Filepicker.io + Zencoder - <AUTHOR> http://blog.filepicker.io/post/45899334267/filepicker-io-zencoder-adding-video-to-your-app-in <comment><USER2> The Zencoder blogpost cautions:

 _It is a BAD IDEA to put your Zencoder API key in plain text inside of JavaScript. Just to repeat that one more time, do not use this in code that other people could possibly access. Nothing would stop people from taking your API key and encoding all the video they wanted._

The implication is that I couldn't therefore put this code in any internet- facing webpages.

Which leads me to wonder what the use-cases are for this implementation ?

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a demonstration of how the two can work together, but in a production setup you'll want to do the following transformation:

Instead of getting the fpurl and passing that to zencoder via a $.ajax call, first pass it to your server and then hit zencoder server-side using one of their libraries.

<comment><USER3> +1 We've been using both zencoder and filepicker for our Ember/Rails app and that is exactly how it works. Ember posts fpurl to our Rails API, rails hits zencoder to kick-off processing job. API keys stay secure and files never pass thru our system. Awesome!

<comment><USER4> Awesome! I had no intention of the advanced demo getting as big as it did, otherwise I would have used Ember from the beginning. We're going to post a longer tutorial using Filepicker + Zencoder + Socket.IO pretty soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Quicklinks:

\- demo: [http://zenpicker.s3-website-us- east-1.amazonaws.com/dropzone...](http://zenpicker.s3-website-us- east-1.amazonaws.com/dropzone_history.html)

\- source code: <https://github.com/zencoder/filepicker-zencoder>

\- Full tutorial: <https://gist.github.com/sh1ps/e0884be21fb3f45cbddc> or [http://blog.zencoder.com/2013/03/20/look-ma-no-backend- uploa...](http://blog.zencoder.com/2013/03/20/look-ma-no-backend-uploading- and-encoding-using-filepicker-io-and- zencoder/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter)

Edited to add zencoder blog post

</comment><comment><USER5> I just recorded my video but my since Flash auto-selects line-in for me, no audio was actually recorded.

We ran into that problem a lot while trying to optimize the user experience of the VideoView recording application. It turns out end users will ignore lack of audio feedback and some will even continue recording when the interface shows nothing but a black screen in case the wrong camera is selected.

We're building a semi-automated selection interface for it now using entropy estimations to select the best camera and microphone, but since you're probably optimizing more for a quick start I'd suggest doing a quality analysis (like PExQ for example) after the fact so you can at least give an early warning that there may have been an issue recording the video.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is great. Spinning out a consumer-friendly front end to the Zencoder API has been in my sparkfile for too long. I even shared the same idea with HN[0] because I know some bootstrapper is going to make a killing if they can pair it with Stripe and push it out the door in a weekend.

[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5274117>

A co-founder of Zencoder even replied to my suggestion mentioning that there's a market for it.

(If you're a hardcore wantrepreneur, here is your idea. Now go forth and build the bootstrapped SaaS biz you always wanted. Send me a link when its done, I know some people that would probably use it. Seems I can't ever find a spare weekend to build it myself)

</comment><comment><USER7> We've been using Filepicker.io + Zencoder to encode customer videos for a while. Shameless plug: <http://www.vipecloud.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Can't wait to mess around with this!

To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't more competition in this market, as filepicker has been saving me and the rest of our dev team hours and hours of valuable time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Shhh don't tell anyone! :D

<comment><USER7> Hey Brett,

Any chance filepicker.io will get any faster in the short term? Facebook integration has been _really_ slow lately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks awesome!

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks awesome. I can totally use it!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is huge. Congratulations!</comment>


Why TechCrunch is over - <AUTHOR> http://yared.com/2011/04/why-techcrunch-is-over.html <comment><USER3> There are a lot of flaws in this analysis...

1\. Yes Techcrunch's traffic is down according to Compete but so is the traffic from other sites that cover the same space. In the last 6 months Venturebeat for example is down 73%. ReadWriteWeb is down 38%. Even smaller sites are down. CenterNetworks covers relatively the same space and they're down 38%. By comparison Techcrunch is only down 29%.

2\. The author states Michael Arrington making increasingly inflammatory posts as a reason why techcrunch will fail. But in my experience such posts tend to draw traffic. More to the point Arrington has been at this for a while, he uses analytics and he's not stupid. If the inflammatory posts weren't getting results he wouldn't continue to post them.

3\. The author uses Wavii as an example of how TechCrunch is no longer a "kingmaker" because they've pushed that startup and it hasn't gotten major funding. But said product hasn't even launched yet so it's really too early to receive more funding (they already got $2m in seed funding and that was only 9 months ago). So the example doesn't really hold.

4\. I actually kind of agree with this point in that I don't really enjoy Paul Carr, Sarah Lacy or Steve Gillmor. But again the site has analytics so I assume they'd be gone if everyone agreed with me. So clearly they're drawing a crowd regardless of how I feel. The author needs to realize the same is true of his opinion.

5\. The last point boils down to "the author doesn't like Arrington so he'll fail". Well...a lot of people haven't liked Michael Arrington in the past and he's succeeded in spite of it.

I'm not saying Techcrunch doesn't have its problems but they're far from "over"

<comment><USER4> > _The author states Michael Arrington making increasingly inflammatory posts > as a reason why techcrunch will fail. But in my experience such posts tend > to draw traffic._

The article argues the opposite: Arrington is shouting louder and louder in order to stop the traffic from hemorrhaging. Looks fairly true to me, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I found this quote to be pretty good:

"If it was not for MG Siegler (Apple fanboyism aside) and Erick Schonfeld, TechCrunch would be a content-free environment. The rest of the writing has become incredibly self-referential and stale. Paul Carr has the magical ability to consistently write articles that say nothing other than what he did yesterday. Sarah Lacy keeps writing about startups in Indonesia that no one cares about, because even startups in first world countries like France can't seem to make it. Alexia Tsotsis has no clue about underlying technology or any context but continually injects her opinions and should instead write for PopSugar. Steve Gillmor occasionally adds a rambling grandpa perspective. Robin Wauters, Leena Rao and Jason Kincaid are all competent at summarizing the news, and even add a bit of context, but their content is no different than what you can read elsewhere."

<comment><USER6> Yeah sometimes i feel TechCrunch is biased. I am not comfortable with people who write news on behalf of some company. We expect them to write the real news rather than supporting some and reprimanding others.

<comment><USER7> Then you need to readjust your expectations from false idealism to Mike's reality.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, i am in verge of adjusting my expectations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hate how people cite Compete.com traffic graphs as "fact". Fact #1 is not a fact at all.

Reference point: <http://siteanalytics.compete.com/macrumors.com/> (estimated traffic, graph goes down) vs <http://www.quantcast.com/macrumors.com> (measured traffic, graph goes up)

I also like how he cites Compete's numbers for TechCrunch (1 million uniques), but doesn't use Compete's numbers for his own site PostPost. Compete says PostPost gets 18k uniques/month yet he cites 100K uniques. Why not compare apples to apples?

<comment><USER9> It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people.

Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230 million+ interet users: [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=it_net_us...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=it_net_user&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=internet+users)

I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.

<comment><USER10> "I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant."

I am not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

The real problem isn't the small sample size (2 million is really large), it's probably that they're not representative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While I disagree with most of Arringtons written opinions I do respect the fact he managed to build a highly successful blog. I do however think that the quality has disappeared from techcrunch and 90% of the stuff that gets published on TC is tabloid crap. This is why I've taken TC off my RSS reader and now instead read The Startup Foundry.

</comment><comment><USER12> I worked for TC for a long time and lived and worked in the same house as Mike for almost 4 years, so I know how he works very well.

First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers, but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is fading.

The number of re-tweets, comments, referral traffic, twitter subscribers, Techememe headlines, HN headlines, story leads etc. is as high as ever. Monthly uniques are nowhere near the 1M compete would want us to believe they are.

There are a few different types of blogger. Those who don't get access to stories and rely on press releases, generally boring. Then there are those who get access to information, but refuse to post about it for fear of pissing somebody off, just as boring and probably worse than the first type. Then there is the type of blogger who gets access to information, and has no problem stepping on toes to get the information out.

Mike is of this variety. You could say that he is the prime example of the new breed of process journalist - he would rather a (now rather low) error rate on 1-2% of stories in order to get the other 98% out there for the audience. I have intimate knowledge of how he works and how he puts stories together - <USER2> the extent that even now, with him on the other side of the world, I can read a story on headline and put together what went on behind the scenes to get this story out (such as the Facebook stock story). He is constantly on the phone and emailing people. He literally has hundreds of people on speed dial, on skype and in his email contact list - he would send dozens of single-line emails each day building information up around the story, and over the years has gotten very good at both extracting responses from people first, and then figuring out what is really happening by triangulating.

Sometimes the stories are posted a little early, and you see that process play out through a post being edited or through multiple posts that make up a larger story (like Scamville, and almost certainly this Facebook stock story). Arrington and his stories reflect the scene - if he is pumping a startup, it is because through talking to dozens of investors he keeps hearing about it. He rarely is the first to step out, but is a lot better at capturing mood and opinion and then amplifying it. He can also put his finger on what is wrong and what is right - and Angelgate was an example of that.

That also applies to this Facebook stock story. Do you really think he would just pick on him for no reason? Or is it more likely that he got a tip about it, confirmed it with one more person, phoned Facebook to talk about it (who asked to be off the record), contacted the guy in question, and then posted the story? A blogger who just makes things up and is wrong would never have an audience.

You only ever have to talk to anybody who has worked with Mike, any startup who has gone through the process with him, or any other blogger who respects that process, to understand that there is something special going on there. Mike has a lot of people he can count on in his circle and within the industry because of that. I watched him approach almost every word in a post with a lawyer's caution - he would constantly review even after a post is published and the possibility of not getting something right totally eats at him (to the point where he can't sleep). You have completely mischaracterized him as being careless, from a guy who used to wake me up at 5am just to check the smallest details of a story. Just shows that you totally do not understand what and who you are trying to diss at.

If you don't like this style of story - then don't read it. There are plenty of blogs that just churn out press release after press release and appease those who don't want to see the boat rocked. But don't attempt to string together poor traffic stats and two or three misses from a collection of thousands of hits into some narrative about Techcrunch failing.

If Techcrunch earned a dollar for ever blog post that has been written about it failing or jumping the shark then it could easily double revenue. Fact is that right now it still dominates startup news, is one of the main outlets to reach a startup audience if your are launching a product, and even with Mike writing less it is not fading anywhere - since his style is contagious and has been picked up by other writers.

I have seen this trend cycle of things being cool when new, and then suddenly uncool when popular, play out too many times not to be wise to it. There is nothing wrong with reading Techcrunch _and_ other blogs, this isn't winner takes all. I enjoy reading HN, Reddit, The Startup Foundry, etc. This isn't grade school where you need to pick a team to be on and do your best to fight the other tribe (especially including personal attacks, which completely makes you cheap) - if you think you can do better in any way, try it, keep writing with Venturebeat and don't bitch about it - the readers and audience will decide based on quality not on preaching.

<comment><USER13> Nick C. I know Mike pretty well too, including your history with him.He is a shithead of the highest order. Just because he put up with your nonsense doesnt make him special. The article is dead on.

<comment><USER12> The irony in the OP is that he is a blogger criticizing another blogger for poor quality and his own post is complete shit.

A proper critique of Techcrunch would look more like this:

Take some real traffic and social network stats

Take a sample of stories from 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago and compare volume, subject matter, stories about startups to show a trend in topics covered, etc. Produce a nice graph showing how the # of startup stories has decreased. Overlay it with traffic stats.

Show examples of startups that launched without Techcrunch

Show examples of other tech conferences, other sources of startup information and how they compare, new upcoming blogs

Show examples of stale writing, poor writing, where tech issues were not correct. Do this using quotes and links.

Substantiate each one of these points and conclude using all this data that the influence of Techcrunch may not be what is once was, then pontificate what the future may hold.

Writing a proper story would require effort - it is a lot easier to take a screenshot from compete, call somebody a dick, submit it to HN and appeal to the masses.

<comment><USER14> That is a much, much higher standard than TechCrunch itself seems to use.

On one hand you claim inaccuracies are "2%" and acceptable, and that a few phone calls is enough research before going to press. On the other hand you demand a 6-point research project before someone can even _begin_ to criticize TC in turn.

Where is your six-point research project backing up why "his own post is complete shit"? I have no opinion either way -- but I believe you're applying very different standards of proof.

<comment><USER12> his post was a poor personal attack with zero effort to back up any claims. I outlined one of the ways it could have been a better post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How about ignoring the tiresome commentators, and the tiresome commentators complaining about other tiresome commentators.

<comment><USER16> It's time to write your own blog post called "Why You Should Not Think That TechCrunch Is Not Over And Also How I Built A Successful Startup" and then submit it to hackernews under your own account. :)

<comment><USER17> *How TechCrunch Is Not Over Is Over Launched After 24 Hours With 24K Users :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Alexa shows something similar, but it's pretty noisy: <http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/techcrunch.com#>

I don't think the content has changed much, and TC is still my preferred "big tech blog". But FB comments decreased my visiting quite a bit. I used to comment with Disqus quite frequently. Trolling is down, but the comments are less interesting.

Think about what would happen to HN if we used FB profiles.

Comments are valuable content. They aren't just a widget. FB comments are bland.

<comment><USER19> Totally agree. I couldn't believe that TC decided to put the comments system (the only reason visit TC) in a walled garden that is Facebook. I myself have all FB widgets blocked at my proxy so it took me a while to realize why there were no comments when I clicked through.

Delegating the primary form of participation on your site to an outside firm strikes me as a bad idea. Maybe Facebook is paying TC to use their system?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't really say if TechCrunch is 'over' (and here I thought 'over' was over (props to Portlandia)), but I can say that artificial viral marketing is a very strange thing indeed. Reading TechCrunch stories always gives me a feel for who is maneuvering and who isn't, and as with most blogs it seems there is a certain 'shadows on the wall of the cave' kind of aspect to it.

As an entrepreneur, do you think it helps or hinders your efforts to be "exposed" by a widely read blog? As a VC/Angel is this where you look for insights into the 'next big thing' ? And what of Peter Yared or other folks who write articles and give them away from free to various outlets like BusinessWeek, AdWeek, CNet, and others?

One of the things this article illustrates is that the Bay Area, and technology in general, is taking its lead from "Hollywood" rather than from say "Detroit" or "Pittsburgh". Why the star culture? Why the hype? Does Lindsay Lohan look like someone having fun? (I don't know but it doesn't look like it to me).

Arrington appears to enjoy lightning rod status, and while he sometimes whines loudly about getting wet he must be getting something out of going into the storm. I'm curious about the larger question about what it means.

It used to be that presenting at Usenix was "cool" and presenting as Uniforum was a "cop out." Why don't we have more of the 'serious' conferences any more? More questions than answers that is for sure.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have access to site analytics for 2 sites pushing 70 and 100 million page views respectively, compete is HILARIOUSLY wrong, we're talking close to 1000% off in accuracy.

There's a reason Alexa measures in percent.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't think the author is right in his assertion that collusion requires a monopoly. A collusion to fix prices and exclude competition is a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market power of the participants or the actual effect on competition, I believe.

</comment><comment><USER23> I presume it was accidental and not a purposeful but Yared (the author of the article) should probably disclose that he knows Michael Brown (the FB guy subject to the insider trading accusations made by Techcrunch).

<comment><USER24> If this is true, then why would you presume that it was accidental? It seems like a very major conflict-of-interest that should definitely have been mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Vivek Wadwha needs to start his own (regularly updated) blog, or start writing posts for The Startup Foundry. His content is just on a whole new level compared to the other posts on TC. Here is a recent post he wrote that completely blew me away:

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends- don%E2%80%99t-let-f...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/26/friends- don%E2%80%99t-let-friends-get-into-finance/)

I've sent this article to numerous GSI's (Berkeley jargon for a TA) and professors and they were blown away as well. Even my Dad, someone who is a hardcore WSJ guy and doesn't read many blogs enjoyed it immensely.

I'm at Berkeley now, and I need to meet this guy, yet I have no idea how to go about doing so. Perhaps I should just shoot him an email and let him know that our passions are in line? Unfortunately he may be a little busy for 1 on 1 time with a freshman, but it can't hurt.

<comment><USER26> I think part of the reason he doesn't do that is so he can pop in his two cents when he has time. Consistently blogging well is such an underrated and difficult job. Agreed though - his stuff is quite awesome and at the very least stirs a great discussion from which a lot can be learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not taking sides but with Compete.com's history of bad data I wouldn't trust it that much. Here's another reference from Google Trends for Websites:

[http://trends.google.com/websites?q=techcrunch.com%2C+readwr...](http://trends.google.com/websites?q=techcrunch.com%2C+readwriteweb.com%2C+venturebeat.com&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0)

According to Google TC's traffic is down a bit but nothing as dramatic.

</comment><comment><USER28> _Completely off topic_

Can someone point me in the general direction of whomever started this "Why X is X" headline meme, so I can hop in my 80's plutonium powered Eurocar and beat the shit out of them?

It's lazy, it's trite, and it's poor form in writing.

</comment><comment><USER29> The only thing on TechCrunch I religiously read/watch anymore is TC Cribs, I just like to see how people work at companies in the valley.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just like any other publication it has an audience. That is how I see TechCrunch. There isn't a publication I know of that can be all things to all people, less be correct about everything. Even the editors at Wikipedia fight over content... Thus I accept the 80/20 rule on TC and basically any Internet site.

</comment><comment><USER31> TechCrunch is not over. It's just that the great-stratups-are-everywhere environment matured. It's less novel. And the marketing playground is for non geeks = less tech blogs readers. These are all good news.

<comment><USER32> The quality of good company is they should keep giving something new when their "usual" business is saturated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> So clearly there's some discontent with startup journalism.

It would be hard for this to smell more like an opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER34> why did the guy include a link to his new app (postpost) in the first lines of the post?

</comment><comment><USER35> People can argue back and forth over exact reasons why TC is or isn't "over", but the fact of the matter is that at this time last year I found their stories interesting and hit the site at least twice a day. Now I show up once a week and I'm just not very excited about their content. How or why is for other people to figure out. I just think it's boring and borderline tabloid journalism now.

<comment><USER36> A year ago I would have the site pulled up daily.

These days, I'll view it once or twice a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Techcrunch may be over because it has become irrelevant to the community of entrepreneurs/developers. Michael sometimes writes an interesting column. The rest is like a TMZ for the rich people of the silicon valley.

There are real issues like these: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291336> which they refuse to cover

<comment><USER38> This is crap. TC was always an extension of Arrington's personal connections. He made friends in the valley 10 years ago which allows him access to info that isn't available to others. He's not interested in the obvious crap like that to which you link. Your misunderstanding sounds cultural. I'm not even sure what to make of the "rich peoples" comment.

<comment><USER37> So, he never writes about the Google/facebook rivalry? [http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/take-a-deep-breath- google-f...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/take-a-deep-breath-google- facebook-isnt-doing-search-just-yet/) <http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/04/facebook-google-contacts/> [http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google- openn...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/facebook-slaps-google-openness- doesnt-mean-being-open-when-its-convenient/)

Keep insulting</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists develop polariton nano-laser operating at room temperature - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-polariton-nano-laser-room-temperature.html <comment><USER2> Is this laser powerful enough to burn things?</comment>


"They" as a neutral version for singular - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

<comment><USER2> Am i the only one around here who thinks that grammatical gender is dependent on the linguistical context, rather than the gender of the referenced person/object?</comment>


Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/1990/09/why-be-honest-if-honesty-doesnt-pay <comment><USER2> "There is no compelling economic reason to tell the truth or keep one's word"

This article was from 1990 but I sure hope no one "educated" wrote this. The ignorance of that statement is astounding.

I wont even bother going into the millions of economic reasons to tell the truth. That doesnt mean it always economical to tell the truth, but to act like there are none is absurd.</comment>


Experiment: Re-naming 31 Startups with the Domain Refinery - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bionica.com/2011/08/31/experiment-renaming-31-startups-with-domain-refinery.html

<comment><USER2> Sounds like a great idea. I have several web sites and I would definitely have given this a try when trying to find names for those. And I'll give it a try for the next one.

But I have a couple questions that I didn't find answers for in your article. They are:

1) For a "typical" case, how many rounds are necessary? I know it all depends on the particulars, but some bounds would be good to know.

2) I see you have an introductory rate of $5 per round. That seems like an amazingly good price, assuming the service works. Is that price sustainable, or will it have to rise to meet costs?

3) Did you use this approach to name your own start-up (Bionica.com)?

<comment><USER3> 1) There seem to be two things that impact the number of rounds necessary, your description and how many names are taken in that area. With the same description, usually one or two rounds is sufficient to see how well you're going to do (sometimes you'll get a bad batch of workers, but one or two rounds is usually enough to smooth the variance). However, if you're changing little things it might go longer. For example, if I was to do more rounds, I'd probably add something to the DebtEye description to ask for more "safe sounding" words, and less sort of sleazy words (e.g., "ez" or "instant").

2) $5 is below cost, our twin goals for the moment are to gather more data about what sorts of names we can do well on and to get our name out there. We'll probably do a survey or something later of real buyers to see what the actual price should be. There's also some raw-ness to the results right now (e.g., you'll get 2 or 3 good results with 47 bad results) so we're keeping the price relatively low until we have better automated filtering.

3) Unfortunately, when we were just starting out we didn't have Domain Refinery (and a naive implementation doesn't work terribly well for reasons I won't go into). As a result, we did the days of brainstorming followed by purchasing an overpriced name route. However, we've since used Domain Refinery for our naming, and in fact, Domain Refinery is named using itself. The top three names for what is now the Domain Refinery were domainrefinery.com, nolongernameless.com, and brainstormdomains.com. Ultimately, we liked domainrefinery.com best because it signaled the refinement aspect that we wanted to contrast against competitors.

(I'm one of the co-founders.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is an interesting and promising concept and I certainly prefer some of your suggested names to the originals. However, the analysis of result quality is fairly subjective and in many cases I prefer the original name to the suggestions. I'm sure others would have different opinions.

Great tool for kicking off an initial brainstorm around names even if you don't end up using one of the suggestions. In fact, it could even be useful for gauging an initial reaction to your startup concept.

<comment><USER3> The brainstorming and initial reaction points are two points I actually forgot to make in the blog post. Thanks!

Regarding brainstorming, I've found that I tend to get locked into one line of thinking when brainstorming domains, and the workers don't do that (since they're all different people). As a result, even if the specific proposal by a worker isn't great, they're often on to an interesting line of domains that I can continue myself.

Regarding initial reaction, I found that the process of honing a description to get a good name was actually really similar to honing a pitch describing a company. When the workers didn't get the concept, they could not produce good names. Further, the best descriptions start to sound like what-problem-does- this-solve customer-based pitches for websites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Our Startup, Buyosphere previously had a name so bad (shwowp for wow in shopping) that we even won an award for the worst brand name in 2010! Read about the rebranding here: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/15/purchase-sharing- site-shwow...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/15/purchase-sharing-site-shwowp- becomes-buyosphere-opens-to-the-public/)

We actually crowdsourced domain name suggestions with a lot of suggestions and the winner wasn't great enough to warrant a name change. We got some free help from a brand name expert and we finally found a word play around the concept of replacing "bio" with "buyo". We loved the buyosphere.com domain name since it represented exactly what we're about. As a bonus we can play around concept such as a user buyography.

However, the buyosphere.com domain name was taken but amazingly, the owner was willing to sell it to us for $500. We just was sitting on it and liked what we wanted to do with it.

Conclusion: we're the proof that you shouldn't put aside taken domain names being squatted and have nothing to lose to just ask.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think you could add something else to your algorithm. Some of the key words defining the business are ranked on adwords, so a particular good keyword in the name will increase the search engine ranking of this new name significantly. Perhaps you can specify this fit with some stats taken from adwords.

<comment><USER3> I really like the idea of combining AdWords with domain search, though I'm not quite sure what the right implementation is.

For example, suppose that there are two domains, "[uniquequery].com" and "[commonquery].com". Do you think people would prefer the "[uniquequery].com" because their name will show up at the top when they tell people about it (and because its more unique)? Or do you think people would prefer "[commonquery].com" because it will be easier to rank for the competitive query and there might be more organic traffic?

We had a similar question, trying to decide between "brainstormdomains.com" (which seems like a much more common query, though I haven't checked) and "nolongernameless.com"/"domainrefinery.com".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are you guys going to hook into SEO at some point? A catchy / associative domain name is great, but I've found that it also has to be search-friendly. Thoughts?

<comment><USER3> This is definitely a direction we're considering going in, but we're not quite sure exactly what people want.

Are there particular features we should provide, constraints on domains, or other things that we could brainstorm that you have in mind?

(You can also e-mail me with your thoughts, my e-mail is now in my profile.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I will sell lannisters.com to DebtEye if the price is right, with the wild popularity of Game of Thrones I think it's a pretty good one :)

I'm actually doing something sort of similar to DebtEye with lannisters.com as a weekend project, but I have many other weekend project ideas.

</comment><comment><USER9> I quite like the idea, so I decided to test it out. However, after filling the form and paying, there is no feedback. I expected an email with the rest of process: "You can expect the first results in X hrs/days" or so. Now I just have to hope something comes out of it.

<comment><USER3> Sorry for the delay! We actually got a bunch of orders, so we're in the process of running brainstorms for all of them.

Since the blog post said that most of the iterations were a few days, we originally opted not to have a follow-up email, but I think that was probably a mistake. I'll modify our systems right away to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you are serious about your startup and can spend a bit of money to get a good name, spend the $1000....relying on services that only offer names that aren't registered is a mistake in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER11> FYI (OT): The "Bionica" link in the upper left of your blog leads to the default github "page missing". The home link on the right is OK.

<comment><USER3> Should be fixed now on reload. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've just signed up (henry.oswald) your drop down on the pay now in chrome crops off the cents in the price.

<comment><USER3> Will fix that!

At the moment, there's only one option so we'll probably just switch over to having a button, but I haven't had a chance to convert it yet. (PayPal has a habit of blocking your forms if they detect any mismatches between your encrypted and form data, so I want to be careful about it.)</comment></comment>


Hacker Claims Airplanes Vulnerable - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100784103#_gus

<comment><USER2> To be more accurate, a hacker claims that airplanes WILL BE vulnerable.

I'm a little confused about how he claims to know this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he hasn't seen the system in development or explored its security vulnerabilities.

> _"The problem with this is that the signals they are using are unencrypted > and unauthenticated."_

How do we know that? The final product doesn't even exist yet.</comment>


What do you think about this project? - <AUTHOR>

This is something I've done part time, at the beginning it was to satisfy my own need, and mainly for fun. URL: http://www.xnapi.com/
I've been meaning to ask the YC community if this is something that you'd want to use. If you want, you can try the small demo with Gmap API I put together. Basically it is a website that would help you use web APIs without coding knowledge. Even if you know how to code, it could save you time reading documentation and learning the API yourself.
I know this is a hackers community and you might well feel that you can just work with APIs yourself. I'm asking for ideas on how this can be further developed. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks :) <comment><USER2> Interesting. Could use a bit of clarity/simplification on the home page.

Maybe just get rid of "The web today is full of useful...

...with XNAPI."

and go straight to the TRY IT NOW button.

I'd love to see more examples.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I can give you more examples of how people can use gmap: \- If you love travel, you can show a map of where you've visited. \- You can show direction to a place with Gmap Directions API

After Google Map, I'm not sure what other APIs I should work on next, any suggestions?</comment></comment>


National parks in Arizona using microchip tech to deter cactus thieves - <AUTHOR> http://ktar.com/story/1998430/national-parks-in-arizona-using-microchip-tech-to-deter-thieves/ <comment><USER2> If they can't be tracked, how would that deter thieves? Edit: looks like they can't be used to track, but to identify cacti "suspected stolen", so I guess that's something.</comment>


Replacing the Android camera pipeline and the use of computation photography - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@mirsadm/replacing-the-entire-camera-pipeline-in-android-460fe5e46a64 <comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author of the blog post (and app). This has been a side project of mine for over 2 years! I'd be happy to answer any questions.</comment>


Wealth anorexia a.k.a. hating yourself because you're not Larry Ellison - <AUTHOR> http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2010/08/dangers-of-unrealistic-wallet-image.html <comment><USER2> If this is a real problem I'd say it applies less to successful entrepreneurs who try too hard, but more for semi-successful middle-managers and sales people etc who put themselves in debt to gain the appearance of wealth. I mean isn't this partly the root cause for the housing bubble and subsequent collapse?

When you walk into a swanky club, the guys getting bottle service, that buy Range Rovers and overpriced condos they have to make ridiculous payments on - I would say these are the guys with wealth anorexia.

</comment><comment><USER3> Speaking as someone who treats anorexia, this is a deeply flawed metaphor. Anorexia is not only about self-image but often about control, particularly controlling the one thing that is extremely difficult for other people to force you to do: eat. It is more often rooted in control than mere vanity or jealousy.

It is not the same, even as a shallow metaphor, as desiring to be wealthy.

<comment><USER4> Interesting. The idea that gets spread around about anorexics is that they honestly believe themselves to be too fat, even when they're dangerously underweight. Are you saying that's not really the case? (It always seemed iffy to me...)

<comment><USER3> No, the distorted body image is absolutely a part of it. But it's just one part of several that make anorexia what it is. It is a complex problem, and not well reduced to one element.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just really liked one of the comments:

"(Steve Jobs = Angelina Jolie; Mark Zuckerberg = Scarlett Johansson; who's Paris Hilton?)

Well, Paris Hilton is pretty but dumb. So the "wealth anorexia" version would be someone who's insanely rich, but dumb. So Paris Hilton is... Paris Hilton."

</comment><comment><USER6> > _What we're really talking about here, in its extreme form, is Wealth > Anorexia--a disease of distorted self-image that causes even the wildly > successful to pursue their obsession beyond a reasonable point. ... Wealth > anorexia is a problem for men._

There's no evidence that this is a common problem that negatively affects people's lives. The most common result of trying extremely hard to be ridiculously rich is becoming modestly successful, except for the cases in which someone throws their entire life savings into a business that fails. I doubt that is common.

The allure of parallelism has lead the author to an odd and inaccurate metaphor.

<comment><USER7> "The most common result of trying extremely hard to be ridiculously rich is becoming modestly successful"

The most common result of trying extremely hard to be ridiculously thin is becoming modestly healthy.

The analogy stands.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. I don't think many people at all try to become _ridiculously_ thin. Plus, such attempts rarely lead to good health, which is why eating disorders are such a big issue.

<comment><USER7> Just as "ridiculously rich" is relative (for some people in 3rd world countries it could be having a few thousand dollars) so is "ridiculously thin" (for someone weighing 350 pounds this could be weighing 250 pounds). And I would argue that achieving this goal, in general, leads to better health. This is not to say that exceptions which lead to poor results don't exist in both cases, which makes the correlation even stronger.

<comment><USER6> You're stretching this metaphor further and further into absurdity. The author of the post wonders why "wealth anorexia" doesn't get similar attention to that of actual anorexia. The answer is because anorexia actually has negative effects on the lives of many people. "Wealth anorexia" does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather be poor than be Larry Ellison.

<comment><USER4> Why is that?

<comment><USER9> Because Larry Ellison has different beliefs on patents than what is generally accepted in this crowd. So of course, it would be a horror to be him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Money makes a wonderful servant and a terrible master.

You have to ask yourself, is money what you're after or a simulacrum for something else? I suspect for most people its the latter.

<comment><USER11> Money can buy political power, and chicks dig people with power.

So yeah, it is a simulacrum for something else - hot girls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think it's worth noting that someone who develops an eating disorder like anorexia is mostly hurting themselves through emotional distress and physical damage to their body. The emotional pain their friends and family experience when such a disorder takes hold of a loved one is part of the situation as well.

When someone pursues the goal of becoming ridiculously rich they get into the position of being able to inflict great financial and emotional pain on a much larger number of people. The Enron executives who contributed to the destruction of many people's pensions and heads of state who siphon government funds to support their royal lifestyles while their citizens starve are two prime examples.

I'm not trying to trivialize eating disorders nor am I saying that pursuit of wealth is inherently bad, but history has numerous examples of how greed can cause people to carry out extremely inhumane actions that affect large numbers of other people.

</comment><comment><USER13> Even if the people who actually become billionaires are small those who attempt and fail are often better off than they started. The middle ground between ones current status in life and reaching billionaire status is an immense landscape with many opportunities. In contrast to the counterpoint in his article the middle ground between playing basketball in say high school playing in the NBA is very slim; it is very much an all or nothing game where as the quest for wealth is vastly opposite.

</comment><comment><USER14> 25 Comments, no one has yet pointed out the fact that one might not want to be Larry Ellison... ;)

That said, I would like to have Larry Ellison's money.

</comment><comment><USER15> > I felt compelled to point out that the chances of becoming a billionaire > were pretty darn slim.

There's something subtle here I disagree with... "chances of becoming a billionaire" - chance is involved, but so is choice. I see this a lot, people talking about becoming a billionaire as if it's a random thing. How many people make a serious commitment to becoming a billionaire, research how to do it, manage their time, and actively try? I'll wager - not too many.

I've crunched the numbers on what it'd take to be a billionaire, and I'm not interested in putting in that time - I have science and art and writing to do. But I think I could if I set my mind to it. Or maybe not! But how many people actually look at what it'd take to become a billionaire, say, "Okay, I'm willing to do all of the first steps, then keep taking risks, investing wisely, consumingly moderate/lowly, and so on." How many people try, and how many of them succeed? I'll wager not many try, and quite a lot of those who seriously try succeed.

Edit: About his general point about "wealth anorexia" - yeah, it's just money, not something worth evaluating yourself by. Make a lot of money because there's no real reason not to make a lot of money, so long as you're doing it by creating things people want and getting a small fraction of the value you create in return.

This is a common point I see - people who aren't single-minded don't understand single-minded people. I tried to cover it here - <http://www.sebastianmarshall.com/?p=107> \- "Rule an Empire, a Fistful of Rice" - it's with excerpts from the Lone Wolf and Cub comic as an argument and eventual duel between two fallen samurai. The first is telling the second that he's doing bad things for money, and why does he need the money? No matter how much money you have, your belly only holds one fistful of rice. But he doesn't understand that people who build empires are very aware of that - the money is a tool for doing other things. Me, I'd like to make at least hundreds of millions so I can sponsor research, build hospitals, build universities, build temples, commission art and support artists, get great engineers working on amazing projects... a friend said he'd be happy making $80k and can't think of anything else he'd do with it. I said - really? Work on curing diseases, sponsor arts, build a private military and go dismantle the North Korean government? I can think of lots of things I'd do with a hell of a lot of money...

<comment><USER16> The chances of becoming a billionaire are even more slim than what the OP wrote. A number of billionaires become billionaires by inheritance or just modest growth of existing wealth. (Compared to NBA stars, who all have to prove themselves no matter their background.)

To become a billionaire from middle-class means IS remarkable.

<comment><USER15> > The chances of becoming a billionaire are even more slim than what the OP > wrote.

I think they're greater than he wrote - I bet there'll be over 5,000 billionaires in 20 years, and over 100,000 in 50 years. At least. Maybe more.

> To become a billionaire from middle-class means IS remarkable.

This I agree with. I'm lower middle class/upper lower class born actually, so would it be even more remarkable if I did it? But again, I have science and art and writing to do too, not to mention building a family, so billionaire isn't on my priorities list. I'm trying to have $50k in the bank at the end of this year, $300k in 3 years, $1 million in 5 years, and $10 million in the bank in ten years. I'll re-evaluate at that point, I think I could do it if I put myself to it single-mindedly, but I'm also writing books, learning about and making art, etc, etc. You give up a lot if you want to get there, but really all the stuff I've given up doesn't feel like such a loss compared to the joy of creating, producing, learning, connecting with people, serving people... I don't miss spectator sports, drinking, recreational drugs, surfing the 'net so much. Creation is joy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Going by what the Gates family is doing these days, running for billionaire seems a heck of a fun roller coaster ride to raising funds for the kinds of betterment of the world that you care about. The other options being running for president or prime minister.

</comment><comment><USER18> what about people who want to money for the the joy of the experience itself?

isn't anyone here addicted to making money - it feels amazing.

anyways - it's glad to see that one girl and this guy writing all these posts and weeding out the non-serious people.

lionhearted's comment is spot on - Not very many people go all out to be a billionaire. If posts like these keep proliferating the numbers might go down even more.</comment>


Is Andreessen-Horowitz Right That Software's Poised to Eat Healthcare? - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidshaywitz/2015/08/03/is-andreessen-horowitz-right-that-softwares-poised-to-eat-healthcare/2/

<comment><AUTHOR> "Collectively, a16z says, these three trends will lead to an 'explosion' of experimental biology and digital health startups..."</comment>


Introducing node-Firefox - <AUTHOR> http://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/02/introducing-node-firefox/ <comment><USER2> This one is still on the front page:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9004133](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9004133)</comment>


HTML 5 Canvas game  - <AUTHOR> http://www.benjoffe.com/code/games/torus/ <comment><USER2> Nicely done!

The first thing I notice is that unlike 90%+ of real-time browser-based games (flash or javascript), it doesn't stupidly burn 100% CPU for no reason at all. It takes close to 0%!

<comment><USER3> You'd probably get the same if you wrote a slow paced, event based game in Flash. Dirty rects means that even though Flash rendering is called at x fps, it can be skipped if nothing's changed (at least, as far as I understand it, my games always change each frame).

Generally if a game has focus it should burn 100% CPU in order to update as smoothly as possible, but the real problem is games that still update and consume CPU like that when not in focus.

<comment><USER2> But most of those games that burn 100% CPU _still_ burn 100% CPU even if the game is paused with a static pause screen _and_ the container window is scrolled past the flash area _and_ the browser window doesn't have focus and is totally obscured.

So it's obviously not a deliberate tradeoff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, that's one of the first JavaScript games that played just like a normal game, and it didn't feel cheesy like pong. No speed or control issues to report. Bright, clear, 3D rendering.

Of course, I, like many others, am biased for Tetris.

Oh, and I realized that you got to skip the conditions for turning at the walls, since it wraps around instead. Still hard, I bet.

<comment><USER5> Can I plug my little javascript version of asteroids? <http://users.tpg.com.au/_dp//dave_asteroids.html>

I've tried to make it not cheesy and nice smooth gameplay

<comment><USER6> Sometimes when it goes to the next level, an asteroid materializes right on top of me, which seems a bit unsporting.

<comment><USER7> I recall that happening in the original game, too. I could be wrong.

EDIT: "You have died of dysentary." That made me smile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not only is it technically impressive, it's actually fun too! I'm not a gamer (not even much of a casual gamer) so this may sound like a dumb Q: but are such variations of Tetris common?

</comment><comment><USER9> It took me a while to realize that my default browser, Safari 3.2.1, doesn't support HTML 5 Canvas. I'm seeing a bowl and a logo. Graceful degradation, not so much.

<comment><USER10> Safari most certainly does support HTML5 Canvas. The canvas was originally introduced by Apple in 2004. ([http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_07.html#0...](http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_07.html#005913))

<comment><USER9> You're definitely right. I'm not so familiar with Canvas at all, so I assumed that since it didn't render, it wasn't supported. My main point was about the graceful degradation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems to be broken in Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER12> Do the high scores not work? Or did no-one else finish a game?

<comment><USER13> I got on the highscore list for garbage, so it seems to be working.

<comment><USER12> hmm.. Can you see anyone else's name on their though? I see my name on Traditional - but the other 2 spots on that are blank - and all 3 spots on Time Attack and Garbage are saying "Empty"

<comment><USER13> I guess you are right. I don't see any scores on there at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The opera widget has been around for quite a while.

His other demos seem to run pretty well too (using Flock): <http://www.benjoffe.com/code/tools/functions3d/> <http://www.benjoffe.com/code/demos/canvascape/> <http://www.benjoffe.com/code/toys/spirograph/>

</comment><comment><USER15> This is great, but why Canvas? SVG/VML would be a more natural choice - JavaScript fits better with a DOM-based API where you don't have to repaint everything.

</comment><comment><USER16> Cool, works great in FF3 on Ubuntu.

The only thing is that pressing up and down to rotate the tetromino moved the page up and down as well.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is it just me, or does the "bin" seem MUCH shallower than an official Tetris game?

Otherwise, pretty impressive for not using Flash.

</comment><comment><USER18> Anyone who does a game in Javascript rocks...so does this one. Amazing...I didn't even know you could do this...

</comment><comment><USER19> Doesn't work in Chrome, but extra points for being the first Canvas thing here in a few weeks to support IE!

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm thinking no one did too well. I got the high score of "2". (Unless that's broken.)

</comment><comment><USER21> The controls should support holding down L/R instead of tapping only.

<comment><USER22> It does support it. Using Firefox. It's perfect.

<comment><USER23> Only issue I had is if the window is sized too small to require a scrollbar, then pressing down/up actually scrolls the page, as well as controlling the game.

Perhaps need to cancel default action in the key handler...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm surprised at how quickly it runs in Firefox.</comment>


Fermi Paradox – Possibilities on why humanity is alone - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Here's a scary fact: Once humanity figures out how to reach and colonize our nearest star system, assuming it takes us 1,000 years each time we colonize the next closest star systems, it would only take 25 million years to colonize the entire galaxy. 25 million years is nothing. So why isn't the entire galaxy teeming with intelligent life? Our universe has been around for 13 billion years - plenty of time for this to have taken place.

The most likely answer (and one we don't want to admit to ourselves) is that intelligent species have a certain lifetime limit. Most species die off within 3 million years.

An alternative answer would be that advanced intelligence figures out a way to delve into mind or other dimensions, rather than outwards into physical space.

<comment><USER3> Other prominent answers:

\- Intelligent species are extremely uncommon - life could be common, but mostly bacteria / simple single-cell.

\- Intelligent species choose to hide themselves from us or others somehow - I'm no cosmologist, but maybe some of the dark matter we've calculated be accounted for by dyson spheres?

\- Intelligent design - not personally a proponent of this approach but any form of intelligent design (fundamentalist/whole-earth creationist or adapted to evolution) could explain the dark sky paradox

Required (fiction) reading on the implications of Fermi Paradox:

\- Mass Effect

\- Stephen Baxer - Manifold books, esp. Space and Time

\- Too much Asimov to list

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two possible explanations for lack of observable neighbors are: 1) Any sufficiently advanced civilization will learn how to stimulate/entertain itself to the point of not needing external stimuli such as exploration and conquest. In other words, E.T. is too busy playing his holographic, neural- tapped X-Box to communicate or look for us. (E.M. Forrester's prophetic story, "The Machine Stops" foreshadowed this for mankind in 1909.) or possibility 2) A.I. and/or sentient life evolves into a higher-level, transdimensional abstraction beyond our perception and understanding (also known as the Singularity).

</comment><comment><USER5> One interesting possibility that doesn't seem to get discussed much is metallicity. Stars containing more heavy elements tend to be younger, while older stars tend to have a lower metallicity.

Looking at our own biochemistry, you don't just need carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen to make it work. Heavier elements from the fourth and fifth periods of the periodic table are also required.

I wouldn't be surprised if life is rare but also becoming more common over the last few billion years. Evolution also doesn't necessarily lead to intelligent life capable of harnessing technology.

</comment><comment><USER6> Intelligence is not enough. You can be intelligent without being technological.

The dolphin will never make a spacecraft, even if he is twice as smart as we are. Lack of hands is a problem. Also, lack of ability to create fire is a problem. Also, lack of ability to easily pour liquids from one isolated vessel to another, without diluting them is a problem. Basically, no "water worlds" will create a technological civilization, in my opinion.

There's also something cultural that may not happen for some reason. Look at the Native Americans. They still didn't have the wheel or metal, four thousand years after others had them. If there is nothing forcing you to develop tech, you won't, even if you're technically smart enough and have the resources that would allow it.

I can also imagine some sort of plateau being reached, after a particularly nasty government takes over. What would happen here, if certain countries/groups were suddenly in control of the entire world?

We may already be reaching a plateau ourselves. The desire is waning, I think. It has certainly waned in my lifetime, both personally, and as a world, I think. At some point, you become "practical", and decide to expend your time and resources on things closer to home.

Add it all up, and it's at least a couple more multipliers for your fermi equation.

</comment><comment><USER7> One more possibility - as human populations get wealthier and more educated, their population growth rate decreases.

Maybe by the time lifeforms get the technology to travel to other stars, they find that they don't need to expand.

There are many places (even within the USA) that we have the technology to colonize, but not the desire.</comment>


Hey, Look Who's Now The 5th Biggest Company in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/10/hey-look-whos-n.html <comment><USER2> They're bigger than Toyota. And that's the No 1 carmaker in the world. They're bigger than WalMart, bigger than any U.S. bank. They're valued at 13 million dollar _per employee_.

This _can't_ be right, can it? There _has_ to be more money in selling cars than in selling online text-ads, hasn't there?

<comment><USER3> Car makers have a very low profit margin. Toyota has about 7% (and that's very high for cars -- GM has like 1%). Google has about 30% profit margin. There's definitely a lot more money in cars in general (in terms of revenue), but Google's net income for 2006 was $1 billion more than GM, despite GM having about $197 billion more in revenue. Having high revenues doesn't mean you're making a lot in profit, which is what counts.

<comment><USER4> Though, GM is probably not the best example...it's bleeding cash at the moment, and has even had negative earnings some quarters.

If you want to play the profit game, compare Google's profit to Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and CitiGroup. We're not even in the same league here. In fact, we're not even in the same order of magnitude!

Again, Google making that list (and having a high market cap) is much more an effect of it's expected growth (and high multiple) than it's actual present value as a company.

<comment><USER5> Just nitpicking here, but Citigroup turned a loss this past quarter due to mortgage-backed security writedowns. I think Google actually turned a respectable profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a market cap ranking. Even Microsoft ranks on this list. Put it in perspective: if you define big by "actual revenue" (as the Fortune 500 does), Microsoft doesn't break the top 40. At ~10Bn+ in revenue, Google wouldn't make the Fortune 100. Sort the Fortune 500 by profit and Google still isn't in the top 20.

Market cap is a measure of the market's expectations for future profit. But it's not a reliable one. Where's Qualcomm and Tellabs now?

<comment><USER7> Revenue is a very poor measure of a company's success.

If anything, you should at least rank earnings, since that incorporates profit margins. If I sell $5 trillion of goods at a 0% margin, that doesn't make me a very successful company.

<comment><USER6> I agree, but market cap is a far worse metric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Geez. You scared the shit out of me. i was thinking "Facebook"

<comment><USER9> same!

<comment><USER4> LOL, no offense, but that's just silly. Even with the ridiculous valuations of 15+ billion floating around, that wouldn't put facebook in the top 500, let alone top 5.

<comment><USER10> that made me feel really small

<comment><USER4> Sorry! Wasn't my intention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> And with so little debt. Though, these rankings are done by market capitalization. The true, sheer size of some companies ranked much lower are actually much larger with regard to revenues and profits...they're just not trading at 55 times earnings.

But, Google's market cap is indeed 5th. That's incredible any way you slice it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I love the phrase "trading at a not-preposterous 55x earnings"

Let's look at P/E ratios of their competition at the top:

XON 13

GE 18

MSFT 24

AT&T 30

Citigroup 8

Let's look at some other big web/software firms:

Oracle 26

Adobe 42

Yahoo 60 (40B market cap)

Amazon 100 (but only a 30B market cap)

Google's Market Cap is 220B. The older big software companies (Oracle, Adobe, MSFT) seem to have been stuck between 20 and 40 for a while now. I conclude based on this rigorous analysis that Google's eventual ideal P/E is around 30, and that investor hype has inflated its value by around $110B, or about 1% of US annual GDP.

</comment><comment><USER12> Seems like Google is bigger than the rest of the players on the web. [http://fishtrain.com/2007/10/30/google-worth-more-than- rest-...](http://fishtrain.com/2007/10/30/google-worth-more-than-rest-of-the- big-web/)</comment>


Use an Old Kindle to Share Messages on the Fridge Electronically - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/use-an-old-kindle-to-share-messages-on-the-fridge-elect-1727259910

<comment><USER2> Why not link to the original?

[https://petervojtek.github.io/diy/2015/07/28/share- messages-...](https://petervojtek.github.io/diy/2015/07/28/share-messages- with-kindle-on-fridge.html)</comment>


Russia plans to 'unplug' from internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47198426 <comment><USER2> With DNS caches all over the places, they would have to unplug for at least 48h before they can be certain nothing is broken.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interestingly, this wouldn't have been possible under TPP.

<comment><USER4> Do you really believe the Russian government cares about trade agreements?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: 23yrs old. About to inherit. What would you do? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a developer living in a major city in the US. The sum of inheritance is really small in the scheme of things (35k) - but I've never seen that kind of money in a lump sum before. I work at a startup making 75k. What would you do? <comment><USER2> It's a good opportunity to pay off debt, if you have any.

<comment><USER3> Yes, of course. Debt before savings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You don't need a financial advisor. Pay off any credit card or other high interest debt (and don't run up more).

Put the rest in a Vanguard Total Stock Market index fund, and setup automatic payment of $100 from your savings account to add to the lump.

</comment><comment><USER3> 3.5mil? Do something interesting.

350k? Splash out on one or two fun or lavish things and put the rest into savings/etc.

35k? Put it into savings.

</comment><comment><USER5> It might make a nice down payment for a house if that is something that interests you. Paying off debt is a great suggestion assuming you have some.

</comment><comment><USER6> Definitely talk to a financial advisor, but most likely he/she will tell you to start by paying off any high-interest debt, put some in savings, and invest the rest. It doesn't make sense to put that money in an investment earning 1-5% while you have a credit card at 13% and a car loan at 7%.

EDIT: What's with the downvotes without comment? Is it unreasonable to suggest that someone should pay off debt before investing?

</comment><comment><USER7> Savings, a.k.a walk away money

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thankfully no debt to speak of. Saving it is I guess.

</comment><comment><USER8> Talk to a financial advisor?</comment>


XVoice: speech control of Linux desktop applications - <AUTHOR> http://dubhrosa.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/xvoice-speech-control-of-linux-desktop.html

<comment><USER2> I'd love to

* switch open apps windows via voice (eg. chrome, files, terminal) instead of Alt+tab tab tab

* switch to a specific tab in one of these apps via voice

Is there a working solution for this, today?

</comment><comment><USER3> These might interest people

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_recognition_in_Linux>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_speech_recognition_sof...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_speech_recognition_software)</comment>


Scrum and virtual worlds: perfect fit - <AUTHOR> http://www.cybertechnews.org/?p=1422

<comment><USER2> Interesting idea about using colors and sizes.

I have two teams that are using Second Life as a Scrum/Agile platform. I like the idea of using the features of the VR world in new ways.

The problem with VR is that you're still missing body language and non-verbal cues. But with distributed teams more a reality, we're going to have to figure all of this out.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am interested to hear your experiences. Ludocraft (one of realXtend developers) hinted a couple of days ago that they are working to get face and expression tracking with web camera to work - and the result is overlayed onto your avatar in real time. (Here's the bit about avatars: <http://www.cybertechnews.org/?p=1366>)</comment></comment>


A historical perspective on tech bubbles - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/carlota-perez-on-the-web-20-bubble/

<comment><USER2> Ugh -- lazy journalism strikes again. He's obviously not read the book nor even Ms. Perez's CV. (hint: she's Venezuelan, not British)

This is a much better interview and discussion of her ideas on Long Wave Theory: <http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/05410>

<comment><AUTHOR> no kidding! that's quite a cut-n-paste job</comment></comment>


Slightly outdated webpage (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://ubiquitous.com/

<comment><USER2> Looks better then Web 2.0 to me :-) Kind of reminds you of "green" design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes; I am just wondering why the site wasn't updated for so long.

<comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weiser](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weiser)

He appears to have died within a year or two after this site was last updated.

[http://www.std.org/](http://www.std.org/) is also referenced as the website of his band. This domain is likely worth upward of a million dollars.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is both eery and encouraging.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TV Links Founder Arrested for Illegal Linking - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/tv_links_founder_arrested.php <comment><USER2> Illegal Linking, now that's a whole new kind of offense.</comment>


Vim Revisited (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://mislav.uniqpath.com/2011/12/vim-revisited

<comment><USER2> I agree with a lot of your conclusions, but I think there is a lot of value to be found from nerdtree if you use it correctly.

I'm a super heavy Command-T user as well, but when you are working on a sufficiently large project there is just a lot of value you can gain from being able to see the file tree.

Nerdtree is also my favorite way to rename/move/copy files

<comment><USER3> I used NerdTree but for those on a Mac there is a pretty interesting Macvim fork (Alloy)[[https://github.com/alloy/macvim](https://github.com/alloy/macvim)] that implements a native sidebar.

(Here is a good post)[[http://faculty.washington.edu/ivanoats/blog/2012/01/13/makin...](http://faculty.washington.edu/ivanoats/blog/2012/01/13/making- macvim-pretty/)] someone wrote about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Discover your Vim heroes and periodically check how they have set their editor up. A lot of people publish their dotfiles on GitHub."

Does this actually happen? How does one discover a "Vim hero"? If you guys have any, can you show some examples of who might be a candidate for a Vim hero please?

<comment><USER5> Yes. I've learned tons from the vim setups of individuals and from some vim "distributions". A rather non-exhaustive list of examples:

Steve Losh's dotfiles: [https://bitbucket.org/sjl/dotfiles/src](https://bitbucket.org/sjl/dotfiles/src)

Drew Neil's dotfiles: [https://github.com/nelstrom/dotfiles](https://github.com/nelstrom/dotfiles)

Tim Pope's vim plugins (the vim-* repos): [https://github.com/tpope](https://github.com/tpope)

Kana Natsuno's vim plugins (the vim-* repos): [https://github.com/kana](https://github.com/kana)

spf13-vim distro: [https://github.com/spf13/spf13-vim](https://github.com/spf13/spf13-vim)

Janus distro: [https://github.com/carlhuda/janus](https://github.com/carlhuda/janus)

I don't use any of these "stock" or consider them authoritative -- I've slowly cherry-picked from these and other sources to learn about patterns, plugins, tips, etc. Each source has its biases, implicit and sometimes explicitly documented. Those biases are usually a good thing as they reflect the workflows and customization needs of the authors. I want to learn from these to better tailor my own customizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very good introduction to vim. I like using tabs as well as split windows, though so I do this instead with my motion shortcuts:

      map <C-J> <C-w>w
      map <C-K> <C-W>W
      map <C-H> gT
      map <C-L> gt

</comment><comment><USER7> The only reason I was able to start with Vim was these videos by Derek Wyatt:

[http://www.derekwyatt.org/vim/vim-tutorial- videos/](http://www.derekwyatt.org/vim/vim-tutorial-videos/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I use vim for over 10 years now, I think. Every time I read an article like this about vim, I discover new stuff I didn't already know. Like commands or plugins that make my life easier. It's amazing.

</comment><comment><USER9> > Use Pathogen for managing them.

or Vundle

or NeoBundle

<comment><USER10> +1 to Vundle. It makes managing your vim plugins so much easier when it comes to updating.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do we still need static html templating? - <AUTHOR>

I'm playing around with a few new frameworks for an idea I'm working on, and some of them build HTML directly in the language (Compojure, Seaside). The old-school developer in me says that this is a bad idea, since designers can't mess around with the HTML.
However, I know that CSS is the primary way of doing design these days, so maybe it's not a big deal.
So, my question is: if you're building a web app and you plan on getting a designer involved at some point, do you think static HTML templates are necessary?
As an aside, if anyone is building / has built web applications in any framework like this, (I think Nevow handles things similarly) I'd love to hear your experiences. <comment><USER2> MVC keeps your developers out of the HTML and your designers out of the Code.

Smalltalk got it right in the early 70s. It is still right today.

</comment><comment><USER3> very much so I think, I am on the second iteration of a web framework thing, in the first one the templating was done through a reasonably complicated server side interface.

The second iteration I have pushed the templating into html itself (using data attributes and reserved classes) and find it incredibly easier to comprehend the round trip

<comment><USER4> Agreed.

Also, do you really want to tell your designer that in order to add a new (id|class) to a tag, he needs to talk to a developer? Do you want to tell a developer that he needs to pull aside whenever this designer taps him on the shoulder? Or do you want the designer to block on the developer "until he's at a good stopping point"?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point. I know there are people writing non-trivial apps in frameworks that don't use templates; I'm not sure how they handle this sort of thing today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Theoretically you could add unique ids to every tag and common sense classes, but from my experience the guy who will work on that html won't like it. I don't know if he could work with it or not, but I'm pretty sure he'll protest. It will break too many assumptions for him.</comment>


A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Solving Clique Problems - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.04794 <comment><AUTHOR> I just let this here, I feel it was missing as another failed attempt to prove P = NP.</comment>


Rsa.lisp – An Implementation of the RSA Encryption Algorithm in Common Lisp - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/burtonsamograd/rsa <comment><AUTHOR> This is mean to be a simple and straightforward implementation of the RSA encryption algorithm in Common Lisp.

Review would be greatly appreciated.

This code does not solve the key exchange problem or do any transport.</comment>


Photographer with Down's syndrome 'sees the world differently' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29107894 <comment><USER2> Here are some of his photos on his web site. They're really quite good.

[http://oliverhellowell.com/portfolio.html](http://oliverhellowell.com/portfolio.html)</comment>


Amazon and the Unwisdom of the Populist Crowd - <AUTHOR> http://truthonthemarket.com/2018/05/01/amazon-and-the-unwisdom-of-the-populist-crowd/ <comment><USER2> I think this is all true. The problem lies somewhere else.

Companies like Amazon is what we want. Convenient, re-investing all profit to improve its services and lower its prices. They deliver beneficial goods and services to our society.

That's great. The problem is in redistribution of wealth throughout our society.

As we optimize production and delivery. The inequality of wealth distribution widens, because less and less crums fall behind for the poor to pick up.

The pie gets bigger, but the portions most people are getting of it keeps getting smaller.

If it grew faster then the portions shrank, all would be good, but I believe we're starting to see cases where it doesn't, and some people reaching a point where they get none of the pie.

And this is not an Amazon's problem, or an economic one. This is a societal problem we'll have to address.

What if not everyone is needed? What if society can sustain itself with only a fraction of the population? Who gets chosen to remain, and who gets cut out?

Think of a dinner party. 10 people are invited. They form the party. How many of them are needed to cook? Not all 10, thats too many cook. It would actually be less efficient to have them all in the kitchen. So what if two of them cook? Do they only get to eat? Do they get more of the food? Maybe all 10 guests would have been able to cook, so who's lucky enough to be the chef and eat?

This is now happening at the scale of our society. But we don't treat each other like friends at a party. So when we get to cook, we don't share. We should.

<comment><USER3> What evidence do you have that portion of the pie is getting smaller for most people? I do not believe this at all. It's especially not true on a global scale, where globalization has improved the lives and wealth of millions in China and India.

<comment><USER4> It is true in the US. There's been a lot published on the subject and it won't be hard to find. The developing world is another story, but the inequality is arguably even more extreme. With a much higher percentage of people living in poverty. Their middle class is mostly growing though, so the picture is improving.

<comment><USER3> No, a lot depends on how you look at the data. See these two videos for a good overview:

[https://www.policyed.org/numbers-game](https://www.policyed.org/numbers-game)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not an economist so someone with more insight can weigh-in if I'm speaking out of turn. My personal concern with Amazon is a similar one I had with Wal- Mart in that there seems to be a relationship between stagnant wages acceptance based on access to lower and lower cost goods. This seems to me to be an unsustainable race to the bottom that benefits large vertically integrated multinationals no matter how many economic arms they figuratively break in the process.

That being said I'm not sure if that is a problem that Amazon is actually creating or just a consequence of wage supression being easier to accept when technology makes goods cheaper.

<comment><USER6> It's a bit of a trade. I'd say it comes down to market efficiency.

We all understand why efficient markets are good. It allows large numbers of people to affordably access a variety of goods and services. That said, people rarely discuss the downsides of extremely efficient markets.

In an inefficient market, there are lots of opportunities for someone to step in and find a way to make money. For instance if shipping and storing goods is expensive to do in small quantities, and your area doesn't have enough access to tools, you could exploit that inefficiency and make some money by opening a hardware store. You would take on the cost of storing, transporting, and insuring a large quantity of goods, and you'd take advantage of economies of scale in a way that regular consumers can't. You make money, and your community is better off, because now they have a place to buy hammers, paint, and other hardware.

In a highly efficient market, people have already found most of the obvious opportunities to make money. If shipping is cheap enough and online ordering is convenient and secure enough, it could make sense for one entity to become so large and efficient that they dominate all of retail.

It's a lot harder to run a successful hardware store in 2018 than it was in 1978. You need retail space, employees, etc. Meanwhile your competition can exploit economies of scale in a way that was impossible a few decades ago.

Is this a bad thing? It's hard to say. It gives lots of people cheap access to goods. It also makes it hard for small players to break into the scene, and local economies are probably not going to be able to adapt very quickly.

<comment><USER5> I agree with a lot of this thanks for the response. What are your feelings on some kind of regulation around local protections? I know regulations are generally percieved quite harshly on HN. But in a highly efficient market it seems like you may at some point no longer have local access to goods. Which seems like a dangerous recipe if so&so location becomes no longer worth the cost of shipping goods there but the local stores have already perished.

<comment><USER6> I'm in favor of good regulations, but I'm also not a libertarian. I'm a fan of the Scandinavian approach; well regulated free markets.

That said, I'm relatively new to investment. I've been reading a lot on the subject for the last few months, but there are people here who know way more on the subject than I do. It's certainly been highly educational, but it hasn't done anything to shake my core belief that markets should exist to serve people, not the other way around.

<comment><USER5> Seems logical I definitely agree with the sentiment about markets existing to serve people.

I'm in a similar place with my research I know enough to know there is a problem but then again thats the easy part fixing it is the tough bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like an effort to dismiss the new antitrust movement's goal of helping people realize the problem presented by these enormous companies is a _political problem_ that needs to be analyzed across the many ways society is affected.

The author doesn't make a very spirited defense of his main point, because he distorts the neo-Brandeisian analysis of the _effects of Amazon_ on business and employment into a question of whether the means Amazon used to achieve those effects are legal.

Modern Anti-trust is looking to see whether new standards should be applied to anti-competitive behavior, based on how the most powerful companies are affecting society. They're not trying to litigate whether our current megacorporations broke any rules to get where they are.

But even conceding that point, let's return to the introductory paragraph, What does it mean for a company to be Too Big? There are obvious answers, like how a company that is "too big to fail" holds the government and citizens as collateral when it gambles.

But what about something that applies to the tech monopolies more directly? Too Big to Manage. It's an absentee landlord type situation. Facebook allowing people to sell oxycontin and meddle with the US election comes to mind, but what about:

1) Good faith usage of Amazon can get you put on restricted traveler lists. [https://lifehacker.com/your-amazon-order-might-lock-you- out-...](https://lifehacker.com/your-amazon-order-might-lock-you-out-of- trusted-travele-1821964978)

2) Amazon facilitates the sale of counterfeit goods, including pet food. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16448001](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16448001)

3) It seems to be facilitating money laundering. [http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/money-laundering-books- amazon/](http://fortune.com/2018/02/22/money-laundering-books-amazon/)

4) And we've all seen the rest of the articles, about illegal drugs on amazon, about fake review scams, and more

Those are the points the author should address to counter anti-trust's uneasiness about amazon

<comment><USER8> This was the tipping point for me, actually, when I went through this same experience about a year ago:

[https://consumerist.com/2013/06/18/amazon-cancels- my-6000-or...](https://consumerist.com/2013/06/18/amazon-cancels- my-6000-order-because-it-doesnt-know-how-to-use-a-fax-machine/)

It sounds like a minor bizarre Kafkaesque corporate nightmare, but the whole experience was so surreal I can't begin to convey it. Amazon demands, out of the blue, with no explanation, copies of sensitive financial documents to immediately be sent to strange unknown numbers over _fax_ , or they will shut your account down. And when you do comply, they assert completely capriciously, that you have not, without explanation. And then they shut your account down. The whole thing seems like some obvious scam, except that Amazon representatives can confirm for you that it is real, even though they themselves cannot actually communicate with anyone involved.

I mention this here because of the sense of impunity involved. It was so absurd that any other corporation wouldn't think about doing something like this because of the obvious consequences that would occur.

I've generally felt positive toward Amazon over my lifetime, but in the last couple of years I've soured on them, and it's directly related to a large list of factors that in aggregate suggest Amazon is too large and is abusing its position.

The article undermines its own arguments by pointing out things like Amazon represents "less than half of all online commerce," that "(44%) takes place on its platform." The author is attempting to argue this is not too much, but to me their argument only proves the point.

I'm not sure what to do about it, but Amazon has become a problem, and they are abusing their monopoly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > But, just as in 1993 with Walmart, and now with Amazon, the basic fact > remains that consumer preferences shift.

Tragedy of the commons and undesirable local optima are still a thing. Yes, we might want cheaper and more convenient shopping and continue to buy stuff from Amazon, and also still might not want the long term negative effects of Amazon slowly crushing all competition.

The rest of the article is about whether what Amazon is doing fits an existing definition of anti-competitive. That's all fine and good, but a larger question is whether that definition of anti-competitive is the only thing we should be worrying about. e.g. yes, Amazon forces market conditions to improve for customers in the short term, but I have zero doubt that once they crush competitors they'll happily jack up prices.

There's also perhaps an argument that the level of automation and technological prowess that amazon brings is different from what Walmart had back in the 90s. There the argument was that walmart is walmart, but local shops still at least have a premium niche to fill (which, while true, did do disasters to many local economies which didn't have the clientele for niche stores). Now perhaps Amazon is good enough that it might even destroy that gap too.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think this is a good time to introduce Richard Wolff, my favorite economist. Here, Wolff makes a few general remarks about Amazon in comparison to outsourcing to China:

[https://www.rdwolff.com/is_amazon_the_1_threat_to_jobs](https://www.rdwolff.com/is_amazon_the_1_threat_to_jobs)

</comment><comment><USER11> Search for "Chromecast" on Amazon. How exactly, is that not anticompetitive?

<comment><USER12> Because they are far from the only store and it's easy to get a Chromecast wherever you are? You can't buy one at the Apple Store either, but that's fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sherman antitrust act has been used in the past to break up companies which has been to large for example AT&T and Standard oil.

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

</comment><comment><USER14> And here we see capitalist apologists trying to jettison capitalism and move over into feudalism.

By definition the only time a market can function is when no firm is large enough to have an impact on prices.

Amazon can. Amazon is too big and needs to be reduced into smaller chunks.

The best solution is a revenue tax for companies. Just how people pay an income tax and a consumption tax so too should corporations. That the largest will splinter into thousands of small ones is a feature that will kick start competition and get us out of the 'too big to fail' economic funk we have been in for 20 years.

<comment><USER15> Whose definition says that?</comment></comment>


An open source tool to generate a complete backend from a MySql database - <AUTHOR> http://crud-admin-generator.com

<comment><USER2> A similar tool that I've had great fun with is Sandman:

[https://github.com/jeffknupp/sandman](https://github.com/jeffknupp/sandman)

From the Readme: "Given a legacy database, sandman not only gives you a REST API, it gives you a beautiful admin page." It uses Python and SQLAlchemy and supports a good selection of databases.

<comment><USER3> Awesome, when I saw the OP I was thinking, "I wonder if someone has done this with Flask yet?" :) Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> About 10 years ago, I had to do a php/mysql online shop for a customer, and I did not had much time for the backend.

So I bought a ~$100 product, I think it was CodeCharge Studio from YesSoftware. I was skeptic, but I had no option.

Turned out great. I was ready in a day and it looked very good. You could generate the admin site in multiple languages and it was very easy to use.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are pull requests from May that haven't been even answered or commented. Am I wrong, or shouldn't it be a custom to at least comment why you're not including it into the code?

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right :( I want to review all pull request with careful, It implies a lot of code and I need find the time.

<comment><USER6> Just tell them that then... no harm in being straightforward.

<comment><USER7> This is good advice. I used to help maintain a bit on the bigger size project on Github and our lead developer I think really wanted to spend time looking over and trying to give quality responses. Which ended up sometimes taking a long time or not at all. Unfortunately, it came off to some people as not caring about their submissions. Just a simple message about being busy and asking them to remind you if you forget works wonders.

Example: "Thanks for sending this in. I'm busy right now but will look into it later. If I haven't responded in a week or two, do me a favor and ping this thread."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm wondering how this is different from using CakePHP or Ruby on Rails for generating a similar interface. I've used CakePHP heavily and am generally a fan of CakePHP - plus, CakePHP lets you customize your application once you have the basic CRUD scaffolding in.

<comment><USER9> My thoughts as well. I'm using Yii framework, and you can do a similar thing with Yii's Gii tool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been working on a tool where you spec your data in an xml file and it'll generate a dbsteward [1] file and some Kohana [2] ORM files. It's pluggable so it could be easily add more modules to produce applications for other frameworks.

I'm using it for an application I'm working on now (and working out little kinks) and will be releasing it shortly.

[1] [https://github.com/nkiraly/DBSteward](https://github.com/nkiraly/DBSteward) [2] [http://kohanaframework.org/](http://kohanaframework.org/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Another similar option is to use django's inspectdb, which will get you all the model's for a django app, which means adding the admin (a simple CRUD interface) is only a few lines of code away.

<comment><USER12> Came here to say the same thing. I've always fancied spicing up inspectdb to be a bit more dynamic and flexible - I like the idea of a dynamic Django Admin for any db I throw at it.

It shouldn't be too hard to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If this tool is taking data directly from MySQL, why does it need to rely on column names to determine relationships? Couldn't it just see that a column is a foreign key?

<comment><USER7> [http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/myisam-storage- engine...](http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/myisam-storage- engine.html#idm47466979839104)

See "Foreign key support" in MyISAM

Also, in my experience a lot of people do not always use the underlying database constraints even in InnoDB.

Not sure if that was the intent of the authors, but just so that others may understand that it could be more than just "PHP land". Might be a little closer to "MySQL land".

<comment><USER14> The point is that fundamentally overpowered features of this sort, while potentially quite useful (in some cases), should be _optional_ (and the default setting should point to the non-enabled case).

Being as they can certainly make for very rude surprises, when you discover them by chance.

<comment><USER7> Ah, I missed that part of your statement. Snarky comments like "PHP land" while clever and gives us all a big chuckle can be a bit difficult to understand in context. If you actually want someone to understand what you are saying, subtle digs and pretentious put downs, while funny and I'm sure make you feel better about yourself, don't really contribute much beyond dividing people and making others feel bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >The backend is generated in seconds without configuration files where there is a lot of "magic" and is very difficult to adapt to your needs.

Double check that :).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> How is it different from phpMyAdmin ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, with this tool you have control over the generated code. You can add a login system, modify the views, add an upload images system...

The tool generates a base administrator and you can add all functionalities that you want.

<comment><USER17> Hi Jon, you should show some examples on the home page on how to extend the code. For example if I wanted to modify the administration for one of the tables is there a base class that I can inherit from? For example if I wanted to a hide a particular field in the admin, or if I had some custom validation rules.

Is this designed to work with any particular framework?

<comment><AUTHOR> The generated code is "pure" PHP. You have a controller for create, edit, list and delete. You can modify the controllers without problems and extend the functionalities. You can hide fields, add new ones, implement an upload images/files system...

The used framework is Silex ([http://silex.sensiolabs.org/](http://silex.sensiolabs.org/))

Thank you.

<comment><USER17> If I understand, the approach that you are taking is that code is generated for the admin using the generator and then you would do modifications afterwards? What happens in such a case that the code is modified and then you run the generator again?

An alternative approach would be to supply custom classes to the generator at the time that it generates.

For example.

      Class CustomerTable extends AdminTable {
        $hiddenfields = [ "created_date" , "password" ];
        $validation = [ "email" => "validateEmail"];

        function validateEmail($validate_data) {
           return validEmailAddress($validate_data);
        }
      }

Then the user can place this class somewhere specific or register it with the generator in some way, and when the generator runs it will use this class and not overwrite changes.

Like

      $adminGenerator->use("customer","CustomerTable");

This way you can keep using the generator even after you have done extensive modification to the tables and code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I haven't tried any of them personally, but I've seen several Ruby gems to easily add full admin/crud interfaces to a Rails app. Sounds like it might be about as easy to create a quick Rails app, point it at the database, and get one of these admin gems up and running.

[https://www.ruby- toolbox.com/categories/rails_admin_interfac...](https://www.ruby- toolbox.com/categories/rails_admin_interfaces)

</comment><comment><USER19> Also have a look at Spring Roo and roostrap if you're planning to do with Java and want to migrate your application to Google AppEngine or any other database.

[http://bhagyas.github.io/roostrap/](http://bhagyas.github.io/roostrap/)

</comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.phreeze.com/](http://www.phreeze.com/)

</comment><comment><USER21> download [http://www.sequelpro.com/](http://www.sequelpro.com/) and you are sorted

</comment><comment><USER22> Not one example on the front page.

</comment><comment><USER23> The first screenshot is of PhpMyAdmin. That's embarrassing.</comment>


Tell HN: Buenos Aires HN meetup - <AUTHOR>

We were thinking about going out to meet some fellow HNers, care to :q that vim for a few hours and join us?<p>Timing might not be the best since there is probably a lot of people out of the city on vacations, but a post is definitely worth to gauge interest! <comment><USER2> I'm in, of course!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd expect you to be, lol!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What day?</comment>