Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

<comment><USER2> One interesting bit that was in George Dyson's book but not the Wikipedia article (that I saw) was that for sustained thrust the idea is to keep the pusher plate in resonance with the atomic bomb detonations. You use a half sized bomb to get things going then detonate full sized bombs when the plate is heading away from the main compartment.

The real problem with an Orion drive is launching the thing. Simple atomic bombs don't generate that much fallout (relatively speaking) by themselves. There wasn't any noticeable fallout in Japan after the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The big source of dangerous fallout is when neutrons from an atomic explosion are captured by nearby materials and transmute them into radioactive ones. For an explosion high up the surrounding hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen don't turn into anything nasty. But if the explosion is near the ground there are all sorts of horrible things that can easily be produced.

If you wanted to launch an Orion into space with relatively little fallout you would need to either have boosters that lift it a kilometer up before it engages it's main drive or launch it a large area you've covered completely with graphite (see again carbon-14 not being dangerous).

The reason that the bombs the US and USSR have stockpiled produce so much fallout is their third stages. First you have a regular atomic bomb that sets of a fusion explosion. But surrounding these is the bomb's shell made out of the Uranium-238 that was left over after the process of separating out the uranium-235. You can't create a chain reaction with U238 but it does fission and produce a lot of energy (but no neutrons) when you hit it with a neutron and about half the energy of a bomb can come from the case. You can easily make the case out of lead instead and have a relatively clean nuclear bomb but the military considered the fallout a feature rather than a bug.

In the end project Orion was a cool idea and not so crazy as you might think at first. But I'd much rather people use conventional nuclear thermal rockets where you use a normal reactor to heat a bunch of propellant. It doesn't offer the same combination of power and efficiency as Orion but if you switch your reactor to generate power and run a VASIMR then you can have at least one or the other and you don't have to deal with _any_ fallout.

EDIT: Oh, there's also the problem of EMP as Orion passes through the ionosphere. The bombs it uses are much smaller than an H bomb so they _probably_ won't cause problems but nobody knows for sure.

<comment><USER3> You could always construct it in orbit too? That might be the safest option?

<comment><USER2> Yes you certainly could. But once you're in orbit you don't really need high thrust anymore, you might as well connect a normal nuclear reactor to an electric drive of some sort. I suppose there are still other places in the solar system you might want to land. Venus and hypothetical floating platforms on Saturn, Uranus, or Neptune might make Orion worthwhile. Orion might also be required to take off from the surface of Jupiter (which has much stronger gravity than the other gas giants). But for other bodies the gravity is light enough that I'd just use nuclear thermal and leave the pusher plate at home. For most space travel the journey is going to take a long time so it doesn't matter if you get up to cruising speed in 15 minutes with your Orion drive or a week with your nuclear electric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recommend to read this story by Charles Stross "A Tall Tail": [http://www.tor.com/stories/2012/07/a-tall- tail](http://www.tor.com/stories/2012/07/a-tall-tail)

</comment><comment><USER5> Medusa seems like a better approach, since it doesn't require detonating as close to the spacecraft and can forgo the big heavy pusher plate: [http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=23754](http://www.centauri- dreams.org/?p=23754)

</comment><comment><USER6> People forget that Kennedy's actual request was: First - "before this decade is out, is landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth"

Second - "acceleate development of the Rover nuclear rocket"

Third - "accelerate the use of satellites for world wide communications"

Fourth - "a satellite system for world wide weather observation"

Too bad we only got 3 out of 4 and are still stuck with cans of flammable mud.

</comment><comment><USER7> See also Tintin's moon rocket's propulsion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_on_the_Moon#Rocket_e...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_on_the_Moon#Rocket_engine) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA)

<comment><USER2> People have come up with a lot of ways to use nuclear energy to power rockets. Most are less crazy than Orion but one, the nuclear saltwater engine, even more so. Here's a good source of info. [http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> George Dyson (son of Freeman Dyson) speaks about project Orion here: [https://www.ted.com/talks/george_dyson_on_project_orion](https://www.ted.com/talks/george_dyson_on_project_orion)</comment>


Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp2014105a.html <comment><USER2> I never understood why the politically correct crowd happily accepts that athletic ability is heritable, yet when it comes to intelligence suddenly all bets are off.

As soon as we accept reality for what it is, we can begin adapting our societies and policies to maximize opportunities for individuals with the knowledge that our talents and limitations vary quite drastically.

<comment><USER3> It's not that I don't believe that intelligence is heritable. I do. It's more that I don't believe that it's all that important to be intelligent in order to be a good Human.

People have a natural attraction to those similar to them. In history, the over-emphasis of particular and possibly unimportant (who knows?) traits has often been the cause for wars, genocides and all sorts of other evils.

Further, I don't think that relative Human intelligence has all that much magnitude. That is - a 'really intelligent' Human is not all that different from a 'non-intelligent' one, taken in the context of other species. And, those non-intelligent ones may have particularly interesting genetics that make them important to the species, in other ways.

Humans have done pretty well as a species with lots of diversity. Why ruin a good thing? And, do you really want Humanity to be comprised of near clones?

<comment><USER4> Probably because the jobs traditionally done by the less intelligent are being shipped overseas or done by machines leaving these people in poor economic circumstances. Intelligent people would not have to be clones, smart people can be quite different from each other in terms of personality, areas of interest etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can probably guess it from context, but I had to look this up to be sure, so for the benefit of others: assortative mating is when you have kids with other people similar to you, rather than selecting mates randomly. In other words, in this case, people with high intelligence tend to marry other people with high intelligence, and people with low intelligence marry other people with low intelligence. This causes the variance in the distribution of intelligence to steadily increase, rather than everybody evening out over a few generations.

<comment><USER6> And if a society values intelligence, they should encourage smarter people to reproduce and offer as much birth control as possible to less smart people. Following this line of reasoning and policy is sure to ignite all kinds of flame wars ;-)

<comment><USER7> There is an interesting and much-neglected corollary to the heritability of intelligence, which is that we are part of the least intelligent generation of humanity that has ever lived.

This follows from the two conditions:

1) intelligence is at least somewhat heritable (empirically true, according to the article)

and

2) intelligence is positively correlated with reproductive success (plausible give humans seem to have been selected for it)

The conclusion follows from the way world population has exploded in the past 250 years, increasing roughly ten-fold in twenty or twenty-five generations. That increase equates to "zero selective pressure": basically anybody could breed successfully, and they did (including my ancestors, some of whom occupied the more stagnant and brackish depths of the gene pool...)

So up until 1750 or so intelligence was being selected for, generation after generation. After that time, there was no pressure and the many small effects that this article documents as underlying the heritability of intelligence (with no single gene showing as much as a 1% effect on the overall outcome) would happily carry us all on a random walk across the landscape, creating engineers in some parts and political partisans in others.

This realization makes particularly funny the various organizations that have at times promoted Nobelists etc as pinnacles of intelligence (William Shockly, inventor of the transistor, was heavily involved in this kind of thing). Nobelists are certainly bright, but it seems more likely you'd find the most intelligent people amongst still-extant stone age tribes, whose pre-industrial life-style would still subject them to selective pressures long released in the more-developed world.

<comment><USER8> Reminds me of the recent study where Chimps beat humans in a simple strategy game.

<comment><USER9> Do you remember the name?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Would someone decode what Nature means by "open" and "expert review"? What is "open" about it? Is this settled science, one person's hypothesis, or something in between?

<comment><USER11> 1\. Open = free (no subscription required)

2\. Expert review = exactly what it sounds like (as opposed to original research)

3\. Something in-between

<comment><USER12> Is it really 'something in-between'? This is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin) \- if there's a greater living behavioral geneticist, his name escapes me.

<comment><USER10> > Is it really 'something in-between'? This is > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plomin) > \- if there's a greater living behavioral geneticist, his name escapes me.

That is a valuable piece of information for us lay people. Do non-geneticists studying the issue generally agree with him?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's kind of trite and obvious by now, but can we please kill the "Everyone gets what they deserve" line of thinking?

<comment><USER14> The idea that "they deserve whatever they can get" is one of the criticisms of modern UK/US culture made by Michael Young who actually coined the term in his satirical book _The Rise of the Meritocracy_ :

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment)

[Edit: I don't know about the US but here in the UK it is fairly common to define "merit" in ways that don't actually seem to include "performance" \- though I think this is a far bigger problem in the public sector than the private].

<comment><USER15> This is basically the "just world" fallacy writ large, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Q: What is intelligence? A: Thing that is measured with intelligence tests.

Q: What are intelligence tests? A: Things that measure intelligence.

<comment><USER17> This pair of rhetorical questions actually has a non-rhetorical answer, and it is far more interesting (though less precious) than the one implied here.

This being the internet, the serious answer is a mouseclick away: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29)

<comment><USER16> It is more correctly circular reasoning. The psychometric measure g does not break this circle at all. I will never believe in "intelligence tests" until this circular reasoning can be broken.

<comment><USER17> Why do you think we observe the positive manifold, then?

<comment><USER16> I do not know why the positive manifold is as it is. But it still seems like it is a precise measure of an inaccuracy.

What I am getting at in a roundabout way is that I cannot find any credible definition of intelligence that is not dependent on the these tests. If intelligence were able to measured some other way that corroborated these tests, then I will be more likely to believe them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the interesting comments posted while I was watching my sons play soccer this evening. To answer some questions that came up in various subthreads, yes, both Robert Plomin and Ian Deary are mainstream researchers on the behavior genetics of human intelligence, the authors of well regarded textbooks (Plomin), popular books (both), and primary research articles (both) on various related topics. Their joint point of view as expressed in the review article published today is not the exact point of view of all researchers in the field, but I thought it would do as a discussion-starter here on Hacker News.

A crucial detail (Deary and Plomin would both agree about this, but it hasn't come up in the discussion here yet) is that heritablity has NOTHING to do with modifiability. It is quite possible in principle that a novel environmental intervention might be discovered that could boost most people's intelligence. It is even possible that the most effective intervention might have a gene- environment (G × E) interaction such that the intervention would most help people with lowest IQ, and least help people who already have high IQs. No such intervention that human beings can direct purposefully has yet been found, but it is clear from the Flynn effect[1] that something in the environment can have powerful effects in raising average IQ levels of whole countries, as has happened in the developed world throughout the last century (for as long as IQ tests have been around).

It is correct that people marry and have children on bases other than just shared level of intelligence. (But living in the same town, and completing higher education at similar ages, and pursuing compatible occupations for marriage, etc. is correlated with IQ.) It is still far too early to say how rapidly human populations might see noticeable effects from assortative mating by IQ. It is reasonably clear that often-feared dysenic trends probably are NOT happening--the lowest-IQ people in the world population don't reproduce at all, and high-IQ people actually have reasonable numbers of children to replicate their genes. In any event, the favorable environmental trends have SWAMPED whatever genetic trends are going on for IQ in the whole human population, and people are getting smarter all over the world, according to the research on the Flynn effect.

It is still a hard problem to identify anything at all meaningful and replicable about how gene differences influence IQ differences, even though it is now settled wisdom that they do. Human IQ, as the article says, is influenced by MANY genes, and many of those genes interact with one another in ways that are not understood at all yet.

[1] [https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_higher_than_our_grandparents)

[http://blog.ted.com/2013/09/26/further-reading-on-the- flynn-...](http://blog.ted.com/2013/09/26/further-reading-on-the-flynn- effect/)

</comment><comment><USER18> _Plominism: The Christian heresy that salvation is neither by faith nor by works, but 50% hereditary and 50% based on non-shared environment_

[https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/500107441762074625](https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/500107441762074625)

</comment><comment><USER19> So, it seems to follow that one could take a bunch of fertilized embryos, measure the genome-wide polygenic score (GPS) of each embryo, then select only the best one.

The only thing missing is that the genome-wide polygenic score (GPS) for intelligence has yet to be discovered.

Unfortunately, even when something like this is possible, it would probably be made illegal even though it would surely be a positive thing for humanity.</comment>


75 (Really) Useful JavaScript Techniques - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/09/11/75-really-useful-javascript-techniques/

<comment><USER2> Those aren't techniques, that's a list of 75 scripts, some of which are full- on applications (AjaxIM). And what on earth is the point of using JavaScript to make, of all things, CSS sprites? Those were meant to be a substitute for JavaScript image replacement in the first place, and to reduce page load times.

<comment><USER3> ironic that you're critiquing the use of javascript for css sprites when the article was written by one of the guys that coined the term and mainstreamed the technique.

edit: but yes, its a post designed for cut-n-paste coders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My favorite is the GMail technique. I use it to read my email every day.

</comment><comment><USER5> OOps! The following comment was in the wrong thread... Was meant for "THIS is the page that made doing OOP in Javascript _click_ for me" \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--- _Wow, that really is an incisive article! I've been hacking AS2 + 3 for the last 7 years after being a proper JS head for the previous 4, this makes me want to get back and hacksome JS for fun again!_</comment>


Pink NFL Gear Doesn't Donate Much to Cancer - <AUTHOR> http://sourcefed.com/pink-nfl-gear-doesnt-donate-much-cancer/

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this mainly to draw attention to [http://www.charitynavigator.org](http://www.charitynavigator.org), which makes it easy to vet the charities that you may be interested in contributing to... Some of the most high-profile movements to raise awareness about causes like breast cancer are linked to programs that don't pass much of the money raised to the cause itself.

Organizations like Susan G. Komen for the Cure have been in the news lately for an "overly well-paid" CEO, but that organization still manages to pass through 82.1% of its contributions to the programs it supports (rather than paying for overhead like CEO salaries). It is still one of the best organizations you can contribute money to in terms of financial contribution and transparency/accountability.

So, this all goes to say (Tl;dr) - take advantage of resources like Charity Navigator when making your charitable donations. Also, when buying high- profile pink things, consider donating to the source instead of paying outside partners - more of your money will get where you want it to go...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also relevant: [http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html)</comment>


Legos, spaceships, breasts. - <AUTHOR> http://katebachus.com/2012/05/12/legos-breasts-spaceships-12-2/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand what we should be 'pissed' at.

From a previous article when 'girl Lego' was announced: _"The company embedded researchers with families around the world, to shadow girls and boys and watch how they play. Based on this research, it came up with Lego Friends, a line that features five characters with back stories similar to those of the wildly popular American Girl dolls._ "[1]

Lego did some actual _research_ and is making something that fits the market as it is today. Who should we be pissed at and why?

[1] [http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego- ho...](http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-hopes-to- build-girls-market)

<comment><USER3> Depends how good the research is. But, knowing how much money is in the toy industry (an eye watering amount, even compared to some tech businesses) I suppose it's good.

But then just because it's researched doesn't mean it's good. Why do girls now prefer the narrative form of a previously creative toy? Why do lego blocks need a back story? Is that something that girls have always wanted; is it something that's created by changes in society; is it beneficial to girls? Is it possible harmful to boys to not have the narrative toys? (Although, with all the ROBOT BATTLE IN SPACE stuff hat lego has done for years I suppose they're just re-balancing an existing skew).

There's a lot of research about the "princess phase" which is why most toys for girls are boxed in that disgusting pink - purple combination.

This book is quite good. The biases are clear.

([http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story- Consumers/dp/0552...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Real-Toy-Story- Consumers/dp/0552774065/))

<comment><USER2> Yup, just because it's researched doesn't mean it was good research (from a general standpoint). Since this is Lego's 6th attempt at reaching this market, I'll assume they've tried to take extra care. It's even possible that the work was done in collaboration with university academics (with peer-reviewed papers as a result). If it doesn't work, I'm sure they'll figure out what went wrong and make a 7th attempt in due course.

The questions you pose are excellent research topics in their own right (if reworded slightly). I really hope there are people out there looking into them. I remember reading some autism-related research that described how even newborn babies exhibited male/female differences (very contentious at the time and I don't know how the field developed).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is a bigger picture problem here. With the move to cross licensing movie tie in Lego sets, many kids only experience of Lego is building Pirates of the Caribean pirate ships, instead of the more engineering focused experiences. What I'm saying is, even Lego isn't Lego anymore (to a large degree).

<comment><USER3> I do miss the free form play of Lego. I feel a bit sad that there are so many special use bricks. But I underestimate the ability of children to play - I'm confidant that they'll happily turn that boat into something else.

I've been wanting to stock up on Lego kits for when my boy is old enough to enjoy it. I'd prefer to buy from a real local toy shop.

I want big box sets of mixed bricks; mixed sizes shape and colours. I'd only need a few kits with plans, the rest I'd prefer to be free-form play.

It's much easier for me to buy this stuff second hand and then wash it than it is for me to buy it new. I don't think I'm an unusual edge case.

I can buy this stuff online. But I feel a bit sad that local toyshops are dying. I do tell them what I'm looking for. None of them have offered to order the stuff in for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is a question I don't quite understand. We are supposed to "get pissed" because some children are allowed/encouraged to play with a simpler lego toy that emphasizes fashion and beauty.

Is it wrong to allow/encourage a child to develop an interest in fashion and beauty?

I wish the authors of articles like this would state exactly what moral principle they believe is violated.

<comment><USER6> Would you be OK if Lego targeted toy for black kids so they can learn how to plough the fields?

The situation here is similar. It's not exactly wrong that a company decides to sell two different kinds of toy. What's wrong is the cultural mindset that dictates that girls should be more interested in fashion and beauty than engineering (for example).

The moral principle being violated is that men and women are equal. That girls and boy can grow to be whatever they like. Because when you build different toys for girls and boys, you are clearly stating otherwise.

<comment><USER7> Did it ever strike you that men and women are not actually the same? I know, this line of reasoning is not popular among the gender studies-infested crowd, but it's just biology. There are dolls because girls like to play with dolls, and not because we force them to play with them. There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities. Read up on science before making your absurd statements.

Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.

<comment><USER3> > _but most girls just don't like technology_

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are differences between girls and boys which drive behaviour. Hormones in adolescence are the clearest example to me.

But then, I used to think that "Girls just don't like chess." It turns out that this very much depends on the age of the girls. Why do numbers of male and female chess players start equal, and then drop off as people get older? It's not related to skill either.

The BBC Radio Four 'popular statistics' programme "More or Less" has a short segment. (They also ask "Are CEOs worth it?" and come to the conclusion that payment for CEOs isn't associated with performance of the company).

(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis>)

I don't know if this is downloadable outside the UK. I very much hope so.

> _just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls._

GI Joe / Action Man?

<comment><USER7> Do they really start out equal? I've played chess for a few years, and all I know is that it gets quite competitive rather soon. Probably you are referring to scholastic chess where teachers plunk down chess sets in front of their pupils and teach them the basics. Sure, pushing wood around is fun for a while, but there will be the point where you need a lot of tenacity to continue.

The issue about CEO compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

<comment><USER3> Yes, they start out equal. This is discussing competitive chess from real chess organisations from the ages of about 8 through to late teens early twenties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's nothing keeping parents from buying the more elaborate LEGO set for their daughters.

<comment><USER8> There's nothing keeping men from wearing skirts in public either. But most of us do not do so because of gender differences ingrained in out society.

Identifying yourself by your gender can be harmless and doesn't need to be detrimental to society or equal treatment. But the premise of the blog is "the virtues of Legos for teaching math and engineering concepts to children."

If this premise is taken as true, this particular distinction in gender is harmful to equality of the genders. It's not just that the particular pink set reinforces certain stereotypes, but also that it's simpler and requires less abstract thought to put together.

That said; I'm sure the people at lego have done their market research, and have found that girls (or their mothers) find the "girly" sets more pleasant. Also the people at the outlet will have their reasons for a "blue isle" and a "pink isle".

I guess the morale of the story is for the parents. To not let themselves fall into the trap of the largest common commercial denominator, but to drag your daughter/son at least once through the "wrong isle" when buying toys in an unbiased manner.

<comment><USER7> Sadly, the author doesn't understand the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy and neglects the possibility that boys and girls are simply "wired" differently. Modern science supports this view as there are significant differences between the brains of both sexes. If you accept biology as given, then wouldn't it be "normal" that boys and girls prefer different toys and children, and that men and women flock into different occupational areas as adults?

Also, why are those feminists only lamenting the lack of female engineers? There are many fields that require that kind of analytical thinking, albeit on lower levels. Heck, why not start a, "Get more girls into plumbing!" campaign? Of course, the feminists are only after the cushy office jobs.

<comment><USER6> Please if you are going to say that girls are "wired" differently and that's what causes the different likes and dislikes of children, back that up with articles. I have yet to see a study where this had been shown. In fact, I think you are also falling prey to "post hoc ergo propter hoc", in that although women and men's brain are different, that does not mean that they like different toys biologically.

I'm sorry that you group all feminists together, but if you had bother to search for women in plumbing you would have found a lot of women and men who call for more women in that area. For example: [http://www.my- plumber.co.uk/userfiles/file/Winter%20Newslett...](http://www.my- plumber.co.uk/userfiles/file/Winter%20Newsletter.pdf)

<comment><USER7> Do a Google search on "IT needs more women", make a mental note of the number of hits you get, and then do a search on "Plumbing needs more women". Please report back which number is bigger. For extra credit, calculate by which factor the first claim is more often made online.

<comment><USER6> Oh, I'm sorry, when you said "only" on your first post I thought you meant "only", not "more". But of course people are more interested on getting children interested in engineering. I don't see your point. Do you want your kids to be plumbers making a minimum salary and having unstable jobs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately i lost her at Legos. It is LEGO or Lego or lego. There is no plural form of LEGO.

<comment><USER10> I think you misspelled "pedantic".</comment></comment>


Google and Microsoft agree to anti-piracy code in crackdown on illegal downloads - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/20/google-microsoft-agree-anti-piracy-code-crackdown-illegal-downloads/ <comment><USER2> Actual news: "The two companies have agreed to a new code of conduct designed to ensure that websites that stream or host pirated material are scrubbed from Google and Microsoft's Bing search engine..."</comment>


Show HN: QuestCompanions, temp labor for MMORPGs - <AUTHOR> https://questcompanions.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> QuestCompanions is a new startup launched by myself and some friends. The idea is that casual MMO players can pay to have hardcore players help them with quests, tough enemies, etc. The difference between this and everything else out there is that the Companions do not play _for_ the player, but play _with_ them. We think that makes all the difference in the world.

We're in private beta right now, but you can use this invite link to join: [https://questcompanions.com/invite/accept?code=1.1335882868a...](https://questcompanions.com/invite/accept?code=1.1335882868a5c795e7)

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

<comment><USER2> "The difference between this and everything else out there is that the Companions do not play for the player, but play with them."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend_experience>

<comment><USER3> I see fail in your venture sorry. I played mmos for some time and never had problems to find some hardcore players to come and help me. I mean they get an ego boost out of helping noobs like you...

While I did buy some gold from some farmers I would not pay for this kind of service. If you are really lost just join a guild and one of your guild mates will help you.

<comment><USER4> Not sure about the downvotes, this is not really a business. Connecting MMO players so they can play together, but having one person pay another?

What ever happened to playing games because they were fun?

Full disclosure: I never really understood the pay-someone-to-play-a-game-for- me-that-I-also-paid-for business. Are people so busy these days they don't even have time to play video games so they must pay other people to do this?

What ever happened to meeting up in chat rooms?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hi daeken, I'm a games researcher and perhaps too heavy of a game player.

While I largely agree with the people who have mentioned "why don't they just buy gold?", and I somewhat agree with your stance that there are people that won't do this, I can't help but wonder who you are serving and how you intend to do it.

* World of Warcraft currently runs 500+ servers. You'll need characters in very specific level ranges. A level 80 that needs to run with a level 20, even if completely unequipped, will still cakewalk the encounter. Assuming you need to be within say, 20 levels of any character, that means you need at least 4 characters per server, which means 2000 characters on tap, if you want full coverage.

* Even if you had those 2000 characters, they need to be available _now_. I would posit that most players who buy gold do so out of ego depletion (ie. people lose willpower over time banging their head against a certain quest, and eventually they just tip over the edge). If you're not there to provide the service straight away, either the ego will come back, they've already abandoned what they're doing, or they've found someone else to help.

* But probably the biggest issue, which tehayj notes, is that guilds already fill this purpose. Good guilds will often have people who will come and help if you just ask, and they're already people that are friends. And they're usually available in 15 minutes or less. They provide a better service than you can.

If guilds are providing a better service, it makes more sense to pivot and provide some sort of guild matching web site, although there's one of those already in-game in WoW.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm a little bit confused about the target audience. The target audience is supposedly "casual MMO players," but the idea of investing money for advancement in a game seems to me like a more hardcore-ish thing to do. I would expect the groups "casual" and "willing to spend more money on the game" to be largely disjoint.

It's possible my intuition is completely off. I know there is a market of aging, settled gamers in the "time is more valuable than money" category, but I thought it was a small population. Have you done research on the size of the potential market?

<comment><USER7> I wonder how this compares to monetizing iOS apps with in-app purchases of game currency and/or items (or even Rovio's "Mighty Eagle"). There seems to be some market in games that would be called casual games (in my understanding, all iOS games are pretty much for the casual gamer) for those who get frustrated to pay real money for some advancement.

I personally don't like it, though, and would never pay extra money to skip playing the game since that seems counter productive to the purpose of a game. If the game isn't interesting enough to play, then I just play a different game. It's not like I don't have enough choices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Excellent idea - as a casual gamer who doesn't have time to get sucked in to an MMO these days, but I still wish I could participate in them. Something like this would be quite useful.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe you are aware of this, but did you know that Quest is the name of one of those late-night "local girls waiting by the phone, call now!" advertisements?

example ad (borderline nsfw maybe): www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEYKnEDnh0

Maybe you can use this to your benefit by filming a spoof commercial featuring WoW characters.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is against many poplar MMO's EULA's. Specifically since World of Warcraft is the MMO with the largest player base you would get most of your users form there. The EULA for that game specifically prohibits setting up any sort of match making service. I would expect a C&D if this venture takes off.

</comment><comment><USER11> The idea has been around for a while however not at scale. Which brings up the topic of cost? I know it can be outsourced, however hopefully not this way: [http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/26/chinese- prisoners-...](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/26/chinese-prisoners- forced-play-world-warcraft-detainee-says/)

Kidding aside, If you can offer good quality/friendly companions I can see this being a hit. "it's like exec for WoW"

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly, the link you gave is part of the reason we're only allowing Companions within the US as it stands. In addition to making it easier on me (I'm currently going to be writing checks by hand for this -- gotta start somewhere), I feel that it will keep the quality high. Fewer language barriers, less 'farming', etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good idea, but I wish there was something we could see on the site before it was posted.

I think this could be an interesting service for the launch of Diablo 3 in a couple week. With the difficulty of Inferno mode in combination with the financial incentive of a real money auction house, hiring "mercenaries" to do quests could become a common thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> What would you like to see?

And we're definitely considering Diablo 3 support. There are some interesting challenges, though, in terms of how you can start the game with a Companion; from what I know from playing the beta, I believe you'd have to add the Companion as a friend, right?

<comment><USER13> My first question, as a user, would be - "How much?" Maybe create a page for each game you support with examples of quests/costs/the level of "companions" available and their experience...

<comment><AUTHOR> Showing examples of pricing is tough. The way it works is that the job poster says how much they're willing to pay, and then Companions bid down from there. We decided against influencing the pricing, outside of having a minimum price of 10 gold ($1 USD).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Which games will be supported? I would like to put in a vote that Dofus (<http://dofus.com>) be included. And will individuals be allowed to offer their mercenary services for free on the site, or do you plan to make money by taking a percentage of the money to be paid to the mercenary?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now we only support World of Warcraft, but support for others are coming soon, starting with Star Wars: The Old Republic. We're definitely considering other games for the near future, though.

We currently don't support free jobs, and we do take 30% of the money paid for jobs.

</comment></comment><comment> saw-lau Some site feedback - the 'You have enlisted!' text that appears when you click 'Enlist' wasn't obvious to me. Might be better to go old-skool and redirect to a 'Thanks for enlisting!' page to make it clear that you have the details.

</comment><comment><USER15> Great idea, I registered! I can see using this for learning to deal with heroics.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is a great idea, I've been waiting a long time to finally get to try it out!

</comment><comment><USER17> Cool idea. Reminds me of the novel _For The Win_ by Cory Doctorow.

</comment><comment><USER13> Love the idea. How will you market it?

<comment><AUTHOR> We had great success running Facebook ads to get Companions into the private beta list back when we were still in early development. Now we need to focus on getting paying customers. To that end, we plan to run Google ads for keywords related to buying/selling gold and powerleveling services; while we have no intention of doing these things (in fact, they're very much against our ToS), we feel that customers looking for such services will have a nicer, safer, and more rewarding experience with our site. We also plan to go to the standard gaming bloggers/press when we feel we're at the right point, hopefully within the next month or two.

<comment><USER18> That sort of bait&switch AdWords stuff rarely works well, unless the bait&switch is of the variety:

\+ title: "Is Gold Selling A Scam?"

\+ actual business: selling gold

You might consider doing media buys on outlets which refuse gold selling ads, since their ad rates are _terrible_ (because they refuse the best way to monetize MMORPG traffic) and the audience is targeted fairly well. This is especially the case if you can get ones which are too obscure/niche to warrant attention from either the Chinese MMORPG publishers or the brand advertising teams at EA and whatnot. e.g. Curse Gaming currently shows a D3 ad placed directly by Blizzard so they'd be a poor choice. Penny Arcade also probably a poor choice. Popular MMORPG bloggers monetizing through Project Wonderful or something: probably a good choice.

(I'd try buying an ad through Project Wonderful, seeing if it works, than offering to just buy that ad slot directly and cut out the middleman. Bonus: they're probably cheap -- you could anchor it to something like "Hey I'll pay for your WoW subscription _and_ buy you D3 when it comes out if you replace your ad block with this.")

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. So you don't think that something like "Get help in World of Warcraft" or the like would convert well off of keywords like gold or powerleveling?

<comment><USER18> I believe that the conversions would be abysmal (on the order of ads for e.g. wedding venues on a search which clearly demonstrates immediate intent to consume pornography) and the ad network (Google, etc) will hate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Slogan should be: trade you fake female account for some dignity and gold</comment>


A Technophobe Adopts the iPad 2 - <AUTHOR> http://www.i4u.com/46669/introducing-technophobe-ipad-2-5-things-i-found

<comment><USER2> _"This thing means I don't have to carry a phone anymore." An iPad 2 with Skype is a far less expensive way to stay in touch than an international cell phone._

This is interesting because Skype, effectively the global VoIP standard, is now owned by Microsoft.

In light of what happened with Office and Mac in the '90s, Apple is probably doing their best to avoid a situation where a Microsoft product becomes perceived as a crucial part of their platform's value proposition... IOW, Apple certainly doesn't want people to actively think of iPad + Skype as a killer combo because they don't control the other half.

But what can they do? FaceTime has no chance of catching up with Skype in global adoption. And considering the iPhone/Android squabbles, it's unlikely that Apple would turn to Google for help against Skype. Hmm.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't be so sure about FaceTime having no chance. Skype has enough weak spots to begin with.

<comment><USER2> At least in Europe, Skype is the only recognized brand in VoIP. Even my grandfather knows what it means to call someone on Skype.

How will FaceTime catch up? Should Apple offer a Windows version, like they did with iTunes and Safari?

<comment><USER4> Probably starts after (or when) Lion is available.

<comment><USER5> Lion is a niche product. Anything Apple wants to do to make an impact starts after/when iOS, not Lion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _The App Store Polices Make Total Sense Now: I've had- and still have- my issues with Apple's strict submission guidelines. But I now understand exactly why they succeed- and why they provide an objectively superior experience for many users than the App Market ever can.

Mitchell's first question to me involved apps. He wanted to know which ones were safe to download- was there anything he needed to watch out for. If Mitchell had purchased an Android tablet I'd have had a laundry list of warnings for him. But there isn't much to worry about on the App Store. I told him to scan the user comments if he didn't recognize a developer, but that apps for the iPad were pretty risk-free._

I almost stopped reading here because I found it so strange. Does the central point: "I told him to scan the user comments if he didn't recognize a developer, but that apps for the iPad were pretty risk-free." not hold for Android devices as well? Scan the comments, pick apps with high ratings?

It's like finding a restaurant in a new city. Walk around, find one that looks popular.

<comment><USER7> _"Does the central point ... not hold for Android devices as well?"_

Depends how quickly bad apps get pulled down from the Android Marketplace:

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41867328/ns/technology_and_scien...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41867328/ns/technology_and_science- security/t/malware-infects-more-android-apps/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was really surprised that he struggled to activate the iPad because I just assumed people would have/understand iTunes. Definitely was one of those moments where you remember how important it is for a developer to watch their users.

<comment><USER9> The first couple hours were a poor experience for me too. iTunes on my dad's Mac Mini said it was the latest version but it turns out it was just the _last_ version for PowerPC, and it can't activate iPads. Then I poked around with libimobiledevice on my laptop, but I couldn't find the right commands to recognize the device. Finally someone with a newer Mac came home and it was smooth sailing after that. The activation process definitely could be improved.

<comment><USER10> It is silly you can't activate and work completely OTA. I will be annoyed if Apple makes me pay MobileMe prices to break the tether when thru finally get their cloud act together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some pretty good observations in this article, especially about the app store. Most mortals, when asked what type of computer they should buy, don't respond "buy some parts from NewEgg, build your own, and put Ubuntu on it." So, I tend to question why fellow geeks, when asked what tablet or smartphone to buy, would recommend anything other than Apple.

Recommending a mere mortal purchase any of the Android tablet options is about the same as telling them to buy a bunch of parts from NewEgg and build their own computer. Maybe this will improve in the next year as software becomes available for Android. I certainly hope so. 5,000 Android developers just got Samsung 10" Galaxy tabs at Google IO so my guess is new apps will be here in 3, 2, 1...

<comment><USER12> That analogy is terrible. I know a few non-technical people who own and operate an Android phone with no problems. You could hand one of these "mere mortals" an Android phone and an iPhone and they couldn't tell the difference.

<comment><USER10> But the Android tablets are still very much in early-adopter state. It's not a matter of where the platform will be next year, but where it is _today_.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Miss The Blinking Red Light - <AUTHOR> http://wadcity.tumblr.com/post/904745882/why-i-miss-the-blinking-red-light <comment><USER2> Enh, I miss the blinking red light too, but:

1) You can set the device to vibrate every once in a while to remind you if you haven't answered your messages, 2) You can put your "messaging" tab on the home bar at the bottom (replacing the - for me - useless iPod app), and 3) The iPhone pushes in much the same way the BBerry does. I get messages and Email without having to do really anything.

<comment><USER3> Not the same thing.

I miss the blinking light, too. Ironically due to moving from an android device that had it (in many colors, too!) to one that doesn't have one (samsung galaxy).

Setting a recurring sound is no substitute. It pisses co-workers off when you leave it on a desk. And it pisses yourself off when you have to get up at night to shut the damn thing up.

On-screen notifications are no substitute either because, well, you have to activate the screen to see it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Having never used a Blackberry, I never realized how much people make use of this feature. I wonder if Apple might eventually include an indicator similar to the sleep/power indicator on a MacBook.</comment>


Chicago, where rich live 30 years longer than the poor - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/23/chicago-latest-news-life-expectancy-rich-poor-inequality <comment><USER2> There is a timely On The Media series by Brooke Gladstone on eviction. It's directly related to the issues of poverty, especially among racial minorities who have been historically targeted via redlining and other governmental policies. The 2nd episode spends ~20 minutes on the challenges (present and past) of housing in Chicago. When basic housing is a constant struggle, lots of stuff, including reasonable health outcomes and economic opportunity are often out of reach.

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/introducing-the- scarlet-e-...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/introducing-the-scarlet-e- the-media)

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/on-the- media-40-acres](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/on-the-media-40-acres)

[https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/scarlet-e-part-iii- tenants...](https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/scarlet-e-part-iii-tenants-and- landlords)

<comment><USER3> That's an excellent series which cannot be praised highly enough.

OTM is always good. This is transcendent.

Listen.

(Or read: yes, there are transcripts.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The context you want for this story is here (ignore the title if it raises your hackles and just read for the factual content, which is quite detailed and accessible).

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the- cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for- reparations/361631/)

In short: legal apartheid ended in the US in the 1960s, but economic apartheid, some of it state-supported, continued through the 1970s --- that's in many of your lifetimes. The form it took in Chicago was particularly pernicious: redlining carved up the city like a scalpel, destroying the economic and social fabric of neighborhoods, making it impossible for black folks to productively own homes or create a base on which to build businesses.

It would have taken profoundly competent and principled leadership for the city to pull out of the engine of despair that redlining created. We have not had that.

</comment><comment><USER5> I lived in Chicago for 8 years. Here is my take on how it got so bad:

1) Decades ago, instead of raising taxes, the city started borrowing money and issuing deferred payments, such as excessively generous retirement packages (instead of raises, which would have required additional taxes).

2) Now the bill is due. Large amounts of taxpayer dollars aren't actually being used to pay for police, libraries, and schools, but are instead paying off deferred expenses from decades ago.

3) Without adequate funding, crime has skyrocketed as the city continues to crumble, unable to provide basic services. This hits the poor disproportionately.

I don't recommend anyone live in Chicago. I never want to go back. Every year I lived there I hated it more and more. It's a scary place. Now I live in Dallas. At first I hated Dallas, but every year I've been here I loved it more and more.

<comment><USER6> What do you say about the people that love Chicago and swear by how much fun it is [in college and for happy hour]

Just part of a privilege divide?

<comment><USER5> I was riding on an airplane back to Chicago after visiting Dallas. As the plane took off, the woman next to me started crying uncontrollably. Sometime before takeoff, she had just learned that her husband was murdered. I got the f_ck out of Chicago.

I was robbed in Chicago twice, once successfully, once not. A person was murdered on my street corner, probably because the perpetrator thought they could get away with it because of the victims skin color and the way they looked.

I would say to those college kids that they probably don't get out enough. Perhaps they live in a far northern suburb, removed from the problems of the city

<comment><USER7> By don't get out enough you mean... don't venture into dangerous neighborhoods?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So for people not from Chicago, Streeterville is a neighborhood that has a lot of young college graduates working professional jobs and retired old people who live near the hospitals on purpose.

<comment><USER9> As a Chicago native, just to add to this point, I also think there might be some problems with how they are looking at the data. People move around, a lot, and both those neighborhoods are at extreme ends of what conditions people would move. Bad luck, lost job, troubles with law, health issues or some other problem, your likelihood of moving to Englewood over Streeterville is well ... a lot higher. Retired, done well in life, taken care of your health, looking to live longer and have walking access to the top hospital, the reverse obviously. So it seems likely the statistics they are using have some major issues.

However, this doesn't mean that I don't agree Englewood is in bad shape and anything that could be done to better the lives of it's residents should be attempted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've lived in Chicago my entire life - the city is in a death spiral. When my youngest kid graduates high school I'm out of here.

The finances of the city will inevitably end in some combination of bankruptcy and ruin thanks to toxic pensions, the abuse of them, and the city's refusal to prudently manage around them (though in fairness the pensions have been so toxic that no prudence could keep up with them). It's just algebra. The city (and state) is already insolvent and just resorts to various can-kicking tactics.

Violent crime is tolerated and ignored by most. No one dare point out the elephant in the room that it's committed wildly disproportionately by minorities. A white kid trolls the Cubs with that bogus "okay" symbol and the city goes berserk; 25 black kids shot over the weekend and it's a collective shrug. Things tend to settle at the level of expectations, and a liberal ethos has set expectations for the black community to be all but nonexistent.

The suburbs are dying, and this is reflected in real estate values. Follow the Chicago Tribune's architecture columnist, Dennis Rodkin, on Twitter. Every day this guy features a new home sale in the suburbs where it's sold for less than what it sold for 20, even 30 years ago. It's depressing to see how Illinois' failed policies have a massive tax against families' greatest asset.

The city is dying, as population loss continues at a rapid pace. Chicago has lost more millionaires than any other city in the _world_ over the last decade. The stats are all readily available with a quick search. The real estate values will inevitably follow the path of the suburbs.

The new governor - a bored billionaire heir who's never accomplished anything on his own merit in his life - is about to effectively double the state income tax. The death spiral accelerates. When you tax something you get less of it.

The corruption of the city politicians is tolerated and even joked about as The Chicago Way. Corruption has been normalized, just like it has for places like Russia. These sorts of cultural rot are difficult to reverse.

Death spiral.

<comment><USER11> This is all, totally, flagrantly wrong. It's all to be provocative.

Firstly, Chicago is one of the top economic cities in the world. Pensions are a big problem, but they are not going to wreck it. The algebra is fine.

Violent crime is another big problem, but it's a big problem _everywhere_ in US. Cities, and Chicago isn't even near the top, per-capita. It's almost entirely gang-related. The big problem, as everywhere, is the red-lining of the past, drugs, and no opportunities. Illinois just legalized weed, will release tons of people for drug-related crimes, and this might help the hood a lot.

The suburbs are not _dying_. Real estate isn't great, but guess what, other than a few markets on the west coast, this is what home prices are going to do everywhere. The baby boomers got to have their houses triple, quintuple in value, millennials will not.

The population loss of Chicago is only in areas that, frankly, need population loss. There's no reason to live in some of these communities that are beset with drug problems and have no opportunities. These days people have cell- phones and the internet, they can move to better places all over the country. It's the reverse of the great migration and it's because the country hasn't helped these people ever in their entire history. Meanwhile middle-income and high-income 20 somethings are still flocking to Chicago.

JB Pritzker is the new governor. He is the absolute opposite of a "bored billionaire" who has never accomplished anything in his life. He has guided the Pritzker funds in a huge amount of charity work all over Chicago including, this audience might want to know, huge investment in startups in Chicago.

We are nowhere even close to the normalization of corruption as Russia, that's just stupid.

Edit: I also want to add that I've seen this narrative from three places -- journalists trying to be provocative; Chigoans that like to complain about politics but not get involved (favorite pastime); and Hanity trolls trying to stir up reasons why Democrat havens are poorly run / liberal policies supposedly fail.

<comment><USER10> The signs are all staring at you in the face.

Real estate values are some of the worst performing in the country. (see Rodkin)

Taxes keep skyrocketing. (Thanks JB!)

Pension underfunding keeps increasing. ([https://wirepoints.org](https://wirepoints.org))

Population loss continues.

Violent crime continues. ([http://heyjackass.com/home](http://heyjackass.com/home))

Politicians keep getting arrested with almost comical regularity. (See Mick Jagger's joke the other night?)

State/city assets keep getting sold. (Parking meters, Thomson Center, Skyway, etc)

Debt keeps going up, often with usurious terms.

Credit ratings keep getting worse. (Illinois is worst in the US)

New sources of taxes enacted. (Weed, gambling)

It's all right there, man. I don't like it anymore than you but sadly every warning sign, every symptom is right there staring at you in the face. If I asked someone to generally describe a death spiral this is what they would describe. And it's not like these are modest problems, we often rank DFL in the country for most of these things.

<comment><USER11> You clearly didn't read anything I said, so whatever.

<comment><USER10> Oh I read it, you're just wrong, unconditionally wedded to politics. I can't argue with people who insist the sky is red, why waste my time...it's a nice day out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The one thing that I hope is obvious to everyone is that mainstream American politics lacks a way to resolve this problem. Often political solutions make the problem worse.

What's unique about Chicago, I think, isn't the discrepancy in life expectancy but the visibility of it. Chicago's segregation of outcomes is much more visible for historical reasons including being a Northern city, being a city of millions and being a city in the Midwest. My hope is that Chicago's fix can be applied to the rest of the country.

</comment><comment><USER13> Raising a family in Chicago. We like it. Had a bike stolen. Not sure how best to help the poorer areas of the city. Me moving out of state won't help them, I don't believe.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow, a 30 year difference. That is _crazy_.

One item to deeply consider: The same gun laws, yet there is a world of difference in gun violence just a mile or two apart. The _same_ gun laws. What's up with that?

I look forward to the day a difference like this isn't possible.

</comment><comment><USER15> Will the last person to leave Chicago please turn out the lights....

<comment><USER16> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Previously on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13973143](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13973143)

<comment><USER18> It's only remotely related. This article is about Chicago, not generally about removing death.

<comment><USER17> I think it's directly related: It's about helping rich people to live ever- longer lives while the poor die from preventable diseases.

<comment><USER19> Yes, in the same way that Illinois is a part of the US or that Mars is a part of the solar system or that the a moon orbits a planet.

However, a book about illinois, Mars, or one specific moon isn't really the same subject _even if it is part of the larger subject_. Illinois is not California any more than Mars is Earth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is a real story in here, but the headline is textbook survivorship bias and selection bias.

</comment><comment><USER21> It is perfectly normal : What is the use of having money, if it does not gives you advantages ?

<comment><USER22> A 30 year difference is a very, very long way from being perfectly normal. It's an extreme outlier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Before we start burning witches, I think it's "fair" (yeah, the same word used in the title) to not only decide on fairness based on outcome but also on reasons.

What percentage of being poor is your own doing or 'not doing'? What life choices do you make? Do you smoke/drink/do drugs, are you obese, are you physically active?

These things affect both how long you live and also how rich you are at the time of your death. Yeah, I know it's a spiral and it's hard to break out (been there).

Still, nobody will do it instead of every individual, no matter how "social" the government is.

<comment><USER24> When I went to middle school, we went to an old, collapsing building that was falling apart. Students (including myself) acted terribly. The very next year, we went to a brand new school. Suddenly everybody acted in a much more civilized manner.

Have you never been influenced by your environment? Or are you just not seeing how it influences you?

<comment><USER25> There's a name for this: "Broken windows theory"

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


Who wants this domain, www.cellbro.com? - <AUTHOR>

I have this domain name, www.cellbro.com which would expire soon, anyone interested in having it can hit me up. My contact details are in my profile. thanks <comment><USER2> list it on <http://hntrades.com>

</comment><comment><USER3> is it celbro.com or cellbro.com?

You have both in the title/body...

<comment><AUTHOR> My bad, corrected. thanks</comment></comment>


Why the web economy will continue growing rapidly - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2009/12/26/why-the-web-economy-will-continue-growing-rapidly/ <comment><USER2> I get bad vibes when an industry starts to convince itself that the growth will continue.

<comment><USER3> Indeed: [http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/...](http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/LereahNotBust.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Scott Rafer, in the first comment, summarizes what I immediately thought - even if the other 90% of the advertising moves to the web, it doesn't mean that all those dollars will move to the web. It'll be used to cut cots.

<comment><USER5> Only if it doesn't result in a competitive disadvantage. If ad spending is effective it will get done, because those who do it take market share from those who don't.

Only if it turns out that ad spending on the web is less effective overall than ad spending on traditional media the ad pie will shrink.

There are no indications that this is actually the case though. The interactivity on the web opens so much potential for much more engaging types of advertising. I hate it, but I'm afraid it's only going to increase.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with non-paying customers? - <AUTHOR> they used our resources, signed our ToS, but they don't pay
i send them invoices, letters, terminate their accounts but they end up never paying anything
should i just block all the customers and require them to enter a credit card before they can continue to use the services?
i'm curious to hear your opinions <comment><USER2> You cut the cord, terminate the server, kill the connection. They think they can get away with it because they are a big shot, if they don't pay, they don't deserve to get free service.

All you are doing is telling them they can get away with it. Stand up to your brand and do the right thing, even if you feel it's not the right thing (people with lots of money are no different than anyone else, they too need to put pants on like everyone else)

</comment><comment><USER3> This can be useful [https://www.letsdeel.com/](https://www.letsdeel.com/)

Took it from [https://github.com/kleampa/not- paid](https://github.com/kleampa/not-paid)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ps. the client, who owns us money is a child of a huge billion dollar company

should i just call up the CEO and complain?</comment>


OpenHAB: open-source home automation software - <AUTHOR> http://www.openhab.org/ <comment><USER2> Only good, as the rest of the bunch is so bad. I really miss good testable "rules"[1] and reuse of them is horrible as well, as you have to make some arbitrary decision to make something a script[2] or part of the rule.

That being said, very stable piece of software and I haven't had surprise moments, unless it were my own "rules" which were wrong.

[1] [https://github.com/openhab/openhab/wiki/rules](https://github.com/openhab/openhab/wiki/rules)

[2] [https://github.com/openhab/openhab/wiki/Scripts](https://github.com/openhab/openhab/wiki/Scripts)

</comment><comment><USER3> I use OpenHAB extensively at home. It's a great tool but the learning curve is pretty steep. However, in combination with MQTT it's immensely powerful.

<comment><USER4> Could you describe your setup? This looks neat. Would love a better idea of what an advanced setup looks like.

<comment><USER3> I use a combination of Wemo plugs, Z-Wave sensors, Philips Hue lights, Plex (although it's not working properly at the moment) and Owntracks in accordance with MQTT. I also have some home-grown components using a mix of Arduino, Particle Photon, Raspberry Pis with cheap Sony PS3 webcams and Arduinos. I'll provide an overview here.

The Wemo plugs control lamps in the living room and bedroom. Z-Wave is used for Aotec temperature sensors in the bathroom and 1st bedroom.

The second bedroom has a Particle Photon hooked up to (I think) a TMP036 (might be a BMP085) and a photoresistor, that publishes temperature and relative light levels to an MQTT broker. A DHT22 is used for humidity and a Parallax PIR clone is used for motion detection. A Nabaztag bunny with an OpenNAB server is used to sarcastically read news and weather to guests if they get up between 8am and 11am.

The main bedroom currently just has the Aotec sensor and a Raspberry Pi 2 with Motion and a USB PS3 EyeToy camera. I use this for photographing sunrise and sunset when I'm at home and monitoring the bedroom when I'm away. This is plugged into a MotionEye install on a server, and integrated into OpenHAB via motion.

The bathroom has an Aotec sensor. I plan to use the humidity check to track when the shower's being used but need enough data points to make it reliable. A bluetooth speaker is in the bathroom, the plan is to play music automatically when the shower's on.

There are philips hue lights in the bedrooms and bathroom. There was one on the landing but I need to change the light fitting. I'm considering building a magic mirror with a Pi for the landing too, but the light fitting will come first.

Downstairs there's another conservatory PS3 EyeToy cam with motion plugged streaming to motioneye. When I'm away this monitors the living room and front door. I have a Z-Wave door sensor that I'm going to put into the front door when I replace it. There's a lamp hooked into a Wemo. I plan to get more Philips Hue lamps over time for downstairs. I have a Plex server but the integration isn't working, as well as various bits of software. I also have a Z-Wave radiator valve, but need to change the valves on the radiators to get that installed.

In the kitchen we're going to put an old tablet up on the wall, a Raspberry Pi with motion and an Eyetoy cam, an Arduino or ESP8266 with PIR, temperature and humidity sensors (or I might grab another Aotec) once the kitchen's been redone.

I also use netatmo sensor data from nearby stations. I thought about getting one but it turns out that other people in my neighbourhood already have them, so I just pull data from them instead. I'm currently working on integrating an ESP8266 with some APA102 light strips and a PIR with a photoresistor to act as a dark sensor, hooked up to batteries to go into my wardrobes so that they light up shelves when the door opens. I have a similar setup with LEDs in my pantry but nothing to tell me that I left the door open when I get late night munchies after a few scotchy scotches...</comment></comment></comment>


Helping users easily access content on mobile - <AUTHOR> https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2016/08/helping-users-easily-access-content-on.html <comment><AUTHOR> There is nothing I look forward to more than the end of loading a webpage and within 1 second having an interstitial hit me asking to sign up for their newsletter. Normally I just insta-close the site and try to remember never to go back, the content will appear elsewhere eventually.

I know content authors do this "because it works" but man is it annoying!</comment>


Google Chrome is detecting malware on The Verge - <AUTHOR> https://skitch.com/k33l0r/eu3qd/malware-detected

<comment><USER2> This is Luke Zimmermann from VOX Media, the parent company of The Verge and SB Nation. We've requested a formal review with Google after going to extreme steps to pull our advertising content to both do a thorough review and error on the side of caution that there wasn't anything malicious being inadvertently served up. At this time we're doing everything we can to get this on Google's radar and get it sorted out. We're continuing to monitor the situation as well and do everything in our power to make sure none of our readers and users are at any risk.

<comment><USER3> Definitely check for any unusual included content and then request a malware review. I emailed the malware team to make sure that this is on their radar.

More info is at [http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...](http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=168328) and by doing a [site:google.com malware review] search, but it looks like you've requested the malware review correctly. In the mean time, I'd just double-check for any way that malware could have been included/downloaded on the pages.

<comment><USER3> Just a quick note: the message is gone for me now, so it looks like the malware review went through with no problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> FYI: SBNation is the main property of VOX Media that owns The Verge.

Something nasty must've gotten onto their CDN, but it wasn't necessarily from The Verge - since they operate a significant amount of websites - it's just that The Verge was using their parent company's resources.

</comment><comment><USER5> The alert says that theverge.com itself is not blacklisted just contains stuff from infected sites.

I would try setting a new hostname for the cdn content servers and see if that works. Assuming of course they have gotten rid of the malware.

</comment><comment><USER6> What can a site Owner do in this situation? Does Google provide information on why a site is flagged?

<comment><USER7> Not really. I had a few websites that ran on Wordpress and got "infected" because of some vulnerabilities in a plugin. I had to manually remove the malware code - usually it's pretty easy to find - and go through Google website verification [https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en...](https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35179)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I got malware warning on Google Reader today. I wonder if this is related.

<comment><USER9> I just got one on YouTube, weird...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hope this doesn't set back the launch of Polygon. We've already been waiting for months, and according to Press Reset (their making-of documentary for the site), it's supposed to launch in October.

<comment><USER11> It won't affect Polygon

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Already posted earlier

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4528963>

<comment><USER13> Why would you link me to that? There is no discussion there that is of any value above what's in this thread (there are no comments). Please don't do that; I realize it was only a couple seconds of my life wasted (plus the 30 seconds to write this comment), but I would really appreciate it if this didn't become a trend.

<comment><USER12> Sorry wouldn't do that in the future if that's so disturbing.

<comment><USER13> Thank you! Also, just in case: I didn't mean to be a dick about it, so I'm sorry if it came across that way…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mh- <http://twitter.com/sbnation/status/247317732503191554>

</comment><comment><USER14> Same on feedly.com.</comment>