Teenager Finds Classical Alternative to Quantum Recommendation Algorithm - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/teenager-finds-classical-alternative-to-quantum-recommendation-algorithm-20180731/ <comment><USER2> > _"Tang is killing [Kerenidis and Prakash's] quantum speedup, but then in > another sense Tang is giving a big improvement and building on what they > did. Tang never would have come up with this classical algorithm but for > their quantum algorithm," Aaronson said._

I think this deserves more emphasis: regardless of whether or not we need a quantum computer in the end, as a _model_ quantum computing is apparently useful to do research with and advance the status quo of our knowledge.

<comment><USER3> This is a bit speculative, but I suspect quantum theory is essentially god's programming language. It seems to crop up everywhere we look, like in psychology, biology, machine learning, computer science and general probability.

<comment><USER4> > essentially god's programming language

That metaphor seems to confuse people more than it clarifies. Did you perhaps mean "nature's programming language"?

<comment><USER5> I think 'nature' would be confusing here, since we also use it for the concrete, manifest nature. As used here, and in many other phrasings, and by analogy with religon, 'god' is probably meant to be the principles and forces underlying manifest nature.

<comment><USER3> And if nature was a programmer, I don't see how that's different from god.

<comment><USER6> In your paradigm "nature" is what "god" "programmed" with his "quantum language".

<comment><USER3> Not really. I think nature = universe = god. Again, a bit speculative.

<comment><USER7> Deepak Chopra, is that you?

<comment><USER8> More like Baruch Spinoza:

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

<comment><USER9> Jews _hate_ him!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> proto-n I just want to mention that the "recommendation systems" angle is quite unimportant here. This is a result in complexity theory, a resolution of the question "whether you actually need a quantum computer to sample the rows of a partially-specified low-rank matrix in polylogarithmic time" (as Scott Aaronson puts it [1]).

While this problem does occur in matrix factorization based recommenders, there are a lot of solutions for it without quantum computers that perform well, and it's far from being _the one method_ for recommendation.

[1] [https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880)

<comment><USER2> > _" whether you actually need a quantum computer to sample the rows of a > partially-specified low-rank matrix in polylogarithmic time"_

Could that be used in clustering algorithms in BioInformatics?

EDIT: Sorry, Aaronson's writing is just too funny not to put that quote in full context:

> _On the Hacker News thread, some commenters are lamenting that such a > brilliant mind as Ewin's would spend its time figuring out how to entice > consumers to buy even more products that they don't need. I confess that > that's an angle that hadn't even occurred to me: I simply thought that it > was a beautiful question whether you actually need a quantum computer to > sample the rows of a partially-specified low-rank matrix in polylogarithmic > time, and if the application to recommendation systems helped to motivate > that question, then so much the better. Now, though, I feel compelled to > point out that, in addition to the potentially lucrative application to > Amazon and Netflix, research on low-rank matrix sampling algorithms might > someday find many other, more economically worthless applications as well._

<comment><USER10> "research on low-rank matrix sampling algorithms might someday find many other, more economically worthless applications as well."

I'm not sure whether this is a typo, and he means to say that there might be more economically worthwhile applications, or whether he's trolling the people complaining that this is useless by pointing out that there are real economic benefits to it _right now._

<comment><USER11> Neither.

He's trolling the people who regret that the result of this research is manipulating people. By pointing out that there is a real potential for applications that they object to less.

<comment><USER12> It's a very broad definition of "manipulating people" that includes recommendation algorithms. The problem, as stated, seems to call for an implementation of a perfectly benign strategy for recommending content.

Clustering users by their ratings of various titles is the kind of thing any hobbyist statistician might do to help their friends find movies they like using online data sets.

There are methods to use data to improve people's experiences, and sometimes corporations employ those methods.

<comment><USER13> You must admit that there is a very large difference between a friend doing something for me and a corporation doing the same thing.

<comment><USER14> What is the difference?

<comment><USER13> A friend actually cares about you, your best interests, and long-term well- being.

One's relationship with a corporation is very different. They don't know you or necessarily care very much about your long term interests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sometimes I think I'm smart because I can configure WebPack, and then I read an article like this.

<comment><USER16> I'd like to see him try that.

<comment><USER17> Can he vertically center a div though?

<comment><USER18> Flex!

<comment><USER19> tables!

<comment><USER20> Early 2000s strike back

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A little bit backdrop of Ewin Tang: [http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive- issues/2010-13/2012/1...](http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive- issues/2010-13/2012/12/cultivating-genius/index.html)

<comment><USER22> I like the last line:

> And what about the future of UT Arlington's latest wunderkind, Ewin Tang? "I > haven't come up with anything that is really ingenious yet," he says. Be > patient; he's only 12.

It only took 6 years. Not bad at all!

<comment><USER23> As someone who finished undergrad classes as a teenager. I totally failed to live up to my potential.

<comment><USER24> Don't sell yourself short. Lots of important stuff happens when inquiring minds age and have the benefit of cross-disciplinary experience and perspective, plus new social, temporal and fiscal resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Scott Aaronson posted about this on his blog

[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880)

I like his update - a message to Hacker News commenters:

"On the Hacker News thread, some commenters are lamenting that such a brilliant mind as Ewin's would spend its time figuring out how to entice consumers to buy even more products that they don't need. I confess that that's an angle that hadn't even occurred to me: I simply thought that it was a beautiful question whether you actually need a quantum computer to sample the rows of a partially-specified low-rank matrix in polylogarithmic time, and if the application to recommendation systems helped to motivate that question, then so much the better. Now, though, I feel compelled to point out that, in addition to the potentially lucrative application to Amazon and Netflix, research on low-rank matrix sampling algorithms might someday find many other, more economically worthless applications as well."

<comment><USER26> That seems a bit passive aggressive. I don't think economical value is what is in question, but rather the social impact of the application (or lack of positive social impact).

Applications can be both economically valuable _and_ have positive social impact. Now recommender systems are in fact useful to discover new things, not just to entice people to buy more. E.g. finding new music, related research, or other things.

<comment><USER27> The tone of his comment seems to me he's just frustrated a community of programmers took the conversation down the path of debating the merits of recommendation systems rather than exploring the more general applicability of the algorithm in other problem spaces.

<comment><USER28> I agree with him. Half the time you'll enter an HN discussion and the most upvoted comment will an unrelated bikeshedding discussion.

Usually one of these:

\- "I love the idea but can we talk about how the website doesn't look good when CSS is disabled?"

\- "25MB of JavaScript? Really? You know, websites used to..."

\- "This website is impossible to read because the contrast ratio is too low and I am personally offended."

\- "Did anyone else get an ad from this news website? Why does advertising exist?"

\- "An obscure open source project uses the same name as this unrelated business. Have you no shame?"

\- "The website looks weird on mobile, by which I mean my rooted Android phone running Opera."

\- "The text is too big."

\- "The text is too small."

<comment><USER29> When did "comment" transition into "thought-provoking well-defended essay"? Is there no water cooler talk on the internet anymore? I find interesting tidbits and interesting tangents here on HN and I appreciate it all!

<comment><USER30> I think the "most upvoted comment" part is important here. Tangents are indeed good to have, but I don't think they should occupy the most visible parts of the comment section.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> From the paper,

> The only difference between Theorem 1 and its quantum equivalent in [13] is > that the quantum algorithm has no ε approximation factors (so ε=0 and 1/ε > does not appear in the runtime). Thus, we can say that our algorithm > performs just as well, up to polynomial slowdown and ε approximation > factors.

With ε being the accepted margin of error, theorem 1 being the algorithm produced by Tang, and [13] being a reference to Kerenidis and Prakash's quantum algorithm kept here in the quote for fidelity of quoting.

This means that this algorithm is not really a substitue for the quantum algorithm because it will require a level of error to be accepted (something which might work in recommendation engines, but not necessarily outside that context) and it still has polynomial slowdown over the quantum algorithm. One thing to note is that not all quantum algorithms will perform exponenttially better than their classical counterparts. Particularily, some quantum search algorithms perform only quadratically better than the classical search algorithms. This means that even if an exponential speedup was not achieved by quantum computers, (which it still is because of the ε factor meaning they don't give the same results) it is expected that they still achieve polynomial speedup as they do in this case.

In conclusion, stating that this algorithm threatens the prospects of quantum computation is probably an exageration.

</comment><comment><USER32> Scott Aaronson wrote about this on his own blog too: [https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3880)

</comment><comment><USER33> Wow good on this guy. I thought it might have been a high-school student reading the title but he's a PHD candidate. Incredible. What an accomplishment at 18 to be lecturing a room of PHD holders.

<comment><USER34> It is, but not as rare as you might think! I've been reading some of the old books/papers about SMPY from the 1970s, a talent search study which uses the SAT-M to screen for visuospatially-gifted middle schoolers; they then study them and try to accelerate their education with summer camps, advanced math classes, and grade-skipping and/or early enrollment in Johns Hopkins (where SMPY is based). SMPY was a big part of making acceleration for gifted children acceptable in America, when the conventional wisdom was that they should be forced into regular classes for their own good.

What they often did early on was, around age 14, SMPYers would be admitted to Johns Hopkins to typically start taking math and computer science courses, at which they would often excel and be at the top of the class, expected to go on to post-graduate work around 19, and fit in so well that fellow students and their teachers often (when surveyed or asked) didn't realize they were so young. If you look in OP, that describes Tang remarkably well.

<comment><USER35> _post-graduate work around 19_

depends on the subject. Did computer science exist as a course in the 70's?

<comment><USER34> It certainly did, as that is what many of the kids were enrolled in...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Skipped 4th through 6th grades. Impressive. Is this innate or did his parents do something to make this happen? Is there anything I'm supposed to be doing with my own kids? How/when do you know when your child has this potential?

<comment><USER37> Nature is important but people massively underestimate the nurturing component. Parents are most definitely key for these types of outcomes. If you're not familiar with the story already, read about the Polgar sisters. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/the- grand...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200507/the-grandmaster- experiment)

To your question, my immediate answer was, "let them play outside". But it sounds dismissive of what you are asking. So the better answer is: provide them with the opportunity to learn, encourage their curiosity, praise them for their work not innate intelligence while still telling them that they are smart, create an environment that values and promotes education, create a program for them to follow when they show interest in a particular discipline, have great mentors help them develop, etc.

The truth is, there is always going to be a compromise between having a care- free childhood and top performance from an early age. You can't really have both no matter how smart your kids are. Asian parents stereotypically tend to opt for the latter end of the spectrum with, on average, very successful outcomes.

<comment><USER35> imho, I think ppl actually overestimate the role of parenting. Often extremely gifted children (as Tang and Tao are/were) will have their interests piqued by something, and then on their own volition learn everything they can about it. There isn't much prodding by the parents. For someone with an IQ of 140+, maybe doing calculus problems is more fun than video games.

<comment><USER38> The interest must come from the kid, but there are conditions that enable this interest. From a previously mentioned link in this thread [1], Tang's father is a bioengineer professor, which means:

1\. Financial stability in the family, and it seems that both parents where emotionaly supportive

2\. The father is knowledgeable in sciences, that means he can orient the learning and use his network

3\. The father let his son work in his nanotechnology lab

[1] [http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive- issues/2010-13/2012/1...](http://www.uta.edu/utamagazine/archive- issues/2010-13/2012/12/cultivating-genius/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wish an editor would step in:

(1) limit the use of 'exponentially faster', simply for the grating repetition. The phrase is used 5 times in the article.

(2) In an article that is about time complexity of algorithms, be precise about terms like 'exponentially faster'.

(3) In an article that is about quantum computing, don't use 'quantum' in its colloquial sense of 'significant'. That is 'quantum' in quantum computing is different than quantum in 'quantum increase'. The latter is a suspect usage, but potentially defensible as colloquial; mixing the two in the same paragraph reads poorly.

<comment><USER40> Where does it say "quantum increase" in the article? "Quantum speedup" does appear, but this has a specific technical meaning and it is not being used in the colloquial sense. It means that there is an efficient quantum algorithm for solving the computational task but no efficient classical one.

<comment><USER41> I consider this the colloquial sense: the speedup (or, more generically, the "increase" of throughput, quality, or other performance indicators) obtained by using quantum computers.

Unlike the irreducibly mathematical and very narrow concept of "exponential increase", which could be plausibly misunderstood, a quantum speedup (or increase) can be correctly abstracted to the trivial pattern of _doing things in a different way which performs better_ , without really needing to understand the problem and the solution; it's very surprising to hear the term misused to mean "really big". How could it happen?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I think this might represent an example of another unique value of quantum computing: as a way to get us thinking about computing problems via a different paradigm that can perhaps be translated back to classical computing.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is awesome work, and kudos to Tang, but I am also really impressed with how his advisor, Scott Aaronson, seems to have so selflessly supported his research and given him full credit. Even in Aaronson's quotes within the article he talks about it entirely as Tang's work, and he seems to have considered Tang's best interests in deciding how and when to let him present the work - even that he let Tang present it!

Given a different person, we may have read about "UT-Austin Professor and Quantum Researcher Finds Classical Alternative to Quantum Recommendation Algorithm" (with generic help from students in a footnote somewhere). It's great to see this type of collegial mentorship.

<comment><USER44> Scott Aaronson is just one of the most awesome human beings ever. He is brilliant yet modest, and his writing is at once deeply enlightening and eminently accessible. The world would be a better place if more academics adopted him as a role model.

<comment><USER45> Just to provide a counterpoint based on the scant evidence of his blog (post and comments). He is , of course , brilliant, and has a refreshing no-nonsense approach. Modest, he is not, not that is anything wrong with that, I would call modest for example Terence Tao a far more accomplished academic. This is something that should be a "law", the more accomplished a person is the most it can "afford" to be modest. So for example Einstein was more modest than say Feynman, and Edward Witten is way way more modest than your typical string theorist.

The other thing I dont like about Aaronson is his weird fetish with STEM people , he seems to think scientists and technologists are somehow superior or more worthy than regular folk. I also dont agree with some of his opinions on the actions of the state of Israel, but I will avoid that, being this the Internet.

<comment><USER40> I've never known Scott to be anything but unfailingly modest, both in person and on his blog. What specifically are you referring to?

<comment><USER46> I had a look and the first thing I found was him calling for an academic boycott against New Zealand - presumably for NZs support of the UN resolution against Israel's Palestinian settlements. This is an interesting approach to dealing with criticism.

[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=247](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=247)

<comment><USER47> I think you're misunderstanding the post. It's a satire of similar such blog posts which are calling for the boycott of Israel. It's trying to (humorously) make the case that boycotting Israel makes about as much sense as boycotting New Zealand for their treatment of the native population, or likewise boycotting China over Tibet, etc, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Conjecture: for every quantum algorithm that is faster than current classical algorithm exists yet undiscovered classical algorithm that is equally fast.

<comment><USER49> Not sure if you're being serious, but there are already quantum algorithms that have been mathematically proven to not be dequantizable, i.e. have no possible classical version that's as fast.

<comment> Ar-Curunir What's your definition of "as fast"? We can't separate BQP from P right now. That is, we don't know any problems that run in polynomial time on a quantum computer, but provably have no polynomial time classical algorithms.

<comment><USER49> "As fast" in the big-O sense. Here's what Scott Aaronson says in reply to one of the comments on his blogpost about this paper:

 _I should point out, though, that in many cases (Simon's problem, period- finding, Forrelation, quantum walk on glued trees…), people have proved exponential separations between the quantum and randomized query complexities, which means that there certainly won't be a dequantization in those cases along the same lines as what Ewin did._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The paper [1] states:

> There is a classical algorithm whose output distribution is O(ε)-close in > total variation distance to the distribution given by l2-norm sampling from > the ith row of a low- rank approximation D of A in query and time complexity > [O(poly-func)] where δ is the probability of failure.

So the classical algorithm would give a "sufficiently close" approximation of what the QML would output? The article doesn't mention this at all. Is it fair to compare a quantum algorithm with an equivalent classical _approximation_ algorithm?

From the quanta magazine article:

> Computer scientists had considered [the recommendation problem] to be one of > the best examples of a problem that's exponentially faster to solve on > quantum computers — making it an important validation of the power of these > futuristic machines. Now Tang has stripped that validation away.

Has he really?

[1] [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04271.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.04271.pdf)

<comment><USER51> > As a consequence, we show that Kerenidis and Prakash's quantum machine > learning (QML) algorithm, one of the strongest candidates for provably > exponential speedups in QML, does not, in fact, give an exponential speedup > over classical algorithms.

The comparison is fair and the author is giving a metric to compare the algorithms too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> But why does the title focus on the person's age, instead of their skill? This should just read "Grad student finds classical alternative to quantum recommendation algorithm". Sure, he's young, but that's also 100% irrelevant to the actual work presented.

<comment><USER53> His youth is remarkable, so they remarked on it. I'm not sure what about this troubles you.

<comment><USER52> Given the audience of the magazine in question, writing the headline to focus on how young he is (which tells us nothing in relation to quantum computing) instead of the fact that this is a grad student (which DOES tell us something: it gives readers a frame of reference in terms of this person's academic knowledge and skillsets) is disappointing at best, and clickbait at worst.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I would have liked to read this article, but the page refuses to load in my bog-standard Mozilla browser.

Ironically, there's an article in HN today about "The Bullshit Web." This is exactly what that article is about. Apparently Quanta Magazine is trying to do something clever, and that "clever" thing is stopping their content from reaching me.

<comment><USER55> Since I really had trouble finding a way to read the article (source seems to have depublished it?) I just wanted to leave a small how-to on how I succeeded eventually:

      - Look up the page in wayback machine
      - Open the first snapshot
      - JS seems to delete the content immediately
      - Open developer tools
      - Reload the page
      - View the HTML response in the response preview window

Bullshit Web it is

 _Edit: Article seems to be back online now_

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> And here I am, struggling to solve TopCoder problems....

<comment><USER57> You can always console yourself with the knowledge that you* can rent a car and buy a beer in any state and he can't.

*I'm assuming you're at least 26.

<comment><USER58> ... and listen MC++ all night long

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I don't get why they don't just prepare the dataset for optimal search beforehand, as done in compgeom, like a quadtree or voronoi or in this case clustering into k regions. K dimensions are not so hard to handle. Then search will always be logarithmic. Even Google prepares it's datastructures for fast queries, a reverse index.

</comment><comment><USER60> I am impressed, what an interesting piece

</comment><comment><USER61> Has anyone started an implementation of this yet in python, go, rust, etc?

<comment><USER58> From the paper:

"Second, while the recommendation system algorithm we give is asymptotically exponentially faster than previous algorithms, there are several aspects of this algorithm that make direct application infeasible in practice. First, the model assumptions are somewhat constrictive. It is unclear whether the algorithm still performs well when such assumptions are not satisfied. Second, the exponents and constant factors are large (mostly as a result of using Frieze, Kannan, and Vempala's algorithm [10]). We believe that the "true" exponents are much smaller, but our technique is fairly roundabout and likely compounds exponents unnecessarily. These issues could be addressed with more straightforward analysis combined with more sophisticated techniques."

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Can anyone explain the significance of this in a few sentences for the non- expert? I read the article but am struggling to understand.

</comment><comment><USER63> This is amazing and he is just 18 years old!

</comment><comment><USER64> Maybe now Netflix will show me titles I'm actually interested in.

<comment><USER65> Not enough content on netflix unfortunetly

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The headline makes my eye twitch. It is technically correct but pushes age bit too much into forefront. It is a bachelor thesis work supervized by Scott Aaronson of all people.

It is going to be really interesting to see if there are other algorithms where we find classical algorithms that run in polynomial time.

<comment><USER67> Maybe I'm just easily impressed but the idea of a 17 year old who skipped three grades and is already a third-year university student who was talented enough to catch Scott's attention and then address a technically challenging problem like this certainly warrants at least some recognition for the age at which he made this accomplishment.

Or maybe I'm just not smart enough to hang out on Hacker News.

<comment><USER68> The issue is that the title actually diminishes the accomplishment by focusing on the wrong thing. The work is impressive independent of the authors age. By emphasizing the age, the focus shifts from what he did, which he should be proud of, to something he will no longer have in two years.

<comment><USER69> As someone who has done research in quantum information, the age shifts this result from "very impressive" to "extremely impressive".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> When I was 18, I could operate an oven.

</comment><comment><USER71> 50% of land is uninhabited

</comment><comment><USER72> Poor Chad Rigetti

</comment><comment><USER73> Chinese geniuses have done it again

</comment><comment><USER74> If he had discovered this algo a few years back, he might have won the $1 million netflix prize ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize)).

<comment><USER75> I'm pretty sure Netflix can give him another million.

<comment><USER22> Pretty sure at the current rate star ML researchers are paid, a million for Tang would be low-balling him.

<comment><USER76> It could just be a handcuffless gift.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Having a price is really cool for getting profits - <AUTHOR> http://alexblom.com/blog/2010/04/having-a-price-is-really-cool-for-getting-profits/

<comment><AUTHOR> I was using mail companies as an example :) MailChimp and CampaignMonitor do show their prices (Mailchimp I ended up buying from) however several other companies that were suggested to me either flatly did not show prices or had them very well hidden (i.e. icontact).

<comment><USER2> Aweber lists theirs very clearly. <http://www.aweber.com/pricing.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The general sentiment is correct (although I'd love to know if it's good business for consultants) but I'm not sure his example is good. The two leading mail handlers I know of are CampaignMonitor.com and MailChimp.com and both of them are pretty open about their costs.</comment>


Washington DC online voting hack contest suspended early - <AUTHOR> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2010/10/hacker_infiltration_ends_dc_on.html

<comment><USER2> Isn't this the wrong way to go about securing a system? It's better than nothing I suppose, but black hats aren't going to tell you when they've found a vulnerability. On the flip side, there's no guarantee that the right set of folks are looking at the system (thankfully, that doesn't seem to be the case here).

<comment><USER3> If you are explicitly putting out a system for tests, you aren't only attracting black hats. (Actually you will discourage black hats, since they don't want to show their methods when they are of no use.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's an article by one of the researchers with much more information about the vulnerability:

[http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/hacking-dc- in...](http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/jhalderm/hacking-dc-internet- voting-pilot)

</comment><comment><USER5> Traditional media headline FTW:

Hacker infiltration ends D.C. online voting trial</comment>


Grindr, Craigslist, and the virtual erosion of LGBTQ turf - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2018/04/05/grindr-craigslist-and-virtual-erosion-lgbtq-turf/twBW8hELJ35nHmAa6P20gL/story.html <comment><USER2> > As the old expression goes: Homo says what?

Wow - I can tell the author tried _really_ hard to find a place to slip that line into the article.</comment>


OxyPure is offering pure oxygen in New Delhi for less than $6 for 15 mins - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1195080919868043264 <comment><USER2> This made me think of this story from a while back.

[https://mashable.com/2016/05/12/china-bottled-air- demand/](https://mashable.com/2016/05/12/china-bottled-air-demand/)

Curious I googled the company to see if they still existed. Vitality Air appears to be doing well.

[https://vitalityair.com/](https://vitalityair.com/)

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_bar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_bar) :

> Modeled after the "air stations" in polluted downtown Tokyo and Beijing, the > first oxygen bar (the O2 Spa Bar) opened in Toronto, Canada, in 1996. The > trend continued in North America and by the late 1990s, bars were in use in > New York, California, Florida, Las Vegas and the Rocky Mountain region.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Anyone else SCUBA? I'd rather do a EAN36 for about the same price, but would last me longer.

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


Firmware is always buggy - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/u/0/117091380454742934025/posts/drvhoByi7sW

<comment><USER2> The best thing about firmware is that it's often interacting with other buggy firmware. All of whom are implementing poorly defines 'standards' within tight budgets (monetarily, power and cycles).

Having said that I enjoy that kind of work (writing and interfacing with). Having spent many years in assembly for video games it doesn't phase me at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps what is more insidious is that you don't always realize that there _is_ firmware in there. I mean chipsets where there is a processor in the chipset running emulation code to make certain things behave like they did when they were implemented by the 286/AT, its firmware all the way down.

</comment><comment><USER4> Back in the old days I had to write a firmware for an ISA board using the IAR C compiler (where changing _comment text_ could break the build) and I used to feel dizzy even without drugs...</comment>


The disappearing middle class is threatening large American brands - <AUTHOR> http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-disappearing-middle-class-is-threatening-major-retailers-2015-10 <comment><USER2> So, big combined initiative by large brands to pay their workers more?

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh no! Not the brands!</comment>


A unique address for every device - <AUTHOR> https://sckt.co/

<comment><USER2> After reading the homepage briefly twice, I still have no idea what the service actually is. I can see what it promises, but I have no idea how. Is this a custom VPN server? If not, how is it different? Maybe as a technical person I dont like marketing speak as much as others, but here I feel like you are offering a technical product, so it should have technical language, no?

<comment><USER3> Sorry that that's the impression. A bit of tech: the sckt agent on the device goes to the sckt server, and asks for a tunnel. It gets an IPv6 address, that is publicly routed, and gets a name (e.g.: storage.acc.sckt.co). Optionally, you can request auth through an HTTP proxy to reach that address, for private deployments. the tunnel to sckt tries to live forever (or until killed), and pretends to be https to get through firewalls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks technically strong but I'm interested in what the other use cases would be - why would you want this?

<comment><USER5> From the page, it appears what they'll be offering is basically a VPN tunnel with a routable IPv6 address. Also, it appears that they'll give you some additional control—custom firewall rules, private subnets, etc.

I can see many applications of this. For instance, I could have this set up on my home PBX server and my smartphone to allow me to make calls through the PBX from wherever I have a network connection. I wouldn't have to worry about firewall rules, IP address changes (my home connection gives me dynamic IPs), etc.—everything would just work.

There doesn't appear to be anything revolutionary about this service. There are alternative strategies for accomplishing what I described above: I could have my phone and server connect to a VPN that's set up on a VPS server I lease, or I could set up a dynamic DNS hostname for my home connection, and my phone could connect to that (either via straight SIP or [better] through a VPN). However, those take more work on my part.

Though, the more I look at their (fairly sparse) page and think about what they're offering, perhaps it is just a publicly routable IPv6 address routed over a VPN. Again, nothing revolutionary, but still very convenient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool! is this similar to resin.io we saw just days ago?</comment>


100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/100-companies-responsible-71-per-cent-greenhouse-gas-emissions-global-warming-climate-change-shell-a7834031.html <comment><USER2> This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff.

The same argument can be applied when people look at China and think they are the problem because of their high use of coal and manufacturing industry. Well, I'd guess that a lot of their output is going to Western consumers, so again, it is they who are responsible.

<comment><USER3> Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.

<comment><USER4> You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making ourselves feel righteous but not a good strategy for effecting actual change.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it is a straw-man to point at a real problem and demand answers. A straw-man argument is creating something that doesn't exist then attacking that. He didn't call them evil, you are accusing him of doing that (You are closer to constructing a straw-man than he is).

These companies really do pollute, really are the largest American CO@ emitters and as Americans we have a right to answers and solutions.

<comment><USER4> > I don't think it is a straw-man to point at a real problem and demand > answers. A straw-man argument is creating something that doesn't exist then > attacking that.

"You are shifting the blame" is a straw man because the GP didn't do that. Rather, it pointed out a nuance in the issue that the previous comment didn't acknowledge.

(And a nit: a straw man attacks an argument that was not made, not a thing that doesn't exist.)

> He didn't call them evil, you are accusing him of doing that (You are closer > to constructing a straw-man than he is).

Read my comment again. I said "a lot of rhetoric does X," which is vastly different from "you are doing X."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I looked at the report[1], and pretty much all of the companies listed are energy companies (e.g. coal/petroleum/etc). I was expecting to see a lot of heavy industrial manufacturing companies.

I can understand a coal plant producing a lot of emissions, but I'm wondering: why would a petroleum company generate a lot of emissions? Do they burn a lot of the fuel they produce? I thought they just pump the crude oil out, pass it through fractional distillation, and sell the resultant fuels?

[1] [https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...](https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon- Majors-Report-2017.pdf)

<comment><USER7> They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon.

Yes, this is kinda dumb.

<comment><USER8> Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.

<comment><USER7> If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground.

Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them.

Demand drives consumption.

Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the problem of global warming.

<comment><USER8> People don't want to burn hydrocarbons for energy they just want energy. The proof is in the pudding, if people wanted to burn hydrocarbons for energy there would be no renewable energy sources.

Demand for energy drives a consumption for energy and these companies provide the energy. If we had instead learned how to convert puppies to energy in the late 19th century instead of fossil fuels, we'd probably be burning puppies.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but we don't know how to convert puppies into energy. Hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we have so hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's a really scary picture of a power plant leading off the story. There is a huge amount of smoke pouring out of its smoke stacks.

Only, most of the smoke stacks are chillers and most of all that smoke is steam. The chillers looks like the kind most often associated with nuclear power plants.

If you took all those emissions and photoshopped away all the H2O, you'd have a very small wisp of smoke. That smoke would still be a problem. But the photo would not inspire fear and concern.

When an article leads off with that kind of spurious fearmongering, it damages any real value that might exist later in the article. Any real data and real concerns get obscured in all the fake smoke the article is purposely generating.

<comment><USER5> CO2 is invisible.

Pictures makes articles more appealing, easier to understand and profitable.

It's not like they are even lying, you agree there is some smoke an pollutants in there.

What should they take a picture of?

Can't smokestacks, a long time symbol of industry, be just that a symbol? It's not like they are lying about the numbers in the article or even make claims about the picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _"Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide > transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just > 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem," said Pedro Faria, > technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the > information for the report. "It's obvious they have a share of > responsibility in the solution."_

You made a list of the top 100 companies.. that is literally naming names.

Then you say they're responsible for 71% of the problem and need to improve.. that is literally shaming them.

For a supposedly-intelligent person, it's disappointing he doesn't know the definitions of the words he uses.

</comment><comment><USER11> Company sizes follow a pareto distribution. In a pareto distribution, some small number x companies will be responsible for some large y% of anything.

</comment><comment><USER12> A rather stupid statistic in my opinion. Of course we could save the planet by banning all car manufacturing and power plants. Doesn't mean that this is a serious option. It's not important who produces emissions. It's important where emissions can be reduced and how we can achieve this.

</comment><comment><USER13> In other news, just 100 companies are responsible for making 71% of people overweight.

</comment><comment><USER14> These are all energy companies. I think there should also be a study on which are the top consumers of their products to better correlate data and change consumer behavior. As an example - one of my pet peeves is the resistance to remote work where possible. The amount of gas and time saved not commuting to work every day has got to be quite significant (along with the need to maintain smaller offices, etc.). If it can be quantified in terms of greenhouse gas emissions there may be more acceptance.

</comment><comment><USER15> And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?

<comment><USER16> Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us.

Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.

<comment> Joe-Z A politician representing the interests of the people who voted for him/her is a fallacy?

Then consequentially I should get back all my tax money that went into setting up international trade and other economic deals, since apparently this should also have been my responsibility and these arrangements would have just popped up if I had 'voted with my wallet'.

<comment><USER16> I never said that, but the majority of adults are responsible for this mess including the representatives they've elected. This includes you and me.

<comment><USER4> > I never said that

Perhaps that isn't what you _meant_ , but it sure looks to me like that's what you _said_.

<comment><USER16> Relying on someone else to fix it won't fix it, is essentially what I'm saying, for if everyone had that attitude, then nothing would happen, absolutely nothing.

Politicians are just people too.

<comment><USER4> ... People with far greater than average power to change society. I can't make laws. Can you?

Voting for representatives who will make laws that create the change you want to see in the world is absolutely not "relying on someone else."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems the large companies are mostly oil companies. The faster we transition to non-oil based energy, the faster we solve the problem.

The big issue is oil has a very high energy density. Its relatively cheap to extract and transfer.

If we do end up figuring out solar panels that intake C02 and water and output oil, that would be the biggest invention of our generation.

Basically we need more efficient trees at scale. May be DNA programming will come to the rescue.

</comment><comment><USER18> R E G U L A T E

</comment><comment><USER19> They're Pyramid schemes in disguise</comment>


Show HN: ExpDealsHotel Reveal Secret Hotel Name from Priceline's Express Deals - <AUTHOR> http://expdealshotel.com <comment><AUTHOR> Author here.

Today I would like to release ExpDealsHotel 3.0 Beta to you. As the title says, this is an app to quickly help you reveal Priceline's Express Deals. Please leave a comment if you like this work or if you have any questions for me. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER2> Not a fan of running random .exe files, is this open source?</comment>


RedditOverflow - <AUTHOR>

We need the love child of Reddit and StackOverflow, something that uses the Reddit API to create a tech focused QA site without all the snark and heavy handed moderation. <comment><USER2> The snark and heavy handed moderation helps keeping content useful and correct.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Maybe you can remove the snark and make most of the moderation invisible, but if you remove moderation then the site will degenerate into a kittens photos stream.

[If you are not afraid of kittens, you can replace that with spam, porn, politics, ...]

<comment><USER2> I'm not afraid of porn btw.</comment></comment></comment>


Java is just fine for your online service startup development - <AUTHOR> http://pietro.open-lab.com/2009/12/05/java-is-just-fine-for-your-online-service-startup-development/

<comment><USER2> Good advice. If you know a technology well, then run with it. Focusing on actually delivering value vs. bragging rights to the latest and greatest dynamic language/framework.

On a side-note, I will say this - I am a Java developer (at my day job), and Java-land boasts some of the best tool support there is out there. On the flip side, the refactoring argument does not hold much water. These days almost everything in Java, especially when using any kind of framework means a lot of configuration and wiring using XML, Annotations and other syntaxes (EL - Expression Language comes to mind). Most tools don't see these as live code, so refactoring essentially boils down to a lot of text search and replace.

Java-land is learning a lot from the other communities and products out there. I have been told the Play Framework (<http://www.playframework.org/>) has some potential but haven't looked at it yet.

<comment><USER3> About refactoring ... even if a project is pure-Java, the refactoring-tools are too simple, boiling down to rename class/method/var, extract method/class and things like that which are just too simple for real-world needs (and in practice, kind of useless ... since I've been doing these same ops in dynamic languages with a combination of find / grep / sed / emacs macros... with unit- tests as guard).

When you want to radically change the architecture, as it happens when you've got the business/workflow model wrong, these refactoring tools won't help you.

My opinion about Java ... the JVM and the available tools kick ass, but the language is a PITA and this shows in the design of many Java-libraries. Things like PlayFramework are a wonder and it takes discipline and perseverance to build things like that (not to mention having the will to break every best practice set out by the community).

</comment></comment><comment> old-gregg If you are a Java expert and know nothing else, roll with it: learning something significantly different from scratch to a degree comparable with your today's Java expertise will take a long time. That part he got right.

But if your toolbox is bigger to begin with, I see very little advantages in using Java and his arguments aren't persuading: Java is a memory hog (which matters more than CPU cycles in the era of VPS), Java starts slow - it won't allow fluid workflows like Python/Ruby do. Java doesn't interface well with UNIX or anybody else for that matter.

Java-centric libraries and frameworks, while numerous, are tedious to work with: they tend to be over-engineered, overly-relying on XML to an unhealthy degree, hard to navigate and verbose to use.

I am coming from Microsoft/.NET and Ruby/Rails background and even after a year of adjusting, everything in JVM-centric world feels overly complex, slow and "rigid". Java people seem to swim in their own definition of object oriented programming and oh my... they stick with it. Even interviewing "Java- minded" people is painful.

All in all, I am 100% with the anonymous poster he quoted in the beginning of his post: _"Its great for consultants because it means more billable hours"_ Not in a sense that it takes a lot of typing, but simply because there're lots of excuses to bill more for.

<comment><USER4> > Java is a memory hog

Tomcat with a simple app installed uses about 60 MB when it's idle and not much more with dozens of parallel requests. With Rails you need about 40 MB _per instance_ for a very simple application.

Edit: And Java is lightning fast. An old project of mine running on a tomcat on a crappy VPS with 192 MB RAM serves the home page in about 100 ms, and without any manual caching, although it executes 7 queries to a postgres-db.

A simple rails app which I deployed on a VPS with twice as much RAM takes at least ten times as long to deliver the home page. And the only "dynamic" thing that happens on the home page is the formatting of a date. There is no database involved.

<comment><USER5> Honest question (I've never done Java web stuff): what does that 60MB actually buy you? Rails gives you a whole lot of tools in that space.

<comment> old-gregg It's hard to compare but Tomcat is functionally equivalent to something like Passenger, Paster or Mongrel. And last time I looked, it actually ate 80MB. It doesn't make sense to compare empty application servers: it is your running application you should be concerned with.

JVM is fine if you're running only a single instance of it: just use threads instead of processes. The problem with JVM is that you often can't afford to have several of them running: in Java world everything is measured in hundreds of megabytes, that's the smallest unit of measurement they use (often supplemented with references to 32GB servers, "they're so cheap now"). Check out Batik Java library for rendering SVG. A single 45Kb SVG file, when fully parsed, eats up 150MB right here on my laptop. After serveral repeated test runs, JVM memory usage grew to a sweet 540MB, where it stopped because I capped it there via -Xmx. For comparison: Inkscape, which is an entire SVG IDE powerhouse, not just a parser, consumes only 3MB more when I open the same file in it, so that's like 50x less, plus it doesn't grow.

See, unlike CLR or Python/Perl/Ruby, JVM truly _is a virtual computer_ , i.e. running a WAR file under Tomcat is kind of like running an Office 2008 inside of an invisible VMWare image with Windows pre-configured to occupy either 500MB or 1GB or comparable number. I just don't get why Java people are so damn proud of it. Moreover, they find nothing strange about this bizarre arrangement because they're completely absorbed by that JVM instance.

To demonstrate why Java doesn't belong on UNIX I invite you to implement find, grep, less and sort as Java programs, pipe them all together in a bash console and enjoy the show. :-)

In the end, there is nothing with Java that can't be dealt with by paying a few extra $ for hosting. The main issue is that JVM is an OS, a much more corporate, boring, uptight and over-engineered (and much less fun) than UNIX is.

I also want to address some of Tobias42 comments: for the most part I absolutely agree with him, except I don't follow his comparisons to Rails: we are comparing platforms here, not languages or frameworks. JVM is a memory hog compared to UNIX, and if he wants to compare Rails, I'd recommend loading his Rails app into JVM via JRuby/Tomcat and seeing what happens to his 192MB VPS box. Moreover, I wouldn't call 100ms/page (i.e. just 10 requests/second) "lightning fast", which makes his next comment about "Rails taking 10x longer" sound a bit strange: how hard does one need to try to build a web application with 1 request/second performance?

<comment><USER3> > _100ms/page (i.e. just 10 requests/second)_

If a page takes 100ms, that doesn't mean you only have 10 requests/second. With a little care you can have thousands of requests per second, especially on top the JVM.

> _A single 45Kb SVG file, when fully parsed, eats up 150MB right here on my > laptop._

That's not the fault of the JVM, although I do agree that many Java-libraries are memory-hogs.

The only difference between the JVM and CLR/Python/Perl/Ruby is that the JVM doesn't return the used memory to the OS. This means that if the JVM reaches 1 GB of used memory, it will remain there even if the GC kicks. Also, when allocating memory, the JVM has to allocate more memory than it needs because it needs space to degragment the heap. But on the other hand compared to CPython / Ruby MRI / Perl ... the JVM's GC is generational and heap- compacting, making it much more efficient memory-wise for long-running processes ... allocation is cheaper, deallocation is smarter and you won't end-up with a heap that looks like swiss cheese.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _And of course the point is that there is nothing in the nature of the language and tools that forces you to use complex solutions._

While it is definitely true that there is nothing in the nature of Java that forces you to use _the kind of complex solutions often foisted on Java programmers_ , there definitely _is_ something in the nature of Java that leads to needlessly complex code and heavyweight patterns that are not needed at all in more powerful languages.

To me this article just seems like a justification to use Java where none is needed. You can do a startup in any language, and the best one is the one your dev team is most proficient with. Java is the 500-lb gorilla these days and doesn't need any advocacy.

</comment><comment><USER7> "We should all be grateful to the dynamic language communities, that with their repeated successes have shown that the "king is naked" and self- referential practices of formal code quality or blind following of methodologies valid for over-ruled corporations are useless advice in many environments, and that a more socially oriented testing and user interface design is what wins for creating online services. But I believe the development language involved is accidental."

It's possible that English is not the OP's first language, but even with this in mind nothing in this article makes any sense.

<comment><USER8> Actually it makes alot of sense. He's saying that the quality and innovation of what you're building is what is important, not the fact that you're using the newest framework. By using a mature language/environment/community you'll be able to spend more time on your real problem and less on reinventing the wheel.

<comment><USER9> It's a good point. Frameworks like Rails have had a big influence on the Java ecosystem (Spring MVC, Grails, AppFuse), which goes to show you that it's not Java -the language- that would prevent a startup from considering Java, but rather the enterprisey, overengineered Java frameworks that haven't evolved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is quite a well-argued post with decent examples. A point well worth repeating.

Mature language and tools, stable and "fast execution", clean interaction with popular services. Its not sexy but if you are competent enough - it can get the job done and get it done fast.

<comment><USER11> Wasn't it obvious? I mean, this is applicable for almost any language, let it be C++, ASP, TCL or whatever isn't considered trendy anymore but it's proven and stable, and isn't completely unsuited for the task(COBOL, 4GL, RPG...)

Takes at the very least a year to became proficient in any language, and spending that time learning about your tools, that's is a luxury a startup doesn't have. Wasn't it pure common sense?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Isn't this based on the questionable assumption one can be as productive with Java web frameworks as they would be with, say, Rails or Django?

Wouldn't the cost of learning a more productive (assuming the initial supposition is incorrect and that there is a difference of productivity between technologies) framework be diluted in the total lifetime of the product?

If all you have in your toolbox is a blunt axe, wouldn't it make sense to get a sharper one before you attack the forest?

In the end, it all depends on the lifetime of the product. If it's a one iteration release, then go with whatever you already know that solves the problem. If the lifetime of the product tends to infinity, go with the language that expresses the product in the most concise way and manage to learn it well. The vast gray area between these points is where you can place all those fancy languages and frameworks wherever your expertise and product dictate.

</comment><comment><USER13> One common theme I learned when working with Java developers is that there are vast amount of information out there regarding:

* Design Patterns (GoF + newer patterns) * OOAD/OOP * Refactoring * TDD, Agile, and XP * "Reusable", "Generalization", "Framework"

that Java developers read the topics lightly and apply immediately without taking the time to understand them and when to use them. This doesn't happen much in other programming language communities because I rarely see someone writing design pattern tutorial in Perl. I won't be surprised that we will see these issues again in Ruby...

<comment><USER14> well, this generalization is a little out of left field, I suggest you go read Zed Shaw's post about rails is a ghetto <http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/rails_is_a_ghetto.html>

although there are improvements, its still relevant

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> _but this is history, boring, and by now not very interesting_

So it is in the past, boring, and in the past and boring. OK.</comment>


A tool for SMEs to automate e-letter delivery to customers - <AUTHOR> http://responly.com <comment><AUTHOR> I've created a tool that can help small businesses to create dynamic PDF letters and send them as an attachment to multiple recipients.</comment>


Starcraft Class taught at Berkeley - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/208762/starcraft-101-the-art-of-war/

<comment><USER2> More discussion on a much earlier posting of this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=453235></comment>


KISSmetrics' bizarre pricing decision - <AUTHOR> http://jamie.ideasasylum.com/2010/07/kissmetrics-bizarre-pricing/

<comment><USER2> I was in the KISSMetrics beta and will probably pay for it, without complaint. It is a pretty simple decision: am I likely to get 5% or more lift out of them? (Assuming a baseline of somewhere near $3,000 in sales a month.) Answer: yeah, based on my experience with funnel optimization, I think that is likely. I will also continue to recommend them to clients.

I yield to no one in empathizing with cash-strapped startups. However, the broader economy has many companies which do business on the Internet and which have actual money. Not "whine about the difference between $10/mo and $20/mo at their particular size" money, which the CrazyEgg team has probably seen more than I care to speculate. Not even "replace low-paying day job with sales" money. I'm talking "Have (teams of) full-time employees whose only job is to do analytics" money and "Pay $150 a day for the hotel room that their high-priced consultant stays at without batting an eye" money.

It makes a lot of sense, especially for a product which you're going to sell in a high touch fashion, to say "We're going to focus on that sort of customer. Folks who perceive $20 or so of value a month from their funnel optimization are welcome to check out our competitors."

<comment><USER3> I think the point of the guys blog post / rant is not so much the price in general, but that he felt the product targetted at the start-up community. Not that I have taken too much notice but I was under the impression that is where they were targetting it and I wouldn't be surprised if most of their beta testers were from that community and expecting the $10 per month pricing that they are more familiar with.

Personally I would never create a business that targetted other businesses that really have no money, it has never seemed a great business plan, but I would not do a beta marketing of "hey you, try this, you'll love it" to then offer a product they cannot afford.

I'm sure they will have no problems finding customers, but more of a problem finding beta testers for their next product.

<comment><USER4> You realize you're responding to a solo founder of a standalone startup that sells _bingo card creation_ software, right? I have mad respect for Patrick (he's sitting right next to me at the moment), but if you were under the impression that being a Bingo Card Mogul meant Cristal and Rolex watches, uh, no.

How much more credible a testimonial can you get than "I built my business in 5 hours a week, I sell bingo cards to school teachers, and I easily expect to recoup the investment I'm making in KISSmetrics"?

For what it's worth: I sell enterprise software at a price point several orders of magnitude higher than Patrick's, at a company with more employees than most established YC companies, and KISSmetrics isn't worth it for me right now, because I'm simply not prepared to feed it the data it needs or to make the decisions it's expecting me to make.

I don't take it personally that KISSmetrics is pricing me away from paying for it. In fact, I appreciate it; it's preventing me from wasting time.

<comment><USER5> I don't think they can't charge that, nor find customers happily willing to pay it. The issue is that if you're going to break from the norm in your industry (and analytics for startup companies, oh yes, they did) then it would be nice to give people a heads up before reeling them in for a free beta. In this example, the guy actually invested time writing code to integrate with it. There's a learning curve associated with beta testing a product and without giving any indication of price ahead of time, it's a reasonable assumption that it will be ballpark what it's competitors are, not 10X that. This is not a complaint about the price they chose, it's a complaint about spending a great deal of time and money marketing to startups (god, did I see them everywhere) and then flipping to a point where they could not afford them. I do believe that someone who has made his money not off a disruptive product or social media network, but carefully analyzing metrics and conversions (like Patrick) could benefit from it, and perhaps that's who it's for, but that's not how it was marketed. In his case, he clearly feels he can make > $200 a month by using it. But what if it cost $1000 or $1M? The point is you have no idea and they clearly aren't concerned with ballparking where there competitors are. I've always been nervous about signing up for a "free" beta that my business can become dependent on without knowing the price. This just convinces me to continue doing that.

<comment><USER4> I actually don't have a lot of opinions about funnel tracking, so I'll keep this simple and limit it to what I do have an opinion about:

If $200/mo is a lot of money to you, you either shouldn't be spending a lot of time on funnel tracking, or you don't have a business. $200/mo is below the noise floor in company with just four people at ramen wages in the Bay Area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cindy here - if you were a beta user or ever asked a KISSmetrics question, you probably talked to me.

We at KISSmetrics did not come to our pricing decision lightly. After over 6 months in beta, we looked at the data and identified our happiest, most engaged customers - the people who were asking questions, making suggestions, and generally getting the most value out of the product, and priced it in accordance with the amount of value they were getting.

We did have some very dedicated early-stage startup customers in our beta, and we have worked with them to make sure they can continue to use us. (It's amazing what asking nicely will get you!) We will be publicly announcing startup programs in the future, but we wanted to focus on our existing beta customers first - the product wouldn't be here without them.

(We also have no problem with it if several startups want to split a KISSmetrics account - 1MM events could easily support a dozen early-stage startups.)

Feel free to email, ask questions, rant - calvarez at kissmetrics.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply Cindy (yeah, I think we corresponded once or twice). I'm relieved to hear this decision was based on some hard data and I can see how the pricing model might be good for KISSmetrics. Obviously, it's not quite so good for me and the rant really came out of my surprise about the pricing.

I think some sort of "startup" plan would not only be good for a sizable- percentage of your beta testers but also good for KISSmetrics. After all, if a company isn't profitable enough to justify $149/month on analytics but wants to improve their conversion ratios (and hence profits) they will likely go to, and stay with, a competitor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's something that I don't get.

Is funnel analysis even suitable for a monthly subscription service? Unless you're mucking around with your checkout funnel constantly (why?) this seems more like the kind of tool that I'd use once. Or at least very, very infrequently.

Discover what's wrong, fix it, _the end_.

The weird thing is, psychologically I would have no problem paying a couple of hundred bucks for a one-off experiment if it shows me results that I can make clear decisions from. But I balk at the idea of subscribing for $XXX per month to do experiments over and over.

Perhaps KISSMetrics needs a one-time experiment pricing option?

<comment><USER8> Funnels are never done because a) the market changes as you become more popular, have new competitors, the economy tanks, etc and b) there's no _perfect_ funnel - you might see diminishing returns but you never know what will make a big difference.

<comment><USER9> Good point but over a long term, markets simply aren't that volatile.

@fookyong's comment contains a lot of truth. If using Kissmetrics on a "Kissmetrics-optimized" site generates diminishing returns, surely that is a cause for concern. The original author's change rapidly enough to suggest that your experiments will yield increases in ROI

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> OP says you need to make a new decision worth $200 every month for KISSmetrics to be worthwile.

This isn't true, it suffices to at one point make a single decision that on average will make you $200 per month for the tool to have paid itself for ever thereafter. Or more likely, keep generating revenue. For many businesses (like retailers) this could entail improving the funnel by just a few conversions per month.

If you don't have a business with the potential to improve cashflow (or other business value) by $200+ per month from analytics, of course you're not within their target group.

The lesson KISSmetrics obviously have learned and are appliying is that if you are bootstrapping your company or project, you must identify and be brave enough to stay within a very specific customer demographic in order to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER11> I recently met Neil at a conference in SC, and I've known and done prototyping work for Hiten for a little over a year. I was also one of the original alpha testers for this product.

I am 100% confident the pricing decision was founded in hard data and experience. One of their other products, CrazyEgg, aimed for and delivered incredibly heavy functionality. However, it resulted in disproportionate load on their people and infrastructure - and it's obvious they've learned their lesson.

People will pay these prices. More to the point, the people who are very serious about this sort of funnel honing will pay these prices.

Also, if you're bootstrapping... bootstrap. Hack together something to track your highest priority funnel. Don't harsh on a product so obviously unintended for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can see the support point of view: reduce the number of customers = reduced support burden. But a "Starter" plan could come with lower (or no) support commitments. There could also be disproportionately less events (i.e., $10 for 20k events vs $149 for 1m)

"a product so obviously unintended for you" I guess this is the part which _really_ annoyed me: until the pricing was announced, KISSmetrics was _exactly_ what I needed and there was _no_ indication that it wasn't being targeted at me (or any other small business). Most of the buzz I've read, and recommendations I've seen, were from other small businesses so I don't think I was alone in being surprised by their positioning.

<comment><USER2> _But a "Starter" plan could come with lower (or no) support commitments._

I wrote a piece of OSS A/B testing software, which is rather similar to funnel analysis in application, what type of businesses it appeals to, and who will likely be implementing it. My software is used in some small places and some big places. It has _not_ been my experience that big places tend to take up more of my time than small places.

Integration is hard. Educating users is hard. ("You seem to be under the impression that A/B testing software includes genetic algorithms to write copy for you. This is not in scope for this project, but you're welcome to patch it in...") These don't get less hard just because you're firing the API less than Employee #4602 at BigCorp. (If the user can do 100 API accesses without incident they can probably do a hundred million. Scaling is just a matter of getting the architecture right, and you don't have to redo that on a per-user basis.) Also, BigCorp has internal engineering resources that they will likely fall back on prior to emailing you, where one-man shops might be more inclined to mail you first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you look at one of their main competitors (MixPanel), the prices they decided are actually half.

Here is the MixPanel page for comparison: <http://mixpanel.com/pricing/>

And here is KissMetrics: <https://www.kissmetrics.com/signup>

Moreover, with service such as KISSMetrics the support load will be quite high (since there will be all kinds of integration issues, why don't numbers match with GA, etc). Anything below $100 does not make a lot of sense because even with just 2 hours of support per month (which I think is reasonable for such a service), they will probably not be able to make a profit (assuming $50/hour consulting).

Ask me about the support load, I run a service in a complementary (a/b testing) industry :)

<comment><USER13> This is true however we offer much more then just funnel analysis =)

We also do offer a "free" type plan: <http://mixpanel.com/free>

<comment><USER12> Yes, I realize the comparison is not a spot-on head-to-head comparison but you wouldn't disagree that Mixpanel's main feature is funnel analysis :) To be fair, many people _will_ compare Mixpanel with KISSMetrics (or it at least how I see the services).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The startup market is a relatively small market, the market for corporate websites, retailers, etc. is much bigger and for that audience the pricing seems perfectly viable.

<comment><AUTHOR> But it seems strange that they are completely ignoring the small business market altogether. I'm pretty sure it would be easier to sell 15x$10 subscriptions rather than 1 $149 subscription, which is probably going to involve at least a phone call if not a face-to-face meeting.

<comment><USER15> There is SMALL business and NEW business.

SMALL (web-centric) businesses might have a staff of 5 and a $50,000 or more in monthly obligations (payroll, rent, etc).

NEW businesses have no payroll and hope someday to make meaningful revenue with a web site. 90%+ of them will die.

It's not oozing with charity, but I don't blame them for punting the new business sector, even though it might earn some wrath from neophytes on Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Uh, have you seen how much big companies are paying for "enterprise" analytics?

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a feeling this is one of Neil Patel's marketing ploys to create buzz for KISSmetrics.

</comment><comment><USER18> Honestly I don't think they're putting themselves out of the reaches of a startup. It's more than possible to justify the cost if the service is going to be genuinely valuable.

The problem is that the 30 day free trial probably isn't enough time to evaluate it, and the people who are being left out are the hobbyists who like to blog about all the cool things they've managed to do with stuff.

An ecosystem of hobbyists is useful for me when evaluating products, it's a shame KISSMetrics is going to miss out on this. A free account for under 100k events and a noncommercial license would be far more useful than a 30 day trial.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hey Jamie...great to see you pulled the trigger! Great call. I'm really disappointed in KISSmetrics too, as they seemed really smart and clued-in. Shame indeed.

</comment><comment><USER20> Am I missing something? Just went to <https://www.kissinsights.com/plans> and they list:

Premium - $29/month - 1k responses/month

Unlimited - $25/month billed annually - no limit of responses

Or has the OP gotten news/information of an upcoming price change?

<comment><USER21> Those prices were for KISSmetrics while you are looking at KISSinsights.

<comment><USER20> Ah, thanks for that. (I had just followed the OP's link, and hadn't known the distinction between metrics/insights.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems really bizarre to me. What do they offer that, in your experience, is so much better than google analytics?

<comment><USER2> Retrospective, arbitrary construction of funnels. If you need it and you know you need it, their implementation is jawdropping.

If you are tracking a single funnel which doesn't change much, that probably isn't that spiffy for you. For example, you configure Opens Trial Page, Trial Signup, Opens Plan Page, Signs Up For Plan as a funnel once and you're done.

However, if you're doing more sophisticated things, it can be a lifesaver to not have to tell the engineering team "Yo, we're reconceptualizing our funnels: you guys now have to do annoying modifications all over the site." Lets say you have a Facebook game with a Valentine's Day promotion and you want to see whether people who sent their bonnie lass a cow to show their affection are better or worse customers two months later. No problem, with a few clicks on the interface you can whip up a funnel that tracks purchasing the pink cow as a stage and then watch conversions after that. You don't have to tell engineering about it, since they already fired the "bought a pink cow" event. You don't have to wait a few weeks after the experiment to collect data (most funnel analysis software I've used requires a do-over any time you create a new funnel or alter an existing one except by concatenation) -- you have the data, you're just slicing it a new way.

The notion of preventing a turf war between the analytics side and the engineering side is really popular with some companies. They also typically have lots and lots of money to spend.

<comment><USER12> They also claim to track people, not so called visitors (via cookies). In fact, I was reading that if a person visits your page from home and then from office (from completely different browsers), they still count him as 1 visitor.

Sounds a really exciting claim. Wish they prove/demonstrate it to be true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> At those prices, I'll just continue to use use Google Analytics' convoluted goals/funnels.

</comment><comment><USER24> 30 day free trial, whats the big deal?

edit: people don't like free trials?</comment>


Scooter startup snubs SF's poorest neighborhood despite promising access - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-08-14/san-francisco-scoot-tenderloin-bird <comment><USER2> Traditionally we have required such guaranteed access if and only if the business was designated as a public utility. Scooters are not there yet.</comment>