Let's Enhance – free online image upscale and enhancement with neural networks - <AUTHOR> https://letsenhance.io/ <comment><USER2> > Your photos uploaded > We've started processing. It takes some time, > meanwhile you _need to create account to access your results_.

What a dick move! Why not say I need to give you my email from the start?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, totally agree with this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Signup required to view results, abandoned my session.

<comment><USER5> Same. It wouldn't even accept mailinator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would pay for this in a heartbeat if this was a desktop app I could use offline. On the cloud I'm not so sure. With all the stories going around HN I barely trust Facebook and Google with my photos.

<comment><USER7> Such services won't realistically be a desktop app, since that pretty much requires them to give away their service and "secret sauce" in a way that's infinitely reusable / copyable for anyone who cares enough to extract it.

The usual situation for services like this is that it either runs on their servers, or you're willing a to pay sufficiently large amount to make it worth the full standard enterprise B2B sales process, a negotiated contract incl NDAs and liability and for them to do an on-site installation. So if you're a big organization that wants to care about trade secrets or classified information, then it can be arranged, but it's not manageable for individual consumers or small businesses.

<comment><USER8> Alas, the "secret sauce" is already freely available: [http://waifu2x.udp.jp/](http://waifu2x.udp.jp/). The only real difference is the (very, very appreciable) effort to make it commercialized software. Anybody who cares enough to disassemble it for reuse could build the core tech themselves.

<comment><USER6> Looking at that project on github[1] I can't help but to think the algorithm need to upsample anime images (like in this project) might be different than the one needed to upsample photos. Anime has the benefit of having a lot of sections of solid colors.

Edit: Actually looking at the source further it appears they also have models for photos as part of that project in addition to the model for anime.

[1] [https://github.com/nagadomi/waifu2x](https://github.com/nagadomi/waifu2x)

<comment><USER9> (again that's the guy who did letsenhance) - waifu2x is great for anime, and in some rare cases it even outperforms us. In all the rest of cases - we are 1 head up from waifu, bigjpg, srgan, etc. Feel free to compare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Title should be updated to reflect sign-up required.

Anything else I could say about their tactics would be less than charitable.

</comment><comment><USER11> This might me awesome, but I don't want to create yet another account to see it work.

<comment><USER12> I get "Invalid email address" for my email so they are applying some sort of aggressive filtering on their email acceptance anyways which IMO is a really bad sign they are building an email list they want to profit from.

<comment><USER13> If you look at their pricing model, which is 4 free... sign up for paid plan to get more then the aggressive email validation makes a bit more sense. I'm not connected to them in any way, just trying to give the benefit of the doubt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey guys, that's Alex - creator of Let's Enhance. Tool is great and blah-blah, but I see you are reeeealy frustrated with our email/registration policy. Ok, hands clear here - no email list selling, we just want to earn some buck from professional users and give regular guys a way to use it for free. That's why we require a real email or FB acc. TBH, IF some of you can come up with a better strategy that will be more polite to users, keep our cloud cheap (when we were 100% free I burned lots of cash just it keep it running in GPU cloud), etc, etc. Really, no BS here – marketing advice is really welcomed here.

<comment><USER14> >but I see you are reeeealy frustrated with our email/registration policy

No, they're frustrated that you aren't up front about it. Trying to BS around the actual problem just makes it worse. I really couldn't imagine giving money to a company engaging in such tactics, I feel like I'd have to have a lawyer go over every last detail to ensure I'm getting what I expect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> FWIW I tried it out on a small screenshot of an old grayscale portrait and was very happy with the results. Feels like the future.

<comment><USER15> I tried on a larger color picture that was taken with a low quality phone camera and received entirely unimpressive results. It was hard to tell if anything had even been done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Before/after comparison with nearest neighbour "interpolation". Lol!

</comment><comment><USER17> uploaded an image—says ETA 22 minutes! I guess I have to wait until the machine finishes dreaming all the missing details...

<comment><USER18> LetsEnhance CTO here. I shamelessly grabbed part of our GPU cluster yesterday for experiments with new nets and infrastructure. Didn't expect this HN thread coming out :)</comment></comment>


Tesla Autopilot and Euro NCAP - <AUTHOR> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-trashing-of-tesla-autopilot-by-euro-ncap-129683.html <comment><USER2> The article claims that the NCAP's problems with automated systems was that "apparently they work too well."

It then goes on to enumerate a host of problems with Tesla's Autopilot, including a lack of geofencing, poor monitoring of human attention, "late or no response" to cut-in-and-out scenarios, AutoSteer's resistance to human control, and the system's trouble with some curves, and of course Tesla's inconsistent and confusing messaging about what exactly Autopilot is meant to be.

Far from being a "trashing," it sounds like the Euro NCAP did exactly what it was supposed to do, which is to advocate for safety.

<comment><USER3> I really don't like geofencing or aggressive human attention monitoring so the lack of both of those things are features. The steering wheel attention requests are pretty frequent anyway.

The other complaints are largely remedied by being a safe driver - the car says all over the place what the limitations of autopilot are when you go to use it.

<comment><USER4> Did you read about the case where the driver was sleeping and the car did not stop because it did not realize it? Do you think this is a feature?

<comment><USER3> I don't think that's what has happening given how much it asks you to touch the wheel.

Same thing could happen with cruise control and be even more dangerous.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean? I imagine the driver was sleeping with the hands on the wheel.

IMO this systems that work for 99% of cases but stil require 100% driver attention are dangerous and it should include as much software and hardware to make sure the human is paying attention and not sleeping or watching movies

<comment><USER3> It doesn't really work for 99% of cases, it works for maybe 60% and most of that is uninterrupted freeway driving without construction zones.

I think it'd be hard to sleep with your hands on the wheel and cause enough resistance to keep the car from complaining. Though I suppose it's possible - I thought the driver was drunk in that case (could be mistaken)?

<comment><USER4> From what I read the drunk driver is a different guy then the sleeping driver, you can google for more info.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original article [https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/press- releases/testi...](https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/press- releases/testingautomation/)

Test method and results with links to every model [https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/safety- campaigns/...](https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/safety- campaigns/2018-automated-driving-tests/)

Tesla (.pdf) [https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41590/euro-ncap-automated- dri...](https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41590/euro-ncap-automated- driving-2018-tesla-model-s-datasheet.201810171432105270.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> Having used it for about 24K miles, I think Tesla AutoPilot works incredibly well (using software 9.0 and AP2.0 hardware in my Model S).

And I'm really glad it isn't crippled with some geofencing that would limit it to where I could enable it.

Having said all that, the name is a terrible and implies something it isn't capable of yet. It's a dangerously bad marketing choice.

<comment><USER7> I own latest 5 series bmw and paid for all the driving assistance add-ons, and while the adaptive cruise control is awesome, the line keeping assist is completely useless and works absolutely terrible, not sure who decided to charge money for this incomplete piece of software, it's unusable, my friend has a model X and it's a day and night difference between the two, Tesla autopilot is just in a different league compared to bmw line assist thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tesla should just rename their ADS from AutoPilot to CoPilot.

<comment><USER9> Isn't the point of a copilot that it can safely fly and land a plane unlike an autopilot.

<comment><USER10> Planes can land entirely on autopilot.

Just requires the airport to have ILS, and a fairly modern autopilot.

<comment><USER11> _Some_ can. Airplane autopilots are tremendously varied. Some are as simple as a gyroscope hooked up to the ailerons to keep the wings level. I'm always baffled as to why people think "autopilot" implies any sort of autonomy.

<comment><USER10> > I'm always baffled as to why people think "autopilot" implies any sort of > autonomy.

It is literally in the name.

<comment><USER11> "Auto" just means "self." Do autobiographies write themselves? Does the word "automobile" imply no driver is needed?

<comment><USER4> Auto can mean also automatic, autonomous , you are trying to defend the meaning of autopilot by bringing aviation definition, it would be similar to me telling all the people that they are using language wrong because in chemistry or math the word X ids defined to mean something a bit different.

in physics acceleration is used when things slow down too, but at least in my language this is weird and in day to day use acceleration means increase in speed, you want to understand how/why most people define autopilot as more then dr5iver assist then just ask them and stop telling them they are wrong because in domain X the word is used different.

<comment><USER11> I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying their understanding of the word baffles me. That's not the same thing, and it's kind of annoying to be attacked just for not understanding people.

<comment><USER4> Let me try to explain, people are not knowledgeable on how airplane autopilot works, what people understand when they hear autopilot is from what they had seen in movies or games, read in books or what the words actual mean.

<comment><USER11> There are contrary examples that normal people would know too. For instance, it's common to use the phrase "on autopilot" to describe the state of a person who does something really stupid because they were following a routine without thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Airplanes have autopilot and no one thinks that means there's no pilot in front. Sure some drivers test the limit of their Tesla, just like some drivers test the limit of their Porsche or Ferrari.

<comment><USER13> This is a silly semantic argument. Many people drive cars; very few fly aircraft. The meaning of a word in the second context has little to do with the first.

<comment><USER14> Please elaborate. In what more common context does autopilot imply no standby human operator?

<comment><USER15> Standby, yes. Tesla's Autopilot appears to not be able to guarantee that sub- second reactions to random situations aren't necessary, at which point it's IMHO not "standby" anymore.

An airliner's autopilot can do this for phases of the flight, backed up by ATC, collision warning systems, height over ground and the relative emptiness of the sky.

In other situations, it needs close supervision too, but the first case probably leads the general public to associate the term with "standby".

<comment><USER14> In that case, the analogy to airplane autopilot is indeed inappropriate.

Airpline autopilot can have a standby human operator, with more than a second transition time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Overall, the results were satisfying. In Tesla's case, they were disastrous. > And not because ADS don't work, but because apparently they work too well.

Misleading title much?

<comment><USER17> I don't know; they seem to be trashing Autopilot plenty in the article.

<comment><USER18> I disagree. The article concludes "Tesla's Autopilot is a great technology, perhaps the most advanced ADS on the market". What they are "trashing" seems to be the hyperbolic marketing of Tesla, which I feel at this point has been discussed ad nauseum and has gotten so much press that this just feels like a rehashing of "Tesla greatly oversold this!" that tons of people (myself included) have already commented.

<comment><USER19> It is not only marketing the criticize, also the general handling:

"In the small obstacle 'pot hole' scenario, all the cars tested allowed the driver to cooperatively steer and manage the situation apart from the Tesla. The Tesla system does not allow the driver to deviate from the lane centering path and will disengage when a driver inputs steering torque."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Their most important point stems from the name: "Autopilot". That right there begins the host of issues that arose from how Tesla marketed their features in a way that oversold them. And I am genuinely impressed by what Tesla has accomplished with their system, it's just that it's safe use-cases are much, much narrower a true "autopilot"

I wonder if there is even a safe "in between" phase between normal driving and truly, fully self-driving vehicles. Or will many people put too much trust in the tech to make it a safer alternative until it's much more mature. Think of airplane pilots, where "autopilot" is also not really a fully self- flying/landing/takeoff system: they have tons of specialized training to hammer home the limitations and work safely within the system. There's even a body of research literature on the topic of when too much automation makes pilots too complacent, and decades of engineering with that problem in mind.

It all just makes me think that Waymo may have it right in not targeting any type of transitional state between traditional and full automation.

<comment><USER21> To be fair, the Tesla Autopilot functions at a higher than an aviation autopilot.

In aviation, an autopilot follows a fixed path and makes no attempt to avoid other aircraft or terrain.

There is no such thing as an automated takeoff. Automated landings, in practice, require the pilot to hand-fly the last part of the approach (except at a fleetingly small number of airports with cat IIIc approaches, where a ground navaid, not GPS, provides a high precision signal to guide the autopilot).

State of the art automation of aircraft speed consists of the pilot dialing a different speed to the autothrottle, which is effectively a traditional, non- adaptive cruise control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is going to be controversial perhaps, so I apologise in advance, but I'm continuously struck by the tendency of the tech industry (some sectors of it anyway) to overstate matters. Tesla's driver assistance system is an "autopilot"; Waymo's rides with human (safety) drivers are "autonomous"; DeepMind's AlphaZero that plays chess, Go and shogi [1] is a "general-purpose game playing agent"; Google translate that uses English as an intermediary language has developed an "interlingua".

I really don't get how this works. To me all this sounds like completely ridiculous. Yet, some of those claims appear in actual publications, in high profile journals. Otherwise, people fall over each other to buy that hot AI stuff. I mean, what the hell?

Perhaps we must persist in educating people about the abilities, and limitations, of current technology?

______________

[1] And nothing else. Not even tick-tack-toe. It has a model of a board with squares and of pieces making chess-like moves, so it can't deal with anything else.

</comment><comment><USER23> Tesla is going a different route to full automation than any other company. They seem to think the fastest way to full automation is going to be a gradual progression from where they are now (low level SAE 3) to level 4/5\. Most others, and most importantly the leader Waymo (Google (Alphabet)), have decided the human society can't handle the risks of a level 3 system and won't deploy cars with those features. Waymo seems to have got to level 4 for the driving conditions around Phoenix so they are now starting to deploy the system to the public.

At level 3 humans aren't driving the car but are suppose to pay attention so that they can take over if a problem arises. In general humans are not good at that task. Some of them will fail at it, the car will crash, people will get hurt/die, and maybe in this "safety first" world, automatic driving gets a bad name and is "set back" a decade.

Elon Musk has stated that he believes more in a "safety third" kind of philosophy. In an interview I saw he stated that with his kids he tells them that "don't panic" is a good first principle for dealing with life and "safety" would probably go third. It's important but not the prime directive of life. What is second is still up for consideration.

So the love/hate for Tesla's Autopilot strategy probably comes down to how you feel about risking people's lives to possibly save many more. Here is a question to ask yourself. If Tesla's autocar strategy causes 100 deaths of people who volunteer to take the risk before really good automation is developed, but Tesla's courage/recklessness has a 50% chance of saving a million (choose your own number) lives due to the speed-up of the implementation of self driving cars, would you support that? I would and so would many others, but many would not. This is a deep difference in values and that is why I think there is so much love/hate around the issue.

Maybe Tesla wants to call it Autopilot because they hope they can incrementally improve it so that someday they get to level 4/5 and won't have the need to change the name at some arbitrary place along the way to full autopilot competency. Cruise control was a bit of a misnomer also but people seem to be fine with the word at this point.

<comment><USER22> Autopilot is level 2 autonomy.

Noone has level 3 autonomy, yet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_driving_system#Level...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_driving_system#Levels_of_automation)

Level 2 – Partial automation The driver must be able to control the vehicle if corrections are needed, but the driver is no longer in control of the speed and steering of the vehicle.[6] Parking assistance is an example of a system that falls into this category[7] along with Tesla's autopilot feature.[8] A system that falls into this category is the DISTRONIC PLUS system created by Mercedes-Benz.[9] It is important to note the driver must not be distracted in Level 0 to Level 2 modes.

<comment><USER23> Reading over the SAE (J3016) Automation Levels here[1] it seems to me that the Tesla Autopilot is now into level 3, especially for highway driving. If you can go exit to exit without any direction from a human, I would definitely say level 3 has been reached. Fine details of the definition between one level and another should probably only interesting to lawyers and their clients.

Waymo not level 3? Seems they claim to be level 4 for their Phoenix rollout.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self- driving_car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car)

<comment><USER22> Yes, they do. That's their marketing schtick. That their cars are already fully autonomous.

However, that's just preposterous. It's a bit as if Boeing claimed their planes have anti-gravity because they're just better planes (I know next to nothing about planes- Boeing's name chosen completely at random). Waymo are not particularly farther than anyone else on the path to fully autonomy- they're just doing the smart thing and not trying to drive where their system can't, or leaving it to the public to test their limits.

<comment><USER23> More like Boeing claimed to have anti-gravity that only worked in Seattle. Very exciting, really anti-gravity, but not yet useful for full scale implementation on planes that need to fly everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> magic-chicken TL/DR

Tesla ADS is the best on the market but it is marketed as an autopilot, which is wrong and caused some overconfident owners to die.

<comment><USER24> Your comment makes it sound like the two mistakes are equivalent.

They might have been overconfident, but if the misleading marketing leads to __deaths __, I don 't think the finger should be pointed to "overconfidence".

<comment><USER25> >Your comment makes it sound like the two mistakes are equivalent.

It's a TL;DR. Of course it sacrifices nuance for brevity.

>They might have been overconfident, but if the misleading marketing leads to deaths, I don't think the finger should be pointed to "overconfidence".

I generally agree with you but there is a good argument to be had that the driver is responsible. These were personally owned vehicles, not rentals. It's not like the owners who died didn't have time to become familiar enough with the system to reach the same performance conclusions (i.e. "it's basically just really good lane keeping and adaptive cruise") as Euro NCAP did. I get that products for the general consumer are supposed to be stupid proof but everyone knows that marketing bends the truth by only ever showing the ideal case. Nobody expects fancy AWD and electronic nannies to let them navigate snow covered hairpin roads with 100% accuracy every time like in the car commercials. Nobody expects to rely on automatic braking or cross traffic detection to not get in accidents when backing out of a driveway. The same goes for Tesla's autopilot. It is unreasonable to expect Autopilot to perform the way the marketing implies in 100% of circumstances.

<comment><USER4> >It's not like the owners who died didn't have time to become familiar enough with the system to reach the same performance conclusions

This means if a Tesla kills me in the first 2 weeks I am not responsible since as per your argument I did not had enough time to realize the marketing deception and the actual capabilities of the car, it is not like I was trained like real pilots to drive this specific car model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Article from October.

<comment><USER27> Man, those six weeks completely changed the self-driving landscape, what with the... um... nah it's about the same but Waymo is now charging for rides.

<comment><USER26> For those people with shares it matters. New information changes share price. Old information tends to be reflected already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> the title is extremely inaccurate

</comment><comment><USER29> [meta] Whenever there is something remotely critical of Tesla, the comment section is a mess. Downvotes left-and-right, people are divided on bullshit semantics, etc.. I really don't get why. Same thing (but worse, actually) happens on Reddit.

Is Tesla PR so 'well connected' to astroturf basically everywhere or did their marketing succeeded in creating an army of people who emotionally associate Tesla with the future of humanity? It's just a car folks, take a chill pill.

<comment><USER10> I don't think Tesla needs to astroturf, they have plenty of supports who will happily defend them for free.

Similar things happen in Apple threads, sports threads (elsewhere), and the games console wars. People just don't like their chosen sacred cow getting criticized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> What a clickbait headline. The trashing is...wait for it.. because of the name Autopilot and because it is too good. Saved you a click</comment>


Starlite, the nuclear blast-defying plastic that DIDN'T change the world (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Starlite-the-nuclear-blast-defying-plastic-that-could-change-the-world.html

<comment><USER2> lots of red flags, violates laws of thermodynamics, no patents, cant reach deal because of details like equity or secrecy, etc etc. 5 year old article and still no results/deals.. smells like snake oil.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it a bad idea for iOS app to require Google Account for sign in? - <AUTHOR>

I'm writing an iOS app that requires backend access. Is it a bad idea to have users sign in with their Google Account? The app doesn't need access to user's Google data, except that the backend is hosted in Google App Engine. <comment><USER2> Personally, I don't like anything that makes me sign in, with any login. If you're asking this question, you likely realize that, too. I suppose another question you should ask is whether you really NEED that login. If it is absolutely required for your app, and the app provides enough value to the user to overcome the bother of signing in, then okay. However, if there are other apps that fulfill the same purpose as yours without requiring signing in, I personally would just delete yours and go download another option. Any login at all is going to be a hinder to adoption.</comment>


Dropbox replacement? - <AUTHOR>

I ran out of 50Gb limit on dropbox and am not sure I want to go to the next level (100Gb), it is a) too expensive and b) I will overgrow it in 6 month or so c) data doesn't really need to be in the cloud but it needs to be synced up between few computers.<p>Is there an alternative to dropbox? I don't mind paying but something more reasonable than dropbox rates <comment><USER2> You could try AeroFS (<http://www.aerofs.com>) which was discussed here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1538731>

<comment><USER3> You could, and then you could wait. The "download" button is actually a "request invite" button:

 _Sign Up for an AeroFS Invite_

 _AeroFS is still in early alpha/beta. Please enter your email address below and we'll invite you as soon as we can :-)_

<comment><USER4> This is mostly out of necessity, we're still squashing bugs daily and aren't really ready to accept mass user sign ups yet :)

That being said, we _are_ releasing invites on a fairly regular basis (usually coinciding with new bug fixed versions, in an effort to improve the overall user experience)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Yuri, I did sign up for an invite. Can you please tell me whats the major reason(s) I would want to go with you not with JungleDisk which seems to be doing similar things. Is it price/value differentiation only or there is more to the story?

<comment><USER4> We're fundamentally very different from JungleDisk (unless they've been doing something we're not aware of)...

JungleDisk (like most other players in this space) requires you to upload your data to their server first, before you're able to sync it to other devices, where as using AeroFS, you're actually syncing data completely peer-to-peer (e.g. even on an isolated LAN), without a third party server, unless you want one

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't know too much about the rates, etc, but you can look at:

<http://www.quora.com/What-are-Dropboxs-major-competitors> [http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/dropbox/compe...](http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/dropbox/competitors)

</comment><comment><USER6> [http://lifehacker.com/5657283/how-to-make-your-own-open- sour...](http://lifehacker.com/5657283/how-to-make-your-own-open-source- dropbox+like-sync-and-backup-service)

</comment><comment><USER7> You have not detailed your usecase/OS, but do consider Amazon S3 <http://bit.ly/fM7pm5>.

Dropbox storage itself is hosted on S3.

<comment><AUTHOR> Requirements are quite simple: sync up a shared folder between 3 macs, 1 pc and 2 laptops. OS are: Windows XP, Vista and MacOS. Data doesn't need to be on the cloud, but the sync needs to work reliably (dropbox messed up few of the syncs in a bad way and I had to get the backups out)

Data growth is quite slow, may be ~2 Gb/week

I don't have a full time IT person, so I should be able to manage things without going into system administration, rsync scares me

I want to pay may be < $.20/Gb, dropbox is expensive at $.50/gig on their highest capacity plan.

From what I can see AeroFS would fit the bill very nicely, but they seem to be not really available at this point

Another option I am looking at right now is Microsoft Live Mesh, which has an app for a Mac. I don't have ideological reasons not to try them, so I am installing it on one of the macs to see if it works or no

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> <https://www.jungledisk.com/personal/desktop/pricing/>

</comment><comment><USER9> You might want to look at Vembu Home. It has cloud storage + external USB storage + syncing + file sharing. You pay only for cloud storage. <http://home.vembu.com>

</comment><comment><USER10> You might consider SpiderOak (<https://spideroak.com>); their pricing appears (at a brief glance) to be about half of DropBox's.

</comment><comment><USER11> TonidoPlug ($99) + External USB Harddrive

<http://www.tonidoplug.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I use SugarSync and it is quite good. They were a little flaky on the beginning but now they are quite fast and reliable.

</comment><comment><USER13> www.libox.com - works great, no limit.

<comment><USER14> Interesting. How does it work? How can it be free?

I would love to try it, but there's no Linux version.</comment></comment>


WakeMates are ready - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wakemate.com/2010/12/18/wakemates-are-ready/ <comment><USER2> Look, I know it's Product Blogging 101, but it always amazes me when I see a product blog like this one that has:

a.) No description of what the product _is_

b.) No direct link to the product website

So now, after visiting that site, I know that Wakemates are ready. But I have no idea what a Wakemate is, and short of manipulating the URL by hand, I have no way to get to a website that will tell me anything about them.

Since I'm on an iPad, it's orders of magnitude easier to simply hit the back button and write this comment, before forgetting about whatever this product was forever.

<comment><USER3> > b.) No direct link to the product website

Except for the one in the sidebar that says "WakeMate Homepage". It's under a big white header labeled "Links".

> Since I'm on an iPad, it's orders of magnitude easier to simply hit the back > button and write this comment...

This is Hacker News. It self-selects for just hitting "back" and leaving a critical, half-accurate comment.

<comment><USER2> You realize that this is a site full of entrepreneurs, who are here to talk about the business aspects of these links, right? If not, I'd recommend re- reading my comment in that light.

As a product company, having somebody actually _on your website_ and interested in finding out about your thing is extremely valuable. It doesn't matter that it's technically possible to find a link to the homepage. The fact that it's not _trivial_ , as in linked from the logo, is what we're discussing here.

If you have a blog about your product, every post needs to contain a way to ensnare random visitors who stumbled in from wherever. The ideal way to do this is a prominent sidebar or header with the product name, a 5-word description of what it does and why you need one, and a big shiny button labeled with your call to action.

That's the "product blogging 101" bit that I mentioned above. That's why these guys need to fix their blog. They're bleeding interested visitors, and that's a big deal.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree with you: the blog should be better linked and branded. I run into blogs every day that have absolutely no way to get to the main site without changing the URL, and it's incredibly frustrating. I wasn't trying to disprove your overall argument regarding "product blogging 101", merely point out that your specific claim of having to change the URL is false (even if it is clearly non-trivial, relatively speaking, to find said link) and likely had no bearing on your decision to write your initial comment rather than investigate further.

Frankly, your comment came off a bit snarky and holier-than-thou, which is what I was responding to in the first place. The basic merits of proper blog- site interlinking and branding were not meant to be brought up for debate. I take no issue with your points, merely the manner in which you chose to deliver them. Your follow-up here was much more thorough and useful.

<comment><USER4> And yet both he and I went through these steps:

get intrigued, look around the page for a link to a product description, get frustrated, hand edit the url to just 'wakemate.com'.

There is no sidebar for me reading in firefox. Maybe it is some fancy script that got binned by my various anti-junk plugins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congrats on shipping on a hardware product! The product seems great. A couple of questions... The site says the product is scientific. But the first paper I found after a bit of digging points to the use of Actigraphy which seems to be just a method of collecting data (even though you say it is a "clinically proven science"). The second pdf containing the excerpts does not answer the following questions.

The questions

1\. Is waking up at the optimal time (light sleep before alarm) shown to reduce _daytime_ grogginess rather than just wake-time grogginess?

2\. Is the continued waking up at the optimal time free of any adverse effects in the _long run_ ? I did some googling to find answers to the above, but couldn't find anything layman readable or substantial. If I have to pay $60 for a product, it is really a pain to do the research myself.

Some excerpts

"subjects were presented a word list 1 min after arousal from different sleep stage ..."

"The most important finding from this study is that sleep inertia reduces decision‐making performance for at least 30 min."

If it makes me feel good just after waking up for an hour or so, then is it really that useful?

(Edit: Read the second pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Your initial questions:

1\. The optimal wake feature reduces daytime grogginess only in the sense that it puts you in a better mood in the morning. Attacking daytime grogginess is something we address with the analytics portion of our product.

2\. Yes it is very unlikely to have adverse effects. You are just waking a little bit earlier at a point where your body feels more inclined to wake up.

Your last question:

The optimal wake portion of our product is addressed towards people who don't particularly like waking up in the morning. If that isn't you then no, it probably isn't that useful. The other part of our product, the analytics portion, is addressed to those who want to improve their sleep quality so they can feel better rested throughout the day. It sounds like that is more what you are looking for.

tl;dr The WakeMate wakes you up at the optimal time so you feel refreshed and provides sleep analytics so you can maintain that fully rested feeling throughout the day.

<comment><USER6> Your answer to the second question should show a little less certainty unless you have a study to link to. I think the original commenter gets that you're just waking up a little earlier, but consistently doing that every day isn't natural. Sure, neither are alarm clocks in general, but there are probably studies about those. This is a special case of alarm clock that could, in theory, have different long-term effects.

There are probably legal issues with your claim as well. I'd just say that it's very unlikely to have adverse effects instead of "it is completely free of adverse affects".

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that it is not a good idea to make blanket statements. I have edited my original comment.

The WakeMate wakes you similarly to how you would wake if you did not set an alarm. That is why it is very unlikely to have adverse effects.

Regarding your comment: "I think the original commenter gets that you're just waking up a little earlier, but consistently doing that every day isn't natural." It may just be because I'm familiar with the product but it doesn't seem to me that setting your alarm for 9:00am and waking at 8:55am can be construed as unnatural.

<comment><USER7> What is the confidence interval for the size of the effect that wakemate produces on percieved grogginess vs waking without wakemate?

What is the size of the effect in the research?

<comment><USER8> Kinda going off the rails here. We get it: WakeMate is not rigorous peer- reviewed science.

<comment><USER7> I disagree. He makes two unsupported claims that reek of cargo-culting:

"1. The optimal wake feature reduces daytime grogginess only in the sense that it puts you in a better mood in the morning. 2\. Yes it is very unlikely to have adverse effects. You are just waking a little bit earlier at a point where your body feels more inclined to wake up."

Two claims. No data from either published literature (from other studies) or their own data. How do they even know it works? Why should we treat it any differently than claims of magnets improving your sleep? A free pass shouldn't be granted just because they are YC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was one of the beta-testers of the WakeMate, so it's been a part of my life for about a month now. Prior to using the WakeMate, I had two choices regarding sleep: establishing a strict routine by retiring at midnight every night and waking up at 7:30 on the dot, or keeping other hours and feeling groggy all day regardless of the total amount of sleep. Since I have friends and an unpredictable work schedule, I've never been able to stick to fixed sleeping patterns for a prolonged period of time. With the WakeMate I still need about 7 hours of sleep each night, however, I can take those 7 hours whenever it is convenient for me, and wake up feeling about as great as I ever feel in the morning.

The WakeMate costs as much as a week of coffee from a café – try it out.

<comment><USER10> So what exactly does the WakeMate enable you to do to get refreshing sleep on an irregular schedule?

<comment><USER11> When you're on a regular schedule, your body gets in a rhythm where you'll usually end up waking up at the exact same minute every day, even without an alarm.

When you don't maintain a regular schedule (or you're in sleep debt), your body can't do that. So your alarm may start buzzing in the middle of "deep" sleep, and you get stuck with sleep inertia.

Smart alarms like this try to compromise by waking you up in "light" sleep, or ideally in moments of wakefulness that you'd otherwise pass up and go back to sleep.

(If you're not familiar with the concept of sleep cycles: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_s...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sleep#Sleep_stages))

</comment></comment></comment><comment> anon-e-moose Your website needs to have a one sentence explanation of what it does, e.g. measure sleep and wake you up when you're in a light sleep. You pretty much have to read the FAQ to figure out that's what it does. Not saying this makes it seem like a quack magnetic bracelet or something. Just a suggestion.

<comment><AUTHOR> We made the assumption that the average purchaser would not be interested in details like what phase of sleep you are woken up in. That is why those details are provided, but not prominently displayed.

Thank you for your suggestion though.

<comment><USER12> The average purchaser is probably not interested in the details, but they are most certainly interested in a sentence describing what it does.

All that I knew about it when I clicked the link and skimmed the page was: \- They're ready \- I skipped some stuff about pre-orders \- I might not be able to get one before Christmas \- When you make them, they're all arranged in a big tray, are charcoal and light blue \- The manufacturing process somehow involves baking and cutting.

I had to click in my url bar and type in "wakemate.com" before I got anything useful. It's a fuzzy bracelet, it has something to do with waking you up and making you feel better, a few platforms like iPhone, some video I don't have time for, and I finally read "Wake up at the optimal time in your sleep cycle."

That sentence should be the first thing I read.

<comment><USER13> I cannot upvote this enough, had the exact same experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've been using WakeMate in beta for a couple months. As an engineer, I love checking the sleep analytics and comparing tags to try to determine factors that affect my sleep.

At first I was dubious that I'd be less groggy when waking up with the device, but now I'm absolutely convinced. I even bring the WakeMate when I travel, to ensure I wake up in a fresher state (which also revealed to me that my sleep quality is better from hotels).

<comment><USER15> Do you wear the WakeMate all day?

I loved sleep activity graphs in Brain&Behavior bio in college, wish I had heard about this earlier.

Also, have you identified anything that benefits your sleep schedule? The site hints at things like exercise to benefit and alcohol to disrupt, but do you have any anecdotes for me?

And one more: Can you identify different phases of sleep on your nightly graph?

Thanks!

<comment><USER16> You only wear the wakemate when you're sleeping.

You can identify different phases of sleep (REM, etc.)

And the tagging is indeed the sweetest thing IMO, but you probably need a lot of the data before making a good conclusions. I found that I actually sleep really well when I'm sick or when I'm sleeping on the left side of the bed. Weird stuff like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hey Wakemate team... I haven't got an email from you since April 1st (amusing with the first line "WakeMate's are shipping"). What's the deal?

International pre-order, I sent paid my paypal deposit on 24/nov/2009, the refund came through -- but I'm not getting any emails. (Doesn't seem to be in gmail spam either)

<comment><AUTHOR> In the process of sending out the emails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A request for the people who ordered Wakemate - I'm sure plenty of people, like myself, aren't sure whether to buy a Wakemate or not. If you bought it, we'd all really appreciate you posting a review of it in a few weeks, after you've had a chance to try it out.

</comment><comment><USER19> Congrats

It's a bit disappointing about the international shipping. I'm not sure how this snuck up on them so late in the game.

Shouldn't this have been foreseeable? What happened to cause this mistake?

<comment><USER20> The problem might not be strictly shipping related.

Depending on the type of bluetooth radio packaged internally, the device may have needed FCC-type registration. Of course, an FCC ID is only good in the USA. In Europe, you need a CE mark. Australia sometimes insists on yet another registration for 2.4GHz equipment.

Honestly, international RF regulatory certification is a mess, and the piles of paperwork involved make it easy to miss deadlines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Spot on.

<comment><USER20> If you guys haven't already got a relationship with TÜV, you might consider talking to them about certifying your next revision. They handled all our regulatory (domestic and int'l) with a lot less difficulty (and deadline slipping) than doing it in-house.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> You should really have an "allow my data to be used for anonymous scientific study" option. It'd be really neat to see graphs of male vs female, young vs old, etc. similar to 23andme. I guess this is coming in the future with the "paid" wakelytics features?

</comment><comment><USER22> Congrats to The Wakemate team for finally shipping! The device is pretty awesome,(I've been using during the beta) can't wait to see what these guys have in store next.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does the iPhone app needs to be running through the night for this device to work? that's what I hated about Sleep Cycle and would not want to use it if it has the same flaw.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you hate that? You wouldn't be using your phone during the night anyway?

If you want the optimal wake feature to work you need to leave the app running. If you just want to collect data and wake up at a predetermined time you can background the app. Unfortunately this is a limitation imposed by iOS.

<comment><USER19> > Why do you hate that? You wouldn't be using your phone during the night > anyway?

I can't answer for the original poster, but for me...

At night is when I charge my phone and there isn't always a plug near where I sleep.

Having my phone have to run at night without a charge will mean it's not fully charged at the beginning of the day, which is a very big deal breaker for me. My phone will last the entire day, but only if it's fully charged when I get up in the morning.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh I see. We did a lot of work to make the product use minimal battery on the phone so hopefully that helps.

<comment><USER19> > We did a lot of work to make the product use minimal battery on the phone so > hopefully that helps

As a person who pre-ordered the phone, that is appreciated very much:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> After reading the previous thread, I got interested in this and dug up the free ElectricSleep app for Android (<http://code.google.com/p/electricsleep/>). It seems to be pretty much equivalent to iPhone's Sleep Cycle app, it uses the phone's accelerometer with the phone placed on the bed. Only had time to test it one night so far, but it managed to wake me up easily from a duration of sleep that would usually have left me in zombie mode.

Problem with these things is that getting psyched about a fancy wake-up technology is likely to create a placebo effect for a while, so I'll need to stick with the thing to see how well it works in the long haul. Might look into WakeMate if the accelerometer alarm thing is still working good after a month or so.

An interesting thing to try with these things is doing the Everyman sleep schedule with a 4-5 hour nightly sleep and several 20 minute naps every day, and attacking the most common point of failure where you oversleep on the nightly core sleep with the smart alarm.

<comment><USER25> I struggle with placing items like my iPhone on the bed for 2 reasons: 1) althoughly likely harmless (not convinced, but it's prob true) my mind worries about having my cell phone at head level and so close while I sleep with radiation, and 2) since I know something is on the bed, it affects my feeling of space around me and contributes to poor sleep. Interesting how suggestive your own mind can be.

<comment><USER26> To address #1 at the cost of an extra step, you could turn on Airplane Mode. (That's worthwhile if only for the side-effect of disabling notifications and rings.) And maybe if that makes you think of the phone as safe and inert, not restricting your movement, #2 won't be such a problem?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A couple questions:

1\. Can anyone compare WakeMakes with that clock thing that tracks your eye movement by wearing an eyemask? The name of the clock escapes me at the moment, will edit this post once I remember.

edit: it's called Zeo

2\. If I know I wake up at least once a night to use the bahtroom out of habit does this disrupt the wake-up system in any way?

<comment><USER28> We have a comparison chart here: <http://wakemate.com/compare/>

WakeMate is cheaper, more comfortable, and easier to use.

Getting up in the middle of the night won't affect anything. Our analytics system will, however, tell you that you woke up during the night.

<comment><USER29> You should probably update the price column. It still says $49.99, although the price increased to $59.99.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it possible to use this if you don't own a smart phone?

<comment> anon-e-moose Ditto. I'm quite happy with my qwerty-keyboard dumbphone, but I would love to buy one of these!

<comment><USER31> It works with newer generation iPod Touches or iPad, so if you really wanted one, you could always buy one of these devices to use it with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _The WakeMate is a comfortable wristband that you wear when you sleep. It measures subtle body movements—a scientifically proven method ([link]Actigraphy[/link]) to map dips and peaks in your sleep cycle._

I was reading through the Tour page and clicked the Actigraphy link. I supposed to get more information about it, as it matters for me a lot to see the technology which the product is based on. However, it took me to the About page and I fail to find any useful information.

Is this a mistake or am I mistaken?

</comment><comment><USER33> I preordered for a WakeMate way back when I was a BlackBerry user. Wow.

Regardless, I'm glad they're finally shipping (for real this time?). I hope it is worth the wait.

</comment><comment><USER34> You're missing Android 2.3 on <https://secure.wakemate.com/compatibility/>

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been using the beta product for some time now. Have to say when I got it became totally worth it just to monitor my sleep.

The tagging system while sort of awkward to do right before you sleep, lets you categorize everything over time and see how things like a cough, sleeping on the couch instead of the bed or even a broken AC affects your sleep.

The price is dirt cheap for something this interesting. Get it!

</comment><comment><USER35> Any thoughts on putting a buzzer in the wristband?

There may be an interesting angle for married couples in doing so. I'm interested in the sleep-tech and prospects of "feeling better," but the thing that would be really intriguing to me is the idea of something that can wake me up without an alarm blaring, which my wife _hates_.

<comment><USER11> The overall UX isn't going to be as nice as with WakeMate, and there aren't currently any analytics, but if you want to take the technology for a spin you can use my app Circadian Alarm (has a silent feature):

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circadian- alarm/id330721657?m...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circadian- alarm/id330721657?mt=8)

Anyone wants to try it, send me an email and I'll give you a coupon code so you get it free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What's the problem with Android 2.2 on the Eris? All it says is "No upgrade available", this is pretty ambiguous. Do you mean that there is no upgrade to 2.2 on the Eris and that's the problem? There are 2.2 roms that run on it (I'm running one); if I have a build of 2.2 on my Eris, will it work?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting. You'd have to ask HTC why it doesn't work but I'd be curious to see if it worked on your phone. Could you send me an email?

<comment><USER36> You might've misinterpreted my question, but mail sent anyway, thanks for the response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Great news, it a shame there are delays with the international shipping, I have had this pre-ordered the second that it was available for pre-order. I'm sure it will be worth the wait though.

</comment><comment><USER38> I just placed an order on the site and the confirmation said you would email me. Oddly, I don't remember giving you my email address in any of the forms. Am I missing something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Since you placed a pre-order your email address was auto-populated. You probably just glossed over the text field (it was on the first page).

<comment><USER38> Actually after looking again the fields don't show up at all. I loaded the site in an incognito browser and it's there, but in my main browser it's not. This is a new computer since the time I would have preordered so I'm not sure how you're figuring my email out at that stage.

I'll trust that you have my email address, though there is a reasonable chance that the one I gave you when I pre-ordered no longer works. Regardless, if I get a Wakemate and no email I won't really care.

Edit: Just noticed there is a logout link, which I guess means I'm logged in but again I don't remember doing that. This is all quite clever if you actually have my email address.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just checked and we do have your email. Spooky :-).

<comment><USER38> Well, cool. On that note, I have two questions:

1) The form I went through said $60 while the blog post says pre-order prices would be $50. From your explanations it sounds like I'm being counted in pre- orders, but it's unclear. I think I was in the paypal group that got the $5 refunded, but I honestly don't remember very well at this point.

2) Should I have received an email from you? Fyi I have not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Send us an email: email@example.com and we'll figure it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Any users with small children care to share your experiences? Is it even worth the bother, given that huge uncontrollable variable in your sleep habits?

<comment><USER40> I was kind of curious about this, too. If I wake up in the middle of the night to deal with a sick toddler, will WakeMate know I'm fully awake based on the fact that I'm walking around? I suppose it would be much like waking up to go to the bathroom, for those without young kids.

Obviously the alarm's only going to help if I set it for a window I know is before the kids wake up. Otherwise it's their voices that'll wake me. On work days, that would suit my usual routine. On the weekend, I'm not sure it would be worth it to forego a potential extra hour of sleep by setting the WakeMate alarm.

But it's still tempting, just to chart my sleep during the week and be able to measure the effects of caffeine, exercise, etc. I'll probably wait until there are reviews and testimonials from people who have used it for a few months.

I was tempted a couple years ago by a much more expensive product whose name I can't recall. I think it was $300-400. In contrast, it's pretty easy to take a chance on $60. Cool product, guys. I hope you're wildly successful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Have you compared some of your analytics/benchmarks with competing products?

I am not sure I'm interested in an optimal waking time because I tend to wake up without an alarm at pretty much the right time.

however, I'd love to view some analytics on my sleep cycles and such. It'd be nice to see a comparison of say Wakemate vs. Fitbit w.r.t the accuracy / tracking / battery life / etc.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm glad you guys are shipping, but as an international customer with a pre- order since day one, I'm disappointed (again)

<comment><USER43> I'm in the same boat. Just checked paypal, ordered on 25th Nov 2009, refunded on 4th August 2010 but with a shortfall due to currency conversion differences so I'm basically out of pocket (admittedly only a bit) due to lack of product.

As I've said previously, I actually don't even own the phone anymore that I intended to use this product with. I just hope for the sake of the company that this is the beginning of the end of their constant problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Do you guys not have a fan page on Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER45> Well done guys, shipping a hardware and a software product was never going to be easy! hopefully you can now reap the rewards though of having a hardware product, thats far far harder to replicate

pre ordered back in April so looking forward to receiving sometime in the new year I suspect, as it will be an international order.

</comment><comment><USER10> FYI, the following repeats under your FAQ question "What is an 'optimal wake point?'"

An optimal wake moment can be thought of as a "semi-awake" moment – the lightest point in your sleep. Waking at these times will result in minimal sleep inertia or grogginess. More info can be found here: The Science of Waking

</comment><comment><USER46> Sounds cool! Just ordered mine. I think you guys are addressing a real problem here, hopefully it works well.

</comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know if this can be used effectively for power naps throughout the day? I'd love to nap, but tend to sleep for an hour plus. If I set a traditional alarm, I always feel like I'm jarred awake and a little off for the next hour or so, completely defeating the point of the nap.

</comment><comment><USER48> How many pre-orders did you guys get? (magnitude is fine, I don't need the actual number).

</comment><comment><USER49> I love the notion of Wakemate and even had some conversations with them early on. Unfortunately, my current financial situation puts it about $30 out of my range.

Best of luck guys! As soon as the $30 in my wallet moves up to $60, I'll be on board.

</comment><comment><USER50> After quitting coffee, waking up became easy for me.

This feels like an over-engineered solution to a problem that's easy to fix: switch to decaf. There's a reason you feel horrible in the morning, and it's not because of "sleep inertia!"

<comment><USER51> My caffeine intake is basically nil, but I still often feel drowsy when I wake up, especially from an alarm. It's usually when I haven't sleept enough, but sometimes if I've been sleeping roughly enough, waking up from my alarm leaves me very drowsy.

Sleep is very complicated. Just because dumping caffeine fixed your drowsiness doesn't mean it'll fix everyone's.

<comment><USER50> Maybe my comment came off too strong, but I'd not be surprised (especially given the audience for the WakeMate) if a majority of WakeMate users have a daily intake of caffeine adversely affecting their sleep cycle.

Another way to put it is this is premature optimization for those folks.

<comment><USER52> I don't drink coffee. I don't drink tea. I don't drink soda. I consume 0 caffeine and as a student I get my energy from good sleep. However, I've realized that more sleep does not necessarily mean I wake up refreshed. I've self observed with myself that if one day I sleep 7 hours or 8 or 5 and feel well rested and then I try to repeat that, I don't produce the same results. This is an excellent product that addresses this sleep issue and your comments are really not justified.

<comment><USER53> Exactly. I'm in the middle of trying to let my wrists heal from RSI, and I've noticed that my sleep quality isn't consistently good. Deep sleep seems necessary for healing to occur. I'm looking for something that will let me try out different sleep tweaks (less ambient lighting/no caffeine at all/exercise in morning/exercise in afternoon/various diets) and see which ones are actually effective for me.

Hopefully Wakemate fits the bill. I'll wait for the initial reviews to come out. I'm excited about the future of health afforded by devices like these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I have a couple questions which don't seem to be answered on the website if anyone knows the answers.

1\. Is the battery a rechargeable or normal battery that I have to replace?

2\. Can I easily download my sleep data to my computer to mess around with?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Rechargeable. Lasts about 2-3 nights depending on how long you sleep.

2\. Not yet.

<comment><USER34> Could you elaborate as to why it's only 2-3 nights of battery life? I'd expect much more from something like this.

<comment><USER55> Wakemate uses bluetooth, doesn't it? Thats bound to eat up power.

<comment><USER34> Bluetooth shouldn't ever be on except for when it needs to upload sleep data to your phone though (which I assume is done right when waking up).

<comment><USER20> That's putting a lot of stock into the device itself.

Conjecture: I think it's more likely that the device is something of an accelerometer paired with a bluetooth radio that can nearly continuously feed the phone/app with movement data so that the app can decide whether or not to rouse you.

Rationale: The algorithm. Assuming they want to tweak their actigraphy parameters, if the algorithm is running on the wristband you're going to need to drop new firmware on the device. Field-flashing embedded devices is to be avoided at all reasonable costs.

<comment><USER34> Field-flashing isn't that bad as long as it can safely be done over bluetooth, and I'd be willing to take that risk to have reasonable battery life.

<comment><USER20> So, again, I don't know anything about the device in question, so this is all conjecture... _but_ :

Even given that OTA flashing is possible, why bother? The device has no means of waking the user without a phone in bluetooth range, so what's the upshot? I don't know that battery life falls into that category because the device would need some pretty serious upgrades, and cost would obviously increase:

\- More RAM. Lots more. Enough to contain an entire firmware image during OTA and an entire night of sleep/movement history.

\- More MIPS. Actigraphy isn't going to be as cheap as store-and-forward.

\- A reliable RTC so that the device can ping the phone at the _right_ wakeup time.

\- etc.

If I was in their position, I'd build the device to be as dumb a peripheral as possible. Push the complexity out of expensive hardware and into software. I'd also probably have built in a sweet inductive charging pad, too, but I'm a sucker for shiny things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The front page of your site says it costs $60, but your "Comparison Matrix" says it costs $50. Maybe I'm overlooking something. But chances are that if I'm overlooking it, lots of people are.

Congrats on shipping.

</comment><comment><USER57> Does the FAQ mean to have collapsing text chunks? I see the arrows, and they point right -> down -> right if I click them, but nothing happens. Everything is always expanded.

Chrome 10.0.612.1 dev

</comment><comment><USER58> I've never looked into WakeMate before as sleeping is one thing I can do really well, but I thought it shipped earlier this year? I only see one product listed, is this really new?

<comment><USER20> There have been _several_ schedule slips. A previous rant of mine details a few: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1758288>

Addendum: I'm totally still buying it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This looks really good. My wife and I only have one smart phone (a HTC Desire) between us - would we be able to run 2 wakemates off one phone or would we need two phones?

<comment><USER60> You'll need two phones at the moment, but in the future it's possible we could make the app support multiple devices.

<comment><USER59> OK... is it possible to connect a WakeMate up to a laptop? Like a Mac perhaps?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Congratulations to the team, it's a big day!

I currently use the Sleep Cycle app, which uses the iPhone's accelerometer to detect motion while asleep.

How does WakeMate stack up against that app?

<comment><USER28> WakeMate uses a science called actigraphy to monitor your sleep patterns by measuring the movement of your body (via your wrist). Actigraphy has been used in sleep labs for decades and is a widely standardized metric of sleep in humans (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actigraphy>). The Sleep Cycle app, because it is not attached to your body, does not use actigraphy, and therefore cannot provide the same granular level of data measurement as a device using actigraphy, such as the WakeMate. Furthermore, Sleep Cycle is susceptible to false data collection since it can be easily influenced by the presence of others in the bed, such as a partner or pet.

<comment><USER11> If you're willing to attach an iOS device to your body while you sleep (between two socks works great, or with an armband) you can try an actigraphy- accurate smart alarm with my app:

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circadian- alarm/id330721657?m...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/circadian- alarm/id330721657?mt=8)

It's a dollar in the store but email me at michael at programmablelife dot com and I'll give you a coupon so you don't have to pay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Excellent news, thanks!

Any ETA on international pre-orders (I'm UK based), notice I haven't received an email asking me to pay yet.

<comment><USER51> I haven't gotten an email yet, and I'm in Delaware, US. So I think they haven't sent them out yet (or at least haven't finished)

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Does it work with an iPad? Is there a disadvantage using it with an iPad instead of a smartphone?

<comment><USER60> It works on the iPad if you download and use the iPhone app. An iPad app is in the works though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> WakeMate's website look very good. Elegent with only the information needed and good copywriting.

</comment><comment><USER65> How does the WakeMate communicate with the phone to set off the alarm? Bluetooth or Wifi?

<comment><USER60> Bluetooth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> it appears you can order a replacement sensor for the myZeo. Has anyone looked into hacking it to see if you can build something cheaper than $250 which will use the sensor?

</comment><comment><USER67> Congratulations on shipping! I'm curious if after the setbacks, do you feel that YCombinator was the right model for a hardware start-up? I wonder if the exuberance and rapidity of the single web-app start-up lent itself towards overconfidence in your time schedules and understanding of time to market given the various manufacturing and design challenges?</comment>


Boeing Rebrands the 737 Max - <AUTHOR> https://viewfromthewing.com/boeing-rebrands-the-737-max/ <comment><USER2> Brand is intimately connected to real-world performance. If they don't fix their plane, the new -8 brand will eventually follow the MAX brand.</comment>


The State of the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/03/mary-meeker-releases-stunning-data-on-the-state-of-the-internet/#fDVMvC3XGXoRzw23.02

<comment><AUTHOR> Worth looking at for this single graph that shows the collapse of MSFT's two- decade hegemony over the last 5 years:

[http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/meeker- slide-...](http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/meeker- slide-24.png?w=558&h=9999&crop=0)</comment>


A secretive group trying to bring down North Korea's regime - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/inside-the-secretive-group-trying-to-bring-down-north-koreas-regime/ar-BB128HXF <comment><USER2> This sounds like propaganda looking to provoke NK leadership. No super secret coup is having articles posted on msn about them...or you know they'd all be dead...

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of a joke about conspiracy theories: "How do you know if a conspiracy theorist is right?" "They haven't found the body."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hope this goes better than the when there were unintended consequences from the UK and the US overthrowing the government of Iran. Seems like every time outsiders decide to topple some regime, something worse pops up in its place. That might be hard to imagine with how terrible North Korea currently is, but there are ways for it to be even worse.

<comment><USER5> The case of North Korea will be very different from (insert middle east/central american country here). It's surrounded with robust countries like China, South Korea and Japan. There are so many interests that it's impossible for a simple militia or a government of their own to hold a grasp. They will go down and they will be absorbed by their neighbors. At least for now.

<comment><USER6> South Korea should be worried about the cost of such a reunification. East Germany was in much better shape than North Korea and the Germany reunification still took a lot of money and time to do. Building up North Korea will be very hard.

<comment><USER7> Why is cost even an issue? The cost is nothing compared to all the suffering.

Building up North Korea isn't hard, living in North Korea is hard.

<comment><USER8> Look, I get that you mean that it's worth paying a high cost to stop all that suffering, but the cost _not_ nothing.

The reason it's important to me to say so is that at some point, some actual people with actual (limited) resources, will have to devise a plan to make it all better, and then actually do the plan. That is a huge challenge that involves trade offs and hard decisions. And if you start with magical thinking, instead of extremely realistic reasoning, you're going to end up hurting a lot of people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the problem for groups working on NK issues is that SK heavily penetrates them at the human and technical level in order to control and mostly disrupt their operations. It goes in swings and roundabouts but SK is at best ambivalent about these sort of operations. Especially as government policy changes. It makes working on NK operations like this quite tricky.

</comment><comment><USER5> How's Christopher Ahn's extradition trial going? Haven't seen any updates since the bail.

</comment><comment><USER10> Worth appreciating that the author casually referred to their Italian operation as "the Italian job".

</comment><comment><USER11> "They acted with military efficiency, according to testimony from the seven embassy staff members inside. Brandishing fake guns, they bound the wrists of the North Koreans and placed bags over their heads."

Is there such a thing as reckless treason?

Also, this would be a wonderful movie!

</comment><comment><USER12> [https://archive.md/if0Lx](https://archive.md/if0Lx)

</comment><comment><USER13> They wanted to play spy.

Hearts are in the right place, but I advise them to leave the ops to the professionals.

</comment><comment><USER14> Sounds like a front for some (US or foreign) alphabet soup agency.

</comment><comment><USER15> How is this paywall bypassed? I've tried disabling scripts, reader view, and archive.org.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200403225044/https://www.wsj.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200403225044/https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside- the-covert-group-threatening-to-bring-down-north-korea-11585923813)

Edit:

From the FAQ for HN:

> _Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so._

<comment><USER16> Pay for WSJ?

Or find it cross-published in some news aggregator:

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/inside-the-secretive- gr...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/inside-the-secretive-group-trying- to-bring-down-north-koreas-regime/ar-BB128HXF)

<comment><USER17> We've changed to that URL from [https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the- covert-group-threate...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-covert-group- threatening-to-bring-down-north-korea-11585923813). Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


The ncurses licensing saga - <AUTHOR> http://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses-license.html <comment><USER2> > In either case (whoever was the programmer), it was plagiarism. The manpage > was written by Eric Raymond.

Not surprising. Eric has gotten away with over-claiming his contributions for decades.

</comment><comment><USER3> What an interesting (and long) history of how software with mixed licensing is brought together. Copyright is complicated in software, when your contribution might be 15 lines that's really really important - or not.

<comment><USER4> >What an interesting (and long) history

Although I care about open-source licenses and about ncurses, I couldn't get interested in OP because the author failed to explain why anyone should care about the long string of facts. Why did the author write it? Was one of the reasons to publicize misbehavior by one of his 'dramatis personae'? I can't tell.

<comment><USER5> They don't say it very clearly, but my interpretation of the document is that the author feels that the development of ncurses is misattributed/plagerised and wishes to use that as a basis for challenging the license. To what end, I have no idea.

According to the copyright on the document, the author started writing it about 15 years after the major events took place (and it is now 20 years later). My question is not so much why they wrote this, but why they waited 15 years to write this.

<comment><USER6> _> why they waited 15 years to write this._

Probably because describing those facts is now a matter of historical research rather than a political statement. The future of the ncurses project is now guaranteed, there is nothing to risk (nor to gain) from reopening such old wounds looking for historical truth.

Note also that the copyright notice at the top of the page seems to imply this text was originally published in 2011 and then updated during the following 4 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> NEWSFLASH: ESR is a tool.

</comment><comment><USER8> This page is unreadable on iPhone Safari.

<comment><USER9> Works just fine with ELinks 0.11.7 and it validates as HTML 4.01 Strict. Have you filed a bug report with your vendor?

<comment><USER10> There are many valid HTML 4.01 Strict pages that are unreadable.

For instance if you use white text with a white background while it may be a valid HTML document, it's not particularly useful for being able to read the information contained.

Even on Chrome the page is difficult to navigate.

<comment><USER9> Indeed, you are right that presentation and styles can be a problem. That said, the three browsers I used - FF/Mac, Safari/Mac, and ELinks/FreeBSD have no issues rendering it. Nor is the the stylesheet necessary as the page is readable with a disabled stylesheet on Safari/Mac and FF/Mac.

In the larger sense, a comment that a given page doesn't work for a given platform is about as useful as my pointing out that it does work for my platform.

<comment><USER11> It doesn't really work fine in FF either; if you reduce the window size, and you want to side-scroll to read the fixed width parts, it'll scroll "over" the content, just like on iOS Safari.

Working fine only on large screens is not working fine, even for the HTML4-era standards.

<comment><USER12> FWIW the Android browser also fails; the content and sidebar become overlaid when zooming in to read the text.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Elon Musk makes a libertarian argument for carbon tax - <AUTHOR> http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/07/28/elon-musk-makes-libertarian-argument-carbon-tax/87638264/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= <comment><USER3> This is a good argument.

It is also a basic economic argument about a market externality.

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

I am not sure you even need to characterize it as a libertarian argument.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. If anything, and if I'm reading it correctly, he's actually trying to explain why libertarians would be _opposed_ to this:

> "For people that have a sort of libertarian bent they get a little confused > because they need to appreciate the high level principle of why they are > opposed to government intervention."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I agree with his points. If I had to prescribe to a political ideology, libertarianism would probably be the closest to how I reason things out. I've always thought, though, that it can only really apply to conscious human adults capable of weighing the pros and cons of their actions and relationships. When consequences or side-effects of their actions are pushed onto external parties incapable of disagreement (eg. the environment, children, animals) it gets murkier as actions become unilaterally beneficial to the party making each proposal. Here I think there is room for public consensus to come in and speak for the parties incapable of doing so.

I think most political arguments happen over how you decide who or what fits into this group of parties incapable of speaking for themselves. Some say 3-year olds should represent themselves in immigration court while others say even adult consumers aren't capable of adequately representing themselves and need protections. I don't believe it's inconsistent libertarianism to say that some groups with no independent legal voice should get public protection. Libertarians draw that line in different places, however.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would expect him to make any argument he can against fossil fuels. He is heavily invested in solar technology.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. It's an argument for indirect subsidies to his company on top of the direct subsidies he already receives.

Elon Musk is hardly a libertarian. He's just another crony capitalist.

<comment><USER8> Obviously you can question his motives, however this is not an indirect subsidy if you consider the emission of carbon dioxide an externality - <USER2> I presume he does. Instead it would represent the levelling of the playing field.

Oil companies do get direct subsidies through tax breaks, so no mater what you think is going on here, energy is not pure market. In practise, how often do you see a pure market anyway?

<comment><USER9> To be fair, in the US almost zero companies pay the corporate tax rate of 35%, the highest in the industrialized world. Thus anyone can point at any industry and point a finger at it in disgust at its "tax breaks".

<comment><USER8> Fair point.

Still, means a carbon tax is just more of the same, not some evil infringement of liberties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel the argument was muddled by the libertarian clauses. It would have been more concise and poignant to make the same argument while leaving that out. He is completely right, that carbon not being taxed like other regulated substances, the fossil fuel businesses have the best subsidy possible, and the economics are completely misaligned.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's fairly easy to spot ideologically consistent libertarians if you ask them about climate change, carbon tax etc.

Unfortunately, it turns out that they don't really exist in any great numbers.

<comment><USER12> Can you expound on this ideologically consistent view?

<comment><USER13> If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.

<comment><USER14> Exactly! I hope this is what the op meant. If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government regulating air polluters because there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of their rights.

<comment><USER12> > there is no way to pollute the air (or ocean) without depriving others of > their rights

I mostly agree with this part,

> If you are a True Libertarian you should be in favor of the Government > regulating air polluters

but take issue with this part.

As others have pointed out the libertarian position on air pollution, and similarly on other kinds of pollution, is it is a tortious trespass on property and is dealt with through the judicial system. Meaning no regulation or action is needed by government other than the recognition of property rights. This was the position of common law and was abandoned by American courts in the early 20th century.

Now, when you refer to the oceans, which due to government action remain un- ownable, it's more complicated and the libertarian position is that they should be privatized.

<comment><USER14> Ok, good point. I should have probably said protected by the government not regulated.

But with that said, regulation is more efficient than going after every polluter on a case by case basis. Legislation can at least be used to set the guidelines so everyone knows what rules they are playing by. Either that or you're just replacing law with case-law which would have relatively the same effect. A rose by any other name...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Coase, Pigou, all these ideas are fairly libertarian, just like other forms of property rights are, and externalities like pollution can be thought of as a form of trespass.

<comment><USER16> Pigouvianism is inherently intolerant and totalitarian, not libertarian, as it relies on imposing one's value judgements on others. Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.

<comment><USER17> > Using a tax to force compliance rather than more draconian restrictions may > be 'nicer', but is not Liberty.

So if I reduce the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years, I am simply exercising my liberty?

<comment><USER16> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it.

There are a great many works on this type of issue, and if you are looking for a complete answer, I suggest you read them. If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone else.

<comment><USER17> > You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it.

And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual.

> If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is > it likely to convince anyone els

I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was.

I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.

<comment><USER16> What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.

<comment><USER17> I assumed:

A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific facts exist.

B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.

C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.

<comment><USER16> Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax.

In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1]

Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass.

[1] [http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf](http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf)

<comment><USER17> Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.

<comment><USER16> You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it.

And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other out of hand.

<comment><USER17> > And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'

The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV.

Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct.

> You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond > to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post > and re-writing it.

You rewrote your post after I posted the first one.

Pot meet kettle.

<comment><USER16> It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

<comment><USER17> > It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that > a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there > is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.

You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax.

The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.

<comment><USER16> I didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Libertarian" and "tax" in the same sentence. How does that even work?

<comment><USER19> I assume by arguing the personal liberty cost of emissions outweighs the personal liberty gained by tax reduction.

<comment><USER20> wouldnt the libertarian reaction to emissions be to sue the emitter for the lowered quality of air?

<comment><USER21> I'm not at all familiar with the law in this area, but what stands in the way of doing that right now?

<comment><USER22> Frictional costs of reclaiming those costs: lawsuits are expensive, and when a large number of people are impacted a small to moderate amount, it's very difficult for diffused harm (those breathing polluted air) to reclaim damages against concentrated gain (polluting industry).

This would be the argument for creating more of a structured market approach to assigning the costs of these externalities: courts are inefficient and plagued with problems when there's a power difference between the parties, so creating a market structure allows those externalities to be compensated in a more efficient way, while still allowing market pricing to incentivize industry to resolve the externality in the most efficient way available.

The libertarian's argument against this (I imagine) is that any government market scheme will screw it up more, though I don't know why so much faith is placed in the court system as a magically efficient system that resolves property disputes fairly and cost effectively in cases like diffused externalities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If he/we really cared about CO2 production and Global warming externalities, we'd put a _massive_ tax on service/product from China or India, whose CO2 production continues to grow:

[http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp- content/uploads/...](http://blogs.nelson.wisc.edu/es112-304-4/wp- content/uploads/sites/85/2014/03/European-Comission-co2-emissions.png)

<comment><USER23> And on services/products from the USA, right? Per capita we're using more energy and producing more CO2 than China and India and almost everywhere else. (Australia looks about the same. The UAE appears to be at the top.)

Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not sure why you're lumping them in with China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "[Libertarians] are actually opposed to government intervention because it causes false pricing. "

No, Libertarians are opposed to government intervention because it forces individuals to give up liberties. It's right there in the name of the party. You have a right to keep what you earn and choose where you want to spend it.

Now if you were to argue that polluting the environment deprives others of their right to breath clean air and that the government should tax carbon in order to protect the rights of the people who want clean air then THAT is a Libertarian argument for carbon tax.

</comment><comment><USER24> Given the medieval wealth disparities between the billionaire class and the average person, I find it difficult to trust their pontifications on financial and political matters. They are still people, but people operating on a very different moral compass than my own. Living in wealth and comfort is one thing, but the morality needed to acquire and retain billions in the face of all that could be done with it means we operate under very different rules.

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again Three are many others that argue that a price on carbon is the best way. For example: William Nordhaus of Yale University and Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics.

[http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or- carbo...](http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30760-carbon-tax-or-carbon- market)

</comment><comment><USER25> Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2?

It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate.

> Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of > pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has > decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of > the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere > dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major > cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen > to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body > cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full > efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other > degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no > longer be sustained.

Ref: [http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin- clarke-...](http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke- arthur-charles-other/)

<comment><USER23> > _Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 > and not of the burning of O2?_

Because global warming will probably kill us before oxygen deprivation or the health impact of reduced oxygen.

Also, this is perhaps nitpicky, but O2 does not burn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What are the by-products of manufacturing and maintaining batteries and solar panels? I'd like to learn more about the inputs and outputs, then maybe I can learn a better comparison between fossil fuels and solar.

What are we transforming in order to create, store, and consume solar energy and fossil fuel energy?

<comment><USER27> Whats worse is the waste left over after a battery is past it life span.

<comment><USER28> Not for Musk's Tesla at least:

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling- our-...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-3-recycling-our-non- toxic-battery-packs)

[https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery- recycl...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling- program)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Next week, a communist argument for private ownership of the means of production.

</comment><comment><USER30> Musk leaves out - or maybe he didn't but the reporter did - a couple of things. 1) Most of the subsidy for fossil fuels is actually a subsidy for transportation, which relies mostly on fossil fuels. 2) The production and re- fueling of EVs is primarily a fossil-fuel enabled activity ("EVs just have a longer tailpipe".)

Someone really interested in reducing fossil fuel consumption might want instead to subsidize ways of reducing transportation use.

<comment><USER18> The longer tail pipe thing is, whater. Annoying. An E.V. can be charged from any source. Electrons don't discriminate as to what excites them. With the purchase of SolarCity by Tesla, the pipe is now super short. From your room to your garage. Blaiming E.V. power source emisions is like blaming people with second hand smoke cause cancer for their ailment. It's gonna take awhile to regulate the smokers out of our shared space.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> More like Elon Musk points out by example why libertarianism is an oxymoron. As soon as all restrictions are lifted on businesses and a totally "free" market is created, business interests move to enact new regulations that entrench their positions.

<comment><USER14> And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Also, Libertarians are __in favor of regulating business if the business is depriving others of their rights. For example, their right to breath clean air.

 __Well, many are. I believe enough are that pro-environmental policies would still get voted up in a Libertarian system.

<comment><USER32> > And those new regulations in favor of business would be vetoed under a > Libertarian government. It works both ways.

Wait, what? Vetoed by whom?

> Also, Libertarians are in favor of regulating business if the business is > depriving others of their rights.

Who would be doing the regulating exactly? Wouldn't the regulations be seen as oppression by other businesses? Wouldn't they be challenged in a court of law, which is a part of the government?

I'm honestly amazed at the required amount of self-delusion required to believe that some form of libertopia is possible by simply removing some regulations and cutting down government agencies left and right. It then turns out that to arbitrate selfish interests of business and handle other edge cases in conflicts of interest you need certain agencies to act as arbitrators and in order to have a functioning society you start adding those agencies back 1 by 1 until you end up at the current form of government with all of its "overhead"

<comment><USER14> I think you are confusing Libertarian with Anarchist.

Libertarian does not preclude a president (who has a veto pen) and courts. In fact, courts are insanely critical to a Libertarian government in order to rule on cases where rights are violated and an executive branch is critical to make sure the court decisions are carried out.

Furthermore, contract law is also hugely important to Libertarians and the Government needs to be able to enforce those contracts when the individual cannot.

What a Libertarian would do is strike down all laws and government agencies that infringe on individual liberties. Especially laws that legislate morality and laws that legislate how individuals can spend their money and use their property. That means you can marry who you want, smoke what you want, and buy, sell, and contract with who you want as long as it does not infringe on other rights.

Other misconceptions:

\- Libertarians as a whole do not want to eliminate tax. They want to replace income tax with flat tax and/or consumption tax and leave property tax up to the states. They only want to abolish the IRS because it is an inefficient organization, uses threat of force to collect taxes, and taxes do not need to be that complicated.

\- Libertarians are not anti union. People should have a right to assemble. They are generally against people being forced to join a union against their will.

\- Libertarians are not anti-government. They just feel the only valid role of government is to protect individual rights and defend our country from foreign invaders.

\- Libertarians are not anti-environment. In fact Libertarians often see polluting the environment as infringing on other people rights and therefor something the government can intervene in.

A true Libertarian president would ask the following of every law:

\- Does this protect people from having their rights infringed on by either other people, government, or companies: YES, pass this law

\- If it does not meet the first test, does this infringe on other's right including their rights to do what they want with their own property/body: VETO</comment></comment></comment></comment>