MMO Scale Games Made Easy with Aether Engine and UE4 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPrueaGwi2U <comment><AUTHOR> 5 months ago @paddygord built an OpenGL prototype [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15550922](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15550922)

At GDC this week we announced Aether Engine - an MMO scale simulation engine built on HadeanOS that integrates with any game engine (UE4 in demo video) - <USER2> dedicated bare metal operating system which removes the need for bloated middleware. We're currently in alpha an looking for participants to be part of a closed beta in the near future.</comment>


LaTeX vs. Word vs. Writer - <AUTHOR> http://oestrem.com/thingstwice/2007/05/latex-vs-word-vs-writer/

<comment><USER2> As an experienced LaTeX user, I was less impressed with how good LaTeX did than the spectacular results he was able to get out of Word and Writer. It isn't that LaTeX failed to impress (it did) -- I was just amazed at how much better the Word and Writer versions looked than the defaults.

Also, his characterization of LaTeX as nothing more than "a set of finely tuned defaults" is absolutely correct. Generally speaking, one wants to think hard before starting to twiddle too much with the default settings in LaTeX, mostly because Knuth already did, and it shows. One also doesn't want to get caught up in the trap of paying more attention to formatting than the text, which is easy to do when using WYSIWYG environments. There's a good reason that the smallest unit of "finely tuned defaults" available in LaTeX is the documentclass -- because producing _documents_ is ultimately what it's all about, not formatting text.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the real lesson here is that, for the fixed cost of learning LaTeX once, you get a significant benefit in improved rendering and layout (and that's before even accounting for formulas) on par with what would be rather significant incremental effort in each Word or Writter document you created.

I also love using LaTeX because I can grab a set of template and style files from whatever publication I might be writing for, and I can be sure that the outcome will be in line with what they were expecting. True, I could also get a Word template, but I've always found that with Word templates I hit backspace at some inopportune location and ruin the layout. "A set of finely tuned defaults" indeed!

<comment><USER3> I don't get the same impression from the authors output as the author did. For example:

[http://oestrem.com/thingstwice/wp- content/uploads/2007/05/sm...](http://oestrem.com/thingstwice/wp- content/uploads/2007/05/small-caps.png)

The left hand side of the capital D on the LaTeX output (bottom) looks thinner compared to every other vertical in the sentence. Word (top) clearly doesn't have this problem.

<comment><USER4> It looks right to my eye.

Image editor says the vertical on the B, D, and right hand of M are all 3 px wide for LaTeX.

Writer is 4, 3+2 anti-aliased, and 3+1 anti-aliased (both equating to approximately 4, but the M winds up rendered with a very slight slope.

Word is 4, 4, 3+1 with the same slope issue.

Interestingly, the smallcaps B in LaTex has a wider vertical (4px) where Writer and Word are smaller - 2px and 3px, respectively, after accounting for anti-aliasing.

<comment><USER3> > Image editor says the vertical on the B, D, and right hand of M are all 3 px > wide for LaTeX.

Yes, but the smaller caps should have thinner lines. Instead the larger font is thinner.

<comment><USER5> "Yes, but the smaller caps should have thinner lines."

That's not true. Small caps should be drawn so that their line widths about match those of capitals. They should not just be smaller versions of capitals. Both Word and Writer fake small caps by making capitals slightly smaller. That's just wrong.

"Instead the larger font is thinner."

As it can be. The thinnest lines of the capitals should in most cases be thinner than the widest lines of the small caps. That's just normal.

<comment><USER3> > The thinnest lines of the capitals should in most cases be thinner than the > widest lines of the small caps.

That's not what's happening here - open up an image editor and measure it: the _thickest_ line of the small caps is thicker than the thickest line of the caps. Only LaTeX has this problem.

<comment><USER5> Then that's how they were drawn. LaTex doesn't fake Small Caps. No shrinking, no fake boldness, no nothing. They are displayed as is.

<comment><USER3> Shrinking would give the right results, with line thicknesses proportionally smaller than regular caps. Keeping the same weight and squashing vertically would also give results that, although skewed, wouldn't have fatter lines that the originals.

Whether you label those techniques as 'fake' or not does not change that LaTeX and/or Metafont's displayed results are poorer than Word and OpenOffice in this aspect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article missed the biggest advantage of TeX. The fact that it doesn't change.

I can take a document written any time in the last 25 years in TeX and print it today. It will still print the same way that it did then, modulo available printing technology, down to the visible wavelength of light. I can then tweak it and print the edited version, without any loss of formatting. Using WYSIWYG word processors and random formats that have existed over that time, not so much.

It isn't just word processing formats. The same is also not true of other printing formats such as postscript and pdf. (Witness in this thread how pdf documents that printed fine for one person not printing correctly for another. That with a pdf created this year.)

This trait is very important for anyone who needs to archive documents. Such as happens all of the time in academia...

<comment><USER7> Maybe in TeX, but my experience with LaTeX had been a little different because the packages and interdependencies between them changes with the time.

I mean, if you take a non-trivial document using several packages from several years ago, and try to compile now, a likely result is the compilation fails with some obscure error or the original result can be different in unexpected ways.

Usually that can be fixed with the use of a new option or calling a different command or little things like that, however the point of compatibility through many revisions of many packages (and its interactions) in LaTeX is something to be warned about.

<comment><USER8> This is why you should archive the packages along with the source for your document. This way you'll maximize the chances of being able to regenerate it at some point in the future.

<comment><USER3> Couldn't you also archive the binary for OpenOffice and MS Word? In seems appearing consistent between versions is an issue on all platforms.

<comment><USER8> You'll probably also need to archive Windows and all the DLLs along with those.

<comment><USER3> Why wouldn't LaTeX also require the OS to be archived for equivalent results? Although LaTeX often uses it's own bitmap based font system it does require X and supporting infrastructure.

<comment><USER8> Because unlike Word, LaTeX can easily be rebuilt from source. And it should work on future versions of the OS. Though, of course, there's no guarantee of that either. So might be best to archive the OS too, just in case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> LaTeX is really, really good. In fact, it's too good for the common people who don't spend a lot of time writing and/or reading books and publications, and instead spend their time not expecting publishing quality. The sad truth is that Word is more than good enough for almost anything.

If you buy a cheap power drill and you use it maybe twice a year, it still probably lasts your whole life and you really don't even _need to know_ why a professional power drill might be much better. Unless, that is, you're a hi-fi junkie and want to do your 100 holes with the best drill you can find, or you're a professional who drills 100 holes a day.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been using LaTeX to write my MSc thesis. Anyhow, one of the reasons I used is was that it could be plugged into git quite easily, changes to partials would appear in the source control and could easily be tagged. Instead of changing one huge word or OO document, place a chapter in a partial and only change that one file. All changes could also be tracked by my lecturer. Quite easy tbh.

</comment><comment><USER11> These days I just use Google Doc. Nothing beats it for what I need it for. Fast, collaborative, no need to send it to emails 50 times, versioning. Perfect for me.

</comment><comment><USER12> And next week, we try to insert a footnote in a table (the footnote's text should be displayed at the bottom of the page) while we have no Internet access.

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting to note: Pages.app handles ligatures quite nicely (type "office", for example).

<comment><USER14> As does TextEdit in rtf mode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This demonstration just shows once again that taste is far more important than which tool is used.

<comment> sans-serif I stopped paying attention after the part he bashed left alignment and (in another blog post) Helvetica.

<comment><USER16> One of the best things that ever happened to Helvetica's reputation is Microsoft shipping Arial, thereby causing nerds everywhere to suddenly consider Helvetica some sort of high point of type design.

<comment><USER17> Helvetica's stature was established long before Microsoft Word was invented.

<comment><USER16> No, Helvetica's stature as a high point of type face design was not. In fact, Helvetica was the Arial of that time, and _The People Who Are Always Right_ would snicker at it and instead go for Univers, the well-designed alternative that the riff-raff didn't know about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When I view the PDF from the article, the LaTeX portion is broken. Every "ff" shows as a large "V", and there are no small caps.

<comment><AUTHOR> My guess is that either your copy of Garamond is broken, or if you don't have Garamond that your PDF viewer is using a substitute font that doesn't have the full set of characters.

<comment><USER14> I don't have Garamond at all. Perhaps the author should have used a PDF/X-n.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _If LaTeX comes across a paragraph which it cannot divide in any good way, it will give a warning, in effect saying: "as the text now stands, this is impossible to make nice. Do something! Rewrite!"._

Sure, it says that "in effect", but (honestly asking) in actuality, is it more along the lines of "PC LOAD LETTER"?

<comment><USER19> It talks about underfill and overfull, usually ("Underfill \hbox"). It's certainly not obvious the first time, but it's not very complicated either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> He correctly points out that LaTeX is a typesetting tool, and that Word and Writer are word processors, two very different approaches to text.

So why compare LaTeX to them, and not, for example, Adobe InDesign, or FrameMaker?

<comment><USER21> People often try to make Word do things that require a tool like LaTeX. Most of this is because very few people know about LaTeX, and fewer still know that the quality of LaTeX output makes it worth learning anytime you have a complex document or one that needs to look _good_.

To recycle an analogy: Word is a hammer, and complex documents are screws. When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Ultimately, Word and TeX are just tools for producing formatted documents. It's silly to cling to Word because it's WYSIWYG when it can't actually do the job you need done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> For what it's worth, apparently Office 2010 is finally getting support for common ligatures.

</comment><comment><USER23> I usually just use HTML for my docs these days. It's a lot easier to get things to look the way I want than a WYSIWYG editor, and much more portable/easier to use.

I like LaTeX too, but have found it's too much work for the simple documents I need to write.

<comment><USER24> I use Markdown → HTML → PDF (by princexml).</comment></comment>


Why do we still use time zones? - <AUTHOR> https://modularfinance.se/blog/2019/1106-got-time <comment><USER2> And the whole china 1</comment>


WHO cancer agency asked experts to withhold glyphosate (Roundup) documents - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-iarc-exclusive-idUSKCN12P2FW <comment><USER2> The worst thing about Roundup is that the inactive ingredients (not on the label) may be even more harmful that glyphosate itself.

On mobile so no source at my fingertips, maybe a pal can follow me up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Relevant link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Toxicity)</comment>


With Music Launch Looming, Apple Still Looking to Sew Up Indie Publishing Deals - <AUTHOR> http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6605845/apple-music-indie-publishers-contract

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple will be paying 1/3 the standard streaming rate ($0.002 per stream) during the free period, paying the rate of Spotify Free but offering the features of Spotify Premium. Additionally, Apple is demanding artists only get 1/2 the going streaming rate for 2 years if Apple Music is bundled with a carrier plan.</comment>


HN never used to focus on people and shallow politics - <AUTHOR>

From the comment policy, linked near the top of every page:<p>"The worst thing to post or upvote is something that's intensely but shallowly interesting. Gossip about famous people, funny or cute pictures or videos, partisan political articles, etc. If you let that sort of thing onto a news site, it will push aside the deeply interesting stuff, which tends to be quieter."<p>Seems like an appropriate reminder these days. <comment><USER2> Sure, except this is not so much "celebrity gossip" nor is it "shallowly interesting".

The fact is that as we march down the technology path, we must be very very aware of the affects on our government our advancement down that path has.

In most cases, we are seeing that not only is our government wholly ill- equipped to deal with a technologically advanced populous - they are also, potentially, criminally liable for malfeasance.

There have been a whole hell of a lot of posts about AS, but he is just the subject of something far more important: having a technologically savvy and capable government in a technologically advancing civilization.

<comment><AUTHOR> Technological misunderstanding isn't at the root of this problem. Maybe a misunderstanding of motivations, or a zeal to prosecute people who don't follow the rules, or just a criminal system that's too punitive overall.

None of the discussions I've read offer real political or social insight. What everyone's doing, instead, is the typically American thing of trying to work out how to respond to a crisis that has already happened.

<comment><USER2> I am not simply talking about this one incident.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Flagged for meta discussion.</comment>


Sensmove – open-sourced smart insole system - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alex3165/sensmove <comment><USER2> I'd love to see something like this available in running stores (if it's not already). I've done the treadmill + video camera test in the past, where someone looks at slow motion video of your footfall and determines whether you're under/over pronating etc.

It's always struck me as inexact though, based in a small part on the opinion of the person doing the test. It'd be far more intuitive showing some sort of heat map of a foot showing where the most pressure is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another awesome potential use for this would be to perfect marching band techniques. There's an immense amount of precision needed and if done incorrectly can injure people's feet— this would be very useful there.

</comment><comment><USER4> Has anybody else read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie)?</comment>


Scientists have discovered why running makes you happy - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/09/01/scientists-have-discovered-why-running-makes-you-happy/ <comment><USER2> I'm another person who hates running but do it moderately as it's a very efficient form of exercise.

I also do intermittent fasting, which also change you leptin levels. One thing I've noticed is that I have less hunger pangs when fasting when I can do a run in the middle of the day.

Also, I find it easier to find motivation to exercise when fasted than not. As a matter of fact, I only run on days I fast these days. There was another article earlier this week about this study which says exactly that and theorise that it might be an evolutionary thing, if you're skinny and hungry, you need to hunt, if you're satieted and fat, you're OK with just napping for a while.

*edit: Adding the article [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science-et-vie.com%2F2015%2F09%2Fle-plaisir-qui-suit-une-bonne-course-depend-de-la-satiete%2F)

<comment><USER3> > I'm another person who hates running but do it moderately as it's a very > efficient form of exercise

Interesting point of view! Many people run despite the harm it may cause (esp. to their knees and back) because they love to run. But if you remove enjoyment out of the equation, I assume there are other forms of exercises that are safer and as "efficient" as running.

<comment><USER2> Everything about running is efficient:

\- you can't cheat and ignore it, you run or you walk (you can coast while biking, you can swim slowly, etc...)

\- you can open your door and star running. Mist other sports, you need to go somewhere before you start doing the sport (swimming pool, mountain, dojo, etc...)

\- no other sport I have done build cardio in a few weeks like running does.

Keep in mind that I don't try to promote running, I literally hate it, I just enjoy the results given the low time investment.

<comment><USER4> Running isn't terribly efficient. I can walk at the same rate that most people jog, and I use half as much energy.

<comment><USER5> The assertion is that it's an efficient _exercise_ , not an efficient form of movement. It's actually an efficient exercise because it's less efficient in terms of movement than alternatives (which were listed).

<comment><USER4> It's boring, painful, and promotes over-use injuries. Most people don't wear proper shoes, or run with proper form, putting extra stress on their joints or striking on their heels.

Endurance running isn't great training for anything besides endurance running - any sort of sport-based activity includes lots of short sprints, lateral changes in direction, back-pedaling, jumping, not extended straight-line, moderate-pace running. If pure cardio is what you want, jumping rope is more efficient.

<comment><USER2> I think jumping rope is even more boring than running + you can cheat by slowing down.

I have seriously looked into "running properly" and have tried to run barefoot a lot (which forces you to not heel-strike etc...) but I'm in a cold climate and it physically impossible ot run barefoot in the winter, and I never managed to get used to pebbles!

I keep my distance to about ~ 21 km / week max (typically less), which I am thinking is low enough not to do too much damage.

All other form of sports you are talking about require me to go somewhere, etc... which burns a lot of time. I enjoy other sports (hiking, swimming, skiing to certain extent, used to sail and do martial arts, ice skating) when I can, but not as regularly, and I'll argue not enough, because of time constraint.

<comment><USER6> There are at least a few great shoes out there that will let you run with (more) proper form and still give you some protection from the cold and rocks. Have you given any of them a try? Admittedly, you'll never have as good form in a shoe, but you can get close.

<comment><USER2> Yes, I use slightly oversized Vivo barefoot running shoes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yet another tale of mice and assumptions, as best I can make out. Of course, I'm one of those runners who never gets this mythical (to me) high - even when I was super active (3 runs of about an hour each per week) I hated doing it (tldr - basic running is cheap exercise).

I know people who love to run and talk about the high because they take it for granted all runners have it. Now they can blame my leptin levels!

<comment><USER8> I hate running so much that, when I was younger and had to choose a more agreeable form of fitness, I took up Chinese Kickboxing (Sanda). Yes, I prefer getting kicked in the face to running, about the most intolerable form of exercise I know.

I wish I could get that joy from running, but my entire body hurts, from the inside-out, when I do it. It made it hard to get good cardio training when I was training for a fight, I usually substituted lots and lots of swimming, which I find far more enjoyable and seems to do a better job of training cardio without injuring joints you'll need later.

<comment><USER9> I love running and agree swimming is better for the joints, but the cardio workout I get from swimming is not comparable to what I get from running. While I'm a very good swimmer, it's harder for me to reach the same level of exercise intensity in water versus on land.

With the recent biking renaissance here in the US (which means easy availability of high-quality parts and more widely-adopted standards for equipment) and due to my consistently sustaining muscle injuries after 30 years of running, I've turned to biking to maintain cardio.

Cycling is much easier on the joints and easier (for a runner like me) to achieve and maintain intensity, though it does have its hazards. (Accidents will happen.)

Back on topic, I don't get the same kind of "high" biking as I do running. The biking high feels more adrenaline-based, laced as it is with anxiety, aggressiveness, and irritability. Running for me induces a more blissful harmonious state of consciousness than does cycling.

YMMV

<comment><USER10> What kind of cycling do you do? I don't like riding near cars, so I do almost all of my riding in parks and forests. When I do ride around cars, I can never maintain a good pace. I'm constantly stopping for intersections.

On the other hand, when I'm on a trail, The anxiety of contending with cars is gone, and I can keep a high pace for much longer.

The best is mountain biking on single track. No cars, no sign of civilization, just wilderness.

<comment><USER11> I find mountain biking also is also a bit better for core and upper body fitness than road cycling as there is a lot more variation in movements eg obstacles, drops, grade changes etc. Apparently the extra bumpiness also help avoid the bone thinning effects of road cycling - but that is probably completely negated by full suspension bikes these days.

Alas due to circumstances, I've swapped MTBing for cycle commuting. I can no longer say I enjoy riding bikes - but it still beats public transport or being stuck in traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Your ad blocker is on." No I do not have a adblock installed. I have a hosts file which removes the worst tracking sites over the internet.

On top of this, they have a Subscribe wall. Who exactly runs washingtonpost.com? And why do they need to get personal with me?

Moreover is the content going to add to anything more than we know about endorphins all ready?

<comment><USER13> It's a very short article describing this preliminary finding:

"...people with lower fat-adjusted leptin levels, such as high-performance marathon runners, could potentially be more susceptible to the rewarding effects of running and thus possibly more inclined to exercise."

That's basically it. Some folks get more of a 'high' from exercise than others. Big news, right? While I love the research, the way that page redirects and all the ads it's serving up (21 just now) are complete bullshit, and the information in the 'article' is not at all worth bothering with it in my opinion.

<comment><USER14> Which also gives lie to the title, claiming that _I_ would get benefits. Until I become high-performance _and_ a marathon runner, I get nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Long-distance running makes me feel absolutely horrible, with Tabata 4 minute sprints after 3 minutes I can't feel my legs anymore and I can sleep after drinking 5 cups of strong coffee - does it mean my body is wrong or another scientific article is? I do running because my body needs it but hate it profoundly, and together with long cold showers and weightlifting it's about training my will to overcome unpleasantness to the point of torture. Only once in my life I got runner's high, and it wasn't anything special.

On the other hand, how to change your body to get the leptin response mentioned in the article? If it is genetic, am I out of luck and these kinds of exercise will make me feel horrible all the time?

<comment><USER16> Anecdotally I have observed that there are two groups of people. Runners and lifters. The one love all kinds of explosive strength exercises, the other low intensity high volume. Sprinters are lifters btw.

<comment><USER17> As a lifelong exerciser, this squares with my observations as well. I'd include biking in the running category too.

Personally, I get no pleasure from long runs and find them to be incredibly painful and hard to recover from. Whereas being under a barbell in a squat is my happy place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What about this [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14625449](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14625449) ...

and this [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442371](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442371) ?

</comment><comment><USER19> Wondering if walking or other exercise triggers the same thing then.

<comment><USER20> It does for me. But I've noticed that it only works if I go for a walk early in the morning. There is a tranquility in the morning which I can't find in any other time during the day.

<comment><USER21> I find where I walk makes a big difference, it's much better if I can avoid any traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you do not like "running" you could try sprinting instead! Or lifting weights. I hate running, but love sprinting. Sure it feels nice when you jog and it feels like you could go on for hours, but compare that to the "pump" witch feels like an orgasm.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not being funny, but no form of cardio makes me happy. I always feel way worse afterwards. I have never experienced any kind of endorphin high that I know of from exercise.

</comment><comment><USER24> For those with an ad blocker, just click the 'x' to stop loading the page before it redirects and you can read the article.

<comment><USER25> Interestingly, I clicked over from a Google search for the title, and got an interstitial demanding my email that I could not dismiss. I am pretty sure that's a violation of Google's cloaking rules since there is no way to dismiss it. Here's hoping they get deindexed or at least penalized, but I won't hold my breath.

<comment><USER26> You can inspect element and hide the popover div. There's probably an extension out there that does this automatically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hate running. I've always hated running. I run 6 miles once a week, and I listen to music just to distract myself from how godawful boring it is. But I have to keep doing it or else I'll run out of steam halfway through a boxing round and get my ass handed to me.

</comment><comment><USER28> "It's not all in your mind - it's leptin."

I sense Descartes here.

</comment><comment><USER29> Um, we've known about running endorphines for decades?

first result for google is eight years ago

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/health/nutrition/27best.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/health/nutrition/27best.html?_r=0)

scientific studies from 1996 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC474733/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC474733/)

<comment><USER30> Well, now instead of endorphins, they can say leptins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Open in incognito window.

<comment><USER32> Why?

<comment><USER33> It's a quick way of temporarily disabling any ad blocking plugins, to avoid being redirected to

> Your ad blocker's on. But don't block out great journalism. Subscribe today!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> i thought it was because of elevated anandamide levels

</comment><comment><USER35> Sounds pretty thin.

</comment><comment><USER36> related (ok, not actually related, but funny): [http://www.savagechickens.com/2008/04/endorphins.html](http://www.savagechickens.com/2008/04/endorphins.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> Articles that have titles like "Scientists have proven that ___ will make your life perfect" I find are often misleading.</comment>


Ask HN: Single Page App Feature Usage Tracking - <AUTHOR> Just joined a company starting on rebuilding their product as a SPA and we are sadly lacking in any real metrics on feature usage. The product is a SAAS B2B where some roles in our customers create content and others consume it. So I'm more interested in understanding which product features are being used than more page-oriented stats on content views etc.<p>Looking for input: - on approaches to take to get feature usage metrics on SPA and how to analyse; - SPA moving to VueJS, any plugins recommended to just make it easy; - currently using Google Analytics (and some internal tracking when we audit API usage), any recommendations of significantly better services (SAAS or hosted) <comment><USER2> First, use Segment.com. Send the data to GA and to any other analytics you like more than GA. For example, I'm not at scale with my own product, so I really like using Clicky day to day. GA has people locked in because it's the only place where you can see your search queries and AdWords. It really ties everything together and is very powerful--for those who have mastered it.

I've seen js libs in the past that allow you to specify the event names/categories directly on the html element as data. When your page loads, the js lib looks for them and wires them up to be ready to send event data when clicked. Very simple code and you can write your own if you can't find something that works well in your SPA framework.

If you want more flexibility, more tagging choices, and better dashboards, you could in addition consider sending your event data to a metrics platform, such as the one I run at [https://HostedMetrics.com](https://HostedMetrics.com) ;)</comment>


What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The author here, Heather Sher, is a radiologist with trauma experience. Her point is that AR-15 weapons use high velocity bullets whose impact causes extraordinary damage when compared other weapons. AR-15 weapons with large magazines can inflict enormous damage. She argues that the ban on assault weapons should be reinstated (it did mitigate shootings) and that the ban on _studying gun violence as a health issue_ should be rescinded. Small asks in the light of the trauma she observes they have caused. I agree, but I think we need to go further.

As for Slansitartop somewhat snarky comment, I agree that we should consider banning SWAT teams use of AR-15 assault rifles. In fact, I believe we should disarm police in general and only allow the use of weapons in special circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. I saw one from a man > shot in the back by a SWAT team years ago.

If the AR-15 causes a problematic amount of damage for a gun, then SWAT teams should be banned from using them. While they're at it, they shouldn't be shooting people in the back either.</comment>


Help us make Industry 2016 the best product conference anywhere - <AUTHOR> http://indsum.com <comment><AUTHOR> I'm the organizer of Industry 2016 (indsum.com), a conference for people who build, launch, and scale world-class products. Last year, we had hundreds of people come to Cleveland, Ohio from 21 states and 7 countries to hear from folks like Nir Eyal, Trevor Owens, and others.

We're already gearing up for 2016 -- and are excited to have Ken Norton of Google Ventures give the opening talk.

My question is:

What would _you_ want to see in a conference that's designed for product managers and those building products?

What kind of an experience would you expect?

This is very much a "for us, by us" conference. It's completely bootstrapped by two of us who have worked in product for quite some time. We're intent on this becoming something special for product people (and are on our way, based on the feedback from last year), but we'd love to hear your ideas/input.</comment>


Mormon Tycoon Wants to Build Mega-Utopia in Vermont - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-newvistas-mormon-utopia/ <comment><USER2> This turned out to be a lot more serious and interesting than I expected. From the headline, Hall sounded like a Mormon nutcase. But his plans are actually a lot more realistic than you'd expect: a planned development of 20,000 people is not crazy. He's also putting real effort into the engineering required to fulfill the density of his vision. It also sounds like he's trying to make the venture sustainable and appears to have found some success in revenue through licensing or more traditional development projects.

He's probably crazy to be trying it in Vermont though. He'll have to import voters before he can get anything approved.

Maybe he just needs to listen to his PR people more. Downplay the Mormon angle, talk more about environmental efficiency, and pitch the communistic aspects—he might just get more sympathy.

<comment><USER3> Meanwhile, why are people placing a harsh light on Mormons?

Go ahead and change the word Mormon to something else, and notice how repugnant everything becomes.

<comment><USER4> > Meanwhile, why are people placing a harsh light on Mormons?

In most cases I would agree. For instance, knowing Clayton Christensen is a Mormon should have no impact on someone's opinion of disruption theory. And there are cases, like Mitt Romney, where the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.

In this case though, the fact that the tycoon is Mormon plays a central role. His plans are literally based on drawings by Joseph Smith he found in researching mormon history. These are literally plans by the founder of Mormonism being implemented in the state where he was born (which is mentioned in the article as the reason why the tycoon is familiar with Vermont and thus chose it for his communities).

This isn't an article making fun of Mormons and "their sacred underwear" or other "let's point and laugh" material. It is an article about a man who studied Mormon history and decided to implement the vision of its founder. Mormonism is a key element to the story.

<comment><USER5> > the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.

You're telling me. Four years later I'm in London and the city buses are still advertising the "Book of Mormon" musical. (admittedly that wasn't 100% a Romney thing, but the timing was no coincidence, either.)

<comment><USER6> What? The advertisements or the play itself? If you are attributing the play itself to the presidential race, I think you are mistaken, because the play was in development _long_ before the Romney was a candidate, and is by the creators of South Park (Trey Parker and Matt Stone), which have _often_ featured the Mormon religion in their works[1].

1: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/)

2: [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705893/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705893/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a Mormon myself, I've never heard of this guy or his plans. I've heard of lots of "niche" Mormons with crazy ideas though, so I read on for entertainment purposes.

I was pretty surprised by the quality of thought going into the project. This guy probably has a lot in common with the HN crowd so I can see why the article was submitted. He's a type of visionary/intuitive/big-picture thinker, someone who is concerned about the quality of systems, sustainability, things like that.

The end of the article outlines the problem nicely though; there's a real conundrum--do we trust the guy who seems to know what he's doing and addresses the exact problems we complain about, or do we trust our fears that something always seems to go wrong?

<comment><USER8> It reminds me a bit of the Daybreak[1] privately built master planned community in Utah build by a mining company. Not sure how well it's coming along, but seems like they wanted everything to be walkable and pleasant.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daybreak_(community)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daybreak_\(community\))

<comment><USER9> My sister lived in Daybreak, and one time I came to visit and ended up a half block shifted from her place. The house looked identical and I almost let myself into some random strangers house. I decided to knock at the last second and was quite surprised when a stranger answered.

It felt a little creepy, things were just a little too uniform.

<comment><USER10> There was a fantastic Soviet film about this exact phenomena. [1]

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

<comment><USER11> Yes, super cool movie!

Had my wife translate it (while watching - me being German).

There are lots of nice movies from that time in the CCCP.

We are so saturated with american (popular) culture that it is quite refreshing to get into contact with Russian culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This man is my uncle. FYI, I have NO affiliation with the project, but I have watched it with rapt attention since I have connections to both the Mormon community and "Uncle David," as well as very close Vermont friends, so I definitely see both sides of the coin. Again, ZERO affiliation other than relation, but happy to answer any questions from an unofficial role. ;)

<comment><USER13> Completely off-topic random question: how closely related are Mormon families, generally? With similarly insular populations (Mormons seem to tend to marry other Mormons), that have families that are larger than normal, it seems like family ties would proliferate and you'd end up with communities that are rather closely knit through webs of marriage.

<comment><USER14> Mormons settled Utah in the 1800s, and in the 200 years since they've been quite incredibly successful at attracting other people to their faith (and consequently often to their state too) from other states, Canada, and European countries, with everyone multiplying fruitfully. There's plenty of genetic diversity. You could satisfy your curiosity with almost any specific Mormon couple though by asking how closely related they are, Mormons are good at keeping track of their ancestry.

<comment><USER15> Sure, ask Matz (the Mormon creator of Ruby) how closely he's related to his wife. I hear Japan is pretty insular.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> David Hall has been my boss for the past 10 years. I have worked a little on some of these projects over the years but I work for the oil & gas part of the company that was sold to Schlumberger. David has lots of ideas, many I have helped him kill quickly. Some are great though and have lead to major innovations in diamond technology, oil & gas drilling, and a growing number of other fields.

<comment><USER17> He sounds like an idea-man, someone similar to a lot of people here on HN.

<comment><USER18> Not sure if this is meant in a positive way or negative way... If negative, I'd say, an idea-man with the funds to see his ideas through to completion isn't your typical _Hey I have an idea, want to build it for me for rev share_ type of guy that is typically lambasted around here...

<comment><USER17> I actually meant it positive, but you're right, he's not just a big-thinker, he actually has the ability to bring his ideas into fruition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm from Salt Lake City and a former Mormon. I want to emphasize former because I'm in no way affiliated with the church and have a bit of lifelong bitterness toward it (used to be much worse, mostly over it now) and while I think a lot of things about Mormonism are completely stupid, they sure know how to build cities and be settlers and pioneers.

I think that mentality has passed through generations and it's really exciting to see this kind of advanced utopian dream come to life, even if it pisses off neighbors and if it ultimately fails.

I'm obsessed with cities and I would love to see this turn into the vision that Joseph smith had in mind, even if all his other visions are laughable loads of whatever.

<comment><USER20> There is no connection to actual Mormonism here. If there was, Hall would certainly not be encountering serious opposition in Provo, of all places.

Hall's practices are immediately suspect because he's advertising his affiliation with the Mormon Church as a major part of this endeavor. It's extremely common for scammers to try to exploit religious people by falsely claiming some sort of sanction or approval from religious bodies.

I also wish Hall luck in building a sustainable, walkable, high-end development, and in reading other articles about his clashes with neighbors in Provo I was even kind of rooting for him, but I'm really put off by the insinuation that either the Mormon Church or Mormon doctrine has anything to do with it.

<comment><USER21> How can there be no connection. The guy is mormon, the inspiration is directly from Smith's writings, etc. I don't know anything about the writings, but from the article, it seems Smith was fairly clear in wanting to do something like this.

Of course, yes this is an entrepreneur wanting to do a grandiose thing, but to say there's no connection is silly.

(I'm not a Mormon, and have no horse in this race.)

<comment><USER20> Because in Mormon (and Christian) eschatology, Zion, the New Jerusalem, is a real thing. It's not just one man's experiment to build a utopia. Zion is swamped in religious significance. It can't be built without specific forms of divine help, and it's not Zion without specific markers, like divinely- authorized temples.

Smith's early drawings are good as far as they go, but they are non-canonical. They are of only historical interest to the Church. It is fine that Hall has drawn inspiration from them, but it is not fine to imply that there is any connection between Zion the Mormon Concept and Hall's NewVistas project.

A copy of an old drawing isn't the distinctive characteristic of Zion. The distinctive characteristic is that a group of people within a specific geographic region are so completely realizing their religious precepts that divine beings make a home there.

Joseph Smith's teachings re: Zion are meaningless outside of that context, and invoking Zion in any other way is sacrilege (doubly so when it's to promote a commercial endeavor).

<comment><USER21> So you're saying the true Zion / New Jerusalem of the end times will come about organically rather than in a pre-planned fashion? Fair enough.

(I'm not up on my eschatology enough to get into this further.)

<comment><USER22> I think what he means is that mormon concept of Zion/New Jerusalem cannot be brought about by someone with his standing in the mormon church. It would need to be initiated by the leaders of the church who presumably act in God's name. In fact, the location of the New Jerusalem has already been prophesied. It is supposed to be built up in Missouri. It was already started but never finished. You can go and see where the corner stones for the temples were placed decades ago but never completed. It doesn't mean this guy can't create a nice community but it will never be Zion in the mormon sense of the word.

Source: I was raised mormon and my family used to go visit the location where Zion was to be created.

<comment><USER20> I don't think it necessarily has to be initiated top-down. But the thing is that this is nothing like Zion, except that it resembles an old drawing. The physical layout of Zion is an unimportant implementation detail. Not only does Hall have no authority, but he also, as far as I know, has not expressed any intention for this to be an attempt at real Zion, and even if he had, it wouldn't matter. One man can't make Zion by himself. Not even the President of the Church can do that, which is abundantly clear from a cursory review of Smith's biography. It requires a people that so fully live the principles of the Celestial Kingdom that divine beings can take up residence among them (see D&C 105:5 [0]). Hall may believe he has found a great city layout in the archives of the Church, and if so, more power to him, but this all has no relation to the real Zion, which is the pure in heart. That's why I keep saying these have nothing to do with each other, except that Hall is copying an old drawing by Smith.

If someone was making a _serious_ attempt at building Zion, they would do so by committing themselves to teaching the pure doctrine, engaging in as much service as possible, helping other people fix their economic woes in a self- sufficient, sustainable manner that doesn't necessitate a patron (which basically means supplying the basics while they learn an in-demand skill), and so on. In short, they would do all the things the Church is already doing. All an individual can do is seek to augment that.

So, again, while Hall's project is admirable, it has no relation to Zion, because Zion is Zion only once a heavenly people inhabit it. It's not about building a city out to a certain spec.

[0] [https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc- testament/dc/105.5?lang=en...](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc- testament/dc/105.5?lang=eng)

<comment><USER22> I don't disagree.

Edit: I guess I partially disagree. In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.

<comment><USER20> >In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.

I don't think this is correct. Everyone is a participant in creating the New Jerusalem insofar as they working to make themselves and those around them more heavenly.

The physical buildings and structure are practically an afterthought. They'll come into being once the people who can live there exist. I don't believe that there will be a call out or a "project" embarked upon per se; I know a lot of Mormons expect the prophet to say "We're going to Missouri" out of the blue one day, but I don't think it will happen that way. Even in Joseph Smith's day, when proclamations along those lines did occur, the process was long and gradual, and ultimately used to facilitate the journey out to the Saints' settling place in Utah. Saints who expected immediate redemption were quickly and repeatedly disappointed. It will be the same way with the New Jerusalem. It will be built gradually, almost without being noticed.

I believe the people will continue improving, begin by happenstance to converge in the appointed place, and the city will spring up around it (this is especially plausible if you believe other End Times revelation that indicates people will be forced to flee most populated places). Temples will be built to accommodate the population. Eventually the Church will move HQ there. Around this time there may be a formal call or encouragement for people to come out to the center place in a reasonable, orderly manner, as they're able.

Yes, the Priesthood has to be involved to a certain extent, but that part will occur automatically as the people qualify. We already see that with temple building; the First Presidency designates places for new temples if they believe the Saints are qualified to care for one. The same pattern will be followed here. As the people in this place improve, the Law of Consecration will begin to be practiced, the people's hearts will be prepared, and the Church will facilitate it within its existing structure by expanding the relevant bishopric's responsibilities to the full breadth of their scriptural mandate.

So yes, the Priesthood has to be there to provide some of the edifices and oversee some of the practices. But it will be there once the people are ready, and it's not going to happen all at once.

The only way that anyone can _actually_ work to build Zion is to make themselves, and work to influence those around them to be, worthy to live there.

I'm as TBM as they come, so if you have contradictory evidence, I'd be interested in reviewing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> >>> Rooftop farms will make use of advanced techniques drawn from marijuana cultivation, and box-shaped greenhouses will improve yields and prevent the spread of disease and insects.

So many of these grand plans do not appreciate the manpower necessary to harvest crops. If you want to do everything by hand, in tiny batches without the advantages of large mechanized devices, 90+% of the people are going to be engaged primarily in cultivation. That might have been fine 200+ years ago, but not today.

The problem with implementation is not one of planning, but of wants and needs. Does everyone here, or at least 90% of you, want to be a farmer? Growing your own tomatoes on the balcony is fine when you are a 20-somthing kid. Try growing enough for you, your partner, three kids, gran and grandpa, the dog ... suddenly those big greenhouses and giant JohnDeer harvesters are looking a little less evil.

</comment><comment><USER24> I hope he doesn't have a repeat of the The Mormon War of 1838 where Mormons tried to massively settle areas and then take over the government of the area and mold that government according to their own values with little consideration of the current residents.

There are things that are highly concerning:

'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'

'Families and individuals who wish to join must invest their net worth...'

'Those who start Vista Bizzes will be given startup funds by thte community but must surrender their IP rights. They also must agree to put nearly all their profits back into the community in exchance for what Hall calls "dividends" \-- payouts from overall wealth earned by the plat businesses.'

I don't say this lightly, but how is this not a plan for building a Communist cult with an explicit plan to centralize power of the plats, presumably to Hall himself?

<comment><USER25> It sounds more like an Israeli kibutz, not a bad model for people who voluntarily go for it.

<comment><USER26> Unfortunately people who are born into it don't get a choice.

<comment><USER27> could be said about literally anything

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I found it odd that several brands were mentioned where it adds nothing to the story; feels like product placement in soap opera's. e.g. Moleskin and Toyota; anyone know if they are actually getting paid for putting in those brand names?

<comment><USER29> Knowing that someone uses Moleskine notebooks adds nothing to the story? To me, it says a lot. Writers are taught to be specific, in part because it keeps a story interesting and makes it more vivid. I'd attribute the details to that over paid product placement. But then again I'm not an "idea man" who ignores inconvenient details when they can't be reconciled with my amazing vision based on something a lunatic scribbled on an 18th century cocktail napkin

<comment><USER28> You could just as well write "Italian-made luxury notebook"; this had the benefit of being understandable internationally (for people who don't know the brand) or long after the company is closed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe he should apply to YC New Cities. ;)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11987032](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11987032)

</comment><comment><USER30> I grew up in Vermont. Friends that still live there have been telling me about this. The biggest potential problem is that he will be able to take over the town and outvote those who have lived there for years. Like many places in Vermont there is likely only one road that runs through the town and many are worried there will be issue once this man owns all the land around it. But there is quite a few other established cults in Vermont. I assume it will end happening and not being that big of a deal. Vermonters MO is to leave people alone and let them do what they want.

</comment><comment><USER13> This seems like an insane thing to do in that part of Vermont. TFA doesn't have a map anywhere in it, but this is on the eastern edge of Vermont, near Hanover, NH, and Queechee, VT, except slightly north and farther away from those islands of quasi-civilization. I went to school near there, and spent almost a month building trail on the AT right around this area one summer. It's a backwards, old-timey redneck New England farming community, that reminds me far too much of my home in the Sandy River valley of Maine (aka I would love to live there and be a subsistence farmer...)

</comment><comment><USER20> The link to Mormonism is incredibly tenuous here. It seems that Hall's plans look vaguely like a grid, and so did Joseph Smith's. That's about the limit of the connection.

<comment><USER21> He's a Mormon and the idea is _inspired by_ Smith's writings though.

Seems like a fairly strong case of resurrecting and updating some of old plans just like if someone wanted to build a Greek city based on some old writings.

(Not a Mormon and don't have any horses in this race, just find the push to distance these plans from Mormonism odd.)

<comment><USER20> Joseph's plat was not a "plan". It was a record of something he thought he saw. It was specific to a time and a place. The inscription recited in the linked article to "spread this throughout the world" is made contingent upon it actually being reflective of the layout of Zion in the next clause, and was intended for a time when Zion is a real thing.

I want to distance these plans from Mormonism simply because the project has no meaningful relationship to it. There is no problem whatsoever with Hall drawing inspiration from an old document drawn out by Joseph Smith et al, I take no umbrage with that. The issue is the attempt to pretend that it is some realization of Joseph's intent or visions, some significant step forward in the creation of the Zion of scripture (which, for the record, is mostly defined in the Bible).

NewVistas is one man's plan for a city he thinks will work well. He may even believe the plan has some divine sanction over it, which is fine. I wish him luck in his attempts to lawfully build his ideal city.

What I do _not_ wish to see is the false association, the false significance, ascribed to this project, merely based on Hall's assertion that he drew inspiration from a document authored by Smith. It creates the false impression that Mormons will accept this as religiously significant, and they don't and won't, because it isn't.

<comment><USER21> The sense I'm getting from what you're saying is that this plan to create a "Zion" is like various Christian groups doing X or Y to hasten the Second Coming of Christ?

Also, if you have a minute, I'd love to hear your understanding of what the real Zion will be. (Honest curiosity.)

<comment><USER31> Just throwing in some thoughts...

Mormon eschatology is pretty thin but the core beliefs are that the people are of "one heart and one mind" and that "there are no poor among them".

Specifically this mean that Zion can only be built from "within" and not by force of arms and an economic system not based on self interest but on "love thy neighbors as thyself".

Early Mormon's made attempts in Kirtland Ohio and Far West Missiouri which mostly failed due to rampant speculation and broader economic panics. Some of the ideas were adopted in Nauvoo, Illinois and later is small communities in Utah by Brigham Young.

Some of these experiments yielded later economic benefits because it allowed the Mormon's to divorce their economic system somewhat from gold (which was I short supply). While trades with non-Mormons would need to be settled with gold trade between Mormons could be settled with script that could be exchanged for goods at the "bishop's storehouse." Tradesmen and famers would sell items to the storehouse and get back script which they could then use to buy finsished good or services.

This created a currency that was functionally backed by finished goods and commodities and was immune to speculation and banking system panics that were common at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> As someone who lives not to far from here can I say, this is nuts. Mega-city and Vermont are opposites. It just seems crazy that someone with tons of money and nothing to spend it on can just walk in and try to build a city in the middle of nowhere and where everybody there besides him wants it that way.

<comment><USER33> Could you provide specific details?

<comment><USER32> The issue for me isn't him being Mormon or if he wanted to build a little community at a religious site. For me, the issue is that he bought up a community to impose his vision and his will on everyone there. No one there asked for this. It'd be upsetting if anyone of any background tried this same thing. He's not working with the community. He's trying to demolish it to build his own. That's incredibly selfish and arrogant. He tries to justify it saying it will be sustainable and a model for the future. But he is in no way working with the community. I think his ideas are admirable but he's going about it all the wrong way. He should have looked for a community wanting change and worked with them to make it better. It should be a collaborative process with compromise, not imperialistic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Quote from TFA:

 _One Vista Biz, called Medic, is developing a water-efficient toilet that also measures blood pressure, weight, and overall health by using sensors and sampling what passes through it. Hall hopes insurance companies will eventually cover the costs of installing such toilets at companies to track worker health._

This seems like a blatant invasion/abuse of privacy. Not to mention requiring people to give up their net worth and surrender all IP to live at the place.

<comment><USER2> I don't think people who go into these kinds of "communities" really have much desire for privacy. He's basically planning a commune.

<comment><USER35> Not sure what's implied by commune, but it seems like he welcomes people of other faiths in the community, even in leadership positions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Even though I'm not a Mormon, I kind of wish him luck. The plan is crazy, but I want to see what happens when its implemented.

</comment><comment><USER37> The irony is that Vermont is already basically its own utopian community, where the culture is that development never gets approved unless it's being done by a resident of the state. Oh and you're not considered a resident unless you've been there at least generations. If Hall moves there now, maybe they'll let his great grandkids start building it. (If they can get the ski mountains to sell them any water rights, which isn't likely.)

<comment><USER2> That's a gross distortion.

The state is very far from being a utopia, and new development does get routinely approved (though it can be controversial). We do tend to oppose giant chains or people trying to push systems onto the state.

<comment><USER37> Utopia just means 'non-existent place.' Which I feel like fairly describes the state, given that they only survive by giving out tons of speeding tickets to non-residents and jacking up their property taxes.

<comment><USER2> I don't really feel like defending my state on Hacker News, but I would like a citation for the notion that we survive by giving out tons of speeding tickets. At the very least, income tax is a much bigger contributor than speeding tickets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was disappointed when this was not about a new game called "Mormon Tycoon".

</comment><comment><USER39> The words "horrified" and "terrified" are thrown around too much these days.

</comment><comment><USER40> As non-US, non-Mormon, I thought Utah was their favourite state. Never realised Joseph Smith was from Vermont. So what's their connection with Utah?

<comment><USER41> Utah was a literal hell on earth: desert, rocks, salt lakes, extremely remote. Think Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote. Few Americans wanted it, so when the Mormons pushed their wheelbarrows (no shit!) there, they found no one disgusted enough with nontraditional Mormon family structures to run them off as previous communities had. The Mormons weren't super thrilled with Utah either, but through years of hard work they made it somewhat livable.

<comment><USER42> Without the mormons, Utah would likely be identical to Wyoming - barren and empty with no major airports, but perhaps an interstate or 2 to get you through as quickly as possible.

<comment><USER41> Wyoming has trees, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Sustainable cities sounds like the future. Low carbon emissions and no cars in the city center so the air is fresh.

Humans benefit from living among trees. The value of trees can be seen of property prices in New York where central park is highly valued. [http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/what-is-a-tree- worth](http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/what-is-a-tree-worth)

</comment><comment><USER44> As a very active member of the LDS (Mormon) faith (former Missionary, active weekly attender, holder of a volunteer calling, etc), as a person who lives in Utah, and as someone with business and investment experience, I'll give a few thoughts. You can take them for what they are worth knowing my background.

First of all, in my area, people who talk like Mr. Hall generally scare the daylights out of us. I work with some rather wealthy Mormon investors (Peterson's, Sorenson's, Marriott's, Romney's) in a technical capacity and I have never run into Mr. Hall. But I have met plenty of people who believe they are resurrecting some idea from Joseph Smith. They generally use these sorts of ideological fallacies to attempt to extract investment money from well meaning but less than experienced middle class Mormon "investors" (read: retirees with 401k's and pensions). It's sad but in Utah one of the best places to find a crook or a fraud is in your church congregation.

Second, there was a time early in church history when Mormon's had a really hard time finding a safe place to live. There are a few reasons for this (in the world according to me, again take it with a grain of salt). In the early days of the church, Mormon's would ALL move together. Look at Nauvoo, IL, as a good example. It started out as a single road village that was in essentially the swamp lands along the Mississippi River and in no time grew to tens of thousands of people who all thought very similar to one another, and more importantly controlled politics together. That had to be scary for the residents of villages, counties, and states that we would move into. So people fought back against the Mormons. Of course there were also some horrible massacres against Mormons [1] [2]. Nevertheless, moving together, planning communities, and sustaining ourselves was a big deal at the time.

Now, things have changed. The church actively teaches that you are to build up the church community where you are. You are to participate in local and national politics according to your own conscious and education. We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned community or "Utopia".

One final note. Mormon's (myself included) are generally very conservative. There is no doubt about that. With that, one of the things that really stuck out in the article was this idea that anyone moving to this community would give up all they had for the greater good in some communist style ownership and profit sharing scheme. That is nearly laughable. Many of the more wealthy church members I know are generous and knowledgable philanthropists but they are not going to suddenly wake up and say "A ha! A scroll from Joseph Smith which says we should make planned communities and turn over all of our wealth to said community!" [3] Mormon's are conservative and often unapologetic capitalists.

This is either someones delusion or someones horrible scam.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mill_massacre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mill_massacre)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44)

[3] Yes there is some historical precedence for a communistic Mormon idea called the United Order, aka the United Order of Enoch, which is honestly where some of Mr. Hall's ideas came from. There are some within the Church who believes we will at some point live in this way. The idea is well outside of the scope of my comment here and suffice it to say, the United Order cannot be overseen by some random guy who read a document in a library.

<comment><USER22> > one of the things that really stuck out in the article was this idea that > anyone moving to this community would give up all they had for the greater > good in some communist style ownership and profit sharing scheme. That is > nearly laughable.

I know you added a footnote to this but how is it laughable? That is exactly what the law of consecration was/is. It has never been denounced that I know of. It was postponed due to the saints inability to follow it. Afaik, mormons still believe that the law of consecration is a divine construct and will be brought back once the saints are faithful enough to obey.

> We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother > civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or > private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned > community or "Utopia".

Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be called to gather in Zion (Missouri). That sounds pretty similar. In fact I used to know people in the mormon church that had 50 gallon barrels of gas stashed away for when armageddon hits and they need to b-line it for Zion.

I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy because it isn't coming from the top but it isn't that these ideas are coming from left field.

If you want I can provide sources for this stuff but anyone raised in the church has heard these ideas since day one and I know that you have too.

<comment><USER44> > I know you added a footnote to this but how is it laughable?

That's a good question and you are right. I also happen to believe in the Law of Consecration (aka The United Order of Enoch). However, the fact that Mr. Hall would suggest it is the laughable part.

It is exactly for the reason you stated "I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy". Exactly. People can decide whatever they would like about my faith and my deeply held beliefs, as well as those of my religion. But my faith and beliefs go far deeper than "Someday we will live the Law of Consecration". My personal faith says that the structure and hierarchy of our religion is built and managed by God himself and that he will direct the work involved with the Law of Consecration in his own time and own ways and that I will know when that time is right because of my faith and closeness to Him. A random church member cannot bring about the Law of Consecration.

> Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be > called to gather in Zion (Missouri).

This is an interesting one. I wouldn't say I was "taught" this as much as I was told this from time to time by people who were, again, rather laughable. This is such a common LDS church myth that the church itself put out an explanation with some great references [1]. There are plenty of crazy people in the world, Mormon and non-Mormon. I have a neighbor who believes a 2 year supply (another suggestion the church gives) actually means a 2 year supply of ammunition for his firearms because he believes this will be "the only currency after the great destruction". I personally keep a two year supply more in line with what is suggested by Dave Ramsey. To each their own, I guess.

Now, just to curb some of the comments that I might receive from this. These are my beliefs and this is my faith which I have gained over a large swath of my life. I did not gain it randomly and I understand others might not believe what I do and may think I am crazy/delusional/"a sheeple" or whatnot. I understand you might not agree. I am fine with that, my faith doesn't require you to.

[1] [https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/04/missouri- myths?lang=eng](https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/04/missouri-myths?lang=eng)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm really disappointed this is not a new video game

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure New Vistas is really just a new place to play Pokemon Go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> That map drawn by Joseph Smith looks awfully similar to a 5280x5280 .PNG I made a while ago, minus the 6-lane expressway and the 5-lane arterial roads.

Based on that thought experiment, my opinion is that there is no way this guy is ever going to get a town of 20000 people in one square mile of Vermont and still sustain a modernized economy.

In my image, I tessellated a square mile into 9600 rectangles, each 88'x33'. 928 of those rectangles became 50'-wide arterial roads flanked by 8'-wide sidewalks. 320 of those rectangles became a 176'-wide expressway corridor with 8 double-crossover overpass interchanges to the arterial roads. (These road areas would also have utility conduits underneath the road surface.) The remaining 8352 lots have an identical access easement for 18'-wide streets, 20' on each side for perpendicular parking, and another 4' on each side for sidewalks.

I assumed 60% of building lots would be residential buildings, with average occupancy of 4 people per residential lot, for a maximum of 20045 residents, with a total of 15776 on-street parking spaces, and 223 of the 640 acres left over for parks, commercial buildings, and government buildings.

The image ignores potential geographical obstructions, so the only way you could get all 29 local access streets, all 8 arterial roads, and the expressway to go through is to build on flat, featureless land, as one might find somewhere between Wichita, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis. In Vermont, there's no way.

And if you are intending to build a city _in America_ without reserving at least 1.8 parking spaces per household, you're going to have problems. Some of the non-residential lots would have to be dedicated parking lots or garages, because the non-residential buildings need more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit cell. About a third of your permanent "residents" are going to be cars, and half of your money-importing commercial visitors will be cars. If you plan your whole city around temples, rather than truck routes, sewers, and optical fiber backbones, you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER47> >That map drawn by Joseph Smith looks awfully similar to a 5280x5280 .PNG I made a while ago

Do you mind uploading it?

>without reserving at least 1.8 parking spaces per household, you're going to have problems

For those curious, SF has 805,235 households / 441,541 public parking spots = ~0.548. Both numbers as of 2010.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> This was tried 200 years ago, and it fizzled ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana))

<comment><USER49> This has been tried throughout most of human history (and often succeeded, by reasonable measures of success.) See [http://www.ic.org/](http://www.ic.org/) and [http://www.communalstudies.org/](http://www.communalstudies.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I have my doubts about the social structure proposed, though that is interesting too.

However, the actual physical layout is pretty neat. Though I prefer that there be some provisions for existing vehicles rather than rely on pod technology that hasn't been developed / deployed yet. But I would definitely want to have any motor vehicles relegated be considered secondary users and their use kept at least a little inconvenient. Rather than with current urban planning, where vehicles are the primary user, and pedestrians are an afterthought.

I would love to live in a walkable community.

</comment><comment><USER51> Most Utopian visions eventually lead to Dystopian reality. The French Revolution is nice historical lesson in how seemingly good ideas can lead to the opposite.

<comment><USER52> What do you think of the American Revolution?

<comment><USER53> I was just listening to the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast. In the most recent episode they point out that the American Revolution was different precisely because it wasn't a make-a-society-from-whole-cloth revolution like most, but a return to the ancient rights they had previously enjoyed as British citizens. In the French revolution, they changed everything including the calendar. The hubris involved in that kind of revolution rarely works out.

<comment><USER54> Hall is an engineer. So why is he trying several new ideas at once? Is it hubris or just civil engineering?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This seems like a control fantasy. Convince a bunch of rootless and naively optimistic folks to live in your planned community, where every aspect of their lives -- personal and economic -- is supervised, and they live in tiny boxes. Oh sure, residents are free to leave anytime, but will have to fight to extract their assets and may be shunned by their erstwhile friends, family, and colleagues.

<comment><USER56> Sounds like a startup!

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> > Hall hired Ellis Mills Public Affairs, and kept buying land.

Is this the modern white collar equivalent of paying for protection ?

</comment><comment><USER58> > "...each plat should house 15,000 to 20,000 people within one square > mile..."

15,000 to 20,000 people per square mile means 43.11 to 37.34 sq-feet/person. That is below the dimensions of most tiny houses.

EDIT: please correct me in a comment if I am mistaken.

5280'/mile square mile is 5280' x 5280' = 27,878,400 sq' 27,878,400 sq' / 20,000 persons = 1,393.92 sq'/person

Yup - you are right. I was off by ~2 orders of magnitude. I took the square root one more time for no reason. I ended up calculating the length of the walls of the (multistory?) box you get to live in - 37.34' to 43.11'.

Thanks.

<comment><USER59> Not sure where you get that.

Seems off a square mile is 640 acres an acre is 43560sf. So 640 * 43560 / 20,000 = ~1400 sf of land per person. Multi story buildings would increase it, and area not part of buildings would decrease it. But, overall it's not that crazy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> > already had more than 150 engineers working on technology

That's not always a good thing. It's funny people are impressed by facts like these.

</comment><comment><USER60> I clicked on this hoping that it was a game about organizing a religion.

I am thoroughly disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER61> My start up idea: Take all the social aspects of Mormonism, delete the theology (magic underwear), make gender roles symmetric, and allow gay people as long as they otherwise follow the rules. Then charge a membership fee, maybe keeping it under 10% of your income in order to remain competitive. Perhaps there can be an Uber-style app...

I think Mormonism/ LDS is possibly the most innovative social experiments in the USA in the last 200 years, even when stood up against such gems as the Land Grant Colleges, public schooling, public health, etc. You just have to see past the mystical bullshit (as you always must if you want to understand what is powerful in a religious movement).</comment>


Is Fractional Reserve Banking a Ponzi Scheme? - <AUTHOR> http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/15/Is-Fractional-Reserve-Banking-a-Ponzi-Scheme/?r=jaran

<comment><USER2> No. Ponzi schemes do not have a reserve, and there are no salable assets available for paying back the entirety of the deposit.

Asking an easily-refuted question like this is little more than petulant foot- stomping from a Bitcoin aficionado upset at the reasonable comparison between Bitcoin and Ponzi schemes. It reflects poorly on the author.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's worse. It's monopoly money.</comment>


[Book] Hustle: The Life Changing Effects of Constant Motion - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B019ESY7EI <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone! Here's more info on my new book, Hustle:

My first book was a #1 bestseller. It took me a year to write it. Hustle is different. It was written, produced, and published in just seven days. The ridiculously short production schedule was meant to prove a point: focus + momentum = mindbending productivity.

Don't be fooled, though. The biggest opportunities in life don't come from sprinting. They emerge over time through constant motion.

The goal of this book is to engage with every hustler — all the people fighting for a purposeful life — and motivate them to keep going. Hustle takes you through my sprint of writing a book in seven days. But my message isn't just to "go fast." Hustling means many things. The core element, I argue, is constant motion. While I wrote the book quickly, I still poured every ounce of my heart and soul into it.

The book is already doing well. It currently ranks #1 in the Personal Success category, and #868 overall on Amazon (among all free books).

Hope you enjoy it. If you want to spread the word, feel free to post the link wherever you like. J</comment>


Dostoevsky's Empathy - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/11/11/dostoevskys-empathy/ <comment><USER2> One of my favorite character studies is a brief section in Dostoyevsky's _The House of the Dead_. The man truly understood people.

 _He was a man with a terrible strength of will and a proud awareness of his strength . . . [He] . . . was not really quite an ordinary mortal. . . . I can say unequivocally that never in my life have I met a man of stronger, more adamantine character. . . . This was truly a case of total victory over the flesh. It was evident that this man had a boundless self-mastery, that he had nothing but contempt for any kind of torture and punishment, and that he was not afraid of anything under the sun. All that could be seen in him was an infinite energy, a thirst for activity, for revenge, and for the attainment of the goal he had set himself. I was also struck by his strange arrogance. He looked at everything in an incredibly haughty manner. . . . I do not think that there was any being in the world that could have influenced him by its authority alone._

<comment><USER3> I need to reread that book. I remember being profoundly moved by it but I can't quite put it to words well. He captured the heart of the impoverished and especially the criminal.

<comment><USER4> Reminds me of Dickens' portrayal of Sydney Carton in Tale of Two Cities. Dickens' ability to peer into the soul of Carton moved me in ways no longer work has before.

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes … this is not tenderheartedness, but simply joy … what's most frightening is that it's so terribly clear, and there's such joy. If it were to last longer than five seconds—the soul could not endure it and would vanish."

This is quite true, I have epilepsy myself, I can feel what he feels, the seconds when brain is purely clear about the world around, incredible. I love all his books, and his biography.

He had 102 seizures during 1860-1881, that's about one seizure every 2-3 months, this is the frequency I have seizure too, it's all grand mal seizure. It have been big problem from early centuries, and now, it's still a big problem in modern society.

I want to help those people with epilepsy someday with some kinds of technology somehow, I know they are all leading a hard life in this world, inclulding myself.</comment>


OK Google: Bypass the Authentication - <AUTHOR> https://techblog.mediaservice.net/2020/01/ok-google-bypass-the-authentication/ <comment><AUTHOR> > I reached out to them in order to better understand these updates, but they > said that "those changes are not made as a result of [my] report".

It seems unlike Google to renege on the terms of their vulnerability reward program. But it looks really, really, conspicuous to NOFIX and then go ahead and make multiple changes to mitigate the problem.</comment>


An Opinion Piece On A Controversial Topic - <AUTHOR> http://junkee.com/an-opinion-piece-on-a-controversial-topic/23161

<comment><USER2> Being a self-declared expert on Issue, I feel compelled to pedantically point out the weakness of Author's argument. I'll also insert an obligatory reference to how Favorite Tech Company will solve Issue sooner than everyone thinks by disrupting the stodgy old business model that's being propped up by Ethically-Dubious Lobby Group With Questionable Funding Practices. I'll conclude with a complaint about how Web Design Technique used in article renders it unreadable on Device.

</comment><comment><USER3> Explicit self referential media is an interesting memetic spreading tactic.

I used to watch family guy confused as fuck as a kid. What the fuck is up with all these references? If I wanted to be in on the jokes I had to consume more of the same TV media.

Same goes for most pop/rap... in credit referential to others within the same medium. But of course not all music relies on explicit memetic references.

So the question is, why the tactic? I don't know. All I know is that it made me feel ignorant to not consume more mundane TV to feel superior in my ability to get meaningless footnoYes.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my position as the Arbiter of Relevance, I presume to speak for all of you when I complain that articles about this issue don't belong on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER5> I recognize that seagull photo in that article, I'm therefore qualified to immediately dismiss any and all points made in it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Reminded me of Da Vinci's Notebook and their masterpiece "Title of the Song": [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=734wnHnnNR4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=734wnHnnNR4)

</comment><comment><USER7> [http://news.rapgenius.com/Edward-sharp-paul-an-opinion- piece...](http://news.rapgenius.com/Edward-sharp-paul-an-opinion-piece-on-a- controversial-topic-lyrics#note-2464713)</comment>