids from California go to Berkley, not U of Alabama, because the state has invested in higher education. The smartest kids from Mobile go to Berkley too (or to other leading universities in high-investment places).

Poor countries are a simple example: They invest little out of necessity and their citizens are poorly educated and live harder and shorter lives. Under U.S. tax and investment policy, uniquely among wealthy countries life expectancy for Americans is now decreasing.

[0] My apologies to Alabamans for using their state as a simplistic example of low-investment government. Of course there is much more to Alabama than that, and it's much more complicated than a simple number or stereotype.

EDIT: some clarifications and enhancements

<comment><USER38> > While nobody likes the cost of investment, our lives and prosperity and > everything else depends on it.

Yes, taxes are an investment. In the same way that putting money in your savings account is also an investment. But I wouldn't recommend that anyone keep all their money in a savings account.

Every dollar that the state takes away from people, in order to invest in itself, that is one less dollar that each person has to decide how THEY would want that dollar to be invested.

So higher taxes is not higher investment. It is a reduction in private investment, in exchange for a increase in public investment. Whether the world needs more private or more public investment is a matter of debate.

> For example, nobody would suggest you minimize investment in your home > unless you were leaving soon

Well, that depends. If my choice is between paying off my credit cards, or investing in my house, I certainly believe that paying off my credit cards would be a better investment. Every dollar that I personally invest in my home is one less dollar that I am able to invest elsewhere. And those other investments may be a more pressing concern. Or they might not.

Also, even IF it is "proved" that a public investment has better returns than a private one, you also need to take into account that you are taking money from someone else, and there are moral questions about how much money we should be taking from other people.

I believe that it is OK to take some money from people, but certainly not all of it, regardless of how much better the public investment is. What that level should be is matter of debate.

To take it to the extreme, even IF the government had some amazing investment that was better than all private investments, I would STILL oppose it if the government decided to take a full 100% of money from everyone.

This is because I believe in private property, and that people are entitled to at least SOME of the profits of their efforts.

<comment><USER39> > _Every dollar that the state takes away from people, in order to invest in > itself, that is one less dollar that each person has to decide how THEY > would want that dollar to be invested._

Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum gain - it's an investment in communal infrastructure where, yes, others might profit more from than you. However, in return, you might also profit from the contributions of others.

> _Also, even IF it is "proved" that a public investment has better returns > than a private one, you also need to take into account that you are taking > money from someone else, and there are moral questions about how much money > we should be taking from other people._

If we're starting with moral questions we should also discuss how morally justifiable it is to raise the price on products which buyers absolutely need but where they don't have an alternative. (E.g., recent pharmaceutical price hikes). This seems just as well "taking money from other people", except that it's done without any justification at all and, unlike taxes, you don't even in theory have any say about how high the prices should go or how the money is spent.

> _I believe that it is OK to take some money from people, but certainly not > all of it_

Who was even proposing that?

<comment><USER38> My example of taking 100% of people's money is an extreme example that demonstrates the moral dilemma of taking other people money, regardless of how good the investment is.

The OP phrased taxes as an investment, similar to how one would "invest in their home".

And the comparison is not exactly valid. When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it somewhere, not taking other people's money.

> Indeed - because it's not necessarily an investment for one's own maximum > gain

Or maybe it doesn't maximize anything. Maybe other people are able to invest it better. Just because something is an investment, doesn't mean it is the BEST investment for society. And you always have to take into account that this "investment" is taking away money from other people, who might very well be doing something better for the world with it.

<comment><USER37> > When I think of "investing", I think of taking my own money and putting it > somewhere, not taking other people's money.

I think you make good points, but I disagree here: Almost all investing involves pooling money with others, including all banking, most business, and almost all financial instruments. When you buy your own house, unless you pay cash you borrow from the bank, which involves money from the bank's other customers being invested in your house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> America land of the free.

</comment><comment><USER41> Say what you want about cryptocoin, atleast it doesn't have this problem:[https://getmonero.org/](https://getmonero.org/)

<comment><USER42> This is false. Cryptocurrency earnings are subject to state capital gains taxes.

<comment><USER43> I think the implication was "cryptocurrency cannot be subpoenaed by tax authorities when you are engaged in fiscal evasion".

This is certainly true, with an off-shore debit card linked to a crypto wallet one can evade most local taxes, while being exceptionally hard to trace down, unless engaging in conspicuous consumption.

<comment><USER44> > _an off-shore debit card linked to a crypto wallet one can evade most local > taxes_

This is willful tax evasion. It is a crime for which you go to jail.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In the rush to harvest body parts, death investigations have been upended - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-13/body-parts-harvesting-hinders-coroner-autopsies <comment><USER2> For those of you in CA similarly disturbed by this story, a side link in this story talks about how to put limitations on your organ donor status. I did not know this was an option.

I don't know how helpful this will be - for example, there's an option to restrict donations to only non-profits, but OneLegacy (from the story) is one of the four nonprofits in CA that procure organs and runs the registry.

There's also limitations per organ/tissue option, and for research. Also for "life-saving and reconstructive purposes" only.

[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/about/donatelife/do...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/about/donatelife/donatelife)

<comment><USER3> +1

Good work! This is important information and I hope it stays at the top of the comments. I'll be looking for a FL version.

Edit note: With privacy and security in mind, I'm not 100% sure how comfortable I am with enrollment and modification ability thereof occurring directly through the internet.

<comment><USER2> Short of saying no to heart valve/skin/bone donations, I find it unclear how this will play out in practice though. Like, OneLegacy is a nonprofit so if I select the nonprofit-only box, what happens? Or, how do you determine that a heart valve donation isn't life-saving?

This is really frustrating to me, even as my dad is on a transplant waiting list. The Donate Life page does give me an idea though: I can specify directed donations through an advance healthcare directive. I'm pretty tempted to leave my kidneys to my father and then find a way to explicitly donate my body to an organization that won't leave me with as many questions as these organ procurement nonprofits do.

<comment><USER4> From the research I did as an Illinois resident: Your body is divided into organs (heart, kidneys, liver, etc.) and tissues (skin, cornea, tendons, etc.). Organs are the real life-saving donations and they must be transplanted fresh within a few hours of death. Tissues like skin and bones get ground up/processed and sold - occasionally for really great purposes like helping burn victims or people with torn ligaments/tendons or cornea transplants, but also for things like making penises & lips bigger. Dunno where heart valves fit into this... maybe the entire heart is an organ but if they cut it up and only take the valves those count as tissues?

The chart in the article with prices of body parts only lists tissues - probably because it is illegal in the US to buy/sell organs; organs go to a match through the central first-come-first-serve registry. It does mention instances of organs also being harvested and the negative externalities of that, but at least those organs had a large effect on someone else's life. The same often can't be said about tissues.

I have taken myself off of the state's 'organ donor' list, which is actually for both organs and tissues. IL also seems to have a harvesting racket like CA; there are two harvesting ('procurement') organizations that have computerized access to morgues and coroners. I'm going to find a way to specify that I only want organs to be donated, and perhaps tissues but only to an organization that I trust.

<comment><USER2> This is the CA donation limitation list: [https://i.imgur.com/T6mWt3g.png](https://i.imgur.com/T6mWt3g.png)

The valves are broken out separately from the heart for purposes of donation, and the story also discusses a case of valve harvesting causing a problem.

I'm struggling to figure out where to draw the line until I can update my advance healthcare directive... all these tissues, as you say, can still be valuable. I mostly just hate the lack of transparency in these relationships, and that these organizations seem to be hiding this tissue use behind the actual process of organ donations...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Call me naive but I was unaware that there were companies benefiting from harvesting my organs. I signed up to help people in need, not to help corporations. Especially corporations with a too-cozy relationship with the coroner's office. I'm revoking my organ donor status until this changes.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't overindex on this. I think this article is talking about biorepositories, which have a fair bit of work to do in storing organs in good condition and matching the donor data to clinical trials. More critical organs like hearts or kidneys are probably being sent to patients without much of a middleman

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The exemption for celebrities is especially troublesome. Who determines if you are a celebrity or media interest.

What if a celebrity had an organ donor citation on their drivers license. Do they still exempt them?

I might remove my organ donation status after reading this. It is a distortion of what I assumed occurred.

It would have been helpful to list the states where this is allowed. "California and many other states" is not very informative.

Harvesting body parts for profit is obscene.

<comment><USER8> > _The exemption for celebrities is especially troublesome._

When I saw that one, it became clear the companies involved in this know they are operating on shaky ground.

There is a perfectly valid concern of rich/eccentric/stalky people paying a lot of money to be fitted with bodyparts of their idol. I get that.

But even then the primary motivator _can only be_ pre-emptive avoidance of PR backlash. Harvesting cadavers for big profits feels creepy enough. But just imagine the media storm if a celebrity's family goes on national TV, complaining how their plans for open-coffin funeral were ruined because the national treasure's body had been taken apart and sold for very high-value scrap. Possibly (and quite literally) even before the corpse had got cold.

Optics are important. _Checks the price of cornea._

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps there needs to be an additional option; eg a) Organ Donor vs b) Science Donor, and some redefinition of the former to preclude post mortem pecuniary feasting. Most certainly, strict policy is needed to prevent harvesting without consent, which may be an issue more often than expected [1].

I must say, that the utilitarian views on corpse harvesting are to me, appalling. The thought of someone I cared profoundly for, having their form indifferently, irreverently butchered for anything other than pure, noble science or directly life-critical purposes is wretched, and even then... It appears that an argument is being made that such procedures benefit some, who even if able to survive without, are entitled and that it fills a market niche and therefore it's perfectly fine. If a case can be made for justifying cosmetic harvesting beyond the will of the departed, it doesn't seem drastically more extreme to propose an industry for necrophilia or necro- voyeurism or any other taboo having only ideological consequences. The same reasoning could be applied, with arguments both for and against being mostly of subjective values. I'd rather not.

I hope those who view existence and its every detail from macro to micro exclusively through the lens of cold science and economy can pause to consider either that some others don't, or find a suitable formulaic substitute for empathy. Assuming ownership and control of someone's (formerly) most intimate personal property, ie body, might not be as agreeable as you think.

1\. [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1997-nov-02-mn-49420-story.html)

<comment><USER9> Then I hope you never learn of Chinese organ harvesting farms.

<comment><USER3> I'm well aware of the issue and it isn't only China. The black market for parts is ubiquitous and illicit organ brokers are everywhere, etc, etc. Need a kidney? Someone knows a homeless guy pining for cash..[1]

We may not be as different from China as we prefer to think. Rather than state sanctioned, ours will be corporately so. Social credit system is coming here soon too.

1\. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cash-connections-can-get-a- kidn...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cash-connections-can-get-a-kidney-in- nyc/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't mind my body being ground up and used for penis plumper.

I do want my family to get a big cut of that if it's selling for a grand per teaspoon.

<comment><USER11> Federally there are laws against profiting off of organ trade, which is possibly why the company listed is registered as a nonprofit. You as an individual are operating for profit and would not qualify for an exemption.

It goes deeper, too, with bodily tissue not being recognized as property for some reason. This makes it hard to sue doctors and hospitals for misusing your medical waste, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How come you can only be an organ donor or nothing at all? Why is it not possible for your family to sell your body? I'm positive that it would flood the market with bodies and drive the value of your body down, but would at least still cover funeral services.

It would be nice if you could even select what you want to donate and sell, such as sell your skin and donate your organs.

<comment><USER13> I'm not saying I like this current system either, I but I could definitely see some downsides to letting people legally sell bodies for profit. It certainly seems chilling to me that people could have serious conversation about "what to do with grandma" if you have to consider not only how much it costs to take care of her, but also how much you could stand to be paid for her. It opens up a lot of unpleasant doors, but I guess its up for debate whether anyone thinks that's worse that what we have.

<comment><USER14> What stops a medical provider right now from letting someone die because they stand to profit more than if care is given to keep the patient alive?

<comment><USER10> On top of fear of malpractice suits and general well intention of doctors and nurses, medical providers make a lot more money from the provision of services than from being corpse brokers.

<comment><USER11> Have you ever researched the outcome of malpractice suits? People almost never win nowadays, usually because doctors must testify against other doctors. It is impossible to hold them accountable and now there are usually caps on damages.

<comment><USER15> It's so frustrating to see people deny truths because they don't like them. I know what you say to be true. I have experienced it and have seen many other victims of medical malpractice experience it. Money always wins and doctors and their insurance companies lobby for laws and establish facilities in areas with a more friendly jury pool (higher financial classes and peers). But I constantly hear how "people are just out for a payday" and how "easy" it is to sue and win from people who have no idea. Medical mistakes are the THIRD leading cause of death. They ruined my life. But every time the topic comes up and people speak about it like you did they are downvoted, ignored, dismissed. The same as the victims. People are just terrible so much of the time. No empathy or ethical/moral center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Medical examiners say among their hardest decisions is whether to allow > companies to recover organs or tissues from bodies of children...

Why are medical examiners the ones making these decisions?

</comment><comment><USER16> > ground-up human skin is priced at $434. That product is one of those used in > cosmetic surgery to plump lips and posteriors, fill cellulite dimples and > enhance penises

Disgusting.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, way to make people want to be organ donors. I'm willing to help someone who's got a bad kidney, but that? No way.

There's a big difference in giving up some body parts to save someone's life once you don't need them and getting sent to the glue factory to feed someone's vanity.

<comment><USER18> I mean, for a lot people, I imagine there isn't a difference. I'm going to remain an organ donor. It is said that Diogenes, when asked how he wished to be buried, left instructions to be thrown outside the city wall so wild animals could feast on his body. When asked if he minded this, he said, "Not at all, as long as you provide me with a stick to chase the creatures away!" When asked how he could use the stick since he would lack awareness, he replied "If I lack awareness, then why should I care what happens to me when I am dead?" At the end, Diogenes made fun of people's excessive concern with the "proper" treatment of the dead.

<comment><USER19> How we treat the dead has a profound effect on those that are still living.

If we just ground up your loved ones on death and turned them into fertilizer or corn feed for cows you might have a very dim view about life.

Funerals aren't for the dead, they are for the living.

<comment><USER20> Actually, I think I would choose to be ground up for fertilizer if I had that option.

<comment><USER21> There are burial options where they plant a tree (non fruit bearing) on top of your body if you really want to opt for something like that.

<comment><USER22> Why not a fruit bearing tree?

Is it a prion risk or other health concern? or just people being squeamish / worried about misuse e.g. "haha that apple you just ate was made out of my grandpa" type thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Umm... good? Didn't see anything wrong in the article. If people make money in the process it means it everything goes smoothly.

Also, I'm pretty sure it confused costs with prices. You may pay $x for medical grade skin prepped for the operating theatre. It doesn't mean the same skin still attached to a dead body is worth $x. It's like going to a restaurant and trying to pay for 1% of a cow's market value. You want to pay that money, better be ready to kill, cut and cook a cow.

<comment><USER4> When you donate blood to an organization like the American Red Cross, they sell that blood for around $200 per bag. But, they have to hire qualified and well-trained people and set up facilities with medical equipment to collect your blood. From the research I've done, they don't seem to be making much money off of your blood - it's reasonable for them to sell the blood to hospitals, otherwise blood supplies would be extremely limited.

This does not seem the same. It seems like companies are running around sending people to harvest as much tissue as fast as possible because they make tons of money. Note that the picture in the article only lists prices of skin, cornea, tendons, etc. That is probably because it is against US law to buy/sell actual organs like a heart or a kidney. But these companies are clearly making a profit on everything else if they're so obsessed with getting all the tissues they can, even at the cost of murder investigations.

The Red Cross marketing team calls me to get me to try to sign up for more blood donations. But they don't lobby the government for laws that hook them into the coroners and morgues so they can harvest all the blood the second that someone dies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> You body is worth a lot of money to your estate. By donating it someone in the medical industry gets to steal that money from your family then profit handsomely from it. That's why I choose no for organ donation, the whole industry is corrupt and I don't want to support it, even if it means that some unfortunate sick person is unable to buy my donated kidney for 50-100k in processing fees.

<comment><USER25> What a terrifyingly capitalistic view.

<comment><USER19> What's terrifying about it? That it shatters your previous understanding of the industry or that it implies some medical dystopia?

Would you prefer to instead called it a terrifyingly rational view?

<comment><USER26> Here in the UK healthcare is seen as a right. Hospitals and recipients of organs don't pay for them, and nobody is making money off of donated bodies.

The idea that access to life-saving treatment is based on ability to pay, and that there are corporations making profit at the expense of people's health and well-being is pretty terrifying to me. There's nothing rational about such a system.

<comment><USER27> Ability to pay dictates all aspects of life. Whether the individual pays or their country, at the end, no one works for free.

That is why poor people in poorer countries than the U.K. don't have access to life saving treatments. I'm sure even poor people in the U.K. don't have access to the same care that rich people do.

<comment><USER26> > Ability to pay dictates all aspects of life.

Only under capitalism. That's precisely why this is terrifyingly capitalistic. Societies ability to _produce_ dictates all aspects of life. But not necessarily ability to pay.

> I'm sure even poor people in the U.K. don't have access to the same care > that rich people do

Not if you're really rich (a millionaire). But even rich people in the UK will usually go for the NHS first. The care's pretty good.

<comment><USER19> All aspects of life are ultimately dictated by something. If not by the ability to pay, then it will be by other things out of your control or your ability to curry favor with those who can get you what you want.

I'd prefer it just be dictated by pay and skip the bullshit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That was a disturbing read.

I'm wondering how they would handle the bodies of those who have signed up for cryonics... Is there even a way to notify these companies that someone has signed up for that?

</comment><comment><USER29> [http://archive.is/tdZfF](http://archive.is/tdZfF)

</comment><comment><USER30> Thanks. I've opted out of organ donation and I'm informing everyone I know to do the same.

<comment><USER15> I will not likely be around much longer and there seems to be no way to ensure my remains are used for good or just flushed and not lining someone's pocket. You cannot even just be disposed of...you have to pay four figures at least just for a simple cremation where someone profits from just burning you up. I cannot even escape capitalism's nonsense in death. I had my end of life documents made up not long ago and had noted scientific donation as my preference, but after this article and looking into it more, I don't want some greedy jerkwad selling my bits. My life was ruined by greed and people choosing profits over life...and I hate the idea of those same sort of people "winning" in my death.</comment></comment>


Code reviews for fun & profit - <AUTHOR> http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/12/Code%20Reviews%20for%20Fun%20and%20Profit%20Paper.pdf

<comment><USER2> Great point about pair programming: The pair become synchronised missing things that an outside perspective would catch. The suggested response is to pair programmer and code review.

It also suggests framing any criticisms you have as questions. I'm going to try and make that a habit.</comment>


I'm getting sick and tired of dinosaurs being forced on our children - <AUTHOR> http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a2301982-Im-getting-sick-and-tired-of-dinosaurs-being-forced-on-our-children <comment><USER2> Poe's Law.</comment>


5 Minute Blog Using Nitrogen and CouchDB - <AUTHOR> http://medevyoujane.com/blog/2008/12/12/5-minute-blog-using-nitrogen-and-couchdb.html?SSScrollPosition=0 <comment><USER2> Erlang and CouchDB (which is written mostly in Erlang) are both very interesting technologies.

I've only briefly looked at Nitrogen, but I'm not sure I like the concept of a server-side framework that generates highly dependent client-side code. It seems like it makes it pretty easy to simple things, but very hard (if not impossible) to do complicated things. I could be totally wrong, but that's my first impression.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't generate much more client-side code than others. All frameworks are filled with javascript. At least 2 frameworks are almost JS only.

But regarding complicated things I dont get what you mean. You can easily generate whatever HTML you want using multiple ways. And complicated tasks is what Erlang is all about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A nice example, and probably its purpose is to look at Erlang/Nitrogen/etc rather than to actually create a blog, but if you're actually creating a blog nowadays, I'd stick with either Wordpress (or one of the other big boys), or, if you want to be guaranteed to survive the slashdot effect, generate a static html blog with something like Webby, with comment support from Disqus or the like.

<comment><USER3> Actually I would reccomennt Squarespace.com. It's by far the best one and handles digg/slashdot traffic nicely.

<comment><USER4> Any specific reasons why you'd recommend it over, say, a wordpress.com account?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> for a really simple blog _really_ fast just email email@example.com

<comment><USER2> It's a technology demo/tutorial, not a real viable blog.

<comment><USER3> You are right. It's mostly supposed to show one possible way on how to use CouchDB along with Nitrogen Bindings.</comment></comment></comment>


The Best VC Bets of All Time and What We Can Learn from Them - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbinsights.com/research/best-venture-capital-investments/ <comment><USER2> This is awesome!</comment>


Jet propulsion by microwave air plasma in the atmosphere - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/microwave-thruster-makes-for-clean-burning-jet/ <comment><USER2> "The essential idea is that air is ionized to a plasma, which is rapidly heated and allowed to expand to generate thrust."

So this is just a conventional heat engine, with an electric heater. This heater may be able to get the air much hotter than other methods, but the thing about a heat engine is that you cannot get useful work out unless the working fluid can expand sufficiently. An afterburner creates more thust by heating the air to a higher temperature than could be tolerated by the turbine, but the air is by then at a relatively low pressure, and so the Carnot efficiency is very poor - most of the extra fuel's energy goes into producing a hotter (and very visible) exhaust plume.

So, for this to be a component of a jet engine, it will need a compressor comparable to, or with an even higher presure ratio, than in current jet engines, and that compressor will have to be powered somehow (IIRC to the tune of about 50,000 SHP in the biggest engines now in use.)

For the most part, it makes no sense to use electricity to power a heat engine. In guessing where this might be useful, the only scenario I have come up with is for hypersonic ramjets, where electric motors turning fans are not an alternative, and possibly especially on worlds where the atmosphere does not support combustion.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma. Then you might be able to reach much higher exhaust velocities than with a conventional jet engine. I don't think your thermodynamic objections would apply to that case since the energy would remain organized, it wouldn't just be heat.

To do that though you'd need to find a way to maintain overall electrical neutrality.

<comment><USER4> >Yeah, it seems like it might make more sense if they could figure out a way to use the RF fields to actually accelerate some of the ions in the plasma.

That's essentially what they are doing, but in an oscillating path rather than a continuous path:

 _In the waveguide, the charged particles in the plasma start to oscillate with the microwave field_ (aka: RF) _while rapidly heating. The ions, atoms, and electrons collide with each other frequently, spreading the energy from the ions and electrons to the neutral atoms, heating the plasma rapidly. As a result, the researchers claim that the plasma rapidly heats to well over 1,000°C._

I don't know if you can rectify RF energy like you can with voltage. That might be one way to create a more continous path. They might also be able to add an electromagnetic field to create a net velocity out the provebial barn door as they do with ion thrusters, but I think the problem there is you just can't get enough free air path to accelerate to very high speeds...it'd be like trying to drive an F1 car at full throttle in bumper to bumper traffic. You could also pass a current _through_ the plasma to generate lorentz forces like they do in plasma driver rail guns.

One huge advantage with this design is no moving parts and presumably extremely low manufacturing costs. So it might not be awesome for commercial airliners but it could be useful for high endurance UAVs. Pack a few dozen of them and use just the ones you need.

<comment><USER3> > I don't know if you can rectify RF energy like you can with voltage.

You can in essence, because charged particles have inertia, they don't instantly follow the EM field. That's how RF particle accelerators work. But there you're working with a beam of charged particles, not a neutral plasma.

It still sounds to me that they are essentially using the RF energy just to heat the plasma and in that case the parent's objections seem valid, though I don't know much about jet engine design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Extrapolating linear trends over four orders of magnitude is a good way to > be disappointed in life

It's clearly early days - "it works in the lab, now we just need to scale it" type of progress. But still, it's progress.

<comment><USER3> If the article is right about the scaling required then I'm very skeptical that this will ever be practical. A 1 kW magnetron is a part found in just about every microwave oven. Scaling that up by 4 orders of magnitude would need a 10 MW RF source or amplifier. I'm pretty sure those don't exist and if they did they'd be very large and heavy. A long time ago I used to do RF engineering for particle accelerators and the most powerful continuous wave RF amplifiers I ever heard about were on the order of 1 MW.

An even bigger problem would be efficiency, which this article doesn't even mention (haven't looked at the original paper). High power RF amplifiers aren't particularly efficient, I would guess around 30%, and there would also be waveguide losses and cavity losses if any resonant effects are used to get high enough electric fields. I would be surprised if there's much hope of that competing with conventional jet engines on efficiency.

<comment><USER6> Thank you for this interesting comment!

When you say "continuous", would you consider some very high frequency solid state switching amplifier to be "continuous" enough for this application? I realize it's a different order of magnitude, but those GaN/Si transformers make me wonder if we aren't far off from some kind of megawatt scale solid state amplifier shakeup...

<comment><USER3> It's conceivable. I've seen solid state RF amplifier modules successfully combined into some quite high power units and that was over 20 years ago. I haven't followed the technology since so I'm not up to date on that at all. In any case I think a 10 MW amplifier and associated power supplies and cooling equipment would need to be large and heavy.

A single jet engine generates about 20 MW of power and I'd be very surprised if you could pack 10 MW of RF amplifier into that kind of size and weight envelope.

<comment><USER6> Makes sense. Maybe we'll see a fusion plasma thruster before the power/energy storage shrunk enough to make this viable as is (in the atmosphere and gravity of Earth at least).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is awesome! But my brain froze trying to link Wuhan to jet/plasma.

Ars technica has a good article on it too. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/microwave- thruster-m...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/microwave-thruster- makes-for-clean-burning-jet/)

<comment><USER8> We've changed to that from [https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0005814](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0005814). Thanks!

Submitted title was "Wuhan scientists develop jet propulsion by microwave air plasma", which broke the site guidelines by adding linkbait. Submitters: please don't do that. [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How is this better than an electric motor turning a fan?

Modern high-bypass jet engines get the vast majority of their thrust from turning a fan. The turbine part is (mostly) just used to generate torque to drive the fan.

Modern electric motors also have ridiculously high efficiencies (> 97% isn't uncommon).

So how would using electricity to heat the air be better than using the same electricity to turn a fan? The only place I can think of is high supersonic where fan efficiency starts to drop.

</comment><comment><USER10> This makes me think of all those UFO sightings of weird craft that flash multicolored lights that look like emission spectra you would get from plasma. I wonder if at least a few of these might have been classified experimental propulsion systems similar to this. The basic physics of this is not new and it's not like these programs have lacked the funding to experiment with crazy tech.

</comment><comment> dynamite-ready Is the technology demonstrated in this YT video - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5PYzGgHx14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5PYzGgHx14) \- in anyway similar?

</comment><comment><USER11> Correct me if I'm wrong but would this not spew massive amounts of nitrogen oxides? You know, the nasty pollutants you get when superheating air, such as in fuel-efficient diesel engines (see Dieselgate).

</comment><comment><USER12> If it's just using the microwaves to heat the air why not use resistive coils instead?

<comment><USER13> The plasma _is_ the resistive coil. Microwaves are used to carry energy to it because wires would melt.

<comment><USER12> How about tungsten coils?

<comment><USER14> I think those would burn, since these engines are meant to breath air (with oxygen in it.) Tungsten filaments work in lightbulbs because those are filled with an inert gas, or vacuum. The filaments burn quick when the bulb is broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What batteries are going to work for this?

<comment><USER16> I don't think that's necessarily a useful question at this point, because some of the basic thermodynamic assumptions don't work out for deciding between batteries vs. using a fuel-burning generator. Normally, it's pretty obvious that "Hey, if we're going to burn hydrocarbons to produce thrust, we might as well do it directly and not deal with necessary conversion efficiency losses between heat -> electricity -> heat." Since they're dealing with RF-generated gas plasmas, though, there might be efficiency gains with acceptable configurations and lower intermediate losses, etc. over traditional systems that makes those conversions acceptable. I've worked in a lab accelerating gas plasmas using helicon antenna, and as the article mentions, scaling those systems isn't a trivial implementation detail. It's very tough to reason about them from first principles, or even small-scale models because of the non- linearity in the relevant physics.

So, I guess in summary, imho it's probably a bit too early to talking about what kind of battery would be used, since it's unclear from the current system that a usable version would actually use batteries vs. another form of energy storage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If we're making plasma why not push it out the back with an electric field? Why is heating and expelling it more efficient?

</comment><comment><USER17> How is this diffferent from the antigravity patent?

"a device that uses a microwave emitter to create a high-frequency electromagnetic wave through a cavity to create a polarized vacuum. This polarized vacuum, in turn, reduces the mass of the vehicle containing the device."

(I know it probably is, just curious)

<comment><USER18> There is a massive working medium. For massless particles such as photons the connection between energy E and momentum p is E = p *c or p = E/c. Since c is large, the momentum p you can carry per energy E is small. For a massive particle with mass m the connection is given by E = p^2 / (2 m) or p = sqrt(2 m E). As long as E is small (so small that the velocity of the particle is small compared to the speed of light, but that is required anyway for the non- relativistic approximation I am using here a) the sqrt doesn't hurt you too much and you can actually carry much more momentum per particle.</comment></comment>


A Lecture on Johnson and Boswell by Jorge Luis Borges (1966) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2013/07/28/lecture-johnson-and-boswell/ <comment><USER2> Borges is such a pleasure to read. His writing is a continuous stream of wit and unusual, but consistent ideas.

<comment><USER3> Where would you recommend starting with him? I've read The Library of Babel short story (because of this cool website: [https://libraryofbabel.info/](https://libraryofbabel.info/)), but not sure where to go next.

<comment><USER4> Alternatively, you could check out his non-fiction, say _Selected Non- Fictions_ ([https://www.amazon.com/Borges-Selected-Non-Fictions-Jorge- Lu...](https://www.amazon.com/Borges-Selected-Non-Fictions-Jorge- Luis/dp/0140290117)). Checking the table of contents, I particularly like "A New Refutation of Time" (Available from Gwern: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1947-borges- anewrefutation...](https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1947-borges- anewrefutationoftime.pdf)), "Pascal's Sphere" (also available: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1951-borges- pascalssphere....](https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1951-borges- pascalssphere.pdf)), and the lecture "Blindness" ([https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1977-borges- blindness.pdf;](https://www.gwern.net/docs/borges/1977-borges-blindness.pdf;) there may be some copyright issues here).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is the original: [https://borgestodoelanio.blogspot.com/2015/10/borges- profeso...](https://borgestodoelanio.blogspot.com/2015/10/borges-profesor- clase-9-samuel-johnson.html)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for that link! It's always nice to have access to the original language.

<comment><USER5> You're welcome. I would also recommend these two volumes of his collected works:

1\. [https://www.rae.es/obras-academicas/ediciones- conmemorativas...](https://www.rae.es/obras-academicas/ediciones- conmemorativas/borges-esencial)

2\. [https://librosdecibola.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/resena- jorge...](https://librosdecibola.wordpress.com/2016/12/04/resena-jorge-luis- borges-miscelanea-debolsillo/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSLV7t9DvN8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSLV7t9DvN8) This is a fascinating series of lectures by Borges. Those who enjoy his erudition and his infectious love for English poetry will no doubt enjoy the investment of a few hours.

</comment><comment><USER8> > He then published his edition of Shakespeare, which he finished only because > his publishers had received payments from subscribers, so it had to be done.

Thank god for deadlines and obligations, they've generated so much creative work for the world.

You see a lot of successful people generate a lot less, especially older people with a wide open timeline.

For ex Stanley Kubrick spent 10yrs working on a Napoleon film he never released and only published when he perfected his films. Which is good and bad.

I also read Schoolboy Q recently made 3 albums and deleted them all because he wasn't happy. The luxury of being successful without deadlines.

</comment><comment><USER9> This really makes me want to read Boswell's biography of Johnson - contemporary accounts from past eras are, in my experience, fascinating and often mind blowing, and by how Borges describes it, Boswell's account must be a rare gem.

<comment><USER10> The biography puts me in mind of Johnson's own "No, sir--do _you_ read books through?" I've read a fair bit, but never have sat down to read it front to back.

Penguin has a very handy volume combining Johnson's _A Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland_ and Boswell's _A Tour to the Hebrides_.

</comment></comment><comment> denton-scratch I love Borges. I wish I could read Spanish, just so I could read Borges (well OK, I guess I'd also like to dip my foot into Cervantes).

I would like to read this bio; happily, my step-son works at Blackwells bookshop in Oxford, so it shouldn't be too hard to get a copy.

<comment><USER4> Be careful. IIRC, according to Borges, you can't just dip your foot into Cervantes.

What bio are you talking about? _The Life of Samuel Johnson_ , by Boswell? That should be reasonably easy to get anywhere. This article is from _Professor Borges: A Course on English Literature_ , taken from a student's notes for the class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Borges is the master of the short story, but I think that he may need to share that title with Guy de Maupassant. I'm currently reading both of their collected works of fiction, alternating between them with each story and enjoying the experience.

</comment><comment><USER12> I find it impossible to put anything by Borges down. It's good that he only wrote short stories, I think, and all the more amazing how packed with content and imagery (without even remotely overdoing it) his writing is.</comment>


Ask HN: Well Designed TypeScript Project - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for some Typescript projects that show case the language's features and good TS/JS design patterns to level up my Typescript skills. I've had a little peek at a couple like TSLint but I'm not sure if these really showcase the language well.<p>Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> I work on the TS team, I have built two pretty big TypeScript projects in the lsat few years:

\- [https://github.com/danger/danger-js](https://github.com/danger/danger-js) \- [https://github.com/flappy-royale/flappy-royale](https://github.com/flappy- royale/flappy-royale)

They don't use bleeding edge concepts, but are solid & simple codebases which have scaled well. (Though whether you should ever take code advice from a game is a worthy question)</comment>