Lennyface.sh – revolutionary command that will copy lenny face into clipboard - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bellyachecorps/lennyface.sh <comment><USER2> Cool :D One command and POOF :) Simplicity is the best <3</comment>


How To Fly Without ID - <AUTHOR> http://www.lookingglassnews.org/printerfriendly.php?storyid=7040 <comment><USER2> According to this article from Wired last year, TSA changed the rules so that now you can only fly without an ID if you _claim_ that you lost it. So essentially they're giving up any increased security advantage (real or imagined) that comes from a mandatory ID requirement, for the purpose of sending the message that challenging authority will not be allowed.

<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/tsa-nixes-flyin/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm. The article is not coming up for me at the moment. But that won't stop me from commenting!

I accidentally traveled without ID last year. My drivers license is the only picture ID I carry. I'd given it over to test drive a baby seat at a store, and forgot to get it back. Left for vacation the next day.

My stops were Portland, San Jose, and Austin. At all three airports I explained my situation, showed them my YMCA card (or library or credit card or something) and they marked my boarding pass for special security. The processes were not draconian, just a pat down, and actually faster than the regular security line. I skipped the line and went to some designated place on the side, zipped through the pat down, and then had to wait for my properly ID'd wife every time.

YMMV, but based on my experience, I highly recommend traveling without an ID!

<comment><USER4> Speaking of highly recommending traveling without an ID, on my way back from school last year, I got really stoned in my friend's car on the way to the airport. Me being stoned, I left my wallet in the car, and ended up at the airport with no ID.

I also got to go through the much-faster special screening, but I had to step into a chamber where they puffed you with air. Not for weed scent, for bombs, though I was mildly concerned at the time.

All in all a fun experience. Next time there's a big line at security, I'm going to tell them that I forgot my id. w00t

<comment><USER5> Weed often sets off the bomb sensors, since the high concentration of fertilizers produce similar signatures ..

<comment><USER4> I don't believe you. Prove it.

<comment><USER5> Bomb detectors are designed to pick up traces of nitrates, the theory being that if you are making a DIY bomb, you're going to go the ammonia-nitrate route.

Nitrates exist in fertilizer - and thats what folks make bombs out of.

Weed is often fertilized with nitrates, and trace amounts of these elements are present in your sweat, in your pee, and so on. When you go through a bomb detector after a heavy weed weekend or so, you're going to be flagged for closer inspection.

This was explained to me by a security agent at an airport I was travelling through after a heavy week in Amsterdam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "...could not bar an American citizen from boarding a plane, even if a passenger refused to produce any identification at all!"

How exactly can you know if someone is an American citizen if they don't show any government approved ID saying so?

<comment><USER7> People like to use the word "citizen" for some reason, even when it is not accurate. The protections of the US Constitution apply to all "people", not all "citizens". The word "citizen" mostly occurs when referring to voting and running for office (both which do require citizenship).

Everyone gets a jury trial, free speech, etc.

<comment><USER8> People like to use the word "citizen" because it's a way of broadcasting their tribal identity. These little war dances are generally done by people with citizenship of high-status nations; one doesn't tend to see people going around bragging about how they are Togolese citizens, for example. However, it's certainly not a behaviour limited to Americans: I've seen plenty of Brits and Canadians do it too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Did anyone else notice this is from 2006? Anyone know if this is still possible? Was it _ever_ possible?

The reason I ask is: <http://www.lookingglassnews.org/> does not look like the pinnacle of journalistic integrity. The author of this story certainly sounds intelligent, but all of the conspiracy theory crap on this site makes me wonder.

<comment><USER10> It is true that if you simply don't have proper ID -- your wallet was stolen, for example -- it's still possible to fly; I think this involves going through the "heightened" pat-down screening. But you are correct that rant-ish reports posted on sketchy web sites that make broad assertions of constitutional law are generally good sources of entertainment, but not legal advice.

John Perry Barlow (of EFF fame) litigated this issue in late 2006. He lost at every step. What came out of that is that the TSA does indeed have a written regulation requiring you show government ID, but that regulation is secret. Info on his litigation is at <http://papersplease.org/gilmore/>

<comment><USER7> _But you are correct that rant-ish reports posted on sketchy web sites that make broad assertions of constitutional law are generally good sources of entertainment, but not legal advice._

Honestly, I think these folks have a better idea of what the intent of the Constitution was than many of the justices on the Supreme Court. Like anything, the Supreme Court is mostly about politics these days, rather than protecting anyone's rights. (Sometimes both interests are aligned, of course, but many times they are not; especially with respect to ID.)

<comment><USER11> _Honestly, I think these folks have a better idea of what the intent of the Constitution was than many of the justices on the Supreme Court._

Sorry to say that, but "good source of legal advice" is by definition one that works in court, not one with high moral ground.

<comment><USER7> Yes, definitely.

Incidentally, I have some recent US coins that say, "Live free or die," but it doesn't seem socially acceptable to have that attitude anymore.

"Live in constant fear of the government and live" doesn't have the same ring...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thank you for returning my faith in civil rights and the US Constitution. The home of the free and the land of the brave is at grave risk of becoming extinct as long as good men and women sit and watch their basic freedoms eroded continuously in the name of fighting illusionary 'terrorists'

<comment><USER13> the article is a bit stale. This page is up to date: <http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Something I want to try; get on the "no fly" list, legally change my name to something completely different (in a very small town, of course), legally get updated ID, and see how long it takes before I am on the "no fly" again.

(My guess is never.)

Incidentally, my credit report thinks my name is "Johnathan Rockway", which is a name I've never used on any credit card, nor one that appears on any ID I have ever possessed. Accurate!

<comment><USER14> On the last part, I'd caution you to look into that. I had a name that wasn't mine on my credit report and soon other things started appearing on my report that weren't my accounts. A lot of companies that report to the credit agencies just report the last four of your SSN and name. I started getting calls for someone that wasn't me from collections agencies.

<comment><USER7> Well, it is just one letter added to my real name. So probably someone fucking up data entry, not someone misusing my identity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The last of the regulations seems to imply that it is possible to fly internationally without an ID. I have no idea what you would accomplish by boarding an internation airplane without an ID, because you will get sent back once you get there. There is no way the other country will accept you without a passport.

<comment><USER2> I'm sure there is some procedure for handling citizens who have lost their passports.

<comment><USER16> Yes, but it involves contacting your nearest consulate/embassy before boarding the plane. They normally verify some stuff internally (which is why it helps immensely to have photocopies that speed up the process as that contains the relevant numbers/barcodes that allow them to look you up quickly) and then they give you an "emergency travel document" or a new passport, depending on the situation. The ETD lets you travel back to your home country and then handle things from there.

<comment><USER17> If you have lost your passport, you have to go to a police station and make a claim. You can only board the plane with that claim (and there is normaly a police station on every major airport)

And PS: I hope that they wouldn't let in the ignorant author of the article in without a valid passport.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Extremely interesting. Last March I actually tried to switch the name on an American Airlines ticket and the agent on the phone informed that it was impossible to switch the name on a ticket. She went so far as to claim the computer system didn't even support name changes. I called her out on that and then she told me that federal law prohibits name changes on tickets.

Assuming this article is valid - how would an airline even know that the name on the ticket doesn't match if I refuse to produce ID? (it was a domestic flight so no passport)

</comment><comment><USER19> The rules in the US seem to have changed this summer to require ID in almost every case. See Flyertalk's security forum here: [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety- security/984568...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety- security/984568-oh-oh-rules-seem-have-changed-pv.html)

Very disappointing and arguably unconstitutional.

</comment><comment><USER20> The downside of this was not pointed out unless one read the whole snippet:

 _EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER_

Yeah, you got on the plane without showing ID. But if they really wanted to, they could determine who you are in other ways (DNA from hair on clothing, etc)

</comment><comment><USER21> Very interesting article. I wonder how does it work in the EU. Have to get some legal friend to have a look at it! Perhaps I could have exchanged air tickets with people couple of times already...

<comment><USER22> Flying within a country is different from crossing international borders. Even within Schengen many (most?) countries still require visitors to be holding a valid travel document (passport or ID card). Random spot-checks are often carried out close to borders (although by local police, rather than immigration or border guards).

I'd certainly be interested in discovering whether airlines are _required_ to confirm that passengers have these.

Many airlines now also require 'official' ID for flights even within a country, but AIUI that's purely airline policy rather than a legal requirement.

<comment><USER15> I've actually been checked in Holland by customs when coming home from a Schengen country.

He asked me to show an ID, I asked "why?", and he just responded "Because I say so". I was a bit too flabbergasted and not prepared for that answer and just showed him. He then proceeded to someone else who was even requested to come to the counter and let his bags get checked.

I'm curious whether I was actually required to do so.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, play hard ball and you hopefully will go to jail. What's the problem of showing your id?

<comment><USER15> The problem is that in the Netherlands there now is a law requiring you to show an ID if the cops ask for it. However, this was allowed with the provision that the cops had a sensible reason for doing so, i.e. you broke the law, or you were doing something suspicious.

I see no reason why it is any of the cops business to know who I am when I'm just walking down the street.

Same situation applies at the border, there is a seperate section for Schengen countries in the Amsterdam airport and you normally get in and out without showing an ID. I see no reason why it suddenly is any business to the customs officer to see who I am.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you, but couldn't someone from a non-Schengen country claim that they are from Schengen?

<comment><USER22> I think he's talking about the gates that handle flights to/from Schengen countries being in a different part of the airport, before passport control. The assumption is that once you're in Schengen the border guards at the first entry point should have ensured you're allowed to be there.

However, in every airport where I've seen that, I've certainly been able to get as far as the gate without ID (particularly if I've a pre-printed boarding pass), but I've always needed either a passport or EU member state ID card to actually get on the plane.

If you can get on without your ID, however, there are generally no checks at all at the far end.

<comment><USER7> Ah, OK, this makes sense. I admit that I don't think much about immigration or customs when I am arriving in Europe because it is all so simple. It's only when arriving in the US that I dread the experience. (And I am a natural-born US citizen.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I fly often and can't imagine going through any of this just to prove a point. I always print my boarding pass at home, never check bags, go directly to security, and use my frequent flyer card to go through the express line. I show my driver's license for inspection, but no data from it is ever recorded. IMO, a small price to pay to move quickly through the airport.

<comment><USER24> I can't imagine going through this whole revolution just to start my own country. All I have to do is give a toast to King George and pay a tax on tea, a small price to pay to stay part of Britain.

<comment><USER25> Canada did get out of it without a revolution. I get your point, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you're in the US just tell them your wallet was stolen.

They'll put you in another line and often times it'll actually be faster than the main security line.

I've done this multiple times, the first time after I actually did lose my wallet in Vegas and had to fly back home. Apparently it happens all the time.</comment>


UK team designs human mission to Mars - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22952441

<comment><USER3> My view is that if we are going to have a Mars manned mission it should be one-way. Send some resources to the planet, automated mechanisms to build out some basic infrastructure (cabins, greenhouses, barricades, etc). Then once things are in place, and a self-sustaining environment can be built find some people willing to spend the rest of their lives there, perhaps older people but families wouldn't be impossible. Think of a pioneer spirit, there would be no end of people willing to put their name down for a one way trip!

The main reason I say one way? Given it is an 21 month minimum round trip or even five years, the health (mostly bone density) issues are astounding. So, let the people decide to be the first Martian colonists and let it be a one way trip. If the preparation package was sufficient I know I would like to put my name down but I suspect that my wife wouldn't, so that vetoes me, but I know I am not alone.

Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge. But lets remember that these trips aren't without risk, so lets say that the risk is better managed if they just stay on Mars.

<comment><USER4> I think the appeal of making Mars trips one-way comes from the romanticization of the early American settlements and not primarily from technical concerns. From a technical perspective, having return capabilities adds complication in the short run, but it also solves a lot of problems (technical, administrative, logistical, and psychological).

Total colony failure is a real danger for Mars colonization, as it was for historical settlers. If our first Mars colony is a total loss, you can bet there won't be another one. If Martian settlers had space faring capabilities they could avert this scenario and potentially even return to Earth if things got out of control.

Establishing back-and-forth routes, both slow robotic ones, as well as the occasional human shuttle, means Mars will be a real extension of Earth instead of a stagnant, extreme colony. It means there will be pressure for technological advancement in this area which wouldn't be necessary if we had just a big one-way rocket. Without this pressure, spaceship design and propulsion won't get a significant boost.

If we choose to put this one-way barrier up, let's not kid ourselves, it will be because it's dramatic and romantic. In the short term, this decision will put human lives in danger. It will stifle innovation by willfully ignoring a big tech application. Over the long term, if the colony survives, it will lead to a technologically superior Mars that has no meaningful ties to Earth - <USER2> with that, potentially, war.

Having a two-way system in place will most likely finally commoditize space travel and in one fell swoop will eliminate all the problems I talked about.

 _> Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge._

Humans will die "in space" anyway. If we choose to venture out into the solar system, people are going to die out there. As I said, a one-way transport system combined with a loss of the first colony _will_ result in a lot of deaths and it _will_ result in a total cancellation of any further colonization efforts.

Making transports one-way is a _choice_ , not a necessity. I would argue it's an illogical one with very impractical consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think we're proposing these Mars missions too soon. We need to concentrate on producing propulsion systems and shielding systems that get us there and back fast and safely first.

I'm not talking about some starship enterprise, but something a little meatier than a glorified coke can.

<comment><USER6> Both of those are solved problems, and actually have been for quite a while.

You should check out the Mars Direct plan proposed by Robert Zubrin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct)

<comment><USER5> Thanks and as usual, canned by Obama.

Perhaps the private sector can take this one on?

<comment><USER7> That was the constellation program, which was mainly a return to the moon. A commitment to NASA visiting Mars was kept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That's nice, but my money is on Elon Musk :)

<comment><USER9> Is it just me, or is he spreading himself awfully thin these days? I mean, I don't know him personally so it's entirely possible this is all within his capability, but "Loop transport", "LEO Spaceship", Tesla and now Mars too?

<comment><USER10> LEO spaceship and Mars are on the same development track (humans as interplanetary species / retirement on Mars is the final destination, rockets and LEO spaceship are first steps on the track). Also it's nice how he managed to make his three companies support each other by flowing tech and cash between them (e.g. Tesla using SolarCity tech for charging).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They say "Every part of this mission scenario has been demonstrated one way or the other" but I'm struggling to think of a proper artificial gravity demonstration. Are there any?

Gemini 11 had some success with a similar scheme involving tethering themselves to their Aegena craft and spinning up. However this was far from straightforward and only created tiny amounts (Wikipedia says 0.00015g) of artificial acceleration.

In order to get 1g from a 50m tether it would have to spin at a little over 4rpm, which seems like quite a lot for such a big thing. Also the difference in acceleration between an astronaut's head and feet would be something like 0.3 m/s/s, which hasn't (AFAIK) been tested.

The Gemini experiment was amazing (especially given it was some way down the list of mission objectives) but I don't think it qualifies as a full demonstration of the technique. I know this project is not intended to be a finished design, but they give the impression that artificial gravity generation is a solved problem.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. With a diameter of 4m on this, even if they could get 1g at the edge, would still leave the astronauts heads at almost 0g. Makes me wonder what kind of scientists worked on this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The British Interplanetary Society did something similar a few years back: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Boreas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Boreas)</comment>


Introducing /run - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/436012/ <comment><USER2> Nice. I'm happy our Linux overlords are so sensible.

Also!: /run/flame_war @ [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/1469...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/146976)

<comment><USER3> The fifth response (by gmane's sorting) says it's a "crack ridden idea" and acuses the authors of raping the standard. So, yeah, flame on.

<comment><USER4> I love Lennart Poettering's (the OP) response:

"Die Wahl Deiner Worte adelt wahrlich Deine Gedanken"

It's German and actually really difficult to translate. I'll give it a shot: "Your choice of words truly ennobles your thoughts."

<3

I can't understand people like Ralf Corsepius.

<comment><USER5> Your translation is quite literal. I wonder whether we can find a more idiomatic one.

<comment><USER6> I like the translation just fine, but perhaps one of the following:

"the words you elect to use perfectly reflect you and your views"

"the words you elect to use bring respect to your views"

"the words you choose to use can't fail to enthuse those who muse on your views"

The last one has lost a smidgen of German stoicism (does "Grüne Eier und Schinken von Herr Doktor Süss" even exist?) though I think...

<comment><USER5> "The words you choose to use can't fail to enthuse those who muse on your views." is great.

I'd like to read (or write) "Grüne Eier und Schinken von Herrn Doktor Süss". (I changed Herr to Herrn.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sensible approach from Lennart and the whole systemD folks. If you are wondering who lennart is, He is one of the creator of pulse audio and known for sending out an alternative kernel speedup patch [http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/alternative-to-200-lines- kern...](http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/alternative-to-200-lines-kernel- patch.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've always wondered about the difference in lifecycle between /var/lock, /var/run, and other /vars. Happy that we've decided to make things simpler and easier to understand.

<comment><USER9> Long-form version: <http://pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html>

Short-form version: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Quite nice to see that different distros cooperate to keep certain thing coherent between the systems.

<comment><USER11> I strongly agree.

And while it would have been nice to update the standard prior to this change, in practice that would ensure that the change didn't happen for a long time, if ever. By having most of the major distros in on this we can be assured a quick adoption of the fix and hopefully a an update to the FHS.

Keeping in line with standards and specifications is extremely important to prevent fragmentation of the Linux ecosystem, but allowing those same documents to hold back [legitimate] progress is nothing more than foolish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> TL;DR summary: Hey, there's this problem that has been solved in a nonstandard way for too long. Here is a solution that all the major distro's have agreed on

Unwashed masses: Hooray!

Random angry neckbeards: YOU ARE CRACK ADDICTED RAPISTS

<comment><USER13> I said no such thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What a joke. Thie filesystem hierary wasn't complex enough for him?

 _> /var/run otoh is only available very late at boot, since /var might reside on a separate file system_

he forgot to mention that this is a non-standard, specialized setup. In normal case, /var is on the root partition.

<comment><USER15> > he forgot to mention that this is a non-standard, specialized setup. In > normal case, /var is on the root partition.

Specialized it may be, but nonstandard it is not; the entire reason for /var to exist as a separate directory is so that it can be mounted from a local disk in cases where your root partition and /usr are NFS-mounted or otherwise read-only or shared between multiple machines.

It seems to me that moving /var/run to /run simplifies the filesystem "hierary" rather than making it more complex.

<comment><USER16> To add to this hypocrisy systemd doesn't allow /usr to be on a separate partition.

<comment><USER17> Can you suggest a single use case for putting /usr on a separate partition that wouldn't work far better without? Sharing /usr across the network makes no sense, since its contents need to come from the same packages and versions as /.

<comment><USER18> A homogeneous environment that doesn't have formal package management is the only use case I can envision.

It was a good idea back in the SunOS days (and it's probably still workable to a limited extent for the BSDs, and perhaps folks like Gentoo) when local storage wasn't as plentiful as it is today, but I think we've safely moved on at this point.

<comment><USER19> On modern Solaris systems, isn't /bin a symlink to /usr/bin anyway? Kind of shoots down the old reasoning that /bin has the absolute minimum to get a broken system fixed, and /usr/bin has everything else.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is a browser plugin startup doomed to fail? - <AUTHOR>

So what are today's acceptances for installing browser plugin apps? It's hard enough to get users, but also demand from them to install a plugin? Sounds crazy. Will IE users even bother installing anything? It will most likely require much more steps than firefox.<p>Then again, in firefox featured addons page, some apps get 50k+ weekly downloads. <comment><USER2> Here's a Andrew Warner interview with Jay Meattle where he talks about how Shareaholic reached 2+ millions installs of their browser add-on: <http://mixergy.com/shareaholic-jay-meattle-interview/></comment>


Kanye West Is Now Officially a Billionaire - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2020/04/24/kanye-west-is-now-officially-a-billionaireand-he-really-wants-the-world-to-know/#29965efd7b9e <comment><USER2> Good on him. At least this time he did it without asking other billionaires on Twitter, to send him $1 Billion [0]

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/20160217053841/https://twitter.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160217053841/https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/698926987281371136)</comment>


Uber Technologies Makes Takeover Approach to GrubHub - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-technologies-makes-takeover-approach-to-grubhub-11589296216 <comment><USER2> When I first read the headline, I thought it said GitHub and I was very perplexed. Realizing it is GrubHub makes much more sense and is interesting.</comment>


CoeLux: Artificial Sunlight That's Real Enough to Trick Your Camera and Brain - <AUTHOR> http://petapixel.com/2015/02/09/coelux-artificial-sunlight-thats-good-enough-fool-cameras-brain/ <comment><USER2> Somebody on reddit made a cheap do-it-yourself version for their basement office for $150 (using LED lights for plants):

[http://imgur.com/a/r31Gb](http://imgur.com/a/r31Gb)

While definitely not the same, there should be an opportunity for something costing less than $35,000 while still getting closer.

For example here is DIY 90,000 lumen flashlight that supposedly cost $250-350:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JVqRy0sWWY&t=3m40s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JVqRy0sWWY&t=3m40s)

Using 10 of these LED chips:

[http://www.ebay.com/itm/100W-Warm-White-3000K-LED-Light- High...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/100W-Warm-White-3000K-LED-Light-High-Power- Component-Chip-100-Watt-8000-LM-USA-/281833108024)

<comment><USER3> While this is is nice, the main breakthrough of CoeLux is the simulation of Rayleigh scattering, not just a bright diffused light.

<comment><USER2> Lot of things scatter. There is probably something cheaper than $35,000 per light.

Maybe milk could be used? :)

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wyj6iHUndhg/UXpUk6HxfLI/AAAAAAAACu...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wyj6iHUndhg/UXpUk6HxfLI/AAAAAAAACuw/2FDyuDgm8U0/s1600/Untitled-2+copy.jpg)

[http://thestandardmodel.blogspot.com/2013/04/when-i-was- chil...](http://thestandardmodel.blogspot.com/2013/04/when-i-was-child-i- often-wonder-why-sky.html)

It feels like they charge so much not because there would be some principal engineering / technical obstacle but simply because they can. They have been the first who realized something like this can be done (now that LED lighting progressed so far) and for rich customers this is a feature that's highly desirable, so they are willing to pay so much.

They do have a good marketing. Their business model depends on others thinking there is some special magic.

I had to see that reddit post to even start questioning that something like this could be replicated.

<comment><USER4> They might charge as much as they do because they're making their special- sauce material in a really non-cost-effective small-batch way. If that's true, then if they just released their material process patent into the public domain, probably the windows would _still_ cost $35k for a while, and then gradually decline, step-wise, as competitors created bigger and better processes to do the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm looking up at my square white ceiling wondering what it would be like if the entire surface was this CoeLux panel. Imagine a vibrant blue sky with a beautiful sun tracking its way across your ceiling all day. I think it could be breathtaking.

This is the type of 'simple' invention that you could never really anticipate but changes the future profoundly.

<comment><USER6> VR headsets will accomplish this for many people.

Well, maybe in one more generation once the resolution becomes higher.. and adding hand tracking.. and a UV lamp on a servo..

<comment><USER7> And all you've gotta do is lie in bed with a VR headset on!

Let's hope you don't have a significant other that you're supposed to be spending time with.

Come on, this isn't a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sadly they write little substantial about the internal construction principle so I'm making an educated guess: Based on the pictures one can see that relatively hard shadows are created as expected by a point-like light source (like a far away sun). Also in the movie it can be seen that the 'sun' moves with the camera when the camera moves. The hard shadows would be created if all light emitting the 'window' are almost parallel, which would require some kind of optics. So I'm guessing that the 'skylight' is made of a slightly curved backside supporting a large number of white LEDs. Each LED then would have a small lense so that all light is emitted within a very narrow angle. The slight curvature of the backside would then lead to the apparent movement of the light-source if the camera moves. (Because one would look into the opening angle of a different portion of the LEDs) The blue color itself is a layer of nano-particles leading imitating Rayleigh scattering of the atmosphere.

<comment><USER9> This is because it is all in the patents [1].

1\. [http://patents.justia.com/inventor/paolo-di- trapani](http://patents.justia.com/inventor/paolo-di-trapani)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> These are the patents for those interested in the tech behind this [1 − 3].

1\. [http://www.google.com/patents/US8469550](http://www.google.com/patents/US8469550)

2\. [https://www.google.com/patents/US20140133125](https://www.google.com/patents/US20140133125)

3\. [http://patents.justia.com/patent/20150330607](http://patents.justia.com/patent/20150330607)

</comment><comment><USER10> Artificial sunlight could be revolutionary if applied with scale in cities. It could enable new, far denser forms of architecture "built for people", mitigating the ill psychological effects of being without natural surroundings.

The energy use would be heavy, but it might be worth the cost given the transportation energy savings and higher productivity and happiness of the city population.

<comment><USER11> Don't forget seasonal affective disorder, or just the general influence on affects that cloudy weather has. Imagine waking up to streaming sunlight every morning. I can see that making a huge change in people's lives.

<comment><USER12> It would have to produce vitamin-D (or whatever the sunlight produces when it hits your skin) in order to combat that.

Source: Me in wintertime Sweden.

<comment><USER13> Concurrent orally-administered vitamin D would achieve the same effect.

<comment><USER14> Do you have a source for that?

My understanding is that (a) utilization of dietary vitamin D is significantly lower than naturally produced D (from sun exposure) and (b) vitamin D is one of several micronutrients produced from sun exposure.

<comment><USER15> > My understanding is that (a) utilization of dietary vitamin D is > significantly lower than naturally produced D (from sun exposure)...

The end product of UVB irradiated skin (i.e., sunlight) is vitamin D3. (D3 is "activated" locally in tissues utilizing it.) Ingested D3 supplements effectively add to the body's supply, though the optimum intake is controversial and varies among individuals.

One difference between sunlight and supplements is that D3 production via UVB exposure has an upper bound, only so much can be made because there's a limited amount of substrate available in skin cells to convert to vitamin D. The upshot is sunlight is "safer" re: potential toxicity of excessive vitamin D intake.

AFAIK vitamin D is unique among nutritional factors in its reliance on UVB exposure. Don't know of any other micronutrients directly related to sunlight, but possible there's something I've overlooked.

<comment><USER16> It is unfortunate that "vitamin D" is called "vitamin" since it is in fact a hormone. As with most hormones, their effect depends on many factors including the number of receptors on target cells that can change significantly increasing or decreasing sensitivity to D. That itself is poorly understood and it is unknown how long-term consumption of D supplements in what ever form with little exposure to real Sun affects sensitivity.

So the advise is to take D supplements only if recommended by a doctor.

<comment><USER15> Vitamin D (for lack of better official term) indeed has an apparent role in an amazingly broad array of body systems. I suppose calling it a "vitamin" is appropriate in environments with insufficient sunlight which includes northerly latitudes, say above the 45th parallel (where I happen to live).

Presumed deficiency of D (per lab studies) is quite common here and supplementation is usually recommended for optimum health. Besides location, lifestyle factors often reduce sun exposure increasing chances of low D level.

There are tradeoffs involved with most recommendations. The common advice to avoid UV exposure re: melanoma risk has propelled manufacture of sunscreens into a big industry. Sunscreens filter out nearly all UVB, and interfere with forming D. Ironically, low body stores of D may increase cancer risk according to some studies. BTW my dermatologist knows about that, nonetheless advocates minimizing cancer risk, worrying less about vitamin D deficiency or risks of supplementation.

Indigenous Alaskan populations were always vulnerable to D deficiency yet it was uncommon, probably associated with their diet, rich in the oils of sea- going animals, known sources of D. Out of curiosity, a while back based on published info I calculated their intake of vitamin D was roughly 1500-2000IU/day. This seems consistent with opinions of some researchers re: appropriate intake level (don't have the references at hand--I can locate them if there's interest).

The jury's still out on vitamin D in terms of its functions and dietary requirement. It is a fascinating story that with any luck will be at least better resolved in my lifetime.

<comment><USER16> The recommendation to avoid UV exposure at all is just wrong indeed. The harm from UV is highly non-linear function of dose. It could be that in low doses when the body can quickly and fully recover it decreases the risk of melanoma through compensatory mechanisms. And even if this is not the case, one needs very short exposure to high Sun to get daily dose of D when risk of melanoma is significantly lower than most other risk factors one constantly meets throughout the life.

As for D supplements, one really should very careful even in cases of high latitudes (and this is the reason I avoid D supplements despite living at 61th parallel). Quoting Paul Albert , [http://bacteriality.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/08/Albert_IO...](http://bacteriality.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/08/Albert_IOM_Speech_080409.pdf) :

So are we really facing an epidemic of vitamin D "deficiency" or are we simply beginning to note more signs of an imminent epidemic of chronic disease – an epidemic which would be exacerbated by increasing the amount of vitamin D added to our food supply?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow. I was looking at the first couple photos thinking "I get it, that's what a skylight looks like, now show me the damn lightbulb!"

Here's to hoping this tech gets commoditized and indoor spaces get a lot more pleasant.

</comment><comment><USER18> The article is a year old. Does anyone know where the tech is actually at now?

I was expecting this to be slightly more common by now.

<comment><USER19> Now prices have fallen. We have installed about 50 systems till now

<comment><USER20> Have you explored possibility of making this light rich enough in different wavelengths to also let plants grow under it? Or is it not possible with LEDs?

<comment><USER21> Grow lights already exist, and are several hundred times cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 67.000$ for a great looking light source seems too much. You can buy small houses at that price point where I live. With real windows, you know.

<comment><USER23> It's also a 660-pound object installed in a drop ceiling nearly a meter thick. You'd need very high ceilings to start with, and you'd better hope it's installed well. Not to mention that it consumes up to 300W of power.

<comment><USER24> Well sunlight is around 1kW per square meter energy density, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that this takes .3kW to simulate sunlight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Coming soon to the office of a CEO near you.

It's nice, but it's not $30,000 nice. Still, the cost of LEDs per lumen continues to drop. LED auto headlights are now below $100.

There's a market for this in hospitals, to keep patients in intensive care units in sync with the outside world. Fake windows with lighting tied to the day/night cycle have been used. Here's someone looking for funding for a startup to do a really good virtual window.[1]

[1] [http://windways.org/personal_page/virtual_windows/](http://windways.org/personal_page/virtual_windows/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Here's a video of an actual one: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6VKLoS59g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6VKLoS59g)

It does look very realistic, but makes me wonder whether having an uneven light distribution is desirable or whether it's something that's needed to trick the body.

</comment><comment><USER27> For those that work in office buildings and may be far away or do not have immediate access to Windows while working, would this be a good investment for companies to make?

The sun availability does seem to affect my daily energy and motivation.

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure an artificial light source looking like the sun will replace the actual sun in regards daily energy and motivation, among others.

<comment><USER28> Depends on where you are. The pacific northwest and great lakes regions could use some fake sunlight: [http://www.currentresults.com/Weather- Extremes/US/cloudiest-...](http://www.currentresults.com/Weather- Extremes/US/cloudiest-cities.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Bet the spectrum looks quite different to that of the sun. LEDs are narrow spectrum with peaks and dips, even when combined

</comment><comment><USER30> In this video ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4TJ4-kkDw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ4TJ4-kkDw) ) they talk about the usage for underground buildings. It could be for underground buildings what the lift is for high buildings (eg make it practical).

This was on Product Hunt a while ago: [https://www.producthunt.com/tech/coelux](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/coelux)

</comment><comment><USER31> Not nearly the same, but Daniel Rybakken does lots of cool experiments with artificial sunlight that might interest you as well:

[http://danielrybakken.com/daylight_comes_sideways.html](http://danielrybakken.com/daylight_comes_sideways.html)

[http://danielrybakken.com/daylight_entrance,_stockholm.html](http://danielrybakken.com/daylight_entrance,_stockholm.html)

</comment><comment><USER32> Appears that the light is stationary, which to me seems like it'd be a bit creepy.

<comment><USER17> The company's website suggests that you can change the position of the sun, presumably there's nothing preventing you from modifying it on a timer or slider.

<comment><USER33> Actually, the light is set at a certain angle and can't be changed [0]. They let you choose between different angles – 60º, 45º, and 30º (mounted on the wall). They say that they are working on allowing for light adjustment in the future [1].

(Not your fault though - their website is pretty sparse on information.)

[0] [http://www.coelux.com/en/solutions/index](http://www.coelux.com/en/solutions/index)

[1] [http://www.hispotion.com/coelux-artificial-lighting- system-t...](http://www.hispotion.com/coelux-artificial-lighting-system-thats- real-sunlight-30426)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I can't tell whether some of these pictures are photos or renderings.

<comment><USER35> I had the same reaction until I read the article. I think it's the type of objects and the small room that looks a lot like the ones used in rendering demos that gave me that same impression. Just waiting for them to put a glass of water to show transparency or something similar ;p

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm photophobic and am guaranteed a migraine when in direct sunlight or high contrast lighting environments. Diffused, evenly lit indoor environments are my safe harbor without dark/polarized/full-cover sunglasses. Please don't take that from those of us that'd love outdoor lighting, but physically cannot tolerate it.

</comment><comment><USER37> Now that's the kind of thing that would make Vault 101 more cheery! The survivors of the nuclear apocalipse would surely revere the inventor of this thing as a god.

...and obligatory musical reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txPqV0lZaSE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txPqV0lZaSE)

</comment><comment><USER38> I know it would be a tremendous waste of energy, but could you imagine spacecraft having a relaxation room like this?

</comment><comment><USER39> It's be fun to have a tunable one that could simulate other atmospheres as well. There are days retiring to Saturn seems a good option ;-)

With the added benefit you could use a low-power light for those distances.

</comment><comment><USER40> If they can make a model i can hang on the wall (i really don't have the root space to mount this), i'm game.

</comment><comment><USER41> Note that the video is from 2014 and the article from about a year ago. That said, I want this so badly.

</comment><comment><USER42> Cool but creepy. How about just build non-gulag style buildings with exposure to actual sunlight?

<comment><USER43> Multiple stories? Shaded building? Cloudy days? Basement offices?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> New possibilities for fusion plants: cheaper sunlight generation per lumen.

</comment><comment><USER45> Is that Jason Bateman in two of the photos?

</comment><comment><USER46> Umbrella Corporation preorders. :)</comment>


Show HN: Vuln Cost – immersive VS Code extension to surface vulnerabilities - <AUTHOR> https://snyk.io/security-scanner-vuln-cost/ <comment><USER2> I think these sort of tools are detrimental to the security of apps and developers that use them.

1\. They often treat all vulns the same and do almost nothing to let a dev know if they are actually vulnerable or how bad a vuln really is (and no, just a pure CVSS is not good enough).

2\. They lead to the idea that fixing vulns is just updating the dependencies. If you have enough vulns in your dependencies that you need it visualized in your IDE then the problem is how you choose dependencies or how many you have, not keeping them up to date.

3\. Updates themselves are not always a safe bet since they bring in unknown code, so an update should not be treated as a silver bullet for fixing vulns without checking the code or actually trusting the authors.

4\. Just like some of snyks blogposts (like [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19255603](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19255603)) they lead to more hysteria and security theater than productive work.

In my experience all this leads to security fatigue and people not taking the profession or the work done seriously.

<comment><USER3> I'm mixed between nodding my head in this and finding arguments against it. For myself, I would absolutely see your points and agree to them but when I think about the engineers inside the company at scale I'm seeing it's worth. A large part of our company comes from hardware or more traditional console languages like c/c++/c#. Now switching to .net core, typescript and the whole open-source ecosystem is something they just are becoming familiar with. This extension would certainly make them aware of the impact of their choices. Raising awareness about the implications of taking in that third party dependency the moment they do it.

<comment><USER2> > Raising awareness about the implications of taking in that third party > dependency the moment they do it.

Sure, but if that was the goal then I think it should show that a package has "578 subdependencies with 935 authors that have had 7681 vulns that took an average of 67 days to be resolved. No currently active vulns (that we know of...) though!"

Currently I think it more encourages shifting the blame to the tool and I think some engineers would say something along the lines of "well, it didn't show me any vulns when I installed the package, so it should be fine, right?"

Taking on deep or complex dependencies should be treated as code that needs to be maintained in the long run, not as a one-time decision.

When a vuln appears in either a PR or in released code the checks in CI/CD should alert and refuse to build that release or approve that PR.

<comment><USER3> Of course, yet it starts with awareness. Would love if the extensions would also show the number of child's, number of authors, if it has an active community, the license, and more info that you use to make the decision. Then again, we would also need the licenses of the children, their activity etc. It's a zoo out there these days. Packages that are licensed MIT have children that are GPL licensed. One package dragging in 200 more, leading to famous left-shift debacles and maintenance hell. Meanwhile support periods are being lowered to 1-3 years, even on big projects.

Another issue we run into is different libraries using different packages which depend on the same package down the line but a different version which do not work together.

So yes, I wholeheartedly agree that one must think before taking in a dependency. Especially if you just took it because a nice stackoverflow.com answer said so and you are going to use 1% of the package.

Our build already immediately flags SOUP that is brought in but not assessed yet. We had it failing for a while but that was too much of a barrier for engineers. CI/CD scans for vulnerabilities using tools like whitesource or blackduck. Tools like fortify and sonarqube run amongst many more.

All leading to better code, definitely. Yet, at a cost. Haven't found the best set of 'rules' yet what to allow and what a practical choice is today. Keeping velocity at the right quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This made me curious what type of vulnerabilities were in something like Lodash and the answer was mostly prototype overwriting:

[https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:lodash](https://snyk.io/vuln/npm:lodash)

It's nice to see the Snyk project contributing patches back into major open source projects, not just highlighting them. Even if the threat model is relatively mild for an average dev like myself working in a controlled environment, despite the fact the vuln gets marked as severe (don't get me wrong, it is still important for the larger OSS projects that are widely deployed to a variety of environments like lodash).

I've become far more careful updating JS libraries as most frontend projects have thousands in their package.json and I've had countless deployment issues getting ground down once the dependencies try to update in production, even though they worked fine locally. We have protocols to catch stuff like that but it's still a headache that often takes far more effort than it's worth to have a few patches (same with keeping a Docker clone of production locally which is another nest of problems). So I try to keep updates to dependencies like that contained in their own commits which can be rolled back, and not part of other feature branches or fixes.

I don't have this problem in other languages nearly as much as JS using NPM/yarn. So I tend to be far less eager to run 'npm audit' than I used to.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish synk (and npm audit) would do a better job of providing simple explanations to when these vurnabilities actually pose a threat. It's impossible for devs to keep up with the constant flood of vurnabilities. Does it matter if a dependency that I'm use in my build tooling is open to reDos? I honestly do not know because I don't have time to study each of these issue. Instead I just try to upgrade as often as possible, but maybe not as often as I should if I knew there were actually security holes in my runtime application

<comment><USER6> Yeah, somewhere in the reporting/auditing workflow, there should probably be a flag distinguishing whether vulnerabilities are actually dangerous in a devDependencies context (they rarely are). I find that jest and webpack especially generate tons of these irrelevant "vulnerabilities" and it's really annoying. It's a security issue too since it leads people to start ignoring the audit output.

<comment><USER7> I work on this project, so I'm biased, for sure, but why not take a gander at:

[https://github.com/sonatype-nexus- community/auditjs](https://github.com/sonatype-nexus-community/auditjs)

By default we exclude devDeps (allowing you to run that later). The project functions off EXACTLY what you have installed in your node_modules, so it's a pretty accurate look at your actual risk profile. You can run it with --dev to get a look at your dev Deps, but we tailored it by default to your "prod risk profile". The notes y'all make are pretty much why. Every Dev Dep in the world seems to use lodash, so yeah, we get it, it can be prototype polluted, tell me what my actual risk is!

<comment><USER6> Nice, will check it out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is actually something cool ! Good job !

<comment><AUTHOR> ooh thanks! would be really happy to capture any extra feedback if you have ideas for what to improve

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome! I've moved away from JS to Go recently, but this is sure really useful for frontend stuff.

<comment><USER7> If you are doing Golang development, you might check out this project: [https://github.com/sonatype-nexus- community/nancy](https://github.com/sonatype-nexus-community/nancy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Terminals have a HUD problem. Too much information and it will distract the real issues. Too little info and you might miss something.</comment>


The 2018 Monte Carlo World Cup – Almost Looks Like Work - <AUTHOR> https://jasmcole.com/2018/06/10/the-2018-monte-carlo-world-cup/ <comment><USER2> Ha! I read into the third paragraph before I knew the subject was soccer. Says more about me than the author I suppose.</comment>


When India's Pied Piper was short of cash, the founders operated from a car - <AUTHOR> https://www.techinasia.com/indias-pied-piper-skcript-short-cash-founders-ran-startup-car-profile <comment><USER2> I'm curious what the Weismann score they get.

<comment><USER3> lol! If only it existed in real-life, we would have definitely checked with that. :)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Demonstrate 2 – Showcase your app ideas like a real app. Zero coding - <AUTHOR> http://nfnlabs.in/demonstrate/ <comment><AUTHOR> Version 1 of Demonstrate went live on October 2013. The problem we were trying to solve then was - how can we as designers/developers showcase how an app flows and feels on a native device - without writing a single line of code. Demonstrate v1 allowed using hotspots and transitions to build an almost real looking app. Which was used by designers, product teams, presales and sales teams to demonstrate their ideas.

It's high time the app got a revamp. So here is Demonstrate 2.0 with better features, better sharing and a better overall experience to share your ideas. Opening beta invites to the app starting today - more details on the site. Sign up to give it a try? [http://nfnlabs.in/demonstrate/](http://nfnlabs.in/demonstrate/)</comment>


Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Its Implications for Artificial Intelligence - <AUTHOR> http://www.deepideas.net/godels-incompleteness-theorem-and-its-implications-for-artificial-intelligence/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has no implication for AI, and British philosopher John Lucas is full of shit.

<comment><USER3> Not sure if that is accurate, but it will do for now and it saved me 8 hours of scrutinizing the original article. Thanks, will pop a beer now</comment></comment>


How Should We Use Entropy in Economics? (1991) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/entropy.in.economics.pdf <comment><USER2> > Presumably, a process of trial and error will be needed to find the right > choices

This is a huge difference between macroeconomics and thermodynamics. You can't just have a control group of people, test a policy with them and say 'omg they died of starvation'. I know well designed experiments exist such as basic income, but I hope I made a point: You can't just test macro policies as you would test heat transfer in a lab.

<comment><USER3> maybe you can model or simulate somehow?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My first reaction is that there is no reason to use entropy. In physics you can prove that Hamiltonian motion leads to ergodic behavior and that creates the push to higher entropy. In an economic system I question that ergodicity would be satisfied. So similarly I doubt that there is inherent reason to expect entropy to increase or even be a useful metric on the system.

<comment><USER5> I think in a lot of economic systems we're still a long way off from reasoning at all about long run behavior, let alone formally deriving it. Hence the urge to try and steal modeling concepts from other fields, with or without theoretical foundations.

That said, I have very shaky intuition about how physicists actually use these concepts. Is egodicity necessary or just sufficient for rising entropy?</comment></comment>


Iconography of Rhetological Fallacies - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

<comment><USER2> The wealth of information here is staggering. Excellent job, thought I'd prefer something a bit more digestible. These would make excellent flash cards to hold up during a debate whenever one of the speakers starts with the rhetorical.</comment>


Sub-$500 47-inch smart TV runs Android - <AUTHOR> http://linuxgizmos.com/490-dollar-47-inch-smart-tv-runs-android/

<comment><USER2> Miracast and Airplay built-in. Hope this makes it to UK soon.</comment>


Ask HN: Why lock down the YC job postings? - <AUTHOR>

Here's my personal opinion on the matter:
I think it'd add some value to open up comments on these postings to field questions. I don't get warm fuzzies from the closed garden that is YC backed company job postings displayed on HN intermingled with all of the other upvoted postings. Given their current implementation, they function very much like sponsored ads in a twitter stream. I entirely understand why they're there, but I'm just a little biased that we're unable to comment. <comment><USER2> This has been discussed before. If you allow comments, the posts would quickly devolve into a series of tangents and shift focus from the real point of the posts.

EDIT: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2022116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2022116)</comment>


What it feels like when a competitor utterly rips off your entire company - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dhassell/what-it-feels-like-when-a-competitor-utterly-rips-off-your-entire-company-i-m-looking-at-you-def1e0528fa3#.y1oniwoj8 <comment><AUTHOR> I understand the feeling when a competitor pretty much photocopies what you did and tries to claim credit... But aren't we taking the whole ripping off thing a bit more personal than we should?

After all, most businesses are copies with just a _minor_ differentiator - that ends up making all the difference.

<comment><USER2> Did you look at the screenshots in the linked post? They took the copy and the layout of the original site and did little more than to change the background color. To then state in interviews that their's is an original idea is plagiarism. If an author did this they would lose their credibility as an author and likely end up in a lawyer-on-lawyer situation that doesn't get sexy at any point. This isn't a _minor_ differentiation in an otherwise obvious trade like plumbing or selling books, it is something else.

Look at it another way, if this were two video games, which would you buy and which would you take a dim view of? The one with the original dialog and voice acting and story-line, or the one that ripped it off?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you invite contributors to contribute on your project? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I usually don't invite contributors to my own project. Instead, people who are interested will naturally begin to make more and more issues and pull requests as they get more into your project.

If you get a project out there, people interested in it will start to help out. Gradually, this turns into that person becoming a contributor to a project.

<comment><USER3> I second this. I've noticed that when you solicit contributions, they never come. They need to come of their own accord. I created a "contribute" repo [1] for Standard Notes because a lot of people were asking "how can I contribute?" But it's been collecting dust. Instead, people contribute when they want to, from different sources.

[1] [https://github.com/standardnotes/contribute](https://github.com/standardnotes/contribute)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a famous Chris Rock quote about him being broken down on the side of the road. When he was standing there waiting for help, nobody wanted to help. When he started pushing the car himself, people would always get out and help him. People love to see you helping yourself, and will naturally come help you if you are visible enough.

</comment><comment><USER5> Before everyone starts posting her/his own projects in this thread I'd like to pitch my idea to what I personally am looking in this situation: a board similar to [https://starters.servo.org/](https://starters.servo.org/) for open source project where I can learn a new language by fixing bugs/resolving issues that can be ranked from beginner to expert, so you can find interesting projects fix bugs and learn new languages at once.

The link I have posted only covers the mozilla servo project and I can see this concept working with multiple projects/languages/etc.

Of course one would need to heavily moderate the submissions but I think this idea is great. Anyone know if something like this exists ?

</comment><comment><USER6> One good example that I can point out is Homebrew's github repository[1]

The README is so clear and welcoming new contributors, by telling how exactly they can start contributing. In fact that encouraged me to start contributing to opensource. Now I'm doing Google Summer of Code under the same organization.

[1] [https://github.com/homebrew/brew](https://github.com/homebrew/brew)

</comment><comment><USER7> People tend to have different incentives for contributing. A ton of it is people scratching their own itch.

You still need a core team to drive a project. If you want contributors you'll need users.

People have a finite amount of time in a given day. They aren't going to contribute because you want them to. They want to get something out of it. It could be learning something, fixing a bug that affects their day job, an interesting side project for a weekend (some folks pick random projects to contribute to)

Open sourcing something also has different incentives. Many successful projects are either run by foundations or companies with the hopes of attracting talent.

Try to understand what the incentive structure is for people and contributors follow from that.

You still need to do project promotion as well. That's a whole separate topic though.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this is a hard problem to solve because actual invitations seem to not work well. In other words, writing to someone and asking them in specific seems to not go good places.

I think it works better to focus on a) making sure to create a welcoming or inviting atmosphere and b) leaving the door open logistically.

It needs to be apparent to other people that new contributors are welcome and it also needs to be apparent to other people where and how they can go ahead and step up to bat. These can be tricky things to pull off. It is much, much easier conceptually to just think "I know! I will actually literally invite people!" (aka ask them to contribute) and this means you may be asking people who have no interest in the project or not ability to effectively contribute or both.

I am still working on solving this piece for my own projects. Trying to be inviting without literally sending out invitations is tricky. But I think that is what works best to make it possible for those who have both interest and ability to get involved on terms that work for them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Good documentation as well as write about what can be improved and that you're open to new ideas and contributors.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Up For Grabs"[0] was posted on HN a while and it seems like a cool idea, but doesn't seem to have a ton of traction.

[0] [http://up-for-grabs.net/](http://up-for-grabs.net/)

</comment><comment><USER11> One thing to include: an explanation of how much background someone should have before contributing. You might think this is intimidating, but it is really helpful because it lets a potential contributor disambiguate whether they should

A) Just start contributing, sure in the knowledge that they aren't missing some piece of background that others would consider obvious.

B) Go off and search for a good book/course to learn about X, where X is a googlable phrase that your contributing.md just told them.

</comment><comment><USER12> We actually wrote a blog post that we link to anyone wanting to contribute to our project and we simply link that if anyone shows any interest.

Here is the project : [https://learn-anything.xyz/](https://learn- anything.xyz/)

And here is the article we link to : [https://learn- anything.github.io/2017/06/15/contributing.htm...](https://learn- anything.github.io/2017/06/15/contributing.html)

It saves quite a lot of time as we try to cover all the ways in which one can help with the project there.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've created [https://letsbuildagame.org](https://letsbuildagame.org).

Too bad I don't have the time to maintain or update such website, nor to actually keep reasonable docs at the pace things are changing.

I had the aspiration to create a truly contributor friendly project. It turned out to be way harder than I expected, at least for a small team like ours.

</comment><comment><USER14> im the author of pygsheets (a library for acessing google sheets from python) [https://github.com/nithinmurali/pygsheets](https://github.com/nithinmurali/pygsheets). As mentioned in other comments i think you will only get contributions if your project is useful. the project will only grow if it has some users. once you have some users you will start getting issues created. you would have to fix some issues at first. Now if your project has a good enough documentation. you will start getting some pull requests. it will go uphill from there.

</comment><comment><USER15> If you have a project looking for contributors, this question might be a good place :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion! Let me introduce LABvantage - A Laboratory Information Management System developed using Django, Python 3, Celery, PostgreSQL targeting primarily oil labs. Its still in the early development phase. As, we progress we are aiming to improve and, also extend LABvantage to support various lab domains as well.

Source: [https://github.com/dreamcatcherit/labvantage/](https://github.com/dreamcatcherit/labvantage/) :)</comment></comment>