Show HN: Phoenix 2.6 – a macOS window and app manager scriptable with JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kasper/phoenix/ <comment><USER2> I spent quite a bit of time writing my configuration for Phoenix, if you're thinking about writing your own I think you might find starting from mine useful.

It's easy to customize, there are gifs in the readme, and it comes packed with features, I hope you'll like it:

[https://github.com/fabiospampinato/phoenix](https://github.com/fabiospampinato/phoenix)

<comment><USER3> This is fantastic! The readme with animated GIF's is really helping me learn the shortcuts. Thanks for sharing.

<comment><USER2> I'm glad you like it! :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After many ours spent on several scriptable window managers I've settled on Spectacle, which is a lot less powerful, but proved to be enough for me, while being dead easy and hassle free.

<comment><USER5> Ditto. It's brilliant and one of the things stopping me switching to linux at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use MacOS at home and happily use Hammerspoon to manage these interactions, in the past using Slate—I use Windows at work and I really wish it had something better than AutoHotKey: is this just something I'm unaware of or does the design of windows really hamper the creation of tools like these?

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been using Phoenix for 2 years straight and it's been pretty smooth sailings. Kasper has done an excellent job maintaining and implementing new features every once in a while, thanks Kasper!

My personal configuration is written in TypeScript and I maintain typings for Phoenix as well. I try to find ways to improve my every-day and implement them in Phoenix, things like: moving/resizing windows, coffee timer, monitor brightness, terminal hotkey, etc. In the past I've used it to track what applications I spend my time in or to automatically switch Karabiner-Element profiles based on which monitor is connected. If you're looking for inspiration, feel free to have a look:

[https://github.com/mafredri/phoenix- config](https://github.com/mafredri/phoenix-config)

[https://github.com/mafredri/phoenix- typings](https://github.com/mafredri/phoenix-typings)

</comment><comment><USER8> I used Spectacle: [https://www.spectacleapp.com/](https://www.spectacleapp.com/)

It is not scriptable but gets the job done.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a 34" 1440p screen and I use Mozaic.app ([https://www.lightpillar.com/mosaic.html](https://www.lightpillar.com/mosaic.html)) for managing my windows. Usually, i'll divide my windows as either 1:1, 1:2:1 or 1:4 sizes. It's pretty useful as I can use keyboard shortcuts to position my windows. Is there any added benefits that I can get by using phoenix or hammerspoon?

<comment><USER6> As a hammerspoon user, probably not if that's all you're using it for. Hammerspoon does add a bunch of extra features mosaic doesn't add—but if you don't need them and you've already invested in software to solve your problem: not likely.

<comment><USER9> If you don't mind, what are the use cases that makes hammerspoon very useful for you?

<comment><USER6> Basically the same reason you're using mosaic + the ability to change what exactly is being done. I use it to map 'hyper'+key (where hyper is the equivalent of ctrl+cmd+shift+option and is assigned to control, capslock is assigned to the original control functionality) to move windows between screens and on their own grid. Effectively I just didn't pay for mosaic-like functionality. I have better touch tool, but I never liked having to drag to snap and had hammerspoon implemented already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been enjoying chunkwm as a tiling WM. Hard to go back to non-tiling when you've experienced it.

[https://github.com/koekeishiya/chunkwm](https://github.com/koekeishiya/chunkwm)

<comment><USER11> I've tried tiling WM (well, MacOS' Amethyst, before that used kwm for a while, used fluxbox a long time ago on arch which can be used with tiling) but still can't get the "why", they don't help my process and mostly stand on my way. Anything I'm missing? What do you find so changing?

<comment><USER10> A few reasons: \- I know what is going to happen when I open anything and can get things where they need to be very quickly (since it is keyboard driven).

\- The wm is working with me to use the entire screen.

\- You can always revert to making windows float if you need it.

\- You can use supporting terminal with no title bar which saves space (see here [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0f08qa0dbhhc6nv/Screen%20Shot%2020...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/0f08qa0dbhhc6nv/Screen%20Shot%202018-04-08%20at%2018.41.15.png?dl=0))

It is occasionally annoying when something doesn't behave as expected but its a fun tool to use in general.

<comment><USER12> Can you configure the margins between those three terminal windows? I currently use Tmux with one fullscreen terminal to achieve a similar effect, but this looks interesting too. I'd like to eliminate any margins though. A one-pixel border is all I would want.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. You can configure everything (global padding, inter-tile padding etc...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is so well done.

I've looked at some links to examples in the wiki: [https://github.com/kasper/phoenix/wiki#examples](https://github.com/kasper/phoenix/wiki#examples)

...and Garrow Bedrossian's config: [https://github.com/garrow/phoenix- configurations](https://github.com/garrow/phoenix-configurations)

...is da bomb!

Others look very good too.

<comment><USER14> Hacker News don't do Markdown style links.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I used Phoenix to reimplement some features of MercuryMover [https://github.com/kemar/phoenix-mercury- mover](https://github.com/kemar/phoenix-mercury-mover) You can almost do what you want with Phoenix. I'm a huge fan

</comment><comment><USER16> If you prefer a tiling window manager that is automatic, check out [https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst](https://github.com/ianyh/Amethyst) .

</comment><comment><USER17> Just a quick question for current Phoenix users — how is the multiple monitor performance? By that I mean a situation where I'm going from just the MacBook screen to three monitors on one desk to four monitors on another desk. Will it automatically detect how many monitors are present, without having to resort to hardware-specific configurations? This is a killer feature for me on Hammerspoon, but I much rather script with JS than Lua, out of familiarity.

<comment><USER7> I'm not entirely sure what you mean with performance, macOS is pretty sluggish at reacting to new monitors anyway.

That said, Phoenix has an event for when the screens change, you can use it to react, enumerate the new screens, etc. Something like:

Event.on('screensDidChange', () => { const sizes = Screen.all().map(s => s.flippedVisibleFrame()); })

Hope that helps!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I moved from MacOS to Linux for my desktop machine and still use a Macbook with MacOS on the go. I've tried chunkwm, Spectacle, and a few odd ones on GitHub. But none really come anywhere close to something like i3 on Linux if you're looking for a good window manager. MacOS is just too limited if you really want to have a predefined setup of (work)spaces and window regions.

<comment><USER19> Have you tried Amethyst[0]? It's a dynamic, automatic tiling WM for macOS; I enjoy it very much.

[0]: [https://ianyh.com/amethyst/](https://ianyh.com/amethyst/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is anyone aware of configurations that mimic i3wm using Phoenix/Hammerspoon or modifications to Amethyst?

</comment><comment><USER21> That's nice! Does anyone already have an example to just add Windows like ALT + Tab like behavior? Thx!

<comment><USER22> How does windows alt tab differ from cmd tab? (Mostly out of curiosity)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> How does it compare to hammerspoon?

<comment><USER14> It looks like this just does window management, rather than the many things that Hammerspoon supports.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes! Though I've seen people extending the support in Phoenix cleverly by using the Task API. Basically you can run any external processes or scripts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow. The named spaces switcher seems promising to me.

I think it would be great to have custom names for spaces, and assign various apps to each space, and then be able to log the time spent in each space to a text file.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is this related at all to Slate ([https://github.com/jigish/slate](https://github.com/jigish/slate)), which also has a JS API?

<comment><AUTHOR> In many conceptual ways, such as sharing the same language for configuration, though this is a completely different project so they don't share the same origin. Slate has become rather abandoned and unsupported nowadays. Phoenix hopefully continues strong in this area.

<comment><USER26> still works nicely though, i will add (slate)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is really cool. Is there anything like that for Windows?

<comment><USER28> AutoIT is similar to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've been shopping around for something like this. I currently just use BetterTouchTool with Windows-like shortcuts for window management.

</comment><comment><USER30> Hahaha lol I thought Phoenix Framework had suddenly jumped from 1.3 to 2.6

<comment><AUTHOR> Hah. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is it possible to set window 'Always on Top' with Phoenix?

<comment><USER14> I don't think this is something you can do to windows you don't own.</comment></comment>


MongoDB (is) For Rubyists - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/kbanker/mongodb-is-for-rubyists-boston-ruby <comment><USER2> here's a link to a related talk given by Daniel Lucraft during the Ruby Manor 2009 on how #SongKick denormalised their rails application to make it more responsive using MongoDB. Interesting stuff.

<comment><USER2> oops!! forgot the link. here it is: [http://github.com/danlucraft/presentations/raw/master/denorm...](http://github.com/danlucraft/presentations/raw/master/denormalizing.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice presentation!

Sorry that this is little off topic, but: MongoDB is released under the AGPL. As a MongoDB user, I have been fine with this because I always use mongodb as- is as a service, and will probably never want to modify it. Question though: why is it a big deal that MySQL be available with commercial licenses as long as it is used as a service, and there are non-GPL client libraries available? I asked this question before, but did not receive very many replies. The bruhaha over the Oracle Sun acquisition made me think more about this.

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks like a good intro presentation to MongoDB, but I must say the slides themselves are absolutely beautiful and well done.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I cultivate design thinking? - <AUTHOR> I am adept at building the backend for mobile/web applications but when it comes to building the UI, I end up building something mediocre. How do I get to a point where I am able to think like a designer AND build out a professional, non-noob UI? <comment><USER2> There are a lot of great resources out there around UX design. I think understanding the UX principles goes a long way to facilitating useful and clean UI's.

Some good resources I have seen. [https://uxclub.com/](https://uxclub.com/) [https://www.uxpower.tools/](https://www.uxpower.tools/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [random opinion from the internet]

I am hesitant about the term "design thinking" because it somewhat implies that design is in the head rather than the hand. Design is a process that generates many artifacts out in the real world and the premise is that most of them will not be 'good enough.'

To me, design thinking means thinking by creating designs. Out in the real world. Not in the head. My maximum is "there is no such thing as a design in my mind." If it is not on paper (i.e. there is not a 'hard copy'), then it isn't really a design. The way to cultivate design thinking is _doing_ design and failing and figuring out why things work and don't work.

A design is done when time runs out.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Use the thing over time, and over different people, and over much of both. Get faster at understanding why v1, v2, v3.. annoy you, by getting better at remembering which ideas are not good. What you see in v1 distorts your imagination of v2, what you see in v2 distorts your imagination into v3, etc.. Practice with patience but unrelentingly..

</comment><comment><USER5> "Humane Interface" by Jef Raskin.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface)</comment>


Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract

<comment><AUTHOR> Found a Nature commentary (since the Science article has a paywall)

"Is rationality the enemy of religion?" [http://www.nature.com/news/is- rationality-the-enemy-of-relig...](http://www.nature.com/news/is-rationality- the-enemy-of-religion-1.10539)

Edit: Removed ranting about academic paywalls. Hopefully, the original authors might add a pdf to their website e.g <http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/research.htm>

</comment><comment><USER2> Doesn't this seem obvious? I don't mean to be flippant, but central to religion is acceptance of ideas which are: 1) illogical; and, 2) infallible, and thus impervious to any real analysis. Any belief system that requires faith for explanation is by definition at odds with analysis.

<comment><USER3> Not really. Not all religious are illogical.

If you assume that something created "existence" then a lot of the rest follows logically. (i.e. such a creator would want people to know about it, would want to be acknowledged, etc.)

Math has axioms that can not be proven. Religion does too. If everything in your religion follows logically from the axioms it's not any more illogical than any school of thought.

Gödel proved that a logically consistent school of thought based entirely only on the proven is impossible.

Note: Not all religions are actually structured this way. Some really do require illogical belief. I'm just saying it's not an essential feature of religion.

<comment><USER4> Name one major religion that is logical. It's not really about your personal existential questions, religions are organized social phenomena (probably biological adaptations one could say).

Maths and logic is a consistent system and it can even prove its inconsistencies. Despite popular opinion, Godel's theorem does not provide mathematical foundation to illogical truths, nor does it state that any arbitrary argument cannot be decided. It's specific statements cannot be decided. In short, Maths don't make metaphysical claims, and please don't use Godel / Quantum indeterminacy / chaos theory / complexity theory as arguments in religious discussions.

<comment><USER3> All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence. Most require that the creation happened as a act of will by a sentience. Not all though, some hold that it was created as reflex of sort. But all claim to know how it happened (and agnosticism holds that we don't know, and atheism holds that it created itself with an additional belief that we will eventually figure out how it happened).

That belief will never go away, so if that's your criteria there is no point in continuing further.

But religion is more than just that, there are all sorts of other things that religions require, and that's where my argument lies. Rites, rituals, prohibited practices, required practices, what is considered good, what is bad, what is neutral. Some religions don't require anything at all - just the core belief in a creator and that's it.

The question is what is the source of these things - are they dictated by fiat, and believers just believe it without thinking about it? Or does every single ritual and belief require rigorous explanation and analysis before being accepted as necessary.

And you got my argument about Gödel backward. I did not argue religion from Gödel, rather that everything also requires some belief without proof. (The interesting arguments about what if that belief was wrong are what differentiates science from religion.) But the need for the belief doesn't go away.

<comment><USER5> _All religions have as a core belief the particulars of the creation of existence._

Buddhism is a counter-example. There are many strands of Buddhism, but in general they do not take a position on the creation of the universe, the existence of deities, or many other things that most Westerners would think are central to a religion.

If all that you're really familiar with are variants on one religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam share holy books), it is easy to believe that all religions look the same with different texts. But in fact there is a much wider variety of religions in the world than that.

<comment><USER6> Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans.

It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent.

If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?

<comment><USER5> That is a very sweeping claim. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about every one of those religions. I doubt that you are either.

Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth.

Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.

<comment><USER6> Don't narrow this down to a discussion about creation myths when _you_ said it was about creation myths, the existence of dieties, and many other things that westerns consider part of a religion.

If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion?

Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.

<comment><USER5> Excuse me, _I_ said?

Where? Provide me a link.

Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527> by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion.

As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)

<comment><USER3> BTW you misunderstood what I said about creation. I wasn't talking about _how_ creation happened (for example Genesis). I was talking about _that_ there was an active creation by something (God).

I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That is probably one of the stupidest studies I've read about in years. Along with the scientific confirmation that yes, the fact that penguins and hens can't fly might have something to do with their wing size to weight ratio, and the amazing discovery that all winners of the lottery have plaid the lottery at least once in their life. I mean, who would have guessed?

</comment><comment><USER8> Many of the founding fathers of modern science were religious. E.g. Isaac Newton, Max Plank etc.. This theory flies in the face of that empirical evidence. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science))

</comment><comment><USER9> Here is the full article [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing- your...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your- religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'll summarize the interesting part:

 _Analytic thought appears to suppress intuition, with religious belief as a casualty._

Ignoring religious belief for the moment--seems like a side effect, really-- intuition is a really valuable thing. Now I'm an analytic person with an analytic job in an analytic world. Has my intuition already gone to pot? Just how atrophied is it? And how would I get it back? Go to church more?

<comment><USER11> I'm pretty sure they mean "intuition" to mean the thought process, not the skill of forming hypotheses from incomplete evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Please don't post articles behind paywalls.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can't read the full text.. Guess I'll have to take their word for it =/

</comment><comment><USER14> This would make an interesting HN poll. "Are you religious? Y/N?"

<comment><USER15> There was actually a poll about two years ago. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594>

Edit: 1519 out of 2251 (or 67.5%) responded Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting but it seems odd to lump atheists and agnostics in the same bin.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In other news, the sun is still pretty hot!

</comment><comment><USER17> It's funny how an article like this, behind a paywall no less, gets promoted, while an article on how Obama is intimidating Romney donors gets dismissed with an "why is this on HN?"

Well, why is THIS on HN?</comment>


Sending confidential information securely through the web - <AUTHOR> https://qlink.it/main

<comment><USER2> > _One should always bear in mind that there is no 100% secure way to transfer > information through the Internet. The only available practically 100% secure > way of sending confidential information is Quantum Encryption because it 's > based on the laws of Nature. In a brief and incomplete picture, in Quantum > Encryption one sends info codified in the spin of electrons, but if the > electrons are spied by an external agent, their wave functions collapse and > the recipient of the message realizes that the message is not secret any > more. On the contrary, if the electrons arrive with their original wave > functions, then the recipient is certain that the message has not been read > by anybody at all._

What?

</comment><comment><USER3> It is only inspired in QM, which make sense. I have used it nad verified that the second key does not leave my browser...

It is SOOOO easy.

This looks like a revolution to me.

</comment><comment><USER4> is talking about the Quantum key distribution. I think trying to explain it in a easy way. The phrase has more sense if you paste the second part of the text.

> Qlink.it is inspired in Quantum Encryption, but it is a classical object. > qlink gets self-destructed after being clicked, as an electron wave function > collapses after being measured, and this feature allows the recipient to be > certain that the message has not been intercepted.</comment>


You look ridiculous with those wires hanging out of your ears - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeffreymartens.com/blog/2017/6/apple-best-product-in-years <comment><USER2> Apple will not sell hundreds of millions of $160 headphones. Few people even pay $40 for current wireless headphones. They're a luxury and $160 is far larger than most people's budgets can allow.

<comment><USER3> With the number of people that have purchased Beats alone, I'd say that your claims are wildly inaccurate.

<comment><USER2> "Hundreds of millions" is a preposterous number, and I completely stand by that assesment. You're wrong by at least an order of magnitude, or perhaps several orders of magnitude.

The entire US headphone business was $2.2B in 2015[1]. Assuming 100% of those headphones were the cheapest Beats headphones ($100), the maximum number of Beats sold per year would be 20M. To sell "hundreds of millions" of headphones in the US, Beats would need 100% of the market for 10 years.

Even if you add 700M more consumers around the world, selling 200M+ $160 headphones to them is unrealistic. Apple is unlikely to do it, given the poor sales of AirPods so far[2].

1\. [http://hometheaterreview.com/trying-to-beat-beats-in-the- hea...](http://hometheaterreview.com/trying-to-beat-beats-in-the-headphone- category-remains-a-challenge/)

2\. [https://www.cnet.com/news/npd-wireless-headphone-sales- decem...](https://www.cnet.com/news/npd-wireless-headphone-sales- december-2016-airpods-beats-bose/)

<comment><USER3> "You're wrong by at least an order of magnitude, or perhaps several orders of magnitude."

Says the one making the wildly inaccurate claim. _shrug_ And more recent articles reflect that.

[http://bgr.com/2017/01/11/apple-airpods-sales- success/](http://bgr.com/2017/01/11/apple-airpods-sales-success/)

[https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/11/apples-airpods-and- wireless-b...](https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/11/apples-airpods-and-wireless- beats-take-40-of-all-recent-bluetooth-headphone-sales/)

But, whatever.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Serverless Page Builder - <AUTHOR> https://goandtalk.github.io <comment><USER2> By serverless it looks like you mean literally in-browser and not the usual microservice nomenclature, yes?

I like "Go and Talk" as a phrase but think it will lead to some confusion amongst technically literate people. I assumed your platform was built around the language Go (and something else) at first, which I assumed was running as a microservice.

<comment><USER3> Yes, they might do more to make it distinctive, writing it as Go-and-Talk or conistently using a particular color and font.

The "Play Slides" buttons don't seem to do anything but left and right arrow keys will navigate through the page sections presented as slides.

Actually trying it is a scavenger hunt: go to the footer on a page and click the gray-on-black "Edit" link.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your time, and for discovering the edit link at the bottom of the page. The link submitted should really be [https://builder.goandmake.app/index.goandmake.html](https://builder.goandmake.app/index.goandmake.html) for people to try the editor (possibly on tablets and mobile phones) and provide feedback.

"Play Slides" button does not navigate the sections, and a proper label should be "View as Slides". Clicking this button will create or destroy the slide instance, and thus enable/disable navigation by left and right arrow keys (or swiping on mobile devices).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After poking around your page for a while, as someone mentioned, it's a scavenger hunt to actually find out how to use it.

You _really_ need to rework those tutorials.

I'd honestly scrap most of them and write a user guide in narrative form. I know your product is aimed generating, essentially, slideshows, but that's a terrible way to present user documentation.

Some of them are indicative of poor design: under Overview, you write "Finding Toolbars", and we need to know this because they're "At Top and Left, Out of View Initially."

Don't hide the toolbars and you don't need to tell me where to find them.

You have an entire slide "The State of Section Application" explaining how an on-off button works.

If you have to explain it, just explain it in the UI:

        App is Off. [Start up.]
        App is On. [Shut down.]

"Starting a new site" \-- It looks like you just copied random stuff from another page. (Or is someone playing with the app and editing your site?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you indeed for your comments. My intention was to get feedback on the editor itself. Your comment on the tutorials (demos) is actually a bonus to us. We will rename the menu item to demo and write separate tutorials and documentation in narrative form as you suggested. The purpose of some sections is to demonstrate site wide section, and may not be in logical order in the demo.

The demos are talking points when we provide training to the end users. They can edit the sections and remember a thing or two while they practice. The meaningful words and phrases are better than ipsum lorem.

The comments on toolbar are good points too. We have recently changed the workflow for users to edit their content on their own website, on an editable page (index.goandmake.html) next to the published page (index.html). They can navigate to a page and edit. This makes oauth2 integration much harder, but is more intuitive than loading and editing data of a separate domain. so the toolbar can be visible by default, and hidden after user clicks a button. we are going to act on this. It is good you noticed it and brought it up.

Highly appreciate your inputs.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! Best of luck with your project!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like a good start!

One comment though - if I correctly understand how you're using "serverless" in this case (which I believe is literal - the whole thing resides in the browser), isn't this just an implementation detail? It's great for you since you have no infrastructure cost, but should your users care?

My apologies if I'm missing the point.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used the term "serverless" as people here are mostly developers and already know this term. The page builder is part of the serverless web publishing solution. It can generate website themes with editable pages, each theme in a separate repository. People can import/upload the repository, navigate to the page to edit, and make a website quickly. This is an example work-in-progress theme [https://toffee-and- coffee.gitlab.io/index.goandmake.html](https://toffee-and- coffee.gitlab.io/index.goandmake.html). It is ready for people to play with too.

For end users we show how simple and easy it is, and we do not emphasize on "serverless". End users do not care. They may not even know what is a server or database. But people do love simple and easy ways.

When we talk to potential users, one of the first questions is "how to install it"? They are amused by the idea to start editing without installation.

One of our users runs her own online retail business in addition to looking after school age children. She has been hoping for a website to show her products since 10 years ago, and is quite excited about being able to edit something on the phone when she has spare time. She has a laptop but has hardly anytime to use it during the day.

For people always on the go like her who have little access to a desktop/laptop computer, the serverless page builder is a great convenience. People can edit, preview result, even without internet connection. When the page is done, just upload and publish, even from a phone.

Most static site generators won't run on a phone. The page builder does.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It is too late to edit the link now. The link submitted should really be [https://builder.goandmake.app/index.goandmake.html](https://builder.goandmake.app/index.goandmake.html) for people to try out the editor and provide feedback. I am particularly interested in whether it works on tablets and smart phones.</comment>


Swear Jar – Incentivizing good behavior  - <AUTHOR> https://assemblymade.com/swear-jar

<comment><USER2> Love the idea, not so sure about the name. Glancing at the title I thought it was an actual "swear jar", not a figurative one. That brought a little angry thought to my head, "What is this? An office for children?", then I saw the actual idea and thought it sounded pretty cool.

You could make a fair bit of money just allowing people to pre-buy a block of fines, then swear/smoke/turn up late all they like until it runs out. Might defeat the point of the jar, but you'd make a good profit!

<comment><USER3> The story is told in _The Boys on the Bus_ , that Johnny Apple of the NY Times was disliked by other reporters on the state house beat, and that one group who regularly lunched together decided that griping about him had become boring. They enforced the rule of a 25 cent fine per mention of his name. Then one day a regular walked in, through down a $5, and let go his rant.

[Edit: I'd have forgotten this long ago, except that I've worked with people who have that way of getting under one's skin.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I discovered recently this sort of things works amazingly. At my company it used to be that it would be impossible to hold a punctual meetings (theres was always at least 1 person who would arrive 10+ minutes late).

We made a rule, if you arrive late you invite everyone to donuts. It didn't work. Then we made it donuts + coffee. Boom it worked flawlessly. Every single meeting now starts on time. People make a huge effort never to arrive late and it's had a great impact on productivity.</comment>


The Downside of Social Media - <AUTHOR> http://www.neatorama.com/2012/11/19/The-Downside-Of-Social-Media/ Social Media Is Ruining Our Real Life Conversations <comment><USER2> I find a slightly different problem: these conversations don't come up IRL _at all_ , because they've already occurred online, and this prevents a more meaningful discussion.

To use the example from TFA, if someone tells you that their ex got in contact with them recently, you might ask them how they feel about it, what [s]he's been doing recently, and so on: you'd have _a conversation_. If you've already seen this online, it's likely that it would never come up at all - and you probably wouldn't ask those questions on your facebook wall, as it's not private.

Facebook is particularly bad for this, because it ostensibly covers almost every aspect of your life: replacing conversations with data points.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook et. al. are sucking the social marrow out of our lives. Why talk about the birth of your child? You've already shared umpteen photos of it. Why talk about that new job? You've already changed your profile data and it automatically propagated.

We should deeply consider how much time, attention and prominence we give to social media. It's a black hole.

</comment><comment><USER4> When I gave up social media for a month (my friends are all very heavy Twitter users), the biggest thing I noticed was deeper and more in-depth conversations. I was excited to see people. I actually -missed- my friends when I didn't see them, because I didn't know what they were up to every second of every day.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you're interesting enough, you can find something more interesting to talk about!</comment>


Ask HN: Any companies or freelancers that you have used for a design 'makeover'? - <AUTHOR> Hi all, I'm looking to find someone (freelancer or company) that can help do a visual design / copy make over for a site. Anyone know any good places to find one? To be clear, no one needs to touch the back-end or touch the application code. I just want a css/visual design make over. <comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the responses so far. Not a great sign though when the portfolio site of a designer doesn't look great and in one case doesn't display content correctly on iPhone Xs and my existing site (which I want to improve) does. Don't mean to be overly negative but I want to go forward not backwards!

</comment><comment><USER2> [http://integral.me](http://integral.me) is highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER3> I've worked with John who can be reached at email@example.com

I was very pleased with the end product.

</comment><comment><USER4> www.dribbble.com/imthiagocarvalho

</comment><comment><USER5> firstname.lastname@example.com - get in touch</comment>


Three Things - <AUTHOR> http://tundal45.tumblr.com/post/2637462609/three-things#Notes

<comment><USER2> These days I find this comment by coffeemug (lists three things) relevant when it comes to advice regarding programming as a career : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747713></comment>


How is software developed at Amazon? - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2019/3/4/how-is-software-developed-at-amazon.html <comment><USER2> Despite the title on the page, this article is actually about AWS, not Amazon.

It seems like a good article, other than the issue with the title.</comment>


Notes on Resonance - <AUTHOR> http://worrydream.com/NotesOnResonance/ <comment><USER2> There are contexts in which multiplying two signals make sense. Others have mentioned electronic mixers like the ones used in radio modulators / demodulators. There are other contexts in which adding makes sense, for example when determining the signal received at a microphone when multiple people are talking. Or the signal received by an antenna when multiple transmitters are transmitting.

Bret describes a "local signal" and a "signal received from a distant source." I think most people (non electrical engineers, anyway) would imagine the local source as someone speaking into a microphone, and the distant source as someone shouting from across the room. In this scenario, we should add the signals, and everything that follows is incorrect.

But to an electrical engineer, the "local signal" could be a local oscillator, and the "distant signal" could be the received signal at the antenna. In this case, we feed both signals into an electronic mixer, and multiplying is the correct way to think about it.

I know Bret is really big on abstractions, but the context actually matters here. You might be able to abstract away _some_ of the physical parts (microphone, antenna, demodulator, etc.), but you can't just skip over additive vs multiplicative contexts.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think you can put together a list, hopefully a long list, of people whose careers would've been very different had they not been exposed to Bret's work.

He introduces you to a vast network of ideas, most of which, if you're like me, you _only_ start to appreciate _after_ you've seen a bit of Bret's work. He makes those ideas accessible, beside furthering them on his own.

From Engelbart's idea of "aligning human systems and tool systems, with workers spending time improving their tools for improving their tools, leading to accelerating rate of progress," to Papert's brilliant work on the nature of learning and play, ideas that focus my direction and give me joy, I can't help but always remind myself that I may have never learned of these ideas had it not been because of Bret's work. Thank you Bret.

<comment><USER3> Do you have recommended reading for Papert's work on constructionism / learning theory?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mindstorms was how I was introduced to it. Can't recommend it enough. (PDF freely available on Bret's site: [http://worrydream.com/refs/Papert%20-%20Mindstorms%201st%20e...](http://worrydream.com/refs/Papert%20-%20Mindstorms%201st%20ed.pdf))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I do like the aesthetics of this, as others have mentioned it is plain wrong.

Any explanation of resonance should deal first and foremost with a physical system, not a signal. Having two signals 'resonate with each other' does not make a lot of sense.

Not sure what is meant with multiplying because the author then goes to mention integration which in essence, is adding, not multiplying.

A physical system is able to store energy at specific frequency -- a pendulum will swing for a long time, energy slowly decaying. But if the system is excited (imagine a kid on a swing), with each push, we will add some more energy, which will accumulate each time adding to a large response (resonance). The key part is, we need to add energy at the right frequency, push at the right interval, sing with the proper pitch.

<comment><USER5> > _it is plain wrong_

> _Not sure what is meant_

Which is it? :-)

As I interpret it, this article is not a scientific description of a particular physical system, but a metaphor.

That said, it does make sense in the signal domain. Consider electrical and optical resonance. It gets more interesting when the components are complex- valued.

<comment><USER4> It's the first one :)

This page is more about constructive interference than it is about resonance. Maybe that's what you are thinking about also?

<comment><USER5> So you're saying the page is simply incorrect and hints at no interesting ideas?

I see the world as composed of interconnected entities which metaphorically influence and resonate with each other, and there is a lesson in the creation of (metaphorical) power by the closer synchronization of these entities.

I extrapolate the implications of this as literally revealing a path leading to world peace.

In sum, I enjoy thought-provoking interpretations way more than thought- restricting interpretations.

<comment><USER4> It was never my intention to hate or shut out any possible metaphorical ideas.

I first heard of Bret couple times already in a very favourable light and he's on my read todo list.

The thing is that I have one very specific definition of resonance in my mind based on my line of work. Still I do believe it's always good to be open to different interpretations ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Resonance occurs when two sources of excitation fall completely in sync, and reinforce one another endlessly."

This is incorrect, even according to the wikipedia article it links to.

Resonance occurs when the excitation frequency matches a natural frequency of the system being excited, causing it to vibrate at larger amplitudes, even perhaps uncontrollably.

It seems that the author misunderstands mixing also - the graph that he presents for the mixed signal seems to be incorrect according to the other wikipedia article he links to.

<comment><USER7> Yes, the author is describing constructive interference instead of resonance, although the fact that they said multiplication instead of addition indicates that they aren't really speaking correctly about either one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is resonance:

Imagine an system composed of a mass hanging from a spring, like this [1]. If you pull down the mass and release, the mass will move up and down (oscillate) at a set rate (the system's natural frequency). No matter how far you pull down the mass before release (the amplitude), the system will always oscillate at the same frequency.

Now, imagine you start pushing on the mass (applying forces) while it is in motion. If you were to push up on the mass while it is traveling down, you would decrease the distance the mass would move on subsequent oscillations (damping the amplitude). But if you were to push up on the mass as it travels _up_ , you would be increasing the amplitude of oscillation.

That is what we call resonance.

[1]: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lZPtFDXYQRU/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lZPtFDXYQRU/maxresdefault.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER9> I strongly suspect that the article is allegorical. That it's describing the resonance between people, using waveforms as a metaphor.

If it were just a technical article, the last step — where you bring the two signals back into phase with each other — would be pointless and redundant. But if the true meaning is outside the mechanistic / technical, then that last step has tremendous purpose.

Bret's background is in electrical engineering. He knows the proper technical meanings of all the terms and concepts in the article. So rather than simply pointing out that he's "misusing" them, perhaps look for reasons that he might have intentionally chosen to do so.

</comment><comment><USER10> In what physical context do we multiply signals together instead of adding them?

<comment><USER11> In a radio, this is done by a mixer circuit, for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_cell)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why are the signals being multiplied together instead of added together? Multiplying them is very unusual. Even the wikipedia article linked by the site, with the text "Bringing the signals into a context for multiplying is called 'mixing' [1]", is talking about adding signals; not about multiplying them.

A bit more justification for the math being done would be good.

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

<comment><USER13> Actually, the frequency mixer wikipedia page is describing a kind of mixer that multiplies.

The wikipedia page on "electronic mixers" is more informative:

> An electronic mixer is a device that combines two or more electrical or > electronic signals into one or two composite output signals. There are two > basic circuits that both use the term mixer, but they are very different > types of circuits: additive mixers and multiplicative mixers.

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

This was news to me; the mixers I'm familiar with are additive. I would call something that multiplies a ring modulator or a heterodyne or something like that. The website could have been a bit more clear that they're talking about a different kind of mixer than how most people understand the term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I guess he just means sympathetic frequencies or something like that, rather than resonance. As an admirer of Bret's other work, I'm guessing he intended this as a showcase of interactive illustrations of how frequency works in composite. Too bad the terminology is off.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was hoping this was going to lead into a clear explanation of how a phased- lock loop works. Or a superheterodyne receiver. Or how periodic devices with almost the same frequency and a little coupling fall into synchronization.

But no.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have watched this talk from Bret Victor at least once a year to help me think about what to work on:

Inventing on Principle [https://vimeo.com/36579366](https://vimeo.com/36579366)

</comment><comment><USER17> I love the visuals, but the problem is in the first sentence: "two sources of excitation." That's not it at all.

If this were remotely true, then when I synced the oscillators on my synthesizer, the volume level would grow uncontrollably. But of course what actually happens is that the amplitude (approximately) doubles.

The problem is that the diagrams do not show what resonance actually is, but only what happens then the frequency of an excitation source matches the resonant frequency of a receiving medium, and in addition when the energy input exceeds the damping effect of the medium.

Nevertheless, it's still a great visual, provided the explanation is corrected.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hah, when I skimmed this all I thought was "neat visualization." Then I came to the comments...

It must be a real high as an author when you see your site is getting a flood of traffic from hacker news - then a hell of a crash when you check it out and all the comments are torching your work.

<comment><USER19> I don't think you can be a successful and creative person if you are always at the whims of random internet commenters.

<comment><USER7> Oftentimes, commenters are aimless cynics - this is especially common in things related to art (where nobody is really more right than anybody else) and business (where anybody who really knows what's going on would be better served by taking action themselves.) When it comes to centuries-old science you're either right or you're wrong, and there's no place for very convincing, very beautiful presentations that are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is, at best, a misleading presentation on resonance, and my first reaction is that it's completely and horribly wrong.

> The coupling between the two sources is represented by the product of these > signals. (Bringing signals into a context for multiplying is called > "mixing".)

The parenthetical is technically correct, but when two systems are coupled they only "mix" if there are strong nonlinearities. Normally when considering resonance you're thinking of systems that are approximately linear, or even linear time-invariant systems. Under these approximation, the multiplication happens in the _frequency_ domain which is fundamentally different.

Consider a wine glass and a speaker emitting a sound wave. If the speaker is tuned to the resonant frequency of the sound wave, you can shatter the glass—this is not because the signals are multiplied, but this is just because frequencies near the resonant frequency decay more slowly, so the speaker can keep adding more and more energy to the glass until it breaks.

<comment><USER21> >> (Bringing signals into a context for multiplying is called "mixing".)

> The parenthetical is technically correct

Not really. In common parlance (e.g. [1]), mixing means adding. If you mixed signals by multiplying, music would sound like noise.

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

<comment><USER22> You are certainly correct in audio applications. "mix" usually means "add".

However in many other signal processing applications, "mix" means "multiply". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_mixer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_mixer)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> (Small grey sans-serif text means you hate your readers' eyes.)

<comment><USER24> (That's why it's used for downvoted comments.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't know what kind of resonance this post is talking about, but I've never heard of time domain signals being multiplied in a physical system...

<comment><USER22> time domain multiplication is frequency domain convolution. Which is great if you want to shift the frequency band of some signal. Like if you have 2 songs that you want to play over radio in the same, shared airspace, you shift them to two different frequency bands. This happens electrically/RF-ly as a multiplication.

<comment><USER25> I know this, but how does it relate to resonance in physical systems?

E.g. imagine a rigid pendulum driven by a sinusoidal torque at its pivot point. Which signals are multiplied here??

<comment><USER26> Mixers are physical systems. The precise words for the distinction you are trying to make is between linear and non linear systems.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you power off your laptop?) - <AUTHOR>

I know this is a stupid thing to ask here on the Hacker News. Sorry for wasting your time. I was wondering, how many people don't power off their laptops for like a month, a week? I didn't do it for about two weeks now and I feel I have to do something about this habit:) What about you? <comment><USER2> Macbook C2D 2GHz ca. december '06. Upgraded to 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD. Used mostly for Firefox, Virtualbox (OpenBSD and Ubuntu), iTunes. I only power it off when it locks up. That happens anywhere from every few days to every three weeks. Most lock-ups occur when I'm trying to tether via BlueTooth. Other than that, I just close it, wait for the LED on front to indicate that it's done storing RAM to the hard drive (it does that just in case the battery fails) and then I go.

Current uptime: 9 days, 8:23. About par for the course, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a Macbook and after about a week of continuous, heavy, use (I do web development on it so I may have Netbeans, Terminal, a billing app, Safari, Firefox, a Virtual Windows XP environment, vim, Mail, iTunes, iChat and an assortment of taskbar apps all running full time) I find it gets quite annoyingly slugish. A reboot refreshes things. I have only 2GB of RAM so that is probably part of the problem as I end up with more paging out I probably should.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the same story with me. Though I don't own a macbook and not using Netbeans(I use GEdit for most web development stuff and Eclipse for C-programming), have 3GB of RAM, I still reboot it about every four days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I almost never powered off my Dell XPS R 450 for ten years; laziness and the theory of avoiding powerup/powerdown stress on connections. It lasted ten years. I replaced one of the two HDs once. I got rid of it for noise and not worth upgrading it to modern capabilities, and the ginormously large and heavy CRT monitor finally gave out.

I use my laptop as a desktop replacement (see above). I rarely power it down, although Ubuntu boots pretty quick.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ten years! Amazing.

<comment><USER4> I'm _cheap_. Although it's an excellent question whether I spent more in electricity than I saved in fixing/buying systems. But I definitely saved inconvenience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well, it's a laptop, so I suspend it when I go somewhere (which is quite often, as it's what I am supposed to do with it). But when I am home for a longer period of time and go out without a need to have the computer with me, then it can run uninterrupted for months. So, no, I don't power it off, only suspend, if it has to travel in a backpack.

</comment><comment><USER6> I turn off my work laptop every day before undocking it to bring it home. I believe HP does not claim that this model supports hot docking. Also, if I forget to turn it off, it gets really hot in my sealed laptop bag...

</comment><comment><USER7> I put my mbp into deep sleep. Best of both worlds, quick startup, long battery life, saves the HD from being jostled when it accidentally gets turned on in the backpack, and it remembers where I left off working.

</comment><comment><USER8> Running a MacBook here too, tend to make it sleep, shut it down every now and again if not required. Adverage time between shutdowns I possibly a few weeks?

</comment><comment><USER9> I turn it off on weekends. It's easier to remember where I was the day before if I leave everything open.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have a macbook wich i almost never power off, i see it as one of its advantages; is it a bad practice?

<comment><AUTHOR> To be honest, I don't know if it's a bad thing to be running a laptop for months. I come from the background of using desktop PCs mostly and I must say, I had bad times with running them non-stop for months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> MacBook, never power off. Just close the lid while travelling.

</comment><comment><USER12> yep, but I travel a distance and don't like to leave the MacBook Pro running in my bag.

I will probably change my attitude when I can get an SSD.

</comment><comment><USER13> Does putting it to sleep / closing the lid count?

</comment><comment><USER14> I always power off my gear when I'm not using it.

</comment><comment><USER15> make sure it hibernates (stores ram to drive then powers off), or it uses significant battery while its in your bag.</comment>


Indian Railways stations, trains and schedules database in JSON and SQL formats - <AUTHOR> http://sramana.in/indianrail-db/ <comment><USER2> This is highly commendable effort. I have been the lead programmer of an India based travel search engine, so understand the value of this data.

Another problem to be solved is: Building a cache of seat availability. Basically, the Indian Railways guys can not provide the availability fast enough. And it affects every body - from end consumers using their websites, to OTA sites, to travel-search players.

I can't understand, why no body in the Railways IT dept. (i.e. CRIS) thought of having a PUSH based cache. The way it can work is each reservation/booking done causes a PUSH onto the state of the seat availability cache. Which is a very fast cache (probably based on memcached).

If they allow me, I can code the cache for FREE, for them. Provided they also stop being so possessive about their data. And allow for apps like yours and mine to flourish, which ultimately benefit the traveler.

EDIT: minor rephrase

</comment><comment><USER3> Shameless plug: I built a Chrome extension that helps you track all your Indian Railway tickets in one go - [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/almdggoleggeecgelb...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/almdggoleggeecgelbjekpmefpohdjck)

</comment><comment><USER4> After noticing a comment on the site, I checked the "Disclaimer" pages on the 2 official sites (Both don't allow storing this data in any form). However, the 3rd source <http://indiarailinfo.com/> is not affiliated to the gov.

Are there any NGO/organizations that could push for such data to be made public in India? I'll try getting in touch with CIS (<http://www.cis- india.org/>).

Disclaimers on: <http://www.indianrail.gov.in/disclaimer.html> & <http://trainenquiry.com/StaticContent/disclaim.aspx>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for informing me that it is not legal to scrape <http://www.indianrail.gov.in>. I am rewriting the code to scrape only <http://indiarailinfo.com>, which does not explicitly forbid scraping. Is it legal to scrape such a site (without overloading it)? Is it legal to share that code?

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure if there are any general rules/guidelines in India for this. However, IndianRailInfo doesn't have any Copyright/Disclaimer mentioned on their homepage. So I see no reason why it should be a problem. Re:Source, till it's not used to scrape Copyright/private data, it shouldn't be a problem. Mention this clause in the disclaimer/license. Will you be putting it on GitHub?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Appreciate the effort. I asked this other day on HN on a related thread. But is crawling the official sites legal? And also how frequent it's going to be updated? Just want to make sure before using this in an idea I have for a Windows phone app.

<comment><USER3> This is definitely not legal - <http://www.indianrail.gov.in/disclaimer.html>.

There was a discussion sometime back in HSI about this - <http://hackerstreet.in/item?id=6252>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome. Doing this for the Netherlands, and there is a public API (but no schedule API, just a trip planner).

Plans for GTFS? As awful as it seems, it is a nice format and has lots of tools. In half an hour with OpenTripPlanner and OpenStreetMaps and GTFS data (and a computer with 16GB RAM) you can have a trip planner ready to go.

</comment><comment><USER7> Error (509) This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I'm really eager to find a mirror. I like playing with data like this and I'm flying to India tomorrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've contacted the site owner and I'll see if I can get a mirror set up for those files.

</comment><comment><USER10> On side Note : If someone decides to build train timetable site - it would be highly useful to add Local taxi hire company numbers (near destination station). It will be highly useful as people would love to pre-book taxis as well.

<comment><USER7> Is there a way to get such data ? Other than going out an actively contacting the taxi companies ?

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure about taxi companies data. may be you can scrape it off yellow pages like sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Brilliant. I'm excited about attempting to use the data to produce an Indian timetable site on top of the frontend I've built for Irish rail and bus; <http://getthere.ie/>

</comment><comment><USER10> Excellent & highly useful database. Its always helpful to get such type of data in public domain. This way independent developers can build useful apps for community.

+1 for efforts.

</comment><comment><USER12> Due time, thanks for doing this. Everytime I'm booking an Indian rail ticket I cringe at the UI/UX on the official Indian Railways site.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for the comments. I updated the links and now downloads are working. Sorry for the delay.

</comment><comment><USER13> Maybe someone can write a wrapper around the indian train schedule website then, because it sucks.

</comment><comment><USER14> I will gladly sponsor hosting these files, if someone can send a copy my way.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a really awesome accomplishment. Keep going!

</comment><comment><USER16> Good going! :-)

</comment><comment><USER17> Error (509) This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!

:(

</comment><comment><USER18> Suggestion: add archives in more Unix friendly format (xz, gz, bz2). Not everyone has zip installed on their Unix box.

<comment><USER19> Gzip and zip use the same compression format, and it's just a single file, so you can use gunzip -S to uncompress this just fine.</comment></comment>


Is Google's NexusOne a big Failure - <AUTHOR> http://latestgeeknews.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-googles-nexusone-big-failure.html

<comment> k-zed ANECDOTE coming up:

I recently bought a Nexus One, and it's the BEST friggin phone I've ever owned. I am one very happy camper now

Responsiveness, Maps, speed of Maps, the browser (holy shit the browser), the screen... are all awesome.

Wrt. marketing: other than Internet mutterings, I first heard about it from a friend who is a Google employee - so I guess you can say it wasn't particularly well advertised.. NB, I'm a Linux-oriented software developer, so I might be counted in the presumable target audience.

Still, best phone ever.

<comment><USER2> Hows the video recording quality? Is it jumpyish? I really want one (and was going to place the order today), but wanted an opinion about the video recording.. I'm in Australia though, so I'd be ordering it from overseas (any tips of when it will come here though from your google friend?)

I'm hoping to get into android development and code a flight computer, because there don't seem to be any for android available, and pilots are being charged $150 for a glorified calculator.. The Android SDK is great in that regards from experience (I can code without a phone). And can barely afford a Nexus one, hence if its coming to Australia, hoping I could cut $100 off the cost :P

<comment><USER3> I have to agree to k-zed, it's the best phone i ever had. But if you count on a really good video recording performance, i wonder if there is any phone with proper video and cam out there. The Nexus One's videos are atleast ok, but not good. So was every video i've seen from mobiles (particularly the sony cybershot phones, where you'd expect best quality, but also other HTC, Samsung and more).

I'd rate photo quality as good, a bit better than iPhone but still not even near the quality of a middle priced digital cam. Video recording is about the same..

All in all it's still the same as years ago, i wouldn't use the camera for holiday pictures or anything other than a quick snapshot for a facebook upload.

<comment><USER2> Thanks,

I might wait a bit then, because I'm trying to find a mobile which I always have, which has good video quality (because I never know when I need one)..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think Google wanted to sell a lot of Nexus Ones. They certainly didn't _act_ like a company who wanted to sell a lot of phones.

Google's mission is to get people sharing more and more information. They want fat, saturated networks with us passing data around nonstop. That kind of environment benefits them directly, because they basically get a payout every time someone looks for something.

The wireless networks, on the other hand, want to restrict us as much as possible. They want to put up as few towers as possible, while charging the most customers they can as much as they will pay. They want a network full of tollbooths where they can constantly slow us down and demand payment to keep uploading and downloading.

I think the Nexus One is Google's baby step towards challenging that. They want us to choose our devices and our apps first, and let the networks compete for the right to carry our data... the "dumb pipe".

If that's the goal, I think it's far too early to tell whether they have failed. They could have sold more phones by tying into the networks' marketing channels, but that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

<comment><USER5> the important thing here for google is opening a channel for unlocked phones.

For them it really doesn't matter if they sold 100,000 or 1,000,000 devices. their goal is an unlocked smartphone for everybody. they let the hardware companies work on making the device affordable , and they work on the unlocked part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This blog entry fails to point out the most important indicator i see there. Look at the graph. iPhone -> top sales, Droid -> top sales, Nexus One -> not much.

The most striking difference between iphone, droid and nexus one? iPhone and droid had huge marketing campaigns, whereas nexus one only appeared in some tech blogs but wasn't perceived by the population at all.

I don't have figures to back that up, but to me it just looks like whoever does the most and best marketing wins. And apple is probably the outstanding company in terms of marketing.

What i know from personal experience: people looking for a new mobile know (of course) about the iPhone, they also know about the Droid. But they never heard of the Nexus One. Heck, i don't even know which brand to tell them. Googlephone? Nexus One?

<comment><USER6> Exactly. The Droid had a HUGE campaign from Verizon behind it to compete with the iPhone. The iPhone was hyped since it's announcement at Macworld 6 months prior to it's release, plus had, again, the power of AT&T behind it.

Google decided to do things in favor of the customer (not the big huge cell companies) and sell the Nexus One unlocked. It's now on AT&T's 3G network, and soon coming in a CDMA fashion to Verizon.

I'd be interested to see the actual profit from the big cell companies from their sales, minus all the marketing efforts. Verizon hit it pretty hard with all of their "Droid Does" commercials.

The Nexus, to me, is going to quickly become a thorn in every phone companies' side. All the phone companies have right now is their product differentiation. Lately they seem to be attacking each other on their network quality, but for the most part it's "I'm going with XYZ because they have ABC device that I prefer to your device on other-network". The N1 will shortly be available on any network, the consumer will have the power!

<comment><USER7>
      plus had, again, the power of AT&T behind it.

Yeah, and nobody has heard about that company, how is it… Google!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Its a dodgy chart anyway, because it is comparing the iPhone 1G versus sales in an already saturated market, where many are concerned about now concerned about the economy? I wonder how it fared in recent sales vs the iPhone, or even against the latest generation iPhone?

In regards to reviews, the Nexus One is getting excellent reviews, and its more a marketing issue (as mentioned by Buster). Steve Job's stepped onto the stage and lied to the world that he invented multitouch (total BS), and that's why many people purchased the iPhone. In regards to pure usefulness, the iPhone 1G was a joke, and whilst it may have been able to compete against other smartphones at the time, the only useful thing about it, was the web- browsing capabilities. It didn't have application support, and I used to own an iPod touch (which is basically the same thing), and frankly, a nokia phone was more useful.

Sorry, but this isn't a failure. It has barely even launched yet, and assumptions are being made from a graph which isn't comparing Oranges to Oranges.

That's like comparing the sales of Windows Vista to OSX Snow Leopard.

EDIT: I'll also add that these are estimates anyway..

</comment><comment><USER8> What about the fact that the N1 has only been available for T-Mobile customers until recently. It's now available for AT&T users, but unlocked at hefty $500+ price.

I personally can't wait for it to be available under CDMA (Verizon)--and I'm sure others are waiting. I plan to switch from AT&T's horrid network. The ability to use the data and voice networks simultaneously is useless if you can't get a proper signal... ie, if you can't do either.

Luckily, I don't have a contract w/ AT&T, so I can switch anytime. The Droid was somewhat appealing, but I'm waiting for the Nexus One and for Android to support Flash 10.1--so I can watch european football games on justin.tv/ustream.tv and be able to stream the Daily Show/Colbert report among other shows without having to pay Apple.

</comment><comment><USER9> You can't judge within 3 months if something is a failure... ask me again in 3 years.

Google sales are mostly passive. The web site, the packaging and the promotion of the Nexus One all say that. "Hey, here is a cool phone, let me show you some of the features, up to you if you want one".

Not too many years ago everyone slated Apple vs Microsoft advertising. Apple were the sleek clutter free packaging, and Microsoft were the sticker happy, in your face advertising. Seems to me that Google are the new Apple (in this context)</comment>


SimplyNoise: The Best Free White Noise Generator on the Internet. - <AUTHOR> http://simplynoise.com/

<comment><USER2> I've used Noisy for OS X and also Aire Freshener for Windows (which includes ambient recorded sounds such as rainfall) but notice that after an extended period I tend to have "aural hallucinations" -- I start hearing patterns in the noise that aren't there. This usually worries me and I have to turn it off.

</comment><comment><USER3> It does not appear to be free.

<comment><USER4> It immediately started playing noise when I visited the site. How is that not free?

<comment><USER3> It didn't do that for me on Chrome, and it links to a "donate to download" page. Odd.

<comment><USER4> Chrome dev build for OSX 10.6.5 here. I find this odd. Any thoughts on why this might be?

<comment><AUTHOR> Runs on Chrome for Linux 8.0.552.224 just fine.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Transatlantic ping faster than sending a pixel to the screen? (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-faster-than-sending-a-pixel-to-the-screen

<comment><USER2> For those tempted to abandon after reading just the question about John Carmack's tweet because they fear some handwavey Stack Overflow answer: it is actually John Carmack who answers the question.

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3914638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3914638)

</comment><comment><USER4> It's a great quote for people who are trying to hype/push onlive and gakaistyle game streaming.</comment>


The World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Just Came Online - <AUTHOR> https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/06/the-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-just-came-online-off-the-coast-of-grimsby/ <comment><USER2> > UK has the largest offshore wind generating capacity in Europe. The UK has a > generating capacity of 8.2 gigawatts, accounting for 44 per cent of all > offshore wind capacity in Europe.

> It also puts other countries to shame, and there's perhaps no bigger > embarrassment than the U.S., which has just 30 megawatts (or 0.03 gigawatts) > of offshore wind capacity.

<comment><USER3> US has a lot of land mass and quite good land wind power areas. AFAIK the ocean shores of the US are quite deep. All contrary to UK or Denmark.

<comment><USER4> Despite not directly stating it, the article does create the impression that wind power is not a thing in the US, however it is indeed a thing and offshore is a growing part of it.

From Wikipedia: As of January 2017, the total installed wind power nameplate generating capacity in the United States was 82,183 megawatts (MW).[3] This capacity is exceeded only by China and the European Union.[4]

Also from Wikipedia: On August 8, 2016 the Massachusetts governor signed Bill H.4568 which mandates that Massachusetts utilities obtain 1.6 GW of offshore wind power by 2027

Behind the curve? Yes. Ignoring wind? No.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Surprisingly high "strike price" of 158.75 £/MWh [https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hornsea- phase-1](https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hornsea-phase-1) , more than Hinckley point C.

The prices are falling even as construction proceeds: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-auction-offshore- win...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-auction-offshore-wind-cheaper- than-new-gas)

"The majority of this was offshore wind, at prices of £120/MWh for projects coming online in 2017/18 and £114/MWh for 2018/19\. Onshore wind and solar schemes supported in this first auction came in at around £80/MWh.

Today's second CfD auction awarded £176m to 11 schemes totalling 3.3GW, of which three offshore wind projects made up 3.2GW. The 860 megawatt (MW) Triton Knoll windfarm off Lincolnshire is due to come online in 2021/22 at a cost of £74.75/MWh.

The following year, the 950MW Moray Offshore Windfarm (East) and 1,360MW Hornsea 2 scheme will come online at a cost of £57.50. The total 3.2GW will cost an average of £64/MWh."

This is a _lot_ of wind power. We're already just at the end of a sixteen-day coal-free generation period. I wonder when we'll see the first gas-free day.</comment>


Tablets might be a flash in the pan: Microsoft global chief strategy officer - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/tablets/tablets-might-be-a-flash-in-the-pan-microsoft-global-chief-strategy-officer-20110330-1cfv2.html <comment><USER2> Tablets will eclipse laptops and desktops for the same reason people eat dinner in kitchen/breakfast nook instead of the dining room. They are lazy and will make do with what is in front of their face.

The iPad, because of its form factor, follows you around the house. It's sitting on the kitchen counter. It's on the arm of your deck chair. It's portable in a way that not even laptops are.

It's the book you read because it happened to be on the shelf at your parent's house. It's dish you order at your husband's favorite restaurant. It's not the most powerful computing device ever to grace this planet, but it's _there_. It's immediate.

And maybe for the few of us who have a compelling need that forces us onto the laptop (development, design, typing, etc) maybe this is less true. Because once you're on the laptop, the immediacy of the iPad is sot of cancelled out. But for the vast majority where the iPad offers an OK version of everything they need, it will take over.

<comment><USER3> The fact that it is not a development/work machine is exactly the reason I use a tablet at home. Does wonders for work/life balance

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ok but wait there are two points to consider here.

First off, Mundie said that he wasn't sure whether the _big screen_ (12"+) tablet market would remain successful. That's a fair question as we're seeing a lot of other companies put their resources in the smaller 7"-9" screen market (Kindle, being the most popular if you consider it a tablet). Not sure I buy it, but with that statement he's not saying _all_ tablets.

Secondly, I'm minded that everyone in the mainstream world thought that the NetBook was the next big thing - and that market has practically evaporated (in the Western World, at least). Same could happen to tablets, especially like NetBooks they don't actually replace an existing machine but instead try to create a new tier of need.

For Microsoft their biggest market is still enterprise and I'm yet to be convinced tablets have a massive value there given that we're seeing tablet usage orientate around content + information consumption not productivity.

Ultimately, however, I do think this is a foolish decision if it represents Microsoft's official position - they just cannot afford _not_ to hedge their bets and have something in the tablet market even if they think the future is ultimately gloomy.

<comment><USER5> Good points. I'm reminded of the palm pilot form factor. I used one for a while. Thought it was great. Then after about a year I stopped using it. I think a lot of people did that and therefore for a good two or three years it looked like the future of computing.

I read Daring Fireball a lot and one thing I think he gets wrong consistently (although he's not the only one) is pointing to the popularity of the iPad as proof that it's not just a fad. The problem is that some fads are quite popular. I think in the case of the iPad it probably isn't a fad but only time can determine that conclusively.

And you're right... even if it's not "The Official Future" you can make a ton of money selling them and Microsoft should be there. There's hype and then there are fads. You can sell a lot of Handspring Visors and Palm Pilot cases based on a fad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Paul Thurrott said it best. It was a verbal comment on Windows Weekly so I don't have an exact quote, but it was something like:

"If you're a senior exec at Apple, and you're looking at these bumbling boobs that are your competitors, you've got to be the happiest guy in the world."

I look forward to the Microsoft Computer Room

<comment><USER7> The computer room is an interesting idea but I am not sure I want my kid running around in it at the same time as I am trying to use it. For that reason there will always be a home on my coffee table for the iPad ( or what ever tablet takes over the number 1 spot in the next few years )

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "instead of seeing a screen it can beam individual rays of light into your > eyes right on your retina ... [so] you can look at your phone and see HDTV"

I'd would love to see that in action, assuming safety is not a problem, of course. Making a "large screen" on something so small has a lot of applications, and is just plain cool.

</comment><comment><USER9> A nice, concise explanation on why MS keeps missing revolution after revolution.

</comment><comment><USER10> One thing to consider is whether the tablets will quickly become commoditized to the point where it doesn't really matter which one you buy. Unless the app market really takes off the tablet could become a pure consumer device like a TV - most people don't really care whether it's a Sony or Samsung. I often can't even remember which one I have since I just click the button and watch. In that sense it might not end up a big market for MS.

</comment><comment><USER11> Interestingly, in the poll at the bottom of the article, 40% of 3800 people said they don't think tablets are here to stay. A lot higher than you would expect.

Personally I think they are here to stay, although I think their value is a bit exagerated. I used an iPad for a few weeks and I really liked it, but I didn't do anything I don't usually do on my smartphone. Doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one though...

</comment><comment><USER12> He's just trolling, right?

I mean, this – there's absolutely no way in hell that this is something he truly entertains as possible.

I cannot fully wrap my head around the sort of mental structure that would allow someone to watch 2010 happen and then make these remarks. Of course, when you don't actually have any sort of credible plan in place to deal with a new, hot market, this sort of thing takes on the flavor of wishful thinking.

"Oh, no. The market realities haven't changed. We still get to keep making money by doing the exact same things we have always done."

Sounds like Intel.

<comment><USER3> At least Intel is working on MeeGo to have something for the tablet space

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "I believe the successor to the desktop is the room, that instead of thinking that the computer is just something on the desk that you go and sit in front of, [in the] future basically the whole room is the computer and you go in it."

Think he meant bathroom

<comment><USER9> They're still obsessed with this "whole house is a computer" idea it seems. This isn't what people want. People like different devices to do different things. This thing is for calling people, this (tablet) is for reading the web, this thing is for music, this is for building software. It's what we're used to.

I've never seen a hammer that was also a screw driver that was also a level. The fact that I've never seen one I would have to assume that if anyone did try to make such a thing no one bought it.

<comment><USER14> Or machining and design tools weren't good enough to make an interesting one. Once physics figures out how to let me change the density/ mass of an object at the press of a button, I'll have your screwdriver hammer level for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Given the Xbox I'd say that Microsoft should own a large chunk of the tablet market — it would be sad if they just gave that up to Apple and Google.

<comment><USER16> I don't see the relationship here; can you expand this thought a bit?

<comment><USER15> The xbox is a good example of Microsoft doing consumer hardware well — if they created a tablet with this mindset instead of making something to run Office 2012 they could go after the iPad and win converts. The xbox is also a good example of Microsoft letting go of their legacy and trying something really new (including being in the hardware biz).

<comment><USER16> Ah yes, I see. Yeah, I agree with you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Self-driving cars to be on roads of Swedish capital Gothenburg by 2017 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cio.co.uk/news/r-and-d/self-driving-cars-hit-swedish-public-roads/

<comment><USER2> The astonishing part is the fact that in order to have self-driving cars, it seems Sweden is changing its capital city from Stockholm to Gothenburg.....

<comment><AUTHOR> Sheepishly noted.</comment></comment>


Progress of anti-aging therapies by clinical trial stage - <AUTHOR> https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/ <comment><USER2> Quick summary of the meaning of Phases in medical trials:

Phase 0: exploration of effectiveness

Phase I: is the treatment safe?

Phase II: does the treatment work?

Phase III: is the treatment better than existing alternatives?

Phase IV: After approval, monitor the long term effects of the treatment.

<comment><USER3> Just to be clear, which of these phases is the "clinical trials" stage? Are all of them clinical trails and we're starting at zero now? (Not that Roman numerals have zero, by the way :).) The dictionary says clinical trials are about "safety and effectiveness" so I guess that is indeed early phases?

<comment><USER2> NIH Definition of a Clinical Trial:

"A research study in which one or more human subjects are prospectively assigned to one or more interventions (which may include placebo or other control) to evaluate the effects of those interventions on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes."

A phase 1 clinical trial is used to determine safety (including dosage) and involves far fewer people than a stage III clinical trial.

For Biotech startups, the companies value usually increases with each successfully completed trial. Conversely, the cost of conducting a trail also increases at each stage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is a real possibility that in the next few decades some of these therapies might work.

The book Lifespan by Dr David Sinclair is really interesting. Sinclair is a professor at Harvard. He's highly optimistic that something will come of the various ideas looking at slowing aging.

[https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont- Have/dp/150...](https://www.amazon.com/Lifespan-Why-Age_and-Dont- Have/dp/1501191977)

<comment><USER5> So when it happens, will we stop having kids? Because our current population and lifestyle do not seem sustainable. I only see population increasing and lifestyle being more burdensome on environment.

<comment><USER6> Ironically, if people that care about the planet don't have kids to save the planet, you will be left with more people that don't care about the planet down the road

<comment><USER7> I don't know about you, but some of my teachers and favorite musicians had far more of an impact on my attitudes toward the environment and having children than my parents ever did.

This fallacy that the only way to fix the world is to make kids of your own that will make it better is ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I'm taking NMN, as it's proven to be safe, I know that HGH + DHEA is the only drug from the list that has already proven to make healthy people younger.

I'm seriously considering it in a few years after it has more time to be proven safe enough.

For now I'm planning to measure DNA methylation in my body to understand the reason for my chronic illnesses better. I already got my DNA sequenced, but now that methylation can be measured cheaply as well, I don't see a reason why not to.

<comment><USER9> > I know that HGH + DHEA is the only drug from the list that has already > proven to make healthy people younger.

If you have any ready-researched and outlined sources or links for this, please post them here for reference. I know that we all can google, but I think linking here will help a lot of people, me included. HN articles are sometimes used as an online notepad of sorts, a repository of well researched and compiled information with built-in peer review from (hopefully, since they are on HN) somewhat competent even if amateur internet researchers.

<comment><USER10> Is HGH + DHEA available to buy like a supplement? I would have presumed something containing hormones would be more regulated?

<comment><USER11> Not only is HGH regulated, it even is specifically addressed under law (in the US) that lead some to believe that even prescribing it off-label it is illegal. See:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGH_controversies#Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HGH_controversies#Law)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> See also: AgingBiotech.info Specifically AgingBiotech.info/companies (esp. the clinical stage & clinical trials columns).

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks interesting, but how could I ever afford to buy ~12 designer drugs which I figure likely cost at least $1-2/day if they are effective? Cost per year is $4K- $8K?

I'm guessing I'll wait 20 years until they are off patent?

<comment><USER14> Not all of these are new drugs. NMN, for example, is a supplement that you can buy now. It's a bit expensive but the price is dropping as it becomes more popular.

Others mentioned include HGH, which has been around for decades. Only problem there is that it's a controlled substance so getting a prescription for anti- aging purposes may be difficult.

<comment><USER15> I am not saying there isn't a use case for HGH, but you can increase your own natural HGH production through intermittent fasting, l-glutamine, and cycling up/down a few other molecules. I learned this by mistake, from trying to repair damage to my gut. The weird side effect was quite a bit of muscle development and I don't even work out. On top of that, I dampen mtorc1 with Berberine, Sulforaphane, Myrosinase, TransResveratrol, DIM+Quercertin and that should slow HGH production, but has the opposite effect and increases it.

And I second the NMN being expensive. I use about 800mg a day and it is by far the most expensive thing I take.

<comment><USER16> I could really use that weird side effect. What other molecules did you cycle up/down?

<comment><USER15> I owe HN community a blog update on this process and I promise I will do that in the coming couple weeks. I've been a bit busy as of late. When I do, I will add it to my profile. It's not quite as simple as what to take, but also when to take, in what combinations and why. And it probably isn't the most scientific process, so I'm sure I will catch some flak for it.

<comment><USER17> It might be worth posting to reddit.com/r/longevity as well. I'm looking forward to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You will get old. You will die. Just face reality. This trying to always put off aging is hopeless. Utterly futile. Enjoy every day, don't waste a second.

You will die. And you ain't ready for it. But Mother nature is.

<comment><USER9> You have misunderstood what this is about. Yes we all know that we will die. And yes we still think that if you can add 1 or 10 or 50 or whatever healthy years by using some simple to use technology - then that is very valuable to a lot of people, and is a very worthwhile scientific pursuit.

And no, it is not hopeless or futile. There are animals that live 300 years, what basic biology class did you miss in order for you to think that it would be futile to modify humans which are biological machines with genetic programming to make them live at least that long?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> These guys do some neat things like this roadmap and their main news site is really quite interesting too over at :[https://www.leafscience.org/](https://www.leafscience.org/)

</comment><comment><USER20> Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training will by far have the most impact in maximizing your natural lifespan.

You shouldn't look at doing anything else until you've at minimum mastered all of the listed items above. Nothing else will have as much outsized impact.

<comment><USER21> >Proper sleep, a complete diet, minimizing stress (I'm personally biased towards meditation), intermittent fasting, and vigorous cardiovascular exercise complemented by strength training

Yes, but the problem is this is such a broad brush stroke.

For example, most people who are chronically stressed will generally never be able to obtain relief. There is a common joke about abs being made in the kitchen not in the weight room, and another one about not being able to outrun a poor diet. The truth is the best diet in the world, cardio and strength training will never overcome the damaging effects of cortisol as a result of chronic stress.

The same for proper sleep. Its not just about 6-8 hours, its about quality. If you aren't getting quality sleep, most people don't have a solution. Then when they look for solutions its generally a bombardment of sleep products (from beds, to pillows, to supplements) that are backed by million/billion dollar companies that are targeting you when you perform a search for information/help.

As to intermittent fasting, that has become a major fad since the Nobel Prize for Autophagy (with the most popular implementation being a 8/16 time restricted eating "fast"). In other words the goal is to trigger the body to begin consuming/recycling dead cells and other cellular waste; however, this typically isn't triggered by time restricted eating, but requires longer periods of fasting (usually kicking in around after 20-24 hours of fasting).

Finally "a complete diet", not only is there no general consensus what that is, you generally can't even have a conversation about diet without triggering a flame war. It doesn't matter if you are WFPB, keto, vegan, vegetarian, paleo, carnivore...not only will people oppose your diet, they will aggressively attack it. I remember I once mentioned "detoxing" and couldn't believe people referring to it as voodoo, and telling me there is no such thing as detoxing the body, but then when I ask them what the function of the liver and kidneys are, and they had no idea.

<comment><USER22> "In other words the goal is to trigger the body to begin consuming/recycling dead cells and other cellular waste; however, this typically isn't triggered by time restricted eating, but requires longer periods of fasting (usually kicking in around after 20-24 hours of fasting)."

I can't comment on how long it takes to achieve autophagy - I am happy to stipulate that you are correct.

However, digestion is a very all-encompassing, rigorous and expensive activity for your body. If we believe that there are more "cleanup" mechanisms than just autophagy, it's not much of a reach to suggest that we engage in extra digestion at the expense of these maintenance tasks.

<comment><USER21> >However, digestion is a very all-encompassing, rigorous and expensive activity for your body. If we believe that there are more "cleanup" mechanisms than just autophagy, it's not much of a reach to suggest that we engage in extra digestion at the expense of these maintenance tasks.

Make no mistake I think there are potential benefits to IF fasting such as these. For most people yes it will let their digestive system rest and even potentially reduce the overall intake of calories. Again it is all potential though, obviously not everyone needs to do IF to restrict calories if that is their goal, and there are ways to consume calories while simultaneously not digesting solid foods (that are typically outside the accepted scope of IF or fasting).

My point is the reason IF became a phenomena so widely discussed and implemented (edit: for increasing life span/expectancy) is directly related to the Nobel Prize in 2016; however, that work is related to autogaphy and fasting, not IF and IF related benefits. Edit:

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> They need to hurry up with this, I'm not getting any younger and I haven't saved enough for retirement :O

<comment><USER14> Yeah but if they extend your life won't you need even more for retirement?

<comment><USER23> If I'm healthy enough to keep working, retirement isn't really necessary.

Also, given enough time, I ought to be able to amass a self-sustaining pile of wealth and then I can retire :)

<comment><USER24> If everyone does that, nobody is making the things you want to buy with that wealth pile. Not until we also get enough automation to _also_ have UBI.

<comment><USER25> I don't think that's a problem in their scenario, since the situation is leveraging life extension to work past retirement age. Working until age 80 and living out retirement until 120 would mean a vastly expanded labor pool, unless you're assuming everyone stops having kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I personally believe that it's not aging and death that are the disease, but our powerful fear and abuse of them.

</comment><comment><USER27> Interesting but a bit confusing since most of these drugs are for other conditions, and are not seeking approval based on ability to slow/stop /reverse aging. Thus any approvals would require having a particular condition to get a prescription (or an unethical doctor), and this aren't immediately useful.

Would be nice to be able to select only those drugs seeking broad spectrum approval based on specific aging biomarkers.

<comment><USER28> > any approvals would require having a particular condition to get a > prescription (or an unethical doctor)

Wrong on both counts.

Let me introduce you to indian online pharmacies, where you can get mostly anything already. I get my eyedrops from less than the US deductible, delivered at my door. I have a prescription, but they didn't even check.

Even better: some molecules are on any restricted list, and thus legal to buy. IIRC, mk667 is very popular for weightlifters.

So I think everybody will be able to get their hands on these as soon as their efficiency is proved.

<comment><USER29> Other than the condescending tone, this comment is probably worth keeping.

summary: there are extralegal, cheap, and convenient methods of collecting supplements/drugs that will be available to everyone with a credit card and the right risk tolerance, regardless of e.g. FDA approval.</comment></comment></comment>