Burt Rutan's Boomerang – Safety Through Asymmetry - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/07/burt-rutans-boomerang-safety-through-asymmetry <comment><USER2> Reminds me of the beautiful control theory concept of relaxed stability (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxed_stability>). You intentionally craft instability in the system and use a controller to manipulate and exploit it, seemingly gaining extra performance for little cost. Unfortunately this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of control theory but it's a neat introduction to an interesting branch of mathematics/engineering most CS people aren't aware of.

<comment><USER3> I believe that's how modern fighter jets are designed, for exmaple JAS 39 Gripen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen>

They deliberately make them unstable and can then utilize that to make turns that are sharper than otherwise possible. The drawback is that they have to be controlled by computers all the time. This led to a spectacular crash in Stockholm in 1993 where luckily nobody was hurt.

<comment><USER4> The goal isn't actually to make the turns sharper. But to make the rolls quicker.

If you can change between maneuvers faster than your adversary you can cause him to be confused, giving you the advantage. This all comes from energy maneuverability theory which is the theory that modern fighters are based on.

Build planes capable of fast transients and a natural buttonhook tendency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been a fan of Burt Rutan since the VariEze first appeared on the cover of Popular Science in 1974. Oh how I wanted to build one of those planes. Burt Rutan has made more contributions to aerospace than anyone since Glenn Curtiss.

This wikipedia article is certainly relevant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_engine> but I'm still not sure how the Boomerang can be so stable that it requires no rudder input during takeoff.

My guess is that by having one engine further back he creates the equivalent of the dihedral effect. If the plane starts to yaw in one direction. I have nothing but intuition to support this idea :)

I would love to see a detailed explanation of how this plane is so stable.

</comment><comment><USER6> Another beautiful piece of non-obvious design.

I instinctively look for symmetry in my designs (and my purchases too I suspect).

I wonder if the reason it never 'took off' commercially was that people instinctively disliked the lack of symmetry?

<comment><USER7> It seems like it didn't take off commercially because it was just never pursued:

      > Like many of Rutan's creative designs, the Boomerang never went
      > into production. There was never even a second example built.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> his another asymmetric <http://stargazer2006.online.fr/aircraft/ares.htm>

</comment><comment><USER9> > Clements says the rudder pedals are rarely touched during flight, something > unheard of for most pilots, especially those who fly small twin engine > airplanes.

Is this really that unusual? In the Bulldog (which is very small and single- engined) you can get away with not using the rudder at all during normal flight.

Edit: Asked a friend who knows these things, it's not that unusual for a twin engine to not need a lot of rudder, but also not a rule either.

</comment><comment><USER10> Best quote from this story, and how is it interpreted by different software makers: "You're just going to screw something up. Best thing is to take your feet off the pedals and let it fly."

</comment><comment><USER10> I can't get over how fascinating this thing is. Makes the "gristleships" in Alastair Reynolds's "Pushing Ice" all the more believable.

</comment><comment><USER11> i think this must be more stable largely because the two engines are closer together (effectively one "side boom" is moved to the centre).

couldn't you do even better with a push-me pull-me configuration? then power would always be aligned correctly, whatever failed. perhaps that is less efficient, since the pusher is in the wake of the puller? it wouldn't look so fugly...

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure there's more to it than just that. For example, the difference in power output between the two engines wouldn't be necessary if the enhanced stability were due only to reduced distance between engines.

For example, the Blohm and Voss BV141, an experimental German aircraft, used an asymmetric single engine design wherein the weight asymmetry was balanced by the prop torque, which tends to cause yaw and generally needs to be trimmed out on non-counter-rotating twins and single engine airplanes. [0]

With regard to push-pull config: the Cessna Skymaster was designed this way. There are about 3000 of them flying around, including about 500 in military service, according to Wikipedia [1].

Another amazing aircraft design that never caught on and had some of the enhanced stability properties inherent in closer engine placement was the Beechcraft Starship [2]. For my money, it's the most beautiful business aircraft ever built, and it's got some seriously amazing aerodynamic features. For example, since it uses a canard design, it's very hard to stall: the canards will stall before the wings, which drops the nose, decreasing AoA and increasing lift.

There's an amazing image of a Starship chasing a SpaceShipOne during a test flight on the Wikipedia page.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_141>

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skymaster>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship>

<comment><USER13> One of the Starships was based at our local airport for a few years. Very impressive looking aircraft. As I recall, it was a strange sounding beast; much noisier than you'd expect. Haven't seen it around in quite some time, though.

<comment><USER14> See also the Piaggio Avanti. <http://www.piaggioaero.com/> One use to land at the airport near me (I have not seen it in a while). It also had a very distinctive sound (and was quite noisy).

<comment><USER15> I first found out about the Piaggio Avanti when I downloaded X-Plane 9 for the iPhone. The whole body creates lift and as a result it handles very differently from other small aircraft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is the kind of mechanical device where I could support patents, especially for a ~5-10 year span.</comment>


Ask HN: Would people enjoy if there's a one stop app/site for ebooks? - <AUTHOR>

If there will be a site or application that would serve as a one big library of ebooks would it be better? <comment><USER2> I would use a site if it was clean and simple, and allowed me to search for books, and was better than searching Amazon, and it returned a list of places where I could buy that book, and a list of formats.

I don't turn ads off, but I would much prefer ads that are not Flash.

I wouldn't mind if the site used affiliate links.

I really would not like "social network" integration.

If it was really good (very clean and simple and effective search and clean lists) I'd be prepared to pay a small fee to subscribe, but it would have to be a small fee.

Amazon is _very_ good at shipping product, but the website is horrid.</comment>


Scientist Engineers Bacterium That Inhales CO2, Produces Energy - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/29/harvard-scientist-engineers-a-superbug-that-inhales-co2-produces-energy/ <comment><USER2> The headline, while accurate, doesn't really describe the breakthrough here.

In itself, it's not surprising that sunlight, hydrogen from water and CO2 could be put together to make biomass. That's pretty much what plants (and many natural bacteria) do already.

The novel aspect of these bacteria is that they apparently do the job 10x more efficiently than natural organisms.

<comment><USER3> > The novel aspect of these bacteria is that they apparently do the job 10x > more efficiently than natural organisms.

This makes me wonder why this solution was not found by evolution directly.

<comment><USER4> It's 10x more efficient _for human purposes_. It's not a 10x more efficient mechanism in general. Evolution has no need to produce 10x more rather energy- expensive molecules than it needs, so it doesn't produce bacteria that do that.

Which is also the answer to everybody else wondering about what happens if this gets into the biosphere. Well, have you ever been walking in a relatively natural forest area and come across the sad sight of a natural clearing being totally dominated by wild broccoli plants? No, you never have, because broccoli is completely incapable of outcompeting any natural plant. Broccoli's genes put _way_ too much energy into producing that big beautiful edible bit that all of its competition puts into offense and defense. Similarly, the answer to the question of what happens to bacteria that pours its energy into producing alcohol while its competition is pouring its energy into producing offspring is that if you blink, you'll miss the death of the alcohol-producing bacteria. They're not going to take over the ecosystem. In energy terms you probably stand a better chance of seeing broccoli sweep the meadows of the world than having this bacteria survive in the wild.

(And when I say broccoli, I mean something like what you'd buy in the store. Not merely a rapid reversion to its historical ancestor, which could actually happen, but actual proper broccoli.)

<comment><USER5> > Evolution has no need to produce 10x more rather energy-expensive molecules > than it needs, so it doesn't produce bacteria that do that.

You don't seem to understand natural selection. The idea of evolution producing something that an organism "needs" is akin to saying that God decided that the organism "needed" it and changed its genes.

The theory of natural selection is a completely passive process. For every generation of an organism, the genes are naturally randomized, producing various expressions of genes, and once there is selecting event, those that are not selected for will go extinct. That's what natural selection means. The idea that a giraffe "needed" a long neck is preposterous because it implies that the animal willed itself to have a longer neck. Instead, the giraffe's ancestors had a variable length neck, but given its particular circumstances, those with longer necks survived, and passed those genes on.

So there very well might be naturally occurring bacteria that produce 10x efficiently, but they haven't been selected for, yet.

<comment><USER6> > You don't seem to understand natural selection. The idea of evolution > producing something that an organism "needs" is akin to saying that God > decided that the organism "needed" it and changed its genes.

I'm pretty sure he understands it fine, and is just using shorthand that makes it easier to describe.

There exists no approximation of a fitness function in nature that selects for this output because it's not efficient for survival, until we come along and create custom environments and select for survival based on energy output.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The headline is seriously misleading, the energy comes from sunlight which is used to split water into hydrogen. And the bacteria use the hydrogen as an energy source to create biomass from CO2. That biomass is mostly in burnable fuel.

The article is very interesting, but the headline makes it sound like a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

<comment><USER8> > The headline is seriously misleading

I think it's more a difference between technical vocabulary and colloquial vocabulary. I think a lot of people use the word "energy" to to refer to something more like "fuel." That's how you get terms like "energy production" which include activities like drilling for oil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> FWIW,

 _"This isn't solving your CO2 problem," he said. "I'm taking CO2 out of the air, you burn it and you put the CO2 back. So it's carbon neutral. I'm not going to reverse 400 ppm of CO2. But you're not going to use any more stuff out of the ground."_

<comment><USER10> I think he's selling it short. Imagine if all 1 billion+ cars used this fuel instead of diesel/gasoline. Even if all the carbon ultimately ends up as CO2 again eventually, at any given moment there would be a whole lot of it temporarily sequestered in fuel tanks. The "base load" of atmospheric CO2 would be lower.

I don't know enough chemistry or climate science to estimate whether the amount of carbon in ~5 billion gallons of alcohol-based fuel, when removed from the atmosphere, would have a significant effect on climate change. But it sure seems like a lot of carbon.

<comment><USER11> Given that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere includes the output of over 100 years of industrial world-wide burning of petroleum and coal, then no I don't think the amonut of carbon that could be sequestered in current fuel inventories would make a significant difference. Unless you stockpile decades worth of fuel.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, but it's a hundred years of industrial burn which was growing at an (approximately) exponential rate; the most recent burn has a much, much larger impact than the burn in 1916.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "The leaf hasn't lived up to its promise, Nocera said, because the world isn't ready for hydrogen fuel."

And probably won't be for transportation because battery tech is improving. But if this proves to be an effective way to produce liquid biofuel that can replace gasoline/diesel with simple engine conversions, then we can repurpose our existing liquid fuel infrastructure and existing cars instead of building a whole new hydrogen based system.

<comment><USER14> Hydrogen fuel is indeed really difficult to manage. The Hindenburg accident come to mind, or the weight problems of fuel cell cars...

<comment><USER11> It's the smallest molecule there is. It's really difficult to contain. It will leak out of steel containers while embrittling the metal. However it's not necessary to use pure hydrogen as vehicle fuel. Alcohol or other hydrocarbons can be used directly in a fuel cell to produce electric power, or be burned in an more traditional combustion engine.

<comment><USER15> Helium is the smallest molecule. H2 is quite a bit bigger.

<comment><USER16> Helium is the smallest atom iirc helium doesn't have a molecule.

<comment><USER15> the helium atom IS its molecule..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My brilliant invention: A solar powered self replicating machine that eats CO2 and uses it to create building material. With minimal preparation the material could also be burned for energy.

I wonder how far I'd get before people realized I was planting trees.

<comment><USER18> To be fair, this is 10 times as efficient as plants.

Fwiw, it took me to the third sentence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My guess is that the chief obstacle will be political: this has the potential to hit the most powerful people in the world directly in the pocketbook

He's probably going to India probably because there is more political will there to allow this thing to continue.

</comment><comment><USER14> Any mechanism to capture CO2 emissions is a huge win for the environment.

What is missing is an assessment of cost. If this is economically feasible at some point in time in the future, then goodbye oil and coal.

Open question is how to ensure these bio-engineered organisms don't seep into the environment and trigger some unintended consequences. There needs to be some kill switch in there as well.

<comment><USER20> He states that the purpose is not carbon capture but energy production, as all carbon consumed will be released upon combustion.

<comment><USER21> Carbon neutral combustion is still a win.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 500L CO2 per day, to make 2kwh of electricity (per day)

That's approximately as much CO2 as a person breathes out in a day ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiolog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiology) says about 1 kg, which works out to about 560L CO2 [http://www.umsl.edu/~biofuels/Energy%20Meter%20labs/How%20mu...](http://www.umsl.edu/~biofuels/Energy%20Meter%20labs/How%20much%20volume%20does%20a%20kg%20of%20CO2%20occupy.pdf))

So yes, it provides a little bit of power, and no, it isn't likely to scale up to planet-wide CO2 reductions - one per person on the planet just to cover the CO2 we breathe?

<comment><USER23> You're comparing completely different things.

It depends first on what is done with the ~1kg of CO2 captured.

If humans get their carbon from sources that are removed from the air, we don't have a net addition.

<comment><USER24> Strictly speaking, fossil fuels are carbon removed from the air, just a long time ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It sure sounds promising, but it'd be good to see some more efficiency numbers. All there is in the article is this:

"A one-liter reactor full of Nocera's bacteria can capture 500 liters of atmospheric CO2 per day, he said. For every kilowatt hour of energy they produce, they'll remove 237 liters of CO2 from the air."

By my reckoning that works out to about 80 watts, continuous. Solar irradiance is roughly a kilowatt per square meter, so to get 80 watts at 10% efficiency you need nearly a square meter, which leaves your 1-liter reactor stretched to a millimeter thick. Hard to imagine a 1mm thick mat of bacteria absorbing 10% of the light.

The limiting factor really is area, not volume. By that metric, solar panels are still twice as efficient. Still, it would be good to have solar panels that grow themselves!

<comment><USER26> It would be nice to put plots of these bacteria on the shady side of roofs.

That way you can store some fuel for cold and rainy days / months :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If you burn the alcohol and bury the biomass then you're carbon negative. This needs to get put into production immediately!

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder how much of the efficiency increase comes from simply bypassing photosynthesis (e.g. what is the thermodynamic efficiency of yeast for glucose -> ethanol)?

In any case there are a few important questions re feasibility. Do these bacteria work at atmospheric partial pressures of CO2? Do they perform at the advertised rate at the ~0.0015g/L of hydrogen you'd be lucky to get in solution from his leaf?

Nocera is a blow hard, so pending the full paper I expect the answers aren't encouraging.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yay. Now we don't need plants to reduce the greenhouse gas CO2. We just need to turn loose this bacterium and build an economy around alcohol fuels. No need for systems thinking that involves the environment when we can create a bacterium which is more efficient in one aspect of the environment it is replacing. So long as we can extend this reductionist framework to provide us with the nitrogen we need. And the global temperature management functions. And the human food. And the....etc

<comment><USER30> The Simpsons is already way ahead, with a similar scenario (lizards getting rid of the menacing pigeon population) :

SKINNER Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

LISA But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

SKINNER No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

LISA But aren't the snakes even worse?

SKINNER Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

LISA But then we're stuck with gorillas!

SKINNER No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

<comment><USER29> Well, it goes without saying, of course the "Simpsons Already Did It". :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >But if hydrogen from the leaf can combine with CO2 to make alcohol fuel, the fuel can be used the way diesel is now.

Hmmmm....so bacteria breathes in CO2 to make fuel....so we can burn the fuel and release the CO2 back in the atmosphere?

Not to take away anything from this impressive scientific achievement but this application is just depressing.

<comment><USER32> The application you've described isn't depressing.

Carbon dioxide is a normal element in our atmosphere. Burning biofuels isn't a problem because the world's ecosystem is used to processing the levels of carbon dioxide that exist in current circulation.

The problems that come from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere happen when you alter the levels of carbon dioxide faster than the ecosystem can react. This happens when burning fossil fuels on a large scale because it leads to adding more carbon dioxide into standard circulation. As there isn't a proportional increase in plant life ready to absorb this increase the carbon dioxide can have negative impacts on our environment, such as ocean acidification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Very cool, except first you need to get the hydrogen. For that I believe he is planning to use the "artificial leaf" he has invented previously.

Problem is, while the bacteria can reproduce on their own, the leafs won't. They are made from silicon so probably similar tech to regular solar cells. This can be likely a limiting factor here.

Still interesting news.

</comment><comment><USER34> I can't open the forbes page; how does this compare to Nate Lewis' work at cal tech (which is a mechanical alternative): [http://nsl.caltech.edu/research](http://nsl.caltech.edu/research)

</comment><comment><USER35> > the leaf can make hydrogen from any water—dirty water, even urine

I wonder how they tackle the problem of monoculture.

The issue with biofuel from algae is that once the container is contaminated with fungae, it reqires expensive draining and bleaching.

</comment><comment><USER36> Everyday I think of the suffocating levels of pollution here in India while I commute. This is a fantastic news for us since they are planning to bring it up here first !

</comment><comment><USER24> Carbon-neutral bioreactors. Very interesting and extremely useful research. Who shall own that DNA strain and control dissemination of technology?

</comment><comment><USER37> This announcement is about a year old. I'm not sure why Forbes is covering it like it's news.

<comment><USER38> _When Harvard Professor of Energy Daniel G. Nocera announced he was working with bacteria last year, other scientists cautioned it would be difficult to achieve a productive level of efficiency. At the time, Nocera was aiming for 5 percent efficiency—about 5 times better than plants. This month at the University of Chicago, he announced his bug converts sunlight ten times more efficiently than plants._

This increase in efficiency is presumably the novel part of Nocera's latest announcement and upcoming paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does this mean our problems with CO2 buildup are partialy solved? Or solved to any large extent?</comment>


Easy guide to enabling two-factor authentication on your Google account - <AUTHOR> http://tech.icrontic.com/news/how-to-enable-two-factor-authentication-on-your-google-account/

<comment><USER2> really helpful, thanks for this Icrontic.</comment>


The Geek's Guide to Love - <AUTHOR> http://kilianvalkhof.com/2007/life/the-geeks-guide-to-love/

<comment><USER2> _No matter what is it you do, your girlfriend will tell people you're 'really really good with computers'. This is a universal truth. There is no way your girlfriend will be able to fully comprehend what you do._

How misogynistic! My girlfriend is an entrepreneur. She understands what I do perfectly well.

 _Learn to be mean. It's not in our nature to be mean. We want to help everyone. But it's exactly what you need when you don't want to be pushed around. If you're mean every once in a while, girls will stop seeing you as a usable object (see #7) and more as a potential partner that can equal them. This is the reason people tell you to learn to say no. Tip: playfully call them names every now and then._

Wtf? Why not slap her around while you're at it, I hear it teaches them females to pay proper respects and all. At least those of the author's species.

<comment><USER3> Dude, slap her around? Seriously? You honestly think this equates. Apparently your entrepreneur girlfriend is one of the few females you've interacted with. You absolutely need to bite back a little bit. Here's misogyny for you: 90% of women I've been romantically involved with will take take take until I put my foot down. Women seem to have no self control when it comes to selfish behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Oh dear, here's something I wrote _over 3 years ago_ all up on Hacker News. Thanks for publicly shaming me!

Here we go. This was ironic, firmly tongue in cheek, over the top, _joking_. No, I don't think "females" are "too dumb to appreciate what we do". I know plenty of women that are way smarter than I'll ever be. Most of the points in this article can be carried over to a female geek plus male non-geek relationship as well (check the comments).

FWIW, this had been given the green light and agreed with by a fair number of girls both before and after posting.

Now, everybody relax and don't panic. Don't take the ranting of a 18 year old nerdy boy as truth ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's fun to read, but it makes an implicit assumption that all women are dumb and cannot appreciate what you do. That's certainly not true, I can prove it.

I have a friend, she's an MD. She once asked me to teach her programming and I said sure. Instead of starting to explain things to her I just wrote a relatively simple piece of code and asked her to tell me what it meant. I was truly surprised when the next day she did that almost perfectly. Of course she googled some basic things, yeah, but I was impressed by how a girl who had no prior training in programming figured it all out.</comment>


Node.js vs. Opa: Web Framework Showdown (web chat comparison) - <AUTHOR> http://www.developer.com/open/node.js-opa-javascript-framework.html

<comment><USER2> Two things that stood out:

* handwaving away the hassle of debugging generated code is a bad sign. It sucks. Sourcemap support is not really optional anymore.

* "Abstracting away the network" works right up until it doesn't and then everything goes to hell. A quick skim of the docs turned up no references to handling things like network failures.</comment>


The games industry is a scam, and this is why you shouldn't go to work for it - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/z83h2/the_games_industry_is_a_scam_and_this_is_why_you/

<comment><USER2> I can't think of any reason, least of all working on a video game, where I would not take a break in a 52 hour work stretch to go home and get my required meds. I definitely can believe that the game industry is cut-throat but you have to take care of yourself too. Sounds like this guy let people push him around, which is not necessarily his fault, but if you're in a tough industry you have get tough yourself.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's your life at the end of the day, on the grand scheme of things, it's just a job. Sad read but like jakejake said, gotta get tough with yourself

Hopefully he'll use something like Kickstarter and finally make a hit game for himself

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately making a "hit game" is the same as saying he will build the next Google/Facebook/Instagam/blah...

Having been in the games industry for 10 years, then pivoting into something else it sounds like the OP expected his manager to look after (or even care) about his career / life etc.

Doesn`t matter what industry your in, your boss has priorities. Last of which is your career/life but might appear to be on their list so as to keep you producing thus helps their priorities.

(there are ofcourse exceptions but they are rare)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's one of the more honest assessments I've read in a long time, although sadly i've heard similar stories.</comment>


A Proposal to Politically Re-Empower U.S. Citizenry - <AUTHOR> https://berniewatch.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/a-proposal-to-politically-re-empower-u-s-citizenry/ <comment><USER2> UBI would have the same effect as raising minimum wage always always always meets with- a raised cost of living. Cap maximum wages instead, and force revenue back down to its origins.

As far funding campaigns, I've before suggested going the other end of the spectrum entirely, with all public officials elected or appointed working for minimum wage. Take the financial profit out of the equation, because getting rich is not what any of them are contracted to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> This wasn't a UBI proposal.

<comment><USER2> It's a purposed UBI, likely coming from the same magic tree as normie UBI. I can't imagine Uncle Sam giving some starving, homeless wretch one hundred bucks on the condition they only spend it on millionaire politicos.</comment></comment></comment>


Best Vim Intro - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nim4_f5QUxA <comment><USER2> As someone who mainly used VS and Pycharm in the past and who knows only enough VI/VIM to get things done on machines remotely, would you still suggest getting more proficient in VIM in 2020?

<comment><USER3> If you like Vim's keybinds, use it. Vim has pretty much everything there is to offer in a text editor.

I've been far enough down the Vim rabbit hole to feel the bottom, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The only reason I don't live in [Neo]Vim anymore is that I decided to learn a different keyboard layout, and ended up with some distaste for Vim's normal- mode mnemonic-based keybinds and their associated function names. Because of the way vim is designed, you can't really get far from the default keybinds. If you are willing to live with that fact, Vim is definitely worth learning.

As a sidenote, NeoVim is essentially better than Vim in every way, so specifically: use NeoVim if you like Vim.

Emacs is also very good. Evil-mode is very full-featured, and elisp is nicer than viml. Emacs is also great if you don't want Vim's keybinds. Emacs' documentation and configurability is essentially unmatched, although Vim gets real close.</comment></comment>


Was the Tungus Event Due to a Black Hole? (Nature, 1973) - <AUTHOR> https://www.scribd.com/document/317909132/Was-the-Tungus-Event-due-to-a-Black-Hole <comment><USER2> Since that was written, meteorite fragments have been found, supporting the more conventional explanation.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514511/first-tunguska- met...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/514511/first-tunguska-meteorite- fragments-discovered/)</comment>


Delayed in 2008, Google restarts Data Center build near Tulsa, OK - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/datacenter/mayescounty/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The project was delayed in 2008 with the slowing economy. This is a good sign for the economy as a whole, not to mention the NE Oklahoma region.

Quote from Google:

 _"We always intended to make the Mayes County data center operational at some point. In 2008, we determined that we already had the server capacity to meet current demand, meaning that it was unnecessary to bring the Mayes County data center online at that time. Google's traffic has continued to grow since then, and we believe it's time to make this site operational so we can meet greater demand."_

More links:

* <http://www.google.com/datacenter/mayescounty/faq.html>

* [http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/10/21/googl...](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/10/21/google-resumes-work-on-oklahoma-data-center/?utm-source=feedburner&utm-medium=feed&utm-campaign=Feed%3A+DataCenterKnowledge+%28Data+Center+Knowledge%29)

* [http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&...](http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20101022_61_A18_Theann471243)</comment>


The first ICO unicorns are here - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/31/the-first-ico-unicorns-are-here/ <comment><USER2> > The OMG token sale, which raised $25 million, took place in July and > initially one OMG token was worth around $0.27. Today, the value is at more > than $11, giving a return of more than 40X to anyone who bought in at the > ICO stage.

> Another startling fact to note is that neither company has an actual product > in the market right now. Although that is common with ICOs because investors > buy into a product roadmap that will developed with the funds raised via the > token sale.

No, don't worry, this isn't a bubble. We're just experiencing a speculative soapy-water sphere situation.

<comment><AUTHOR> > No, don't worry, this isn't a bubble.

Crypto is definitely a bubble. Perhaps one of the biggest bubbles to burst when this happens four to five years from now.

> I need to start thinking of a few product roadmaps

I know you are being facetious, but it really is not as simple as putting out a roadmap. Think about it: If you could pull this off, but are not doing it, you'll have us believe you are willingly turning down millions. If you can't pull it of, your comment becomes a cheap meaningless jab at things bigger than you. Both options are quite unbefitting of HackerNews.

> You also have to write a whitepaper.

[http://plasma.io/](http://plasma.io/) Pay attention to mentions of "micropayments".

<comment><USER3> It's not a question of turning down free millions of dollars. There is risk. If he puts his face on the operation he could be the subject of lawsuits if or when it blows up. It's also possible but very expensive to do an ICO and not violate securities laws. So he either puts fourth the massive time and capital to do it legally or he risks heavy fines and lawsuits. The lawsuits will probably come no matter what.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, they are _exactly_ replicating the mechanism that fleeced so many retail buyers of stock in the dot.com bubble. It never occurred to me you could take that experience and monetize it so effectively. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised after I saw what the Mortgage industry did to student loans after they didn't get as much money out of sub-prime mortgages as they had forecast.

<comment><USER5> > Wow, they are exactly replicating the mechanism that fleeced so many retail > buyers of stock in the dot.com bubble. It never occurred to me you could > take that experience and monetize it so effectively.

Human nature hasn't changed much in the past 17 years, on either the scammer end or on the scammed end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a bit off topic, but bear with me: so far, nearly every comment in this thread has contained some degree cynicism toward cryptocurrency-related funding. Why does HN have such a distaste for cryptocurrencies? Why can't we just have an intelligent conversation about this new technology? Why do we have all the negativity and downvotes for any remotely positive comments related to cryptocurrencies?

This is super interesting technology, regardless of your prejudices, and just complaining about it being a "bubble" doesn't add any value to the conversation.

<comment><USER7> A lot of people find the _technologies_ incredibly interesting and potentially extremely useful. Similarly, a lot of people find the _uses_ to which those extremely interesting technologies are being put to be at best questionable and of marginal utility.

Are blockchains cool? _OH FUCK YES!_

Is people raising a lot of cash from suckers in a bubble-y market that threatens to rebound on all of us cool? Some might opine that this is slightly less than maximally cool.

<comment><USER6> Are you suggesting investors in other startups are not also speculators? Do you think every silicon valley startup is destined to succeed and be the next Google/Apple/FB?

The tech is cool, and the new funding model is also fascinating. Never before has it been possible for everyone to participate in the early funding of startups.

Sure, most will fail, but that's not different from the old model. The biggest difference is that it's not based on cronyism anymore.

<comment><USER8> Big difference: when you invest in a startup, you get equity and certain rights. The founders can't screw you too easily.

With an ICO, you don't get any equity - you only get to use a service, maybe, in the future. Most ICOs are therefore only a speculation.

<comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

> The incentive for holding OMGs, is to take part in the network validation > process. We also see a long term value/appreciation in the OMG price as more > and more transactions take place on the network.

So you can stake your tokens for a cut of the transaction fees (much like miners do).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > initially one OMG token was worth around $0.27. Today, the value is at more > than $11, giving a return of more than 40X to anyone who bought in at the > ICO stage.

You too can become a millionaire from these penny stocks.

<comment><USER10> See, I'll play the lottery. I don't mind paying a dollar or two every now and again for the EV- hope of being undeservedly wealthy.

But even with a 40x return you need to dump TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS into a highly risky investment to make a single million dollars. Christ on a cracker, $25,000. That's a year of frugal living in most places. How could you even ... ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> All we're missing now is a Super Bowl ad for ICO complete with a cute sock puppet mascot named Ether.

</comment><comment><USER12> Is it unfounded to see ICOs as a form of unregulated gambling? I'm thinking particularly in terms of legal consequences for US-based entities offering ICOs. Can entities like the IRS or SEC punish companies or individuals that offer ICOs?

<comment><USER13> Their behavior is much more like penny stocks, the old fashioned vehicle for pump and dump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are likely some ulterior motives behind the way cryptocurrency is currently being covered. If you have sway in a news organization, it would be quite lucrative to invest in some crypto-related companies, and then encourage all stories written about cryptocurrency to take a positive view. The persuasion works best when it's hidden, like a story about a teenager becoming rich by buying into bitcoin early. This is fine, but only if all such stories come with a disclosure. Otherwise it's an ethically challenging position to be in, like the rating agencies who kept quiet to avoid losing their clients during 2008.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is now a pretty long comment chain, and not a single comment so far about asset liquidity and start-up valuations.

So, the infinity:1 ratio of "bubble!" to "econ 101" doesn't speak well to the thinking going on here.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder how many people are making 5 years salary in a month or two getting in on these ICOs?!

</comment><comment><USER17> This should end well.</comment>


Geohot: hacked version of latest firmware re-adds OtherOS option for PS3 - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-9wLWQ4-uA

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://geohotps3.blogspot.com/2010/04/otheros-supported- on-3...](http://geohotps3.blogspot.com/2010/04/otheros-supported- on-321oo.html)

<comment><USER2> Wow, the comments there sure are an abomination. It's a meaningful and interesting post, and then this. Sad.</comment></comment>


Attn Google: The Rest of My Sci-Fi Wish List - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/14/attn-google-the-rest-of-my-sci-fi-wish-list/

<comment><AUTHOR> [edit: added footnote 2]

> 1\. Why do I still have to carry a plastic laminated ID?

Sarah is thinking way too small in this one. "You leave the house with just your keys and a phone. Perfect. And yet, if I want to drive down to the corner market, I still have to carry a plastic Driver's License." Why is she _carrying keys_ in her future perfect state? The phone has a unique ID in it (actually, three or four)[2]. Her house door should unlock when she approaches and lock when she leaves. Use GPS/tower position info plus the inertial system (gotta add a gyro) in the phone gives very good location information. Ditto for her unlocking/locking her car.

* Bluetooth (plus secure encryption and authentication) seems like a perfect way to do this wirelessly.

* There are cars that already have wireless keys that work this way.

* Security required to use RF based keying has been solved (and broken) already.

* Passports and some drivers licenses have RFIDs in them already. Put that info (securely!) into the phone already.

> 2\. Food in pill form.

Gaak. I feel your pain, but I'm not sure I like the proposed solution.

> 3\. Teleportation.

Aside from the risk of being mixed up with fly DNA[1], Sarah is being too literal minded with this. Virtual teleportation is coming online with telepresence robots, for instance, Anybot. <http://www.anybots.com/#front>

\----

[1] The Fly (1958) <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051622/>

[2] This makes the smartphone the mark of the beast. See Revelation 13:16-18 (King James Version, slightly edited ;-) [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2013:...](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2013:16-13:18&version=KJV)

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a [IMEI] in their right hand, or [against] their [heads]:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is [#666 (mon)].</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to set up family webapp? - <AUTHOR>

As the family "geek", I have been drafted to set up our family website.  I am happy to get this going, but ONLY WITH existing offerings (I'm way too busy with my own work to start programming this.)
We have hundreds of family members all over the U.S.  Many in the 4th generation have no idea who the rest of us are and how we are related.  We would like to share messages, old photos (even some video), and plan our 100th anniversary reunion for 2010.
Ideally, I'd like to set something up so that the community can "take over".  I don't want to get stuck planning a family reunion and get stuck in between lots of differing opinions.  Previous attempts by others have never gotten off the ground.
I've already started a family tree at geni.com and I'm thinking of expanding that, unless there's a better approach.
Anyone here with similar needs?  What have you done? <comment><USER2> <http://ramamia.com/> Was very good when I tried it, and I think it may provide most of what you are looking for.

<comment><USER3> Just came in to suggest it, but looks like Network_punk and my cofounder Mark Bao brought it up already. If you have ANY questions, let us know:

email mark+I both get: firstname.lastname@example.com

my # if you need immediate support: 772.801.1058

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had to do this once, and I can't agree more. Don't try to roll your own, and don't try to roll out community software like phpnuke, mambo or joomla. Most of the time, at least with my family, if it takes more than one depth into a menu its too complicated. Email is something everyone can do, and it looks like Posterous is doing a great job with that. Facebook does a decent job as well, though the new interface is an abomination. Ning is pretty, well, annoying. There's a bunch of menus and groups are almost indistinguishable from users themselves. It needs to be easier.

Might be a good idea for a start up, actually... ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Posterous is great for this because it handles photos and videos simply and effectively - a favorite for families. You cannot customise the look yet though. It's much simpler than Ning so non net savvy users have less chance to get lost. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER6> Would something like Ning.com be the kind of thing you're looking for?

Maybe, Posterous would be better, most people "get" email so it wouldn't be a problem for your family to post to and you can set up email subscriptions for the latest posts

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know what ning is and I can't access from work, so I imagine other family members may be blocked from their work, too.

Posterous looks like an interesting option because 99% of the people on the list have email. Also, it has to be simple for them. I clicked on "Families and Groups" to learn more and got an error. Is Posterous a yc company?

<comment><USER6> Ning is basically an out-of-the-box social network that anyone can set up

Yes, Posterous is a YC company. I'm not getting the families and groups error that you're getting, here's the details you're missing: <http://posterous.com/images/homepage2/whositfor4.gif>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This web app sounds relevant <http://www.famundo.com/>

I haven't used it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Or you could use BuddyPress - <http://buddypress.org/>

</comment><comment><USER9> <http://famspam.com/>

<comment><USER10> Costs money. No freemium Model....

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like a neat project for Google App Engine.

</comment><comment><USER12> ning..?</comment>


Touching the asteroid Ryugu revealed secrets of its surface and changing orbit - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2020-05-asteroid-ryugu-revealed-secrets-surface.html <comment><USER2> > What I found most exciting was that, from the analysis of the size and > colors of craters on Ryugu, the Hayabusa2 team concluded that at some point > the asteroid must have been closer to the Sun that it is now. That would > explain the amount of reddening of the surface. Using two different models > for calculating the age of craters, the team estimated that this solar > heating-induced reddening must have happened either eight million years ago > or as recently as 300,000 years ago—a mere blink of an eye, cosmologically > speaking.

Just about every time I read a story on astronomy, I'm blown away by our ability to simulate the conditions that must have led to our observations. Cosmology especially, and our ability to model the moments after the Big Bang.

Hats off to the experts of the scientific world.

</comment><comment><USER3> things that never happened</comment>


Why I am Not a Professor, or The Decline and Fall of the British University - <AUTHOR> http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/decline.htm

<comment><USER2> I would agree about the quality of publications and the pin heads who evaluate us simply by the number. It's really very stupid.

On the point of teaching however I am a bit more optimistic ... in Sweden at least. I am fairly impressed with most of my students. They are for the most part curious, hard working and smart. So far the elements that have tried to dumb everything down have failed. Although they do keep trying...

In the long run education is probably in trouble. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccYoVnBc_fk>

<comment><AUTHOR> Counting papers is dumbing things down -- initially for academics. This in turn may result in dumbing things down for students as mediocre academics (who would not get tenure without counting papers) may then teach at an easier level.

<comment><USER2> I know, I know. And the mediocre academics take mediocre graduate students and the whole thing repeats... thank god a lot of the undergraduate students are wise enough to recognize lame professors. The best students have fun making these frauds look stupid in front of the class. BTW students need to be encouraged to act in such ways.

I have been fighting my private battle to get evaluators to actually read 1-3 papers of those they evaluate. Usually if someone is working on pointless stuff, you can see it pretty clearly when you read their stuff.

Whatever the case, the simple counting technique must stop. BTW some consistent universally accepted impact factor rating might help in computer science. I don't know.

<comment><USER3> The Erdos Number is a good attempt.

<comment><USER4> Huh? I don't see how having a lower Erdos number indicates that your work is better. The Erdos number has nothing to do with publication quality nor citations.

<comment><USER3> It was joke. More seriously, the Erdos number is indeed far better indicator than the number of publications.

Number of citations is not as good as it seems, because not all citations are created equal.

I believe that, if we are talking about the details here, the best system should be similar to the Page Rank. Citations from important works are more valuable. Awarded papers, like Nobel or Fields Medal, could get the highest rank.

The only problem with this system, which I see, is its mix of dynamic and static nature. The paper's rank can be dramatically changed literally overnight. On the other hand, it takes ages to get the Nobel prize. Not that good when your career depends on your rating.

However, it should be quite obvious that brilliant work is not appreciated immediately. So, very likely that the problem lies in the educational system, that requires fast and pretty objective, not necessary reliable, method of rating.

Furthermore, I don't know whether there's a correlation between educational successes, and research abilities. I bet there is no. Perhaps it does not really make any difference whether a guy got a Nobel, or two.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can combine PageRank with a prediction market. People would make bets on the (perhaps relative) PageRank of papers at some future date.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The ennui which pervades universities has only one beneficial (and pernicious) effect.

Those students who are ahead enough in their understanding to _not need_ the education, will do fine . Those students who rely on the system to educate them will sink into the muck of mundane reality. So the system will cause a stratification of the students, into high-fliers and ordinary joes.

The only way to come out ahead in the university system is to reach a point where you do not need it.

<comment><USER6> >Those students who are ahead enough in their understanding to not need the education, will do fine . Those students who rely on the system to educate them will sink into the muck of mundane reality.

You are forgetting the third category - those who _think_ that don't need the education.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually, in High school, my entire grade level/class of 2009 uses a forum board I made. We trade study guides and by the time the test comes, everyone answers the same things. If the class average is low, we get a curve. Otherwise, we're all happy. The internet is indeed revolutionizing things. Of course, then theres always that class geek who kills the curve, but its not that often.

And yeah I totally agree with this post. My father is a Computer Science professor and he's friggin pissed with the corruption of the entire school system. He got rated down for failing a student and a lot of crap...a lot of undo stress

</comment><comment><USER8> reading this paper makes me think society's (British at least) emphasis on consumer culture has serious flaws. however, it seems the government is more to blame through using this ideology to avoid paying for education.

it may be a nice way of saving money (from the government's perspective) but the dumbing-down of universities and consequentially the higher of degree owning citizens serves to vindicate the real problem, the pre-university education system in the UK.

</comment><comment><USER9> Funny, this is happening in the states, too. I could copy-paste this paper and call it "Why I Am Not In School".

</comment><comment><USER10> At UCLA, students are graded with a bell curve. They have become masters at figuring out exactly how much should they study, relative to their peers, to fall within the right tail of the curve. Students no longer share notes, neither talk to each other beyond superficial matters. They find their college party and romance partners in other disciplines, unsurprisingly.

And as a T.A., don't even _dare_ to not give an A to a student. He'll grade _you_ down, and your chances as a T.A. (that is, the means to get a salary or an extra as a PhD student) will vanish.

The paradox here is: how can everyone get an A and still be graded on a Bell curve? To this day, I don't quite get it. In any case: students get A, but they all need one or two years of lab internship before they can do else other than harm themselves in the lab.

The author of the text is totally right. And there are no politically correct solutions. None at all. We all expect the system to somehow collapse at some point, and then restart.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like lake woebegone, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.</comment></comment>


Dennis Ritchie hated const and volatile with a passion - <AUTHOR> https://www.lysator.liu.se/c/dmr-on-noalias.html <comment><USER2> How do you get "hated ... with a passion" from that? It's like all those links "watch <name> DEMOLISH <other name>" for something which is at best a sharp criticism.

He writes that 'const' in the proposed X3J11 language isn't workable, and that const and volatile don't "carry their weight."

His "hate", or rather "strong disagreement", is with the "noalias" qualifier. I mean, he titled a section "noalias is an abomination". If you wanted a real attention getter, then there's your pull quote.

If you think he "hated const and volatile with a passion", then how do you describe his distaste for "noalias"?</comment>


Ask HN: Why do checkout pages still explain CVV numbers? - <AUTHOR> Every time I purchase things online with a credit/debit card the checkout page asks for my CVV number. It is absolutely guaranteed that said CVV entry box has a little [?] next to it to help explain to users what this number is and where to find it.
According to Wikipedia, this number was developed as early as 1995 [0], meaning we've had over 2 decades to become used to them.
So from a technical and design perspective, why don't more forms omit this? Why do we still need to explain this to shoppers? Can't we just put a little lock icon next to the CVV on a card, and then put the same icon on the site. This way that field can be visually matched by the user. From a user experience / product design standpoint, why aren't credit cards better designed to convey this information naturally?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_security_code <comment><USER2> _" we've had over 2 decades to become used to them"_

Every day, there are lots of new online shoppers making their first transactions: young people who have just gotten their first credit card, and older people who have never bought anything online before.

A 21 year old who just got their first credit card yesterday has _not_ had two decades of experience with CVV codes.

Someone who has had their card for years but has never bought anything online before has _not_ had two decades of experience with CVV codes (since they're never used for in-person transactions).

 _" Can't we just put a little lock icon next to the CVV on a card, and then put the same icon on the site."_

A lock icon would be confusing, since a lock icon is already used to indicate a secure web site. And if someone has never used a credit card online before, they may not have noticed the lock icon on their card.

And good luck trying to get all credit card issuers to agree on a standard icon, when they can't even agree on the format and location of the CVV code. For example, on an Amex card, the CVV code is 4 digits, and is on the front of the card.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed on many of your points - a lock icon was a bad suggestion on my part, given its use for HTTPS/SSL indication.

I suppose what I'm really asking here is this:

When you ask someone to enter their credit card number on a checkout page, that number is so glaringly obvious that it doesn't necessitate explanation. Everyone seems to know that it is the 16-digit number on the front of your card. You don't need to explain to people via text and diagrams that it is such.

So why isn't the CVV also self-explanatory? How could we make it so? If things like the card number or expiration date don't require documentation, why are cards not designed to make the CVV easily understandable?

<comment><USER3> Perhaps because everyone looks at the front of their card every day and in doing so, catches a glance of the expiration and card number. The front of most cards is also much less "busy" than the back, allowing for things to pop out.

Put these numbers on the back of the card, and I think they'd be fairly hard to find for first time buyers. So, to answer your question, maybe the solution is to bring the CVV to the front of the card? ...or does that defeat the purpose?

<comment><USER4> AmEx has theirs on the front, but I don't know if that says anything about it defeating the purpose or not.

Having it on the back prevents getting both cc number and cvv off single picture.. so I guess that's something.

<comment><USER5> My Chase Sapphire has both the CC and CVV numbers on the back.

My AmEx cards have a 3 digit CVV seeming number on the back in addition to the four digit one on the front.

<comment><USER6> But why does Amex does it differently with their 4 digit CVV? Goolge search doesn't reveal any good answer. Thats a big confusion. Anyway cards could have put CVV beside the number if they wanted. In that case I think people would have found them.

<comment><USER7> Confusingly Amex has both a 4 digit CID (Front) and 3 digit CSC (Back). The latter I think is only ever used internally by Amex, not for transaction processing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why do microwave foods spell out to remove the plastic inner wrapping before cooking? Because not everyone knows what you know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Part of that is also liability, though. If someone forgets to remove the wrapping and gets sick or even chokes on half-melted plastic wrap, the food manufacturer can at least make a case that they informed users of the safety issue.

<comment><USER8> So?

You want to get paid? Then you explain everything to the customer about how to pay you online because this is not like a sale in meatspace where the cashier can naturally catch customer mistakes and prompt them.

People may not know what a CVV is. Or they might be tired, sick, distracted, etc.

I have six years of college. I was one of the top students in my entire state in highschool. I also am medically handicapped, getting older and newly back in housing after nearly 6 years of homelessness. I often need seemingly "dumb shit" explained to me.

Why do we need to explain this to you? Do you not already know everything?

(That is not intended as a dig at you. More like "food for thought.")

(Edits made. Reason: I fucking hate autocorrect. Ugh.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a side note, can anyone explain to me how the CVV makes online checkout more secure?

Presumably, if someone were to hijack your form, they would be getting the CC number and the CVV. If you lost your card, they would have the CVV. To me it seems like just adding another 3 digits to your card number.

<comment><USER10> I think the reasoning is that to get your account number and the CVV number, you need to view both sides of the card so it makes it more difficult for a close by observer to steal your details.

<comment><USER9> A number of cards have the CVV on the same side of the card.(E.g American Express & Chase Sapphire)

Also, if one has the CC number wouldn't it be feasible to brute force the CVV. There are only 999 permutations. You would have a .1% success rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On a similar note, why all websites have login and signup forms, with the registration typically on the home page and a (huge) fallback logic to log users in even if they use the signup form?

Plus the fb/google authentication buttons with the same logic twice.

Imo it's just because "everybody else/the bigs are doing so", and nobody cares to test a different thing.

Note that this isn't trivial as it seems, as you may have the fb/google buttons, but the bigs don't.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm in credit cards analytics and while we may think that 2 decades is a long time, I can assure it's not. Credit cards have had a long long history (50 - 100 yrs depending on how you define what a credit card is) and we still haven't had 100% market penetration. Not everyone fully understands how it works and all users care about is that it's something that can be used for payment.

</comment><comment><USER13> Because if someone gets confused and doesn't/can't make the purchase due to this misunderstanding, this is lost revenue, for no other reason than assuming that a user knows what CVV means.

</comment><comment><USER14> I refer you to the XKCD comic "Ten Thousand": [https://xkcd.com/1053/](https://xkcd.com/1053/)

You don't want to lose a sale because one of your customers is one of the ten thousand hearing about CVVs for the first time.

</comment><comment><USER15> You want to have as much info as possible to prevent losing a sale on such a critical step of the checkout flow.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder why they called it CVV and not something more obvious like SECRET (i.e. something self-explanatory).

</comment><comment><USER17> CVV is simply three letters, I don't see how an icon would fare better.

<comment><USER18> Not just three letters. AMEX cards have four characters. And the're in the front, not in the back like VISA or Mastercard.

<comment><USER19> He's saying that the abbreviation (not the content) is just three letters. He's also conveying that using an icon instead of 3 letters doesn't really add much to the user experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> And us germans, we don't use credit cards much.</comment>


'Success' on YouTube Still Means a Life of Poverty - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-27/-success-on-youtube-still-means-a-life-of-poverty <comment><USER2> Most people wouldn't crack the poverty line with their earnings from painting, acting, writing, music, sculpting, etc. YouTube is just another type of art. Like any artistic endeavor, it is extremely helpful to be independently wealthy or have a patron supporting you (parents / spouse / rich monarch). For the rest of us, you do your craft when you can around your primary job, and one day retire so you can do it full time.

<comment><USER3> Yes, god help you if you want to make a living from entertainment or culture. Simply isn't where the big money flows are in this world. I went the games route, like an idiot, and now I get to read through narrowed eyelids every day about how selling TODO lists to businesses is like taking candy from a baby.

Games: More than 0.99 is a psychological barrier

B2B: Why not quadruple your prices?

<comment><USER4> _Simply isn 't where the big money flows are_

Is it really about the money? Or is it about the abundant supply? There's plenty of money in Hollywood- and also plenty of penniless actors, because everybody dreams of being a movie star. Game companies get to abuse new college grads because everybody dreams of working on their favorite games.

<comment><USER5> I think its incredibly difficult to find success without a huge marketing campaign. Launch against Zelda or GTA and you'll need a miracle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I subscribe to a woman in India who posts awesome Indian food recipes. She has 2+ million subscribers, and I can tell from the upgrades to her kitchen and the traveling she's doing that Youtube has made a significant improvement to her income.

Edit: what the hell, I'll show her some love. This recipe is killer: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVzT1AQcGqk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVzT1AQcGqk)

<comment><USER7> I've read that YT changes the $ on the views based on country. USA being the highest amount paid for viewers from that country.

<comment><USER8> YouTube don't directly determine how much ad revenue a creator receives. Advertisers bid to place their ads next to content based on keywords and viewer demographics; the creators receive a 55% share of whatever the advertiser paid.

American viewers are generally the most lucrative, in part because of the share of YouTube Red revenues that creators are eligible to receive. A great deal depends on other contextual and demographic factors. YouTube do indirectly influence the revenue that creators receive by tagging certain videos as "not suitable for most advertisers". This is a substantial bone of contention in the YouTube creator community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've had a YouTube channel for years, and talk with other creators on a regular basis. This article is basically correct, but glosses over the point of sponsorships, side deals, and most of all, Patreon. All YouTube creators that I know personally make more money via Patreon than ad revenue. Just a data point. In the old days, Patreon publicly displayed each Creator's pledge amount, and it could be compared to socialblade.com for estimated ad revenue.

<comment><USER10> I expect at some point that Alphabet will require that 30% of your Patreon pledges be sent to Google in exchange for them providing you a platform.

My reasoning is that Google has always gone after all revenue that was facilitated by something they did or provided.

<comment><USER11> No they haven't. When someone clicks on a normal link (not an ad) they found through google search that ultimately facilitates business, google gets nothing.

<comment><USER10> If you are speaking strictly of cash from the person clicking you are correct. If you consider the advertisers however, you would be incorrect.

When a person clicks on an "normal link", Google notes the search terms used, the link that was clicked, the time it took you to click that link (which goes to hesitation or not), the IP address from which you clicked that link (which tells where you live), any google cookies (which if you're "logged into chrome" or your web browser can be substantial) and if you land on a web page with Google Analytics and AdSense advertisements they will know if your trip through the search engine ended up paying one of their advertisers or not.

Rather than "nothing" that is actually quite a bit of useful information that Google then resells in a variety of ways to their advertisers.

But you are absolutely correct that the person clicking the link doesn't pay any money to google.

<comment><USER12> So data from patreon is even more valuable - what content is a user willing to spend money on?

John Doe pays $5/mo on Patreon for a youtube channel that shows how to remodel a home? He is obivously in-market for real estate, remodeling, home decor, tools, furniture, etc. That data could be worth more than $1 (a 20% cut) per month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And this is also often the case even if your money comes through Patreon or similar services rather than YouTube ads themselves. On that site, about 1% of the audience rakes in the cash, then a large portion of the rest basically makes enough for beer money every now and then (if they're lucky).

Still, it's not surprising. Unfortunately, almost any artistic (or sporting) field has the same issue as YouTube and co here, it's hugely profitable for the small percentage that break out to become superstars, and then quickly becomes very unprofitable for the millions with less luck/timing/talent/whatever.

Can anything be done there? Eh, probably not. At the end of the day, the idea of running a YouTube channel as your full time job is just so attractive to so many people that competition is almost always going to be sky high, and with the formula for success being pretty random in general, I suspect it'll always be a field where supply heavily outstrips demand.

Like going to Hollywood to become a film star, or starting up a band in college.

<comment><USER14> > Can anything be done there? Eh, probably not.

Perhaps if over time viewers and those running YouTube channels migrate to other platforms that give a larger percentage of advertising share to the people creating the content, then the number of people who can support themselves by streaming will increase.

Also, as technology improves and hosting costs go down, the proportion of advertising money that could go directly to the content creator can increase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> TwitchTV is the new shiny.

People are quitting their jobs to stream full time, and making a living off of it.

This guy had a good teaching job, and now streams full time instead.

His peak seems to be around 4k-5k viewers.

[https://www.twitch.tv/chocotaco](https://www.twitch.tv/chocotaco)

[https://kotaku.com/guy-who-just-quit-his-job-to-stream- battl...](https://kotaku.com/guy-who-just-quit-his-job-to-stream- battlegrounds-expla-1820309727)

<comment><USER16> I think the concept of (optional) subscriptions funding Twitch streamers is an excellent replacement for ads however if you are considering making a living off Twitch you should be aware of the politics. There is a culture of banning streamers (sometimes indefinitely, but rarely upon first ban) for violations in their extremely vauge TOS. Usually no reason is given and there are major inconsistencies between some streamers' moderation and others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Basically "only 3% of youtubers can make a living doing it," so in other words, if I randomly select 33 youtubers, and put them in a room together, I'll be able to find one who makes a living from it. Furthermore, if I randomly select 100, one of them will be a millionaire? I really hope this is out of people who already making it their dayjob or something, otherwise this article is pretty stupid.

<comment><USER18> It would be interesting to compare to what percentage of 'actors' would make that?

Or the percentage of musicians, writers or game programmers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > One in 3 British children age 6 to 17 told pollsters last year that they > wanted to become a full-time YouTuber. That's three times as many as those > who wanted to become a doctor or a nurse.

Is this supposed to be alarming? When I was that age my peers might have said NBA player or Hollywood actor but those are not any more realistic.

<comment><USER20> That's also a really big age range, maturity wise, to group together for such a question. Like 2/3rds of 6 year olds might have said that, but 1/6 17 year olds might have answered the question like that.

Just doesn't really end up being a useful metric the way that the article presents it.

<comment><USER21> Seriously. I wonder how many in this sprawling 6 to 17 age bracket said they wanted to be a dinosaur when they grew up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _"I've seen as low as 35¢ per 1,000 views and work with some YouTubers who can earn $5 per 1,000,"_

Comparing that to the numbers in the DailyCandy YouTube advertising post from yesterday, it seems video creators aren't getting a lot, advertisers aren't getting a bargain, and so someone is making an absolute mint on the difference..

<comment><USER23> Note though that the CPM billed to the advertiser is for when their ad isn't skipped, whereas the views for the YouTuber include those that skipped (or blocked) the ad, so the numbers do not compare directly. I'd be curious how large the skip-rates are (Candy Japan mentions 70%, but I don't know how far that generalizes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't doubt making a full time living on YouTube is very difficult. But a few channels I subscribe to at least claim to do it, and are nowhere near the top YouTubers. They all supplement their ad revenue with Patreon. But I would also think doing Patreon is just a standard prerequisite to full time YouTubing now.

I've always wondered if these channels are truly making a living off of just Patreon+YouTube, or if there is more they aren't sharing.

</comment><comment><USER25> My Son's youtube channel got 606,595 views in past 28 days. Estimated revenue=$221.49

<comment><USER26> I think it's worth noting that revenue grows superlinearly in views. As channels get more popular they get vetted manually, which puts them in a more lucrative ad share. Also opens up sponsorship deals, etc

<comment><USER27> Also depends on the specifics of the channel. Specialist ones can get endorsement deals earlier and more reliably even at comparatively smaller (but not small) audiences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The basic proposition of the article is true (not many people make much money off AdSense from YouTube) but it's really poorly written and full of misinformation and omissions. One horribly incorrect point:

> Buying the same equipment used by Casey Neistat, a popular YouTuber, would > cost $3,780.

Not even close. That would but you one decent professional 4K camera. Not remotely "the same equipment he uses". He and other top creators use tens of thousands of dollars of equipment. But you don't need all that to get started, you can get started with your phone as many do.

The big thing this article barely touches on is this; there's more and more creators who are successful by basically treating AdSense revenue like a Christmas bonus. They rely on Patreon, merchandise (shirts, etc) and sponsorships. You can find sponsored videos on channels with less than 100k subscribers.

The real story to me is if things keep going this way, what's the incentive to even enable AdSense on your channel? Just stay ad free and earn money elsewhere like James Townsend & Sons channel.

</comment><comment><USER29> When I was 17, I thought I was really beautiful and I wanted to be a model. By which I mean I imagined it would be easy money and I never seriously pursued it.

I imagine many people who want to be a YouTuber are kind of like that. It sounds like easy money and they aren't ever going to work that hard at learning their craft, etc. So it shouldn't be terribly surprising that a lot of them aren't doing particularly well.

On the other hand, I'm a writer and it is the same thing: A few big name stars raking in the dough and a whole lot of losers struggling to get by. And I get told all the time to go get a real job if I want a middle class income.

I don't know where people think these real jobs are. We are seeing the rise of the gig economy. There are fewer full time jobs with benefits and more gigs.

I am medically handicapped. Doing gig work has overall worked better for me than a corporate job. I hit $50k in debt while working a corporate job. I paid a lot of that off while homeless and doing freelance writing and struggling to eat.

I don't know what the answer is. Historically, middle class jobs did not just magically happen. Society designed them that way. Most were designed under the assumption that it was a man supporting a family whose wife would do the cooking, etc, so he could focus on his job. Under that model, you didn't need everyone to make a middle class income. You needed the primary breadwinner to have a good job with benefits that supported his whole family. Society was designed around a nuclear family model and jobs were designed with that in mind.

The world has changed and the nuclear family is not the default expectation. Plus regular jobs are getting scarce.

So I think we need to take it seriously that there are systemic problems here. We are allowing a system to develop with a few big winners, a lot of losers and little or no middle class.

At the same time, we need to accept that not all content is equally worthwhile. However, if we want some form of UBI, I would be much more comfortable with the idea that if you have some kind of YouTube channel or similar, you should have some kind of basic income from it than with "free money for everyone."

<comment><USER30> _I think we need to take it seriously that there are systemic problems here. We are allowing a system to develop with a few big winners, a lot of losers and little or no middle class._

I believe Marxists see this as the inevitable endgame of capitalism... by rewarding hoarded capital, there is no possible conclusion except the centralization of wealth to enormous levels of disparity.

Even for those of us who travel across boundaries, in some parts of the world I personally feel ridiculously wealthy (which objectively I am) whereas I can't afford to raise my kids in the manner and environment in which I myself was raised (which was not considered particularly wealthy at the time).

Politics seems to have failed us on most fronts, and the big problems are really international and therefore beyond the scope and reign of political animals, even naively assuming they cannot be bought out or sidestepped. Perhaps then, fundamentally as individuals we can only analyze the net effects of our actions and try to contribute to positive change instead of perpetuating a self-serving culture.

More snarkily, "Oh, you can't make a good living producing content on the internet with $1000s of dollars of e-toys?" ... this is perhaps something of a first world problem, where others are still down the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy.

<comment><USER31> At some point rather recently we made the decision to get rid of all the icky blue collar jobs and replace them with service economy job. The people who protested this change were branded as backwards hicks and their concerns were hand waved away along with promises of retraining.

The gig economy is just more of the same but we get told that wages are rising in other countries so we should be happy, as we subsidize some startup with our cars or our houses. But hey, we are getting rid of the 9 to 5 right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Like other posters mentioned, it's crazy hard to make a good living doing what you want artistically. E.g. take photography: the only way to make a living is to shoot weddings, professional headshots, interior/architecture, or products for brands, which isn't exactly thrilling (how many times can you shoot Nike shoes or Ikea chairs before the excitement wears off?).

If you want to shoot the stuff that you want to shoot, maybe edgy dark fashion, or quirky abstract art etc. you will be piss poor, especially considering most invest way too much in gear rather than actually doing the work.

It's not unlike say being in a metal band. 99% of them have to have real jobs, even when they're "famous". It's just too much of a niche and making money with it is not obvious.

At the same time, that seems only fair. Should you be paid more for doing something you enjoy doing? E.g. playing music/videogames/making art all day vs someone stacking boxes at a warehouse all day or an accountant looking at taxes etc. Most people have mind-numbingly boring jobs that pay the bills because nobody wants to do them.

Making a living with the arts without "selling out" is super hard, probably not worth it to most.

</comment><comment><USER33> Presumably not for the creators of YouTube, though. Content creation on closed platforms = modern-day sharecropping.

</comment><comment><USER34> From what I know, even without Patreon, YouTubers earn more money as "influencers". Companies pay them to promote their products (brand ambassadors) and influence viewers to buy it.

</comment><comment><USER35> This article, its headline and its use of statistics is stupid and doesn't deserve a place on HN.

It's a bunch of poorly analyzed and disjointed statistics.

They mention the hourly rate for actors, but don't talk about average yearly earning per actor for acting. I doubt most actors work full time as an actor and most aspiring actors certainly have other jobs.

They talk about the advertising revenue per year for the top 3% of channels, but don't consider the amount of time put in by the creators per channel. What percentage of that top 3% are full time compared to the bottom 97%?

The only actually interesting statistic in the whole article "In 2006 the top 3 percent accounted for 63 percent of all views. Ten years later, the top YouTubers received 9 in every 10 views, he found." completely fails to account for the factors that might be driving this change besides "it's getting harder to make it on youtube". How many of that bottom 97% are active channels still producing content? Does the top 3% of channels actually produce 90% of the videos on youtube?

</comment><comment><USER36> I think what this article misses is the fact that for some people it is both fun to produce the videos (like a hobby) and that the income is nearly 100% passive.

At least for my dad who has his own YouTube channel both of these things hold true.

He has one or two videos which have gone viral (6 million views for the biggest one). His best ad revenue income was around £700 in a month. Its not give up the day job money but it is definitely better than nothing. I'm sure many of us dream of having a passive income SaaS business generating that kind of money.

</comment><comment><USER37> > Benjamin spends an hour a day editing his videos and holds out hope his > postings could become a career, even after he heard the odds. "I think if I > keep uploading, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to make it a career," > he said. He recently hit 100 subscribers, up from 71 at the start of the > year.

So can he not do 3rd grade Math, or is he literally insane?

</comment><comment><USER38> Some forms of revenue from videos in addition to the ad revenue are Patreon as well as product placement / referrals.

Now, consider that even old videos continue to make revenue over time.

In my case, if I was going to use YouTube as a source of income I would see it as passive income to supplement an existing income rather than a full time occupation.

</comment><comment><USER39> Mass-publishing markets are _very_ strongly given to power-law distributions. We hear that "anybody can be famous" (or successful, or ...), but _everybody_ cannot be famous. Attention and publicity are the ultimate zero-sum games: no matter how large a given talent pool, there will only ever be ten top-ten spots, 100 top-100 spots. All you're doing by enlarging the pool _is amplifying the competition for those spots._

There's another side to the equation, though, which is _the scope of the audience_. Prior to modern technological methods, and I'm including here everything from relatively modern printing (say, 19th century onward), as well as phonograph, cinema, radio, television, and sound amplification, the reach of _any_ given work was _small_. A book might have a printing of several thousand copies (Adam Smith, _Wealth of Nations_ , ~5,000 initial print run, and the cost at £5 was roughly a quarter of a working man's _annual_ wage). A theatre might seat (or stand) a few thousand (the New Globe Theatre: 3,000), and the largest cities had populations of about a quarter million (London in 1600, more or less). Transportation was slow and expensive (Smith again: 2 weeks, by stage coach or horse from Edinborough to London -- that's how he travelled to university himself).

[https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history- of...](https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of- london.jsp)

As a consequence, _entertainment was strongly local_. There might be small touring acts, local musicians, and in rare cases, artists with a noble or royal patron (think Shakespeare himself, after a fashion, or Handel, Bach, or a church appointment (Bach, Telemann, and others). Art as a freestanding business was more-or-less a 19th century creation -- look especially at the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Impressionists, there are several excellent documentaries and biographies of each.

Technology increased the reach (and income) of _top performing_ creators and stars, but _decreased_ the viability of those further down the rankings. Where it used to be possible to eke out a livelihood as a local or touring performer, this became far more difficult. (There's something of a reverse shift in that the overall entertainment budget has increased sufficiently that the field has expanded, but the overall balance holds true.)

By way of quantification, I've been looking at the question of how many actors there are, and how many of those are considered "A-list". For the first:

How Many Actors are in L.A.?

[https://hollywoodsapien.com/2012/07/05/how-many-actors- are-i...](https://hollywoodsapien.com/2012/07/05/how-many-actors-are-in-l-a/)

Based on SAG and AFTRA membership and some adjustments, anthropologist Scott Frank comes up with the figure 108,640, of whom 21,728 are working actors. Los Angeles itself provides about 80% of all acting work, and USBLS data claim 1.77% of Angelenos work in entertainment, more than any other U.S. city.

How many of those are considered "A-List" actors? The definitions are ... fluid ... but generally about ten, no more than twenty. The Ulmer scale is a 100-point model estimating a star's value to a film. The 2009 top ten list, in order, were: Will Smith, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Will Ferrel, Reese Witherspoon, Nicolas Cage, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Russell Crowe.

[https://www.webcitation.org/5mnRWTArh?url=http://www.ulmersc...](https://www.webcitation.org/5mnRWTArh?url=http://www.ulmerscale.com/Mainarticle.html)

Consider that given power law relationships, the _earnings_ of a given star are going to be 1/n of the first-ranked, income falls off _tremendously_ quickly. VSauce has a surprisingly good video on the topic:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE)

Upshot: We're not all going to fame our way to wealth and riches. Or even subsistence survival. It's _not_ a creators world.

<comment><USER8> Patreon has completely upended these economics. You can make a comfortable middle-class income based on a small but extremely loyal fanbase. If you're dependent on ad revenue, you need millions of subscribers, because you're only earning a fraction of a cent for each viewer. If you're supported through Patreon, you only need a couple of thousand people to chip in a couple of bucks a month.

It's an interesting middle ground between patronage and busking that doesn't have any clear precedent.

<comment><USER40> You still need a quite sizeable fanbase - small is not the right word for a couple thousand loyal fans who regularly spend money on you; even in the pre- globalized world where the distribution was more fair (less global stars sucking up attention), the vast majority of artists, bands, sports clubs, performers, etc didn't have as many serious fans. No matter what happens, there's only so much attention available, and it's a zero-sum game, most content creators won't be able to make it especially if the number of creators grows and dilutes that attention / eagerness of being a fan.

<comment><USER8> Patreon take a 5% cut of donations. A band with an exceptionally good record deal might get to keep 15% of CD sales. The numbers are fairly similar in most mass media - under historical distribution models, middlemen kept the lion's share of revenues.

Even assuming that competition for entertainment spending is entirely zero- sum, then the disintermediation of the arts is destroying a lot of jobs for middlemen but is increasing the amount of revenue that goes to artists. Even if the pie is static or shrinking, artists are getting a bigger cut.

I'm not saying that everything is sunshine and roses, I'm not saying that everyone can become a creative professional, but I think that the situation is definitely improving. Barriers to entry are lower and there's a much larger middle-class of artists who aren't internationally famous but are making a good living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It looks like this is disregarding sponsorships tho. My mental model is ~$300 per video for a reasonable sized channel, which(with weekly videos) could well double their income estimates.

<comment><USER42> Listen to some of the larger tech creators talking about taking sponsorships - you risk driving away your audience if they're too "in your face" or you pick the wrong brands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Move to a cheap country and problem is solved.

</comment><comment><USER44> I can tell you that these figures are extremely low and not accurate. Channels that are nowhere near the top 3% making 50k/m easily.

</comment><comment><USER45> >Do your children dream of YouTube stardom? Do them a favor: Crush that ambition now.

Ah, Bloomberg - always full of good parenting advice.

<comment><USER46> It's no worse in discouraging your kids from pursuing YouTube stardom than it is to discourage them from trying to become a famous rapper. The odds are against them. In the end, it's probably not worth it.

<comment><USER47> If you show just a modicum of creativity as a parent you can use your child's passion for rap or YouTube stardom to teach them lots of ancillary skills that could lead to a useful career.

Never crush a child's passion no matter how 'stupid' it might seem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm not sure something that has only been around for 10 years can mean a 'Life' of poverty.

<comment><USER49> "Life" doesn't refer to just the span from birth to death; it also refers to "day to day existence".</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best books you've read in 2014 - <AUTHOR>

I've noticed that there is no consistent (best of) book list or recommendation that has been asked, while there are many for podcasts blogs etc. So I thought I'd ask, what are the best books you've read/listened to in 2014?
Here is my list:
1) Stumbling on happiness (reread) - Dan Gilbert - A fantastic book by a Harvard psychology professor on how we usually think about happiness, and what the current research actually reveals. Witty, sharp and extremely informative it's a great read.
2) The Kitchen Counter Cooking School - Kathleen Flinn - An interesting and funny book which reads much like a bunch of polished journal entries about cooking and the adventures of teaching culinary novices about the basics of healthy and tasty cooking. As a college student it is quite instructive in learning the ropes of becoming a functioning chef-for-one while juggling school and startups.
3) What Is Mathematics? - Richard Courant - A great introductory book for the laymen and mathematician alike, much like any good book written by an accomplished mind in a technical field it is both enlightening about the nuances of various areas of the field and a brief yet insightful introduction to each of these (number theory, geometry, topology and calculus). <comment><USER2> Zero to One - Awesome book by Peter Thiel encouraging a future of innovative start ups

</comment><comment><USER3> Speaking about non-technical books - 22/11/63 by S. King. Best description of an everyday life in America in 60-s.

</comment><comment><USER4> The Art of Start 2.0 was amazing...

</comment><comment><USER5> (Edge of Eternity, 2014)</comment>