The Startup Rush - <AUTHOR> http://lucisferre.net/2011/11/10/the-startup-rush/

<comment><USER2> The quote from the article _The reality is that there seems to be a significant deficit of modern, high quality, software solutions in many, if not most, markets and furthermore, there is also a deficit of talented developers and designers to capitalize on and satisfy these markets._

You could have said that about the dotcom bubble and be correct at that time. But the gold rush analogy fits very well for that scenario with the benefit of hindsight.

Any scenario including the current startup rush could be made to fit into either one of the options presented.

The reality is: a) currently we are not in an economic slump wrt startup funding b) there will be companies which will make it out of the gold rush looking like visionaries (ala Levis Jeans). c) there will be companies that have attracted significant capital which will go bust.

That is market economics with nothing unusual. The determining factor would be the % of the companies funded which will survive and thrive. I would bet towards a high percentage of busts than winners. And that doesn't make me a genius, i am just stating the obvious.

<comment><AUTHOR> With the benefit of hindsight, though without looking up any numbers to back up this claim, I'd be willing to bet that during the dot.com era the real demand for software and web development was, in fact, much lower than it is today, but the hype around the potential to 'strike it rich' just as great (perhaps greater).

I'm sure there will be a high percentage of busts, that is for the most part true for any entrepreneurial ventures. I will say though that today's situation isn't the same as the past. During the dot.com days one of the RIM founders stated at a conference I attended, that many companies were being funded almost purely on the number of comp sci. and engineering graduates they had hired.

Sure, it's still a rush. There is more hype than realism in the air, but certainly not nearly as much, and the opportunities are far more tangible this time. Make no mistake, gold rush or land rush, hard work is typically a necessary condition to succeed, but my argument is that success is a realistic achievement, given willingness, talent and drive. No amount of that will manage to squeeze gold from a tapped vein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A land rush seems like a better analogy, partly because it's going to take a _lot_ of work to capitalize well on what we've got here. There could be a funding bubble (there certainly isn't any more in VC, but maybe for angels), but that's different from a "startup bubble."

I think we're going to be reminded that when factories aren't a significant advantage, you can have a much higher proportion of entrepreneurs and the self-employed and still have everything work well. Mom and pop grocery stores aren't such a huge historical anomaly that we can't do that again -- now that the "grocery" doesn't need the resources of a giant multinational corporation behind it.

Some things will still always be done better by giant multinational corporations, but so far "managing artisans and figuring out what they should make" isn't in that category. And the few multinationals that are any good whatsoever at that are legendary for it (e.g. Disney).

I think we're going to be reminded that small companies are always how good artisans have tended to organize themselves, and architects, civil engineers, lawyers and doctors have always tended to operate independently or in small partnerships.

Programming is headed that way.

</comment><comment><USER4> The analogies to land rush and gold rush is misguided.

The "bubble" refers to asset valuations. Right now, we have social networking companies being valued above companies with large infrastructures (like oil rigs, auto manufacturing operations).

I suspect after the default by Greece and Italy, we will rediscover the value of tangible assets.

<comment><USER5> Do you mind expanding on your comment as I am not sure how it pertains to the article, which actually states that we are NOT in a bubble.

The idea that companies are valued above the value of their infrastructure is not new and it has nothing to do with web based phenomena.

Hennessy Cognac (as an example) was valued three of four fold above the actual value of the companies assets and the difference stems from the fact that the logo and the name are some of the highest valued in the world. (This information is about 10 years old - from my Engineering Project and Trademark Management days - but it illustrates a point).

We, as people, will always value intangible assets and we did not need web to do it.

<comment><USER4> Take a look at what happened to intangible assets across periods of severe stress, such as the Great Depression or the tech collapse of 2000. The intangible values drop substantially, which should lead you to believe that intangibles are more a function of money supply than anything intrinsic. And since we are coming off of one of the largest money supply expansions in history, it should automatically ring warning bells for events that contract money supply, which is why I mention Greece and Italy.

Ultimately, all asset valuations should be in equilibrium with each other. House prices went out of equilibrium with rents, and eventually that corrected (and still has a way to go.) That is an example of a very close equilibrium.

If Hennessy started rivaling Exxon (say) in valuation, I would say that I don't care what kind of brand recognition it has, it is out of equilibrium and is just waiting for some event (like contraction of the money supply) to re- equilibrate.

> which actually states that we are NOT in a bubble.

BTW, I was disagreeing with the article. I would encourage all to make hay while the sun shines, because these valuations are not going to last.

<comment><USER5> Thank you for clarifying.

The crux is, I guess, that you are making assumptions (valid at that) based on history, whereas I believe that the start-up rush is unprecedented and cannot be easily compared with anything that has happened so far. The author's analogy of land rush was, in my opinion, close, but the fact is, nobody knows.

Another fact that I would like to address is that just like the oil rig you mentioned has tangible value, (engineering, ore and manufacturing), so does software (engineering, data and massive outreach), so to quote Winston Churchill, "This is not the beginning of the end. It is the end (or not even that) of the beginning."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Neither of these ideas make much sense and are both based upon agrarian ideas of economics. The agrarian idea is basically that is only so much land, and he who controls the most of it will be richest.

The new economy is a situation where each new idea creates new opportunities and the only real scarcity is that of attention. Attention is largely an intangible asset, certainly not ownable or protectable and the only real moats you can build with regard to attention are that of network effect.

<comment><USER7> I think this more appropriately catches it. There are weird things too with this market but consider the following;

A 'software startup' is a generally a data mining operation of some form, data (the raw form of information) goes into the sluices, and out comes some post processed data as information that has some value. So perhaps the name, address, and daily rates of every Hotel goes in as data, the sluices take your input on where you are going to be and provides a report of just those hotels and their rates where you are and voila, distilled data as valuable information.

Unlike the goods economy, the ore for our information products can be re-used again and again to make a variety of products. Further all of our ore can be 'stolen' by a competitor and we're still able to make our information products out of it. Thus this new information economy values the richness of the derived information, that richness is defined by relevance, precision, and timeliness.</comment></comment>


New coronavirus losing potency, top Italian doctor says - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus/new-coronavirus-losing-potency-top-italian-doctor-says-idUSKBN2370OQ <comment><USER2> Coronavirus have "proofreading" functions that make them less likely to mutate meaningfully than many other kinds of viruses.

While it's true that viruses often mutate to become less potent over time (bc that makes them less detectable and therefore more likely to spread, an evolutionary advantage), any claims that this is happening should require very strong evidence to be believed. This isn't even weak evidence.

Most of the above is googleable. I don't have direct citations because most of my understanding comes from the excellent This Week in Virology podcast where various virologists chat about such issues. They're quite dismissive of the frequent "The virus is mutating" stories (though of course all viruses mutate in small, unimportant ways all the time)

<comment><USER3> It sounds to me like the doctor is anthropomorphizing the virus and saying what the people want to hear. It may be that the pandemic is receding for a variety of reasons, but that's almost certainly not because the virus itself has mutated.

<comment><USER4> He actually said he's aware there are no known mutations that can be traced to a different clinical phenotype (Reuters did not report that part).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reuters touched only briefly what Dr.Zangrillo said. He is aware there are no mutations that could be traced to any change in clinical outcome (everyone else who talks about "reduced potency" also acknowledges that fact).

But indeed, lockdowns or not, there has been a decrease in ICU usage and in viral load of patients. Treatments have also improved somehow (aside the "ventilator yes or no" debacle, according to Dr.Gattinoni, an Italian doctor working in Germany, the actual intubation parameters like flow of oxygen, etc. have also changed).

People think social distancing and masks may have played a role (probably), but bear in mind that until the beginning of May, the government was still saying that masks were useless (a thesis still shared by some Italian experts). Only Lombardia mandated them also outside (as far as I remember).

Personally (I don't have any evidence to back it up so far, so it's just speculation), I think that the route of infection matters. The vast majority of cases in the past two months were in nursing care homes (a complete screening in Lombardia in the past days found 30% positives there) and in hospitals, which also mean more viral load (closed systems) and more vulnerable people.

That is no longer the case now. I know that some doctors are now handling people in "house confinement" rather than bringing them to the hospitals.

P.S.: Testing capacity indeed increased but there's a lot more to do to get to decent levels.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am suprised who weak doctors are in Math! You don't need to be a Math genius to grasp this: initially, they were testing symptomatic people, mostly people with high fever, and we know not all develop fever. So, now, testing has opened up to more people, i.e. asymptomatic and with mild symptoms. It's beyond obvious that CFR will drop! CFR will always drop with time - unless the virus mutates and becomes more severe. Also, many dilute the mortality with some unreliable antibody tests, which also are not randomized samples. In the Balkans, the antibody tests show very low infection rate, yet, the epidemic has effectively stopped - more than 2 weeks after the restrictions got removed. Obviously, the Summer weather is helping, but this also means that, for sure, there will be a second wave in the Fall as infections are still growing and in some areas they are literally just in the beginning.

<comment><USER6> I think it's also for evolutionary reasons. A virus that is milder survives better and spreads more. A virus that kills the host, or in this case makes it sick so that it self-isolates, has lower fitness.

The so-called Spanish flu pandemic (not Spanish at all, probably from Asia as well) went this route. It became very mild and the pandemic vanished quickly after killing millions.

<comment> T-A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave)

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/31/second-wave- coro...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/31/second-wave-coronavirus- uk-winter-peak-covid/)

<comment><USER7> Posting only links or references can leave it unclear if you are agreeing, disagreeing, clarifying, or what.

<comment><USER8> Does it matter? As long as the information is factual, it is useful. Not every comment must take some side in some imagined argument or debate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> im3w1l-alt There was some report quite a while ago from Singapore that they saw deletion variants with lower potency iirc.

</comment><comment><USER9> As the global diagnoses go up, the daily death rate is declining, so this makes sense.

<comment><USER10> Variables changed; social distancing is in effect, medical field is much more effective then it was two month ago. But hey lets say magically virus is changed.

In what way it makes sense to you ?

<comment><USER11> Viruses mutate. There is a selection pressure for them to become more contagious but less incapacitating since sick people in bed do not infect others. It is possible, though not guaranteed that common strains of COVID could become less deadly over time. That said, public health decisions should be based on the science and not wishful thinking or what one doctor said.

<comment><USER10> Scientists use data from here: [https://nextstrain.org/](https://nextstrain.org/) to make such claim, to best of my understanding, there no-such claim.

<comment><USER12> The directed evolution of a virus, as mentioned, to become more invective but less lethal can be explained by game theory and is backed up by experience. But is is not a law, could also go otherwise around.

<comment><USER10> I do not dispute such possibilities, there is also possibility it will mutate into flying AIDS. The process is about complex systems interactions and claim that it is attributed slowly to virus mutation without such evidence is outright reckless, unprofessional, and unscientific.

<comment><USER12> I don't care what you dispute or not. It is unlikely that you are qualified to make any statements about this or that you have ever worked in genetics on a high level.

It is Biology 101:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_virulence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_virulence)

<comment><USER10> Not sure if you have enough cognitive abilities to understand this:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

<comment><USER12> You just made a statement about a field of science where you seem to have zero educational background and understanding and described something as "without such evidence is outright reckless, unprofessional, and unscientific" and I called you out on it with some Biology 101 information with a Wiki Link. Where is your problem?

<comment><USER10> My fist problem is that; you did not refute what I stated, but instead choice to attack my experience. While I am not medically trained, I studied genetic optimization extensively, most importantly phenotypes effective behavior within individual phenotype cells; functions, locations, and connections.

My second problem is that; you linked article without any explanation how my statement is false in relation to linked article.

My third problem is that; I just don't understand what in my statement is so false that grants attacking my experience, in simple analogy; in case 5 years old tells you 2+2=4, clearly his age is irrelevant for what he is saying to be true.

Finally, I explain what I said in original statement; if you have x, y, z variables claiming without evidence that x is only responsible for output value, and without providing evidence why y and z is not responsible is reckless, unprofessional, and unscientific in another words it is just speculation. Note that article ended with "It is clear that today the COVID-19 disease is different."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Says one doctor.

<comment><USER12> No, says science, experience and game theory. While this outcome is not guaranteed, it is basically expected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> >The strength the virus had two months ago is not the same strength it has today

If the virus had not mutated maybe it's that people have got some kind of immunity through low level eposure?

</comment><comment><USER15> Could this be due to mutations?

<comment><USER16> Mutating to survive less successfully in your environment would be evolutionarily unusual...

<comment><USER17> Success in this case is spreading to more people. Mutating to cause less severe symptoms + be more contagious is evolutionary the way these things go.

<comment><USER16> Thanks - yeah, I guess that does make sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sure, for less and declining viral loads. But this is mostly anecdotal.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is not science, this is magic right there.

"It is clear that today the COVID-19 disease is different." The only difference is social distancing, for fucks sake.

<comment><USER19> Not exactly, there was a series of articles from a virologist here on HN (cant find it), the idea is that he wanted to infect people with the less deadly corona versions so we all gain immunity. This would prevent a lot of casualities. This idea also works the same way in nature, as in the less deadly virus can spread more, because it produces milder symptoms and even no symptoms. This means you are more likely to catch a milder version, which leads to the fact that the virus becomes less dangerous, as deadlier strains will fade out quicker. This does not mean we need to let go the social distancing at all, but on the other hand we have to reach herdimmunity at some point, preferrably without too much casualities.

<comment><USER10> I re-read the article and might be mad, but this is your interpretation or rationalization of what doctor said.

<comment><USER19> I wrote down the reason why the virus is "getting" weaker. There is no explanation of the phenomena in the article, the doctor just talks about what he experiences without an explanation. Social distancing alone wouldn't help us, we also need the herd immunity, otherwise the virus would just flare up randomly the second we ease the restrictions. The mechanism I mentioned helps us to achieve herd immunity with time. I don't understand why is that getting downvoted... Meanwhile I found the article: [https://www.tillett.info/2020/04/05/a-solution-to- covid-19/](https://www.tillett.info/2020/04/05/a-solution-to-covid-19/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Senate passes controversial metadata laws - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senate-passes-controversial-metadata-laws-20150326-1m8q3v.html

<comment><USER2> It's as they say: we have to win every time, they only need to win once. I hope other Australians on this site will teach their friends and family how to protect their privacy. I know I will be.</comment>


What's the Second Job of a Startup CEO? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ycombinator.com/the-second-job-of-a-startup-ceo/ <comment><USER2> Spot on, and it's really really hard. I had the privilege of working for a CEO who scaled his business from < 20 people when I joined to ~300 when I left. You really feel each of these stages and it's very difficult to ride the transitions through them, especially if you've done a good job in phase one and you have strong product fit with your market, the business kinda just gets sucked along for a while and it's hard to "feel" the break points if you will. There is a transition from the tactical CEO to the thoughtful CEO that is hard to describe and seems hard for many of the CEOs I coach to execute. Not transitioning quickly enough through these stages and steps, and remembering to somewhat modulate your message regarding the vision mission and purpose stuff results in very uncomfortable periods of time, _especially_ uncomfortable if your company has caught up to your thought. I do think CEO at scale is an incredibly difficult job.

<comment><USER3> Coincidentally, I think the 300 number is another transition point. Until 300, you can be a CEO who really holds the wheel on many aspects of the company. Beyond this, you really have to be comfortable with delegating to your lieutenants, and empower rather than control.

The CEO at my previous employer successfully took 3 companies to exit, each at around the 300 mark. Terrific starter and operator capable of making really tough calls (like saying no to ominous AAPL supplier terms despite the obvious upsides), but quite bad at delegating.

Still wondering many years later if there are any predictors for someone who can make this transition.

<comment><USER4> I am not sure that it is best to be able to make this transition or not. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. Can't dispute his track record!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish this piece had spent more time on the art of "Making Sure They Work Well Together." This is huge -- and underappreciated by 95% of founders. Here are four dimensions that would be worth exploring in a subsequent post:

Who does what? What happens when we disagree? What are the ground rules for revisiting a decision? Do we understand one another's approach to time management, prioritizing, delivery targets, conflict resolution, etc.

Members of the early-stage leadership team aren't clones. There will be differences. Can we calibrate smoothly, or will we forever need to "talk it out"? When there's a lot of churn in the founding team, usually it's because one of these four issues isn't being handled well. In severe cases, cycling new people into the job just starts the fail loop afresh -- no matter how amazing each new candidate might be.

<comment><USER2> Here are some great books for that:

[https://www.amazon.com/Art-Facilitation-Essentials- Meetings-...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Facilitation-Essentials-Meetings- Creating/dp/145965739X) [https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Inc-Overcoming- Unseen-Insp...](https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Inc-Overcoming-Unseen- Inspiration/dp/0812993012) [https://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team- Leadership-Fab...](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership- Fable/dp/0787960756) [https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Five-Dysfunctions- Team-Fac...](https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Five-Dysfunctions-Team- Facilitators/dp/0787976377) [https://www.amazon.com/Communication-featured- Necessary-Pers...](https://www.amazon.com/Communication-featured-Necessary- Persuasion-Conger/dp/1422189864)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This took me a year to really internalize- I wish I had read this a while back when we were 20 people. It wasn't until we passed 45 that I really took a thorough look at how I was spending my time. I intellectually understood the transition to delegation and leverage but a lot of the rest of the company didn't and it caused me to take longer than I should have to refocus on recruiting an exec team and defining the company strategy. Excellent writeup.

</comment><comment><USER7> This essay is absolutely fantastic - one of the best pieces of writing I've ever read on growing a company. The description of the phase one/two/three CEO Model makes a ton of sense, and the examples given (SpaceX mission, Pixar culture) were enlightening.

I have just one criticism: I think the headline under-sells the rest of the essay. I see this more as the YC guide to growing your startup beyond phase one.

</comment><comment><USER8> I took me a while to figure this out but i agree with Ali. However, i'd argue that as a CEO with a product background (the same probably goes for engineering) you can still spend time with your product teams through Phase 2 and maybe even in Phase 3. It is just a slightly different role, a more guiding function.

</comment><comment><USER9> The second thing a CEO should focus on is building a repeatable sales model. Some products "sell themselves" but most products need a lot of experimentation with the sales model until they become profitable.

<comment><USER10> That's arguably part of building the product. But I agree that it's very important and is one thing a lot of engineer-founders miss.

<comment><USER11> One could say it is impossible to _ship a product to market_. If you don't know where that market is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The second job of a startup CEO is actually everything outside of building a product. Everything from hiring the right team, to making sure people are happy, to finding sales/distribution channels, marketing channels. It's not a question of what else the CEO should be doing but a question more of how long he/she should be doing those things.

<comment><USER13> Its their job to do those things by building the right team to do it too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> My three priorities when I was a CEO: Team, Vision, Cash.

Easier said than done.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Doer-in-Chief. You must be deeply involved in both building the product > (observing/interacting with users, writing code, designing product specs)

I slightly disagree here, I would rather start with the Second Job or Phase 2, 'Hiring a Leadership Team and Making Sure They Work Well Together'. The more you focus on finding and setting up the best team early on the better. You can do yourself a prototype, write code or do market research to see if you are on the right track. However, I recommend to setup the founding or leadership team before anything else. Once you have the team in place the project gets momentum and pace will be 100x compared to before. And finding the team plus setting up all legal matters will be a full-time job your first weeks if not months.

<comment><USER16> How do you pay all those people?

<comment><USER15> Good question and this will be the biggest challenge. The answer is equity. But be careful before giving too much equity too easy away. You should have a big pipeline of candidates and know exactly what you expect from whom and how much you are willing to give away and on what conditions. At the beginning some might join your venture full-time, some not. Latter ones are easy to get but eventually it might be hard to get them out of the current jobs if the prospects are not to positive or let's say the first round is rather small.

Once in later funding stages (A, B) you have much better financial power and thus, you'll update or upgrade your senior management team anyway.

<comment><USER17> > The answer is equity

How realistic is it to bet your company on people working for equity? In its early days most rational people will not join a startup for equity alone. A few will join for cash and comp; for most,cash alone is good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> koga-ninja The stereotypical image of the CEO is that they are Backslappers and they play golf.

Not so in Silicon Valley I suppose.

The main factor I see for CEOs in a startup is Time horizon. If you want to be around for thirty Years, have fun, and incidentally build a useful Product - you will do things differently.

The Steve Jobs/ Sun Tzu type of anecdote is the best. If you spend 50 percent of your time on strategy or Thinking, it is for the best.

A final point is that keeping a good attitude is Important, not just for you but also for your team. This is often underestimated.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm not so sure about the implicit assumption that growth/phase change should be measured by head count. Sure you need some estimate but I do find the stage3 = 400 employees a bit strange. Especially given WhatsApp happened.

I would have preferred if the article used some other measures to indicate the state changes (profit, net promoter whatever) or at least discussed this a bit more.

That being said it's a pretty good article. I think it makes the product/market fit -> company building shift pretty clear.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why did YCombinator blog switch to Wordpress from their own "free forever" Posthaven solution?

Their new site feels tacky and generic kinda like this blog post. Taken together with less news on larger batches of startups in recent years, it feels symptomatic of a slow dilution/degration of the YC brand.

<comment><USER20> I don't have first-hand experience, but I would guess it would be the same reason most people do: (1) when you roll your own CMS, you have to build all of the features your editors and designers request yourself, the scope of which people tend to underestimate significantly and (2) when you use a hosted solution, you can't customize the site to be exactly the way you want it to be — WordPress offers self-hosting and full customization.

Despite its warts and un-sexy image, WordPress _just works_ for most people's needs when it comes to a simple blog, has a wide range of plugins that solve most anything someone would need from a CMS, can be truly customized, and allows them to move on and spend time on more important things.

<comment><USER21> I usually end up recommending Wordpress for the same reasons: it's the least awful option for writing a blog that has your own template.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Caveat, I'm not the CEO of a company, but I feel like the priorities in this are wrong (but maybe I don't strictly prescribe to the SV/startup mentality). At first, especially if you are technical CEO, it makes sense to build the product either alone or with your CTO/co-founder. However, I wouldn't consider this a "first job" because while it's necessary at the beginning it isn't the job of a CEO. For example, this post says, "Delegation should not be a word in your vocabulary." This is really not true; good leaders and those who get lots of things done are the ones who can delegate extremely efficiently and who can trust those they delegate to do get the job done. In my opinion, building the product is maybe 10% of the job of a CEO, even in the beginning. The 90% of the job is actually building the company, building the brand, getting the word out, delegation.

I would say that the first job of a CEO is building the company, the second job is building the product. If I have time after all of my other priorities were done, then I would help with the product (as in commit code, create or collab on a design or product workflow, etc.). The title CEO isn't just a random arrangement of letters: sure, it's fine to be part of the product in the beginning when there's only a couple or few people, but once it moves beyond that (and not at the 20 person level like this post says) the CEO should really trust that the CTO and the product team can do their job while the CEO handles all the other non-product aspects.

<comment><USER10> > I would say that the first job of a CEO is building the company, the second > job is building the product.

The problem with this is you don't really have a company until you have a product to sell. And not all products can support companies. The roles in the company have to orient around the product. Product _has_ to come first.

<comment><USER23> Exactly this. I associate "company first, product second" with the kinds of organizations that seem to exist for the sole reason of playing company.

The mentality that important decisions within a new company boil down to which friend gets which corresponding C-level title is just trivial to me. You don't have a product and you're wasting time on the unimportant things. Literally, your startup needs a CEO to guide the ship and a team who can help build the product. Not a CEO, a COO, CTO, CMO, a Director of Engineering, a SVP of Marketing, and who knows what other fancy titles you can come up with.

Product is king. Without a product, you don't have customers nor revenue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Lol. The job of a CEO is to implement the will of the board, of the people who actually own the company. It is normal for startup CEOs to also be an owner, or to know them all socially, but that doesn't mean they aren't a CEO.

If the board wants to expand, the CEO works to expand. But increasingly boards fear rampant expansion. Some aren't looking to cash out via an IPO or buyout. That path is becoming exceedingly difficult. Some want to see profit much earlier. I know one startup with TWO customers, big customers, that is totally focused on them and isn't seeking to grow. That board places customer focus above anything else and instructs their CEO accordingly. He isn't happy. His dreams of rampant expansion and market dominance have been quashed, but he is still doing his job as CEO.</comment>


Generating classical music with LSTM neural networks - <AUTHOR> https://blog.floydhub.com/generating-classical-music-with-neural-networks/ <comment><USER3> Always appreciate new attempts at music gen. As with every attempt thus far, even the hand picked selections sound like random nonsense locked to diatonics within a particular key, and no real harmony or counterpoint to speak of (and that's the "good" output, they never let you hear just any old output, it's always 'listen to this handful I selected, the rest may be total garbage').

<comment><USER4> What if we would train computers to compose same way as we teach composition students: renaissance counterpoint, fugues of Bach and harmonic structuring of classical era (sonata form)?

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, as most people in computational creativity will tell you, teaching/learning "rules" is only a tiny sliver of the problem. But even getting a computer to "understand" those things in a way that would allow it to apply them to the act of composing is vastly beyond our current understanding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I found the part about notewise vs chordwise encodings very interesting!

Ages ago I was a sequencer geek (Impulse Tracker!) while also noodling around with guitar, and I noticed something strange: I made music I liked a lot more when I composed on guitar and transposed onto the sequencer afterwards. After a lot of experimentation, I realized that the constraints on what my hands could do on guitar were (of course) having a huge impact on what I _tried_ to do when composing -- and struggling with the constraint was helping me make music I liked more.

I like a vision for practical machine learning where we spend less time on plumbing and more time thinking about the kinds of constraints (e.g. through input encoding) that enable "creativity" on the part of the machine.

<comment><USER6> That's so interesting - you're totally right that setting constraints often leads to really creative ideas. It reminds me of the "crab canons" by Mozart and Bach: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_canon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_canon) .

I also think there's room for other creative encodings for music - <USER2> expanding these notewise/chordwise ideas, or possibly going in a totally new direction. It's fascinating to me how much the generations are affected by the encoding.

<comment><USER5> Another fun direction is to generalize the kinds of constraints we put on our own instruments! I had a chance to play with that in a graduate class by implementing an API for midi generation where you set chord fingerings and strum patterns independently for a guitar of [N] strings.

Of course, I had to "play" the guitar myself by writing song sequences in those terms... it would be terrific to see what an AI could do with a notation scheme representing, say, a 20 string guitar or a 30 foot long flute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We're actually using a similar technique (quite a bit more complex) to generate synthetic data for applications:

[https://medium.com/capital-one-tech/why-you-dont- necessarily...](https://medium.com/capital-one-tech/why-you-dont-necessarily- need-data-for-data-science-48d7bf503074)

IMO this is eventually going to replace a lot of tasks. This for example, can dynamically generate elevator music (or music in an office). The system we built can generate synthetic data for testing and sharing samples of datasets. Eventually, we'll have entirely synthetically generated videos, advertisements, and more.

In 50 years, entire movies may be generated.

<comment><USER8> Is anyone currently affected by a lack of elevator music, be it due to financial reasons or any other reason, and does your approach solve this?

I hope you'll agree that you gotta find a better, more sympathetic example if you want to sell your generative algo's...

<comment><USER9> Yes. Mood Media is a company that bought Muzak, Inc - the original elevator music company (and the reason we sometimes talk about disposable music like this as "muzak"). They are a substantial business now owned by private equity. They acquired Muzak for soemthing like $300m a few years back.

Background music is actually quite difficult, commercially. Someone needs to write and arrange it, and they need to be paid - either royalties each time it is played which is why a lot of companies don't use "known" music for telephone hold and so on - it's too expensive. If it's not on a royalty basis then the writer needs to be bought out - which can be expensive.

So having algorithmically generated music is actually really interesting because there is potentially no author to be paid. This is actually an emerging area of music copyright law. If an algorithm writes music who owns the copyright to that music? The computer? Probably not, not a legal person. The people who wrote the algorithms? Possibly - but did they actually create the music? Or does no one own it - meaning anyone can use it without payment? If a label commissions an algorithm to write hits who owns the music publishing?

<comment><USER8> Thanks for changing my mind on this, I was looking at it in an overly simplistic way

<comment><USER9> You are welcome!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The issue that 'rests are so common, we need to remove them or the algorithm would just predict rests all the time' shows the flaw with this approach.

If there is some pattern in your data, and your algorithm, rather than replicating something similar to the pattern, just outputs the most likley value at any point in time, then it is never going to work as you hope. Rests are a symptom of this, and fixing them doesn't fix the underlying issue.

There are a bunch of solutions to this, but adversarial models do a good job of approximating a probability distribution like this.

<comment><USER11> > There are a bunch of solutions to this, but adversarial models do a good job > of approximating a probability distribution like this.

The problem is GANs on sequence data still stink compared to max-likelihood: they train far more slowly, more unstably, and still don't generate decent sequences compared to a char-rnn with a bit of temperature tuning & beam search. They _should_ be better for precisely the reason you say, but they aren't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am struck at the quality of music neural nets can generate today. Just a few years ago it was much worse - the notes would make sense for 2-3 seconds and then they would just drift into another direction. And using the Transformer for music is an intriguing idea.

Edit: apparently someone has already implemented music generation with the Transformer. Samples: [https://storage.googleapis.com/music- transformer/index.html](https://storage.googleapis.com/music- transformer/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> In the answer to "Wait, what's a rest?", I'm intrigued by the definition of "...any time step where you don't play any _new_ notes." (emphasis mine)

Why not have each time step contain all pitches that should sound during that time step (so starting a new quarter note and continuing a half note would both appear in the same time step)? Then at the end of generating the music, perform some post-processing to get the note lengths. Would the approach in the interview having any significant advantages to this approach? (I suppose you do lose the ability to rearticulate a pitch with my idea)

</comment><comment><USER14> I got 3 out of 4 correct. In the first two questions, the AI seemed easy to identify because of alien rhythmic patterns, not really because of melodic content. In the 3rd, the AI was identifiable because the piece, while pleasant, seemed to lack a plausible development of the idea (but this is something that easily could be ascribed to a second rate human composer). The one I got wrong, the AI composition was pretty good, and the human one had exactly the alien rhythmic patterns that to me were a giveaway for an AI composition. Weird composer or bad performance?

Do you have any examples of jazz compositions by your software? Would be very interested in hearing that.

<comment><USER15> There's a short snippet of a jazz composition from Clara near the top of the post.

<comment><USER14> Ah, thanks! Not entirely natural, but could marginally be passed off as "Thelonious Monk, having drunk one Espresso too many".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm really curious how much effort there was in building up the data set - before, training the model before you got to "music"

Reading the steps feels like 9 months to a year before you got to credible music.

What kept you going in the belief this would work. I can think of 20 reasons why this shouldn't work - hence its "surprising" that it does. Its quite easily something you could have worked on for 5 years with no results.

reading your background - it also sounds like your time would be tightly constrained hence figuring out where to deploy it - you need to have some conviction you'll have success

</comment><comment><USER17> Awesome work Christine! I've only ever heard you play classical music in concert. Any plans to perform bits of your AI generated music live. Perhaps with Ensemble SF?

Also, I noticed your data format has a flag for instrument type. Have you considered generating for voice? Obviously a very different beast but it seems the same principals could apply. It would be important to restrict the music to a model of what a human is capable of to make it singable. Adding physical constraints to the piano generated music might also be interesting. Fingers are so long and there are usually only ten.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has anyone done work on automated evaluation of the quality of a musical composition? Possibly by training a neural network, or maybe even just by designing some heuristic rules which try to capture what elements make music pleasing to humans?

Then, could you train a neural network (or a genetic algorithm, or whatever) to compose music that is assigned a high quality score by such a composition quality evaluator?

<comment><USER13> I actually just recently took a shot at something very similar to this for my undergrad thesis! [0]

I used genetic algorithms to generate 4 measure melodies, using a long short- term memory (LSTM) neural network to determine the fitness of melodies. I trained the LSTM on snippets of music by J.S. Bach. It was able to distinguish between random noise notes and actual music quite well, and to a somewhat lesser degree between Bach and other composers.

The melodies it produced were...mixed in quality. I really liked some of them, but quite often it would get stuck at some local maxima of the fitness and couldn't mutate its way to something better.

[0] [https://github.com/ThomasMatlak/is- software/tree/master/gene...](https://github.com/ThomasMatlak/is- software/tree/master/geneticAlgorithms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >"More recently, there is a shift towards using a Transformer architecture, and right now I'm experimenting with that as well."

I'm really curious- any early results to share on that? Attention really does make a big difference on a lot of things (including work I've done so I know first hand). It should improve the coherence of the entire music piece in theory at least, right?

<comment><USER6> Transformer is working _really_ well- I'm very excited. I'll probably be sharing results soon. Yes, the attention makes a huge difference & the pieces are both more creative and more coherent.

<comment><USER11> Have you considered using 'learning from human preferences' as the loss function in addition to the Transformers? That was another OpenAI project, and it seems tailor-made for music generation: what is more 'I know it when I hear it' than music quality?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reminds me of this pretty cool music generation talk at StrangeLoop. I can't find his own site, but here's the SL page: [https://www.thestrangeloop.com/2018/making-machines-that- mak...](https://www.thestrangeloop.com/2018/making-machines-that-make- music.html)

</comment><comment><USER21> LZW does a creditable job as well.

[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0051.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0051.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> Better not have any parallel fifths in there or I swear to god my Theory professor will come out of his grave and berate the AI for it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hi Christine, what are your thoughts on using reinforcement learning for music generation? Has anyone tried that at OpenAI?

</comment><comment><USER24> Need some Chopin to help train the full 88 keys!

<comment><USER6> Haha, very true. It was Charlie's question in this interview that made me realize the 62 key limit was an old fix that I no longer needed, so now I'm trying out expanding my dataset and also expanding to the full 88 keys!</comment></comment>


Innovative New Online Business Models - <AUTHOR> http://www.openforum.com/idea-hub/topics/marketing/article/the-5-most-innovative-new-online-business-models-in-2010-rohit-bhargava#

<comment><USER2> How does Blippy work with credit cards? How does it know the products you buy from your credit card statement?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you evaluate new startup idea? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> you need to find some customers that are willing to pay for it. If not pay at least use it.</comment>


Show HN: Go for Glory – take the apibunny challenge - <AUTHOR> http://apibunny.com/

<comment><USER2> Wrote a Node.js script to do a simple breadth-first search and got to the point where I submit my twitter handle to the exit node but it's throwing an error.

request.post({ url: '[http://apibunny.com/users'](http://apibunny.com/users'), headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }, body: JSON.stringify({ twitter_handle: '@braddwyer' }) }, function(error, response, body) { console.log(body); });

Results in:

{ "error": "Request was malformed.", "detail": "TypeError: Cannot call method 'forEach' of undefined" }

Not sure how to go any further with no API docs.

<comment><USER3> Take a look to the tools we used to develop this API ;)

It has a particular format to do POST request. Good luck !

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Too addictive.</comment>


Bushlog - African Wildlife Tracking App - <AUTHOR> http://www.bushlog.com Bushlog is a fun, interactive app to record, view and share African Wildlife Sightings all the while helping researchers and conservationists protect Africa's biodiversity. Built using Django/Python and Twitter Bootstrap. <comment><AUTHOR> iOS/Android Apps coming very soon.</comment>


How to Deploy ML Models with AWS SageMaker Using Terraform - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cloudetc/terraform-sagemaker-example <comment><AUTHOR> Terraform support for AWS SageMaker is not official yet but under review. However, here is already an example showing how to use it and deploy an example model provided by AWS.</comment>


Rust on AVR: Safer microcontrollers almost here - <AUTHOR> http://dylanmckay.io/blog/rust/avr/llvm/2017/02/09/safer-microcontrollers-almost-here.html <comment><USER2> Having more programming languages for embedded platforms is always great. If all you know is Rust or Python or JS, etc. it is great to have it as an option. But I have to wonder if the specific claim of type safety really translates here. In my (albeit limited) experience, certain classes of errors just don't occur on embedded systems because there is not enough room for them. For example, there is no double free() because heap memory is not a thing. I suppose you can still have off by one errors, and problems with referencing/dereferencing, but once again in my experience you usually find this stuff pretty fast because your code just won't run. Am I wrong here?

<comment><USER3> I used to work as an embedded systems developer (for systems where a single failure could cost a quarter million dollars), and I've experimented with kernel-space Rust just for fun.

Rust is a surprisingly nice language on bare metal.

If you use '#![no_std]' in Rust, it disables the standard library and substitutes the 'core' library. This has no 'malloc' (unless you supply one, which is easy) and no OS-level features. But you still get iterators, slices, traits, "scoped" closures and generic types. You get a lot of abstraction with basically zero overhead. And don't forget that embedded systems have lot of state machines, which are nice to implement using Rust's "tagged union" support and exhaustive 'match' statement.

Here's an example of a Rust I/O port wrapper ([https://github.com/emk/toyos- rs/tree/master/crates/cpuio](https://github.com/emk/toyos- rs/tree/master/crates/cpuio)) and an interrupt controller interface ([https://github.com/emk/toyos- rs/tree/master/crates/pic8259_s...](https://github.com/emk/toyos- rs/tree/master/crates/pic8259_simple)). These APIs are reasonably pleasant for something so close to the metal.

Rust would be a very agreeable programming language on an AVR system, IMO. And not necessarily because of pointer safety, either.

<comment><USER4> As a hobbyist and C junior, if I can get anything higher level than C, I'll be ecstatic. Of course, it's going to be the same as with micropython, which is fantastic: The entire ecosystem is in C.

I tear my hair out every time I have to wrestle with C for the simplest things, though, whereas Rust is a joy to write.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h On "full size" systems we solve that with FFI, but I don't know whether that would work here is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why do programming language maintainers for a front end to LLVM (rust) need to consider/patch/modify their front end to properly support a llvm backend, like AVR?

(My mental model was that once you add a backend to Llvm, every programming language that uses llvm should magically work with it.) Does LLVM's design fail to capture the full problem space? Are there out of band concerns that do not lend themselves to be generally expressed?

<comment><USER6> If you want an example of a llvm-based programming language porting to a new architecture, see [1]. The issues has a checklist of things that were done, and a readable diff.

Some of the things that needed to be implemented in the frontend was the ABI, unwind support, C bindings for the new architecture. Some of these don't apply as much to rust but you can see that LLVM doesn't do a perfect job. The diff is still quite small however.

[1] [https://github.com/crystal- lang/crystal/pull/3491](https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/pull/3491)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think that one thing that makes it difficult to write safe microcontroller code is the interrupts that can interrupt the normal flow at anytime. Does Rust on AVR help with this at all, or is it an orthogonal issue?

<comment><USER8> Yes, really interested in how interrupts can be modelled with Rust. Preferably a safe abstraction without going full RTOS?

<comment><USER9> My toy OS project has a partial implementation of interrupts for x86_64: [https://github.com/intermezzOS/kernel/blob/master/interrupts...](https://github.com/intermezzOS/kernel/blob/master/interrupts/src/lib.rs)

Just enough to get keyboards working, still a lot of stuff to do, but the foundation is there.

Used like this: [https://github.com/intermezzOS/kernel/blob/master/src/main.r...](https://github.com/intermezzOS/kernel/blob/master/src/main.rs#L48-L68)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does this mean that some day I might be able to buy a cell phone that has a radio chip that is not full of buffer overflows and other types of flaws?

</comment><comment><USER11> I dont know rust from jack so I am interested to know why it will compile a safer program than a well written C one and what makes it better than other safe embedded languages like ADA?

Note it wont affect me as I mainly use PIC micros

<comment><USER12> It won't. To do anything useful on a microcontroller you would have to drop into 'unsafe' so often that any idea of safety is out of the window.

<comment><USER8> Unsafe should only be needed at the edges of the program, in dealing with IO. These parts should always (not just with Rust) be put in some platform layer used by the application code. This allows the majority of the application code to be verified easily, with unit-tests, end-to-end tests as well as writing simulations. Done right the verification can be ran both on host and on- device. Another key benefit is that this allows to develop majority of the software before the hardware is ready. When possible, use a platform abstraction which is already tested. As verification of this code is harder, typically requiring hardware and external interactions.

I hope that Rust unsafe/safe concept makes the platform/applogic boundary more visible and explicit, so people follow these practices more often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's been seven years since I've programmed on embedded systems. I remember C ruling the day. Has that changed at all?

<comment><USER11> C++ has gained a bit of ground recently but C still rules the roost especially on smaller micros

<comment><USER14> To add to it, this was the issue of a few CppCon talks, namely how to bring C devs to write safer code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm kind of surprised and impressed that LLVM (and GCC) can target AVR well. It's a tiny machine with some quirks. Registers and IO ports are mapped into low memory. The big ones have a weird 24-bit segmented addressing mode. Some crazy ones have DES intrinsics.

<comment><USER16> It's still a decent machine for C especially when compared with, say, 8051. I'm currently developing an entire product line based on a '51 derivative and just seeing what kind of assembly Keil C51 compiler produces is enough to make my eyes bleed. The amount of kludges required to make C work on that architecture is horrifying. Want an example? There's no stack when running under C51.

<comment><USER17> There's certainly a stack when running under C51, for function call returns. C51 just assigns local variables into 128 byte data segment. But say, PUSH ACC works just fine when you drop into assembler.

Then again, stack on 8051 might be sometimes pretty small. From 10 to 128+ bytes.

<comment><USER16> Right. Still, the fact that local variables aren't stack- but overlay- based is enough to blow my mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm so happy for this, it's gonna be great to use Rust for Arduino stuff

</comment><comment><USER14> Nice work, although there are already a few options for safer microcontrollers when one bothers to look beyond C.

More options is certainly even better.

</comment><comment><USER19> Sounds exciting to have options apart from C and asm. How about something for us PIC plebs though?

<comment><USER14> In regard to safety you could use Basic and Pascal compilers, while Rust doesn't arrive.

[https://www.mikroe.com](https://www.mikroe.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Latest commit in the git repo 8 months ago? is this project active?

<comment><USER8> Which repo? Last commit to LLVM AVR git is just marking it as being upstream in LLVM SVN

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> People still use avr?

<comment><USER22> Yup. You'd be surprised how much functionality people can wring out of an ATTiny85 or an ATMega328p.

<comment><USER21> Figured people would be moving on to ARM M0+ chips for new development.</comment></comment></comment>


Tetris as a C++ Template Metaprogram - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mattbierner.com/stupid-template-tricks-super-template-tetris/ <comment><USER2> I am not sure if I should be amazed or scared by this. Guess it won't be long before somebody comes up with the only thing left to do, going full meta and writing a "c++ to c++ templates compiler" (or something along those lines).

Now if only we had a way to use all this goodness to reflect on structs/enumerate members...

On the actual topic: I wonder how much memory it takes to compile a single round of tetris?

<comment><USER3> This kind of compiler has already be done: [http://gergo.erdi.hu/projects/metafun/](http://gergo.erdi.hu/projects/metafun/)

<comment><USER2> Amazing. Maybe we are onto a new kind of Rule 34 here...

"Everything that can be implemented in {c++ templates, javascript} will eventually be implemented in that language"

<comment><USER4> Atwood's Law: "Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript."

<comment><USER2> That's hilarious -- in fact the full quote is even better. This guy hits it right on the nose:

jeff atwood: "any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript. Writing Photoshop, Word, or Excel in JavaScript makes zero engineering sense, but it's inevitable. It will happen. In fact, it's already happening"

Good foresight considering he said this 2009.

<comment><USER5> Of course, it doesn't make "zero" engineering sense in any logical fashion. Only those emotionally distraught by the "imperfection" of JavaScript don't see the utility in applications moving to the web.

Which isn't to say the web is ready. But it will be!

<comment><USER6> Thankfully, "moving to the web" no longer means JavaScript; WebAssembly can support that kind of thing instead, using arbitrary languages.

Also, you say "emotionally distraught" as though there's no _technical_ reason to dislike JavaScript.

<comment><USER5> There are technical reasons to dislike literally every technology. I say "emotionally distraught" because JavaScript seems to attract detractors who think that strong feelings are a valid substitute for logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Since jwz said "every program attempts to expand until it can read mail", the only thing we still need is a mail reader in C++ templates.

</comment><comment><USER8> In lisp it's much easier to do, just write normal tetris and call it at compile-time via macro.

<comment><USER2> Pics or it didn't happen ;) /jk

On a serious note: modern C++ does have const expression functions, too, albeit not as powerful (yet): [http://www.cprogramming.com/c++11/c++11-compile-time- process...](http://www.cprogramming.com/c++11/c++11-compile-time-processing- with-constexpr.html)

<comment><USER9> No need for pics, it's the thing about Lisps that you can run arbitrary code during compilation. The distinction between compile-time and runtime is pretty blurred, especially that Lisp programs tend to ship with the compiler in the image, which means you can compile new stuff at runtime.

<comment><USER2> I realize that. I was joking [more like trying to, it seems] about the fact that parent commented on a technically amazing post with "I could have done this too in X" without providing any further insight, let alone a link to the completed project in X.

<comment><USER9> Fair enough :). Though I interpret that parent comment not as bragging, but as making a joke that in Lisp you write the program as you would normally, and then just make it run in compile-time :).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is so cool and so totally and entirely useless that it had to be done. Bravo !

</comment><comment><USER11> C++ template metaprogramming is turing complete. So why not write a simple compiler that targets it. Then you can write any program as a template metaprogram.

<comment><USER12> been done: [http://gergo.erdi.hu/projects/metafun/](http://gergo.erdi.hu/projects/metafun/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I could have sworn I saw a guy do this over at gamedev.net in 2003. I can't, for the life of me, find it.

<comment><USER14> Do you maybe mean this? :D [http://web.archive.org/web/20030309013522/http://www.gamedev...](http://web.archive.org/web/20030309013522/http://www.gamedev.net/columns/hardcore/tetris/)

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I remember that specific code (I even remember when it was written, it was quite a good time for all the chaps), but I know that wasn't the template metaprogramming version. Perhaps I'm just remembering a later conversation where we discussed the concept that C++ templates were Turing-complete and thus Tetris _could_ be made, then someone jokingly linked to this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is evil</comment>


Scientists Arguing Over Pleasure - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/science/pleasure-art-sex-food-drugs.html <comment><USER2> I think that the "pleasure" one gets from art is longer lasting than that provided by a piece of candy. This could be easily tested by doing a series of evaluations at later dates.

I used scare quotes as it seems misguided to attempt to analyze such diverse points of human experience with the metric of "pleasure" alone.

Art and similar activities carry much more meaning and significance than candy, thus have they have a larger effect on an individual's life and broader society. Surprisingly, this obvious point was not mentioned in the article.

Of course, we may not yet have instruments that can accurately assess these more nuanced differences.

<comment><USER3> Isn't the whole point of studying these things to find out if what you're saying is true? While it is possible you are correct, I'd really hesitate to say it's obvious in any way, especially as there is a large swathe of population that doesn't particularly care about art. On the other hand, the segment that really doesn't at all like candy is much smaller.

<comment><USER2> Oh sure, I'm all for studying it. But we shouldn't lose sight of the broader context.

> there is a large swathe of population that doesn't particularly care about > art

Ah yes... "Art" is a tricky term. I think things such as movies, music, books, etc are also relevant here, and are considered forms of art. I might define art as "creatively expressing ideas through an imprecise medium".

Of course, as they say, anything can be art. My definition fits that -- all expression, even mathematic and scientific, contain some imprecision.</comment></comment></comment>


System76 moves it's computer manufacturing from China to Denver - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/article/18/4/system76-us-manufacturing-plant <comment><USER2> Good for them. I, frankly, doubt there's much assembly work involved with today's laptops. I'd gladly compensate the company for that person-hour just to give folks in Colorado some business, rather than sustain some eternal Dear Leader Jinping.

</comment><comment><USER3> I buy all my computers from System76.

Yes, I could build my own desktop machines from parts to save money.

But I have code to write (work to do). I want a high-quality, works- immediately Linux machine delivered to my door. I don't want to have to think about it.

That's what System76 provides.

The only problem: It takes two weeks, from the time I order to the time my workstation arrives.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just make it like an old ThinkPad and you'll sell loads of them.

And please give us a 12" option ala x201.

Hell just use ThinkPad keyboards, I'm pretty sure they're still produced and isn't that what Novena uses?

<comment><USER5> Agreed. Give me a matte screen, a pointy nib, and a decent keyboard. I'd buy that from them over Lenovo any day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how far down the stack they plan to go with manufacturing their own designs. In the past, System76 was largely just rebadged Clevos with software/firmware updates. I wonder if the systems going into their new chassis will be sourced similarly, of if they'll have any spiffy added features.

<comment><USER7> See this blog post from the company: [http://blog.system76.com/post/159767214983/entering-phase- th...](http://blog.system76.com/post/159767214983/entering-phase-three). If they're to be believed, they plan to start manufacturing their own original chassis designs.

Their Galago Pro laptop, their first "original" laptop, is apparently still based off of a Chinese shell. But, they claim they worked with the manufacturer to implement their wishlist.

They also released Pop!OS last year, which seems to just be a Ubuntu reskin. It does look nice though, and they have hired dedicated staff to develop it.

<comment><USER8> Just kind of hoping they can get the look&feel and most importantly the thermals right on this one. If you go on notebookcheck you can see that every single thin machine that comes out has throttling problems and insufficient sizing of cooling parts, and Apple manages to dissipate 2x the heat in the same thin chassis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> do they have some kind of dock that supports a two external monitor setup?

</comment><comment><USER10> Is there still a Commodore USA plant? If not there should be.</comment>


Show HN: TLDR This – Auto summarize any article or webpage in a click - <AUTHOR> https://tldr.hackeryogi.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone

I am delighted to share my new project "TLDR This" with you guys.

Problem : There's so much content out there but too little time to read. So many times, it happens that there's a long article that we're interested in, but we don't really feel like scouring through it to extract relevant information from it.

Hence, I created "TLDR This" to help you navigate relevant content quickly and easily, without having to read the whole thing.

Steps to get cracking - 1\. Copy and paste either the URL or the text of the article you'd like summarized. 2\. Press the "Process Text" button, and you are good to go.

TLDR This also comes with a chrome extension, allowing you to summarize any webpage at the click of a button.

How to use the chrome extension? Just click the "tl;dr" button in Chrome's toolbar on a webpage which you'd like summarized and within a few seconds, you'll get the < 5 sentence summary right there.

Please let me know if you have any feedback/suggestions.

Thanks a lot

<comment><USER2> Introduce this article: [https://johnnyrodgers.is/burnout](https://johnnyrodgers.is/burnout)

Each section subtitle is displayed as a sentence. Could you maybe ML generate a 1 sentence summary for section? I don't think there is an ML which could extract the take aways from each section and make a summary correctly, but that was my original expectation when I saw it first time.

<comment><USER3> _> I don't think there is an ML which could extract the take aways from each section_

There's plenty of abstractive and extractive methods for text summarization. In fact, that's what I'm working on right now, is to develop a news article summarization system for longer articles.

If you're interested in learning more, there's an excellent survey paper on ArXiv: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02303](https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02303)

<comment><USER2> is there any working demo to play with? I am not into ML and won't read the whole paper... I expect these sort of mechanisms to make some weighting of the morphemes and sentences and replicate the top score ones whereas a human made summary is based on context and semantics given by humans (for example, the relevant part might be only relevant during the current zeitgeist or for some peoples bias)

<comment><USER3> I'm not aware of any working demos. In terms of the weighting, your intuition is correct, there's a way how a machine learning algorithm can learn which tokens (what you call morphemes) are of significance automatically. That's called an attention mechanism. It learns what tokens are important and then passes that into a "context vector" of sorts, which is then passed into the generator network (which is some form of recurrent network).

The disadvantage of using only token-based attention is that it's still not enough context for large spans of text (> 1000 tokens), and I'm actually having this issue now in my work. That's where things like applying attention to chunks of text is helpful.

I'm still trying to fully understand attention mechanisms, so I hope this comment made sense.

<comment><USER2> but facing such problem with an absolute lack of abstraction on the ideas behind obviously cannot work at any non straightforward example, isn't it? there must be some other steps or algorithms or additions to this process; the language is a protocol to encode a message, a representation about abstract concepts and ideas semantically referenced. It is not the same the HTTP server configuration values and statistical analysis of a xml text encoding those; and that still would be straightforward communication, not metaphoric speech or indirect references.

As long time language learner I can tell you that the most significative words in a text are the less common (that's why learning a language by lists of common words does not work out of the box). In the sort of process you mention the words with more meaning for the idea to communicate might have easily less weight than other more common tokens at the same texts, and it very easily depends on the communication style of the subject.

For me this way of making a summary, looking at the language as a sum of interconnected tokens, sounds like trying to replicate a paint by measuring brush strokes directions and pigmentation (vectors of values) rather than trying to understand the abstract concept or idea behind (a vase with flowers, fruits) and recreating it (use the skill of extracted with the vectors to recreate the abstract idea which was encoded behind).

I think I might end up reading the paper you mentioned.

<comment><USER3> To address how computers establish context, usually the tokens are sent through an embedding layer (basically turning a word into a dense vector). Word embeddings, surprisingly, reflect the real-world semantic relationships behind words (for instance, king - man + woman = queen). It also happens that the algorithms for creating word embeddings group words with similar meanings/semantics together (for example, king and queen would be closer together in _n_ -dimensional space). Overall, embeddings allow a computer to look at a language as more than a bunch of interconnected tokens and actually incorporate the semantics of each word into its predictions. Of course, this isn't perfect, which is why we need attention mechanisms and various other methods to help a computer try to understand context long-term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry,

i've some experience in this field:

\- This is text-extraction, NOT text-generation \- TextRank algorithm is so far fine, but it does not write a "summary", instead it ranks the components of a text according to some "metrics" (simply spoken)

\- Using this approach will still make you attackable by copyright claims from copyright owners

\- Which stuff is summarized ("put to the final output") is not always clear to me in your implementation, i tried it on some newspaper & blog articles; on some it worked well, on others it didn't.

Funny thing is, i'm currently working on something similar with a slightly different twist - i will post it here if finished, than we can go into a battle :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

\- Yes, you are totally right. TextRank is an extractive method. \- Ah right. But we aren't storing any information on our servers, just showing selected sentences to the user. \- We select the top 5 sentences which have the highest relevancy to the article. I am not an expert in this field so not too sure if that's the best way. Just started with NLP a few days back and wanted to test it out by developing a small application.

Yes, it works on quite a few articles and but also there are some articles where it fails to give accurate results.

Ah nice, I would like to hear more about what you are working on. Let me know if I could contribute to it in some way.

Thank you again for your feedback.

<comment><USER5> > But we aren't storing any information on our servers, just showing selected > sentences to the user.

If this is in reference to the copyright comment, it doesn't matter -- you're still _transmitting /redistributing_ the content, which is what matters. One way to get around this is to ship the code and have the code execute on the user's machine (i.e. what you're presumably doing with the extension).

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah right, thank you for the detailed explanation. Currently, we are processing the text using a Python backend. In order to process it on the user's side, I guess we'll have to use Javascript. I will try to fix that in the next version. Thank you very much.

<comment><USER6> You don't need to move anything to the client side, what you're doing is covered under fair use doctrine.

<comment><USER7> Maybe. Almost nothing is straightforward about fair use.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, but this is about as close as you can get to safe enough

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I tried some of my articles and it's not really helpful. I even have a conclusion in my articles which is completely ignored.

For example: [https://www.karoly.io/amazon-lightsail- review-2018/](https://www.karoly.io/amazon-lightsail-review-2018/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback.

I am sorry to hear it didn't work on the article you tried.

I have personally tried it on a number of articles and it seems to provide good results. Also, I have received feedback from a number of users who say that it worked for them. But yes there are some articles where it fails to give accurate results since the "article summarisation" technology is still in its development stage.

We will try to improve it in the next version.

Thank you again for your feedback.

<comment><USER2> Can you provide any working examples?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shameless self plug, but for anyone interested in the SOTA of extractive text summarization, I wrote a tool for this which allows for folks to use any type of word embeddings to run a modified queryable text rank on. This leads to SOTA text extraction.

[https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/CX_DB8](https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/CX_DB8)

CX_DB8 also supports word and sentence level extraction. I plan on adding paragraph extraction in a future update.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like the name, this sounds similar to (or in the same space as) Summly, which morphed into News Digest, a former Yahoo service which was sold to them by a British teenager for millions a few years back.

Good luck!

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_D%27Aloisio#Summly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_D%27Aloisio#Summly)

[https://medium.com/amp/p/686a32ac1af8](https://medium.com/amp/p/686a32ac1af8)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and providing your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> The mankind needs this. Cutting off the BS factory, no more copywritting, flashy headlines with unrelated news boddies, or copy-rewritting, or attention wasters and... the yet to appear ML generated article time wasters which are mash ups from others.

If your idea had a company behind I would invest in it. I wish it was a product which would generate a decent enough executive summary, so if I decide to invest more time into reading a whole article or just move on and filter all the BS floating on the internet.

HOWEVER the current status is far away from the desired expectations; try to input the "burnout" entry from HN top page and see the output (or any other article), and I am afraid the concept will stay science fiction for very long time since the amount of intelligence required to make executive summaries is sometimes not even met by new fresh university graduates.

<comment> amiga-workbench With the way content on the web is going down the shitter I cant wait to have a program that I run on a remote server, one that puppets around a headless browser, executes all the usual javascript cancer and reinterprets the final pages into sane, calm summarised document for local rendering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> romeo and juliet out of project gutenberg: all sentences were extracted from project gutenberg's own introduction

[http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1777/pg1777.html](http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1777/pg1777.html) > [https://i.imgur.com/pRX5eeP.png](https://i.imgur.com/pRX5eeP.png)

so I looked for something that was just the play [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html](http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/full.html) > [https://i.imgur.com/f2bM8yW.png](https://i.imgur.com/f2bM8yW.png)

and there are only a handful character entrances

we seems to be quite a way off from summarizing 'anything'.

</comment><comment><USER12> How do you test whether it accurately removes irrelevant information? If you insert an irrelevant piece of text such as "yesterday it rained" into the text, will the summarizer always delete it?

</comment><comment><USER13> When I use it on our landingpage it simply extracts one sentence from the page:

Use state-of-the-art pseudonymization and anonymization methods to secure your data in real-time.

I think it's a good summary of what we do, but I wouldn't call this summarization as I would think that implies synthesizing new content from the existing one, it's more a highlighting service I'd say. For other pages it doesnt' works so well, so maybe I just got lucky.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

It is mainly designed for articles so it wouldn't give any useful info when used on landing pages etc.

There are two kinds of article summarization. We use the extractive approach wherein top n relevant sentences from the article are selected. If the document is too short, it wouldn't select many sentences.

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman)

Did it for this article to test it out, it only featured her personal life and none of her accomplishments. Love the idea

</comment><comment><USER15> Good luck! I tried to launch something like this years ago [0] specifically to summarize HN, it's not easy but I think there's value in this type of service.

In my case, the summarization was manual - I wanted to see if people liked the service, before building the summarization engine.

I also created a chrome extension to be able to see summarize with just one click from HN itself.

[0]: [https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN](https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN)

<comment><USER16> This would be a great type of service for news publishers. Digital producers often have to type out summaries (bullets) in stories for those who don't bother reading full articles. If it could be automated by sending the story copy via an API and getting back summary bullets, it would certainly be valuable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that sounds like a valuable application of article summarization but it would be hard to generate high-quality summaries that are very readable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well i tried it with the following article on HN and it doesn't work [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alaska-defunds- scholars...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alaska-defunds-scholarships- thousands-university-students-ahead-fall-semester-n1035231)

</comment><comment><USER18> I had a similar thing on my website for ages (probably 10 years or so) based on the open text summary tool. It works pretty good and is completely open source: [https://www.splitbrain.org/services/ots](https://www.splitbrain.org/services/ots)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah right, thank you for letting us know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there a premium version where I can have text summarized by actual living, breathing, human beings?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Currently, we don't provide that but that's a very good suggestion.

<comment><USER19> It is the only way I would use such a service. Text extraction is a neat trick but by no means useful for serious comprehension. Even if the service wasn't in real time, having a place I could dump a bunch of articles into and get back a quick summary of what it's about at some later time would be useful. Sometimes I read comments for hackernews articles to look for a tl;dr and never bother even opening the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think it is a good summarizer, I also saw a few others cited in the comments. Has anyone seen one that is a browser add-in where if I am surfing around and see a long article but don't have time to read it I can click a button without copying and pasting the link ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

We are glad that you liked it.

We also have a chrome extension which does exactly as you say - [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tldr-this-free- aut...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tldr-this-free- automatic/jjmnbidkmmabkalampbilajnheeokpoj)

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

<comment><USER20> Oh cool. I will try it for sure, thanks !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I tried this on my website where gallery images are interspersed with the text.

Unfortunately, this selected almost only the gallery credits lines (By (name) with (person one, person two))

How should I say to automated things: this html is not important for extraction?

</comment><comment><USER22> Any open-source libraries that do this, or anything similar to this?

<comment><USER9> I wrote a tool for this called CX_DB8. It's better than any other "TextRank" based extractive summarizer in that it utilizes the latest in word embeddings, and supports queryability. Furthermore, it is the only word-level extractive summarizer to support all of this. Mostly aimed at the competitive debate community but anyone can use it.

[https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/CX_DB8](https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/CX_DB8)

Hopefully you'll see my paper about this in EMNLP 2019 System Demos...

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah sounds good. I might give it a try later on. Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Tried to use this service on the HN comments discussing it. It could not generate a summary of HN comments, now I need to read people's opinions the hard way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, It is mainly designed for articles so it wouldn't give any useful info when used on a page like HN. Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I tried in on the HN guidelines and then on the output. So the summary of the summary is:

>What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.

which isn't bad really.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are glad that you liked it.

Yes, if the webpage doesn't have that much content then it would return the most relevant line.

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How is it differnt than this? [https://ilazytoread.herokuapp.com/](https://ilazytoread.herokuapp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> I love it!

One important feature, to help improve accuracy, is to display 2 big buttons at the bottom, a thumbs up and a thumbs down, meaning "this TL;DR is reflective of the actual content" or "this TL;DR is not reflective of the actual content".

<comment><AUTHOR> We are glad that you liked it.

That's a very good suggestion. We will try to incorporate it in our next update.

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I found this really useful for my articles. The short snippets would work well as tweets, a tweet bot for article summaries would be cool!

<comment><AUTHOR> We are glad that you liked it.

That's a very good suggestion. By tweet bot, you mean when someone tweets an article link to the bot, it would respond back with the summary of that article, right?

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, or I could comment on a tweet linking to an article with "@TLDR" and your bot would comment the summary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is there a way to loopbin user feedback on summarization that improves the algo? How could you incentivize users in the process?

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess we would have to use Machine Learning to incorporate that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> On this note - anyone familiar with a similar implementation, preferably one like Outline.com that copies the whole content, but in a local.. none web- based format?

I'm writing a Rust library that for Archival purposes I want to immutably refer to source content. So in short, I need to download it and store it immutably. Yet, don't want to grab all the html, UI images, ads, etc - I just want the content. I've found Outline.com amazing, but the tool I'm writing is "distributed", so I don't want to depend on a service.

Anyone familiar with local tooling for these types of services? TLDR, Outline, etc?

<comment><USER30> There is a Python library called Newspaper that is designed to do that. I believe this is what outline.com uses.

There is also a JS library called readability which is what is used by Firefox's reader mode.

[https://newspaper.readthedocs.io/en/latest/](https://newspaper.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)

[https://github.com/mozilla/readability](https://github.com/mozilla/readability)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pray, Mr. Radhakrsna, if I put into the machine an article which contains errors, will a corrected summary come out?

<comment><USER32> I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

(Charles Babbage)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> How is this different than [https://smmry.com/](https://smmry.com/) ?

The autotldr bot has been active for a number of years on reddit, summarizing articles quite well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

The goal is the same.

TLDR This uses a different algorithm. It is a side project I developed to test out NLP.

Although there are some web apps out there, that allow you to summarize an article, there really isn't any useful chrome extension that does the job well. TLDR This comes with an accompanying chrome extension as well.

Thank you again for your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Does anyone have links to papers on text summarization that you would recommend for research?

</comment><comment><USER35> Just tried on one of my articles. Good job! It works like a charm!

Any high level info on how it works?

<comment><USER36> OP replied in a thread above.

> Thanks a lot. Sure, first we create a list of all the individual sentences > in the article. Then, we use the TextRank algorithm to rank each of the text > sentences. Finally, we select the top 5 most representative sentences from > the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Summarization used to be a built-in feature of Microsoft Word, but it was taken out.

</comment><comment><USER38> I would like a bookmarklet for iOS Safari. Nice work!

<comment><AUTHOR> We are glad that you liked it.

I will try to port it to Safari.

Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> How does this work? Is it Free Software?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, We use a version of the TextRank algorithm to rank each of the text sentences in the article and then select the top 5 most representative sentences from the article. Yes, it is Free and we plan to make it open-source soon as well. Thank you very much for taking the time to use the app and provide your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It would be great if you could offer a parameter in your URL so I could make a get request like [https://tldr.hackeryogi.com/?url=somearticleurl.com](https://tldr.hackeryogi.com/?url=somearticleurl.com) I would embed that in [https://uptopnews.com/](https://uptopnews.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Sure, I will create an API endpoint that will allow you to do that as soon as possible. Thanks</comment></comment>


Show HN: Chat App with AWS Polly Text-To-Speech - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ajb413/chat-engine-polly-demo <comment><USER2> I saw another article on HN [1] where AWS embedded the Polly-text-to-speech technology to read an article. I hope a lot of progress gets made into this where we can have non-computer sounding voices as it still sounds almost awkwardly digital, as well as control the speed of playback, etc.

It'd be a great source of having content read to me while I commute without having the production of a podcast or audible book. There are several times I'd love to have NY Times articles read to me while I wander around the house.

[1] [https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/serverless-and- startups/](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/serverless-and-startups/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The voice isn't quite human yet but we've come a long way since Microsoft Sam. Wordpress has an Amazon Polly plugin so bloggers can add a read aloud feature to their blog posts. So far, I've heard it trying to read the page's HTML in addition to article content.</comment></comment>


A Quiz to Prove Your SQL Knowlege - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/database/SQLChamp.aspx

<comment><USER2> Title is missing one or both of "MS" and "Server" :P</comment>


Thinking Machines = Old Algorithms on Faster Computers - <AUTHOR> https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26200 <comment><USER2> Yes, there's a lot of fruit still to be plucked from running old algorithms faster. There's a night-and-day difference between an algorithm that runs just a bit slower than necessary and just a bit faster. A 7 day numerical weather forecast that takes 8 days to execute is not a forecast at all. A lot of important tasks include this crucial element of time. Correct algorithms that take too long are, for bounded-time tasks, _not_ capable of correctly acting upon the world. Missing the deadline is the same as being incorrect.</comment>


Ubuntu May 'See' and React to the Physical World - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/205598/ubuntu_may_see_and_react_to_the_physical_world.html?tk=hp_new

<comment><USER2> One very simple thing I would love to have is setting the city I am in through 3G, GPS or wifi location.

Having the desktop making smart decisions about how to show stuff according to where I am is cool. But flashing huge notifications on a full screen when I am not close is a privacy issue if it's the default behaviour.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice if the OS could track the tip of my index finger and thumb so that I could move the cursor, scroll and click with a simple gesture.

</comment><comment><USER4> The proof of concept video is pretty cool: <http://vimeo.com/14959854></comment>