Visual Doom AI Competition - <AUTHOR> http://vizdoom.cs.put.edu.pl/competition-cig-2016 <comment><USER2> I'd like to see a single-player bot that can do human-level speedruns and/or beat stuff like [https://www.twitch.tv/blooditekrypto/v/30795033](https://www.twitch.tv/blooditekrypto/v/30795033)

Baby steps. Beating other bots in deathmatch is a good start. I love that they only use the rocket launcher, giving the careless bot an equal chance of blowing itself up.

Parsing what's on the screen in Doom is potentially a lot easier than in modern games: since there is no texture filtering or anti-aliasing, and due to the 2.5D perspective, most vertical runs of pixels on the screen map exactly to (linearly?) scaled columns in wall textures or sprites. I would not be surprised if you could come up with a fairly simple algorithm to determine the exact position and orientation of the player and the objects on screen within the map, without any real AI/learning involved.

<comment><USER3> How do you figure? The doom maps are almost all completely dull looking and gray, aren't lit realistically (so depth from shading becomes harder to determine), and because of no anti-aliasing, lines are far more jagged (meaning the computer needs to be smarter, in order to join disparate lines together it 'thinks' are connected). There's barely any distinguishing features separating wall boundaries from texture details either. I think you might be underestimating the challenge here.

<comment><USER4> How is an anti-aliased line easier to read for a computer? It should be fairly easy to find lines and use those to get vanishing points for orientation. Distance of enemies should be more or less a mapping of screen height, since you're mostly looking straight-forward. It sounds super doable, especially with machine learning becoming a thing, more or less delegating the task of putting all those inputs together to make sense of it to the computer.

<comment> gene-h Well you have more unique features from which you can do localization on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related: [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076552-google- deepmind...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2076552-google-deepmind-ai- navigates-a-doom-like-3d-maze-just-by-looking/)

 _Google DeepMind AI navigates a Doom-like 3D maze just by looking_

Paper: [http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01783](http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01783)

</comment><comment><USER6> Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bVb0ETV...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bVb0ETVF1p8J:vizdoom.cs.put.edu.pl/competition- cig-2016+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting article and poses the question and what I would theorize is the correct way for A.I. to learn how to be more human or machine learn is in a virtual environment. i.e. create a 3D based game to teach it how to interact in the physical world in order for robotic A.I. advancement and human interaction. Similar to Google Drive then test on the road in real-life.

To the point on visual processing a stealth A.I. (not for long) working in this space is Magic Pony Technology ([http://www.magicpony.technology/](http://www.magicpony.technology/)) operating from London and guys I spotted at London A.I. who have previously hosted Prediction IO and Swiftkey at their last events.

Another caveat for this test is sound, human players will have audio but the A.I. will be purely visual so a slight disadvantage.

We are working on speech-to-text and text-to-speech technology for our A.I. voice enabled finance assistant which is in beta at WealRo ([http://www.wealro.com](http://www.wealro.com)) with a view to enabling a visual face recognition at some point in order for the A.I. to gather information from facial expressions. Always happy to get any thoughts on the potential usefulness of such an integration?

<comment><USER8> > Another caveat for this test is sound, human players will have audio but the > A.I. will be purely visual so a slight disadvantage.

This project says it only uses the screen buffer, but perhaps (and this is beyond my low level knowledge) there is also an equivalent "sound buffer" where it could tap into left and right channels?

<comment><USER9> No, there is no sound buffer. It is an interesting extension to our project but I think the visual information is significantly more important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The site seems to have moved to [http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/visualdoomai/competition- cig-201...](http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/visualdoomai/competition- cig-2016.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> The question seems flawed, as having an AI making decisions only based on visual information is basically confusing how you get the information (visual) and what information the AI get (only limited information, similar to what the player has). Two different problems that can be solved completely independently. The first problem makes no sense for a game (how intensive would be the computation), while the latter one could be very interesting, since it would rely on designing the AI more like a natural player. The catch however is that it's a "could", in itself there is no reason to imagine such AIs would make the game better in any way (over "cheating" AI's).

<comment><USER12> Your argument is very unclear, and your last sentence makes no sense. What exactly is the problem with jointly learning perception and control? They are widely considered to be intertwined problems in robotics. Not independent at all. But for what it's worth, you will find researchers working on all sorts of different approaches.

Clearly this competition is an attempt to build off successes in reinforcement learning with agents that play games using only images and scores.

<comment><USER13> I don't know if your parent comment is correct, but their argument is really easy to follow. I'll put what I think their argument is in different words.

"this contest is like making Google make Alphago have to also include a robot and image recognition and making the robot have to place the stones." obviously that has "nothing to do with" the game and is "how Alphago gets the information."

But Go (and tetris etc) are games of perfect information where perception of the game state is not a challenge. If you have access to the internal data structure representing the Go or tetris board that's the same as having to scrape it off of a screen and recognize it or do real world image recognition.

If your parent comment is wrong it's because that's not the kind of game Doom is.

So what you consider "intertwined" really isn't, unless Google has not even built a go engine, since a human was doing the perception.

(again, I am just saying your parent's argument is easy to follow, not that they're correct in this case.)

<comment><USER11> Thank you, for the excellent rephrasing.

>But Go (and tetris etc) are games of perfect information where perception of the game state is not a challenge.

In general, "perception of the game state" is not a challenge, at least according to good game design principles (e.g. in danmaku shmups, perception can be a challenge because of visual effects that are not really part of the game, but this is seen as poor game design, similarly to how being unable to differentiate backgrounds from platforms in a run&jump is bad design). Although there are games where the perception of the game state is a game mechanic, but Doom isn't really one.

But even in Doom, you can separate quite neatly the two tasks. The vision task essentially aims to reconstruct a model of the world. But in a video-game, this model comes for free. You can trivially limit the information an agent get to what he would get as a player (in games like MGS it's already the case, albeit in a very simplistic way). It's fairly easy to make a function that computes what is visible, what sounds a player would hear, etc. You can then rephrase the problem as make an AI that can only access this function, and this wouldn't change anything.

So for the AI community, I think a more interesting question would have been to design an AI over such a function.

<comment><USER14> If the contestants are using deep learning, I don't see why it should be any more difficult to generate a _meaningful_ , low-dimensional representation of the game-state from raw pixels than from an abstract view input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This sounds fun. I hope they stream some of it on twitch as well.

</comment><comment><USER16> This looks great fun, I am working on a convnet to play Doom.

</comment><comment><USER17> [Content after page loading]

Motivation

Doom has been considered one of the most influential titles in the game industry since it popularized the first-person shooter (FPS) genre and pioneered immersive 3D graphics. Even though more than 20 years have passed since Doom's release, the methods for developing AI bots have not improved significantly in newer FPS productions. In particular, bots have still to "cheat" by accessing game's internal data such as maps, locations of objects and positions of (player or non-player) characters. In contrast, a human can play FPS games using a computer screen as the only source of information. Can AI effectively play Doom using only raw visual input? Goal

The participants of the Visual Doom AI competition are supposed to submit a controller (C++, Python, or Java) that plays Doom. The provided software gives a real-time access to the screen buffer as the only information the agent can base its decision on. The winner of the competition will be chosen in a deathmatch tournament. Machine Learning

Although the participants are allowed to use any technique to develop a controller, the design and efficiency of the Visual Doom AI environment allows and encourages participants to use machine learning methods such as reinforcement deep learning. Competition Tracks 1\. Limited deathmatch on a known map.

The only available weapon is the Rocket Launcher, with which the agents start. The agents can also gather Medikits and ammo. 2\. Full deathmatch on an unknown map.

Different weapons and items are available. Two maps are provided for training. The final evaluation will take place on three maps unknown to the participants beforehand. Important Dates

        31.05.2016: Warm-up deathmatch submission deadline
        15.08.2016: Final deathmatch submission deadline
        20-23.09.2016: Results announcement (CIG)

Contact

        For announcements and questions subscribe to firstname.lastname@example.com
        Bugs: Open a new GitHub ticket

Getting started

        Download (or compile) the ViZDoom environment.
        Follow the instructions.

What will the Deathmatch Look Like?

Your controller will fight against all other controllers for 10 minutes on a single map. Each game will be repeated 12 times for track 1 and 4 times for track 2, which involves three maps. The controllers will be ranked by the number of frags.

                In the case of lots of submissions, we will introduce some eliminations.

Technical Information

        Each controller will be executed on a separate machine having a single CPU and GPU at its only disposal.
        The machine specification: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU @ 3.60GHz + GTX 960 4GB
        Operating system: Windows or Ubuntu Linux 15.04

How to Submit my Entry?

To accept your submission we will need the following data:

        name of the team
        team members and their affiliations
        max. 2 pages description of the method used to create the controller (pdf)
        a list of (sensible) software requirements for the agent to run (ask beforehand)
        a link to the source code of your controller and additional files (max 1GB in total)
        an instruction how to build and execute the controller

The form to submit the above data will be provided later.

                In the spirit of open science, all submissions will be published on this website after the competition is finished.

Organizers

Wojciech Jaśkowski, Michał Kempka, Marek Wydmuch, Jakub Toczek

</comment><comment><USER18> So they are trying to make it learn how to go on a killing spree. Doesn't sound like such a great plan.

<comment><USER5> Replace the sprites, and instead of slaughtering enemies with the chainsaw, the AI heals wounded civilians with a medikit.

Doom is similar to the Lenna picture in image processing: Somewhat prurient, but well-known. See for example psDooM, where you kill Linux processes: [http://psdoom.sourceforge.net/](http://psdoom.sourceforge.net/)

P.S: Who will teach the AI cheat codes such as idchoppers?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you access your dev environment away from home? - <AUTHOR> I have a fairly usable dev setup at home. I run Windows and have Gentoo Linux running in a VirtualBox VM to do all my development work on. I run Emacs and IntelliJ in it. It's essentially the same setup I've been using since the mid-2000s but inside of a VM instead of the machine's native OS.
Unlike the mid-2000s, I now travel a lot! This is also the era of easy and cheap machines in the cloud. Surely someone has come up with a great solution by now for moving your dev environment to a place you can access anywhere you go!
My preferred solution would leave my dev environment unchanged (Emacs and IntelliJ) and be able to have a GUI, not be strictly CLI based. I don't want to expose my VM to the network because I don't want to deal with the security headaches, and also I like to turn my computer off to conserve electricity.
How do you, fellow HNers, solve the mobile dev environment problem for yourselves? <comment><USER2> I develop on a laptop and carry it with me if I think I'll want it. Some things I develop on a server hosted by a third party and SSH in.

</comment><comment><USER3> openvpn & a good isp</comment>


Ask HN: Should I learn to program old machines? - <AUTHOR>

Often take the time to read the stories of great programmers. One thing I note, especially in Coders at Work, is that they all seemed to learn on an old machine. I get the impression that writing useful software under those constraints shaped their outlook for the rest of their careers.<p>Do you think, personally, if it's worth setting up an emulator or VM to match old hardware and learning to write cool, useful programs on it? <comment><USER2> I'd say yes. Grab a microcontroller and do something fun with it, or setup a constrained machine and write some real software using it. I don't necessarily suggest using old architectures that are no longer relevant, but instead a constrained resource machine.

My reasoning is it forces you to really make better code choices, algorithms etc. Simply because many times choosing the wrong algorithm etc on newer hardware has little consequence until you get a larger data set that is hard to test with.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER3> An option would be embedded stuff. Grab a microcontroller board and do fun stuff with that.

</comment><comment><USER4> You're the only one that can answer that question. Is it worth it _to you_ to learn with those old school restraints vs. modern architectures?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh yes. Curiosity is my sole driver, not economic reasons. It sounds like a tonne of fun. Just wondered what everyone else's take on it is.

<comment><USER5> If it's curiosity, and this stuff makes you curious, then you're wasting your time doing anything else.

Have fun!</comment></comment></comment>


Edit like an Ace - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/905-edit-like-an-ace

<comment><USER2> For those following Canvas projects it is worth noting the history here, that Mozilla Bespin became Mozilla Skywriter and then ditched HTML5 Canvas altogether for divs only, finally merging with Ace.

<comment><USER3> Have you got any links/pointers as to why they switched? I remember their use of canvas being a strategic design choice early on (with IIRC, a list of reasons why just using the DOM wouldn't work so well)

<comment><USER2> Implementing good text controls in Canvas is a fool's errand. The spec itself warns against it:

[http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current- work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#best-practices)

They wanted to be ambitious and to their credit they got very far. They gave a few talks on the hurdles they had to overcome. Measuring the height of text, making their own custom scrollbars, resizing woes, etc. They did a good job with a lot of it.

They admitted it was fun but too hard to get everything right. They ran into most of the problems in the spec: "Unlike Skywriter, Ace uses the DOM to render instead of the <canvas> element making it compatible with a wider range of browsers and potentially giving it a leg up in accessibility."

[http://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/2011/01/18/mozilla- skywrite...](http://mozillalabs.com/skywriter/2011/01/18/mozilla-skywriter- has-been-merged-into-ace/)

The code for Skywriter was actually really good. I used a lot of it to make my in-canvas scrollbars before moving on to my own code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> By having this tied into github I'm beginning to see how use Ace (or similar) instead of vim/emacs as a day-to-day code edit workflow...

Just fork a project to your account on github, edit in Ace, and then make a pull request when you are done.

Would people do this? If not, is Ace just going to be for minor edits, etc?

I'm curious how other people will use this.

EDIT: people the child comments are telling me the fork is done automatically for you - cool. I need to play around with this on other projects!

<comment><USER5> Just wanted to note that a fork is automatically created and a pull request created when you edit a file in a repository you don't have push access to. So the workflow is even simpler: 1.) see file, 2.) edit file and save, 3.) land on send pull request page.

<comment><USER6> great. But perhaps a fork is still needed for editing multiple files and submitting as one pull request?

or the pull request would accumulate changes?

I cannot reproduce but I noticed a situation when I was issuing multiple pull requests and the previous pull request somehow got commits that weren't intended to end up there; so I begin to think that it was intentional.

(just asking because I would like to avoid creating a tmp github account just to try that out, otherwise I wouldn't bother you with silly questions)

<comment><USER7> Pull requests do seem to accumulate changes if you push to your fork while there's one open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm really happy to see this feature. Sometimes I see a small problem in somebody else's code or documentation and out of sheer laziness I don't go though the trouble of forking, cloning, editing, pushing and sending a pull request. I think this will be wonderful for exactly those situations and should help encourage more people to participate in open source.

<comment><USER9> The edit feature has been there for a long time. They have added an improved editor.

<comment><USER10> Is github is speeding up even internet time? The edit button was only added to unowned repositories at the end of April. <https://github.com/blog/844-forking-with-the-edit-button>

<comment><USER11> That blog post is about automatically forking with edit. The edit button was discovered by our users nearly 3 years ago: <https://github.com/blog/143-inline-file-editing>

<comment><USER10> forking with edit is what the parent comment was talking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can see how this might silently make Github into one of the best blogging platform on the planet.

I run my blog (pepijndevos.nl) on Github, using its Jekyll feature, so my blog just got a much better online editor with preview functionality.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've checked Ace live demo[1], turned on "Emacs" keybindings and failed to see what do they have in common with Emacs, apart from the old, carpal-tunnel- syndrome-powered C-p/n/b/f movement keys.

They could use an Emacs hacker to fix it up, but Emacs hackers already have perfectly fine editor, so I do not predict any great success in this field.

[1] - <http://ajaxorg.github.com/ace/build/kitchen-sink.html>

<comment><USER14> The Vim bindings have the same issue. Sure, it's modal, and you have to hit `i` before you can insert text... but there's nearly no features when you're not in insert mode. The only one I was able to trigger off the top of my head was using `dd` to delete a line... and it didn't even yank it, so p wouldn't paste it back in. No searching, no undoing, no applying commands to multiple lines, no `.` to repeat the last action...

Like the emacs mode, it feels like it was implemented to check a feature off on a list, not because someone wanted to take advantage of the things that vi/emacs do well.

<comment><USER14> Well, I went in and submitted a pull request that'll at least give it undo as a binding and [count] args on the existing commands that it's appropriate for.

<https://github.com/ajaxorg/ace/pull/381>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is neat editor and it's cool to see how Github could eventually bill itself as your one stop shop for code editing and collaboration. My only concern is that of feature creep hurting the user experience by creating a cluttered and confusing UI. I personally feel that Github's web UI is very cluttered as it is. They possibly have one of the best user experiences that I have seen, given the large amount of data and information that they have to present and I do not think that this feature necessarily hurts it at all, but it's getting close, in my opinion.

Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER16> It would be great if it gets collaborative real time editting.

<comment><USER17> Check out ShareJS:

<https://github.com/josephg/ShareJS>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow, I'm in love with the idea of a "preview" tab showing you a git diff!

Would love to see this feature given 1st class attention in other editors!

<comment><USER19> Agree. Why in this day and age I need to fire up an external tool to look at diffs is beyond me. I appreciate the external tool exists (for times when I'm NOT in my editor/IDE to begin with) but I'd rather it was all baked in.

<comment><USER18> Even if it git or another scm wasn't available - just a diff of changes since the file was opened in the editor...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've contributed some changes and documentation to Ace, really awesome project, great to see it hitting Github!

Support for IE<9 older browsers is a little sketchy at the moment, but hopefully greater exposure through github will see more fixes and features contributed. (Fabian Jakobs seems quite open to new features as long as they fit in with the projects goals)

</comment><comment><USER21> I was already a huge fan of the Bespin / Cloud9ide / ace projects so this is great news!

</comment><comment><USER22> This is great! I'm currently working on a small web editor called anyfnwhere. In development at the moment.

check <https://github.com/keyle/anyfnwhere>

</comment><comment><USER23> From TFA: "If you're using a recent version of Safari, Chrome, or Firefox here's how it works.."

Is there a reason they miss out Internet Explorer? Makes it sound like it's not supported or something. Is it?

<comment><USER24> Apparently IE and Opera use the old editor.

</comment></comment><comment> jarek-foksa I wonder why they have chosen Ace over CodeMirror. CodeMirror has very similar set of features, is less bloated and works on more browsers.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a brilliant feature, and as close an example of cloud editing that I would consider using as any on the internet.

Does anyone know is there anything to give this a modular editor feel like vim?

If someone can deliver me an online experience with a fully functioning vim, I would be browser bound almost exclusively.

</comment><comment><USER26> I use cloud9, and love it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Finally there is support for this! I'm excited.

</comment><comment><USER28> No.

C-x k

</comment><comment><USER29> Just learn vim.</comment>


Show HN: iOS Puzzle Game that my fiancee and I made - <AUTHOR> http://itunes.apple.com/app/carrot-cart-free/id545123137?mt=8

<comment><USER2> The rabbit's downright disturbing.</comment>


Websockets and IoT: Why the two don't go together? - <AUTHOR> https://readwrite.com/2017/10/31/websockets-iot-two-dont-go-together/ <comment><USER2> An alternative application level protocol that is easily overlooked is CoAP (RFC 7252). A protocol designed for constrained devices (low memory or power, etc) that follows HTTP's REST interface, and also includes a observe (subscribe) method for watching sensor values.

It's a nice alternative to HTTP since it's a binary protocol, with little processing overhead. Supports UDP and works over 6LowPAN which MQTT and HTTP struggle with. Ideal for Bluetooth, ZigBee or Z-Wave

<comment><AUTHOR> This sounds great! I'll read up more about it and consider it further. Thanks for letting me know.</comment></comment>


Is Google Search Down? - <AUTHOR> All the results I get:<p>Server Error We're sorry but it appears that there has been an internal server error while processing your request. Our engineers have been notified and are working to resolve the issue. Please try again later. <comment><USER2> 20 minutes after the original post, still down with the same response to "old western town in pheonix". Works for other queries. Too early to be an April 1 joke. Odd.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just thi search fails "old western town in pheonix" others are fine.

<comment><USER3> Also fails on "old western town phoenix" but not "old western town on phoenix" and not on either of the failing searches with double quotes aroubd them as the search term. Also not on "old western town phoenix az" or "old western town phoenix Arizona".

And while back and forth testing it now seems to work even with the previously failing terms, but it's really slow for them.</comment></comment>


Inside the Strange New World of DIY Brain Stimulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/05/diy-brain-stimulation/

<comment><USER2> Approach with caution. The products coming out of this research at the moment (e.g. foc.us) are run by quacks. Just like those energy drinks that contain neurotransmitters (first-pass metabolism anyone and the blood-brain barrier render them useless), this is highly unlikely to cause any improvement in memory, reaction time or general cognition in the healthy individual.

tDCS and rTMS are blunt tools that broadly excite and inhibit the underlying networks by disrupting neuronal local field potentials. tDCS may be effective in treating diseases such as Parkinson's where there is a deficit in the modulation of a specific brain area, but this is wholly removed from enhancing a healthy subject's cognitive abilities, particularly when the electrodes appear almost randomly placed.

<comment><USER3> Agree about caution

Not sure those folks are quacks

But this is indeed a very promising field with powerful technology

\- co-founder with five other neuroscientists of this company --> HaloNeuro.com --> drop us a line and get involved in our clinical trials if you are interested in this topic around SF or NY

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The electric field for stimulation threshold is typically quoted as 100V/m. There's no chance of achieving that within the brain using the 9V battery and skin contact approach!

<comment><USER5> That's sort of the idea. Triggering stimulation would be akin to electro-shock therapy. The idea as I've seen it stated is to apply slight voltages that inhibit or encourage normal firing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "the electric thinking cap that makes you cleverer … and happier!"

Wonder what possible side effects it may have? The brain would complain if it's being stimulated without "consent"...

</comment><comment><USER7> TL;DR: It doesn't work. Now is anyone surprised by this? Did anyone not expect this? Well you should have. Because it had bullshit written all over it from the start.

<comment><USER8> That is not an accurate TL;DR. The DIY crowd report highly subjective improvements but the scientists are still in the early days of research (with one even ripping to shreds his _own_ work when he discovered fundamental flaws). Some scientists are worried that the DIYers might push this into 'kook' territory and thus give a negative impression to the real research, which many believe has promise.

<comment><USER7> Bloodletters reported high subjective improvements back when it was the fancy new magic treatment.

<comment><USER9> And yet, after modern medicine took over, researchers found there are cases when bloodletting is the appropriate treatment. ([http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hemochromatosis/training/treatment...](http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hemochromatosis/training/treatment/phlebotomy_treatment.html))</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rich dad, poor dad – the story that formed my views on making money - <AUTHOR> https://micaelwidell.com/rich-dad-poor-dad/ <comment><USER2> The problem with all these "how to get rich" books is that they're full of anecdotes, quotations, fictional stories, motivational bullshit etc. which make you feel good while reading them, but as soon as you put the book back on the shelf, it's all gone. It's just a temporary boost of energy and motivation, because reading requires almost no effort and more often that not it's just another way of procrastination. Seriously, do you think the majority of rich people prepared for "getting rich" by reading hundreds of motivational and self-help books? It's not like you'll find some magical recipe in one of the books which you can just apply to your life and 10 years from now become a billionare. Each success story is so different and depends on so many factors - being in right time at the right place among the most important - that it's impossible to simply recreate any of them and just wait for the results.

<comment><USER3> > do you think the majority of rich people prepared for "getting rich" by > reading hundreds of motivational and self-help books?

No, I don't. But you know what they do have? They've grown up in a household and a culture that teaches them thousands of small lessons in being and staying rich. They don't have to read about it, because their parents and friends and lawyers and accountants and country club associates have all been reinforcing those lessons their entire lives.

<comment><USER4> According to The Millionaire Next Door; I am not sure this is true. Many children of 'rich people' have their lifestyle funded by their parents and only learn how to spend beyond their means; which does not accumulate them wealth in the long-term.

<comment><USER5> That's basically the difference from what used to be referred to as 'new' rich vs 'old' rich back in the day. The old rich were families whose wealth passed down or perpetuated through generations specifically because they taught their kids the discipline needed to build and keep wealth. Where as new rich fizzled out fairly quickly.

<comment><USER6> > The old rich were families whose wealth passed down or perpetuated through > generations specifically because they taught their kids the discipline > needed to build and keep wealth.

No, the old rich were families whose wealth was secured by long-established bonds of connection with other old-rich families who constituted the ruling class and dominated politics and business and acted together, for protection of their mutual interest, as a tribe jealously defending against outsiders, the new rich were those who had secured money but not yet been admitted to the ruling tribe.

(This is still the case, though "old rich" and "new rich" aren't particularly popular terms for it; if your family has connections where, e.g., the Saudi royals will bail out your failing enterprises for the value of maintaining a useful network, and you wealthy establishment donors will pour fortunes into your brothers campaign for office for the same reason _despite being willing to say that they think the whole thing is a waste as long as they can be anonymous while doing so_ , what your parents have given to you is _connections_ more than _discipline_.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The basic problem with Kiyosaki is that he wrote a work of fiction and passed it off as autobiography.

No, wait, the basic problem is that he is passing inspirational advice off as financial advice.

But don't take my word for it, read the critique:

[http://www.johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-real-estate- inv...](http://www.johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-real-estate-investment- blog/61651011-john-t-reeds-analysis-of-robert-t-kiyosakis-book-rich-dad-poor- dad-part-1)

<comment><USER8> Also he's outsourced some of his seminars to some pretty sketchy operators [http://youngandthrifty.ca/rich-dad-poor-dad-seminars-a- scam/](http://youngandthrifty.ca/rich-dad-poor-dad-seminars-a-scam/)

<comment><USER9> General advice for anyone young who is reading this-- if the person you're trying to learn from offers seminars, it's a good sign he's not worth your time, and seminars are rarely worth the money. "Free" ones are the worst.

Good books are the best educational value (though maybe some MooCs are a better value now.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hands down the best book I have read on money is Your Money or Your Life: [http://amzn.com/0143115766](http://amzn.com/0143115766)

I'm a naturally frugal person, but the book helped me formulate new ways of thinking about money and my relationship with it. The major concept being that money is a representation of your life energy. You work X hours a day at an hourly rate of $Y. Knowing those numbers allows you to think about purchases in a new way. For instance, "That new phone will cost me 2.5 days of work" or "If someone offered me $500 or the new phone, which would I take?" If you chose the $500, then you know you don't need to buy the phone.

I would recommend Your Money or Your Life before all other financial "self- help" books. In fact, I think I'm going read it again.

<comment><USER11> That advice seems to apply to wage slaves (hourly rate) but not entrepreneurs or salespersons (not hourly).

Many other financial books recommend developing income streams outside of selling your labor at an hourly or yearly rate, which would seem to be missing from your book.

<comment><USER10> Even the salaryman can calculate his hourly rate.

I am salaried, but when I sat down and calculated my hourly rate, I was a little shocked. I didn't factor in benefits or anything besides my after tax take home pay. It's as simple as $(2 week paycheck) / 80\. What you get is effectively your hourly rate.

As a salaryman, knowing this value will help you avoid working overtime since overtime is unpaid. The more hours you work, the less your effective hourly rate. I would argue that if you are asked (either implicitly or explicitly) to work more than 40 hours a week, you should find a different job as you are diluting your own pay.

<comment><USER12> I think you're misunderstanding hammock. Indeed _only_ (forms of) the salaryman can calculate an hourly rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> RDPD is basically a fad diet book. There's some good advice, but it's mixed with bad advice and illegal schemes, slathered with a thick layer of inspirational bullshit.

For a better personal finance book, try "I will teach you to be rich", despite the clickbait title: [http://www.amazon.com/Will-Teach-You-To- Rich/dp/0761147489](http://www.amazon.com/Will-Teach-You-To- Rich/dp/0761147489)

<comment><USER14> Also, my interactions with Ramit (through his blog) have always been a pleasant experience.

The title and bright color was bait by his own admission. The point being he follows it up with great _practical_ advice instead of stories and filler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How I hate people like this. "Building assets and letting them work for you". For this you can read: "be the footsoldier for the banks who have a monopoly on money creation. Ask the bank to create money for you then use this to join the land monopolists. Then let those stupid little people who are actually creating wealth rent it back from you. This way you get a stream of their labour." For assets read "property".

People should be aiming to keep most of the wealth they create. What makes the world shit, and what we cannot all do, is live off the backs of others.

If he knows people who are billionaires they go there by not passing on the wealth created by others. _Nobody_ adds a billion of wealth creation, not even Gates.

<comment><USER16> Debt is a lever, in itself it's neither good nor bad.

If I have a $10m net worth, I might want to lend someone $1m for a year on which they will pay me 5% interest per year. If that person can turn that million into one and a half million, what's the problem?

<comment><USER17> Not when it's only issued by a monopoly.

<comment><USER12> Who says only banks can make loans?

<comment><USER17> That's the thing, they don't loan the money, they create it, banks haven't functioned the way they're popularly imagined to function for centuries. And it's so sad that this false image is the moral basis for banks going after borrowers assets.

The bank doesn't lend you someone else's money, it creates the money(no effort) and you have to work and put up real collateral to pay it back.

By G-d we should all be working to expose and undo this madness.

<comment><USER12> > it creates the money(no effort)

Err, there most certainly is an effort assessing credit risk and dealing with the fallout when someone defaults.

<comment><USER17> What exactly is the risk to the Bank in lending out money they just created?

<comment><USER12> They didn't magic it out of thin air. It's a liability to them. If the loan is paid into another bank they then have to transfer central bank deposits to that other bank. If the loan is never paid back then they've lost money.

Is it genuinely not obvious to you than bank deposits aren't something that banks can create and destroy on a whim?

<comment><USER17> That's actually not quite correct. The loan itself is an asset to the bank. When you sign the promissory note, they then give you a balance at the bank in the amount of the principal of the note, THAT is the liability.

The loan is the asset because that is money coming into the bank. Your deposits are liabilities because that is money you could withdraw from the bank.

So it is both a liability and an asset. They don't create it out of thin air, they create it out of ink and paper. It's a hack of the double-entry bookkeeping system.

I recommend Paul Grignon's Money As Debt: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8)

<comment><USER12> The balance in the bank, which is colloquially called a "loan", is a liability to the bank, yes.

And do you agree there is a "risk to the Bank in lending out money they just created" or is that still up for discussion?

<comment><USER17> No, the balance in the bank is not the loan. You need some understanding of double-entry bookkeeping to understand fractional reserve banking. The loan(promissory note), is on the banks balance sheet as an asset. Your balance which you can withdraw as cash is on the banks balance sheet as a liability.

What is the bank risking when it creates the money and uses the anachronistically titled "loan" contract to distribute it? • They risk only being able to extract so much labor. • They risk taking on collateral which is a REAL asset that someone worked for, like their home if they're unable to generate enough of the assets the banks just write into existence. • They risk passing the buck up the ladder ultimately to the lender of last result if they're "too big to fail" which just creates more money to deal with the problem.

Banks are not lending out other people's money, everyone tacitly knows this, if they were how come when you go to the bank they never say, sorry its out on loan at the moment? This was the case at historically and banks are still riding on the fact that people haven't gotten wise to the way it's worked for centuries now.

There is no lending taking place when bank loans are made.

<comment><USER12> Hmm ... are we still on the same page? This is where the discussion started: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10995433](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10995433)

You seemed to be claiming that a bank incurs no cost ("no effort") to issue a loan. Are you sticking to that?

<comment><USER17> Yes, we're still on the same page. The Banking system is rapacious and it should be done away with. Its capital allocative functions have been subverted by extraction. It's an emergent system so that isn't to imply that the people who work at banks are rapacious. That would be the fallacy of division: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division)

It is that bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Many years ago a CEO friend told me about this book. I was an useless office drone daydreaming the startup dream. I read the book. I was super motivated for 3-4 days but nothing happened. Nothing. After one week motivation was gone and I had been an office drone for a decade.

In hindsight: the book is great and the key message is very true. And this book is a great motivator (three days motivation is better than nothing) but in my case I needed way more to enter the dark side than reading a self-help book (which would be another long post).

Life is more complex.

</comment><comment><USER9> I read this book, was skeptical given the gungho attitude, so I did some due diligence: Roberty Kiyosaki claimed to have founded a company that went public. So I figured Kiyosaki was a rare enough name and searched the SEC records to find out if this was true. Was unable to find any evidence that he had taken a company public, and so he lost credibility with me.

You meet really entertaining characters in bars sometimes too. They are fine for entertainment but don't take them too seriously.

Putting money to work for you is wise, good advice and there are better books for it. Like "The millionaire next door" and "the wealthy barber" (a little lite but a good intro) and "Buffetology" and "The dummies guide to REITs" and the like.

Managing real estate yourself is no small task- you have tenants and a lot of work to do for them. Putting an agency in between you and the tenants means you may be giving up a lot of your profits to the agency.

The best thing that happened to me, though was I started reading [http://mises.org](http://mises.org). There in 2000ish I learned about how the fed and CRA were going to create a housing bubble. And the consequences of that. I invested along that thesis in the mid 2000s, getting out of the market in 2007 when things were too crazy to make sense (missed the top by a year, but still good timing.)

Macroeconomic understanding (And I don't mean what politicians talk about or the politically connected people like Paul "we need a housing bubble" Krugman) has been very profitable for me. More profitable than any stock tip.

Also gained a lot of insight from attending Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meetings, but now I just read the annual reports.

<comment><USER15> Plus in "managing real estate" you are living off the backs of others in a flawed system. These real-estate "investors" are simply the foot-soldiers of banks who are creaming off real wealth creation.

You only have to think about it for a moment to realise this. What if everyone did it? We'd all starve. What if everyone worked hard to gain a skill and then used it to create wealth? We'd have a great life.

I understand what's happening with land exploitation but I won't join in because it's disgusting. It's not "just business" as these sorts would say.

<comment><USER19> > What if everyone did it? We'd all starve

If everyone did anything other than grow/hunt food, then we'd all starve. The entire structure of our economy is built are specialization where only a small fraction of workers produce enough food for the entire population.

<comment><USER15> I knew someone would try to skew this so that's why I specifically categorized it into "creating wealth" vs "rentier activity". I don't see your point as valid, of course if we all made kitchenware and nobody made food we'd starve, that wasn't the point of my post.

<comment><USER19> If you knew somebody was going to make that argument, you should have preemptively addressed it in your origin post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've come away from some of these types of books with some good tidbits, but have a hard time recommending them, especially to a young person. They tend to be a gateway drug into a culture of "The secret to making money is giving me some money." that I'm not comfortable with. I'd be far more comfortable recommending something data driven like "The Millionaire Next Door" (regardless of how that book is marketed) that highlights things like frugality, saving, and hard work.

</comment><comment><USER21> Fun fact: in my almost 10 years experience in banking I've never met _anyone_ in the industry, who'd consider the book _not_ a scam.

And you know you're in trouble, if even bankers consider you a scam.

<comment><USER22> Whether the autobiographical bits are true or not, the highlights as presented by the article are a valuable message for people who didn't already understand as such.

<comment><USER21> A friend of my is a zealous adherent of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". So much so, that the first thing he did after saving up enough money on his first real job, was to follow the book's advice: take out two mortgages and get two apartments. That was around early 2008. In my opinion that is a very shitty outcome: you're stuck with real estate in a stagnant market, bogged down by mortgage payments, and thus totally lacking any professional mobility. Your only choice is to wait out, rent out what you can, and hope to break even sometime in the next 20 years.

In my opinion, personal financial stability (and even prosperity) can be boiled down to a few simple rules:

1\. Earn more money than you lose.

2\. Be very careful with debt.

3\. Take risks, but be very aware of the downsides.

4\. If you have to invest, invest in yourself first (education, connections, etc.) and in securities second.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How did this get up-voted to the front page ?

</comment><comment><USER12> Reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad represented a paradigm shift for me.

Having been brought up in a middle class, academic family and moving successfully down an academic track, it opened my eyes to ideas that I couldn't even have comprehended existed before.

I don't know if the majority of what Robert Kiyosaki sells is bluff and bluster, but I do know that the foundational message of the book (as told in the quotes on this blog post) were absolutely revalational to me.

</comment><comment><USER24> I recommend [http://www.theschooloflife.com/shop/how-to-worry-less- about-...](http://www.theschooloflife.com/shop/how-to-worry-less-about-money- john-armstrong/)

Similar lessons, less smarmy (own the ladder? dude, stfu).

<comment><USER25> 8 pounds less money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> entrepreneurship is a 1/0 game generally. Investing everything you have into something that has a 95% chance of failure is pretty risky. I would argue putting more than 10-20% of your money into one venture is really risky.

<comment><USER19> I disagree. There are lots of tried and true businesses out there which have a high likelihood of success with some basic research. It's just that a lot of these markets are cornered, so you probably wouldn't call investing in them entrepreneurship. Opening a McDonalds or gas station has a pretty high likelihood of success with enough research. As does real estate.

Trying to invent the next great technology is hard, and you'll probably fail. But following in the footsteps of others greatly increases you odds of success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Isn't he basically preaching a rentier economy? That sort of thing is not sustainable at scale - at best you can have something like 10% of people getting rent (leeching off of) the people doing the actual work. Speaking ethically, this is one of the sleaziest ways you can make money - you're making your own basic income, except it's 5 times bigger than the income of the people who actually do the work. You're depriving honest workers of the fruits of their labour.

People like him are what's wrong with society today and nothing short of a bloody revolution will set us back on the right path.

<comment><USER15> Yep, he is. The guy is a leech. Another is mr money moustache with his 3 homes telling us to save by eating oats or whatever. These guys make me sick. I half agree that we need a revolution, these people can never be persuaded of their ills they are just horrible people.

<comment><USER19> What exactly is your argument here? Why is he a horrible person? Because he rents houses?

There's nothing inherently exploitative about renting homes. Owning a home in the US is within the reach of most American families. So lots of people rent because they chose to. Some people prefer the flexibility to move, don't want to do maintenance, or prefer to live in higher density areas where personal homes are less common.

People who rent real estate are just providing a service, and a critical one at that. If nobody rented places to live, then we'd have a lot of homeless people in the world.

<comment><USER15> Yes they are horrible and yes they are exploiting people. It's not a service, they are exploiting the capped supply of a basic need.

The argument about "if nobody rents out" is just wrong. Are they going to knock the place down if they don't rent? Yes there is a need for rentals but this should be within a world where we have land value tax so the bulk of the gain is passed onto the state to reduce labour taxes, reduce land costs and improve living standards.

These guys are adding nothing, they are taking labour.

The cost of a home is not the cost of the bricks it's the cost of the land in the main areas with employment prospects.

The USA was originally a land of opportunity. Why? Because you could get hold of land cheap. You were no longer constrained to near-serfdom by total land enclosure in Europe. Now here we are back to square one with the rentiers creaming off labour and books on how to join them.

<comment><USER19> > The argument about "if nobody rents out" is just wrong. Are they going to > knock the place down if they don't rent?

They will construct a building that earns them money. So all those people who rented the apartments are now homeless and their former homes are now an office complex, a parking garage, or a CVS.

Net result: land owner makes money (still), but now people are homeless.

> this should be within a world where we have land value tax

We live in a country where property taxes exist. These people (usually) pay them and it's not cheap. In fact, high property taxes fuel higher property values in the US.

Also interesting, property taxes are also a form of rent. They are often used by the local governments to force people off of their land. This is usually the first step to gentrifying a neighborhood. Rising property taxes cause property values to rise, creating a property tax feedback loop that forces people from their homes. This exact thing happened in my home town where property taxes doubled, then housing values went from $40k to $120k in like five years, effectively increasing taxes 6-fold in the neighborhood.

> Yes they are horrible and yes they are exploiting people

People need food, clothing and shelter. Companies sell food and clothing and I'm sure you think that's okay, but a company selling shelter is exploitation?

You are telling me that I'm being exploited because I live in a rental property. I just don't see it. I gain more value from my place than I lose in rental fees. Being able to move cheaply and quickly has earned me tens of thousands of dollars in extra wages and saved me tens of thousands in real estate transaction fees and maintenance.

Plus, I get to sleep indoors.

> The USA was originally a land of opportunity. Why? Because you could get > hold of land cheap.

There's cheap land all over the US. Throughout most of the midwest, you can buy acres and acres of productive, high quality land for <$10k acre. You won't have neighbors for miles and you'll have to construct your own roads, but it's out there and abundant, just like it was in the 19th century.

<comment><USER15> I totally disagree and the arguments you are supplying show me you aren't on the same wavelength, for example citing land outside cities as being cheap or that most landlords self-build (no). I can't write an essay on this but I disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The problem with a lot of such material is that it's very U.S. centric. Being from Eastern Europe a lot of the advice in the book is not relevant.

The only good take away was the assets vs liability distinction.

</comment><comment><USER29> My g/f and her friends got suckered in by this... they were going to the seminars which then led to currency trading.

I think there might be some good tips in there, but IMO, very few people get rich from seminars, bar the seminar leader and the company behind it. but at the end of the day i'm a cynic and quite likely a wage slave for the rest of my life.

</comment><comment><USER30> Depends on the perspective you read the book, it could be life changing. While I disagree with his manners described in the book, I totally agree with the way he described different mind sets between a business owner and a public sector employee.

</comment><comment><USER31> 2 books for the HN types (not as self-helpy as the titles make them appear):

\- The Millionaire Fast Lane

\- How To Get Rich (Dennis, not Trump)</comment>


Why did WannaCry authors implement a killswitch? - <AUTHOR> In many WannaCry variants there is a killswitch that pings a domain and only spread if the domain does not reply. So, once you discover this right domain, you can heavily slow down that variant of WannaCry by registering that domain and putting a webserver on it.
Why did the authors implement this? This effectively bounds the amount of money they receive from the attack. Clearly civic duty is not their priority, unless they are maybe trying to reach a balance between their reward and the amount of damage. But this is hard to support: ransomware infections always cause much more damage than the authors earn (according to available public estimates, WannaCry's authors made less than 100 k$, which seems really small to me).
Also, why did they implement such a poor killswitch scheme? Everybody can register a domain, and the domain itself appears to be relatively simple to find in the code. They could have implemented an asymmetric encryption scheme, which only they would have been able to use.
Of course there is no way to know the actual reasons, but I still wonder: does anybody have some insight on why as a ramsomware author you would do things this way? <comment><USER2> From what I've read, it's not uncommon for these types of malware to implement similar schemes. They send the HTTP requests to one of N domains over some period of time in order to detect whether or not the malware is being run inside of a sandbox. If the IP of every response matches, they cease to operate. Their intention, it seems, is to avoid in-depth analysis by researchers, hoping to prolong the malware's lifespan. However, in this particular case, such a check had the opposite effect.

<comment><USER3> Is there a safe way a sandbox could mock these HTTP requests to trip up the sandbox detection?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is very implausible. A sandbox detection algorithm has a lot of different options on what to observe to decide whether it is running in a "genuine" environment or in an "artificial" one. You probably have to see what every single sandbox detector is doing and cook up something specific for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As to why they implemented the killswitch, a simple guess will be a slip up or poor personal security leading to your lair being raided by some unforgiving 3 letter agency that doesn't mind meting out a few harsh knocks until you cease the spread.

However I agree with you on the poor implementation of the killswitch. The first thing that came to mind was, why not use an .onion instead? It might mean bundling the malware with TOR but I've seen enough of these use cases to know it's not a challenging thing to implement. Better to have the entire computing might of the world struggle to crack your private key instead of some lucky researcher registering your domain and halting your spread.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> CommitStrip took its position: [http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/05/17/wannacrypt-bad- code...](http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2017/05/17/wannacrypt-bad-code-doesnt- pay-much/)</comment>


How a startup responds when a giant arrives - <AUTHOR> http://runkeeper.com/blog/uncategorized/welcome-nike-thanks-for-coming-part-two <comment><USER2> I think people are too afraid of competition. There is no product without a lot of competition, and suprising as it seems, second best, 3rd best and so on are still making a hella lot of money.

Take microsoft word - it dominates the word processing market. But there are many people earning a lot of money selling OTHER word processors.

Competition is irrelevant, and in his particular case, he has a huge advantage over Nike. He has one product that he is working on, while Nike has a lot of other things to think about, and this is not important. He can add features immediately with no approval process. He can do anything he wants without paying attention to the damage it may have on other parts of the company.

This dude is at a clear advantage over Nike, so very frankly, I don't really think there is a problem.

<comment><USER3> Couldn't upvote you enough. This also applies to a startup vs. another startup. There have been a number of "Ask HN:" posts recently along the lines of "oh shoot, we just discovered there's another startup working on a similar idea! should we give up?"

If nothing else, seeing that other people are pursuing a similar idea is GREAT -- it's a confirmation that the market probably exists for it.

<comment><USER4> _If nothing else, seeing that other people are pursuing a similar idea is GREAT -- it's a confirmation that the market probably exists for it._

Well I agree that the converse is true—no competitors is definitely a red flag. But having lots of competitors in the startup space doesn't necessarily mean there's a market for it, quite often it's just something cool that geeks are into but may be a small winner-take-all market that's already been won (eg. Twitter/Facebook clones).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What a great post.

Software is used by people who want to solve a problem. Big, big companies can bring connections, brand recognition, money and other intimidating resources, sure.

In the end, though, people use the software, not the brand. No amount of money can replace the value of genuinely understanding and serving the needs of the people who use what you make.

In a software matchup between guys who live and die by their ability to _make and sell software_ vs. guys who sell rubber and plastic sewn together in sweatshops, you can call the winner before you even see the fight. My hat is off to Jason for understanding the value of his company's position.

<comment><USER6> It is even better than that. Nike's core competence isn't shoes, it is marketing an image of sportsmen as an attractive lifestyle. If you make something for that lifestyle, their core competence is marketing _you_. That is why sales doubled: "serious sportsmen use software" blasted out of their megaphone makes sports software as a category instantly more valuable.

<comment><USER7> This is precisely why I enjoyed hearing our main competitor received $5 million in a series A. It instantly validated the market, and it will do nothing but create opportunities for us.

Since our software is fitness tracking, that same good news applies to RunKeeper as well! MapMyFitness, no matter how much money they get, won't be able to keepup with small, agile development teams like FitnessKeeper, ridewithgps, CycleMeter etc.

<comment><USER8> At least not in all niches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author shows insight. The key thing that he realized is that for Nike, etc, run-tracking apps seem to be treated as branding tools to help them sell more shoes. In essence, his company is getting free advertising via Nike's ads. As they sell more of their pedometer hardware, he gets new potential customers.

Likewise, this special circumstance makes it a bit difficult to extrapolate from his success to another situation. If the giant arrives and actually intends to wrest control of the segment from you and profit from it _per se_ , the situation will play out differently.

<comment><USER10> I really appreciate the plucky nature of this post, but I'm really not holding my breath.

Right now the Nike app is $2.99 and number one in the Healthcare & Fitness section - Runkeeper is $9.99 and ranked 24th.

Yes - Nike really wants to sell shoes, but _they really want to sell shoes_ this app can be a loss leader for them, they don't need to really show a profit - heck if it breaks even they're fine. You really don't want to compete with someone like Nike with an app where they _don't need to make a profit_. Heck he mentions that they're 14th (actually 13th now) and Addidas is 18th in the section, but thats the free apps section. Again Addidas doesn't need to make a profit with their product when they are really making their money on shoes.

As far as I can tell runkeeper is just an app? eek.

<comment><USER6> Why compete via the bestseller list when you can compete with your previous sales records? They doubled sales! Who cares if Nike sold more? McDonalds sold more coffee yesterday than every Startup here put together has paying customers, but that doesn't make anyone less successful.

<comment><USER10> Did their "sales" double? or their users/downloads? The author likes to conflate downloads of their free app and their paid app. I went back and looked at the previous post - when their "numbers" doubled. Then they moved from 11 to 8 in the store, now they're at 13.

Now that Nike has a directly competing product at 1/3 the price I want to see the follow up post with _revenue_ numbers after Nike's app has been in the store for more then a day.

<comment><USER4> I see no reason to believe their conversion rate would change. If it did that would be a nice disclosure, but why are you seemingly so offended by an optimistic entrepreneur? Is there any other way to win?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow. They practically just described exactly what happend to me in the last few days of the Ping launch (albeit on a smaller scale).

When Ping launched I had a 3-month long solo developed music app that NO ONE knew about. I thought surely, I'm screwed, especially since Ping was almost identical to my app (Like.fm) when it was announced.

Thankfully the hype and the underwhelming Ping launch got people to think about what such a service done right should look like. Next thing I know I've actually got users :).

And like Nike apple is just focused on boosting value to its store, and selling more songs. But I can integrate with everyone, not just iTunes, and deliver the product true to its purpose (and not some corporate ulterior motive).

Thanks Apple! I might even buy one of your Apple TVs to help you guys out too.

<comment><USER12> <http://twitter.com/#search?q=ping%20like.fm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> very recent mixergy interview with their founder: <http://mixergy.com/runkeeper-jason-jacobs-interview/>

HN: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1641802>

</comment><comment><USER14> I am voting for runkeeper.com for the win. I have a Forerunner GPS thingy in a drawer and use Runkeeper exclusively. Why would I buy yet another electronic thingy from Adidas or Nike or anyone else?

And why would I use one of the big guys' apps? They have ulterior motives and designs on my wallet and I can smell it. I'll stay away.

Go Jason.

<comment><USER7> You should try using the forerunner with our site, <http://ridewithgps.com> \- runkeeper, cyclemeter and the rest are definitely cool, but if you have a nice GPS watch you can avoid having to carry your phone. Though, if you like carrying your phone on runs then heck yeah, use runkeeper/cyclemeter/whatever app and sell the forerunner. Oh, and bug whatever mobile app to allow uploading to our service! There is lots of room for cooperation in the mobile fitness market, and I am excited to see how it all develops.

I say that

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Great response. You can see how much Nike (and maybe Apple) cares by reading the web site for the Nike+. Their support forum goes seemingly unread, bugs and problems remain unfixed, their API cryptically changes, etc., leaving users to their own devices.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice post. I haven't used Runkeeper on iPhone, but on Android is "big and slow-moving" just as he says Nike is. Endomondo on the other hand is small and fast and seems to do all the same stuff. Interesting market segment to be in, I'm sure we haven't seen the last of the good ideas here.

</comment><comment><USER17> Great to read the story and interesting lesson about competing with giants.I'm a bit puzzled about one part of the post

 _> >Then, in June 2009, Nike finally did show up, coming pre-installed on every iPhone & iPod Touch. Unfair advantage, right?_

afaik the Nike app was not pre-installed (by Apple or AT&T) on any iPhone. Am I mistaken on the facts or did I misinterpret the post ?

 _[edit] Thanks Maxawaytoolong, this is interesting. I'm a little disappointed that Apple did the pre-installation. However, I'm assuming that the pre- installation didn't help Nike too much, because most people wouldn't have discovered the setting and Nike's ads would have equally effective without any pre-installation_

<comment><USER18> It's there, but is hidden until enabled in Settings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Something else that might not be considered when thinking about the pace of change at a company like nike is that it is possible if not likely that Nike is not developing their own apps, but is outsourcing this to a third party.

That means that it is likely that the app is developed and shipped, and then reviewed on a semi-annual or annual basis.

Runkeeper can keep churning out improvements and new features, while I doubt Nike or Adidas will keep up.

</comment><comment><USER20> I really admire the way Jason and the team have taken on this problem space.

They react well to customer feedback and it has been a great experience to watch them grow as a user.

I look forward to the next innovations from the team.

</comment><comment><USER21> Thank you for writing this - I'm facing a similar situation and I think you are absolutely right. Understand users needs, but also try and develop as quickly as possible.

</comment><comment><USER22> Give 'em hell, Jason!

</comment><comment><USER23> This is good for now, but, I wont be surprised if they start generating leads and doing affiliate marketing for shoes/apparel.

</comment><comment><USER24> i've been using RK for a while.

RK pro is ranked #24 in healthcare category, which is impressive for a $9.99 app. nike+ gps is #3 top chart and #1 healthcare.

i think your "part 3" article will be very interesting :)</comment>


The Real Pirate Bay  - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/04/the_real_pirate_bay.html <comment><USER2> I hate this particular writer's little articles. I've read 4-5 of them and they're so full of buzzwords and an attempt to sound "hip" and "with it" in terms of technology that it's pathetic and sad.

He's as bad as those social media marketing people, those shameless self promoters who don't actually _create_ anything, merely talk themselves up with canned expressions.

Some examples of his article titles: * IdeaCast: the Zombieconomy * The Finance 2.0 Manifesto * Edgeconomy vs Twitter * Investment 1.0 vs Capitalism 2.0

I can't even list anymore, this guy only recycles phrases imo.

<comment><USER3> Umair Haque is actually quite brilliant, nothing at all like the stupid social media marketing people. His style kind of rubs people the wrong way, but there's a lot people can learn from him. I recommend this presentation he did a couple months ago: <http://vimeo.com/3204792>

<comment><USER2> _Umair Haque is actually quite brilliant_

Could you defend that by pointing out some articles where he makes a clear point without resorting to buzzwords or the latest fad/trend?

 _there's a lot people can learn from him_

Such as?

<comment><USER3> Well, I recommended that video link, which is over an hour long.

If you'd like to get into his older material, you can check out the couple of power point decks on the right side of this page: <http://bubblegeneration.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Mug someone on the street for $72 and loose change, go to jail for 3 years.

Join a bank and wreck the economy for tens of millions of people, retire with a golden parachute.

Where, I ask, is the _justice_?

<comment><USER5> Any why are we totally, 100% sure that it was the bankers who wrecked the economy? Did they not work within the system? Who broke the law and isn't going to jail?

This is just blind, bullshit populism where people want to target a group and spout their righteous anger.

<comment><USER6> Yep.

Welcome to the internet.

<comment><USER7> No

Welcome to the World.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This "analysis" has the sophistication of graffiti in a bathroom stall.

</comment><comment><USER9> When journalism and twitter collide.

<comment><USER10> More like, when a lack of effort and the Internet collide. Which, interestingly, also accurately describes twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Banks were destroyed by their greedy and foolish owners and managers.

Piratebay destroyed other people's businesses.

The difference is quite simple.

<comment><USER12> The difference is quite simple.

Not _quite_ so simple. Banks are not like regular companies. Especially those in question. In a way, they are part of the public infrastructure. These banks wove an intricate web reaching into nearly every financial nook of the economy, from old ladies pensions to hospitals operating capital. The leaders of these banks manipulated the ratings systems, hid risk from investors (the public kind), and invented assets with bogus bookkeeping schemes. They stole billions from the public all while paying themselves 100's of millions in bonuses.

In short, bank leaders stole _real_ money from _real_ people using actual fraud. Lots. From lots.

The pirate bay: helped people connect with each other and then _maybe_ trade copyrighted files that _might_ have led to the loss of potential sales of zero marginal cost goods.

The bankers: Literally stalled human progress. The "pirates": Umm... Maybe "Thundercats The Movie" will have a smaller production budget? Even the comparison is obscene.

<comment><USER13> Haque doesn't accuse the bankers of fraud, just of "economically damaging actions." Reading that as "massive fraud" makes the article's point much clearer. (It's probably impossible to criminalize "economically damaging actions" in general.)

<comment><USER12> _(It's probably impossible to criminalize "economically damaging actions" in general.)_

That might be an extremely succinct way of expressing that point. The trackers didn't host any actual copyright infringing content. They did however engage in behavior that was likely "economically damaging" is some sense of the term. They still got jail time.

<comment><USER14> It was also likely to result in illegal actions, which cannot be said for the bankers.

Now, it's possible to argue about whether or not either _should_ be illegal, but such is not the territory of courts, it is the territory of politicians.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Revolutionizing self-service in the healthcare industry - <AUTHOR>

I posted this question a day ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5816537 but updated the title in case the original title was the reason for zero interest.
I sincerely want your feedback if this is a good idea to pursue.
Was the zero interest on the original post due to a poorly chosen title or is this idea not valid enough to be worth solving?
How should I go about validating this idea and signing up customers? <comment><USER2> The problem was probably that there were too many lines of text before an actual question. TL;DR Just IMHO. I read it and can't figure out exactly what you're asking....</comment>


Is It Time for Apple's Patent War to End? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/is-it-time-for-apples-patent-war-to-end-12282011.html?campaign_id=rss_topStories Apple would be smarter, says Kevin Rivette of 3LP Advisors, to cut tech deals that give it inside looks at rivals' innovative directions <comment><USER2> Should Apple stop its patent war? How about Intellectual Ventures? Should Microsoft stop taxing Android makers?

Some arguments paint with too broad a brush. Where patents are concerned, especially software patents, the arguments are far too _narrow_. Of course Apple should end its patent war. Unlucky for Apple, if it ends its patent war while Microsoft continues to extract tribute, Apple loses. And Microsoft should end the war. Oops, it loses too.

In the end, everyone who unilaterally stops playing the game loses. So everyone should end the war. And I don't mean, "Return to an uneasy oligopoly where new entrants are forced to pay tribute to the existing patent-hoarding overlords." I mean, abolish the patents. beat the swords into ploughshares.

p.s. Exercise for the reader: If technology patents are eliminated and anyone can do anything, does that mean that everyone will instantly engage in a copycat race to the bottom, and the only winners will be companies that have a service that can't be copied? if so, why aren't Google and Facebook spending billions lobbying to end patents? It seems like they would be the big winners if the price of phones, tablets, and computers fell to nearly zero.

<comment><USER3> [http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/28/apples-continued- patent-...](http://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/28/apples-continued-patent- offensive-poses-risks-for-shareholders/)

I think they point they are making is 'don't fight .. cash in'

<comment><USER4> I wish they had made that the title. The current title borders on absurd.

Is it time for Apple's patent war to end?

Should we feed our children?

Is it time to stop murdering other people?

Baited questions are a lame rhetorical device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author seems to think Apple's "war" is a recent thing. But it has been going on since 1985, when Apple sued DRI over the look & feel of GEM (anyone remember that?). Apple has been aggressively suing over look & feel for 26 years. This is firmly entrenched in their corporate culture, and anyone who thinks they're going to stop any time soon -- regardless of whether they _ought_ to -- is being a little naive, I think.

<comment><USER6> It sure seems like they stopped being aggressive in courts for 10+ years.

<comment><USER5> Good point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you look past the catchy headline and put yourself in Apple's shoes, and try to understand their point of view as a _design-focused firm_ , you can come up with a different analysis of the situation:

> _the manufacturers on the losing end need only modify their design to get > around the imposed restrictions._

And that's precisely the point for Apple.

> _The problem is that many of Apple's patents focus on look, feel, and > design, which means they can be worked around, as in the cases mentioned > above. As a result, Apple could have a hard time securing lasting, sticky > restrictions that would permanently prevent its competitors' products from > being sold in individual markets, let alone worldwide._

And Apple doesn't care because that's _not_ the point.

Despite the Jobs quote saying he wanted to sue Android out of existence, Apple does not really want to drive Android (nor other competitors) itself into oblivion, Apple wants people to stop copying their design. They want to force the copycats to differentiate, if not innovate.

<comment><USER8> > Despite the Jobs quote saying he wanted to sue Android out of existence, > Apple does not really want to drive Android (nor other competitors) itself > into oblivion, Apple wants people to stop copying their design. They want to > force the copycats to differentiate, if not innovate.

So Apple is suing everyone because they want their competition to differentiate, innovate, and, in general, become better?

No, Apple is suing them, with or without merit, in order to make it harder for competition to compete with them, to make their lives harder, and to ensure own leadership position as long as possible.

In addition, it's not fair to call someone copycat just because it has square screen on square phone. What they had to do, to put round screen on triangular device?

<comment><USER7> Apple is not suing everyone, only a bunch of Android devices, though I never said Apple's not suing them to make their life harder, only it's always good to gain some perspective. If anything it could very well be both, that's not incompatible. But arguing they're trying to ban every single competitor is ridiculous. Apple does not aim for market share dominance, they aim for margin, and they make boatloads of profits through margin already.

> _What they had to do, to put round screen on triangular device?_

We're not talking about the general shape, which is obviously constrained (and would be like saying a Ferrari 456 and a Lada Niva look the same because both have two doors and four wheels), we're talking about _design_ (which does not restrict to looks). Still, Nokia Lumia 710 and 800 look nothing like an iPhone (neither hardware nor software), even with bad eyesight. Same for Palm/HP devices, or a Nexus One, or HTC Evo or Legend. Squint a little and you can't make the difference between an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2 laying on a table. I'm not even talking about the Tab 10.1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Apple is doing what they have a legal right to do. The real problem, in my opinion, is that patents were issued for software in the first place.</comment>


Rate my micro startup: TweetzTV - <AUTHOR>

Hi all, Today my micro startup, http://tweetz.tv/ went online. It let's you watch YouTube videos, which people on Twitter have mentioned. My assumption was that the videos people tweet about must be interesting and therefore I combined these tweets with a Youtube player, which let's you sit back and watch TweetzTV. I wondered how you guys think about this website. Do you see any features that can be usefull, how do you think this website can be monetized?
kind regards,<AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I think it's an interesting idea. Is it just a straight list of the latest videos posted to twitter or are you grouping them based on the number of tweets, retweets, etc?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> clickable link: <http://tweetz.tv/></comment>


Ask HN: Why do you use SlideShare? - <AUTHOR>

Please, help me understand. <comment><USER2> I don't</comment>


Top 5 Tips for Multiplying Your Online Sales - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-5-tips-multiplying-your-online-sales-zealousweb-technologies <comment> amar-singh Hi,

These are very common points you have mentioned. Every company is doing it. You need write tactics to do well in digital marketing as digital marketing is teh best way to make your company a brand.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess you need some English classes! :P</comment></comment>