A Lady Logician - <AUTHOR> https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/10/10/a-lady-logician/ <comment><USER2> As always, the fun's in the footnotes.

" _In my days as a logic historian I spent a not very pleasant two weeks in the British Newspaper Library in Colindale (the tenth circle of hell), amongst other things, going through the Educational Times looking for contributions on the algebra of logic. During this search I came across the Bertrand Russell contribution, which I showed, some time later, to a leading Russell scholar of my acquaintance, who shall remain here nameless. Imagine my surprise when shortly afterwards an article was published by said Russell expert explaining how he had discovered Russell's first ever mathematical publication in the Mathematical Questions column of The Educational Times. He made no mention of the fact that it was actually I who had made the discovery._ "

</comment><comment><USER3> From the title, I thought this was going to be about Julia Robinson:

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

I don't know why that's the most famous female logician I could think of. Maybe because Matiyasevich credits her very self-effacedly whenever he talks about the 10th problem.

But regarding the actual article...

"Only by arguing that she was too ugly to get a husband was she able to persuade her father and grandmother to allow her to study at the women's college Vassar."

Holy crap, I wonder how much of this still happens.

<comment><USER4> True story.

In the late 70s my grandmother was annoyed at my aunt (her daughter)'s decision to finish high school instead of dropping out. She actually said this:

"You don't need a high school diploma to push a baby carriage."

Yeah, sure that's not "now," but now we make it into "wholesome" TV. (The Duggars)

<comment><USER5> Now it's less gender stereotype and more necessity (though both still apply).

In the past 50 years there has been a tectonic shift in single motherhood, and the implications thereof make education a much less pressing concern than others. Even when you finish school, kids today are at a significant disadvantage as test scores continue to plummet. In some areas of the US there's no significant advantage to finishing high school. And after having a child very young with no other parent to help raise it, going to school may not be a choice one can reasonably make.

Women today face not only discrimination and abuse, they are left rearing children and trying to make ends meet starting in their teens, with large racial and economic biases. This is the reality we should really be shocked by, and not just the vestiges of our recent past.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A lady logician. Or, as I refer to her, a logician.

<comment><USER4> In general, I agree. However, this article was all about how being a woman limited her career, so here it's appropriate and on topic.

<comment><USER5> It makes more sense as a longer title, such as "A Lady Logician In The 19th Century", which is equivalent to "A Black Major League Baseball Player In The 19th Century".

<comment><USER4> Good point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Problems in Education - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/h5z/problems_in_education/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure this collection of anecdotes will be news to someone who has been following education policy for a while but I do think the topic is important. With the importance of the topic in mind, I'll suggest here some better things to read on improving education.

[http://stuff.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena/course/6/6.969/OldFiles...](http://stuff.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena/course/6/6.969/OldFiles/www/readings/ma- review.pdf)

(review of a very important book that essentially every parent in the English- speaking world ought to read)

<http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/teacher-quality>

(a collection of articles on teacher quality by an experienced education policy researcher)

<http://educationnext.org/>

(website of a journal on education policy issues)

<comment><USER3> For what it's worth Hanushek is most famous for his theory that a student having a teacher in the 85th percentile or better for test score improvement for five years in a row would be enough to close the gap between low-SES and high-SES kids, a theory which has been soundly disproven. I have no idea about the quality of his other research, but I'd tread with extreme caution there.

edit: C.f. The Death and Life of the Great American School System by Diane Ravitch, the paperback edition, esp. chapters 6 - 9 and the epilogue.

<comment><USER2> I'd have to look up the reference you kindly shared, but I sure hope Ravitch had help with her mathematics in that analysis, as she is the person who doubts the general usefulness of even beginning algebra as a high school graduation requirement. (Her higher education was in history, not any quantitative subject as Hanushek's was.)

<comment><USER3> She is citing other studies that attack Hanushek's analysis, but she isn't citing any mathematical arguments that she created herself. There are a number of problems with Hanushek's argument, among them:

\- The ratings are completely unstable, so a teacher who is in the bottom 20% one year has a pretty good chance of being in the top 20% the next year.

\- Hanushek doesn't account for forgetfulness when evaluating the differences between teachers. So if you retest the students on the same material two years later, it turns out that the difference between a great teacher and a mediacre teacher is only about 1 / 8th as much as Hanushek had supposed. And the teachers that do the best in the short term (at the end of the school year) have little correlation with the teachers that are actually the most effective in terms of getting kids to know the most after two years, which is what is actually important.

\- Even if the teacher ratings were stable, which they aren't, they're not on an interval scale, meaning that the comparisons between different teachers are largely meaningless.

\- Students aren't assigned randomly to classrooms, and the differences between their abilities and backgrounds can't fully be corrected for for various reasons. (One of which being that again the tests are not on an interval scale.)

\- In order for the VAM to become at least fairly stable it takes about 7 years, by which point about 60% of teachers have already been fired or quit anyway.

\- VAM only works for math and literacy and not the other subjects that aren't tested.

\- The VAM ratings are extremely test specific, and if you give a different test of the exact same material to the same kids then the teachers that are 'effective' or 'ineffective' are often wildly different.

\- VAM only works if you have data for kids from the previous year. However the data tends to be missing for about a third of kids, especially in low-SES communities where people move around much more, which means that VAM is much less accurate in minority communities due to having less data to draw from and therefor less statistical power. Which means that it's effectively firing/disciplining/rewarding teachers at random in these communities, and therefor discouraging good teachers from teaching there.

There are other issues too, I'm happy to email you my notes if you'd like, which are mostly from the sources that Ravitch cites and not from Ravitch herself. (The sources are mostly things like Department of Education studies.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "It's pretty hard to argue with the data."

Would be nice if there were any actual data in this article.

<comment><USER5> Last paragraph from the article:

> I can provide citations for any statements I've made, but since nearly > everything I said is NDA'd I'd like to be careful to anonymize my citations, > making sure to find national studies instead of state or county specific > studies.

So I believe that if you are interested in any particular claim the OP made, you can contact him for some resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article has a pretty bad smell. The author makes a lot of fairly extreme claims but these are mostly based on his own anecdotes or non public data sets. The claims that

"you can separate all advanced math teachers easily into two categories: Okay with blacks in their classroom [...] Not okay with blacks in their classroom. Whites end up succeeding, blacks end up failing"

and

"the evidence shows that teacher recommendations have zero correlation with aptitude in a field"

are really quite dubious and almost certainly false. How did they measure whether they were "okay with blacks in their classroom"? As many others have said in the original thread, this is probably a hoax.

<comment><USER3> Actually those claims are basically true. If you look at the graph from my blog post here:

[http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2009/02/the-most- im...](http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemaking/2009/02/the-most-important- graph-in-education.html)

What you see is that the data points from all three ability groups are basically overlapping, meaning that the students get sorted into ability groups based on factors like race rather than on actual ability.

That being said, while you might be able to model the bias of teachers and school systems by using an algorithm, I've never heard of schools actually using an algorithm to explicitly sort students based on race, which he implies that they are doing.

However, assuming he doesn't actually mean this, I think the post is actually legit but just poorly written, perhaps purposely to promote his startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The big assumption that everyone tends to make when talking about public education is that the politicians, school boards, principals, and teachers are advocates for students.

Sure, some of them are, but the vast majority of them are looking out for themselves. (I don't blame then, the system pushes them to this) They're making decisions on what will be best for their situation, and they are not really held directly accountable to those they serve, the students.

If anyone has tried to fight the system (like the author), they quickly realize this. And the only effective way I've seen to balance the power is school choice vouchers. Otherwise you're condemned by your zipcode unless you're wealthy enough to afford private school tuition.

</comment><comment><USER8> I never even heard of a system that automatically selects students for any classes. You choose what you want to do, and you can go do it. At least until you go to university or something.

And I thought our school system was bad...

</comment><comment><USER9> This is why evaluation is so important.

Also, I think there is an analogy in how startups talk about number of users, instead of dollars earned.

People need to use the correct metrics for success.

</comment><comment><USER10> Almost all of this article, importantly starting with the "background" material in the first paragraph, is wrong. It is so wrong that I wonder: is it intended as a joke?

<comment><USER11> Care to elaborate on what is wrong about it? I don't have a lot of knowledge about the inner workings of the public education system (outside of going to one for 12 years), but from my observations as an outsider, the article seemed plausible enough. So, I am interested in anything you can dispute.

<comment><USER10> Sure. Just for a start, sentence 3 is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is not an issue in the UK. In our schools teachers are provided with data based on prior achievement and demographics of all their students. If a cohort of students fail to reach their expected target then the teacher is usually considered responsible. Of course, rigorous adoption of a target based system also leads to teachers, schools and exam boards gaming the system and subsequent grade inflation, but that is a different problem entirely.

<comment><USER13> " _If a cohort of students fail to reach their expected target then the teacher is usually considered responsible._ "

Or at least the alarm bells start ringing and there is a conversation (UK based myself). A 'cohort' is the word I usually use for a whole set of classes, e.g. a year group. More than one teacher is usually involved. We also have independent information on teaching through QA observations and OFSTED. Your picture is fundamentally accurate but it is a tad more complex in my experience.</comment></comment>


It's not WebSockets it's your broken proxy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pusherapp.com/2010/12/9/it-s-not-websockets-it-s-your-broken-proxy

<comment><USER2> Everything I hear about WebSockets (things like [http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/hybi/current/msg02149.h...](http://www.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/hybi/current/msg02149.html) and [http://blogs.webtide.com/gregw/entry/how_to_improve_websocke...](http://blogs.webtide.com/gregw/entry/how_to_improve_websocket) and now this) makes me convinced the current draft standard is unworkable.

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't really matter, since it's easier to fix four browsers under active development than it is to fix a myriad of old firewalls and proxies.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd expect to see exploits using Flash sockets as the attack vector before seeing attacks using native WebSockets.

<comment><USER5> A vast majority of the installations with these types of vulnerable firewalls don't allow outbound traffic on port 843 which flash needs to be able to communicate on to get raw socket communication permission.

<comment><USER6> Where are you getting the 20-30x number from? There is no demonstrated WebSockets attack in the "Transparent Proxies: Threat or Menace?" paper.

<comment><USER5> You're right, I reread the paper and I'm not even sure what I was thinking... I was going off of memory. Thanks, and corrected.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Garage Biohacking - <AUTHOR> http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/03/dyi_garage_biot.php

<comment><USER2> There are also risks to this technology becoming cheaper. Genomes for lethal viruses are available for free online. Here are some smallpox strains: <http://www.poxvirus.org/viruses.asp?taxnode_id=1027> Here's Zaire Ebolavirus: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/EU224440.1?ordinalpos=1&...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/EU224440.1?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Sequence.Sequence_ResultsPanel.Sequence_RVDocSum)

The technology to get from a genome to a virus is expensive today, but it's getting cheaper quickly. If costs continue to decrease, bioweapons will be affordable to individuals instead of only nations.

<comment><USER3> Is there a mean to combat the threat of biological warfare since we cannot stop the proliferation of this technology?

Perhaps, people will starts to inject themselves all manners of viruses and bacterias designed to combat totally unknown threats?

<comment><USER2> I'd bet good money that biotech is similar to the majority of technologies: offense beats defense. A thousand things have to work just right for a human being to stay alive. Only one thing needs to go wrong for them to die.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is really fascinating. My wife works doing "biotech" research in the university (she's looking for something new, though, if anyone's got any leads), and I would really not have thought this sort of thing possible, given all the requirements for fancy, expensive equipment. Also, as much as we shouldn't give in to paranoia, there are some safety risks involved that are much more significant than 'bad posture' that might afflict a programmer sitting in a chair too much.

More than anything, I'm constantly amazed at just how _low_ capital requirements are in the programming field. You can do innovative stuff with just an ordinary computer. How cool is that?

<comment><USER5> The most expensive equipment is needed for flexibility and for general research, for narrowly focused problems you need much less, and less capable, equipment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is great. Reminds me of the recent article in nature questioning whether or not scientists need a PhD: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7285/full/464007a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7285/full/464007a.html)

<comment><USER7> I really don't think scientists need a PhD but it probably helps a great deal when doing independent research

<comment><USER8> Seconded, you need a PhD to get funding. Actually the chief purpose of PhD(or any other type of degree) now (in my views, anyway) is just to put you on the map. So you can prove to people that you can do what you already did. Gone are the days when people actually did a PhD or degree courses to learn something new. Most of the times, specially in undergraduate studies, people could as well study on there own and just pay the fees to enjoy the university culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm very interested in setting up a small workspace myself and playing around, but being a resident alien in the US I think I'll encounter the "guys in bio- hazard suits appearing with guns drawn" phenomenon sooner or later.

</comment><comment><USER5> Carlson's post that the link quotes is here [http://www.synthesis.cc/2010/03/garage-biology-in-silicon- va...](http://www.synthesis.cc/2010/03/garage-biology-in-silicon-valley.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> "In five to ten years that amount should pay for much larger constructs, perhaps a brand-new viral or microbial genome."

I first read that as "brand new viral or microbioal game". Now there is something to think about, programming biological games with genes ("spread the flu" doesn't count).

</comment><comment><USER11> For anyone in the NYC area, Rob Carlson will be speaking at NYCR this Saturday (Mar 13).

[http://www.nycresistor.com/2010/03/10/reminder- bioengineerin...](http://www.nycresistor.com/2010/03/10/reminder- bioengineering-oracle-at-nycr-this-saturday/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Because of the ignorant, media-fueled misuse of "hacker", I have begun using the older term "tinker" again. As did Ed Felten for his well-established blog <http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/> .</comment>


News.YC site advice - What do you think about the new Klipboardz look? - <AUTHOR> http://www.klipboardz.com <comment><USER2> 1999 called. They want their design back.

But, I sympathize. Our site looks downright old-fashioned, too (I've spent the last month or so working on our new site, and though I think we'll be launching it this week it'll still probably take a few more weeks or work before I'll really be happy with it). Web design is strikingly hard for nerds who don't spend a lot of time doing it.

Suggestions:

Smaller link titles. I can't believe I'm saying this, because most sites have way too small fonts for everything and it's infuriating for those of us with squinty nerd eyes that have been staring at CRT screens since they were TVs.

It's hard to do the "multiple columns of wildly contrasting content" thing well. Most sites look jumbled up, and yours is no exception. Smaller thumbnails of the media links, particularly in the top section, would be a start. Probably dividing it 67/33 rather than 50/50. There's a reason newspapers do it, and a reason Yahoo's CSS bundles don't offer a 50/50 column layout at all--it's hard to figure out what's going on, as there's not immediate focus. It just feels confused.

I agree with the other poster who suggested same-size thumbs. Pick a couple of sizes and styles for everything (everything means: pics, fonts, headers, etc.) and stick to it. You're doing fine on minimizing extraneous color (which could be important with all of the crazy crap going on in the pictures).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to position the site as a social news site where the submissions are more like actual news articles. They have a picture that draws in attention and then they reposition depending on how popular they are. What do you think?

<comment><USER3> On the graphical look: make sure there is some space of at least 5 pixels between the picture and the text on the right, via CSS probably.

The right column with 2 items hardly makes sense if those 2 items have the same priority as the others. Unless those 2 are special, you really don't need that extra column, I think.

In general, social news with pictures is great, but how about the legal side of it? I mean, pictures. Maybe it's not something to worry about - I don't know.

<comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to put the four most popular stories 'above the fold' which is why there are two on the right. I had numbers showing their order before I might try to put those back in so it makes more sense.

The legal comment is interesting. I'm not sure of the legal aspects myself. Currently I'm linking to their picture instead of copying it and rehosting it. Maybe that gets me around the legal issue. I assume that is the same thing that Google news does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like this look better. One suggestion would be to make sure left column images are resized to the same dimensions. Your tabular layout will be much improved and much more readable. Other than that - I like it!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I thought it was a good way to set the site apart from the text based social news sites out there

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I tried to look, but the site must be overloaded - nothing displayed.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems to be working. Give it another try.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Links could be smaller for easier reading.</comment>


Free webcast – 5 ways to improve app revenue with native stream ads - <AUTHOR> http://grow.avocarrot.com/webcast-01/

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, the recording will be delivered later on for those that registered but can't join in real-time.</comment>


Solar panel made with ion cannon is cheap enough to challenge fossil fuels - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122231-solar-panels-made-with-ion-cannon-are-cheap-enough-to-challenge-fossil-fuels <comment><USER2> That is some amazing technology right there, almost fun to read because it sounds like science fiction but it's real.

And privately designed/built/owned particle accelerators? It's definitely a new era.

What if one day the other side of the globe getting sunlight powered the grid for the other half? Of course this would require very peaceful nations on each continent, so even if we had the cost-effective technology now, it would take hundreds if not thousands of years to happen politically.

<comment><USER3> Transportation of electricity around the globe is not neccessary. Electricity usage is considerably lower during nighttime. Thus solar and wind fit in with our natural rhythm quite nicely. And it is also produced near the place there it is being consumed. Another plus.

But still the author is right, we need ways to store electricity and we will also need a much more flexible grid than the one we have today.

The neo liberal FDP here in Germany is trying to kill off the solar market by drastically reducing the fee you get for feeding solar electricity into the system. But we already have net parity, therefore it is feasible to put up a photovoltaic system on your house, when you size it carefully and consume much of the energy by yourself. It simply reduces your utility bill. If this new technology really halves the price of modules, people for sure will continue installing new systems. Yay!

<comment><USER4> > Thus solar and wind fit in with our natural rhythm quite nicely.

It's not that nice, because power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover or wind strength) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly, or bad things will happen.

"Without Hot Air"[1] covers this, and other renewable-related issues quite nicely and with real data. I recommend it, it's a good read. It has some good ideas on how to solve power supply/demand problems.

On TED2012 there was a talk about a new kind of batteries designed to solve those kind of problems in the power grid; the video from the talk is not yet up, though (but I think it should be soon, at [2]).

[1] - <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/>

[2] - [http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration...](http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=2012&duration=&sort=newest&tag=)

<comment><USER5> _power output from wind/solar plants is random (depends on things like cloud cover ...) and it causes problems in power grid, where power demand must meet the supply exactly_

The biggest power cost for us in warmer climates is cooling. When the sun is out, we need lots of power; when it's not, not so much. Solar power sufficient to run A/C from rooftop panels costing less than grid electricity would be wonderful, lining up perfectly with the inconsistencies of available sunlight.

<comment><USER6> I would start with better home design and energy efficiency enhancing improvements before throwing a Carnot-limited solution at the problem.

Last summer I ran an experiment. We live in a two story house in California. We usually see low temperatures at night (sub 70deg F) and highs in the range of 105+ degF during the day. At night I opened all of the windows downstairs and used a small industrial fan (about 2000CFM) to pump cold outside air into the house. In the morning I'd shut down the fan and close all windows.

I could get the lower part of the house down to below 70F on most days during the summer. Cold enough to have to wear a sweater. Even with the outside temperature hitting highs above 105+ the thermal mass of the house succeeded in maintaining a very comfortable inside temperature (max around 77F). We did not use the air conditioner at all last summer, saving tons of money. The fan costs pennies a day to run.

This summer I am looking at what efficiency improvements I can make to this arrangement. I'm itching to throw a micro-controller at it, but I want to learn a little more before I take that path. There's a lot to do in the roof. Think about it, you have this huge solar heat collector --the roof-- reaching ridiculous temperatures during the day and radiating that right into the house. Sure, there's attic insulation, but that's a ton of energy to deal with.

I'm thinking that some forced ventilation of the attic with a small fan might just do wonders.

<comment><USER7> That only works in desert type environments (i.e. little to no cloud cover) where the temperature goes up and down each day.

Where I live if it gets hot it says hot, day and night. And most of the country is the same.

Although, obviously, incremental improvements are great even if only some people can use them.

<comment><USER6> You might be able to use the thermal stability you have underground to help cool the house. Granted, this is more expensive, but probably far less costly in the long run. The basic idea is to bury a heat exchanger (coils of tubing) deep underground and circulate a fluid to move heat from hot to cold.

You can use this two ways: You can use it to try to cool the house directly by embedding tubing in the floor/walls or some other approach. Or, you could use it to improve the efficiency of an air conditioning unit by providing supplemental cooling of the A/C unit heat exchanger coils.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I highly recommend reading "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air"[1] to anyone interested in topic of energy sources and use. It covers lots of things mentioned in comments, like storing energy in pump storages or car batteries in order to make solar/wind plants able to provide a big contribution to power grid without breaking it.

What is important, this books talks about those ideas _using real data_ and carefully estimates what's really feasible to do (like, how many pumped storages you'd need if you'd like to switch 50% of your energy sources to solar).

[1] - <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/>

</comment><comment><USER8> This is why I _welcomed_ the backlash and even some of the sensationalism regarding the nuclear explosion in Japan. Even if I realize that nuclear energy could be safe and it's good to have an alternative that is cheap enough to compete with coal, I'd still wish we'd spend all those billions switching from nuclear and putting most of them into renewable energy technologies, which should be the future.

The arguments against solar were that the tech is "not there yet", so then it's better to just focus on nuclear. I disagree with that. I believe that if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster. We would have a lot more companies exploring different ideas that make them more efficient and cheaper.

Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century. But I just don't want it to be the holy grail of the energy industry and see the vast majority of investments go into that. I want renewable energy technologies to be that.

<comment><USER9> The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated.

Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sources.

I wish we could all live in a world powered by solar cells etc, but it just isn't going to happen.

<comment><USER10> But renewable energies _could_ replace nuclear (and other sources) for new plants that will be built in the future. Nuclear has a very high initial cost, and shutting down current plants while they're still efficient and safe enough wouldn't be a sound choice, but for replacements of ageing plants and for new constructions cheaper and cheaper renewable energies could realistically displace them in the next decades.

<comment><USER11> No. It can't.

And pretending it can is a problem.

Solar is nice. It'd be FAN-GODDAMN-TASTIC if we could use solar power as the backbone of our power generation. But we can't, it's just not feasible.

Solar today is _half_ of a power plant. Much like wind Solar generates power when its convenient to its own schedule, not ours, and sometimes that means it generates _zero_ power.

This. Is. A. Problem.

It is, in fact, _the_ problem of solar and wind power. Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline. That's nice, but it's an edge solution, and we're already nearing the limits of that strategy. In order to replace base load power we need something that provides power reliably when it's convenient for humans. For solar or wind that means we need to invest in vast power storage plants. Things that do not currently exist even in designs. Things that are likely to be about as expensive to build and maintain as solar plants themselves will be.

We do not have the technology to move to solar or wind power as a base load power source. And it seems likely that if we did have that technology it would put the full cost of those power sources at higher than even fission power plants.

We can no more move to solar or wind power for the majority of our power needs than we could move to Thorium reactors, or fusion power.

<comment><USER12> _Today we can use solar and wind serendipitously. They run on top of base power and when they provide power they allow us to keep gas powered generators offline._

Solar thermal+thermal storage could be used in climates closer to the equator. The US ran an experimental setup with 8 hours endurance after sundown.

In the case of cooling equipment, solar coincides well with demand.

You are most certainly right that solar won't cover all our baseload power needs. We don't need to cover it all. We just need to whittle down the unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly parts as much as we can.

Subsidizing winners isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. However, penalizing losers is precisely what we have a government for, and CO2 emitting power is a losing proposition for the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The article says we still need better battery technology, and there's truth to that. But even without batteries, just providing power on days when air conditioners run continuously, solar could make a huge difference in the energy picture.

<comment><USER14> Or only burning coal at night.

Once solar is significantly cheaper than coal and demand pricing kicks in, a lot of time-shifting of energy use could occur. Right now, night-time electricity is cheaper because demand is lower at night, but if the supply of daylight electricity increases dramatically, any activity which currently benefits from cheap nighttime electricity could be shifted back to the daylight hours.

Data centers currently consume something like 2% of electricity -- it is probably possible to shift at least some of that to bright, sunny days. It may stop being cost-effective to run night shifts at factories, especially if your manufacturing process is energy-intensive. We might end up charging our electric cars at our offices during the day instead of over night at our homes. It'd be pretty silly to fill a battery with solar electricity during the day just to transfer it to another battery at night.

Even without batteries, solar energy could still pick up a lot of our current nighttime energy usage because a lot of our nighttime energy usage doesn't actually have to be at night.

<comment><USER15> To be clear-- the reason energy is cheap at night is not JUST because it is used less-- it is also because there are certain continuous energy sources. Nuclear power, geothermal, tidal, wave and wind power are all producing energy round the clock and if you don't harvest it, it's lost.

We are not heading towards a world where we have a single power source (solar), and _most_ of our power uses cannot be rescheduled. As fossil fuels are one of the few sources which _can_ be turned on and off at our choosing, I would expect they will function to fill in temporary gaps between supply and demand once renewables capacity is large enough to take the average load. I don't see these gaps occurring predominantly at night.

<comment><USER16> > _... Nuclear power, geothermal, tidal, wave and wind power are all producing > energy round the clock and if you don't harvest it, it's lost._

This isn't true of nuclear power plants; the fission rate, and thus the heat generation rate, can be throttled up and down as needed. In pressurized water reactors this happens automatically as the throttle is opened and closed, thus increasing or decreasing output from the "steam side" of the heat-exchange boilers, a.k.a. steam generators [1]. (In a prior life I was a Navy nuclear engineering officer.)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Control)

<comment><USER17> That's true, but does this make the fuel last longer, and anyway what are fuel costs as a percentage of total operational costs? My impression is it doesn't make sense to operate a nuclear reactor at less than full power.

<comment><USER16> > _does this make the fuel last longer_

Yes. Heat is generated by fission of fissile material such as uranium. Fuel rods have X amount of fissile material in them. Higher power -> faster depletion of the fissile material.

> _what are fuel costs as a percentage of total operational costs?_

Around 30%, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. This compares with 80% for coal, natural gas, and oil.[2]

> _My impression is it doesn't make sense to operate a nuclear reactor at less > than full power_

I would think that'd be true of almost any machinery, but that's almost a tautology: You design your machinery for an optimized balance of performance versus wear-and-tear, then try to operate at (what you _call_ ) "full power" as much as you can, so as to reap maximum value from your investment.

In any event, the original comment was that excess power is inevitably generated by nuclear plants (at least during some time periods) and therefore must be dumped somehow. That's not the case; nuclear plants can be throttled up and down as needed.

[2] [http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/cost...](http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> And this is a beautiful example of manufacturing innovation and advancement, evolution and revolution, coming from those that actually make things. When you make things you find a way to make them better. This is why I believe we in the USA need to maintain a strong industrial/manufacturing culture. Not simply to employ people but rather to be at the epicenter of where innovation happens.

</comment><comment><USER19> Any claim of something being cheaper, with a picture of some shiny stainless- steel small-scale lab equipment, is suspect. It's not demonstrated to be cheaper until you're producing at scale.

</comment><comment><USER20> Could this method also be used to create ultra-thin wafers for microprocessors?

</comment><comment><USER21> From the literature I've seen, the realistic maximum amount of solar energy that can be produced through photovoltaic cells is about 40-50 watts per square meter. Although solar is exciting, there's just no way it can be used to replace fossil fuels, no matter how cheap it gets to manufacture. It'll have to be a combination of renewables (why not more hydroelectric power) and greater efficiency (like LED's).

<comment><USER22> Not really a big crisis; we could shut down every nuclear plant in the US today if people switched from drying clothes in an electric dryer to hanging them outside. We live in a time of absolute plenty.

<comment><USER9> Sure...

Nuclear power generates 21% of the US electrical usage, of which residential consumption is roughly 1/3 of total usage.

The math won't work...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For traditional wafer processes, you consume a great deal more feedstock than goes into the active portion of a wafer, and even then you may end up grinding away much of the material such as in the case of backlit imaging sensors.

This 'exfoliation' approach in some ways plays into the concept Elon Musk floated about SpaceX - the actual atoms in a booster are relatively simple, they just need to be arranged in the right way.

</comment><comment><USER24> A case in which building your hammer to build your desk does actually add value.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think I may have misunderstood the manufacturing process. To my reading, it looks like they have 3mm-thick wafers, accumulate a 20mm-thick layer of hydrogen, which then shears off in a furnace, leaving...a 3mm-thick wafer. Which they started with. Thanks in advance to whoever explains how I've misunderstood this.

EDIT: Oh, I neglected to pay attention to units. The above should be 3mm, 20- _micrometer_ , and 2.98mm, respectively, which means the sheet shearing off is 0.002mm thick. This is seriously cool. Thanks for everyone's patience.

<comment><USER26> They must have meant 20 micrometer thick layers since they also state that they are "a tenth of the thickness" of standard "200-micrometer-thick (0.2mm)" wafers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _[..] cost of around 40 cents per watt, about half the cost of panels currently coming out of China (where the vast majority of solar panels are made)_

To me, this is the second cool part of the story. It shows that we can still do industrial enterprises in the west by applying technology. Sooner or later the production and assembly industry will have no more cheap labor forces to "exploit" on the globe and production, assembly and automaton technology may (again) be an industrial game changer for the west as it was with "spinning jenny".

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there a mistake in the 40 cents per watt cost reported in the article? I work for an energy company and our wind-farm energy is around 4.5 cents per _kilowatt_.

<comment><USER29> I suspect your wind-farm energy is around 4.5 cents per kilowatt- _hour_

edit: napkin math: .40 * 1000 watts = $400/kw Assuming 4380 hours of optimum sunlight per year and lifetime of 10 years ~= .01/kwh Should be competitive even when my ridiculous assumption meets reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Seems like something they could scale up and mass produce.

<comment><USER31> Looking at Twin Creeks' website[0], it appears they are in the wafer manufacturing business and are using solar to promote their technology. It doesn't seem clear from their website that they would ever be the ones selling solar panels - but they might manufacture them for a client. They are selling their services, one application of which is solar cells.

[0] <http://www.twincreekstechnologies.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It is not clear if glass as a protective cover is still used or required for final production of solar cells made with this process.

Does anyone know?

<comment><USER33> Almost certainly. You could use another material, such as some clear plastic or epoxy, but the idea is still the same (and glass has the most desirable transmittance properties I believe).

<comment><USER7> Glass blocks UV which isn't ideal since it heats things up and UV has useful energy. But it's cheaper than quartz.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> And the ion cannon is powered by...? And the raw materials were extracted by machines powered by...?

<comment><USER35> electricity!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> "fossil fuel" is likely a misnomer. Read to your heart's content here: <http://trilogymedia.com.au/Thomas_Gold/usgs.html>

</comment><comment><USER37> Similar idea (solar cell would be much cheaper if they were much thinner), different process: <http://www.naanovo.com/home>

</comment><comment><USER38> Waiting for shills to block this technology using peer review to save petro- dollar empire.

</comment><comment><USER39> And as an aside, companies are already pretty good at storing energy with things like molten salt.

</comment><comment><USER40> The thing I'm puzzled about here is why saving silicon makes your solar cells cheaper. I mean, silicon is really cheap, right? Metallurgical-grade silicon is 77 cents a pound: [http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/sil...](http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/silicon/silicmcs06.pdf) — and that works out to around a penny a watt.

I tried to dig into this a few years ago. Evergreen Solar's 10-K for 2007 [http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/947397/000095013508...](http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/947397/000095013508001256/b68105ese10vk.htm) has some information. Evergreen's competitive advantage is supposedly that they use less silicon than other manufacturers because they don't saw their wafers — they grow them. They say they use about 5g of silicon per watt (in 2007, planning to reduce it to 2½g per watt by 2012), and it sounds like they get paid about US$3.87 per watt on average (US$58M revenue in 2007, maxed-out manufacturing capacity of 15MW/year, 276 full-time employees in manufacturing). Their "cost of revenue" (i.e. manufacturing cost) was US$53M, or US$3.53/W. But 5g of metallurgical-grade silicon at the price above is US$0.008. If each employee costs US$120k per year (including health benefits, and remembering that a bunch of them are Ph.D.s) then that would be US$2.20/W in labor costs, which already accounts for the majority of that cost of revenue.

But they're not buying metallurgical-grade silicon; they're buying "polysilicon", short for "polycrystalline silicon", which is perhaps a bit of a misnomer, since how many crystals are in each piece of silicon supplied by their suppliers is somewhat immaterial, since Evergreen melts the silicon down and crystallizes it in polycrystalline silicon ribbons in their "String Ribbon" furnaces. Maybe that costs a lot more than metallurgical-grade silicon?

It used to be hard to find that information! But it's much better now; <http://pvinsights.com/> lists current PV-grade polysilicon prices at US$29 to US$35 per kilogram, and [http://www.pv- tech.org/news/polysilicon_prices_declines_will...](http://www.pv- tech.org/news/polysilicon_prices_declines_will_continue_sector_shakeout_says_gtm_research) explains that this is a major drop from previous prices of US$80/kg. 5 g at US$35 per kilogram is US$0.175. But "Silicon PV Module Price Per Watt" ranges from US$0.75 to US$1.40. Dropping 17½¢ off that price still isn't going to get you to 40¢. And if Evergreen has really made it to 2½g/W, silicon cost is even less of the total cost.

<http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008483.html> mentions that in 2008 polysilicon prices peaked at US$400/kg.

Anyway. I'm obviously no expert, but I'm skeptical that peeling silicon with a particle accelerator is going to _decrease_ the cost of photovoltaic cells.

<comment><USER41> This isn't raw silicon, it's spun ingots. The cost is almost entirely from the process they undergo, not the raw materials. From Wikipedia:

"A typical wafer is made out of extremely pure silicon that is grown into mono-crystalline cylindrical ingots (boules) up to 300 mm (slightly less than 12 inches) in diameter using the Czochralski process. These ingots are then sliced into wafers about 0.75 mm thick and polished to obtain a very regular and flat surface."

So it's a better way to slice the ingots into wafers. Those ingots are ridiculously expensive.

<comment><USER40> Well, first of all, most solar cells are not made from monocrystalline boules; they're made from polycrystalline boules, which are cheaper and faster. Second, I don't think the Czochralski process costs US$400 per kilogram either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> WARNING: it's another one of those OnSwipe mobile sites that crash your browser.

I wish there was some way to opt out of OnSwipe and just load the desktop version of a website on my iPad.

</comment><comment><USER43> And if the solar panels don't work out, they can take four of those ion cannons and use them as blinged-out wheels on their Escalade.</comment>


What Is Gamergate, and Why Is Intel So Afraid of It? - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/10/09/what-is-gamergate-and-why-is-intel-so-afraid-of-it/

<comment><USER2> The stubborn proliferation of biased articles such as this one is precisely why GamerGate refuses to fade away and why anyone who relies on writers like Eric Johnson will be confused about why Intel pulled their ads from Gamasutra. Erik Kain at Forbes published opinions on Intel's decision[1], and also includes a laughably charitable take on the Leigh Alexander article that sparked the consumer revolt. It's worth reading if you are falling for the narrative that Intel buckled under pressure from a harassment campaign.

Eric Johnson also writes:

 _But that's not what Gamergate has shown it cares about in practice. The labels of "ethics" and "corruption" are, to date, a thin veil over an ongoing attempt to undermine women in the gaming industry and the games press. Anyone who advocates for gender equality, or better representation, or even just a more open discussion is considered an enemy to be bullied, boycotted or, in some cases, harassed._

This is flat-out incorrect and full of dishonest generalizations.

 _undermine women in the gaming industry and the games press_

Easily shown to be false. #GamerGate is very diverse, actively promotes inclusiveness (#NotYourShield), and even helped raise over $20,000 to fund The Fine Young Capitalists project, which is specifically about helping women create games.

 _Anyone who advocates for gender equality, or better representation, or even just a more open discussion is considered an enemy to be bullied_

Once again, easily shown to be false. Many advocate for gender equality or "better representation" and don't even attract criticism, much less bullying or harassment. The Escapist Magazine started out in the middle of this mess, and has continued to publish opinions on the issue, but escaped boycotts and consumer action for two simple reasons: 1) Greg Tito stood by a fair and just interpretation of their site's rules and allowed discussion to continue in their forum, even against his personal bias and in the face of Ben Kuchera (Polygon)'s bullying on the GameJournoPros mailing list[2]. 2) The Escapist Magazine made a good faith attempt to respond to the fairest relevant criticism they were able to identify.

The publications currently under boycott and consumer action campaigns failed to do what The Escapist did.

But it wasn't until Allum Bokhari stepped up and published an article at TechCrunch [3] that #GamerGate began to get any kind of fair coverage outside Breitbart, isolated blogs, forums, and youtube streams.

 _Even if Quinn were the person Gjoni and his adherents claim she is, she's a person, not a government or multinational company; her only impact on the public was being a female game developer who made an atypical, critically acclaimed game._

Right, see what he's doing here? He's reframing away from specific allegations in favor of a generalized narrative with conveniently defined identities. But he's not very good at it, since he still makes a false claim. It's most certainly not true that Zoe Quinn's only impact on the public has been "being a female game developer." There are other allegations such as those related to The Fine Young Capitalists. Quinn had already been in the news for her role in Polaris Game Jam.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/04/why-it- makes...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/04/why-it-makes-sense- for-intel-to-pull-ads-from-gamasutra-over-gamergate-and-why-its-still-the- wrong-move/)

[2] [http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/09/19/gamejournopros-zoe- quinn-...](http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/09/19/gamejournopros-zoe-quinn-email- dump/)

[3] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue- with-2-s...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue- with-2-sides/)</comment>


Ask HN: Website to give to charity anonymously, useful to you? - <AUTHOR>

I keep getting this junk in my mail (and email inbox) from charities I have given to in the past.  In fact, some of them sold my mailing address to some other charities in which I have absolutely no interest.  They waste my time, and they waste their money.
I'm considering making a website where you can give to a charity anonymously (or pseudo-anonymously where they have your name but not your real contact information, like a mailinator email address).  My questions to you:
1.  Have you given to charity? 2.  Have you received an inordinate amount of mail from them? 3.  Would you like to limit that mail? 4.  Would you, specifically, use this website if I made it?
Of course, the website would offer secure payments, not spam you, have a clearinghouse of all charities, make it a one-click process to send more money to a charity, recommend new charities to you, keep records of all donations for tax purposes, recommend an optimal tax strategy, allow filters to limit or end communication from charities, etc etc etc.
I understand that there are scaling issues, potential tax problems, problems with donating to political campaigns, issues with getting charities on board, issues with charities wanting to communicate to new or existing donors, that charities already offer opt-out in many cases, etc etc etc.
I just want to find out if there are enough people out there who are annoyed enough to justify my building this for them and myself.  Are you interested?
Also, if there is already a website that does this, please let me know!  I just want to give without being annoyed, and maybe be reminded once a year to give to my favorites. <comment><USER2> _I'm considering making a website where you can give to a charity anonymously_

This isn't a fun or easy problem to solve. Especially the clearinghouse of all charities bit. There are 1.8 million nonprofits in the USA. Luckily for you I helped build this back in 1999. <http://www.guidestar.org>

There are others but as far as I know Guidestar has the most comprehensive database. In fact, other sites purporting to do the same thing are probably syndicating Guidestar's data.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just went through the hassle of contacting the Red Cross to ask them to stop sending me stuff. So, yes, I've had this problem. I tend to hold a grudge, though, and if they don't give me really easy ways to avoid getting mail (or if they sell my information), they won't be getting anything from me again.

But, I also don't know that I would go through a third party. There are the trust issues...the organization is never going to endorse or condone what you're doing, because it's damaging to their bottom line (the mailing list is a charities biggest asset). So, you'd be on your own to make it legit. Marketing that kind of service would be horribly difficult.

Even from a "hey, we're a bunch of folks who kinda know each other from the Internet" perspective, I have my doubts you'd be able to overcome the arguments against it. I've come to hold the opinion that if I can't trust the charity with my information, I can't trust them with my money, and I'll find an alternative. I'll also let them know that when I contact them. So far, though, when I've asked to be removed from mailing lists or phone lists, they've done it without delay (the Red Cross, Ron Paul; and the EFF has never bugged me with unsolicited mail or calls and I've been giving them money since probably their first year of operation). Not coincidentally, the EFF gets money from me on a regular basis, while most others do not.

</comment><comment><USER4> It sounds like it would be appealing to someone, but to be honest I don't think I'd use it. Personally, I'd rather take the time to find charities myself that promote causes I believe in _and_ wouldn't spam me unnecessarily.

But maybe charities like that are incredibly rare and I'd just end up using your site instead.

</comment><comment><USER5> tom999 is correct: Network for Good (<http://www.networkforgood.org>) does permit anonymous gifts. So do JustGive (<http://www.justgive.org>) and GuideStar (<http://www.guidestar.org>). (In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm GuideStar's director of communications, and Network for Good processes donations given through our site. GuideStar also powers JustGive'scharity search. I'm also a customer, though; I give through the Capital One Giving Site, which is powered by Network for Good.) Just be sure to select the "Don't give my information to the charity" option before you click the button that authorizes the donation. You get a receipt that you can use for your taxes.

</comment><comment><USER6> Network for Good, which, I believe, uses Guidestar's data on the back-end, permits anonymous gifts.</comment>


Ask HN: How might the TPP affect the software industry - <AUTHOR>

I know none of us have access to read it, so we have to rely on leaked passages -- but how might the TPP affect the software industry? <comment><USER2> I don't think it has that much of an impact. If you want to outsource work overseas, that's what you're going to do. But when you're a top tier company with big budgets, you're going to want people who work on your court, there's a huge incentive to bring them on campus. In short, the TPP is probably not going to change it too drastically.</comment>


How to Kickstart and Scale a Marketplace - <AUTHOR> https://www.lennyrachitsky.com/p/how-to-kickstart-and-scale-a-marketplace <comment><USER2> Mark Hume McCormack.

There is no one else to read when it comes to market entry. He invented an entire industry. He moved from sector to sector with ease. At a very high level:

He started sports representation with golf; then moved into tennis; moved into other individual sports & high visibility figure representation (sumo anyone?); then team sports; expanded onto designing the event venues (golf courses, car races); added marketing and advertising at these events. And he was not done there. Now he had the players, the fields, so he expanded to training in sports academies, and all along the way he took pictures, and videos of the events and sport figures for resale. Most of historical sport video footage was his. I have not even scratched the service of what he has done with his perseverance and ability to pivot.

2003 sucked for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> One of the major worries that I've had when launching our marketplace was poaching; What if clients (the demand side) decide to hire developers (the supply side) outside of our platform? Of course, we had rules against that in terms of service, but hey, circumventing those is not a big risk.

But, luckily for us, the value that we provided to both parties (and still do) outweighed the risk of losing their accounts for violating TOS, so we very rarely see that.

Regarding chicken and egg problem, we manually found and pre-screened 10 people to provide supply in advance, so when the first client came, they'd have someone to hire. Earned $13 the third day after launch. Happiest day ever :)

Today we have 19 employees and are profitable (we've hit profitability the third year, we're now 7 years "old"). [https://codeable.io](https://codeable.io)

<comment><USER4>
       Of course, we had rules against that in terms of service,
       but hey, circumventing those is not a big risk

And maybe not legal nor enforceable

<comment><USER5> Code blocks are used for code, not quotes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "In one rare, fascinating, and deliberate case, Thumbtack decided to eschew > any constraint"

For the record, the eschewing of any constraints was due to a combination of naivety and then later stumbling upon a successful method of "driving initial supply" rather than any sort of deliberate decision of the best way to build a marketplace. Sander's blurb is actually quite well phrased, and he does not take any undue credit for the prevailing thinking at the time, but it is all ex post facto analysis.

Very enjoyable article though. Will be interested to follow along.

</comment><comment><USER7> I haven't read anything profound or non-obvious on this topic and there's a lot written about it.

The one thing I have learned creating and trying to get a 2 sided marketplace off the ground ([https://gearoffer.com](https://gearoffer.com)) is that it's excruciating, painful and nearly impossible.

The one thing you must have is perseverance. A lot of perseverance.

<comment><USER8> I can try to distill some of my own musings. I don't know if they're obvious or not.

1\. Before launching a marketplace, grow a community interacting around content you get from free sources (or via a subscription) such as youtube, the web, restaurants, books etc.

2\. Then link to existing marketplaces of sellers via an API (eg Amazon affiliates, OpenTable, Ticketmaster etc.)

3\. Once you have enough people, build a more vendor-friendly sales process, reach out to vendors and see if they would list on you directly. Sometimes their contracts don't allow them (eg with ticketmaster).

Now if you are intent on building a community from scratch, you will still need:

1a. A policy of subscribing to interests during onboarding (eg like with meetup.com) and telling people that they'll get notifications as things are posted.

1b. Initially showing infinite scroll of ALL matching group activities around the user, with filters to filter it down by categories that have at least 1 result, so it never looks like a ghost town in most categories.

1c. Have subcommunities based on eg zipcode or city and let people grow them. For an example see [https://yang2020.app/communities](https://yang2020.app/communities)

1d. Have a system of credits users can earn for referring new users to the app.

1e. Leaderboard system per zipcode / week, who has the most credits. The leaders get some badges (digital goods) or even some real world goods.

Disclaimer: at [https://qbix.com](https://qbix.com) we build software for exactly this. Your job is to come up with the community idea, get the content license, get the various subcommunities, and we do the rest. We built [https://yang2020.app](https://yang2020.app) for example, for Yang Gangs to unite. It lets you organize a local event/rally, rides to and from the event, checkins, and also uses some of the later Web features that finally work on all mobile browsers, like PaymentRequest (to pay for tickets) and WebRTC (to videochat or even screenshare). If you're a developer it's open source so you can grab it at [https://github.com/Qbix/Platform](https://github.com/Qbix/Platform) and just build whatever on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Amazing research. I'd say, many people underestimate the phase of "1: Crack the chicken-and-egg problem ".

I think there are 3 ways to do that:

1) Investing a lot of money in ads and PR (many people won't have the resources)

2) Being the first one in a niche with high demand (e.g. AirBnb)

3) Staying afloat long enough to get enough traction.

I've been bootstrapping a software marketplace for quite some time now - [https://www.saashub.com](https://www.saashub.com). A side-project initially and going full-time for the last few months. I can share, and believe, that SaaSHub is on the verge to crack the egg :) . It had 10k page-views yesterday. My expectations are that once it gets to 50-100k page-views a day, it would have cracked problem #1. Time will tell.

<comment><USER10> You're working on this full time? It looks like this site isn't monetized at all. Did I miss something?

<comment><USER9> There are featured listings with a monthly subscription.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Amazon and Alibaba are the largest marketplace in the world and all these examples are just very small. Without including their model and growth the analysis will be always incomplete.

Perseverance is one of the biggest asset in building a marketplace, besides the qualities or technical innovations and I do not see it even discussed.

Amazon solved Chicken and Egg problem by buying inventory itself and countless innovative and non innovative work, I feel what stands out in it is perseverance.

Alibaba solved the problem by buying themselves from vendors listed on their marketplace to give them an illusion that the marketplace works. Also they did countless innovative and non innovative work. Here also it's perseverance which made what they are.

<comment><USER12> Amazon did not start as a marketplace. It started to allow third party sellers in 2002, iirc.

<comment><USER13> I think that's the point. you could look at it like they seeded their supply and built the demand side first.

<comment><USER12> I don't think we can say that Amazon became the largest online retailer just to seed their supply.

<comment><USER13> It's funny because most of their profits come from PPC and AWS. The way I look at it their global retail and warehousing operation is Jeff Bezos Hobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Lots of good research but the Paul Graham post on Do Things that don't scale was way more succinct and insightful

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a really interesting article, I've been looking for something like this as I'm teasing out a marketplace type side project at the moment and I couldn't find anything interesting.

</comment><comment><USER16> Really useful insights as we're trying to kick off an API marketplace powered by OSS -- thanks!

<comment><USER17> More info please :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would pay to not have to wait to read parts 2 and 3.

</comment><comment><USER19> > I'm frequently asked about what Airbnb did right

This is the problem. They _didn 't_ do it right. They broke TOSes. They committed fraud. They misled home owners and renters. They broke hospitality laws. They broke licensing and employment laws. They evaded taxes. They bait n switched customers. They enabled more fraud from their market place participants.

They didn't get big by doing things right.

<comment><USER20> I'd argue that the definition of "right" is highly subjective.

If the goal is "get big and be profitable": they are big and profitable. Ipso facto, they did it right.

Whether of not many of the things you mentioned are right are wrong is a matter of debate. For me, I wouldn't consider the following "wrong":

> They broke hospitality laws. > They broke licensing and employment laws.

Several of the other points are ambiguous to me because I'm not terribly familiar with Airbnb's history.

More to the point... to some degree, skirting and even blatantly ignoring law and regulation is celebrated in our industry. We call it "disruption". I'm all for that, but whether it's right or wrong is - as I said before - a matter of perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Tl;dr: sell things in the marketplace and buy things from users who put up things to sell in the marketplace until users are organically selling and buying from each other, and make sure the whole platform doesn't suck. That's basically it.

</comment><comment><USER22> this article says just about nothing

</comment><comment><USER22> blerg

</comment><comment><USER23> This is the largest anonymous and free marketplace for hacking : [https://www.hackerslist.co/](https://www.hackerslist.co/)

<comment><USER24> While I respect the goal of what you're doing, your initial IP address terminates in Arizona. You could be opening yourself up to legal issues there (I am not a lawyer). Maybe operate and run it out of another country? Essentially, depending on how you're communicating with your hackers could be open to application log seizure etc to (attempt) to identify them or clients.</comment></comment>


Ryan Funduk: Our Culture of Exclusion - <AUTHOR> http://jeffcroft.com/links/2012/apr/05/ryan-funduk-our-culture-of-exclusion/ <comment><USER2> I appreciate Jeff's mature response to Ryan's article. What most irked me about Ryan's initial article was how he seems to yell "FIRE!!!" and tries to backpedal the situation. It is hard to take that seriously even when he has some good points.</comment>


Why I Actively Discourage Online Tooling Like Jwt.io and Online JSON Validators - <AUTHOR> https://www.jvt.me/posts/2020/09/01/against-online-tooling/ <comment><USER2> I am also very careful about what I put into a website, but I will say that it is -a lot- easier to inspect traffic on a website than with a native app.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just posting to say that I didn't finish reading the article, even though it seemed interesting, because the color and layout is really hard to read. I'm not color blind, it's just very unsettling in a way... somehow it gave me anxiety as I was reading it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sorry to hear that - do you have anything you could recommend to maybe improve it for your needs?

<comment><USER4> I'd recommend to at least give the option to have the text rendered in a font suitable for long texts, which is a font with serifs.

I like monospace font for programming tasks but it is just not the right choice for long reads.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do comments play a role in story promotion, but not in karma scores? - <AUTHOR>

? <comment><USER2> Probably so that it's harder for link spammers to do their job.</comment>


How many floppy disks do you need to fit an article from The Atlantic? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@pete/how-many-floppy-disks-do-you-need-to-fit-an-article-from-the-atlantic-8924a9e057ff#.qbit10wyx <comment><USER2> Gotta love modern web developers.</comment>


Ask YC: What are you being for halloween? - <AUTHOR>

We can have fun here, right? :-)  I'm a ninja, no not a PHP ninja.  At least not tonight. <comment><USER2> i am being a hacker, as in, i'm lame and sitting here working on projects tonight because i can't go out.

:(

<comment><USER3> heh... that makes two of us. Damn bug!

<comment><USER4> three now.

<comment><USER5> woot, four!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A fat loser who stays at home or work all the time, plays warcraft nonstop and pines after girls he knew in high school 15 years ago.

<comment><USER6> I'm not joking. :(

<comment><USER4> Every great thing we do is for the women we pine after. I believe that's been proven scientifically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I didn't have to work tonight, I'd dress like a Ruby programmer going to a job interview:

[http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2008/03/24/6fee530ffd1...](http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2008/03/24/6fee530ffd18d26/ninjaswithguitars.jpg)

<comment><USER8> This must be like in the Princess Bride, where they each pretend to be left- handed, so the other will underestimate them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was a gorilla, my 4-month old daughter was a monkey, and my wife was the zookeeper.

...Except we didn't get a single trick-or-treater, so I spent my time downing a bottle of two buck chuck and installing Ubuntu 8.10. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> I dressed up as a bar code.

Or, put another way: My 2006 Google SoC t-shirt was at the top of the pile when I woke up today. :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasb/2990554584/>

<comment><USER12> Scuba diver is such a cop-out, although a very impressive one. I was too lazy to put on the whole suit last year so I was just a snorkeler, so kudos to you!

<comment><USER11> I left the tank off, and the wife wouldn't let me wear flippers while carrying the baby. But I went with the long hose, thigh pocket, harness and wing.

You'll notice I left the steel backplate at home for this one. Too lazy to lug a heavy rig down the street even without a steelie 130 on it.

<comment><USER12> Especially when you're carrying a kid!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I put on a fedora and went as the guy with a hat from XKCD.

</comment><comment><USER14> I went out as the man with the yellow hat. My kids were a cat, Darth Vader, and a giraffe.

</comment><comment><USER8> A grammar nazi, complaining about your using "being" as an action verb.

<comment><USER15> A grammar nazi would actually be a hilarious costume if you could hang out with a crowd that wasn't too easily offended.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was an unemployed investment banker. I wore a suit with all my shirt buttons off by one, tie hanging really loose, and a hobo sign (ripped cardboard) around my neck saying, "Jobless - Will work for food."

</comment><comment><USER15> I wore my fencing gear, but I was fencing so I'm not sure if that qualifies as a costume per se. If I weren't broke I'd have worked my épée into a musketeer costume.

</comment><comment><USER17> A pirate - fighting various ninjas that appeared. Some friends brought food and candy that I looted.

</comment><comment><USER18> Black Jesus

</comment><comment><USER19> I went as Henry Paulson, with a briefcase overflowing with bailout cash.

</comment><comment><USER20> 80's rocker with big long hair and cowboy boots.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was a beer keg

</comment><comment><USER22> employed.</comment>


Top 8 Features of Snapchat Glass: You Should Know - <AUTHOR> http://geekonjava.blogspot.com/2016/11/top-8-features-of-snapchat-glass-you.html#.WCqxFhpb0tw.hackernews <comment><USER2> > 4\. Strong Battery Backup

What is Battery Backup? Do you mean Battery life :-(</comment>


Ask HN: Should I learn functional programming? - <AUTHOR> I'm a full-stack web dev (skewed toward backend), fully focused on Typescript for the past couple of years. I have a pretty solid understanding of OO concepts now, and I've started dabbling in things like Domain-Driven Design, which are (from my understanding), solid extensions of OO. I've fairly recently come across more and more stuff about functional programming and various languages like Scala, Clojure, PureScript, Elixir etc. People seem to have a generally favorable opinion about these. Especially it seems like Elixir/Elm/Erlang (are these all part of the same ecosystem?) have a lot of raving fans.<p>My question is, what would I get out of learning functional programming? Is there a good tool or language I can learn that will make me immediatly able to apply my learnings to my daily work in backend/frontend web dev? <comment><USER2> Functional programming is as much a set of design guidelines as it is a programming paradigm. As such, programming in a "functional style" can be done in almost all kinds of languages (nowadays most languages support the map, reduce and filter functions for example). So if you learn functional programming it will definitely be applicable in your day to day programming. If nothing else by giving you one more tool in your toolbelt / some new ways of thinking when tackling a new problem.

If you are interested in Erlang that is a good language to start with. Besides functional programming it also has several good lessons to teach about Distributed systems and fault tolerant programs. Some even call Erlang the only real OO language (maybe besides Smalltalk) so maybe it will make you think a bit differently about what you already know from OO (I know it did for me).

If you were thinking of starting here I can recommend the excellent "Learn some Erlang for great good" which you can read online for free. Google it.

Erlang and Elixir is not the same thing as Elm. Erlang and Elixir are separate languages but are run in the same VM (which is named BEAM) and are therefore usually named together. Elm is a language that compiles to Javascript and is used to create frontend apps for the Web.

Otherwise I have somewhat of a soft spot for clojure myself. It was one of my first foray into functional programming myself and teaching me about func prog at the same time as showing me the elegance of a Lisp will always make it have a special place in my mind. But that is only my personal opinion. If you had been interested in Erlang already you should probably go with that :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been working on an Elixir project with Phoenix Liveview for a day and a half and sadly Elixir and the surrounding ecosystem seems to suffer from a classic problem: the docs suck. If it takes me almost one day to figure out how to handle a POST request properly from GCP then that really cancels out the massive concurrency benefits or whatever I will supposedly get down the road. It doesn't matter if its Vibranium, if the docs are not enough to make it work then it's useless.</comment>