First, it was Craigslist, next it's Zapier - <AUTHOR> https://kamerontanseli.ghost.io/first-it-was-craiglist-next-its-zapier/ <comment><USER2> This is a clever twist on unbundling. Well done.

Craigslist is misspelled (there is an "s" in it).

Giving me a photo credit would be courteous as the author of that image. [https://thegongshow.tumblr.com/post/345941486/the-spawn- of-c...](https://thegongshow.tumblr.com/post/345941486/the-spawn-of- craigslist-like-most-vcs-that-focus)

<comment><USER3> That reminds me of Amazon - I've been "unbundling" my purchases from Amazon due to shipping delays. I still think it's a useful place to find /which/ product I want to buy, but once I figure that out, or if I already have, I head over to the product's own website and buy it there. Examples of my recent purchases - diapers, toys, herbs and spices. In all of these examples the product has shipped within a day and received within a few days.

<comment><USER4> Good point, but unfortunately on a lot of vendor sites, the checkout experience is still sub-par, some require you to create an account (Annoying if you know it's just a one-time purchase). On amazon, it's click and done. The shipping delays aren't universal; I recently ordered coffee from there and it it got delivered within 2 days (prime customer).

<comment><USER5> he's talking about receiving his goods a day or more earlier, and you are talking about a couple of minutes longer sitting in your chair typing in the account information. Your customer service point does point out a benefit, but it doesn't address the consumer need expressed in the previous comment.

<comment><USER3> Yes thank you for highlighting that point - and in my case it is receiving the goods weeks earlier, even

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Bash, too!

> One of my favorite business model suggestions for entrepreneurs is, find an > old UNIX command that hasn't yet been implemented on the web, and fix that. > talk and finger became ICQ, LISTSERV became Yahoo! Groups, ls became (the > original) Yahoo!, find and grep became Google, rn became Bloglines, pine > became Gmail, mount is becoming S3, and bash is becoming Yahoo! Pipes. I > didn't get until tonight that Twitter is wall for the web. I love that.

— Marc Hedlund (2007)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20070329031201/http://radar.orei...](https://web.archive.org/web/20070329031201/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/sfearthquakes_o.html)

Funny that he mentions Yahoo! Pipes, since that was sort of the same idea behind Zapier, et al., though (I guess) too far ahead of its time.

<comment><USER7> > Funny that he mentions Yahoo! Pipes, since that was sort of the same idea > behind Zapier, et al., though (I guess) too far ahead of its time.

An alternate business model is to look at Yahoo product launches from 5-10 years ago, and build what they did but shut down, its time may have come. Google did this pretty well for a while. You can probably do it for Google now, too.

<comment><USER8> You mean the time is right for a Google Reader alternative?

<comment><USER9> Maybe. Might not specifically be RSS-based, though, there's a lot of good RSS clients out there (I use [https://bazqux.com/](https://bazqux.com/) \- it's great).

Google Reader I remember sold itself as being an "inbox for the web". I think Reddit and Facebook are the big competitors for that idea… not RSS clients. But maybe the time is right for a new take on that idea, one that works more closely like Reader.

<comment><USER10> Didn't Feedly already meet this demand? Seems like almost everybody I know who used Google Reader back in the day switched over to Feedly.

<comment><USER9> I don't think this is about a replacement for those who miss google reader; rather, a reinvention of it, whose time maybe has come.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Complexity can be tamed, but it requires considerable effort to do it well. Decreasing the number of buttons and displays is not the solution. The solution is to understand the total system, to design it in a way that allows all the pieces fit nicely together, so that initial learning as well as usage are both optimal. Years ago, Larry Tesler, then a vice president of Apple, argued that the total complexity of a system is a constant: as you make the person's interaction simpler, the hidden complexity behind the scenes increases. Make one part of the system simpler, said Tesler, and the rest of the system gets more complex. This principle is known today as "Tesler's law of the conservation of complexity." Tesler described it as a tradeoff: making things easier for the user means making it more difficult for the designer or engineer." ― Donald A. Norman, Living with Complexity

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure I agree that complexity is always conserved. When I design systems, I often find that there's intrinsic complexity that I can't seem to escape, but that my initial designs are often quite poor and also include incidental complexity. If I'm thoughtful, and I learn the domain well enough, I sometimes find I can remove that incidental complexity. Alan Perlis had a couple of epigrams that echo this, I think.

> 31\. Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

> 58\. Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. > Geniuses remove it.

All that said, I've definitely seen cases where trying to insulate the user from the reality of what's happening behind the scenes often dramatically increases complexity. When it's done poorly, in increases complexity not only for the designer and programmer, but the user as well. One well-known example is the progress bar. After 30 years of lying to users about how long that file copy, download, or compile would take, many recent designs simply exclude it and include an animated spinner instead.

<comment><USER13> I'm sort of reminded of the law of cleanliness (or similar)

In order for something to get clean, something else needs to get dirty.

I think taming complexity might be closer to getting something clean.

But I also think -- counter to the "conservation of complexity" thing -- you can get make a mess and get EVERYTHING dirty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can definitely relate to the point being made here: my startup ([https://reclaim.ai](https://reclaim.ai)) does various calendar automation. We see a number of users sign up for our service after having tried Zapier to solve their problem.

Not only is the UX more complex to get the job done, stuff like what we're doing (ex: personal->work calendar sync) is more complex than you think and simple "if this then that" types of workflows start to break down.

We have nothing against Zapier (heck I'm a user for some stuff). But there are definitely things it is ill-suited for, despite having an amazing marketing engine that can capture a very long tail of search terms due to the NxM nature of their product.

"Fun" fact: one of our users recently found us after screwing up his calendar sync Zap and, on a random Sunday morning, ended up inviting thousands of his coworkers to dozens of duplicate meetings, all from his personal Gmail account. It was his fault (his Zap had several errors in it), but in the end he was much better served by a dedicated solution.

I think the author's advice is spot on: there are opportunities in making better solutions for popular Zaps. Just please don't do anything in the calendar space ;)

<comment><USER15> As some who occasionally has to gather small groups (~5 people) --we all work remotely (pre-covid too), so one can't just swing around the corner-- I would be quite bothered to find my colleagues booked every last minute of their time, such that it would become impossible to schedule 30 minutes sometime in the next 2 weeks. Especially knowing that this was used, I would then have to ping everyone and see if they actually are free at such-and-such a time. I suppose that's the tool's intent.

Everyone should block off 1-2 hours a day for themselves. Consistently blocking your entire day could slow down the organization, if meetings are a place for reaching consensus and decision-making.

<comment><USER14> > I suppose that's the tool's intent.

Quite the opposite in fact: we built this for manager-types who have many meetings and for the very reason you cited need to appear available.

It purposely makes the slots of time that we book "free" until the day is too full, and only then changes it to busy.

The result is that my calendar, for example, appears free from 11am to 2pm, but if suddenly that time starts filling up, some time (30-60 mins by default) gets held for lunch.

In other words: it does exactly as you prescribe (blocks off 1-2 hours), except without the rigidity of fixed events, making it easier for people like you to call (hopefully good) meetings.

Give it a try!

<comment><USER15> > It purposely makes the slots of time that we book "free" until the day is > too full, and only then changes it to busy.

[https://blog.reclaim.ai/posts/2020-03-30-dear-hr-are-your- te...](https://blog.reclaim.ai/posts/2020-03-30-dear-hr-are-your-teams-ready- for-remote-work/)

The lunch use case animation might be a simpler way of conceptually explaining the product, just my 2 cents. Thanks for clarifying there.

Corner case: let's continue the idea of a flex lunch of 30 minutes between 11:30 and 2pm. If my work calendar has no events, and someone schedules a meeting from exactly 11:30 to 2pm, does it automatically reject? The person scheduling that meeting would've thought my schedule was free because the time was marked free, since the flex lunch time is only "claimed" once I'm down to 30 minutes of unscheduled time between 11:30 and 2pm.

My personal intent of blocking this 30 minute slot is never publicly visible on the work calendar, since it has no concept of that.

It sounds like Google Calendar (or whatever meeting software companies use) needs to build in these sort of features, since there's no way to do so. Reclaim helps, but if I'm booking my meeting within Google Calendar, and some of my meeting participants use Reclaim, I can't see the sorts of constraints participants are setting on their time.

<comment><USER14> Re: your corner case... Currently we defer to the incoming invite and remove the block IF you accept the 2.5+ meeting invite the overlaps. One exception: if the invite happens to mention lunch is being served we auto remove it. In the future we will likely offer the option to auto reject, but we don't today.

Re: your other comments, you are right that the core platform (mostly dictated by the iCal standard) cause some of the limits on these workflows. But we designed Reclaim to do most (all?) of what you'd expect both for you (a Reclaim user) and others (non-Reclaim users who just stick on the core platform).

Try it out :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is what I did with Tweet Photo [1] — It automatically tweets your instagram photos.

It started out as a Medium post[2] describing how to set this up with Zapier. Seeing how much traffic it got even years after publishing it, I decided it was worth turning into a standalone service.

While the post helped me validate there was demand for such a service. I didn't validate people were willing to pay for it. So user growth has been good [3], revenue not so much. (less than $1k MRR)

Something to keep in mind when you go this route. Be sure to validate people are willing to pay for a solution. Building something aimed at businesses is probably a good idea.

[1] [https://tweet.photo](https://tweet.photo)

[2] [https://medium.com/@marckohlbrugge/a-better-way-to-post- your...](https://medium.com/@marckohlbrugge/a-better-way-to-post-your- instagram-photos-to-twitter-7f3a04a37d89)

[3] [https://tweet.photo/open](https://tweet.photo/open)

<comment><USER17> I have created almost the opposite. A service that screenshots tweets so that you can share them on other platforms. Instagram is not directly supported, but you can use Buffer or other similar services.

[1] [https://pikaso.me](https://pikaso.me)

[2] [https://zapier.com/apps/pikaso](https://zapier.com/apps/pikaso)

<comment><USER18> Now all I want to do is create a zap between your two services and loop a share.

<comment><USER19> Now that I will pay for ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Google App Script using the Fetch function to make API calls is incredibly powerful and almost unknown.

[https://developers.google.com/apps-script/reference/url- fetc...](https://developers.google.com/apps-script/reference/url-fetch/url- fetch-app)

<comment><USER21> I know of it. The main issue is it has a 30 second execution script time limit for custom functions [1]. So if you want to build anything that could take longer than that to execute you need to make sure to write to the spreadsheet before 30 seconds elapse and have a recurring scheduled function that completes any unfinished jobs. Gets tedious and failure prone quickly IME.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/apps- script/guides/services/qu...](https://developers.google.com/apps- script/guides/services/quotas)

<comment><USER20> Oh, wow, that's terrible. I guess I haven't run into it. That would be a bit of a show-stopper for many of the projects I am contemplating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wanted to see if it would ask for access to my entire Google Sheets account, so I tried signing into [https://gsheet2mail.com/](https://gsheet2mail.com/) and got an error message.

Looking at the page again, I saw this, which I missed:

> Hi there! We're currently being verified by Google. So just click "Advanced" > when signing up to continue :)

I tried clicking advanced, and yep, it wants access to all my spreadsheets =) I said no, but I don't want a google sheets to RSS converter right now anyway.

This is one advantage Zapier has over unbundled apps - I'm more likely to want to give Zapier permissions to my APIs because it's an established company and it can help with a bunch of different things, than to give access to a new single function tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, the author here,

That's the read-only scope that's required to query a single spreadsheet on the user's account. The API doesn't allow listing queries unless you also ask for drive permissions (which I don't).

See more info here: [https://developers.google.com/sheets/api/guides/authorizing](https://developers.google.com/sheets/api/guides/authorizing)

<comment><USER22> I'm famiilar with the Google Sheets API. The way to get fine-grained access to the Google Sheets API is by asking for a specific permission within Google Drive. While it involves two APIs, it's less permissions than giving access to all the spreadsheets in a google sheets account.

Another way to go is to use a service account, and have the user share their sheet with your service account's email address.

<comment><USER23> Hi, I'm not OP, but have built a similar thing. Are you suggesting to use [https://www.googleapis.com/auth/drive.file](https://www.googleapis.com/auth/drive.file) instead of [https://www.googleapis.com/auth/spreadsheets](https://www.googleapis.com/auth/spreadsheets)?

<comment><USER22> Yeah. It gives read/write access to one file. The ideal for this use case would be read only access for one file. I think read/write access for one file follows the principle of least privilege better than read access for all files. [https://developers.google.com/drive/api/v2/about- auth](https://developers.google.com/drive/api/v2/about-auth) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege)

<comment><USER23> I've found that drive.file doesn't work so well with existing Sheets [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61778469/append-rows- to-...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61778469/append-rows-to-a-google- sheet-using-drive-file-scope)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Python is a great tool in that it is easy for starting developers and useful experts alike.

Zapier is a great starting tool but quickly breaks down for anything more complex.

If you're a SaaS app that has complex "use cases" then sending users to Zapier to have them figure it out doesn't work. Instead, you can build your usecase on a tool like Integry.io (yes, founder here), embed the integration in your SaaS and have a clean UX.

Ultimately, you don't want your users figuring out what triggers, actions, steps, mappings, transforms, validations are. People don't buy integrations, they just want their tools to work together and tools like Zapier and tray can still be too complex.

<comment><USER25> This - I'm planning on churning with a webinar tool because the only way to integrate it with Salesforce and Hubspot is an extremely complex Zap. No thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think the issue is that techy/engineer-types are big fans of elegance. It's undeniable that services like Zapier are _elegant_ in the sense that they generalize pretty well, they can "do it all" and, in all honesty, they're not _too_ hard to figure out. With that said, there's no true _value_ in elegance. And while generalizing is definitely a _good_ idea for a mathematical proof, it might be a _bad_ idea for a product.

I have to admit that a lot of times (especially when building side- projects/toy startups), I second guess myself when it comes to these kinds of product decisions -- "Is this product _too_ simple? _Too_ bare-bones; too much of a _one-trick-pony_? Would anyone _pay_ for this?"

<comment><USER27> I believe that was separate senior engineers from the other is having passed the phase of elegance.

Eventually we want stuff that works, without looking at them.

On twitter people were asking what is clean code? My answer to that is that the cleanest code is the code you never have to open in an ide to figure or tweak.

<comment><USER28> Put another way, elegant code is not always good code.

<comment><USER29> I have written some beautifully elegant code in my time.

It's code that I now hate returning to because I don't understand it at first glance. (Granted this was years ago. I don't code that way anymore and haven't for quite some time).

I've learned my lesson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This applies to Reddit too to some extent:

AskReddit => Quora

MillionaireMakers => PoolTogether

Deals/Free/DiscountedProducts => SlickDeals, HotUKDeals

SideProject => Product Hunt

BuyForLife => goodcheapandfast.com

These are what I could remember top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

I think /r/mealtimevideos could be an independent service on its own.

</comment><comment><USER31> I feel that complex workflows are best served by dedicated integrations, but it takes time for developers to build each integration natively into a product. We launched [https://kloudless.com](https://kloudless.com) to simplify the process for app developers to natively integrate an entire category of SaaS services at once (I'm a co-founder).

Ignoring platforms like Salesforce, some of the "product" apps that we see adopting native integrations instead of directing users to Zapier include apps that require:

1) synchronous interactive integrations and not just background automation. e.g. a user pulling a lead from Salesforce into a marketing app.

2) complex/multi-step integrations that offer way better UX and much lower support costs to just build natively for users.

3) integrations as a competitive differentiator, or without requiring users to pay for third-party tools.

4) integrations without an API of their own to integrate to.

That said, there are always a long tail of apps and use cases so I'm certain we'll see more specialized tooling pop up to handle specific complex workflows.

</comment><comment><USER32> Amazing post.

This "unbundling" is the exact approach we're taking with Saasify. There's a lot to be said for focused, niche SaaS products that do one thing and do it well.

</comment><comment><USER33> This resonates with me, just having implemented Dead Man's Snitch style alerts with plain Amazon CloudWatch. Higher abstraction level tools are valuable.

<comment><USER34> Would you mind sharing more about this? I'm interested!

<comment><USER33> My recent use case is needing an alert if a certain metric of my system exceeds a threshold or is not present. The simplest viable alerting tool might take these parameters:

* alert threshold

* comparison operator

* expected datapoint interval (in units of time)

* whether to consider missing data breaching (boolean)

* if missing data is breaching, margin of skew allowed (in units of time)

(assume the tool magically has access to metric source, that's not important)

I'm not sure whether the concept was named prior to this tool [0], but this tool's name has become a colloquial term: a "Dead Man's Snitch" style of alert. Once familiar with the idea, I found an exception-monitoring vendor [1] that I was already using at the time had built this feature in. I quickly found use cases and was broadly able to eliminate large volumes of "cronspam" and email filters in favor of the much more elegant construct — because it was so easy to implement and maintain, it was viable for a whole long tail of second class system metrics that otherwise didn't deserve proper instrumentation.

CloudWatch on the other hand is lower level and more flexible (naturally with higher learning curve). It fundamentally provides similar value by offloading alerting state and logic to a trusted managed system, but is distinctly inferior for my use case:

* It treats missing metrics as _literally breaching the threshold_ and makes no semantic distinction, which spikes the whole abstraction. You can (only partially) workaround this by splitting the alert into two distinct alerts.

* It doesn't have a "permitted skew in units of time parameter"; you need to do the arithmetic and translate it into their parameters. This spikes the abstraction and makes the alert logic opaque to my team members and future self.

[0] [https://deadmanssnitch.com/](https://deadmanssnitch.com/) [1] [https://www.honeybadger.io/](https://www.honeybadger.io/)

<comment><USER34> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Zapier is great. I use it all of the time, from personal projects to work stuff.

However, as soon as you try to do more than couple of things in one zap and have multi zaps routing/transforming data between the same apps, it becomes very easy to fuck it all up (duplicate, trigger wrong things, etc) and Zappier (or other solutions like tray.io for that matter) doesn't provide you any help and the whole things becomes quickly difficult to maintain or manage.

A great analalogy would be it's a beautiful gun but makes it way too easy to shoot yourself in foot after the first shot

I'm looking for more unbundling and "micro apps" that solve the maintainability of it too.

</comment><comment><USER36> It sounds familiar to me since I too have built a micro-SaaS that could probably make it in Zappier: [https://sheet.chat](https://sheet.chat) to integrate Google Sheets in Slack

<comment><USER37> That is awesome. Have you been able to turn a profit yet? I'm super interested in micro-SaaS's...

<comment><USER36> Thanks :) I have few paying customers. I run it as a side project in my spare time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I know this is completely off topic, but "The Ashley Madison Agency </comment><comment>--> Casual Encounters" made me laugh.

<comment><USER39> I chuckled when I noticed that the "adult" section was one of the only purple links on the page.

<comment><USER32> Hmmm, not too hard to imagine what "adult" SaaS would look like :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Here is a tricky idea to generate ideas :

Turn popular Zaps on Zapier into simple, single-purpose apps.

[https://zapier.com/apps/integrations](https://zapier.com/apps/integrations)

<comment><AUTHOR> There's also [https://tray.io/connectors](https://tray.io/connectors) as well where pages like [https://tray.io/connectors/asana-salesforce- integrations](https://tray.io/connectors/asana-salesforce-integrations) have automation templates on them

Disclaimer: I work for Tray.io

<comment><USER32> Zaps and tray connectors are great starting points for Micro SaaS idea generation.

I wrote about this more in-depth here: [https://docs.saasify.sh/#/resources?id=saas-idea- resources](https://docs.saasify.sh/#/resources?id=saas-idea-resources)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I don't buy it.

CL is a consumer facing product that offers a good-enough experience for most categories. The category specific vertical companies mentioned greatly improve the experience / feature set. They are expansive by nature.

Zapier is a b2b tool that ties together systems / data sources and reduces it to a common interface for most scenarios. Being reductive and reusable is the chief value. I do not want another integration tool if I can help it.

<comment><USER42> What exactly don't you buy?

Isn't the point of the article that if one company provides a good enough experience for many things that doing one of those things better may be a good business opportunity? It may be particularly attractive to the subset of people who rely on that one thing.

The point doesn't seem to be that _you_ need more integration tools. It's that if one integration is very important to you, you might want a dedicated tool that provides better experience and value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> How is Zapier different from If this then that ? [https://ifttt.com/](https://ifttt.com/)

<comment><USER44> For one, it has a business model. IFTTT relies on investors' money to offer service to average Joes like you and me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> The next question becomes - how do you find out what people are automating on zapier?

<comment><AUTHOR> You can use Google trends

Heres a few I picked up from searching for "Zapier" and looking at the top related queries:

\- zapier salesforce \- airtable \- trello \- zapier email parser \- calendly \- sms

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's how we came up the idea of a cloud version HTTP scheduler [https://ihook.us](https://ihook.us). For sure Zapier can do this, but you have to navigate among a ton of integrations to figure out where a scheduler app is, and click though the plus sign to add downstream actions, which could feel complex even for users with engineering background. Seems in a platform where apps/functionalities are commoditized, the complexity of integrating it with your business logic is deferred to the user.

</comment><comment><USER47> Great post! I've been reading a book called "Unlocking the customer value chain" [0] which talks about three waves that the Internet brought along : Unbundling , disintermediation and decoupling. This post on unbundling is a great starting point. The trend seems to be towards decoupling which is something that will come once unbundling becomes mainstream or mature. [0] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42934086](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42934086)

</comment><comment><USER48> The picture of Craigslist being unbundled shown in the article is really good. Is there a similar pictorial "map" of the space zapier covers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately no... I should have made one!

Essentially Zapier would technically cover all integrations. So any sort of data transformation from one app to another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Zapier benefits from the interconnected was of its apps where craigslist did not.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm currently doing this so I can stop paying Zapier. I've built a plugin to append new Gravity Forms entries in WordPress to a Google Sheet & with some more polish it'll be ready to sell.

<comment><USER50> If you've got a forms application that can't export the data where you want it to, I can't shake the feeling that you're working on the wrong part of the problem.

<comment><USER23> It certainly can at a click of a button--I want a Google Sheet that updates in real time. That's exactly a flow that Zapier offers.

<comment><USER50> Yeah I still can't get over the fact you're using 4 huge code bases just to replicate the functionality of a standard html input form.

<comment><USER23> The word standard is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. I don't want to re-build Gravity Form's conditional logic or feeds to PayPal & HubSpot systems, so I'm not going to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I vaguely remember seeing this exact, or almost exact, deal before -- perhaps roughly 10-15 years ago.

Perhaps I'm human or crazy. I'm willing to be corrected.

</comment><comment><USER52> How do you find out interesting Zap workflows?

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm the only one that sees this post and most comments by all users as just an Ad?

"This is what we did at <linktomynewsaas>".

Is this what guerilla marketing and HN have become?

<comment><USER54> You might be the only one who believes a conversation loses all value if someone benefits from it, and who thus reduces an otherwise interesting discussion to "just an ad."

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> awesome post! Thank you. I can see huge white space in non-IT use cases.</comment>


Parkinson's Law of Triviality - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality

<comment><USER2> My favourite bit, which I had not seen before today, is on the 'duck technique'. From Wikipedia:

The duck technique in corporate programming is an applied example of Parkinson's law of triviality: a programmer expects their corporate office to insist on a change to something (anything at all) on every presentation to show that they're participating, so a programmer adds an element they expect corporate to remove on purpose. Quoted from Jeff Atwood's blog, Coding Horror:[1]

 _This started as a piece of corporate lore at Interplay Entertainment. It was well known that producers (a game industry position roughly equivalent to project manager) had to make a change to everything that was done. The assumption was that subconsciously they felt that if they didn 't, they weren't adding value.

The artist working on the queen animations for Battle Chess was aware of this tendency, and came up with an innovative solution. He did the animations for the queen the way that he felt would be best, with one addition: he gave the queen a pet duck. He animated this duck through all of the queen's animations, had it flapping around the corners. He also took great care to make sure that it never overlapped the "actual" animation.

Eventually, it came time for the producer to review the animation set for the queen. The producer sat down and watched all of the animations. When they were done, he turned to the artist and said, "That looks great. Just one thing: get rid of the duck."_

[1] [http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/new-programming- jar...](http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/new-programming-jargon.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The main Parkinson's law is the adage which states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion".

That is why we should not have a Mega state.It's just a bunch of state paid administrative people inventing new work for themselves and new rules for us.

If we are unlucky this Mega state will put new rules from corporate lobbying groups which is not in the general interest of the public/voters.

<comment><USER4> ...except life is rarely that simple. For example, nearly all countries where the state delivers healthcare centrally have far lower costs than countries such as the US, where healthcare is delivered privately. This seems to fly in the face of your thesis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Consulting for large organizations, this is a huge aspect of successfully managing your relationship with your clients. The duck technique can work, but moving fast enough to prevent your client from finding trivial things to argue about is probably a more honest and efficient way to go at it.

</comment><comment><USER6> On a related note, Poul-Henning Kamp's 1999 "bikeshed" e-mail to the FreeBSD list (with his take on Parkinson's Law) is still a good read: [http://bikeshed.com/](http://bikeshed.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Corollary: "Why the Secretary of any organisation is the most powerful person there."

Think about it. Who sets the agenda? Who prioritises/orders the agenda? Who writes the minutes?

</comment><comment><USER8> I just watched Charlie Wilson's War last night in memory of Philip Seymour Hoffman. Charlie Wilson and Gust Avrakotos convinced Congress to authorize $500 million to arm the mujahadeen. Rep. Wilson couldn't get his subcommittee with an unlimited budget to authorize $1 million for school reconstruction after the Soviets left. Seems like a pretty good example.

</comment><comment><USER9> Parkinson was an optimist.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've seen this in action at some large telecom companies. Beat the smallest issues to death, and never get to the bigger ones. I assumed that this was a way to avoid the bigger issues, as opposed to fixating on that which is easier understood. I think I was wrong. :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> Good example of that on HN: Todo Lists

</comment><comment><USER12> This basically describes the business end of the company I work for.</comment>


There are now more iPhones sold than babies born in the world every day - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/01/25/there-are-now-more-iphones-sold-than-babies-born-in-the-world-every-day/

<comment><USER2> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this may not be a sustainable trend.

<comment><USER3> That was my first thought, too. Then I realized that it just might be: the lifespan of an average baby is significantly longer than the lifespan of an average phone.

Now, if the statistic was Apple was selling more iPhones to _new cell phone customers_ or even to _people who'd never had an iPhone_ , then you'd be exactly correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Analogous to "Peak Oil", would this suggest Apple is approaching "Peak iPhone"?

</comment><comment><USER5> Let's put it this way: if every person was to buy a single phone their entire life, and they were only allowed to buy an iPhone, it would take Apple close to 70 years (at this rate) to achieve full penetration!

People are so easy to impress.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are more atoms in the universe than there are iPhones.

</comment><comment><USER7> seems like an unsustainable business model to me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Its interesting that this number, 400k per day, is significantly less than the 700k per day that Google has recently claimed to be activating.

Yet at the same time, the iPhone is %55 of Verizon's sales, and the iPhone is not the only iOS device, with the iPod touch doing pretty well (7M last quarter) and the iPad having essentially no competition and growing around %100 a year.

To me, this implies that a very large number of the android phones being activated each day are outside the USA, and I suspect to people who otherwise would have bought a feature phone. It looks like the difference in distribution (android's distribution is much broader since it has more hardware partners who have more longstanding agreements with more carriers) is the key to the difference in activation numbers.

<comment><USER9> Sales numbers by Apple are hard, cold, verifyable numbers.

"Activations" is still a term that has no clear definition. Google has hinted at what they are (and are not), but even their meaning to Google in terms of the bottom-line are unclear.

Android is no doubt a phenomenon that is sweeping the mobile world... how does Google profit or succeed from this?

<comment><USER10> > Android is no doubt a phenomenon that is sweeping the mobile world... how > does Google profit or succeed from this?

I suppose Google's goal with Android is to maintain those numbers up [http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_search_engine-ww- monthly-2...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_search_engine-ww- monthly-201012-201112)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Partially due to all the couples going to sleep with their phones?

<comment><USER12> sexting must be through the roof</comment></comment>


How a 'Nutrition Heretic' Overcame a Big, Fat Public Shaming - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/vindicated/2016/11/how-a-nutrition-heretic-overcame-a-big-fat-public-shaming.html <comment><USER2> "The article argued that the conventional thinking on nutrition that we'd been living with since the 1970s was likely to be incorrect, that we should be avoiding refined carbohydrates and sugars, not eating low-fat diets, and that maybe it was the infamous Dr. Robert Atkins, of all people, whose advice we should be taking, at least if we are fatter than we prefer, as an ever- increasing number of Americans surely are."

That sentence should be taken out and shot.

(for length, not content)</comment>


Navy Drone Successfully Lands on Aircraft Carrier - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/10/navy-drone-successfully-lands-on-aircraft-carrier/?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

<comment><USER2> Calling it a 'drone' kind of understates the accomplishment here. :) Navy drones have already taken off from and been recovered onto ships, in the VTOL configuration.

This is essentially an unmanned jet aircraft. It recently successfully managed a catapult-assisted takeoff from a carrier.

Now it has completed the other end of the deal, an _arrested_ landing. (i.e. it had to catch its tailhook on one of the arresting wires, execute a proper glide path descent onto a moving platform, etc.)

<comment><USER3> I have to disagree. You are being fooled into thinking that is a stealth fighter or bomber. Its not.

It's a drone which is at mini-scale to the actual aircraft you may be referring to.

Yes. We have stealth bomber looking drones at 1/3 scale to the actual thing.

And to your original point, this is obviously not a first, drones have been taking off and landing from aircraft carriers for years.

Why the washington post is reporting this now is a better question. They are clearly out of the loop.

<comment><USER4> > drones have been taking off and landing from aircraft carriers for years

Fixed wing? Such as?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really don't think Congress is exercising its budgetary oversight correctly if it is approving nearly trillion dollar purchases of manned fighter aircraft to be delivered a decade or more in the future. We're pretty clearly within a transition from manned to unmanned combat aircraft, and given the lack of compelling threats flying top-end fighter aircraft (or fielding top AA defenses), there's no reason we couldn't keep the F-16/F-15/F-18 in service (and whatever F-22s we already purchased) for another 10-20 years, then replace entirely with drones.

Drones aren't just cheaper, they're _better_. Smaller, higher G loading, less radar cross-section, no need for SAR when one goes down, potential for "in extremis" one-way missions (intentionally sacrificing a $5mm reusable drone to accomplish a mission is often fine), etc. The only thing they don't do is create as many senior officers with flight experience.

(They also don't cost as much money, so to the extent you believe every dollar spent on defense, needed or not, is a dollar stolen from humanity, ...)

<comment><USER6> There is one thing a human can do that these new fancy drones can't yet. Look out the window and identify if a target is hostile or not. My understanding (I used to be in Naval flight training) is that this is still a huge part of the work done by pilots that these drones don't handle well.

<comment><USER7> If that is an issue surely the answer is more assisted drones. Better to have someone sitting in safety viewing a high def and possibly magnified camera output to identify things that someone taking a quick look in the cockpit while under fire.

<comment><USER8> Latency and mission. If you don't have line of sight with the drone, you've got multisecond latency on input, that's not suitable for fighter aircraft, though is not deal breaking for recon and air-to-ground (bombs or missiles). So fighter drones require the pilots to have line of sight to be effective in combat, which means you need control of ground or sea assets within range of the air combat theater. That's not a given in war. Though, at present, this is probably a given for the current activities of the US DOD, you can't base future planning on current conditions.

That said, F-35 is a clusterfuck. Military contractors have had so little oversight, and are such terrible planners, (particularly of software) that most projects that depend on a significant software component are guaranteed to have cost and time overruns, with little repercussion except for the poor program manager that was thrown into the deep end and drowned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't see why these need to take off and land horizontally. Give them the capability to take off and land on their tails, and the size of the carrier can shrink dramatically. The reason why we don't use tail sitting craft is because they are too awkward for human pilots to land. Drones wouldn't be so limited.

<comment><USER10> > _" The reason why we don't use tail sitting craft is because they are too > awkward for human pilots to land."_

This isn't true. Taking off anything vertically requires their thrust-to- weight ratios be higher than 1.0 (otherwise try as it might, it's going to sit on the ground).

Modern, latest-generation fighter aircraft have a TWR somewhere between 0.75 and 1.15. If you pointed them upwards, they will _barely_ be able to lift off the ground (if their TWR is above 1.0 at all), much less gain enough speed to generate lift with their wings.

Taking off horizontally allows you to get lift "for free" with the wings. Accelerating horizontally means you're not fighting gravity the whole time. Lifting off vertically, assuming the aircraft has enough TWR to make it realistic, is a terrible waste of fuel. Modern fighters only have a combat radius of ~300-350mi before they have to turn around and go home. The more fuel that is expended taking off or landing, the less actual flight (and fight) time they have.

Catapult launches also allows you to save fuel on the aircraft by "borrowing" the necessary energy from the launcher. Ditto arrested-hook landings that allow you to borrow stopping force from the aircraft carrier - otherwise you'd have to carry enough fuel to exert this force yourself.

It's certainly possible to design craft that can take off and land vertically - the physics are relatively simple. The problem is making them practical - the more fuel/weight an aircraft spends just taking off and landing, the less weight can be dedicated to useful tasks, like missiles, bombs, and flying far.

<comment><USER9> _> Modern, latest-generation fighter aircraft have a TWR somewhere between 0.75 and 1.15. If you pointed them upwards, they will barely be able to lift off the ground (if their TWR is above 1.0 at all), much less gain enough speed to generate lift with their wings.

Taking off horizontally allows you to get lift "for free" with the wings._

Well, more specifically, you are using the atmosphere as reaction mass. Wings direct air down. It's not free lift, it's free reaction mass.

I'm not saying that you should eliminate catapult launches. But a ship large enough to have catapults can still be a whole lot smaller than a modern US Navy aircraft carrier. Any aircraft that can land vertically will also be able to take off vertically. (Though with less efficiency when fully loaded, if at all.)

There's a huge amount to be gained by being able to stage aircraft from much smaller ships. How about building submarines a bit larger than the old Soviet Typhoons, and having aircraft on those? Short of that, how about the ability to build squadrons of multiple redundant cruiser-sized carriers?

Perhaps such schemes would be more valuable potential opponents of the US, than they would be to the US.

Yes, on the whole, the system will be less fuel efficient than horizontal take off and landing.

<comment><USER11> > There's a huge amount to be gained by being able to stage aircraft from much > smaller ships.

These are called amphibious assault ships like the America and Tarawa classes. They can serve helicopters and V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft. No catapults.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America- class_amphibious_assaul...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America- class_amphibious_assault_ship)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Saipan_LHA-2_amphibiou...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Saipan_LHA-2_amphibious_assault_ship.jpg)

<comment><USER12> I suspect you may see submarines configured to launch drones vertically with rocket assist and recover them using something smaller than a flight deck. Subs already deploy SEAL teams and there has been at minimum experimental use of remote piloted minisubs — this would be a perfect complement.

This heralds the end of the aircraft carrier (a good thing, since they're really quite obsolete conceptually).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Navy drones fly autonomously with the planes' robot brain making the split > second calculations necessary to conduct an arrested landing on the deck of > a moving ship.

Is anyone else a little freaked out that this is one more step towards aerial ED-209's?

<comment><USER14> Me. A combination of freaked out, and feeling silly for being freaked out.

Somehow, aerial drones seem like less of a stretch than ground drones. I'm surprised that tanks aren't being replaced by drone tanks. All the same reasoning applies. I think the first time land battles happen between drones, we'll get the message.

<comment><USER15> I would think that it'd be easier to mess with communications to and from the tank. Or that they'd get stuck in a valley or something where radio communications aren't very good. Also, navigating on the ground is trickier than flying in some ways, depending on the terrain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That's a big drone. I expected a drone to be smaller but that has the size of full brown aircraft.

</comment><comment><USER17> Your move, Skynet.

</comment><comment><USER18> That is AWESOME! It's a shame we won't get to see the code for it anytime soon.</comment>


Tsundoku - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsundoku <comment><USER2> I had a bedroom converted into a library when I bought my house. It's about half filled with books now. I've read about 95% of the fiction and about 15% of the non-fiction.

I get a lot out of the library. It's a _great_ place to work or study. It's both devoid of and filled with distraction. (I also had a bedroom converted to an office... which, except for the girlfriend's sewing table, is almost exclusively used for PC gaming...) Having all those unread books around means I'm never bored, and I'm always subtly being pushed to learn the things I want to learn.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't really think this word is actually a thing that Japanese people really say.

The Japanese wikipedia version of this article is also a stub, and there's only 550K results in Japanese google, which is pretty much identical to the amount if you search "Tsundoku" in English. If you search for the phrase in hiragana only, the results become even less at 75K.

<comment><USER4> Since the phenomenon itself does definitely exist and there is no single word for it (that I know) I am all for using tsundoku for it :)

<comment><USER5> Right down there in the other "Book Collecting" articles it literally says:

> Bibliomania (tsundoku)

There very clearly is a word for it. Bibliomania.

<comment><USER6> Oxford says bibliomania = passionate enthusiasm for collecting and possessing books. It doesn't say anything about whether you read them or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Guilty as charged. My stack is mostly out-of-date programming tomes that were worth reading when I bought them. I also have a collection of Audible audiobooks that I bought to spend my built up credits before cancelling.

<comment><USER8> Hah, this happened to me when I cancelled Audible. My solution was to use the remaining credits for the first four of the The Wheel of Time (14 novels long). But now I'm addicted and had to sign up for Audible again.

Also the credits expire, even when you are signed up.

(Also, as far as physical books, you should see my basement... Buying technical books was a business expense when I was self-employed).

<comment><USER9> > My solution was to use the remaining credits for the first four of the The > Wheel of Time (14 novels long).

Thanks for the inspiration. I've been putting this off because i didn't have a solution, but just pulled the trigger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> May also apply to videogames, comics, digital media, hobby/craft supplies, etc.

<comment><USER11> It's weird that something that is meant to be entertainment can become a chore (videogames and hobbies for instance). Is it merely because we are tired or because there is another activity available that is so low energy that it becomes more desirable in comparison (e.g., watching Netflix, mindlessly browsing the internet)? Sometimes I wonder... if none of those activities were available in my house, what would I do instead?

<comment><USER12> This question is _highly_ relevant to me. I recently got a small bonus at work with the interesting stipulation that I couldn't take it in cash. (Basically, they let you expense something on the company card for personal use.)

I've been getting back into making music so I wanted to spend it on something fun related to that. And this triggered a surprisingly intense amount of anxiety where I found it really hard to decide what to get. After a lot of soul searching, the understanding I reached was:

There are two flavors of happiness I'll call "joy" and "satisfaction". Joy is stuff where the act itself is intrinsically pleasurable. Taking a warm bath, eating a good dessert, a conversation with close friends. Pleasures to the senses that require no effort on your part. Satisfaction is stuff where _having done_ the act feels good. Writing a short story. Cleaning the garage. You only get out of it what you put into it. If you've heard of "type 1 fun" and "type 2 fun", it's that same distinction. In practice, most hobbies blend the two.

There's a sort of third in-between category for activities whose joy/satisfaction ratio is skill dependent. Sitting down at a piano when you don't how to play well is almost pure satisfaction. It's uncomfortable and repetitive. It doesn't sound great. Your fingers hurt. But you feel good about making progress practicing the skill. Sitting down to play piano when you have mastered it is very enjoyable. You get to perform and it feels good seeing your body create the delightful sounds you hear in your head.

My experience is that the hobbies where people acquire the stuff but then don't use it are the ones that weight more towards satisfaction than joy, and in especially the ones that are skill-dependent. YouTube makes the latter particularly failure prone because there are infinite videos of people who have mastered skills that make the hobby look like pure joy.

(For me, the realization was that since I wanted to maximize joy, I should get gear that built on my existing music skills instead of requiring me to learn more to get fun out of it. I got a little MIDI keyboard and a looper pedal since I already know how to make music on a computer and play a little guitar and those make that existing skill more rewarding.)

<comment><USER13> >This question is highly relevant to me. I recently got a small bonus at work with the interesting stipulation that I couldn't take it in cash. (Basically, they let you expense something on the company card for personal use.)

That sounds like tax evasion

<comment><USER12> You do still file an expense report so I feel confident that it's on the up- and-up for tax purposes. The docs said they did research and people got a greater sense of reward from bonuses like this instead of just having the number in the next direct-deposited paycheck be slightly larger.

Anecdotally, it certainly made a larger emotional impression on me. I had gotten a similar cash bonus a while back that I intended to also use for music stuff and basically procrastinated figuring out what to get until I forgot about it entirely. This time I actually got something and then sent a nice email to the person I got the bonus from thanking them.

It's been a really nice experience.

<comment><USER13> I've understood expense reports to be buisness expenses that were first paid for by the employee and the employer compensates them for it. In that case it's not taxed as income as it was never really anything the employee "got".

It all depends on how your company accountants do it, they could be doing something unusual, but the way you've described it sounds like tax evasion.

I dont really care, but if you like the benefit you may not want to bring it up in public forums.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Me and my wife does it because we value and want to reflect to our kids and others ...there's no English word descriptive enough here... but in Greek it's called paideia, German: bildung. Danish/Norwegian: dannelse. Closest word is probably education.. but it's too narrow.

<comment><USER2> Lucky kids.

One of the best things my mother ever did for me was always have a ton of books around. Fiction, non-fiction. Garbage. Masterpieces. Even the ones I wasn't allowed to read "until I was older." I also had a grandmother that worked at a bookstore for most of her life. I have, and love, a Kindle, but I can't imagine a life without books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Owning more books than you'll read is good for you: [https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/do-i-own-too-many- books](https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/do-i-own-too-many-books)

You never know where reading will take you next.

<comment><USER16> This. I try to maintain a TBR (to be read) shelf or two at home, comprising a few dozen titles, both fiction and prose.

The reasoning is that I'd rather have a choice when picking up the next book, rather than just having to read the last one I bought; as you say, you never know where reading will take you next. Often, reading a book on a subject makes me want to check out a few of the works referenced, and before you know it, the TBR pile has increased in size...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I usually buy books all excited about a topic I love (history or behavioral economics etc.) but they just pile up. Work pressure and exhaustion during the week and family stuff on the weekend is overwhelming any reading time :(

<comment><USER18> I am in the same boat, but have been making a conscious effort to get more reading in. Just squeezing time here and there. Waking up earlier in the morning, before bed when I had been winding down with YouTube videos or piddling on the internet, toliet trips. In the end it takes longer to finsh by reading fewer pages at a time, but it is working at actually reading more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Somewhat related; when a friend bought his first home, he filled bookshelves in the living room with books that were popular in his circles as part of decorating and a means of social manipulation.

He never had and likely never will read any of them, it was primarily an attempt to buy social favor with guests. He'd just say he had a poor memory for books he read long ago whenever someone tried discussing them at a house party.

It was unnerving how effective this was.

<comment><USER20> Books do make great decorations. People have been doing the same thing for decades.

"Don't have sex with someone who doesn't own any books" used to be somewhat common dating advice. With e-readers, it's not as applicable, but the principle is still good.

<comment><USER19> In some sense e-readers are an advantage, since it's less easily spoofed; instead you have to discuss the content of books with them, rather than be impressed by their collection of potentially unread paper lining the shelves.

<comment><USER2> Until they lie to you about their obsession with Middle Age poetry from the region surround the Black Sea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I too find a six-sentence long wikipedia article to be "hacker" "news".

</comment><comment><USER4> Hobbyists use GAS for a similar practice. It stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome where you buy much more hobby-related gear that you can use. Photography, electronics and electronic music are some hobbies particularly known for this.

<comment><USER21> ugh just reminded me of all the money I dumped into modular synths

<comment><USER4> Wanna resell them? Just kidding, I won't buy anything until I can actually learn to play keyboard :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just checked my steam account...

</comment><comment><USER23> I always have a pile of fiction near at hand, but I'm relatively good with getting through those. My non-fiction pile is the one that gathers the most dust...

</comment><comment><USER18> As much as I like to buy books I have realized it is much more economical to just check it out from the library.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is me and HN. I save so many articles to Pocket but only are ever fully read.

</comment><comment><USER25> I am absolutely sure this was posted due to the IndieHackers newsletter

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. It was.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I do it with browser tabs.

<comment><USER27> ....oh lord! I am not the only one then!

<comment><USER28> and i wonder why my fan is going full blast all the time.</comment></comment></comment>


Don't dismiss people. It doesn't pay - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hi-my-name-is-jon/never-dismiss-people-it-doesnt-pay-f5661b270fb3?source=linkShare-7658be0852ad-1465943220 <comment><USER2> I agree with the overall message, so my criticism is of the writing itself:

(i) The writing is way too vitriolic, and centered around a single experience with a single person. I don't think there's anything wrong with anecdotal evidence from a blog, but I think OP should use more than one anecdote.

(ii) The argument sounds like "this guy pissed me off and was an entrepreneur therefore all entrepreneurs are dismissive".

(iii) The tone of the piece gives off a "oh my god, Stacey's such a bitch. I went to the mall and..."

(iv) What does the image of the friendly looking couple drinking coffee have to do with the writing?

<comment><USER3> > 4

It's Medium. It needed a flowery header image.</comment></comment>


Men Walk On Moon - July 20th 1969 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0720.html <comment><USER2> We need to be reminded that once we did great things.

I worked at MIT Instrumentation Lab on a compiler for the guidance software for the moon missions. My contribution was insignificant, but I am still proud to have been part of it. My only regret was that I never made it to Florida to watch a Saturn V take off.

<comment><USER3> Russell as in _Steve_ Russell? Because, if so, I think you've done things much more significant than land men on the moon.

<comment><USER4> Looks like it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3519747> and other comments verify.

<comment><USER5> I noticed that too, but Steve Russell wrote the first LISP interpreter on the IBM 704 in 1959 (<http://www.iwriteiam.nl/HaCAR_CDR.html#Steve>). The IBM 7094 came out in 1962 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7090>). So I'm betting that our russell isn't Steve. He's a perfectly good russell nonetheless :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really, if you're going to commemorate it, cite a more authoritative source.

<http://www.theonion.com/articles/july-21-1969,10515/>

</comment><comment><USER7> I recently picked up a box full of old copies The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction at a book sale. Whoever had originally purchased them had most of the 1960s and a good part of the 1950s, so they obviously had a lasting interest in science fiction.

The last volume he purchased was August 1969.

In my imagination, after the moon landing, he bought one more issue, and it just didn't work anymore. Science fiction had become science fact, and he had no need for any more fiction.

I wonder how he felt later, after we left the moon for the last time and never went back.

</comment><comment><USER8> Mr. Armstrong replied:

"Thank you Mr. President. It's a great honor and privilege for us to be here representing not only the United States but men of peace of all nations, men with interests and a curiosity and men with a vision for the future."

Fucking awesome.

<comment><USER9> My appreciation circuits were fried at that point. Too few women, too many men.

So this text both brought me on the verge of tearing up and annoyed me. Bravo!

<comment><USER10> "Men" as in mankind. It's just the way that word is used. I'm pretty sure Armstrong wasn't trying to be misogynistic there.

<comment><USER9> I know. But since I know that that kind of language is not ok my appreciation circuits are fried.

<comment><USER11> You just registered an account to complain about a message of unequivocal world peace from the first human to set foot on an extraplanetary body.

<comment><USER9> No, I did not.

And he did so with misogynist language. Which made me twinge. I don't complain, I state my feelings.

It just shows in what a weird time this was happening.

<comment><USER12> The word "men" also means humanity you idiot.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that is exactly the problem. Is that really so hard to understand?

<comment><USER13> No, there is no problem. People looking for problems where are none are problem though.

<comment><USER14> All right, I'll pop in here I guess. This has obviously veered incredibly off- topic and I can absolutely forgive Armstrong for using that language so many years ago.

Now, that being said language is powerful and inclusive language is important. I wouldn't dismiss this as a problem so candidly. Just registering my support for Tieno's issues so you don't dismiss them as a lone super-PC-police-person.

Also, "that's just the way (the word is used)/(it is)" has never been a great defense of using non-inclusive language. Or anything, really.

<comment><USER15> At that time, it was commonly understood that "men" in such a context included "women". This was before womens' lib, etc. English is an evolving language; basically, 43 years ago, "men" in this use meant something different than it does today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I remember the last lunar missions. We all thought that man would be going back to the moon within a few years or so.

Not the way it worked out.

<comment><USER17> Wellllll...

Pretty much the reason why a lot of progress in manned spaceflight came to a halt is due to the Shuttle program. It was sold on a laundry list of promises that somehow a lot of powerful folks utterly bought into. But in the end it ended up being far less capable and far more expensive than just about every alternative. Although admittedly it does look pretty cool.

<comment><USER18> Even the cool look holds a fatal flaw....never again will we design rockets where the cargo rides adjacent to the fuel, rather than on top.

<comment><USER17> It wouldn't be so bad if the orbiter didn't have such big wings (due to a military requirement for a large cross-range flight ability that was never actually used). Big wings means a more difficult reentry scenario, which means exotic, and brittle, thermal protection systems on the wing leading edges, which means a much larger area of highly vulnerable thermal protection materials on the orbiter. And it wouldn't be so bad if the vehicle didn't use liquid Hydrogen, which is super-cryogenic, requires excessive thermal insulation, and is extremely prone to formation of ice. A lot of people think that we were unlucky with the loss of Challenger and especially with the loss of Columbia, but in truth it was the opposite, we had gotten extraordinarily lucky prior to that. In reality the chances were very high that we would have lost a vehicle to either of those failure modes very much sooner.

But yes, it's a very troublesome design for a lot of reasons.

<comment><USER19> It's not really a question of wings so much as weight. The real issue with putting something on top is that what's below needs to carry that weight which is easier to avoid if the shuttle has it's own engines and sit's on the side. More importantly if the shuttle was not designed to send a few tones of stuff to orbit it could use the same basic design without experiencing anywhere near the same thermal stress and having a lot more safety margin.

<comment><USER20> _It's not really a question of wings so much as weight._

The wings - because they were wings - were vulnerable to debris strikes during launch.

Which wasn't important during _launch_ but was sure a problem during re-entry.

<comment><USER19> Again, the thermal protection system was delicate because of weight issues. If the shuttles design goal was to get 20 people to LEO safely and they had anywhere close to the same budget to work with they could have used a few inches of titanium as part of the thermal protection system vs just glued on tiles that are less dense than Styrofoam.

PS: The surface area to weight is directly related to reentry heating. A person can do reentry in little more than one of those old style space suits and a parachute, the shuttle needed something that was barely possible to build.

<comment><USER20> _Again, the thermal protection system was delicate because of weight issues._

I was not disagreeing with you.

* A person can do reentry in little more than one of those old style space suits and a parachute,*

Are you sure? If one is in orbit, one will re-enter hypersonic. This implies a whole lotta friction as you careen through the atmosphere.

<comment><USER21> Here is an example of a one man entry system consisting of nothing but a strap on heatshield and a retro-rocket gun: <http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm>

<comment><USER20> _Here is an example_

Heh - I've seen that before, or something like it.

But that's more involved than 'space suit, retro-rocket, parachute'.

Be a heckuva ride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For me at least, I hope man goes back to the moon in my lifetime.

Dad has always talked about his memories of 1969 (he would have been a teenager at the time) and the excitement of it.

I feel like going back after so long will feel almost as momentous for some of my generation. Although possibly not the the majority, which is a little sad.

<comment><USER23> I was 11 then. I have a feeling the actual landing was early morning in the UK, not sure I actually saw that.

I'm afraid my dominant memory is the bleep they had between the voice from the moon and the reply from Houston. A fraction of a second long, and a bit higher than E above middle C. I can still hear that now, with the sort of echo at the end from the satellite relay I suppose.

Dad (born 1930s, RAF technician and then radio repairs) was really excited by it all and loved the technology. Grandad (born 1890s, trained as blacksmith, operated a static steam engine, the kind that powers a mill through drive belts) found it sort of funny. Mum liked it when they got out of the capsules on the aircraft carrier.

<comment><USER24> Those beeps are known as Quindar tones, and were used to mute and unmute the radio transmissions.

[http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/MissionTranscriptCollectio...](http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/MissionTranscriptCollection.htm)

<comment><USER23> "Because replacement parts are no longer available, an "out-of-band signaling" system was installed in 1998 for the transmitters located in the U.S. This system uses a continuous tone that is below the normal audio frequency range. When the tone is present, the transmitters are keyed. When the tone is not present, the transmitters are unkeyed. It worked fine, but the Astronaut Office complained about the lack of tones which everyone had become accustomed to as an alert that a transmission was about to start. So, the Quindar tone generator, which was still installed in case it was necessary to key the transmitters at an overseas site, was re-enabled. "

Wonderful link, thanks. The quote above almost rivals Primo Levi's story about the paint recipe in _The Periodic Table_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another significant event on that day was me being born. :-)

</comment><comment><USER26> Many of the Apollo astronauts still make themselves available to the public, and they appear at collector events where they will sign autographs for a small fee. More than fair considering what their government pay must have been in the 60's... Go and meet them while you still can!

</comment><comment><USER27> 43 years ago! I was a small kid on holidays by the seaside and I remember watching it on the B&W tv of the people who were renting us out their cottage. Nice to be able to know where you were when something good happened rather than something terrible.

<comment><USER28> I was 3 years old so don't remember it, but I do remember looking up at the moon and thinking that there were people walking on it right then. That would have been a few years later, but I can't have been more than 5 by then.

It was worth doing, but it's been done. I hope we go back in my lifetime, certainly in my children's lifetimes, but for better reasons than just 'because'.

<comment><USER29> Oh wow, I never realized that until now. There was a time when you could look up at the moon and know that a few guys were there _right at that moment_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So I am optimistic we'll be returning to the Moon within the next 20 years. The reasoning is that technology is advancing to the point where its less and less of a 'big deal.' The last remaining hurdle is 'on-orbit refueling'.

Today, the last remaining challenge of landing on the moon, is carrying enough fuel for a trans-lunar injection orbit into orbit, and then for the lander to land on the moon itself.

With modern launch vehicles, it is straight-forward to launch a moon landing mission as three components (command module, lander, and engine/fuel. And link them together in orbit. However, there is a significant penalty to not launching all at once into the correct earth orbit to later elongate into a trans lunar orbit. So a 'modern' mission actually would need _two_ loads of fuel in orbit, one to move the whole assembly into a prepatory orbit, and then one to move from that orbit to the moon.

If we have on-orbit refueling then you manage a depot of fuel for the second step, and the sequence becomes launch lander, dock it with a tug. Launch command module, attach that to the tug. Move the tug (with its command and lander modules) into the same ecliptic as the moon's orbit. Then refuel, and _then_ use the tug to move you to the moon.

By re-using the tug multiple times the costs drop dramatically. (like $100M every time you re-use it, that is a tug you didn't launch from earth).

People want on-orbit refueling so that we can have longer lived satellites. (there are perfectly serviceable communication satellites in 'dead' orbits because they no longer have the fuel for station keeping.)

Once we get that capability it won't be a question of 'will' to get to the moon, it will simply be a question of money. And there is enough disposable income amongst the young billionaires of the world that getting the money won't be an issue either.

<comment><USER31> _> The last remaining hurdle is 'on-orbit refueling'._

Nice. I often like to point out that a 2nd rate country like Iraq was developing the means to launch bulk cargoes to orbit for only $600/kg back in the 1980's.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon>

High ISP plasma and ion rockets would also lower reaction mass requirements significantly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone know how we got such high quality (live?) video of astronauts walking on the moon, but recent moon missions like LCROSS [1] didn't even have video AFAIK?

[1] [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_r...](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html)

<comment><USER33> Most missions don't value natural light photography over other spectrum specializations and a video of the moon without anyone jumping on it would be pretty boring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Audio + video of the landing: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCVySHDCqOA>

Interesting writeup of the various alarms (beeps) that are going off: [http://klabs.org/history/apollo_11_alarms/eyles_2004/eyles_2...](http://klabs.org/history/apollo_11_alarms/eyles_2004/eyles_2004.htm)

At 3:15 you can hear Charlie Duke say "60 seconds" - that's how much time they have until they run out of fuel and need to abort the landing.

</comment><comment><USER35> Is anyone retransmitting a "real-time" audio feed of the communications between the Apollo 11 crew and mission control?

3 years ago, I took my laptop to the terrace atop the building I worked in and listened as the sun fell behind the buildings. I was one year old at the time of the actual landing and I'm glad I could join in, even if with a 40 year delay.

</comment><comment><USER36> I watched it in Overland Park, Kansas, with awe. Several years later, I watched another moon landing in a room full of high-school classmates who were more interested in the sunflower seeds they were chewing.

</comment><comment><USER37> <http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html>

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone want to place bets on the nationality of the next human to set foot on the moon?

<comment><USER39> It'd be a Russian TV crew filming an empty spot that was supposed to be that of an Apollo landing :)

<comment><USER12> Why aren't there any pictures of the landing zones from orbit? Interesting.

<comment><USER39> There are some, but they are from NASA. A more interesting question is what happened to India's promise to release all its Lunar low-orbit reconnaissance mission data to the public. Or why there is virtually no data coming from Japanese mission of the same nature. Both with hidef ultrazoom cameras mind you.

<comment><USER40> In a couple of minutes of hunting I found the Kaguya data archive [<http://l2db.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/index.html.en>] and the Chandrayaan-1 data archive [<http://issdc.gov.in/CHBrowse/index.jsp>]. So, uh, yeah, both countries released the data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Unfortunately they weren't there. Only the Soviet robots had really been on the Moon.

</comment><comment><USER42> meh, just a hoax..pbttt

</comment><comment><USER12> One thing I wonder about is why astronauts get angry when it is suggested the landings were faked rather than just laughing their faces. Aldrin even punched a guy. What's with that?

<comment><USER43> Because they worked for a decade+ to fulfill their dreams, _and_ achieved them. Then they get harassed by kooks for even longer. The idiot who got punched deserved it, I would have punched him too. There's video online. Apparently the cops agreed and dropped the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> So what's the HN consensus - were there landings to begin with or was it all staged?

:)

<comment><USER45> I like this reasoning: If NASA was willing to fake such a big accomplishment, why haven't they done another one in the next 40 years?

<comment><USER44> Because the technology for detecting such faking has improved dramatically since the 60s?

<comment><USER46> If that was the case then why has the 60s 'faking' not been discovered? If a 1960's faking is undetectable in 2012 then I expect a 2012 faking would be even more convincing. Thus there must be some other reason for not faking a mars landing.

PS: The exact name for my line of argument is 'begging the question'. Yes, _that_ 'begging the question'. The one grammar nazis internet wide have been referring to since 1994. Bet you thought you'd never see it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography - <AUTHOR> https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/cryptobook/ <comment><USER2> Related to this, in case anyone is wondering if Cryptography II course by Dan Boneh will ever be offered on Coursera (It's been listed forever but without a start date). He mentioned that it will but most likely after this book is finished.

<comment><USER3> I'll believe it when I see it. I took the I course (which was excellent) 6 or 7 years ago and gave up on II after the third or fourth cancellation. Should also be goo if it ever actually happens.

<comment><USER4> Duke Nukem Forever finally came out 14 years later, so maybe we are half way there.

<comment><USER5> That seems like an ill omen because DNF was not only years late it was also not very good when it shipped.

I think people are hoping for Cryptography II to be more Terminator 2 than Duke Nukem Forever in terms of sequels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Chapter 16 focuses on post-quantum crypto, including lattices. I see that it (and chapter 17) remains unfinished. Boneh certainly knows lattice tools; it's interesting to me that he nor his students do not seem to be in a hurry to work on lattice-based crypto. Perhaps this is a signal that they aren't worried that a quantum computer capable of cracking current systems will arrive anytime soon.

<comment><USER7> I think, generally, the concern with quantum resistant cryptography is that, like homomorphic encryption schemes, it's unworkably slow right now.

<comment><USER8> Have quantum computers managed to break any sort of cryptography at this point? Even schemes that have been broken by classical computers? I have heard so much speculation on this, for over a decade now, but I haven't seen anything close to application. Can anyone provide insight on this?

<comment><USER9> We haven't gotten quantum computers to do anything faster than classical computers, except possibly contrived problems designed to be fast on quantum computers.

We have factored some small numbers on quantum computers but nothing a classical one couldn't do in a split second. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records) / [https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10478](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10478)

<comment><USER10> Quantum Computing is now at the stage that standard ICs have been at in the early sixties. Back than, chips where made of of a few dozen transistors and couldn't really do anything. It will take a while for quantum computers to really become a threat to cryptography, though at some point they definitely will (in my opinion).

Regarding the "except possibly contrived problems designed to be fast on quantum computers" part: That's their entire purpose. They cannot and will never be faster for all applications compared to a classical computer. They are designed to solve some very special problems efficiently, such as solving dlog and RSA using Shor's algorithm or database search using Grover.

<comment><USER11> What's Moore's law like for quantum computers?

<comment><USER12> We have Neven's law: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law-describe- quan...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law-describe-quantum- computings-rise-20190618/) which states that quantum computers are getting _doubly-exponentially_ better relative to classical computers. First, they are exponentially better than classical computers. Second, they are getting exponentially better. Hence, Neven's law. One needs to define "better" formally (with number of qubits, gate fidelities, coherence times,...) to graph progress, but the idea is that they can do more.

<comment><USER13> BQP is not NP. There is an exponential speedup for very few interesting problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A useful primer for those un-initiated:

Cartoon Cryptography

1min animated series that explains cryptography with cooking analogies

[https://gun.eco/docs/Cartoon-Cryptography](https://gun.eco/docs/Cartoon- Cryptography)

<comment><USER15> > Most websites you use today have fake security. When you log onto their > service, your password gets sent up to their proprietary servers. There they > check to see if it is correct and grant you access to your data.

> Sure, their servers might be in a top secret location. But the problem is > that they know your password. Which means any bad actor, like a rogue > employee, a hacker, or a government agency can snoop on your data without > you knowing.

What on earth?

<comment><USER12> So... my understanding---please correct me if I'm wrong---is that the current practice is to send the password in plaintext to the server over a TLS connection. While this might not be the coolest way to do this (there might be something like a ZK-proof) it is the standard way. Also, why is it not okay for the person who controls the server on the other end to have a plaintext copy of your password? We hash passwords to protect against a 3rd party who gets a data dump, not against people who control the servers. (If you control the servers, you can change the protocol!)

<comment><USER5> It's not OK for two reasons, one a tiny bit paranoid the other much less so

1\. The server operator might accuse you of doing something offering as proof a record that "you" logged in, but actually they knew the password so it was them.

This seems kind of silly if the server is a forum about a video game you like and the consequence of the alleged wrong doing is a permanent ban. But if the server is your bank, and the consequence is they convince a jury you tried to commit fraud and you go to jail when actually their employee has stolen your money using access to your password... that's pretty serious.

2\. People re-use passwords. They know they shouldn't, but they do anyway. So "of course" the operator of "Puppy Fan Forum" knows your password, but it's also the password for your Amazon account, and next thing you know there's $1000 of dog treats billed to your credit card going to the operator's home in Ohio.

<comment><USER12> Sorry for the late reply.

1\. This is actually good news. It provides deniability. You can, for instance, do something bad and then claim that the owner did it.

2\. People _really_ shouldn't reuse passwords, but I see your point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it's anything like the one they teach at Georgia Tech, this is a quite difficult course. Boneh's a great instructor though.

<comment><USER17> It just so happens that I just started the Georgia Tech course this week. What topics would you say are the most difficult? Any tips?

<comment><USER18> Number theory.

<comment><USER19> This. I went into my 400 level cryptography class with 0 Number Theory knowledge as it wasn't a prerequisite. Big mistake, it should've been. My lowest grade in college and I still busted my ass.

That being said, it was incredibly interesting and I do not regret it.

<comment><USER16> Ditto, I ended up taking the course twice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I would love to see a diff between this version and the prior version (Version 4, Sep. 30, 2017) which I've consulted extensively.

I wish this book was in a public git, TBH.

</comment><comment><USER21> Side Note - I really admire Stanford's commitment to open education. The professors there have released so much high quality material for free.

<comment><USER22> Links?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> How much cryptography is actually used in commercial applications? Having hundreds of pages of arcane (but highly interesting!) theory is great, but if it's not applied to real systems, like in banking, then its usefulness is limited, to say the least.

Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted.

<comment><USER24> All of Part I and sections 10-15 of Part II are deployed ubiquitously in most of the world today. As is section 22 of Part III (WireGuard, WPA3, TLS, etc. use AKEs).

The rest of it appears to consist of "areas that theoretical cryptographers are refining in preparation for real world use". This is the stuff that will be deployed in the real world come 2030.

So, to answer your question: More than half of it is actually used today, and at least 80% of it will be used soon. If you're going to take a course in this, it's better to be ahead of the curve than behind it. (Otherwise, we'll all be suffering through textbook RSA ad nauseum.)

<comment><USER23> That's a lot more than I expected.

<comment><USER24> There's a conference going on right now at Columbia University in New York called _Real World Cryptography_ if you're interested in seeing what the state-of-the-art looks like for real-world deployment.

[https://twitter.com/realworldcrypto](https://twitter.com/realworldcrypto)

[https://rwc.iacr.org](https://rwc.iacr.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think many of us would be happy for a paragraph on EdDSA!

</comment><comment><USER26> Many years ago I took a class taught by Victor Shoup, which I found extremely difficult but overall a great experience. Really smart guy.

</comment><comment><USER27> Time ago there was a free course promoted also by Nikko Hipponen on Cryptography and that was really well done.

</comment><comment><USER18> What's the price via SCPD? Usual $5200?

<comment><USER28> A 4-credit course is $5000 and a 3-credit course is $3900 (don't ask me why the cost per credit for each are not the same). There is also a one-time $200 transcript service fee.

With that said, if your employer has an educational plan that can cover the cost, then it is definitely worth pursuing. I am working on a AI graduate certificate and have just completed CS 221. The level of rigor in instruction and course work is far better than any online MOOC course I've taken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> At 900 pages I can't help but be humbled.</comment>


Discover the Dark side with Shadow DOM - <AUTHOR> http://blog.romanliutikov.com/coding/discover-the-dark-side-with-shadow-dom/

<comment><USER2> There's an excellent video from Google I/O at [https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/gooio2012/2...](https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/gooio2012/205/) part of which discusses Shadow DOM.</comment>


Lost Terminal:How do you learn to be human if there's no-one around to teach you - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3bDE9kszMc&list=PL95NP4bDITAln7fq-cCqzOFE15UvVthuL <comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to know what people think! I'm writing season 2 now (release date October 5th), so feedback VERY welcome :-)</comment>


AWS infrastructure and scaffolding in minutes - <AUTHOR> http://pdestal.com/

<comment><USER2> I think this is a very useful and intuitive tool. I can definitely use this without having a strong background in server side infrastructure.</comment>


Researcher says world we see is mostly make-believe - <AUTHOR> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/world-we-see-is-make-believe-top-british-scientist-says/story-e6freonf-1226104662344

<comment><USER2> Old news is old. Plato old. Article doesn't even adequately recapitulate the issues.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Allegory_of_t...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Old or not, it did remind me of how easy it is to manipulate out thoughts. On the other hand he might be just presenting pop-science stuff in a nice package.</comment></comment>


Python: Writing a Compiler and Interpreter in 160 lines of code - <AUTHOR> http://www.jroller.com/languages/entry/python_writing_a_compiler_and

<comment><USER2> Nice code, but that's not a compiler.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. It's a nice college freshman first project.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, a compiler it may not be, but I doubt many college freshmen could do this as a first project.

<comment><USER5> The final project for everyone in my intro course was to write a LISP interpreter. Have we fallen so far?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Terrific example for people that want to understand how interpreters work.

Not perfect. But perfect for getting your feet wet.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wonder why comments are closed for the article?

<comment><USER8> probably spam</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the difference between a website and a startup? - <AUTHOR> I received an email today. This person suggested I add my website to a list of startups. I won't turn down free and reasonable advertising, so I posted it: https://betapage.co/startup/sporestack<p>I've always thought of it as a service, since it accepts payment and gives you something in return. What exactly is a startup? I've worked at a couple -- I kind of think it's a marketing term. And well, almost certainly means pre-IPO. <comment><USER2> A website is simply a way to communicate. You can put information there and people can read it. Other people can send you information if you choose. You can allow other people to communicate with each other through it if you choose.

A startup in regular English is a recently begun business. It doesn't have to be tech related or doing anything spectacularly new, it could be a family run bakery in a small town.

A startup in HN English is a recently begun entrepreneurial business. It's trying to do something new and innovative and usually aims either to be acquired by a larger company or make absurdly large amounts of money and IPO.

</comment><comment><USER3> One definition I've heard that I like:

A startup is a company that hasn't found or proven a reproducible and sustainable business model yet.

Basically a startup is a company that hasn't yet found a way to reliably bring in enough money to operate. I think this definition can also apply to non-tech startups like a grocery store.

</comment><comment><USER4> A Startup is an aggressive business, and I think in modern terms it is something which is bridging a gap in the market. Regular traditional businesses are not considered in startups nowadays especially as per the definition of investors because normal business can not achieve huge growth as expected of a startup.

Website is something which is showing the information of an entity it can be a nonprofit organization or a business, so a website is not a business in itself as a startup. I checked your link of BetaPage and I think it is more like a startup

</comment><comment><USER5> A website is a place for your startup to advertise itself and it's products. And in many cases, the website is the product.

A startup is a business. Pebble was a hardware startup that had a website. Facebook was a software startup that offered a social networking website.

As for what exactly a startup is, look no further than PG's own description: [http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> > What exactly is a startup?

A startup is a business that arbitrages a temporary economic disequilibrium to produce extraordinary growth.

Most startups have websites, some startups are entirely web based, but most websites have nothing to do with startups.</comment>