Hacking your life through data collection and analysis - <AUTHOR> I had the idea for years to create some kind of program that would use statistical analysis to analyze everyday data and advise things to me about my life that I couldn't quite see or didn't quite know.
It all started as a spreadsheet with a bunch of formulas - I found out that the days I exercised were 20% more productive than the days I did nothing but work.  I also came to realize that doing something active each day had a huge affect on how happy I was - my perceived happiness was almost 30% greater on the days I did some kind of physical activity.
Once I had a couple weeks worth of data it was plain and obvious to me that there was a better way for me to live my life.  After finding out that work brought my mood down an average of 40%, how could I keep working my office programming gig knowing so well that it made me miserable?
So I decided to quit my job and turn this spreadsheet into an app that other people could use.  And so LifeUp was born.  It goes without saying, I'm a lot happier these days.
I finished LifeUp recently and it's available for download on iOS for 2 bucks - a small price to pay to find out some truly valuable insight into your life.
I mean, when you are stuck in a rut it can become impossible to see the way out.  Maybe my app can help you realize important things similarly to how it helped me...
Check it out, you'll be amazed at what you can find...  www.getlifeup.com <comment><USER3> Marketing matters.

If you tell someone to hack their life by gathering statistics, that's cool and nifty.

If you tell someone that the Personal Software Process requires you to gather data on time, defects and estimates of software development, you'll get a lecture about maintaining flow and the evils of high ceremony and the SEI.

<comment><USER4> _If you tell someone to hack their life by gathering statistics, that's cool and nifty. If you tell someone that the Personal Software Process requires you to gather data on time, defects and estimates of software development, you'll get a lecture about maintaining flow and the evils of high ceremony and the SEI._

That is quite possibly the single most brilliant thing I have ever read on HN. And that's saying something considering the people who post here. Maybe it's not so much "brilliant" as just "timely" but that really hits home.

It's amazing how a little bit of wording can completely change the way we view something. It's one of those things I - and probably most of us - <USER2> intellectually... but when it's so glaringly pointed out, it's like somebody pulling the wool from over your eyes. Or like seeing The Matrix, whatever. Thanks for sharing!

<comment><USER3> Business punks know this, which is why they stampede from buzzword to buzzword, regardless of its meaning. It's just that Google juice has given geeks a similar incentive.

edit: and if that was the most brilliant thing you've read on HN, to quote the Slashdot meme, you must be new here :D

<comment><USER4> Hehehe, no, not new at all. And like I said, maybe it was just the timing... but that was an excellent example of the power of words. Which, strangely enough is something I enjoy studying, even outside of this context. Your example above just struck a chord with me for some reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Love the idea -- I recently started capturing more and more data on my own life. But I have an Android phone .. haven't seen any other mentions of Android options on this thread so I thought I'd throw this one out there... EvenTrend ( <http://code.google.com/p/eventrend/> ) is a pretty neat freeform personal data tracker. It lets you enter data, will generate pretty graphs, and even calculates some correlations (strong <-> weak, positive/negative). The data can be anything you can put a number on. It also allows aggregation -- you can tell it to only store a sum or average for a particular field for some period: e.g., I want to know how much time I spend exercising _per day_.

</comment><comment><USER6> What about GPS based inputs - ie, you know where 'work' is, and you know where 'the gym' is. And the shops, etc. You could allow GPS tagging of certain locations and then perhaps track visits to same, reducing the amount of data input needed. I'm not too familiar with iOS, so I'm not sure if this can be done without the app running in 'foreground', though. You could also do this with speed - ie, constant 6 kmh is 'running - exercise', or a constant (average) 60 kmh is 'driving' or 'commuting'.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love this idea! There is no reason to not use GPS since all of the devices support it now anyways. Thanks for the ideas!

<comment><USER7> The reason not o would be battery life. I'd hate it if I had to recharge my phone every 2 hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Crashes if tasks have dashes.

Also, a bit too friction-ey to enter tasks, should be a shortcut to enter today's mood/tasks right from the main screen of the app, as well as some pretty graphs.

I like that some tasks are pre-populated and that there's explanatory text. Very helpful.

Suggestion: allow people to share goals or something like that so that people can encourage each other to stick to a certain exercise plan, for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Trying to reproduce this now, thanks for the input!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a spreadsheet that I use for some simple things. The problem for me is that I suck at recording the data. I try to solve that by making the data collection passive (or observant). The GPS comment above is along the same lines.

Examples: RescueTime for tracking my productivity on my computer. RunKeeper for tracking my exercise (running). Withings scale for tracking my weight. Spending via Mint.

Gaps: Food intake. Non-computer work. Time spent with my kids.

The ideal product for me would be one that integrates with the passive data collection services I use already, finds ways to make the collection of the gaps as painless as possible, and then finds correlations and such.

</comment><comment><USER10> Website needs to show an example of a life changed, even if just some sample data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed, thanks for the input. I was just thinking this morning that the website doesn't do a very good job of selling the product in that respect.

<comment><USER10> Great way to do product research btw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What about negative correlations? Currently it tracks "things you do", but what about "things you don't do"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, I'll add it to my TODO list ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Any possibility this could be used to track health data as well as mood? I run a health website with a diet and lifestyle focus to addressing serious illness. I am increasingly looking towards tools similar to this one as a potential means to help people manage the kinds of changes that made such a big difference in my health. Stuck in a rut is not nearly as challenging as "stuck in medical hell and can't get out". In such situations, there is enormous need for an objective means to gather data and make better decisions.

Thanks and please let me know when there is more info (like screenshots) available.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I wanted to add the option to associate a generic variable with each Task, such as 'number of hours' for sleep, or 'number of calories' for lunch. I would like to tailor the app so that more data can be stored and analyzed - that way you end up getting exponentially more correlations and ways in which to interpret the base set of information.

<comment><USER12> Thanks.

If you get that added, drop me a line. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll add it tonight!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good idea, I've done this in the past using excel too, but that gets to be a pain.

Classic saying, applies to what we build on the web, as well as our lives: What you measure improves.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'd like to get a hold of you with some different ideas for that app, or possibly a different app altogether. Do you have an email I could send ideas to?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure: email@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is brilliant. I had an idea floating around in my head in December for something similar - capturing data points on a daily/bi-hourly etc basis onto a spreadsheet of sorts and using Rstats to output some analyses on them.

There's definitely a market for this should you want to go commercial, but if you don't, would you mind sharing some of the formulae?

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice idea, unfortunately I don't have an iOS device.

Would love to see a longer write up of this - maybe one article about your manual data collection + analysis + insights (if that's not too personal for you!) and another article about how your app does it all for you.

</comment><comment><USER17> Have always wondered what tracking these types of things would reveal in my life; love that you took the time to make this happen.

Would be more than happy to purchase your app to reward your courage in jumping ship and working on this.

Keep up the good work!

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm interested in the same kind of stuff, but I have nothing really tangible yet except a prototype I work on in my off-time. Let me know if you want to chat.

<http://galapag.us/>

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone else remember Moodstats from _way_ back when: <http://www.moodstats.com>

</comment><comment><USER20> I prefer Datum - its free now on the app store.

<comment><USER21> Datum doesn't compare two different correlated values, does it?</comment></comment>


City of Munich disagrees with HP's Linux migration study - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/City-of-Munich-disagrees-with-HP-s-Linux-migration-study-1797232.html

<comment><USER2> HP (and Microsoft) clearly aren't happy that old Windows hardware can be reused performantly on Linux, vastly reducing upgrade costs. They simply _ignored_ this factor in their study. What else did they conveniently choose to ignore?

        TUCKER: My expert would totally disprove that.

        LANGHAM: Who is your expert?

        TUCKER: I don't know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you've
        been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And
        you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises
        you.

<comment><USER3> > old Windows hardware can be reused performantly on Linux

By and large this doesn't happen in Enterprise-level organizations. Old, out of warranty hardware is removed in favour of warrantied hardware.

<comment><USER2> sure it doesn't happen everywhere, but it does in Munich's city hall at least, and it is _possible_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Microsoft licensing is so incredibly complex, that I would not be surprised in the least bit if one study resulted in a 17MM quote and another in a 34MM quote. I recently did a licensing cost estimation for a SQL Server 2012 cluster, and my numbers were an order of magnitude different from that of my colleague's.

<comment><USER5> I recently found out that every workstation in AD needs extra license called CAL, so if you add Windows to AD or even into a shared printer you need to pay for CAL that is yearly fee. Really annoying and confusing.

<comment><USER6> I gotta hope Samba 4 makes big progress, if nothing than to force Microsoft to be more competitive with their stupid licensing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> HP/Microsoft's study didn't include migration to a newer version of Windows. Considering Microsoft will stop supporting Windows XP as early as next year, not including the upgrade cost for a Windows migration makes no sense, unless they were deliberately trying to be misleading.

<comment><USER8> There would be huge hardware costs for such a migration, which is key here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> City of Munich has a big incentive to make the migration seem successful and HP has a big incentive to make the migration seem unsuccessful. Two wildly different conclusions result. Where the truth lies we will probably never know.

<comment><USER10> The leadership of the City of Munich has the incentive to not mislead in their publications, lest they'll be bashed by the opposition. They can't afford that because 2013 there will be an election in Bavaria and the Mayor of Munich (Ude) wants to be the next minister-president of Bavaria.

<comment><USER11> I'd think that if there was an incentive to mislead to avoid criticism from the opposition, it would be to make things seem better than they are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd be very interested in hearing how much training they had to do for people to learn to use Linux and OpenOffice. If German office workers are like the ones I've met in the U.S., any slight change to their computers will result in a lot of questions.

Having tried to use OpenOffice for my office needs, I'd be curious to see how this works out for them. Needless to say, I haven't used OpenOffice in years and have no desire to try again. If I were going with a Linux solution, I'd try to get as many workers using cloud-based apps as possible.

Not every worker could do this, but from my experience with ChromeOS, the majority of general office workers could get their work done with it, and it's a cheap, secure and stable solution. But a lot of governments may not want to touch cloud services and may not know how to develop their own.

<comment><USER13> >>> I haven't used OpenOffice in years

That's like eons in actively developed software. I believe giving LibreOffice a spin may change your notion of the quality of the OS alternative. As an anecdote, Excel 2003 has 65K row limit. In current LO it's ~ 1M rows if I remember correctly. I will admit that it is a bit apples to oranges, since Excel 2003 was created way back, but in practical terms, that is what I get on my office desktop. Being able to run LO as an alternative can be a life saver...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Microsoft FUD. HP doesn't have any opinions of its own. If it was sponsored or conducted by Microsoft, why do we even bother ? That company is still hallucinating, pretending its still in a Windows world

</comment><comment><USER15> Maybe it's just me, but HP should re-focus on development of innovative products and away from political consultancy.

</comment><comment><USER16> The HP study is not a study of the Munich situation. HP takes very different assumptions without any inside or detailed knowledge than the Munich IT stuff (who should know).

It's more a hypothetical case study than some real study based on facts (or even the same facts).

</comment><comment><USER17> How can they disagree with something that's secret?

<comment><USER7> They published a part of it about 2 weeks ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As much as I love Linux, I feel sorry for the functionaries that will have to migrate 20 years old Word templates and Excel macros to LibreOffice. These things don't always go smoothly.

Being forced into using new software because it's cheaper may end up giving that software a bad rep.

</comment><comment><USER19> _"Munich's City Council has objected to HP's study in which the company analysed Munich's Linux migration on behalf of Microsoft."_

A study by HP on behalf of Microsoft? How is this even allowed? There's a conflict of interest here and it's not a small one. I'd seek a competent court (either at the national or supra-national level) to fill a complaint.</comment>


Redis_failover 1.0 Released - Distributed monitoring, failover strategies, more - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ryanlecompte/redis_failover/blob/master/Changes.md redis_failover is a full failover solution for redis. As of v1.0, it now supports distributed monitoring among the Node Managers! Previously, the Node Managers were only used as a means of redundancy in case a particular node manager crashed. Starting with version 1.0 of redis_failover, the Node Managers will all periodically report their health report/snapshots. The primary Node Manager will utilize a configurable "node strategy" to determine if a particular node is available or unavailable.<p>redis_failover now supports a configurable "failover strategy" that's consulted when performing a failover. Currently, a single strategy is provided that takes into account the average latency of the last health check to the redis server. <comment><AUTHOR> redis_failover provides a full automatic master/slave failover solution for Ruby.

Changes in the 1.0 release:

redis_failover now supports distributed monitoring among the Node Managers! Previously, the Node Managers were only used as a means of redundancy in case a particular node manager crashed. Starting with version 1.0 of redis_failover, the Node Managers will all periodically report their health report/snapshots. The primary Node Manager will utilize a configurable "node strategy" to determine if a particular node is available or unavailable.

redis_failover now supports a configurable "failover strategy" that's consulted when performing a failover. Currently, a single strategy is provided that takes into account the average latency of the last health check to the redis server.

Improved handling of underlying ZK client connection in RedisFailover::NodeManager

Add support for passing in an existing ZK client instance to RedisFailover::Cient.new

Reduce unnecessary writes to ZK</comment>


Clojure Linear Algebra Refresher, Part 4: Linear Transformations - <AUTHOR> http://dragan.rocks/articles/17/Clojure-Linear-Algebra-Refresher-Linear-Transformations <comment><USER3> One meta comment.

You've taken the usual approach of explaining matrix operations as an unmotivated "this is what we do" and then tried to layer linear transformations as a weird abstract thing which somehow relates. Most people do this, and it makes sense for people who don't want to actually understand.

If you want people to actually understand, the relationship goes the other way. Linear transformations are the thing we really care about, and matrices happen to be the most convenient way to write them.

More specifically if T is a linear transformation from V to W, with bases (v_1, ..., v_n) and (w_1, ..., w_n), then then we can write down M = (T(v_1) T(v_2) ... T(v_n)). So far that's just a rectangular array of numbers, uniquely defined for the linear transformation. Now if we have a vector v = a_1 v_1 + a_2 v_2 + ... + a_n v_n then just tracing through linearity, we get that T(v) is Mv with the regular matrix multiplication. Furthermore we can now prove that any rectangular matrix defines a unique linear function with that rule.

The result? When you have 2 vector spaces with a basis for each, each linear function gives a unique matrix, and each matrix gives a unique linear function. Matrices are just convenient ways of writing down linear transformations.

OK, now if S is a linear transformation from W to U, and we have a basis for U, then what about the function S o T defined by S o T(v) = S(T(v))? If you work it out, it is a linear function, and its matrix is the usual matrix multiplication. So matrix multiplication is the same as function composition for linear functions.

Here is something fun. You know the associative law? That magically just works after a ton of calculations for matrices? Well, here is why it works. For any three linear transformations R, S, and T which can be composed, and any vector v, by definition:

((R o S) o T)(v) = (R o S)(T(v)) = R(S(T(v))) (R o (S o T))(v) = R((S o T)(v)) = R(S(T(v)))

Which means that functions under composition are associative. Since matrix multiplication is just a way of writing function composition, it must also be associative. QED!

As you move through things like change of basis matrices, it is all a lot easier to understand starting from the point of view of linear functions as being fundamental, and matrices just being a way to represent it with a given pair of bases.

<comment><USER4> I'm not so sure about that. I intentionally direct the reader to the textbook for real understanding. The aim of the article is to connect the dots from that textbook to clojure code, as is stated at the beginning. I am not a mathematician, nor I think a blog post is enough on its own to teach someone linear algebra.

<comment><USER3> It depends on your goal.

If your goal is real understanding, the approach that I stated is the right one. If you've learned it the other way and wish to actually understand it, you'll still have to learn the approach that I stated.

Your goal is explicitly not real understanding. And most textbooks do it in the order that you did. (Partly because professors think that most students aren't going to try to understand, so there is no point in giving explanation.) So you probably made the right choice.

But I would still like to see even a passing mention that matrices of just a representation of a linear function given two bases, and matrix multiplication is function composition. That could set a lightbulb on for someone struggling through a problem.

<comment><USER4> I do not know whether you've read part 3 of this series. It explicitly treats matrix multiplication as function composition, and goes with this at length.

As for the rest, you might be right or not; but I am not competent to reform world's math education. If you can write better linear algebra guides than the standard textbooks, I'm all for it. Please inform me if you do that, I'd love to read that. (BTW It's not sarcasm - I'd really love to see linear algebra explained better than in standard textbooks. So far all fancy tutorials turned to be good only as entertainment).

<comment><USER3> I had not yet read it. Having just fixed it, it is missing the role of a basis. And without it, you'll have trouble figuring out coordinate systems, changing your basis, and so on. Which gives you no way to keep straight such confusing things as the fact that if your coordinate system rotates one way, your representation of things rotates the other. (Try it! Stand up, turn clockwise and see the world spin counter-clockwise!)

Let me offer an abstract example. Consider the polynomials of degree at most 2. There is an obvious basis, namely 1, x, and x^2. A polynomial like x^5 - <USER2> + 2 can now easily be written in coordinates as (2, -3, 1).

However we have many other coordinate systems that might be convenient. For example suppose that we're sampling data, and can measure p(0), p(1) and p(2). How do we find what polynomial that is? Here is an easy way. We can easily find the new coordinates for our basis vectors: 1 -> (1, 1, 1), x -> (0, 1, 2), x^2 -> (0, 1, 4). That means that we can write down the matrix representing the identity transform (nothing happened), going from the basis we have, to the new coordinate system:

        ( 1  1  1)
        ( 1  2  3)
        ( 1  2  4)

That's the change of basis matrix one way. Invert it.

        ( 2 -1  0)
        (-3  2 -1)
        ( 1 -2  1)

And now we can go the other way. The polynomial that we want from our sample data will be (2-3x+x^2)p(0) + (-1+2x-2x^2)p(1) + (-x+x^2)p(2).

There are a lot of problems where linear algebra comes up that you can think through more clearly if you think about things this way (complete with the role of the basis!) than if it isn't fully digested.

As for a better book, well, I already recommended _Down With Determinants!_ :-)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure if you'll see this 2 days later, but I've been trying to make heads or tails of your example and I think there's a mistake in there somewhere.

Maybe I'm hopelessly lost, but, for one, the inverse of

        ( 1  1  1)
        ( 1  2  3)
        ( 1  2  4)

is not:

        ( 2 -1  0)
        (-3  2 -1)
        ( 1 -2  1)

On the off chance you see this, any pointers?

<comment><USER3> I did not see it.

As I commented in email, I did it by hand while very tired and made multiple mistakes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> HN discussions on previous 3 parts:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14480559) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14497867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14497867) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14549007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14549007)</comment>


Tangent.ws sells shares via amazon to fund video project - <AUTHOR> http://tangent.ws/funding/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been curious about alternative startup funding ideas for awhile. Selling rev share units thru Amazon in particular projects seems like it could be compelling for a variety of tech financing situations like building an iphone app, or a facebook game.

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting idea that should be encouraged. Quite likely against securities laws.</comment>


The Struggles of Juggling Multiple Projects - <AUTHOR> http://aschuenemann.com/the-struggles-of-juggling-multiple-projects

<comment><USER2> Definitely agree with how hard it is. Hopefully there is light at the end of the tunnel.</comment>


Opacus: A library that enables training PyTorch models with differential privacy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pytorch/opacus <comment><AUTHOR> see also the press release: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333420](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24333420)</comment>


US Navy ready to deploy laser for first time - <AUTHOR> http://www.apnews.com/ap/db_15897/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SgFdoPRA <comment><USER2> This seems misleading:

> Both costs pennies on the dollar compared with missiles and smart bombs

A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon, so its spear of effect is quite a bit smaller than a "missile and smart bomb." It might be able to displace a Mark 45 gun or the Phalanx CIWS point defence system, but neither of which are missiles or smart bombs, and both fire relatively inexpensive (but heavy) ammunition.

It could not replace weapon systems like the Harpoon, Tomahawk, or Trident.

You could, in theory, get rid of SAMs and replace them with this laser system. But you better be damn confident in the laser system's ability to automatically target and destroy incoming projectiles as the laser has to wait a lot longer to fire than a SAM system does just due to line of sight (which is damn scary if the attackers are in supersonic aircraft, as it is reasonable to expect them to be).

Now you might say: "It is computer controlled! It will be like Robocop!"

But if you look at the Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything unless it is someone approaching in a trawler going 8 knots (and maybe even then you might miss a few times).

<comment><USER3> >A laser weapon is not an over-the-horizon weapon

I'd imagine the long term plan is to roll both lasers and rail guns. The combo seems ideal. Cheat laser shots to swat missiles and drones out of the surroundings whilst bombarding everything further away with the railgun. I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the-horizon railgun shots.

>Phalanx CIWS which is also computer controlled, it is damn terrible at targeting pretty much anything

Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that.

<comment><USER2> > I bet with a bit of clever tech you can pull off some insane over-the- > horizon railgun shots.

The projectiles would only have the force of gravity/terminal velocity behind them unless they have been able to create an explosive railgun projectile (that doesn't explode on the launchpad due to the extremely high temperatures and other shock railguns apply to their projectiles).

> Laser having +- zero flight time should solve most of that.

I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem, particularly in a war-like scenario where the target might very well be supersonic and in less than ideal weather conditions.

Anti-ship missiles can and are designed to travel below radar range, so trying to get a good sense of depth against a blue sea and white/blue horizon is far from trivial even for a computer.

The laser still might be the "least bad" defensive weapon against anti-ship missiles, but the whole thing is far from full-proof. We haven't really seen a full on naval conflict between two modern navies, so we kind of forget just how amazing most of the weapons are these days.

<comment><USER3> >I think "most of that" is a little overly optimistic. Target tracking is a complex problem

I disagree. The current complexity of target tracking comes mostly from that fact that you need to work out firstly where the thing is, secondly where its heading (in 3 dimensions & in real time) and third how fast. Having a +- zero flight time means you only need to do the first step. You can always rinse & repeat if its a laser pulse.

Essentially its the difference between hitting a moving car with a tennis ball and hitting a stationary car with a tennis ball. Thats why I think it would solve "most of that".

Obviously if the laser isn't a pulse(s) then you're back to square one.

<comment><USER4> That assumes that aiming the laser is instantaneous, too. I have no idea if that is the case or not.

<comment><USER3> >That assumes that aiming the laser is instantaneous, too.

I was simplifying quite a bit & making assumptions yes. Another slightly sketchy assumption is that the laser fires instantly...chances are there is some kind of power up delay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _With a laser operating on about 30 kilowatts of electricity - and possibly three times that in the future - the cost amounts to a few dollars per shot, Thompson said._

The important part. Power is plentiful on a ship. No need to pay for and carry ammunition. The cost for a single rocket or cannon volley is usually in the thousands of dollars.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, and although the US Navy has plenty of power already, I'm interested to know how the polywell prototype fusor that they've been sponsoring is coming along.

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

<comment><USER7> I'm having trouble finding any more documents than are listed in that article, but I did find more grants for development [https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED...](https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?desc=Y&sortBy=SIGNED_DATE&s=FPDSNG.COM&q=energy%2Fmatter+VENDOR_FULL_NAME%3A%22ENERGY%2FMATTER+CONVERSION+CORPORATION%22&indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.3) so it's probably still going strong. It would be nice if someone could update their website with something more recent than 2006. [http://www.emc2fusion.org/](http://www.emc2fusion.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can't decide which I'm more excited about, railguns or lasers.

Do the Navy's railgun prototypes take a special type of ammunition or are they just launching precision machined blanks of common metal?

<comment><USER9> It's not common metal. The design of the slug is much of the work in creating a railgun because the electromagnetic push comes from generating back-currents within the slug itself. It has to be good at being pushed, then good at flying, all without melting.

<comment><USER10> Another very serious design problem with high power railguns is making a gun where firing it doesn't destroy the rails after five shots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It will be interesting to see what counter measures can be deployed against the lasers. Mirrors, heat shields?

<comment><USER2> Simply don't move into direct line of sight of an American ship and fire over- the-horizon weapons at it? Or torpedos. Or supersonic aircraft firing supersonic anti-ship weapons (e.g. the Indian BrahMos).

Lasers, unlike SAMs, have a very limited spear of effect.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, a mere 300 to 600 km range.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1)

<comment><USER2> Nope: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon)

<comment><USER11> Yep. Depends on where the laser is fired from, and it depends on the target. Lasers can absolutely fire 300 to 600 km.

<comment><USER12> That's not much help if you're in a ship, where a) you'll be close to sea level and b) incoming missiles etc. will be flying low to avoid radar, rather than high up in the air where they can be convenient targets.

Lasers can fire all the way to the moon, and it might be a great idea to put military ones on top of mountains one day, depending on the weather, but if we're talking about lasers on ships...the USS Nimitz (the largest aircraft carrier class) has a height of about 36m above the waterline, so the distance to the horizon is something like 20km or ~13 miles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > For the Navy, it's not so much about the whiz-bang technology as it is about > the economics of such armaments. Both costs pennies on the dollar compared > with missiles and smart bombs, and the weapons can be fired continuously, > unlike missiles and bombs, which eventually run out.

Why is no one mentioning what seems an obvious side effect of this class of weapon -- all the people who will be blinded by it once it goes into service? If this system goes into service and sees actual battlefield service, the opposing army will be quickly divided into two groups -- those wearing protective goggles, and those who can no longer make out their hands.

My conspiracy theory (isn't there always one of those?) is that laser weapons are a sneaky plot by the Braille publishing industry to spring back from their present near-irrelevance.

<comment><USER14> Weapons that are designed to blind have been illegal for a long time. And these types of lasers are so powerful that if one hit you in the face, you'd probably lose more than just your eyesight.

<comment><USER13> Yes, but as the range increases, the chance of death declines, but the chance of blinding continues out to a much greater range. If there's really an international law against weapons that blind, it's about the be seriously violated.

<comment><USER14> There's laws against weapons designed to blind, but weapons that occasionally blind as an accidental side effect, are legal.

I mean, bullets and shrapnel can and has blinded people, yet bullets and bombs remain legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's amazing all the cool defenses we get with all the money we pour into the military. I heard terrorists are in the process of killing billions of people by making them age until they die -- we ought to divert some defenses toward this huge and imminent threat. Also I think there might be some terrorists in the Alpha Centauri system. We need an intergalactic defense system just in case.

</comment><comment><USER16> > The Navy plans to deploy its first laser on a ship later this year

I seem to recall the Navy deployed lasers intended to blind enemy pilots in the mid 80s.

 _Postscript_ The UK Royal Navy deployed laser dazzlers in 1982, in the Falklands - [http://www.gizmag.com/falklands- laser/28574/](http://www.gizmag.com/falklands-laser/28574/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Some video of a prototype shooting down a drone here, although it's not very exciting to look at because it's not a movie.

[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare- system...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Wow, the shark must be under a lot of pressure.

</comment><comment><USER18> It will be interesting to see how they handle the friendly in cone of firing problem

</comment><comment><USER19> I know this is completely off topic, reddit-ish, and I will get downvoted into the oblivion, but...

Frau: Fire the laSER!

<comment><USER7> At the NYC Resistor hackspace, one is required to yell "Fire the laser!" before starting up the laser cutter. [https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280](https://secure.flickr.com/photos/65613494@N00/2932584280)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Gifolio - <AUTHOR> http://mrmrs.io/gifolio

<comment><USER2> So what exactly am I looking at here?

I've got some cool music and some flashy pictures - where's the About page? :)

<comment><USER3> Probably a demo for the soundcloud player in the footer

\- [http://jxnblk.github.io/plangular/](http://jxnblk.github.io/plangular/)

The second link [0] is down though, so I don't know what that's about.

[0] [https://github.com/jxnblk/gitfolio/](https://github.com/jxnblk/gitfolio/)

<comment><USER4> Appears to be a typo - [https://github.com/jxnblk/gifolio](https://github.com/jxnblk/gifolio) looks like it</comment></comment></comment>


Beyond Bitcoin Trading - An Experiment Is Born - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchbitcoin.com/index.php/blog/beyond-bitcoin-trading-an-experiment-is-born/ Are bitcoins becoming something more than cryptographic keys traded at Mt Gox? I am hoping that my plugin can help answer that question. <comment><USER2> why can't you pause/play the feed on the homepage or change the background color of the listing when mousing over to show it's a link? would be cool to see.

<comment><AUTHOR> The feed should pause when you mouse over a button or important link... I like the idea of a slight color change when mousing-over an item... version2.0

<comment><USER2> it's not pausing for me, could you show a pause sign too?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmmm... What browser? Perhaps I will add a play/pause button in version 2.0.

<comment><USER2> Latest Chrome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I never knew you could buy so much with bitcoin

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please feel free to give me feedback!

</comment><comment><USER4> The live feed is pretty cool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks</comment></comment>


Ask HN: As a Project Manager, what CI stats should I keep track of? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> None. You should track real-world issues like response times and 404s and assure CI build tests are addressing those issues.</comment>


Sexism, racism and bullying are driving people out of tech, US study finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/27/tech-industry-sexism-racism-silicon-valley-study <comment><USER2> Recently saw a junior female engineer get steamrolled even though she took initiative to do some good work. Instead of commending her and guiding her along the path she had chosen she was basically berated until she changed her approach.

Brought up the issue but doubt anything worthwhile will come of it. It's completely rational for anyone that consistently faces that kind of treatment to drop out of the field. The technology field deserves all the toxicity it creates for itself because it consistently rewards toxic behavior and drives out the moderating forces.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Link to the study's web page: [http://www.kaporcenter.org/tech- leavers/](http://www.kaporcenter.org/tech-leavers/)

Link to the study itself (PDF): [http://www.kaporcenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/KAPOR_...](http://www.kaporcenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/KAPOR_Tech-Leavers-17-0428.pdf)</comment>


This Is What Happens When You Reply to Spam Email - <AUTHOR> https://www.ted.com/talks/james_veitch_this_is_what_happens_when_you_reply_to_spam_email <comment><USER2> Previously on HN (and flagged to death):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131061](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11131061)</comment>


Is the #kony2012 campaign a scam, or just misleading?  - <AUTHOR> http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-03-07-kony-2012-lord-help-us-because-this-campaign-wont-help-anyone <comment><USER3> It takes a complex issue and reduces it to a product that people can purchase. It's the same thing that we saw with Save Darfur, 1Million t-shirts etc. Africa's problems become the "white man's burden" and he's told that if he will just buy something then that proves that he cares.

Unfortunately it not always better to something than to do nothing. I really hope there will be some scrutiny of how Invisible Children spend this money. The US already has troops supporting the Ugandan military. Buying more guns for the Ugandan military won't solve the issue.

Another problem is that the constant portrayal of Africa as the dark continent helps keep Africa poor. Who wants to invest in Uganda when videos like this portray it as a violent basket case? How many tourists are going to want to come to Uganda?

Here's some interesting thoughts from Ugandan's themselves: <http://allafrica.com/stories/201203090364.html>

</comment><comment><USER4> One of my big concerns about the US military getting involved in "removing" some crazed warlord from power is that our track record of doing that around the world indicates we do a piss-poor job of finding better replacements.

<comment><USER5> Vacuums. Vacuums aren't filled by the populace, they are filled by the strongest of potential successors.

Often, one that the original manic was keeping at bay.

<comment><USER6> That actually leads to an interesting question. What happens if you just keep killing the bad guys? If you kill a dictator, then his evil successor, then his evil successor, does the next potential evil successor realize it's a bad idea and leave a decent guy in charge? Or do you just end up with chaos? Obviously assisination isn't this easy - but if it were?

<comment><USER7> I think history has proven that there will always be a underling ready to take his chance at the top. We need to look no further than at something like the drug war in Mexico or even to the US to a smaller extent. A young, brutal cartel member rises to the top with his crew and lasts as leader for a few months or years until he is murdered by the next young, smart, hungry up and comer. It is a never ending cycle, even in Mexico where people are getting murdered everyday someone always thinks they can make it big and stay there.

But I imagine it has a lot to do with it being only alternative for these people. Just imagine you are born in an extremely poor area with no hopes of accomplishing anything. Better to take you chances as a rebel leader/cartel member because as short lived as it is, it's better than living and dying hungry in your small rural village.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I don't have access to the financials of Invisible Children, I take issue with the seemingly implied idea that all charitable organizations should be run by paupers whose only reward is a warm fuzzy feeling. If we limit charitable actors to people who don't desire a certain level of compensation, we very severely limit the number of qualified charitable actors.

If giving to a charity was viewed as purchasing a product, in this case effort toward stopping a vicious warlord, then is ~30% 'materials' cost, 70% staffing/travel/advertising/office space an absurd ratio?

<comment><USER9> I give 1% of my income to Save the Children. Their financials are much better than Invisible Children's: [http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.622950...](http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6229505/)

EDIT: Invisible Children's financials: [http://www.invisiblechildren.com/images/breakdownofexpenses....](http://www.invisiblechildren.com/images/breakdownofexpenses.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems every generation must fail to realize that real life does not consist of 'bad guys you can kill and then the problems go away' all over again.

</comment><comment><USER11> A few years ago I was reading a story about the war in the Congo. I felt really guilty for not knowing much about what was going on. What I knew about it I picked up through reading The Economist or the NYT, but I didn't really have a good overall understanding of the war and the history of that part of the continent (despite having spent time living in Africa, too)

So I went through Amazon and picked up some books about the history of Africa, the history of the Congo, history of Aid in Africa, and read up about it.

My impression has completely changed. Almost all of the wars and trouble in the region are a result of the current national borders having been imposed on the continent by colonialists who divided up the spoils, rather than being based on local tribal affiliations.

Uganda does not have a single ethnic group that comprises more than 10% of the overall population. This leads to instability, turmoil and multiple coupe's (Kony belongs to a tribal group that a former president belonged to. His army was founded initially in reaction to persecution following the coupe). During the 90s there were over 40 conflicts at any one time in Africa - some of them the deadliest seen since WW2 (5.4M in Congo 2 - which the Ugandan military started with its invasion).

Most governments resort to corruption and violence to retain positions of power. That includes exploiting minerals and mining on the black market, nationalizing assets, etc. All to get and retain power. There are very few functioning peaceful free market democracies.

There is also a lot to be said about western aid methods (see Dead Aid[1]). Our food programs have been known to destroy local economies. What the WTO would consider dumping (and a trade violation) in the west we call 'aid' in Africa.

Before having an opinion on the Kony campaign, you should know these things:

1\. Kony was indicted by the International Criminal Court 7 years ago.

2\. He left Uganda around that time. Most of the internal refugees in Uganda have settled back home. Uganda has been relatively peaceful since.

3\. The images of children hiding from militias in camps _was_ big news in the west when it happen - back in 2003. There was even a celebrity campaign and congressional lobbying at the time to do something about it. This isn't a 2012 issue.

4\. The last US trained mission in 2006 to capture Kony resulted in a months long terror campaign by the LRA that killed hundreds[2]

5\. Most local groups, including clergy, oppose a military solution since the remote villages in the region are not adequately protected from retribution [3]

6\. the LRA has largely been an ineffective fighting force in the past 7 years, and have only attacked villages while retreating from military campaigns

7\. Almost all the local aid groups including doctors without borders oppose a military solution

Knowing this and then watching the Kony campaign video you find that there is a lot that isn't being mentioned, some if it misleading. It has intentionally simplified the situation and problem down to a good guys vs bad guys paradigm - where there is only a single bad guy responsible for all ills (even his soldiers have been kidnapped, it is Kony alone who is evil). Kony is a symptom of a deeper seeded problem and not the solution. This campaign video spends a lot more time talking about Facebook and social media and showing people in the west a lot more than it talks and discusses the problems in the region. Not a single mention of the Congo war (worst in death toll since WW2), nor of the situation in Uganda, and with facts that were true 8 years ago but not today.

The danger here is misleading people into believing that the problems of the region are the responsibility of a single person, and the solution is to capture that one person. The proposed solution is perhaps the worst part - <USER2> re-arm and train a military that was partly responsible for the worst war since WW2 and to send more troops into Congo and other nations.

I think the desired solution is the exact opposite - don't make Kony famous, don't give him a means to arm more followers, keep him in the middle of the jungle where he isn't a threat to anybody and ignore him to the point where his message and means are completely ineffective. This is what has been happening since the last US raid and today.

I think this is a good opportunity to get a real message out about Africa. Be it through a film that covers the modern history of the region or a social campaign to back more pragmatic NGO's that don't take sides in conflicts.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better- Africa/dp/1553...](http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better- Africa/dp/1553655427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331359746&sr=8-1)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/africa/07congo.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/africa/07congo.html?_r=1)

[3] <http://allafrica.com/stories/201111130058.html>

<comment><USER12> Thanks for this. Could you share the rest of your reading list?

<comment><USER13> Friends of the Congo: <http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/films-a-videos.html> has some great resources about this.

Another classic is Heart of Darkness (although a fiction, it tells much about colonialism)

King Leopold's Ghost is also a great read: [http://www.amazon.com/King- Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/d...](http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds- Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905)

<comment><USER3> I would not recommend Heart of Darkness to a beginner on the Congo. Yes it deals with the brutality of Belgian colonialism... but it's dated and has it's own racist portrayal of Africa as the dark continent with primitive peoples.

I would tho second King Leopold's Ghost as a brilliant overview of colonialism in the Congo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The UN has a useful news service. People wanting to read about Kony, LRA, wars in Africa, etc could get useful information from them.

(<http://www.irinnews.org/>)

([http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94941/SECURITY-Questions- over...](http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94941/SECURITY-Questions-over- progress-against-the-LRA))

([http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94794/Analysis-The-LRA-not- ye...](http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94794/Analysis-The-LRA-not-yet-a-spent- force))

([http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94657/GLOBAL-Fighting-for- the...](http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94657/GLOBAL-Fighting-for-the-rights- of-child-soldiers))

etc etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is like tactics and propaganda to get you in the army and which tells you you MUST FIGHT some other bad guy you only know from this movie. But essentially there are army A fighting army B over power to govern what goes on in that part of the world. Picking either one is legit choice. (or none if you don't want align yourself ).

I wonder what would propaganda movie be like if LRA pays same amount of resources to made it.

What if some rich guys pay this kind of propaganda movie against you one day. what would you do?

<comment><USER6> You're going too far to the opposite extreme. The LRA isn't a "legitimate choice". Kony 2012 doesn't exist in isolation, there is a large amount of independent evidence about the LRA's crimes.

<comment><USER15> Im sure there is large amount of evidence of crime for other army too. War is like that there are crimes in it. each side is committing crime according to law of other side. (because guess what: they made the law it is what people with power do.)

<comment><USER15> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4Z_iUTuw8&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE4Z_iUTuw8&feature=related)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Even criminals have an interesting backstory, and if you look deeper into it, you might feel some empathy and understanding for why certain people act a certain way. There rarely are people who just kill because they are sinister and purely evil.

<comment><USER17> People who turned evil over time are still evil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Please upvote, people should know this. <http://communicationtheory.org/lasswells-model/>

It explains how mass manipulation works and how you notice it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Yes, raising awareness is easy compared to finding a solution. But African politics has failed to solve a pretty awful issue for 25 years. Placing this issue in the global spotlight might force something to happen before another generation of villages is raped or abducted into slavery.

<comment><USER20> FTA:

> Here's the thing. The LRA is an incredibly complex issue. By simplifying > down to a case of "Goodies versus Baddies" the Invisible Children campaign > risks undermining the very real progress that is being made against the LRA. > Also released on Tuesday, in a report completely ignored by social media, a > spokesman for the UN High Commission for Refugees said that a recent spate > of LRA attacks were "the last gasp of a dying organisation that's still > trying to make a statement," adding that there were only about 200 LRA > fighters left. Progress is being made. There's even a chance that Kony will > be caught or killed by the end of 2012 – but this will have nothing to do > with a YouTube video, however slick it is.

I don't think that the statement "African politics has failed to solve a pretty awful issue for 25 years" is really accurate or fair. And that's one of the problems with this video -- it propagates this idea that Africans need Western powers to solve their problems for them.

And I guess I'd ask this: How does the attention of people in North America and Europe "force something to happen"? Force what to happen? Force Western military intervention? Give Ugandans more motivation to take out the LRA?

And, of course "Africa" isn't really the right word, anyways. It's an entire continent, after all, and the people in Uganda or South Sudan aren't the same as the people in, say, South Africa, or Botswana, or Somalia, etc., nor are the political/economic/social contexts necessarily the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Pretty misleading title, if you ask me.

</comment><comment><USER22> The movement is legit, Kony is a crazy mofo, but Invisible Children is a huge money scam. They only donate a fraction of their profits to the charities they claim to support.

</comment><comment><USER23> Please, someone tell me, is the "Lord help us" tongue-in-cheek irony? I hope so, heh.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think (and hope) this is the first step in creating real connections between people in disparate regions.

In building a movement, the first thing that is necessary is a good story. And KONY2012 will provide the story if he is caught anytime this year or the next.

I'm not saying that KONY2012 needs to be the reason he is caught - there just needs to be a perception that it was the reason.

There are a lot of lonely people in the US with a smartphone who badly need a human connection and in the developing nations there are tons of people who would be happy to share their lives. I think technology can bridge that gap leading to some real social progress on both sides.

This has always been my "dream app" but of course it requires better infrastructure in the developing nations coupled with really cheap computing and video equipment. But I think it should be possible soon.

<comment><USER25> Did you read the article?

Do you really mean we need Americans to put pressure on politicians to support bad and likely deadly policies so that said American people can feel an (illusory) connection with people in the Third World?

<comment><USER24> Yes I read the article and yes I think americans are not using enough pressure to get things done in developing nations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really." -James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA

<comment><USER18> So you're a believer of eugenics. Do you even know what you believe in?? Ask yourself, it's not late to change your mind, you've been victim of a mind- washing campaign. The only way to make you re-think is putting you into the "I've been a victim, I didn't know" position again.

Don't take this personal, this is a rhetorical question: "According to your weird belief in a form of eugenics, do you agree to be eliminated by someone who claims to be genetically better situated?"

Of course not! Let's face it, you want to live and you can become better, right? There is no such thing as race based intelligence, that's propaganda you've willingly accepted, without proving it, because you want to be a believer. You want to be part of something. You want to make the world better..really? If you really want to be part of something, stop spreading someone else's words, use your own "intelligence". James Watson simply manipulated facts.</comment></comment>


Honda's $20k Civic LX now offers self-driving capability for highway use - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-20-000-self-driving-vehicle-hits-the-road-1457913797-lMyQjAxMTE2MDE3NDUxMDQzWj <comment><USER2> This looks like the "Sensing" feature that Honda has implemented on some of their other vehicles. I just bought a 2016 Accord that does the same thing -- there's a camera mounted on the windshield, another camera in the front grille, and a radar sensor on the front bumper.

Calling it "self-driving" is kind of a misnomer and I think the article kind of blows it out of proportion.

It will track the car in front of you and keep a safe following distance, keeping either the maximum cruise control speed you've set, or whatever speed the vehicle ahead of you is driving, whichever is slower. It will accelerate or brake accordingly. It will also attempt to stay in the lane by using the onboard cameras for tracking the lane markings.

The lane keeping assist is not nearly as autonomous as the article makes it out to be. It does not like to work on sharper curves on the freeway, for one -- the system will disengage and tell you to steer manually. It still wants you to keep your hands on the wheel. It must be looking for very very subtle movements on the wheel, because the system will yell at you if you take your hands off the wheel for longer than 10-15 seconds.

All in all it's a pretty cool feature for longer road trips (keeping in your lane can just get kind of tiring, even with cruise control) but it's not the sort of autonomous driving that the article here paints it out to be.

<comment><USER3> Free-market ideology if you ask me. The first sentence suggests the hapless government wants to spent $4 billion on research for something you you can have today for $20K. A little later it mentions Washington's "time and billions" spent on fuel-efficiency instead of "saving lives". The government has also funded electric-car research and encouraged Detroit to build them. Contrasting self-driving with electric drive is just another way to suggest the dead hand of bureaucracy is impeding the invisible hand of the market.

By the way, the government has saved drivers' lives, too, by the thousands, more often than not over industry objection. Seat belts, unleaded fuel, crumple zones: it's a long list. The article's bias isn't just bias; it slants away from the facts.

<comment><USER4> Yes, the WSJ is known for its free-market ideology :)

But I think they have a point. The gov't has largely focused on fuel economy for decades now, while tens of thousands of people continued to die or suffer horrible injuries in cars. Sure, seat belts, crumple zones -- a good start. Unleaded? Not sure how that saves you in a crash.

<comment><USER5> > Yes, the WSJ is known for its free-market ideology :)

Yes, in its editorials. But it's otherwise known for quality, more-or-less objective journalism, which makes this article a bit of a disappointment.

Then again, I'm reminded of that Paul Graham article about working with newspapers―pretty much any topic except politics or war, according to him, is written about because someone with an interest pitched the article to the author. Perhaps Honda has more to do with this article's bent than the WSJ editors.

<comment><USER6> > But it's otherwise known for quality, more-or-less objective journalism

Sorry but no. Ever since Murdoch took over and replaced the editors the quality has noticeably dropped with a lot more inherent bias even in the non- editorial content.

And within the editorial section the change is pretty clear. It's shifted from being centrist to at times being on the hard right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Americans could rather use a robot highway driving instructor.

"Consider moving over to the right line; you're driving at the speed limit, and a speeding car is approaching; you may confirm this in the rear-view mirror."

"I have detected that you came to a full stop at the end of a generous freeway entrance ramp in light traffic. Suggested future action: look over the shoulder as early as possible and match the speed of the traffic."

"Suddenly exiting out of the left lane is dangerous. Please know which exit you're supposed to take, watch for its approach early, and change lanes ahead of time. If you miss an exit, do not make a sudden, dangerous action. Look for an alternate route or U-turn starting at the next exit."

<comment><USER8> From personal experience a lot of people would benefit from Blinker Usage 101.

<comment><USER9> Poor blinker usage drives me nuts.

Yes, there are some cases where, well, stuff happens. A driver forgets until the last minute. Many times I see them hit the blinker a split second _after_ they've changed lanes.

But far more frequently, I see the driver who is drifting between lanes at will, without thinking of the blinker, and seemingly without a care in the world. This is disturbing, especially since if I'm seeing the behavior, I'm behind the driver. That means it's my job to figure out where the winds will blow them next.

Too many times I see idiots posting on Facebook or texting as I pass. Many times this is when we're both doing 65mph or more. Insane stuff.

This isn't full auto driving, but every little step helps.

<comment><USER7> If you want to cut in, gaining an advantage over traffic, it behooves you to keep your intent undisclosed. Some drivers in the advantaged lane will make it difficult to merge if they see the intent, by closing the gaps. (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone).

It's safer if you don't announce your intent; you don't want to be encouraging the driver in the target lane to be trying to close the gap that you're swinging into.

In most other normal situations, blink, damn it!

<comment><USER10> This is fucking ridiculous. Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; why do they all actively attempt to thwart other drivers from getting into the lanes they need?

<comment><USER7> That's the competitive reality of driving in congested, urban areas.

Drivers who cut in can save a lot of time over the course of a commute. They disrupt traffic flows and delay everyone else. So efficient traffic flows have to be defended.

> _Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they 're > going; _

Yes, and some drivers like, for instance, to pass around 25 other cars who are making the _same_ merge.

<comment><USER11> The problem is that traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. You are effectively using aggressive driving (a crime) in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers) and to self-righteously defend the worldview that you have constructed in order to provide a superficially logically consistent explanation for your emotional frustration about losing out.

<comment><USER7> > _traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency._

Do they?

> _You are effectively using aggressive driving_

Not me, personally. (I ride a bicycle and use transit from time to time, and the occasional rental car on weekends and holidays: out of the vicious rush- hour traffic.)

Fact is, if you throw a blinker, there will be those drivers who will reduce gaps and not let you in. Usually not in merge situations (as in, you can't join this freeway, bugger off!) but situations in where the lane change is not necessary (you're not _entitled_ to swerve into this lane just because it's moving faster!). I agree with them; they are doing the right thing. It can usually be done safely, within the "two second rule" for following another vehicle, depending on speed. Be it right or wrong, safe or unsafe, if you want to outwit those who are doing it, you have to do the wrong thing an not blink.

Not letting people join a freeway is despicable. (It happens too: "Hey, you _can_ merge here ... just not in front of me, thank you very much!") The do- not-blink principle does not apply there, because it's obvious that you want to merge whether you blink or not, being in a merging lane and all! My comments don't apply to that situation at all.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure I'm understanding your position very well. Are you saying that people exiting the slow lanes to enter the "moving lane" constitutes a hazard, and by punishing those actors by not letting them in, you are minimizing that hazard? If so, i'm inclined to agree philosophically.

However, I don't believe anyone should impose their philosophy with 2 tons of steel.

RE: traffic science, here are some references [http://www.amazon.com/Traffic- Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072...](http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What- Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458019698) [http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging- psychology-d...](http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology- dont-hate-the-sidezoomer.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just for comparison, you can get a Subaru Legacy Premium with Eyesight for $25,835 (or a Crosstrek for thereabouts, and an Outback for $2-3K more), since at least summer 2015. So nothing Honda are doing here is revolutionary technologically, they're just bringing the same technology to a new market ($5K cheaper), which is still something.

I highly recommend that if you invest in THIS technology that you go all in and get the blind spot detection and rear cross traffic alerts. I have had a Subaru with Eyesight for over six months now, and I don't regret buying it and definitely like the blind spot/cross traffic alerts, they're legitimately useful day to day.

I will say one downside of this system is what I call "alert fatigue" particularly lane drift warnings, ice warnings, traffic pulled away warnings, etc. You can disable many of these, but it would be my only whine.

I have had automatic braking pre-warn me a handful of times, but not had it activate yet except when I pulled into the garage and the dangling tennis ball confused it and even then it only slowed me slightly. You get a yellow warning then red, then brake, and most of the warnings are legitimate I am just ahead of them.

Lane keep assist and distance based cruise control are like crack. It feels like you just get on the freeway, push a few buttons, and the car almost drives itself.

<comment><USER13> I also really enjoy my Subaru EyeSight. I've only run into one terrible experience, and that is when I went into a automated car wash. As soon as the first big scrubby thing approached, the EyeSight flipped out and slammed on the brake, which was jolting and scary. Kind of obvious looking back on it, of course, and now I remember to turn it off when I wash my car.

<comment><USER14> You're supposed to turn off your car when you're in a car wash, so I'm not exactly sure that this was the car's fault :)

<comment><USER15> Perhaps for one where you are stationary...but I've never seen a tunnel wash that advised anything other than placing one's vehicle in Neutral.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The article really wants to compare with electric vehicles, for some reason. The subheading says "they are being snapped up faster than electrified vehicles." This is repeated in the article, which says the relevant options packages "are being snapped up at a far higher rate than electrified vehicles." Discussing the Q50's technology package and how many buyers opt for it, it says "That's three times as many people who pay extra to buy a hybrid- electric version."

What's the deal? Is this just because Tesla happens to be the one with the best system at the moment? It doesn't make any sense to me, and really distracts from the article's main thrust.

<comment><USER8> WSJ editorial board does not like the electric vehicle, emission and carbon tax credits, considering it crony capitalism [http://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-should-be-mad-at- electric...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-should-be-mad-at-electric- cars-1457737805)

<comment><USER17> It's just another one of the pile of vitriol against electric vehicles. Day after day, whenever someone mentions Tesla or Prius Plug-ins or the Nissan Leaf or whatever, it seems to kick in a auto-response of "what is the ROI of electric vehicles? You'll have to drive a million miles to get your investment back!" (as if buying a new non-exotic car is any kind of financial instrument). They also always talk about how many fossil fuels it takes to manufacture (or even charge) the electric vehicle, ignoring the fact that it not only takes the same amount to make the ICE car but it still has to run _directly_ on fossil fuels. When all of these arguments are refuted, the last argument is always about how cars sound better with gas engines and the rumble and other appeals to manliness or whatever rubbish.

There is a very large contingent that wants the status quo and either hires astroturfers outright to spread FUD, or influences opposition via media/ad buys. The rest opposed to electric are just old-school fuddy-duddies and the kids they've managed to influence. And, I've seen these arguments play out on everywhere from car specialist forums, YouTube comment sections on Teslas racing ICE cars, to right here on Hacker News when talking about electric cars.

<comment><USER8> I am not particularly opposed to their argument (crony capitalism is evil, after all) but their omission of decades of handouts to fossil-based businesses, as well as variety of present-day deductions crafted specifically for those industries makes the argument hypocritical or incomplete, to say the least.

<comment><USER18> Many of those "handouts" are legitimate tax breaks that all manufacturing companies receive, even Apple and Microsoft, only oil companies get capped at 6% on their section 199 [1] where everyone else gets 9%

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the- surp...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising- reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#62a686a41e86)

<comment><USER16> And many of them are subtle but gigantic subsidies, like allowing them and their customers to poison the population without consequence, not even paying for the damages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The real problem with self-driving cars is the car to human handoff. Over the long term it's incredible unlikely that humans will be any good _at_ _all_ at remaining aware and 'up to speed' on the current situation in the event that the car needs to give control back to the driver due to road conditions, hardware failure, or sudden situation that it cannot contend with.

<comment><USER20> Normal desktop failure modes don't work well here.

"Hi, this is your car. I've discovered that the road is icy, and am currently in the middle of a 360. Would you like to (a) take over, (b) call an ambulance, or (c) retry?"

Too late! You've crashed.

<comment><USER21> > and am currently in the middle of a 360.

You have no faith in AI. The car will always be better at driving than the human. It would be much better at handling a 360 than a human ever could. Actually humans are very bad at handling 360s unless you are a pro.

<comment><USER22> Humans are very, very good at handling unknown complex situations.

In order for any AI to handle any situation, it must first be programmed to do so. If that situation was an unknown, you get undefined behavior. Undefined behavior in a car traveling down the road is not a good thing to place a bet on... especially your life.

This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control. There's an impossible volume of failure modes a driverless car must contend with, everything from someone pointing an infrared laser at the distance sensors, to complete power failure, to a sudden rockslide, a bird darting in front of the car, lines missing from a windy and hilly road, etc.

In normal, daily mundane driving - driverless cars are expected to excel. Sitting in traffic is mind numbing, and mistakes happen when driver's minds wonder. In "active" driving situations, a human brain will almost always excel.

<comment><USER16> Humans are mostly terrible at handling unknown complex situations on the road.

For many human drivers on the roads right now, the response to a sudden weird situation is either going to be "brake heavily" or "swerve dangerously."

You don't have to get "undefined behavior" in response to an unknown situation. The AI can simply default to braking to a stop in the absence of any better programmed alternative. This will already put it on par with most drivers. Better, in fact, because the AI can begin braking instantly.

I personally find that the majority of driverless vehicle talk vastly overestimates the average human driver, and demands unreasonable perfection from the computers.

<comment><USER23> Remember the two second rule? Instantaneous response would be a huge improvement in many situations already.

<comment><USER24> With today's aggressive and impatient drivers, the 2 second rule is very hard to maintain because they'll just pass you and fill the spot, every time.

<comment><USER16> I see this stated a lot, but I think it's exaggerated. My car's adaptive cruise control follows at about 2.5 seconds when on the maximum setting, which is where I almost always keep it, including in heavy traffic. People do occasionally jump in, but then the car just backs off a bit and starts following the new car at 2.5 seconds. It's not a constant churn, and it doesn't cause any significant delay. And this is in the DC area, with dense traffic and ridiculous drivers.

When people say that it doesn't work, I really think they're just saying that they can't stand having other people get ahead by breaking the rules, and they'd rather drive more dangerously than let that happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In the early 2000's, I was hanging out sometimes in western North Carolina, and there was this young woman who has in the habit of getting together with some friends and driving around the clock to get to Colorado and back on short trips, instead of flying. I'm wondering if this technology isn't going to be used for such purposes.

<comment><USER26> If I could get in my car, read a bit and fall asleep, and wake up in Las Vegas from San Francisco, I'd prefer it over flying every time.

But this has more to do with how air travel has become miserable than anything else.

<comment><USER27> You can do this with buses today.

<comment><USER28> Actually, with buses today, it will take almost twice as long (14 hours) and require between 3-5 transfers [1]. In a car there are no transfers and it takes 8.5 hrs [2].

[1] [https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/Las+Vegas,...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/Las+Vegas,+email@example.com,-121.0218591,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff!2m2!1d-122.4194155!2d37.7749295!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1398296!2d36.1699412!3e3) [2] [https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/Las+Vegas,...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+CA/Las+Vegas,+email@example.com,-121.0218591,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff!2m2!1d-122.4194155!2d37.7749295!1m5!1m1!1s0x80beb782a4f57dd1:0x3accd5e6d5b379a3!2m2!1d-115.1398296!2d36.1699412!3e3)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Conversations about self-driving have focused on zero defect rate in-city self-driving vehicles, but a lot of these technologies are reaching Pareto- efficient levels of usefulness. I don't need my car to drive the first and last miles; I'd be perfectly happy if it just drove on the highway.

And why do humans drive long haul trucks for anything other than the first and last miles? Trucks should drive themselves between depots at the edges of metros and then humans can drive them into the city. [https://www.mercedes- benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/innovation/th...](https://www.mercedes- benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/innovation/the-long-haul-truck-of-the-future/) "Self steering"... How long before that moniker is replaced by "Self driving".

And why are humans delivering packages? They might not be for long: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-starship-delivery-robot- id...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-starship-delivery-robot- idUSKBN0U30ES20151220)

It's going to shock our economy once industries begin constraining roles to the level at which robots can be "good enough". After figuring out how to manage them, we'll start to see robots deployed in force.

As parents, my wife and I are talking about this a lot as we think about how to raise our kids (and we are emphatically hands-off parents)...

<comment><USER23> Even fully automated, trucks have much longer response times in dangerous situations. The fatal accidents would be inevitable, and the legal response vicious. Never mind that automated trucks would probably be less likely overall to be in an accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The elephant in the room is this one:

When will highways be upgraded/updated for self driving? I don't mean V2I (vehicle to infrastructure) capabilities, but properly painted _and_ maintained lane lines, reflectors, and signage. The infrastructure is just not there. You can't simply rely on a car's sensing abilities for self driving.

<comment><USER31> That $4bn could go a fair way towards developing a longer-lasting highway paint, then restriping the interstates with it.

<comment><USER30> I think the current paint is OK, it just needs to be serviced. It might be a good idea to include the V2I sensors in the paint itself due to its thickness (I've measured the lane lines locally and they are about 10mm thick). But the basic maintenance is key. This is a bureaucratic problem due to how infrastructure maintenance is used as a political tool (politicians in power usually advertise how public works generate _n_ jobs). The problem here is not the actual tech, but the politics. The tech will eventually get there. The politics? Good luck with that...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Am I missing something? Why is this top news? There are several cars out there with adaptive cruise control. In fact, I think most mainstream cars offer it as an option now. It's pretty impressive but calling it "self-driving" is hyperbole.

Subaru's eyesight is technically even more impressive considering it does image processing to detect vehicles, whereas most of these systems are based on radar. Although I don't see the point because radar is more reliable IMO. Unless you use some features which only camera can provide (stop at traffic lights?), which Subaru doesn't yet do. From whatever research I did before buying a car, Volvo's system (uses both radar and camera) seems to be one of the best overall, along with Mercedes, and Subaru being a close third.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm curious about whether this is going to be a net win or lose for safety.

If users treat these automated cruise systems as a "magic self-driving device" when it can potentially make mistakes or hand back control when it's confused, drivers are going to die.

If people "really want to look at their cell phones", and they take this as the tool that lets them pay no attention to the road, it better be up to that task.

</comment><comment><USER34> The title is a bit misleading. I have a 2016 Civic Touring that has the Sensing Package. It's effectively a sensor package (cameras in the top-middle of the windshield and below passenger-side headlight) with integration with the steering and powertrain systems and very basic logic.

When you turn it on the car basically tries to stay in your lane by looking at the lines on the road. It actually tells you when it can and cannot see the lines. When it detects you going outside of the lane (without using your signal) it takes control of steering and corrects for you. You can also set it to stay within some distance of the car in front of you and it will control your speed. Supposedly, it will also auto-brake if you are in danger of collision but I haven't had a chance to test that yet (and hope not to have to).

The whole thing is more like a driver assistance system and if you take your hands off the wheel for more than 15 seconds or so a bunch of alerts start going off and the system disengages. After using it for a few months I think this is probably a good idea. There are quite a few places in the SF Bay area that have worn out and faded lines on the road and once the system loses sight of the lane markers it just stops working. Not a great moment to have your hands off the wheel or your eyes closed. ;-)

For the price its incredible that Honda offers something like this. Suburu offers something similar but the next best thing is buying a Tesla for much more. I treat it sort of as insurance on long trips. If I start dozing off or am distracted the system keeps me in check but it is not reliable enough to be truly autonomous. So yeah, it can sort of drive autonomously.

As a preview of the future it gives me hope and it's possible this may be the last car I actually buy (when cars drive themselves it could very well become a service industry).

</comment><comment><USER30> This is an expansion on cruise control capabilities and not self-driving. Its a step up, of course. But not what the title may make you think.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is a interesting proposition for Honda, but really not that new. Even the price is not /that/ new.

In fact, this is technology that has been sold at around the same price point in the industrial transportation sector -- think of logistics and lorries -- for quite a while. This is where the majority of the innovation is taking place.

For example, just this week it has been revealed that the UK Govt will likely to announcing tomorrow funding for driverless truck convoys in the North of England. What's the price differential between these intelligent trucks and regular trucks? $0.

In fact, so much innovation is taking place in the industrial sector that just last week Toyota announced that it has hired the FULL workforce of Jaybridge Robotics, a firm that specializes in autonomous industrial vehicles, mainly in the agricultural sector.

If you want to understand the tailwinds in the sector, follow the b2b and industrial segment of the market. Technologies and trends are already starting to filter down.

\--

I also want to plug my email newsletter Driverless Weekly ([http://driverlessweekly.com](http://driverlessweekly.com)) while I'm at it. It's a once-weekly summary of the top news stories in the autonomous vehicles sector.

</comment><comment><USER36> I've owned three cars with automatic cruise control for the past decade. This isn't exactly new technology, perhaps only at this price point.

The first car I had with this, an '06 Infiniti, was only able to slow to a crawl, not a full stop. So while it was useful on the highway it was useless in stop and start.

The second car, a '11 BMW, added "Stop & Go" to the formula. Great? Not quite. What would happen is that the car would come to a full stop, and then a timer would run, and if the car didn't start moving again within 10 seconds the cruise control would shut off, and to resume you'd have to push the pedal. This was especially maddening when stop & start traffic is inconsistent and the stops last 10.5 seconds. Basically the idea of being able to set & forget was completely undermined by this and driving with the feature on was more stressful than driving with it off and just doing everything manually. A complete bust. I don't know why it does this but I can see it being some combination of the product team needing to ship the feature in the state it was in, and legal requirements.

The problem with both of these implementations is that they promised to alleviate some of the issues with past "auto-drive" features (and you should consider Cruise Control to be the very first auto drive feature), but introduce their own. If you want the user experience of set & forget, you need very predictable conditions if you want any of these mass market systems to work for you, and unfortunately that's just not the way the roads are.

I think I have the feature in my latest car too, but I've given up and decided to enjoy manually driving, and just wait for fully autonomous vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER37> How do we as drivers keep up with the rising levels of automation? It's challenging but doable for owners, but imagine jumping from a pain old 1990s car into a flashy new rental with all the bells and whistles... With a bit of exaggeration, one might make a case for individual type rating, like airliner pilots need to have.

Before we reach fully autonomous driving, we might see an age of widespread "car illiteracy", with more and more people who have a driver's license, but who have completely lost touch with the state of the art in car UI concepts. With not enough time on automatic transmission, people here in Europe occasionally even struggle with something as simple as park/neutral/reverse/drive (don't ask my where I got that)

</comment><comment><USER38> Sounds like these cars are far from self driving. Just some added safety features that resemble self driving but, are dangerous to use without a foot near the break and hands on the wheel.

I think this sentence pretty much says it all, "For instance, some owners have posted videos of hands- and foot-free driving on YouTube and the car inevitably makes a mistake.".

It sounds like these features are going to end up being abused and probably causing serious fatalities. As we have seen people want to txt and even watch movies while driving. These new features will allow wreck less drivers to pay less attention to driving and more attention to how many Instagram followers they have.

I'll be sure to pay more attention to people driving Honda civics when I'm on the highway.

</comment><comment><USER39> This looks like the same functionality the Tesla Model S has. One of the big draws for the new Model S cars. So much so that people are getting rid of their older Teslas because they did not have the autopilot.

I thought it's only a matter of time before autopilot becomes common place but it looks like its happening sooner than I thought. The good thing is this has nothing to do with the car being electric or not. But the main thing is, if Tesla thought its going to be a differentiator in terms of calling their cars "luxury" its going to be a problem for them. Given that the internals of the Model S itself are not particularly luxorious they need to think about it.

</comment><comment><USER40> There was a startup that for $10,000 it was a third party option package that was self driving. I wonder how it is doing with all these car companies that create their own options for self-driving.

<comment><USER41> You mean the one just recently bought by one of the big car companies for north of $1B? [http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/gm-buying-self-driving-tech- st...](http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/gm-buying-self-driving-tech-startup-for- more-than-1-billion/)

<comment><USER40> Yeah I think that's the one! Wow good for them, I remember reading about them last year, then after that I never really heard about them again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I have yet to drive a "self-driving" or even "self-monitoring" car and the thought of doing so terrifies me. I know technology is good and it can do great things, but helping me drive is something I don't enjoy the idea of. What happens if, however unlikely, someone were to hack my car? They could potentially crash my car and leave without a trace. I think we really need to take a step back and ask if the benefits outweigh the potential costs/risks.

</comment><comment><USER43> > The Obama administration has proposed spending $4 billion to accelerate > autonomous-car technology during the next decade.

Hmm, what are they spending it on? There's a lot of money being spent on developing this technology already by multiple private companies. I assume it's for something else...

IMO government research money should go into stuff that private industry is unwilling to fund, like pure math, theoretical physics/CS, and other things that have very long-term yield/results timelines.

</comment><comment><USER44> It might take a while before self driving is widely available, but self stopping is here today. It's now standard equipment in all new Mercedes -- including cars selling for about $30k. I have an entry-level Mercedes and it includes blind spot radar, lane tracking, and collision avoidance that will stop your car automatically if you're distracted or incapacitated. These features are available widely from most automakers now.

</comment><comment><USER45> Exciting title, disappointing marketing piece for Honda. WSJ has joined the ranks of Forbes promoted content levels.

</comment><comment><USER46> The conversation on this HN thread makes me wonder about the future generation who will never learn how to drive.

And then I feel sorry for the generation in between who will be confused with automatic driving happening only sometimes.

Such interruptive learning or even worse, never having learned, has the power to change culture for the worst.

</comment><comment><USER47> The impending dawn of the autonomous car era is the reason why I am not marching on Washington for rail investment.

This is really one time where cynical cheapskate politics may hasten rapid, positive societal change.

<comment><USER48> How does an autonomous car reduce the need for infrastructure investment? A bunch of commuters in self-driving cars will clog the road just as much. Less need for parking, maybe; less need for roads, no.

Maybe you could squeeze a bit more capacity out of freeways by running cars at high speed at short following distances. But a lot of congestion occurs at intersections and self-driving does little to solve that.

<comment><USER49> Not "maybe" less need for parking. Definitely, certainly less need for parking. And remember that a lot of "road" surface is actually reserved for parking and not actually available to drive on. Same thing for having to have massive parking lots EVERYWHERE that people with cars might want to go; that can potentially go away completely.

And if you need much much less parking, guess what you also need less of? Parking meters. And parking tickets. Imagine a society without that pernicious bullshit everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> the self driving car is a concept I have a hard time appreciating. It sounds cool, and offers enormous technological and legislative obstacles to overcome, yet I can't figure out the fundamental problem they will solve - compared to the attention they get. For any use case I can imagine (minus the cool factor) we either have more efficient solutions already, or there are better alternatives to investigate. Plus I figure, most people still like to drive.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm impressed, I'm much more relaxed than before - and that means I'm actually able to just look ahead and think about the road, not about what I'm doing.

</comment><comment><USER52> Curiously I'd rather pay a premium for a car that can park itself flawlessly. Or drive itself around town while I am busy doing things in said town.

</comment><comment><USER53> If it's a much cheaper car than the alternatives, would the self-driving capability be implemented with lower-quality hardware and/or software?

</comment><comment><USER54> Is it legal to let these cars drive themselves?

<comment><USER41> Yes: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-autos- selfdriving...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-autos-selfdriving- exclusive-idUSKCN0VJ00H)

<comment><USER55> That's referring to fully-autonomous cars. With systems like the one in this article, the driver is still the human, not the car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Sadly there is no such thing as an electric Civic. I wish my 30K Nissan Leaf had it.

</comment><comment><USER57> From the article: _" as long as lane markings remain visible and another vehicle is in front of the car."_ That's more like platooning, which was demoed two decades ago in Demo 97 [1], than self-driving. Are there more details about how this works, especially about autopilot disconnect and user takeover? Tesla's system is known to have trouble with offramps.[2] (Tesla customers are very forgiving. "It's a beta", one says in their forum.)

Honda's follow-the-leader system avoids some of Tesla's problems. Radar systems for not rear-ending the car ahead are already pretty good, and many are already on the road. Lane following by lane markings isn't that reliable, but restricting it to following the car ahead handles traffic jams nicely while locking out most of the hard cases.

The deployment of self-driving systems which are much dumber than Google's is worrisome. I've written before of the "deadly valley" of automated driving. This is another "deadly valley" system. The deadly valley begins where the driver can take their hands off the wheel and tune out. It ends where the automated system can correctly handle more situations than a human driver.

Google is trying hard to get to the far side of the deadly valley. That's good. Look at the problems they're having. Their only known fender-bender in autonomous mode was when the vehicle was trying to deal with a drain blocked with sandbags and very slowly maneuvered around it, to be hit by a bus, while in a wide lane at a right turn, because the AI misjudged the likely behavior of the bus driver. Google's dealing with the hard edge cases. Cruise, on the other hand, ran into a parked car in San Francisco when the autopilot lost lane tracking, veered left, overcorrected right, and the driver took back control too late. That's a more basic failure.

It also shows the problem with semi-autonomous systems. Expecting the driver to compensate for failures of the automation will not work.

Volvo Car Group President and CEO Håkan Samuelsson says that the company will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode.[3] He has it right. This needs to be a requirement before the "move fast and break things" crowd gets on the road.

nonmarked-ramp [1] [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/.../pavements/...](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/.../pavements/.../publicroads/97july/demo97.cfm) [2] [https://forums.teslamotors.com/de_DE/forum/forums/careful- wh...](https://forums.teslamotors.com/de_DE/forum/forums/careful-when-using- autopilot-) [3] [http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self- driving-c...](http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving- cars/)

<comment><USER58> I agreed that there needs to be a system of accountability for both the driver and manufacturer as well as proper marketing of said features. This article and the misleading title could very well cause the same damage as directly marketing the technology as a "magic all-in-one solution." Much as the companies and supporters like to see automated driving pushed through development and testing quickly, the public and private corporations needs to realize that "breaking things" can involve fatal accidents.

<comment><USER57> Yes. Here's a really bad example of feature misunderstanding, a Volvo owner demoing the self-braking, where it plows into some pedestrians.[1] "Volvo spokesman Johan Larsson told Fusion the people in the video did not pay for the car's "pedestrian detection functionality."

The levels of self-driving may need to be standardized, so that when a driver gets into a strange car, such as a rental, they know what to expect.

[1] [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/self-braking-volvo- fai...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/self-braking-volvo-fails-test- drive-slams-onlookers-article-1.2238171)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> No thanks. Just something else to go wrong.</comment>


Show HN: Check if your passw0rd has been compromised - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/djadmin/passw0rd <comment><USER2> So, you're just using the Pwned Passwords API?

Is there any actual value that you're adding here?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for asking!

I'm very skeptical about checking my passwords on any website, so I've built this command-line tool which is using the PwnedPassword API with K-Anonymity.

Secondly, it can also be used in any JavaScript Application to check user passwords.</comment></comment>