Right versus pragmatic - <AUTHOR> http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic <comment><USER2> There are lots of examples of this. Moralistic thinking simply isn't productive in this context. If you build an economic system that depends on everyone voluntarily cooperating rather than acting self-interestedly, self- interested people will ruin it; if your public health strategy for HIV is to discourage people from extramarital sex, lots of people will have extramarital sex and get HIV; if your strategy to compete with BitTorrent is to try and make people feel guilty about using BitTorrent, people will tune you out and use BitTorrent.

Of course, if you used _those_ examples instead of a silly example about designing an office restroom, the HN thread gets derailed by people talking about economics or HIV. One could criticize the HN community for that kind of bikeshedding, but it's more pragmatic to just use a boring, contrived example to sell the point. Certainly, a HN thread won't end up filled with a side discussion about office restroom design.

<comment><USER3> This is one of the weird things about the information economy. So if you make a gizmo in the goods economy, and price it outside of the demand line, they sit on the shelf and you go broke.

Of course in the goods economy you had a cost of making the item, sure there was R&D and advertising Etc. but each good also has some raw materials so you really can't sell them below a certain price or you lose your shirt.

In the information economy you get this weird artifact. Your 'good' gets copied and distributed without remuneration. This appears to be lost sales, but in fact it is simply that your good is priced outside the demand curve for those buyers. What is even stranger is that you can lower your price all the way to zero if you choose because the marginal cost to make a new one is zero. This gives you tremendous pricing leverage in the info economy and people who use it well typically price high for novelty value early, then lower to capture the larger market, and then lower still to pick up the remnant market. The cost of R&D, marketing, etc can be amortized over all of these and if you look at it as an integral value function you can actually make reasonable pricing decisions.

Of course old school media doesn't get the 'info' economy any more than telling a teenager that the 'fair' price is one that someone will pay even if they think it is too high.

Over time these concepts are making themselves known in the mainstream but it does take waaaay more time than it does to innovate so it seems like its not changing at all.

<comment><USER2> There's two sides of this. There's the side where the seller's price is above the demand curve, so the buyer pirates the movie. But there's _also_ the side where the seller's price is below the demand curve, but the buyer pirates it anyway to capture more consumer surplus.

What's really happening is that, the easier piracy becomes, the closer the supply curve comes to turning into a very flat line at price 0. Now, the actual cost to the consumer in time, energy, bandwidth, and guilt is higher than 0, and it's possible to reduce those costs by trading off some actual money cost to get the permission of copyright holders the way Apple or Rdio are doing, but it's not clear that this will last forever.

<comment><USER4> What makes you think iTunes won't last?

<comment><USER2> What if someone makes a better-designed iTunes that happens to work using piracy instead of legitimate sales? Or comes close enough that $0.99 isn't worth it?

<comment><USER4> They've tried. For legitimate competitors, Apple has them outgunned in terms of selection due to all their deals with the labels and such. For illegitimate competitors, Apple has a comparatively huge budget for design/UX.

The "isn't worth it" actually goes the _other_ way at this point: it's isn't worth pirating anything you can get from iTunes. Most of their customers are perfectly capable of pirating stuff, but it _isn't worth their time_ compared to grabbing it from iTunes.

I'm not saying nobody will ever compete with them or that people don't still pirate anyhow, just that they're more than capable of competing with free. They've been successfully doing that the entire time, in fact.

<comment><USER2> I agree that's the status quo, but Apple's a rather unique organization in terms of their mix of negotiation ability, closeness to Hollywood, and design ability. And there's already cracks showing when it comes to their software quality. Those advantages can't last forever.

<comment><USER4> > Apple's a rather unique organization in terms of their mix of negotiation > ability, closeness to Hollywood, and design ability.

That's exactly the part that makes me believe they have staying power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another solution (albeit more costly) would be to re-hinge the door so it swings outwards, and make the springs easy enough so people can push it open using their shoes.

That's not the gentleman's way of operating a door, but with the trashcan solution people also have to hold the door open _somehow_ while disposing of the towel, unless it comes with springs that are adjusted _just right_ so it stays open _just long enough_ for people to sneak out in time.

Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards to fire safety, as far as I understand.

Of course, if you have the space to spare (without things getting too intimate) you can also just leave out the doors altogether, which is how many airports I've been to seem to handle the issue.

(I'd say an automatic bathroom door is overkill and a bit creepy, too, which probably is why I've never seen one.)

<comment><USER6> > Making the door open outwards is the right thing to do anyway with regards > to fire safety

You've got that backwards. You want the door to open inward, in case there is an obstruction. If it opens outward, there may be something on the ground blocking the path of the door. It may be too heavy (or hot!) to push away, but small enough to climb over or around. Furthermore, it's dangerous to open a door outward into the path of people walking.

Think about the front door on your house or apartment, the door to your bedroom, your bathroom door, etc. They all open in to the room, away from the hallway.

<comment><USER5> I'm not a fire safety expert by any means, which is why I added the "as far as I understand" qualifier. That said, don't you have the possibility of something blocking the path of the door regardless of which way it swings? I guess if it's on your side of the door, there is a greater chance that you can move it out of the way as long as it's not too hot or bulky. Then again, if something unexpected is blocking the way in a fire I'd expect there is a very good chance that it _is_ hot or bulky.

So far I was under the impression that doors should generally open towards the exit (as the sibling already noted) in order to make it as easy as possible to exit the building. But maybe that is a misconception. I find this a very interesting topic, if you have more information to share I'd be very curious.

EDIT: Also, aren't hot door handles a big issue in case of a fire? I'd imagine that the ability to push the door open (assuming it doesn't lock when closed) rather than having to pull the handle is a plus. And I guess a door that swings both ways is ideal with regard to blockage.

<comment><USER7> I'm not in any way a safety expert, as well. But this argument caught my eye. So I asked my brother who is a fire fighter. Fire exits are, in general, supposed to open outwards. Regarding blocking, according to him, there is a reason why when you look at any properly made fire exit, there is nothing heavy hovering above it.

Now as for the door knobs, most fire exits don't have the normal door handles. Like in cinemas and theaters, there's this small slot where you can place your hand. For larger buildings though, there are bigger handles shaped like a hook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _"The signs never worked. Instead, they just annoyed and angered people. Some people even threw more paper towels on the floor because they didn't like the condescending way they were being instructed."_

 _"This pattern is common. We often try to fight problems by yelling at them instead of accepting the reality of what people do, from controversial national legislation to passive-aggressive office signs. Such efforts usually fail, often with a lot of collateral damage, much like Prohibition and the ongoing "war" on "drugs"."_

This is something I've learned in when trying to convince people to do something that's for their own good. Often times, it all too easy to yell. But human nature is such that if you 'attack' a person's beliefs or actions, (rational or not) they will defend them, further entrenching them and encouraging the person to continue if even out of spite.

Sure, sometimes an 'intervention' is necessary. But I've found that in most cases, it's more strategic to boil a person as a frog rather than a lobster.

<comment><USER9> There's even a term for it: cognitive dissonance [1]. Fact is, the best way to make a point is to appeal to your audience. The appeal can be to authority, ethics, humor, aesthetics, etc. WIIFM applies here.[2]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induce...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induced- Compliance_Paradigm) [2] [http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2...](http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2010/09/16/business- writing-the-wiifm-principle.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> People are so grossed out by a doorknob they refuse to touch it, only to immediately walk to their desk to type on their keyboard. A keyboard which is typically far dirtier than the bathroom they just avoided touching[1]. Oh, the irony.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4774746&page...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Germs/story?id=4774746&page=1)

<comment><USER11> I think it would really suck to go through life worrying about every surface I touched and the gems it contained.

<comment><USER12> It does. But it beats catching a cold or flu every couple of months.

And it's not as if hand-washing is some kind of crazy placebo:

 _In a research published by British Medical Journal on November 2007, physical barriers, such as regular handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns, may be more effective than drugs to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses such as influenza and SARS... Handwashing and wearing masks, gloves and gowns were effective individually in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and were even more effective when combined... Another study, published in the Cochrane Library journal on 2007, finds handwashing with just soap and water to be a simple and effective way to curb the spread of respiratory viruses, from everyday cold viruses to deadly pandemic strains._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing_with_soap#Disease...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing_with_soap#Disease_prevention_in_handwashing_with_soap)

<comment><USER11> I may just be lucky but I don't seem to get this, sure I catch some minor things but it is more like once a year. Your right if I was constantly catching things I would be more careful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really don't understand where the author is coming from on this:

\---

 _"One of the floor's tenants attempted to solve this problem by posting passive-aggressive notes on the paper-towel dispenser._

 _(Image of a paper with "Please discard paper towels into wastebasket." written on it)_

 _The signs never worked. Instead, they just annoyed and angered people. Some people even threw more paper towels on the floor because they didn't like the condescending way they were being instructed._

\---

That message is anything but passive-aggressive. It's direct, reasonable and courteous. It's also very ordinary and I've seen signs like it in various public restrooms, train stations, subway stations and other areas. If someone is actually angered by this kind of sign and decides to litter _more_ as a response, they're probably not a very easy person to get along with.

In many places, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and much of east Asia, this problem is solved via fines. Over time the fines even change social norms about littering and the situation improves in areas without the fines. The analogy to copyright is pretty weak. Many places with more civilized norms in terms of litter really don't care about copyright infringement to the extent that English-speaking countries do. Copyright behavior has also been very resistant to being altered by fines.

<comment><USER14> It's passive-aggressive, because it doesn't directly address the problem.

A direct message would have been at the door and said: "Please stop throwing paper on the floor, there's a wastebasket on the other side of the room".

(I also suspect that the reaction would have been at least somewhat more positive.)

<comment><USER13> I disagree.

"Please discard paper towels into wastebasket" is direct and specifies _exactly_ what kind of behavior is desired. Your example doesn't do that. It says there _is_ a wastebasket, but the only request is not to throw paper on the floor. It could be satisfied by leaving the wet paper towels on the sink, leaving them draped on the door handle or slapping them on the wall. (How's _that_ for passive-aggressive!)

The original message is both shorter and clearer. It's both pro-active and respectful. Getting angry at the notice and littering to show you won't tolerate "condescension" is just being a dick.

<comment><USER15> I'm glad you see this rationally. I don't understand at all how people see this as condescending. Why is it that in our society, people are offended by being asked to behave in an adult manner?

What irks me is that everyone thinks they're psychologists so they throw around clinical terms like "passive aggressive" which they have right to use. No more so than a layperson trying to sound intelligent by using terms like "exponential complexity"...

<comment><USER16> In my mind, 'being asked to behave in an adult manner', is condescending. I am not excusing the people who litter, they could still use paper to open the door and then dispose of it elsewhere.

In regard to the article, my take-away from it is that all the media industry needs to do to lessen piracy, is make their content easier to access legally - not make it more difficult.

<comment><USER17> If you need to be told to put trash in a trash basket, you deserve to be condescended to. If you don't want to be treated like a child, don't act like a child.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> On a personal note, I had a workplace bathroom once that was worse than this, also in trash bins. The one you were _supposed_ to throw paper towels into after washing your hands, had a spring-loaded lid that required at least two pounds of pressure to open - and that was the least of the design problems.

More to the point, it fascinates me how the media companies' obduracy makes hackers in particular blindingly angry. It's interesting that from our side, they seem so insanely, self-destroyingly, offensively _stupid_ that we just can't believe that they're really doing this. It's interesting on that cultural level as well as on the less abstract levels.

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems obvious that the best long term strategy for media companies is to start addressing the demand. Indeed, over the long term, any other strategy will likely result in those companies being left behind.

But if you're in charge of a media company today, and your bonus this year is tied to a cash cow you can keep alive for a few more years, would you be taking the risk and short term pain of making the transition?

I don't think it's stubbornness or stupidity we're looking at, it's a classic case of misaligned incentives.

<comment><USER20> I will have to disagree. Not that I think that the people in charge of the MPAA and co. are altruistic, nice people. But I don't think they act the way they act because they are looking for immediate profit, or rather this is not the principal reason.

There was an excellent comment on HN a month or so ago (during the SOPA madness, I can't find it though) from a guy from the industry that explained that the main problem was "ignorance and misunderstanding". And this echos what the OP explained so well: the MPAA think they are right, and don't understand why people are downloading illegally (they most likely think it's just about money).

<comment><USER19> I think it's too easy to look at people in these positions and say they just don't get it. This is their industry, they're immersed in it every day. They may not have seen this coming, but it's been in their face for a while now, and even if a few can't see what's going on I simply can't believe that none of them do. At best I would say any "ignorance" could still be tied back to incentives: even if they know the truth, it's inconvenient and not worth acknowledging widely (or perhaps even to themselves). Better to keep on peddling the line that piracy is theft to preserve the status quo as long as possible.

<comment><USER21> I've mentioned something similarly here before (I think during the SOPA stuff): people simply do economically irrational things to take a principled stand. I've certainly done things that my friends and family thought were batshit crazy just so I could achieve perceived balance in the universe. My take is that's what we're seeing now and have been for a while. The media companies obviously want our money, but more than that, I think they just don't want you to have access to their content if you didn't pay for it, to break this overwhelming sense of entitlement many of us have. I don't condone the methods, but I don't disagree with the rationale either (providing that actually is the case).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Most importantly, I never knew why so many people at my office threw their paper towels on the ground next to the door (or in a trashcan located thereabouts, when available). Now I do.

I still don't understand why people think the post-bathroom door is disgusting enough to merit hand protection. If anything, it's the door people are most likely to have touched AFTER washing their hands. Do these people bring another paper with them to open the door on the way in?

<comment><USER23> In heading to the restroom I know that I'll have the opportunity to wash my hands after, so the handle leading in is of little concern to me.

In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a stall seems to be disturbingly high. It just kinda gets my ick-factor going. Granted, I'm something of a germaphobe (I wash my hands many times/day) so I might just be more inclined to notice those who don't vs those who do--- regardless, I'll almost always save a paper towel or something to turn the door handle when possible.

Anyway, I don't think the lack of a trash can nearby excuses those who would dispose of it on the floor though. I just hold onto it until I find the next closest trash can outside the bathroom. That usually takes less than a minute, depending on where I am.

<comment><USER24> > In my admittedly anecdotal experience, the rate of full grown adults who > casually ignore the sinks after finishing up their business and leaving a > stall seems to be disturbingly high

I dunno about stalls, but there is some not totally unreasonable (though still mildly icky) argument for not washing your hands after using a urinal: [http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1987#c...](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1987#comic)

<comment><USER25> Not only that, but urine is -- assuming you don't have a UTI -- sterile and even a mild disinfectant. The purpose of washing hands isn't to remove any urine; rather, it's to remove any fecal bacteria along with other pathogens which may have been picked up _outside_ of the washroom.

If for some reason you can't wash your hands, you'd probably be better off deliberately peeing on them.

<comment><USER26> Which is why it's odd that most washrooms have you pull a door by the handle to exit, a handle many others have probably touched without washing their hands. Ikea is one place that comes to mind that avoids this, instead having a sequence of offset walls to give privacy without a door.

<comment><USER25> I see that design quite often at airports too -- if you have a large volume of traffic, doors run into collision issues.

But doors do have another purpose in addition to privacy: They contain airflow. I suspect that where this design is used there is extra work to ensure a persistent flow of air coming in through the entrance and then being evacuated from within, similar to negative-pressure rooms in hospitals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Marco's posts are always short, sweet, and to the point. I wonder if anyone in a position to make these kinds of decisions will heed his advice.

<comment><USER28> No. The point has been made over and over and one more restating, however short, sweet, and to the point, will not materially change the situation.

<comment><USER29> Sadly, I'm with Max Planck on this one

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I agree with his point, but I dislike how he talks of it as _right_ versus pragmatic. It should be _moralising_ versus pragmatic.

'Right' means 'true', and the _moralising_ stance he talks about is not the correct way to deal with the problem. It's not 'right', it's blinkered moralising.

Calling such things 'right' muddles the notion of truth. We don't need more of this. Most of the people I come across seem to think there's no such thing as truth because it's all relative, and uses of 'right' like in this article serve to reinforce such beliefs.

<comment><USER31> "Right" _is_ a moral concept, not necessarily the (empirical) truth, it's the opposite of "wrong", not of "false".

<comment><USER30> He says

 _They just kept posting more signs, because they were convinced that they were right._

They believed that the right way to solve the problem was for people to use the bin where it was located (that is, an empirical view as to what was the best solution, driven by a moralising attitude).

His point is that their view was incorrect - false.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Get one of these: <http://toepener.com/>

Of course the people still might continue to throw paper towels on the floor. Changing a habit is difficult.

<comment><USER33> A large bank in UK has all of it's office doors plated with metal near the bottom, also the doors open both ways making them really suitable for kicking, I don't know if the original intention was that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Bring rubber gloves to the bathroom. I remember the graffiti written on the seat cover dispenser in a bathroom stall at the NYNEX Science and Technology offices. The hand-written inscription provided a helpful arrow with the legend "ass gasket."

</comment><comment><USER35> This article seems to imply that you can never change people's behavior by law (i.e. like posting a sign on a door saying not to throw towels on the floor) because people will always do whatever they want. I don't think I agree with that--I think the quesiton is to what extent are entities willing to impose penalties and enforce the law to sufficiently change people's behavior. For example, obviously if the company in the hypothetical hired a guy to sit in the bathroom to make sure that people threw paper towels in the trash can and then fired people who disobeyed, far fewer people who throw paper towels on the floor.

So, the issue as related to piracy is not necessary that people would never change their behavior, its just that the cost of monitoring behavior and enforcing currently existing law/creating new law to effect such a behavioral change ("don't pirate stuff") is extraordinarily high. Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded that this is the case. The radical alternative approach is to completely rethink the distribution and pricing scheme, and focus less on margins but more on quantity--distribute the content to as many people as possible, but make fewer $/product. To impose that would require either some fairly revolutionary thinking in companies that have repeatedly shown a hesitancy to innovate (and would require them to abandon a strategy now that still makes hefty profits), or to make media companies hurt to such an extent that they have no alternative (which, right now, does not appear to be happening).

<comment><USER36> _Right now, the strategy of the media industry appears to be to spend money under the presumption that the amount of money they spend enforcing/lobbying/trying to pass laws to prevent piracy makes economic sense: they will gain/save more money than they spend. This seems unlikely, but probably people have punched the numbers for these companies and concluded that this is the case._

Of course it's the case: their endgame is to get governments to criminalize all copyright infringement and get the taxpayer to pay for all that. Of course, the balance for society as a whole is well in the red, but why should they care?

But the worst is not the economic costs, but the (much more important IMHO) costs in terms of human rights, such as freedom from censorship, privacy, access to a indispensable medium, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> There's a third option Marco forgot. Imagine that the problem is avoided because someone says, "it's right that we have a trash can by the door because people don't want to touch the door knob with their bare hands," and then follows through on that _correct_ theory by putting a garbage can there.

So I say: if your theory is correct, it'll make sense as a theory (i.e., integrate with the rest of your existing knowledge) AND it'll work in practice. If what you're trying keeps failing, the solution is to go back, check your premises, and identify what's wrong with your theory. Often people do this automatically (and call it being "pragmatic"), but with bigger ideas, an explicit approach is required.

To go for long without theory is to fly blind, and that's dangerous. Ideas and theory are what allow us to fly in the first place, as well as to change course before we hit the proverbial mountain hidden in the fog just ahead.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'll probably lose a bunch of karma over this, but here goes.

This is my takeaway from the article:

The pragmatic approach means that the company (media companies) should accommodate the folks who:

1) Are so emotionally damaged that they can't perform the simple act of opening a door without making a mess (pay a couple of bucks for content that they like.) 2) Are so ill-mannered that they have no respect for the people they share a space with (take content without the creator's permission.) 3) Are so poorly socialized that any attempt to correct their behavior causes them to act out like a 5 year old by making a bigger mess (downloading even more stuff that they don't even really want.) 4) Are so lazy that they can't be bothered to take the simple action of taking the towel back to their desk and putting it in their own trash can (using the distribution channels the creator asks them to use.)

I find his argument unconvincing.

<comment><USER38> It's understandable that you aren't happy with the state of the world and of human nature, but that's not an argument. Believing that it is, is in fact exactly the fallacy the article describes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This reminds me of the story of the paving the walkways story <http://sivers.org/walkways>

<comment><USER40> The university I used to work at had walkways with at least 5 years with of dirt trails from being used as walkways across the grass.. When the administration had paths built.. they built them in completely different locations so that they matched the aesthetic of the other paths in the area when viewed from the top of the hill.

Now they have great looking new paths (unused) AND the dirt trails across all of the grass..

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> One of the VPs at my current company actually won $100 in a best suggestion contest in the office. His suggestion was "garbage cans next to the bathroom door". That is why the man is a VP.

</comment><comment><USER42> Where I thought Marco might have been going with this is all the web designers who try to solve their design deficiencies with help text.

</comment><comment><USER43> It is an interesting example, but I will bet that putting the trash can by the door didn't work either. I've worked in a place with a design that has the trash cans by the door and there is still paper on the ground. So, the next step would be to put a camera in the bathroom and review the tape to find all the people who didn't use the cans. Simple, quick, and only takes a couple of minutes after the cleaning staff says there is still towels on the ground.

At some level, the people throwing stuff on the ground know that someone has to clean it up. They probably justify it, when they think about it at all, with some happy thought of keeping those people employed. After all, they are probably sure that is all the maintenance worker does (never mind all the things they need to do everyday).

Pirating content and throwing towels on the floor both come down to placing a lack of value on the work of others and not caring about them.

<comment><USER44> To push the analogy to the limit - no, putting the trash can by the door doesn't stop 100% of the people, but for the 95% of the people who just don't want to touch the door with their hands, it does.

Likewise, making content easy to purchase won't stop 100% of the pirates who can afford to pay for their shows, but for the 95% of us who can, and just want to watch Game of Thrones, and are more than happy to buy it from iTunes, it will capture our revenue.

<comment><USER43> If I install the camera, I will catch 99.9% and know who is so unconcerned with our maintenance workers. In a pragmatic world that is an acceptable solution. It would probably be a good idea to find out who those people are so you know not to trust them with doing anything that is not convenient.

<comment><USER45> It may be a solution, superficially, but only to the problem that _you_ have outlined. If you make it your goal to eliminate "all paper thrown on the floor", why not go for 100% and get rid of the paper towels in the first place?

The question is not how to get rid of people throwing paper on the ground, or how to guilt the remaining careless ones into throwing theirs in the bin. The question is actually - what is the most cost-effective solution to manage the problem: Having to spend energy on peoples carelessness.

If putting a bin there catches 95% of the paper towels that were thrown on the ground before, that's as perfect as you could wish it to be. Those further 5% (or 4.99%) will cost you so much time, money and effort that once they do achieve your goal, you will surely ask yourself whether you would have been just as OK with 95%.

<comment><USER44> That's the important element in the "Moral" vs "Prgamatic" scenario - how much are we spending in time, energy, collateral damage in trying to be "right." In the case of the bathroom (war on drugs, anti-piracy, etc..) - not only are we now spending money on a camera, monitoring it, following-up, firing people - we are also invading people's privacy, impacting employee morale. Yes - it's true, taken to the logical conclusion - all of these moral victories can be one, should we be willing to go to extremes to demonstrate we are "right" - but at the end of the day, what did it that moral victory end up costing us?

So - in Portgual, and British Columbia - Heroin Addiction is now treated as a health issue. Government actually supports safe injection sites in Vancouver. They might have lost the "Moral" victory, but drug overdoses have effectively ceased. Giving in to all those employees in the bathroom who are lazy, might have been ceding the moral victory, but for the price of a move of the garbage can, the paper issue was handled.

We are, of course, actually talking about intellectual property, and the mechanism by which the media industry can extract maximal profits, without regard to their own moral position - iTunes Match is a nice first step - recognize that yes, their may be some people with illegitimately acquired content - so, give them the highest quality version of it, and charge them $25/year for the service.

Once you realize the actual goal is not moral superiority, but the pragmatic end-game, all sorts of opportunities open up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> In human history there are always problems. An individual or group needs to change it only happens when they decide to. If we want to stop HIV we need to decide if we want to make a smart choice to have safe sex. Young people want adventure and like risks. This is why there are so many overdoses and young people who get STD's. The smart ones decide they value life and don't drug or do other risky behaviors. My main suggestion for change is to create an exciting dialogue that might change the "coolness" of negative acts. Smoking is being done less due to the real negative media ads, people knowing about cancer deaths, and many talking about why smoking kills.

</comment><comment><USER47> This article reminds me quite a bit of linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism.

Many people like to pretend that there's some platonic, _right_ form of language. Splitting an infinitive is wrong, ending a clause with a preposition is wrong, using pronouns in the accusative case as a subject ("Me and her do this") or a predicate nominative ("It's me") is wrong. This attitude reflects the same stubborn insistence on being right instead of pragmatic. The reality is that language changes over time and is defined by usage, so Those arguing that a common usage is incorrect are wrong by definition.

</comment><comment><USER48> Or when we build the next building, we make automatic doors with a corner so you can't see anything from the outside and nobody has to touch anything.

</comment><comment><USER49> _But some of them dislike it so much that they'll take their paper towel over to the door, turn the knob with it, and throw it on the floor while exiting._

OK, cool post, cool story, etc. But is it merely for rhetorical effect? I've used a lot of office and public bathrooms over the years and have never seen paper towels scattered around the doorway.

Protip for the slovenly scatterers, though, this is what cuffs are handy for ;-)

<comment> brown9-2 Yes, I've seen similar things and almost-identical signs posted in office bathrooms before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I spend a lot of my time at work telling junior designers: "That's a great idea - let's not do it!" "Why not?" "Because no-one behaves like that" "But if they only put the info A into the place B every time, their jobs will be much easier" "Yes. But they won't. We have to find a way to force them (which will annoy them), or work around it."

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm reminded of school, where the bathrooms had no doors. Yet they were designed in a way that you walked in, around one partition to get to the sink, and a second partition to use the bathroom. The sounds and smells of the bathroom never seemed to be an issue there.

</comment><comment><USER52> For management to be right they should take away the paper towels and install a hot air hand dryer.

</comment><comment><USER31> Valid points about piracy. People use whatever way is fastest to view content, but nobody gets paid that way. How about selling virtual "tickets" that allow you to download the movie from wherever you want as long as you have bought the ticket?

</comment><comment><USER53> The door should have metallic arm-slots where people can push the door open using just their arms. People usually don't pee/poop on their arms, so it'd be and appear clean, while removing the need to use paper towels to open the door.

</comment><comment><USER54> This argument goes equally well for the war on drugs. Possibly even immigration.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'd rather have people understand there's no simplistic black or white right vs wrong. But only each ones personal interests. Than to come up with subjective excuses of why we shouldn't try to do the "right".

Piracy isn't "wrong", it's in the best interest of some and not of others. The most healthy attitude, imo, is to objectively measure the pros vs cons and only then judge what should you do. Almost any decision you ever take will favor someone and not others. What we cannot let happen is let those of opposite interest convince us that our interest is "wrong", ignoring one of the sides of the issue.

Intellectual monopoly privileges might be in the interest of a few select copyright holders. But maybe not in the best interest of users. No side is right our wrong, but just have different interests.

</comment><comment><USER56> I like the final line of the article. It is really basics, if you are making a product tailor it to the way the customer demands it. Path of least resistance, if there is an easier way it will be the way.

</comment><comment><USER57> Ya know, the bathroom door swing problem has to do with the swing direction of the door + no one wants to touch a door knob.

If the door gets replaced with one that swings in both directions by push... problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER58> This is related to the concept of 'desire lines' used by architects.

</comment><comment><USER59> the problem starts when you want to sell the same show in us, UK and Thailand. in uk it would cost twice as much then us and ten times as much then Thailand, why? because people can pay more, and the industry wants to squeeze as much as they can.

if they get rigid price, then in Tainan people may need a month pay for an episodes, and or the opposite, huge losses in uk.

solve that, and you got the piracy problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER60> It is totally correct that condescending people, more often than not tends to have a negative effect, but what about those people who do not care if their paper towel falls in the dustbin or outside it?

A lot of people are out there who do the wrong thing, just for the kick of it, what can be done to influence such people. Same is the case with piracy, a lot of people share content because they get a feeling that by doing this they are getting back at the world

</comment><comment><USER61> All these is in our gene, called Selfish.

</comment><comment><USER62> Really nice piece.

</comment><comment><USER63> The article assumes it is wrong for the restroom user to discard his paper towel onto the floor. But why? A complete moral analysis would take into account the fact that he is a valuable employee and he doesn't want to pick up germs and thereby risk becoming ill.

Just because his action imposes a small cost on somebody else _who is payed to tidy up_ that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

(Besides, picking up the towels takes a few seconds. Not much more time than picking up _one_ towel, and far less time than cleaning the rest of the restroom.)

It's a false christian morality which says that actions taken on behalf of oneself are always wrong and that actions taken on behalf of others are always right. There's a right use for a paper towel and there are right uses for various people's time. Morality _is_ practical.

<comment><USER64> This really doesn't seem like he was saying at all. If you read the article, he actually doesn't have a problem with people throwing things on the ground, and is quite antagonistic towards the posted messages telling people to do otherwise. The only thing the article assumes is that it is desirable to have a bathroom that isn't persistently littered with paper towel on the floor. Is that something you disagree with?

The solution provided was to adapt to what users were already doing, suggesting that the management, who implied the action of discarding paper towels on the ground was bad, was wrong, and that it was the management which had to change. He was not suggesting that the behavior of the paper towel litter-ers had to change.

Especially the part about "false christian morality" is kind of weird. It's like you scanned through until you found one thing you think some philosophy you have applies to, so that you can comment on it, but you didn't understand or follow through with the rest of the article.

<comment><USER63> He thinks that throwing the towels on the floor is OK and that better still would be to install a new waste bin by the door. I agree with him. But he wants to reject moral language and label his approach 'pragmatic'.

In reality he merely has a different opinion as to what is right in the first place.

My concern is that if people do what they judge to be right but call it 'wrong' or 'pragmatic' or whatever then this can cause harmful confusion and guilt. And I think that the idea that 'Selfish == wrong; selfless == right' is the hangover of a puritanical strain of Christian thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36>
        The single least-attractive attribute of many of the people
        who download content illegally is their smug sense of entitlement. …

        The world does not OWE you Season 1 of "Game Of Thrones" in
        the form you want it at the moment you want it at the price you
        want to pay for it. If it's not available under 100% your terms, you
        have the free-and-clear option of not having it.

This isn't any kind of counterargument. No, the world doesn't owe me¹ that, but I'm not forcibly taking it either.People are _voluntarily_ sharing it with me. So what I'm owed is irrelevant. YCombinator doesn't owe me access to HN either, but I'm not a bad person for using it if they're offering it to me.

¹ completely hypothetically and for the sake of argument. For all you know I'm just playing devil's advocate, so let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please.

EDIT: fixed typo.

<comment><USER65> Are you typing "own" instead of "owe"? Why?

Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."

All pirated material, movies, etc _are_ forcibly taken by _someone_. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free.

If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen.

<comment><USER36> _Are you typing "own" instead of "owe"? Why?_

Typo, sorry.

 _Also—"people offering" you something doesn't mean it wasn't "forcibly taken."

All pirated material, movies, etc are forcibly taken by someone. They're ripped from DVDs, captured from telecasts, etc. Just because they're offering it to you doesn't mean that it's free._

They did not forcibly took it: they _bought_ the DVD, Blueray and/or access to the telecast. It's theirs.

 _If I steal something from a store and then give it to you, the item's still stolen._

Yes, but it's not what's happening here, so that's irrelevant.

<comment><USER11> What if the DVD they brought comes with terms preventing them from distributing it?

<comment><USER36> Just like where I live a term saying I waive my right to a warranty is considered abusive and void, so would be such terms, in my opinion, even if legally valid.

What's next, the guy who sold me my house deciding who can I invite to it?

<comment><USER66> You might buy a physical item (say a DVD) from a shop but the contents of the DVD are separately licensed. Obviously this a somewhat convoluted arrangement.

The economic difference is that when you buy something like say a car the person selling it will price it roughly as cost for them to acquire/make + tax + profit margin.

If you wanted to actually _buy_ a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD.

Of course then you would be free to do what you wanted with it, such as put it on the Internet for free download but pretty quickly you'd realise you were getting a bum deal so would want to at least get some of the money you paid for it back from other people who were enjoying it.

<comment><USER36> _If you wanted to actually buy a piece of music the price that you paid would have to at least equal the cost to produce it, so you'd be paying say $10,000+ for a CD._

Nope. I don't have to pay for the costs of the whole R&D required to create my car either - millions, no doubt - just for the costs to produce _that particular copy_ , plus a small profit that will obviously pay for a very small slice of the real cost of producing the car.

Same with that piece of music.

<comment><USER66> Most of the R&D in your car will be protected by some sort of IP such as patents.

If you produced a perfect 1:1 copy of your car and posted schematics etc online showing others how to do so also; you could expect to get sued by the manufacturer.

It's just that car manufacturers are lucky in the sense that almost nobody has the resources and skills to economically produce a car, anyone with a computer has the facilities to reproduce a digital recording at close to zero cost.

If people do this, how do you propose the R&D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?

<comment><USER36> _If people do this, how do you propose the R &D to produce the music etc is funded in the first place?_

By people buying and going to shows. The meme that file sharers don't pay is false¹.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds- pira...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy- more-music)

They just pay for different reasons (helping the artist, financing new works, etc), not as a moral imperative for getting the content.

The argument that more file sharing leads to less works is also far from proven:

        Data on the supply of new works are consistent with our argument
        that file sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. The
        publication of new books rose by 66% over the 2002-2007 period.
        Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than
        doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than
        30% since 2003. At the same time, empirical research in file sharing
        documents that consumer welfare increased substantially due to the
        new technology.

        (...)

        The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is
        the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows
        the industry has grown by 5% over this period.

There are also the consecutive MPAA _record_ profits: [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa- celebrate...](http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92692/piracy-who-mpaa- celebrates-5th-consecutive-year-of-record-profits/)

¹ There are certainly those who don't, but then you have to discount all of those who wouldn't have anyway - "going without" may make one feel good, but does absolutely _nothing_ to benefit the artist.

<comment><USER66> The problem with that study IIRC is that it doesn't separate illegal downloads from legal free downloads. Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?

There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country. The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.

I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.

<comment><USER36> _Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?_

Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.

 _There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country._

Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.

 _The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances._

Can you give me some examples?

 _I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder._

I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.

<comment><USER66> _Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not._

That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works? perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).

 _Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion._

We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.

 _Can you give me some examples?_

Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) , video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).

 _I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want._

A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?

Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?

Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?

<comment><USER36> _That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?_

If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.

 _perhaps more money would also create better new works?_

Define "better work".

 _I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least)._

Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.

 _We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system._

And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.

Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not convinced it is in this case.

 _Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different._

(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)

Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation _is_ different from most other industries for that fact alone.

 _A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?_

Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting _my_ views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.

 _Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?_

No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic consumer protection.

 _For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?_

Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the _artistic_ quality of that work.

 _Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?_

No, why should I?

<comment><USER66> _If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough._

This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their works.

* Define "better work". *

I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.

 _Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant._

it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC gaming as an example of this.

 _And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation._

Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else, movies and music don't really work like this.

 _Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone._

Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to be recouped somehow.

 _Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that._

I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.

They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.

 _Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work._

Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original author can dictate at least some terms of use?

 _No, why should I?_

Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic incentive is to be the latter.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Considerations when setting up deep learning hardware - <AUTHOR> http://www.pyimagesearch.com/2016/06/13/considerations-when-setting-up-deep-learning-hardware/ <comment><USER2> I was a bit disappointed as my questions are more "what is important about a deeplearning box?" How much DRAM should I get ? What should I do about disks?

We built one recently, I got a big lump of dram (256GB), a 12 core processor 6 cards and a 2TB ssd on pci + some ssd's as a backend. We then mapped it onto HDFS, and our pipeline is from HDFS to the ssds for project work and then when the data's ready you can map it onto the pci disc for the actual run - hopefully the cpu has enough cores to run the discs and the GPUs at once.

<comment><USER3> If you're building one yourself then this might be useful:

Make sure you have enough PCI lanes. Motherboards might say they have x16 lanes for all four slots, but in practice it can drop down to as little as 4 each.

Unless something has changed recently, dual processor machines suffer a hit in speed when transferring data to and from GPU memory. However They might have fixed card affinity.

Each graphics card should be able to pull in at least 2 gigabytes a second. You therefore need to max out system ram (assuming your dataset changes that much....)

Power.

You need a PSU that is really up to it. Your wiring needs to be over specced.

Cooling.

4x 400 watts, plus 2x 150 watts for each proc, is a lot of power to dissipate. PSU efficiency really saves money

<comment><USER2> Yes - the power and cooling is fundamental.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, this NVIDIA DIGITS DevBox is seriously overpriced ! I thought it was more of a proof-of-concept to showcase their GPU, buy if he got money ...

<comment><USER5> Plus, the guy bought 4 $1,000 Titan X GPUs, when the next generation GTX 1070s are out very soon, and will have the same power for $400 each.

<comment><USER2> That's soon, which is not now. If you have work to do, now is required.

<comment><USER6> GTX1070 is out now

<comment><USER2> Odd - the sites I've been looking at say "pre-order June 30th"

Where can I get one for next week?

<comment><USER6> in the UK from here - [https://www.overclockers.co.uk/evga-geforce- gtx-1070-founder...](https://www.overclockers.co.uk/evga-geforce- gtx-1070-founders-edition-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card- gx-305-ea.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Anybody curious about this, especially as it pertains to production systems and the JVM, should join the Deeplearning4j gitter channel. We deal with those issues from time to time. [https://gitter.im/deeplearning4j/deeplearning4j](https://gitter.im/deeplearning4j/deeplearning4j)

</comment><comment><USER8> Tiny detail when shopping for UPS: It is the kW rating that is important. Some UPS, especially at the small end, will have an artificially (marketing inflated) large kVA rating compared to the kW rating. Modern computer PFC power supplies (just about anything with an 80 Plus rating) will draw kW == kVA.</comment>


Ask HN: Mentoring a 13 year old; Any good Python resources? - <AUTHOR> Hello HN. I'm a backend dev (Go(lang), Python and C#) looking for good Python learning resources for kids (13+). Sites, books or video recommendations are welcome.<p>Thanks <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/devharsh/Technical- eBooks](https://github.com/devharsh/Technical-eBooks) [http://freecomputerbooks.com/](http://freecomputerbooks.com/) [https://www.onlineprogrammingbooks.com](https://www.onlineprogrammingbooks.com) [https://vvdhout.github.io/edmap/](https://vvdhout.github.io/edmap/) [https://python-patterns.guide/](https://python-patterns.guide/) [https://kite.com/blog](https://kite.com/blog)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some Python sites that may help: [https://pythonbasics.org/](https://pythonbasics.org/) [https://www.programiz.com/python- programming](https://www.programiz.com/python-programming) [https://pythonprogramming.net](https://pythonprogramming.net)

</comment><comment><USER4> Comprehensive tutorial for novices: web, command line, Python, Django, git, hosting, deployment ...

[http://tutorial.djangogirls.org/en/](http://tutorial.djangogirls.org/en/)

</comment><comment><USER5> RaspberryPi.org should have some good stuff. And their hardware is perfect for banging away on with no worries.</comment>


Ask HN: Which blog platform is your company using for public-facing content? - <AUTHOR> I'm curious as to what platforms the HN community are using for external facing company blogs (to post news, opinion, marketing material, engineering posts etc). Obvious choices include Medium or the blogging features of a static site system (such as Jekyll + Netlify). What else?<p>In 2019, what blogging platforms are people using, and why? <comment><USER2> Self hosted WordPress. Both for my employers and my own sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've used Wordpress for a number of projects myself. Curious: For your use case, do you find the ease of use of WordPress' content tooling to outweigh the time needed to deal with security, updates, and deployment (especially since you self-host?)

<comment><USER2> Partially, partially because the sites use quite a few plugins and I find it more convenient to use WordPress for them than to recode everything from scratch to work with a new system.

I actually listed all the things I'd need to recreate with a migration, and it's basically:

1\. The entire account system 2\. Plus the admin dashboard 3\. Post/content editor 4\. Media library 5\. Paid subscriptions setup 6\. Social media integrations 7\. Apple News integration 8\. Permalinks/friendly URLs 9\. Any systems WordPress has for data sanitisation 10\. Plus the challenge of either matching the original URL setup or flawlessly redirecting about 20,000 pages.

Also budget stuff. Most companies I've worked for don't spend a lot of time building their own site/blog, and wouldn't budget for an entirely custom CMS build or migration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why do you say "obvious choice include medium or static systems" ? Even though this is HN, I would argue that majority of blogs are still setup in WordPress and it works well. We host ours on Self Hosted WordPress and would never ever give control of blog to a 3rd party (so Medium is out). Using static site generators are cool and all but when it comes to asking other non technical team members to work on the blog, you again cannot beat WP. So 1 more vote for Self Hosted WordPress.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why specifically would you "never ever give control of blog to a 3rd party"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hackernoon/medium. In this transition phase (hackernoon is moving out of medium) I publish on medium and usually get a day of 2 of traffic before my post is published into hackernoon.

Personally, I like the fact that I get traffic over self publishing. Interested people can click on the url in my profile and reach my website. I post very infrequently but reach 1-10k reads/post lately.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ghost.

I come from Hugo (hosted on S3 or Netlify) but it doesn't scale once non technical people enter the company.

Also, I wear so many hats at my company every thing that makes writing and publishing great content easier is worth it.

I really, really love Ghost.

</comment><comment><USER6> Jekyll with Netlify.

</comment><comment><USER7> wordpress exported as a static website

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you using the WordPress Static Site plugin? [https://wordpress.org/plugins/simply- static/](https://wordpress.org/plugins/simply-static/)

And if so, are you just putting the result on S3? or perhaps deploying with Netlify?

<comment><USER7> We are using [https://wp2static.com/](https://wp2static.com/) And putting result on s3 with cloudfront in front of it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hugo statically site generator

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you deploying via Netlify, with Hugo versions stored in Git?</comment></comment>


Canonical introduces fan networking for containers - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/canonical-introduces-fan-networking-for-containers/

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9764391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9764391)

</comment><comment><USER3> Whats the difference to NAT?</comment>


With no $10 laptop in sight, India buys 250,000 OLPCs - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/04/india-embraces-olpc-buys-250000-xo-laptops.ars <comment><USER2> _Why has such a noble project initiated and run by top-quality people and institution fell far short of its original goal?_

Short answer: _Make something people want._ (Y Combinator's motto)

The greatest weakness in OLPC's implementation is perhaps its learning software, which mostly emphasizes constructionist style of learning. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning>)

People in developing countries don't yet want or need predominantly constructionist learning style (although I highly respect the method and agree to its importance in the long run). They need to make sure their youths have strong basic in math, science, and languages (English and their national language(s)) first.

In the words of Global Competitiveness Report, most of the world are still in the factor-driven or efficiency-driven stage of development. Current OLPC software emphasizes learning style best suited to countries/communities in the innovation-driven stage.

From my first-hand experience living and working in the education field in such a country, if OLPC incorporates highly effective learning software & contents on these essential subjects into its machines, it would make a much easier sale to governments and people of these countries.</comment>


Facebook's pure HTML tracking system - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/journal/270282/Facebooks-pure-HTML-tracking-system

<comment><USER2> this is real - Facebook can track you as you visit each site with a like button whether you click the like or not, and whether you are logged in or not (if they choose to set a cookie for anonymous users).

But its not new. Its just noticed since FB started migrating some certs this last week

They've been snagging your history as you move around 'likeable' pages since the start.

Private browsing sessions and deleting cookies will obviously zap this.</comment>


The Scale of the Universe - <AUTHOR> http://www.onemorelevel.com/game/scale_of_the_universe_2012

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of IBMs Powers of Ten video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0>

</comment><comment><USER3> Please can you link to the original (<http://htwins.net/scale2/>) and not the blogspam version? :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops - sorry, this is where I found it. I can't change the url after the story's been submitted - sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great visualization.

Is there really no object in the 10^-24 - 10^-34 range?

<comment><USER5> Looks like the Sloan Great Wall is the biggest:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall>

"it is the largest known structure in the universe"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why did it stop at a planck length? I thought space was continuous.

<comment><USER7> It's a hard hypothesis to prove either way. One finds that quantum effects dominate the physics at smaller length scales. In quantum theory, the smaller a thing is (its Compton wavelength) the higher its mass or energy. At the Planck scale the density becomes large enough for a black hole to form. So we can get quantum fluctuations creating virtual black holes, which means that the description of spacetime as a continuous thing is invalid.</comment></comment>


Can 'phone booths' solve the problem of open-plan offices? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190802-can-phone-booths-solve-privacy-issues-in-open-plan-offices <comment><USER2> _" We had an open floorplan office, so it was nice to get some peace and quiet when I needed it."_

Now imagine if you had peace and quiet the entire working day, instead of just 'when it was needed'. Imagine how productive you could be.

It's simply amazing how far we've drifted away from this idea in the name of a slightly cheaper furniture bill.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, if you give one to each worker.</comment>


It's BASIC: Arnold Spielberg and the Birth of Personal Computing - <AUTHOR> http://www.gereports.com/post/117791167040/its-basic-arnold-spielberg-and-the-birth-of <comment><USER2> I'm 21 and I started programming in 2002 on Sharp PC-1500. It was a BASIC computer, already way way too old for any purpose at the time but I had a great time with it. It all started with a loop, I immediately fell in love. Then I did a program that could tell how old you were, it first asked you your name and then it asked for your date of birth (the current year was hard- coded) and then the output was something like : "Hi Simon ! You are 8 years old." Then I did something that could calculate which day of the year the birthday on this year would be. It asked for your birth month then for your birth day. From then on I never stopped programming.

My point is that BASIC is a nice way to introduce younger folks to programming. I didn't have a Nintendo 64 and I did not play hockey like most of my friends (you guessed it, I'm from Canada) so it became a hobby. It baffles my mind that it still the simplest way to learn how to program. At age 8 you'd have a hard time figuring how to use an IDE, toolchains or even the web console. I was the kind of guy who was bored by school and was done faster than everybody. If you still have one of these computers you should consider giving them to someone like me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a little surprised by GE's CEO at the time having such a low tolerance for experimental lines of business. The GE-225 computer only came into existence because the team building it hid it from him, and despite being a runaway success by early '60s computing standards, he not only fired its creator, he stayed adamant about getting out of the business and sold it all off to Honeywell -- including Multics, the mainframe OS that greatly influenced Unix's design.

Granted, it's not like GE faded into obscurity based on this decision, but it seems to reflect a different corporate culture from even what we'd consider "conservative" today.</comment>


SmartType - New Keyboard from the man who invented the DiskOnKey - <AUTHOR> http://techland.time.com/2012/08/29/smartype-keyboard-has-a-screen-go-ahead-and-look-at-your-hands/

<comment><USER2> Probably of little utility for the average reader here, but I'd instantly buy one for my dad (if it were currently available outside of Israel).</comment>


What Is Vagrant and Why Should I Care? - <AUTHOR> http://24ways.org/2014/what-is-vagrant-and-why-should-i-care/ <comment><USER2> See here for an explanation:

[http://blog.sei.cmu.edu/post.cfm/devops-technologies- vagrant...](http://blog.sei.cmu.edu/post.cfm/devops-technologies-vagrant-345)</comment>


Only $50B? Facebook Stock Is Still a Steal - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2011/01/15/only-50-billion-facebook-stock-is-still-a-steal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28GigaOM%3A+Tech%29

<comment><USER2> "I don't have any inside information about Facebook's finances, and I'm not a Goldman client. But I'm convinced that when we look back at this investment, it will rank as one of the best stock opportunities available today — akin to buying Apple stock just before the release of the iPod.... Disclosure: Ethan has a very small position in a Facebook secondary vehicle, purchased in 2010."

Oh, well, at least it's an expert opinion from somebody who has no stake in the matter.

<comment><USER3> _it will rank as one of the best stock opportunities available today — akin to buying Apple stock just before the release of the iPod_

Just for laughs:

AAPL in 2001: ~$25 per share

AAPL today: $350 per share

Increase in value: 1400%

Facebook market cap today: $50B

Ethan's projected facebook market cap: $700B

Current largest US public company in market cap: XOM @ $380B

So yeah, he's only projecting facebook to become twice as valuable as the most valuable US company is currently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While all the sarcastic responses are funny there is a serious point here. If you're a technology VC you get a skewed view of the world because...

1\. Everyone you interact with (Entrepreneurs, Journalists, Fellow VCs, etc...) is crazy for Social Networking which makes them very active.

2\. You see abstract statistics like "55% of all adults over 12 use Facebook" or "73% of all U.S. Internet users are on Facebook"

These two facts lead you to believe Facebook is this massive, unstoppable movement that will rule the world. But in my experience (as a passive Facebook user myself) only about 10% of the people I've friended on Facebook actively post material on a regular basis (maybe a little higher if you count status updates alone as activity).

I saw this same thing when I worked in the Valley at the very end of the 90s. The people there thought ideas like Webvan and the original Pets.com were genius because everyone they knew wanted to do all their shopping online. Only after those startups failed did we realize the rest of the world wasn't as enamored as we were.

</comment><comment><USER5> The new decade's version of <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0735201374/>

</comment><comment><USER6> Facebook has yet to _really_ monetize it's 500mm users.

Example: in just a couple of years from when it chose to, it can eviscerate a $37 billion company: eBay. Hell, it could do it as a hobby at first. Then it can start to make real money. Imagine reputation based on your social graph, auction ads/placement based on all the fine grained data they have (and then once they have data on your past purchasing interest/decisions...), etc...

<comment><USER7> I see things like what you say, that "they just need to start trying" and it makes it seem like if I said "I could just start training to be an athlete, and in a couple of years I'd probably win [whatever]". They haven't really done anything until they actually... do something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm wondering if equity markets are near some kind of top. The things that make me thing that are facebook private placement, talk about a facebook IPO, Li Ka-shing doing an IPO of his Chinese property development company.

They all seem to be cashing out.

<comment><USER2> hmm ... it's almost like it's a bubble or something ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Attempt to provide an alternate POV:

"The truly staggering valuation of $50 billion that Goldman Sachs has placed on Facebook, the Internet social networking website is significantly higher than the estimated $30 billion value of silver held in [all] the vaults of the world."

<http://news.silverseek.com/SilverSeek/1294236772.php>

<comment><USER10> I really don't understand how the price of silver is related to Facebook's valuation.

<comment><USER11> All of the world's silver is supposedly worth less than a shitty social networking site...

<comment><USER12> I'd like to sell you some silver. Let's get on the phone soon.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


9% have cut cable, another 11% are considering it - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/video/deloitte-cord-cutters/

<comment><USER2> Terrible questions. I don't know if that was due to laziness, ignorance or an agenda.

"I'm considering canceling my paid TV service, knowing that I can watch all/most of my favorite TV shows online."

That should be two questions, and the last part after the comma ignores many other reasons to cut cable, including cost, not watching it enough to justify, not enough flexibility, etc. You could be cutting cable because the very product, TV shows, just isn't worth the time.

I cut cable TV years ago, because there's no there there. I cut cable Internet last year due to cost, and use my building's inferior but free wifi.

"I've recently canceled my paid TV service because I can watch all/most of my favorite TV shows online."

Same problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be interesting to see numbers on how often people who tell pollsters they are "considering" a course of action in a survey actually follow through. I never know how seriously to take that sort of data. Based on what I know about how inertia affects most people's decision-making (mine included), I'm guessing the portion of people who act on their consideration is pretty low.

</comment><comment><USER4> I cut cable, but now I'm going back to it. Not having cable has been expensive. For sports, the only viable alternative has been services like NFL Game Pass and NHL Game Center, both of which clock in at around $250 a season, and that's just for hockey and football (and BOTH services still have blackout games). On top of that I pay for a VPN account to get around geographic restrictions, otherwise both services would be close to useless. Add in a Netflix subscription on top of it and I'm up to about $700 just to watch football, hockey and Netflix; I'm still missing out on every other sport and anything that isn't available on Netflix.

"Cutting the cable" still isn't that viable an option for a lot of people, and traditional broadcasting and media companies are still very much in control of most media consumption.

<comment><USER5> I basically stopped following the NBA because there wasn't a pain-free way of watching it.

I bought the online seasons pass last year. It had a clunky video player and half the games I wanted to watch were blacked out.

They also had a scumbag cancellation process where the cancel button, that was buried on the NBA site, mysteriously had a 500 error for over a week and required talking to 3 different people on the phone.

<comment><USER4> NHL Game Center is even worse—there is NO online cancellation process and don't let you cancel your subscription partway through the season. I live in Canada an pretty much any game that is aired on TSN or TSN2 is blacked out for me.

Watching sports online could be such a great experience, but most sports leagues seem to have their hands tied by their traditional broadcasting contracts unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Get ready for internet prices to go up for every several percent that quit.

My internet cost has doubled in five years (duopoly city).

<comment><USER7> Strangely, my internet speeds have increased, and costs have gone down for me just in the year I've used the service.

Frontier 35/35, $55 a month.

<comment><USER8> How many options are available where you live? Costs go down for sure if there's more than two options to choose from.

<comment><USER7> Frontier and Comcast to name two...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does the bottom one say 'recently'? I have never owned cable and have watched all of my media online. I wouldn't consider 14 years ago (When I graduated highschool and moved out of my mothers house heh) recent... there should be a check box there for people who are way ahead of the trend otherwise it is giving an incorrect trend.

</comment><comment><USER10> I cut cable out several years ago, to save money, and have found that rather than desperately missing it, we just...watch less TV. When we do want to watch something, there's Hulu or Netflix (in fact, we've had to cut back our household Netflix usage, as it was threatening to blow our monthly bandwidth cap!). Sure, they don't have everything, but they certainly have more than enough to keep me entertained.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's always football that holds me back, which is silly because I'd probably have more fun watching it with a group of friends at a bar.

</comment><comment><USER12> I recently added cable, first time I have ever had it or satellite (I'm 34 BTW, and this includes growing up). Prior to that, I had Netflix, Blockbuster Online, used RedBox, Hulu, Amazon, etc. and bought DVDs and Blu-rays. On the rare occasion when I needed to watch TV (e.g. for the Olympics), I had an external antenna box.

We now have AT&T U-Verse, and I must say, I'm loving it. Cost wasn't really an issue, so we have the "biggest" plan. I just finished watching the first season of Game of Thrones, and NFL RedZone has made football on Sunday a lot more productive (and removed the commercials). We've DVR'd a bunch of random movies that had been on our Netflix queue for what seems like years, using their handy iOS app (we can even DVR something when we're not at home...)

Bottom line: I'm new to cable and so far, I'm loving it. The cost vs. benefit analysis, at least for me, means I'll be keeping it.

<comment><USER13> It's pretty safe to say that if the cost of the highest cable package is a non-issue to you, you're in the top 10% of earners in the country. Keep that in mind.

<comment><USER12> Is being a high earner really relevant?

My cable package is less per day than the cost of a latte at Starbucks. I could have gotten this at any point after I started working at 16, when I was nowhere close to being one of the top 10% of earners in the country.

I'd argue that even the most expensive cable/satellite package is a "non- issue" to everyone but the bottom quintile .

<comment><USER13> The cost of cable is something I've heard everyone I know, every relative, every acquaintance complain about at some point. A typical high-end cable TV and internet bundle costs more than most people spend on electricity, heating, water, sewer, cell or landline phone. Only 61% of American households have wired cable television service at all.

If that cost doesn't affect you at all (and you think comparing to a daily latte from Starbucks, something else most people can't afford, is a useful analogy), yeah, it's something to keep in mind when evaluating this article and the comments. Your perspective may be a little different than the respondents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have 3 1080p displays in my house. None of them are connected to my satellite box. Two are on my computer (including a 47" TV), and the projector is connected to a Roku for streaming videos. The satellite is only used for DVRing shows that we like to watch as a family, and it goes to a smallish TV in the living room.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why would I cut cable? That's where I get my home internet access...

(Oh, you mean _television_.)

</comment><comment><USER16> I live in a house with two adults (42,31) and five kids (20,17,16,6,4). I think we cover several different demographics but are pretty typical otherwise.

Everyone in the house streams their media (Netflix, iTunes, downloaded TV series). I also pay for a VPN account that gives me unrestricted access to US and UK media not otherwise available in Canada.

We do still pay for cable but, honestly, it is only used three or four hours a month for when we're looking for something to act as background noise (and, even then, we're just as likely to put on Pandora or Spotify).

The one reason that I've been hesitant to cancel cable is because I DO download TV. It assuages my guilt, somewhat, at what is effectively piracy because I _could_ get the downloaded content through my cable subscription.

<comment><USER17> What VPN service do you use that gives you access to both US and UK endpoints?

<comment><USER16> VyperVPN (purchased as part of a package through Giganews). It gives me an endpoint in the US, UK, France, EU (unspecified) and Hong Kong. It's possible there are others but I haven't bothered checking in a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does the bottom one say 'recently'? I have never owned cable and have watched all of my media online. I wouldn't consider 14 years ago recent... there should be a check box there for people who are way ahead of the trend otherwise it is giving an incorrect trend.</comment>


Ninja Sphere: Next Generation Control of Your Environment - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ninja/ninja-sphere-next-generation-control-of-your-envir <comment><USER2> I don't see mention either way of subscription/cloud requirements. If it isn't fully self-contained, then the risks out-weigh the benefits.

Edit: Drilling down to the ninja blocks pages I see mention of a "ninja cloud account" as being required to install drivers. That sort of unnecessary external dependency is a deal-breaker for me, essentially negating the entire value proposition of open-source.

[http://ninjablocks.com/blogs/how-to/9555237-installing- drive...](http://ninjablocks.com/blogs/how-to/9555237-installing-drivers-on- your-ninja-block)

<comment><USER3> Mandatory cloud connectivity is detrimental to the usability and security of an automation system. I, for one, will never add non-optional cloud features to my own automation products.

Some day I want to see more systems with a decentralized architecture, where cloud servers, if used at all, only help facilitate a secure VPN connection between the user's device (e.g. a phone) and the user's home network.

<comment><USER4> I'm working with others on a FOSS toolstack that makes it easier to build decentralised systems. Take a look and let me know what you think. [http://nymote.org/](http://nymote.org/)

<comment><USER2> All I get is a spinning blue dot. Your site is unfriendly to people who take their security seriously. That's not a good sign.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the feedback. I don't understand your second comment though, how is it 'unfriendly to people who take their security seriously'? You can email me instead, if you prefer.

<comment><USER2> Pjc50 is correct. Practically every browser exploit over the last decade has had javascript as an essential component. Forcing users to enable javascript to use a site is a bad idea because it makes them more vulnerable. Javascript should be a last resort to provide necessary functionality that is impossible to do in any other way. If you want to use javascript for frills, that's fine as long as the frills don't become obstacles if javascript is disabled.

To put it into perspective, NoScript is the 4th most popular add-on to firefox.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/extensions/?sort=users)

Software like what you are developing needs to be designed with a strong security mindset from the beginning. It is a truism in the industry that security tacked on after the fact never works very well. I was extrapolating from the security naivete of your website design to the likely naivete of your software design.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, this is a helpful explanation. The site came from a template and I didn't think too long about the issue you mention (but I agree it's important [1]).

Regarding your final para, please be assured that the folks working on the software are 'best-in-class' and do have a strong security mindset as well as a deep background in internet systems. The software is the output of research work being done in the University of Cambridge and I made the site to try and showcase the work and provide more context around it. The front-end of the site may be lacking but that shouldn't reflect on the software we're making (though I do understand why people extrapolate).

[1] [https://github.com/nymote/nymote.github.io/issues/10](https://github.com/nymote/nymote.github.io/issues/10)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hoo boy. This displays some of the worst excesses of infographic tyranny. Just look at [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/309/747/c057b01519ab...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/309/747/c057b01519ab599418070daa91243df9_large.png?1384156291).

Just look at it.

The fuck is wrong with a goddamn _timeline_?

Aside from that the device looks pretty cool, although it's only really useful if you buy a whole bunch of other smart devices.

<comment><USER6> That's just awful. You have to look in 4 different places to understand one data point.

If they _really_ wanted to use a circle, why not a curved timeline? I've actually always visualized the calendar year as an oval. It would be so much clearer if the months were points on a circle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Will it ninja-proof my home? Because we have a real ninja problem in my neighbourhood. Anything that can keep them under control gets my vote.

(Sorry. I'm just sick of this ninja-meme. I'm sure it's a wonderful product, and all that, but using ninjas to sell home-automation??)

<comment><USER8> I kinda connect it with Ninja-like capability of sensing environment conditions :) (in this case)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm digging all the new home automation stuff that's been coming out the past few years. I've slowly been starting my own collection of networked sensors and controls, reverse engineering the various protocols, and adding them to a custom dashboard. It's voice controlled (Chrome has a speech input JS API built-in now that makes building that easy), and responds to voice commands with dialogue from Star Trek LCARS responses (sound clips taken from the show and cleaned up). Lots of fun.

[http://i.imgur.com/G4SYEiJ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/G4SYEiJ.jpg)

<comment><USER10> That's fantastic! Do you speak into your smartphone or have you rigged your home for sound?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If your smart power socket blocks access to the neighbouring socket on a two- socket wall plate I hope the gods of product design SMITE YOUR DESIGN TEAM WITH GREAT VENGEANCE.

Please. Slim the design down if necessary.

<comment><USER12> Buy the "Ziotek ZT1212590 Flat 18-Inch Power Strip Liberator, 5-Pack" on Amazon.com. They are awesome for solving this problem. I'd post a link, but I know commercial links are frowned upon.

I'm still blown away that no one out there sells solid like 3 inch extension cords. I'd buy them in a second. It would also be awesome if they came in a 3-1 variety like in this image:

[http://www.ac- powercord.com/products_img/UL_3_Conductor_with...](http://www.ac- powercord.com/products_img/UL_3_Conductor_with_3_Outlet_Extension_Cords.jpg)

<comment><USER9> Wal-Mart has 8-inch ones in 3-packs (in store for like $6), which are actually just long enough since 1.5" on each end is the plug itself.

[http://i.imgur.com/B4Tg2rP.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/B4Tg2rP.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I watched the entire video and I still have no idea what it is or does.

<comment><USER14> Dan from Ninja here. That's what happens when you try and explain something geeky to a broad audience... but for the techies...

It's a powerful (same chip as beaglebone black) ARM computer with WiFi, BLE and ZigBee radios. Runs ubuntu. Everything open source. Almost all Node.JS.

It uses open source drivers to connect to devices and learns how they operate, building a model. If something is out of place, it notifies you and gives you context aware control. For example if nobody is at home and the heater is on, it will alert the last person to leave and give them the option to turn it off.

Key new tech is positioning with little USB powered dongles placed around your house and Leap-motion style (but simpler, no 3d hands) gestures for controlling lights, temp, etc.

Everything the NinjaBlock did, but all built-in (no more dongles for wifi etc).

Hope that clarifies a bit!

<comment><USER12> You actually did a pretty good job with the copy right below the video, "Next generation control of your [home or office] with accurate in-home location data and a gesture control interface.". You should have focused on what it can do now and the vision of what it could become and then spent the second half on the open source aspects of it.

You could have also added a steady cam scene following someone around their home and watching their environment change with them. e.g.

Someone is sitting on the bed reading a book and the nightstand light is on. They get up and move to the door and lighting comes on in the hallway as they walk towards the kitcken lights turn on behind them until they get to the kitchen and get a snack. Then reserve the process until they get back to the bedroom.

This kind of stuff looks like the perfect application for Prolog. There are a lot of predicates to satisfy when determining when a nightlight should be turned on or the overhead light or whether to turn on music in the living room or not.

<comment><USER15> Yay, home automation in prolog. Answers each and every request with "No.". Can't wait ;)

<comment><USER16> If I remember the runtime efficiency of prolog correctly, you might just have to wait :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The reward tiers make it sound like the optimum operating environment is a single-floor apartment. I live in a three-floor house with a basement. I use a single base station that covers my entire house. The reward tier that adds a second floor sounds like a lot of equipment... what's the challenge there and why is it so much more? Is there a square-footage per way-point estimate?

I love the idea and have been experimenting with my own designs but haven't imagined doing the positioning stuff in such a sophisticated way (let alone gesture controls... voice commands work for me so far). I'd love to pitch in on a project like this and let someone else do the work better than I ever could in my spare spare-time. I'm just curious if by "home," you mean, "tiny, controlled environment," like a condo or something.

</comment><comment><USER10> Am I correct in thinking that EasyBulb, MiLight and LimitlessLED are all the same product but rebranded? What are your experience with these products? They seem like a very reasonably-priced alternative to Philips Hue but I'm concerned I might be getting into a 'buy cheap, pay twice' situation.

Similarly, are there any inexpensive but decent smart plug sockets available? (I should note that I'm in the UK, but I'm sure other readers would welcome US-specific solutions.)

And, same question for BLE tags - below ~£10 a tag would be awesome.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't believe the form factor makes much sense because it appears to take up more space then required and doesn't look like it has room for any indicator panels. Can we have a box?

</comment><comment><USER3> Ninja Sphere looks very cool, particularly the RF-based location. Everyone who's ever lost their remote control wants a way to find it, or just do away with it entirely. It seems this could do both. The future of home automation is in ambient intelligence; things behaving correctly without user intervention.

[Obligatory self-promotion:] If you're planning on upgrading to the XboxOne, have an old Kinect lying around from your 360, and want to get a small part of the way right now to where these guys will get you in June, please check out the link to my startup in my HN profile.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think this is a cool idea and I'm pretty sure something like this will exist in the future.

Can we all agree though that its time to start phasing out the use of the word 'Ninja' with everything? How about 'Ranger Sphere' or 'Knight Sphere' or just 'The Sphereamid' \- thats a pretty neat word you guys came up with, go with it, enough with the 'Ninjas'

<comment><USER20> Their company name is Ninja Blocks. It makes perfect sense for them to build on that brand and put forth an association to carry along good will for this new project. They're not just calling it "Ninja" because they think it sounds cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a great example of how open source hardware can be sexy.

<comment><USER22> Case in point:

[http://monome.org/aleph-detail/](http://monome.org/aleph-detail/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I didn't realize having your wine moved was a pain point.

<comment><USER10> I guess you don't have teenage children and serious wine collection. Or an imagination.</comment></comment>


National Spelling Bee, at a Loss for Words, Crowns 8 Co-Champions - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/national-spelling-bee-champions.html <comment><USER2> Also [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/spellpundit-scripps- sp...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/us/spellpundit-scripps-spelling- bee.html), via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067491)

<comment><USER3> "It turned out the winners had more in common than an aptitude for spelling: Six of them had relied on SpellPundit, a coaching company started last year by two former competitive spellers."

I see a striking parallel to LeetCode. 8 way tie this year, could be 30 way tie next year.</comment></comment>