Elon Musk and the Hyperloop  - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/elon-musk-and-the-hyperloop <comment><USER4> If/when self-driving cars succeed in being ready for public consumption, I think a huge opening for revolutions in transportation gets opened up.

\- If you can _call_ your car, it can park farther away. Parking is one of the biggest problems with cars in urban areas.

\- Instead of calling of _your_ car, you could just call _a_ car. A self driving car and a self driving taxi are pretty similar, but one can run 24hrs and reduce the parking problem more.

\- Computers can do things people can't do. Once enough auto-automobiles are out there, there can be autoauto only "features". The same square footage of tarmac might be able to move cars much quicker. Maybe autoautos can handle 200km speeds. Maybe they can cooperate to make traffic smoother. Maybe they can link together like trains to overcome congestion.

There is nothing quite as good as having a car to take you exactly to and from where you want to go. If self driving cars can really mix with human drivers everywhere they may have a nice smooth path to innovate on gradually. Big vision plans for revolutionizing transport are so centralized, so premeditated.

edit: one more thing. self driving cars interact in an interesting way with public/mass trasport, especially if people dont own their own. It may reduce the demand by competing more directly on one hand. OTOH, it will compliment by providing the last-mile component.

<comment><USER5> It would be awesome to call a random car any time you want, but I hate to think of the mess some people would leave in it once they were done with it.

<comment><USER6> You can never avoid this, but take an approach like ZipCar: <http://www.zipcar.com/how/faqs/how-are-cars-cleaned>

In almost two years of being a ZipCar client, I've never had any issues. Yes, the occasional coke can or candy wrapper left behind, but never a mess that I thought to be unreasonable.

If it turns out to be a bigger problem, install a camera that takes a shot when you take possession of the car, and when you relinquish it. Charge the renters credit card for messiness.

<comment><USER7> > install a camera that takes a shot when you take possession of the car, and > when you relinquish it.

Such a system would be good to have anyway as part of a dashcam. One facing forward, and a fish-eye facing the rear window and also capturing the interior of the car. I am hoping that car insurance companies will start offering discounts for cars with installed dashcams.

A tangent of a tangent now, this would be great (though creepy) for public restrooms. Given that there's a physical method, like positioning on the door, that prohibits it from seeing anything while the stall door is closed or locked, I think it would cut down on the seriously depraved messes people leave behind when they know they can get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How can anyone possibly suggest that this would be _cheaper_ than high-speed rail? If you're going 1150 mph ("average speed twice as fast as a commercial jet"), the curve radius is going to be immense – _90 km_ to maintain <0.3 lateral g. This will constrain your right-of-way selection _vastly_ more than the HSR project Musk scoffs at.

And, of course, the skin friction on a 2.5 meter tunnel would be immense. Using a duct friction loss calculator I get 285 megawatts of loss over the entire tube. You need two tubes. At 120,000 passengers/day (HSR estimate), it would take 114 kWh per trip. That's worst than the Model S, hardly an system in which "the fundamental energy cost is _so much lower_ " than a car.

No, the "theoretically fastest way" to go from Point A to Point B is a great- circle vacuum train connecting them. A launch loop does essentially that, but exploits the vacuum above our heads instead. It just fits better.

Any hyperloop theory needs to deal with supersonic speeds – LA-SF as the crow flies in 30 minutes is _just_ under the wire for subsonic speeds. Elon said "under 30 minutes." There are mountains in the way.

<comment><USER9> One of the interesting things about Jacques speculation is that if you move the pressurized air with the capsules they never go super sonic, the air is moving with them and their motion relative to that air is pretty constrained. The duct friction issue however is a serious issue.

It could be a giant hack of course, it could be Elon _saying_ he knows how to do it when he doesn't and getting all these great ideas to pour out. Or he could die and it would be his 'last company' legacy like Fermat's last theorem, sort of "Wow, really elegant way to do that, won't quite fit in the margin here though."

<comment><USER10> In aerodynamics, everything is relative. If you, plus a bunch of air are moving at supersonic speeds through a pipe, then that looks exactly the same as if you're moving a pipe at supersonic speeds over static you.

<comment><USER11> I think what Chuck meant was that the speed of sound increases with pressure, so the pressure wave in front of the capsule would cause the transition speed to supersonic to be higher. I'm not sure this is a good thing though from a drag perspective, but could be if it keeps the flow under ~0.8 Mach. Definately the complexity of the fluid dynamics at high speeds can't be neglected. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Wave_drag_in_tra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_\(physics\)#Wave_drag_in_transonic_and_supersonic_flow)

<comment><USER9> You're both right, at the boundary layer between the volume of air you're pushing and the tunnel there is going to be a bit of turbulence given the viscosity of the air, within the bubble you may never exceed the mach number for the air around you. Excellent paper put out by Barrett on designing long range sniper rifles [1] talking about the issues have having the bullet not be deflected by leaving the barrel (where even though its travelling quite fast it has yet to exceed the mach number of the expanding gas around it) and the ambient atmosphere (where the air is 'still' to the now speeding bullet). Needless to say the paper lost me in the fluid dynamics of the barrel air mixing with the outer air but they seemed pretty clear that inside the barrel things were pretty linear up to that point.

Anyway, what ever it turns out to be I'm sure it will be cool.

[1] My Dad is an engraver with an FFL and gets all sorts of interesting things in the mail. Usually to engrave, but the promotional literature is cool too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think that you ALMOST have it. You've even explained the following tantalizing quote from July: _I think we could actually make it self-powering if you put solar panels on it, you generate more power than you would consume in the system. There's a way to store the power so it would run 24/7 without using batteries. Yes, this is possible, absolutely._ The cars in the loop store power. A lot of it.

Now why do I say almost? Let's make one small modification. Let's put a lot of one way flaps in the tube so that it is easy for a puff of air to blow out, but not so easy for air to come back in. There would be leakage, but that is going to be OK.

As each car comes by, it piles up air in front of it that blows out of the flaps. Then the flaps fall back, and maintains a partial vacuum. The partial vacuum is no problem for people because there is a pile of air in front of their car that can be tapped for breathing air, that can then be released backwards, where it circulates through the tube (and probably out the flap).

This makes his evacuated tube comment even more of a teasing joke. No, the tube is not evacuated. Nor did you pump air out of it. But it winds up almost evacuated. However it is still fine for breathing.

Now the point is that reduced air pressure inside of the tunnel significantly reduces drag caused by the air dragging on the edges of the tunnel and being pushed by the cars. This does a lot to make the whole thing massively more efficient. Elon's claim is then that it is efficient enough that it can be powered by solar panels placed on the tube.

My big question is how hot it will be. There may be very little gas in the tube, but that gas will be very, very hot. Over time the cars will heat up as well. So you'd need to have the cars regularly coming in and out of the system so that they would have time to cool down.

The practical difficulties in building this are immense. But I do not see any physical reason why it is impossible.

<comment><USER13> hey Ben, I think that the gas won't get too hot because it has all of the surface of the sheath to cool it. But that's a precarious balance, and it will need some pretty good book keeping to make sure that all the power generated on a stretch 'x' meters long gets radiated out from the tube to keep the temperature stable.

As for the flaps, you're right, I didn't think that bit through, I'm not quite sure what the best solution would be there. But if that's the only thing wrong with what I sketched I'll be pretty happy.

<comment><USER12> The problem is that if you're moving fast against a cool surface, friction does more to make you hot than conduction does to make you cool. Furthermore even if the gas was room temperature, the air touching the car has just been compressed by a shock wave. Rapidly compressing gas makes it become very, very hot. Because of both effects, the car is going to be permanently exposed to very hot gas.

But I'm sure Elon has thought about that aspect and it is solvable.

<comment><USER13> Hm, tricky. Somehow you'd think that that part of the gas that is exposed to friction is limited to the portion that was slowed down by the interaction with the wall, and that the rest of the gas would not be subject to this because it is moving at roughly the same speed as the carriages.

During the acceleration phase this would definitely be an issue, the gas in front of the carriage would be compressed because the carriage is moving much faster than that body of gas. But that (hot) gas could be dumped just prior to insertion of the carriage into the tube.

Maybe the outside of the 'sheath' could be made from a heatsink like profile? I haven't given the thermodynamics of the thing much thought, I was basically just trying to figure out a solution that would not require some far-out technology.

I know that lots of people like to link space with Elon Musk but I think he's much more practical than that, space is a means for him to get to mars and Nasa a convenient way to finance it.

Other than that Tesla doesn't have anything to do with space and is ground transportation, I don't see any reason to go into low earth orbit with all the associated risks if you could do the whole thing on the ground and be:

      - <USER2>

      - as fast

      - not have the energy expenditure of having to work
        against gravity

      - easier to maintain

      - shorter path

The thermodynamics of having 'slugs' running around a tube are beyond what I can easily compute back of the envelope style, the only thing I see is that the amount of power put in to the system would have to be radiated out somehow or you'll end with a net gain in energy.

That's mostly a surface area increase problem, the air over a highway is notably warmer than the air around it simply because all those cars dump the combined energy of burning all their fuel into the environment. If you can reduce the energy input into the system then you'll reduce the amount of energy you have to get rid of afterwards. So I can see that reducing that input energy is really important and that changing the speed of the cars is brutal in this respect because it causes the air behind it to pile up against it (heating it up) when decelerating (but the air in front would cool down due to expansion) and vice versa.

It's an interesting problem and if I wouldn't have a ton of other stuff to do I'd happily cook up a simulator for this.

<comment><USER12> I have figured out a solution to the heat problem, but it looks rather different.

I'll do a blog post later today with it. But now I have to get my daughter to school.

<comment><USER12> Blog post posted to [http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2012/11/speculating-about- hyper...](http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2012/11/speculating-about- hyperloop.html) and with any luck there will be discussion about my version of the idea at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815665>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Cheaper than high speed rail" - why is high speed rail expensive? I believe because precision contact between rail and wheel is required. How would this be done cheaper in a tunnel?

One issue with a tunnel is that even if the air and carriages are moving at the same speed, there is still drag or friction between the air and the wall of the tunnel by Poissiulle's law. At the proposed speeds (~300km/h) and distances (600km), this becomes a lot, and higher pressures (if my quick calculations are right) lead to higher energy requirements through higher air density.

In a vacuum, this friction would not exist. I can post my calcs if there is interest - I used a Moody chart and Darcy's friction equation, and ended up with an energy requirement that there would have to be ~80 million carriages going each way to be as efficient as a Telsa roadster, and neglecting any other losses.

<comment><USER13> 600 kilometers / 80 million carriages gives me 7.5 mm per carriage length so I think there is a bit of a problem with that calculation.

The limiting case is when the whole tube is full of carriages, say they're 4 meters long that would mean there are a maximum of 150,000 carriages in that 600 Km long tube at absolute maximum capacity, something that you probably should not want to get close to.

More realistically, a regular roadway has a spacing of about 30 meters per vehicle at 60 Mph, you _might_ be able to pack them in that tight in a tube like this but that's still pretty tight and leaves very little room for error when shifting carriages in and out of the loop.

At that spacing you could stuff (600,000 / 34) = 17650 carriages in (none of those assembled into impromptu trains, which of course would increase the density).

If we assume train like assemblies of 10 cars with 30 meter spacing you'd be looking at a 40 meter train + spacing is 70 meters, or 8500 trains, so 85000 carriages.

Those would then be pushing a column of of air 30 meters long ahead of them.

<comment><USER11> I was trying to compare the energy required to overcome friction of the air against the tunnel to driving the route conventionally. 80 million is an excessive number to expect want to travel at one time, which implies that driving is much more efficient from an energy required perspective.

<comment><USER13> Yes, I got that, but the fact that there isn't room in there for that many carriages means that the friction can't be that high. Unless there is a way in which the friction in a tube is so high that the little bit of air surrounding the vehicle would exert that much drag on the tunnel wall (so one vehicle length + say a few mm distance to the tunnel wall).

I'm not sure what the figure should be but this seems very high.

<comment><USER11> When fluids flow, there is a `no slip` condition at surfaces - that is the velocity of fluid at a surface is the same as the surface`s velocity. So in a stationary tunnel, the fluid may be moving at an average of 300 meters per second, but will be stationary at the wall. This makes a shear stress in the fluid and is what causes drag. In fact, making the air gap between the carraige and wall smaller will increase this drag since there is less distance for this transition to happen between stopped and fully moving air.

Consider if each carriage is pulling 30m of air a long distance at great speed. Consider if instead of the air moving against a stationary tunnel, a 30 meter section of tunnel was moving at the same distance and speed through stationary air. The drag on this would be high, much higher than a car at highway speeds.

<comment><USER14> What if it isn't air, but an actual fluid, e.g. water? It cannot be compressed, so it's "crash proof" (carriages cannot hit other carriages with water in between). It also has plenty of mass, so once it has started moving, it will push carriages around easily. A torus with permanently moving water (probably a more high-tech fluid), where carriages are injected / removed after acceleration / before deceleration?

<comment><USER11> Both liquids and gasses are fluids and drag is worse in water than air, so the energy required would only be higher. Consider: is it harder to push your hand through the air or a tub of water?

<comment><USER14> > Consider: is it harder to push your hand through the air or a tub of water?

Consider a tub of water moving at the desired speed...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Everyone's assuming Musk has the answer and we're guessing at it. I feel like he's prompting the world to create the answer. True leadership at its finest. Define the problem, broad brush what the solution could and should be and then watch minds go to work.

<comment><USER16> I don't think that this is what he is doing but this definitely crossed my mind over the past few weeks. It's pretty awesome how inspiring a person like Elon could be. A year ago, the general public and geek community didn't really talk all that much about alternative modes of transportation. Now, all because of Musk, everyone is all of a sudden trying to come with a new idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Didn't he say in the Ariane 5 is dead interview that it's a cross between a Concorde and a rail gun, so think super streamlined glider, launched by maglev, captured by maglev (recovering some energy energy on capture). High speed rail without most of the rail.

The big issue would be air traffic control at launch and landing. 600 m/s (Mach 2) at 0.5g acceleration would require 36km of launch rail which is kind of a lot. But you could loop the track and reduce the acceleration to make up for centripetal forces — a 200m radius loop might be about right, and once you use a loop you can go a lot faster (and this explains the name: hypersonic loop).

I suppose it might skip short distances requiring pylons or something for speed top ups and travel at lower speed.

</comment><comment><USER18> Problems:

Digging a tunnel takes years and cost billions (see London underground new tunnel <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16320945>)

Making the tunnel fit the carrage = no room for emergency

Security (terrorists + bomb = nightmare at speed of sound)

Windows? What would you look at?

If he thinking of just goods (not people) then some of these problems are much simpler - the tunnel could be less than 1m in radius.

My wild idea is that he is going to us a rail gun to fire drones up a couple of KM into the air, these then glide down to mini airports. Replace freight railroads.

<comment><USER13> You don't have to dig. Just place the metal shell on posts like an oil pipeline.

<comment><USER19> People don't like windmills because they are "ugly".

They don't like power-lines in the country side.

They certainly wouldn't like a 2.5M+ diameter tube running around. In London, 56% (IIRC) of the "Underground" is above ground, much of that above road level.

<comment><USER18> we have a lot of wind turbines where I live. You get a strobe sounds of wuh- wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh if you are down wind of them. They are noisy. Also, if the sunlight catches them you also get a strobe reflection off them. That is also horrible.

There is a farmer who has 2 turbines up, he lives on the far side of a hill about a km away - you can still hear those whoosh-whoosh-whoosh all day long. Painful.

Powerlines also run over a lot of campsites near my house, you can hear them hummmmmm and crackle. In the damp/rain/mist/fog you can hear a lot of crackling and humming from them.

I can understand why people get angry with them. In urban areas where there is a lot of noise, I guess you wouldn't notice it so much.

Off topic, but my sister worked in a place where they put the magnets into wind turbines. There was a loud crash one day, someone had a magnet on a pallet, lifted it with a forklift and drove it out to a van. Half way the magnet got sucked by another magnet (in one of the factories) and burst through the wall and the two clamped together. They never got them apart and had to take the remaining bits of the turbine apart from around them.

<comment><USER13> > Off topic, but my sister worked in a place where they put the magnets into > wind turbines. There was a loud crash one day, someone had a magnet on a > pallet, lifted it with a forklift and drove it out to a van. Half way the > magnet got sucked by another magnet (in one of the factories) and burst > through the wall and the two clamped together. They never got them apart and > had to take the remaining bits of the turbine apart from around them.

What city was this in? Which manufacturer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Interesting speculation by Jacques, but I think the combination of rail run and Concorde is a rail gun that fires hypersonic motor-less capsules that glide to destination.

Smaller landing zones, no air pollution, much less noise...

It's also a good combination of Telsa (rail gun) and SpaceX (rockets can be seen as motorized slugs).

Only limit I see with this system is that I'm not sure anyone could withstand the acceleration.

<comment><USER21> A sling would be much better for this: it's much smaller than a huge gun and also more flexible since the direction and elevation can be changed by altering the release point and axis.

Centripetal acceleration is a = v^2 / r so for 300 m/s (about mach 1) speeds, for 1 gee centripetal acceleration you'd need 9 km radius.

<comment><USER22> Maybe this sling is the "loop" in Hyperloop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> However, somehow using pressurized tubes for mail failed in the long run. I find those very fascinating, and apparently once upon a time some big cities were actually connected with a lot of such pressure tubes for sending mail. But apparently they were too unreliable and ended up going into oblivion.

Would be interesting if some of them could be resurrected somehow.

Another idea for improving transport: with modern technology better routing should be possible. Instead of all people boarding the same train that stops at every station, why not only board a carriage that goes directly to your destination? That could save a lot of time, I think.

<comment><USER24> I think your second idea is closer to what I think matches the things known about Hyperloop. I am convinced that electric (or hybrid) cars that self drive along beacons is the obvious next step in human urban transportation. These follow loops, like bus routes, that will pick you up when you get to a location along the loop since you have requested it (e.g. phone app) and drop you off at say a station, or another loop intersection where you can get into another loop vehicle, a loop bus or train at a scheduled and managed time. It can send the right size and amount of vehicles out of the depot into loop depending on how many people want to get on during a cycle, it can park the electric vehicles to charge at the right time. To the user it's a matter of saying 'I want to get to the conference at 9am' and the system will tell him what time a car will pick him up at his chosen pickup point.

<comment><USER23> Absolutely, and since Musk has an electric car company, something along those lines might be quite realistic. For electric cars used in that way, charging would not be an issue, as it would not be the burden of private car owners.

I just had another thought, although maybe a bit ridiculous: the main issue with "public cars" to me seems to me hygienic, how to keep them clean. What if in the future instead of owning whole cars, you only own a capsule with seats that can be picked up by transporters? I'd still prefer a world where parked car things are completely gone, but such capsules might still save a lot of space in the meantime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> One thing not mentioned here is speed. Musk has said this could go from LA to San Francisco in 30 minutes, which is an average speed of ~700 mph - <USER3> faster than a commercial airliner but in the same ballpark. I'm definitely not an expert in fluid dynamics, but it seems like safely maintaining that speed in a tube at atmospheric pressure would be difficult. Maybe there's some way to design the shape of the pods such that there's a very stable equilibrium keeping it away from the walls. Or you could potentially use a magnetic field to do this (similar to a tokamak) but that seems be trickier and more expensive than a mag-lev rail.

An evacuated tube has the advantage of being much more stable at high speeds and avoids the issue of excess heat from repeatedly compressing and expanding the air in the tube.

In any case, great read. I almost wonder if Musk has thrown this idea out half-baked just to get more people to start thinking outside the box about transportation...

<comment><USER26> _> Or you could potentially use a magnetic field to do this (similar to a tokamak) but that seems be trickier and more expensive than a mag-lev rail._

Using Halbach arrays would do it, without any active control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting.. What if if gets shot one direction, presurizing something, which it uses to shoot back the other direction

       waiting for passenger
         SF  [||| <> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  ] LA
         pressurized     -->  pretty spaced out "stuff"

         SF [-| - |- |-  |- <>-| - |- |- -| - |- |- ] LA
                                in transit..

         SF [ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  <> ||| ] LA
                                        <-   presurized for return

<comment><USER10> Just like everything else in life the system would be subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The act of pressurising air would heat it up, and heat loss would mean that it wouldn't be fully reversible.

I suspect that a fully evacuated system using magnetic propulsion and energy recovery would be more efficient - the turbulent nature of air and the low- quality nature of heat energy would probably work against you to make a pneumatic spring fairly inefficient.

<comment><USER28> I don't think there's much doubt that an evacuated tube would be very efficient. Not only that, but you could go much faster. Jacques has rejected that hypothesis for other reasons.

<comment><USER29> _"Jacques has rejected that hypothesis for other reasons."_

Specifically, due to a specific statement that it is not an evacuated tube.

<comment><USER28> Well, yes, but he also supplied some arguments why his idea might be better which is what I was referring to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Moving the air through the tunnel addresses the capsule drag, but now you have drag between your moving air and the tunnel wall, which depending on the distance between vehicles is going to be a larger loss.

Yacht designers refer to the "wetted area" component of drag, and an entire tunnel wall is a heck of a lot of wetted area.

<comment><USER13> Would it be possible to run a partial vacuum just in the space between the vehicle and the tunnel wall, for instance by having the vehicle body be slightly curved away from the wall except at the end points?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room.

This is a long story, but I'll try to keep it very short. Anyone interested contact me off-list for far more details and an unfinished paper with some of my research.

A couple of years ago my son and I were watching a documentary on the subject of concrete. It was very interesting. They covered a wide range of topics but one of them really started to trigger my curiosity: The Panama Canal.

I don't know why, but I became very interested in the financial metrics surrounding the canal. How much does it cost to cross it? How long does it take? How many ships cross it per year? Where do they come from? Where do they go?

The more I learned the more the reality of the Canal horrified me. Why?

The bulk of the commercial traffic through the Canal are container ships. And these ships burn something very nasty: Bunker Fuel. This is, by almost any measure, the dirtiest fuel you could burn. it's horrible stuff.

When I started to do the math I started to realize the magnitude of the problem. These ships move at about 20 miles per hour. They could go faster but there's a balance between the high cost of hydrodynamic drag and fuel costs. A trip from Shanghai to Long Beach takes about 18 days and will burn somewhere in the range of 3,600 to 7,200 metric tons of fuel. For those not comfortable visualizing units in the metric system, that's from 7,936,560 to 15,873,120 pounds. Yes, fifteen million pounds of the nastiest crap you could burn is used to bring your iPhones (conjecture) and other stuff from Shanghai to Long Beach.

If my research is correct, the fleet of about 100,000 cargo ships (Yes, 100,000!!!) burns over a million metric tons of bunker fuel PER DAY.

400 million metric tons of bunker fuel per year, which is equivalent to 120 billion gallons.

Can't relate to that number?

Here's an interesting comparison:

To get a better sense of how large this number is we can try to relate it to how many cars one could fill-up with fuel and for how long. 120 billion gallons would provide enough fuel to supply 100,000 cars (assuming a 20 gallon tank) with a full tank of gas every week...for over 1,000 years.

      100,000 cars.
      20 gallons per week.
      For a THOUSAND years.

And our fleet of container ships use this in ONE YEAR.

The evil, when it comes to pollution and energy dependence, isn't the much- abused light bulb; it's the elephant in the room: Ocean-going cargo ships.

While our mass media chooses to focus its attention on an oil spill (because it is sensational and it serves political purposes), what is really killing our planet slowly is the transportation of iPhones, Blackberries, TV's, blenders, washers, cars, widgets and gadgets on inefficient and highly- polluting ocean-going vessels. Even the latest Gulf spill is insignificant in terms of environmental impact when compared to what 100,000 ships are doing to our environment each and every year.

It is estimated that the fleet of nearly 100,000 cargo ships in the world produces over 20 million tons of Sulfur Oxides (SOx) per year. For comparison, the entire fleet of automobiles in the world (about 800 million cars) produces about 80,000 tons of the same contaminant.

How about the Canal?

A container ship traveling from Los Angeles to NYC through the Canal will burn about 4,500 metric tons of buker-C fuel. This amount of fuel costs approximately US $1.8 million. Canal fees would run somewhere around $300K. The trip from L.A. to NYC through the Canal runs well over two million dollars, without including handling, insurance, crew costs, amortization, maintenance, etc. That's quite a chunk of change, however, when divided by the thousands of containers a ship can move it becomes a few hundred dollars per container.

How many ships go through the Canal per year?

Approximately 15,000.

I'll leave you to do the math. I have far more detail in my notes. What these ships are doing to our environment is simply horrific. The pollution doesn't stop at the act of burning fuel.

Cargo ships are also the source of an unusual form of pollution. Ships use huge ballast tanks to stabilize themselves. These ballast tanks are filled and emptied of sea water during loading and unloading operations at port. It is through this mechanism that cargo ships are responsible for transporting harmful organisms across the world into ecosystems that cannot handle them. The introduction of non-native species into a new ecosystem can have devastating consequences.

And so, from watching a simple documentary I came to the realization that, for some strange reason, we have been ignoring the most significant source of environmental pollution on our planet. And, beyond that, one of the largest --if not the largest-- consumer of petroleum products.

I didn't stop at just identifying the problem. I also wanted to take a stab at a solution. I came up with something I called "The American High Speed Cargo System" (AHSCS) as a loose proposal. This would be a cargo-only, electric powered, high speed rail system. It would connect --at the very least-- both coasts and, ideally, other major US ports. The idea would be to move cargo over land from port to port at 200 miles per hour. High speed passenger trains in the US are a waste of money and that's particularly true in California (don't get me started there). Not so for high-speed cargo.

The numbers are there to support it: A cargo ship spends over two million dollars to get from L.A. to NYC. Probably closer to three. Those same containers could be moved far more efficiently over land, at similar or lower costs and pollute far, far less. You are exchanging aerodynamic drag for hydrodynamic drag. Huge difference.

In terms of energy costs (just the electricity), I came up with numbers in the order of $10K for a trip from L.A. to NYC. I further estimated that the system would require around 700MW of power, let's call it 1,000MW. We have 53 nuclear plants that can source 1GW each. This is a case where nuclear power might be a really good option.

However, the scope of the project needs to be realized. Developing and building such a systems has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions. It should be revenue neutral if not positive (sorry Panama). It would allow for the installation of upgraded communications and power backbones that would be synergistic to the process of building the rail system. It would also allow for the potential to install huge solar and wind- power farms to fully or partially power the system.

I have not explored every angle but would like to think that, if my numbers and assumptions are right, this could be the most important project this nation could embark on. You have to think in terms of a hundred or two-hundred year scale. These ships are not going to go away unless something very significant changes. Of course, the same concept ought to be replicated across the planet. Again, if I am right, we should strive to eliminate most, if not all, container ships traversing our oceans. We are making an absolute mess out of our planet.

<http://news.discovery.com/tech/shipping-network-map.html>

Like I said, there's more. If interested email me off list and I can send you a copy of my notes so far. It'd be interesting to have someone go over my notes and verify my assumptions and calculations. I tried to raise the issue with politicians but, what can I say, I only have so much time to deal with morons.

NOTE:

I thank you for your comments. I have to ask that you do me a favor. Please refrain from making categorical statements about the relative efficiency of ships vs. a proposed high-speed electric train without having done the math yourself. Please drop me an email and I'll be more than happy to provide you with a copy of my calcs, an unfinished paper as well as links, PDF's and references. Then we can talk about the merits of the concept. I am actually very interested in having the concept, calculations and assumptions criticized. Arguing outside of a common frame of reference is rather difficult.

<comment><USER32> My understanding was that the Panama canal is mostly used for international shipping and that your NY -> LA use case would not be as common as East Asia -> Europe. Do you have the data to back this up?

<comment><USER33> Also note that the Panama Canal system is set to expand by 2015, and that US East-coast ports are already expanding their cargo capacity in expectation of more & bigger container ships, routing Pacific->Panama->East rather than Pacific->West->rail->East.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Third_set_of_lock...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Third_set_of_locks_project)

[http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2011/nov/eastern- seaboar...](http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2011/nov/eastern-seaboard.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Re: "no rails" - perhaps it reduces friction by not touching the ground, via a combination of a railgun propulsion + airfoil. Thus, not needing continuous maglev for levitation. Also explains the "concord" comparison.

<comment><USER19> I'm thinking: \- Air based, but near the ground \- The vehicle is concord shaped \- Vehicle is launched into the air via rail gun (like a fighter jet on a ship: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System)) \- Lots of boosting strips a few KMs apart. \- Based on the rail gun concept, the same "boosting" strip could also slow down or speed up a vehicle \- It removes the need for anything between the stations except open space. \- Minimal on-vehicle propulsion - otherwise I imagine the constant accelerate/decelerate would be a little unbearable for human flight \- Failure mode of the vehicle is to glide to a landing (though could magnetic eddy currents be used for breaking in a rail gun with minimal/no current?) \- The loop could refer to the idea of a continual loop of boosters, in opposite directions, removing the need for large "turn around" stations at either end

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Sorry Jacques, I'm sticking to the suborbital maglev thing.

Yeah, I know it's a long-shot, but it fits into my idea of Musk better than a giant mail tube. I'm just seeing pressurized tubes scaling. There's the same problem with the orbital sub-loop, but I'm betting Musk spent a lot of time looking at this idea as part of his Mars dream.

One thing's for sure -- it's going to be a blast seeing how it all turns out!

</comment><comment><USER36> He also recently said it's "a cross between a Concorde and a rail gun". That would at least enforce the maglev principle Jacques envisioned. It wouldn't be quite a Concorde in the pressurized tube though. But it's not impossibly far away from that concept, maybe Musk deliberately described it in a bit mysterious fashion. Time will tell.

<comment><USER6> "Rail gun" could illustrate the way carriages are added to and remove from the loop.

<comment><USER37> In the technical literature, the term "rail gun/railgun" is strongly associated with electromagnetic propulsion methods:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun>

<comment><USER6> Ah, I was thinking of a Gatling gun (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_cannon>), not a rail gun. The concept of rotary tubes seemed to mesh with OP's vision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The Hyperloop reminds me a lot of the Swissmetro [1] project which was launched in 1974 and was intended to connect Swiss cities trough evacuated tunnels which would house maglev trains. The evacuation made the project very expensive but a lot of tests were run and a lot of the learning probably can be applied. Solving some of the problems that made the Swissmetro so expensive could lead to what the Hyperloop wants to be.

[1 ]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro> (the German language article is much more extensive: <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro>)

</comment><comment><USER39> First time I read it wouldn't be an evacuated tunnel. Next thought of technology it could use then then jumps to maglev-like technology; Imagine a Tesla vehicle (or others) that can hop onto a network that brings the vehicle onto a maglev system, reducing friction (and other elements wouldn't really effect it, especially if you decided to put a canopy over it) ; Anyone else realize he may have dropped a hint in this video ([http://video.ft.com/v/1974478965001/Elon-Musk-from- electric-...](http://video.ft.com/v/1974478965001/Elon-Musk-from-electric- cars-to-Mars) ) that we might see flying cars?

You'd need on-ramps, where a minimum speed is required before merging with the main line, and of course you'd only build on/off ramps at major hubs. The only issue I see being you're not using tar then, and therefore costs of raw materials would be higher, at least initially, and would likely last longer than tar.

Being cheaper than highspeed rail could fit into this equation because its the vehicle owners paying for the vehicle, and no trains are being build for it - so actual money going into the system, the synergies that would exist, might be greater - though putting it how he does is creating lots of attention. :)

Maybe the hyperloop refers to a an on/off ramping system, where you get accelerated to a certain speed... Fun speculating. And time for tea and breakfast.

<comment><USER40> All great points, but I will point out that the major cost item on high speed (or any rail for that matter) is the rail itself. The cars and locomotive are relatively cheap, but you're looking at figures of $1M+ USD per mile of track.

<comment><USER41> In Europe, it's about 12-30 million € / km for high speed tracks (according to Wikipedia).

<comment><USER42> And US construction costs tend to be at least twice what they are in Europe.

<comment><USER43> That's for public projects?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'd like to add another possibility into the mix, I think it might be based on some moving walkway concepts that have been considered for quite a few years but have never caught on or progressed passed the prototype stage.

The idea is that rather than being a straight line with a sort of conveyor belt, the walkway is made of plates like an escalator, and the ends of the walkway curve off from the main body of it. This means that a user steps on to a slow moving plate, immediately goes around a corner on it, and in doing so accelerates to a much faster speed, with the opposite happening at the destination.

As soon as I heard the word 'Hyperloop', this is what I thought of. It's a looped system, but with an extra dimension in a way as different sections operate at different speeds. I think this could be scaled up to be perhaps a track system that 'cars' are put onto with passengers inside, but I don't know.

Is this a reasonable possibility? Maybe.

✓ Ground based

✓ Weather independent

✓ Like a railgun (if propelled with magnets)

✓ Is not a pressurised tube

✓ Leaves when you arrive

? Could hold solar panels

? Cheap

? Revolutionise the transport industry

✗ No rails - depends on your interpretation of this, one could argue that a pressurised tube is a kind of track or rail for a carriage.

</comment><comment><USER45> The starting point of the argument is kind of whacky: He claims that the sentence "It is not (an evacuated tunnel)." is somehow the same as "It is a (not evacuated) tunnel.", but he completely ignores the fact that the position of the article that he deliberately changes resolves this ambiguity! So, duh, if you change the sentence it means something different...

<comment><USER46> I agree the rearrangement of the word order is confusing, but I can also see that Musk could have been saying "it is not an _evacuated_ tunnel". (In fact this is the default interpretation I would probably take...) Listening to the original quote could help us, but ultimately there's no way to know if he's talking about tunnels in general or just evacuated ones.

<comment><USER45> But your interpretation is much, much weaker than "a not evacuated tunnel".

If it's not a tunnel, it's still not an <i>evacuated</i> tunnel.

But if it's "a not evacuated tunnel", then it must be a tunnel.

Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Unfortunately I'm neither a native speaker, nor a linguist, so I cannot back it up with anything but feeling for the language and the fact that this is how I always see it used ;).

<comment><USER26> _> Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel"._

Well, if you add another "only" before "interpret" then you'd be correct. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation either way.

Panel 11: <http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't think the tunnel would need to be pressurised. If the air moved at the same speed as the train, no resistance would be met.

<comment><USER13> That's what I meant by using the carriages as the impellers, so effectively they push against the air in front of them up to the next carriage, which pulls on this air because it leaves a partial vacuum behind it. So there is no external source of pressure, it's just the carriages moving and 'drafting' in each others wake.

There will still be resistance though, both from the walls as well as leakage between the carriage and the walls (there can't be a really good seal there or the friction between the carriage and the wall would become too large, and since the wall is stationary and the carriage is moving very fast this friction is likely sizeable).

<comment><USER39> Do you know the speed differences that could occur in a tunnel system like this, versus an "open" on-ground maglev system?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I have a problem with the quote "no rails required" because I would interpret that in a general sense, i.e. a Car does not need rails. To me, a tube just sounds like a special kind of rail.

However, all the most plausible theories I have heard so far, and my own possibility, all rely on some sort of (although not traditional) rails.

</comment><comment><USER48> Didn't Elon also say that the Hyperloop would be buildable/achievable without having to obtain large swaths of contiguous land for the construction of the entire loop (which is next to impossible in developed countries)?

How does this prediction meet that requirement? Or am I missing something?

This is the quote I'm referring to:

"It also can't have a right of way issue, where people have to give up their homes."

[http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/19/elon-musk-with-jobs-gone- go...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/19/elon-musk-with-jobs-gone-google-will- win-mobile-and-look-out-for-the-hyperloop/)

<comment><USER13> You are absolutely right, someone else in this thread also brought it up. I completely missed out on that requirement and indeed it seems to invalidate the whole thing.

Unless there is a recycling of roads somehow.

The thing that bugs me about the whole 'space' angle is that if that is the solution it is only usable between endpoints, and roads are usable for everybody (also those people living between the endpoints).

You then get the same issues that you have with airports, you have to actually go to one of very few terminals in order to get on the loop. And ground transportation converging on the loop would be the bottle-neck (think highway LA - SF with only one on-ramp).

So likely we're missing a huge piece of the puzzle still.

<comment><USER48> Definitely. It's still enjoyable to read these ideas though =)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think most of OP's arguments are spot on, but I think it's likely to be an elevated system installed over the center divider of the (mostly very straight and very flat) I-5 corridor. Tunneling that distance just isn't feasible at the stated cost.

(I expound at greater length here: [http://franking.tumblr.com/post/36241325898/my-personal- spec...](http://franking.tumblr.com/post/36241325898/my-personal-speculation- on-the-hyperloop))

</comment><comment><USER50> Rather than self-driving cars, I see hype-loop kind of system being more effective overall(reliable, cheaper). Obviously a lot more work has been done(Google) on self-driving cars but I would secretly hope/wish that Elon really gets cracking on this thing(especially since he has to regular suffer one of the worst commutes in the world - 405 freeway in LA - especially that particular section).

</comment><comment><USER51> Musk has also noted that the system would be "protected from the elements"... Perhaps he meant the 'pods' inside the tube would be protected.

</comment><comment><USER52> ...the first bit of Hyperloop speculation that actually makes sense and seems plausible ...though the price will this will likely go up because it's new and untested technology and it has to be SAFE: the price difference between "doing something" and "doing something safely" can be orders of magnitude (think airplane safety) so I wouldn't rush to invest in it though...

<comment><USER53> As with SpaceX I think Musk would solve this by designing for humans but testing with cargo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> sorry for being kind of a buzz kill - but I'd rather see elon musk venture away from traditional engineering ventures and going into life sciences. the hyperloop seems like an interesting concept, but I don't really see where it fits in, given that his electrical revolution of individual transportation succeeds. Very densely populated areas like new york are already reasonably served by a metro - scaling that system might be cheaper and equally effective as the hyperloop described by jacques mattheij. building new tunnels is very expensive and would probably account for most of the costs in this endeavor. additionally finding spare space in dense cities to construct such a hyperloop might be very difficult besides existing sewer systems and electrical lines, offsetting the benefits of the hyperloop (after all this would require massive public funding)

expanding this system to long distances would be really interesting, however even more expensive, given the need to construct long tunnels or tubes.

<comment><USER55> I'm curious what your overall point is?

The purpose of new innovations is to improve something. It's possible that in the very short term something like wouldn't be the most cost effective thing, however it's not about the very short term, but rather about the potential. In most existing transportation systems, the potential of the system without large changes has probably mostly been realized. The potential of something like this may be much larger, which is why it would be worthwhile.

<comment><USER54> my overall point is that I would rather see musk devoting his time to more promising and (in my opinion) more valuable projects (which danpalmer just said he would)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm aware this is not adding much to the discussion but I couldn't shift the intro to futurama out of my head while reading the post.

</comment><comment><USER57> I suspect that it is a beneath the road electrical induction charging system so that cars/vehicles don't need to carry heavy batteries to travel longer distances..

On open roads, where batteries fall down on range, surely this would make sense? Combine with self drive for easy town to town driving experience.

</comment><comment><USER58> Almost sounds like a bigger version of <http://shweeb.com>

</comment><comment><USER59> Several comments mentioned freight transport below, but not in this context. The loop you've described requires some "density" of carriages to maintain the "group inertia". One obvious way to fill gaps that are too big is to put freight cars into the loop to fill them.

Very nice article.

</comment><comment><USER60> I figure it is a side by side maglev with a bunch of mass going around one of the tracks to store energy.

That's assuming the mass needs to be on a second track to maintain a schedule. I guess it's probably possible to do something clever at the stations to avoid a second track.

</comment><comment><USER61> Looking to me like router/hub concept in the real world called Hyperloop. You have network (pressured tunnels) with packets (packets which carry me around Hyperloop) controlled via nodes aka router/hub (locations where people could board). Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER62> People have built systems called Atmospheric Railways that could be closed to Elon's vision than an evacuated tunnel.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_railway>

</comment><comment><USER63> So it's what they have in Futurama? <http://goo.gl/uEmNW>

I'm not really sure how it "can't crash", nor how there aren't any "rails" (or things that look suspiciously like rails).

<comment> daniel-cussen You know they were planning on building this in Manhattan?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I remember Musk saying that its propulsion source was similar to that of a rail gun's. Sorry, can't remember where, but it was recent.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sorry to be the pernickety one, Jacque but inyour opening sentence: "For a while now there are tantalizing hints that Elon Musk is at it again." isn't correct English since "are" is the wrong tense.

Try "For a while now there have been tantalizing hints that Elon Musk is at it again"

Or perhaps better: "There have been tantalizing hints that Elon Musk is at it again for a while now"

<comment><USER13> You're right. Sorry to be nit-picking, but my name is spelled 'Jacques'.

<comment><USER65> Sorry about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Elon Musk > Chuck Norris

</comment><comment><USER67> Another point to mention is that it is also solar-powered.</comment>


Political views of Albert Einstein – offered second president of Isreal - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Zionism <comment><USER2> As an israeli arab in 2020, all i can do is Sigh. We are a cesspool of segregation and gentrification, and israel is very much trying to be monoculture, and it's failing.

And well, AMA. Ask me anything.</comment>


Wi-Fi Devices That Use Stray Radio Waves as Their Power Source - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/529576/mobile-gadgets-that-connect-to-wi-fi-without-a-battery/

<comment><USER2> Any device which modulates the surrounding radio waves has the possibility of causing radio interference, so it will need licensing and type approval. And something which generates wideband crud will never be approved.

This thing is not passive. It is receiving, modulating, and re-transmitting broadband signals.

The "rusty bolt" form of radio interference is one of the most common that interference investigators have to deal with.

<comment><USER3> Even a device which merely absorbs radio waves passively could be seen as causing a kind of radio interference, because wifi (and similar short range systems) make use of reflected waves to go around obstructions.

This is an irrelevant loophole in the current regulations, but if you imagine a scenario where everyone is trying to power their smart wallpaper, smart windows and smart clothes by absorbing radio waves, perhaps it would be enough to reduce the reflected signal strength significantly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A surprising amount of power can be collected from stray radio waves. You wouldn't be able to power a full computer or even a phone, but you can do cool things like power a radio: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxhole_radio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxhole_radio)

However, indoor "solar" power is a more practical idea: [https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/radish?csw=1](https://developers.google.com/gdata/articles/radish?csw=1)

<comment><USER5> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio)

<comment><USER6> I recall as a kid my mind being blown when I realised you could get enough energy out of "thin air" to drive a little earphone, with nothing more than a length of wire, a finished toilet paper tube, and a crystal/diode.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> FTA: _" To send data to a smartphone, for example, one of the new prototypes switches its antenna back and forth between modes that absorb and reflect the signal from a nearby Wi-Fi router. Software installed on the phone allows it to read that signal by observing the changing strength of the signal it detects from that same router as the battery-free device soaks some of it up."_

Sounds just a bit like one indirect way astronomers search for exoplanets: By looking for fluctuations in a star's light caused by a planet's transit 'across' the star. [1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Indirect_methods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet#Indirect_methods)

</comment><comment><USER7> Very _Deepness In The Sky_. Even if the battery-less devices don't have that much computing power yet, this still feels like sci-fi technology- the kind of stuff you always thought ought to possible, but just wasn't yet. Pondering: could they come up with less power-hungry communication protocols that could let battery-less devices communicate with each other?

<comment><USER8> I wonder if we shall sooner or later have locators~

<comment><USER9> We do, kind of: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio- frequency_identification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio- frequency_identification)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Kind of sad the kick starter for some similar technology was closed recently. Would have been exciting to see if it worked out.

<comment><USER11> It was clearly fradulent. From the TR article:

"Harvesting ambient radio waves can collect on the order of tens of microwatts of power. But sending data over Wi-Fi requires at least tens of thousands of times more power [..]"

<comment><USER12> So store it. Charge a capacitor for an hour, transmit for 0.1 second (adjust scales accordingly). If you're talking things like thermostats that are monitoring data that really doesn't change much over an hour or so, not a problem.

I've been waiting to see ambient-power products like this since I built a crystal radio when I was 8 or so. Powered entirely by AM radio waves, no problem with listening volume.

<comment><USER13> So if for every second you transmit you need 10^4 seconds of gathering energy, that means you can transmit just over 3 times an hour for 0.1 seconds. That is assuming perfect storage efficiency. But remember that to transmit over Wi-Fi you need to associate with the AP, obtain an IP address, discover where you are sending stuff (DNS resolution, routing, etc.), receive an ACK, close a connection, disassociate from the AP. Most of the timing of this is going to be dependent not on you but on the other end of the transmission. And if you are transmitting this infrequently, what percentage of time can you afford to have your data lost? Sure, you could optimize the heck out of this by using pre-defined routes, fixing the IP addresses of everything, using UDP to not have to wait for an ACK. I have a feeling you'd still need to actively run the radio for at least a second or two, which now brings you into the territory of transmitting only about 5 times a day.

But all that aside, the biggest reason I think running Wi-Fi off harvested energy is BS is because we are skipping an important step here: nobody is running Wi-Fi off watch batteries yet, and those are much more energy-dense than the typical radio spectrum. That's like seeing a Kickstarter campaign that claims to be able to run a mid-sized sedan off a rooftop solar panel: it is impractical bordering on impossible.

As an alternative, there are lots of protocols other than 802.11 that can transmit at lower power and with lower time frames. With these you can gather all the data onto a bridge which will then talk 802.11 on the other side. Or, you know, just put in a AA battery.

<comment><USER11> On the other hand, Bluetooth Low Energy is running off small batteries (for a long time), I wonder what the numbers look like there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you a Georgia Tech student/recent grad?   - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to connect with recent GT grads (CS/CompE) or students.  I'm an alum myself (IE '05).  Been in the startup world for a few years now and in the Bay Area for a year.  Don't care where you are based, just want to connect and see what you are up to/building/wanting to build..<p>Drop me a line at vladik dot rikhter at gmail <comment><USER2> vladik - check out @stammy & @jazzychad @notifo ... two GT guys that moved to the valley in the last couple years (also hang around HN from time-to-time)

btw, go dawgs...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks...I know Stammy, haven't met Chad yet. I was mainly trying to find some new folks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> ME '07 ! GO JACKETS!

</comment><comment><USER4> Go Jackets.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yup. CS08

<comment><AUTHOR> Drop me an email if you have time vladik dot rikhter at gmail

<comment><USER5> You've got mail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> CS 06

<comment><AUTHOR> Drop me an email if you have time, would love to connect!</comment></comment>


Developers: Don't Treat the Windows Store like the iOS App Store - <AUTHOR> http://blog.markedup.com/2012/10/win8-developers-dont-make-the-terrible-mistake-of-treating-the-windows-store-like-the-ios-app-store/ <comment><USER4> I don't know - the underlying argument here, that developers need to avoid a race to the bottom isn't particularly new, new to Microsoft [0], or in my opinion convincing. This article seems like a strange mix of a Microsoft marketing piece, and a call for app developer collusion. In other industries it seems almost by definition that the worth of the product is what it's selling for -- .99 cents for most apps. Arguments along the lines of "surely apps are worth more because, c'mon look at the price of coffee," use only emotion based on how much work we see go into those as developers not the value provided to users. It's very easy to blame poor revenue as a marketplace problem rather than a product problem and it's this type of thinking that drives this conclusion rather than proper analysis.

A hit driven industry can be brutal but I'm not convinced that the app store is more of one than traditional software, social websites, marketplaces, and games all spring to mind as places where success is very hit driven. Even outside our industry: books, television, movies, music, fashion - these all all hit driven because that is what fits best with where the demand is.

* In the television industry most shows have both higher production costs and lower prices than software, does this mean this industry is broken?

* Increasingly for app store purchases with higher prices I hear about the apps from avenues other than the Apple featured list (ex drawing apps, higher priced games.) It seems that the marketing channel that is being provided for free is being mistaken for the only way to market.

Fundamentally as a developer if I want my app to sell for more money, I should make it bring more value to the customer, not hope for minimum pricing constraints on all apps. It's a great thing as a consumer that distribution and marketing channels like the app store have made it possible for me to use more software, and spend more money on software than I ever did on a pc.

[0] See minimum pricing of Xbox live games on both Xbox and Windows Phone

<comment><AUTHOR> "This article seems like a strange mix of a Microsoft marketing piece, and a call for app developer collusion."

Author here; definitely not asking for collusion. More specifically, here is what I said:

"Look, you're a developer – not a rodent in a maze. You should be able to recognize the pattern and the habit-forming behavior from a distance: if you bring iOS's terrible economics to Windows 8, then Win8 will have similarly terrible economics.

Microsoft set the minimum price of an app in the Windows Store to $1.49 for a reason: to give developers a clean slate on app economics. You want a better opportunity than iOS? Then don't ship iOS-utility (low-utility) apps with iOS prices on a platform that is purposefully engineered to do better!"

What I'm asking developers to do is: don't ship fart apps and other toys that pollute the iOS app store. Do what Router .CoCPit did and take advantage of WinRT's rich feature set (UPnP support in that particular instance) to deliver apps that are higher utility and thus worth more.

WinRT's native capabilities give developers access to a lot of things that could only be done through traditional desktop apps previously, and combines it with an App Store distribution model that has some new twists on pricing and monetization (expiring in-app purchases, for instance.)

I'm telling developers to take advantage of that and not blindly replicate what they did on iOS or Android.

WinRT will create opportunities for developers to build sustainable businesses off of higher utility, higher price,d and highly targeted applications - <USER2> that are used by 10s of thousands, not millions.

The hit-driven mentality that pervades iOS need not apply here if we realize what we have in front of us.

Does that make more sense?

<comment><USER5> I think you don't understand individuals. We just want to eat - <USER3> developers really only care about making money.

If a fart app is going to make an individual developer good money, nothing you can say will stop them from being made.

If developers can seemingly make more money by charging less, nothing you can say will make them stop charging less.

Microsoft set a price floor to attract developers who aren't thinking about 1 year in the future, when Microsoft will either remove that floor because their platform is successful enough (they don't have to court developers), or they will kill the platform itself (and your app).

<comment><USER6> > Individual developers really only care about making money.

I think it is worse than this, (some) individual developers care about getting rich with one lucky, undeserved hit app. If they cared about a good _average_ income, they would get a proper job as an iOS developer instead.

The bad news for Windows 8 is that this behavior will be at its peak right after opening the store. On the rather mature market of iOS, I haven't heard of overnight fart-app millionaires in a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The developers have nothing to do with it. The types of apps and pricing structure that will appear in the store depends entirely on how the store owner curates and presents the apps. Developers will obviously just price to maximize/revenue or exposure depending on their goals.

Steam for example has none of the same problems as the app store because they very actively curate, and they don't let the riff raff in, which erodes consumer confidence in shopping in the store.

Apple on the other hand, actively structures their store to drive down prices. The busiest, most profitable placement in the store is the top volume charts. Which naturally means that developers will lower their prices to climb the charts and get better placement. Additionally they don't curate much, or allow demos, so consumer confidence that they will like the app they buy is low.

<comment><USER8> > "Steam for example has none of the same problems as the app store because > they very actively curate, and they don't let the riff raff in, which erodes > consumer confidence in shopping in the store."

I love Steam, but they don't police it as much as you think.

First off, pre-orders are always problematic as Steam doesn't know if a new game is going to be good or an unfinished tech demo that was released one year too early, which was the case for a game I pre-ordered last year. If it's bad enough they'll do refunds, but you need to push them and they won't always grant them if you don't ask in a timely manner.

More troubling, they sell games that they know are broken. Full Spectrum Warrior is one example that I can think of. The game tries to resolve a no- longer existing address hundreds of times a second and lags horribly. It's easily fixed but Steam support doesn't care because it's not Valve's game.

Steam does a lot of things right, but it's very much a buyer beware situation, and for higher stakes than a $0.99 app.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, the games will have problems, but you don't need to sift through hundreds of lame cash-in microapps that make early-2000 era "punch the monkey" Flash adds look gameplay rich to deal with.

I was assuming the meaning for that statement was on that point, not on a developer supporting an 8 year old game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've thought for a while that the Apple app store has become very problematic for independent software developers. Somehow the consumer expectation for the reasonable price of an app has been driven below $2 no matter how much utility it provides. I hear people regularly complaining when apps they will use for hundreds of hours cost more than $3. Or bitching because the developer of such an app did not reply to their email (when the time spent answering such an email might be $5 - $10 based on a reasonable wage for the developer). We have major hit games that would have cost $50 on a console or PC coming out for $3 - $5 on phones and tablets. The prices to me are just not sustainable. At the moment, the excitement and opportunity of working in the mobile software industry is still driving developers to be willing to ship things way under cost just to develop their skills, gain a foothold and to participate in something they enjoy. But this can't last forever, and I'm not sure how it is going to correct itself.

</comment><comment><USER11> Somewhat relevant, how it all started on OSX: [http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/06/first-wave-of-mac-app- st...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/06/first-wave-of-mac-app-store-apps- features-broad-range-of-prices/)

@Author: for the latest numbers: [http://www.distimo.com/leaderboards/apple- mac-app-store/unit...](http://www.distimo.com/leaderboards/apple-mac-app- store/united-states/business/paid)

App store pricing is a function of intrinsic value to the customer and competition in the market. No matter what you propose, the race to the bottom (optimal) can only be avoided if similarly skilled developers in cheaper countries can be kept out of the store. Good luck with that...

Initial market leaders have limited choices: out-market, out-innovate, out- price or out-service the competition. Deliver value or perish. It's a 'win' for the consumer, who can vote with their wallets (now transparent) and their reviews (also transparent). In general, it's a win in terms of quality and experience for the consumer, and for the small developer as well.

I am very happy about this. Big name companies can no longer get away with crappy software and crappy support. Little guys can shine. For most developers amongst us, this is an opportunity, not a threat.

PS Though I like the feature of 15min review on Android, I think this breaks the feedback and quality cycle (who bothers to complain if you got your money back?!?). They should abandon this mechanism.

</comment><comment><USER12> Smart developers will charge money one way or another, but there _will_ be a race to the bottom for most verticals. Now that a single individual for $100 can get a distribution license and ship an app that does something, the barrier is too low to force higher prices or higher quality. As long as that individual is willing to sell their product for cheaper than the next product, eventually there is a race to the bottom.

Software's incremental cost is $0 on the app store, so you can sell it for $0 and throw a few ads on it, and if the dev makes > $0 they might be happy with that, and if they aren't they'll adjust prices upward until they get what they want.

Also, this doesn't happen with physical distribution usually because things can't sell for less than the cost to manufacture, distribute, and sell. At least, the price for physical goods doesn't hit $0.

</comment><comment><USER13> Slightly rough characterization of iOS apps, but I must agree that apps on Windows 8 desktop can essentially be viewed as full software products. Plus, it will frequently be backed by businesses so money may not be as sensitive.

Personally, I hope that tradition PC game makers take advantage of the MS Shop and continue to charge the same as they currently do. This could translate very well for other software products/apps as the games largely drove the $.99 revolution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly - developers doing Windows 8 need to take advantage of the fact that they get inexpensive distribution directly onto desktops and laptops, where their apps can be treated like "full software" products, as you put it, and not mobile apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Really? Even now in its juvenile stage the Windows 8 store suffers from most of the problems of the that plague the AppStore - the microsoft imposed censorship, guarantees that some interesting apps will never be made. And never be payed for. So you are left with yet another bland clone.

The other thing that the store gives you is low visibility. Because there is one and one only channel of distribution for these apps - currently if I take only the most popular games - it is a list of 60 or 90 titles. I cannot read the titles of the games, let alone try some non-free. There are no humble bundles, gogs, desuras, gamersgate or key-sites from which to obtain or which can increase the visibility and renown. And no - review sites are not good enough because the seller loyalty lays with the customer. The professional reviewer usually with the company that pays the bills.

The problem with apps is there are too many of them. You get overloaded. Where as with an open platform you can tune to the distribution channel that serves your needs best in the app store world this is impossible.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've said in other places and I'll say it again. One of the problems is that Microsoft also takes a lot of money for their dev tools. The express editions are limited with the things that can help your apps shine. AFAIK profiling is only available in VS 2012 Professional and up. $500 can be hard to justify for a moonlighting app dev. Heck I've even worked at companies where $500 for a dev tool was too much.

This is actually contrary to Apple where they give you every opportunity with their tools to make shiny apps and make their platform a joy to use.

And also I'm not saying that Microsoft should give away their tools for free. I just think that the cost is too prohibitive to individual developers who would like to make their apps "great" instead of "good enough". This could mean that the store would be full of "good enough" apps. And if it is only "good enough" why charge more?

<comment><USER16> Visual Studio Premium is the first version with a profiler. It's currently $6200.

<comment><USER15> According to [http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/compare#f...](http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/compare#feature- chart-heading) it is professional for VS 2012. But it is still expensive unless you are dedicated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hope this works out for the Windows developers, but I have a suspicion that it wasn't the developers alone who ruined the iOS App Store.

And, unfortunately, it really is "ruined"[1]. I started my current project as an iPhone app, then decided to move to an iPad, but, six months ago, after really evaluating the market, I realized I needed to make my product a web- based subscription with mobile features (probably embodied as apps). There was no way I could charge enough for my app to make a business, since I'm not creating a product that caters to the tens of millions.

1\. It is ruined in the context of being able to make a living on an app without getting insanely lucky. There is little a company can do to market around the luck factor, and prices are so low that there is no middle ground.

<comment><USER18> "It is ruined in the context of being able to make a living on an app without getting insanely lucky."

That was a moment in time, really. It wasn't long enough to get nostalgic about it. The market was just developing. In any case, you had to be insanely lucky to create the right app at the right time then as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >The iOS App Store is a Race to the Bottom

It is very easy to build something the 2nd time especially when your competitor has invested heavily into working out the kinks. For many software- chop-shops it makes sense to find something with high downloads and without much competition, rip it off, and sell it at 1/2 the price. Repeat ad nauseum.

I think the only way to curb this race to the bottom is to re-introduce brand recognition to the consumer base. If software company X is known for producing well-tested-reliable software then I wouldn't hesitate to pay 20-50% more for their version of the software. Unless Windows Software does this I think it'll just be another lowest-bidder-wins marketplace.

<comment><USER20> Cool idea, except 20-50% more of 99 cents is still squarely in the race-to- the-bottom category, in my book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The Mac App Store is a _much_ better comparison than iOS, and it's far from a race to the bottom there. If you look at the Top 100 Grossing apps, only 10 or so are priced at $4.99 or less.

Most of the apps are closer to the traditional desktop software pricing range of $19.99 - $99.99.

</comment><comment><USER22> Despite all the criticism in this thread, I thank you for writing this, and I hope you are right.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article is a useful combination of "here are some very real reasons the Windows app store is different" and "waaaaah i don't like competition don't make things cheap and impair my ability to make a living off of users; you'd better collude to make things more expensive or you're bad people." To the first part, I say, bravo. To the second, I say, call me a waa-mbulance. :P

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here; I don't feel that way about #2 at all.

You know what I don't want? To read bunch of stories about how the Windows Store is a "terrible opportunity for developers" and "no one is making money" because developers recreated the same economic problems that plague the iOS app store in the Windows Store.

Developers learn from their mistakes when they screw up their code; they should similarly learn from their mistakes when they screw up their marketing and pricing. So far, haven't seen much of the latter looking at what's currently available in the Windows Store.

The bottom line is: as an app publisher, how you set price / payment expectations with your user is almost more important than what your app actually does if your goal is to build a sustainable business for yourself. Taking the time to survey the ecosystem and realize that the market forces of Windows 8 are different and potentially much more lucrative is well worth the investment.

<comment><USER23> Well yes, and bravo to those sentiments, which are insightful and worthy of praise... but then you say a bunch of things like: _"If developers like you don't screw it up, that is."_ "Your goal is to not do what your careless friends in iOS-land did and create a hopeless ghetto of a marketplace." "You as a developer have a responsibility when it comes to the economics of the Windows Store."

I'm not the only one here who felt your "call to action" felt like a call to collusion or bitterness at not being able to squeeze more money off the Apple app store. If I make apps for the Windows store, I'll charge what I feel like charging, thank you very much, and I'll have no one's moralizing lectures. Thanks. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> "I'm not the only one here who felt your "call to action" felt like a call to collusion or bitterness at not being able to squeeze more money off the Apple app store."

Sorry you felt that way, but that's not what I said :)

You can charge what you want; just don't be surprised by the results if you don't attempt to learn the market and realize your own value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There are so many apps I might buy if I could try them, but I will never buy apps that I can't try. The ad model sucks and the lite model (2 different apps) sucks.

You should be able to install, use for 3 days, then it would get deleted from your device if you don't buy it.

<comment><USER25> Wrong. NOBODY should have the power to delete things from my hard drive without my permission.

<comment><USER26> Then you wouldn't get to use the store. There is no conflict.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Author doesn't seem to know about the Mac App Store (<http://www.apple.com/osx/apps/app-store.html>)

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here; I love the Mac App Store and want to eventually use MonoMac to port some of my Windows stuff over to it :)

<http://www.mono-project.com/MonoMac>

I had A LOT of trouble finding publicly available data on how the Mac App Store is used. Sales figures, installs per day, price distribution, etc...

If you know something I don't, post it here and I'll do a follow-up.

<comment><USER26> _> Author here; I love the Mac App Store and want to eventually use MonoMac to port some of my Windows stuff over to it :)_

I personally don't recommend this. I've been a big, big Mono booster over the years, but I have a hard time trusting the developers behind it. (For an illustrative example as to why, take a look at MonoTouch's problems with iOS 6. That bit my employer in the ass. It hasn't happened with MonoMac, but to me there's a "yet" involved.)

As un-sexy as it is, C or C++ seem to be the way to go. It's what I'm doing now, with a platform-appropriate hat on top that uses as little Objective-C (on OS X) as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good points in the article, although I didn't like the condescending tone of "step into my office for a talk".

Reminds me of the Sparrow mail client[1], which shut down in spite of having a great product. Also, allowing a trial period and own in-app purchases is a good move by Microsoft.

Also, how are the Mac OS X App Store developers and prices faring? I think that's an important point of comparison that the author failed to make.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/you- sh...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/07/you-shall-know- google-by-its-trail-of-dead-a-sparrow-users-lament/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here; sorry that you didn't like the tone - was trying to do something different stylistically and I can see how it comes across as condescending. That was not my intention :(

I don't have as much data on the OS X app store - but prices do trend towards traditional desktop economics moreso than native app economics.

Windows 8 will be interesting, because it's not just the desktop ecosystem - it's also tablet and phone too. However, as I pointed out - I think the dominant devices in market will be X86 and X64 for some time to come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't worry, I won't "screw up" the Windows Store by accidentally developing anything for it.

By the way, Adam Smith called. He wants to have a chat with you. Maybe you should "step into his office."</comment>


The MAD Computer Program - <AUTHOR> https://meatfighter.com/mad/ <comment><USER2> Ah good times, I remember spending countless hours typing in source code like this. At one point I also submitted the source for a couple of games I'd written to a computer magazine when I was younger, and was delighted to get one of them published. My address was included; if people sent me a $5 note and a 5.25" floppy I'd return their disk containing a copy of the game plus a couple of other "bonus" apps I'd written. I think I sold maybe 4-5 copies this way and was pretty pleased with myself at the time!

I do recall having to send a disk back and forth a few times to one customer because I'd reformatted his disk to double-sided (360k) but he only had a single-sided drive[0]. After he tried and failed to read it, I spoke to him on the phone, figured out the problem and asked him to return it. I reformatted the disk back to single-sided (180k) so he could try again. That didn't work either since it turned out the single sided drive only supported 160k rather than 180k, which necessitated yet another round trip of his disk through the postal system.

[0] I'd been using a Sanyo MBC-555-2, he had a Sanyo MBC-550.

<comment><USER3> Do you mean double sided or double density?

I distinctly recall having to rotate discs on my BBC, and seems strange to needlessly break backwards compatibility.

<comment><USER2> His drive was single-sided double-density, giving 160k storage. The ones I was using were double-sided double-density, providing 360k of storage. I have no idea why the single sided drive had a bit less than half the storage of the double sided one though.

There were two "hacks" available with single vs double sided drives and disks. 5.25" floppies had a small notch in the side that, if you covered it with a sticker, meant the drive treated it as read-only. By cutting an equivalent notch in the opposite side of a disk to make it appear writable it was possible to flip it over 180° and use both sides of a double-sided disk in a single-sided drive. Conversely, disks that were rated as single-sided (and hence cheaper) could generally still be used successfully in a double-sided drive, though it wasn't recommended to store anything too important that way because the failure/problem rate was noticeably higher. My guess is that the single sided disks were binned as such due to them failing tests on one of the sides during manufacturing.

<comment><USER3> Ah I see, so he had sent you a single sided disc then, that makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Quick translation to javascript: [https://jsbin.com/qipapokova/1/edit?js,output](https://jsbin.com/qipapokova/1/edit?js,output)

(Note I flipped it with css, too lazy to fix in js :)

Edit: Perhaps more historically accurate if you can watch it draw: [https://jsbin.com/veniwodidi/1/edit?js,output](https://jsbin.com/veniwodidi/1/edit?js,output)

<comment><USER5> > Perhaps more historically accurate if you can watch it draw

Were computers really that slow back then or is that effect exaggerated for nostalgia? Really hard to imagine computers that slow for us young generation.

<comment><USER4> If anything, my simulation is being generous, at least for the C64: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4h9a2QGdQM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4h9a2QGdQM)

That is, drawing from BASIC though. Games weren't saddled with that, so they drew faster.

A comprehensive comparison would be hard, but just by straight instructions per second: An old 6502 is probably 1/2 a MIP with each instruction dealing with 8 bits. A new AMD Ryzen is 350,000 MIPS, with each instruction able to deal with 64 bits. So, 700k times faster, not including the difference between 8bit and 64bit.

<comment><USER6> Man, that video makes me appreciate my old TI-83 so much more, even with its lower resolution...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I spent an entire night typing this into my Commodore 64. And it didn't work. I also messed up the save to tape, and never had the patience to type it all over again.

Real world software programming was hard, and it still is. It remains just as frustrating when it doesn't work.

<comment><USER8> Great story! I remember typing in a few 'magazine programs' also, on my Vic-20.

<comment><USER9> The most frustrating part for me with those magazine programs was the number of them written for a computer other than mine. I drooled over all the cool C64 game programs, then went over to my section and typed in some ascii maze or text adventure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was in college about this time; did a lot of programming on the Apple //e. I didn't have one, but the college I attended had a lab full of them in the business department, and a lab full of boring green-screen IBMs in the computer science department. What can I say, I like color. I wrote a bunch of Apple code that is long gone and not lamented, and created some RPG materials that I did rescue from the floppys a couple of decades ago.

</comment><comment><USER11> I typed this into a Commodore C64 with a kid next door. It felt like an eternity to type those rows.

The first time something was bad and we had to debug. The disappointment was tremendous.

The next time it worked, and felt magical how all that sweat and effort and those nonsense numbers became Alfred.

</comment><comment><USER12> "What me worry?"

Interesting, loved MAD and had a VIC-20 early in the eighties, but think by '85 (the days of Miami Vice) I'd already put it into storage. So, while the issue looks familiar, don't think I tried it.

I have most of my MADs in a box around here somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER13> I noticed that most of the DATA numbers were negative. I swapped the signs on all the numbers, and that saved about 250 characters. That would have added up when lots of machines still had 16KB of RAM.

</comment><comment><USER14> I used to do these all the time, I think it was mainly from Byte magazines I would get from the library. It was on a TI-994A. External floppy drives were a godsend over the tape machine.

</comment><comment><USER15> I remember being 8 years old, having a real copy of this magazine and typing this into my TI-99/4A. It worked. It was amazing.

This silly program undoubtably helped me get interested in technology.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you feel about sense of urgency on hotels bookings websites? - <AUTHOR> Sense of urgency, scarcity are all part of dark patterns used by the likes of Hotels.com, Expedia, Booking, etc to give us the rush to book a hotel as soon as we see those "only 1 room left" kind of messages.<p>Does that sales practice bother you? <comment><USER2> I don't believe it. Because I immediately view it as marketing, I'm not bothered by it. I know not everyone thinks this way, however.

The only time those numbers would've possibly been real was my college's graduation, because there were few hotels and thousands of families coming into a relatively small area.

</comment><comment><USER3> Completely immoral and wrong. Also along the same lines is "fake countdown clocks" and "fake inventory warning."</comment>


The iPhone Is 10 Years Old. Here's the Story of Its Birth - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/books/review/one-device-secret-history-iphone-brian-merchant.html <comment><AUTHOR> June 20, 2007 will be remembered as the watershed moment of our generation.</comment>


Make Quora better - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ozradiano/quora-improve-these-3-things-and-a-bonus-d0d017043e22#.g3tuv5uau <comment><USER2> Thanks Itamar. All of you - please let me know what you think</comment>


Haiku Deck - visual presentations, photo support by Chute (W12) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.getchute.com/2012/08/22/chute-powers-haiku-decks-photo-picker/

<comment><USER2> I'm the developer of Haiku Deck. Chute is powering a core piece of our functionality, and they've been a joy to work with. Our early beta testers were asking to import their own images from their device and existing online albums like Facebook and Instagram, and with Chute I was able to add that functionality to our app in less than an hour. We're a small team, so it's incredibly helpful to use tools like Chute as leverage points to get our v1 app in users' hands as quickly as possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We really love the implementation you've done and are glad that this small part of our platform is helping folks use their photos in new and interesting ways.</comment></comment>


Tech Elites Recreate Burning Man Inside Their Living Rooms - <AUTHOR> https://nytimes.com/2018/06/29/style/what-is-a-soul-salon.html <comment><USER2> What does this nonsense have to do with Burning Man?

<comment><USER3> It has nothing to do with the "celebrate self-sufficiency, leave-no-trace- environmentalist" Burning Man.

It has a lot to do with the "spend thousands of dollars to go to the desert, sit in an airconditioned pavilion and talk about how money just, like, doesn't matter man" Burning Man.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you see a piece in the NYT that's making fun of _those weird tech nerds_ , odds are high it's in the styles section. Choire Sicha, formerly of Gawker, took over the section last year, and since then there's been a rash of pieces akin to this one. Not exactly hit pieces but it's hard to miss the wry condescension throughout.

<comment><USER5> You might be interested in reading Choire's definition of what the Styles section is/should be.

>I totally hear you that the name "Styles" can sometimes seem like a purple spotlight on a green bowl of fruit, or like a goofy headline on a serious story. We will aggressively cover politics, gender, sexuality, health, crime, shoes and contouring. These things make change in the world. You think Sports is going to cover all this?

Much more here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/reader-center/choire- sich...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/reader-center/choire-sicha-styles- editor-q-and-a.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who cares what these people do in their own living rooms as diversion? Also, Burning Man doesn't seem to have anything to do with what they're doing, other than music and (likely) drugs.

</comment><comment><USER7> They really took a journalistic stretch on those "Tech Elites." Not really sure what the connection is to Burning Man either.

What is someone really supposed to take away from this article?

<comment><USER5> The article mentions both Musk and Thiel attending one of these songversations. I don't like either of them, but I think "Tech Elite" fits them well enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Its a house party. They've invented a house party.</comment>


Free Illustrations of the Natural World - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/over-150000-illustrations-wildlife-are-available-online-free-180974167/ <comment><USER2> Jump straight to the wonderful images [https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/sets/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/sets/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Also mentioned on DataHorder ([https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/extitr/150000_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/extitr/150000_botanical_and_animal_illustrations/)), whole set is more than 200TB

</comment><comment><USER4> There's an entire community project waiting to happen here with annotation of each of these images with an NCBI taxonomy ID. I would certainly love to see these illustrations come back in to vogue in various databases.

There is value in the drawing process, as it is in part itself an annotation exercise, wherein the illustrator decides which anatomical features to draw (or not draw) on the organism. If done well, this can reveal a lot of information relatively quickly.

</comment><comment><USER5> Am I the only one who can smell these pages as I look at them?

</comment><comment><USER6> Are they all public domain? If I follow individual images, the ones I've clicked on in flickr say 'public domain'.

<comment><USER7> Some are labeled with: "Some rights reserved" e.g. [https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/6009088872/in/al...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/biodivlibrary/6009088872/in/album-72157627355864442/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What a wonderful collection but unfortunately heavily compresed, showing some heavy compression artifacts.

</comment><comment><USER9> Free as in...? Free to watch?</comment>