Pop-Up House: The affordable passive house - <AUTHOR> http://www.popup-house.com/ <comment><USER2> I've said this on previous threads, the problem isn't the availability of cheap building material or designs, it's the availability of cheap land. There's no pop-up property unfortunately.

<comment><USER3> Could you expand on what you mean by availability of cheap land? It seems to me that despite the problems with suburban sprawl, it did exploit cheap availability of land that is generally available at the edges of cities. Especillay consiering the vast quanties of land that is rural in the US. More stats about land usage can be found at [http://www.ers.usda.gov/data- products/major-land-uses.aspx#....](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data- products/major-land-uses.aspx#.UyUI8fldWSo)

<comment><USER4> Two of the biggest factors in our happiness are a) the quality of your job b) the duration/stress of your commute. America faces a shortage of plots of residential real estate that are within a reasonable commute of quality of jobs. And you need to be in commuting distance of an abundance of good jobs, because job conditions at any one company can change fast, leaving you stuck. Suburban sprawl worked for a while, but in many metros the cheap land is so far out that the commuting times are horrendous.

<comment><USER5> As a remote worker, I don't commute. Therefore, I'm presently negotiating the purchase of hundreds of hectares of 50-year regenerated native forest in northern New Zealand. Price is <$1000/hectare, which is not expensive in western terms. However, my wife refuses to live there for the moment on account of the relative isolation - it's about 3.5 hours to Auckland. Because it needs a dwelling, I've been researching building over the last few years and have come to the conclusion that I'd like to try straw bale. As long as you keep it dry, you get all the high _r_ -value (insulation) benefits of a passivhaus without being limited to modernist finishings, mass-produced truck- hauled materials and straight lines. Plus, it's surprisingly more fire and earthquake proof than pretty much anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did they leave the foam exposed when they were done? That's not really a good plan.

They don't prepare the ground first? Isn't the house going to sink during the first heavy rain?

<comment><USER7> and what about poop?

<comment><USER8> Having done a lot of camping in my time, this was the first thing I thought as well. If you haven't got somewhere to poop and somewhere to get rid of it, life is miserable. Believe me, burying it isn't fun.

Seems like one of those idealistic almost art project houses rather than something you could actually live in.

<comment><USER9> They say in the FAQ you'd have to add plumbing etc. to the cost. This was just a test build.

<comment><USER8> So its an art installation..

Unless someone has lived in one for months, it's purely magic unicorn poop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Suspiciously absent from photos: plumbing and electrical.

What good is 'outstanding insulation' with no heating/cooling?

<comment><USER11> No heating? There are human bodies in there.

 _A passive house is a building whose energy consumption per square meter is very low. Heating requirements of < 15 kWh/m²/year._

That's about two human bodies.

      15 kWh/m²/year * 150 m^2 / ~10,000 h/year ~= 200W

<comment><USER12> you'll still need electricity for your laptop, microwave, fridge etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> LVL on grade? How is that not going to rot?

You could probably get around that by pouring a slab with small stem walls and building inside that, but that's not what they're doing here...

<comment><USER14> They're resting on posts. It's quite close to the ground, but I'm sure that the site grading allows for that.

It's interesting that when you're dealing with this high of insulation, the earth would act as a thermal bridge instead of an insulator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This concept would be awesome as a tiny house.

My 7-year-old daughter just asked me the other day, "We can build a tiny house when I'm 11, right?" So I have another four years before I need to do something like this in tiny house form.

<comment><USER16> For those of you that didn't realize "Tiny House" was a thing, here's a fb list I created of Tiny Houses:

[https://www.facebook.com/lists/4064803732495](https://www.facebook.com/lists/4064803732495)

ph0rque, your AutoMicroFarm side project looks interesting. It's a idea I think about often. Instead of an upfront purchase of the hydroponic system, a SaaS model might increase adoption. e.g. You charge $100 per month to manage the customers vegetable garden. Basically, it's a hack. The farmer just hacked a way to farm w/o having to own land, pay for water or utilities, and gets paid regardless if the crop fails. Farmer earns ~$100 per hour per customer, and can scale. Inspiration for idea: Our local non-tech gardeners.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the idea, Carlos. We've already considered a variant of it, but not a full AaaS (Aquaponics as a Service) idea. We'll give it some serious thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> " It must:

        – Have strong thermal insulation without thermal bridges,
        – Be perfectly airtight,
        – Capture maximum solar energy.

"

Perfectly airtight? With wood and insulation?

<comment><USER18> It's realtive for buildings. Air-tightness is measured in air changes/hour, which measures how many time per hour the internal air of a structure is completely replaced my external air. Normal construction has 3 ac/h, if it recall. I bet they're aiming for anything lower than 1 ac/h.

<comment><USER17> Oh. That's interesting. It would read much better if they specified the ac/h rating they are referring to. It would also provide some actual information rather than a statement that sounds insane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > For the structure and insulation of a PopUp-House building (floor, walls and > ceiling) it costs about 200 €/m² including labour. To this cost must be > added all the finishes: waterproofing, exterior finishes, interior finishes, > electricity, plumbing, heating, etc.

What would be the total total cost then?

<comment><USER20> According to Google...

200€ = 278.08 US Dollars

1 meter = 3.28084 feet

So.. 278.08 dollars gets you 3.28084 sq ft, or about $84.76 per single square foot (278.08/3.28084)...

If I did my math right. ;-)

<comment><USER21> 200€/m² = $25.85/ft² [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=200+%E2%82%AC%2Fm%C2%B2...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=200+%E2%82%AC%2Fm%C2%B2+in+USD%2Fft%C2%B2)

<comment><USER9> Plus all the finishes. What do those cost in a standard house?

<comment><USER22> According to the NAHB [1], construction is about 60% of a house's cost (the rest eaten by land, financing, etc.). Of construction cost about 20% is foundation, framing + insulation (what we have in this design). For this particular design it's not just all the finishes though, since you still need plumbing, electrical, etc.

[1] [http://www.nahb.org/assets/images/Table1_201035133529.jpg](http://www.nahb.org/assets/images/Table1_201035133529.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I like the design, and like the speed. I even like the music in the video.

But I cannot avoid thinking of the wolf, huffing and puffing and .. blowing that thing away. How stable is that thing?

<comment><USER14> Look up "SIPS" for more info on this building technique. They're surprisingly robust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Unless that PSE allows water vapor, this house can't breathe. Even in a dry climate, it will eventually get mold and mildew building up inside.

</comment><comment><USER25> It absolutely amazes me how all houses in US seem to be build with 100% wood, especially in areas with termites, dryness or possibilities of hurricanes!

It is not that much more expensive to build a solid concrete block home, insulate and airtight it well

I realise wood is more plentiful in US than here in Europe, but imho i wouldnt feel safe living in a wooden home.

<comment><USER26> Traditionally concrete really wasn't that much stronger without rebar and is much more dangerous if something does collapse.

Wood use to be much cheaper because it requires special knowledge to create strong concrete.

The wooden walls also allow for pipes and utilities to be easily ran. How do you run utilities into concrete homes? The ones I've seen are either exposed or behind a wooden wall.

The US has a large amount of brick homes, but it's usually wooden walls on the insides so it ends up costing more.

It's also more difficult to make a concrete block home look good, and since there aren't too many major storms in many parts of the US, cheap wooden homes work fine.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London) might also be a reason why Europe prefers concrete to wood.

<comment><USER27> A building material that is in common use in Europe, but hasn't really caught on here is foamed concrete (Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, technically). They're large blocks that can be mortared together and can be worked with powered woodworking tools (drills, circular saws, etc) to make cavities/channels for utilities. They need some additional reinforced concrete to make them hurricane proof, but they're very fire resistant, are quiet, and go up relatively quickly. It's more expensive but lasts longer than wood framing.

The brick and stone homes here are actually masonry facade over wood frame. You need to have an air gap and flashing between the brick/stone and the wood, as water will seep through the mortar via capillary action fairly quickly, and stay there to rot the wood.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1m5VShzxYs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1m5VShzxYs)

<comment><USER28> What does it mean to say that it lasts longer than wood framing? There are wood framed houses that are well over a century old, right? So is this being measured in centuries, or am I missing something important?

<comment><USER29> > _There are wood framed houses that are well over a century old, right?_

Yes, but that doesn't mean a wood-framed house built today wild last 100 years.

First, there's a survivor effect. Only the best wood-framed houses from 100 years ago are still around today. The rest have been pulled down over the course of that century.

The lumber used 100 years ago was true-sized -- a 2x4 was actually 2 inches by 4 inches. Today, the lumber is dimensional -- a 2x4 is actually 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches.

Houses were often overbuilt 100 years ago, because they weren't as confident in the engineering. Today, we're becoming more comfortable going to the engineering minimums. Thus, there's a lack of redundancy in the structure -- redundancy that may compensate for some construction shortfalls.

<comment><USER27> A condo under construction succumbed to high winds in Raleigh:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjrOiGIxh4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjrOiGIxh4)

<comment><USER26> [http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/13/3530080/raleigh- condo...](http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/13/3530080/raleigh-condo- building-that-collapsed.html)

[http://www.wral.com/rebuilding-begins-at-brier- creek/1331351...](http://www.wral.com/rebuilding-begins-at-brier- creek/13313511/)

The building had not yet been properly attached to the foundation and the wind was record breaking (80+ mph). The wind likely went up under the structure and lifted it enough to push it off of it's foundation. NC is known to have regular hurricanes and tornadoes.

Concrete buildings collapse too, often times with much more devastating results: [https://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+building+collapse&s...](https://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+building+collapse&source=lnms&tbm=isch)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> For lots of stuff along these lines, Kirsten Dirksen has alot of interesting videos on youtube where she explores cool houses: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsElQQt_gCZ9LgnW-7v-cQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsElQQt_gCZ9LgnW-7v-cQ)

</comment><comment><USER31> See also: [http://netzero.io](http://netzero.io)

</comment><comment><USER17> These alternative house construction strategies always get my attention. But the real tough part is finding affordable and desirable land upon which to build one.

</comment><comment><USER32> Are there more environmentally-friendly alternatives than polyurethane foam insulation? The insulation in my home include recycled jeans material.

<comment><USER14> This looks pretty interesting: [http://www.ecovativedesign.com](http://www.ecovativedesign.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a suspicion that once they encounter and solve all of the challenges associated with building houses (mold, cost, weather, a second floor) they will end up approaching a pretty normal modern residential construction.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder what the earthquake/hurricane/storm strength of this stuff is.

<comment><USER35> All that styrofoam makes me wonder if it would float.

<comment><USER36> I thought boat as well, maybe it's a feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> removable house:

        come back from holidays
        someone has stolen your house

</comment><comment><USER38> Where is the bathroom?

</comment><comment><USER39> No thermal mass makes for a horrible passive house.

<comment><USER22> They're using the term passive house to mean the 'new wave' passive house, which is more about super-insulating a nearly airtight envelope. Usually a heat-recovery ventilator is added to recover interior heat when cycling in outside air. While thermal mass can be an element in this design it's not a major factor like in a 'passive solar' house.

<comment><USER39> >which is more about super-insulating a nearly airtight envelope

That last part is the problem. Insulation is a huge part in any passive home, but heating the air means keeping things airtight. Which means terrible air quality and living conditions.

<comment><USER22> You still exchange the air with the outside, you just do it through a heat recovery ventilation system.

An introduction: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house)

<comment><USER39> I am fully aware of what they are, we stopped building them for a reason. They are hell to live in. You get the bare minimum air exchange as required by code. Try being in such a building for a day. Properly constructed passive buildings use thermal mass to maintain comfortable temperatures while allowing proper ventilation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Field: textual/visual programming environment from MIT Media Lab - <AUTHOR> http://openendedgroup.com/field

<comment><USER2> I've been working on something similar for about the same amount of years.

Would love to hear from people interested in these types of application(I'm not ready for a public release yet, but will begin putting up a bunch of Writeups/Demos soon):

<http://endergen.com/>

My Contact info:

<http://endergen.com/me/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Field looks interesting but I'm a bit skeptical about its usability after downloading it and poking around for a few minutes. One thing that seems incontestable is that the GUI is in need of a serious redesign to make it usable. I have 20/20 vision and the lack of contrast renders text very difficult to read. This problem seems to exist throughout the application (and on the website btw).

</comment><comment><USER4> Based on a quick run-through of the site, this looks absolutely amazing. I've been following Processing and openFrameworks for a bit, and this looks far more intuitive and mature.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of Self: <http://research.sun.com/self/></comment>


TextOnly - Android Browser for just reading text from articles - <AUTHOR> https://market.android.com/details?id=com.spacenext.textonly&feature=search_result

<comment><AUTHOR> Text Only in android browser which strips out unwanted content and it displays only the needed text in a simple format.It supports more than 80% of websites..</comment>


Relay/GraphQL: De-Mistifying Node ID - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@khor/relay-graphql-de-mystifying-node-id-38757121b9c <comment><AUTHOR> Basically for people who are interested to understand Relay/GraphQL's global node ID covers: * What is the mysterious NodeDefinition interface? * What is Node ID? * When is it created? * When is it used?</comment>


Art and Synthetic Biology Exhibition (May the horse live in me) - <AUTHOR> http://www.biofaction.com/synth-ethic/?p=63 <comment><AUTHOR> An article on the same: [http://www.we-make-money-not- art.com/archives/2011/08/que-le...](http://www.we-make-money-not- art.com/archives/2011/08/que-le-cheval-vive-en-moi- may.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wmmna+%28we+make+money+not+art%29)</comment>


Show HN: People-driven web - <AUTHOR> http://www.peopledrivenweb.com/

<comment><USER2> Doesn't load (2 minutes to get the loading bar at the top to fill, then it just sits and nothing happens except my CPU fan spinning up. Adblock is already off, since otherwise it didn't do anything)</comment>


Ask HN: Opinions on New Business Launch - <AUTHOR>

Hi all, It's not my intention to spam HN. I posted a story about my new business and it disappeared very quickly on the list (maybe wrong time of day to post?). Anyways - if this get ignored then i'll assume ppl are not interested and i'll scurry away with my tail between my legs hehe :)
I've been developing an ecommerce startup in my spare time over the last 2 years.
Ecommerce site builders are a-dime-a-dozen, so i tried to differentiate myself by including a fairly feature rich print catalogue builder.
I'd love to hear your opinion on a few things: 1. What do you think of the product/site? 2. Do you think there is a market for another ecommerce product (the shopify guys seem to be doing well - this gives me hope)? 3. Do you think that the catalogue builder can be enough of a draw card to get people to try wizifi? 4. Any marketing advice for a total marketing noob?
Thanks for your time - I value HN opinions.
site: http://www.wizifi.com
demo store: http://www.wizifi.com/nexus_login
un: hn pw: hn
ps: you;ll need to use a webkit based browser to log into the admin the reasons for this are another story altogether :) <comment><USER4> Who is the customer that you identified who wanted "e-commerce with printed catalogs that don't suck"? If you haven't identified someone who said that, DROP WHAT YOU ARE DOING and DO NOT CONTINUE until you have verified that there is at least one actual person who sees the need you are trying to fill. If you have, in fact, talked to a person who was willing to rip out their existing e-commerce solution and replace it with a new one just to get a printed catalog which does not suck, a) get their money and b) start identifying other people who want a printed catalog which does not suck.

Marketing advice: you will find that "e-commerce" is extraordinarily, extraordinarily broad and, as a wee little guy on the virtual corner of Nothing St. and Nowhere Bldv., it is impossible for you to penetrate through the din. Start by digging into niches. For example, if you have that customer who wanted the printed catalog that does not suck, start banging virtual doors in their industry because presumably other merchants have the sort of tech- negative clients who respond well to printed catalogs. If for example you find that it is impossible to sell, I don't know, porcelain dolls without a printed catalog, then you could try dominating the "porcelain doll e-commerce" niche, which shouldn't be nearly as hard as e-commerce proper.

After you get a bit of traction and the porcelain doll merchants are eating out of your hand, you can expand horizontally into related industries. Additionally, the bigger the snowball gets the better your chances of attacking the fat head from the Long Tail are.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some good advice here cheers :)

The customer that originally wanted printed advertising was my dad :) He'd been struggling with keeping his printed advertising in line with his website for some time.

The product I'm building was originally aimed more at bricks-and-mortar store owners who wanted an website (most of these guys don't need ecommerce) - <USER2> ecommerce part of it came much later.

Most bricks and mortar stores rely on some type of printed advertising - <USER3> forms an important part of all physical retailing - just look at all the large retailers - Officeworks, K-Mart etc - they all have printed catalogues being generated on a 4-8 week cycle. These types of catalogues were out of reach for small business owners - they either have to pay $500-$1000 for each one to be designed or they have to try to create their own marketing materials using Word or Photoshop.

I certainly see what you mean about ecommerce being difficult to break through - there are just so many options out there.

My gut feeling is that local bricks and mortar merchants in South Australia, where i'm from will respond to a site builder + catalogue designer more strongly than purely online retailers. Thats why I've also registered www.localsa.com.au to promote this product under that brand. This approach will of course require a more traditional sales approach ie knocking on doors and cold calling.

So my approach will be two pronged - ecommerce merchants targeted through the generic wizifi brand and local merchants tageted through the localsa brand.

Will be interesting to see which works better.

I know it's probably naive to think this way but I _only_ need 125 customers to match my current salary. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but that number doesn't seem too unatainable - especially since what i'm really selling is hosting with the site builder and catalogue software as value added.

The idea of targeting a niche is a good one - now to find a bunch of under- serviced people ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have an ecommerce site running on Prestashop and the features of your site are not particularly compelling to me. However, if there was a good hosted ecommerce site builder available at the time I installed Prestashop that only charged a monthly fee and not a percentage of sales, I would have used it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking the time to give me feedback. Could you elaborate on 'the features of your site are not particularly compelling to me'.

Would help me to build a better product :)

<comment><USER5> My business has no retail presence so a printed catalog is unnecessary. At this point it doesn't make sense for me to switch to another shopping cart, but I think you're going after a perfectly fine market. The market for online store builders is really quite large; it's mostly a marketing challenge. If you have a strategy for reaching out to businesses in your region I think you're going to do fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks rms I appreciate the feedback. I think you're right that the success of this product really boils down to a marketing challenge. I guess that applies to all products, but maybe more so when dealing with so much competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> i would have uploaded vids to vimeo.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah that was my first thought too, but they don't allow commercial videos - even for their paid account :(

Are you getting slow download of the video? It's hosted on amazon s3 so should be ok.

<comment><USER6> good dl speed</comment></comment></comment>


Capt. "Sully" Sullenberger Slams Boeing for Inadequate Pilot Training - <AUTHOR> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/capt-sully-sullenberger-slams-boeing-093246566.html <comment><USER2> The thing that still bothers me about the 737 MAX information I've seen, in particular from the NYT article that was discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20070509) is that I'm not convinced anyone at Boeing understood the flight characteristics of the aircraft, even after the 1st crash.

When you have a very complex system, which has been incrementally modified over a 50 year period, it is going to be really difficult to understand all the interactions. The NYT article describes a Jan 2016 parameter change on the MCAS to make it faster and more powerful.

I _am_ convinced that the MCAS will be studied and understood, and pilots can be trained to respond appropriately. I'm _not_ convinced that there is a process in place where the consequences of changes to the aircraft are known and tested in advance.

Ultimately, if the pilot is willing to fly, I'm willing to fly, but based on what I've seen, I don't think there was an adequate change control process in place, and as long as that is true issues will continue to be "discovered" in flight. Training is a solution to known problems, not unknown problems.

<comment><USER3> I have trouble believing that Boeing didn't know exactly how that plane flew. Back in the 60's, Boeing was notorious amongst test pilots for knowing exactly how a plane would behave, when it would misbehave, and how[1].

That's back then. The state of the art in CFD has only made the process easier. There is absolutely no room for them to have not known the physical ramifications of that change.

Where the story gets sketchy is where Boeing didn't update the FAA on the later change to the system, and every attempt being made to ensure that they didn't design anything such that the FAA would deem simulator training necessary as evidenced by whistleblower testimony (See the Australian 60 minutes expose[2]).

[1] The D. P. Davies Interview, Royal Aeronautics Society, [https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies- interv...](https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on- testing-the-comets-boeing-707-britannia-brabazon/)

[https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies- interv...](https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-the-d-p-davies-interview-on- the-boeing-747-the-trident-vc10-one-eleven-the-boeing-727/)

[2][https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc](https://youtu.be/QytfYyHmxtc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"We should all want pilots to experience these challenging situations for the first time in a simulator, not in flight, with passengers and crew on board," Sullenberger said, adding that "reading about it on an iPad is not even close to sufficient."_

This is the one quote attributed to Sullenberger. Is that enough to claim that he "slams" Boeing? Headline hyperbole is annoying.

<comment><USER5> Given that a material part of Boeing's solution was to provide iPad based training materials rather than the simulator time he believes was necessary, coupled with his language - "not even close to sufficient" \- I'm comfortable with calling this a slam.

The full remarks from which this quote is lifted are significantly critical of Boeing, during which he describes the "current system of aircraft certification and design" as having "failed us". I don't think this headline mistakes the the nature of his remarks at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Reminder (motivated by taway69's post questioning Sully's credentials): prior to the Hudson river incident in 2009, Sully was already an aviation safety expert, having participated in multiple National Transportation Safety Board investigation, and having founded a safety related company in 2007 (so at that moment in 2009 he was kind of the perfect man for the situation). So yes he's very much qualified to testify in front of Congress.

</comment><comment><USER7> The best part of this whole thing has been the airlines being forced to pull some older 787-800s off the bench for main route duty. They have so much more leg room in the old seat configuration.

We had one trip where the window seat was able to get out without the other two leaving the row, in economy! (There was a lot of rubbing, but it was possible)

</comment><comment><USER8> Check out this documentary on Boeing's sketchy manufacturing & QA process back in the days of the 787 release. It seems that the company has been toxic for a while now.

[https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os](https://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os)</comment>


How should I structure a partnership agreement? - <AUTHOR> I'm sure there are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who have experience with this, and many others who are looking to do the same thing.<p>I have built up a complete application myself, no funding/company, etc. I am bringing on a co founder who will help make this a reality. I'm willing to go 50/50 with him. But, as we've both discussed, we need to create some type of agreement (pre company formation/stock/etc) that protects me so if he can't just walk away with 50% of the company and do none of the work. How should this be set up? <comment><USER2> You don't need a lawyer. You need common sense.

Why do you think you need to give someone 50% of YOUR company? Is your product ready? How much more work will it take before you are ready for revenues? And when you are ready, how long will it take before you generate enough profit (not sales) that can support two full-time employees? Is this person an employee or a co-Founder? Are you giving this person 50% because you cannot afford to pay salary and are you giving this person 50% because you need his intellectual contribution in addition to effort? Or are you just looking for a companion? And if this is a co-Founder, will you need still outside funding (VC or angel) once the person joins you?

In other words, lawyer cannot protect you if you don't know what you want. Work the problem backwards. Think about building the company and not the product. Focus on what the company would look like six months from today, two years from today, five years from today and then think about how to get there, with or without this new partner/employee.

Think about these questions first and then worry on the legal details.

\--Denny--

Denny K Miu

<http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/startup-for-less.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the perspective. I believe I've done it backwards, in that I know what skills I have and lack, and what this partner can bring to the table. To me, it's entirely worth splitting the company, as they'll do the lion's share of bringing it to market. What I am interested in is what needs to be put in writing to ensure that I am not giving away half the product, but actually splitting the work, capital required, etc. If I should go straight to a lawyer, then Ok :-)

<comment><USER2> OK, got it.

I am going to assume that you want some kind of legal protection in terms of liability. In other words, you don't want to do this as a general partnership, but as a corporation or sort so that as you move forward, there is no way that anyone can go after your personal property. In that case, I would suggest forming a LLC, as I have discussed in another post.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=72291>

Then, you just need to take a piece of paper and write down that going forward, you each own 50% of the LLC which encompasses all existing and future intellectual properties. By the way, I am really against giving away 50% since you have obviously put in a lot of effort in already but if that's what you want, you have the right to do so.

Then you price the LLC at some nominal value (say $500) and each of you write a check for $250 to buy 50% of the LLC. Then on the same piece of paper, you write down that the shares that each of you own (say 2,500 shares for $250) are subjected to a re-purchase agreement (which is the same as vesting but vesting applies only to options).

The idea is that you have the right to re-purchase the shares from your new partner at the original price at anytime. But part of the shares will be released from this re-purchase agreement either based on milestones or on time of service (four years, e.g.).

The reason that I don't suggest that you go to the lawyer right away is that you need to have this discussion with your new partner one-on-one and with plain English. And it is amazing how much you learn about the person going through this process. Going the lawyer will just put the two of you in an adverbial position from day one which is no way to build a team.

Once you work out everything in English, you can always bring in a lawyer (or not).

If you are still with me so far, then I can discuss the other issues. And there are lots.

\--Denny--

Denny K Miu

<http://www.lovemytool.com/blog/startup-for-less.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Don't do 50-50; do 51-49 so there is a clear majority partner. It can be you or the other person but you need a way to avoid deadlock. You can involve a third person and go 49-49-2 so that you have a tie-breaker (or 49.99-49.99-0.02). Packard was 60% and Hewlett was 40% as an FYI.

The advice to do a vesting schedule (or a buyback/unvesting) is also good. You need to look beyond just this one person and think about what other "hats" or capabilities you are going to need to achieve your objectives. You may want to setup an option agreement. But you are going need to create some kind of company, and should consult with an attorney.

Denny Miu's advice to reach a "meeting of the minds" first and expressing it in plain English is spot on, don't rely on an attorney to help you reach an agreement with a partner, rely on an attorney to point out risks and issues that you may not have considered (e.g. setting up a buy-sell agreement).

Many more companies fail from a lack of customer development than product development so finding a partner who can help balance your strengths and offering them a substantial chunk of equity is not unreasonable.

I hope this helps./SeanM <http://www.skmurphy.com>

</comment><comment><USER4> The thing you want is called vesting.

</comment><comment><USER5> You don't need a lawyer. I suggest an LLC with vesting. Just look up online for different types of company structures.

I have a little thing we got from Nolo press (nolo.com- the centrla cheap legal document hub), which was an original operating agreement. We have a 3-year vesting on the agreement that you can use and if he walks, he gets a small amount, but I would also build into the agreement an attachment for rights and responsibilities. We had one partner who was not performing and we had to include an addendum so that if people were not performing, bad stuff could happen. Just send me an e-mail.and I'll pass the doc over.

FYI, the number one thing that all CEOs regret is not getting rid of people who don't belong earlier. So make sure that this person you're hiring on is worthy.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi,I'm a lawyer (in the UK) and you do need a legally binding agreement in place to protect you. I'm sure someone at Y combinator can recommend a decent lawyer over there. You should not have to pay a great deal for this, but it is best to have it done professionally so that in the worse case scenario (that you guys fall out with each other), you're legally sorted from the outset. Its probably not a good idea to try and do this yourself. I do mean that sincerely and not in a patronising way at all, you want to be able to focus on your start-up and not be worrying about what would happen if things went wrong. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> So, you built an application by yourself, with no funding or help,and you're willing to give up 50% of the equity just like that?

I'd also recommend seeing a lawyer. Additionally, a partnership may not be the best idea if you don't know and trust this second co-founder. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like an LLC might be a better choice. You can vest his shares over a time period that you feel is appropriate, and include a clause in the operating agreement that discharges him if he fails to perform the duties required of him.

Again, I'd go see a lawyer. It's not worth the headache later on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I understand it may seem crazy, but here is my justification...

What I've built is a web app. That's all it is right now. But around it needs to be built a company, a marketing plan, PR, etc. To me, bringing someone experienced who will lead handling that on board is a necessity, because, otherwise, I'll I have is a heap of code and some pretty JPGs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I agree with the additional comments below, but whether you incorporate as an LLC or set up as a partnership or carry on by yourself, if you are going to ask someone else to join you (leaving aside the exact legal nature of your relationship)you must protect your intellectual property rights and if you carry on working with someone else and don't get the legals sorted there are risks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Samantha. My thoughts right now is to structure our relationship now, while there really is nothing more than the product. Then, as the company forms around it, we'll deal with the more complex legal matters later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please go see a lawyer. I highly recommend it to avoid a lot of pain later.</comment>


Alan Kay at Computerland October '91 (VPRI 0629) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Rd_qMigLg

<comment><AUTHOR> 22:00 ...until I realized graduate students are those peculiar creatures that are going through a puberty rite of passage proving that they can memorize 500 poorly thought out commands to a stupidity designed system. That's why they love UNIX so much. [Applause] I was one of those. I was one of those.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 22:36 ...one of the laws of salesmanship: "The users are not like us."</comment>


Real-time ray tracing on low power PowerVR PCIe card - <AUTHOR> http://blog.imgtec.com/powervr/gdc-2016-ray-tracing-graphics-mobile <comment><AUTHOR> Videos of the demos below:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbZxCHr7Lu8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbZxCHr7Lu8)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxE2SYDHFtQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxE2SYDHFtQ)</comment>


How not to create traffic jams: Don't let people park for free - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21720269-dont-let-people-park-free-how-not-create-traffic-jams-pollution-and-urban-sprawl <comment><USER2> Certainly, if you make it less practical to arrive by personal car, less people will travel to places by car, and then you'll have less traffic. Unless this comes with a massive improvement in other means of transport, you'll probably have less visitors as well.

The problem with alternatives to personal cars is that personal cars have many desirable properties:

a) near zero latency to take a trip: if there's not a cab at my curb, I have to request it and wait -- or request it early and hope I'm ready when they are. Buses and trains are usually not waiting for me at the station.

b) proportional penalty for leaving late: if you miss a bus or a train by 10 seconds, you have to wait for the next one, which can be an hour. If you leave a couple seconds late in a car, you'll probably arrive a couple seconds late (around rush hour, it gets worse of course). If you don't make it to a requested cab in time, they may leave, and you have to wait for another one to come.

c) availability: a personal car generally provides the same service during the day, at night, and can be used in rain and mild snow (heavy snow, if properly equipped). Busses, trains, and even cabs have less availability at night.

d) flexibility/directness: a personal car can drive to almost everywhere, and can generally take a fairly direct route. Trains only go where there is track, and busses only go where there is a route. Cabs don't always pick up and drop off where you want to go. In case of an urgent change in circumstances, you can change your destination at will in a personal car or cab, but may not be able to easily redirect to where you're going in a bus.

<comment><USER3> All of those properties you specify are very true, but they are also very clearly _luxuries_. If you want immediate travel to anywhere at any time in any conditions, you should be expected to pay the cost of it - cities and property owners shouldn't have to bear the cost for you by subsidizing the costs of your travel and vehicle storage.

If people are willing to pay the full costs of parking, the market should sort this problem out for itself as paid parking garages fill in the gap left behind by free parking. But what the article is saying is that in cities where parking is not free or not required by law, the market chooses to provide far fewer parking spaces that the minimum parking laws tend to require.

<comment><USER4> Those are luxuries like a cell phone is a luxury. There does come a point where there's no acceptable alternative - a 1 hour bus line I know through the city of Seattle takes 10 minutes by car. Why should the city and property owners have to subsidize cars? They shouldn't, but they need some way for people to get to them and flow people through the city, or they will cease to exist.

<comment><USER5> My commute to my office is 90 minutes by bus on a good day. It's 15 minutes driving outside of rush hour.

If you need to go downtown, Seattle buses are great. Anything else (especially east/West corridors to the north) is a huge joke.

<comment><USER6> Right now, it would take me 41 minutes by car and 48 minutes by BART to reach my office in SF, according to Google Maps.It would cost me a bridge toll and an exorbitant amount in parking to drive, and wouldn't even be much faster, due to 17 minutes of traffic delays (which is fairly typical).

Needless to say, I take BART, because ~$4 in fares beats spending ~$25-30 in parking and tolls for the privilege of sitting in traffic half the trip.

<comment><USER7> So you live in one of the best case parts of the world, and it still barely works out?

<comment><USER8> Gotta say SF Bay is definitely NOT a best case public transportation scenario. Try Hong Kong, Paris or London.

Of course those places you don't just pay for parking, you pay congestion charges, high gas prices and steep registration prices (HK) as well. Oh and toll roads.

It's quite stunning the amount of things that are under costed in the US to enable our car economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article didn't touch on the interaction between free parking and public transit, and I've seen a few comments here talk about the dearth of good public transit options as justification for free parking. I believe it's worth pointing out that _free parking causes bad public transit_ :

\- free parking siphons away would-be bus and train customers, which deprive the transit authority of revenue (leading to less frequent service, older vehicles, etc.) and also reduce the political impetus to deliver high quality transit.

\- subsidized parking leads to lots of drivers circulating looking for an open spot, causing congestion and pollution -- the article mentioned that 53% of SF residential parking permit holders spent more than five minutes looking for parking at the end of their most recent trip. This congestion makes surface buses and trams run slower and with greater schedule uncertainty, making transit even more unattractive.

Obviously I would like great public transit in America yesterday, but I don't think the current state of transit is good reason to preserve subsidized parking. Preserving subsidized parking is going to keep transit in America as unattractive as it is now.

<comment><USER10> >> deprive the transit authority of revenue

I think that most of the time public transportation must be subsidized anyway. In fact some cities in Europe make public transport completely free, because subsidizing 100% of the cost it not much worse than subsidizing (on average) 75%, especially considering that you can greatly reduce traffic jams this way.

<comment><USER11> Afaik in most transit systems, the fare only covers 20-30% of the budget.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why does everyone think that the solution to traffic problems is to first make driving even more terrible and then oh yeah maybe get around to improving or even providing public transit? Why can't we swap the order, especially when it takes years to implement public transit improvements?

Also, we need to resist the temptation to assume that low utilization of a half assed public transit solution means that nobody wants it. In my small town, we had a bus line that had almost no utilization despite going between two desirable locations; an area with tons of apartments oriented towards students and the university itself. The city was talking about killing the line but someone convinced them to try making the bus run more frequently, and continue running later into the day as a trial. The line went from having the lowest ridership to the highest. Not every improvement will be that dramatic of course, but I think often times public transit is underutilized because it's not meeting the needs of the population.

<comment><USER13> We have _tried_ swapping the order. There's no will for good public transit solutions when people can expect to drive everywhere because the current state of things has disproportionately favored cars.

<comment><USER14> True, that. So how about instead of mandating parking spaces, mandate an area set-asside for public transit right-of-way. Then allow the right-of-way area to be used for parking until the transit authority exercises it's right-of- way. At first, there will be islands of disconnected right-of-way that make no sense for build-out, and they get used for parking. Eventually, re-development fill-in will connect adjacent regions, and then the transit authority can build a reasonable sized segment.

<comment><USER15> Your city doesn't have bus lanes or a dedicated transit street? Seattle has both.

It doesn't really address the issue, though it does make service for the rush hour suburb / city commuters better. (which is really all the current public transit infrastructure in the Seattle and surrounding areas is optimized for).

Nor does it address the issue of it being expensive to extend the service in a way that meaningfully empowers, E.G. those working a late shift somewhere, to get home at 2AM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I would really, desperately like to agree with this article, but I hit this point and may not read further because this is a completely clueless statement:

 _If they do not also change their parking policies, such efforts amount to little more than window-dressing. There is a one-word answer to why the streets of Los Angeles look so different from those of London, and why neither city resembles Tokyo: parking._

I wanted to be an urban planner and I have done a fair amount of related reading. Los Angeles sprawled before it became known for being so car oriented, back when people took the tram and walked everywhere.

It sprawled because it was built in the desert. The fact that water has to be imported to the area means that you had to develop large tracts of land in order for the financing to make any sense. It has to do with how much it cost to develop the necessary underlying infrastructure.

It's layout is somewhat unique due to the environment and circumstances in which it was built, the way that Venice is unique for being built in a swamp. If you don't study the history of the place, you can't understand how it came to be the way it is.

I would love to see the U.S. become less car centered. I would love it if we stopped whoring our cities out to the cult of the car and built more walkable communities and provided better public transit. But arguing for some particular approach and basing that argument on completely made up facts without understanding the history behind the places used as examples does not in any way impress me.

</comment><comment><USER17> Titlegore. I'm having trouble parsing all those negatives in the headline.

</comment><comment><USER18> Putting aside the awkward title, the article is confirming what we instinctively would expect: increasing the burden of commuting by car will reduce the number of people who commute by car. The cost of parking is an example burden.

Obviously life needs to balance many things, and increasing the cost of parking in an attempt to shift commuters to alternative forms is also going to decrease the number of people who want to commute to the destination _at all_.

I live in the Los Angeles area and significantly prefer living in and visiting cities that have free parking (e.g., the southern beach cities). I actively avoid cities such as Santa Monica that have costly and insufficient parking-- and importantly, that means I don't spend any money at Santa Monica retail businesses. Alternative transit options are not appealing. Light rail, while expanding in this metropolitan area, is far too inefficient. Uber and Lyft are an additional cost friction that gets factored into any decision (e.g., where to go for a dinner out?). Plus I don't want to have to deal with an app to go somewhere.

All that said, self-driving cars may be a big game changer for my lifestyle. I would be more likely to visit Santa Monica if my car could find a suitable parking structure and park itself. To my mind the cost of parking would be less of a nuisance if I didn't even have to think about the parking process.

<comment><USER19> I know this wasn't your point (and I completely agree with what you're saying), but I actually find Santa Monica to be one of the easiest places to visit in LA, because they have a bunch of reasonably cheap city-run parking garages. I've never had a major problem parking in Santa Monica, and if I did, I'd got there a lot less often.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A concrete thing you can do about this is email your local City Council or Supervisor and ask them to reduce parking requirements for new buildings. Send them this article.

Many local municipalities require absurd amounts of parking per new housing unit, and many Baby Boomers show up to meetings to complain about how there's no parking and thus a new project should be denied.

<comment><USER21> City Council is there to make money. Free, non permitted parking = no tickets/fees/etc = no money

I hope it works but I wouldn't be optimistic that it would

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This analysis seems to ignore the benefits of free parking, both for drivers and for the businesses they're driving to. Personally, in cities where I have a car, if ample parking (day or night) is not available near a business, I patronize someone else. I do prefer public transportation, but there are only a few cities in the US where that actually works.

<comment><USER23> Right, because transportation land use is largely zero sum. If you have ample parking everywhere and wide roads for cars, every other mode of transportation is automatically worse.

<comment><USER11> Including walking

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Two things I'm seeing reading the comments:

Anyone referencing European public transportation should realize that over half the countries in Europe are smaller than the state of Iowa, and none of them save Russia & Turkey are larger than Texas. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Second, not one of the comments below mentioned the Auto lobby. If your beef is with the number of personal vehicles on the road vs. public transportation, you should probably look there first. Tell your billionaire friends to start outspending the $61 million spent in 2016 by Automotive[1] industry lobbyists (compared to the $1.4 million for Misc Transport[2]) and maybe you'll start seeing a difference.

[1] [https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=M02&yea...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=M02&year=2016)

[2] [https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00004700...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000047007)

<comment><USER25> > none of them save Russia & Turkey are larger than Texas

I don't know where you got this bizarre notion. The populations of Russia (~144m), Germany (~83m), Turkey (~80m), France (~67m), The United Kingdom (~65m), Italy (~61m), Spain (~46m), Ukraine (~43m), and Poland (~38m) are all quite a lot larger than Texas (~27m).

<comment><USER26> Physical size, not population. Public transport only works well in small areas. The higher the population density the better it works.

There are a lot of people in the US who would not be willing to live in a place with a population density high enough to support public transport.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Chances are this would have the desired effect for me: I would simply not shop during those times. I enjoy purchasing items in a store and going to the theatres, but I hate paying for parking or dealing with public transit. So I would just stop patronizing stores and movie theatres and instead use Amazon and Netflix more than I do now.

</comment><comment> Paul-ish This article paints an overly rosy picture of self driving cars. A significant cause of traffic on our roads is single occupancy vehicles. Opening up the gates to zero occupancy vehicles could cause the number of cars on the road to skyrocket, because you are no longer bounded by the number of people.

<comment><USER28> They'd probably put some sort of tax on them rather than letting me have ten empty cars cruise about for fun.

<comment> Paul-ish That would probably be a good solution. We will see if it is politically tenable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> First, the double negative is simply terrible. Title should have been "How to create traffic jams: Let people park for free" so their point would be more clear.

Second, I'm no fan of cars or Apple, but if Cupertino doesn't want their largest employer there who is paying more taxes than everyone else combined, they should just kick them out. If they do want them there, and there's traffic problems, they should use the tax money to build gigantic boulevards so the Apple employees can drive wherever they want. They are taxpayers and their taxes pay for roads like everyone else. The city takes charge of building roads so they should do their job and build roads, or public transport, to serve the people paying taxes, especially those paying the most.

<comment><USER30> I read the damned title three or four times, trying to parse out its meaning, and still wasn't entirely sure I had a hold of it. That's some serious title gore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think if two key driving skills were taught, traffic would be greatly improved.

The first, efficient merging, which means, no, you don't stop in your lane to move to the right, you speed up a little and leverage the accordion effect of the slower traffic on the right to find a spot big enough for your car to fit in and then merge. More efficient utilization of the space on the roadway, while keeping the lane you're leaving and the one you're entering moving at their respective speeds.

Second, speed up when you get out in front of the jam. This is well studied and found to mitigate the traffic jam behind, when enough drivers do this.

</comment><comment><USER32> Here in Toronto we don't have per-unit parking requirements. Developers are constantly putting up towers with less than one parking space per unit.

It surprised the hell out of me when I bought a condo apartment. No parking spot included.

</comment><comment><USER33> > _How not to create traffic jams: Don't let people park for free_

This title is horrible because it uses a double negation. Here's one without it:

> _How to create traffic jams: Let people park for free_

Doesn't that read much less confusing?

</comment><comment><USER34> There already exist considerable barriers to car ownership - 1\. Cost of car, which in itself is a perpetually depreciating asset. 2\. Insurance 3\. Recurring service fees 4\. Non open market for parts and replacements 5\. Price gouging of insurance if found liable in an accident

In my honest opinion, any design that doesn't attack the root cause is an improper one. Please make public transit a clean, safe, affordable and sufficiently widespread in coverage instead of increasing barriers to car ownership and ridership.

</comment><comment><USER35> I avoid places that don't have free parking almost as assidiously as I avoid places that don't have public restrooms. It's a sign that a place is not for people like me.

</comment><comment><USER36> "Ohh. Ok. I didn't realize we were doing trick questions. What's the safest way to go skiing? Don't ski!"

Basically the argument here is to stop traffic jams from happening just make it so annoying that people won't drive. Well here in Texas you literally can't get anywhere without driving. Buses don't really run, there isn't public transportation to utilize, and you're going to tell me on a 100F day to ride a bike 15 miles?

<comment><USER37> Funny, here in Manhattan I have no problems going anywhere without having to drive my own passenger vehicle (that I don't have). Texas made its choice, New York City made a different one, and you can easily compare the outcomes. If you think one is better than the other, then you need to actually take steps in that direction.

<comment><USER36> New york city has the public transportation and population density of Japan. If Texas made its choice by being the size of Germany, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Austria combined, sure I agree completely...

<comment><USER38> You can choose to build practical denser cities even in huge states. There'll just be more space between them.

<comment><USER39> Which means more wilderness & biodiversity, or more farmland, depending on the area. In Oslo you can ride the subway to the edge of the forest & hiking trails. Some people want to replace the hiking trails with suburbs and detached housing. They're not popular people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The rise of punitive solutions is real. I was involved with discussions with local municipalities placing (private) local schools under restrictions for _not_ providing sufficient carpool coverage -- levy fines based on percent of families carpooling.

Would the inverse of these punitive solutions, ie., encouraging carpool / ridesharing, not also work? It always amazes me how relatively unutilized the HOV lanes are.

<comment><USER41> At least in the east bay, one reason why HOV lanes might run more effectively is that they are also express lanes (limited points at which you can merge in and out). On the other lanes, passing on the right/not passing in the left lanes is ok which slows down merging considerably. Also HOV lanes by definition have twice the (passenger) usage per car, so 2 HOV lanes and 4 regular ones are moving the same amount of people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> It seems to me that you have two choices when dealing with traffic:

1\. Make the location less desirable.

2\. Make the transportation more efficient.

Obviously nobody wants to do the 1st option, but the 2nd option is more difficult so they stick to the 1st. It seems a little backwards to me, like the goal is simply having less cars regardless of secondary or tertiary negative impact.

</comment><comment><USER43> Quadruple negative it is!

<comment><USER44> CLICKBAIT!

They could have just stated "Free parking increases traffic, sprawl & pollution".

But then we wouldn't have clicked on it.

<comment><USER45> I mean the conclusion is already cryptically hidden in the headline. It's just a terrible style. How I, as a non-native writer, would've written it: Charging money for parking prevents traffic jams

Or something along those lines.

<comment><USER46> The Economist likes to be clever with their headlines. It's definitely hard to parse but that was probably deliberate on the part of the editor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Is there free paying in New York city? I thought parking rates there were astronomical AND the city has a decent public transportation system, and yet traffic is so poor... So there may be more to it than free parking

<comment><USER48> Depends where you are, but where I live in Queens, and I think in Manhattan, parking is often free on the streets, cheap on the avenues (a buck or two an hr), and the parking garages (privately run) are astronomical in price. So, as you can imagine, drivers spend a very long time circling to find a free spot before biting the bullet and paying for a parking garage. This circling of course adds to the traffic problem. I'm of the opinion that if all street parking spots were metered, and prices were higher than they are now, traffic would be reduced significantly.

Then again, I haven't had a car since living here (10+ years) and don't plan on getting one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> That's funny, I thought congestion charges were how to prevent traffic jams.

Could someone parse out 'The Grand Tour' chart for me? I have no idea what it is trying to present.

</comment><comment><USER50> This is a stupid article. You already have to pay to park when you go downtown.

</comment><comment><USER51> Honestly we should aim to replace free parking with free Uber's.

</comment><comment><USER52> sounds like a regressive tax that keeps poor people from visiting public places.

</comment><comment><USER53> Allow remote work; all that transportation is irrelevant anyway.

<comment><USER11> Mandate remote work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> You would think that traffic jams are a deterrent themselves, a fair one.

</comment><comment><USER55> It's 2017 and we're debating about parking? Shouldn't we be remarking how quaint that the Economist can't see what's coming?

<comment><USER56> What is coming? Where will autonomous vehicles park themselves?

<comment><USER14> Well, in theory an autonomous taxi never parks, or if it does, it parks far out of town at the maintenance/livery facility.</comment></comment></comment>


Forcing a generation to code is unprecedented, says Codecademy chief - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/05/codecademy-coding-schools-education-apps

<comment><USER2> I know many fine sysadmins and network engineers that couldn't code anything to save their lives. Coding is one of many ways to contribute in IT, and a lack of coding knowledge doesn't preclude one from understanding how technology works. Conversely, I have met several programmers that have a surprising lack of understanding of anything that goes on outside their code. Teaching everyone to code will not magically prepare them for the future, nor will a lack of coding knowledge prevent them from functioning in a high tech society.

Now, making technology a bigger part of the curriculum? I think _that_ is a good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure you're right but I also think there are many kids who have probably never even thought about the mechanics of what goes on behind the web sites they visit, the games they play (and everything else vaguely tech related they come into contact with on a daily basis). So maybe it will, at the very least, introduce more kids to the fun that can be had, and ultimately, to careers in the sector.</comment></comment>


Apple announces new iPad Air that looks more like an iPad Pro - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21436500/apple-ipad-air-new-design-features-release-date-price <comment><USER2> I still don't understand why there are _4_ lines • air • pro • mini • and "regular"

As a potential buyer this has gotten far too complicated for a product and company that is about simplicity and making decisions simple for their customers.

And isn't super confusing that the Air is probably now faster than the Pro (with the A14 vs. A12)?

<comment><USER3> When Jobs returned to Apple, he mocked the insane number of Mac models that the company had at the time and showed a grid of 4 products with two axes: consumer vs professional, and portable vs desktop.

[https://images.macrumors.com/t/RMh3opIDBtVaaNXx0L_ntSxfO34=/...](https://images.macrumors.com/t/RMh3opIDBtVaaNXx0L_ntSxfO34=/1600x0/filters:quality\(90\)/article- new/2019/07/steve-jobs-2x2.jpg)

The current product catalog is a far cry from that simplicity. For instance, the iPad Pro comes in two sizes. Inexplicably, customers need to choose between a 32 GB and 64 GB model of Apple TV 4K. There are 5 models of iPhone currently offered.

<comment><USER4> This gets dragged out every time someone comments on Apple's product strategy today, and it's just not relevant. Apple 20 years ago was a company in crisis and Jobs helped impose much-needed focus.

As they climbed out of crisis, they expanded their product portfolio. The iPod alone violated this famous grid, and if you look back, over time there were a ton of overlapping products, versions, options, and accessories in the iPod category.

Why? To fill out all the price point tiers and deny competitors ground from which they could establish differentiated products and grow from there. Jobs himself installed this strategy, and Apple continues to execute it to great success across all their product lines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if they will put this Touch ID side button into the iPhone 12. That would be an impressive covid-era feature.

<comment><USER6> I was very surprised when Apple just removed Touch ID in iPhone X: technology for putting fingerprint scanners under the screen already existed then (and now works great on my trusty Moto Z4), and touch unlock is way more convenient and reliable than Face ID, even before covid era.

Also: Moto Z3 had a fingerprint sensor on power button and it was by no means great. For me, fingerprint sensor works well only on front side, so I can unlock a device that lays on a table, without picking it up.

<comment><USER7> The problem with underscreen FP technology is it isn't polished enough for Apple quality.

Optical sensors require you to light up (with a green/neon light) the portion over the sensor on every use, which just looks unpolished.

Ultrasonic sensors are not very accurate and are slow (at least on current-gen devices).

<comment><USER6> I used both, and in my experience, it looks an order of magnitude more polished than Face ID.

<comment><USER7> Honestly, how? Face ID is simple: you show up. That's all.

My ultrasonic sensor on my Galaxy S10 is absolute garbage compared to Face ID on iPhones. It works 1/3 of the time and it's slow.

Realistically ultrasonic is the technology Apple would go with, considering how lighting up a patch of screen is just... Ugly.

There's another problem: FP sensors don't cover the entire display. There's a huge learning curve -- getting used to where that small patch of screen is -- and even today, months after getting my new device, I miss often.

We're only now having issues with FaceID because we're wearing masks all the time. It's intuitive and it "just works".

<comment><USER8> "just works" – unless your iPhone is sideways. Or you're wearing polarized sunglasses. Or you're lying on your side in bed. Or your iPhone is flat on the table. Or...

<comment><USER9> For the sideways/upsidedown: The iPad Pro can be unlocked from any orientation with FaceId. It seems they intentionally don't want you to do that on the phone

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Now that all of the iPads are USB-C, will be interesting to see if they stick with Lightning for the next iPhone

<comment><USER11> The brand new base model iPad still uses a Lightning connector.

<comment><USER10> Noted - I saw the graphic for USB-C Power Adapter. Looks like it's just the plug side. Maybe we'll keep dragging out lightning forever

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is it true that this thing doesn't have a headphone jack? Really disappointed if so. I hate having more and more devices to remember to charge.

<comment><USER13> I gave up on this battle. I solved the problem by: 1) getting a good bluetooth DAC so I can use my high quality cans or IEMS and 2) keep a USB-C audio dongle around in case you forget to charge the DAC.

In the end I've come around to preferring this setup. Not being tethered to my device is, in the end, really pretty nice.

<comment><USER14> Would you be kind and share what equipment have you ended up using - "cans" and BT DAC in particular?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reason: supply chain supply chain supply chain</comment>