Tesla and SpaceX: Elon Musk's industrial empire [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-industrial-empire/ <comment><USER2> Musk is thinking 8 steps ahead of almost everyone. While Tesla is a huge play with revolutionizing the car world, there are some other parts in play.

First, his Gigafactory to produce batteries. When the other big automakers get into the electric car mindset, who are they going to buy batteries from? Musk who owns the single largest and high-tech battery factory (that produces on an enormous scale), or other battery producers who have less economies of scale and higher prices? Obviously, lower prices win and Musk ends up selling batteries to his competitors...genius.

Second, when other manufacturers get into the electric car game they are going to need nationwide chargers. Did you think that the Tesla and Supercharger of proprietary connectors for no reason? Since Tesla will have a huge nationwide system before anyone else, Musk will license the rights to use his chargers. Again, making money from the competition. Competitors will not have the ability to compete on charging when they release cars because Tesla will already have an established network.

As for SpaceX...thats a whole another post for another day.

<comment><USER3> What's amazing is that Tesla has been providing NRE R&D for OTHER automotive companies for years already. Last year, $15 million of their revenue was from development services but as early as 2011, $55 million of revenue (>25%) was from basically doing powertrain design for companies like Toyota and Mercedes.

Link to last 10-K: [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/0001193125140...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312514069681/d668062d10k.htm#tx668062_9)

Tesla will definitely make a killing on batteries. I actually think the supercharger network is going to REMAIN proprietary as a competitive advantage for Tesla vs. other electric car companies. As someone who's done research in this in the past, there are already well-established standards adopted by the IEEE and companies like GE for charging. This is obviously to encourage the adoption of the technology.

However, since most electric charging networks are run by private companies or utilities, we may have the "roaming charge" issue that telecom had once upon a time. In other words, if you lived in Texas and got your electric charge from your local utility as part of your monthly bill, you may have to pay "roaming charge fees" for charging in California.

But if you're on the Tesla network, the "fuel" is part of your purchase price. This is Apple-level walled garden tactics and it demonstrates the foresight of Elon Musk and his team. What an incredible entrepreneur.

<comment><USER4> The charging network also has a lot of risks associated with it. There are 192 other countries in this world all of whom will be looking to charging standards as opposed to relying on a single American company. This means that some time in the near future Tesla will have to go back and retrofit their cars/stations to meet this standard.

Apple's walled garden strategy works because the devices are cheap and relatively throw away. Cars are not.

<comment><USER5> Tesla cars are already compliant with J1772 (a small adapter that comes with every car) and CHAdeMO ($1,000 adapter, coming soon.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The most remarkable thing about the 60 Minutes segment was the simplification of Tesla Motors' history, and Elon's apparent unwillingness to correct the record in front of the camera. Elon was not the founder of Tesla. He was an angel investor, and then became a major investor, and over time took over after ousting the early founders. That is a very different story than he founded the company, that it was his singular vision, blah blah blah.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Tesla Motors and a believer in the vision and how Tesla's going about achieving sustainable transport for the world. But I am also a huge fan of accuracy, and having founded some startups and co-founded some startups and worked for a bunch of startups that I did not found or co-found, I try hard to get the story right and not give people the impression that it was all me. I wish Elon didn't do that. I wish he insisted 60 Minutes get the story right, even if not convenient. I don't like a manufactured story, especially when it's supposed to be nonfiction television journalism.

<comment><USER7> Elon Musk has made a deliberate attempt to simplify a founding story before, when he was leaving Paypal. In Musk's separation agreement with the company [1], there's a section marked "Deletion of References to Founders." In light of (what looks like) Musk rewriting history with his previous company too, I'm not sure _60 Minutes_ is to blame.

"[Paypal] acknowledges that Mr. Musk is a founder of the Company and its predecessor X.com. The Company agrees that, within ten days after the effective date of this Agreement, all references to 'founders' of the company will be removed from the Company's website ... the Company shall refrain from stating who the founders of the Company are or making statements quoted in the press that undermine Mr. Musk's status as a 'founder' of X.com."

I love what he's done for Tesla since taking over. There's real potential in the products the company has to offer, and I own a bit of TSLA myself. But at this point, Elon Musk doesn't need a "lone hero" story to change the world, and I'm not sure I agree with the decision to craft it.

[1] [http://evworld.com/pdf/eberhardvmusk.pdf](http://evworld.com/pdf/eberhardvmusk.pdf), scroll to p.42

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I, for one, welcome Elon Musk's empire! He couldn't possibly be paying for all the hype, all the influence, backing a worldwide PR campaign about himself and his stunts. He's on the media simply because he's freaking awesome compared to other millionaires industrialists. Come on, look at what the guy has done so far... we need more Elons Musks. There, end of fanboyism :-)

<comment><USER9> Also, it's clear that all he did wouldn't be possible without a superb team behind him. But he's got such a strong character that it's just a talent magnet -- if not more, probably the best motivator one institution could ever hope, specially for engineers.

I think he's aware and quite pleased at all this image building as a "RL Iron Man", because it does wonders for the success of the companies. It's this kind of spirit that made apple's success, not the salary of the engineers.

Salary paid in dreams.

<comment><USER10> >Salary paid in dreams.

That's something that would look great in a marble facade.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I'd rather stare at a pretty marvel façade than put my kids through college, too.

I'm all about sweat equity, but that payoff better be substantial.

<comment><USER12> Counterpoint: I keep applying for a Linux sysadmin job at SpaceX that would have me taking a ~$80K/year paycut, so I can work at SpaceX.

Substantial payoff? Mine is getting to work in launch operations, no matter what the position is.

<comment><USER13> I have yet to hear anyone speak positively about their experience working at SpaceX. The common theme seems to be incredibly high turnover with intense burnout. However, looking at Glassdoor right now, it seems things may have improved. Or there has been a lot of recent astroturfing going on. The reviews were pretty negative last I looked, a year or two ago.

<comment><USER12> Yep, I know. I check their Glassdoor reviews every few weeks. I didn't expect it to be an easy-going place.

I've worked at far more grueling places (Citadel).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm only half way through, but so far, I find it very disappointing that CBS has not given credit to anybody else who Musk has worked with.

They discuss "you decided to start a car company", but it was started by two other engineers, and Musk came in as an investor first, and joined the company later. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) It would have been nice to see Musk give some credit to the original visionaries. He's still very responsible for Tesla's success, but it wasn't JUST him.

Same with PayPal, it would have been nice for Musk to say "I stared PayPal with a few friends to..."

This report sadly gives nobody else any credit in the development of this empire.

<comment><USER15> To be fair, having a single face of the company being enforced constantly is probably an intentional PR decision. And it is quite effective from my perspective.

<comment><USER14> That's an interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of it that way. My concern is that it feeds into the idea that these guys do it all on their own, but then speak to any VC, and they talk about the team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> He doesn't so much as say it, but show it in his eyes how much the NASA contract meant and how much passion he has.

<comment><USER17> Public money saved him.

<comment><USER18> There are two sides to that coin.

Without an opportunity and potential like SpaceX, all the public money would have are cases like Solyndra.

The reality was, NASA needed SpaceX as much as SpaceX needed NASA.

<comment><USER19> That's ridiculous. There are tons of successful developments using public money besides SpaceX.

<comment><USER18> Yes, and my "like" in the "like SpaceX" was meant to acknowledge that fact. Thus, not ridiculous at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In the immortal words of Keanu Charles Reeves, "Whoa". So much admiration for this guy. For once, it's actually nice to see one of my heroes getting mainstream media coverage like this. The guy has broken through to the mainstream by being himself and staying true to his engineering roots. You look at a guy like Jobs and it was always such a hokey, patronizing, and calculated exercise with his Houdini-esque product launches. Elon's humility and grit should be an inspiration to all.

</comment><comment><USER21> elon = grit, as an entrepreneur when i have dark times, i'll read about him to get amped. my favorite quote: "Optimism, pessimism, fuck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work." \-- back in 2008 after the SpaceX Falcon rocket failed to make orbit 3 times. More context: [http://dcurt.is/elon-musks-determination](http://dcurt.is/elon- musks-determination)

</comment><comment><USER22> One of the parts of the interview that gave me chills was when they mentioned, Elon had seen the future and brought it back.

I think most of us on HN are building the future for a world that lives in the past and I think it's beautiful. We're trying to craft something that doesn't exist yet... but can.

Not many professions do that.

</comment><comment><USER23> Since the car is so quiet... I wonder if the noise the car makes on these clips is an overdub.

<comment><USER24> Jalopnik thinks they were dubbed: [http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/why- is-60-minutes-dubbing-m...](http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/why- is-60-minutes-dubbing-motor-noises-over-tesla-foota-1554962894)

But I also remember reading somewhere that the ADA was pushing for electric cars to emit noise for deaf and hard hearing pedestrians.

<comment><USER25> "But I also remember reading somewhere that the ADA was pushing for electric cars to emit noise for deaf and hard hearing pedestrians."

I read a similar one except it was regarding blind pedestrians.

I'm not sure how a silent vehicle would affect deaf person.

<comment><USER24> And that is why I shouldn't post comments online when I should be sleeping. You're right, it was for blind pedestrians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If he would have crashed and burned in 2008 (and he was very very close to it) mankind literally would have lost a few decades of advancement i guess.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder how fast everyone forgets the real founders of Tesla: Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, and all credit is put on Elon. I am sure he deserves a lot of credit for his foresight, strategic decisions and also his execution... Bottom line he bought himself into the electric car game, which was itself a very good strategic move.

<comment><USER28> He was chairman of the board from month 7, and personalty won two design awards for his work leading the engineering team on the first car. Bottom line, he deserves all the credit he gets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > When the other big automakers get into the electric car mindset, who are > they going to buy batteries from?

Umm... LG? They have an enormous operation already supplying GM and Renault, two big rivals.

</comment><comment><USER30> In this world, where everyone finds everything with Google, Elon is one of the few persons thinking through his mind.. More here: [http://techgeekforever.com/2014/02/20/elon-musk-one-man- who-...](http://techgeekforever.com/2014/02/20/elon-musk-one-man-who-aspires- to-change-the-world/) Found this on StumbleUpon

</comment><comment><USER31> Am I the only one who got an ad for Chevrolet? Pretty awesome that GM helped pay for the segment.

(Also for Viagra... not sure about that one.)

<comment><USER32> I only got Viagra... For all the related videos too... Is CBS trying to tell me something :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Someone brought this up to me:

"If Elon Musk wanted to revolutionize the car industry, why didn't he figure out how to recycle the materials of the existing cars into Tesla somehow? Instead of making more new cars? Sure, the new cars are more environmentally friendly and sustainable but that doesn't solve the existing waste problem."

<comment><USER34> Which materials in particular are being referred to? Teslas don't use any rare-earth metals in their motors or batteries, and we're not exactly short on steel and aluminum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's got to be said that most of the wealth created in the last 50 years or so has been in either financial or software engineering.

Musk is a bit of a throw-back right to the 19th and 20th centuries in this regard. Humanity could do with more folks like him if we're to see real progress in our life-time.

</comment><comment><USER36> Imagine the kind of scum it would take to bet against Tesla's success.

Here is Musk, improving human life, clearing our air and probably taking us to Mars one day and on the opposite, we have scumbags waiting to make a quick buck and working actively, bribing legislatures to make Tesla a failure.

</comment><comment><USER37> Great quote from the interview with Musk. He first said that he actually expected when he started Tesla that most likely it would fail. When asked why he did it then, he answered, "If something is important enough, you should try even if the probable outcome is failure."

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone have a mobile _link_ that works?

edit: link

<comment><USER39> Video playback on the web is such a farce.

Luckily with some poking around you can find the m3u8 playlist URL in the HTML source in plain sight: [http://ipad- streaming.cbsnews.com/media/mpx/2014/03/30/21153...](http://ipad- streaming.cbsnews.com/media/mpx/2014/03/30/211533379674/60_0330_Pelley_phone.m3u8)

<comment><USER40> Thanks for the link.

As for CBS. I don't want your g@$

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is that old footage ? Just wondering because it portrays his second wife Talulah Riley, but (german) wikipedia states they have been divorced for 2 years already.

<comment><USER41> Not sure about their marital status but her twitter account suggests they are still a family: [https://twitter.com/TalulahRiley](https://twitter.com/TalulahRiley)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am thankful to Woz for giving us Apple. And thankful to Musk for a promising future in the industries he is venturing in.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why does it show in this interview that Musk is married to Talulah Riley? Are they not divorced?

<comment><USER44> They were, but then they got back again

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Definitely makes me want to buy Tesla stock. My guess is that Elon is on a road show to get the stock price back up. He'll probably stop by New York Times, ABC and others this week and the stock price will shoot back up to $230.

</comment><comment><USER46> Makes every other startup seem so trivial ...

</comment><comment><USER47> Be like Musk: don't give up til you've failed three times... and given it one more try.

</comment><comment><USER48> Love live Elon Musk! I'll be buying a Telsa when it comes to Australia

</comment><comment><USER49> LOL at the part about his wife.

</comment><comment><USER50> While we are on the subject, I would love to see "car chassis + engine + trans" as a service.

</comment><comment><USER51> I think the most interesting thing about Tesla is it's applicability to SpaceX. If the goal of Tesla is to provide a better energy source (where "better" is defined as capacity and environmentally friendly) and SpaceX's primary constraint is the energy source, then long-term they'll be the same company.

</comment><comment><USER52> _"What 's important to Musk is reducing green house gas, which he believes, threaten the world"_

That kind of phrasing annoys me deeply, it tries to spin scientific consensus as if it's a disputed issue.

<comment><USER52> Anyone care to explain the reason for the downvotes?

<comment><USER53> The day scientific consensus fails to be a disputed issue is the day science begins to die.

<comment><USER52> How often do you see the BigBang or Plate Tectonics being reported as a controversy? There is a pile of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, but it's constantly downplayed as something one "believes" in or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Searching for information on HN - <AUTHOR>

Is there anyway one can search this website (HN) for some information? I need to look for a free tool and comments from readers about the tool. I saw a related thread sometime ago. Please advise <comment><USER2> So far I can just advice for a restricted Google Search like [https://www.google.com/?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+what+are...](https://www.google.com/?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+what+are+you+searching%3F)

Not a killer app, but it helps.

</comment><comment><USER3> Algolia has a great hosted HN search: [https://hn.algolia.com](https://hn.algolia.com)

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://hn.algolia.com/](https://hn.algolia.com/)</comment>


After months of work, the new Delicious is almost ready to come out of the oven. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.delicious.com/blog/2008/07/do-you-know-where-your-password-is.html <comment><USER2> Interesting that they are apparently abandoning the del.icio.us domain hack.

"soon to become <http://delicious.com/your_username>"

<comment><USER3> it was just too painful hearing people pronounce it "del issy oos?"

<comment><USER4> It's more fun listening to people who try to pronounce the periods.

Del-dot-issio-dot-us.

Or, my favorite, a friend who pronounced periods by coughing. We kept offering him water.

It's a bit ridiculous that icio.us was never set to redirect, though. What a waste of a domain name. Unless there's a good SEO reason to do that?

<comment><USER3> delicious.com has redirected to del.icio.us for several years now.

I never changed it because the most active part of the userbase liked it.

<comment><USER2> That's what's crazy about HN. You have to be careful what you say, because even the founders of sites as big as delicious post here...

Anyway, I think you misread the comment. How come just "icio.us" (no del subdomain) doesn't redirect to the full del.icio.us?

<comment><USER3> Never occured to me. Why bother?

Way back there was a second copy of delicious set up at susp.icio.us for testing, but I had to take it down as people were using it.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, mostly laziness. Probably not a good enough line of reasoning.

And I agree with above: I'm always amazed at the sorts of people that read HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> now that there are about one hundred less executives to go through at yahoo, this thing might actually make it out the door (assuming y! isn't bought before then haha)</comment>


What do you wish you knew before graduating from college? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> All the staff/counselors said that university would be different from high school: that the tests wouldn't be stupid, that the smart would love it, that it was all about merit and ideas and intellectual curiosity.

It wasn't.

Its a place where you pay money and show you're willing to waste a few years of your life for a piece of paper that lets you pass a certain firewall in societal hiring practices, shows you largely fit in to corporate and societal norms, and depending on where you went, lets you network with others while excluding those who don't jump through the hoops.

Because of that, don't stress about what you're studying. Just get the piece of paper, or network, its what you're there for.

And don't get me wrong, the piece of paper does let you earn more money and opens doors. Mines financially paid itself off by now, but I resent the process and society that means I had to get it.

<comment><USER2> Oh, and I should add: Life can be better after university.

I know many people who would disagree with me, and one thing I do miss is the societal norm of weeks of free-time (which you won't get us much if you're chasing grades/networking), but I've found the financial freedom from being employed, and using one's free time to chase your own intellectual curiosities rather than those set for you much more enjoyable and rewarding.

<comment><USER3> I had the same kind of revelation about high school. Programming and the internet allowed me to build a life outside of school that eventually became the source of my livelihood and lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That doing something you're good at and love is more important than doing something you're good at, not really passionate about, but makes a crap ton of money.

When I was younger, money is all I cared about (I come from fairly modest means). But when my friends and I started making decent money we started to think, what's next? Why are we doing what we're doing right now...

And ditto on the connections part (not just for space you're interested in, but also all across everywhere/anywhere. You never know when those connections will come in handy, especially if you're in the startup space.)

<comment><USER3> What came next for you when money started to be less appealing as you earned more of it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That networking and building contacts is an important part. Being smart and learning the material while skipping all the classes and social events won't give you all the benefits.

</comment><comment><USER6> My assumption in college was that graduating mattered, and my major didn't. Thankfully I was right, but it stressed me out at the time.

On a personal level, I wish I'd heard Derek Sivers talk about doing one thing at a time sooner. I spent years trying to be too many things, and I see now how I couldn't help but half-assed all of it.

<comment><USER7> One thing at a time sooner.... My professors have a different book they read called everything all the time with short deadlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> That we really were just kids and we'd look back and laugh at how young and, frankly, stupid we were. That it was better to get through it and move on than to let it consume you and get stuck in it.

Also that in the programming field grades didn't matter, but having great taste and passion did.

</comment><comment><USER9> That it was largely irrelevant to my work. University is for life, not technical knowledge.</comment>


Dole/Kemp '96 Online Campaign - <AUTHOR> http://www.dolekemp96.org/main.htm <comment><USER2> Found this gem on the news page <http://www.dolekemp96.org/praug296.htm>

> "There's no doubt we'll look back at Web sites today and basically say ... > that they were quite primitive. They don't customize what they present to > the viewers' interests. They don't remember: Have you been there before? > What have you seen before? And that's got to change." -- Bill Gates, MSNBC, > July 15, 1996

How right he was!

</comment><comment><USER3> Total badass. A few months ago I saw a gallery of screenshots taken from 'wayback machine' of a whole bunch of old websites. Netflix, Dell, and Apple look COMPLETELY different. What's surprising (or maybe not) is that Amazon 7 years ago looks almost exactly the same. Thanks for sharing the Dole / Kemp campaign site - brings back fond memories. Heres's the gallery if you're interested... [http://www.shopify.com/blog/6464492-the-ecommerce- graveyard-...](http://www.shopify.com/blog/6464492-the-ecommerce-graveyard- how-37-popular-sites-used-to-look)

</comment><comment><USER4> from the commercials page ( <http://www.dolekemp96.org/news/commercials/commercials.html> ), in reference to the bad Clinton economy that Dole would fix:

        Two incomes needed to make ends meet.

Not sure whether to laugh or to cry, thinking that just a while ago a politician called attention to this as though it were a fixable problem...were things really so different 16 years ago?

<comment><USER5> Yup.

Lots more blue-collar jobs with pensions. '96 was 'pre-China' for more sophisticated manufacturing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is quite nice for a 1996 website. I guess it shows how much the development of (nice) web design was held back by a combination of the ~2000 flashpocalypse and IE6.

I felt quite nostalgic looking at the designs from this era: <http://www.4president.us/2000websites.htm>

Luckily, there is a certain font present that will stop you from feeling _too_ sentimental. :-)

<comment><USER7> Also: <http://www.4president.us/1996websites.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well done, and not all that dated looking.

Although, in my head, everything on that website reads in the voice of Norm MacDonald's Bob Dole impression.

<comment><USER9> I thought I was the only one...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a link at the bottom of the page to:

<http://www.4president.org/>

This site has archives of campaign websites, website features, and campaign ads.

I think it's fascinating to see the paradigm shifts in web design indicated by these four-year gaps. And campaigns being a temporary thing, I think they perfectly encapsulate the design of the "era". I was going through the years and was thinking "sure, a lot changed from 1996 to 2000, so of course the sites will look a lot different but there is no way 2008 is that much different than 2012". Wrong. I think this is just what happens when you see web design evolve slowly over four years -- you don't think it's changed that much. Then you actually see a site in 2008 vs. 2012 and realize the difference.

The 1996 Phil Graham and Pat Buchanan sites look like classic Geocities-style design!

The stark differences in design of the nominated candidates vs. the ones who lost in the primaries. This gap seems to have been most apparent in 1996 and 2000, during the bubble, when top-tier web designers were probably insanely expensive.

<comment><USER11> I think the biggest aesthetic change was between 04 and 08 which makes sense sine that was the era that so-called "Web 2.0" took off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Bit of mudslinging going on about a "clipper chip." I was much too young to really know what was going on with this (can read up on it here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip>), but it's interesting to see that there were security concerns in 1996 similar to the ones we have in 2012. <http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/internet.htm>

<comment><USER13> That's a good thing for today's hackers and activists to review. It shows the long-term agenda of the government in wanting to have ubiquitous surveillance powers. And it shows you can win some of these battles.

Can you imagine a web without SSL? Today people openly call for all sites to do https all the time, but in the 90s, a web server (or even a web _browser_ ) that could do https in a non-broken fashion was officially a dangerous munition. To do this basic thing you had to cobble some open source software together, kind of like how people do it with ffmpeg and implementations of closed-source codecs today.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Blocked by McAfee Web Gateway as pornography. Interesting.

<comment><USER15> Same here. Now I'm going to get fired. Thanks HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> One way it reads very different to me is the way all of the sources are (in parenthesis) directly after the statements. I don't read a lot of campaign websites but I've not seen one that has so many direct sources for this many statements.

It's quite refreshing actually.

</comment><comment><USER17> "DEBATE MENTION OF WEB SITE CAUSES FLOOD OF VISITORS"

Goes on to say that the site received more than 762,000 "hits" in a four hour period:

<http://www.dolekemp96.org/news/releases/proct0796a.htm>

edit: hours

<comment><USER18> It says four hours, not days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> hooray for <http://www.dolekemp96.org/about/cookies/cookies.html>

<comment><USER20> Cookie recipe! #winning

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Complete with the security of '96: <http://www.dolekemp96.org/divider.gi> [Intentionally broken link]

<comment><USER22> > > \\\brainiac.ad.safesecureweb.com\websites\192620cbc\dolekemp96.org\divider.gi

Safesecureweb.com. Heh.

Although other than knowing it's running IIS (which is in the Server header of the responses anyway), it's not particularly useful. Unlike modern web apps, it's not displaying a stack trace or debug information that contains db connection strings and the like.

Also, this is fixed by changing one line in web.config AFAIK (it's been a good five years since I worked with IIS in any capacity)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Bill Clinton Wants to Put 'Big Brother' in Your Computer"

Haha!

<http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/internet.htm>

<comment><USER24> Actually, this was a pretty big deal to the Electronic Frontier Foundation back in the day. More information: <https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Key_escrow/Clipper/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> <http://www.dolekemp96.org/news/releases/proct0796a.htm> "DEBATE MENTION OF WEB SITE CAUSES FLOOD OF VISITORS -- Site Receives More Than 762,000 Hits in Single Four-Hour Period Today"

</comment><comment><USER26> I was going to ask: " _so how is it that the average non-commercial site can be expected to crash upon reaching ten HN upvotes but this 1996 is still chugging along strong_ " After all, this was well before such thing as CDNs were in wide use.

Then I looked at the source and saw that it's a Frontpage site.

* This brings back memories of when you could get at least $50/hr to make something like this.

<comment><USER27> The average non-commercial site these days is based on an unoptimized Wordpress installation that loads 137 PHP files and does 18 DB reqests to render its main page. This 1996 gem is entirely static content. That's a few orders of magnitude less work for the server to do right there. And it runs on IIS 7, so the the hardware and software that does the actual work is most definitely NOT from 1996.

<comment><USER28> > And it runs on IIS 7, so the the hardware and software that does the actual > work is most definitely NOT from 1996.

And this is the big thing right here. We're running sites designed to be basically usable when served by 1996 hardware on systems orders of magnitude faster with almost two decades' worth of optimizations compared to what was acceptable in 1996. I don't know how much NTFS has changed since then, but filesystems in the Linux world have undergone a sea change in that timeframe, which is directly relevant to how quickly a static page can be served.

<comment><USER22> I imagine the only real thing at play here is the number of connections the server software is configured to handle. This site has a small handful of small static assets: there's no server-side render, and I'd put money on everything being cached even if no such server-side optimizations have been made (done at the disk and/or OS level).

I'd bet the only limiting factor of '96 hardware would be the NIC, all else being equal. Webserver software was a lot less complicated back then, so its memory footprint was far smaller.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm loving this language

"Believe that? America can do better. Bob Dole. Jack Kemp. Cutting income taxes on every family 15%. A 500 dollar per child tax credit. Higher take home pay. Bob Dole. Cut taxes. Balance the budget. Raise take home pay. Tell the truth."

</comment><comment><USER30> What's interesting to me about these old sites is how bad the typography is. Why is it that sites started using decent typefaces only relatively recently? Print design was just as well understood back then.

</comment><comment><USER31> Looks like the high school homepage I did in 1994 when in 10th grade ;)

</comment><comment><USER32> It's nice how quickly everything loads.

<comment><USER33> It loads quickly now, but at 75kb on a 28k dial up modem that would have taken ~21 seconds!

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder if they took online donations through the site. I see the donations link, but maybe it gave a phone number/address rather than a cc form.

</comment><comment><USER35> Awesome. Another internet time capsule!

</comment><comment><USER36>
        <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">

I rest my case.

</comment><comment><USER37> My work computer categorized the site as pornography

Access Denied!

<comment><USER38> Ditto, hope the men in suits don't come down.

</comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 Makes you wonder who, if anyone, is still paying to host the site. Someone must be keeping it online on purpose, right?

<comment><USER39> Domain whois shows it's registered to "4President Corporation" and it shares a host with <http://4president.org/> with provider 'hostmysite'.

Looks like this is someone's intentional effort to archive these things.

<comment><USER40> Was dolekemp96.org the original website? whois says the domain was registered in 2003 and archive.org first crawled the site in 2001.

Domain Name:DOLEKEMP96.ORG Created On:27-May-2003 14:15:22 UTC Last Updated On:25-Jan-2012 00:36:47 UTC

<comment><USER22> If the domain lapses and is re-sold (not just transfered, but actually deleted and re-created), you can expect to see the newer created time.

It could also be the registrar serving up wacky WHOIS info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "Like no President since Lincoln, he will bring to the Presidency the values and principles of all Americans."

Politicians have always and will always make great claims and comparisons and appeals to authority, history, etc., but I can't imagine a modern campaign (on either side) just flat our saying our guy is the best thing since Lincoln.

<comment><USER42> I can't imagine a Republican of recent years running on this sort of environmental record:

<http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/environment.htm>

Then again, I increasingly have trouble imagining a Democrat doing so, either.

I miss the World War II veterans in U.S. politics.

<comment><USER43> Or this:

<http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/civil.htm>

And today far too many people are salivating at the idea of gutting the Voting Rights Act.

On the other hand, one of the longest pages is on the drug war (in support of extending and intensifying it). It's hard to imagine a Republican making that a central plank in their platform, either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Ahh, 1996 was an awesome year for websites.

Space Jam: <http://www2.warnerbros.com/spacejam/>

<comment><USER45> I've always wondered, what's the best looking website of the 1990s? Was there anything that people would deem as "good" as some of today's top designs?

I feel like there had to be at least someone with a very refined sense of aesthetic making awesome websites back then.

<comment><USER46> Drudge Report. Even if you don't like the political "lean" of it (I, personally, don't), you have to appreciate a design that has (basically) stayed the same since it was founded in the mid 90s. The "minimalism" from Drudge had a big impact on a lot of modern web design.

<comment><USER47> trust me, drudge's minimalism didn't influence modern web design.

<comment><USER46> There are quite a few people

[http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1407-why-the-drudge-report- is...](http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1407-why-the-drudge-report-is-one-of- the-best-designed-sites-on-the-web)

who disagree with you

[http://dailycurrant.com/2012/04/23/matt-drudge-wins-web- desi...](http://dailycurrant.com/2012/04/23/matt-drudge-wins-web-designs- highest-honor/)

<comment><USER48> daily currant is a satire site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> So what is it about this design that makes it look "dated"?

It's not just the grainy images, right? Is it the smaller text? More compact style?

<comment><USER50> I was thinking it holds up quite well, compared to my subjective memory of websites from that vintage. There are no scrolling banners or other dancing garbage (with the exception of one animated GIF that is relatively restrained), and the layout wouldn't look out of place today if the elements had a bit more room to breathe.

Even the markup is surprisingly clean:

* Most tag names are lowercase

* Attributes are double-quoted

* Some style attributes with CSS

I'm surprised to see FrontPage generated this code - I remember it being more gnarly than this. That said, I'm enjoying the historical artifacts:

* Table-based layout

* <font> tags

* <body> tag has background, vlink and alink attributes

* URLs apparently map to actual HTML files

<comment><USER51> The tightness of the layout probably stems from low resolution screens. In '96 the most typical display size was something around 640x480 or 800x600, not a lot of room to breathe there.

<comment><USER52> In the last month, I've had 2 people tell me (unsolicited of course) that my website looks like it was made 10 years ago.

I went to this 1996 campaign site and said with dismay, it looks like my website.

I recognized many of of the above historical attributes (table-based layout, centered narrow, body bgcolor attribute) in my own site.

I've got a full-time job as a UNIX system administrator, and a part-time business training sys admins. I don't have the website redesign merit badge or time to earn one. I'd pay for a redesign but I don't even know what to ask for except "a website that presents my company well". And I want people to stop staring at my website like there is something wrong with it.

Would appreciate any help you can offer, either by recommending a designer or a design, please.

<comment><USER53> If you don't mind looking a bit like other sites, I'd highly recommend using bootstrap as a basis for a modern-looking redesign. You can customize it to your will, or even buy some bootstrap-based layouts to work with for not much money: <https://wrapbootstrap.com/>

As someone who learned table-based layouts and who now designs using HTML5 and CSS3, rest assured that the "new" web is not that hard to learn as long as you understand the basics of css. And almost all your JavaScript skills will transfer. It's really as easy as picking up a book on HTML5 and reading it. Alternately, check out: <http://diveintohtml5.info/>

<comment><USER54> by the looks of it, bootstrap heavily relies on javascript on pretty much everything. is that just my first (bad) impression or actually true?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I wish sites were still designed this way. Not the animated gifs or the font size 1, but the fact that once the site is loaded, it's completely done. And if I refresh the page, or bookmark the link and come back later, I'm going to see the exact same page. According to the Chrome developer tools the page took 2ms to render and 4ms to paint.

I write JavaScript professionally but not all web sites need JavaScript, in fact most do not. Compare this site with a random page from the ReadWrite's new design[1] which doesn't even load its initial content until after the page has loaded (!) and gives 50% of its x axis to ads and links to other unrelated pages on the site (which contain more ads of course).

I _don't want_ informational websites to continue to load stuff a second or five seconds after the page has loaded. I don't want them to load new content when my mouse floats over a div. I don't want a sitemap that is omnipresent as I scroll down an article.

I'm a big fan of the Contrast Rebellion[2] and kind of feel like something in the same spirit is needed for static websites. I miss the non-interactive web.

[1][http://readwrite.com/2012/11/14/if-foxconn-replaced-its- huma...](http://readwrite.com/2012/11/14/if-foxconn-replaced-its-humans-with- robots-would-you-feel-better) [2]<http://contrastrebellion.com/>

<comment><USER56> I code my site by hand... each and every page... for these same reasons. I need to figure out templating because it has become quite tedious to update links and I'm only at <50 pages!

<comment><USER57> Lots of static-site generators to choose from. Jekyll's the most popular choice. Link: <http://jekyllrb.com>

<comment><USER58> Since you mentioned Jeckyll, I also want to mention Octopress, which is based on Jeckyll <http://octopress.org/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Startup Quote: Greg McAdoo, Partner, Sequoia Capital - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/1450068883

<comment><AUTHOR> Great companies don't throw money at problems, they throw ideas at problems.

\- Greg McAdoo</comment>


How to Prepare Now for the Complete End of the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/style/rewilding-stone-age-bushcraft.html <comment><USER2> It is from the NYT "Style" section which should tell you all you need to know about its contents.

</comment><comment><USER3> _There was an old ax they used instead. Its head periodically flung off, each time narrowly missing someone._

Perhaps before someone gets killed or maimed, we can learn how to hammer a wedge into an axe handle.

It's a mentality that I have difficulty grasping. That doesn't make it bad, I just fail to "get it" (and I spend _plenty_ of time in the woods). For example, the angst of not having a cell connection: that tells me this isn't aimed at me. But it also says some folks have a need for such programs.

<comment><USER4> People only have a need for these things because they don't know any other way to live. You can't fault someone for not being raised or inspired to try living in the woods (or wherever). Plus, it's completely okay to rely on modern technology and luxuries. That's why we invented them.

The axe was probably a modern technology and convenience at one time too. Some elder or survivalist of the time was definitely irritated that a young person was using an axe when their sharp stone and biceps did the trick for years.

<comment><USER3> _You can 't fault someone for not being raised or inspired to try living in the woods (or wherever)._

Stating that I have difficulty grasping a mental model would, to me, imply that if I can't grasp it I can't fault it, either. Pretty sure I hammered that point home in my comment. Regardless, if you can't go a weekend without a cell connection without undue stress, head to Methow, WA with my blessing. But do me a favor: first thing you do when you get unpacked, drive a little wedge or two in that axe handle before you use it. The wedges are probably still Scotch-taped to the axe handle, and could literally save someone's life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If it were (literally) "the complete end of the world", I don't think you'd need to prepare -- I mean, I know this is just semantics, but the end would be just that.

And I get that's not what the article is actually saying, but the title is very clickbaity.

<comment><USER6> The same thought crossed my mind. I want to know how to survive the big rip.

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

<comment><USER7> The third book of the Three Body Problem is pretty amazing to read if you like sci-fi which goes to the heat death of the universe.

<comment><USER6> As a huge fan of Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" I'll have to check it out.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Something tells me that if the end of the world comes, this sort of article will be a moot point. The Earth just can't handle that many subsistence farmers and hunter/gatherer types. So most of us won't make it.

Besides that, this is a strangely American fixation. You never seem to hear about doomsday sort of things in the same vein from Europe's news outlets. China's culture has endured the collapse of centralized authority many times over (most recently in the 19th and 20th centuries). Western Europe eventually came back from the collapse of the Roman Empire. If things really fell apart in North America, you can bet that the EU and China would figure out a deal to maintain some semblance of stability near the coasts, for the sake of protecting economic interests.

<comment><USER9> North Americans have often lived on 'the frontier' between civilization and the harsh conditions of the natural world. And FYI said conditions are generally harsher in North America than they are in Europe where distances are shorter, the weather is more temperate etc..

Also, many North Americans descend from farmers who actually owned their land, developing very much a communitarian/entrepreneurial attitude.

Also, during the cold war there was a real threat of collapse.

This attitude exists to this day.

While we make fun of these people like this, I don't see it as a bad thing.

Reasonable precautions are good, but also, having a small number of people take 'extreme' precaution is possibly a good healthy as well.

<comment><USER10> > North Americans have often lived on 'the frontier' between civilization and > the harsh conditions of the natural world. And FYI said conditions are > generally harsher in North America than they are in Europe where distances > are shorter, the weather is more temperate etc..

Eh? The USA is right in the middle of the world's most temperate climate zone, some distances are vast but there are vast tracts of very habitable and fertile land. It has non predatory neighbours at both north and south, and fish on its east and west. In the aftermath of WWII, Iowa was producing 90% of the world's corn.

Throughout its history, the United States has had a level of geographic security unparalleled by any other country in the world. It has never once faced a serious threat to its existence. The US has a geographic endowment like no other. How can you possibly call it living on the frontier?

<comment><USER9> We are talking about different things.

The climate in the US is generally far more harsh than that of Europe.

The Med has a beautiful, easy-going climate the whole year. There is no winter, there are no severe storms (or at least they are small ie no Hurricanes), and it's generally not brutally hot.

The continent, UK has fairly mild winters and no super aggressive weather.

Even the Scandinavian regions - most of their settlements are near the ocean, which makes them much milder than say, Canada. Montreal is further south than Copenhagen (actually, Montreal is the same latitude as Northern Italy!) but Montreal weathers are crushing compared to anything in Denmark.

All of these European areas will have been close enough to 'civilization' for 1K years, and usually easy access to some ocean port for transport.

The 'New World' was brutal. Winters are rugged, summers can be hot and balmy. Before they could plant crops they had to clear the trees. Aboriginals provided a whole set of other complications (I'm not saying this is fair, just from a certain perspective). Most of South America has it's own harsh charms as well.

And the distances are _vast_ \- when you're in what is now 'Montana' a little over 100 years ago - you might as well be on the moon. There's no rivers, roads, very sparse rail - no reasonable way in. Crossing the continent was life-threatening.

But from an industrial perspective, yes, you are absolutely right: much of North America is ultimately arable, there's no Habsbourg / Napoleonic Empire to throw you off, it's perfect for building an industrial agrarian society.

But there's absolutely a 'rugged/independent' nature to North Americans that doesn't quite exist in Europe.

The American Revolution was very different from the French Revolution.

North Americans have always viewed power as a kind of expression of 'independence' whereas Europeans have always viewed it as some kind of entente between the nobility and the plebes.

It's mostly historic, but there are absolutely differences that remain ... Hint: the #1 selling vehicle in the US and Canada is ... a pick-up truck! They don't even have such things in Europe, rather, these little Lorrie/van type things which individuals, for the most part, don't even drive.

<comment><USER11> Dude, what are you talking about? Are you speaking of the early American Pioneers, who have all died out at least a hundred years ago? A "Rugged/independent nature"??? I just listened to a girl complain to her friend about how the soy milk in her latte leaves a funny aftertaste that she can't figure out how to get rid of. The vast majority of people in the US would be unable to feed, clothe, or sustain themselves if there wasn't a Fred Meyer's or Costco within a 30 minutes drive of their domicile. The USA has the highest percentage of obesity in the world [1].

You mention how us North Americans love trucks, and that somehow supports this rugged view. The majority of people who own big trucks here do so as a status symbol to compete with their neighbors. Don't get me wrong there are still some populations of total badasses here; farming types, country gals/boys, wilderness lovers, hunters, preppers, gun nuts etc... But they make up a very small percentage of our population. Most of us are at the top of the list of helpless metropolitan sheeples.

[1] [https://ourworldindata.org/obesity](https://ourworldindata.org/obesity)

<comment><USER9> Your points don't help your argument.

\- That most Americans 'couldn't survive in the bush' is obvious, but _considerably_ more North Americans already live in very remote and rugged areas, definitely more than in Europe. There is almost no 'open country' in Europe, whereas maybe 1/2 of North America is wide and vast. Living in rural Montana has essentially no parallel in Europe.

\- That trucks are 'status symbols' is beside the point - 'everything' is a status symbol (even back in the day), certainly cars are in Europe. The point is they are _trucks_ not _cars_ and they are by and large used quite a lot for 'moving stuff', and travelling on somewhat more rugged terrain.

\- Obesity rates are irrelevant.

Obviously New England has been as urban as Europe since basically the Englightenment, but most of the rest of America is barely tamed.

My grandfather was born at the start of the 20th century, most of his relatives and family elders would have lived in the late 19th century when much of North America was still very wild. So much of 'frontier' and 'far rural' North America is just beyond living memory, it wasn't that long ago.

My great-grandfather was still clearing trees on the family farm, before plumbing, electricity, radio. They were several days ride from the nearest village of more than 1K people and there were no waterways or rail. He passed away not that long before I was born.

The ethos of 'way away from civilization, on the family-owned farm, you'd better be self-sufficient' still colours much of the North American attitude today.

<comment><USER11> Ah I see, you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge. My points do help my argument, but from a different point of view than you were arguing from. And obesity rates are not irrelevant; they demonstrate how able people are to keep surviving, both mentally and physically. I think if a governmental collapse occurred in the US, 60-70% of the US population would be dead within 5 years. The major population centers entirely dependent on government infrastructure, regardless of how close to the "frontier" they live. Yes, there is much farmland here, but it is very reliant on water and equipment that only come from a functional economy.

I was a bit hasty in my first comment; I read your argument as "the US is made of frontiersmen, they tamed the continent, and they are hardier and more skilled at survival for it." At this point it is apparent that was not your intent, and I do agree that we'd be better off than many places. One county in the Americas that would do a lot better is Mexico though; full of off-the-grid peoples who are fully self sufficient and happy to be so. Much of the US is just functional because of money.

<comment><USER9> "you were more focused on the utility of our infrastructure than our individual skill sets and knowledge."

No, I'm focused on the individualist/self-sufficient mentality of Americans, due to their history of being on the frontier, and very remote rural areas.

Sometimes this mentality exhibits itself in material behavior, i.e. building isolated plumbing/water/sewage systems. Owning tractors and such machinery for working around the large plot.

Sometimes the mentality is expressed in behaviour that is really irrelevant, like buying SUVs or Trucks that are not needed and uses for 'status'.

Sometimes it's purely ideological, like voting for a Republican when such individuals might be better served by a specific social policy.

Sometimes it's both - like 'gun laws'. Prevalence of guns makes them easily available to idiots leading to more gun violence. But it also theoretically might save you in a specific circumstance, and, there's that whole thing about 'tyrannical governments'.

The 'attitude' definitely exists.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why can't website forms be more intelligent? - <AUTHOR> http://codingclues.eu/2008/why-cant-website-forms-be-more-intelligent/ <comment><USER2> I think most of these concerns can be addressed with regexs. Maybe the title should be, "Why can't website form designers be more intelligent?"

</comment><comment><USER3> In many cases AJAX can be used to simplify web form design.

Good example would be at www.launchsplash.com. Landing page is a simple form and the first form field implores you to enter a domain name. As you start typing you see the final result of what you are doing changing as you type right below where you are typing. When you type a dot your mode switches from sub-domain name to domain name form.

This kind of thing isn't going to work everywhere but it's an example of the power of AJAX and how it can be used to make form fields much simpler for the user. AJAX definitely doesn't make form fields simpler for the developer.</comment>


All Lyft Rides Are Now Carbon Neutral - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@johnzimmer/all-lyft-rides-are-now-carbon-neutral-55693af04f36 <comment><USER2> Buying carbon _offsets_ does _not_ make _your_ company "carbon neutral".

It means (1) we are estimating (by some secret formula) the carbon impact of our drivers and (2) we are paying money to some outside agencies that may or may not _actually_ sequester some amount of carbon... but they do give us a nice, glossy certificate.

Carbon credits are being created out of thin air ( _literally_ ) without even doing anything new toward sequestration. For example, Haliburton Forest in Ontario and the Headwaters Forest in California sell carbon credits for simply _not cutting trees down_ , which is strictly banned in the first place (for Headwaters, at least).

There's no indication that Lyft is even computing carbon impact of vehicles _actually used_ , even assuming optimal fuel consumption for the given make and model. Rideshare vehicles tend to be larger and heavier than vehicles used by actual taxi companies.

Purchasing indulgences is not the same as not sinning in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the same way that all knights who bought indulgences from the Pope were free of sin. This is marketing, pure and simple, and at best if you're a deeply optimistic person, the rides are "offset" and not neutral.

<comment><USER4> This is a perfect metaphor</comment></comment>


How to Fail at a Startup: The story of Foamish  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/user/OpusVideoProductions#p/u/7/lE7AImZspAo

<comment><AUTHOR> The 2008 Foamish Launch video is here: [http://www.youtube.com/user/OpusVideoProductions#p/u/0/SeH0z...](http://www.youtube.com/user/OpusVideoProductions#p/u/0/SeH0zsrmhqM)</comment>


Hyperloop One Will Be Underwater, Underground, Across the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/16873-brogan-bambrogan-hyperloop-one-will-be-underwater-underground-across-the-world <comment><USER2> May be underwater, underground. That was a casual comment tossed off at the end of the article. The first incarnation will certainly be 'at grade' or aboveground.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hyperloop was conceived by Elon Musk as much as Multitouch was invented by Steve Jobs.

I wonder if we as humans _need_ to create an untouchable genius image that we can aspire to, and now that our last one is dead, it's Musk's turn.

<comment><USER4> Inventions are a dime a dozen.

Delivery matters.

And thus, it's not bad to idolize those who actually deliver -- even if they got the ideas from elsewhere or there were lots of crappy priors...

<comment><USER5> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this "Hyperloop" system just some, granted elaborate, set of blueprints and whitepapers, but Musk isn't actually delivering it himself. Rather, other companies are working on it ?

But even disregarding that, I think OP was referring to how certain segments of the media hang on Musk's lips, as if he is some sort of tech-messiah.

And I don't want to take any praise away from him, the man has done really impressive things. That's not it.

It's just that there seems to be a certain type of over-hyping. The _idea_ for magnetic, vacuum-escaped tube travel certainly isn't new. And a last week's reporting of his "we probably live in a simulation"-comment comes to mind as well. That's not a very original thought, yet was widely reported.

So yeah, I agree, delivery matters. But it's not just the delivery that's being idolized here.

<comment><USER4> > _Correct me if I am wrong, but isn 't this "Hyperloop" system just some, > granted elaborate, set of blueprints and whitepapers, but Musk isn't > actually delivering it himself. Rather, other companies are working on it ?_

In this case yes. But he has delivered plenty already in other fields.

> _But even disregarding that, I think OP was referring to how certain > segments of the media hang on Musk 's lips, as if he is some sort of tech- > messiah._

Well, same way certain segments of HN hang on PG's lips etc. People like heroes -- and it's not just the ignorant masses or the "media" that do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since the current hyperloop concept can only travel in a straight line, perhaps having it as underwater structure will make possible for traveling at great distances. Otherwise, one can imagine having their pathways interfering with buildings, etc. when built above ground. Still, it will be very cool if a proof of concept can be [demonstrated]([http://www.metaculus.com/questions/71/will-a-successful- proo...](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/71/will-a-successful-proof-of- concept-for-a-hyperloop-be-demonstrated-by-mid-2017/)).

</comment><comment><USER7> Also, it will be on Mars since there are no plate tectonics there.

<comment><USER8> Better the moon, you don't even have to create a vacuum there!

<comment><AUTHOR> fastest would be using wormholes. not sure if there is one available between SF and LA though

<comment><USER8> I'm guessing Tesla would be Nigel Sheldon, I wonder who Ozzie Isaacs role would be fulfilled by?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> FYI, even Musk thinks that hyperloop only makes sense for distances on the order of a few hundred miles. Much longer than that and planes are superior.</comment>


Being A Victim Of Revenge Porn Forced Me To Change My Name - <AUTHOR> http://thoughtcatalog.com/dr-holly-jacobs/2013/11/being-a-victim-of-revenge-porn-forced-me-to-change-my-name/ <comment><USER2> This is not a black and white case. You need to read Ryan Seay's side of the story to get a better perspective of how things likely went down - [http://jacobsvsseay.com](http://jacobsvsseay.com)

<comment><USER3> The essence of his side of the story is that the pictures and videos were here idea, and she enthusiastically produced them and sent them to her, and that their subsequent appearance on the internet was not his doing but the act of hackers who compromised his account and perhaps also obtained videos from Justin TV. He has enough evidence posted that it seems plausible and in my opinion that she's being a bit less than honest in her public persona about what actually happened, basically, that he coerced her into producing the content which he then distributed, when the reality may have been she's a bit of a wild girl in secret and would like to keep that aspect of her personality a secret.

An excerpt:

In closing, if I could impart any words to Ms. Jacobs, it would be the following… I'm sorry that someone did this to you, but it wasn't me. It never was, isn't and never will be me. At some point, you will have to accept that. Please don't underestimate people's ability to forgive. While it may not be possible for me to do so, people will understand if you reverse and tell the truth. From your constantly changing timeline and story, I'm concerned for you and I hope you're talking to someone. It has been almost a half-decade since we last spoke, yet you seem to have crafted this detailed and elaborate construct in your head of what I have been doing all of these years. If this is sincerely what you believe and isn't part of some elaborate and malicious plan, then I hope you get help; it's frightening and sad to see. It can't be me and I have absolutely no desire for it to be, but I hope you're talking to someone. While I'm considerably angry with you and appalled by your actions, I don't hate you. This is merely the beginning of our legal battle and it will assuredly get much worse from here, but in all matters besides these, I wish you well. We disagree on many matters and we will continue to disagree on many matters, but above all things, be honest, stay strong and please, don't do anything stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't imagine myself caring enough to deal with this the way she did.

I think it might be a gender gap thing - I literally can't understand this reaction.

Obviously I'm not an idiot, and would never cause this kind of pain to someone else, but it's foreign pain. It's the kind of pain I read about, and understand it exists in this world, but have no frame of reference for, like starvation or something like malaria.

And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee regarding the material.

<comment><USER5> > And what are employers doing, attempting to confront their employees about > it? Are these employers not educated enough in how the Internet works to > know precisely the intent of those who've contacted them with this > information? Perhaps an employer notifies the victim of the harassment, but > certainly doesn't attempt to take consequential action against the employee > regarding the material.

While I understand where you're coming from with this... it seems pretty naive/optimistic to honestly expect most people to behave this reasonably. Most people are not as smart as you and/or have some holier-than-thou moral perspective to throw into the mix and wouldn't have the first clue how to respond appropriately to something like this.

<comment><USER6> Many people may indeed have a holier-than-thou moral perspective, but certainly not all of them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A lot of crusaders get it backwards, trying to protect society from porn (or its cousin, prostitution).

I would like to live in a society that was safe for porn.

<comment><USER8> I see the point here. Attempting to put legal dogs onto this type of issue does not at all cover the scope of how society's perception pans out.

The fact that a legal system might punish someone does not in any way demotivate the behavior but merely makes it more intractable when it does happen. That someone is punished doesn't change the motivations behind the victim's name change, and other efforts.

The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's ethos?

Punishment does not at all address this cultural problem: _What_ is porn ?

[0]: "But the presence of Hip as a working philosophy in the sub-worlds of American life is probably due to jazz, and its knife-like entrance into culture, its subtle but so penetrating influence on an avant-garde generation—that post-war generation of adventurers who (some consciously, some by osmosis) had absorbed the lessons of disillusionment and disgust of the Twenties, the Depression, and the War. Sharing a collective disbelief in the words of men who had too much money and controlled too many things, they knew almost as powerful a disbelief in the socially monolithic ideas of the single mate, the solid family and the respectable love life." \-- [http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white- neg...](http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-white-negro- fall-1957)

<comment><USER9> > The question still stands, for companies or institutions of victims like > this: Do we want to affiliate ourselves with someone who has a love life > that cannot be respected[0], that is out of line with our organization's > ethos?

If you do not align with the victim in these 'revenge porn' cases then you reinforce the extortionist's position. Does that align with any organization's ethos ?

<comment><USER8> It's not clear to me that the extortionist has a "position" or that it goes without saying that any organization who does not sympathize is at the same point aligning with the "revenge" sentiment.

Incidents like this can happen without the "revenge" component. Bots and malware might do this.

The organization believes it has PR to manage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Man it's a horrible issue here. I'm glad they're making progress but worried about adding some more 1st amendment exemptions.

I can imagine this turning into a tool the powerful use to suppress "damaging information" or something along those lines. Maybe so long as it stays restricted to uncensored pictures of nudity things will go well.

<comment><USER11> I don't think this is a 1st amendment exception at all; I'm surprised laws around likeness rights (or even copyright) are not at play here.

<comment><USER12> Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck.

Likeness rights are a bit weird and vary by state, but generally, they only apply to using a person's likeness to advertise or imply an endorsement of some product or service.

That said, there are more privacy-centric laws in various states that might apply here. But those laws don't really draw clear lines in the way that likeness or copyright laws would. Instead, these privacy laws usually turn on whether the information being disclosed is "newsworthy" \-- not exactly a very objective standard.

<comment><USER13> "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. So if the ex took the photo, the victim is out of luck."

Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the photographer.

This is a very different situation. A jealous ex posting pictures he took of them all over the net. This girl had the right to expect those pictures to remain private.

If he broke the law is debatable. But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.

<comment><USER12> > Only if the subject gave permission (usually by signing a document) to the > photographer.

Permission from the subject is not required under U.S. copyright law. Unless there's some other agreement in place, it belongs to the photographer. From [http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq- fairuse.html](http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html):

"""The owner of the "work" is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph."""

Permission may matter for likeness rights, but as I mentioned earlier, that generally only applies in the context of advertising or implied endorsement.

> But there's no denying her ex is a first class punk.

Agreed, but it doesn't change the copyright analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The guy is a total dick of course, but more importantly what never stops to amaze me what kind of dicks are the "normal" people that surround us on the work and other places. So suppose nude pictures of my coworker/acquaintances/etc appear and everyone becomes aware of this - well I will see these pictures and it might certainly give me some giggles but I won't think anything bad about this person - what's wrong with naked body, anyway? and who haven't taken such pictures at some point? Those crowd people are far more scary then the asshole who shared it in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER15> I know love makes you do stupid things, but we live in a time of instant publishing, cloud galleries, face recognition and the biggest lie in college that is "I won't show anyone, I promise".

Even celebrities with hundreds of thousands to burn can't control how their images go around on the internet. So when your clothes are off and you're worried about strangers seeing you, don't use the camera. Who knows when app will show up that allows any photo of a face to be instantly matched up against the billions of profile pics on Google+ / Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER16> I hope this doesn't come out wrong. She is a victim of a horrific crime. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Anywhere else this guy would have been beaten to a pulp. If someone did this to my daughter...well, let's leave it there.

Having said that, I have to wonder about the mental framework within which a girl thinks it might be a good idea to allow the taking of nude pictures and videos of herself.

Please, someone help me understand this, because I clearly don't. The explanation and justification would be far more powerful if it came from a woman.

For a model or aspiring actress it might very well be par for the course and that's that. That anyone else would think this isn't something that will one day come back to bite you is beyond me. In the case of the OP we are talking about a PhD student which, to me at least, implies a certain degree of intelligence and, hopefully, good judgement.

Never write an email, take pictures or videos you don't want the world to see. Never. Ever.

Then there's the other side of these situations. No honorable man would even propose his girlfriend to engage in taking such pictures or videos. Why? Because if you truly care for her you will always actively protect her.

If drinking and drugs were involved it could be another matter. We could rightfully question the moral and ethical choices made by people willing to compromise their good judgement this way.

Yes, I tend to think in some cases it takes two to tango. The guy is a slimeball who deserves financial consequences and jail time. If the pictures were taken with her consent, she is at fault for not showing good judgement. It was stupid and sometimes you pay for doing dumb things.

What she experienced was extreme and it should be criminal. All I am saying is laws only protect you AFTER a crime was committed, not before. The only way to protect yourself from this kind of crime is to behave in such a way that it is impossible to find yourself in that predicament, ever.

Another way to put it is: Killing is a crime with many laws and case law covering it. This is not going to protect you if you walk into a dark alley in a seedy neighborhood and get killed. Yes, the murderer is likely to go to jail if caught and convicted. What got you killed was your decision to enter that alley in the first place. You can't live life thinking there are no criminals around you. Passing laws does little to change this.

If you are a woman reading this please remember: if you are in a relationship with someone who wants to take nude or compromising pictures or video of you, run away from that man as quickly as you can. He does not respect or protect you. He does not look after your best interests. He is an asshole. If you allow it be prepared for these pictures to end-up anywhere at all. Do not do it. It could come back and ruin your life. And please, don't drink or do drugs to such an extent that you lose the ability to exercise good judgement.

Got to wonder about the girls in those girls gone wild videos. How many of them will look back at what they did and think it was a good idea.

<comment><USER17> Nude pictures are fun. For all the reasons it's fun to take pictures at all, plus love and sex.

In a relationship that isn't really obviously screwed up, you have basic trust for the other person.

Part of that trust ought to include encryption, but that's another story.

I think that this situation is atypical. Leaked or lost personal photos might be available to the whole world, but most don't go viral linked to your name. So the 'normal' risk of a douchebag boyfriend is relatively low.

And why is it a risk at all? Why isn't it just safe and fun? What's the harm? Take this passage:

>My professional reputation? Tainted. My parents' perception of me as their angelic baby girl? Blown to smithereens and then reassembled in the likeness of a leper. >I sobbed daily.

Where is the harm here? It is coming from her potential employees, colleagues, and sadly her parents. They're the ones with screwed up attitudes about sex. It's their fault, not her fault, because she did nothing wrong. I _hope_ their views are not as harsh as she thinks. But even if she's imagining it those are the ideas we get from our culture.

I get that you're worried about it coming out wrong, but much of your post was similarly victim blaming. The actual solution to murderers in alleys is to send police into the alleys. Not restructure our lives to be tolerant of the constant risk of murder. We should not just cede power to evil because the alley is dark.

And this is not a physical attack, all the harm is in the views others take of the victim. Your judgement of her judgement is part of the harm that the attacker expected.

A betrayal of trust should be blamed on the betrayer, not the betrayed. Is there room for learning better who to trust? Sure. Should we expect people to act like they can't trust anyone they love, and add scorn because they were the ones who encountered trust-evoking douchebags? No.

Personal porn should be fun and safe and relatively inconsequential, for all the reasons that love and sex and photos are fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think she is very seriously deluded towards her life in general.</comment>


What makes music sound "good?" - <AUTHOR> http://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/whatmakesmusicsoundgood.html <comment><USER2> I'm a fan of Juergen Schmidhuber's theory: [http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html](http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html)

The idea is that the brain finds it pleasing to learn things. It effectively seeks novelty. Repetitive, predictable music does not sound pleasing. Pure randomness also does not sound pleasing. Somewhere in between is novelty. Patterns that are definitely real, but new. That somehow violate your brains expectations.

<comment><USER3> Anecdotal but I feels as if that goes against standard chord progression, keys, and almost all EDM.

Blues has a fairly strict formula in which most songs follow. Most songs are in 4/4, and most modern music sounds fairly similar yet people are really into it.

<comment><USER4> Aren't those patterns and structures just there to avoid the cognitive overload, while we're entertained by lesser variations?

(BTW, I believe we're overly simplifying by speaking of music as a single entity. All of the elements you mentioned are a foundation in more popular music, but good luck finding them in more modern or experimental genres.)

The cognitive effort to digest Schoenberg is different from that for a pop song. Still, you can progressively familiarize yourself with a genre, and relax on pieces that seemed hard and inaccessible earlier.

<comment><USER5> > Still, you can progressively familiarize yourself with a genre, and relax on > pieces that seemed hard and inaccessible earlier.

Yes, as a passionate music collector and someone that can get lost in weird, obscure and very leftfield music, this is something I notice all the time. You start with something accessible only to find yourself enjoying obscure 70s synth funk recorded on tape in someone's bedroom months/years later. Or similar.

It's why we recommend "Kind of blue" whenever someone wants to get into Jazz, which is difficult if you just randomly start...anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _I find it remarkable how musical the final result sounds._

Actually I find it remarkable how unmusical it sounds- when studying music theory there are often very simple rules you're mostly meant to follow, yet I've never heard any computer generated music that sounds even close to passable. It seems surprising to me, I would have thought it would be easier.

<comment><USER7> Does the computer generated music "compose" music based on music theory or by learning from other songs? Much like literature, music can be good because an artist tastefully broke the rules and typical norms. A song-writing algorithm full of rule breaking will not necessarily create a song that fits the bill of "good" music.

<comment><USER8> >an artist tastefully broke the rules

Tastefully. That's the biggest problem with computers.

<comment><USER9> Sure, that's the big problem in automation of many endeavours - we can automate things where it's objectively clear what's right and wrong, however if the criteria for "good X" is literally "X that humans would like" (e.g. all art) then you pretty much need a human in the loop, or try to simulate a human _listener_ as opposed to a human composer.

If we had a magical black box oracle that could tell us that variation A is "5 good" and variation B is "5.5 good", then that would be sufficient to implement a system that makes a lot of great art. But we don't, and possibly can't without strong AI or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are some interesting tidbits here, and I really like the table of consistency versus consonance!

But overall, isn't this saying that removing the randomness and applying known music theory is what makes music sound musical? Is there any insight that using the computer is uncovering?

Randomness produces too much motion, and also fails to establish pattern or theme. A set of random major chords still sounds very random, it doesn't progress and leaves the listener unsatisfied. So many attempts at computer music start from randomness and the proceed to remove it little by little with structured rules -- maybe starting from randomness isn't the right place to start?

Had a tiny epiphany about randomness recently when I edited a video with still photos in it and applied my computer's "Ken Burns" effect, where it zooms & pans slowly. The automatic version picks random start and end points, fairly close together, and the movement is slow and gentle. But I watched it and noticed it was very unfocused and adding unharmonious motion. Ken Burns is telling stories with his pans & zooms - zooming in to highlight a specific face he's talking about, or panning over to reveal a place. It was a pain to re-edit the video manually, and hand-animate every pan & zoom, but when I was done, I was completely shocked how much less motion there was, like an order of magnitude less movement. The randomness had just scattered everything and didn't go anywhere. That's what I'm hearing in these musical examples - Brownian motion - too much movement that doesn't go anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER11> There was something else like this on HN a few months back, but I can't find it now. Like this generator, it generated music which sounded OK on a scale of seconds. Lacking any higher level structure, after tens of seconds it was clear the music wasn't going anywhere.

This is like generating sentences with statistical autocomplete. For a few words, the phrases sort of make sense, but that illusion disappears with more length. More high-level structure is needed.

Somebody will probably figure this out soon using deep learning and grind out background music for movies. Oh, right.[1][2][3][4] (Juke-bot may be a hoax.)

[1] [http://juke-bot.com/](http://juke-bot.com/) [2] [https://www.jukedeck.com/](https://www.jukedeck.com/) [3] [http://www.athtek.com/digiband.html](http://www.athtek.com/digiband.html) [4] [http://tones.wolfram.com/generate/](http://tones.wolfram.com/generate/)

</comment><comment><USER12> That's what makes it sound "musical", not "good".

A lot in music breaks down to establishing patterns and breaking them. Simpler music, like pop music relies heavily on well known patterns, but at least the chorus usually has some element of surprise within the song.

My theory is, that people like music that is just a little (or for the more adventurous a little more) surprising.

With training in listening to music, as a musician or just as an ambitious listener, your taste will begin to widen to more complex music. This is because you begin to recognize its patterns (and only when a pattern establishes, you can break it to create suspense or surprise). Simpler stuff will become very shallow, because it's so predictable (just remember the shameful musical taste when coming of age).

Of course there is more to a pop song than harmony and melody, so even when your taste becomes more sophisticated you might like a pop song for its emotional appeal or some subtile complexity or depth the novice won't even notice.

</comment><comment><USER13> Sort of a Lorem Ipsum in music.

Listening to good music (as a non-musician) is for me mostly about experience emotions.

Listening to this music leads immediately to be about identifying what rules the generator was programmed to follow. The stricter the rules (less random), the more music-like it may sound, but without any emotion. Except maybe comedy.

</comment><comment><USER14> I first heard of Dmitri Tymoczko from his book A Geometry of Music [1], which I found to be very enlightening.

This is a cool demo, although I suppose it shows a bit more where the basic texture of western music comes from than songwriting. But what I find most interesting about his ideas is how he's able to fairly convincingly connect them to the entire western music tradition.

[1] [http://dmitri.tymoczko.com/geometry-of- music.html](http://dmitri.tymoczko.com/geometry-of-music.html) (there's a link to Amazon from that page)

</comment><comment><USER15> Some of these audio examples remind me of a long night my freshman year at MIT, when at around 7 AM, in delirium, my friend and I wrote a few hundred lines of code in Matlab, yes Matlab, to procedurally generate music by probabilistically moving from chord to chord based off of the frequency of such changes in real music. Added some bass for counterpoint and some terrible percussion synthesized from white noise and we had what we believed to be some real bangers.

<comment><USER16> And when you sobered up? :)

<comment><USER15> Quickly realized the true nature of what we had created. (That is to say, piping hot garbage.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Evolutionary accident, perhaps. We have been conditioning for millions of years to detect dangers and distinguish among sounds of nature. Obviously, the sounds of bird songs and most of animal cries are in so-called major tonality, while sounds of nature like wind, raining, thunderstorm, etc. are belongs to minor. The swinging from one to another and variations on a theme are pleasant to us the way natural bright colors are more pleasant than dull ones. Rhythm is another main factor, and it probably has something to do with repetitive patterns of behavior, the physiological phenomena behind some trance states (which is related to sexual arousal that makes an animal numb) and rhythms found in sounds of nature.

But, of course, it has nothing to do with harmonic series and other man-made concepts of the mind.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just bought a Roland JD-XI and not having an understanding of music theory I was looking for anything that talked about What Sounds Good and Why.

I'd like to read more without really diving into music theory too far.

<comment><USER18> If you want to make music, but don't care about music theory, get a book called The Art of Mixing.

It won't tell you how to write a song, but it'll start you with a solid foundation for music production. You can start by just finding loops and samples online and putting tracks together that way. Then you can start replacing bits with original music. Think of it like learning how to program by cutting and pasting code from stack exchange.

[https://www.amazon.com/Art-Mixing-Recording-Engineering- Prod...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Mixing-Recording-Engineering- Production/dp/1931140456)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I started thinking about computer music generation when I met Peter Langston ([http://peterlangston.com/Papers/amc.pdf](http://peterlangston.com/Papers/amc.pdf)) who was contracting with Sun doing audio work on the original 'project green' star-9 device. There were many places where being able to play a tune of a typical "flavor" but royalty free was required. I just thought it would be nice to have continuously variable music on hold.

</comment><comment><USER20> for most of the examples on that page, the first feeling i had was that it sounded like a naive/paint-by-numbers version of free jazz/modern classical/a tense passage in a movie score.

i thought the last clip was actually enjoyable, the busy clattering noisy one with the effects and the variety of instrument sounds. there's plenty of weird electronic music i listen to that's in that ballpark at times.

these clips would all make fine sample fodder.

i appreciate the attempted disclaimer at the end ('That is, "good" to typical Western listeners'). but i think a lot of typical western listeners don't realize how much things like texture (timbre, whatever) and other sorts of things not easily captured by western classical music notation matter to them. for instance, a lot of what makes old jazz sound like old jazz is that great warm scratchy sound that the recording technology of the time necessarily imprinted on the original recordings. likewise, if you scored autechre or aphex twin and got an orchestra to play it, it might sound interesting or enjoyable, but it wouldn't sound anything like autechre or aphex twin. and of course, the intonation and cadence and syllable stretching of well delivered rap vocals or well executed vocal sample chopping is nothing if not musical, but those things aren't easily transcribed by the notation in question here either. but those are all things regularly enjoyed by a wide swath of western listeners. so i think the disclaimer should be more like 'That is, "good" to the Western classical music establishment.'

</comment><comment><USER21> One hypothesis is that music has evolved to be "difficult" to compose, because too much really good music would be bad for us: [http://whatismusic.info/blog/OnTheDifficultyOfMusic.html](http://whatismusic.info/blog/OnTheDifficultyOfMusic.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if the people over at Brain.fm have seen this? After using the service for a while, I've found it fascinating how they've managed to turn "randomness into something recognizably musical" (I'm quoting Dmitri Tymoczko) that I can then use to focus with.

<comment><USER23> It's a large library of human-recorded loops, mixed and matched together at random. There's essentially nothing in the way of automated music composition.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Oatfin – The marketplace for buying and selling loan portfolios - <AUTHOR> https://www.oatfin.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, I'm Jay and I'm the founder of Oatfin. Would love to get any feedback.

Oatfin is a marketplace for buying and selling loan portfolios. The product is primarily aimed at financial institutions and also investors who want to buy and/or sell the loan portfolios.

There are many reasons a financial institution would sell or buy loan portfolios. For example, when a financial institution fails, the FDIC auctions the loan portfolios. But the current process is pretty difficult. Some of the problems for example: 1. There is a 32 page application to become a bidder. 2. A bidder has to put down a 50,000 dollar deposit on top of the time and resource it takes to do the due diligence for all the loans in a portfolio. Other reasons can be: compliance, liquidity, and reduce risk exposure. On the other side, a buyer can buy a loan portfolio at a significantly reduced price. Larger investment banks sometimes offer securities that are backed by the loans (think of the 2008 financial meltdown).

Oatfin takes care of the due diligence using machine learning as well as protects the privacy of the buyer, seller, and consumer information using blockchain.

Hope that explanation helps! Thank you!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A quick demo of the Oatfin MVP: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k3054egDUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k3054egDUs)</comment>


Ask HN: Why does CamelCamelCamel search redirect to Project Gutenberg? - <AUTHOR> The search box on the website (https://camelcamelcamel.com) works fine but directly visiting the search URL sends you to a Cloudfront cache of Project Gutenberg (specifically The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes).
Playing with it via curl, seems like omitting the Referer header causes it:
This goes to Gutenberg:

    curl -v https://camelcamelcamel.com/search?sq=test
 This doesn't:

    curl -v https://camelcamelcamel.com/search?sq=test -H 'Referer: https://camelcamelcamel.com/'
 Any ideas what's going on? Maybe they were being web scraped live via AJAX and put in a referrer check to break things? Problem with that is that it broke my quick search links... <comment><USER2> Should be working now, sorry about that.</comment>


Google Authenticator Now Supports Transfer of 2-Step Verification Codes - <AUTHOR> https://security.googleblog.com/2020/05/introducing-portability-of-google.html <comment><USER2> I would also be great if there was a way to export all of my OTP secrets out of the iOS version of Google Authenticator.

<comment><USER3> I lost hope a year ago and switched to FreeOTP, which doesn't hold your keys hostage.

Its a little buggy, but that's worth Google not owning my keys and keeping them from me.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps look into andotp. freeotp hasn't been updated in ages. It was a fork of the original google app, but didn't see much development after that.

<comment><USER5> Aegis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> LastPass Authenticator performs backups to your account. Of course, I don't keep both the password and the OTP in the same account.

</comment><comment><USER7> Too late? I already migrated away from Google Authenticator because this critical feature was lacking.</comment>


Daft Punk Lego Minifig raytraced in your browser. - <AUTHOR> http://jsfiddle.net/bhouston/P7QdQ/embedded/result/

<comment><USER2> Very interesting! This felt like a little glimpse of the future. I wonder if future iterations of this platform might include peer-based distributive rendering of populat models.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Full Disclosure: I submitted a different scene over the weekend (Saturday) that wasn't as interactive as well as this one. Figured I'd try my luck again on a different day/different time/different scene.</comment>


Earth Had Life from Its Infancy - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/09/scientists-discover-some-of-the-oldest-signs-of-life-on-earth/541251/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The original article appears to be inaccessible because nature.com is broken. And their status page, status.nature.com , is an infinite redirect loop...</comment>