Kessler Syndrome - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome <comment><USER2> If a satellite is in a very low orbit then any debris fall to earth quickly. Almost all cubesats have a orbital life of six to five years. The space station, in a normal low earth orbit, would hit the earth in around three years without reboosts.

The higher you go, the more absolute volume there is, the slower the satellites there travel and the fewer satellites there are.

So that leaves a band of mid-upper LEO satellites to consider for Kessler Syndrome.

When you have a collision between satellites, the velocity on average of each fragment is less than it was before, making the fragments decay faster. The fragments after each collision are smaller than they were before as well, thus having more air and solar resistance, which also makes them decay faster.

The Chinese FY-1C satellite that was blown up was the absolute worst case for a satellite explosion. It was located on the high side of LEO with a decay time measured in human generations, and it was in a super crowded sun- following orbit altitude, sharing space with lots of weather and earth observation satellites. The explosion generated 150,000 debris fragments.

In the ten years since, most of those fragments have reentered. We now have 2,000 golfball sized or bigger fragments being tracked, and over the past ten years, the only casualty has been a small, ten pound reflector satellite. Small debris pieces fall, and big pieces can be tracked and avoided.

If every satellite we have put into space magically exploded, and the debris was magically moved to a high LEO altitude and evenly distributed to avoid any holes, then we could still launch through this orbit of death to higher altitudes with only a 1 in 1000 probability of impact.

Space regulation has gotten much tougher since the bad old days. Satellites are now required to have deorbit or safeing plans, and the median satellites size has gone down by a couple orders of magnitude.

Kessler syndrome isn't something that keeps me up at night.

<comment><USER3> I see so many people around the Internet who smugly explain to their comments section of choice what Kessler Syndrome is, and link the Wikipedia page for it, and almost none of them actually know what they're talking about.

Whenever I bring up the density of debris in a given orbit, or the drag characteristics of the debris, they get mad. Everyone should read your comment and realize that it's possible to know a lot more about this than the Wikipedia article tells you, and accept that they are not a special enlightened environmentalist.

Kessler Syndrome is not a serious risk for Earth. It would be expensive and difficult to cause a long-lasting debris field that made space launches impossible _on purpose_. And we're trying to avoid it. Every organization with access to space is taking steps to mitigate space junk, including CNSA.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_\(2013_film\)) doesn't help matters, though I did enjoy watching it overall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a pretty great manga series (and an anime adaptation, though it's not as good) called 'Planetes', that takes a pretty heavy focus on Kessler Syndrome and humanity's attempts to grapple with it in the near-future. Worth a read, if anyone's interested.

<comment><USER6> Didn't read the manga but the anime was pretty good.

<comment><USER5> Honestly, I preferred the manga to the anime. Not to say that the latter is bad, by any stretch of the imagination, but it did get a bit wild and off-the- rails with it's final arc. The manga keeps things very grounded and existential. Anyone who's ever worked a shitty job for menial pay with no chance of advancement/further prospects will find something to relate to.

<comment><USER7> Also, nicotine withdrawal ("nic-fits") are severe enough to turn even the most jaded working stiffs into a hero!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's no incentive to me to make my satellite safely de-orbit before it gets broken into pieces. So why would I bother? That's expensive.

But like all 'easy to litter, hard to clean up' problems of this nature, we have a solution already: require a cleanup deposit ahead of time that will be returned to whoever cleans it up.

All space-launching countries should sign an accord that said something along the lines of "Every satellite must have a deposit to the international Kessler Fund", say something like $X/kg, inflation adjusted. Companies would spring up with the sole purpose of de-orbiting defunct satellites. Launch would become more expensive, yes, but soon every bit of metal in space would come equipped with a plan for how we're getting it out of orbit.

<comment><USER9> This would work, but only if it allowed satellites to be exempted if they had a credible plan for deoribiting (which the vast majority of satellites launched today do, BTW). In that case, no one would actually pay the deposit, since it would cost several orders of magnitude more to go "get" a satellite (as opposed to just ensuring enough delta-V left over at the end of the mission to deorbit)

<comment><USER10> Presumably, with OP's plan, when you deorbit your own satellite you get your deposit back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Kessler syndrome is why it was so irresponsible of the Chinese to blow up a satellite just to prove that they could.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test)

<comment><USER12> And irresponsible of the USA to send needles to space

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

<comment><USER13> A valid example, but not quite a fair comparison. One of those happened in 2007 and the other happened more than 15 years before the idea of "Kessler syndrome" was even proposed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The weird thing about Kessler syndrome is that people use it as an argument not to launch sattelites.

So it's kind of like we're getting the effects of Kessler syndrome by trying to prevent it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Satellites are a pretty big deal connercially. Maybe something like this would just jumpstart one of our wildly productive bouts of human ingenuity?

Getting to the moon was kind of an insane idea until it happened. To someone wholly uninformed, this feels like it could be similar.

<comment><USER16> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.Deorbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.Deorbit): _"e.Deorbit is a planned European Space Agency active space debris removal mission developed as a part of their Clean Space initiative"_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RemoveDEBRIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RemoveDEBRIS): _"RemoveDEBRIS is a satellite research project intending to demonstrate various space debris removal technologies.

[…]

RemoveDEBRIS was launched aboard the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft on 2 April 2018

[…]

On 16 September 2018, it demonstrated its ability to use net to capture a deployed simulated target."_

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Orbital Debris Quarterly:

[https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly- news/newsletter...](https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly- news/newsletter.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Humanity's always had a problem with it's trash.

Something I suppose we assume "space people" can deal with.

My suggestion: a space catapult (using a spring, not a weight).

</comment><comment><USER19> Previously, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16271434](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16271434) (9 months ago, 51 comments).

</comment><comment><USER14> One mitigating factor is that Objects in LEO would Deorbit pretty fast. Usually in a matter of years. In higher orbits there's a lot more space so it's not quite as bad.

Food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER20> I read about this first when I saw the movie "Gravity". I think if it really becomes that bad, given enough resources mankind can solve it.

<comment><USER21> It's a really hard problem. It costs over $100m to build and launch a spacecraft. Then the spacecraft has to catch up to the piece of junk, then do something to deal with the junk. We don't know what exactly it would do to deal with the junk.

Then the spacecraft would have to catch up to another piece of junk. That's hard because it's expensive in terms of fuel to change orbit. Thus the spacecraft would only be able to deal with a very limited number of pieces of junk before it ran out of fuel and became junk itself.

So, it would cost $millions per piece of junk. With hundreds of thousands now and millions in a Kessler scenarios it would be fiendishly expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Oh wow, is that where the term "Kessler Run" comes from in Star Wars?

If I recall, the Kessler run involved having to go through an asteroid field in the recent Solo movie.

For fans, you may recall that in the original Star Wars Han says: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?…It's the ship that made the Kessler Run in less than twelve parsecs."

This got ridiculed because parsec is a unit of distance not time, but in the new movie they show that the run can be made longer or shorter.

<comment><USER23> Nah, that was called the Kessel run, and the parsec thing was an actual mistake that they retconned in Solo.

<comment><USER22> Oh, Kessel run!

I know they retconned it. Now they need to retcon the name so that it is really Kessl run, short for Kessler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So climate change is about to be solved.

</comment><comment> user-x Reminds me of Harry Potter in the Lestrange vault.

</comment><comment><USER25> this is the point where we need to develop shields

<comment><USER26> We have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield)

<comment><USER25> I meant energy shields

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess we better get some people off this rock before earth orbit becomes unnavigable.

<comment><USER28> That's not on the table. You can clear LEO in minutes where satilites need clear orbits over years to be useful.

Further, atmospheric drag keeps some orbits clear even in the worst case. The problem is you then need to constantly burn some fuel to maintain orbit.</comment></comment>


The Art of Electronics: The X Chapters - <AUTHOR> https://www.cambridge.org/sg/academic/subjects/physics/electronics-physicists/art-electronics-x-chapters <comment><USER2> I wish The Art of Electronics 3rd Ed was available in ePub format. I have the dead-trees version, but an electronic one would be so much more convenient.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks neat, but no table of contents is available.

<comment><USER4> Did you even look?

Table of Contents

Preface 1\. Real-world passive components 2\. Advanced BJT topics 3\. Advanced FET topics 4\. Advanced topics in operational amplifiers 5\. Advanced topics in power control Subject index

<comment><USER5> Where on the page did you find that? I looked but didn't see it.

<comment><AUTHOR> There should be an on-screen tab with the words "Contents" on it. Tap / click on it to show the TOC.

<comment><USER5> Seems to be true on the desktop but not mobile.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah I see.

For mobile, there is a tab called "Contents" with a 'down' arrow on the right. Tap on the down arrow to reveal a drop down list which contains "Contents". Tap on "Contents" to show the Table on Contents.

I presume this is a UI layout issue for mobile.

<comment><USER5> Found it. That's a pretty not great UX.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Postgres data types you should consider using - <AUTHOR> https://www.citusdata.com/blog/2018/08/29/datatypes-you-should-consider-using/ <comment><USER3> Another cool thing about Postgres is each table and view you make becomes a type.

Suppose you have a table of fruits:

      create table fruits (
          name text primary key,
          color text references colors,
          season text references seasons
      );

(There are other tables at play, colors and seasons). Anyway, now if you make a function to find you some fruits in season:

      create function get_fruits_in_season(season text)
      returns fruits as
      'select * from fruits where season = $1'
      language sql;

Do you see that I just made a function whose return type is "fruits"? In this example, it's a bit overkill, because all you would really probably want is the name, and so would return "text." But it has been useful for me in real- life examples that are too complicated right now for me to spell out.

Documentation: [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql- createfun...](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql- createfunction.html)

<comment><USER4> Great tip, minor point, did you mean 'returns setof fruits'? Otherwise your function will only return one row. Opinions vary but i think its another good argument for singular named tables as well: 'returns fruit' and 'returns setof fruit' reads better to my eyes.

<comment><USER5> Just to emphasize the parent's point about singular vs plural, there are a lot of reasons to go with singular:

* Singular is much friendlier to find/replace, due to the inconsistency of pluralization.

* A good practice is to name association tables by concatenation of the tables being associated (when the association doesn't correspond to a previously named entity). teacher_class is a much better name than teachers_classes, and definitely avoid teacher_classes.

* As you move up the stack, structs, interfaces and classes have strong singular conventions. If you spend much time at higher levels, the habits you develop can lead to little bugs when working deeper in the stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A nifty thing we use in our current project is the ltree extension[1]. It allows representing hierarchical relations and making hierarchical queries in a regular flat table structure.

[1] [https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ltree.html](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/ltree.html)

<comment><USER7> Love LTREE! Used it for domain label hierarchies (multiple roots - <USER2> "ontology") for a data science team to be able to train many different models with shared/overlapping label sets (an ensemble of models for various domains). It makes queries to get training data powerful since you can ask for "all descendants of X" or "ancestors of Y where Z".

</comment></comment><comment> ainar-g The reason I don't use SQL enums is that I often can't tell exactly, how many and what values there will be when designing the database schema. Over a period of a few months an "enum" can grow from three to a dozen values, and writing an SQL migration each time is kind of a PITA, to say nothing about merge conflicts. In comparison, writing a validation on the application side is easy.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> I have long wanted to use an enum but never have, despite using Postgres for more than a decade.

       > In comparison, writing a validation on the application side is easy

But then you went there. I was going to say, instead of enums I always end up just make a table of the choices, because invariably I will want to store one or more columns of information about the choice. Anyway, a foreign key, as opposed to an enum.

Writing validation on the application side is easy up front, but over the years I have been moving more and more smarts to the database:

\- it's often less typing in SQL than your procedural language of choice

\- some constraints are easy in a database but 1,000 times harder in a procedural middle layer (uniqueness, ACID transactions, etc.)

\- it's more efficient, because it saves the transit of data that your application-layer validation often needs from the database to do its own thing anyway

<comment><USER8> I think you forgot one of the more important points against application-side validation: any future applications would have to also implement the validation or your data potentially corrupts. Applications that also include possible meatbags hand-modifying values for some "special" scenario (CEO order, emergency situation, etc)

The DB is a gigantic bag of data: if its got anything useful in it, then _everyone_ will eventually want to put their grubby little hands all over it

<comment><USER9> In my experience, the key tenet for good database architecture is to assume that _someone else_ is going to write a program, without your input, that's going to shove data into your DB's tables, without the involvement of your application layer. If the data that ends up in the database is wrong in such cases, then _your application_ will be left holding the bag when it sees that data.

Much better to just tell your DBMS the rules you want enforced, such that when that ne'er-do-well (which might be, say, future you) attempts to insert crazy data, it just doesn't work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> No mention of citext :\

[https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/citext.html](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/citext.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> For those (like me) who are wary of enums, it's very simple to create a tiny table with one column of distinct string values. Future-proof and serves the same function if you add not-null foreign key constraints to your dependent tables.

<comment><USER12> I may be mistaken, but I believe under the hood Postgres enums work in a very similar way to this, only the strings are interred instead of duplicated across your tables.

<comment><USER11> Yes, that's true. I'm paying the small duplication cost in exchange for removing enums' cumbersome limitations. Not saying I _never_ use them, but I usually end up regretting it when I do :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Personally, I'm on the fence with enum types... I've just seen too many times when someone thought an enumeration was final and then later it had to be modified or we needed alternative ways to reference it other than a plain string conversion.

<comment> fake-name Uh..... `ALTER TYPE enum ADD VALUE 'new_value';`?

The only potentially problematic thing is the fact that it's not transactional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> HyperLogLog, also by citusdata (no affiliation), is a great data type for statistically approximating counts of distinct values very quickly within an adjustable range of error:

[https://github.com/citusdata/postgresql- hll](https://github.com/citusdata/postgresql-hll)

This has been a great secret weapon for me in a few big counting problems.

</comment><comment><USER14> Ranges are interesting. I had an app once that dealt with biodiesel. Each gallon of biodiesel needs a serial number. I cannot remember all the rules, but you assign the numbers sequentially at the origin. So, a 10,000 gallon truck would have XXXXX00001 - XXXXX10000. When you offloaded into a bigger container it would have those numbers plus any ranges already in the tank. Loading would entail picking an amount from the ranges, reducing the range in the tank, and assigning it to the truck. We had routines for all this including consolidating ranges (two trucks dumping into a tank with sequential ranges would create a big range) or subtracting from ranges. A truck could end up with a collection of ranges. It was all arbitrary in a way and weird. I really hope they do it differently now.

I wonder how hard it would be to write that in PostgreSQL these days using the range types?</comment>


Influencers Are Abandoning the Instagram Look - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/04/influencers-are-abandoning-instagram-look/587803/ <comment><USER2> > In fact, many teens are going out of their way to make their photos look > worse. Huji Cam, which make your images look as if they were taken with an > old-school throwaway camera, has been downloaded more than 16 million times. > "Adding grain to your photos is a big thing now," says Sonia Uppal, a > 20-year-old college student. "People are trying to seem candid. People post > a lot of mirror selfies and photos of them lounging around."

What I find interesting is that "making your photos look worse" isn't new at all: it's the foundation of the "vintage" vibe that filters have been emulating since the beginning. So what's actually new here is the _kind_ of imperfections being introduced.

It makes sense: as media capture reaches maximum fidelity, creative expression increasingly involves the purposeful choice of infidelities. Imperfection has always had a place in art, but usually it involves failing to avoid a natural mistake; for modern digital media, on the other hand, it's about subtracting from perfection rather than failing to reach it.

EDIT: Thinking about this further, it's possible that I'm focusing on the wrong thing... perhaps the dominating factor is nostalgia, which just happens to involve "imperfections" in this case because the target of the nostalgia is a medium (photography) which has been undergoing an improvement in fidelity. For all I know, perhaps one day the dominating aesthetic will be driven by nostalgia for "boring" filter-free high-fidelity images!

<comment><USER3> > It makes sense: as media capture reaches maximum fidelity, creative > expression increasingly involves the purposeful choice of infidelities.

This reflects what occurred in European art from the 1850s through the turn of the century: paintings becoming less "pixel perfect" as Realism [1] gave way first to Impressionism [2] and then to Expressionism [3].

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(arts)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_\(arts\))

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

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

<comment><USER4> I take a slight issue with initial description of Realism in the wiki article. Realism was much more grounded in depicting real life, real people, instead of kings and wars and Jesus etc. It was much more of a socio political statement than just "painting things as life like as possible".

The paintings were still very staged and stylized. (I have an MA in Art History which really helps centering Div's with CSS)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So the over-edited atheistic is over, but the fake candid atheistic is in? But the true content stays the same - more beautiful people trying to convince others they need to buy products to become that beautiful. I've used ig since the beginning and it's only getting younger, thinner and more on the nose. A lot of my friends have serious body images because of who they follow (even their own friend circles have a weird competitiveness about it).

<comment><USER6> Yeah, two out of five "authentic" pictures showcased have almost the same weird leg-up pose that _definitely_ didn't happen by accident.

But I guess authentic is always appreciated, but not something you have free access to if posing for pictures is your job.

<comment><USER7> Not that I want to encourage the sort of behavior described in the article, but the leg-up bit may just be a case of convergent evolution. The ladies pictures are trying to show off their shoes, which doesn't work well without a leg up if you're taking a selfie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a bona fide by birth member of this generation and I feel lightyears out of touch with it. Or maybe the way it's described in so much reporting so often just results in an eye roll of complete jaded disinterest and mild cynicism.

Makes me ponder sometimes if the phenomenon happens across other generations or if the ever present nature of having everyone's "stuff" so accessible online merely amplifies this sense of generational malaise.

<comment><USER9> That's pretty typical, because the "generational" stereotypes are nearly entirely nonsense. What percentage of "Generation X" actually went around wearing flannel and rolling their eyes all day? How many Boomers actually wore tie dye every day, smoked pot, and lived in free love communes?

Generational characterizations exist solely to sell books, write silly columns, and make older people feel justified when they dismiss and disrespect the younger people.

<comment><USER10> It's an American thing. Many countries don't have such named generations and corresponding stereotypes. I'm Hungarian and we do have "old people" stereotypes but no named list of generations.

When I hear this Gen X etc stuff from the US, it feels a bit like horoscopes...

<comment><USER11> For the recent generations, with some limited exceptions, it pretty much is.

The early named ones were based around major social/economic issues that influenced them as they grew up - WWI, Great Depression, WWII - and then Baby Boomers created a sort of wave pattern in the population that made for easy groupings into the future.

That wave pattern has since become much flatter, if not disappeared completely, but the idea is pretty appealing so it persists. You will occasionally see it start to break down though, for example with "Millennial" being split into young and old.

<comment><USER12> But then it would be surprising if the emergence of a new medium for everyday social interaction doesn't count as "major social/economic issue" that creates just such a wave.

So yes, I'd expect the "millenials" to be different. I agree with you though that "Gen X" etc. are just a smooth and unremarkable cultural evolution from what began with "Boomer" parents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article feels like an advertisement for Emma Chamberlain.

This whole "influencer" IG culture is like fast food - no content or substance. It does seem like we may be hitting some kind of peak as people realize that devoting one's time to following random strangers' vain photos on the internet doesn't actually increase one's well-being.

<comment><USER14> It's not just the "influencers". It's the entire media system. 99.99% of traditional media and social media are just fillers with no substance or value.

And we are nowhere close to peak. Look at the hysteria developing on traditional media and social media for the pending "royal" birth.

But then again, who am I to judge. I'm on a social media complaining about social media.

<comment><USER15> > 99.99% of traditional media and social media are just fillers with no > substance or value.

I absolutely and completely disagree with you here. 99.99% media is filler? Just look over the things you read through out the day and tell me it doesn't have more substance than a picture of a girl in an obscure outfit captioned "it's cold outside today".

Today I read about game of thrones theories about newest episode, read news about a terrorist being stopped in France, upcoming events in my town, checking what people selling on facebook market and what's the current employment state in crypto world etc. etc. I can actually explain substance and value in all of these posts. Can you explain value in the instagram post? Other than some questionable social-well-being-acceptance pseudo-science?

To claim that 99.99% of all media and social media is like the absolutely absurd instagram influencer posts is just completely and utterly silly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article has cherry picked these photos, if you look at Emma Chamberlain's instagram for instance you will see many 'typical' instagram photos that you would see on a girl with millions of followers - it's just that they are occasionally interspersed by a silly photo of two.

[https://www.instagram.com/_emmachamberlain](https://www.instagram.com/_emmachamberlain)

There's nothing wrong with that this of course, I have no problem with people posting whatever they want. I just think the article is overstating the shift in content.

<comment><USER17> Yep - just took a look and there is a lot of stuff there that is clearly staged and not at all "candid". Like she is sitting on a basket ball net 10ft in the air in perfect lighting from 3 separate angles, followed by another post of her and someone else wearing matching outfits and doing that vapid mouth-slightly-open distant-stare pose (again from multiple angles).

So candid. #nofilter.

It's fine - I've not got a problem with someone wanting to have their photo taken. But trying to pass that off as anything different than what has gone before seems disengenius. Sure, perhaps the _style_ of photos have changed, but then styles and fashions have always changed in everything from clothes and houses through to pets and holidays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So the same cycles of fashion and pop culture continue as they always have. What used to be shiny, colorful and crisp should now be dull, muted and soft. What used to be big should now be small, what used to be soft should now be hard, what used to be refined should now be raw, etc., etc. ad nauseam.

One thing we can be sure of, it will be back (before going away again only to return)

</comment><comment><USER19> Better would be to say: "the Instagram aesthetics is changing"

<comment><USER20> Are _

<comment><USER21> aesthetics | iːsˈθɛtɪks, ɛsˈθɛtɪks | (US also esthetics)

plural noun [usually treated as singular]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Spending your days to appeal for likes on an imagination-based platform seems a little excessive. A great example of how a platform could be used for something great, but isn't.

<comment><USER23> The best use I've found for it is figuring out which of the people I know are fake, shallow and attention starved... and then avoiding those people.

<comment><USER24> Cat memes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > She says wall photos had become boring to her audience anyway, who are more > interested in entertaining Instagram Stories than flat photos.

So it seems like the goofy Snapchat posts have taken over Instagram walls organically after Stories was introduced. Bad for Snap I guess.

To elaborate, Snapchat was all about My Stories, with no way to add still pictures to a wall. Now, look at Balenciaga's Instagram profile, which could as well be snapshots taken mid-Snaps.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is the most non-story story I've ever read. Instagram has nearly a billion users. So there's a segment of those users that seems to like a certain aesthetic. Great. There are millions of other users who have other aesthetic preferences.

</comment><comment><USER27> Annoying how the article is illustrated with different Instagrammers than those cited in the article.

This Instagram thing operates at different levels, I live near a popular photography spot for selfies due to the awesome view. That isn't going to ever become unpopular. However, 5 - 10 years ago you wouldn't have had people doing selfies there with the posing that goes with it. People would have once taken a picture of the view, not a picture of themselves that just so happens to have the view in the back. This is what has changed with Instagram and social media. What was people's outlet for this casual narcissism before?

<comment><USER28> If you're uploading more landscapes than selfies I'm going to unfollow you. Few people on instagram understand themselves as photographers or visual artists and so the most interesting subject naturally is themselves since they have priority access to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That's just another iteration of the pendulum between candid/staged photography. It's basically been going on since the beginning of photography, but the author seems oblivious to that?

<comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism)

<comment><USER30> Interesting, I just realized that I am emulating 1860s pictorialism, instead of 1860s limitations in technology for vintage photos.

That's hella meta. But I can also accept being a pictorialist, as much as an impressionist isn't just emulating a vintage style but is subscribing to an entire genre.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's definitely a niche waiting to be filled by AI-generated Instagram influencers. #thisinfluencerdoesnotexist

<comment><USER32> It's already happening: [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/automat...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/automated- instagram-influencer-bot-free-meals)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This article, its protagonists and the whole influencer-industrial complex is the height of vacuity.

</comment><comment><USER34> In the right mindset, this article reads like excellent satire.

<comment><USER35> Nathan Barley.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I started on Instagram back in 2012 doing the daily photo competition with my DSLR. I lost interest after a while. Reading this article, I cannot believe the platform has turned into that.

<comment><USER37> It really hasn't, it's just one corner of it. Binned away by hashtags. The photography community is still absolutely massive. Memes are probably the biggest sector by %. Personally I only follow people I know and nat geo, so I only see these when I accidentally slip my thumb and tap one in the search page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> They are trying to be authenthic and natural, because the "Instagram influencer" became a cultural trope thats too easily recognized(a polished walking ad): they are pretending to be indie, quirky and non-mainstream - capturing the DiY aesthethic to use as prop to establish their "common man" persona.

</comment><comment><USER39> Seems to me its mostly a case of kids being kids. How many 15 year olds are going to have "hauled DSLR cameras to the beach and mastered photo editing to get the perfect shot."

There's the usual counter culture vibe of trying to be different but if you tried for a bad pose with a bad filter that's not any different than trying for what was a "good" photo 5 years ago.

tl;dr 80s pop is out. Its all about 90s grunge.

</comment><comment><USER40> It is expected to see changes in fashion over time. Pinterest isn't going to die because peoples' tastes change, and neither is Instagram.

I also expect to see changes in social network. It's unlikely that Instagram will be on top in 10 years, although it could definitely be another app/network/format owned by Facebook.

Anectodally, I've only used Instagram to promote my art and to network as a hobby with other people who like photos of desolate abandoned-looking buildings. The usage of people in my network is unlikely to change based on popular tastes.

</comment><comment><USER41> Trends are cyclical. Something is cool until everyone else does it. Then, kids are rocking Steely Dan again and dressing like extras from Seinfeld. What's interesting here is how the physical world has been changed by the digital world. You can't just stick that instagramable bathroom in the back of the closet like it's a paisley tie.

But I have to agree with the comment that this feels like an ad for Emma Chamberlain, who doesn't exactly need it, because every other post in my feed is from an Emma fan account.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm confused... Huji Cam looks like a rehash of the filters that have been available in IG for it's entire existence. And hasn't the "faux-fi" thing been super hip for like... over a decade now? Granted, hyper-staged photos have also been pretty popular over the last few years but I never thought the "new" style outlined in the article really went out of style.

</comment><comment><USER43> Maybe I am missing something, but what is an "influencer" really? Last I remember these were called advertisers.

</comment><comment><USER44> Marketing that pose as authentic is in fashion (I mean this in a Out of Topic way, no relationship with Instagram). In my segment "technical" arguments that present easy-to-believe falsehoods win customers.

</comment><comment><USER45> To be honest, I can't really tell much of a difference between the examples they list in the article vs. the usual influencer.

</comment><comment><USER46> Trends come and go, and here it is

</comment><comment><USER47> I just noticed this when looking at my tabs:

The article title is "The Instagram Aesthetic Is Over".

The document's title is "Influencers Are Abandoning the Instagram Look" (`document.title`).

The document title seems more informative.

<comment><USER48> Ok, changed.

<comment><USER47> Ah, thanks. I was mainly pondering why there is a difference.

<comment><USER48> HTML doc titles are often more accurate and neutral than the visible title on a page, so this swap is something we do often. Why is that? I'm not sure. Since it's mostly the big media properties that do this, it's possible the two are written by different people with different goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> So, basically, whatever Balenciaga has been doing for quite a while now started to catch on. Who would've thought

</comment><comment><USER50> What a load of crap. Someone had nothing better to write than a counter argument to a non-argument.

Instagram is a good product and it's gotten to where it is now being a good and clever design as is. Making changes for the sake of being hip is what would send it to oblivion, like many competitors have done and fell.

<comment><USER51> Since you're just getting downvoted -- the article is arguing that the aesthetic of Instagram photos is changing from manicured tableaux to candids (albeit, it seems, pretty staged candids), not that the platform itself is changing.

<comment><USER50> ok, thank you for that, I admit I rolled eyes and skimmed that one.</comment></comment></comment>


Realistic 3D Foosball Game for the PC - <AUTHOR> http://foosballmaniac.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I have submitted this because this is the result of my latest project. Any opinions are much appreciated.</comment>


Report: Click fraud at record high (17.1% of all clicks) - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/27/report-click-fraud-at-record-high/

<comment><USER2> Wasn't there a YC startup ClickFacts that was tackling this problem? Anybody know what they are upto?

</comment><comment><USER3> There must be ways for Google, Yahoo etc to tackle this but whenever we've approached them its been a long drawn out process with us having to provide significant proof. We stopped advertising on content networks in the end as it made virtually no difference to our sales.

<comment><USER4> I contacted G once when I noticed that someone had clicked on about 8 pages in a couple of seconds. I had a simple question: "did I pay for this click?" They were unable or unwilling to answer. I've been suspicious since.

And I second your observation on content networks. It seems to be largely without useful controls.

<comment><USER5> google / yahoo probably make a good bit of their turnover from fraudulent clicks. I would suspect it to be a bit more than the percentage quoted as well...

If the actual number would be measurable somehow I would expect the bottom to drop out of keyword advertising overnight. Those advertisers savvy enough to do a/b testing on google adwords on google, the channel, both and none have already found out that just advertising on adwords on google is a very large portion of the conversion, it depends on the product whether or not it is worth to go after the little bit of extra sales that can be had in 'the channel'.

The lack of transparency at google is another very large part of the problem here, if they would make public their 'take' and the percentage of fraudulent clicks removed then that would do a lot of good for the market. Even if it would probably hurt Google's bottom line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi, dumb question, but how who benefits from click fraud?

<comment><USER7> Wall Street Executives.

I mean, who else, right?</comment></comment>


Facebook 'may soon allow' under-13s to join the site - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18321553 <comment><USER2> Oh, and the don't already? My 12 year old nice had her account for about two years now.</comment>


How many single founder startups have been funded by YC? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to convince myself that it's worth applying as a single founder. Everything I've seen says it's not worth even trying.<p>Can anyone convince me otherwise? <comment><USER2> I'm not sure because I can't remember which startups only had one founder when we funded them, but I know there are 2/36 in the current batch and there were 3/26 in the previous one.

Both Xobni and Dropbox were single-founder startups initially.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. That's quite a convincing argument.

I'll get a "Remember Xobni & Dropbox" T-Shirt printed for when you interview me, then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You have nothing to lose so why wouldn't you try? I'm in the same position. I will be applying this round and my co-founder is more of an "advisor" and friend. He works for an existing YC company so I believe he wouldn't be eligible to become a founder without leaving his current job.

<comment><AUTHOR> _You have nothing to lose so why wouldn't you try?_

And therein lies a story...

Basically I've got somewhere between 5 & 10 good ideas for a startup of the type that really need funding (my YC application lists 5 atm, and they aren't crap ideas). Then I've got another set projects that are bootstrappable, some of which I'm working on with other people.

I could use one of those ideas, and there are plenty of people who'd be happy enough to co-found with me.

But there is one idea I'm _really_ excited about, and no one I know is the right person to do it with. Everyone I tell it to loves the idea, and says they'd try it, but for a co-founder I need someone with a very specific set of skills. I haven't met the right person yet.

So... is it best to go for the one I think is the best idea, or is it better to have a good team and a decent idea.

<comment><USER3> I believe you can submit and apply for all of your ideas. If YC happens to pick the idea you have no co-founder for, then i'm sure you'll be able to find someone with that very specific set of skills during YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you on the tech side or the business side? Being a technical founder is much easier, in terms of being a solo founder getting into YC, than a business founder.

Any reason why you aren't looking/haven't found a cofounder? Having a really good (and succinct) answer to this is important. If the answer is, "I haven't met anyone who would partner with me," your idea will look really bad.

In any case, don't _not_ apply. Take risks. There is no harm in being rejected.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure it's a matter of numbers here. I'm pretty sure they would fund you blindfolded if you and your company are worth it (but mostly you). I believe YC it's not about funding companies, its about funding people to create companies.

\- My opinion? If you feel you can handle your startup by yourself, go for it!!

</comment><comment><USER6> Wasn't Loopt a single founder start-up?</comment>


Real-Life 'Invisibility Cloak' Explained - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMIdVtb8oEM <comment><USER2> This has been used in magic for years and was introduced by Lubbor Fiedler as "Lubor's Lens." (I have a few by my desk. I contemplated making a large one as part of a television special I recently shot.)</comment>


Emergence in Holographic Scenarios for Gravity - <AUTHOR> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11669/4/Emergence_hol_gravity_July_2015.pdf?platform=hootsuite <comment><USER2> So could the holographic principle be stated as "the number of bits in a volume is bound by the enclosing area and reaching that bound converts the volume into a black hole"?

</comment><comment><USER3> (PDF)</comment>


Announcing TypeScript 2.9 RC - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/typescript/2018/05/16/announcing-typescript-2-9-rc/ <comment><USER2> We are starting up a new web project. I have worked with typed languages my whole career so I am not really fond of JavaScript. We are mostly C# guys so Typescript feels very familiar. What do people think of TypeScript? Is it a good alternative to JavaScript? Our first tests look really good but I wonder if there are any downfalls.

<comment><USER3> I will give you my very humble opinion:

The front end world is a land of sand castles. If you put in the work and care to make yours wonderful then I'm sure there is a sense of pride and accomplishment at what can be done with the tools.

However, the tide will come in and it feels like it comes in daily to threaten to wash away all of your work. You do not control the tide.

\</comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

By the above I mean that you will need to fully own the application life cycle management and realize that for as great as Typescript is virtually _none_ of the examples you see will be based in it and there will always be some level of disconnect between what you are doing and what most everyone else is doing.

I think Typescript is a great fit _if_:

a) You ship a part of the project that _only_ has to interface with your TS code post compilation/transpiling. For example a little proxy shim responsible for server round trips or the business logic that the front end devs will call.

b) You are using Angular.

Otherwise use whatever the core framework you adopt is using. Usually just ES6 + Babel + a nice linter + tests.

Hope that helps. I'm a C# dev and I've tried and failed to use TypeScript for years. Mainly because the buy in is usually for React/Vue/etc and the JS front end land is squirrely enough without my having to mentally translate every example I see into TS. I've come to terms with doing one mental switch during my day between logical tiers (front end, middleware, backend). I try to limit the additional context switching I have to do once in those spaces.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the input. Reminds me a little of Xamarin. Sounds really appealing but in the end you are often better off going native.

<comment><USER4> Could you please expand on your Xamarin vs. native comment? I'm assuming you aren't referring to Xamarin.Forms.

<comment><USER2> Our mobile team was working on creating an app a while ago. We are all C# coders so the obvious solution seemed Xamarin because you can use C# plus you get multi platform. First they dumped Forms and went with a native UI. Then there were a ton of bugs (don't know the details) in Xamarin that caused them to switch to Java on Android. The iOS version will probably be written in Swift. Noone is talking about Xamarin anymore.

<comment><USER4> > Then there were a ton of bugs (don't know the details) in Xamarin that > caused them to switch to Java on Android.

Interesting. Those are the type of day-to-day details that I'm curious about when I see cross platform solutions like Xamarin, Kotlin Native, or React Native.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am afraid they omitted "?" at

      type Partial<T> = {
          [K in keyof T]: T[K]
      }

in their announce. It should be

      type Partial<T> = {
          [K in keyof T]?: T[K]
      }

to make

      interface Thing {
          foo: string;
          bar: number;
          [baz]: boolean;
      }

      type PartialThing = Partial<Thing>;

equivalent to

      interface PartialThing {
          foo?: string;
          bar?: number;
          [baz]?: boolean;
      }

</comment><comment><USER6> I think they should stop to pack more and more type-featzres in each release. I know you do not need them all, but still if you use typescript you should be aware of all features, which become more overwhelming with each new release. I think many features should be made optional / unlockable like babel does that in their .babelrc</comment>


The welfare state is today's equivalent of the gold standard - <AUTHOR> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/12/depression_2010_105530.html

<comment><USER2> My problem with the assertion in this article is I see technology creating an even greater need for the welfare state in the future. So I see attempts to diminish it as being ultimately pointless.

Up to this point technology has created as many jobs as it's replaced because it's enabled us to do more than we could before (much of the analysis computers now do in the financial market for example wasn't possible 20 years ago).

But that trend will eventually catch up to us. Especially once robotics matures and starts replacing so-called "unskilled labor" jobs. Think about it. A single robot can replace at least 3 shifts of laborer (and probably 4 since it can work faster with no breaks). Even with the increased need for maintenance personnel there's simply no way we'll create as many jobs as we lose. Once that happens we're going to have an excess of people and they'll need to be given some means to live.

Which is why I disagree with this article. For better or worse the welfare state is here to stay. What we need to do is find a way to make it more efficient so it doesn't bankrupt us.

<comment><USER3> Seems to me like you are assuming a zero-sum game: technology eliminates massive jobs so people have no work.

History is full of technology eliminating massive numbers of jobs. At any one of these moments a person could say the future would hold incredible numbers of unemployed. But it didn't happen.

I don't know if it will happen or not, but if I understand your argument I believe there is nothing unique about our current time in history that makes it any more valid that it was, say, in 1890.

<comment><USER2> Actually my point is that we are in a unique time.

Up until now technology replaced skilled labor positions. So people who would have gone into something like economics instead went into computer science and we just did more with what we had.

Now we're getting to the point where technology can replace unskilled labor and that creates a unique problem because, though it might not be politically correct to say, some people simply don't have the capacity to go into a high tech vocation.

Put it this way. There have always been people whose job was one of pure labor. Lifting boxes, tightening screws and so on. Once robotics gets to the point where it's cheap enough and skilled enough to do those jobs where do the people who have done those jobs in generations past go?

<comment><USER3> Nope. I understand you, and my point still holds.

At each step in modernization people wondered what was going to happen. What you are saying has been said dozens of times before. Maybe thousands.

The average unskilled laborer in the U.S. works at a much higher level of abstraction than he did a couple of generations ago. Nothing is simple any more, and computers are everywhere. The day laborer that does the gardening down the street has a pickup, a cell phone, a notebook computer and a bookkeeping system, a GPS, etc. If he is competitive he might do analysis of the soil, use special tools, pick up knowledge at the local college, etc.

And it's going to a long, long way from robots among us to really cheap multi- purpose robots everywhere. Market dynamics will have a lot of say in the meantime.

You may be right. it's just guessing on both of our parts. The future will tell. But I seriously doubt it. Claims of uniqueness need better proof than hand-waving about talking about robots.

EDIT: You also may be right -- but in a thousand-year timeframe. And as Keynes famously said, in the long run, we are all dead.

<comment><USER2> With all due respect you're guessing, I'm not. You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's not a logical conclusion. Things do change.

What I'm saying is the fact that we won't have enough jobs for everyone is inevitable just by extrapolating on current trends.

The welfare state being discussed exists because people have been able to retire much earlier without negatively impacting society. That in itself shows a trend towards the amount of human labor our society needs growing smaller.

My original point is that we need to start innovating in how we govern to deal with the eventuality of that trend reaching the point where there aren't enough jobs for younger people. We shouldn't destroy the infrastructure we already have and then try to solve that problem when it becomes a real crisis.

<comment><USER4> _You're basically saying "it's worked itself out in the past so it will surely do so in the future." But that's not a logical conclusion._

It certainly can be. Daniel is basically arguing for the outside view, and the outside view is often the best predictor of outcomes. Now, it may be that this time is different, but when you have a long history of specific failed predictions based on the details of a transition, it's certainly worth paying attention to the trend as a guide to this instance.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fiat to pool with Tesla to avoid EU fines - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47845971 <comment><AUTHOR> Hopefully this sends a clear message to the european manufacturers. Unless they invest into their own electric cars, they will invest into Tesla and sign their own death.</comment>


North Korea halts missile tests - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43846488 <comment><USER2> And a smoker stops smoking everytime they go to sleep.. it doesn't mean they don't have cigarettes in stock.

He has all the tests he needs completed, and may well have hidden missile manufacturing sites as required.</comment>


Don't give bullshit advice - <AUTHOR> http://www.humbledmba.com/dont-give-bullshit-advice <comment><USER2> I was in the Entrepreneurs Organization (<http://www.eonetwork.org/>) for a few years, and the organization had a required protocol for advice sharing called 'Gestault Protocol', loosely derived from principles in Gestault Therapy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy#Overview>). Effectively, the protocol prohibited you from sharing opinions as advice, and forced the sharing of specific experiences through personal stories.

This protocol becomes very useful in situations where other people have been down the same road as you - things like business processes, development processes, hiring, dealing with employees, raising money, investing money, etc. However, it also provides a nice boundary for giving advice - only share experiences, never share opinions. So, when I'm asked for advice, I listen careful, and try to see if I have any relevant experiences to share, or I try to think of who might be better suited to share experiences.

Further, when I am asking for advice, and someone lends an opinion that seems interesting, I ask pointed questions about this persons experience to determine how I will weight the input, and whether the experience indeed does apply to my situation. So overall, I've found experience sharing to be a relevant boundary for giving and receiving advice.

<comment><USER3> I reached a similar conclusion when I noticed two things that repeatedly happen when giving advice:

1) People don't follw your advice. I don't mean this in a frustrated, "I know more than others" manner, but just as a matter of fact: people want to solve their own challenges, and they know more about their own challenges than you do. When advice is given in the form of "Do this, it will work out for you," it's usually ignored, and often with good reason.

2) Advice is based on personal experiences. This is what the "Gestault Protocol" sounds like, and it makes a lot of sense. Your personal experience is the "primary source," in a sense, and your advice is an interpretation of it. Why not let others draw their own conclusions and benefit in a richer way from your experiences?

I've been following these two guidelines, and find it gives good results. Glad to see others are doing similar things.

<comment><USER4> The best advice I get usually is in the form of "these are the hidden dangers you may not anticipate..." i suppose this is a special-case of the personal- experience-sharing "advice" that the GP is talking about

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My experience has been to the contrary: I rarely find people willing to crush entrepreneurs' ideas; instead, most people seem to be quite reluctant to tell others that their ideas are, frankly, terrible. In the end, people waste money on ideas that are untenable.

I once had a old friend bring his bajillion-dollar social networking idea to me -- he liked snakes, and wanted to meet other people who liked snakes, so he wanted to make Facebook but only for people that own snakes. And he'd charge for it! And he'd make millions, because damn it, _people love snakes!_

I understand that almost every idea is derivative, and that I can't really understand the pet-snake market, but should I really say "Gee, buddy, I don't know..." when every brain cell is screaming "tell him to run far away from this!"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Help him clarify his hypothesis--that people do indeed love snakes--and test it really quickly. A good lean development process would prove it wrong quickly.

<comment><USER6> Even if people love snakes that doesn't mean they

a) want to spend time talking to other snake-owners

b) want to do it over the internet

c) can't do it already

d) will pay for it

<comment><USER7> Maybe not, but there are books and magazines regularly purchased about snakes (and just about anything else you can imagine). The trick, if you could get it to work at all, would be to get good content and build the social web around that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I agree with the headline I think his specific advice - not to give people feedback on their ideas in the conceptual phase - is bullshit.

When somebody asks me what I think of their idea, I start by highlighting several things I like about it, then discuss a couple of the challenges or risks, and try to make suggestions about useful next steps. People almost invariably find it valuable -- and often tell me later how much even this short conversation helped them.

Conversely, I often ask people what they think of my early-stage concepts, and their responses are almost always useful. Even if somebody just says "wow that's a great idea!" without really thinking about it, I can continue the conversation with "Cool, what do you like about it?"

> Your ability to predict the future is no better than his.

Really? It's not like I have a crystal ball, but after doing startups and strategy for 25 years, I've seen quite a lot of patterns for success or failure, and learned a bunch of techniques for making success more likely. What's the matter with sharing that?

</comment><comment><USER9> I've heard plenty of terrible ideas, and I've also heard plenty of "great" ideas that are doomed to failure because it's patently obvious that the person presenting the idea is incapable of seeing it through to fruition. In either case, I think it's my duty -- as a friend, a colleague, an adviser, or in whatever capacity -- to be honest without being a dick. It can be a fine line.

People are always going to be seeking validation, and I think you have to accept that as given. Some measure of "Do you approve of what I'm doing?" is always going to be baked into these sorts of conversations. Some folks ask it outright; others merely dance around it or imply it. Either way, politely acknowledge it and then move onto the practical advice.

To that end, I think practical advice _can_ be given. The trick is, as the author suggests, not giving unverifiable advice on the viability of the concept, but rather, teasing out how well the presenter has thought things through. It's a Socratic form of "advice." It's not about poking holes for the sake of poking holes, but about challenging the person to think about all sides and ramifications of the problem he or she is trying to address.

Some of the best advice I've ever received on startups came in the form of what, at the time, I'd considered "pushback" from would-be investors, friends, or mentors. It took some healthy distance from the ideation/pitch phase in order to receive the wisdom for what it really was. At the time, man oh man, I hated hearing it. But in retrospect, I am glad I did. Some very smart people saved me from some very stupid moves, and I owe them my eternal gratitude.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am with the author 100%. The apocryphal VC batting average is 20%: That means that a VC firm with a full-time, professional team evaluating deals and has four failures for every success is considered capable. A VC who has just three failures for every successful investment would be considered good, and if they could do that based on a single pitch, they would be considered God- like.

I am not a VC firm, I'm just one guy. I don't perform due diligence. I don't pick winners for a living. So if you ask me, what's your chance of success, what am I going to say? Even if I like your idea, and even if I was good enough to manage $200,000,000 of other people's money investing in winners, I'd only be right one time in four or five.

So I also tell people that I have no fucking idea.

<comment><USER11> Upvoted, but if I am not mistaken those statistics are for false positives (VC thought idea would work, but it didn't.) What we're concerned about here are false negatives (VC thought idea wouldn't work, but it did).

I could be wrong, but I would bet the true negative:false negative ratio for a good VC is (1) very, very high and (2) higher than Joe Average who doesn't do this for a living.

Sure, nobody has a perfect crystal ball (famously, <http://www.bvp.com/Portfolio/AntiPortfolio.aspx>) but that doesn't mean there's no value in getting input from someone whose job is to get it right more often than your roommate. I'd even go so far as to say that any really great idea should go through a chorus of "that will never work"s as a kind of conditioning process.

<comment><USER12> You're totally wrong about the (true negative|false negative) ratio. Most early-stage businesses that pitch VCs get turned down by more than half the VCs they approach (this is changing as angel rounds are getting businesses to traction). The phenomenon of "hot deals" is very rare.

So for every VC investment into a Facebook, Zappos, Zynga, etc. there are multiple VCs who turn it down, pushing this ratio under 1.

<comment><USER13> You're not substituting the right numbers into that formula. The numerator includes all bad (will fail) startup ideas that get rejected.

<comment><USER12> Yep, my bad :-\

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great article. I was very worried at the beginning, because honest feedback is incredibly important. But I agree with most of the conclusions - attacking an idea directly is the _worst_ way you can go about helping an entrepreneur.

I know that these days, when I hear someone pitch an idea, what I do is this:

1\. Try to figure out an MVP to get out of it.

2\. Convince the entrepreneur that an MVP is the _right_ way to go (depending on the person/idea, this may be tricky).

3\. Talk about how to get the MVP made the most cheaply. If the entire idea can be tested by throwing up a quick WordPress-powered website, get them to do it.

I will tell people what I generally like about the idea, but the truth is, after so many failures of my own (failed startups and failed predictions), I really don't think I can wholly trust my intuition about what ideas are good. And I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in that. But those other ideas, about MVPs and customer development, etc, are things that I've just learned from my time in the "business", so it's the best knowledge to impart.

</comment><comment><USER15> Once in a while non-technical friends come to me and ask me to help them implement ideas they've come up with. Often enough, I think the idea is bad for one reason or another.

That puts me in an awkward situation. I don't want to work on an idea that I don't like, so I have to explain my concerns, whether or not they're objectively justified (or "bullshit").

Last time it happened (a couple weeks ago), I tried to give some suggestions for an alternative solution. He took it personally and asked point-blank if I would help him or not. Overall, it didn't go over well.

<comment><USER16> The best answer here, which is honest, straightforward, and has the least chance of being inflamatory is something like "Sorry, I don't have time to help you with any of your ideas, I'm already working a bunch of my own ideas" (although, I might stick the word "shitty" before both instances of "ideas", depending on the audience, to communicate my position on Sturgeon's Law).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps I'm extrapolating too much but if the guy is asking you specifically, "Do you think it's a good idea?" then either he's very early in his idea, he hasn't thought through why HE thinks it's a good idea or he doesn't have the confidence that his idea is good.

If it's the first two options, then he needs to put more time into developing the idea to gain the confidence that it's a good idea. If it's the final one, then perhaps it's not worth pursuing the idea or he's not in the right position (confidence) to do so.

Of course, it's always smart to solicit advice on an idea such as the potential challenges, risks, strategies etc.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think it's hard to get great honest constructive reactions from people you don't know let alone the people you do know who just want to support you.

With a startup (<http://infostripe.com>) outside the insider circles of the west coast (or even the US) it has been extremely difficult for us to get any professional response from the tech punditry so far.

I think you face three battles in this industry. Creating something new, better or great, having someone on the inside pass a little acknowledgement to you early and getting (and accepting) good honest (negative) feedback.

The lack of which can in turn lead you down the path of asking if something is any good after you have already built it.

If you've gotten so far as to build your vision don't give up because every visitor or user does not get it or need it. Is your product at all useful to anyone, it's it reasonably priced? If it is then market it to those people, continue seek out industry leaders and the everyman opinion and don't give up in the face of the internet's vapid attention span too easily.

If you haven't built it yet. Then consider getting to work on a prototype before spending months trying to convince anyone it's a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER19> If someone thinks it's a good idea, they'll invest money into it. Rough parallel, but always remember: it's not a principle unless it costs you something.

I'm not sure that execution always trumps ideas, but I'm pretty sure that no "great" idea is static and any idea requires more than just potential energy to turn into anything--plus, I'd be way more interested in the personality and abilities of the person presenting the concept than what the concept itself. Chances are if they have sufficient confidence and endurance to plow through the inevitable challenges, they won't ask your opinion.

Simplified (not necessarily) simple concepts tend to work the best. Sounds obvious, but you can't always complicate to profit.

Years ago, before taking my first job, someone told me that the keys to success were pretty simple: persistence, commitment, and patience. I thought I had the first two wrapped up neatly, and would eventually find that "patience" thing. Turns out, I had NO idea what persistence meant and didn't understand the first (or second, or third) thing about commitment.

You don't learn about those things by having a few good ideas. You learn about them by doing things, over and over again.

</comment><comment><USER20> Reminds me of all the times when I share an idea to hear the other guy say "wow, great idea!" to which I go "wait, really? how do you know!?".

I've replaced the binary means of judging my ideas with one that allows for more shades of gray. I rarely give any specific idea more than 15-25% chance of gaining traction.

</comment><comment><USER21> I always wonder whether you're better off trying to talk an entrepreneur out of it, try to talk them deeper into it, or just try to be neutral yet supportive.

On the one hand, good entrepreneurs are supposed to be relentless and ones that are likely to give up should give up earlier rather than later.

On the other hand, we've all heard stories of that brink that many entrepreneurs blindly stumbled onto, missed going off the cliff of failure purely by chance, and came out as huge winners. Substance or not, perhaps my words could be the ones that could make the difference from falling off the edge?

These are the games that PG plays on a regular basis at great scale, with his own money no less. Any thoughts on what the best strategy is, and why?

</comment><comment><USER22> If you really want to help someone you need to go a little deeper than your initial gut reaction. I've heard 'can't miss' ideas that had me excited days afterward that were executed by a stellar team but still failed.

Research the idea and you will likely find one or several people who had already tried the idea. Ask the enterepreneur to research them, get in touch and figure out why they failed. Ask them to explain how they will avoid their predecessors mistakes.

Unfortunately that doesn't always work. Sometimes an 'A' team can fail when something was just too early. A 'B' team can knock it out of the park a few years later when the timing is better.

</comment><comment><USER23> How does one get non-bullshit advice?

I understand that nobody wants to be "brutally" honest. And, being only human, on some level I'd prefer to hear that I'm awesome. But it's more important to know if I'm doing something stupid. So is it better to prompt the advice-giver with my own concerns, like "I'm worried that my inexperience at X is going to be a problem"? How do you get people to be straight with you?

</comment><comment><USER24> A great illustration of "ideas don't matter, execution is everything".

And, execution actually involves many, many small ideas. Ed Catmull said this of movies - ideas make a movie great, but it's all of them, not just one.

Jaqueramaphan is a sympathetic but tragic portrayal of ideas without execution ( _A Fire Upon the Deep_ ).

</comment><comment><USER25> No vice is as bad as advice :-)</comment>


Parsing Headers - <AUTHOR> https://vsoch.github.io/2020/url-headers/ <comment><USER2> > For fun, let's inspect history.com and see what the heck all those headers > are.

I don't know for sure, but those seem like they might be response headers from app servers meant to be picked up on the way out by proxy servers for the purposes of analytics, or possibly for applying caching rules.

Normally you'd have the proxy strip these out before sending back to the end user.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great writeup! It's always interesting to see what cruft is coming along for the ride (and what makes it past the reverse proxies).

I did a similar (not nearly as well visualized) analysis of every domain registered under the .nyc gTLD about a year ago[1]. Lots of servers running old, vulnerable HTTPd/SSHd/FTPd services, even for a relatively new TLD.

[1]: [https://blog.yossarian.net/2018/11/11/Scanning-the-nyc- gtld](https://blog.yossarian.net/2018/11/11/Scanning-the-nyc-gtld)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's interesting to see how many sites are setting analytics related ids and optimization/split testing cookies.

I wasn't expecting that, since the dataset is purely the immediate response of the request to the root domain/homepage, and doesn't include any additional asset calls that would have occurred once the page rendered.

Which indicates all of that analytics and testing infrastructure is integrated right smack-dab in the middle of the hot path of the server response.

As an analytics guy, it'd be fascinating to get a peak behind the curtain at those architectures. Even more so if any of those implementations have gone through a CCPA/GDPR compliance review.

</comment><comment><USER5> Neat little easter egg with the x-secret header. (It's there, but for some reason Ctrl-F on [https://researchapps.github.io/url- headers/](https://researchapps.github.io/url-headers/) won't find it.)

<comment><USER6> It's because the whole graph is a single canvas element, there's no selectable/searchable text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://httparchive.org](https://httparchive.org) has a much larger dataset, if you want to start playing around with something truly vast.</comment>


Venture Capital Firms Allowed to Live - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457173273034720.html <comment><USER2> Wow, it looks like the annoying over-the-top-irony style of writing of blogs and slashdot articles is creeping into respectable newspapers. This is bad news.

I can't wait till the WSJ starts talking about pots and kettles.</comment>


Hate Bitcoin? This might change your mind - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@petershin45/hate-bitcoin-this-might-change-your-mind-837963c24d70 <comment><USER2> If you know enough to hate bitcoin then you've likely already heard all the standard pro-Bitcoin arguments. By now you'd expect a "this will change your mind" article on the topic to bring up some new angle. Not this one. It's just the usual suspects ("No fees! No government meddling! Financial power to the poor!") complete with the standard sprinkling of opinions stated as facts.

How does the author justify wasting bits on this in 2018? The righting of wrongs: "the result of all this low-quality Bitcoin journalism is that most newcomers never get to learn about all the new and exciting things made possible by Bitcoin's core technology."

</comment><comment><USER3> > the foundation for a radically new type of financial system

A radically terrible one. The financial system should not waste gigantic amounts of power on maintaining security under trustlessness. Unlike libertarians' ridiculous dreams, actual human society _requires trust_.

> This transaction was transmitted and processed instantly, for $0 in fees

No way it's been $0. And it's even worse now. Confirmations are slow, miner fees are large, exchanges have fees, you can quickly lose on exchange rate…

(Mining rewards are mentioned later in the article… but not where they come from)

> As the number of independent mining groups increases and becomes more > geographically dispersed

Still a few large pools dominate the network [https://blockchain.info/pools](https://blockchain.info/pools)

> [cash] also means that they could be robbed of their entire life savings on > any given day

There's a whole subreddit, /r/Buttcoin, full of stories of bitcoiners losing their life savings on any given day. Scams, hacks, bugs, private key losses, scams, scams, and even more scams.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes I want cheap money transfer internationally and yes, I want a system capable to undermine authoritarian censorship. But I think that blockchain is extremely crude and unreliable technology to implement them. It is immutable, number of nodes (i.e. backups) is unpredictable, its hardware footprint is insane and will only increase in the future and bitcoin is going to be essentially centralized, with decisions concentrated in those lightning hubs and exchanges in offshore locations. I don't believe in the underlying technology, I think it may succeed but be very limited and not because some 3rd party will demolish it, but just because it is not a magical tech they claim it is. (and altcoins are mostly even worse in technology department)

Maybe I'm wrong and don't see some really long term perspective, well then I'll admit it. For now I don't use any of them.

<comment><USER5> People are looking to solve some of those issues with other currencies. Not sure if any of the current iterations are good enough, but one example is Nano [https://nano.org/en/faq](https://nano.org/en/faq)

<comment><USER6> For anyone who doesn't follow altcoins, Nano is a rebranding of Raiblocks to attempt to reset the pump phase now that everything tanked 40%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > With Bitcoin, for the first time in history it's possible for anyone with an > internet connection to quickly and securely send any amount of money to > anyone else, anywhere in the world (or even Mars!), for low or zero fees.

> And this isn't just theoretical. It happens every day on the Bitcoin > network.

I'm not 100% convinced about a wide spread adoption of decentralized cryptocurrencies, but if it is to happen it will be a coin with low or zero fees. What OP is not honest about is that there are no transactions on the Bitcoin network with low or zero fees.

<comment><USER7> Indeed. In theory we all love bitcoin, but in practice we started to hate it once the investors came, started to speculate with it and destroy our planet with absurd energy consumptions. Feels like the Paperclip maximizer gone mad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just to feel SWIFT in some Europian countries: for $17 fee is about $72, and sometime it took about 2 weeks for confirmation maybe because of weekend days... plus all those warnings about the purpose etc... absolutely not user friendly input fields... BTC is simply manna of heaven comparing with that</comment>


Show HN: Website to Play Board/Card Games – Looking for Feedback - <AUTHOR> https://www.funnode.com/ <comment><USER2> I played the backgammon game against the ai.

The backgammon game stuck on me (I couldn't get my pieces to move). Fortunately refreshing un-stuck it. I don't have flash. Fairly intuitive moving. Moving pieces "home" was difficult.

I won however, (against the ai). Pretty wild game.

Reminds me of the good old yahoo games.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for checking it out acomjean -- I'll have to check why it got stuck for you. Might be a long shot, but did you take a screenshot? xd

No Flash or Java required to play on FunNode :)

<comment><USER2> No screen shot. I could click on the piece and it would highlight where the piece could go. Clicking on the destination which usually moves the piece did nothing.

Mac, latest os (el-capitan), I think safari browser.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks acomjean - I'll check it out</comment></comment></comment></comment>