Guacamole – HTML5 Clientless Remote Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://guac-dev.org/ <comment><USER2> I run Guacamole on my home network as an RDP client to my Windows and Linux boxes. It's a fantastic piece of software. It beats VMC widely in terms of speed, and RDP narrowly when used across the internet. I run guacd on my home server and use that to access my interior network from any computer. It's stable, consumes low memory, and works nicely over HTTPS with apache reverse- proxying the Java webapp. A+ amaze your friends type of software. I am a huge guacamole fanboy.

Edit: I used a Linux VM on my home windows box over guacamole from a Chromebook as my primary mobile computer for 6 months. Browsing in Firefox on my remote VM was always faster than browsing the web locally on the Chromebook. If only it worked well on tablets...

<comment><USER3> > and RDP narrowly

I don't suppose[1] it supports RDP 8's new ability to play video on a remote desktop by streaming the media across and decoding it locally (works in the Win/Mac official clients).

I was amazed and dumbfounded the first time a YouTube video played in a remote session with perfectly in-sync audio and video and instant response to mouse clicks and now find it hard to go back...

[1]: Can't test this myself until I get back to a desktop computer (this is from a phone).

<comment><USER4> RDP8 also supports RDP over UDP which further enhances performance in high- latency scenarios. I'm assuming that is also not factored into that claim either

<comment><USER5> I kept waiting for the demo video to show any streaming video which they kept avoiding. VNC is ancient by industry standards. While this is convenient and the open license is helpful, there are far more mature remote desktop protocol stacks available commercially. PCoIP, RDP8, ICA/HDX, heck even HP's RGS cam handle streaming video and USB remoting.

<comment><USER6> In early 2013, guacamole would do video for a little bit, and then get desynchronized from the server. It would be pretty great while it lasted though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There already have been a few nice VNC web clients around for a few years, like NoVNC ([http://kanaka.github.io/noVNC/](http://kanaka.github.io/noVNC/), python server-side, used in Openstack and others). Unfortunately, there's no magic: you need your VNC/RDP server, then your "clientless server" (proxy socket<->websocket or alike), then your web server to host the "clientless" client.

It's becoming to be interesting when your VNC/RDP client directly supports websocket, eliminating the need of a proxy and only use a STATIC web server to host client. Wait, it's built-in for qemu since 1.4! [http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=0057a0d59006d00c2...](http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=0057a0d59006d00c294de0b012d9a290eb1a5c80)

<comment><USER2> Guacamole and NoVNC are very different conceptually. NoVNC is a client for the VNC protocol that runs in your browser, and a dumb TCP-to-Websockets proxy script that you run on your server if your VNC software doesn't already support Websockets in addition to TCP. Your browser and the server still communicate using the VNC protocol, and you'll get performance no better than TCP VNC (bad performance over the internet, in my opinion).

Guacamole has much better performance. Your browser and the guacamole server communicate using a custom, better-performing protocol ([http://guac- dev.org/doc/gug/protocol-reference.html](http://guac-dev.org/doc/gug/protocol- reference.html)). While guacamole can still connect to your server with VNC, it also supports RDP, which is also faster. Even when using Guacamole as a proxy for VNC if your guacd and VNC servers are on LAN together, because the guacamole protocol works much better over high latency connections than VNC does.

Edit: also, Guacamole doesn't use Websockets, which makes it much easier to proxy with your standard HTTP proxy software like apache, which didn't get a Websockets proxy module until 2.4 (Ubuntu 12.04 is 2.2).

<comment><USER8> "Guacamole has much better performance ... custom, better-performing protocol" -> What aspect of performance? Latency? Bandwidth? Server CPU and memory usage? Scaling? Do you have some actual performance benchmarks comparing the two? And does guacamole perform better when connecting to the same VNC server or is that comparing VNC server with an RDP server. RDP itself is a newer, more complex and more efficient protocol than VNC but VNC is supported pretty much everywhere. RDP could pretty easily be implemented in noVNC by somebody with the time (in fact it's been on the aspirational feature list for years).

With noVNC the protocol decode/encode is done in the browser (modern browsers are plenty fast enough to do this easily), whereas with Guacamole the burden of decode/encode for every client happens on the server where the proxy/client part is running. Even if you need to run websockify to proxy/bridge noVNC, the only thing it is doing is shuttling network traffic and the python implementation of websockify can easily handle lots of simultaneous clients without breaking a sweat.

noVNC was designed with Infrastructure as a Server (IaaS) providers in mind so minimizing server CPU, memory and bandwidth was a goal in the design.

Also, guacamole does use websockets when it is available.

<comment><USER9> I agree lets be careful about stating better performance unless you can post some stats. It may be true but I'm an engineer and like to see why 1 vs the other. Guacamole is either going to use VNC or RDP protocols. Both are relatively known quantities. I have used Guacamole on Ubuntu 14.04 desktop servers to provide HTML5 access to LXC (linux container based) Ubuntu remote desktops. That requires some configuration w/x11rdp and xfreerdp etc but there is a freakin great toolset with the odd name of "ScaryGliders" [http://scarygliders.net/2012/05/23/the- scarygliders-x11rdp-o...](http://scarygliders.net/2012/05/23/the- scarygliders-x11rdp-o-matic-and-rdpsesconfig-hotness-upon-hotness/)

that hss the build down to an art. They GIT the latest code, do the required build and then install for you on your system. After that you just install Guacamole server side and you are done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nomachine also has been doing this for a while, and NX is really darn smooth on spotty connections: [https://www.nomachine.com/node/2473](https://www.nomachine.com/node/2473)

I do love that this is open source though. Someone will probably add NX support soon. Sound support also looks pretty impressive.

</comment><comment><USER11> I've found remote desktop setup immensely frustrating in the past. Every six months or so I'll think "Wouldn't it be cool if it I could have an Ubuntu AMI on EC2 I could boot and remote desktop into?" Then it's hours of googling and config settings editing. Hopefully someone will point me to the easy way I've been missing?

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately RDP server on Linux is a bit tricky to set up, and involved some amount of compiling for me. On the other hand, I think `x11vnc` is pretty easy to get started with. I followed this guide, and it worked for me no problem: [http://askubuntu.com/questions/229989/how-to-setup-x11vnc- to...](http://askubuntu.com/questions/229989/how-to-setup-x11vnc-to-access- with-graphical-login-screen)

My guacamole server then connects to x11vnc so I still get RDP-like performance across the internet.

Edit: you'll also want to make an Upstart job for x11vnc so that it starts on boot, and restarts if (when) it dies. You can just copy any of the basic upstart jobs in /etc/init.d/*.conf and investigate. You also may want to make x11vnc start after your X server: [http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/#run-a- job-before-another...](http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/#run-a-job-before- another-job)

There is a lot of fiddly business :/

<comment><USER12> Did you check out freerdp? I believe its in most package managers.

<comment><USER2> Freerdp's server component is pretty experimental and mostly undocumented. The freerdp package you're referring to is a RDP client, not a server. This was the best result I got for googling "freerdp server": [http://askubuntu.com/questions/475776/can-freerdp-be-used- as...](http://askubuntu.com/questions/475776/can-freerdp-be-used-as-server)

Very much still a compile-it-yourself experience. When I was setting up my RDP server on my Mint media center, I went with xrdp + x11rdp setup detailed in some guides at ScaryGliders.net, although the same guy as released a bunch of scripts to do it for you, see [https://github.com/scarygliders/X11RDP-o- Matic](https://github.com/scarygliders/X11RDP-o-Matic)

I don't really want to deal with recompiling stuff and manual updates though, and expect others to feel the same, which is why I advocated x11vnc to the GP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Having an HTML5 client built-in doesn't mean that it's "clientless" but it's still impressive. MIT license doesn't hurt, too.

<comment><USER2> It's "clientless" as in you don't have to install any software on the machine you want to connect from. No need to fiddle with RDP software on your parent's computers, or worry about access control restrictions from a locked-down corporate network. As far as permissions go, if you can browse the internet on a computer, you can remote control your servers with Guacamole.

<comment><USER14> > It's "clientless" as in you don't have to install any software on the > machine you want to connect from.

Except a browser compatible with HTML5-august-2014-revision. Believe it or not, there are many places stuck in pre-HTML5 times (hotel computers, for example).

If it could stream GIFs and accept clicks with server-side image maps, then it would be compatible with every desktop graphical browser in existence (Opera Mini and text browser would still be not enough).

<comment><USER15> > If it could stream GIFs and accept clicks with server-side image maps, then > it would be compatible with every desktop graphical browser in existence

I can't decide if that's the most brilliant idea I've ever heard or the most terrifying. Probably both.

<comment><USER3> LogMeIn did this (albeit with refreshing static images for control, IIRC) as a supported in-browser fallback client for almost a decade. It was horrifically painful, but usable in a pinch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I see a lot of these front pages with "major bummer, this video can't be played with your setup". Feels like the era of Flash all over again.

<comment><USER17> I don't understand, It seems HTML5 video to me. What kind of setup do you have?

<comment><USER16> Firefox on Ubuntu. It's probably <video> using a non-free codec (H.264).

<comment><USER18> It is, but I'm using Firefox on Arch Linux and it works fine for me. H.264 has been supported in Firefox on Linux for a few versions now, although you need gstreamer installed with the relevant plugins.

<comment><USER19> Hey I'm on firefox (latest -31) on arch as well. Thing is vimeo doesn't load for me either. I do have the packages `gstreamer0.10` and `gstreamer0.10-base` installed, however in `about:plugins` in firefox, there are no plugins installed. So does this mean I have to have some such 'plugin' here for h264 to work?

<comment><USER2> Kinda. You need H.264 codec support in Gstreamer. Try installing the Gstreamer libav (an FFMPEG fork) plugin: [https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=gst- libav](https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=gst-libav)

That should give your Gstreamer support for all formats libav supports.

<comment><USER19> Oh my I feel silly now, the package you linked is listed right in the optional deps for firefox! (Along with `gst-plugins-good` for h264 video too).

I remember being surprised that sites like dailymotion and vimeo still wouldn't work since I expected firefox to come with h264 support a while back (the whole cisco thing if I remember correctly). Always just attributed it to not having flash installed or whatever and shrugged my shoulders.

Anyways they work now, and at [http://www.youtube.com/html5](http://www.youtube.com/html5) it showed no h264 support before, but now it does. So thanks for the comment, without which I would have still been living in the dark. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have used Guacamole as a solution to supporting remote desktop when the client location's firewall(s) allow nothing except port 80 and 443. Worked perfectly allowing users to connect to multiple desktops with no installation what so ever. Simply the perfect tool for what we needed and setup is a breeze once you familiarize yourself with the documentation.

Definitely keeping this in my mental toolbox!

</comment><comment><USER21> Looks promising! Could be use to control bittorrent server from work. Maybe call it pluginless instead? Clientless kinda makes me imagine it's pure js/html5 app but actually it uses a server as client.

<comment><USER22> you can already control rtorrent via ssh, though admittedly it has a steeper learning curve.

<comment><USER23> Or setup a web interface for rtorrent: [http://wiki.rtorrent.org/RtorrentProjects#Web_Frontends](http://wiki.rtorrent.org/RtorrentProjects#Web_Frontends)

And on Android, there's Transdroid: [http://www.transdroid.org/](http://www.transdroid.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Can I use this for a setup where multiple users look at the same "screen"? I combed through the documentation and am attempted to say no...

<comment><USER2> That sort of setup need to be handled by your VNC or RDP server itself. Guacamole will play nice with whatever your target server is doing in that regard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if this can be used to set up a multi-headed workstation environment, where each user has their own desktop (Linux) on the same large, megalithic server? I have a machine with 128gigs of RAM and 1TB of SSD .. this seems like the perfect situation where I can give a desktop to 3 or 4 users on the same machine. Anyone know how well that works with Guacamole yet?

<comment><USER26> It doesn't seem like a particularly elegant solution, but with that much memory, you could almost certainly carve out 4 VMs, each running a separate guac instance, right? Getting to them might be trickier, though...

<comment><USER2> You don't need a separate Guacamole application instance for each user or even each VNC/RDP host -- each user in your Guacamole config has its own connection settings and operates independently of other sessions.

<comment><USER25> I've since gone through the setup of Guacamole and tried things out - indeed, its as you state, you can isolate users pretty well. I was able to set up 3 test users, each with their own WM, and independent logins on the machine .. and it works pretty well. I can see this as being a great facility for a small-office environment that just wants to run a single machine that services multiple users, each logging in with Android tablets or whatever other cheap browser-supporting devices they may have .. pretty neat, and you can't beat the ease of deployment: just point your users at their web URL, and there's their Linux desktop.

(I was even able to run Inkscape and Ardour on different logins, without too much fuss .. worked quite well!)

<comment><USER2> I had struggles when using my iPad with Guacamole, but it works great with Chromebooks/Chromeboxes!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The Github repo for the client says it's 50% Java, can someone clarify, is this an HTML5 client, or are there other things happening?

<comment><USER2> Guacamole is a Java program. It's basically a proxy between RDP/VLC and HTML5. Guacd (the java bits) connect to an RDP or VNC server on your behalf, and then you interact with the remote machine through guacd. Here's a simple text diagram

      [Windows RDP server] <--RDP protocol--> [linux Guacamole server] <--HTTP or Websockets--> [HTML5 client in your browser]

<comment><USER28> Wait.. so you're saying you need a linux server to access your windows server?

<comment><USER2> That's the configuration I use. You can run guacamole directly on the target server if you want. I'm reluctant to expose my Windows machines directly to the wild internet, and I don't want to learn how to configure an HTTPS reverse-proxy in Microsoft's ecosystem. Having a dedicated guacamole box is nice because I expose port 80/443 on my Linux Guacamole machine, and then use it to connect to any number of Windows and Linux computers behind my firewall/NAT.

<comment><USER28> Ok I see, thanks for the explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Could this be used on a Mac?

I would like to have remote/shared access to Xcode + iOS dev stack... Or is there some other way to get that?

<comment><USER30> I use TeamViewer for that, AND Chrome Remote Desktop. I've found that I need both so that if TeamViewer doesn't work for some reason I've still got Chrome available to go in and fix it...

Hardly the best setup but at least it's free. Will be checking this out to see if it fits my reqs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just wondering: what features of HTML does Guacamole use to make this HTML5-only? Is it video tag? Canvas?

<comment><USER32> [https://github.com/glyptodon/guacamole- client/search?q=video...](https://github.com/glyptodon/guacamole- client/search?q=video+OR+canvas) By looking in the code I think they use Canvas, streaming video would be interesting. Looking at guacamole-common- js/src/main/webapp/modules/Tunnel.js I think they use WebSockets with a XMLHttpRequest fallback?

<comment><USER33> Looks like it also uses audio - [https://github.com/glyptodon/guacamole- client/blob/5ae22ce20...](https://github.com/glyptodon/guacamole- client/blob/5ae22ce206582fb2eebdacf826697e8e1a20611d/guacamole-common- js/src/main/webapp/modules/AudioChannel.js)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm thinking of the implication of something awesome like this. Hopefully in the long-run it will boost the likes of light LTE-enabled Chromebooks, at least for tech professionals. That of course requires high-speed LTE infrastructure and ISP backbones.

<comment><USER35> Eh, Chrome Remote Desktop and Fusionlabs' Chrome RDP both already allow Chromebooks to be used for remote desktops (the latter speaking actual RDP), although both are closed-source.

<comment><USER36> I do something similar using Ericom AccessToGo (FREE) to RDP from my Samsung Chromebook (ARM) to various Windows boxes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I see that there are a number of folks around with Docker containers for Guacamole, but it seems there might be nice for there to be an 'official' container for this project.

</comment><comment><USER38> This could enable some very low development cost cloudwashing of legacy desktop software!

<comment><USER39> This was my thinking as well. Or to allow formerly plugin-requiring apps to run on the server. Any ideas for how to lock this down on the server side so that it can only run ONE application?

<comment><USER2> Guacamole is just a go-between. For that sort of OS-integrated lockdown you will need to configure your target server (the box actually running VNC or RDP). No special support on the Guacamole end required.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I use something called Spark View for this. How does Guacamole compare?

</comment><comment><USER41> Can this be used with custom credential providers through RDP?

</comment><comment><USER42> I'd like to see some OS X binaries or a homebrew keg!</comment>


The Microdistilling Myth - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/12/the-microdistilling-myth/68503/

<comment><USER6> This was such a cool little article. I even commented on it!

Something interesting you might not have realized before (I didn't!) --- virtually every American craft whiskey you can think of is owned by some huge company! To wit:

* Basil Hayden - Fortune Brands

* Knob Creek - Fortune Brands

* Eagle Rare - <USER5>

* Buffalo Trace - <USER5>

* Blantons - <USER5>

* Pappy Van Winkle - <USER5>

* Elijah Craig - Heaven Hill (Christian Bros)

* Black Maple - Heaven Hill

So one reason why it's apparently hard to be an indie whiskey distiller is that the major brands have owned up a lot of very high-quality craft distillers already; as the article points out, unlike with beer (where Coors really does suck), widely-available well-known brand whiskey does tend to be very good.

I think he overreaches with his argument by taking on all of distillery. Whiskey is particularly hard to do well. It's aged for many years before being brought to market, which makes it particularly capital-intensive to enter the market, but not as costly to sustain a proven brand. It's also a spirit with very well-defined parameters; unlike with gin, where a distinctive and interesting new take would be welcome, whiskey is more like wine: the market knows what it wants from quality product.

It _clearly_ must be easy to outdo vodka distillers. Dave Arnold at the French Culinary managed to make extremely high-quality flavored vodka out of pure food-grade alcohol --- an industrial supply! --- for a couple bucks a gallon. So there's an easy counterexample.

Gin seems like another easy-to-enter market, and one where you can bring innovation to market without relying on novelty products. Just use different/better aromats.

I appreciate that Jim Beam is a quality product even though it's at the low end of the quality spectrum, but I don't think he did his argument any favors by saying that it was better than any indie craft whiskey he'd ever had, even if it's true.

<comment><USER7> Who owns Maker's Mark? It remains one of my favorite bourbons for some reason. I think its one of the best for its price range. I think it beats Knob Creek (similar price) hands down.

I think doing bourbon right is kind of like doing wine right. It certainly takes more finesse than beer.

However the difficulty in mastering a craft seems orthogonal to whether its a corporation or a single guy doing it.

If anything... bourbon whiskey being brewed by guys who have been doing it forever implies that if you're a craft distillery... just keep distilling and perfecting your craft and you'll do just fine.

<comment><USER8> I highly recommend taking the distillery tour at Maker's Mark. They put a lot of care into every aspect of the production process. They even let you dip your own bottle :)

<comment><USER7> Yep, I visited it on a drive through Kentucky once. Dipped my own bottle, got the t-shirt, didn't have time for the tour though (had 2 little kids with me).

It was definitely cool to see where & how its made (and aged!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a fantastic micro-distillery down the street from my place in Columbus called Middle West Spirits (<http://www.middlewestspirits.com/index.php/products/>).

Not only are the micro-distilling amazing vodka (and now whiskey and more soon), but they are trying to make it the most sustainable and local based business I have ever seen. Soon the building will be completely solar powered, they are buying everything local (from the raw wheat from local farmers, honey from local beekeepers, to having bottles custom made in lancaster, ohio). The byproducts of the business are being sold/given to various places that can use them positively (acetone goes to a cleaning company, etc). And the price of everything is in the mid $30-range, so they aren't killing us for pricing either. And they are working to get local laws modernized in a positive way to support local distilling, which unfortunately those 'big business' distillers are massively again.

Oh, and the product is outright amazing. Most vodka is downright boring to me, and I prefer scotch, but this is really something that excites me.

<comment><USER6> Is the whiskey any good? Vodka should be very easy. Good indie whiskey would be a huge accomplishment.

<comment><USER9> The whiskey is rather good. I'm a scotch guy myself, otherwise I was considering even buying an entire small barrel of it for myself.

Their vodka seems to go above and beyond, and actually has flavor.

<comment><USER6> You know that unflavored vodka is specifically _not_ supposed to have a flavor, right?

<comment><USER9> But if something is made of a product (say wheat, which this vodka is) then it also stands to reason that there should be some flavor imparted by the materials it is made with. The definition of vodka as having 'no flavor' is just silly because every vodka out there has a flavor (your tongue knows there's something there), but just generally that flavor is one of bad alcohols that have been poorly distilled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I enjoy micro-distilled liquor (mostly gin) not because it's necessarily better, but because it's different.

If I'm looking for a traditional gin, I don't think anyone's going to beat Tanqueray 10. It's solid, consistent, well-balanced, and smooth. It tastes like what traditional gin should taste like. If I'm looking for something more interesting, I might have some Sacred Gin (<http://www.sacredspiritscompany.com/>). It's equally as good as Tanqueray 10 (I derive a similar level of enjoyment out of drinking it), it just tastes different - and sometimes I'm in the mood for that.

Whereas major distillers are all working on perfecting a similar recipe (Tanqueray 10 tastes like a better Tanqueray, which takes like Beefeater, which tastes like Gordon's, etc.), small micro-distillers are often agile enough that they can take liberties with flavors that major producers can't.

<comment><USER11> You should add Hendrick's to your mix of gins!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's difficult to compare brewers and distillers. It's easy to hide flaws in beer, but very difficult to do that in liquor.

The time to market is also very different in the two fields. With modern brewing equipment you can go grain to glass in as little as 2 weeks. With a whiskey you're talking at least a couple months of aging.

When making beer there are 23 major categories of beer. As a brewer you can make mist of those with just different ingredients. When distilling you're focus is usually on only one type of spirit. In that case it's all or nothing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very uninformed article. Big distillers, like big anything, exist to make a profit via broad appeal. Many micro distillers are trying to be more interesting than that.

Of course there are counter-examples on both sides. But Stranahan's (no longer micro) and Leopold Bros. are two examples of great micro-whiskeys from Colorado. If I were so inclined, I could recklessly extrapolate from that anecdote to reach the opposite conclusion as the article does.

</comment><comment><USER14> Lindsay's Technical Books has several books, mostly late 19th century reprints, on distilling like this one, _A Practical Treatise on the Raw Materials and the Distillation and Rectification of Alcohol_ , <http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks9/brannt/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER15> I've had Old Potrero and Four Grain Bourbon and thought they were both fantastic.

But thats not inconsistent with the article. They were different and interesting but not necessarily better than the big distilleries.

<comment><USER6> Old Potrero isn't a bourbon; I wonder if the dynamics of rye are different from those of bourbon. Rye tends to be cheaper and less aged (I prefer it to bourbon, for what it's worth). Also: Old Potrero is Anchor Brewing. Not exactly a small company.

Woodford Reserve (Four Grain) is Jack Daniels. See what I mean about Big Whiskey? It's inescapable!

<comment><USER16> Do you have a recommendation for a good rye that's not too pricy? I'm fairly new to bourbon: the only one I've tried and enjoyed is Knob Creek.

<comment><USER6> The great thing about rye is that it isn't pricey. I like Russells on the low end; the "Makers" of rye seems to be Templeton these days; on the high end, I'm _really_ liking Whistlepig.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What Many People Seem to Miss About iPhone Pricing - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Factory_of_Mirrors/what-many-people-seem-to-miss-about-iphone-pricing-287943276d32 <comment><USER2> I'm saying this as someone who's considering buying iPhone 8, but I still think the iPhones are ridiculously expensive (especially here, in EU). You own a mattress for years, but your phone is deprecated in a year or two.

My current and previous phones have been budget phones. It's so nice not having to worry about your phone. I can drop it, I can throw (I accidentally catapulted it a couple of meters once), I can drown it (it's waterproof, but even if it wasn't, no big deal). I don't even have a case or screen protector. You don't have to worry about losing it, or theft, as you're not constantly carrying around a thousand dollars in your pocket. Conversely, with iPhone (or any other flagship), you have to cradle it, protect it. I think the allure of cheap phones is the lack of weight on your shoulders. I'm only considering switching because no new android phone looks appealing to me anymore, and I have had enough with Google.

In my opinion, the only reasonable way of owning an iPhone is buying a new one every year, while selling the last years model around the time new one's announced. They don't lose much value, and you're staying on top of new tech. It's a hustle, but I know people who are successfully doing this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps my experience is atypical in that I"m yet to lose or break an iPhone; I get a new one every two years and have my last four in a drawer (you're right I should probably have sold them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The author assumes this fact: "Assuming you are in fact getting a better product for that extra money". However it's not necessarily true.

Question really is: is it a better product, making it worth to spend more on it? Spending more on something doesn't always translate to a better experience. I guess the only way to know is to try both and people switching to android are going to find out.

For instance, people spending a lot of time on their phone will benefit way more from a better battery life than from tiny good looking bezels. Having to recharge your phone during the day can be quiet frustrating.

<comment><AUTHOR> I meant if you are in fact subjectively getting a better product for your money then it's worth it. This could mean different things to different people like longer battery life, higher quality camera, etc.

More expensive products are certainly not always superior and in many cases just the opposite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree with the sentiment but not with the conclusion. I spend all my time with non-Apple products.</comment>


Stanford professor's wife recruited for Coronavirus study with false pretenses - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-study-bhattacharya-email <comment><USER2> The editor of Talkingpoints Memo made a really good point early this week [1]. Just a bit more than 0.1% of NY residents have died from known covid-19 infections. This sets a lower floor of the actual mortality rate, since even if not a single other person died of it in the future, and not a single person died from it but wasn't counted, and even if 100% of NY residents are/were carriers, the mortality rate would be 0.1%.

But an early test shows about 21% infection rate in NYC (tested by serum levels of antigens), and certainly people will continue to die of it, and certainly there are many people who died of it but aren't recognized. Conservatively, the actual mortality rate is at least 0.6%, a multiple greater than the Stanford study.

[1] [https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/have-fatality- numbers-f...](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/have-fatality-numbers-from- new-york-already-debunked-the-santa-clara-serology-study)

<comment><USER3> 0.1% isn't there lower floor if they are over counting deaths from Corona. Here is an example of one such case [https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/26/boys-death-no- longer-...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03/26/boys-death-no-longer- counted-among-la-countys-virus-total/)

<comment><USER2> I'm sure there are some misdiagnoses, but enough to skew the results in any significant way? I'd bet $1000 to $1 that the number of unreported cases caused by covid-19 exceeds the number of misattributions that were caused by something else.

<comment><USER4> I'd bet along side you. There's likely to be 10X more unreported than misattributed cases.

Not to mention misattributions in the other direction - e.g California's discovery of earlier cases, and subsequent backdating or earliest known case.

The attacks on counting likely/suspected cases reek of motivated reasoning</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/01/impossible-foods-just-raised-75-million-for-its-plant-based-burgers <comment><USER2> I remember reading the original impressions of the Impossible Foods ground meat and thinking it was just media buzz.

I promise you it is not.

At Momofuku's Ssam Bar in the East Village of NYC, you can order an off menu item called Spicy Pork Sausage and Rice Cakes. It's not really off the menu - the item has simply been around so long and is so well known to regulars that they left it off to make room for new dishes.

I've had it more times than I count.

At lunch time however, they serve Spicy "Impossible Sausage" and Rice Cakes. The first time I ordered it, I was ready to complain about one of my favorite things ruined by a hyped product.

But then I took my first bite, and it somehow tasted better than the pork sausage version. I've been back many times since and the Impossible Foods version of the dish is often tastier than the pork version.

Let that sink in for a moment. Impossible Foods was able to replace high quality pork sausage served in a beloved dish at one of New York's buzziest restaurants and make the dish better.

The vast majority of ground meat in the American food chain is of lower quality. If Impossible Foods can replace that ground meat at scale, the ramifications are enormous. They will reduce by a huge margin the number of animal lives and quantity of CO2 necessary to feed us.

<comment><USER3> I tried the Impossible Meats burger - it was nowhere near as tasty as a beef burger. I think it could be improved drastically by just adding a little MSG tho.

<comment><USER4> I just want to point out that there are lots of ways to get umami. MSG is just one of them (and not really a great way IMHO).

I cooked vegan at home for a long time (I'm not actually an ethical vegan, I just like vegan food). Konbu dashi will give you similar glutamate profiles, but tomatoes, fermented products like shoyu and miso, etc are simple ways to boost the umami as well. Usually the biggest trick in good vegan food is to understand how to balance all of the flavours. Meat based cooking has so many savoury flavours, and if you simply cut out the meat, you end up with overly sweet/sour dishes. They lack depth. If you're designing a dish and you are waiting until the end to figure out how to get the umami in (for example, by adding MSG), then you're really not going to succeed most of the time IMHO. If I want a savoury dish, umami is where I start.

Having said that, I've never made a vegan burger style dish that I've thought was particularly good. I've had some excellent vegan dishes like that at restaurants and I've always wondered how they did it. Since MSG triggers migraines in me, I'm pretty sure it wasn't MSG :-)

<comment><USER5> Most of the things you list as MSG alternatives actually contain MSG; like tomatoes, konbu dashi, and many fermented products.

<comment><USER6> One is L-shaped (artificial and flavour enhancing) the other is natural.

[http://science.jrank.org/pages/4433/Monosodium-Glutamate- MSG...](http://science.jrank.org/pages/4433/Monosodium-Glutamate-MSG- Characteristics-MSG.html)

<comment><USER7> Since when is "natural vs artificial" evidence of relative healthiness, or even a logical basis for comparison at all? You have numerous comments in this thread all drawing on the same fallacy that some MSG can be "good" and some can be "bad" when that is inherently impossible.

Producing a URL with the word "science" in it ending in .org is not sufficient evidence. Find a single empirical datapoint or published study, otherwise stop spreading fearmongering speculation. Do you concern yourself with which table salt to buy because it may be "bad NaCl"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm happy to see that fat and protein are the main ingredients.

[http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition- facts.png](http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png)

A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.

<comment><USER9> Wow, do nutrition labels in USA generally not show figures per 100g?

<comment><USER10> It's per serving.

Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item.

For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food.

Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see [https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument...](https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm) ).

<comment><USER11> The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. Generally I find the serving sizes so low you're best to completely ignore them.

<comment><USER12> _The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together._

In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm a fan and as a 3-time food+tech entrepreneur, imho they're going to be very successful.

I'm an omnivore, love burgers. I also love veg burgers, but they're not burgers -- they're something else, the way salmon burgers and fried chicken sandos are great but don't count when you want a "beef burger."

The Impossible Burger was the first burger I tried (Jardiniere in SF) that my brain said, "yes, this is a burger". In fact, it was close enough that... it was boring. I could eat it every day and if beef burgers were taken away from me, I wouldn't notice or reminisce.

The next step is to make the raw IB meat available in grocery, so I can experiment myself - load up the umami, mix in spices, stuff it with cheese, try it with different levels of done-ness, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> I tried a Beyond Burger, which I believe is the main other horse in this "veggie burger" race and I was pretty impressed. It doesn't have the "plant blood" that seems to be Impossible's secret sauce, but on a bun, with ketchup, lettuce and tomato I thought it was pretty great. Great enough that I'd order it instead of a normal burger if it was widely available.

<comment><USER15> how did the cost compare to meat?

<comment><USER16> Environmental, ethical, or dollar cost?

<comment><USER17> Dollar cost. I'd love to switch away from beef burgers for a health and ethical reason, but can't justify a $15 burger when most burgers at a nice restaurant are $10 where I live.

<comment><USER15> thanks. yes. that's what i was wondering about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What is it with first-world vegans/vegetarians wanting to eat these extremely processed imitation meat frozen foods? There is an entire tradition of vegetarian cuisine around the world from Rasta Ital, to Hindu Sattvic, Afghani, and Thai which you could learn with just a tiny bit of effort.

<comment><USER19> I think the goal is more to transition omnivores away from meat. There is a consensus that the meat industry in unsustainable as is. But, there is also a strong belief that trying to convince the world they don't want meat via rational arguments is futile. Thus, we need work-arounds via either plants that mimic meat or changing the meat industry over to vat-brewed meat.

<comment><USER20> > trying to convince the world they don't want meat via rational arguments is > futile

Of course it is, because it should be pretty obvious that they do want meat. If they didn't want meat you wouldn't be having the argument in the first place, right?

I've never tried a real honest to god direct replacement for meat that I actually was fooled -- even for a moment -- into thinking might actually be meat. I've had some delicious vegetarian dishes, I've had some delicious vegan dishes, but those things definitely just aren't the same experience as eating meat. Tofurkey just don't cut it.

Which isn't to say that I'm not open to the idea of having a 1:1 lab-made replacement for meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. I most definitely am. If you could provide me with lab-meat at even just a small premium I'd probably go vegetarian where that option was available.

But boy do I love me some meat-or-indistinguishable-from-meat products in my meals.

<comment><USER21> > Which isn't to say that I'm not open to the idea of having a 1:1 lab-made > replacement for meat that is indistinguishable from the real thing. I most > definitely am. If you could provide me with lab-meat at even just a small > premium I'd probably go vegetarian where that option was available.

Question: does that count as going vegetarian? To me that's just going techno- carnivore.

<comment><USER22> Depends why you're asking. [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the- categories-were-mad...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories- were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Haven't tried it but certainly a noble cause, I hope they succeed.

> "I love VCs and particularly the ones that invested in us," Brown had said. > "But it's truly astonishing how little diligence they do in terms of the > actual science that underlies some tech companies."

Recent headlines on Theranos, Juicero, uBeam really drive this point home

<comment><USER24> Talking to VC firm who was considering an investment in a quantum computing company, I was also blown away by how little science they attempted to understand. It doesn't make any sense to me. My best explanation is that they think it's simply impossible to become well-informed at a reasonable price, and instead just rely on aligning the interests of the founders with their own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Tried an Impossible Burger for the first time the other day. In a burger with lots of condiments and toppings, it was OK, but not something I'd order again. When I took a bite of it by itself, it tasted like cat food.

Since there are so many positive reviews, I wonder if it just wasn't prepared correctly? The restaurant had only started serving it a few days earlier.

<comment><USER26> I tried one at Umami Burger and left with the same general impression as you. It was bland by itself, saved by copious melted cheese Umami Burger serves it with, and did not have any of the nice pink associated with medium-rare. I guess it's comparable to a fast food burger, but does not seem like anything I'd want to repeat. The sugars and vegetable oils listed on the ingredients list make me wonder if the whole thing is even healthy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I love this video of Adam Savage trying the Impossible Burger at Jardinière. Gets into the details of how they prepare it compared to their standard burger: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF9bf9uKQQk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF9bf9uKQQk)

</comment><comment><USER28> I am extremely eager to see lab grown meat more so than I am eager to see better meat substitutes become mainstream.

However, being a meat eater, since the news of this product came out however many months and years it was, I have been wanting to try it. Which is more than I can say for other meat substitutes.

<comment><USER29> It's hard for me to understand the excitement for lab meat. Can you explain your interest?

<comment><USER30> It is less resource intensive to produce. Hand-tuned assembly code burger vs transpiled javascript for the hot path (I eat cheeseburgers very often, as do many, many others in the countries I frequent).

You can feed more people with the same amount of resources. 80,000 humans a day die from lack of food. Everything we can do to meaningfully improve food production efficiency is a big win for the species.

<comment><USER31> I thought we technically make enough food for everyone on earth? It's the distribution that's the hard part.

<comment><USER30> That's true, however optimizations like this have wide-reaching effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Tried it, tastes. OK. A bit like meat, smells a bit like a barn.

</comment><comment><USER33> Has any thought been given to the long-term economic consequences of something like this replacing animal products in the market? The price of commodity corn shot up when production of corn-based ethanol became popular as well as other uses of corn.

I'm not sure if the agricultural industry would be ready to support a large shift towards this very easily.

<comment><USER34> It actually requires a lot less lands to make a plant-based burger than a beef-based one, as you're skipping a whole ladder in the chain.

I believe the ratio is between 6 and 8 times less land for beef, although you should definetly research this number if you're interested.

This makes plant-based burger and vegetarian/vegan foods a lot more eco- friendly and requires less land to produce, which is a problem most developped countries are facing

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I guarantee the meat industry will go to incredible lengths to make this company fail.

<comment><USER36> Then we should go to great lengths to prevent that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've tried it. It's good.

At $16 a pound I'd much rather get some high quality meat or fish. If it comes down in price to something reasonable I might add it to our rotation.

<comment><USER38> 16USD per pound, which is 44AUD or 35USD per KG, thankyou Wolfram, is high, but considering the environmental and ethical advantages it's almost _miraculous_. That's just about dead on 5x what I pay for chicken breast now, so it's not at all crazy to imagine splurging on this once in a while for a meal with a vegan friend, and that the price will come down to a mass-market, regular purchase level in the not-so-distant future.

Much like how a Tesla Model 3 isn't as cheap as a Corolla, but still not completely out of the question for alot of people like a Model S is.

Even if it settles at double the price of meat I could see myself buying it regularly. Given how unethically meat is produced now, I don't mind accepting some price increase.

<comment><USER37> I guess I'm used to my friends picking out more affordable options. I might spend extra occasionally because my wife is a vegetarian but I can't see any of my friends selecting it at this price, even at $8 a pound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Tried it, liked it. Best vegetarian burger of my life.

</comment><comment><USER40> Nutrition panel is in the FAQ [https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/](https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/)

</comment><comment><USER41> I am excited to try the Impossible Foods burger. Waiting for it to come to Utah.

</comment><comment><USER42> But will it be Kosher? :)

</comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone know what the omega 6:3 ratio of this fake meat is?

</comment><comment><USER44> The last three paragraphs of this article are a bit awkward.

</comment><comment><USER45> Sam Harris did a good interview with this outfit:

[https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without- murder](https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/meat-without-murder)

</comment><comment><USER46> Is it just me or do posts about "vegetarian/vegan" foods, Tesla, or any flavor of the day seem to produce so many suspicious comments?

It looks every other comment is trying to "sell" us something rather than being regular honest commenting. Reminds me of evangelicals or jehovah's witnesses trying to sell me their religion.

Maybe knowing how social media works now has got me cynical.

I'll never become vegetarian and I'll stay an omnivore til I die. It's great that they were able to raise money and hopefully they'll open up options for the vegetarians crowd. But please stop with the Impossible Foods is going to save the world stuff.

Tesla going to save the world. Impossible Foods is going to save the world. Jesus is going to save the world. Goodness.

<comment><USER47> Probably just you. This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole. But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.

<comment><USER46> >This product is indeed capable of changing the world for the better if scaled up. "Saving it" is hyperbole.

But "changing the world" isn't hyperbole?

> But it's not about making a nice meal for vegetarians, it's about > sustainable meat consumption for a growing population.

What? Meat eaters aren't going to choose fake meat no more than vegetarians are going to choose fake vegetables/fruits.

People are still going to hunt, still going to keep livestock and still going to consume meat. We are omnivores after all.

Also, meat production is HIGHLY sustainable already. We waste tons of meat because we have such an excess of it.

<comment><USER47> Meat eaters will eat fake meat if economics incentive them too. You don't need to completely switch over to impact the world. Growing meat is a substantial waste of energy and nutrients. Unless you think we will never struggle to produce enough food, it's hard to reconcile how you can think we won't run into issues with meat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Tofu/soy burgers have been around for >20 years already. How is this significantly different?

[Edit: way to be downvoted instantly for asking a serious critical question. Remember when hn prided itself on a higher level of discussion than reddit?]

<comment><USER49> OK, I'll help explain why I downvoted you. It probably would have taken you less time to google "impossible foods burger" than to write your question. More importantly, by starting of your question the way you did, you seem to be implying, intentionally or not, some level of smugness that "don't these guys know soy burgers have been around for 20 years."

Here is the Impossible Foods FAQ: [https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/](https://www.impossiblefoods.com/faq/)

<comment><USER48> I read the article. It didnt say. I even googled leghemoglobin and found that its in all soy/tofu, so that didnt seem a differentiator. I expect other people here will have the same question

Honestly yes if you cant be clear what your business does where others have failed IMO at the very least your marketing team is failing

<comment><USER50> The business doesn't DO anything different.

Soy burgers have been around for 20 years and that has been 20 years of failure.

Vegetarians might not care how the product tastes, especially if they make their culinary decisions for ethical reasons. But this is the first time meat eaters are actually saying that they might use a veggie product just because they like it.

That is a big deal.

<comment><USER51> Yeah, and Impossible purposely sells these in the meat aisle because they want to complete against the meat burgers, not against veggie burgers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> > Soy

I wonder how the community here will respond to this. Most here seemed upset by the male-infertility story from a week or two ago. Turning around to gush over soy would be completely incoherent.

"Soy as health food" is diabolically false.

<comment><USER53> Their "soy leghemoglobin" doesn't come from soy though. It comes from GMO Algae. Presumably they could reprogram that algae to produce a different hemoglobin-like molecule.

<comment><USER52> Check the ingredients list:

>Full Ingredient List:

>Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.

>Contains:

>Soy, Wheat

This contains soy. My comment stands.

<comment><USER54> I love how highly, highly processed foods are suddenly A-OK to many people here once it's a fake meat product.

>But high-temperature processing has the unfortunate side effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.

>Nitrites, which are potent carcinogens, are formed during spray-drying, and a toxin called lysinoalanine is formed during alkaline processing.24 Numerous artificial flavorings, particularly MSG, are added to soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein products to mask their strong "beany" taste and to impart the flavor of meat.25

>In feeding experiments, the use of SPI increased requirements for vitamins E, K, D, and B12 and created deficiency symptoms of calcium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, copper, iron, and zinc.26 Phytic acid remaining in these soy products greatly inhibits zinc and iron absorption; test animals fed SPI develop enlarged organs, particularly the pancreas and thyroid gland, and increased deposition of fatty acids in the liver.27

[http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm](http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm)

I shouldn't even have to post about "Textured Wheat Protein" but it's essentially another denatured protein, one that is completely doused in glyphosate right before harvest..

Check out the chart on page two...

[http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf](http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf)

These "vegan" foods are nowhere near healthy.

<comment><USER55> There's no gentle way to make the complaint about I'm about to: going to Mercola.com for good health science is roughly equivalent to referring to the Flat Earth Society for good GPS algorithms. Joe Mercola has developed a multimillion dollar business which is essentially built on telling his audience that everything in the world is poisonous unless he sells it to them. When I say he's one of the folks who believe that fluoridation is a nefarious government conspiracy, I am not kidding. He also believes coffee enemas will fight cancer. Again, I am not making this up.

There's conflicting evidence about soy's health benefits, which is a sentence that is, generally speaking, just as true after a "s/soy/any_damn_food" operation. Nitrites are highly toxic in quantity, but in _small_ quantity, they've been used in food processing since the Middle Ages. It's what you cure meat with. Most of the nitrites in your diet, though, are naturally occurring.

And while no one claims MSG has massive health benefits, it's been _extremely_ well established that it's harmless. _It 's just a salt._ I'm sure Doc Mercola will tell me the decades of tests that show it's safe are simply a sign that every first world health agency is in the pocket of Big Umami, but y'know, color me skeptical.

<comment><USER54> The Mercola article has citations, which you ignored. There is also a link to a MIT paper which you ignored, and deals with the main ingredient in the product at hand.

>When I say he's one of the folks who believe that fluoridation is a nefarious government conspiracy, I am not kidding.

Fluoride lowers IQ in children an average of 15 points, per Harvard meta- analysis.

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride- children...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens- health-grandjean-choi/)

>researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.

So... what exactly is he wrong about when it comes to fluoride?

You are blinded by your bias against this one Doctor, enough to miss the main points regarding why these foods are total shit.

<comment><USER56> > Fluoride lowers IQ in children an average of 15 points, per Harvard meta- > analysis.

No. Aside from the fact that meta-analyses are primarily a means of identifying areas for direct research because they have a strong tendency to magnify publication bias (among other problems), that's not what the cited piece concludes. Your own quote shows that the conclusion is _much_ weaker, noting that the meta-analysis "found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children."

Finding strong indications that it has a possibility ("may" ≠ "does") of causing some adverse reaction is not the same as concluding that it _does_ have any adverse impact, and even farther from any particular quantification of that impact. And the actual average result (which isn't a study conclusion on the actual impact) was 7, not 15 IQ points for "high flouride content"; to quote your source: "The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15."

<comment><USER54> You're right, it's 7 points. However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride, which lends more credibility to Mercola's paranoia than your skepticism, in my opinion. And regardless of that, you are still ignoring all the main issues brought up with TVP.

<comment><USER56> > You're right, it's 7 points.

You acknowledge that you got the number wrong, which is good, but the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that the number was _not_ , in either case, an impact concluded by the meta-analyses, it was merely the average impact of high flouridation in the studies included.

> However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and > ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride

No, it doesn't. Again, the source you cite does _not_ conclude that there _is_ any adverse effect. The meta-analysis, according to it's authors, indicates only that there _may_ be an adverse effect.

Even the follow-up study by the authors (linked from your source; meta- analyses rarely support strong conclusions about fact, but often provide direction for further research) seems to indicate some effect, especially at high dosage levels but again, mostly is an indicator for further research, not a basis for concluding a clearly quantified effect.

Without a qauntifiable effect tied to actual flouride levels, it's not clear if there is any probl with the actual flouridation practice in the United States. Almost every substance is harmful in excess, even ones where moderate amounts are better than none.

<comment><USER54> Are none of these studies convincing to you?

[http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/](http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/)

If not, what would be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Pretty cool

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm paleo, and wanted to try it to see how it tastes. Closer than I expected to a real burger. Not great, but this would be an excellent replacement for factory farmed animals. Not as tasty, or as good for the environment as pasture raised cows.

<comment><USER3> > Not as good for the environment as pasture raised cows.

Even at scale?

<comment><USER59> Eh, depends what you mean by "scale".

When you start talking environmentally sustainable meat production, you're talking about utilizing land and calories that would not be well utilized otherwise. Pastureland that is too rocky or arid for grain or vegetable production, grazed at a level that is sustainable for that land. Food waste and mast you can feed to pigs or goats but not people.

Scale is "a whole lot of meat" but "not much as Americans eat now".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Going to stay away from this, myself. For the same reason I eat oranges instead of drinking Sunny Delight and eat sausage rather than eat sausage- flavored potato chips.

Flavor is our evolved way of our bodies telling us what our body wants to eat. "Impossible burgers" are just a simulation of food.

<comment><USER61> Sausage isn't really very natural.

There is a fun analogy with Sunny Delight, with the use of cheap inputs and lots of flavoring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.

[https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs- non-h...](https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs-non-heme- iron/)

<comment><USER63> Forgive me if I don't quite find your source credible, since it appears to have been written by a volunteer, and since it doesn't actually give concrete evidence on maximum recommended dose.

<comment><USER62> The source is just screenshots of academic studies.

<comment><USER63> Yes, and I took at look at them. Some of the studies (especially the blood cookies or whatever ones) actually mentioned that heme iron actually _helped_ anemic children. Many of the others could not come to a conclusion.

<comment><USER62> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that. But the source has ground -- until someone gives me a better source.

<comment><USER64> You first posted

> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.

Then posted

> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate > that.

Are you revoking your initial claim?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How endangered is the programmer for desktop applications? - <AUTHOR> Developing applications that run on the desktop seem to be under-appreciated more at least in comparison to web development and development for mobile device applications. Consumer-use applications are not as popular on desktops anymore and the market is shrinking.<p>For people that still develop desktop apps, do you see any signs of more people leaving this line of work? In the long run I only see them remaining relevant on industry-specific work like CAD or scientific computing. General office work doesn't equate to desktops either and even less to desktop applications. Most everything is in "the cloud" (why use Office when you have O365). Do you find the dying practicality of desktop apps to be accurate, or overblown? <comment> open-source-ux _" Do you find the dying practicality of desktop apps to be accurate, or overblown?"_

I think the death of desktop apps to be a bit of an overblown claim. But it's true that developing a fast, native desktop app can often be more complicated that building an online CRUD-style app.

Some applications have enjoyed success by moving from the desktop to the cloud, although in cut-down limited form (think word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software). And yes, there are visual design tools too (e.g. Figma). But a lot can't be done in the "cloud" and cloud apps offer only a subset of what a desktop app can do. (Sometimes a subset is all you need.)

Perhaps the future is more hybrid apps: desktop apps with some cloud capabilities such as online backup/saving/sharing. I can't imagine heavyweight vector, bitmap, video, or animation tools being anything other than desktop apps for the foreseeable future.

And don't forget that some cloud services offer desktop clients for connecting to their online services. That suggests that there's appetite and plenty of life left for the desktop. How many developers would give up their desktop text editor or IDE for a cloud-based one?

And finally a personal preference: between the choice of an online app (that is more than just a simple CRUD app) and a native desktop app, I would pick the desktop app every single time.

<comment><USER2> > I can't imagine heavyweight vector, bitmap, video, or animation tools being > anything other than desktop apps for the foreseeable future.

And I think you can add a lot of heavyweight 3D software (Blender, Maya, ZBrush), game engines (UE4), and audio software (ProTools) to that list as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> While I don't have a good sense of the market, I think desktop has some compelling advantages.

On the developer end, what would you do if you had an EC2 C5XL with a massive disk for each and every one of your users, for free? From a startup scenario, there's runway to be gained by offloading storage and processing to the client, desktop can bring monthly ops costs down to the basement.

On the consumer end, a single user perpetual license can be extremely cost effective. I'm watching the Google Stadia release for an idea of what a resource intensive cloud solution will really cost. I think it remains to be seen.

Desktop is certainly becoming niche--but I think it will rule certain software domains, specifically those that have high storage and processing requirements, for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I previously developed a consumer, Electron-based desktop application in the last year. One of the thing I was unaware of going in was the cost of code signing certificates. To support Windows and macOS it cost me around $200/year to avoid the OS showing a security warning when opening the application.

The Windows code signing certificate I have is an OV certificate which means it builds up trust over time before the installation security warning goes away. It seemed to go away within a week of release, but was still frustrating to deal with. An EV certificate skips the trust building step and can be purchased for about 5x the cost.

A couple months ago I switched to a Progressive Web Application (PWA) which reduced costs and removed the installation requirement. There are capabilities lacking in web applications, but there are planned features such as native file system API [1]. Hopefully these also make their way into Firefox and others. No desktop PWA support in Firefox at all yet.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/web/updates/capabilities](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/capabilities)

</comment><comment><USER5> Consumer desktop apps? Maybe. Enterprise, industry specific and desktop apps for professionals? No.

<comment><USER6> Any reasons for this? Not knowing too much about the space, I would say the exact opposite - consumer desktop apps are less and less likely to succeed while enterprise and industry-specific ones still have a place.

<comment><USER7> Unless I'm the one misinterpreting here, I think you both agree.

<comment><USER6> Yep, you're right, I misunderstood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Desktop applications has already seen a massive decrease in the last 15 years or so, but I think that could start to reverse because of:

1\. Increased data privacy issues as more and more companies either sell information or get hacked

2\. Ongoing cloud costs, which sometimes increase in large amounts as companies restructure prices and feature sets.

If there are 3 competing products, and one offers a Desktop application in addition to their cloud offering, then I think quite a few customers will choose the Desktop version due to the 2 points above.</comment>


Facebook, are you kidding? (Facebook is making a video camera) - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/facebook-portal-are-you-serious-rn/ <comment><USER2> Hell no.

This is probably one of the worst-timed product introductions ever. There's no way I'd consider putting a Facebook camera in my home.</comment>


Show HN: News aggregator for upcoming stuff – smartphones, games, movies, EV - <AUTHOR> http://waitfeed.com <comment><AUTHOR> I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some short feedback and your first impressions: is it clear what about is this website from the first sight? Does it look useful tool for you? And if you just closed your browser tab thinking "pfff nothing useful" \- what's the main reason of this? I'm really open to criticism, don't hesitate :) Thank You

</comment><comment><USER2> Very clean and unobtrusive UI. That's settled. But to be honest I think it's going to cater to a pretty small niche.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the response. Actually I also don't see it as "massive" thing, small niche is fine, especially if you fit well into it :) But despite that, I'm interested why do you see it in that way? Because the type of content? Or because the way of consuming content in such way? Or both? :)

<comment><USER2> I'm not interested in it personally, but wanted to give you a heads up :) The only thing I can suggest to you is design related: make news and category titles less alike. Besides that, you might want to do "friend-to-friend" feedback gathering and SEO for this kind of stuff.</comment></comment></comment>


Is the U.S. as Corrupt as the Third World? - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-14/corruption-is-perceived-as-greater-where-income-gaps-are-big

<comment><USER2> THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT. Not corrupt in any criminal sense. But corrupt in a perfectly legal sense: special interests bend the levers of power to benefit them at the expense of the rest of us. Both parties are part of the problem. Both have become dependent upon the campaign funding of the tiniest slice of the American people - not to mention the funding of corporations and other non-citizens. That dependency is this corruption.

[http://www.rootstrikers.org/](http://www.rootstrikers.org/)</comment>


Design Problems w/ Google Instant - <AUTHOR> http://zurb.us/fCZzVF

<comment><USER2> Dup: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2001748>

What's more, that submission has the direct link, not a re-direct.</comment>


It's the customer stupid - <AUTHOR> http://www.startuptrooper.com/its-the-customer-stupid/ <comment><AUTHOR> My first blog post. It's about doing things that don't scale, but my interpretation of it, using examples from our startup and sharing helpful tips on how to get an initial set of users. It probably sucks, but I will let you be the judge of that.</comment>


Ruby is in Grave Danger - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/8f0e9b2437ca41f4/0b5368a86128aff9 Dear Friends,
I have received an ominous message from the future.  We should take
this seriously, as it could determine the fate of our Ruby lives as we
know them!  Decrypted future-message below: <comment><USER2> Ruby programmers rallying against Cobol is slightly ironic.</comment>


Six governments tap Vodafone calls - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/06/us-vodafone-group-disclosure-idUSKBN0EH0UK20140606

<comment><USER2> Six governments. Six! And each of them likely had to develop its own infrastructure for requesting, executing, processing, retaining, and searching the taps. Tapping as a Service, anyone? Is Palantir already on this?

<comment><USER3> ShowHN: How I disrupted the phone tapping market with agile javascript.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It no longer seems rational to believe that any electronic or digital means of communication is private.

<comment><USER5> It no longer seems rational to believe that any electronic or digital means of communication _where you do not control the encryption_ is private.

It still may not be private in some cases, but at least it's rational at that point...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "In a small number of countries the law dictates that specific agencies and authorities must have direct access to an operator's network, bypassing any form of operational control over lawful interception on the part of the operator,"

Or in other words, what Greenwald and Snowden claimed PRISM did. I say "claimed" since PRISM doesn't actually do this.

Also the article specifically noted that the U.S. was not one of the 6, since Vodafone doesn't operate there. So that leaves Europe and the rest of the world...

</comment><comment><USER7> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7857632](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7857632).</comment>


Iphone developer program only for US developers? So how do I incorporate in the US as a non-resident? - <AUTHOR>

According to http://developer.apple.com/iphone/program/, "The iPhone Developer Program will initially be available to a limited number of developers in the U.S. and will expand to other countries in the coming months."
So in this case, what is the best way for me to create an offshore company in the us to have the best chances of getting in the iPhone Developper Program?
Does anybody, knows of good (and cheap) lawyers specialized in these kinds of incorporation? <comment><USER2> I'm not familiar with this but you can probably check out the Company Corporation (google the name)

</comment><comment><USER3> LLC's don't have a residency requirement generally, I believe</comment>


Ask HN: English Speaking, services for practicing - <AUTHOR> Hey HN. I have great listening and terrible speaking skills, mostly because the lack of practice. Maybe someone knows good FREE services for practicing(without a teacher, just a real person) and it would be great if there are persons with same interest as I have(Business and Self-improvement lifestyle)<p>OR What if someone wants to chat, maybe we can cooperate and start to practicing together <comment><USER2> Hi, there..

I'm a non-native English speaker. The way I did it was to read a lot, about a lot, and do it out loud.

Also, whenever I watched TV shows/movies, I'd find myself repeating expressions after characters. I didn't do it consciously, it just happened.

What this does is expose your flaws as some words are challenging (because the muscle groups activated in English aren't necessarily the same as in other languages). You then rectify your pronunciation to get it right.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are reddit communities to find practice partners, e.g. [https://www.reddit.com/r/ExchangingLanguages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExchangingLanguages), [https://www.reddit.com/r/Language_Exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/Language_Exchange)</comment>


Ask HN: What good books have you read to learn more in tech? - <AUTHOR>

I know we learn best by doing, but reading can help cover some concepts that I may miss as I build projects. I'm taking some intro to CS classes and am open to suggestions on what to read in my down time.<p>I'm focused on learning some foundational concepts of CS and data analysis.  I work with a company that has a distributed computing platform. I'm sure you experts out there can point me in a good direction. <comment><USER2> These are loosely related to your topic. But, depending on where your interests lie, these might be interesting for you:

"Nine Algorithms That Changed the Future: The Ingenious Ideas That Drive Today's Computers" \- John MacCormick

"Domain Driven Design" \- Eric Evans

"Artificial Intelligence: The Basics" \- Kevin Warwick

...and on the Project management / Executive side:

"Agile Project Management with Scrum" \- Ken Schwaber

"Reality Check" \- Guy Kawasaki

"Founders at Work: Stories of Startups' Early Days" \- Jessica Livingston

<comment><AUTHOR> Who is awesome? ^ This guy. Thanks!</comment></comment>