Not for sale - <AUTHOR> http://milk.com/value/ <comment><USER2> Unrelated: Dan (the guy who owns this domain) is an incredibly brilliant engineer. I had the honor of working with him during my time at Lift (he worked for Obvious at the time). Cool to see his site pop up here.

<comment><USER3> The maker of Android's VM.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://milk.com/faq> is one of my favourite pages on the web, and has been for 15 or so years.

Moo!

<comment><USER5> Guess he wants to join the 1%...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Two things I love about this domain owner:

1) He tries to expertly avoid having to give a solid number, but then he comes right out and says he'd take 10mm for it. Sweet negotiation skills.

2) The best company he could come up with to buy the domain does just 110mm in revenue, nevermind profits. There are a few billion dollar companies who might bite, but any company making less probably couldnt afford it.

<comment><USER7> One thing this domain owner loves about you:

1) he owns a very good four-letters dot com while you don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's 2 ways of looking at this: What's the investment he's put into product he's trying to sell (in this case, none), and what's the value of the product to the person who wants it?

Obviously, economics is about what the buyer is willing to pay, but it feels wrong for someone whose only contribution to the property was to register it early on to attempt to sell it for $10 million.

He's not going to get that much money for it. Ever. And yet he put up that page, either to satisfy his need to make a public point, or as a very conscious attempt to start negotiations and still manage the volume of requests he might get.

<comment><USER9> >someone whose only contribution to the property was to register it early on Why do you seem to think this has no value? The world is made of other such occurrences being valued immensely.

<comment><USER10> Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real- estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment.

In the case of squatting on a domain, you are depriving someone of the productive use of that domain, while also trying to extort large sums of money simply for the ability to rent it. Of course generally when this happens, it involves a shady company that also seeds the site with loads of sketchy ads.

<comment><USER11> "Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real- estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment."

Back when many of these domains were acquired the investment was either $70 or $100 (or $0) depending on the year acquired.

Do you think it was so obvious that that $100 investment (for 2 years reg with NSI) was a sure bet? Guess what, it wasn't. It was a gamble or people would have bet everything they had to acquire as many names as they could.

Explain to me why buying a share of stock at $100 and risking $100 is different than thinking a domain _might_ be valuable and risking $100 on that?

And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"? What if the domain was owned by some small nobody on Main Street who didn't want to sell? Or Warren Buffet? Who do you think is going to determine what the best use of a domain is exactly?

<comment><USER10> And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"?

Well, if I have a company that, I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product. Maybe I have some startup that deals in milk. That would be a good domain to have. But unfortunately I cannot use that domain to host my website, or web application. Someone decided to lease that domain for what is likely a measly $20 USD per year, and thinks a reasonable price to transfer that lease to me is about $10.000.000 USD.

Instead this fine gentleman decided to purchase the domain and thinks acting like a child on a playground by going "Nanananana, you can't have it".

<comment><USER11> "I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product."

So what? I can drive around my neighborhood and somebody might have beat me to the last breakfast sandwich at the Starbucks and they might take one bite and throw it away. The world doesn't work by the fact that you or anyone might have a use for something better than someone else. You pay the money, you buy something, you decide what you want to do with it.

I think what you don't understand is that there is a business model built around buying and selling domains. And there is nothing wrong with doing this even though it upsets many people who just think "it's not fair!".

With your hypothetical company that wants that domain what happens if what you are doing with it (for your "little" store) doesn't match up to some big dairy when they think they should have it. Are you going to just give it to them or would you try to make money? More importantly you seem to assume that "milk.com" would be available right when you want it. The truth is the owner could have sold it years ago to someone for $5,000 that is using it for something and then you wouldn't get it anyway.

I'd like to say that I agree that he, for lack of a better way to put it, is being "a dick". But the truth is that's actually good if you want to buy it because it will scare many people away who could buy the domain in the past who believe his (what I feel is) false bravado.

<comment><USER10> I think you don't understand my original point. This guy is nothing more than what we both have agreed, a "dick".

"there is nothing wrong with doing this"

Of course in the case where someone has a domain infringing on another's trademark, that is in fact very wrong and can lead to legal problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There have been cases of generic words being UDRP-ed for insignificant use.

It all comes down to how neutrual the judges are and if they see their next paycheck coming indirectly from a corporate entity (ie. funding wipo).

<comment><USER13> Have you got any examples of these?

<comment><USER14> Deutsche Post was refused a UDRP request on Post.com, Interior Design Group was refused InteriorDesign.com, etc.

Successful UDRP requests usually mean the current owner is using the name in bad faith.

The usual explanation is if an apple orchard which has been in business for 50 years had bought the domain apple.com, then it would be considered entirely reasonable for them to keep it - even if their business was not called Apple. Whereas if an electronics form founded a few weeks tried to do the same thing, they would lose it.

I'm not aware of any outrageously bad decisions in this area. It seems to be quite sensible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The title is incorrect. The owner claims the domain is for sale. Just for the right price.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is also for the mods, who might wish to change the title:

The title is taken from the link near the bottom at <http://milk.com/>

So, it is in a sense the original, correct title. If you _really_ want to know whether the domain is actually for sale or not, ask the owner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Has anybody ever come up with a domain name allocation scheme that's more advanced than first come first served? Surely there's a better way.

<comment><USER16> Why should domains get special treatment? Business names and trademarks are also first come first serve, and if you're too late it's time to think of a new arrangement of words or letters.

<comment><USER17> Starting and running a company costs significantly more money than buying a domain, and a trademark has to be used, not just registered like a domain.

Squatting a domain on the other hand requires minimal effort and money, and there is no danger of losing the domain even if it is unused (or parked).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> color spent "only" $350,000 on color.com so $10 million seems to be bit high for milk.com. On the other hand i totally understand the guy: He doesn't need the money too badly so why would he sell? Also domain prices are only going up so it is a good long term strategy to hold onto it

<comment><USER19> > domain prices are only going up so it is a good long term strategy to hold > onto it

Is there any basis for saying this? With the recent moves by ICANN to allow more TLDs (including corporate ones), surely the value of .com is being diluted? My feeling is that consumers are so used to weird domains at this point that nobody really cares about particular domains. Is having milk.com rather than johnsdairy.com really advantageous to a company?

Color seems to have been a disasterous excercise in spending other peoples money from the beginning, so it's probably a poor example for sensible business practice.

<comment><USER20> "My feeling is that consumers are so used to weird domains at this point that nobody really cares about particular domains..."

I'd love to see some research indicating this is true. While I certainly am used to "weird domains", I still often default to .com when trying to find things. If I want to look at Ford's current line-up, my first instinct would be to try ford.com.

Of course, that fails spectacularly when searching for Nissan cars.

<comment><USER19> Youtube is full of instructional videos with no real content made by 14 year olds. I've watched a few of these relevant to a website I run, and I was amazed to find that rather than suggesting that users type the domain into the address bar, a lot of seperate videos suggested that users google the name of the site and click the first link.

I think there's a certain generational divide at play. If you have only really used browsers with universal search in the address bar, and you've only lived in a time in which the web is commonplace, your attitudes and habits are likely to be quite different. When I first started using the web you had to put the full and correct domain and protocol. Search bars didn't even exist. Habits die hard.

I'm not actually sure if we're disagreeing. Ford only means cars because Henry Ford started a car company. The argument for valuable domains (like milk.com) is that the simple "Milk" brand is more valuable than building your brand around a unique name. Consumers don't care that google is at google.com and not search.com.

I think to some extent when the internet emerged, people transferred the trademark way of thinking into the internet domain. The first dotcom bubble was defined by people pouring money into something they didn't understand. That included spending outrageous amounts on generic simple domains when in fact, time showed that if you had a valid product (eg google, reddit, flickr) you didn't need a simple expensive name to get widespread recognition. Search completely sidelined the strategy that investors were going for - that if someone was looking for something online they'd first try "buy.com" or "pets.com".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Why not $10 million. As I just said in relation to the Wired / McDonalds post, I wish I'd had the foresight to do this.

And if I had, you can bet I'd be milking it for everything I could.

<comment><USER22> I see what you did there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This would be a good time for someone in the US to buy it: [http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2013/01/15/demand-for- breast...](http://www.boston.com/dailydose/2013/01/15/demand-for-breast-pumps- surge-with-new-coverage-under-health-law/vpKgXHHkQNiu5sgs7Ir9BK/story.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> Have to admit, that's a pretty good domain to hold onto. :)

<comment><USER25> It's a good domain to sell. Increasing consumer acceptance of domains that end in something other than .com dilutes the value of squatting on one particular domain too long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is why I'm happy when I see other domain suffixes catching on in the public domain (no pun intended). While I fully support this guy's right to sell this domain for whatever price he can extract and to park it for as long as he wants, it's a waste of a good piece of real estate. It's hard enough as a developer to find a good domain for a project. I hope that one day the public will be so accustomed to using suffixes other than .com that it will no longer be necessary to pay such exorbitant prices in the secondary market.

</comment><comment><USER27> Why not rent it out?

</comment><comment><USER28> He should redirect (for free) to an almond or soy milk maker. I think the dairy industry would be more interested. Or perhaps research on the percent of puss in milk. Or PETA. Ok, I guess I'm evil.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's good to know that there are a no <blink>s on his site.

</comment><comment><USER29> I bet if he was offered $5,000,000 cash he'd take it.

<comment><USER30> I bet he wants $5,000,000 after taxes. Knowing that Uncle Sam will take half of whatever he sells for, he asks for $10,000,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I cant help but mention <http://www.dairy.com/> as a related domain put to legitimate use.

</comment><comment><USER32> I understand your point of view. I am trying to sell Gnome.co and Dungeons.co for just a few thousand bucks to no avail yet everyday I see many web-based fantasy games launch on horribly difficult domain names.

Sometimes it's just best to keep the domains you like and wait until you have the time to start a project.

<comment><USER3> I rather take a bad .com name than launching my game on a .co. Sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Moo Money Moo Problems!

</comment><comment><USER34> reminds me of steam.com

<comment><USER35> This guy is crazy if he thinks an organisation with annual /revenues/ of $110M will spend $10M+ on a domain name.

<comment><USER36> Well its not just any organization... the organization's sole purpose is promotion (or at least that's what I gather from the name, _National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program_ ) - and the internet happens to be a damn good place to promote, especially on a memorable domain like milk.com. And $110M a year revenue over 10 years is $1.1B revenue, and I think milk.com would probably still be relavent and valuable 10 years out. So $10M of $1.1B doesn't seem so bad at all.

<comment><USER14> Assuming, of course, that their business model predicts that over the course of those 10 years $10M extra profit will be made from having the domain milk.com.

I have no idea about the milk business, especially not its promotion. But I would imagine that few people would not spend as much money on milk because this organisation does not own the domain 'milk.com'.

It's more likely to be bought by a corporate wanting a pretty memorable domain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Moo.

</comment><comment><USER7> You guys don't get it.

He has a good job and doesn't care much for money.

In other words, he has enough fuck you money to say "fuck you", and that's exactly what he's doing.

Wanna own this very cool four-letters dot com? You can't because he's giving you the finger.

Well... You _could_ , but you'd have to fork out _at least_ $10 million.

At which point he's pretty much still giving you the finger.

<comment><USER11> Let me start by saying that I have been doing domains since the 90's and have both bought and sold domains in the hundreds of thousands of dollars multiple times.

And have made money doing this.

The domains I have purchased have mainly been for others so I have a good idea of the "mentality" of a domain seller.

In addition by being an owner I get approached by plenty of people who want to buy a domain that I own. I have seen every single approach out there on the buy side multiple times.

As far as "not needing to sell" the only 2 times I ever failed to buy a domain (for a client) was a domain that google owned where I was not able to buy that domain for a client. I even tried to trade them domains that I owned that they might need. And I was talking to the "right" people at google (high up contact referred by a well known person at google.) They carefully considered and then decided they weren't interested and would keep the domain that I needed. I used this strategy because obviously I quickly recognized that money was not going to make the deal (google doesn't need the money) which is why I went the route of a trade and it actually almost worked (where "almost" means they considered making a trade and took some time to ponder and pass around the domains I offered for any projects in the pipeline.) The other time was a domain that was owned by a Fortune 500 non-profit that a chinese buyer wanted. I was the go between. The non-profit didn't want to sell (buyer was willing to pay $50,000 nothing to sneeze at and the domain was not that valuable and well worth it to sell at that price). They buyer came to me because they had bought another domains from me and thought I could help them get this name. I still feel I had an angle to get the domain from them but the client didn't want to pay more money to try that angle. (Bonus points to anyone who can figure out that angle it's not a legal angle by the way.)

No matter what this seller tries to feign my belief is there is a weak point that would make him sell for way way less than 10,000,000 which of course is absurd for this domain. There aren't many buyers for this domain at even a $500k value. He may say he does not need the money but more than likely he is what I call the "lottery ticket" mentality where he is hoping that some big fish comes along and buys the domain for millions. While that _could_ happen and he could be proven correct I don't think that _will_ happen based on my 17 years of experience doing this.

The other thing is he is trying to hard to justify why he won't sell the domain and isn't interested. Shakespear comes to mind. As someone who owns plenty of domains I know exactly how many inquiries someone gets when they own a "good" short domain. Guess what? You don't get that many inquiries to be annoyed when you own 1 or even 10 domains.

I could write a book on this obviously but the way to approach (a seller like this) is not to send an email but to dangle a formal offer in front of him with a deadline and see what he says then. Or I might get into a plane and fly out and try to casually meet him to determine what makes him tick or uncover some other info about him that will help me buy the domain (which could be 6 mos. later so the events aren't tied together).

<comment><USER38> I would love to read that book - I've always found domain negotiation fascinating.

<comment><USER11> Thanks.

The strategies that are used are unique and sometimes they are made up on the fly depending on hunches that I have. And creativity is a must.

A recent deal I did was a domain where both the buyer (my client) and the seller agreed to a price ($60,000) and both were happy. I perceived to much eagerness on the part of the seller (the tempo of his replies and his voice on the phone) and as a result managed to get him to lower his price by another $4,000 which almost covered my entire fee. All this w/o the buyer even knowing about it. (I did the entire deal from the start and the start price was $200k and it's a pretty good name actually.)

It would be hard to put in words why I decided to take that chance along with the risks etc. (And it didn't put any more money in my pocket I did it just for the fun of following my hunch).

On the sell side I once raised a price by $50,000 merely hearing the buyers voice over the phone. That said almost all deals are done by email not in person and not over the phone. (See if you can guess why I prefer to do it like that.)

This is all psychology and pattern matching and I've been doing it for many years (as well as with things that have nothing to do with domains at all) I've never read a book on it and I wouldn't do that because it would mess up my instincts.

I also do work for VC's and angels acquiring domains and I've helped plenty of people for free (but can't really do that because it's very time consuming). Questions are always invited obviously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> If you read between the lines this guy is saying he wants to sell it and is expecting a lot for it. He has even researched numbers. Now he has a for sale sign up: Milk.com for $10 Mil.

Better he just come out and say it.

</comment><comment><USER40> Noone's mentioned the fact that "significant digits" could mean digits after the decimal point.

<comment><USER41> ahem _8 significant digits to the left of the decimal point_</comment></comment>


Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal - <AUTHOR> http://techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1701585847.shtml

<comment><USER2> Fines levied against anyone/any corporation ought to go into a fund that is divided up in some manner independent of any individual jurisdiction's propensity to levy them. The problem with allowing a municipality to enforce laws and then profit from that enforcement is the obvious incentive to optimize on revenue instead of the public good.

Let's pretend that all fines from red light cameras had to be divided up among 100 municipalities. The free rider "problem" would kick in. Why bother to purchase expensive cameras when you only see on cent per dollar in fines? Only at the most problematic intersection would one find such devices.

I would believe claims that law enforcement was for the public good if those entities doing the enforcing did not profit significantly from their propensity to enforce.

<comment><USER3> Why do not lobby for legislation that allows you to drive over a red light? Instead of arguing indirectly against applying that law.

<comment><USER2> Because I don't like people who run red lights. I've gone so far as to chase them down, knock on their windows, and ask them why they were trying to kill me.

If the motive for enforcement is not profit, then the overall revenue derived from enforcement would not change if the distribution method became more indirect. If my suggestion changed behavior, it is sufficient proof that governments' motives are not pure.

<comment><USER3> There's nothing wrong with providing incentives for local governments to enforce the rules.

<comment><USER2> One problem (of many) is that there are so many laws that everyone probably breaks a few every day. Did you cross the street to talk to your neighbor? Jaywalking. $50 fine. So, a system of laws has been created that allows local governments to almost arbitrarily tax their citizens at will simply by choosing which laws to enforce.

I believe there are restrictions on the work that prisoners can be forced to do because there's a fine line between incarceration as punishment and enslavement. If the government has an incentive to incarcerate, it will seek to find ways to acquire more prisoners. I see this as a parallel to fine collection.

All of my comments in this thread are US-centric, obviously.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps we change the underlying laws? Not enforcing unjust laws seems a second best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Out here in California the state is broke and to balance the budget the state reneged on funding some local programs, confiscated county and city money (as a forced loan back to the state) and other chicanery -- so the local cities are stepping up issuing traffic citations to make up for lost revenue. I hear that cops used to let you slide on doing 5 mph over the speed limit but not any more. I recently got a totally unjust parking ticket for not curbing my wheels on a street that was flat and unsloped and this a-hole cop ticketed every other car as far as the eye could see. So be careful or you will become the source of budget-balancing revenue.

<comment><USER5> There are good reasons I not only don't live in CA any longer, but intend to never visit the place again. What a hole. . . .

<comment><USER4> Yes, but the good weather and the fine wine make my little hole quite nice -- even if it is a little expensive and overcrowded....oh wait, I take that all back... don't come to California, it really sucks like apotheon said.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why does the money from this go back to the police or people enforcing it? Giving all the revenue from tickets to say, the library or education system seems like a far better idea to me.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't like these stories much because in most of these cases, the red light runners really were running red lights and they were jeopardizing other safe drivers.

If you see a yellow light you should stop. If you think the risk of running the light is worth it, suck it up and pay the ticket.

Everyone knows it is illegal to run a red light and everyone who does it is selfish and puts the lives of others at risk for their greed.

<comment><USER8> That's not really sound logic - if you see a yellow light _and there's enough time to safely stop_ , you should stop. That's an important qualifier. Indeed, that's why the duration of yellow lights differs based on the expected speed that people will approach them - because it's not, in fact, always safe to stop when you see yellow. (As a thought experiment, ask yourself why we have yellow lights at all, and why they're not instantaneous).

What the city did in this particular case was deliberately shorten the yellow light to a lower time than is actually legal or safe - just to make a few extra bucks.

Now, if your argument was more that "well, the city's wrong, but most of the people who ran the lights are still guilty", then the argument is really similar to the one about the exclusionary rule (evidence in criminal cases can't be used if obtained through an illegal search). Without some way to punish the city, there's no disincentive for them not to keep screwing over people - in this case, in a way that actually increased the accident rate. There's got to be some pain felt for malfeasance, and it sounds like that's exactly what's going on here.

<comment><USER9> Careful there.

The article doesn't state that the city shortened the yellow lights. They promised to not use cameras with yellows shorter than 4.4 seconds. They then started moving the cameras around to other intersections. It is possible that these different intersections had light programs with yellows shorter than 4.4 seconds.

I also don't see any mention in the article of increased accident rates.

<comment><USER10> Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, but I just wanted to point out that the article does state that the city moved the cameras to intersections with yellows shorter than 4.0 seconds.

<comment><USER11> That's what he said. There's a difference between shortening a time interval of a light with a camera and moving the camera to a light which already has an interval that's too short. Both are wrong and breaking a promise, but the latter can happen by just being dumb, instead of bad intentions.

<comment><USER5> I don't think "being dumb" should be rewarded, either -- especially when, if allowed to flourish, such accidental stupidity can lead to willful ignorance and worse.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Elon Musk's mission to Mars - <AUTHOR> http://m.guardiannews.com/technology/2013/jul/17/elon-musk-mission-mars-spacex <comment><USER2> _' If he dies there, what should be engraved on his tombstone? Musk frowns a moment, then grins. "Holy shit, I'm on Mars, can you believe it?"'_

Of the people alive today, I suspect Elon is probably one of the few who will be widely remembered a thousand years from now.

Perhaps most of all by the inhabitants of Mars.

NB I freely admit it having a romantic fascination with the colonization of Mars after reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy and Robert Zubrin's The Case for Mars:

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

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

<comment><USER3> This is easy to overlook, but if he's correct and will be able to achieve his goals, those 80,000 plus people will have one man to thank. Although it is still so unbelievably hard to imagine that, with so many obstacles ahead.

As with any highly risky enterprise, I think he should be increasing his odds by raising one or more prodigies of his own, that would be able to carry on with his work, if he himself wasn't able to.

<comment><USER2> When you say "raising" \- I hope you mean mentoring rather than other options...

<comment><USER4> Cloning? I think we know Musk's next venture...

<comment><USER5> Immortality, actually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The best thing about SpaceX, in my opinion, is how absolutely stunningly ordinary their basic business strategy is. Build stuff that's valuable using designs that are known to work, iterate on those designs as much as you can to improve them, charge people money for the stuff you build, and just continue doing that.

The Falcon 9 is a dead-simple 2 stage LOX/Kerosene rocket that effectively has a heritage back to the 1950s, as does the capsule based Dragon spacecraft. But SpaceX is continually trying to tighten their OODA loop and doing quite a good job of it.

It's a good model for a lot of startups. Build something, iterate on it, charge for it if for no other reason than to pay for continuing R&D, and just keep getting better until you change the industry.

<comment><USER7> I think the secret to Space X is there an engineering company in a bureaucracy heavy industry. It reminds me of a technical problem a friend was dealing with he had a basic design for a toy that he was trying to get manufactured and spent a few weeks emailing back and forth why the design was impossible, until he went over and discovered the issue was a base he said should be about 1 inch thick needed to be 1/4 an inch thicker and they just looked at the constraints and said impossible.

It's great for rockets to have more effecency, be lighter, and carry more cargo, but it's hard to balance the design around what is overall cheaper and more efficient rather than just chasing better specs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "SpaceX's focus on reusable technology has slashed costs – the company says it can get an astronaut to the space station for $20m, versus $70m charged by Russia for a seat on a Soyuz rocket. SpaceX is testing reusable prototype rockets that can return to Earth intact, rather than burn up in the atmosphere. If successful, rockets could be reused like aeroplanes, cutting the price of a space mission to just $200,000, for fuel."

This is amazing.

<comment><USER9> I wonder what the Russian's cut is. Since they are the only people that can send astronauts to space right now, they can charge basically any price they want.

<comment><USER10> They used to have a huge markup some 15 years ago. No longer. It's hard to determine price of a crewed Soyuz mission, but an unmanned Proton rocket, when ordered to launch Russian military satellites (which obviously can't bear much markup because it is the parts of the same system buying from each other, large markup only means increasing taxes) is 1.5x the price of a Falcon 9 launch, with a low orbit payload about 1.5x Falcon's and GEO orbit payload about 1.1x Falcon's. So any and all price advantage Russian rockets used to have over American is now eroded due to increased salaries (an aerospace engineer got about $500-$1000 a year 15 years ago and about $10K a year now) and lower SpaceX prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _In order to get support they compromised and agreed to pay for essentially anti-environmental ads for a couple of key conservative senators. And that was not right. You should fight on the merits of the cause, not play some Machiavellian game where you agree to support things that are bad in order to get some things that are good passed._

Says a lot about integrity of our beloved Internet giants. Among the key supporters of FWD.us initiative, apart from Facebook, are Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. And also, HN's own PG :)

</comment><comment><USER12> An old argument for going to Mars is that spreading beyond Earth is necessary for survival in the very long term. It makes sense, but it always seems like there are so many other causes, more urgent, to spend our resources on. Musk's answer to that:

"The lessons of history would suggest that civilisations move in cycles. You can track that back quite far – the Babylonians, the Sumerians, followed by the Egyptians, the Romans, China. We're obviously in a very upward cycle right now and hopefully that remains the case. But it may not. There could be some series of events that cause that technology level to decline. Given that this is the first time in 4.5bn years where it's been possible for humanity to extend life beyond Earth, it seems like we'd be wise to act while the window was open and not count on the fact it will be open a long time."

I find it really hard to imagine our society going back to a dark age though...

<comment><USER13> >I find it really hard to imagine our society going back to a dark age though...

Do you though? World War I, World War II, etc.

I firmly believe there will be a WWIII in my lifetime. The US government is already a big boys club. You have money? You can join, we have money too. Look at how much the US is capitalizing off of student loans. Where do you think that money goes? It sure as hell ain't social services.

I really think that there are a few people running the country to completely militarize it at some point from a long time ago and their plans are finally coming to fruition.

All spending is going to the army. Police forces are more than equipped to fuck up nearly every city if they wanted to. At some point, the military/police will have so much force that the "people" no longer matter.

One day a switch will be flipped and it will become an entirely military country.

Once that happens, combined with Chinese forces, nuclear warfare, and global tension, I doubt anyone would survive a WWIII.

This is all just off handed bullshit-theorizing though.

<comment><USER14> You may enjoy the short novel "A Canticle for Lebowitz", which chronicles the cycles of humanity re-birthing through dark ages post-nuclear war, surpassing prior technology and...

[http://www.amazon.com/Canticle-Leibowitz-Walter-Miller- Jr/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Canticle-Leibowitz-Walter-Miller- Jr/dp/0553273817) _In the depths of the Utah desert, long after the Flame Deluge has scoured the earth clean, a monk of the Order of Saint Leibowitz has made a miraculous discovery: holy relics from the life of the great saint himself, including the blessed blueprint, the sacred shopping list, and the hallowed shrine of the Fallout Shelter._

 _In a terrifying age of darkness and decay, these artifacts could be the keys to mankind 's salvation. But as the mystery at the core of this groundbreaking novel unfolds, it is the search itself—for meaning, for truth, for love—that offers hope for humanity's rebirth from the ashes._

It follows 3x periods: post nuclear, "rebuild" and discovery, and "surpass" technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Between running Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity, and conceptualizing the hyperloop, Elon is the yang to Steve Job's "Focus on one thing" yin.

<comment> k-mcgrady But then Jobs had Apple and Pixar/Disney. You can have more than one company as long as you have the right people running it for you.

<comment><USER16> I think the point is that Jobs himself only ran one company at a time, though he had many successes. Elon is doing at least three things at once (Chairman of the board of Solar City. CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX), and the Hyperloops looks to be a fourth.

<comment><USER17> FWIW, in the case of Solar City he consistently emphasizes in his interviews that he has to basically "just show up at board meetings and hear the good news" and that most of the credit goes to the guys in charge there. But anyway, I'm deeply impressed by this guy, especially since he is not only CEO but also Chief Designer at SpaceX and Product Architect at Tesla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's my input on the subject: [http://www.michaelraven.me/nasas-new-fusion- driven-rocket-co...](http://www.michaelraven.me/nasas-new-fusion-driven- rocket-could-cut-travel-time-to-mars-from-6-months-to-under-30-days/)

</comment><comment><USER19> We can not survive in outer space in our current form. Human body requires too much resources, is sensitive to radiation and needs gravity. But this may change in near future :-)

<comment><USER20> We can simulate gravity in space with centripetal force. The other problems are definitely present. The ISS is a good testbed for developing solutions to these problems, and I'm optimistic about our future deep-space travel capability.

<comment><USER21> there's way more radiation outside earth's magnetic field, and then even more outside the solar system - I don't think the ISS is a particularly good example.

Hmm, perhaps you're more right on a second reading - _" as a testbed for developing solutions"_ might work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > _inspiration for Iron Man 's playboy superhero Tony Stark_

...except Iron Man was created eight years before he was born.

<comment><USER23> They're referring to the re-invented character from the recent Paramount Pictures films. He was their "model" that inspired the character.

That's what they say, anyways. Elon Musk isn't nearly as socially heroic as Tony Stark, he's a stuttering nerd. Not that that's a bad thing. He's a genius, but they're really nothing alike except for them both being overly ambitious and successful entrepreneurs.</comment></comment>


Survata - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2015/05/survata/

<comment><AUTHOR> Survata team member here - happy to answer any questions.</comment>


Google Cloud is acquiring no-code platform AppSheet - <AUTHOR> https://sdtimes.com/lowcode/google-cloud-is-acquiring-no-code-platform-appsheet/ <comment><USER2> Google is acquiring a ton of companies. Kudos to AppSheet.</comment>


We did it - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15174489

<comment><USER2> _"If that means massive intervention, in the shape of affirmative-action programmes and across-the-board benefits for parents of all sorts, the answer is no. To begin with, promoting people on the basis of their sex is illiberal and unfair, and stigmatises its beneficiaries."_

I have news for the Economist: in the US, the "win" came from doing exactly what they think is illiberal and unfair. Nearly every major US company makes an explicit, systematic effort to increase female representation in the workplace.

Is that "illiberal" and wrong? I don't know. I like having a balanced workplace, and I think that certain fields (hello, CS!) need more women. But when I look around and see men doing the vast majority of the blue-collar work (which is _why_ they're being laid off in the "mancession"), while women make up an ever-increasing proportion of college graduates and the white-collar labor force, I have to wonder when we'll have to start giving _men_ the affirmative action.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Motherhood, not sexism, is the issue: in America, childless women earn almost as much as men, but mothers earn significantly less."

There's an easy (cough, cough) solution to that: figure out how to let men have babies. Heck, it could be Arnold Schwarzenegger's new initiative for California. He has prior experience with it, after all. ;-)

<comment><USER4> Perhaps fatherhood, not motherhood, is the issue. Fathers need to be going on paternity leave at the same rates as mothers.

<comment><USER5> I heard (but can't verify) that fathers in Norway get a lengthy (many months to year?) paternity leave, as the powers that be realized that this time meant less juvenile delinquency ergo less monetary strain (and better national economy) in the long-run.

<comment><USER6> Norway is 56 weeks at 80% salary or 46 weeks at %100 salary: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is one of the most confusing articles I've ever read. One of the first things that it points out is that in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities. It then proceeds to state certain deficencies and propose possible broad reaching social programs as reform. Wait-- go back. There will soon be _2 million_ more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that? It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na." I'm not saying there weren't good points brought up and maybe decent solutions but I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there.

<comment><USER8> Ok, it's just after midnight, I've had a lot to drink, and <http://xkcd.com/386/> someone is wrong on the internet.

 _in many ways women are not becoming equal in certain workplaces, theyre becoming significant majorities._

Actually, the reason for the article, as stated in the first sentance, is that women will be 50% of the American workforce overall. No just certain workplaces, but over the entire workforce. That really is a moment to pause for reflection.

 _It then proceeds to state certain deficencies_

Right. When the average of a bunch of things is 50%, then some of them are lower than 50% and some of them are higher. (Or they're all exactly 50%, but in super complex situations like human behavior that never actually happens.)

 _Wait-- go back. There will soon be 2 million more women in higher education than men? How does the author just skip over that?_

The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class women with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor ones.

He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make less money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to raise children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman, who is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap in her resume. That's not inconsistent.

 _It seems like placing your fingers in your ears and going "Na na na na."_

Restating your point with a visceral image doesn't make it any more true.

 _I felt like there was some deliberate cognitive dissonance going on there._

You mean because being "significant majorities" in "certain workplaces" is happening at the same time as "certain deficiencies"? As explained above, I don't see how that's a contradiction or requires congitive dissonace.

<comment><USER9> _"The author doesn't. The author says that there will be more middle class women with jobs, but fewer poor women with jobs. He/she wants to help the poor ones."_

What about helping men achieve equality with women in the desirable job sectors? What about providing a security net for everyone that falls through the cracks?

 _"He/she also points out that, while they're in the work force, they make less money, and provides evidence that this is because they take time off to raise children. He/she thinks its a detriment to society overall when a woman, who is equally capable as a man, makes less money just because she has a gap in her resume. That's not inconsistent."_

One could make an equally valid point that women, as a class, receive more benefit from having a family. Men, traditionally, spend less time with their families and derive less emotional benefit from them - hence the higher alcoholism rates in men, the higher male suicide rate and the higher tendency towards violence. Of course, there's no great multinational campaign to target men for any affirmative action on these causes, in the vein of the 'equality' laws that can work against them. The article rightly says that positive discrimination tends towards the creation of feelings of resentment; a better solution needs to be found.

I think that the OP was attempting to make the point that, in many (most?) ways in the developed world, women are equal to men, and in some ways they have superior rights. This is causing growing resentment, and pushing for further action while ignoring "men's issues" (it feels absurd just to type that!) will cause further resentment. Take a look at child custody rights for an example.

I wonder what will happen when, across the board, women are acknowledged as having equal rights to men. Will women's issues charities close down, or push for more? I think that there's a growing suspicion that 'equality' means professional talking heads, professional charities that carry out government policy and a push towards superiority that threatens to grow the gap in the (non-traditional) direction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
      OK! OK! Hold it!
      I just want to say something.
      You know, for every dollar a man makes
      a woman makes 63 cents.
      Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
      So, with that kind of luck, it'll be the year 3,888
      before we make a buck.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO3GLdtcmMw></comment>


Supreme Court rules against attempt to end DACA - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-attempt-to-end-daca-a-win-for-undocumented-immigrants-brought-to-us-as-children/2020/06/18/4f0b6c74-b163-11ea-8758-bfd1d045525a_story.html <comment><USER2> The SCOTUS opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf) .</comment>


The JavaScript Execution Context & Stack - <AUTHOR> http://davidshariff.com/blog/what-is-the-execution-context-in-javascript/

<comment><USER2> Stupid fucking sidebar. Not only does it move with my scrolling, but it covers content!

And this guy creates "stunning applications & designs used by millions of people"?

<comment><USER3> And the content is fixed width, and wider than my browser window when I first hit it. I hope there is something in there to detect really small displays otherwise the page will be unusable on small-to-smallish screen devices (netbooks and 10" tablets or smaller).

I suspect from the technical nature of the article he is a front-end _programmer_ and not a designer, and from the display issues I would guess he works in a large enough team that he rarely has to worry about front-end _design_ as someone else is responsible for that.

<comment><USER4> He labels himself as a "front-end engineer", which suggests his speciality is stuff inside the browser window.

And his site suggests either he is not very good at it, or he is comfortable enforcing what he believes the web is on the visitors to his site, i.e. minimum browser canvas width of about 1200 pixels. At that point the pseudo- left-hand menu doesn't obstruct the content.

<comment><USER5> Has there been a major site redesign in the last hour? In both Firefox and Chrome I see a variable-width content area and the sidebar moves to the top of the viewport if the browser width is too narrow for it to fit on the side.

<comment><USER4> yes, that left hand nav is now permanently horizontal across the top. That's changed today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I see no mention of closures, callbacks or setTimeout/setInterval. Is this some kind of joke?

<comment><USER7> No, it's an article that lacks some (not that) advanced stuff.

A joke is more like "Knock, knock. Who's there?" etc.

<comment><USER8> Well a joke is more like that jumping sidebar with all the social sharing.</comment></comment></comment>


What percentage of your users are on IE6? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Stats from one very large site I have access to: Firefox is at 38% and IE is at 55% (split 53% IE7 and 45% IE6).

IE6 is the worst thing about creating sites right now.

<comment><USER3> "IE6 is the Netscape 4 of our time." ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For some medium-sized, low-tech site: IE6 49.8%, IE7 34%, other IE: 0.7%, total IE 84.5%

FF 2.0.x.x 7.5%[1], other FF 1.9%, total FF 9.4%

Others 6.1%[2]

1\. FF 2.0.x.x number has been arrived by adding the percentages of the seperate versions, so there's some rounding error there. Other FF has been arrived at by subtracting FF 2.0.x.x from total FF (which is accurate).

2\. Similarly others has been derived by subtracting the totals for IE and FF from 100.

You might also find this page useful:

<http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>

It contains historical and current statistics on W3Schools visitors.

</comment><comment><USER4> The overall market share of IE6 is 48% IE7 is 31% Firefox across all versions about 14%

That will give you a better idea. Obviously the number is highly different for technology related sites. Example: I remember a popular tech blog mentioning that their firefox users were over 50%. So it really depends on your audience as well.

Hope that helps.

<comment><USER5> Where'd you get your figures from?

<comment><USER4> Omniture sitecatalyst

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Our site (a Los Angeles real estate site) has been 38% IE6, 29% IE7, 22% Firefox and 9% Safari over the past three months.

Then again, we also get about 15% of our traffic from Mac users -- we love our Macs here in LA!

So if you cut out most of the Mac users, it looks pretty close to the percentages iamyoohoo cited.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have fairly accurate numbers for reddit audience (had a page with 100% traffic referenced by programming.reddit.com, approx 600 visits): Firefox (68%), Safari (8%), IE6 (5%), IE7(6%), Opera (5%) and a few marginal ones.

</comment><comment><USER8> 42% firefox, 21% ie6, 20% ie7

no matter what your going to need to support it

</comment><comment><USER9> I only have 37% Internet Explorer on both my web sites.

</comment><comment><USER10> i would say approx. 65%

depends of the content of the site, thus the user type.</comment>


Is Glassdoor biased? I can´t post my real comment - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTXVCM45XxpuHQi5WAudxQ6J23qdo4aygJjHyH70DKx0U34exOMxG2VvimN19OAjzEm50JO7GeD_Bzz/pub <comment><USER2> I don't know the answer to your question. That said, anything not run by you, even including Google, can choose to exclude, de-prioritize or discard messages that conflict with partners, investors or other interests. You could however create blogs hosted by you. Based on your link it would just be one small html file. There are a myriad of free hosting solutions that work for static content.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, thanks, will definitely blog about it. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> glassdoor is productized extortion, pay-to-manage feedback, like yelp but more subjective.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is shame, because should I have seen comments as the ones I want to post, I would have avoided that company and gone for other offers</comment></comment>


Show HN: LastRoom – The smartest travel booking solution for SMBs - <AUTHOR> http://lastroom.com/?utm_source=ShowHN&utm_medium=ShowHN&utm_term=ShowHN&utm_content=ShowHN&utm_campaign=ShowHN

<comment><AUTHOR> We are launching now! We are looking for all the feedback that we could receive... thanks in advance to the community!</comment>


The rise of enterprise marketing - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2012/09/24/the-rise-of-enterprise-marketing/ <comment><USER2> I think one of the things a lot of developers and entrepreneurs fail to completely grasp is that there are a few very good reasons for the long sales cycles and the lack of pricing transparency. Primary among them is that when people label something as "enterprise software", the traditionally mean software that plays a critical part in a specific business process or sest of processes, or is an infrastructure compnent that's part of a large, complex distributed almagamation of crap that's accrued for generations.

nrmehta notes Box.net, Splunk, and Workday as enterprise software startups. I would argue that only Workday fits the classic enterprise software definition. Box.net is a straightforward productivity tool, Splunk is very simple analytics for orgs not inclined to roll their own, but HR Information Systems are incredibly complicated with a plethora of laws, rules, and regulations governing them spanning corporate, national, industry, and regulatory agencies. Being able to handle _that_ is the enterprisey aspect, and learning the specifics of a given enterprise -- which quite likely mean the software sales agreement is accompanied by a professional services contract, too -- is why it's difficult to create a standard pricing model. If you look for counterpoints you might think of Salesforce.com, which publishes list prices for various levels of accounts for SalesCloud, as well as for several of their other services (e.g. Heroku). However, if you are a large enterprise and you are interested in engaging with Salesforce.com, it is exceptionally unlikely -- nay, impossible -- that these numbers prove meaningful. It's an advertising tool for Salesforce.com, but only that. In additional, an experienced and knowledgeable sales exec + sales engineer pair can be invaluable to an enterprise considering or evaluating a potential solution (hardware or software). I know that's common sense, but generally speaking I don't think startup culture educates adequately on enterprise as compared to the consumer world, and learning more about this would be useful for most of us.

<comment><USER3> _which quite likely mean the software sales agreement is accompanied by a professional services contract, too_

I'm currently doing an enterprise SaaS startup, and we have a split-pricing model for that reason. The actual SaaS part has standardized pricing, which we don't change.

The professional services part is completely custom for each company. For the most part, we'll do whatever kind of arrangement is needed, from nearly no help at all, to white glove, onsite help, training, ongoing support, etc, with costs to match.

It's just part of life when you're selling to the enterprise, for all of the reasons the GP mentioned. The rewards are worth it though. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Submit your information and we'll respond with a quote" == "Our software costs twice as much as it should, because we need a fat margin to pay for the long sales cycle". I don't think I've willingly filled out one of those forms for over 5 years.

<comment><USER5> You're probably not in their target market anyways. The people who will willingly submit these forms are less technically inclined and have big headaches that they will spend money on to solve. I hate this approach as much as the next guy but I've come to respect that they still work very well. For products that don't work well as self-service (and there are many), you almost have to talk to a customer before you can close them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was a good post by Chris and I think there are a number of companies who are shifting in this direction. Overall, I think Marketing is getting a bigger share of spend in enterprise IT vendors vs. sales from previous days. That being said, I also note that several of the most prominent enterprise startups of recent times (Box, Splunk, WorkDay, etc.) have made huge investments in traditional, direct sales. My 2c is a lot of this is driven by the ASP (average sales price). In a market where the ASP is low (< $10K/year), you need a marketing driven approach to grow cost-effectively. But for businesses with ASPs > $100K or > $1 MM, direct sales is often still very cost-effective. I'm not making any comments on the "goodness for the world" of sales here, just its efficiency as a growth engine.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would love to see this come to pass. Salesforce and New Relic seem to be killing it, but I'm not aware of others. If anybody has more examples please share links.

<comment><USER8> This is how we do it at GitHub on a day-by-day basis. <https://github.com/blog/1230-optimizing-sales-for-happiness>

Its still sales in name, but in nature and application, it's similar to what cdixon spells out.</comment></comment>


KidSwitch: Identifying Kids in Apps and Sites - <AUTHOR> https://blog.superawesome.com/2019/05/23/kidswitch-identifying-kids-in-apps-and-sites/ <comment><USER2> I assume the implicit goal here isn't really "disabling features" like private messaging, but rather replacing age-gating in apps like Steam that stand between a non-logged-in user and the landing page for a rated-M game. (Or, maybe for the first time ever, actually effectively preventing a five-year-old from accessing a porn site just because the _porn site_ doesn't want to be party to showing a five-year-old porn, rather than because the parents installed a content blocker.)

But—possibly-dystopian question here—could this be used in the opposite direction? To keep adults out of safe-space-for-children communities (like the now-defunct Club Penguin)? "Prove you're not an adult" instead of "prove you're not a robot"?

<comment><USER3> I can't imagine a usecase for such a feature. It would prevent parents from auditing the page.

<comment><USER4> I think there are two use cases: the first is a naive "to prevent pedophiles from having access to children". If you don't think too critically about it, I can understand the enthusiasm for it. The second, and I think potentially more legitimate, is to offer children a space to socialize with their peers without having to worry about parental investigation. Whether or not you agree with the parenting style, it's an underserved market segment. A side benefit could be having your juvenile social media sealed somewhat like juvenile criminal records. Something like offering you the option when you turn 18 to delete your profile, or archive it with read-only access to those over 18.

Legally, I think it would face troubles in some countries, but countries with laws granting more self-determination to minors might make it a useful environment for exploring ideas with your peers without constant fear that someone may now, or in the future, be offended by your teenage-angst fueled rants. I know I would have enjoyed that, I had a constant fear of retribution through highschool that prevented me from significantly engaging in social media. It wasn't particularly out of line, the usual "my parents suck, my school sucks, let me be a poorly adjusted adult right now!" kind of thing.

But I also grew up during the start of the "social media is forever" age, where it started to be common for years-old social media posts by celebrities to become common. And the posts are always judged by today; not the person you were then, or the environment you were in.

Frankly I still maintain very little social media presence. I would love to interact with people like that, but I also know that all it takes is one slip- up or vaguely phrased statement to sink you anymore. I like that this might be am opportunity to let kids be kids, and say the darndest thing; but still allow them to be full-fledged members of an online and in-person community without fear that their half-baked childhood ideas might ruin their future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Accuracy stats? This seems like an anti-feature to me, and a little paradoxical to collect tons of data to exclude others from data selection. I'm sure it could work, but it seems like there could easily be a couple years standard deviation which would lead to many false positives.

<comment><USER6> It will probably be amusing to see the amount of decidedly non–kid friendly abuse hurled at this by adults who happen to like, say, watching toys being opened.

<comment><USER7> The most popular video on LinusTechTips is the unboxing of an RC fire truck. I think people do enjoy some toys being unboxed.

<comment><USER2> That sounds less like adult subscribers to the channel being really into that video, and more like tons of non-subscribers (i.e. kids) finding it by searching for toy unboxings and it happening to rank highly because of the relative popularity of the channel. So, not really an example of what "people" do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So children who want to use social features will have to browse more adult- like content to adjust the age estimate? I'm not so sure this will have the intended effect

<comment><USER9> Nothing will stop driven teenagers. Nothing.

The same way people of my generation had CD/DVD ROMs full of pirate games, software and pornography - teens today will find the path of least resistance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >Historically the approach to this issue has been age-gating (asking a child to confirm they're over 13), which makes everyone feel better but doesn't actually solve the underlying problem. > >Today, we're unveiling KidSwitch, a new piece of…

Which underlying problem?

I'm more interested in education & intelligence levels, iff* we're to regulate content over web.

E.G. you must be thiiisss smart &or demonstrate n% content comprehension to continue, return, reply etc.

*iff as 'if & only if'

<comment><USER11> I think the underlying problem is that parents want the entire internet to babysit their kids for them.

edit: Maybe what we need is a kids.txt to go along with robots.txt. Some file on websites with some kind list of what interactions a site has (can you leave a message, chat, access hardcore pornography, etc) so auto-blockers can block (or even just limit usage).

So what if a site doesn't have a kids.txt? Block it I guess? Prompt to go into some special mode (no video, no posts, alert parents)?

I guess sites lying might be an issue, then you'd either need whitelists or blacklists. Maybe tie compliance to whether the browser bar goes green.

<comment><USER12> This used to exist in browsers in the 90s. Site owners never bothered implementing it. [https://www.w3.org/PICS/](https://www.w3.org/PICS/)

<comment><USER13> It wasn't that owners never bothered implementing it, rather people were actively against it because they felt that no content should be filtered period, and never mind children.

It was actively campaigned against to the point that if you did implement it you were criticized in public. So sites stopped using it and browsers stopped checking it.

Some linkes: [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/di...](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/digicom/121597digicom.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/19/business/technology-to- le...](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/19/business/technology-to-let- engineers-filter-the-web-and-judge-content.html)

[https://www.wired.com/1997/02/microsoft-employs-good- clean-p...](https://www.wired.com/1997/02/microsoft-employs-good-clean-pics/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be nice to see some technical documentation on exactly what's being looked at, but I doubt it's available given that it would just allow users to game the system.

</comment><comment><USER15> Beyond privacy implications, what are they doing to make sure those with physical differences such as disability aren't negatively effected?

<comment><USER16> This isn't the kind of technology that focusses on actually getting it right, this is a product meant to be sold to companies that need a way to off-load their legal responsibility of preventing children below a certain age from using certain features.

This product ticks a box, it doesn't actually prevent children from using the features it acts as a barrier for. It probably works quite well in prepared demonstrations and with content that fits neatly in certain age groups. Those demonstrations won't include people with disabilities or quite mature children of course.

<comment><USER17> Speaking of legal responsibility, there is also a legal responsibility to not discriminate (even if inadvertantly) against the disabled. This seems like a pot of gold style quick fix, which is why I have strong reservations about its viability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is creepy as hell, since you need a lot of surveillance on children to train this thing.

</comment><comment><USER10> How could this avoid discrimination against atypical neurologies?

<comment><USER19> I'm not exactly sure what "atypical neurologies" includes.

But I suspect that some of my personas would rate age~13.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why use Machine Learning to identify kids? Simply ask "Identify the Karate Kid actor"

if they pick Jackie Chan over Pat Morita, you know they are a kid 100%.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The use-cases for this are obviously pretty wide. The really galling thing about this is that YouTube(Google(Alphabet)) didn't start offering this 3 years ago.</comment>


Pixar History Revisited: A Corrective (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://alvyray.com/Pixar/PixarHistoryRevisited.htm <comment><AUTHOR> Written by Alvy Ray Smith [1], Pixar co-founder, former Xerox PARC researcher, and inventor of the HSV color space, alpha channel to represent transparency in images, and other advancements in computer graphics.

Related read: " _Valley of Genius: The Uncensored History of Silicon Valley (As Told by the Hackers, Founders, and Freaks Who Made It Boom)_ " [2]

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

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Valley-Genius-Uncensored-History- Foun...](https://www.amazon.com/Valley-Genius-Uncensored-History- Founders/dp/1455559024)

<comment><USER3> While Alvy Ray Smith's role as Pixar co-founder shouldn't be diminished, the tone of "Pixar History Revisited - A Corrective" should be regarded cautiously. Smith hated Jobs and their last encounter was a shouting match after Smith deliberately provoked Jobs.

From the Wikipedia article you linked:

> Alvy Ray quit Pixar after a heated argument with Jobs over use of a > whiteboard. It was an unwritten rule that none other than Jobs was allowed > to use it, a rule Smith decided to break in front of everyone after Jobs > went "total street bully" on him and they ended up screaming into each > other's face "in full bull rage".

<comment><USER4> > "in front of everyone * after *"

Your own quote makes it equally arguable Jobs was the provoker? It's not like it would be out of character given what's publicly known about Jobs. Maybe what you say is true but this quote could just as easily be taken as someone standing up to Jobs as "deliberately provoking him".

<comment><USER5> It sounds more likely that this is the real story. Jobs, from everything I've read, was the ultimate needler, and quoting over a whiteboard sounds like the very last action of a series of bullying actions. The fact that there is so much mythology around Jobs and Pixar that necessitates these clarifications really makes me believe that this is the case.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alvy Ray Smith gives his version of the story in the " _Valley of Genius_ " [1]:

> _" Life with Steve was awful. There was this famous board meeting at NeXT. > Steve comes in and he's busting Ed and me for being late on a circuit board > for the image computer, which we were. And I said, "But Steve, you're late > on one of your boards." Which was true. Now normally that would have just > been okay. Not this time. He starts insulting me, making fun of my accent, > playground bully stuff. This was not two intelligent people having a > conversation or even a healthy debate. This was just sheer bullying. And > what did I do? I just stood up and went right into him. Now I'm very proud > of that, but it probably was an insane thing to do. I went right up into his > face, screaming in rage. I still can't believe it happened. Just weird, just > screaming at each other. And at that point I forced my way past him and > wrote on the whiteboard. I wished I had written something clever. I was too > insane. I just made a mark. It was a forbidden act, so he said, "You can't > do that." And I said, "What? Write on the whiteboard?!" That was it. He > stormed out of the room."_

And later:

> _" It was when I looked at the prospectus for the IPO when I first realized > that Steve lies. He claimed to be the cofounder of Pixar and the CEO since > its founding. In the prospectus! Cofounder and CEO forever! Bullshit. Both > of those are wrong: lies. I don't like this "reality distortion field" idea. > He lies. But you know his genius was to take the company public on nothing. > The movie wasn't even a hit yet, and there was essentially no cash at all. > But he saw his chance to make his $50 million back. And he did."_

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Valley-Genius-Uncensored-History- Foun...](https://www.amazon.com/Valley-Genius-Uncensored-History- Founders/dp/1455559024)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not totally uncommon to list folks as co-founders that didn't actually co-found the company, but had a major influence on its direction, E.g. at Polyvore: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvore)

Also, he stops footnoting during the final myth:

"Jobs poured more money in to cover the losses each time. It's sometimes construed that he did this because he saw the long-term potential of the movie business and held on to "his vision" with further investments. This wasn't the case at all, however. Jobs kept pouring money into the company so that he wouldn't have to sustain the embarrassment that his first company - <USER2> being booted from Apple - was a failure."

I am surprised Steve had no inclination that a studio who had wanted to make animated film all these years at least had the potential to do so. So clearly Steve wasn't _just_ investing into a hardware company.

</comment><comment><USER7> Alan Kay's take on Jobs and Pixar is pretty illuminating regarding this -

>Steve wasn't capable of being friends. That wasn't his personality. Besides the Apple stuff, I had a lot to do with his Pixar thing. I was contacted by the people who became Pixar–I knew them well, and they wanted to get out of Lucasfilm. They called me up and asked me for advice, and so I said, I can talk to Steve. I explained very carefully to him who these people were, and you shouldn't fuck around with them, like he did with his normal employees. He did a good job with them. [Pixar] was the most honest billion he ever made, because he put a lot of his own personal money into nurturing those guys. They got fabulous. That was Steve's best hour.

[https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks- ab...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40435064/what-alan-kay-thinks-about-the- iphone-and-technology-now)

The whole article is worth reading for Kay's take on a variety of stuff.

</comment><comment><USER8> All of this is covered in Creativity Inc, Ed Catmull's book that's been out for four years now. The first section of the book is entirely the history of Pixar, and it's fascinating. I recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Did not expect such a spiteful account from such a respected figure. In some places he makes statements that can only be true if he could read Jobs's mind, e.g. he states that Jobs "would have bolted" before Pixar became successful. You don't repeatedly sink large tranches of your personal fortune into something you don't believe in or don't care about.

</comment><comment><USER10> The article(s) reads quite spiteful, petty and angry - I'm not surprised learning that it comes from a guy who hates Steve. One example that reads odd is how the author claims that Steve's financial backing didn't save Pixar (when clearly it seems they'd have gone bankrupt if he hadn't kept poring money into it). And in one article he mentions that Steve's deal with Disney for Toy Story was a stroke of business genius and in another he says "What saved Pixar was Disney's asking it to make a movie" as if Steve has nothing to do with the important/successful details of that arrangement.

<comment><USER11> I'm not seeing the spite. The author several times credits Jobs for his actual contributions (such as the IPO), calling them/him "brilliant". It reads as a fairly factual and neutral setting-straight of some common misconceptions, while still giving Jobs plenty of credit for his actual contributions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure where these myths are coming from, even The Pixar documentary go through some of those details

Myth 1 seems to be more about details than simply a myth: George Lucas needed money

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems this[1] is the page with "myths" that Alvy Ray is reacting to. Not a single mention of his name, and Jobs is mentioned as " _having purchased the computer graphics division from George Lucas and established the group as an independent company_ " in 1986.

[1] [https://www.pixar.com/our-story-1/](https://www.pixar.com/our-story-1/)</comment></comment>


Open-Source Is in Trouble – Let's Collude to Save It - <AUTHOR> https://blog.andrepopovitch.com/complement-collution-paradox/ <comment><USER2> [https://coss.media](https://coss.media) has some better ideas.

As an OSS develop, I would not join this proposed SOS "foundation" that requires the use of permissioned (not open source) license and then adds revenue sharing.

One thing we are doing to support the community is (preparing) to offer bounties for open source contributions. If / when we get into the GitHub sponsors program, we will use any proceeds for this specific purpose (and those closely related) but never for company expenses. (We're cash flow positive, so no worries)</comment>


Cracking Down on Botnets - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.technet.com/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/02/25/cracking-down-on-botnets.aspx

<comment><USER2> another case of "catching a botnet by the tail"

[http://www.emailsecuritymatters.com/site/blog/all-about- spam...](http://www.emailsecuritymatters.com/site/blog/all-about-spam/Catch-a- botnet-by-the-tail/)

although really essential and important, what bothers me is that, due to some misconceptions about botnets, this kind of effort keeps being presented as a big step towards "less spams" or "less malware" which is wrong on the longer term ...

</comment><comment><USER3> " _a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order cutting off 277 Internet domains believed to be run by criminals as the Waledac bot_ "

I would expect most botnet domains are hosted in a country with lax cyber laws.

Update: Researched a little further, ICANN owns the DNS root zone and is run in the US, does the US really have the authority to cut off pieces of the internet? WTF? I really hope I'm missing something.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you Quora get its star users? - <AUTHOR>

Was there a specific kind of marketing strategy they followed that got them so many successful startup founders as users? <comment><USER2> The founder was formerly CTO of Facebook and close friends with Mark Zuckerberg. During his tenure at Facebook, he made lots of valuable connections. I am sure it greatly contribute to what you're asking.</comment>


A plea for a simple webhost - <AUTHOR> http://skroob.com/blog/2012/5/1/simple-webhosting.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder if GitHub Pages behind a CNAME record would work...</comment>


Uber employees are chatting on anonymous workplace app Blind - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/25/ubersecret/ <comment><USER2> Congrats to the Blind team for milking this for free marketing. How does blind make money? Anonymous means targeted ads are out right? So do they sell company data to market researchers?</comment>


Ask HN: How is your time spent as a DBA / ops? - <AUTHOR> Our company had a survey a couple of years ago about this topic and released an eBook [0] and an infographic [1] based on the survey results.
We're trying to update it for 2016, and we need your feedback again! We'd appreciate it if you could spend a few minutes filling out the Google Forms survey [2]. It's anonymous.
Thanks!
[0] http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/498921/eBooks/The_Hidden_Cost_of_Data_Operations.pdf
[1] https://www.vividcortex.com/hubfs/Blog/Data_Operations_Infographic.png
[2] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeagAsxJ8lMPMr9OHUXn3GoHLx8Hkl0R2ZKotyRuPege9R_kA/viewform <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable:

[0] [http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/498921/eBooks/The_Hidden_Cost_...](http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/498921/eBooks/The_Hidden_Cost_of_Data_Operations.pdf)

[1] [https://www.vividcortex.com/hubfs/Blog/Data_Operations_Infog...](https://www.vividcortex.com/hubfs/Blog/Data_Operations_Infographic.png)

[2] [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeagAsxJ8lMPMr9OHUX...](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeagAsxJ8lMPMr9OHUXn3GoHLx8Hkl0R2ZKotyRuPege9R_kA/viewform)</comment>


Show HN: Js library to show github stars for repo or user/org - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/stretchr/github-stars

<comment><AUTHOR> We made this real quick to show how many stars we have for all of our repos, also works with a single repo as well.

</comment><comment><USER2> I use this to brag about my open-source impact.</comment>


Immersed oil cooling for data-centres? - <AUTHOR> I've seen some eccentric examples of oil cooling for desktop PCs, however this startup is doing the same thing for datacenters - http://asperitas.com/
Does anyone have any experience in this space?
Aside from cost reduction, the elephant in the room is ease of server hardware maintenance. If the dead server has been immersed in oil then it's a messy job to replace components. Also, I'm wondering about the oil itself degrading components - for example, I think oil eats network cables?
I'm wondering if this might be the next big thing? Or just a hassle? <comment><USER2> No intimate knowledge of this, but as with anything it's the economics that will decide if this is the next big thing or not. James Hamilton did a writeup on the economics of running a datacenter a few years back[1], and concluded that approximately 1/3 of the montly expenses are for power, distribution and cooling.

If immersive cooling doesn't significantly reduce the lifetime of components and doesn't add costs (additional mops?) enough to offset the reduction, there is no reason why it shouldn't be useful for most datacenters. Intel was working on this a few years back [2], and as far as I can tell the Cray 2 used immersive cooling for some components in the mid-80s.

[1] - [http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/09/overall-data- center...](http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/09/overall-data-center- costs/) [2] - [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429179/intel-servers- take...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429179/intel-servers-take-a-deep- dive-to-cool-off/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Oil immersion is commonly used for transformers in power distribution systems. The cylindrical transformers on power poles are cylindrical for the same reasons beer cans are, it's a good shape for holding liquids.

In commercial buildings it is also not uncommon for transformers to be immersed in oil. But oil's flammability creates substantial fire hazard and modern building codes address this by limiting the density at which the oil in transformers can be distributed; specifying fire resistant separation; and other substantial hazard mitigations as the hazard increases.

Since the oil around servers burns just like the oil around transformers, there probably won't be any special exception for oil immersed servers in the building code any time soon. So I'd bet against large commodity data center installations...a state sponsored agency's data center might be another matter.</comment>


Our love-hate relationship with supplements - <AUTHOR> https://nootrobox.com/blog/how-we-do-business/

<comment><USER2> The sheer level of interest combined with the widespread lack of knowledge about supplements makes them easy to exploit in ways that would normally not be tolerated.

For another example, take a look at this ad from the Yahoo homepage, which spoofs Discover Magazine's entire website to plug their fake "limitless pill": [http://politicsjunkie.com/yahoo-homepage-now-featuring- scams...](http://politicsjunkie.com/yahoo-homepage-now-featuring-scams/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The supplements industry definitely needs to be reformed. We at Nootrobox hope to do it right. Nice link you shared. It's a special level of sketchiness when they photoshop articles, tweets, video appearances to boost their brand.

</comment></comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Can you please explain:

"2\. Alpha test. We make small batches and test their efficacy on a small alpha tester group before scaling."

Also, how do you make your analytical data available, e.g. searchable by batch number? How do you 'educate' your customers so that they are able to meaningfully interpret your analytical data?</comment>


Ramsey Orta filmed the killing of Eric Garner–so the police punished him - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-footage-ramsey-orta-police-brutality-killing-safety <comment><USER2> > The symptoms were consistent with human consumption of rat poison, and when > the tainted meatloaf was finally tested, the results found that the blue- > green pellets visible in the meatloaf were brodifacoum, the active > ingredient in rodenticide.

Holy shit. I had no idea this happened, but this is just straight up appalling. The state of the US prison system is incredibly fucked up. It just seems like the worst of the worst become COs just so they can fuck with prisoners, but this is taking it to another level.

<comment><USER3> I read that and assumed there'd be a followup investigation of attempted mass murder but nothing. Was justice served, or even half-heartedly attempted and the article didn't mention it? The story lacks or justice lacks, hopefully the former.</comment></comment>


How to get to YC interview - Insider's Guide to YC W13 Application - <AUTHOR> http://www.acunote.com/blog/2012/10/y-combinator-application-insiders-guide.html <comment><USER2> This is actually fairly good advice. There are only a few things I'd disagree with.

* You don't have to use 4-5th grade level English for our sakes. It might force you to explain things better though.

* When answering the question about the most impressive thing you've achieved, it's not necessary to "focus on things that can be useful in a startup." In fact that's a common mistake. If you won an Olympic gold medal and can also write hello world in Ruby, we want to hear about the former, not the latter.

* How you hacked some real-world system to your advantage is not a super important question. Probably not even in the top 10.

I don't know about the other YC partners, but the two most important questions to me are what you've done in the past that's impressive, and why you chose the idea you're working on.

The biggest mistake founders make when applying is to confuse us. Half the time when I'm reading an application I'm thinking "I have no idea what this person is even talking about." I suspect this often the writer's own confusion showing through.

It's surprisingly hard to explain oneself. Even startups that we've accepted and have spent months working with say things in draft Demo Day presentations that make me ask "what does that even mean?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

"things useful in a startup" does seem like misleading advice. Because people applying don't yet know what's useful. So it's obvious to me that having won an Olympic medal is super useful, but it's probably not obvious to the applicant. Hmm, and "useful" is probably not quite the right word here ... I'll try to cover this more in emails.

You comment above rates 6.5. Your writing style is very unusual though. It remains easy to understand despite being somewhat complex linguistically. 6 is about the maximum I can usually understand in a single pass. And after reading a bunch of applications my abilities degenerate. Best direct response copywriters consistently rate at 4.

<comment><USER3> Is this linguistic scale available somewhere?

<comment><USER4> gleb linked to a grader in the article. It probably uses one of the formulae listed here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability>

<comment><USER3> Ah, thank you. Missed that when I was skimming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for going out on a limb and providing some additional insights here, especially since it's clear PG and others in YC saw / reacted to your thoughts.

As applicants, my co-founder and I have certainly striven to balance the kinds of advice you lay out here ("Focus on things that can be useful in a startup" and generally being "impressive") with also providing "human" responses that demonstrate our personalities. Hopefully both sides shine through.

</comment><comment><USER6> After the Application Process is over, I'd appreciate it if you'd collect your emails and add them the blog.

I'm not planning to apply, but I always enjoy reading quality posts.

</comment><comment><USER7> Rather than making a strategy around the first draft of my application,I just went with the flow.Helped me pen down ideas better without boundaries and further refinements were easy and effective.</comment>


Google Cloud Status – Summary, Description, Root Cause, Prevention - <AUTHOR> https://status.cloud.google.com/summary <comment><AUTHOR> Well written accounts of what went wrong, always accompanied by remediation measures for the future.

Some insight into systems at Google scale, and the fact that in the end it's people running the show :)

Examples: [https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15062](https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15062) [https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15064](https://status.cloud.google.com/incident/compute/15064)</comment>


How to Learn (Almost) Anything - <AUTHOR> http://litemind.com/learn-anything/ <comment><USER3> Pro-tip for those still in university for a technical field:

Instead of going to lectures, completing assignments, and doing tutorials you would be better off learning engineering the way I learned. My way only works in those cases where your prof will actually assign a relevant book.

Step 1: Start at the very beginning of the book with some blank printer paper. Start reading, but be sure to use the paper to block off information further down the page. I actually used 2 sheets of paper, one for the opposite page and one for the section below what I was reading.

Step 2: When you encounter an example problem try to solve it. Make a good, honest, serious 10 minute try at figuring out what the formulas _should_ be. This is especially important if you haven't even been given the formulas first. I "invented" the equations for electromechanical forces by thinking about what they were asking, visualizing it, and then applying basic calculus to the problem set. I also invented fluid flow through pipe networks, structural deflection, life time value assessments, and many other things. All of these concepts are stuck like granite in my mind for life.

Step 3: At exam time take all those assignments you haven't done and do them all at once in the 48 hours before the exam. If you were smart you would have asked your prof if he was ok with you handing in the completed assignments on your own schedule. The reason you leave these off to just before the exam is two fold. Firstly, you actually do the assignments without leaning on your friends to help you with the devilish details. Secondly, your mind doesn't go into auto-recall mode and remember THAT EXACT problem. It is actually trying to solve them for the first time.

That's all it takes. My university experience was a walk in the park once I figured this out, I actually held a full time job as a construction coordinator while fully enrolled at Waterloo.

On exams I could always get the bonus questions because I didn't just understand the formulas - I "invented" half of them. It's a much deeper understanding that started in first year and carried me through until the end of my fourth year. There are going to be exceptions (for me it was applied partial differential equations (except Laplace, that I understood fairly well)) but in general it is far easier to read through a 250 to 400 page book and cram for 48 hours than it is to trudge along going to class and getting stuck on stupid details in assignments.

<comment><USER4> This is quite an interesting method, but be aware: it doesn't work for all people. Everyone _has_ to figure out how they learn best, preferably by the start of high school.

<comment><USER5> In practice, _maybe_ by the end of college. How can we help people figure figure how they learn, while they can benefit from it the most?

<comment><USER6> I truly learned how to learn by the end of college, and I would have found it invaluable to have learned it sooner. There is no doubt that I would have accomplished 100x more and learned 100x more during those years.

<comment><USER7> In my very first lecture in university the professor told the class that this is impossible. The only way to learn something is by doing. But not to despair, as even if you think you are no good at times, you will be 100x more productive by the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My first employer out of college (The Instruction Set - RIP) exploited this by selling training courses that the technical staff would teach on rota:

\- Per this article - staff quickly became experts in appropriate fields. There is nothing like explaining pointers,inheritance,device driver interrupts etc. to a confused (but motivated audience) to internalize it yourself.

\- It was a great source of development work - one of the principles of the company was not hoarding knowledge - very often, teaching companies how to solve their problems would result in them saying something like "Wow, it really is hard, that's not our core business, can you help us" - and they would now have the knowledge to negotiate a sensible spec.

\- It gave a sort of mini sabbatical to the tech. staff - every couple of months, you would be out teaching for a week or two, and dev. work would be scheduled around this.

</comment><comment><USER9> The basic premise of the article is fairly obvious: to learn something teach it or do it. The best way by far to learn something is to teach it. When you have to explain to an audience the way something works you have a pretty good mental understanding yourself.

Interestingly, according to some studies, people remember 70% of the things that they say in speeches they give (at conferences, classes, conventions, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER10> I agree with this; though, I do wonder how my Physics teacher knows the latitudes of various major cities...

<comment><USER11> Coastal cities? S/he may be a boater!

<comment><USER12> if you know the coastal cities' latitudes, then some basic geography will help one match up inside cities, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My favorite example is this: Lets say you want to learn about a new Javascript library.

1\. Spend a little bit of time reading about it, so you know about 20% of what you need to know, then convince a group to let you give a talk about using it.

2\. Realize, "Oh crap, I know virtually nothing about this, I need to use it for something!" Build something with it and take notes as you go.

3\. Your notes can be easily morphed into a presentation, which you give to the group on the assigned date.

The deadline forces you to take action, and the doing before the teaching makes you learn a lot of the material before doing the teaching, and then preparing for the final "teaching" part cements the final bits of knowledge you might have missed.

If you can't find a group to do a presentation, start a local one! Its really easy with the free tools available online now.

</comment><comment><USER10> This works well with programming. I took two years of Java in high school (an intro course and an AP course) and now, as a HS senior, I probably couldn't declare an array for my life. However, I've self-taught myself python by programming a few GUI apps, and, even though having never taken a class on it, I'm infinitely more competent.

</comment><comment><USER4> He touches lightly on it at the end, but this cone does not work for all people.

For example for me, HEAR and READ would be reversed.

And actually the rest are not accurate - _for me_ \- either.

The point isn't the details (I initially posted them, but edited it out) - <USER2> point is to figure out this cone for yourself, and work with it to best effect.

</comment><comment><USER14> Found this on HN sometime back. Similar good read [http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_woznia...](http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/ff_wozniak)

<comment><USER15> I remember this discussion on HN. And I liked the idea. In prep school, I used to go through my whole Math binder for each bi-monthly test even though the tests were only on the last few chapters. It definitely helped me a lot.

After reading about the link you re-posted, I looked at some of the software that were replicating SuperMemo's method. (I can't remember the names right now) The issue I had was to find the material for what I was studying. Of course, the best way is probably to create your own material but that requires an extra time investment.</comment></comment>


[Ask YC] AJAX vs. AHAH - <AUTHOR>

I have been struggling with this question so I thought I would ask YC.<p>Personally, I am leaning more towards AHAH. <comment><USER2> I am partial to AJAJ myself.

0\. Sending back JSON allows you to to generate HTML just as easily on the client-side as it does on the server. 1\. Makes your backend more generic by default, so makes it easier for other apps to use your service (JSON is included in many languages these days) 2\. Makes your design a whole lot cleaner 3\. Is (generally) less work than dealing with full XML.

</comment><comment><USER3> JSON or FJSON (a JSON object wrapped in a function) would be my preferred solution. Either via script hacks or XHR. The Y! APIs mostly support FJSON.

An important thing to avoid with AHAH for example is not having sites that progressively enhance. If you get used to throwing whole chunks of markup into the page it's easy to forget people who aren't able to use your dynamic page loading solution.

Some kind of JSON will also allow you to get a status on the information that you got back from the server. While you could do this HTTP status codes it would be a lot harder to do x-browser especially if you are using a library to do your AJAX/script inclusion.

If you have status codes it allows you to do more complex operations, such as highlighting in red the parts of a form field that weren't completed. If you have to replace the whole form is would be pretty inefficient.

DISCLAIMER: I work for Y!

</comment><comment><USER4> It Depends. If you're doing something really simple where you know exactly what the HTML you're slotting in to the DOM is going to look like, go with AHAH - it's generally easier to generate HTML snippets on the server-side than the client-side due to JavaScript's poor support for multi-line strings.

If you're likely to want to re-use the data service you're building in more than one place, go with JSON. The problem with an AHAH endpoint is that it can only be used for one thing - a JSON endpoint can easily be repurposed for other parts of your application.

The only reason to bother with XML is if you're going to be doing HUGE transforms of e.g. a ton of data in to an HTML table, at which point you might want to use client-side XSLT for a speed boost. The vast majority of applications won't need that though, in which case JSON is far more convenient.

</comment><comment><USER5> they both have their pros and cons. I would rather send JSON as opposed to XML, its easier to work with client side and smaller response size, but HTML is easiest to work with client side and could be made to work when javascript is turned off (at the expense of server cpu cycles transforming the data to html before sending it).

</comment><comment><USER6> JSON is better IMHO. HTML is pretty ugly and using innerHTML is an extremely bad idea. Better to send data as JSON, and manipulate the DOM if you need.

<comment><USER4> What's wrong with using innerHTML?

<comment><AUTHOR> Primarily, memory leaks

You can find better reasons here <http://ajaxian.com/archives/the-problem- with-innerhtml>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Shouldn't it be called AJAH? It still requires JavaScript...

Anyway, I prefer using JSON for most things.</comment>