Show HN: HackerMoods – Trend analysis of HN sentiment - <AUTHOR> https://hackermoods.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm not really sure what I'm looking at here. Could you put some sort of explanation for the y-axis? I haven't the foggiest what a sentiment score is, and nothing seems to really change when I put in Obama, Trump, Angular, or React.

<comment><AUTHOR> We can definitely add some copy around that. The scores that we're using are normalized on [0, 1] and broken into three categories - positive, negative, and neutral. It's possible for something to be all positive or all negative, but most things are a mix. The relative differences between positive and negative sentiment are the most interesting. For example, if you search Obama, you'll note that in September '13 the average positive and negative sentiment trends cross. On average, sentiment expressed in comments on stories mentioning Obama were more negative than positive. They later return to being more positive than negative, but this is the sort of thing that's interesting to investigate. In this particular case there were a string of very negative stories involving the NSA [1], the assassination of U.S. citizens [2] and Obamacare [3].

In the case of React you'll note an overall trend of increasingly positive sentiment and less negative sentiment. Sometimes it's fun to figure out what the spikes were by searching on HN. The big positive spike on 20015-07-15 was [4], a Show HN with very positive reception.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6347790](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6347790)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6435963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6435963)

[3]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6462339](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6462339)

[4]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9891989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9891989)

edit: formatting

<comment><USER2> Ah, so you have to pay more attention to how the positive and negative scores are interacting, and sort of disregard the neutral score, even though it looks much larger. That's nonintuitive (for me). Unless the neutral score serves some other purpose, you might consider removing it from the visualization.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion, we very well might do so. The line does add something for the cases where a topic is becoming less neutral (stronger language is being used, either positive or negative) but it's unfortunate that the scales are quite different on the whole. We're going to work on making the system more intuitive and find better ways to highlight the most interesting trends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> In this post [0] you get the sentiment for one post. What did you enter into the search to get the results for one post? Is there way I could submit a HN post url and get back the current sentiment from your service? If so, this would be really cool in my project. Do you think that'd be possible? Thanks!

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11191394](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11191394)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's definitely possible but we're not updating real time at the moment...that will change soon. We can add endpoints to return the sentiment on a single story/collection of comments. Shoot me an e-mail (link in profile) and let me know what you need - hopefully we can accommodate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should try providing this service to the new York times or something like that to do sentiment analysis on their articles. Something very ambitious you could do is to do sentiment analysis on say the 100 most read news sites in the country, to see how the general American population feels about various subjects. Could help out politicians, think tanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> We would love to add other datasets in the future and have plans to do so. That said, this is just a fun side project so we have to triage what data sources go in and when. NYT is high on that list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> \- Hey there! Site looks cool, but on Safari, the text entry color is the same as the text box ?

\- A summary of the sentiment would be a nice to have as well!

Cheers!

<comment><USER6> There's a bunch of features we want to include in future releases. I can imagine a few summary points that would be interesting (net avg scores, deviation from overall HN scores, etc.) What did you have in mind for a summary?

And thanks for taking the time to give feedback, btw!</comment></comment>


Do Plants Think? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz <comment><USER2> One of the most amazing feat of plants regarding information processing is the way the leaves optimize the gas exchange process. They do this by opening and closing small gates known as _stomata_ [0].

Each stoma integrate their local state with the current atmospheric conditions and the state of their neighbors, behaving as the cells of a cellular automaton [1].

Plant leaves literally compute.

\--

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoma>

[1] <http://www.pnas.org/content/101/4/918.full>

</comment><comment><USER3> It's an interesting article, but the title is a bit misleading. The article is mostly about how plants react to various sensory stimuli.

<comment><AUTHOR> Admittedly, "think" is perhaps an inapt word choice, but how is response to stimuli not, in some fashion, awareness?

<comment><USER3> Think of the "knee-jerk" reflex you get when the doctor hits you on the knee. It's a response to a stimulus, but it happens without even any involvement from your brain: it's just a round trip to the spinal cord.[1] I don't think that's what we usually think of as "awareness", which happens at the cognitive level. Reflexes like eye-blinking are even operational when you're unconscious.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patellar_reflex>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a vegetarian, I constantly have to suffer through idiotic arguments based on headlines like this. I know this happens in all areas of life, but this is definitely the one to which I am exposed most often and it drives me absolutely nuts.

Journalists, please stop giving people ammo for their stupid guns.

<comment><USER5> Strangely, I've never had anyone argue this to me, but I do get asked, several times per year, if I eat seafood.

<comment><USER6> > if I eat seafood

Do you kill invasive insects? Frankly, a shrimp or a lobster is pretty much on a level with a cockroach, when you get down to neural complexity and everything relevant to _moral_ vegetarianism, as opposed to vegetarianism for health reasons.

Bony fish are not much more complex.

Things like sea cucumber don't even have brains: They have nerves, but they lack any centralized structure for them to converge on. Same with jellyfish.

So I suppose my point is that it isn't a dumb question, at least if you're a vegetarian for moral reasons related to killing a living being with emotions.

<comment><USER7> Lobsters may feel pain.

[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/does-a- lobs...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7536/does-a-lobster-feel- little-no-pain-when-boiled-alive)

<comment><USER6> If you define 'feel pain' correctly, single-celled organisms have been observed to feel pain in that they move away from noxious chemicals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I particularly enjoyed the memory part - where they mention a venus fly trap remembers the contact with one leg of the insect then confirms that another leg has touched, and then the trap closes. Then 15-20 mins later it'd open again. This eliminates false positives, conserves energy!

while(1): if (get_count_contact()!=2) continue; else close_trap(); sleep(15); set_count_contact(0);

If nature wrote this kinda code, Evolution is like debugging! But this is really really oversimplified ...

</comment><comment><USER9> I think (no pun intended) that plants and some other species that lack central brains operate more like BEAM robots <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEAM_robotics> in that the behaviors they exhibit can be remarkably similar to intentional behavior.

If you believe that a Turing test is sufficient to judge an AI as "intelligent" then in the same way you'd have to conclude that the behavior is the measure, which seems to disallow certain assumptions regarding intent.

Then again, given the recent research into how the gut flora can affect all manner of processes in humans, it certainly looks like Me(tm) is a product of a whole host of complex systems whose interactions display an emergent "intentional" system.

</comment><comment><USER10> If Aliens visit us, they will likely classify us as "Non thinking creatures", just as we classify plants as non thinking. Everything rests on a spectrum and trying to classify everything into bins as "thinking" or "non thinking" is a childish way to go about explaining how the world works.

If you generate a 200 hz signal around the root systems of cabbage, the roots will grow toward the source. The plants can generate that signal as well, so yes, certain plants communicate with a very rudimentary audio communication system.

Do plants think? It depends on your definition, but yes, Plants think, computers think, humans think. A better word might be "plants calculate the best course of action to achieve a goal just like humans do.".

<comment><USER6> > If Aliens visit us, they will likely classify us as "Non thinking creatures"

No. Obviously not. We obviously manipulate our environment in complex ways.

> "plants calculate the best course of action to achieve a goal just like > humans do.".

If you truly believed this you could never justify eating them.</comment></comment>


Spotify's RapCaviar, the Most Influential Playlist in Music - <AUTHOR> http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/spotify-rapcaviar-most-influential-playlist-in-music.html <comment><USER2> I wonder if Spotify will eventually become a music label as it starts to own _the_ distribution channel for music.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you have real-world experience of technical debt killing a project? - <AUTHOR>

Explaining the impact of technical debt to someone non-technical who hasn't experienced it first hand is almost impossible (e.g. "why didn't you just do it properly the first time?").
It would be great to get a thread here detailing real-world examples of debt killing a project, or more, that we can all point people to when they claim it's just developers complaining.
Sample experiences worth sharing include:
* Have you been part of a project that ground to a halt because of technical debt?
* Have you ever had to abandon a project/product and "start again from scratch" because of problems in the previous codebase.
* Have you ever left a job because the overhead of servicing technical debt made the job impossible?
* Have you ever worked for a company that went under because debt was holding them back?
I know it may not be possible, but real company names would definitely add value. <comment><USER2> I worked for one of the largest load balancer/application delivery controller company for a grinder of a boss on a security team there.

My job was to hack shit, find vulnerabilities and write automation for attacks that our systems could prevent. There were 4 pretty big code bases (>100k lines) that were used for the same thing. There was no inter-team effort, everyone wanted to roll their own rather than working together because the bosses had huge egos and wanted their name in the brick.

I was tasked with building a new framework!

So yeah, five different automation frameworks, one for automating attacks against devices and servers, one for smoke testing (pound the box with traffic) etc. Mind you all of this shit could be done with a single framework because many of the tasks were similar. So I created a way to build test profiles from our test plans and consolidated the code bases. I learned a shitload about dealing with existing code during this effort. It was awesome in that respect, I learned how to deal with poor management decisions - execute better than they ever did.

Long story short I refused to scrap everyone elses hard work even though my boss told me to "build it from scratch and use it for the security team only". The reason being is because starting from scratch would have incurred more technical debt than the consolidation effort took. Mind you every other department in eng could have used said framework. Anyhow, under the radar I went about consolidating the other four frameworks and I gave my boss the timeline without his knowledge of what I was doing.

Three months later every eng department was using this new framework using the tools that they were used to using for deployment and verification, just a new ui and a lot of code that was cleaned up and everyone was pretty happy with it to be honest. Everyone that actually used it that is.

My boss, who never used any of the frameworks, got pissed off that I did not build a sec. team only framework and asked me to build a version only for the security team for "security reasons". This was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. This fucking moron wanted to satiate his own ego at the expense of my peers time, health and the company. I don't really care too much for the company but everyone I worked with was very competent and I did not want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. That would be stupid.

Long story short, I was interviewing at places at the time and got an offer that very day so I decided to take the offer.

Moral of the story:

Don't have your engineers build 4 different automation frameworks and then ask an engineer to "rebuild" a custom version for a bullshit reason. Don't build shit from scratch unless you are learning/experimenting and at large companies, they rarely reward experimentation.

I get that this might not exactly be technical debt but 4 frameworks and the effort I had to put in to the consolidation was brutal at times. Improperly used technology, poorly deployed interface supporting services and solutions for transient failures of tests being "just reboot the test box" was too much bullshit for me.

God I fucking hated that job. I will never work for a large, well established company again if I can avoid it. My startup might be getting picked up soon by a conglomerate and I have 6 months left on my vest. If we end up at the conglomerate I am going to quit and take a few years off working.

That is my experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> The best way to explain technical debt is by analogy: Technical debt is what happens to your entertainment center when you buy a new Playstation. To do things properly, you should buy another HDMI cable, run the cable through your cabinet around to the TV, on a dedicated input.

But that's not how it happens. When you bought the Playstation you also got a copy of Call of Battlfield Honor Brothers, and your friends aren't going to wait half an hour while you do that. So you steal the AV cords from the Wii, run them in front of the DVD player, and plug them into the XBox's TV port.

So now, the system still works, but it's not ideal. You have to move some cords if you want to play a DVD. You have to unplug the Playstation if you want to play Minecraft on XBox. And heaven help you if you want to play Wii Bowling.

Now imagine this happens many times over several years. You get a new XBox. And a Bluray player. And a new sound system. Each time you do what it takes to get things working, and no more. Pretty soon, just to watch Netflix you have to rewire a whole switchboard of cables.

At some point, you need to pay off your technical debt. In this case, by taking a whole Saturday to unplug everything, buy some new cables, and re- route all the connections in a clean, logical way. It's the last thing you want to do while your friends are playing Band of Duty-bound Heroes IV, but if you don't, you'll be rewiring Ethernet cables in order to watch Hulu until the end of time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the analogy, but this is missing the point - this thread is about the opposite - real, verifiable, experience.

<comment><USER3> No worries. When you said "Explaining the impact of technical debt ... is almost impossible," I thought you (or others) might be interested in a good way to explain it. This analogy has helped me, so I hope others may find it useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I haven't heard of any company going down because of technical debt, but here is a study that has some quantitative analysis of technical debt in the beginning: [https://medium.com/building- bowery/e5a006f7b724](https://medium.com/building-bowery/e5a006f7b724)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - that's an interesting article, although the key quote from the original paper doesn't really help make the case:

> The only thing that can be said with any certainty, is that not doing any > technical debt maintenance does impact them negatively. But there isn't a > lot of difference from that point on. This is slightly controversial, and > could be unrelated altogether.

Judging by the lack of activity on this thread, and the above article, I think I could effectively argue that technical debt either doesn't exist (outside the minds of developers), or that it's 'a thing', but just not that important.

This isn't what I was hoping to see...</comment></comment>


Show HN: Magic Mockups – Free real-life mockup generator - <AUTHOR> http://magicmockups.com/

<comment><USER2> I like the idea!

Something is slightly off about the mockups [1]. I'm not 100% sure what it is. Maybe the colors look too vibrant to be on an actual screen?

1\. [http://i.imgur.com/FbqPNMR.png](http://i.imgur.com/FbqPNMR.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. You can read more about my motivation in /about/ section.

Yes that maybe true about too bright colors, this is on todo list - i will be adding overlay effects, depending on the background so that screen look more natural in the current environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is really cool, thanks.

In the first one there seems to be something a bit strange going on with parallel lines (or is it my eyes?). This [0] looks kind of inset into the screen because the edges of the buttons are still parallel.

[0] [http://magicmockups.com/media/screen/guest/70/fc6bc9b75a804a...](http://magicmockups.com/media/screen/guest/70/fc6bc9b75a804ad490d14fd4ddc58e87_1_960.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Your screen looks good to me. However first background is actually slightly rotated and top and bottom lines are not 100% horizontal, so that maybe the reason why see it a bit inset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice work, good to have an alternative to placeit</comment>


Ask HN: Washington DC Internships - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone have any suggestions for programming internships in Washington DC? <comment><USER2> This isn't necessarily a programming internship, but if I looking for work experience this is where I'd go to get it.

[https://www.mapbox.com/blog/open-data-research- internship/](https://www.mapbox.com/blog/open-data-research-internship/)

</comment><comment><USER3> You could take a look at Vox Media and Atlantic Media. They have a number of developers that work on various sites in DC.</comment>


Regular Friday HN meetup in San Francisco - <AUTHOR>

Hi all -- I hold a regular meetup / co-working thing called the Open Hacker House on Fridays, 3-7pm at Epicenter Cafe, 764 Harrison. If you are in town for Startup School, come on down. <comment><USER2> If you are attending Startup School, don't forget the Hackers and Founders meetup Sunday <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=893109>

</comment><comment><USER3> Epicenter's happy hour is also between 4-6... :)

<comment><USER4> I'm going to put together a bigger post about this later, but we have something up to help coordinate everything right now:

<http://eventgel.com/ev/startup-school-09/>

We're still in deep development after our review post last week, but we hope that it can still be helpful (it really should be, mostly we're ironing out design fine points right now)

Anyways, just wanted to put it out there for everyone trying to get events going. It might be easier if everyone knows what else is going on out there :D

<comment><USER5> Hey icey, I checked out your posting on Event Gel the other week, definitely an interesting concept, good to see you using the feedback off the forums here, I've always found it helpful. One thing to consider that I didn't catch when I just clicked the link above, you might want to add a .ics download so people can easily include the event in their calendar, I looked into this for <http://coffee.gabandgo.com/sanfrancisco> but decided it to not be worthwhile, since the point is to stop in and have coffee for a short period, not 'pre- plan'. Anyway, google around a bit and you'll find the structure of the file (it's pretty simple), or you can always create a fake event in a calendar program you use, export it to .ics, then view it in a text editor.

<comment><USER4> Hey, that's a cool idea, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hey everyone, similar to using (trying out) Event Gel for setting up the event, maybe give <http://coffee.gabandgo.com/sanfrancisco> a run as you show up to help people know what crowd you're in, or where you're sitting...any feedback always welcome!

</comment><comment><USER6> 3-7 is kind of early, if you could move it up a few hours that would probably help out the working crowd.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. I work in the south bay, so I usually can't make it back to the city until at least 7:30.

<comment><USER3> I normally work in the south bay but I'm trying to make Friday my regular WFH day.

We used to do Wednesday in the Mission but Friday seems to work better for more people.

I'm sure some people may stay later, but right now 3-7 are the hours we are trying to "guarantee"

<comment><USER7> I wish I could WFH. Us hardware types don't get that luxury.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ah, cool. I had thought about going to it before, but didn't know if it was still happening every week. Maybe I'll go this Friday.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just moved to the San Francisco area recently - I'll probably stop in, definitely interested to check it out!

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a Seattle equivalent? :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> I dunno, but you can start one. Pick a day and time, pick a spot with good wifi and space, not too trendy or crowded, and commit to be there every week. Invite your friends at first. If you can keep it up for a month or so, start telling everyone about it. Don't take it too seriously and have patience.</comment></comment>


With further delays, Webb telescope at risk of seeing its rocket retired - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/nasa-stays-on-ariane-5-rocket-to-launch-the-james-webb-telescope-for-now/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr:

> "However, the Webb telescope probably could make a relatively simple > transition from one vehicle to the other [Ariane 6], as they have similarly > sized payload fairings."</comment>


Netlify CMS – A Git-Based CMS for Static Site Generators - <AUTHOR> https://www.netlifycms.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion (2017): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891756](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13891756)</comment>


Every runner is sometimes lonely - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01783 <comment><AUTHOR> Since its proposal, the lonely runner conjecture has been an enticing open math problem accessible to anyone. Using polyhedral techniques, Matthias Beck (a prominent combinatorialist) claims a proof.</comment>


Kill the tech bro, save the world: how CEOs became Hollywood's new supervillains - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/06/tech-bros-ceo-hollywood-supervillains <comment><USER2> I don't think this is new. "TRON" (1982) and "Robocop" (1987), for instance, featured "evil CEOs".

<comment><USER3> I agree, though I'd add that most previous evil CEOs were middle-aged and transparently greedy.

Newer villains are younger, hipper, and less transparent. They may even be given a "saving the world" complex to both humanize them and make them more like today's seemingly-socially-conscious young CEOs.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does programming make you happy? - <AUTHOR>

Does programming make you happy? <comment><USER2> I believe there's a quote somewhere in _Stranger in a Strange Land_ , where Jubal Harshaw comments that an author doesn't write because he can, or likes to, or because it's the best way to pay the bills–many can't, few do, and it usually isn't. It's just something that must be done, like breathing or defecating, and it's about as glamorous.

It's hard to say whether programming makes me happy, per se. I do know that I can't escape it. I can avoid putting my fingers on a keyboard for a while. But the brain, it keeps going. It's how I'm built, and you may as well ask me if I like having two hands instead of 4 or one head instead of 7; but it's the shape of the brain we're talking about. I find it hard to imagine what life would be like.

I program to pay the bills, and it keeps me comfortable. I also program because I have ideas for programs that don't exist, and it's the only way to make them exist. I program because I want my computer to do something that it doesn't already know how to do. I program because it's more engaging than television and less pointless than video games.

Sometimes, it's frustrating or challenging. Sometimes it feels like a lot of effort for hardly any reward. Sometimes huge amounts of work have to be scrapped because it's just wrong.

But other times, things click, and it's perfect, like a symphony. And in those moments, "happy" seems like an understatement.

No, programming doesn't make me happy. But programming is part of what makes me me; and, in general, I'm happy about that.

<comment><USER3> >I believe there's a quote somewhere in Stranger in a Strange Land, where Jubal Harshaw comments that an author doesn't write because he can, or likes to, or because it's the best way to pay the bills–many can't, few do, and it usually isn't. It's just something that must be done, like breathing or defecating, and it's about as glamorous.

I'd be interested to know which passage you mean. I've read that book many more times than is really necessary and I can't remember Jubal saying that. The closest I can think of is a passage where he says "I want praise from the customer, given in cash because I've reached him--or I don't want anything."

<comment><USER2> I could be thinking of one of Heinlein's other books, or even just something he said randomly. I've read a lot of his stuff, and it all starts to blur together.

If I come across it, I'll make a note of it.

<comment><USER4> The protagonist in Heinlein's _The_ _Cat_ _Who_ _Walks_ _Through_ _Walls_ says something very similar near the beginning of the novel.

<comment><USER3> Ah, yes. This:

>"Yes, dear. Richard, do you enjoy writing?"

>"No one enjoys writing."

>[...]

>"But you don't enjoy it and we don't need the money. Truly we don't!"

>"Thank you, my love. But I did not explain to you the other insidious aspect of writing. There is no way to stop. Writers go on writing long after it becomes financially unnecessary...because it hurts less to write than it does not to write."

Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Thanks, indeed! That's exactly the one I was thinking of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looking over the responses thus far, I'm surprised no one has posted an unequivocal "yes".

Yes, the act of programming itself makes me happy. I've always loved building things, and programming is yet another outlet for that energy. Additionally, I love the thrill of bending a computer to my will, teaching it to do what I want to produce the output I need. Shortly after finishing an extended programming project, often times I feel a sense of loss, and a drive to seek out the next interesting thing I'll get to tackle.

Are you asking because you feel like you should be enjoying it more than you do? Did you used to get more enjoyment from it than you currently do, or have you always felt this way? If you're second guessing yourself, I think mechanical_fish's suggestion of giving it a break for a while is a great one.

</comment><comment><USER5> No. I'm hoping it grows on me, but I've had a lot of shitty experiences so far, and not a lot to show for them. Think spending six months trying to install Lisp on a mac, or spending 50 hours installing Linux on a PC. SICP was also quite awful. Finally, I have this nagging feeling of obligation to program. So no, I wish I did, but I don't like programming. I hope your mileage varies.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sometimes. Other times it's a tedious obligation. Then there are the times when you're not sure if it makes you happy or not, but you can't stop doing it.

If you're wondering if you enjoy programming, try giving it up for a while and see if you keep coming back to it.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the tip. I'll take a vacation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Getting stuff done_ makes me happy. Programming is a means, not an end.

<comment><USER8> In a short story of JL Borges (and in a lot of other places, im sure): "the road is the goal" (veeery loosely translated from spanish)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me it's 99% frustration, but the other 1% is the moments when the thing that used to be an idea in my head becomes a part of reality, and those moments feel so good I'm willing to put up with the frustrating ones.

</comment><comment><USER10> I had a number of other jobs before I got to programming in my thirties. The big difference is, you keep coming up against totally novel problems for which there are no ready-made solutions. It's very challenging, and it places programming as a job in a league of its own in terms of creative problem- solving. It doesn't make me happy, but it makes me look forward to my work every day, and that's saying a lot. It's also given me the liberty to change job and even business sector as often as I please (typically every couple of years) which again is unusual and refreshing.

</comment><comment><USER11> If I couldn't work on things that I love every day I would hate it. I don't know how there are so many todo lists, chat apps, crm and accounting packages out there, I couldn't stand it!</comment>


The British Monarchy to Join Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2010/11/07/the-british-monarchy-to-join-facebook/

<comment><USER2> Surely, this is how you know Facebook has lost all it's youth appeal. When the establishment joins in, all the kids are long gone elsewhere.

This can only bring ridicule, what were they thinking of?</comment>


Timing Is Everything: Google Glass and The Tragedy of Color (the app) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/fearless-extrapolation/72f77888dfec

<comment><USER2> > Well, if you take some of that potion and mix it with the power of Google > Glass, and you have something remarkable: an app that lets you see the world > in real time through other people's eyes.

That is the essence of what I dislike about Google Glass. It's the idea that somehow if we record our experiences it's somehow enriching them. It really does the opposite, it cheapens them. People don't get excited about watching videos of live music, they're more likely to watch a recorded music video with higher production quality.

> Using location data and the camera on a smartphone, Color could create a > temporary "real-time" visual social network - one built around taking the > photographic experience you were having right now and sharing it with the > people nearby.

Yeah, except then everybody is too occupied inside of their virtual world to actually share anything of value. The world around you is happening around you, not on your phone. Glass may attempt to blur the line between your virtual world and what's happening around you, but ultimately your brain will either be paying attention to one or the other.

> Imagine the nexus of Google Glass and Color at, say, a concert at a sold out > stadium: the band is all wearing Glass, and with a simple voice command, > you're watching the show from the lead singer's perspective.

This is just too gimmicky. I could imagine Google sponsoring a concert and having the band do that, but I don't think it would catch on. What's the point? If you're just trying to get a great view of the show without actually being there in person, buy a professional recording of it. I think people love going to live shows for bigger reasons than just what they can see and hear, and that's the only thing Glass can extract from the experience.

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious if anyone with the Explorer version knows whether the current Glass API would even come close to allowing the integration of Color?</comment>


Apple Is Allegedly Slowing Down Older iPhones with Degraded Batteries - <AUTHOR> http://www.iclarified.com/63733/apple-is-allegedly-slowing-down-older-iphones-with-degraded-batteries <comment><USER2> Extensive discussion yesterday:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15889519](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15889519)

</comment><comment><USER3> This should be taken up by consumer affairs.

It's a deliberate strategy to slow down old devices with no way to turn it off.

Sneaky and underhanded Apple.

</comment><comment><USER4> > to prevent unintended shutdowns and extend battery life

The cynic in me thinks it's actually to encourage new hardware upgrades.

<comment><USER5> That's basically the gist of it.

Everyone's decided what they want the answer to be. Now it's just a case of trying to shoehorn the facts to fit.

If they didn't scale back on lower voltages, people would just claim they're trying to kill the battery quicker so you buy a new handset ..

<comment><USER6> Apple could just install batteries with 50% more capacity that can survive a full day of use even if the phone is two years old.

<comment><USER7> They do (source: my iPhone 6, bought on launch easily survives a day of heavy use)

<comment><USER8> On the other hand, my 6, same purchase day, can barely survive a full day of light use, and requires additional charging throughout the day if I'm calling or texting much</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Fitting digital camera components into an analog rangefinder - <AUTHOR> https://frankencamera.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/the-making-of-frankencamera/ <comment><USER3> This is absolutely incredible! I've looked up rangefinders on wikipedia but still don't fully understand. Anybody care to try and clarify?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was a bit afraid to submit something with "rangefinder" in the title, so I will take it upon myself to explain it.

"Rangefinder" is commonly used as a short form of "rangefinder camera". Back in the early 1900s you would most likely focus a lens using "zone focusing", which is pretty much a fancy way of saying "guessing the distance to the subject" combined with some understanding of how depth-of-field works in relation to the lens aperture.

There were also external rangefinders [1], devices that measures distance using techniques such as parallax. From a practical standpoint, you get two overlapping images and you adjust the rangefinder until the subject becomes clear [2]. You can then read the distance to the subject from the external rangefinder and transfer it onto your lens and take the shot.

Since this is not particularly, well, fast or convenient someone came up with the idea of combining the two and the rangefinder camera was born. Up until the days of auto-focus, single-lens reflex (SLRs) also used this kind of technique for focusing. However, SLRs and point-and-shoots with auto-focus and zoom lenses now dominate the digital market and most people never see or touch a rangefinder. They are still somewhat popular among street photographers though since they are significantly smaller and also since they are arguably more discreet in appearance.

[1]: [http://leicaphotography.org/leica/camera/if/fokos.jpg](http://leicaphotography.org/leica/camera/if/fokos.jpg)

[2]: [http://reviewed- production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachment/2350f...](http://reviewed- production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachment/2350fec47b9dedc1d1fc555485bccbce96906833/Rangefinder.jpg)

<comment><USER4> _> Up until the days of auto-focus, single-lens reflex (SLRs) also used this kind of technique for focusing._

Everything else is perfect, but this is incorrect. SLRs use focusing screens with split prisms and/or microprisms, not rangefinders. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_screen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_screen)

You can still mount one of those on some modern DSLRs by simply replacing a piece of glass. [http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php](http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php)

<comment><USER5> The advantage of focusing through the taking lens is that unlike rangefinders this method works with telephoto lenses. It's very hard to use a rangefinder accurately with anything much more than 135mm (and even that's not easy.) Similarly with macro or close up shots. However, rangefinders have many advantages, the viewing image is never blacked out like a SLR does when you click the shutter, also you can see around the periphery of the area covered by the lens, seeing objects moving into the frame, also the two main advantages are that since there's no mirror the camera can be used at slower shutter speeds without getting moved around by the mirror slapping against its stoppers, and again because there's no mirror needed the back element of the lens can be very close to the focal plane (where the film or sensor is), this means smaller lenses can do the same job as much larger ones on an SLR - <USER2> are also sharper because of this, and suffer less distortion.

I use a Leica M6 for many of these reasons, it's a beautiful rangefinder camera. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M6](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M6)

<comment><USER6> small additions. 1\. there's also no such thing as zoom lens for rf. 2\. i think you can avoid the 'seeing around the periphery' problem somewhat by shooting with both eyes open. 3\. i always imagined smaller glass area is always a handicap. the bigger the glass the sharper it ought to be. works even better if there's bigger film to capture the bigger image. i.e. using ever larger format cameras...the larger the sharper... 3.1. larger glass is usually also brighter. i personally always wonder about people who care about sharpness..like unless they always shoot on tripod, how does it work? they get sharp motion blur?

<comment><USER4> Well, there is the Tri-Elmar :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really awesome.

I dream of the day when we will have a lot of options for small specialty digital cameras. You see a small trickle of them coming out(Ricoh GR, Fuji X100s, Sigma DP2), but no where near as many as in the old film days.

I could never imagine someone taking on this as a DIY project. I think it was a really cool decision to take a Sony NEX's components, which I always thought were lacking in ergonomics, and give it the feel of a classic rangefinder.

So, from my understanding, the camera you have currently only works in bulb mode. It would be interesting to see a post as to how you would even begin to tackle getting a predetermined shutter speed to work. Also more sample images would be great as well.

<comment><USER5> the NEX would have to be in bulb mode, the shutter is in the rangefinder's lens (it's a leaf shutter.) it's a little confusing because the author uses the word "trigger" instead of shutter, or shutter release, but regardless, as the shutter is pressed on the film camera's mechanical linkage the sensor in the NEX is switched to B(ulb) to turn on the sensor, then when the shutter button is released the NEX's sensor is switched off. Keeping it on all the time would cause it to overheat after some time.

The small camera market has gone the way of the Dodo thanks to wonderful smartphone cameras.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As someone who is into old analog rangefinders and 3d printing, this is absolutely amazing. I have a Canonet QL17 that I'd love to try to convert in this fashion.

Questions:

How did you adjust the location of the sensor in relation to the focal plane? Did you just measure and 3d-print, or did you have ways to calibrate it afterwards? Your photos are super crisp, which is really impressive.

I noticed that the digital camera screen is on bulb - I'm assuming that you're using the lightmeter / aperture / shutter controls of the rangefinder?

How do you tell the digital camera to finish taking the photo - do you have to start taking the photo with the digital camera, fire the physical shutter, and finish with the digital camera? Or have you automated that process somehow?

Would you be able to share your solidworks files?

How does it feel to use the camera?

</comment><comment><USER9> People with more money than time and hacking skills can also consider the purchase of something like a Leica M8 or M9 (the M8 is actually relatively quasi-affordable-ish when purchased used) and an old lens (right now I have my grandfather's 50mm/f1.4 LTM lens, which dates from the 1960s and fits with the simplest of adapters). It's a kinda cool combination. Not quite as cool as this hackery. But cool.

<comment><USER10> No need for much money. There are hundreds of adapter types available for most mainstream bodies. Cheap Canon or Nikon digital slr (used, old generation, etc.) and an adapter, you can use lenses from yesteryear.

I have my dad's Nikon F first gen 50 on an old Canon body and can switch it over to my Fuji XPro-1 as well, all with some $20 adapters off ebay.

<comment><USER9> Sure, but this was a rangefinder lens to begin with, and I like it better on a rangefinder camera. :D

(Besides, I knew a guy and it was a little cheaper than usual.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been considering a similar project for a while using a ZI ZM film body and a Sony RX1 sensor package. Great article!

</comment><comment><USER12> Awesome project - please practice your soldering skills...

</comment><comment><USER13> Incredably impressive.</comment>


More ideas than time: Logarithmic calendar view - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2010/03/28/more-ideas-than-time-logarithmic-calendar-view <comment><USER2> I use Google Calendar's "Custom View" setting, which scrolls along a given number of days, eliminating the "don't care" space that was one of two problems in this post. The Month view also scrolls by weeks, which is similarly nice. I use the 5-day custom view.

There's no mockup in this post, but it is from March of 2010. The post was popular when it was first posted, a Google search for "Logarithmic calendar" yields some re-posts and other results like this mockup: [http://verbalshadow.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the- logarithmic...](http://verbalshadow.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-logarithmic- calendar-view/) I like the way that today and tomorrow are full days, and there's a whole week of hour-by-hour days (the last 5 are compressed), and the next week/next month view is also a nice breakdown. Unfortunately, the feature request hasn't seen any activity.

I wonder what the source of the idea was. Marco mentions that the idea isn't original, but doesn't give his source. Anybody know?</comment>


NZ court rules Kim Dotcom can be extradited to U.S. for alleged fraud - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-internet-dotcom-idUSKBN15Z07C <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13685238](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13685238)

</comment><comment><USER3> What's "flawed" is a legal system that allowed a foreign country to order a raid and subsequently ordered extradition of man who never set foot in that foreign country as a part of any illegal activity.

<comment><USER4> I don't why. The alleged crime occurred in a foreign country, and the evidence presented to the host country was deemed sufficient for an arrest for an equivalent crime in the host nation. This is just the flip side of the old adage that the Internet erases International borders.

Would it really be better if the host county put the alleged criminal on trial for crime that wasn't committed in the host country at all? Some countries do that (specifically I'm thinking about Israel) I wonder what he ge practical difference is.

<comment><USER5> how Israel does that? are you refering to the nazi hunting?

<comment><USER4> No. Israel kidnaps Nazis from foreign countries to put them on trial in Israel. See Adolf Eichmann.

I was specifically thinking about Samuel Sheinbein who killed a classmate in Maryland then fled to Israel, claimed Israeli citizenship, and because he was now Israeli would not be extradited. Instead he was put on trial in Israel for murdering his classmate in the United States.[0]

What I did not know until now, is that because of the legal crisis this case caused, Israel changed their extradition law regarding people who were not residents of Israel at the time the crime was committed in an effort to avoid being seen as a safe haven for Jewish criminals.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kim DotCom claims a victory here. He was arrested for criminal copyright infringement, judge ruled that is not a crime in NZ ( it's a civil offence not a criminal one ). Now his original arrest warrant which mentioned this non- crime faces validity issues. Case continues...

</comment><comment><USER7> Seems like such an obvious lesson over and over again across many different situations: don't flaunt the wealth. Instead be humble and reinvest everything

<comment><USER8> He isn't in trouble for ostentatious spending, he's in trouble for crossing American copyright owners who want to go nuclear to protect their rents.

<comment><USER9> Maybe it was more politically palatable to order a raid on Dotcom, because he flaunts his wealth?

<comment><USER10> I don't think this really enters the political spectrum for most calculations. The media refuses to pay any attention whatsoever to copyright issues because they know the public isn't on board with the law as it stands; the only time they're addressed is to reinforce the belief that the evil copyright infringers are eviscerating your mythical childhood icons. Most people don't know or care who Kim Dotcom is.

They went after Kim Dotcom because they felt he was costing them a lot of money. It's that simple. If anything, his personal habits should've put them off, because it was clear he was a bombastic personality that people like.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


One in five people who had a job in February have filed for unemployment since - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/30/848021681/a-staggering-toll-30-million-have-filed-for-unemployment <comment><USER2> This is only the tip of the iceberg at least in California they have been aggressive about rejecting claims I get $0 help I have $0 income but I am counted as employed because I was rejected. I also got rejected from foodstamps they're literally trying to starve me to death</comment>


If Everyone Ate Beans Instead of Beef - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-beef/535536/ <comment><USER2> Kind of telling the article makes no mention of what degree this shifts "greenhouse gas" generation from cows to people. Quite ironc considering they are suggesting beans to be used.</comment>


NoHR Hiring - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/hiring-tips

<comment><USER2> In the age of Github, LinkedIn and other online tools, for most positions, HR hiring is becoming obsolete.</comment>


Going live with an alpha release before incorporating -- and not losing my house. - <AUTHOR>

In what situations is it reasonable to make a site live without Incorporating my company? What if I'm taking money from users? What if I'm not taking money but am taking private data like email addresses?<p>I love the idea of pushing something out to users as soon as humanly possible, but I really don't like the idea of getting sued. <comment><USER2> Is your website about spreading libelous rumors about rich people / corporations? Are you putting up a webstore selling toys / food from China?

Seriously, IANAL, but lots of (unincorporated) websites collect email addresses (right down to everyone's personal blogs). Lots of businesses operate as sole proprietorships without problems... I may be stupid, but I don't think limited liability protection for a startup is (usually) very important. At least not in the early days.

<comment><USER3> I'm with Locke here. What difference does it make? As long as you properly declare your income, and aren't in a position that you're going to get sued, you should be ok.

<comment><USER4> How do you know you "aren't in a position that you're going to get sued?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Yah, the whole point is that living in this litigious society means anyone can sue for anything. Losing a house doesn't necessarily mean you lost a reasonable case.

It means you lose in trying to fight. Essentially, I'm trying to spend as little on lawyers as possible.

<comment><USER4> You don't have to spend anything on lawyers to create a legal entity with liability protection. It really is simple and quick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There have been a number of comments about how effective incorporation is at protecting you from suit, etc. They're all guesses: Sarbanes Oxley changes all the rules, and the old rules concerning the corporate veil no longer apply. (Anticipating an objection, no, SarbOx does _not_ apply solely to public companies.)

The problem is that nobody knows exactly what the new rules are. There is no case law yet surrounding SarbOx IT compliance that I'm aware of.

That doesn't really matter, though. nickb said that not incorporating is "just dumb": if that's the case, there are an awful lot of really dumb entrepreneurs out there, and really dumb business advisors, too. The cost of incorporation is more than the couple of hundred bucks to file the paperwork: there's ongoing compliance which costs both money and mindshare. It's probably not worth it until you require the different tax regime or have a specific need for the limited liability.

The bottom line is that you won't get sued until you have substantial revenue, and then you'll get sued no matter what you do. Lawsuits follow the money. Nobody is going to sue you to get your house because it would cost more in legal fees than your house is worth. A website is different than a business with a storefront, which has to deal with the possibility of personal injury claims, and which invariably has an insurance policy to provide the honeypot for suits.

<comment><USER4> Can you give some specific examples how SarbOx "changes all the rules" for web startups like those that people are generally making on this forum?

In other words, I think this is an extreme overstatement. For most situations that people here will be concerned with, the case law regarding corporate veils that has been developed over the past several hundred years will still apply. And regardless, you still want to be protected as much as possible, which results in the same advice of creating a legal entity with some sort of liability protection.

Also, regarding getting sued. If you personally have a decent amount of money, you are a target for frivolous lawsuits regardless of how well your business is doing. And it doesn't cost that much to file a suit and fish for a settlement.

Finally, regarding the fact that many people operate outside a corporate veil. They most likely do it because it is the path of least resistance. This doesn't make it right though. Like anything, it is a cost/benefit scenario. Since the costs are so low, and the benefits are so high (protection from low probability but high impact events), it just makes sense in many cases where you are trying to build a big business, like most people on this forum.

<comment><USER5> Can you give an example of web startups like those that people are generally making on this forum that have been sued?

To answer your question: no I can't give an example. I don't think there are any examples: that's why I said nobody knows the effect. My point is that simple statements about limited liability might be correct, but might not be.

I agree that case law surrounding corporate liability has been developed over hundreds of years. That's one reason why SarbOx is so widely reviled: it was a reactionary, hasty rollback of much of that law. Problems are already emerging and the provisos, exemptions, etc. are starting to be catalogued. Should keep government lawyers and bureaucrats in steak and ice cream for years to come.

I totally disagree that most people choose sole proprietorship or partnership because it is the path of least resistance (and by implication, because they are simpletons). I think they do it because it is the best choice for their business.

I didn't mean to make extreme statements: quite the opposite, what I meant to say was the incorporation is complex and highly dependent on individual circumstances, and blanket rules are unhelpful. That seems to me to be pretty middle path, although all extremists believe they are middle path, I suppose.

I stand by what I said about getting sued. I know a couple of lawyers who do not carry liability insurance on their side business for just this reason. If you are worth several millions, you are worth suing, otherwise, not. Any suits against a website are likely to be class action suits, so you would have to be personally worth tens of millions at least to make it worth a lawyer's time.

<comment><USER4> I was not implying that anyone was a simpleton. And I was not talking about the millions of sole proprietors out there that operate small businesses out of their homes for their neighbors. I was talking about the situation posed in the post, i.e. a Web site available to the whole world where personal information will be collected by users and shared with other users. In that case, I think it makes sense to get legal entity protection and protect your personal assets.

I also don't think at all that "any suits against a website are likely to be class action suits." Those are just the suits you hear about. Individuals can sue for almost anything and do. Most of these suits will likely be frivolous. But just to deal with them takes time and money. It adds much more stress if you are also personally named and liable because you don't have a corporate veil behind you. Any trial lawyer will tell you that even if you have a rock solid case, i.e. the case against you is completely frivolous, there is still a non-negligible probability you will lose.

And now that I reflect further, I still think the best advice is to at least become an LLC, even for all those small sole proprietors out there. It is just so quick and simple to set up. And if you have any kind of assets, e.g. a house, it just isn't worth the risk. One disgruntled customer with lots of time can cause you a lot of damage. And in the case where you have a really small business that just got started, you don't want to have the possibility for it to sink all your personal assets. If it really did cost thousands and took lots of time to set up, I think the balance would be different. But it just doesn't. You can do the whole thing in under an hour. Given that, I just don't see how it "is the best choice for their business." They spend more time and money on car, health, and home insurance. Why stop there?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Don't incorporate, though, if you can avoid it. We're less likely to accept groups that are already incorporated, because it costs so much more to deal with existing documents than to start from scratch." <http://ycombinator.com/faq.html>

<comment><USER7> Presumably he's part of the 99.9% of companies out there who aren't lucky enough to have YC as an option.

<comment><AUTHOR> We definitely have the option to do YC. Our application is in.

This faq is certainly a reason for making this post and asking, as our release would come before the winter session starts and maybe before Oct. 11th, when application results come out.

Is seems the consensus is to incorporate in some fashion just out of basic prudence before a release. So the question for PG and folks at YC is "you'd rather we no incorporate, but I think we need to, how should we do it?"

Another thread mentioned opening the "standard" papers YC uses -- and PG mentioned the problem in papers that might be wrong or have holes for companies. I'd like to hear about any progress on that front.

<comment><USER8> If you need to incorporate, YC won't hold it against you. It's less risky for them to invest in companies with customers anyways.

But make sure you do it as a Delaware Class C Corporation, because otherwise YC will want you to convert and that's much more expensive than than doing it from a scratch. So don't incorporate as an LLC from your state, even if it might be cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just incorporate. Over here in europe you need 18k in the bank and it costs at least 1200 dollars in notary fees, and most people still do so. (Or alternatively you could get an english limited but this makes further legalese difficult as you need to conform to two different nation's laws).

The biggest problem, as I understand it (at least over here) is that changing from non-incorporated to incorporated AFTER your company has built up significant value is a complete pain in the arse.

</comment><comment><USER10> Not incorporating is just dumb. Just get at least a basic LLC.

<comment><USER11> I second that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> hmmm I could be wrong because I'm not a lawyer (so you have to check this with a real lawyer), but I heard that even if you incorporate you're still somewhat liable as long as you're not a passive investor.

For example, if you (yourself) accidently release all of your users' confidential data to the public; you're liable for the damages that stem from it

<comment><USER4> Sorry, but you are generally wrong. What I think you are talking about is called piercing the corporate veil: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil>

Under almost all regular circumstances, including the example you mention, you most likely wouldn't be held personally liable. You have to do something grossly negligent or something clearly in bad faith. An example would be committing fraud.

<comment><USER12> isn't that what I said?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wouldn't sweat the liability oo much either, but why not just incorporate. In most states it costs $150.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Quite simply, why take the risk? It is such a low cost, and you get protected from liability arising from all sorts of low probability but high impact events, some of which you probably haven't even thought of.

<comment><USER14> cost is a hell of a lot more than $150... unless you're planning on incorporating something that will end up providing no protection in court, anyway, and will hurt you big time if you end up going big.

<comment><USER4> This is just not true. Suppose you file the basic incorporation documents provided by your state and you are the sole shareholder. How exactly will that provide you with "no protection in court" or "hurt you big time if you end up going big?"

<comment><USER7> You have to do some other things, like open up a bank account, and make sure company things are separate from personal things. But there are books (nolo.com has some for instance) that explain the steps necessary.

I guess it's all about risks/rewards - I don't have a lot of assets to begin with, I'm not sure the company will go anywhere, so why blow thousands of dollars on expensive lawyers? Better to learn the details of the process myself. So I created an LLC in Oregon.

On the other hand, if you're already wealthy, and want to create some kind of music sharing site... well, maybe some good lawyers are worth the money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What about something like an umbrella policy? Would that cover a sole proprietership (sp)?

<comment><USER4> Generally umbrella policies do not cover businesses of any kind. They are more for personal injury protection and intended to be an "umbrella" over your home and car insurance policies.</comment></comment>


Amazon's Move to Long Island City Sparks Condo Frenzy - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-move-to-long-island-city-sparks-condo-frenzy-1542116117 <comment><AUTHOR> Full text for those on the other side of the paywall: [https://outline.com/xFCCx9](https://outline.com/xFCCx9)</comment>


Ask HN: Should I explicitly search for a co-founder? - <AUTHOR> I had a cofounder who left because she is getting married and moving to another country and another cofounder who can't take the plunge because of personal reasons.<p>I have very high standards for work ethics and don't want to get a co-founder just for the sake of it but looks like investors and incubators are highly biased against single founders. <comment><USER2> You're focused on the wrong thing. Do you need investors right now? Do you even need a co-founder?

Focus on building the product and generating revenue. If you can prove your idea works and it can scale, it doesn't matter how many founders there are, or whether you spend 10 or 100 hours a week working on it.

No sane investor will turn down an opportunity, given that it generates revenue and it can scale well.

<comment><AUTHOR> So I would really like to have a helping hand/ employees. The thing is we have around 4 contracts from major companies, but I will only make significant revenue once they get delivered. I also need to work on my SaaS product for non-enterprise customers.

So money to hire or a co-founder to share work would be great help. I am afraid I might burnout working 18 hour days.

<comment><USER3> It looks like you're looking for workers to excute your plan. For that reason, you need money to hire someone in order do execute the job. To get money, you need people to invest in your company and they only invest in a team of at least 2 people.

So you're only looking for a cofounder in order to unlock some VC money and get the job done. I don't think your setup is a receipe for success. I've seen that configuration so many times and it usually doesn't lead to any good outcome.

Plus, you're competing with all the other startups or wannabe startups in order to hire a developer (for free).

You will have to lower your bar and go back to square one. Since I'm assuming you're not generating any money, all you have is 4 pending contracts, no funds and no product? Is that accurate? If so, forget about the contracts and look for a friend(developer) that'll partner with you on this idea. Make it sound like a solid 50/50 split. You better do it at the very beginning to build a solid team.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am a developer..the products are done halfway or upto 70%. I also built a product, infact I use it to fulfill the contracts. Even launched an MVP to get some feedback. Its just getting too hectic as more contracts keep getting added.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Firstly you have a mess you need to clear up, have you bought out your other co-founders to ensure you own 100% of the company ? - you'll struggle to find investors if you've got zombie cofounders who may claim to the company, you need to get the paperwork sorted out now.

Next understand why investors want you to have cofounders.

It's not some arbitrary standard, you simply won't have the cash to be able to hire a top tier sales, marketing person, etc. so bringing that talent onboard as cofounders is how you should be solving that problem. Find the best people you possibly can who cover the areas that you're weakest in. Find people who've experienced growing a similar company, they'll be invaluable to you.

</comment><comment><USER5> You're right that many VCs will be less enthusiastic to work with a solo founder. This is partly because it's taken as a sign that you can't convince any friends to work on this idea with you, signaling either that the idea is not great or that you are not great to work with.

But this doesn't mean you should lower your standards too much to find someone just to put down on paper. If you're a technical founder then you can build a lot on your own and bring on a business-focused founder when the time is right.</comment>


How legal are game clones? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I know a game available for pc and iphone. It's not even a very recent game, however there isn't any online and/or facebook version of it. Imho, the concept has a huge potential for social gaming. Question is, how legal is if I was to do clone of the game, extend to be a social game and publish it on facebook? <comment><USER2> You're fine cloning a concept, just don't steal anything from the original (graphics, music, level design, name)

<comment><USER3> Not always so straightforward though: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Giana_Sisters>

I guess, as with anything, you can buried under legal nonsense if you're unlucky.

<comment><USER2> I've player Great Giana Sisters and it's closer to a copy than a clone. The game mechanics are identical and parts of the levels are straight clones. For example the first set of blocks where you get the "grow massive" bonus is identical to that in SMB.

It's essentially Mario with a different sprite set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is excellent advice on this subject from Tom Sloper: <http://www.sloperama.com/advice/faq61.htm></comment>


Now for My Next Trick, I'll Turn Brand into Cash - <AUTHOR> http://www.sarahlacy.com/sarahlacy/2009/01/why-brand-doesn.html <comment><USER2> I've been enjoying the ideas put forth in Branding Only Works On Cattle

<http://www.baskinbrand.com/></comment>


Ask HN: Do I need to register a copyright? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to understand the laws around copyright, but none of the resources I've found have given me a very good answer.
If I create some work (a website, let's say), I automatically have a copyright on it.  If I register that copyright, then that apparently helps a lot in the case of an infringement case.
But what if I don't register the copyright.  What happens if someone copies my work?  Can I still take them to court? <comment><USER2> Yes, you can still take them to court for copyright infringement.

[https://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your- rights.html](https://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your-rights.html) seems clear enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for that link. It answered a lot of questions for me.</comment></comment>


ThreeChess - the first Three person chess online - <AUTHOR> http://www.ThreeChess.com

<comment><AUTHOR> it's worth to try :) have you seen or heard about three person chess before?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> please, give some feedback what do you think about the idea?</comment>


How a startup is solving the problem of Daily Commute just with a team of 10 - <AUTHOR> EasyCommute an Hyderabad (India) based AI based ride sharing platform is solving the major problem of employee commute with its tech and man power, reducing the time and cost of the commuter to reach office. And also provides the safe and secure transportation system to women. This startup is making a huge revenues just with a small team of 10 members.<p>http://easycommute.co <comment><USER2> It looks like a normal minibus/charter company. We have a few hundred of them here in Argentina. At least here, they are not solving the daily commute problem, it is still a mess.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://easycommute.co](http://easycommute.co)</comment>


Saudi government reportedly punished dissidents after McKinsey identified them - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/mckinsey-report-saudi-arabia-dissidents-arrest-2018-10 <comment><USER2> McKinsey's official response here: [https://twitter.com/McKinsey/status/1053838356826808320](https://twitter.com/McKinsey/status/1053838356826808320)

If it was an internal report, how did it get into the hands of the government?

<comment> village-idiot Two real possibilities.

First, a lot of companies in the US loved to deal with Saudi money, and are now _shocked_ to discover that the Saudi's are up to some shady shit.

Second, there are rumors that the Saudi government has either planted or groomed moles at tech companies for the express purpose of identifying dissidents. There was some talk about there being one on Twitter with access to user IP addresses, but I'm not sure if that's been substantiated.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure anyone could be shocked at what happens in Saudi Arabia, their dealings have been well known for ages by Amnesty International, US Dept of State etc.

I think a more plausible explanation is your first point that they love Saudi money and they can ignore the human rights abuses as long as they stay suitably low-key and rumour-based. As soon as they go onto the worldwide news, these same people suddenly feign ignorance and walk slowly backwards from their deals.

<comment> village-idiot That was sarcasm, hence the italics.

Plenty of companies act surprised as a means of extracting themselves from suddenly unpopular deals while saving face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bain and McKinsey have been implicated in enabling the massive looting of state resources unde former President Jacob Zuma in South Africa. These consultancies aren't covering themselves with glory.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just glad to see someone within McKinsey has a conscience.

<comment><USER6> Plenty of people at McKinsey have a conscience. They are humans like everyone else.

<comment><USER7> Are you sure about that?</comment></comment></comment>


Dedicated gaming devices may be losing out to phones - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/02/versatility-rules-why-monotasking-gaming-devices-may-be-losing-steam.ars

<comment><AUTHOR> If true, is this the end of handheld gaming ?</comment>


Browser-Wars History: MD5-Hashed Posts Declassified - <AUTHOR> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2018/01/ancient-browser-wars-history-md5-hashed.html <comment><USER2> Somehow, everybody pretends as if Webkit is some proprietary, closed source rendering engine, but after all, it is the great success of the KDE/Konqueror rendering engine, being adopted by some huge corporations (Apple, Google). [1]

While I appreciate that we still have the independent Firefox and its brand new Quantum engine, sometimes I feel like the Konqueror/KHTML team does not receive the appropriate tribute for laying the foundation for the dominant KHTML/Webkit/Blink engine.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins)

<comment><USER3> While I largely agree, a _ton_ of work was done by Apple before Webkit was usable. Most sites would show subtle rendering glitches and it took a while before it matured.

<comment><USER4> Not sure why you had issues. In my experience under KDE it was rock solid. It was my primary browser from around 2002 until ~2009. I often tried other browsers and Konqueror led the pack in terms of web conformance and performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Opera made the bet he proposed and lead themselves down a path to irrelevance.

<comment><USER6> As one of the few who paid for a web browser (paid $29 for Opera 7 in 2003), it looked to me like Opera really had no choice.

There was a post from an Opera insider that I can't find but it was basically this: the web's complexity was evolving faster than the Opera team could maintain their proprietary Presto rendering engine.

Switching away from Presto and building on WebKit was a basic matter of survival. Yes, they still became irrelevant but they would have also stayed irrelevant with their Presto engine.

I agree with their assessment because around 2009, I started encountering more and more web pages that broke Opera. The Opera forums had more and more complaints from users reporting broken web pages. The Presto engine was becoming a liability.

It was a vicious feedback loop because web authors wouldn't bother to test their sites with Opera ... which led to more user frustrations. I had to switch to Chrome to get a usable web surfing experience back. I originally paid for Opera because it had the fastest rendering engine which was very helpful for slow dialup connections. As Presto started falling further behind, that speed advantage was negated.

Opera did try to some interesting features such as "Unite" which -- if you squint a certain way -- was a form of p2p decentralization. Yes, it's interesting to have a built-in web server in the browser but not enough people cared about it.

The author's predictions for Firefox's Gecko engine meeting the same irrelevant fate as Presto didn't happen because unlike Opera, Mozilla from 2004-2014 got massive funding from Google. Mozilla could afford to keep programmers enhancing the Gecko engine. Opera couldn't do the same with Presto.

<comment><USER7> (I worked at Opera during the WebKit/Chromium transition and work at Mozilla now. But in both cases I'm just a normal individal-contributor type employee with no special insight into strategy or decision making).

There are always options. Opera could have doubled-down on Presto; putting more people on the core team, and focussing efforts to keep up with, and surpass, WebKit/Gecko. After all, that's basically the option that Mozilla took, which has resulted in Firefox Quantum. Would that have worked? It's hard to say. I would guess not, but I'm not sure the alternative really did either. Maybe Opera was already too far down the web-compat death spiral to engineer a way out. I don't know of a long-term bet like Rust that could have come good at the right time.

Certainly the top-level culture of the organisations was different; Opera's leadership were very concerned with maintaining/maximising the value of their shares, whereas Mozilla is more clearly driven by ideological goals around the success of the open web. Opera also had a (historically well justified) belief that they could do more with fewer engineers than other compaines. That seemed to work up to a point, but once the difference in resources became too great it was hard to change the approach.

Certainly one lesson is that it's hard, maybe impossible, to be a niche browser with a unique rendering engine. That is arguably a failing of the web, but nevertheless it's a strong indication that arguments that e.g. Mozilla should aim Firefox at small ideologically-driven markets are dangerous. One interpretation of the Opera history is that they were too focussed for too long on the subset of users who wanted a browser with lots of features and configuration possibilities. A product that suits those people might be actively offputting to other users, so inhibiting marketshare growth when faced with competition targetting simplicity and sane defaults.

<comment><USER8> > which has resulted in Firefox Quantum.

How is Quantum doing? On my computer, it's a lot slower; there are slow spinners in the tab titles and another kind of spinner for loading pages that often keeps me from seeing pages even after I already loaded them.

<comment><USER9> Wow, really? I've gone from regarding Firefox as a complete also-ran that I would never use unless necessary, to making it my default browser. Quantum is significantly faster than Chrome on my machine - it does eat more battery, but I feel it's worth it for something this fast & smooth. It feels like I got a new computer. (I'm using a 2012 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM, still on El Capitan.)

<comment><USER10> Agreeing with this - I've switched to Firefox on all my devices and I'm incredibly happy with it!

A big understated benefit is being able to run unlock/Adblock on my phone - which has made a big difference in mobile usability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder whether this scenario is now going to play out in the opposite way, with Google ditching Blink for Servo once Mozilla finishes morphing Gecko into Servo with the Firefox Quantum project.

Who would win then? Google's money and marketing power, or Mozilla's independence, trustworthiness and being the renderer's creator?

<comment><USER12> Not sure why this is down voted. I would not be surprised if Google was working on a next-gen browser engine along the same lines as Servo, or even a Servo fork. After all, there is a Rust toolchain for Fuschia...

<comment><USER13> Google probably couldn't stomach mozilla's open source license which makes it difficult to distribute with proprietary code.

<comment><USER14> Mozilla's open source license was created 20 years ago precisely to make it easier to distribute proprietary bits with open bits. I'm not kidding, that was a primary goal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > the more code engines share, the more de facto standardization of bugs we > would see, so having genuinely separate implementations is very important.

Well it's not like there aren't any bugs in the specs. And whether there are bugs in the code or the specification, it's the same process for fixing them : politics :)

<comment><USER16> Web developers code to Web browsers, so bugs in Web browsers lead to sites depending on those bugs, making those bugs unfixable unless you have developers testing in multiple browsers. Spec bugs don't become unfixable that way.

<comment><USER17> Though spec bugs go the opposite way: if you discover an issue in the spec, then it is very difficult to change it because someone somewhere may have been - at the time correctly - relying on that behaviour.

<comment><USER16> Web developers can only rely on a spec bug if the browsers they test with actually implement that bug. So it still comes down to what browsers implement, not what the spec says.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 2007-jan-21 hash:

        ec06b3461cf0eaf3d3e4d7a2e429bddb

but then

        $ curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rocallahan/blog-archive/master/hashed-blog1.txt | md5
        9ba0c5cba20cff553500f034f58d5bb7

hmm.

that said, the others check out, so i'm sure it's harmless.

<comment><USER19> Someone said the same thing in the comments. In a reply, the author does not know why the MD5 fails but confirms that the post is correct:

      I wondered if anyone would check :-).

      I'm not sure what the problem is with the first post. It's been a long time. You'll have to take my word for it that the first post is the right text :-).

<comment><USER20> Different encodings for line endings?

<comment><USER21> hashed-blog1.txt contains HTML markup for paragraphs, while all others are in plain text.

<comment><USER22> Taking them out has not resulted in the correct hash, or maybe I forgot something

Neither adding a \n to the last line makes it match

<comment><USER21> I also tried it with some line endings :)

There might be some other slight changes in formatting which is still missing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> it only have optimistic views of google promoting webkit.

completely ignores the fact that google effectively took over the project, killing old features it didn't like and preventing any new contribution from making it to main line unless they fit their plan.

</comment><comment><USER24> Cool idea to just post the hashes for the future. I think I might do it too on my blog :-)

<comment><USER25> Maybe use SHA256 rather than MD5.

A few years hence ease of producing MD5 collisions might render moot anything that you had to say.

<comment><USER26> I don't think that's necessary. This isn't really a cryptographic use of the hash. Between the legitimate text of the blog entry and whatever arbitrary (likely nonsensical) string produces an MD5 collision, it's going to be pretty obvious which is which.

<comment><USER27> Isn't it feasible to construct two sets of legible texts with the same MD5 hash now?

<comment><USER28> Legible, maybe, but I don't think you'll be able to collide the hash with natural language, so you will need an excuse as to why the revealed text has weird nonsense in it that is actually there to collide the hash.

You can also "see" this, once you suspect it's going on, if you're a cryptanalyst and have the tools to see inside the hash, you can see basically such collisions involving getting the internal state into an awkward place, and then forcing it from there where they want to go, that could happen by accident, but only by truly astronomical bad luck, so it's a pretty good smoking gun.

MD5 is a bad idea for situations where a machine will be verifying, because machines aren't good at saying "that's odd...", enhancing them to do so is _way_ more effort than just using SHA-256 instead. But for something like this where a human will be examining things by hand, it's fine.

For SHA-1 (which we knew at the time would be broken shortly, and then in practice it was less than a year before Google and some academics announced their full collision) we reviewed special "Exception" SHA-1 SSL issuances by hand on m.d.s.policy after the official deadline for SHA-1 issuance and I asked for one application to be explained or rejected on the basis that the requested certificate had bizarre short gibberish values for "Organizational Unit". The applicant provided an explanation (which was maybe plausible but not up to the standard of transparency needed in the circumstances) but agreed to accept certificates missing the OU value altogether instead. That's the sort of thing you'd catch if a human examines what was hashed rather than a machine. I had no reason to believe that applicant was trying anything sinister, but the point of the manual examinations was to ensure everybody can see there were no shenanigans going on (and to make it a complete pain -- if the process was easy it would have become routine and defeated the purpose of prohibiting new SHA-1 issuance, being annoying was a feature).

<comment><USER29> Could you produce collisions using only non-visible/zero width characters?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> At the time this internal skepticism about the future of Gecko was very palpable from outside. Which is why it was infuriating to see Mozilla jumping on every bandwagon they could, eventually ending up with the OS silliness: it really felt like they were trying to run from their own browser and from their own tech, like they were ashamed of not being cool.

Thank god they eventually "saw the light" and they're now back on track.

<comment><USER12> FxOS started in 2011, not 2008. But yeah, that's the usual scapegoat to explain any of Mozilla's issues from the last 5 (or 10?) years.

You also totally misunderstand the goal pursued with FxOS, which had nothing to do with "run from their own browser and tech". If anything, the current work to remove XUL and xpcom puts Firefox closer to how FxOS was built, not further away. At the time some employees even build a new desktop browser around the same tech (not the failed Tofino experiment), that was outperforming Firefox because it had a lot of the "new hotness" like e10s and web extensions. Guess what, the desktop team ignored it, only to do the same thing later.

Mozilla is not back on track at all, they are still playing catch up on the desktop market which is not growing much and totally irrelevant on mobile.

But they have enough money to last years, in a weird way of "to rich to fail".

<comment><USER30> Please read my comment, before trying to read my mind. I'm telling you what it looked like from the outside. Nobody ever cared for the internal politics of Mozilla; what we saw was a wobbly org that looked anxious to build anything that wasn't their own browser. I didn't say the OS was responsible, nobody cares if FxOS ended up making choices that the browser should have made or whatnot. The problem was not FxOS; FxOS was a symptom of an institution that had lost its way _before_ the OS was even in the picture.

 _> they are still playing catch up on the desktop market_

It's not the sort of wave you turn in a month. 57 is a big release, give it time. It had a massive surge of good press, which is a good sign. If they can come up with developer tools that can beat Chrome at something, they will see numbers go up.

 _> totally irrelevant on mobile._

They are making inroads on Android, which is the only market they will ever play into. iOS will only be cracked open by legal coercion. Anything else is wishful thinking.

 _> But they have enough money to last years_

Mozilla is not just a company, it's basically a public institution. Their role is to champion a view of the web as an open utility, not to be the most popular widget maker. They don't need bazillions of money to do that.

<comment><USER16> > Their role is to champion a view of the web as an open utility, not to be > the most popular widget maker. They don't need bazillions of money to do > that.

To maintain Firefox as a viable product they do need a lot of money, and significant market share too.

Without Firefox as a viable product Mozilla would be a very different and much less useful organisation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >* There is a huge overhang of security-critical bugs; we have to choose between addressing that and making forward progress. We are putting code- cleanup projects on the back burner for the same reason.*

Have they considered rewriting it in R... oh, hang on.

</comment><comment><USER32> I expected an article about 1990s browser wars. 2007-2008 is not ancient in my book.

<comment><USER33> 10 years is a long time. This was back when I still heard people seriously asking if the internet would last. It was even plausible! Google was only a few years out from its IPO. Few people thought the internet could help elect a president (and I don't mean the current guy).

A lot changed in the last ten years. It may not seem like it because most of those changes were refinements on things we already had at the time. We've just been in a long period of revisions. New programming tools, new social networks, new [insert thing we've had since the '90s]. The late '90s and first half of the '00s were full of radical changes, so it seems less significant in context.

We're probably on the brink of another radical upheaval like the '90s. There's lots of money flowing around, lots of amazing and well-refined tools, and all the low hanging fruit is more or less captured. No one's getting rich on "x as a service" anymore. People will have to really change something to capture the next huge payday, and the first few will set off a cascade of changed expectations.

<comment><USER34> Ten years ago my home page showed up on the first page (top ten) of search results for a Google search for just my first name, or just my last name. I've never been particular famous—there were just _no_ individuals with a web presence, outside of tech.

[But mostly I just came here to practice using an em dash correctly…]

<comment><USER33> I'm more impressed with the ellipsis.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


EU orders Airbus A350 operators to install drink spillage covers in cockpits - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/27/a350_coffee_spillage_saga_continues/ <comment><USER2> The out-line at the bottom with the Amazon link is _priceless_.</comment>


The End of Net Neutrality Isn't the End of the World - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-end-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world <comment><USER2> Well, the deal is that the Internet will be a less effective platform for supporting freedom and democracy when it is under tighter control of a few corporations.

As a consumer I am not worried very much, although since my family lives in a rural area dependent on DSL, that will be a hit since I expect AT&T to drop DSL support as soon as they can because it is a loss for them - but as a common carrier they do have (or should have) responsibilities. For people living in cities, maybe not so bad until rates start going up.

</comment><comment><USER3> This piece reads like paid shills explaining how it's not all bad and that we can still use the Internet. It was insulting to read and I couldn't finish it.</comment>