Navdy - <AUTHOR> https://www.navdy.com/ <comment><USER2> I hate to see products like these promoted because the creators are making bloodmoney.

Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because they encourage your mind to wander. Most people's brains are really not good at multitasking. (Try patting your head while rubbing your belly counterclockwise)

Anything that takes your mind away from the road when you're driving even if you can see the road is dangerous. (They found that talking to someone in a passenger seat is not as dangerous because if they notice danger and you don't, they'll inform you of the danger automatically by tensing up or whatever.)

If your brain worked like a single process cpu, it would be like setting Twitter to high priority while relegating driving your 2-ton SUV to low priority. It will work well enough most of the time, but sooner or later, you'll crash the SUV.

(Source: BS in psychology)

<comment><USER3> > Cell phones are not dangerous because the driver was looking at his phone or > playing with the buttons when he had an accident. They are dangerous because > they encourage your mind to wander.

I'm going to speculate that driving is such an activity that doesn't require constant attention and involves quite a bit of monotony. In such circumstances, mind wandering _will_ happen—be there a mobile phone, Navdy, or nothing at all.

This is a human factor. The only complete solution to this issue seems to be self-driving cars, when your mind and its wandering are taken out of equation.

With that in mind, a mobile phone doesn't seem to stand equal to other causes of mind-wandering, contrary to your claim. A phone also _obstructs large portions of the road_ from your view when you're using it.

<comment><USER4> First, road accidents are are among top 10 causes of deaths in the world, so this isn't a small matter.

Second, there is research that shows that dividing your attention just between driving and _talking_ can cause a significant reduction of reaction speed. Driving safely is not monotonous activity. Of course, if your car is crawling in a LA traffic jam, accidents are mostly non-fatal, but when you are driving 100km/h, cars are dangerous objects.

<comment><USER5> I believe that accidents caused by distracting devices are only a small % (really small) of this trend. The huge % of car accidents is because of alcohol abuse.

<comment><USER4> If I recall correctly, distracted driving is the main cause for around 20% of the fatal accidents in the US. Drunk driving is around 40%.

<comment><USER5> If it's as high as 20% I'm all wrong, sorry. Was not able to find any hard- data (paper) though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why can't we just stop using phones while driving? No matter how much one reduces distraction, it is still more distracting than not using it in the first place. Twitter while driving - why on earth?!? For navigation it is obviously a good idea because you can keep your eyes on the street and don't have to look to your GPS or even try to read street names.

Watch »From One Second to the Next« [1] from the »Texting and Driving - It can wait« campaign.

[1] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqFkRwdFZ0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqFkRwdFZ0)

<comment><USER7> Hmm, I also can't get this - WHY is it so hard to just answer that text / facebook message / call 10 minutes later after you stop. WHAT in the world is SO URGENT it has to be done right now?!

<comment><USER8> It's not hard to understand, even though it's completely insane. People simply don't think about driving as a dangerous activity requiring their full attention.

<comment><USER9> This is actually one of my favorite things about riding a motorcycle. It removes the 'safety net' of the car and forces one to pay full attention to the road. Texting is simply out of the question.

<comment><USER10> [http://youtu.be/K59eMpWsyNE](http://youtu.be/K59eMpWsyNE)

<comment><USER11> Well of course there are exceptions. Personally I've tried the "emailing from my laptop while riding a bicycle" thing - you take your hands off the handlebars, swing your backpack around (that's the hardest part and most likely to bring you of-balance), take out your laptop, open it, wait for it to come out of sleep and compose and email with one hand while holding it with the other. Of course on an empty park path with a friend to watch out for other people. Depending on the inherent stability of the given bike frame, and the weight of the laptop, it's actually not that hard...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is an interesting harm reduction angle to products like this.

It's probably the case that people using Navdy will drive worse than people with 100% attention on driving. It's also quite likely they'll drive better than people using a cellphone directly. The question is if it makes people feel safer and thus more willing to do the dangerous activity, countering the safety benefit. (There's also a clear benefit to people actually using phones while driving; letting people know they're late, not being bored, etc. It's just generally trumped by the safety loss; I'd be willing to sacrifice SOME safety for convenience/entertainment.)

It's the same thing with sex (abstinence vs. barrier-based birth control vs. hormonal birth control), drugs (illegal vs. decrminalized vs. legalized), etc.

It's possible NOT having technologies like this leads to overall less safety; it's also possible it leads to more safety. It depends on the specifics.

I have nav (with voice, and a driver information display in my line of sight while driving), and use that, and also don't feel particularly bad about looking at my phone screen to see who called, etc. while stopped at a red light (although I realize it's less than perfectly safe; it's also more of a legal risk than a safety risk in california now, IMO.)

Actually using the phone while driving, or having anything but the most brief and cursory conversation while driving in the city, is clearly a sacrifice in safety; I don't mind phone calls on highways, but I generally won't answer in the city.

<comment><USER13> Right when weighting the benefits the big one is the fact most people use GPS navigation, having it via HUD is a significant safety boost. I'd say the same for speedometers.

Other situations are still not super useful and probably won't get used. Can you meaningful respond to text messages with voice? Not quite, yet at least. Can you skim read them? Yes. That is not super distracting but still enough of a distraction in some cases. But I can't think of many use-cases that are any worse than a bluetooth headset voice conversation.

<comment><USER14> But navigation was a very small fraction of the video, much less than texting and tweeting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Does one company make every startup's tech product video?

 _Edit:_ Yes. [http://sandwichvideo.com/](http://sandwichvideo.com/)

<comment><USER16> Check out the license plate at 0:51, it reads SANDWCH.

<comment><USER17> They replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo on the car as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I said it last time: it's shocking they thought the most important use case was "WATCH INTERNET VIDEOS WHILE YOU DRIVE."

And they _still_ haven't changed their homepage.

Navdy could be really useful, even improving of total safety, as HUD navigation. But maybe that's not where the money is.

<comment><USER19> I thought this was a parody just because of this - I'm still not sure...

"Hey watch this ___video_ __??? "

I just can't believe it.

<comment><USER20> The photo on their home page shows someone reading an SMS, not watching a video. The SMS is from someone recommending a video, but there's no indication that you can actually watch the video while you drive.

It's a poor choice of image, though obviously they were just trying to embed the "Hey, watch our video in your browser" instructions into the photo itself.

Aside from that, even reading SMS while you drive seems like a bad idea to me. But I'm really tempted to get a Navdy for features that _improve_ safety, by moving stuff that I already look at (speed, navigation) from my dashboard to the HUD. I've been shopping for cars recently and wishing that HUDs were available in more affordable models. I just hope you can turn off Navdy's text/call notifications and other extras.

<comment><USER19> You obviously get my point though. Exceedingly poor choice of front and center image to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This product is going to kill people, and unfortunately not just the ones who buy it.

<comment><USER22> The same could be said of cars themselves. And phones. And kitchen knives.

<comment><USER23> I think the parent comment is referring to the lack of regulation of this product by regulatory bodies.

Cars are regulated to travel below a certain speed. Phones are regulated to their use outside of a vehicle (when operated by a human), and kitchen knives are illegal to carry in public.

While the parent comment is a little melodramatic, there's still something to be said regarding the safety of usage in this product and its affect on other people.

<comment><USER22> These regulations were put into place after the products were released. I don't see why this should be any different.

<comment><USER24> So we need to wait until some poor shmucks kill a few kids and pregnant mothers before we can realize this product (as currently advertised) is a bad idea? I thought we're smarter than that.

HUDs are not bad. But Navdy keeps marketing their product as a text-while- driving aid. Not very smart.

<comment><USER22> 30k+ people die in car accidents every year in the US alone. These accidents are caused by a laundry list of things, including texting, eating, interactions with other passengers, fiddling with the radio, etc, etc. As cold and as heartless as this may sound, all sorts of products _will_ kill people on the road, but some level is fatalities is "acceptable" when compared to the stifling and unrealistic alternative of aggressively policing every potential distraction.

Texting while driving is one of the most dangerous distractions primarily because of the interface: eyes off the road, hands off the wheel.

If Navdy can potentially reduce the danger of texting to a level comparable to that of, say, talking to passengers in your car, then I don't see how you can justifiably "realize" that it's a bad idea without seeing some statistics first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> martin-adams Nice looking product, but I can't help but think we shouldn't be encouraging sending Tweets while driving. I'd say keep these devices to assist driving (navigation and safety information), but not to assist additional activities on top of driving.

<comment><USER25> Agree..not sure why every product feels like it needs act like a communications device on top of it's main purpose. Couldn't help but think the same thing with Apple Watch...do you really think people are going to tweet from that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> [http://www.hudwayapp.com/](http://www.hudwayapp.com/) Free application without any hardware. What are you guys trying to prove here. I didn't get your point.

<comment><USER27> This is genius. I rarely drive, and when I do it's seldom at night, but when I do I want exactly what's in the first picture on this website. I never understood why no GPS (app or hardware) comes with this feature, even though it provides clear advantages. In rally racing providing this info is basically the entire job of the person in the passenger seat.

<comment><USER26> Hahaha. True.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Driving is a full time occupation.

If you can reduce the number of distractions please do. A phone needs only one button, answer/break connection and you shouldn't be dialling 'out' while driving anyway. No need to pop up pictures and other distractions in front of the driver, such a call at the wrong moment could easily cause an accident, if only because you will instinctively re-focus on the changing item in front of you.

Set your GPS navigator to do voice announcements and only check the display when you suspect a sudden change in direction or are not sure what lane to sort into. Other than that the voice indications should be enough.

</comment><comment><USER29> stop using your phone when you're driving. It's not that hard. It can wait. If it can't, find somewhere to pull over.

GPS, cool. Text etc? ARGH.

<comment><USER18> Check out Navdy's rad video!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As a motorcycle rider, these things scare the hell out of me. Drivers already pay little enough attention; do we really need more distractions? Jets have HUDs, but they also have much less traffic, highly trained pilots, and computers and air traffic control watching out for things the pilot misses. Car drivers have Siri.

<comment><USER31> If you're feeling left out: [http://www.skullysystems.com/](http://www.skullysystems.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Holy shit, people. The point of this product is not to enable tweeting. Did you miss the ever-present navigation hud?

This is a good product. Don't you use nav? What's better: Looking at your nav screen pinned to the dash or in the console; looking down at the phone in your lap, because you know you can't be seen holding it; or looking at the road with augmented information?

If you think HUDs are more dangerous than squinting at road signs or reading maps, then you can petition your legislators to make it illegal. I'm all for it, though, because I know the alternatives are worse.

</comment><comment><USER33> previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815)

</comment><comment><USER34> It would be awesome if this product was actually a giant sting operation designed to identify people who have no business being on the road.

"I see you have a Navdy there, ma'am. I'm going to need to confiscate your car keys before you hurt somebody."

</comment><comment><USER35> Actually there are plenty of Navigation gadgets doing the same function, but non of them works on a sunny day. I bought some of them, but frustrated, non of them are really functional. I drive on a highway a lot and navigation is annoying when it's not in front of you. So how do Navdy solves this problem?

</comment><comment><USER36> Nice first step! I want this, but with eye tracking so it can plot perspective correct navigation arrows _on the actual streets_ in front of me.

</comment><comment><USER37> Neat product and like others have noted here - well done on the marketing. Doing other things while driving is dangerous no doubt, but it is also a very practical reality. Any product that embraces this practicality and tries to maximize eyes on on the road is a good step forward in making driving safer.

A random idea: Adding a camera to this could open up the dashcam market. In Russia for example, dashcams a very common and are a part of the driving culture (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashcam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashcam) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance)).

</comment><comment><USER38> I know the display looks cool and all but this doesn't make driving with a phone any safer. You're still distracted. It's no different to just having your phone on the windscreen.

Even where I live (Tasmania, Australia) I'm fairly sure there is either a proposal or already a law banning even hands free devices, because they are seen as just as dangerous. This device is going to be illegal to start with.

The only two thing I see as being feasible from a safety point of view for cars is either some sort of augmented reality for lane guidance and navigation, or your phone giving you direction via voice (which they already do).

<comment><USER39> When I did driver training they taught us that being lost is a major contributor to accidents. I am very skeptical that I would be safer and less distracted while squinting in the distance for street signs than I would be having a quick glance at my windshield mounted phone with GPS.

<comment><USER38> I would agree to an extent with that, but I guess with street signs you are still looking outside the car as opposed to inside it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Ok, nifty device, but what happens when you have a collusion or an accident and that device in front of your head starts flying around ?

I don't want to destroy their hype bu they should really give that problem some thought.

<comment><USER34> In fairness, it's not like they're the only device in the world that mounts on a car dashboard. There's tons of GPS receivers, phone holders, etc. that do the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wow, what a sweet product. And boy do they know how to market it, "feels like driving in the future."

</comment><comment><USER42> A killer feature for this would be IR/night vision with an external camera.

They did a great job with the marketing video for this. Really curious to see where this ends up.

<comment><USER43> More external cameras, IR, heat, whatever, looking out at all angles. I'm definitely for it. Not sure why we still have those drag inducing chunks sticking out of our sleek vehicles, the reflective things that can ice over, and that you have to calibrate for each driver, now that tiny cameras and range sensors are cheap and ubiquitous.

<comment><USER44> Range sensors that actually work reasonably well outdoors are neither cheap nor ubiquitous. Note that we're talking about imaging range sensors here, not single point measurements.

Time of flight cameras? They predominantly use NIR (900nm or circa) and so they're rubbish in sunlight. Try using your kinect outdoors. Beyond the kinect they're also very expensive, a few thousand each. The kinect 1 also fails outdoors and when the range is > 5m or so.

LIDAR? Well sure, you can buy a rotating line scanner - 100-180deg field of view typical. They're very nice, but also (new) you're looking at around $3-5k. Don't even dream about getting a Velodyne system, like the Google car uses.

Stereo? Yeah... well stereo is nice, but it takes a lot of computational grunt to do it in real time, reliably and in varying illuminations (good luck using it at night).

Thermal? We're getting there, FLIR make some fairly low cost, low resolution sensors, but still you're looking at $500-1000 a pop in OEM quantities.

RADAR/Ultrasonics are reasonably cheap nowadays and they're pretty good for coarse measurements like when you need to know how far you are from the wall in your garage. We're getting to the point where RADAR is good enough for collision avoidance (i.e. auto-braking) on high speed roads.

More cameras are cool, but you need to know how to process the data and present it clearly to the user. I can see the advantage of having a camera for a rear-view mirror particularly for vehicles like vans with no rear windows. Side mirrors are still useful and for most people the cost of installing multiple high resolution video cameras and monitors isn't worth the savings in petrol from drag reduction. If you replace a mirror with a camera you also need a very high resolution display, a wide angle camera that doesn't distort too much and a way of viewing it in any conceivable illumination condition. Mirrors are also nice and mechanical, unless you crash they rarely ever break.

<comment><USER42> > Thermal? We're getting there, FLIR make some fairly low cost, low resolution > sensors, but still you're looking at $500-1000 a pop in OEM quantities.

From what I've heard, the FLIR lepton core might be around $~250 in quantities, which could make it affordable as an add-on module.

<comment><USER44> Yep that's true actually, I forgot about the Lepton. Mike's electricstuff did a teardown/hack of it recently - [http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/lepton.html](http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/lepton.html).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's odd that they promote their product by saying that phone use while driving is unsafe. I fail to see who this is significantly safer than using a phone, since to use the HUD one needs to necessarily remove their attention and focus from the road and redirect it to a small point much closer to their face. Granted, it is probably at least a little better than using a phone, but I'd be _very_ hesitant to say that it's safe.

<comment><USER46> > _It 's odd that they promote their product by saying that phone use while > driving is unsafe. I fail to see who this is significantly safer than using > a phone, since to use the HUD one needs to necessarily remove their > attention and focus from the road and redirect it to a small point much > closer to their face._

The thing is, jet fighter pilots use HUDs. If those work for them, I'm pretty sure it's ok for a car too.

Plus the road is quite boring site most of the time. You are not always in fast traffic or streets full of pedestrians. If you leave in Nevada, close to Highway-50 even more so, but I digress.

<comment><USER47> Jet fighters pilot are (amongst other things) selected on their multitasking skills. Plus they have extensive training regarding concentration, reaction time and so on. You cannot really compare them to the average driver.

<comment><USER46> Replying to all the comments above here:

Yeah, and average drivers don't face even 1/10 of the speeds and situations a jet fighter pilot faces, including the G's.

Things I didn't say but people still replied as I said them: a) that jet fighters and car drivers have the same skills, b) that jet fighters tweet.

My comment was plain and simple. To rephrase: if HUDs work in such quick- response situations, in a vehicle with 100 times the complexity of your average car, 10 times the speed, and missiles against you, then sure the "average driver" can look at a HUD to see a new tweet, if he doesn't have to de-focus from the road with this technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Can we start adding some context to these titles, please?

<comment><USER49> Don't hold your breath, the consensus reached in the few minutes the thread below was breathing seems to be that the domain name provides sufficient context.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8258117](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8258117)

See the context? "Navdy (navdy.com)"

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> My dev friend and I were looking into doing a similar product a few years back. We stopped because of laws that prevent you from putting anything that may obstruct you or another drivers vision / attention.

</comment><comment><USER51> For all the anti-distraction people: Why is the Navdy HUD so much more dangerous than the already existing stuff in your car? At least when you are looking at Navdy you are still basically looking through the windshield. When I look at my radio or speedometer on my current vehicle, the windshield relegated to peripheral vision which is useless in this case as you get no depth information from the peripheral. With Navdy, you still should be able to see something coming at you. It seems far superior to the current HUDs in cars.

<comment><USER52> Illusion of safety. It's the distraction that really matters. Of course looking down introduces a risk factor, but studies have shown that it's the distraction itself that is dangerous. The HUD will create the illusion that it's ok to do certain things -- more often probably too -- while driving, now that you don't have to look down to do them.

One could also argue that when you have to look down to do something distracting, at least you are being reminded -- by taking your eyes off the road -- that the thing you're doing is distracting and you should probably pay attention to the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> well... personally, i wouldn't have gone with a name that could be pronounced "nav die".

</comment><comment><USER54> Safety issues asside, no one seems to be pointing out that this product is unprotectable: nothing they are doing has any barriers to entry, so what is to prevent a car manufacturer or anybody else from doing the same? Here's someone doing the same without any hardware: [http://www.hudwayapp.com/](http://www.hudwayapp.com/) Also, that video is too smug.

</comment><comment><USER55> It's builtin in my 2014 Mazda 3... It only displays usefull stuff though. Like direction, speed and distance to the car in front.

</comment><comment><USER56> Is this legal to have in your car in the US? Looking at the state laws for electronics in the car it doesn't appear to be. [http://www.ce.org/Consumer- Info/Car-Electronics/Got-It/State...](http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Info/Car- Electronics/Got-It/State-Laws-for-Electronics-Use-in-the-Car.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER57> "Feels Like Driving In The Future" And I'm prompted to install a now obsolete plugin to watch the video. Oh, the irony!

Anyway, here's a link for anyone else who wants to watch their introduction video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKL4PJICS40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKL4PJICS40)

</comment><comment><USER58> This seems like a stopgap till, a) The car companies head downmarket with this kind of tech and roll out on your entry-level models. b) Cars get autonomous enough that this tech becomes irrelevant. Though maybe then we can project Netflix on the windshield with this and watch OITNB on your way to work! :D

</comment><comment><USER12> Sort of an aside, but wtf is the car they are using in that video? It looks like a Ford Mondeo with a Bentley hood ornament; otherwise it's the ugliest Bentley I've ever seen.

Did they do that as a joke (including the SANDWCH license plate from the video production company)?

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder how soon using this will be illegal in some states. Something like this should _only_ provide an interface to your phone's maps and just _maybe_ help with phone calls. Nothing else.

<comment> dj-wonk I'm skeptical of the ability of regulators and traditional car designers to really think about the user experience and its implications on safety. For example, many cars have confusing controls and distracting displays already. Have you seen reasons to be optimistic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> What's going on here? This was a top post just a few weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8137815)

</comment><comment><USER61> Its neat, but it's troubling that they really haven't thought it out.

First big problem I see, is that it will be sitting in the sun while driving, so it will quickly overheat and have sun damage over time.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is the same actor that appeared in the original Coin video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0)

</comment><comment><USER63> > The image is focused into the distance so the road stays in focus

What magic is this?

<comment><USER46> The magic of projection.

<comment> dj-wonk And then the projected light goes _into your eyes_ and strikes your retina, sending signals to your brain. Amazing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> "From One Second To The Next", A Film By Werner Herzog: [http://youtu.be/_BqFkRwdFZ0](http://youtu.be/_BqFkRwdFZ0)

Absolutely gut-wrenching.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 This is a great example of a product where just because you can combine a few pieces of technology in a new way doesn't mean that you should.

</comment><comment><USER65> Just give me a standalone, turn-key GPS app that lets me keep my eyes on the road. I don't want phonecalls or texts interrupting my driving.

</comment><comment><USER66> While I love the device and the presentation, I am certain that this will negatively affect your concentration and thus your driving performance.

</comment><comment><USER67> Isnt this a re-post ? It was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now. Distractions while driving are potentially dangerous.

<comment><USER68> Don't drive with a passenger. Don't listen to the radio. Don't have your kid in the car. Don't drive with your dog. Don't think about work. Don't scratch your head. Don't...

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Very trivial, but there's a typo in the FAQ: "We're running a 30 day pre-oder campaign"

Looks like an awesome product!

</comment><comment><USER70> i'm going to create a startup for the ultimate integration between mobile phones and automobiles. it's this box and you put your phone in it, and while you're driving you can't open the box.

pre-orders now, just email me at firstname.lastname@example.com

there's no way this will make it past state legislation

</comment><comment><USER71> Maybe it would be a bit off-topic - but why these kind of startups doesn't support WindowsPhone system?

</comment><comment><USER17> I love in the video how they replaced the Ford logo with a Bently logo. Nice touch Sandwich Video.

</comment><comment><USER72> any idea if this plugs into Google Maps or whether it uses some other map data?

</comment><comment><USER73> The money shot

[https://www.navdy.com/assets/bg_10-88a56c4c20214704cf0b39542...](https://www.navdy.com/assets/bg_10-88a56c4c20214704cf0b395429882c44.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER74> Navdy looks sweet. I want one. Don't currently text and drive, but I would with one of these badboys.

</comment><comment><USER75> i can't wait for self driving cars and a ban on human drivers.

</comment><comment><USER76> no way this stays legal in CA

<comment><USER20> HUDs are already built into _many_ high-end cars (including several BMW and Audi models, the Chevy Camaro, and even some lower-end cars like the new Mazda3). Same for voice-controlled phone and media systems. They're actually touted as a safety feature, since a HUD requires less eye movement and refocusing than a normal instrument panel.

Of course, it depends a lot on what you do with it. Moving existing displays like the speedometer and navigation instructions to a HUD can be an improvement in safety. But if it encourages more interactive phone use, that could obviously cause problems.

<comment><USER76> right, my point is that it will almost certainly be illegal to use this to text and drive. in fact I think it's probably already illegal:

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones- driving-c...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cell-phones-driving- california-law-29709.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> finally someone made this. spot on.

</comment><comment><USER78> So stupid</comment>


Nobody knows why the Earth just rang like a bell - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2018/11/29/nobody-knows-why-the-earth-just-rang-like-a-bell/ <comment><USER2> Aliens</comment>


Metal-Mouths: America's obsession with perfecting its teeth - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/why-is-america-obsessed-perfect-teeth.html <comment><USER2> I got expanders to address an under bite, then used front top braces for several years. I like having str8 teeth tho. Its one of the first things i notice on ppl too.

Euro kids, is it because you guys have public healthcare? Is it not seen as a medical emergency for orthodontics?

<comment><USER3> No, it's because dentistry is _not_ part of public healthcare for adults in most European countries (or the provision is only for the most poverty stricken).

But children's dentistry is usually free. Here in Norway dental checkups and treatment are free for under 18s, students (I think) and pregnant women.

Badly misaligned teeth in a child would be corrected free of charge in both the UK and Norway as far as I know. I had a brace to correct a couple of teeth as a child in England and that was free but that was a long time ago (1966), luckily my own children here in Norway haven't needed any such treatment.

<comment><USER4> Here in the UK, yes, badly misaligned teeth would be corrected but ordinary variation would not be. That's not a health issue, it's a cosmetic issue.</comment></comment></comment>


Police called on video game developer over 'Global Thermonuclear War' plans - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/police-video-game-developer-global-thermonuclear-war-plans <comment><USER2> Obligatory "shall we play a game?" joke.</comment>


Ask HN: Review our web app - <AUTHOR> http://browsedit.com browsedit is a web application for designing web pages/web user interfaces directly on the browser. Currently supports firefox, chrome and safari browsers with other browser support coming soon. <comment><USER2> I have absolutely no idea what it is or how to use it. It's a web page editor right?

I clicked on the image of a web site on the landing page which loaded what looks like a designer/editor, but clicking around and trying to type things (assuming its an editor) had no result. I 'added a page' or something, but this just confused me even more: now there's the text 'this is just an example page' and I've no idea if I'm supposed to edit it, or what (but I can't anyway so forget it). I looked into the DOM tree to find a text area or _anything_ I could use to interact, but no luck.

I tried, honestly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yes, it is a web page editor. By clicking on the code button, you get the html code which can be edited and to view the design you click on the design button. The work flow is the same as (text editor[desktop app]) + (check on browser) but this time everything is on the browser. Usually "click and drag" programs don't spit maintainable code which is something i want to avoid.

</comment></comment><comment> T-R Very cool. It'd maybe be nicer with a double pane layout, with the code and the preview side by side, using a key combination to reload the preview.

Still, you'd have trouble convincing me to give up my favorite editor, browser, and alt+tab,F5. Might be good for ChromeOS users, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems pretty cool, but I broke it, so I assume you'll want to know how. :)

I added a new page named butt.html (I usually pick a random word when I don't care what I'm doing with it. I would have just pretended that it was test.html but you might have logs somewhere to help you track errors so I'm being honest.) I went back to the first page that shows (demo.html, I think) and went to code view. I then changed the href of the anchor tag surrounding the logo to butt.html and when I went back to the design mode and clicked the logo it attempted to take me to browsedit.com/butt.html. When I clicked back, only butt.html was in the editor.

Hope that helps. Really great progress so far.

</comment><comment><USER4> why is this better than a dedicated editor like coda? or even notepad with firefox split screened. if i have to click anyway, might as well be clicking reload.</comment>


Textcelerator: Speed reading with a browser plugin - <AUTHOR> http://textcelerator.com

<comment><USER2> Great idea! But wow, really expensive for "just" some plugin.

Also I am looking for a Pdf speedreading tool for Ubuntu. Would appreciate any recommendations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. It _is_ free for 30 days, and I think most people who try it will find that it's worth the price. And if not, I'll think about bringing it down when the trials start expiring and people don't convert. For what it's worth, there are desktop apps on the market that do the same thing, but not as well, and cost significantly more.

Textcelerator doesn't have PDF support yet, but it's planned for a future version. Textcelerator runs anywhere Firefox or Chrome des, so Ubuntu is and will of course continue to be supported.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Preparing Data for Machine Learning with Automunge - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/automunge/preparing-data-for-machine-learning-with-automunge-v1-77-359df39bdcf4 <comment><AUTHOR> HI THOUGHT I'D SHARE SOME PRETTY USEFUL STUFF FOR DATA SCIENTISTS. I JUST REALIZED I ACCIDENTALLY HAVE THE CAPS LOCK ON BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THAT FIRST SENTENCE IS ALREADY TYPED SO JUST GOING TO GO WITH IT. I'M NOT SHOUTING!!!</comment>


UK government backs three-person IVF - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23079276

<comment><USER2> The embryo repair technique (1st of the 2 diagrammes) seems to cross a different line than the egg repair technique, in that it doesn't involve fertilising both eggs. I would think some people might object to destroying the two fertilised eggs (which could eventually each become viable lives in theory) to create one new egg.

</comment><comment><USER3> If the problem is her mitochondria, can't they just use dad's?

<comment><USER4> To the best of my knowledge mitochondria are inherited exclusively from the mother.

I imagine this is because when the egg is fertalised the mitochondria in the sperm are discarded leaving only the maternal ones.

If you are asking why they don't extract the mitochondria from one of the fathers cells, extract the mitochondria from the egg and then implant the paternal mitochondria: I assume because that would be a lot more difficult and likely to damage/destroy the cells in question.

I am not a biologist so if any of this is wrong please someone correct me.

<comment><USER5> _"...why they don't extract the mitochondria from one of the fathers cells..."_

I am not a biologist either, but...

As far as I know, the difficulty lies in removing the faulty mitochondria while keeping the health nucleus in-place and undamaged. Its easier to remove the nucleus from the egg.

Mitochondria removal has been done with fertilised monkey eggs and _unfertilised_ human aggs [1][2]. The monkey eggs were implanted and produced apparently healthy animals. I guess the ethical problem with trying this with human embryos is the risk of unforseen effects.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/dna-swap-technology-almost- ready-...](http://www.nature.com/news/dna-swap-technology-almost-ready-for- fertility-clinic-1.11651)

[2] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19710649](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19710649)</comment></comment></comment>