Sony and LG stop making 3D TV sets - <AUTHOR> http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/3d-tv-officially-dead-as-sony-and-lg-stop-making-sets <comment><USER2> I had been sort of hoping that 3D TV would not become the norm.

I saw Avatar in 3D and while the effects were fun to watch, I thought that the expressiveness of the depth-of-field shots was actually reduced.

In 2D cinema, the viewer's eyes adapt to the shot that the director intended, which often involves focusing on the foreground _or_ the background... once in a while a shot puts both in focus, but it's rare.

The visual cue of depth of field is why cinematographers continue to use it even though it's been technically feasible for a long time to simply make all objects in the shot appear in focus.

In Avatar, the critters zoomed toward the audience and the effect was immersive, but I thought many of the close-in shots lacked the intimacy that good 2D shots can often attain.

3D vision is a perceptual use of depth of field to heighten the brain's ability to discern objects. There is similarly no reason why the human visual system couldn't have evolved to perceive objects in focus over a wider range of distances.

In fact, the human perception of a constant, detailed visual field is an illusion that the brain stitches together from the data collected by the narrow beam of detailed focus directly in front of our gaze.

So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the increased acuity we get in normal vision.

3D film is _unreal_ in that it requires us to suspend our normal method of discerning space, and watching it is something we must learn to do, just as we must learn to interpret 2D depth of field as both an attentional and spatial cue.

<comment><USER3> > So I think doing accurate 3D requires simulating the way in which the brain > picks out objects at different depths, but this can't be done simply by > offering one depth of field for all viewers, since our eyes can't bounce > back and forth alternately focusing a near and far object and creating the > increased acuity we get in normal vision.

Depth of field isn't the only way for a cinematographer to to lead the viewer's gaze. There's also lighting, movement, scene (art direction)... Tricks that have been used in live theater for centuries. The depth issue really boils down to a lack of cinematic artistry, probably due to the lack of experience that filmmakers and audiences have with 3D.

Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen to date.

<comment><USER2> Great points.

> Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" is probably the most artistic use of 3D I've seen > to date.

I'm going to have to watch it, do you know of a way to see it in 3D using a normal laptop or TV?

<comment><USER4> Google Cardboard?

<comment><USER5> You probably can but strapping it on ones head is fairly difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yeah, if you can do away with it in the cinemas as well, that'd be great, thanks.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, no - it wouldn't be great. I love seeing movies in 3D. Every 3D movie is also offered as non-3D for those that don't like it. This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.

<comment><USER8> >This "stop doing something because I personally don't like it!" mentality is what should be done away with.

Couldn't agree more.

It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

If the Simpsons runs for fifty seasons, it doesn't undo the first ten.

If they reboot Batman a dozen more times, it doesn't keep you from thinking that Adam West was the best Batman.

And to categorize 3D movies as simply a fad totally disregards works for which 3D was an integral part of the creative vision, e.g. Avatar, Gravity, Love.

There's simply no good reason to discourage anyone from contributing anything creative to the culture, even if you question their motives.

<comment><USER9> > It's the same mentality that makes people declare that "[arbitrary tv show] > should've been cancelled long ago!"; or what a travesty it is that > [arbitrary beloved IP] is getting a sequel/remake/reboot.

I don't know about that, there are very good reasons not to, in my opinion. It's the same reason we don't build on top of the gaza pyramids, or replace the mona lisa with a more modern version.

We like to preserve the legacy of things, and when you pollute it with things not in the original design it's easy to end up reshaping what it means and diluting its history.

<comment><USER8> I don't know that making a new season of a tv show is anything like building on top of the Great Pyramids of Giza. It's like building another pyramid.

I certainly don't think that the Luxor hotel and casino in Las Vegas diminishes the legacy of the Great Pyramids in any way. In fact, I think it's really interesting that they were able to use an ancient form to achieve something architecturally unique from a modern standpoint. It allowed them to create an uncommonly large open lobby area, which is really cool to see, and wouldn't have happened if someone had said 'no pyramids, pyramids have been done.'

A remake/reboot is certainly nothing like replacing the Mona Lisa. It's more like a Banksy type person painting their own take on the Mona Lisa on a concrete wall or something.

Do you think that no artist after da Vinci should ever reference the Mona Lisa in any way? Because derivative works were being made by prominent artists before da Vinci even considered his finished. In fact, the famous Mona Lisa arguably wasn't even the only version of the Mona Lisa that _da Vinci himself_ contributed to.

'Meaning' is extremely personal and dependent entirely on the context within which a work is received. No work will ever hold the exact same meaning for two individuals. Furthermore, a work's meaning to _a particular individual_ is likely to evolve continuously throughout their life.

To discourage derivative works is like saying that you don't want to have to consider that alternate meanings are even possible.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, not all sequels or reboots are bad.

Derivative work is a little different than building a sequel though. A sequel _may_ stand alone on it's own, but it also can take away from the original intention of it's prequel because it usually further builds out the universe or plot that took place in the original.

Movie producers often reach for sequels because they are guaranteed cash grabs and prop them up with nothing more than a shallow plot and a few A-list celebrities. To many, this takes away from the intent and meaning of the original.

<comment><USER10> I _like_ a well-done sequel. As much fun as it is to step into a movie world for the first time and find out what's going on, there's a certain sameyness to the requisite beats to establish origins, establish personalities, establish locations, just a whole lot o' establishing going on. Again, that's great and all, but it limits the amount of time for the story itself, and limits the range of stories that can be told.

Look at all the superhero origin stories that have come out lately, and summarize to yourself the _story_ in the movie, without including any of the establishing. Even in the best ones... in fact, to some extent, _especially_ in the best ones... the story itself is quite simple.

The sequel will have a chance to spread its wings much more. The fact that so many fail to do so is... well... an interesting discussion on its own. But the really _great_ sequels are often movies that _had_ to be sequels, because they told a story too big to also have 45-75 minutes of establishing in there with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Over 5000 3D Fans Petition LG to add the 3D hardware back, and it sounds like LG may reconsider since it doesn't affect picture quality and the hardware isn't that expensive: [https://www.change.org/p/lg-please- revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-...](https://www.change.org/p/lg-please- revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-tv-model)

I have seen a lot of 3D movies on LG OLED sets (Gravity, Mad Max), and it's remarkable. Much better than 4K UHD. With the latest LG OLEDs, you get 1080p per eye, bright smooth motion, and the passive glasses are cheap, lightweight, and you don't have to charge them.

<comment><USER12> Where can I read about this "hardware"? My understanding was that it was simply TV's with better color clarity and then marketing fluff. I've never heard about this "hardware".

Edit: Here's a decent resource. Still doesn't talk about a hardware chip but rather about multiple LCD screens or blacking glasses that are synced with the TV. Both options sound rather expensive.

[http://www.3dtvguide.org/3d-tv- technology.html](http://www.3dtvguide.org/3d-tv-technology.html)

<comment><USER13> Active 3D required an emitter that synced glasses to the TV's output, and the glasses themselves.

I assume passive 3D required some hardware to support it too, and both required hardware with firmware that could support the formats and settings required

<comment><USER14> It requires a polarizing filter/film that's aligned with the screens dot matrix.

In theory that could also be added as aftermarket modification.

If the screen is fed with an interlaced 3d stream and the screen firmware/hardware allows 1:1 pixel playback it doesn't need to know if the content is 3d or not.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kg- dFSE2IY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kg-dFSE2IY)

<comment><USER13> I was aware of passive 3D being done with aftermarket filters (mostly as a joke, printed on laminate), but proper consumer 3D had to support the same formats that Active 3D did, which usually meant side-by-side and top-bottom

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's about time.

VR is hard for most directors to handle. Steven Cameron (Avatar, Titanic) likes pans over detailed backgrounds. His 3D is done with a light touch - nothing ever appears in front of the screen plane. That looks good, which is why "Avatar" launched the 3D boom. Cameron wants higher frame rates so those long pans don't have strobing.

Too many other directors use 3D to pretend they're doing a roller coaster simulator. They put stuff in your face to make people feel they go their money's worth viewing the 3D version. That's just painful.

Next to go down: VR headsets. The technology has been working for years now and there's still no killer app beyond 3D shooters.

<comment><USER16> James Cameron*. No one since has put in the amount of time into getting the details right, Avatar was an unbelievable experience and it is 8 years old. He really deserved to win best director, he really pushed the boundaries of what is possible in film and it went somewhat overlooked.

<comment><USER17> He didn't win best director because he failed to push the boundaries of what is possible in storytelling and basic cinematography. Take away Avatar's "unbelievable experience" and all you're left with is a very subpar, watered- down Science Fiction rip-off of Dances With Wolves, but with worse acting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> But just wait ... VR is going to be HUGE!

<comment><USER19> Before downvoting this commenter, think about how he or she is making a fair observation about technology hype, and the stomach consumers have for consuming entertainment while wearing awkward equipment. It did not work for 3D TV or Google Glass.

<comment><USER20> Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it's just noise.

Edit: There's also little proof that 3D TV failed because wearing the glasses was awkward. I can only compare it to 3D cinema, which is basically worthless. Avatar is still the only movie I've seen where it worked, for every other one it was just money paid for nothing.

<comment><USER21> > _Not really, the observation can be made about any new technology and > sometimes will be correct, sometimes not. Without further explanation why 3D > TV and VR, two completely different technologies, are somehow comparable it > 's just noise._

They don't have to be similar technologies, just comparable in that they're fads (which lot of us feel, and time will prove -- check back in 5 years).

<comment><USER22> There are decades of hard scientific research driving VR towards its current position. Shooting robots with it at home might turn out to be a fad, but dismissing the entire technology outright as a pointless toy is disingenuous. You really, honesty, don't see any market applications for VR? Any scientific applications? You don't think the Navy is going to train pilots with VR?

<comment><USER23> Sure, there are verticals that get extra value out of it. But flight sims (for example) are actually easier to "get right" with regards to subsonics, etc by constructing a box to put the person in, and immersing them directly.

Similarly, telemedicine was a thing 20 years ago and it does work in some cases, just like robotic surgery with the DaVinci system. But most people want to have a doctor diagnose them and then perform whatever procedures might be necessary, and especially the wealthy customers hospitals really want tend to prefer doing that with a human. So most of the value add comes from the surgeon rather than the surgery. (Even in oncology, bedside manner is worth a tremendous amount -- to the tune of 8-figure restricted endowments for colleagues of mine)

Speaking as someone who participated in said research, I've seen this cycle before. Maybe it will end differently. But I personally am skeptical. YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> IMO 3D killed itself. I personally think 3D is great, and have invested in a 3D TV and a bunch of movies. But they had a marketing problem with active vs. passive. I would tell people that I have a 3D TV, and their response is "I would hate to spend $250 on glasses." I would remind them that a passive model uses the same glasses as the movie theater and we would just bring the glasses home.

Nowadays 3D movies are harder to find. Force Awakens came out on 3D six months later and only after a fan revolt. Let me tell you the 3D was better on my TV than in the theater.

The only saving grace at this point: VR. Samsung is making VR cool and hopefully Apple comes out with their own VR set. VR will bridge the gap until they build a no-glasses 3D TV.

</comment><comment><USER25> I believe to be in the minority, but I actually enjoy watching movies with passive 3D glasses. The problem for me was lack of easily accessible content.

</comment><comment><USER26> Out of curiosity, did anyone here regularly use the 3D features of a television? I've seen them used to good effect for various demonstrations and interactive displays and such, but don't know any regular end-consumers who used the features regularly (despite knowing people who owned the televisions).

<comment><USER27> No, but somehow I hoped the following would happen that _could_ have made the tech useful: instead of having a pair of glasses each one with left+right filters, have two pair of glasses, one with "left" filters on both eyes and one with "right" filters on both eyes, with "left" frames coming from one input and "right" frames from another one, so that the TV can be used by two persons simultaneously (obviously without 3D). Basically that's interleaving two input sources and demuxing each one to each corresponding viewer with the glasses. For audio headsets would be fine.

Of course watching a romantic movie next to someone frantically playing a BF1 match probably wouldn't fly.

<comment><USER13> It did (kind of) happen with LG's Dual Play:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbRG- KfWyVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbRG-KfWyVc)

And other 3D TVs could replicate the idea:

[https://www.tweaking4all.com/video/gaming/split-screen- game-...](https://www.tweaking4all.com/video/gaming/split-screen-game-full- screen/)

Both took advantage of the fact most 3D formats were just two images side by side, so if you took something that could put two separate streams side by side like this:

[http://www.kvm-switches-online.com/splitmux-hd-2lc.html](http://www.kvm- switches-online.com/splitmux-hd-2lc.html)

You could do exactly what you described.

One problem I could see would be any cross-talk. Normally cross-talk makes things look blurry, any cross-talk would result in seeing fringes of something completely unrelated to what you're viewing. But with active glasses (or high quality passive displays) I don't think it'd be much of an issue.

<comment><USER27> > LG's Dual Play

That's exactly it! The "no more split screen" use case is also something I thought of but forgot about :-)

<comment><USER28> The Playstation TV from Sony had that feature as well: [http://kotaku.com/5809230/the-playstation-tv-a-cheap-3dtv- fo...](http://kotaku.com/5809230/the-playstation-tv-a-cheap-3dtv-for- everybody)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not sure who this market was intended for. It lacked the convenience of a regular TV set and also the "wow" factor of VR. I've started watching youtube and Netflix on my Vive and the difference between that huge virtual screen and what a 3D TV can do is enormous, even if the videos themselves are just plain 2D videos projected onto a virtual space.

The more I think of it, the more a lot of last gen technologies were stop-gap measures until we had VR. The Kinect, and to a lesser extent the Wii, are also in this category. You lost all the convenience of a controller to kinda, sorta have a virtual experience where you avatar is closely tied to your body but projected onto the screen. Now you're really "in the game" or "on the set" when you consider what's possible with VR and movies/tv/machinima.

I also hope this is the end of 3D in the movie theaters. It not only looks completely wrong via the false exaggerated 3D effects typically in use, but most implementations kill the lighting levels and color fidelity. The cost for me and my wife to see a movie with parking, babysitter, and basic concessions is nearly $100. Selling me a sub-par experience with a grainy and dark screen is not how you beat Netflix, Amazon, and Google.

<comment><USER30> I know VR is getting all the hype right now, but I honestly just don't think it's going to catch on.

VR is lonely, you sit with a helmet on and ignore anyone in the room with you.

For the single 20 something male this may be fine, but for friends, couples, families, this is a deal breaker.

<comment><USER29> Oh, I don't see it replacing TV. I think TV is here to stay because we've built our lives around it. We surround it with couches and put in our most prominent rooms, for example. Or we have TV on our phones, laptops, and tablets ready to be consumed at any time, anywhere.

I do think people craving big or 3D experiences will migrate to VR. That was the point I was trying to convey, that a lot of the whiz-bang stuff marketers have been trying hard to sell this past generation really are just poor imitations of what VR can do and if you really want that kind of experience, you should consider just buying VR. VR can simulate a theater experience nicely and without the crowds, hassle, etc. I think once the resolution issue is resolved then cinephiles will naturally migrate to it.

I was just looking a the Windows Holographic lineup and thought that this is probably going to break through to the mainstream of mostly non-gamers. The killer app may be movies and TV seen on a huge and bright screen before your eyes. I can certainly see a $299, or less, VR set being big this xmas for this demographic.

<comment><USER31> The HoloLens could make it because it doesn't lock people into their own display. However it's still a long way from being ready for prime time. Two big problems:

1) a very narrow field of vision, about the same my 15.6" laptop screen at the distance I use it. It's very easy to miss virtual objects and having to look for them it's not a great experience compared to the peripheral vision we enjoy in RL.

2) Objects are always transparent so colors are weak. Unfortunately I don't see a way out of this, especially outdoors. There can't be black unless in a dark room.

#1 can be fixed, I don't know about #2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Next step. Get rid of all of the "Smart" TV features.

I just wanna 4k dumb TV.

<comment><USER33> You mean you don't like the unsupported Netflix and Hulu apps that have a half second lag between button pushes?

<comment><USER34> Only a half second lag? Look at the guy with a fancy smart TV!

<comment><USER35> Youtube on my roku has gotten so bad. I just timed it and it takes 26 seconds to start the channel. Each click on the menu takes 1 second to register, and 2 seconds to pause a playing video. I never even use rewind/fast-forward because they never work.

And that's on a relatively supported device. I can't imagine how bad smart tv's are.

<comment><USER34> I would prefer on screen instead of a mobile device, but Chromecast "just works" and the mobile apps are all leagues better than smart TVs and boxes like Roku.

<comment><USER35> Could you clarify what you mean by "on screen instead of a mobile device" ?

<comment><USER36> With Chromecast you have to choose what to watch on a phone/tablet and only the video is displayed on TV; there's no UI on the TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> With the extra depth dimension they should've seen that coming from a mile away....

I'll show myself out.

</comment><comment><USER38> "I live my life in 3D, I go to movies for the 2D. If I want to see something hurdling towards [me], I'll just stay at home with my son." - Paula Poundstone [1]

[1] [http://variety411.com/article/a-night-of-high-spirits-for- ar...](http://variety411.com/article/a-night-of-high-spirits-for-art- directors-3941881/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I loved 3D TVs because I got into it at the end. The story of home 3D in general is a little sad, the first attempts on both computers and TVs were mediocre but somewhat expensive (really expensive on PC), which burned people. Towards the end attempts improved, but it was too little too late and 4k was the new "must have" feature.

</comment><comment><USER39> I wish they would use this technology to show two different content at the same time. Example, the kids could play their game on mute while the parents watch another show.

<comment><USER40> Or buy a different tv set for the kids. No glasses needed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Stereoscopic 3D that requires glasses or separate displays is not interesting. True 3D, e.g., by using phased arrays in the optical spectrum without glasses or separate displays, that will be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER42> I believe the same fate awaits VR headsets. AR (augmented reality) has the potential to be be the game changer, especially AR contacts, whenever they become available!

<comment><USER43> I would cautiously agree. The overall quality of VR - the headsets, the displays, the content - is just not good enough on current-gen devices (especially considering the price).

Unlike 3D TVs, VR might be here to stay for the enthusiast market but I don't see it becoming a mass market must-have gadget for every household.

And because the current generation is so underwhelming and overhyped, there might be a 5-10 year period of relative silence before the next-next generation comes out - hopefully with much improved quality as the technology improves.

But the next year will tell... and it's up to the content side. If there will be a mega hit game, movie,other entertainment experience or even a serious application coming out I might be wrong.

<comment><USER44> Yea it's very much in the enthusiast market for now. If in the next 5 years they can get it down to £350 for the whole system and it all fits on your head it'll break into mainstream I think.

<comment><USER43> Price won't be an issue unless there will be content worth that £350 coming out in the next 5 years. If the VR hype fizzles down in the next year or so, it won't happen.

Don't get me wrong, I've tried most of the VR gadgets out there and I kinda enjoyed using them (except the first Oculus devkit which was awful) and so did my friends. But they don't really keep me entertained for more than an hour or so. And I usually like to play with friends (in the same room) and having only one guy wearing the headset isn't really social.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> My TV is technically 3D but I watched the demo once and never did anything else 3D. It's neat but it's just a gimmick and it gives me headaches.

</comment><comment><USER46> "Purchase process research showed it's not a top buying consideration, and anecdotal information indicated that actual usage was not high."

Anyone else surprised they're making this decision partly based on 'anecdotal information'? Or would it be explicitly phrased this way to prevent people from suspecting spyware in their TV sets?

<comment><USER47> Maybe. My guess is that the TV divisions of these companies just don't spend a ton of market research effort on post-purchase usage patterns. You've bought a big TV and likely won't buy another one for years. It's the next consumer's level of interest in various features they'll spend money to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Kill "smart" TVs, too, please! It's mostly unnecessary (set top boxes exist), confusing (for many), and they don't get updated nearly long enough as the TV's 10 year life span. So you may get yourself some ransomware through it.

<comment><USER49> I've got an LG dumb TV and it's terrific. Mine's lasted a few years already but they probably still make them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This is sad. Film makers are shooting movies in 3D. If you don't want to see films in that format, that is fine. But it will be too bad if there is no way to see a 3D movie on a TV.

VR will not be a substitute because it is a different medium.

</comment><comment><USER51> I had 3D TV from LG, and I am kinda sad to hear this. I used it to play Skyrim on it, which was very nice, even though I had to reduce quality to maintain reasonable FPS. I didn't watch much movies on it, though, but I greatly enjoy good 3D ones in the cinema.

What I missed the most was Minecraft (actually, I found some older mod and it was kinda weird in 3D, so maybe that's for the better) and porn. If this was available, I could still use it, but as it isn't, I gave it to my parents to replace their TV.

</comment><comment><USER52> I never saw the point in 3d TVs. But I built a home theater with a 140 inch screen and a 3d projector to recreate Avatar at home, which worked fantastically well. I hope that technology doesn't go away.

</comment><comment><USER53> RE HDR ... I saw a side-by-side setup recently and could not tell the difference. I think you can only tell the difference if you turn the brightness way up. Or maybe it is just me.

<comment><USER10> If you literally could not tell the difference, then something may have been wrong with the demo. It is true you do need the brightness turned up, since you can't get the range if you cut the top end down too far in the first place, and I've seen it said you really can only get it in a dark room because of that.

If that makes you less interested in getting HDR because you don't always watch TV in a dark room, well... yeah, it's definitely a more niche feature.

However, IMHO the more interesting thing about the HDR standards is the improved color gamut. That is quite noticeable when you get content that uses it properly, but there's precious little of it right now. However, I do occasionally commit videophile sin and turn on my TV's "fake up a guess about how the color gamut might look" mode even though my media isn't technically mastered in that, and there are some things that it does make beautiful, even if it is technically inaccurate. Inside Out in particular is jaw-dropping on my TV in Fake-o-HDR mode. (Which isn't entirely implausible, as I understand it the original movie is in an expanded gamut, but there's no Bluray that has the expanded gamut version AFAIK.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Jan 23, 2018: "Curved screens were never really universally embraced in the industry for home use, and it's just not a key buying factor when selecting a new TV"

</comment><comment><USER55> I just hope this isn't the end of 120Hz TV sets -- no more 3:2 pulldown, and native support for 30Hz (TV broadcasts in the US) and 24fps (most films).

</comment><comment><USER56> 3DTV has always been too much work for the consumer. You have to pay the big ticket price of getting a 3DTV. Then you've got to get a pair of glasses for each viewer. What if you're one pair short? Plans ruined? Then you've got to get the 3D version of the movie. What movies do you even consider watching in 3D? Personally, I can only think of Avatar, Gravity, and maybe Dr. Strange.

</comment><comment><USER57> 3D was dead for a while for home viewing. There was no content that was easily available to watch on the 3D TV. Cannot rent or stream 3D movies from anywhere. The only way to watch 3D at home is to buy and that is twice as expensive as HD DVDs. So the content industry marked it as dead a long time ago, the TV companies are just now catching up.

</comment><comment><USER58> Honestly, if the streaming services don't support a technology, I probably won't either. I haven't purchased a physical copy of anything media in quite some time and I can't see that changing anytime soon. Either Netflix|Amazon|Hulu start streaming 3D or it just isn't worth it to me.

</comment><comment><USER59> I have a 3d TV and it's really excellent. I think people have associated the annoying extra cost of 3d in cinemas, for not much benefit, with 3d on TVs. I don't know why. It's very immersive at home.

The only annoyance is that there aren't enough 3d films available. So I guess this will just cement that issue.

</comment><comment><USER60> I can't wait until they start making displays that just show stuff when you connect another device to it.

</comment><comment><USER61> It seems like the same thing as the wireless companies trying to avoid becoming dumb pipes, except it's dumb boxes. They have to pretend they're creating value with "smart" functionality, HDR, and for a time 3D.

But all it really does is keep prices high and creates no real value.

</comment><comment><USER62> If anything should take off, it should be AR...thats the technology I am looking fw to. We have this amazing real life 3d environment, why do i have to put on dumb glasses to experience something.

</comment><comment><USER63> It seems to me they missed out on trying a partial-VR experience with good 3D interface devices (e.g. Vive hand controllers). In particular it might be less awkward for some than the full-up headsets.

</comment><comment><USER64> All we need now is the ability to buy a quality panel without "smart" bollocks adding delays (and reporting your viewing habits back to home base), and we'll be sweet again.

</comment><comment><USER65> I wonder what, if any, effect this has on the VR market. I could see investors getting spooked. Sure they are different, but enough to differentiate them with non savvy folk?

</comment><comment><USER66> I have never bothered to use the 3d part of my tv and I have yet to enjoy a 3d movie at the theaters. I'm kinda surprised this fad has lasted this long.

</comment><comment><USER67> I assume what kills it is the need for an accessory and the need to press various buttons on the remote to ensure 3D is enabled with sometimes frustrations.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's happening! I always thought 3D was a gimmick. Great for Disneyland or planetariums but otherwise a distraction for the story or the visuals.

</comment><comment><USER69> Good. But will the panel prices drop as a result?

<comment><USER70> HAHAHAHAHAHHA!

No

<comment><USER53> Haha .. I really wanted to pick up an active shutter system to play with. The price had kept me away. I was hoping that eventually the prices would come down.

As an aside, it seems 3D projectors are still around. A friend showed me his setup just the other day.

<comment><USER71> Active shutters are crappy and IMO one of the main reasons why 3D never took of. If you can get a passive 3d 4k panel from LG - great experience and no "half res" problem that full hd lg panels had.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Why all the 3D hate? Does no one remember watching Avatar for the first time? 3D, when done right, is AMAZING!

<comment><USER73> Avatar was a poorly composed 3d experience in my opinion. The combination of depth-of-field effects with stereoscopic vision was really off-putting, I can see shapes nearer to me than the focal point, and can look at them, but can't focus on them.

The only 3d experience I enjoyed - well enough as I wouldn't dissuade someone from viewing the film in 3d, at least - was Gravity, since the small-aperture space cinematography was very suited to a 3d presentation, 3d contributed to the feeling of the film - helping acheive a sense of contrast in scale between the personal experience of the main character and the very large catastrophes around them, and not just a fancy way to produce distractions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> 'Smart' is not a noun; it's an adjective.

</comment><comment><USER75> Next year they will stop making the curved TVs. Thankfully they haven't come up with a new gimmick yet.

</comment><comment><USER76> I consider not watching Avatar in 3d blasphemous.

</comment><comment><USER77> It was bound to happen...I think VR glasses will see a similar future.

</comment><comment><USER78> Thank you

</comment><comment><USER79> Good riddance.

</comment><comment><USER76> I consider not watching Avatar in 3d as blasphemy.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you manage your thoughts? - <AUTHOR>

How do you manage your thoughts? When I say thoughts that can of course mean anything, e.g. project ideas, other ideas, things to do, things maybe to do, events etc.<p>Pencil and paper? Some web app? Something totally different? <comment><USER2> I started using a notebook to capture ideas as they occur to me. As a policy I do not maintain any structure or withhold any topics; I just write whatever I'm thinking below the last thing I wrote.

This is really useful as a way to free your mind of your current ideas. I have a tendency of dwelling on something because I'm afraid I will lose it otherwise. By writing it, I am able to let it go and start fresh. This may sound familiar if you've read the PG essay called "The Island Test" as it is his rationale. I've only adopted it.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/island.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> After years of notebook use, I've recently fallen in love with index cards.

I hesitate less before writing down a probably-bad idea (some of which turn out to be good) because it won't permanently "contaminate" a notebook.

I can sort & re-order, keep my tasks separate from ideas, and scrap cards when they are dealt with.

When I would use notebooks, I liked to keep one per project/client/theme, so now I no longer need to carry multiple notebooks everywhere -- just a small stack of blank cards.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just recently, I started a new business with a partner. We carry little notebooks around to capture things as we surface them. Sometimes I do a quick audio recording on my phone. The most prescient ideas, questions, problems to solve are transferred to a Wiki he created for us where we can track further dialogue/brainstorming, ownership, and closure.

</comment><comment><USER5> I use a stack of old business cards. I write on the back, and then I can shuffle, add notes, discard, etc. Cards from a week ago get reviewed, culled, and some things then get transcribed into a notebook or a wiki.

I tend to work on longer term projects on a wiki, but the ideas and fleeting thoughts go on the backs of business cards.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm a firm believer in two notebooks. I keep a little one one me at all times so I can write down ideas as I have then, and a few times a week, I transfer them to a bigger notebook which I keep at home. I find that sometimes, my thoughts gel between the first time I write them and when I transfer them.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have tried notebooks and index cards but I had the problem of forgetting them. Now, I keep two text files in my dropbox folder. One for work use and one for personal use. This has been working fairly well for me. I use these to take notes, ideas and track to do lists.

</comment><comment><USER8> Two things. I use a paper folded up once horizontally and twice vertically which creates 12 spaces that I use for calendar days for immediate to do lists. For longer things, like interviews and thoughts, I use a small moleskin which makes it a real pleasure to write.

</comment><comment><USER9> Tangentely.

I tried carrying a small notebook around, but it didn't really work. For household 'work' I write a todo list once a week. At the moment, I just start a new todo list everyday on paper as I sit down in the morning.</comment>


A Guide to Hacker News for People Who Aren't Men - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@melissamcewen/a-guide-to-hacker-news-for-people-who-arent-men-5737bc3e68a <comment><USER2> _Don't click on threads that discuss gender unless you're prepared to wade through crap_

Whether that's the chicken or the egg, the fact that the subject leads to crapfests might be a motivation for many to flag and move on.

<comment><USER3> I think its pretty clear that the misogyny came first, there is no ambiguity: people tolerate it and so it lives on.

<comment><USER2> Quite a few people don't tolerate it, but often the argumemts had don't change minds, and follow the exact same well-trodden pathways. Offline that can be managed, but online its pure flame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The 500 point threshold for downvotes is fairly public. dang has posted a number of comments stating it is 500.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20500&sort=byPopularit...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20500&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

</comment><comment> 52-6F-62 In response to some of the other long discussions stemming from contrary perspectives, I'd be interested in seeing this post discussed.</comment>


You're Not a Programmer, We Won't Pay You That Much - <AUTHOR> http://www.maratz.com/blog/archives/2008/01/22/you-are-not-programmer/

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't read too much into this. When a client tells you that you cost too much, it's not a statement of fact. It may not even be something they really believe. They may just be probing you to see if you will lower your rate.

On the (published) advice of Tim Ferriss, I read Roger Dawson's _Secrets of Power Negotiating_. It's a highly enlightening view into the mind of a relentless game-player. One of Dawson's first recommendations is: When you are negotiating with someone and they name a price, always flinch. If you're physically present, you should literally flinch, at least slightly. If you're on the phone, you execute a verbal flinch. If you're in email... you could try saying something like "My god, that's a _programmer_ rate. I thought I was hiring at _designer_ rates." (If the price you're objecting to _is_ a ridiculously reasonable rate for a designer, you could always say "Oh, gosh. The high school sophomore charged a lot less.")

And then you stop, and wait. In the best-case scenario, your opponent will immediately say "oh, I didn't realize you were used to paying so much less; I'll lower my rate". In the second-best scenario, your opponent will fret, wonder what you were talking about -- perhaps even writing a blog post about it -- and then lower their rates, or make other concessions (Perhaps they won't _raise_ their rates in six months, the way they usually do? Perhaps they will agree to push up the delivery date?). This will happen because you will have subtly but effectively said "I think your rates are awfully high, relative to the competition; you had better deliver".

It's just gamesmanship. If you really want to _know_ whether or not programmers and designers can make comparable salaries, you need to get actual data: Poll your colleagues, or try to hire some designers yourself and see what they quote you. Or just wait and see if you ever get a job at your posted rates.

<comment><USER3> > They may just be probing you to see if you will lower your rate.

That could be out of genuine ignorance. A friend referred potential clients who had purchased "a set of integrated scripts" for 200 pounds (approximately US$390) and "just" want them uploaded and configured. I looked at the scripts, recognised some of them from Matt's Script Archive and quoted 20 hours work at 20 pounds per hour. They said no. Eventually, they went elsewhere and paid an extra 50%. I suspect that they were too embarassed to admit that my quote was reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the client is simply trying to negotiate with the author. He felt like his feelings were hurt; however, he should educate his customers.

If somebody replies, that means they are interested. And, they only said it was a bit too much, not outrageously insane. Nor did they say they aren't prepared to pay it. They're simply asking for reassurance from the guy that he is a programmer.

The way to act on this is to respond nicely and educate the customer. In this case, you would explain that you are the same great developer who created the web site, but that __you agree with them __, and therefore included in the hourly fee the additional work of consulting with a great programming resource without charging them extra, because you like to meet their needs exactly the way a great client like them deserves. Additionally, it should be easy for a web developer to show the client examples of what you've done before that's exactly what the client is looking for: a site based on graphics you designed, and the results of one of those web site validity tools that shows your CSS/XML code is as good as it looks. (And then if the client likes what you coded, and you never end up having to subcontract a programmer, don't gloat and tell them this.)

The author should put himself in his clients' shoes.

</comment><comment><USER5> I take this as people not understanding what the heck they are putting out for bid. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the last website they had was whipped together by some exec's kid.

If they thought that his prices were high for PSD to HTML/CSS, then they'd probably fall over dead if they wanted a quote for a back-end to go with it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I take this as people starting to accept programmer == professional, with rates priced accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER7> Not sure what the writers point is, its just supply and demand, but the client phrased it badly and possibly undervalues the value of the writers skills

<comment><USER8> they obviously undervalue the writers skill. frontend and backend require different skillsets, but the average person has no knowledge of what either one is really worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personally, I think it's because many clients are used to years of hearing "programmer" and "web designer" as two separate jobs. If you're writing desktop apps, well, you're a programmer. If you're doing web-based stuff, you must be "just" a web designer.

And yes, you can easily do non-trivial stuff with a little light HTML and Javascript, but once you start getting into serious CSS, PHP, etc. it ceases to be something that anyone can pick up in an afternoon. In essence it becomes the same sort of professional work that "programmers" do.

But to the client there's still "programmers" and "web designers", with the prestige and the dollars definitely being associated (in their minds, anyway) with the former.

</comment><comment><USER10> The problem is that designers are, for some reason, measured by some odd metric of technical difficulty and are paid accordingly. Something about our culture doesn't let us value creative difficulty on a similar scale.

I come from more of a technical background, but I understand that high quality design is worth its weight in gold. The interface is the app, the design is the company in the minds of the customer.

Why you wouldn't want to pay for an outstanding designer is beyond me. When you pay commodity prices, you get commodity resources.

<comment><USER11> hhmmm, design on a website is weightless ergo worth its weight in gold --> $0. methinks a new metaphor may need to be inserted here ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is just a rehash of the old, "who is more important, the engineer or the marketer?" argument. If the marketer has nothing to sell, he's not very important. Likewise, if the engineer can't bring her work to the world, she won't be successful.

I look at good web design as a branch of marketing: you are branding your product and making it known. Great marketers are extremely valuable, yet there are also people who call themselves marketing experts who don't really understand what marketing is all about.</comment>


Finally an image of X-37B/OTV-5, US Air Force's secretive space plane, in orbit - green-eclipse http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=154946 <comment><AUTHOR> Since their photo site doesn't seem to link back to the main site, let me put in a good word for SpaceWeather.com:

[http://www.spaceweather.com/](http://www.spaceweather.com/)

Yes, it looks old fashioned and it has a lot of ads. But it's full of interesting stuff, like the photo of last Tuesday's total solar eclipse _taken from Moon orbit_ by Longjiang-2.

The site is run by Dr. Tony Phillips, a high school science teacher in Bishop, California, and occasional writer for NASA. His students launch balloons to the edge of space and run science experiments on them:

[http://earthtosky.net/](http://earthtosky.net/)

The balloon rises until it pops, the payload parachutes down and the students scramble across the desert to pick it up.

To finance the missions, they fly jewelry, golf balls, stuffed toys and trinkets on the balloons and sell them in their online shop. Or you can sponsor one of their research flights for $500, send up whatever you want and get a video of your item in flight.

Maybe I can get a few ham radio operators together to send up some kind of radio experiment. Sounds like great fun for us, as well as sponsoring the student research.

I think Dr. Tony's students will do some great things in their careers!

<comment><USER2> Could do a home built VHF repeater, kinda like a cubesat, and see what the furthest distance is between contacts. Would need to coordinate frequencies and you'd probably want to run it like a contesting thing with very short QSO to maximize the number of contacts. I'd donate a hundred bucks. It would be nice to have a telemetry radio onboard too.

73 WT1J

<comment><AUTHOR> Very cool idea. I will also kick it around with my friends in Parachute Mobile, they may have some ideas:

[http://parachutemobile.com/](http://parachutemobile.com/)

Of course it would also depend on things like weight limits on the balloon and what won't interfere with the student research packages (or maybe even collaborate with them?), but let's keep in touch!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What I find most amazing about this isn't the image (although it's pretty cool), it's the fact that a bunch of amateur astronomers[1] can locate a satellite in space with no help- even after the satellite makes an unannounced move. The US government literally spends billions of dollars to track things in outer space, and a bunch of amateurs can do basically the same thing. Granted, Space Fence tracks more and smaller objects, but the amateurs are winning on the price/performance ratio.

To clear things up- ephemeris (orbit parameters) are published for many satellites, but not for the X-37B. It had to be found by some educated guesses and a lot of staring at the sky.

[1] To be fair, some "amateur" astronomers use very high end equipment.

<comment><USER4> > _The US government literally spends billions of dollars to track things in > outer space, and a bunch of amateurs can do basically the same thing_

There is a whole lot of difference between an amateur being able, once in a blue moon, to track something and a military duty desk being able to track _everything_ , _all the time_ , and get it imaged/located/whatever in seconds to minutes, every time.

<comment><USER5> The X-37B also favors mobility over stealth.

Many US spy satellites are virtually untrackable because of the Vantablack S-VIS paint they use, which reflects only .2% of the light that hits it. You have to literally look for the missing stars that should be behind it.

Other sats make this even harder by hiding behind giant mirrors that reflect empty space from a 45 degree angle down to earth.

<comment><USER6> I'd be interested in a source. I wonder how a giant mirror could persist in space without being shattered by debris and other elements hitting it from time to time.

<comment><USER7> This is a patent for stealth satellite technology. It's not a mirror, per-se, but it does demonstrate that there's interest in concealing satellites. Additionally, I'd expect that anything that could "shatter" a mirror would also be capable of shattering the entire satellite beyond operation; if we assume that statement is true, then the fact that so many satellites remain in service suggests that a mirror would also survive.

<comment><USER7> I posted my above comment late last night after a long trip... I neglected to include the patent URL. My apologies.

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5345238A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5345238A/en)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> green-eclipse Other coverage: [https://boingboing.net/2019/07/05/rare-image-of-us-air- force...](https://boingboing.net/2019/07/05/rare-image-of-us-air-forces.html)

[https://www.space.com/x-37b-space-plane-skywatcher- photo.htm...](https://www.space.com/x-37b-space-plane-skywatcher-photo.html)

And a previous HN story from 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14288036](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14288036)

</comment><comment><USER8> On the one hand it's amazing what private companies, especially SpaceX have been doing in the vacuum created after the end of the Space Shuttle. On the other hand, it kinda bums me out that I grew up knowing we had this very public space minivan and now we don't. Or at least what we now have is a secret military craft.

But yes, the ISS is awesome, there's still great stuff happening in space exploration. But I do miss the space minivan.

<comment><USER9> I really don't feel sorry that the shuttle is gone, over the lifetime of the program including all costs, it cost $1 billion per launch. The 1970s dream of an affordable, reliable, speedily re-usable spacecraft was not achieved. It's good that it's gone.

<comment><USER10> Also it was the most deadly launch system ever created, killing on average one astronaut for every ten launches.

The combination of needing human crew for every single mission and not having an launch escape system (something basically every other rocket had) wasn't a great compromise.

<comment><USER9> Of course I knew about both Challenger and Columbia, but I wasn't sure on the total number of flights... Two quick google searches say 135 flights and 14 fatalities, which statistically is quite bad. All of the fatalities related to Soyuz flights were, if I recall correctly, with very early versions that were rushed to launch by arbitrary soviet political deadlines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure it's oriented the other way around in the image (belly up).

Look at this image: [https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hjkc.de...](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hjkc.de%2Fx-37b-usaf- otv5_720_361.jpg&f=1)

I think the black tiles are not visible on the photo, this makes the cargo bay "protrude". The stairs on the tail than also begin to make sense.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wikipedia entry here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is the perfect tool to physically temper with telecom satellites.

<comment><USER14> No it's not. Most comm sats are in geosynchronous orbit. This thing is in low earth orbit. Only the Iridium constellation is within its range.

Most likely it is for messing with other countries' spy satellites.

<comment><USER13> You are right, yet the `constellation` / `mesh` / `starlink` type telecom service could be the new norm if it works out. Amazon made an FCC request recently to launch its own thing.

Also, if sent to space with a more powerful launcher, technically it could probably reach a Lagrangian point, even (slowly but efficiently) leave it. It would then probably burn out on re-entry with to much velocity, that would be the issue I'd say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Try this link: [http://spaceflight101.com/x-37b-otv-5/x-37b-otv-5-identified...](http://spaceflight101.com/x-37b-otv-5/x-37b-otv-5-identified- in-orbit/)

</comment><comment><USER16> So previously I believe the space shuttle style vehicle was thought to be inefficient, this seems similar. Is the usage different here?

<comment><USER10> It's not really comparable to the space shuttle. It's about 30 feet long (compared to the shuttle's 180 feet) and launches as a payload of a regular rocket.

It has some similarities in its heat shield, the wings and the runway landing, but as a tiny robotic vehicle that doesn't need fast turnaround because it's in space for many months at a time many of the problems of the space shuttle don't apply.

<comment><USER16> Ah, longer term flights seems like a big change in the equation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My understanding of this vehicle is that it can physically navigate in space. With stop and go functionality.

<comment><USER18> any idea why it seems the thruster is offside? [0]

Doesn't that complicate mobility/control?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#/media/File:X_37B_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37#/media/File:X_37B_OTV-2_02.jpg)

<comment><USER10> Probably to fit something else there.

The thruster can gimbal/pivot, and the software already has to measure the current center of mass of the vehicle because payloads etc affect it enough to make you go in circles. So accounting for an offset thruster might not even be a software change since it's a parameter the software already has to find automatically.

Also note how the main engines of the space shuttles are really far offset at launch and fire at a weird angle to compensate.</comment></comment></comment>


Land O'Lakes CEO: Farmers Are in Crisis–and America Isn't Paying Attention - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2019/06/11/farm-crisis-midwest-floods-2019/ <comment><USER2> It's an overused phrase but there really are two Americas. Can you imagine your life without broadband or cell service? How would you function? That's reality for large swaths of rural America.

Even here in Michigan you can get an hours drive away from Detroit our largest city and experience it. These same people only got electricity in the thirties because of a federal program.

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

It's long overdue that we offer rural broadband as part of an infrastructure bill.

<comment><USER3> I've always wondered about this. What is life like for people with zero internet? Is that even possible today?

<comment><USER4> Even people in very rural areas have access to one or more of dialup, GSM, Satellite broadband.

It is doable but some cat gifs may take longer to download.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Elections have consequences.

[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/rostin-behnam- climat...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/rostin-behnam-climate- change-financial-crisis)

[https://www.phi.org/news-events/1370/the-end-of-net- neutrali...](https://www.phi.org/news-events/1370/the-end-of-net-neutrality- could-make-rural-broadband-a-heavier-lift)

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvb3yb/house- republicans-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvb3yb/house-republicans- are-killing-the-dream-of-local-high-speed-fiber-internet)

[https://thehill.com/policy/technology/370781-congress- pushes...](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/370781-congress-pushes- broadband-access-ahead-of-trump-infrastructure-proposal)

</comment><comment><USER6> I thought that farmers were in crisis because of the trade war(s). I don't know how accurate it is, but it's been widely reported that, for instance, certain large buyers of soybeans have switched to other countries. I wonder why the article doesn't say anything about export markets.

</comment><comment><USER7> Paul Beckwith recently discussed food security and the unprecedented low percentage of American farmland crop planted percentage. Get ready for a future of expensive food and famines.

<comment><USER8> > Get ready for a future of expensive food and famines.

Or get ready for a future of increased crop efficiency allowing for more and more cropland to lie fallow for long periods.</comment></comment>


Unobfuscating and Attack - a look into an evil PHP script - <AUTHOR> http://alanp.ca/blog/2010/07/13/unobfuscating-an-attack/

<comment><USER2> Seriously? Who allows uploads to a web-accessible directory with execution enabled?

There are so many options that can be transparently used to protect against this without randomly searching for uploaded web scripts.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was uploaded through a client account via sftp, not injected into the actual directory by any other means. I think that's outlined in the post.</comment></comment>


A book is not a file. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/writing-a-book/c3a39daa6ba9

<comment><USER2> Would you be happier if we called files "objects" instead? It's just a name given to a on-disk data structure. Call it what you will. In the end it is just a stream of bits.

However I agree with you at a higher level. Our computer "file" systems have not evolved. And now they are being displaced by hundreds of isolated apps the manage out content. e.g. You might own the Jungle Book in your Nook account, but your copy of Peter Pan is on Amazon. Worse still, you don't even own these books anymore, they are instead a lease, which can be revoked at any time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually it seems correct to me to put books and files in the superset called "objects", but not name that superset "files" by itself.

Ownership and portability of a book is one thing that becomes relevant when price includes mark up to be paid to own it.

<comment><USER3> "Actually it seems correct to me to put books and files in the superset called "objects", but not name that superset "files" by itself."

What's different about the stream of bits on a disk that represents a "book" compared to the stream of bits that represents a "file"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Technically none, even in the physical world! Both files and books are ultimately made up of {Book | Files} < Content < Paper < Trees.

But from a consumer point of view, which is extremely important, files and books in the real world are poles apart. So why not treat them such online?

<comment><USER3> "Files and books in the real world are poles apart."

Specifics?

<comment><USER3> I mean, from my POV as a consumer a Kindle book that I can carry around with me is much closer to a physical book than one of your flip books (which appear to require an active internet connection in order to work?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Owning a book is doable online as well. Clone, provide it to the user who bought it.

I'm actually still digging this one but "active internet" connection - yes - that's again doable. Localstorage() /something probably? Or wait for a future to be more online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I guess technically the blog posts the author touts aren't "files". They're (usually) database entries stored in a database _file_. I'm not sure why this makes a difference, or why a database entry has more "creative discourse" than a file.

I'm pretty sure that old-school publishers and authors kept (paper) files of their works, too.

</comment><comment><USER4> A hosted system where you can write and edit a book-length document and then one-click publish to various platforms, including direct sales, as well as dead-tree prints, would be pretty amazing.

<comment><USER3> That's kinda what leanpub.com does, isn't it?

<comment><USER4> Sort of. Leanpub does parts of that flow, but afaik they don't have an editor or draft versions, nor do they actually publish to the Kindle or iBooks store for you.</comment></comment></comment>


Apply HN: Better than Google - <AUTHOR> Problem: Today, people spend hours searching for sustainable products and services. They end up browsing through apps, blogs and online reviews. Existing services such as Yelp and Google Maps offer little guidance and users end up with information overload.
We started Sure to make this process easier. Interviewing our target users validated our key assumption: finding sustainable options should be as easy as finding the closest McDonalds. The market in Europe alone is 56.8M, and with more than 75% willing to pay more for sustainable goods, the need we're meeting is both prominent and growing.
Solution: Sure is a Facebook Messenger chatbot for finding and buying sustainable products and services. Powered by human assisted AI and using data capture and machine learning, Sure provides personalised recommendations for sustainable consumption curated from a crowdsourced database.
Why YCF: In March, our MVP had a monthly growth rate of 64% and with F8 earlier this week, we've tripled our number of active users and received over 1,500 messages just in 1 day. As The Guardian put it, Sure is one of the earliest chatbots on Messenger that actually manages to achieve the conversational UI but we need to expand to other cities and add product lines fast enough to keep up with the demand.
We would love to hear your feedback here and will be happy to answer any questions. Before that, go ahead and try Sure at m.me/besure.io
http://besure.io/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/facebook-... <comment><USER2> Why is a chatbot the best medium for your service? When I'm doing product comparison, I like to browse through products with pictures and to see tables comparing different products along different dimensions. I understand that you are trying to prevent information overload, but a curated website can provide this. Reducing it down to a chatbot strikes me as information underload.

<comment><USER3> Conversational commerce is still in its very early days so we're not sure whether it would work or not. Conversational commerce does, however, have certain benefits over the traditional web experience. Because of the ongoing interaction with the user, the service will be able to offer extreme personalisation, and shorten the purchase flow radically.

Today on the web, we have created a destination mentality, where brands convince consumers to go to their site and stay there. Conversational or social commerce is more like the real world were you walk past something, you do something else and then perhaps you chat about it and even purchase it later. The real world is more chaotic and conversational commerce havs the potential to reflect that better than the traditional web.

That being said, we do not believe the future of conversational commerce is a simple chatbot reflecting the old-school terminal. As you mentioned, pure text is not great for discoverability and comparisons. We believe the future of conversational commerce belongs to the hybrid interface, bringing that GUI and command line paradigms together.

One final note is that as AI gets more and more sophisticated, the need for browsing through the endless products on Pinterest might disappear, as the service will be able to offer recommendations that fit exactly to the users' needs. The service could present three products based on user needs, allowing the user to make a more informed decision.

More reading: \- [http://www.psfk.com/2016/04/layer-messaging-app- developers-u...](http://www.psfk.com/2016/04/layer-messaging-app-developers- user-interfaces.html) \- [https://medium.com/chris-messina/2016-will-be-the- year-of-co...](https://medium.com/chris-messina/2016-will-be-the-year-of- conversational-commerce-1586e85e3991#.ptgjj17hd)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How do you plan to maintain the data in Sure? You mentioned that you crowd- sourced the current data in SF and Copenhagen from local bloggers, but did you had somebody double check these places? What happens if one of these places do get shut down or closed? Having a chatbot on Messenger means that people are placing trust on you - and will be hard to gain back once it's lost or given a bad choice of place. Will people be able to flag places as closed within the conversation? What about preferences? E.g. If I don't want to be recommended the same place again next time I talk to Sure?

All this aside, great job guys! Try to surf the ride and do not fall down!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Anthony, thanks for your nice words! We indeed make sure all the places are double checked, we do this also by working with bigger organisations and travel boards in some cities. We also keep an eye on all the places to make sure they offer the experience we promise (being open for business is a good start). We're about quality over quantity.

As for your preferences, Sure is you best friend who doesn't just know all the great spots in a city but also know you and your preferences. So if you're for example vegan or always prefer a specific diet, Sure will remember this and create a profile for you. This happens without the pain of you having to check boxes. It's all conversational and personal, so that you won't even notice it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like a good idea, looking forward to seeing the evolution of it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Many thanks for your support!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well done @jurajpal! I tried breaking it by asking tougher questions but it figured it out and still made a recommendation. I like this touch! [https://infinit.io/_/37edMhy](https://infinit.io/_/37edMhy)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks guys! Means a lot but still a long way to go! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How about building out a predictive model to assist you in the sourcing of sustainable products and services. You already have humans curating the content, why not use that as your training set and let that inform your search.

<comment><USER3> Yes, that is a good idea. We are building out a list of criteria that we will use to evaluate sustainable products and services. Using those keywords we could potentially analyse existing data and use that as a first wave to find new products and services. A human expert would probably still be needed to vet the products before adding them to our Sure database.

We just have to be careful which sites or services we would crawl as we don't want to infringe on anyones copyrights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Quite a nice concept though you'll need a larger database of places

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a valid point Tim! At the moment, we're only live in Copenhagen and San Francisco where we have crowdsourced the database mostly from local bloggers. We need to grow the database faster but want to avoid just copying stuff from Yelp as the reviews are too abstract in our opinion and we rather want to curate quality content. Do you have any thoughts here?

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure. I made an app for late drinking and got the data from Google and Foursquare APIs. But I don't think they'd have sustainability in the database.

If you search Tripadvisor with sustainable as a search term it gives quite good data and then you could glance at it manually? eg for NY cafes:

[https://www.tripadvisor.com.ph/Search?q=sustainable&geo=6076...](https://www.tripadvisor.com.ph/Search?q=sustainable&geo=60763&pid=3825&typeaheadRedirect=true&redirect=&startTime=1460720553812&uiOrigin=MASTHEAD&returnTo=https%253A__2F____2F__www__2E__tripadvisor__2E__com__2E__ph__2F__Restaurants__2D__g60763__2D__New__5F__York__5F__City__5F__New__5F__York__2E__html&searchSessionId=464CC11AEBD211C5652AF0804AA248D01460724136713ssid)

<comment><USER3> Building a chatbot that would search or even crawl through listings on Yelp, TripAdvisor and Google Maps would probably allow us to build the database faster - and there are other chatbots out there leveraging existing databases. However, consumers accustomed to services like Airbnb and Etsy are looking for authentic connections to local, and social-good businesses.

We believe that one of the key value propositions of our product is to provide a highly curated list of high quality and more personalised results. While Google and others are competing on speed and quantity, our key value propositions is to provide users with high quality and more personalised results that they normally would spend hours researching online.

Do these assumptions match your learnings from building a similar experience?

<comment><USER8> I didn't progress much further with my bar app but how I would probably proceed with that or your project is to start with the data out there and then either curate it manually or try to get feedback from your users as to whether the places are good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is really what we need! All the best guys! I'm sure you will make sustainability the next big thing.

We are super excited to follow your journey.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you Sofi!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How do you make money?

<comment><USER3> Very good question. We are not monetising right now, but want to explore two revenue streams:

1\. Commission on transactions made in chat. We might expand this by helping users find sustainable products and services.

2\. Freemium model where larger businesses and franchises pay for sponsored content and user feedback

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Guys I believe in you! Go ahead and make it even better!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much!</comment></comment>


Paribus (YC S15) Gets You Money Back When Stuff You've Bought Goes on Sale - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/paribus-yc-s15-gets-you-money-back-when-stuff-youve-bought-goes-on-sale

<comment><USER2> I tried out Paribus when it launched on ProductHunt a while back.

I was very uneasy about granting email access, but I did anyway. Turns out that they have trouble scanning my emails for Amazon receipts, so they recommend giving them my Amazon username and password.

No way I would ever do that. I can revoke gmail oauth access (which I did), but giving you my Amazon password also grants you access to my AWS account (not really because of 2-factor, but still).

Why would I trust them to correctly store & encrypt such sensitive data, just to save a few bucks on Amazon purchases. Not worth it for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty reluctant to let any company "View, manage, and permanently delete your mail in Gmail". Yes, I could create a new email address that I only use for purchasing stuff, but that's a big change.

This product looks cool, but I'm not seeing past the privacy issues right now.

<comment><USER4> Fair point. That's why we make our business model extremely clear. We're out there to help users claim the money they're owed and keep 25% in the process. We're not out there to sell user data.

Also, you can set up a secondary account and auto-forward emails relatively quickly to a forwarding address linked to Paribus. On Gmail:

1- Go to filters and start creating a new filter: [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#settings/filters](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#settings/filters) 2- In the from field, type: amazon.com OR bestbuy.com OR staples.com OR macys.com etc. with all the retailers for which you want to track receipts 3- Click "create a filter with this search" 4- Click "Forward it to" and add your forwarding address.

You should be all set after that (although you will have to change your filter if you want to add the new retailers as we add more)

Hope this helps. We'll add to the FAQ :)

<comment><USER3> >Also, you can set up a secondary account and auto-forward emails relatively quickly to a forwarding address linked to Paribus.

Oh, this is interesting, and should get around most of the privacy concerns. One question: how do you get the money back from the retailer? I had assumed that Paribus sent an email from the account, but that won't actually work if my email is email@example.com and I give you access to email@example.com. If you email Amazon from firstname.lastname@example.com, would they refund firstname.lastname@example.com? Or do you send me an email saying something like "Amazon dropped prices on $PRODUCT_X, contact them here<link> to get a refund"?

<comment><USER4> Hah ;) I love that you caught on on this quickly. Shoot me an email and I can go into more detail on how we do this. We handle all the communication on your behalf and have a couple of tricks up our sleeves.

<comment><USER3> Cool, I'd love to chat. Unfortunately, the "email" field in HN profiles is private, and you don't have an "about" filled out.

My email is email@example.com.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I buy a lot of stuff on Amazon, would be happy to get some money back.

My concern is that if I take margin away from Amazon, and a take up a bunch of their CS time using Paribus, Amazon will classify me as a customer they would rather not have. And then, say, cancel my account if I end up returning bunch of stuff later, as they are rumored to do.

So for Amazon, are price drop claims Amazon's official policy, or something that their CS allowed to do to appease customers? What kind of Amazon price drops qualify for refund?

Also, if setting up a separate account to forward receipts to, the email will be different than one Amazon has for me. Is this a problem for your automated emails going from that account?

</comment><comment><USER4> Hey HN! Karim here (cofounder/CTO at Paribus). Happy to discuss any questions you might have about how it works or why we're building this</comment>


Watch Mac OS X Leopard running on 2020 iPad Pro - <AUTHOR> https://www.cultofmac.com/701879/watch-mac-os-x-leopard-running-on-2020-ipad-pro/ <comment><USER2> Please retitle this, it's an emulation.

I'll admit with the overhead of a VM, a snappy response is in some ways more impressive than native.

But a lot of people scroll past headline titles without reading. Some of them will think x86 Leopard is magically running on an iPad.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Everything works shockingly well, including the built-in apps and Microsoft > Office.

Eh. It works impressively well for an emulator, but it didn't look great. It looks like there's no graphics acceleration, which makes OS X quite unpleasant to use.</comment>


Silicon Valley has peaked - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/startup-grind/silicon-valley-has-peaked-2e88591e02b <comment><USER2> If SV has peaked, it will be a long long time until any other location catches up.

Bollywood didn't hurt Hollywood at all!</comment>


The price of dev happiness: How much can you spend on your office? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogcreek.com/the-price-of-dev-happiness-part-two/

<comment><USER2> Joel's post on this subject have always bothered me. Why do your developers need two $1500 monitors and a $1000 chair just to write code? It just seems wasteful to me.

Also, wow, people _pay_ for instant messaging (HipChat)? If you own any kind of server you can set up an XMPP server + your choice of web client in 30 minutes and it's free forever.

<comment><USER3> " _The point this time is this: your office space and how you design it is an expression of your priorities as a company. It speaks to everyone who comes through the space, every day. Do not be shy about spending money on it._ "

And that of course extends to developers' tools. If/when I can get to a city where I can try out $1000 chairs I'm going to buy one (I declined to let my company by me an Aeron chair in 1997 because its not a good fit for my body, otherwise I'd already have one of those). I personally am satisfied with one high end 24" NEC monitor, but I wouldn't object to a larger one (two or three would be bad for my neck).

" _just to write code_ "

Just how important is correct code to you and your ventures?

<comment><USER2> > _Just how important is correct code to you and your ventures?_

$1000 chairs don't have anything to do with the code. They might make developers %0.001 less likely to leave, but they're not going to do anything about code quality.</comment></comment></comment>


Greece arrests Russian suspected of running $4B Bitcoin laundering ring - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-russia-arrest-idUSKBN1AB1OP <comment><USER2> Related?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14843373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14843373)

<comment><AUTHOR> There are rumours he's a BTC-e[1] admin (the exchange is offline more than 24 hours for now).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC-e](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC-e)</comment></comment>


Apple to Spend $1.9B on New European Data Centers - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-invest-1-9-billion-in-european-data-centers-1424685191 <comment><USER2> Its interesting in that here is potentially another $2B going into data centers, if you look at Google's results you see they spend 1 - 2B$ per quarter on data centers (so call it 5 - 8B$/year). Facebook, Amazon, and Digital Ocean as well.

The co-location business is practically toast though.

Back in the early days I felt sure that nobody would put their core business assets on computers that someone else owned and operated. After all if you have physical access you have all the access you need. Why put your business at the risk of one disgruntled AWS admin?

But time has proven my thoughts to be incorrect. I find that quite amazing.</comment>


Ground: A Data Context Service (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CIDR17.pdf <comment><USER2> Needs a (2017) tag. Anyway, here's the repo: [https://github.com/ground- context/ground](https://github.com/ground-context/ground)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting paper but the repo ([https://github.com/ground- context/ground](https://github.com/ground-context/ground)) seems abandoned. Have seen companies losing out on a lot of value they can extract from their data because metadata context (discoverability, lineage and semantics) is the last thing on plate or not considered important across the org.

<comment><AUTHOR> The primary author is Joseph Hellerstein, head of the Berkeley RISELab (the new Spark/AMPLap). Their primary project is called Fluent (which until recently was called Anna [4])...it's the all encompassing name changes that get ya! ;-)

Similarly, see Matei Zaharia's (the original Spark lead) and his team at MIT (he's now at Stanford) SIGMOD 2018 paper called MISTIQUE [4]...

[1] Joe Hellerstein [https://github.com/jhellerstein](https://github.com/jhellerstein)

[2] Berkeley RISELab [https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu](https://rise.cs.berkeley.edu) [https://github.com/ucbrise](https://github.com/ucbrise)

[3] Fluent Compute Platform [https://github.com/fluent- project/fluent](https://github.com/fluent-project/fluent)

[3] Anna: A Crazy Fast, Super-Scalable, Flexibly Consistent KVS [https://databeta.wordpress.com/2018/03/09/anna- kvs/](https://databeta.wordpress.com/2018/03/09/anna-kvs/) Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551072](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16551072)

[4] MISTIQUE: A System to Store and Query Model Intermediates for Model Diagnosis [https://cs.stanford.edu/~matei/papers/2018/sigmod_mistique.p...](https://cs.stanford.edu/~matei/papers/2018/sigmod_mistique.pdf)</comment></comment>


Why Billy Corgan uses short cables - <AUTHOR> https://www.guitarworld.com/blogs/guitar-geek-usa-elements-tone <comment><USER2> Likewise, that's why a lot of effects have a gain knob (not for driving the heck out of the next pedals down the chain, but for accommodating weakened signals after so many patch cords between them...), and a good rack setup nearly always has a power conditioner and buffers - to make up for this exact issue.

It works for him. All good. It's not unlike Eric Johnson's insistence on massive ear goggles to ensure his tone is tops, or how blues players have to squint and pucker in order to play high notes. Every player has their ritual.

</comment><comment><USER3> While you can get impeadance from long cheap cables, it does not matter a ton. We AB tested a few bandmates and none did better than 60/40, and only once. Its more important that your guitar have good pots, pickups and grounding.

Then again, this is a guy who shilled for different colors of paint changing the sound of a guitar, so hardly an expert. Good songwriter.</comment>


An algorithm kicks businesses out of food stamp program on dubious fraud charges - <AUTHOR> https://newfoodeconomy.org/usda-algorithm-food-stamp-snap-fraud-small-businesses/ <comment><USER2> Uhh he did violate the terms of acceptance, nothing nebulous at all here. He violated, they actually gave him a process to try and prove his violations were not and he failed at that and was banned.

Very misleading title.

</comment><comment><USER3> > kicks businesses out of food stamp program on dubious fraud charges

> Mejia violated the agency's rules, which prohibit retailers from > establishing informal credit systems with their customers.

> many of them, like [Mejia], were probably unjustly caught in the crosshairs

So which is it? Is the charge unjust and dubious, or did he violate the rules?

(Not making any political point myself - just can't even work out what the opinion of the article is on whether he was doing something that was not allowed in the system he was using.)

<comment><USER4> He violated rules, rules that were set up to avoid fraud. This is what happens, when one reduces everything to a set of rules.

There are actions that are not fraudulent (as the case with Mejia), but considered fraudulent by rules set up by the agency. This is a case where agencies hide behind rules, algorithms, etc.

<comment><USER5> You have to have rules for such a program. You can't have fraud judged arbitrarily or allow anything regardless of how easy it makes it to commit fraud.

This guy should have read the rules and followed them. If he's not willing to do that, then the decision to end the relationship with him makes sense.

<comment><USER6> > _You can 't have fraud judged arbitrarily or allow anything regardless of > how easy it makes it to commit fraud._

Why not, exactly?

Whatever rules you set up, you'll have false positives and false negatives. Some people will figure out how to do illegitimate things without being noticed by the rules. And some people will find the rules too burdensome and fail to do legitimate things aligned with the program's goals.

There is an old proverb in law: Better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person is punished.

It might serve the program's goals better to decide, we're willing to allow some amount of fraud in order to make sure the program functions smoothly and people don't get trapped by rules, or we're willing to allow some amount of fraud because the cost of enforcement outweighs the fraud itself. (Major retailers work like this, for instance; they budget in some amount of expected shoplifting, because it's cheaper than both increasing security and potentially scaring off customers with increased and hostile security.) It might also _not_ serve the program's goals better, and you want to take a hard line at the risk of blocking legitimate use. But it's not obvious the latter is the right approach.

<comment><USER5> Because we live in a democracy and everyone has access to the court system and you don't want to be in court all of the time. This program is funded by the taxpayer, after all.

And, yes, rules aren't perfect. But you can keep improving them as you learn more. And that leaves you with, yet again, a set of rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If the author really cared about the root problem of why someone would run a credit system, perhaps they could have looked at the once a month payment system that EBT uses and what ramifications that has. Take a quick look at places that accept EBT and notice what specials they have on the first of the month as opposed to the rest. Notice any police checkpoints that only seem to get setup on the first? Notice where they are? Go into a local Walmart on the morning of the first day of the month and observe. Look at EBT related signs especially in gas stations that accept EBT (check the microwave).

<comment><USER8> Could you expand on your comment, for the benefit of readers like me who don't live in the US? What happens in Walmart on the first day of the month?

<comment><USER7> Walmart accepts EBT and has cheap groceries. So, when the EBT refreshes you get quite the crowd there. A lot of money gets spent. For folks not going to Walmart, it is interesting to see what is on sale or what never goes on sale at the first of the month.

Now, the interesting thing is since Walmart is such a destination, you will find some interesting policing in some communities. I would love someone to do an actual study on who gets tickets at what times of the month. After all, kicking people when they are down is pretty safe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Let's look at this from the user perspective.

Grocery store 1: No credit option, must have a positive balance on my EBT card.

Grocery store 2 (P&L Deli Grocery) flexible credit option, able to take a loan out while waiting for EBT card to get replenished.

As a customer, which one of these two offerings is better?

#2 is clearly a better grocery store. It is a grocery + lender for those on EBT cards!

The EBT system (and, likely every other credit card / merchant processor) bans informal credit because there is no basis of control or audit-ability on these kinds of transactions.

</comment><comment><USER10> For those confused by the use of the word "fraud" here, the US government today considers fraud to cover both financial misdeeds, as well as (their) rules violations where no money is involved.

If you follow the news, you'll see the word "fraud" increasingly thrown around as it gives the government a bigger hammer to use on its citizens.

Meanwhile, actual fraud like civil asset forfeiture rolls along with full government endorsement.

</comment><comment><USER11> Food stamps are a fantastic way of infantilizing grown adults.

<comment><USER12> I've encountered plenty of food stamp recipients, including my own parents when I was younger, and I've yet to see someone be "infantilized" by the ability to afford food.

<comment><USER13> I guess what's considered food is up to opinion. I've seen countless people using food stamps for energy drinks and chips. While paying cash for their lotto and cigarillos.

<comment><USER14> How closely do you pay attention to people's payment method? An EBT card looks pretty much like a debit card. I definitely don't pay enough attention to notice what bank the person in front of me in line is using.

I suspect that unless you're working as a cashier, "countless people" is an exaggeration, and even if you are it's likely confirmation bias.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Would you take the honeymoon pill? - <AUTHOR> http://reviewsindepth.com/2012/09/would-you-take-the-honeymoon-pill/

<comment><USER2> Oh good a new class of people to hate. I hate the 90% who say no to the experience machine too. Humans are insane.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not wanting to take the pill is classic cognitive dissonance. You want a good and lasting relationship forever but after you realize you'll never have it you come to terms that it isn't that great anyway because of this and that.

Not sure why this is on HN though.

</comment><comment><USER4> If such a pill was invented it would be used maliciously to spike those unrequited loves.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not sure why this deserved to be taken off the front page... It's not against the submission guidelines... Did I otherwise do something wrong?</comment>


NSA review panel to release findings on US surveillance practices – live - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/18/nsa-review-panel-release-findings-live

<comment><USER2> Is this the panel led by former CIA, and being pre-approved by Clapper?</comment>


Is Pre-Cognition Possible & Can It Beat Twitter on Breaking News? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_pre-cognition_possible_can_it_beat_twitter_on_b.php#.TinLzcgLEmQ.hackernews <comment><USER2> sounds like "minority report" to me, in the light of the events in norway.</comment>


Crowdsource your salary An economy built on love. - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/crowdsource_your_salary_an_economy_built_on_love/

<comment><USER2> _" The big vision is a world in which the economy is characterized by collaboration and trust and optimism and hope and freedom and sharing and love," he says._

This is my favorite quote from the article. It's refreshing to see people working on a project that, at its core, is focused on these values. We need good fun photosharing apps, but we need these kinds of projects even more.</comment>


Fresh passwords, every 5 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bigcurl.de/2009/04/fresh-passwords-every-5-seconds.html So you need a password now. Want it long, copy/paste save and secure? Here you go: http://p.squidshot.com.<p>Passwords are refreshed every 5 seconds. So no excuse of using bad passwords anymore. <comment><USER2> A little late for an April Fool's joke, isn't it?

The password-generating code is:

      SHA1(new Date().toUTCString().split("/").sort(
        function() {return 0.5 - Math.random()}).join(" "))

But toUTCString() doesn't return a string with any '/' characters, at least in FF3, so it's really just:

      SHA1(new Date().toUTCString())

And toUTCString() trims milliseconds, so really it's just ths SHA1 of the current time, to the second. Not very strong no matter how 'long' the output.

<comment><USER3> so, if you knew someone used that site to generate their password, look at the date the account was created, SHA1 all the times on that date, and dictionary attack it? Just my first guess, I'm not a master programmer or anything.

<comment><USER2> Yes. And there are even ways to tell where someone has visited -- so you might try this only against people who have visited that site/blog. Or the author of the blog's accounts elsewhere.

It's not much worse than the other ways people pick low-security passwords, but it doesn't justify its length, or meet its goal of: "Passwords should be secure. One way to acheive this is by making them very long."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, what an _incredibly_ poor way to choose a password.</comment>


Ask HN: Why Do Mailbox and Protonmail Have to Use GoogleCaptcha? - <AUTHOR> Isn't there a privacy-respecting Captcha? Tutanota doesn't use GoogleCaptcha, why can't they? <comment><USER2> Same mistake sooo many companies make. There will be some privacy-unaware people doing the web development and they will simply add some Google server without thinking about it in depth. Once it is in the system (and a whole lot of privacy out of the window), there are often internal resistances to changing it back to something privacy respecting. For example: The not knowing better person above the web developer responsible for the project does not want to allocate the time for changing a "working" feature. The web developers responsible for adding it in the first place do not want to admit mistake ("But it's working just fine!") or do not want to undo their own work.

Laziness, unawareness and carelessness rule the world of web development, when it comes to privacy concerns. We have a looong way to go, until we have a population of privacy aware web developers.

This is of course not to say that all web developers act this irresponsibly. However, how often do you have more aware people than unaware people, in order to overrule any decision made in unawareness?

If you check regularly on websites what third party stuff they load, in case you have not done so, you might be surprised.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/human- verifica...](https://protonmail.com/support/knowledge-base/human- verification/)

<comment><USER4> We know why captcha might be needed. The question is why Google's.</comment></comment>


Glucose Is Not Willpower Fuel (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/08/glucose-is-not-willpower-fuel/

<comment><USER2> More interesting would be what is!

What I know: I will pursue harder tasks after consuming Sucrose and caffeine, while without consuming these unhealthy resources I might not. Also, Glucose availability to the brain is not really related to either consumption, though, afaik.

Would be happy about what others have found, especially from people with a more scientific approach than mine.

</comment><comment><USER3> erikb: It's well known that stimulants improve concentration. That is how Adderall works. Taking stimulants will certainly make it possible for you to do mentally more demanding tasks requiring concentration, but so does things like exercise.

If you check out the procrastination equation, it describes several factors that we know affect whether if we do work or not. These are: impulsivity (personal character), expectancy x value (how enjoyable the task is) and delay. Basically taking stimulants makes a task more enjoyable (easier) and thus you are more likely to do it.

What the popular conception of "willpower" is more like something that acts against impulsivity or reduces it (at least temporarily). The equation does not contain such a variable and I don't think there's any evidence for the existence of such a thing.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've found glucose is almost the opposite of willpower. If I do physical activity while there's sugar in my system, I feel unmotivated and sluggish.</comment>