The Node Beginner Book, an introduction to Node.js, is now complete - <AUTHOR> http://nodebeginner.org/index.html

<comment><USER2> I've read the guide a few weeks ago, and it's absolutely great! I certainly learned a lot, and it saved me a lot of time Googling for answers. I think it would be a great addition to the book to discuss some of the frameworks that take Node.js to the next level: MVC (Express?), debugging, etc., and provide some examples. How does the author actually go about doing real-world projects? (I'm thinking along the lines of the Manning books that not only introduce a language, but also discuss plugins, etc)

As a Java developer, I cannot imagine writing a website with "pure" Java vs. using a framework such as Struts 2, for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I'm the author. I would like to add much more relevant content to the book, but I need to be realistic about how much time I can spare for this currently. We will see how it works out.

<comment><USER2> Hi Manuel! I didnt mean for it to sound the wrong way, as if I'm ungrateful for the work you have done. As I've mentioned, it really is good, and it got me up and running and experimenting with Node.js quickly (for which I'm thankful for!).

Maybe other people from HN can pick up the glove? Maybe a book deal with Manning/O'Reilly/Wrox (unless you're not interested in pursuing writing)?

I was just reading the Google+ public "How-to" collaborative doc the internet community has been building (<http://bit.ly/qg0Yf6>). Maybe the Node.js guide should take this format and make it into a living manual?

<comment><AUTHOR> All cool, didn't sound the wrong way at all!

I think "Hands-on Node.js" by Pedro Teixeira is the perfect "next read" when you're finished with NodeBeginner. Pedro and I have bundled our eBooks at Leanbundle.com, maybe that's interesting for you: <http://leanbundle.com/bundles/node>

<comment><USER3> I actually bought the bundle! :) great work! PDFs and ePub looks great on my nook color.

<comment><USER4> As a cofounder of Leanpub (which is where both books are published and sold) and LeanBundle (which sells the bundle), this makes me so happy to hear!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Color me interested. I only did a super short-and-quick scan, but it looked nice for newbs trying to get up to speed.

My #1 hurdle to adopting server-side Javascript is the terrible, utterly lacking documentation for anything CommonJS related. If you've got any kind of reference for that stuff, then triple bonus points!

<comment><USER6> <http://www.commonjs.org/specs/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sure it's just sample code, but I spilled my coffee when I saw this:

function sleep(milliSeconds) { var startTime = new Date().getTime(); while (new Date().getTime() < startTime + milliSeconds); }

Someone likes feeding the garbage collector.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you see that it's just code to demonstrate blocking, i.e., to demonstrate how to NOT do it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I read this book and the Hands-on Node.js book by Pedro Teixeira of NodeTuts. I have to say, while The Node Beginner Books is a tremendous effort that deserves congratulations, I did learn more from buying Hands-on Node.js for those interested.

Granted, Hands-on Node.js costs $6 versus Beginner's free. But in my opinion it's worth it. And a sizable portion of Hands-on Node.js is free in a sample download which I what I started with before deciding to buy it.

<http://nodetuts.com/handson-nodejs-book.html>

<comment><USER4> FYI: you can buy both those books (The Node Beginner Book and Hands-on Node.js) as a bundle for only $7.99 at <http://leanbundle.com/bundles/node>. Buying the bundle gets you both books on Leanpub as well, so you get free updates for as long as they're updated on Leanpub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's silly that the layout requires a width of 1280px because of the right column, when there's plenty of free space in the left column: <http://oi54.tinypic.com/20a3xxc.jpg> (only offending areas shown :)

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, but I suck at CSS - any hints?

<comment><USER10> The quickest and easiest thing to get you up and running might be a grid framework, like grid960 (960.gs) or blueprint (blueprintcss.org).

Though off the top of my head, I can't think of a way that you could maintain your current layout but collapse the left column first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great stuff when I worked through it a few weeks ago. That bundled deal looks very tempting!

</comment><comment><USER12> Excellent! I highly recommend this book if you're looking to get into Node.js.

</comment><comment><USER13> Just in time as I was planning to dive head first into node. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER14> Reading it now; excellent introduction! I'm what you might call an "experienced developer" - I've been writing code since I was a little kid typing in Basic games to an Apple II - but I still find this back-to-the- basics approach more helpful than the usual high-level intro.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER14> "Our plan was to allow users to upload an image file, and display the uploaded image in the browser. Back in the 90's this would have qualified as a business model for an IPO."

Tru dat!</comment>


How we got scammed out of $100,000 in Shanghai - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/how-we-got-scammed-out-of-100-000-in-shanghai-fbfbc6954549

<comment><USER2> Maybe I'm jaded from my backpacking experience, but reading this the scam seems more than obvious, which makes it that much braver of the author to come forth and admit to it.

If these things are not shared, people will keep falling for it.

<comment><USER3> I think everyone on the tour group was jaded at the end!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Guard must always be up here in China and even more so in Beijing or Shanghai. Once, when I was a single man, I got of the plane in Beijing, checked into hotel, and came down for dinner. Two beautiful women immediately approached me, chatted me up, fed my ego, ask me for drinks down the road. Followed them to the bar, we ordered a $50 bottle of wine given exchange rates and price on the wall in chalkboard, and they guzzled that bottle while laying it on heavy with me. My budget was a few hundred bucks and they wanted to drink so it turned into three bottles of wine. Bottom line is when it was time to go home the bar gave me a $3000 USD bill. All the prices on the wall written on the chalkboard had extra zeros added. This is China.

</comment><comment><USER5> > newly evolved Chinese tourism industry.

This sort of setup is _far_ from new. I remember a similar sort of setup from a tour of Eastern Europe in the early 90's, as well as a recent tour in India.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting story. If I were there, I am sure I would shell out $50 faster than anybody else. I hope $1,900 request would trigger some kind of a block for me!

</comment><comment><USER7> You can experience something like this in any country. I recently have seen almost identical scenario when I was on the trip to Mexico.</comment>


Ask HN: Is a 100% free (as in freedom) modern desktop possible? - <AUTHOR>

I understand that for the time being, there cannot be 100% free phones (the graphics chip, the baseband modem, and the GPS chip) or laptops (the video BIOS, the webcam, and AFAIK, the SSD firmware), but given that desktops are composed of somewhat interchangeable parts, is it possible to build one that is completely free, all the way from the OS to all firmware to the BIOS?
Some preferences: AMD--not Intel, discrete graphics are better than on-the-motherboard, SSD is better than a spinning hard drive, and an optical drive is unnecessary.
Edited for typos and clarity. <comment><USER2> I guess Richard Stallman's setup is as close as you can get for a Notebook/Netbook. You can read about his current setup on his website[1] and about his previous setup on "The Setup"[2]. I doubt that it's easier to build a 100% free desktop machine but would like to hear that I'm wrong.

[1] [https://stallman.org/stallman- computing.html](https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html) [2] [http://richard.stallman.usesthis.com/](http://richard.stallman.usesthis.com/)

I find this discussion incredibly important, because when it comes to security it seems to me that the weakest link in the chain is currently the user facing endpoint.

</comment><comment><USER3> it is possible, libreboot / coreboot + debian or FSF recommended OS. You need to lookup the supported hardware though : [http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards#Desktops_.2F_...](http://www.coreboot.org/Supported_Motherboards#Desktops_.2F_Workstations)

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't seem to find any info on Libreboot's page regarding which motherboards are supported--only laptops.

[http://libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html#supported_list](http://libreboot.org/docs/hcl/index.html#supported_list)

<comment><USER3> My Fault, i wrote that comment off memory. Should have checked about libreboot before mentioning it for desktops. Apologies!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes it's possible, but not with current CPU from Intel or AMD.

Researched this recently after stumbling upon Librem 15: [https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15](https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15)

Librem 15 sounded too good to be true, and reached the conclusion that it is. Chatted with coreboot devs on IRC and read this article: [http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/02/23/the-truth-about- pu...](http://blogs.coreboot.org/blog/2015/02/23/the-truth-about-purism-why- librem-is-not-the-same-as-libre/)

Gluglug is probably the best option right now: [http://shop.gluglug.org.uk](http://shop.gluglug.org.uk)

Here's an email (March 2015) from Gluglug responding to some of my questions:

Hi Duncan,

> > 1) Libreboot X200 w/ 8Gb RAM and 120GB SSD is spec'd as CPU P8400 > or > higher. Would it be possible to receive a X200 with T9600 > (2.8Ghz) at this > price?

T9600 isn't available on X200. If you are in the EU, you can send your own X200 for flashing if you like.

"Or higher" means that I can send one with any CPU. Most of my X200 laptops (and most of what you will find online) have the P8400.

> 2) The X200 page mentions inclusion of ProteanOS. Is this available > now? > If not, could you give me a rough estimate of when it will be > available? >

There is no ETA, but it will be available some time this year, as a kernel and initramfs file which will go into the libreboot ROM images and be bootable from the GRUB payload.

> 3) How does one update libreboot when it's already installed? Is > this > something that can be done from within the operating system, > or does one > need to open up the computer and flash via beagle board > or similar? >

No disassembly or external hardware needed. You can update it in software.

> 4) The list of supported hardware on the libreboot website is > limited to > older laptops with low display resolutions. Would it be > possible to > utilize libreboot on more recent hardware? If not, what > is the limitation? > Chipset? It would be amazing to run libreboot > with a more modern CPU...i5, > i7, etc. >

Those newer Intel systems will likely never be freed, due to the management engine (ME). The ME was removed on GM45 (X200 uses this), but it is a lot harder on later platforms.

At present, the plan is to now focus exclusively on AMD and ARM for newer hardware platforms in libreboot.

<comment><USER5> _> the plan is to now focus exclusively on AMD and ARM for newer hardware platforms in libreboot._

New AMD desktop CPUs include an ARM security co-processor which could provide similar functionality to the Intel ME. The open security community will want to take a close look at all code running on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> novena

<comment><AUTHOR> Does the graphics processor have free drivers and firmware?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why exactly do you want that?</comment>


Apple Pay now available as person to person through iMessage - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/ios-11-available-tomorrow/ <comment><USER2> but:

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/18/apples-imessage-based- mobi...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/18/apples-imessage-based-mobile- payments-service-wont-be-arriving-tomorrow-in-ios-11/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Obviously a copycat of Wechat.</comment>


Social Justice Bullies: The Authoritarianism of Millennial Social Justice - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3 <comment><USER2> Please, just stop.

<comment><USER3> Amusingly, this is a good example of the behaviour that this essay is discussing.

"Unwilling to engage in productive, open, mutually critical conversations with people they disagree with"

<comment><AUTHOR> I am shocked that HN has some of these guys.

<comment><USER4> I'm not</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why I abandoned my startup - <AUTHOR> http://westonmcbride.com/blog/2013/05/06/why-i-abandoned-my-startup/ <comment><USER3> 'Doing work for money, especially when you have passions and interests in something bigger, is the most soul-sucking and demoralizing thing you can do.'

You have lived a very sheltered life.

<comment><USER4> He is clearly sheltered, but he has a point. Most people live demoralized, defeated, horrible lives, and corporate work is the cause because it truly sucks. But let's remember that exceptions can happen for any of us. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Personally, I'm OK with working for money as long as I'm actually paid-- at a consulting rate, not a 40-hour engagement. At $500 an hour, I'll do boring work (for a couple hundred hours). If I'm going to be spending 40 hours per week at it, though, for a middle-class salary; the work damn well better be worth doing.

<comment><USER3> I am all for doing what makes you happy etc... i just found the comment hilarious.

People on earth are getting killed, raped, enslaved, women are stripping to put clothes on their kids back, etc etc etc

working for money is not the most soul sucking horrible thing ever.

Everything doesnt need to be over the top melodrama, dude didnt like his job, quit it to pursue something he found more meaningful, good for him... i hope the angle he is on does lead to some improvement in the world. but the writing style is annoying.

<comment><USER5> OTOH, if those living "sheltered lives" do not have this "melodramatic" sense of purpose and passion for changing the world, then who will help those being killed, raped, enslaved, etc?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> ==== She went on: "If you have conviction and the right solution, you can get in front of anyone [to raise money, strike a partnership, build a team, etc], so what are you waiting for? You've already shown you can build a team and a product, you have the technical background to solve this problem. How does a liquidity event really make a big difference? Why continue being miserable?" ====

You've also now demonstrated that you'll drop everything - that investor money, staff, customers, etc, because you don't like something. How will potable water investors react knowing this story? Part of being successful is sticking through with something.

"How does a liquidity event really make a big difference?" If he was really going to exit at $200MM, I'm assuming a decent portion would have gone to him. Having a bank of, say, $10MM should be more than enough to start his potable water business _without_ having to go to investors to get things started the next time (assuming, that is, he believes enough in it to invest a chunk of his own money, not just someone else's).

<comment><USER7> The article states that he transitioned out of the company over 4 weeks, presumably the company was able to go on without him.

I don't think investors will take it badly, I don't think they really want to have a founder who's heart isn't in it anymore slaving away at half pace in the hope of making something from the business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh Weston, I'm in your shoes.

I'm dreaming for a day when I can start a business that installs high powered vacuum suction motors and large hoses into 20 foot utility box trucks so I can help clean the billions of tons of trash that plague our cities.

When I had time I created a hobby of cleaning up small forests and unclaimed land from trash. I'd show up in a green construction vest so people thought I was official and didn't ask questions and would bag all the trash I could find and weighed the bags on a scale. I've got an excel sheet with all my stats. I've picked up over 570 lbs of trash to date. Just in wrappers, McDonalds cups, styrofoam. It's heart breaking to see an area trashy 5 months after I cleaned it up. I stopped doing it because I started wishing death and destruction to the people who littered. It made me angry and bitter towards humanity. I was picking up its trash and it didn't give a damn. I try to ignore it but every time I see trash on the side of the road a part of me keeps saying, "You should invent something that makes it easier to clean that up, think of how clean the whole world could be". The little voice keeps saying "Imagine a giant movable vaccum cleaner mounted on a truck with large hoses sticking out. It could work. Just try.". I can't stop thinking about it.

Your story has actually inspired me to try to go ahead and pursue that dream. If it's one thing tax payers are willing to pay for it's less trash in their neighborhood.

Anyone interested shoot me an email chris at norcophoenix dot com. I know an electrician, a guy who knows where to order the trucks from, and some really cheap office space for startups. I'm in St. Louis Missouri btw.

<comment><USER9> I might totally misunderstand you as English is not my native tongue, but in Germany - and I assume in many other parts of Europe - there are large trucks that go around streets and smaller ones in parks that have vacuums and suck up the trash.

Not sure if your idea was the invention or starting a service business to offer street cleaning services.

<comment><USER10> Even in St. Louis (Missouri, USA) there are street sweepers that basically look like this <http://cityofgrandterrace.org/images/pages/N278/image002.jpg> with brushes that move dirt and small items around and a (weak?) vacuum cleaner, as well as little trucks that are used to vacuum-clean things like parking lots like this [http://bestservices1.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/7684...](http://bestservices1.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/768481_1_400.258170309_std.jpg) (from the name, I'd guess that it's of German manufacture). Therefore, I'm guessing that our young friend here has something else in mind.

<comment><USER8> They only clean the streets. Not the grassy areas around which is where the trash accumulates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >> I just have to sell this mobile shopping company for $200M

And then..

>>But my girlfriend challenged this: "How does selling a consumer app company help you disrupt the potable water market?" She was right, and I knew it.

In the same way Bill Gates can solve problems like Polio, Hunger and Poverty by using his fortune. You need money to solve the world's problems, Is this really so hard to understand?

If you have no money you can't solve your own problems. Let alone the world's problems. Without money you will be left working crazy hours to solve your own miniscule problems which aren't relevant beyond house's front door.

You were right there, if you had sold that start up for $200 million. You could take your cut, then spend rest of your life focusing your time, energy and passion on the problems you are interested to solve without worrying about mortgage, debts or anything.

<comment><USER12> Bill Gates didn't become that rich by thinking "I'll build this software company, sell it and then do what I'm passionate about". He became successful by following his passion, and was then able to be philanthropic. People who are passionate about saving the world will be far more likely to change the world by focusing on that and use other people's money to do so.

The point is if you're miserable in your job, and you could be doing something else anyway you should change. Which is what makes it different from the other soul destroying examples mentioned. Go back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs and self actualisation. It could be arguably worse to look back on a squandered life when you know it could be different, those who have no opportunity to change their fate do suffer, but in a different way - they aren't the ones causing their misery.

<comment><USER6> He was still doing philanthrophic stuff well before stepping down, and it was that much easier to do because he'd stuck with making MS a success first. One can have multiple passions in life, and still prioritize attention to each.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is both funny and sad to read.

So you decided to shed away your chances of success and the financial capacity to back up the projects you believe in +5 years, +10 years, +15 years from now (etc.) for the time preference of working right now on a project - <USER2> there is a water problem in this world.

Tell me, what are you going to do about hunger?

If you really cared about the water problem, couldn't you have donated part of your (steady) income for that?

If you prefer to fix the problem yourself, what are your special skills or experience regarding water?

What are you going to do if your project is deemed "interesting" but not worth investing on - especially now that you won't be able to finance it yourself?

You must certainly place a lot of trust in the goodwill of the future investors, but basically, here you showed that you didn't care about what you were doing, so why should I or anyone else take your word that you won't drop your next project just as quickly as this one?

Unless there is some missing information (ex: you have a 10 years lifespan due to some disease), it doesn't look like refusing the deferred life, but more like taking unneeded risk to get social status (saying you presented at this "Solve for X" conference) under a bleeding heart pretense. Sorry if that's hard - that's just the way I see it.

Anyway, it really seems like a bad decision indeed. If you really hated the job so much, it then begs the question - why did you started it in the first place?

I really hope you can turn around successfully, and find more meaning in your projects.

EDIT: it is good for him, and he will be more happy, but it's not logical. Something sounds out of place in the original post. While he will be more happy, using a charity purpose as the excuse and justification, while it is unlikely to be the best outcome for society, seems phony. Say that you want some fun or social status, that I can believe in. If you really care about solving a problem, who solves it (yourself or someone else) is irrelevant. How it is solved is irrelevant. You just want that fixed. Caring about not getting rich is just as pointless as caring about getting rich. It is a byproduct. You should want to solve the f __ __ __problem, not want or look for ways to spend your life working on it.

<comment><USER14> > If you really cared about the water problem, couldn't you have donated part > of your (steady) income for that?

This.

There are tons of great organizations (non-profits, etc.) that are already doing wonderful things in a variety of areas. Even the ones with considerable human resources, knowledge, relationships, infrastructure and donor bases usually typically have a need for more support. What these organizations need less of: duplicative efforts that produce fragmentation and are likely to see good ideas die quietly because those trying to do their own thing couldn't obtain the resources to execute.

It's sad that so many well-intentioned, idealistic people apparently fail to recognize or refuse to believe that minute for minute and dollar for dollar, their time and money will almost always produce a far greater ROI when invested in existing efforts.

<comment><USER15> I strongly disagree. People ought not to let themselves be talked out of unreasonable dreams of greatness. Your comment reads to me like depression distilled into words.

<comment><USER14> This isn't about being talked out of trying to do good. _It's about finding the best way to actually do good._

Most organizations rely on outsiders who contribute their time, money, expertise and ideas, and they gladly welcome such contributions. By getting involved with an established organization, individuals can often take advantage of its existing resources, increasing the likelihood that whatever is contributed will produce an ROI.

Obviously there's no absolute guarantee of this, and I wouldn't suggest that there's no room for new organizations, but new non-profits are a lot like new businesses: most do not "succeed", and a lot of the ones that don't fail outright plod along and never achieve what was hoped for. It doesn't take more than a quick read of a few random Form 990 filings to see this.

So to put it simply: you _do not_ need to start your own thing to help solve big problems. People who have the itch to save the world would be wise to consider that they are far more likely to make a bigger impact by channeling their time, money, passion and ideas to organizations that have been saving the world for years.

<comment><USER16> Yep. I think individuals can choose to work directly or indirectly on a problem and both are worthy. But Buffet didn't start his own foundation, he gave a bunch of money to Gates because duplicating all that infrastructure would be wasteful. I really respected that...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Heh, sometimes doing now what you can, is right.

But sometimes, you cannot do it.

I have great life plans, but I am moneyless (in fact, having money to by my own food each month is a small victory already), mostly friendless, and powerless (in the sense I do not have political power, or economic power, or friends to leverage, or any other external power).

So I am very sure, that doing something else other than my goal, as a step to do my goal, is not wrong...

By the way, what I do right now I still love to do anyway :) (I make edu apps for little children... not my life goal, but still a noble thing to do, and I hope, profitable)

</comment><comment><USER18> "The question left me sick to my stomach." "I went to bed that night with my head spinning." "...I had been living... in the 'trance of fear.'" "I knew that I was powerfully unhappy..., but I was powerless to do anything about it" "That revelation liberated me." "I was buying my life back."

dude, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelax.

sounds like you are about to do some cool stuff. excited to see what you come up with.

but, just so you have a different perspective, this is what i heard: you are leaving one company to start another company. the new company does water stuff, and you really like that.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A raw, introspective recap of why I left my last startup. I hope it helps some people realized what I did - that it is not worth it to do something that you don't love. Would appreciate any feedback!

<comment><USER19> While you're here, just a quick heads up: the prices on the front page of crowdtest.io is not showing up on my computer (win7-chrome latest).

See <http://prntscr.com/14u0i7>

<comment><USER20> Just went and fixed this. Thanks for the heads up.

If you've got an app you want to test, shoot me an email and we'll cover your first test.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm pretty sure that having a lot of money would give you a head start in solving the world's water problems (or whatever problems you happen to care about).

Elon Musk didn't start off founding SpaceX, his first big hit was PayPal right? So I'm sure that "online transactions" was about as boring to an aspiring space entrepreneur as "online shopping" is to you, Weston.

Anyway, decisions other people make often look weird to people observing from the peanut gallery - most of all when you make a decision that feels so right it's almost impossible to "unmake" you usually know that, for whatever reason and with whatever reasoning, you've made the right decision for you, now.

On the topic of solving the world's water problems, I'm reminded of a documentary I saw years ago by a Ghanaian national in Nigeria, the name of which escapes me and which I can't find anywhere. It was around the time of the "make poverty history" campaign. This guy went to Nigeria and tried to do a few basic things like get a house, find a job, etc. and found that at every turn he was faced by rampant corruption. He even setup an NGO and started accepting foreign aid with very little trouble.

The final line in the film is "If you want to solve poverty, you first have to solve corruption" which has always stuck with me.

I'm mentioning this because it may be the case that "solving the water problem" for the majority of people won't be a matter of the (relatively) simple application of technology, but a matter of the much more complex application of political will, diplomacy and grass roots activism. You might already have considered this, but since I remembered the doco I thought I'd mention it, too: sometimes there are problems you have to solve before you solve the problem you really want to solve.

<comment><USER22> Gates has said something like "automation multiplies effeciencies in an efficient system and multiplies inefficiencies in an inefficient one." The same can apply to money. I have read that 70% of lottery winners are bankrupt within five years.

Money can grease the wheels but cannot buy a solution that does not exist. That is bought with things like blood, sweat and tears, so to speak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Please say more about the new problem you're solving. I think lots of people would like to help if they understood how they could make a useful contribution. An article explaining the root of the problem (which is more complicated than "there isn't enough water") would be well received here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes sir, more to come on that. Happy to chat about my rough hypotheses in the meantime. Feel free to e-mail me at westonmcbride at gmail dot com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've felt like this many times in my career, especially when work gets hard. One thing I realized though is that one has to do what he does best. If it's selling a web-app - that's fine. Look at Elon Musk - he sold PayPal and then went on to use the money to fund world-changing initiatives. You shouldn't underestimate how many smart people there are working on world changing initiates, even in places like university labs. Unfortunately world-changing research doesn't pay well. Elon Musk on the other hand is a great example of hacking the system - making money the capitalist way, and then fund initiatives you want to be remembered for. It's a risk-reward trade-off of course, but something tells me if you'd think you could walk away with 100M in 2 years from your startup and use the money to solve the world's water problem - you'd probably do that. As usual it just comes down to your estimate in the gains in your startup over the next several years, versus what you think your time is worth.

</comment><comment><USER25> My guess is that you're in your low to mid 20's, a time when most have achieved some modicum of independence, feel they have the world at their fingertips, and usually, that they deserve said world.

I remember it well, not with fondness, but regret, because decisions like these cost me the better part of 7-10 years of my life.

Perhaps this is a great decision, only time will tell, but there's something to be said for patience and persistance that leads me to believe this could be a dangerous decision. Here's why...

Your chances of a 200m exit are the same as most, and I don't think it's something you could or should have banked on. On the surface, this looks like a lateral move, and my guess is that the occupational differences won't matter in the long run.

What will matter is the behavior you have exhibited in making this choice.

We gain what we grant ourselves, and in this case, you've granted yourself a rush of impulse, which can lead to addiction and a selfish nature that can become toxic. I don't know you and I can't judge you for it, but from the outside, it seems to me like you are used to always getting what you want, and haven't had to struggle for much.

It's OK to want more, and to believe that you should have it. What isn't OK, is being selfish in your path to get there.

It's strange because we live in this society that celebrates impulse and selfishness as if it were our birthright. I'm talking to you, lifestyle gurus. On the other hand, we also celebrate steadfast determination and 'grinding it out.' In my experience, success comes as a result both in concert together, but because 'grinding it out' takes long-term effort, most throw it out the window.

What I'm getting at is that regardless of what you want, and how quickly you believe you should have it, each and every one of your decisions affects other people. In this case, your decision affects friends, family, founders, investors, and customers. Perhaps there was minimal collateral damage, and it sounds like you were mature in the way you handled this decision, but do remember that it's not just 'your life' at stake. It's everyone's.

I'm sure this was a difficult decision, and I applaud you for having the guts to make it and follow through. Just make sure you don't spend the next portion of your life repeating the same behavior because it suits the selfish gene. Now that you've acted on impulse, it's time to stick to it and make that decision count. It's time to do the work.

</comment><comment><USER26> Awesome to see "The Monk and the Riddle" referenced, it should be required reading for startup people.

</comment><comment><USER27> _I actually said out loud: "My name is Weston McBride, and I can do whatever I want to. I will approach this problem with enthusiasm unknown to mankind, and I feel sorry for anything that gets in my way."_

Were you looking in the mirror when you said it?

I'll admit that comment is kind of facetious, but I've long wondered whether these sort of self-motivational things ever have a meaningful effect on anything.

Anyway, the core truth that this post runs around is that running a startup isn't for everyone. If it was for you, you'd still be doing it. Running a charity might not be either, but it is healthy to re-examine your life at regular intervals and evaluate whether you really are doing the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER28> this reminds me of a quote from the opening for "this week in startups" hosted by jason calacanis <http://thisweekinstartups.com>, he quotes ruby on rails founder, david heinemeier hansson, "if you're not working on your best idea right now, you're doing it wrong."

ideas are a dime a dozen, but think about the one idea that you'd be willing to lose sleep, money, time, life, over. the fact that you're passionate about it will probably justify all that.

there are always exceptions, but i think it makes sense, life is short.

on the flip side, i think experience gained doesn't hurt one bit.

<comment><USER6> For people who come up with ideas _all the time_ , "work on your best idea right now", taken literally, is paralyzing. And determining what "best" is is, at best, difficult to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Without money or credibility it's quite likely that you'll find yourself still doing the startup grind in two years, without having raised money or not even having a company with paying companies. During these two years you'll also find yourself only being able to work on your dream startup 30% of the time, because you have to get money in for the remaining 70% with things you don't love doing.

So probably better selling that $200M startup and then start your dream business with $10M in the pocket?

</comment><comment><USER30> Pursuing your passion: bravo.

In reading this, however, I can't help but read into it a belief of the "inevitability of success". Instead of a $200M exit, you might not see $200. (In which case your decision looks even better.) However, your pursuit of clean water might not be successful either: inability to raise money, technologies issues, uncooperative or greedy governments, etc.

</comment><comment><USER31> I disagree wholeheartedly. Money, a reputation and a tract record are equally important to enthusiasm. Look at what Elon Musk has accomplished with his reputation and money multiplying his enthusiasm. Look at what Bill Gates has done with his money. Who has that kind of impact with conviction alone? Deferred plans can still be plans.

</comment><comment><USER32> I understand why you left, but what do your cofounders, investors and team members think about your sudden departure?

</comment><comment><USER33> your story is basically about a guy who quit a job which doesn't make him happy. adding the unlikely possibility of making $200MM by selling the company and starting working for charity doesn't really change anything?

</comment><comment><USER34> Isn't the "potable water market" saturated with startups and NGOs?

</comment><comment><USER35> Thanks for this. As someone thinking about doing the similar, I was very happy to hear about someone else's story. Keep up!

</comment><comment><USER36> Weston what's your hashtag or email address?

<comment><USER20> weston [at] crowdtest.io

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER38> Sounds to me like his girlfriend got him jealous.

Seriously, if he could quit a start up and go into charity over night I don't think his bank account was hurting.

It always amusing to me how people try to pet their egos, oh hey guys I'm loaded so I'm going to quit my job and sell water to poor kids.

Please look how kind I am, everybody else is so selfish and stuck at work because they are not loaded!

<comment><USER15> Yes, perhaps there is ego involved. But at least it's blended with some wonder and some love. That's better than the form of it that you're expressing here, which is black bile. I wonder why people don't see that when they pour this stuff on others, they're pouring it on themselves as well.</comment></comment>


Bernanke on Great Moderation and Good Luck - <AUTHOR> http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040220/default.htm

<comment><USER2> "One possible explanation is that no one actually understands the dire state the world economy is in. Discarding that theory, let me note some observations that you will also not understand, but will at least leave you feeling self- satisfied."</comment>


Lastpass Chrome Extension Was Accidentally Deleted - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/LastPassHelp/status/1220127587227160576 <comment><USER2> Is that an easy thing to do? Is it like the Tomcat web server where the undeploy button sat RIGHT NEXT TO the reload button? [https://javatutorial.net/how-to-deploy-and-undeploy- applicat...](https://javatutorial.net/how-to-deploy-and-undeploy-applications- in-tomcat)

Lots of "whoops" happened a decade ago because of that design decision...</comment>


Elements of Statistical Learning [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/ElemStatLearn/printings/ESLII_print12.pdf <comment><USER2> Great book! For anyone reading this on-screen, I created a tex file that adds a PDF outline, for easier navigation: [https://gist.github.com/goerz/4c863a2fde1d3357113b95643d0ace...](https://gist.github.com/goerz/4c863a2fde1d3357113b95643d0ace16)</comment>


Some poor black girl in Children's Hospital has the cure for cancer - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/some-poor-black-girl-in-childrens-hospital-has-the-cure-for-cancer-2df9bb2b14f5 <comment><USER2> That's a misleading title if there is any.

TL,DR: "I have this theory, that some poor black girl in Children's Hospital has the cure for cancer right now, or at least the potentiality to discover it, but she will never get the opportunity to, because someone won't hire her since they can't get past the fact that her fucking name is LaQuita."</comment>


Unity 5.2 and Visual Studio Tools for Unity 2.1 - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudio/archive/2015/09/08/unity-5-2-and-visual-studio-tools-for-unity-2-1.aspx <comment><USER2> Oh this is nice! I really could not stand monodevelop unfortunately.</comment>


Show HN: A haiku a day for the rest of my life - <AUTHOR> https://haiku.ist <comment><USER2> I love the titles of the poems. They sum up the essense in a single word. I'm not much of a reader and poetry normally turns me off, but this is fun to read.</comment>


Should we wipe mosquitoes off the face of the earth? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/feb/10/should-we-wipe-mosquitoes-off-the-face-of-the-earth <comment><USER2> Yes, let's repeat what China did to sparrows around 1960. It surely won't bite us in the ass.

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


Why I do Time Tracking - <AUTHOR> http://www.swaroopch.com/blog/why-i-do-time-tracking/ <comment><USER2> _Realizing that I am more productive if I wake up early but I just love being a night-owl. A hard problem to solve._

Yeah, this one's stumped me for years, too.

<comment><USER3> Naps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why I don't do Time Tracking: I find many creative tasks require a lot of distraction time in order for my brain to process what I'm doing. Many times, it helps to "be productive" for an hour, then go use twitter for 20 minutes. When you come back, the solution is magically there.

Then again, maybe you could track "productive zoning out time" as one of your categories.

<comment><USER5> I'm a fan of the 48/12 system for creative work.

A simple timer and a list of 'stuff i did' per work chunk have been getting me all the useful information without becoming a burden or forcing me out of my natural rhythm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Also reminds me of the "Pomodoro Technique": [http://www.bestbrains.dk/Blog/2009/02/21/CanATomatoChangeYou...](http://www.bestbrains.dk/Blog/2009/02/21/CanATomatoChangeYourLifeThePomodoroTechnique.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER7> One of the things I was pleased with in Stuff To Do is that you don't have to monkey around with starting/stopping a timer. You just have a task that you're working on, and when you're doing email/HN/otherwise wasting time, you just set 'time wasting' or whatever as your current task.

</comment><comment><USER8> This whole article can be summarized in one word: DISCIPLINE.

Reading about how to stop being un-productive is .. well .. unproductive. Not getting shit done? Go do something!

<comment><AUTHOR> The question is how to _attain_ discipline, not whether you need discipline :)

<comment><USER9> There's an amazingly good article on the subject here: <http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/06/self-discipline/>

<comment><USER10> Actually, a mini-series of articles. Both useful and inspiring.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Inline, Promise based wrapper around JavaScript Web Workers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mdubourg001/routine <comment><USER2> I wonder how this is supposed to be used:

        import routine from "worker-routine";

This won't work in the browser, right? Is it supposed to be processed through a server side compilation step?</comment>


The Right Day To Talk About Guns - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/the-right-day-to-talk-about-guns.html <comment><USER2> Yes, it is impolite to use this day _today_ to argue the point, one way or the other.

The author is free to argue his point, today, or preferably on some later day. And if he means it, he can argue it relentlessly and effectively and try to get results.

Or he can sell magazines today.

EDIT: s/papers/magazines/</comment>


3D Scanner Recreates Real-Life Objects on the Computer Screen - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/29/3d-scanner-recreates-real-life-objects-on-the-computer-screen/

<comment><USER3> I wonder what ugly intellectual property issues will be dredged up when I can just copy, xerox-style, any small physical object I can stick in front of my $3000 scanner.

The end of scarcity in the physical world will make the upheaval the entertainment industry faced at the hands of the internet seem like an argument at a PTA meeting.

<comment><USER4> It seems like it is a bit of a leap from this to anything with an internal mechanism, which you'd have to disassemble and scan piecemeal, as far as I can tell.

That said, one step closer to the matter replicator, which is great news to me.

<comment><USER3> Watch the "Jays Garage" video on the page where they print a _working_ crescent wrench and an even more amazing working model of a steam engine, no assembly required. Its closer than you think.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for pointing that out, it's definitely interesting and I have the bad habit of tending to skip videos.

What I meant by having to do it piecemeal was the scanning though, not the printing. I suppose in a world where you could simply download the whole CAD plan for whatever you want that doesn't matter much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am enthused. For a turnkey package $3k is very competitive - if I had the cash etc. etc. I'm not sure what I think of their 'HD pro' option - <USER2> another $995 and get 2x speed and 4x resolution! such crippleware is begging to be hacked. Also cant' tell how their $995 CAD offering (NURBS and other 3d goodness) stacks up against the internal performance of other 3d packages. Anyhoo...

One reason I like this is that I've always loved film special effects, but have been disappointed by the recent trend towards CG-everything. I personally do not enjoy 3d modeling at all. But with this, we might see a resurgence of the (nearly) lost art of miniature building for film and video and now gaming. In general I think it's way faster to sculpt from real materials and scan the result than to do the same thing in a modeling package for all but the simplest items.

For hacker purists, here's a page about going DIY... <http://www.chromecow.com/MadScience/3DScanner/3DScan.htm>

</comment><comment><USER6> This has actually been out a while now, pretty awesome tech. I interviewed at NextEngine a few years ago, and they wouldn't tell me what they were working on -- I had to guess based upon their interview questions (about 3d matrix transformations, etc) -- I did manage to come close and guess it was a 3d scanner in box!</comment>


Visualization techniques for different data sets - <AUTHOR> https://mlwhiz.com/blog/2019/04/19/awesome_seaborn_visuals/ <comment><USER2> What surprises me with visualisation is that you soon find yourself on your own when it comes to making a 'simple' graph. This takes you out in to a whole world of coding that nobody else will ever re-use.

The examples out there will not do for _your_ data and even if you wonder 'am I using the wrong chart for this?' you can find that you are not.

Recently I needed to do a stacked bar chart with different things in each stack. Imagine column 1 - fruit - with that broken down by apples/bananas/oranges and column 2 - vegetables - with that broken down by tomatoes/potatoes/carrots.

The other problem area was colouring the chart. I generated colours in the hsl colour space so that where something was on the chart determined colour and how much of it there was determined saturation/lightness. Some people get offended by eXcel style hard colours so I could not just use random clashing colours and call it a day.

Beautiful visualisations are hard, even with the best graph tools out there I expect some inevitable situation of being an edge case and having to find solutions the hard way. The goal being so that nobody even notices the hard work put in. Only if the graph is ultra intuitive and simple is it going to work with some audiences. Simplicity is hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Experimentation when it comes to visualization is a pretty inherent task. Whenever, and I mean literally every time, I start creating a graph, I end up opening at least 5-7 SO tabs, matplotlib, and seaborn docs, etc.

It is just that visualizations are not a solved thing yet.

<comment><USER3> I'm finding this to be pretty accurate for python viz, but I gotta say, when I was working in R, I got to the point where I could make most graphs without looking at the docs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice article. Concise. Code examples. The plots look good. I like the way the author takes several passes on each problem--'do better' as the author says.

Even when focused carefully on the coding and choosing the right plot for the data, an article about plotting is still so much about the data. And so, it's ultimately disappointing if you can't relate the data to your most common problems.

</comment><comment><USER5> Box+swarm plots are ok if you only have a few data points. if you have more there are better visualization options that don't obscure the PDF.

[https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/4-63/v1](https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/4-63/v1)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is very nice. It reminds me, that I'd love to spend some time on novel visual analytics tasks again (as it was one of the main topics while studying) :-)

For instance in the context of Text Mining or geo-spacial stuff.

Thanks for the submission and happy easter :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you lichtenberger. Keep learning and happy easter</comment></comment>


Scalability as a Service - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/12/22/scalability-as-a-service.html

<comment><USER2> GetStream's CTO and co-author of the stream-framework here. If anyone has any questions I will be more than happy to reply :)

<comment><USER3> Why did you decide to use Cassandra and in what areas are you using it?

<comment><USER2> We use Cassandra as main feed storage. We chose Cassandra over Redis (the other storage backend supported by stream-framework) because it was easier for us to operate it (scaling up/down servers, backups/restores ..) and because it has built-in support for multi datacenter deployments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for the post on HN, author of the article here. Looking forward to feedback.</comment>


Unicode 6.1 is out, and it includes a Pile of Poo - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/#!/jonjensen0/status/164889375191220225

<comment><USER2> why? just why?

<comment><USER3> One of Unicode's goals is that you can convert any character set to it without losing information. When you have multiple forms proprietary character sets used by cellphones that have emoji you need to be able to represent all of them.

That is how you end up with snowmen and this character.</comment></comment>


Trading knowledge I accumulated over the last couple of years - <AUTHOR> https://thinkery.me/nader/53172b621cb6025b0a0127c7

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's worth taking this very seriously (I am a full-time trader at a hedge fund).

Most of it is technical analysis type stuff, with very little to nothing backing it up. The decent bits of advice that I can filter out are

> _Concentrate on current investments, not past or future ones._

Good advice in general. A similar motto applies in poker - once your money is in the pot, it's no different from anyone else's money. Don't get hung up on sunk costs. However, you might occasionally give a thought to your future investments, especially if your current ones are somewhat illiquid (free cash is optionality).

> _Always keep some cash for short term opportunities._

Decent advice, though it's questionable how many short-term opportunities you're going to spot if trading isn't your full-time occuptation.

> _You don't need to trade every day! You don't need to trade every day!_

In fact, if you're not a professional, the less you trade, the better.

> _If a company publishes earnings and the stock doesn't move much it might be > that most people already own the stock. It could go down._

Or, more likely, the earnings figure was already priced in and it is as likely to go up as down.

> _Stay away from penny stocks._

Very good advice. Stay the hell away unless you have some privileged information on the the company (and even then, stay away 90% of the time).

<comment><USER3> > if you're not a professional, the less you trade, the better

I once found some numbers that relate frequency of trading to earnings for individuals, & was initially shocked by just how strong the inverse correlation is.

Though on further reflection, I'm not sure it's really counter-intuitive. The more money you spend on broker commissions, the more you have to profit just to break even.

<comment><USER4> At large enough size, commission/trading costs are not necessarily a significant factor--individuals are just not great at stock picking and timing the market.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely true. However, individuals don't necessarily have enough money in their brokerage accounts to hit the point where trading costs become insignificant, especially if they're trying to diversify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think there's way too much emphasis on volume here. Sure, if price swings wildly, there will be a large volume associated with it, but if there's a large spike in volume it doesn't necessarily mean a big change in price.

So ultimately volume is a measure of interest, but for every bought share there was a sold share, so it's not a measure of performance. I would bet that higher volumes might mean lower bid/ask spreads, meaning you're paying a smaller penalty to get in/out of a position, but for most retail traders that spread isn't going to make or break you anyway.

</comment><comment><USER6> A problem in his analysis is that 'smart money' has to look a step or two ahead of his indicators at hyper-technical data that includes the velocity of price movement, volatility and the probabilities that price trends will continue, revert or propagate. It is all mostly inaccessible to the lay investor. I don't think Warren Buffet has an ulterior motive an advocating the average inventor focus on broad, low-cost index funds, like the S&P500, where you dollar-cost average in over time. Not that I take that advice, or my own for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER7> I always wonder where it is best to start getting into trading stock. Like a place where you can play with a few shares but are not overwhelmed with lots of fees for simple transactions. Any suggestions? Possibly in Europe?

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't trade stock per se, I would trade LEAPS or use a combination of options and stock trading.

For example, enter the market by writing Puts, earn a premium and if executed you then own shares at a discount. Then turnaround and write Covered Calls on the stock for out of the money strike prices. Earn a premium on your stock, and earn dividends, and capital gains. Protect your capital by using part of your Call premium to purchase a protective put on your stock (in line with your risk profile). If executed on the Call repeat by writing Puts.

Of course there is a lot you need to know, Google is your friend.

<comment><USER9> Writing puts seems like a free money, if you think about it as possibly owning your favorite stock at a discount in worst case scenario.

Problem with this is that sometimes the price might dip for irrational reasons(let's call it technical reasons), which is the good scenario.

However, sometimes price might dip because of fundamental reasons(let's say company announces that their CFO has misstated results for last 5 quarters).

Even worse is writing Covered Calls without any thought. There was that guy on Reddit who sold Covered Calls on his McDonalds stock. It worked great for a few months, collecting premiums while the stock stayed stagnant. Then the stock dipped in such a way that writing Covered Calls at the original strike price was not really worth it anymore, while writing at a lower price than purchase price was even worse. The protective puts(which he did not have) would not have been triggered either as the dip was not low enough.

So again, there is no free lunch.

<comment><USER8> Yes, what sireat is saying is somewhat true. However with options I believe you have a greater flexibility and more opportunity to make gains when compared to trading stock on its own.

With this strategy you have the chance to protect your capital (by buying protective puts) while earning an income (write premium) and capital gains (in the money Covered Call strikes and dividends). You can make money with this strategy when the market is going straight up, somewhat up, and sideways. You can protect your capital when the market goes somewhat down, but you will loose money if the market crashes.

Frankly there is much I've not said when it comes to trading that is do or die. Money management, position sizing, managing positions, emotional management, fundamental/technical/sentimental analysis just to name a few areas a successful trader should master or at the very least have a working knowledge of.

<comment><USER2> The volatility skew on equities is generally downward sloping as a function of strike (because investors are scared of crashes), meaning that the puts you buy to protect your capital will be more expensive than the calls you are selling to earn the premium - if you want the same amount of downside protection as you have upside risk, you'll actually bleed cash with this strategy. The only solution is to buy less downside protection that upside risk, which leaves you vulnerable to a market crash, whilst at the same time capping your upside - exactly the situation you don't want to be in!

<comment><USER8> Hi, you are forgetting about timing the purchase of protective puts or buying back the options you have written at a profit.

<comment><USER2> If the price moves against you (down if you have written a put, up if you have written a call) then you never get the chance to buy the options back at a profit. You might get a bit of theta decay, but equally any large moves will tend to kill you on the gamma and vega.

As I said in another comment, writing options covered or not is basically a bet against volatility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a novice trader, and agree with everything said. However, about penny stocks..... I've dabbled in marijuana stocks for 2014 and its the only type of penny stock I have or will ever touch.

The only thing I am risking at this point are my profits because that's how little faith one should have in penny stocks.

</comment><comment><USER11> learning from only the last couple of years risks ingraining habits that might be dangerous going forward, as the last couple of years have been a bull market. Once you've been through an entire market cycle, there will be even more perspective.

<comment><USER3> Obligatory Warren Buffett quote:

"A bull market is like sex. It feels best just before it ends."</comment></comment>


The Truth About Terahertz (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/the-truth-about-terahertz <comment><USER2> Though it's non-ionizing, there is a paper out there about DNA resonance at mmW and THz. So I suppose you can still get cellular damage.

So a single photon is not ionizing, but I can certainly generate plasmas with lots of photons at lower energy. So the whole point of ionizing radiation is that it can induce cellular damage without killing the cell? So this can't be done with non-ionizing radiation, even though it can certainly ionize with average energy?

<comment><USER3> > mmW

Did you mean micro Watt here?

<comment><USER4> millimeter-waves, like in the high frequency 5G-NR radio - around 50 GHz.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reading this article, it seems that terahertz is only suited for space-based telecommunication.

Given its super high transfer rate, it would be perfect for a low orbit, internet-providing satellite constellation. _cough_ starlink _cough_

<comment><USER6> Attenuation in atmosphere is extreme. But this can be seen as a plus if you want to limit interference (try wifi in a crowded mall)

<comment><USER7> You don't have to go full terahertz for that. Just look at the difference between 2.4ghz and 5ghz wifi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had read a research wherein Terahertz was used to read the contents of a closed book. Wonder how far that research has progressed, or have they tried to make it applied, ready for some sort of operational results.

<comment><USER9> For reference I think you mean this, right? [https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method- reads...](https://news.mit.edu/2016/computational-imaging-method-reads-closed- books-0909)

<comment><USER8> Right you are!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the comments section:

"""

Terahertz Medicine • a year ago

This review would be different now in 2017.

"""

Any pointers?

<comment><USER11> The laws of physics didn't change, it's great but suffers most of the problems of IR communication, namely air diffraction/absorption (severely hurting range) and mostly line of sight communication. Through advanced modulation schemes one can reach gigabit speeds but it's such an extremely short range[1] it's no surprise there seems to be no commercial product.

Terahertz signal processing, though, has a much brighter (hah) future ahead, in medical and security imaging[2].

[1] [http://www.embednet.com/Giga- IR_General.pdf](http://www.embednet.com/Giga-IR_General.pdf)

[2] [https://codeburst.io/terahertz-thz-gap-tech-for-speedy- commu...](https://codeburst.io/terahertz-thz-gap-tech-for-speedy- communication-cb7ccd7ee6fb?gi=bbb3dfdc39d)

<comment><USER12> What about interconnects inside a computer?

<comment><USER13> I'm just speculating. Theoretically if you have vacuum sealed CPU, it could work. This brings other problems. How would you remove heat released by the chips in vacuum if there is no airflow.

<comment><USER12> That does not make sense.

The distances are so short that you would not have much attenuation from air at normal pressure / humidity.

Also: (not that it matters), but you can remove heat from chips in vacuum through IR radiation and through heatpipes connected to the guts of the chips in the normal fashion (through a heatsink connected to the top of the device).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brian-armstrong Don't we have Terahertz communication already? Fiber optics run on 100 THz light approximately, no?

<comment><USER14> From the article: "The terahertz regime is that promising yet vexing slice of the electromagnetic spectrum that lies between the microwave and the optical, corresponding to frequencies of about 300 billion hertz to 10 trillion hertz (or if you prefer, wavelengths of 1 millimeter down to 30 micrometers). "

So, no.</comment></comment>


Google's Training Its AI to Be Android's Security Guard - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/googles-android-security-team-turns-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> If they can make this work, great. But so far Android's security model has been a disaster.</comment>


Let's donate 10 percent of our income to charity - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/f49ffed16ee8

<comment><USER2> Not while one third of my income is being taken from me by force.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, then 5%. I doubt there's any good reason you can come up with to give to those less fortunate than you.

<comment><USER2> Assuming you meant "any good reason you can come up with _not_ to give" then, yes, here's a reason:

People are voting for the State to take my money by force. Why would I compound that by voluntarily giving money to the very same people voting for it? It'd be like giving money to a mugger to ensure that he has enough for his needs.

FWIW, I do give to charities. The Heart Research Institute and the UN refugee camps organisation are two. But they're charities that I value, & they're not putting a gun to my head demanding money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Who said anything about giving 10% of your income to the government? He _explicitly_ stated charities. The ones you give to are your own choice.

I'm sort of missing the part of the article where he states only to give to charities who are aligned with the US government. No one said anything about giving to a charity that gives Porsches to US Senators.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Forget Wall Street, worry about fintech - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-18/the-next-crisis-will-start-in-silicon-valley <comment><USER2> Regardless of what you think of the headline claim (edit: the link was originally "The next financial crisis will come from Silicon Valley," or something like that), the op ed does not argue it well.

Mt Gox isn't an example of a Silicon Valley company, much less a big enough institution to cause any kind of financial crisis. It failed with no effect on the greater economy.

Betterment and Wealthfront don't trade based on some black box machine learning AI. They just perform relatively straightforward tax-loss harvesting and rebalancing. Not HFT. Suppose all of their robots start making bad trades. The capital they manage represents a tiny fraction of the US market. It's hard to imagine that leading to a financial crisis.

Finally, ICOs have almost nothing to do with Silicon Valley fintech. They're just a classic scam dressed up in a new format.

<comment><USER3> Completely agree. How did this article make it here?

<comment><USER4> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

\--Upton Sinclair

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >The world of finance looks very different today than it did 10 years ago.

Not really.

>In the years since 2007, we have made great progress in addressing the too- big-to-fail dilemma.

Not really.

>There are no easy answers, but a start would be to look ... [at] ... new "regulatory sandboxes," where fintech companies can cooperate with regulators to ensure the safety and soundness of their businesses.

Here's the meat. Wall Street doesn't want their business automated by SV (as alluded to in the article), so even though they endlessly fight regulation of their own industry, the have no problem suggesting regulation for the SV little brother.

<comment><USER6> > we have made great progress in addressing the too-big-to-fail dilemma

We got rid of a lot of big, too-big-to-fail, banks since then. The problem is we got rid of a lot of too-big-to-fail banks.

<comment><USER5> Warren says the sum of the too-big-to-fail banks is even bigger than it was in 2008. Also, Trump is trying to scale back the regulations put into place after 2008.

[http://www.wsj.com/video/elizabeth-warren-too-big-to-fail- ba...](http://www.wsj.com/video/elizabeth-warren-too-big-to-fail-banks-now- even-bigger/311C0E9A-4424-4E7F-97F4-684EF6A68A51.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know it's irrational, but I'm cautious. It has been _very_ consistent in the United States' history: there's a recession roughly every decade _at least_ , and we're overdue. The question is who will be standing up when the music stops? We're all trying to make sure it's not us.

Given that Silicon Valley has been responsible for much of the growth in the past decade, it's only natural, if not inevitable that it will be responsible for the collapse, as well.

In any case, I'm not sure I buy the article. Banks weren't entirely responsible for the Great Recession (there were actually chains of events the government was responsible for that was simply accelerated by banks). Mortgage banked securities were obviously a creation of finance, but ultimately it was the demand that catapulted what was a terrible idea into something unsustainable AFAIK.

Taking this same train of thought: what has Silicon Valley created that's a bad idea that will be abused by regular people in a negative feedback loop that will result in another recession? My money is on advertising, not financial tech.

<comment><USER8> The #1 risk for modern SV is likely interest rates.

Low interest rates spurred a search for returns by pensions, endowments and SWFs which would unwind to some extent as interest rates return to historic norms, as lower risk yield instruments become viable again.

Many startups' growth and hiring are being driven by equity capital rather than operational revenue, meaning that any causes that would undermine the flow of capital from LPs to VCs to Startups would lead to companies folding and increasing unemployment in the region.

A negative signal to LPs from an exit outcome standpoint may have an analogous effect. For example, Uber dying would be a very significant negative signal to LPs.

What I wonder when thinking of this is what the ratio of startup jobs to bigco jobs looks like these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The next crisis will start wherever Silicon Valley's money comes from. Honest question: where does it come from? The American consumer?

<comment><USER10> I'd argue that Silicon Valley's primary paying customer is the VC, and that VC's have had a field day with the easy money pumped out by the Fed and distributed to Wall Street over the last decade.

Signs of a crisis may show up in SV, but it'll trace back to a(lack of) VC funding that traces back to Wall Street.

<comment><USER8> VC is a middleman broker to LPs in this context, where LPs are endowments, pensions funds, SWFs, and the like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While the points the article makes are valid (in essence, the massive regulations that apply to banks, asset managers, traditional wall street institutions are the result of previous bad experiences, not just regulatory evilness), Fintech is still more a promise than anything big enough that it could really tank the economy. Don't think it's going to be the next crisis. The one after or one even later perhaps.

What could have a large impact is the bath that people who are buying silicon valley stock at 600x P/E are going to take.

</comment><comment><USER12> > _" Third, fintech has not developed the set of unwritten norms and > expectations that guide more traditional financial institutions."_

I celebrate that they don't follow the norms of the "more traditional financial institutions" since they were the ones that f*d up catastrophically in the first place.

And criticizing that Wealthfront and Betterment are not diversified seems odd. If they diversify at an individual level, isn't it likely that the sum of all those diversifications also be diversified?

</comment><comment><USER13> I disagree the next crisis will be fueled by fintech: fintech does not hide as much risk as the institutions that failed before the crisis. Contrast this with the underlying causes of the financial crises:

First off, as of 2007 AIG, Bear Stearns, and friends were in the center of a large, complex web of interlocked investments, contracts, and creditworthiness assumptions. Billions of dollars in value were declared to be "safe" and used as collateral for further leverage, effectively laundering them of their inherent riskiness. When this web collapsed, it happened all at once. Today's fintech firms run the gamut, but by and large they consist of proprietarily- managed, non-traded funds. There's none of the securitization that allowed risk to creep outward. The result is that a failure in one is less likely to trigger a failure in the entire system.

Secondly, consider whose wealth fintech is managing. If fintech were managing hundreds of billions of dollars of money belonging to people, institutions, and other banks, it'd be cause for concern. But if the marketing of funds like Betterment and Wealthfront are any indication, they're targeting individual investors. Naturally, individuals losing money is a bad thing and would depress demand and confidence for a while, but it's a far cry from the catastrophic, systemic credit crunk we experienced as a result of the crisis.

Finally, just because a system is automated doesn't mean it's going to rogue. Just because an algorithm is complicated doesn't mean it's fragile. I appreciate (and to a certain degree share) the anxiety, but I think it's misplaced in this particular case. This article seems to be to be more about hand-wringing about computers doing things than actual commentary about the structure of the financial system.

</comment><comment><USER14> I understand that there are substantial risks involved in Bitcoin or cryptocurrency related ventures. But looking at companies like Betterment or Wealthfront but I'm still unsure about the risks involved in them (aside from terrible decision making).

</comment><comment><USER15> This article is very poorly argued. While there are some questionable things happening among some Fintech firms they're still far too small to harm the overall economy and could simply go out of business without too large an impact. Mt Gox isn't a good example because it did precisely that, and they felt the need to overplay the total loss by quoting bitcoin prices as if they were lost today rather than 3 years ago.

Seems more likely that crises from sub-prime auto loans or student loans could cause the next real issue. Attempting to compare total size of risk from massive wall street firms and banks to relatively small fintech firms seems like a fools errand.

</comment><comment><USER16> > the fintech revolution has created an environment ripe for instability and > disruption.

The article did not do a very good job of making this case in a couple of ways. First of all, the reasons given were all hand-wavy and assume all finch will fail at the same time in the same way because... Automation?

The second, and probably larger problem with the thesis is that in the grand scheme of things there really isn't enough money in fintech startups at this point to make a big impact on the economy, and it'll be a long time before there is.

</comment><comment><USER17> how did this even get upvoted to the front page

 _These financial technology (or "fintech") markets are populated by small startup companies, the exact opposite of the large, concentrated Wall Street banks that have for so long dominated finance. And they have brought great benefits for investors and consumers. By automating decision-making and reducing the costs of transactions, fintech has greased the wheels of finance, making it faster and more efficient. It has also broadened access to capital to new and underserved groups, making finance more democratic than it has ever been._

 _But revolutions often end in destruction. And the fintech revolution has created an environment ripe for instability and disruption. It does so in three ways._

 _First, fintech companies are more vulnerable to rapid, adverse shocks than typical Wall Street banks. Because they're small and undiversified, they can easily go under when they hit a blip in the market. Consider the case of Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, which was the world's biggest bitcoin exchange until an apparent security breach took it down in 2014, precipitating losses that would be worth more than $3.5 billion in today's prices._

Lehman, Bear, Aig failures were in the hundreds of billion, even trillions..these are a few billion, tops.

Betterment and Wealthfront are pretty much just index fund clones.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a fatalism meets comeuppance fetish. The emotional desire to see the next crisis come out of Silicon Valley, rather than a rational consideration for how likely that actually is.

The mainstream media is increasingly frothing at the mouth as it pertains to Silicon Valley being a power target for them to hit. You can barely avoid it on a daily basis when it comes to the NY Times or Washington Post etc. Somewhere in the last few years it became acceptable to target pretty much all aspects of SV for criticism (whether culture, or wealth, or political influence, or demographics), whereas previously it was mostly off-limits (not only did their audience largely not want to read it, SV is almost entirely liberal and a modern extraordinary economic success story, so attacking that made no sense across the board). What changed? It's simple, only one thing changed in the last 20-30 years: its companies got so big that it now challenges the power structures in DC and NY, and has corporations that are richer and more powerful than eg Exxon Mobil or Walmart. So the liberal media has decided their own ideological brothers in SV are now fair game due to their immense wealth and influence (I don't have an elaborate opinion on that targeting, it clearly crossed some vague threshold in the last few years).

Fintech is so hilariously, comically tiny compared to what caused the 2007 financial disaster (billions of dollars in scale vs trillions of dollars in scale). It would take decades of non-stop expansion for Silicon Valley's fintech to get big enough to pose that sort of national economic risk. You can tell that's the case by how empty the article is of any actual content or argument - it's about seven paragraphs of content, and maybe less than one paragraph says anything in support of the article's premise.

</comment><comment><USER19> Odd that it doesn't compare the relative impacts of the dot-com bust (Silicon Valley based) and the Great Recession (Wall Street and finance based). Oh, maybe because that wouldn't bolster their point very well.

</comment><comment><USER20> The original title was "The Next Crisis Will Start in Silicon Valley"

The only sane way to deal with articles like this is to add the word Seldon in front of Crisis. It makes the article more interesting.</comment>


Is there a limit to the human brain's capacity? - <AUTHOR> https://nesslabs.com/brain-limitations <comment><USER2> Already the premiss goes wrong with "The human brain is a fascinating machine."

The human brain is not a machine and we have not been able to outperform its capacity by any means. I'm hopeful we are not on any intelligence plateau. Resources and knowledge prior to Google et. al. have been restricted to a happy few. We are propelling innovation forward at an accelerated pace and it is an awesome time to be a live. Lets stop with the limits questions and lets break more and more and even more barriers other people have thought to be impossible.

<comment><AUTHOR> The brain is obviously an organ and not a machine, that was just a metaphor. The article goes on saying exactly what you're saying.</comment></comment>


African Ebola outbreak shows no sign of slowing - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/23/the-african-ebola-outbreak-that-shows-no-sign-of-slowing/?tid=hpModule_04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e <comment><USER2> About two weeks ago, NPR mentioned two things that make this outbreak more worrying:

1\. Cases in 2 countries with suspected cases in 2 more [1]

2\. Cases in a capital city of 2M+ people

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/08/300509073/the- ebo...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/08/300509073/the-ebola- outbreak-three-weeks-in-dire-but-not-hopeless)

[1] thanks nbouscal

<comment><USER3> One thing that is important to know is that there actually are not any confirmed cases in Sierra Leone [1] or Mali. There were many suspected cases in both countries, but all of them have tested false so far. So for now, at least, it is only active in Guinea and Liberia.

[1]: One clarification is that two people from Sierra Leone died from EVD while they were in Guinea, and their bodies were repatriated to Sierra Leone and buried there. Sierra Leone has since banned repatriation of bodies to mitigate the risk of it spreading through this vector.

Source: [http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/ebola/en/](http://www.who.int/csr/don/archive/disease/ebola/en/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem with all the epidemiological response protocols to Ebola is that so many are based on laboratory tests and not clinical symptoms (which are admittedly complex since they can mimic other more common African hemorrhagic diseases like hantavirus).

Normally, that's a highly accurate way to diagnose confirmed cases, but in this instance, these same lab tests were highly misleading, since the genome of the Ebola virus responsible for this outbreak had shifted so much that it can not be detected by some of the lab assays used by regional labs. This discrepancy may have even prolonged the outbreak.

<comment><USER5> Hantavirus is not only not more common, but not so much a disease in Africa.

Africa is full of hemorrhagic diseases: Lassa Fever, Marburg, or Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever. But not so much Hantavirus.

<comment><USER4> You're correct. I was thinking of Lassa when I wrote Hantavirus. Of course, Hantavirus was responsible for the "Four Corners" virus in N. America, and more commonly in S. America, if I recall correctly.

It's been over a decade since I worked in infectious disease epi, and even then not in tropical diseases, so I'm lucky to remember anything at all.

But my point stands: Africa is full of hemorrhagic fevers, which makes symptomatic diagnosis of Ebola difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what killed (or squelched) previous outbreaks?

<comment><USER7> As deadly as Ebola is for the individual patient, it's somewhat easily containable compared to other infections: It spreads via blood or other body fluids, it's not airborne or transmitted via touch. From what I've read somewhat prolonged exposure is required - so pretty basic hospital equipment is sufficient as long as you can keep the patients isolated. Previous outbreaks were contained by isolating the patients and giving them the best care possible until either all perished or overcame the disease.

It's a gruesome sickness but it doesn't have the potential to hop like SARS etc. do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not really sure why people keep repeating this.

If it were _" easily containable compared to other infections"_, the doctors and nurses who treat the patients wouldn't have to wear full biohazard gear or use isolation wards. They'd simply pop on some gloves and a mask.

This strain of Ebola isn't airborne, but it's plenty virulent -- it spreads through contact with nearly every bodily fluid. Get some on your hands and touch your face (which we all do, hundreds of times a day), and you're in trouble.

<comment><USER8> Wearing bio-hazard gear is more a function of the mortality rate than anything else. Sure, it's easier to transmit than HIV (where the extremely long asymptomatic phase facilitates transmission), but it's not as easy as the flu. If the flu had an 80% mortality rate, you'd get bio-hazard suits for that too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Want to help from? Please get involved with the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team: [http://hot.openstreetmap.org](http://hot.openstreetmap.org)

Many of the areas are very badly mapped which makes responding difficult. You can help create up to date maps by tracing aerial imagery: [http://hot.openstreetmap.org/projects/guinea_ebola_epidemic](http://hot.openstreetmap.org/projects/guinea_ebola_epidemic)

Here's how to get started: [http://hot.openstreetmap.org/get- involved](http://hot.openstreetmap.org/get-involved)

thanks

<comment><USER10> While the Ebola response mapping jobs are in pretty good shape there are other open tasks where there is plenty of unmapped territory.

With an OSM account you can see the full list at [http://tasks.hotosm.org](http://tasks.hotosm.org) . E.g. [http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/468](http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/468) is completely undone (albeit 3 squares are being worked on as I write this) and [http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/467](http://tasks.hotosm.org/job/467) has just 3 squares done (with 2 being worked on). Both of these two tasks are linked to US State Department's Humanitarian Information Unit's MapGive program, which BTW has nice video intros/tutorials to getting started with OSM ([http://mapgive.state.gov](http://mapgive.state.gov)).

If you have any questions you can ask at HOT email list [https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot](https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot), Twitter [http://twitter.com/hotosm](http://twitter.com/hotosm) or FB page [https://www.facebook.com/hotosm](https://www.facebook.com/hotosm) \-- or IRC (OFTC #hot) [http://wiki.osm.org/IRC](http://wiki.osm.org/IRC)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Has Madagascar closed its ports?

<comment><USER12> Dis everybody really enjoy Plague Inc. that much? Don't tell me you also paid for on iphone or spent some on they in-app-purchases on android :))

<comment><USER13> That may a reference to Pandemic II. It looks like Plague Inc. is a clone of this flash game, made for Android.</comment></comment></comment>


Revisiting the postcard pathtracer with CUDA and Optix - <AUTHOR> https://fabiensanglard.net/revisiting_the_pathtracer/index.html <comment><USER2> Denoising is one of those machine learning applications where it just seems to work too well. I was thinking about the idea of using machine learning for denoising a few weeks ago and then I stumbled on Nvidia's work in the area and was totally blown away. The strategy Nvidia are adopting for their GPU where they utilise both ray tracing and deep learning cores for real-time applications is excellent.

<comment><USER3> I could be wrong, but I feel like deep learning denoising is mostly just blurring in the right places. Deep learning is good at segmenting each part of the image that's supposed to be a different color, and then denoising can be done by blurring within the segmented regions. I'm very curious how a DNN denoiser compares to DNN segmenter + gaussian blur, or even a classical segmenter + blur.

<comment><USER4> See comparisons of DLSS 1.0 vs DLSS 2.0. 1.0 seemed to behave like you describe but 2.0 no longer does...

[https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia- dlss-2-0-a-...](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia- dlss-2-0-a-big-leap-in-ai-rendering/)

<comment><USER5> DLSS is for anti-aliasing and sharpening, not for denoising. And the technique is different than fixed frame ray tracing denoising because DLSS makes use of multiple frames and motion vectors.

<comment><USER4> If a neural network can build an idea of what it looks at over a few frames (or one frame ie. YOLO) then use it to improve quality of an image is it not denoising? Hallucinating extra pixels definitely.

Denoising, maybe, I'd say it fits the bill but I'm not a domain expert.

<comment><USER5> With a static undersampled ray tracing image, the only thing you're doing is hallucinating extra pixels out of nothing but the surrounding pixels that you already have of the same frame.

With DLSS, it's more a matter of creatively combining pixels that actually exist. When you're upscaling two 1080p consecutive images + motion vectors to one 1440p image, the amount of source pixels is higher than the final number of pixels.

That said, with some config file hacking, people have been able to DLSS upscale from 540p to 1080p (with still surprisingly good results). In that case, the amount of source pixels is still lower than the number of destination pixels.

So my point is only semi-valid...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Surprisingly [sincosf fusion] only happened with -Ofast and not with -O3._

As noted, -Ofast turns on -ffast-math which turns on -funsafe-math- optimizations which "enables optimizations that allow arbitrary reassociations and transformations with no accuracy guarantees."[0] In this case, sincosf by itself is probably _more_ accurate.

[0] [https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FloatingPointMath](https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FloatingPointMath)

</comment><comment><USER7> Yep, Optix is so good that OctaneRender has dropped their Vulkan backend and are now using Optix 7 instead.

There is a talk from GTC 2020 how they went about it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is Optix significantly better than the traditional (presumably faster) approaches used by photo editing software like Lightroom and Rawtherapee? Denoising is of course an extremely well-studied image processing problem with a highly developed state-of-the-art. I haven't looked at comparison recently, but my recollection is that the answer was "no" as of about a year ago.

<comment><USER9> The video here talks about the difference between the two approaches. There's a comparison at 2:50.

"I think the computers are winning, because in the upper right you can kind of see that back wall, there's a little strip of green. It's kind of blurred out a little bit too much with the human version, but the neural network has picked up on that and kept the vertical stripes there."

[https://news.developer.nvidia.com/ray-tracing-essentials- par...](https://news.developer.nvidia.com/ray-tracing-essentials- part-7-denoising-for-ray-tracing/)</comment></comment>


How to write a Hacker News comment - <AUTHOR> http://blog.piasetzki.name/post/15940029463/how-to-write-a-hackernews-comment

<comment><USER2> I would say this is how _you_ would like to write HN comments, and these are the comments you personally would like to read. Which is fine, bless you and I hope you find more of what you seek on HN in 2012!

As for me, I have different tastes. I like reading questions that lead in fruitful directions. Many questions are annoying noise, but as Sturgeon notes, "90% of everything is crud."

For example, I think a legitimate response to my opinion about questions is to ask, "So, what distinguishes a good question from a bad one in an HN comment?"

Next: This comment has a lot of "I" in it. I write in first person, and I like other people doing the same. The whole third-person thing strikes me as faux- academic, as if we're writing dissertations instead of humans communicating with each other.

That's fine when the topic is suitably bloodless, but startups and hacking is actually very much about people and emotions and opinions. Startups are not an empirical science. Programming is not an empirical science. As I write this, the top post on the front page is about "trust."

We can write third-person comments about how the marketplace might respond to a company's behaviour, but we can also talk about our own personal reactions and opinions. I welcome comments that are written by living, emotional, chaotic, and messy-minded humans. It's actually why I like HN!

That being said, there's a lot of bad first-personal stuff. I can't give an objective metric for it, but I can say that one 'comment smell' is making it personal or taking it personally.

I'm not sure how to pull it off gracefully, but a great first-person discussion communicates how people feel without insulting each other or getting angry about the disagreement.

The two acronyms that come to mind are "JM2C" and "YMMV." They indicate that we all have personal viewpoints, and that we accept the possibility that others have valid perspectives. So I'll end with them:

JM2C, YMMV.

<comment><USER3> There's also some very useful personal observations on HN that add more detail to a story when people have more knowledge about it than the article. I think this is a valid place for first person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few of his observations, don't make much sense. "Don't write in first person" Huh? There's no reason why I shouldn't write in the first person, especially if I'm speaking from my own experience. "Questions are rarely points therefore good commentors rarely ask questions" I'm not sure exactly what this means (Questions are rarely points?) An interesting question can be as valuable as an interesting answer (although I do agree that we shouldn't ask banal or easily googled questions).

</comment><comment><USER5> Writing in the first person is fine, if used to communicate your experience, rather than to pass judgment. It's more honest than trying to render an objective perspective of your experience, passing it off as common knowledge or group consensus.</comment>


Boeing just patented a drone that can fly forever - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-patent-mid-air-rechargeable-drones-2015-6

<comment><USER2> We looked at the tethered drone stuff extensively early on as a way to get around FAA regulation for commercial use as did others [1]. Others have looked at drones that could land on power lines to recharge... Is this kind of patent really super unique in that the tether is retractable and the drone does not land? There has got to be prior art for this. I think the patent bar is way too low these days especially in emerging fields.

[1] [http://aviationweek.com/awin/israeli-company-leads- developme...](http://aviationweek.com/awin/israeli-company-leads-development- tethered-surveillance-uavs)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's amazing how simple and straightforward an idea can sound like in hindsight, but it this actually possible?

I've always assumed that it takes more energy to fly a drone than to charge it. So you wouldn't be able to supply enough energy during flight to charge it. Otherwise why would a drone need 1-2 hours of charge time for a 15 minute flight? How would that 15 minute flight last 1-2 hours of flying to charge the battery fully for another 15 minutes of flight? The numbers don't add up.</comment>


Publix cake ordering UI's obscenity filter rejects mom's 'summa cum laude' cake - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/22/grocery-store-censors-cake-with-request-for-summa-cum-laude/npFzLAzg2b7w54247o3MIO/story.html <comment><USER2> > Jacob was ''absolutely humiliated,'' Koscinski said.

Oh please.

> the Charleston, S.C., student graduated from his Christian-based homeschool > program with a 4.89 grade point average

OK, now it makes sense.

<comment><USER3> I imagine he was embarrassed, but not because of what was on the cake.

> Cara Koscinski said she then had to explain why the grocery store censored > ''cum'' from Jacob's cake to her 70-year-old mother while Jacob's friends > laughed uncontrollably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I didn't read the article but could you not just call Publix and order the cake over the phone?

</comment><comment><USER5> Yeah, a profanity filter sure is a sophisticated algorithm.

</comment><comment><USER6> this is what passes for newsworthy? on HN even?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what 'newsworthy' means these days, but I thought it was suitable HN because the point if failure was the user input validations on the website.</comment></comment>


I ditched the Mac for the iPad, and I'll never go back - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90259725/why-i-ditched-the-mac-to-work-exclusively-on-ipad-pro <comment><USER2> Do any developers use an iPad pro? There's just so many OS features that I would miss going to an iPad; multiple windows on the screen, multiple monitors...

Although there would be less distractions, it seems like a huge step down in capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the iPad as a secondary device but the lack of user freedom and true file management would be an issue for me if it was my only computer.

</comment><comment><USER4> I could do this if the iPad Pro supported a mouse. For something that I do I need to point and click and tapping the screen wastes a lot of time.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you organize a revolution? - <AUTHOR> Hello, We are trying to organize a protest and a resistance movement against dictatorship and censorship that is happening in our country Moldova.
What tools and methods would you recommend for better distributed organization, coordination and self-governance?
#OccupyGuguta
Thank you! <comment><USER2> This was apparantly the book that the Arab Spring relied on heavily as a "how- to" for non-violent protest:

Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential - Gene Spring

One of the people behind overthrowing Slobodan Milosevic also wrote a book, reviewed here:

[https://www.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals...](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals-network/2015/mar/11/review-blueprint-handbook-for-activists- srjdja-popovic)

It says he's trained people in the past in non-violent protest so he might even help you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the book references.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I had a friend who was in Egypt during the Arab Spring 2011 and he told me they have been organizing for the revolution since October 2010 using Facebook via groups to spread the idea to everyone also using events to organise the marches.

Note that the government to deal with this had all communications cut including landlines and started to pay attention to these groups and pages since then so it's safe to say that your government maybe on to you if you use public tools like Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you want to become the new Ukraine or Libya, follow their recipe (it is what you will find online, that "non-violent" Gene Sharp stuff).

By historical records, the successful revolutions happened during or after a war (as cause or effect), when the national army is vulnerable and it is possible to create a revolutionary army based of defections and rebels, and this army will usually be supplied by the foreign enemies the national army is fighting.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's only one book you need to read. The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James (the story of Toussaint L'Ouverture and the Haitian revolution)

</comment><comment><USER6> You need to defeat the police forces. Here, the police is a part of what we call "les forces de l'ordre" (the forces of the order). The real goal of the police isn't to struggle against crime. The real goal is the protect the current order like it is (whatever this order is).

That's why the revolution happens in the street in front of the police. A smart police should be less violent as possible. Each violent act feeds the revolution.

Here we have the best riot police because we are also one of the best revolutionary country.</comment>