The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8 - <AUTHOR> http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377 <comment><USER2> In terms of both raw talent and writing ability, Jason's blog is one of my favorites. You can depend on him for solid analysis, clear thinking, and good writing. This article is worth reading.

While I only have a surface-level understanding of video encoding and compression techniques, there are some very good criticisms here. That said, I've been reading through the libvpx source for the past 20 minutes or so. Jason repeatedly slams the quality of the source. The code is much cleaner than he suggests and rather well-commented.

Better than H.264/main or not, I'm excited to see where VP8 goes. With implementations in Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Flash, it's off to a good start from day one. We'll see where it heads from there.

<comment><USER3> > That said, I've been reading through the libvpx source for the past 20 > minutes or so. Jason repeatedly slams the quality of the source. The code is > much cleaner than he suggests and rather well-commented.

It is possible he had an older revision of their code. Since he didn't say how he obtained it early, it may have not been through official channels.

<comment><USER4>
        > It is possible he had an older revision of their code.

Unless he had a very ancient version of this codebase it is unlikely that it is different in structure from the current mainline.

Adding comments or sanitizing local variable names are only very superficial changes.

<comment><USER5> Except that he goes out of his way to slam the comment quality. Besides, I think the difference between well-commented code and code without comments can be quite vast, especially when you're inlining assembly, as is the case here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This blog is the best technical blog I've found, period. Ever. I've worked on an implementation of H.264, so I enjoy the tech details, and I find his posts informative, insightful and well written.

This has to be said — there is so much mediocrity around.

</comment><comment><USER7> A fun thing about the VP8 patent situation: any company which attacks VP8 with a patent lawsuit has their license to use VP8 automatically terminated. From the license:

> If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to > the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross- > claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 > or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes > direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent > infringement, then any rights granted to You under this License for this > implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is > filed.

<comment><USER8> A non-fun thing about that license: it seems to me that it's not compatible with the GPLv2, which doesn't allow adding extra restrictions on the end user. I can't remember if it's compatible with LGPL or not, though GPLv3 seems safe.

This has been raised on ffmpeg-devel, so hopefully Google has some opinion about it.

<comment><USER6> Actually, this restriction is a subset of the one in GPLv2 and LGPL. And it is very reasonable, as opposed to the GPL ones.

Take a close look at section 7 of the GPL:

7\. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

What this means is that if _anyone_ , _anywhere_ , imposes conditions on you (e.g. by way of patent claims), then you cannot distribute the Program at all.

It's a sweeping provision and is the main reason why many companies shy away from the GPL (including some I worked for). It's the reason why we never used XviD, for example — someone, someday, could (and would) come up with patents pertaining to XviD (MPEG-4 ASP) and we would have to stop distributing the software. Meaning, recall the millions of set-top boxes sold.

The restriction in VP8 licensing is much more reasonable — it says that if _you_ come up with patent claims, then _you_ lose the right to do anything with the software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _"The quality generated by On2's VP8 encoder will probably not improve significantly without serious psy optimizations."_

Fortunately, there are open video developers with experience building psychovisual optimizations for codecs like the VP3-derived Theora. This post from yesterday details some of the psy improvements coming soon to Theora: <http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/theora/demo9.html>

So it might take a lot of work (it has for Theora), but I believe the potential for improvement is there.

 _P.S. Hello from a fellow Mudder!_

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course; x264 isn't unique in its psy optimizations. x264 was not the first encoder to have good adaptive quantization and Theora, while late to the party, is moving that way too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought this was particularly interesting:

 _With regard to patents, VP8 copies way too much from H.264 for anyone sane to be comfortable with it, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free._

Google isn't indemnifying those who might use VP8, right?

<comment><USER11> Right. As far as I understand, this is untenable legally anyway. The MPEG group has the authority to sue anyone and everyone in violation (including the end user). Google is obviously not offering to pay damages in all of those suites.

<comment><USER12> Google may however sue MPEG / MPEG members in retaliation, and that could be an effective deterrent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The VP8 hope bubble has been deflated for me (I was expected a free and technically better alternative to h.264). I'm a bit bummed out about it, but there was no better way to learn about it than from this blog. Great writing, as always.

Thank you for bursting my bubble in style!

</comment><comment><USER14> Summary: It has a crappy spec. Not better visual quality (yet? ever?):

<http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/vp8.png> <http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare/x264.png>

<comment><USER15> Is there some way to express my displeasure at the recent trend of people offering summaries of the linked content rather than their own opinions?

This is one of the better examples of the species, which is partly why I'm responding to it, but often I find the summaries actively misleading, and almost invariably adding snarky content-free remarks.

<comment><USER14> My motivation was thus: I'm not a video transcoding guy. I just wanted to know a 10,000 ft overview. My summary is what I got out of a very detailed technical article (and it took me a minute to find the comparison pictures in the article, so hopefully re-posting the highlights saved others time).

Another way of looking at it: People hyper-summarizing articles are like HFT for news aggregators. It makes the aggregator more efficient by cutting to what many people only want to know thereby increasing their capacity to consume even more knowledge irrelevant to their lives.

<comment><USER16> How is the comparison to HFT valid?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This comment makes an interesting point: [http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the- key-t...](http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/05/20/vp8-adobe-is-the-key-to-open- video/#comment-5882)

 _"Patents are about _details_ so the mere fact that something does something like something else, isn't necessarily something at all._

 _As we've pointed out before, many codec patents are exceptionally easy to work around: They specify every little detail because it makes it _much_ easier to get through the examination but doesn't harm the patent's ability to read on the final standard because the standard specifics exactly the patented behaviour._

 _D_S, for all his undeniable H.264 experience isn't an expert on patents or even the H.264 patents. We can assume that in cases where VP8 looks similar to H.264 those would have been exactly the cases where care was taken to differ in the right places. I'd expect the primary risks for VP8 to be anywhere _but_ there."_

</comment><comment><USER17> Not very promising. I'd think that VP8 would need to be decidedly superior to H.264 in order to become a universal standard. Maybe Google should have acquired Red?

[http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small- room...](http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of- videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/)

<comment><USER18> It _is_ decidedly superior: it has a free licence. If that's not important to you then you won't be fussed by this announcement, but for the rest of us this is a big deal.

<comment><USER19> Free license is irrelevant if you're going to get your ass handed to you by MPEG LA in a patent lawsuit.

<comment><USER18> When the MPEG-LA actually start suing people instead of just blustering about it then get back to me.

<comment><USER19> Well looky here: [http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles- royalty-...](http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100520/googles-royalty-free- webm-video-may-not-be-royalty-free-for-long/)

<comment><USER18> As I said, when they file a suit then get back to me. This is more of what they've been doing for the past few years: vague threats of patent pools and litigation without anything to back it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Quoted from "Summary for the lazy" aka tl;dr

"VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It's not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved.

VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft's VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot, but not via conventional means.

VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg's H.264. This probably can't be improved that much.

With regard to patents, VP8 copies way too much from H.264 for anyone sane to be comfortable with it, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free.

VP8 is definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it's an upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats.

VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder's interface is lacking in features and buggy. They aren't even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8."

<comment><USER21> > With regard to patents, VP8 copies way too much from H.264 for anyone sane > to be comfortable with it, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being > patent-free.

This is the scary one. The other points are simply a matter of improving the spec / technology.

edit: read comment #16

"Actually ripping of H.264 may be a way to avoid submarine patents.

By having design so similar, Google only has to worry about MPEG-LA patents.

So there is a known, finite list of patents to review.

Given bizarre tweaks and omissions in VP8, I suspect that's exactly what they did – looked at claims on H.264 and tweaked VP8 just a little to avoid crucial points (remember in patents you have to infringe all points in a claim, if you infringe 2 out of 3, then you're safe)."

<comment><USER22> But remember, all it takes is you infringing on one claim in a single patent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm actually surprised how well xvid does in those comparison shots. Based on those, xvid would seem to be the closest competitor for VP8 alongside with VC1. x264 is in a class of its own. There seems to be some kind of trade off between blurriness and artifacts, imho x264 shots coulda been bit softer, and VP8 seems to lean heavily on the blur side.

</comment><comment><USER24> Betamax offered some technical advantages to VHS, but look who won that war. The main reason they won is because JVC allowed other people to use their designs for a reasonable scale. Keep in mind in this debate that H.264 isn't free to use, and VP8 is. Are the technical merits of H.264 enough to outweigh the cost? In my opinion, no.

<comment><USER25> While the licensing costs did play a part in the win of VHS I think the bigger problem was the price of the decks (1.5-2x price of a VHS VCR) and beta camcorders were incompatible. To watch a home video you had to play it back through the camera onto another beta deck.

The only technical advantage it had was color reproduction and clarity. Every other metric (cost and convenience) it did poorly. It did go on to live a second life, as Betacam, in professional studios, where reproduction and clarity are important. And their ENG cameras are some of the sturdiest I have ever encountered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This part was interesting to me:

 _VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be "H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder._

Then later, about the encoder:

 _there were comments describing bugfixes dating as far back as early 2004. That's right: this software is even older than x264!_

Wouldn't that mean that VP8 didn't copy if the software is older? Prior art? I mean, you can't write an encoder for a spec that doesn't exist. IANAL, so I'd like some info here.

<comment><AUTHOR> The H.264 spec dates back to ~2000-2001.

x264 is an open source software program that implements H.264, and was written starting in 2004.

Furthermore, we don't know when they added intra prediction to VP8; it could have been many years after the original program was written.

<comment><USER26> Thanks. Makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for the great write-up Jason. I had no idea you were a junior at Harvey Mudd. I remember when you helped me on an IRC channel when I was writing a patch for FFmpeg. I thought you had many years more experience than me when you were only a year older the whole time. Very impressive!

</comment><comment><USER27> The contrast of the site is so bad that I had to hit browser back button after a couple of minutes.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's much more readable with white on black than black on white. But of course if you disagree, which is fine -- some people do -- you can use readability, as in mbrubeck's post.

I'm not quite sure why some people really like black/white while others like white/black. Maybe it's something psychological, or maybe it's just room lighting.

<comment><USER28> I find that, while I like white-on-dark, I tend to require a larger font to comfortably read it than I do dark-on-white.

On the article's page, when I knock the browser "zoom" feature up one notch from default, it's like the entire page magically becomes this wonderful, easy-to-read document.

It may be because I'm on a 1920x1200 display on a 17" laptop screen, but at any rate, I would consider a small upward bump in font size. I wouldn't have brought it up myself, since as I noted above, I can do it myself in my browser with a quick hold of Ctrl and a flick of the mouse wheel. But since the topic came up, I thought I'd throw that in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Don't forget that this is written by a x264 dev, so not very surprising that he concludes that his codec is way better. Is there an analysis from a less biased source?

<comment><USER30> Don't forget that this is written by a liberal, so not very surprising that he concludes that his liberal view is way better. Is there an analysis from a less biased source, possibly with fewer well detailed explanations of the basis and reasoning of all of the sub-arguments that lead up to the obviously not surprising conclusion? The fewer credentials they have, the easier it will be for me to follow along.

<comment><USER29> How could anyone write an analysis only a few hours after such a complicated technology is released? It's also full of IANAL and yet still FUDing about how it's probably full of patents (as if google was dumb enough not to check patents). It looks to me like he had his opinion already formed on his previous use of VP8 and just published it today on time to make a big splash.

Edit: it looks like this article was released a few minutes after Google announcement...

Edit2: it looks like he had access to the spec a few days ago. I still think that Google is not putting their money blindly into VP8 though, they have the money to pay hundreds of analysis like this one and they sure did a lot of them, so it's either good enough or they have plans to make it good soon enough. Still better than x264 for people involved in free/open source like me.

<comment><USER30> In the second sentence, before he even addresses the attention deficient, "Fortunately, it seems I was able to acquire access to the VP8 spec, software, and source a good few days before the official release and so was able to perform a detailed technical analysis in time for the official release."

In the comments here, where you might find people discussing e.g., validity, you can find the author commenting on this "issue" further: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1361739>

Not to mention an x264 developer is a lot more interested in VP8 succeeding than H264...

If you have any actual concerns, rather than the cargo cult concerns that seem similar to those more intelligent people may voice in situations when they're actually informed on a topic, please mention them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ten Years of Icaros Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://vmwaros.blogspot.com/2017/11/10-years-of-icaros-desktop.html <comment><USER2> For the uninitiated, Icaros Desktop (formerly VmwAROS) is a distribution of the AROS Research Operating System, which in turn is an open-source clone of AmigaOS 3.x. This is all explained in the post, but I thought I'd mention it in comments in case anybody pops in to gauge interest.

<comment><USER3> no idea what any of that is. Can you provide some context for all of that software and save me some time browsing google and Wikipedia?

<comment><USER4> Commodore Amiga computers were a type of computer that was around from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. They had their own custom hardware and operating system. After Commodore went bust, some of the fans of the Amiga platform didn't want to see it die, so they started various hardware and software projects. AROS is one of the projects started around that time (started in 1995 if I recall correctly). AROS is an open-source operating system that closely follows the design of the operating system of the Amiga. Icaros is the flagship distro for AROS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how the computing landscape would look like if Amiga and Workbench had been able to continue their innovation and success.

Probably still MS dominated.

<comment><USER2> Distressingly likely. It's easy to overlook the fact that Microsoft had considerable dominance in BASIC implementations even before the IBM PC took off, with several major vendors shipping a rebranded version of Microsoft BASIC in ROM (Commodore BASIC, Tandy TRS/Color BASIC, Applesoft BASIC), and others selling it as an add-on package (e.g. Atari Microsoft BASIC). They probably would have gotten a foothold operating systems one way or another once multitasking became a big deal.

<comment><USER6> Just for completeness, AmigaBASIC, which came standard with the OS, is also one of these BASICs that were written by Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reading through this, I suddenly realised that I'd unwittingly re-created a very similar Icon Dock which I used for many years on my Windows machines:

[http://www.jaruzel.com/files/jarstrip.jpg](http://www.jaruzel.com/files/jarstrip.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER8> Article is an entertaining history of the ARCOS distro.

<comment><USER9> "ARCOS"?

"Distro"?

It's not called ARCOS. It's AROS: (originally) the Amiga Research Operating System. (Due to a trademark claim, it is now the recursive AROS Research OS.)

AROS is not a distro; the word "distro" implies Linux. This is not Linux, nor is it even Unix.

Arguably it is a distribution of AROS, but the term is confusing and misleading.</comment></comment>


Uber Is Taking Millions of Manhattan Rides Away from Taxis - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uber-is-taking-millions-of-manhattan-rides-away-from-taxis/ <comment><USER3> I would take Uber over rude Manhattan cabbies any day. My personal experience with Manhattan taxi drivers after living in NYC for last two years.

1) They drive as if they are on a rally track. I have had never experienced motion sickness before until I moved to Manhattan.

2) If you ignore the tip or tip them in the range of $1-3 you get snarky remarks from them.

3) If you try to hail a cab and (regrettably) ask the taxi driver to drive you to a place where their chances of hailing a passenger back are slim then they will rudely turn you away (Tip: First hop in then tell the direction. It is a NYC law).

I can go on and on but point being Uber is the much needed necessary evil in scarce resource cities like Manhattan.

<comment><USER4> Here is the problem

1) Uber comes in pays well - sources on the net for hip drivers - You get awesome English speaking nice drivers

2) Uber starts to drop rates

3) Good Uber drivers quit for lack of pay, existing cabbies start to drive for Uber

4) You end up getting the same cabbies as before Uber, but with surge pricing.

It takes a while, but eventually it ends back up in the same exact place as before :( Totally happened in Chicago in front of my eyes.

<comment><USER5> The quality of Uber drivers in San Francisco has dropped all the way to the point where I simply will not try to use Uber anywhere near downtown. They will accept the ride and the app will show they are "1 minute" away, however it will often take upwards of 15 minutes for them to reach me because they don't know their way around the city and are confused by all the one-way streets in downtown. I promise I"m not exaggerating, it really does take that long. I've stood there and watched them on the map spending 10-15 minutes driving very long distances _away_ from me before finally turning in the right direction and painfully, slowly, starting to get closer. It's ridiculous.

If I'm in downtown or SOMA, I will use a taxi (either hailing or using Flywheel). It's usually a huge time saver (and there's no "surge" pricing either).

<comment><USER6> That's more the Uber app's fault than the driver's. I've chatted with drivers about this; the app doesn't actually tell you where the pickup is, it just starts the navigation. It seems to be a security measure.

<comment><USER7> This might explain why the only time I used Uber the driver did not understand where to find me. I was outside near a fence opposite the expressway. He was told by the app to stop on the expressway and pick me up. This despite my entering the street address when booking. It wasted one person hour of time. The driver told me he can't make more than minimum wage with Uber, he just does it as a hobby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For a deaf or deaf-blind person, Uber is a godsend. As many would tell you, getting into a random cab is a tough task. Often we have a written address only for the cab to kick us out, ignore the address, or just can't read it.

Then they would try to rip us off by driving long routes when we know it's bs. It's hard to argue with them afterwards.

Forget about calling a cab company for a pickup. They almost never show up. It's maddening.

</comment><comment><USER9> The author takes pickups as a measure of congestion, but as they (sort of) admit much later on in the article, this is a bad measure.

The argument of regulators is that, in the absence of proper congestion pricing for cars on the road, the market equilibrium for number of taxis per inhabitant will be higher than is efficient. That's how they justify a cap on the number of cabs. (It increases wait times but, they argue, it is worth it for the fewer number of cars on the road causing congestion).

So the question isn't "are there more Manhattan pick-ups after Uber entered the market?", it's "are there more cars on Manhattan street?" or "Have average trip times in Manhattan increased?".

<comment><USER10> It's more than that. There's a finite number of people seeking a ride, it's a zero sum market where the supply of rides will crash, and Uber will jack up the rates.

Uber ultimately will have enormous leverage to submarine any meaningful competition and even to displace public transit. Their national scope will make them a force to be reckoned with.

<comment><USER11> The idea that uber will replace public transit in NYC is laughable. Sure, there is a group of rich yuppies (and their parents) that will gladly give uber their business, but NYC's transit system serves a much, much broader demographic of customers that cannot and/or will not to pay ten dollars or more every time they want to get around the city.

<comment><USER12> Laughable? Check out the theory of disruptive innovation. From [http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2015/01/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2015/01/economist-explains-15):

"The theory of disruptive innovation was invented by Clayton Christensen, of Harvard Business School, in his book "The Innovator's Dilemma". Mr Christensen used the term to describe innovations that create new markets by discovering new categories of customers. They do this partly by harnessing new technologies but also by developing new business models and exploiting old technologies in new ways. He contrasted disruptive innovation with sustaining innovation, which simply improves existing products. Personal computers, for example, were disruptive innovations because they created a new mass market for computers; previously, expensive mainframe computers had been sold only to big companies and research universities."

<comment><USER13> Okay, but Uber literally cannot put enough cars into the city to move five million people around every day, and they're sure as shit not going to dig their own tunnels.

<comment><USER14> They raised just North of a billion dollars [0] in September, the 2nd Ave Subway is expected to cost $4.5b [1] for 1.5m of track, three new stops, and a new entrance at an old stop. So yea, you can be sure as shit they're not building their own tunnels. At least not here.

[0] - [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding- rounds](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds) [1] - [http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/nyc-subway- cons...](http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/nyc-subway- construction/)

<comment><USER15> Obviously building a subway is not just having the money to build the subway. Anywhere.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I can't say I'm sorry to hear taxis lose business. Uber is being innovative and I like it. Taxi drivers, from what I understand, have been getting shafted for a long time by a corrupt system.

Uber drivers might not be making bank, but from what I can tell they are doing better. If I'm wrong about please correct me, I'd love to hear some feedback on that.

I often ask Uber drivers if the pay is worthwhile since I don't want to be supporting something that is screwing people over. So far it all seems positive for the most part.

<comment><USER17> I often ask Uber drivers the same and the response is generally:

* the pay is _decent_ (ranging from a hair above minimum wage to a healthy and sustainable source of income)

* the benefits are _non-existent_ (most don't seem bothered by this)

* the job security is _guaranteed_ (a huge plus)

* the work schedule is _at their discretion_ (another huge plus)

* the work environment is _quite good_ (passengers are usually very friendly, you work from the comfort of your car, the on-boarding process is quick and painless)

All in all it's a net benefit for most people, in terms of quality of life and financial stability. What's not to love?

 _Note: this is all purely anecdotal and most drivers I have spoken to have been working for <1 year, in most cases <6 months._

<comment><USER18> "Job security guaranteed"... That's so ludicrous, I don't know where to begin. Forget driverless cars for a moment and think about the fact that a few bad ratings can remove your ability to earn income from this source forever.

Put another way, if a few someones you give a ride to rate you low, you lose your ability to earn. That's hardly "guaranteed"... I would certainly contrast it with the current model of "at-risk" employment we have now, but the certainty of your word choice feels facetious at best.

<comment><USER19> It seems taxi services would also be quick to fire if a series of customer complaints emerged, so not sure how Uber's model is strictly inferior to status quo.

<comment><USER16> I have to agree. I love the fact that it's easier to rate drivers and I'm always judicious in rating drivers. I always give drivers 5 ratings if they don't have issues.

There are complainers out there but from feedback I've gotten after commenting on a driver once I suspect Ube at least attempts to handle those kinds of situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It appears that Uber significantly improved the coverage for the more economically and ethnically diverse boroughs of NYC:

(from the article):

     	CHANGE IN APRIL-JUNE PICKUPS, 2014 TO 2015
        BOROUGH 	 	UBER 	        TAXI 	        NET
        Brooklyn 	 	+1,123,969 	+299,388 	+1,423,357
        Queens 	 	+655,525 	+191,974 	+847,499
        Manhattan 	 	+4,045,735 	-3,685,504 	+360,231
        Bronx 	 	+126,283 	-265 	        +126,018
        Staten Island 	+3,920 	        +192 	        +4,112
        Manhattan (core) 	+3,818,179      -3,830,621      -12,442

This lends credence to the accusations that taxi drivers exhibit racial discrimination and underserve economically disadvantaged areas.

<comment><USER21> As a person who often had to deal with Manhattan cabbies who would lock me out if I dare mention Brooklyn: Good. Fuck those assholes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I can pretty much guarantee the city will find a way to screw this up, one way or another. There is a pile of money behind the monopolies called medallions. Those owners expect their monopoly enforced, or why bother? Clearly going into debt to buy a newish card to get better Uber rates is a better economic decision than going into debt to buy a medallion which doesn't directly do jack squat for you. So the city in turn will want its cut somehow: it'll be a tax, or a fee, or both, probably multiple fees.

A while ago the city found income taxes weren't enough, and the state and feds didn't give them enough, so there's a separate NYC income tax. And then that wasn't enough so if you're a small business there's a separate unincorporated business tax. It's not enough to just add a new line or worksheet to compute this tax, it's a whole separate form, a whole separate set of duplicative questions, a separate mailing address, a separate check. And then that wasn't enough so they created the MCTMT income tax, which again is a separate form, separate mailing address, and its own check.

The tax amount isn't as costly as the additional bureaucracy generated at both ends of the equation. Raise the rate? Nah. Add a new line for computation? Nah. They want completely separate offices, forms, addresses, and their own check.

Oh and each one of those wants separate estimated income tax payments made 4x per year. It's just insane.

<comment><USER23> This is one of those things that even the people in positions of power won't ruin because they're users as well. You think members of city council or whomever want to ride in taxis any more than you do?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What I find interesting is that Uber doesn't seem to be having an effect on private car use.

From the article, in the busiest part of New York, "Uber gained 3.10 million pickups, while taxis lost 3.09 million."

I read this to say that almost every Uber ride would have been a taxi ride if Uber did not exist. It doesn't seem to be replacing private car use at all. If it were, we'd see Uber rides increasing faster than taxis ride are decreasing.

<comment><USER25> how much private car usage is there, actually, in Manhattan?

<comment><USER26> Nobody drives; there is too much traffic

<comment><USER27> Perfect! RIP Yogi Berra.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think the discussion on Uber often misses the point. Uber is not disrupting the Taxi business. Look at the endgame: in most unregulated markets Uber simply becomes another hail and route management app for an existing taxi fleet.

Uber is therefore primarily disrupting the shit electronics powering the current "yellow cab" style cabs. These include the meter, the dispatcher and radio system, and the advertisement screen. That is the real source of disruption.

The ratings etc. are just noise to poach costumers away from taxis. Or more correctly, to force taxis to adopt Uber as logistics provider. Once monopoly is established the consumer-facing niceties become irrelevant. Nothing prevents Uber from lowering their minimum ratings requirements, for example.

<comment><USER29> Uber pretty clearly has two main innovations:

(1) the efficiency of the app/gps combo vs traditional cab dispatch. This seems fairly easy to copy by incumbents and new entrants and in fact being a private company operating your own network has shown some weaknesses (ghost cars injected into map to fool customers, drivers not given accurate pickup info to protect from competitors which delays pickup, etc.)

(2) the quasi-legal setup of "we will pick you up and take you to somewhere else for money but we're not a taxi company" that allows them to disrupt the medallion ecosystem where it exists. This advantage only manifests in areas where supply has been heavily and artificially constrained and disappears once the medallion bubble has been burst.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am pleased with progress but it does seem like Uber is on track to be the next PayPal, eBay, Facebook.

Ten years down the line are drivers going to be complaining about the Uber tax after a price hike?

<comment><USER31> Ten years down the line the drivers will be replaced by automated vehicles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Uber is a superior service compared to NYC taxis. If NYC taxis want to compete, they should use clean cars (!!) and get an app on the market!

</comment><comment><USER33> >New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio took aim at Uber this summer, trying (and failing) to set a cap on the number of its for-hire cars operating in the city.

They should stop trying to take aim at Uber and use the opportunity to learn from them. They should study why Uber is so successful and what they - <USER2> taxi company can do to compete. It is the only way they stand a chance.

</comment><comment><USER34> I take cabs and cars everyday in Manhattan. It is as hard or harder to get a yellow cab than it has been in the 25 years I have lived in the city. My routine goes like this; if I can't get a cab in 10 minutes, I get an Uber. I end up taking Uber a lot more than I would like but that is just how it is. I am not only trying during rush hour and rain storms. Even in "light" volume hours getting a medallion cab is not easy. The providers that have been hurt the most by Uber are the old gypsy cab companies. These were TLC "black cars", usually beat up old town cars that were dispatched by radio. Their system of radios and dispatchers has been decimated by Uber. The drivers of those cars have in large part become Uber drivers.

</comment><comment><USER35> Uber isn't just taking bookings away from taxis, it's taking drivers. It would be interesting to see a study of how cab company fleet sizes change after Uber arrives in town.

Uber raised the bar in terms of user experience, so the industry is scrambling to react. No harm with a little competition. My company (Pocketworks) do a taxi app in the UK that's effectively competing with Uber.

Does anyone know if Ubers long term plan is around disrupting logistics? Having a network of drivers that can move anything on demand would be really powerful.

</comment><comment><USER36> The most awesome part is they put the data, and some of the Freedom of Information correspondence that led to them getting this data on github:

[https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/uber-tlc-foil- response](https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/uber-tlc-foil-response)

</comment><comment><USER37> The title should have been "Millions of Manhattan riders prefer Uber to taxis".

</comment><comment><USER38> I wish Connecticut had more uber drivers

</comment><comment><USER39> There is literally no reason why the taxi industry cant provide the exact same service and UX as Uber, but they continue to refuse to catch up.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think the word "earning" is what the author meant.

<comment><USER41> Yes, why "taking"? What Uber is doing is obviously working.

Pre-Uber days, getting a cab in NY was painful. You can't call them to come pick you up. More often than not, the cabbie will complain about taking a credit card or just say the machine is broken. Rides TO the airport are a mixed bag of using the fixed fare vs the cabbie encouraging you to go off of it.

Are there are legitimate complaints about Uber that don't come from the standpoint of defending the incumbent cab industry? I just don't get the constant hate they receive.

<comment><USER42> >I just don't get the constant hate they receive.

Everyone is looking out for number one (themselves), so the protected cab industry is going to fight uber tooth and nail. They'd be stupid not to. Any protected industry would do the same. It's on the rest of us to see that for what it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Wow, I didn't realize there still was a taxi industry in Manhattan. Thought Uber had taken over.

I guess its actually slightly harder in an area like that to compete with cabs because there are lots of cabs and you can just wave one over. Although the app is pretty easy to use.

Do the taxi companies have an app now like Uber and are they competitive in pricing and pickup times?

<comment><USER44> I don't think there is an app, but yes, there are certainly a ton of yellow cabs still in NYC.</comment></comment>


My life as a Git - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Gawen/life <comment><USER2> I'm concerned about the DNA opensourcing (searching by the preamble, others have published their DNA, too) - it's not computer code, more eyeballs on it won't make it better.

Now cloning from raw DNA data is probably far enough off for now but couldn't the DNA be used to find vulnerabilities, for example, allergies or diseases with a genetic component? What about an insurance company looking at the DNA and denying insurance because of preexisting conditions?

<comment><USER3> >What about an insurance company looking at the DNA and denying insurance because of preexisting conditions?

Assuming the recent law changes survive coming challenges, such shenanigans will be illegal, at least in the USA.

<comment><USER4> I don't follow politics, what are the arguments against allowing insurance companies to make such decisions?

<comment><USER5> In the United States, the medical industry is allowed to vary prices significantly based on the method of payment, and the cost of buying care without insurance is much higher than the cost of buying care with insurance. This is true unless you can't pay, in which case you will still be treated and the taxpayer will foot the bill under EMTALA.

So the argument goes that, given that the taxpayer is already responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone, it would be reasonable to compel everyone to buy prepaid health plans. In order to compel people to buy these, they must be available to everyone, so the government must also prevent insurance companies from refusing to sell prepaid health plans to people who are certain to use them. I use the phrase "prepaid health plan" rather than "insurance," because insurance is purchased to protect against future risk, but a prepaid health plan will cover things that occurred in the past and things that are not risks but certainties.

It's a pretty sound argument as long as you don't ask "Why is the taxpayer responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone?"

<comment><USER6> _"Why is the taxpayer responsible for unbounded medical expenses for everyone?"_

The answer to that is another question: do you want first responders checking to see if you can pay your bills _before_ treating you, when literally moments can make the difference between life and death?

<comment><USER7> > do you want first responders checking to see if you can pay your bills > before treating you, when literally moments can make the difference between > life and death?

You know, for some people, the answer to that is "Actions have consequences. If you were more responsible, you wouldn't be in that mess in the first place. Not my problem."

<comment><USER8> The point isn't (just) that people should get lifesaving treatment even if they can't afford it, it's (also) that people in life-threatening situations can have a hard time proving that they're capable of paying _even when they are_. For example:

A man's been hit by a car. The driver calls 911. Do you send an ambulance?

An ambulance arrives. The medical team springs into action, and one of their number looks through the stricken man's wallet for proof of insurance. He doesn't find any. Do you discontinue care?

Suppose instead that he finds an insurance card, but it's stained with blood; a reasonable person couldn't use it to tell whether the injured man's insurance was up to date. Do you discontinue care?

A little imagination should supply you with many similar scenarios. One could invent a method of proving insurance (or assets) both quick and powerful enough to address them all (a universal database keyed to DNA, perhaps), but certainly nothing like that exists today.

<comment><USER7> All of that's correct and I agree with it. My point was that not everyone would, and those are their arguments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you fork this repository... do you have to pay child support or get arrested for identity theft?

<comment><USER10> I was more interested about what sorts of pull requests he might accept.

<comment><AUTHOR> Only DNA improvements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> See also: Memacs, doing a similar idea using org-mode in emacs:

<http://github.com/novoid/Memacs>

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, more crazy guys! (inside info: I'm more a MVim guy ;))

<comment><USER12> nice to see someone from ece on hn :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That is very cool as a visualization of life milestones! Specially if you go to the "Network" area of the project (<https://github.com/Gawen/life/network>).

<comment><USER14> I feel like the I'm the only person who is totally confused by github. Are those little phrases in that graph supposed to be life milestones? They don't make any sense. Aside from this graph, all I'm seeing here is a readme, a resume, and a huge file presumably containing dna. How is this getting attention? I ask this not rhetorically, but I genuinely want to know how to use this/what's going on here.

<comment><USER15> He has basically modified the dates of each commit so they correspond to the actual date in his life the event occurred.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another unexpected use of GitHub:

<https://github.com/norinori2222/boyfriend_require/>

<comment><USER17> For those not fluent in Japanese, and didn't notice otherwise:

[https://github.com/norinori2222/boyfriend_require/blob/maste...](https://github.com/norinori2222/boyfriend_require/blob/master/README- en.md)

</comment></comment><comment> B-Con I must be missing something. Why is a versioned source code repository the ideal place for this?

<comment><USER18> It's not. It's just a novel, somewhat funny use of github.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly :) It's just a hack, some fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are you planning on crawling / parsing the repository to create a time line or something similar?

Seems like an orderly way of storing events, but a royal pain to view.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think so. The point is to hack git <=> to use it in another purpose it had been done, not to build something new upon it. But I'm planning to manage my future blog content based on this repository though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You are like a god, created through spontaneous generation!

[https://github.com/Gawen/life/commit/ca14573e9e4e9769b02e3e2...](https://github.com/Gawen/life/commit/ca14573e9e4e9769b02e3e224657a2f8cde6b89f)

</comment><comment><USER21> You've sent the first signal that we are evolving from a facebook generation to a github generation, so from a numerical social generation to a programmable generation.

Thank you !

<comment><USER22> Call me when Github hits 1 billion users.

I mean, I'm all about creation vs. consumption and quality over quantity, but ... that's ... optimistic of you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Neat, I did something similar a while back. <https://github.com/icco/lifeline>

</comment><comment><USER24> Three friends and I have each did this, about a year ago:

github.com/itdaniher/itdaniher github.com/alxjrvs/alxjrvs github.com/sethwoodworth/sethwoodworth

</comment><comment><USER25> Really cool :) May I borrow the idea? :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. Would you be interested in the code which generated this repository ? I'm going to clean it up then push it here <https://github.com/Gawen/lifebuilder> .

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> git is a homonym.</comment>


Priorityq – Another python priority queue library - <AUTHOR> https://panyam.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/priorityq/ <comment><USER2> This is great! I've not looked at the code, but Java PQ didn't do O(1) find either. What were the trade-offs to get O(1) finds?

<comment><AUTHOR> The short answer is that I decoupled the actual heap storage from the PQ api that uses the heap storage so that I keep a map of values to handles (as returned by the storage).

Consider the python heapq module. It directly works on a list, maintaining the heap invariant. So you (the dev) can freely modify the underlying list invalidating the heap invariant. But if the (heap) storage returned handle objects that encapsulated the position within the heap, then the client can just update the priority of the value pointed by the handle without knowing anything about how the heap is implemented.

So linear increase in memory usage (for the map) but fast retrievals. I plan to try this out with other kinds of heap implementations soon.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Was shocked to find that Python's _heapq_ module does not have a way to find (in constant time) or delete or update values. So I developed priorityq to provide these missing features and much more.

Would love to get some feedback.</comment>


Why Stock Buybacks Are Dangerous for the Economy - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy <comment><USER2> Corporate buybacks are dangerous when _when the taxpayer bails out the shareholders_.

Major companies loaded up on debt because a decade of low interest rates made it cheap to do so, then purchased stock because shareholders wanted them to (paper gain and get taxed later on sale, so more flexibility for taxation timing).

So companies have no wiggle room in a crisis. So what? Bankruptcy, hose the shareholders, sell the assets to a new company, and the market will learn. But no - bailouts for everyone! The Fed buys their old junk bonds and even new ones! No one ever feels any pain. The government isn't allowing natural business processes to happen and then some dumb idea like "ban stock buybacks! That will solve everything!" is promoted.

The government has trained the market so that if a recession happens, it will backstop everything. It's ridiculous.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, stock buybacks aren't really problematic as a mechanism. The root problem is ZIRP, which pushes companies to take on as much debt as possible. It leaves companies without a reserve to weather changing conditions, and debt that needs to be rigidly serviced on a model from the past.

I too wish that overleveraged companies wouldn't get bailed out when the house of cards comes tumbling down every decade, but I don't see how that's prudent or politically palatable. It's a spiteful desire that comes from being told that nothing can be done to reign in the bad behavior during the good times, while bogus inflation metrics are used to keep the party going.

Interest rates need to go up and stay there, as they haven't been allowed to do for the past few decades. Of course that is problematic as the mound of existing debt becomes more expensive. Which is why these conditions form a spiral that will end up destroying the dollar. But given USD's status as reserve currency, I don't know how to time this.

<comment><USER4> > but I don't see how that's prudent or politically palatable.

It is prudent because it prevents this moral hazard that reduces efficiency and increases systemic risks. Yes, there will be short term turmoil as companies and their operations are restructured. But it is a long-term imperative. Companies must be allowed to die.

It is politically palatable because rich capitalists are getting bailed out with an unlimited backstop while mom n' pop got a measly $1200 one-off payment.

<comment><USER3> I agree with where you're coming from, and I don't really want to be arguing against just deserts of bankruptcies.

I'm just saying that looking at the big picture, choosing the catastrophic option is not productive. And so it will never have political buy in (politics is driven by business, not voters), even from businesses that don't need a bailout.

Letting bad behavior continue to occur for long stretches with the idea that there's going to be some eventual reckoning just isn't realistic. Fundamentally, even if a bunch of companies do go bankrupt, the executive compensation won't be clawed back - so the looters _still_ make out. Rather, the bad practices need to be reigned in when they're occurring. And those bad practices run far deeper than the simple technique of stock buybacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best excuse for buybacks are that they are "tax efficient" which is another way of saying they are about tax evasion. I don't care how you feel about tax rates, if you think corporations should pay less taxes lower the rates. We just did that in the US.

Less legitimate (but I would argue as common) reasons are to prevent excessive dilution from stock compensation plans and to prop up the value of shares tied to compensation packages. Studies show that companies buy shares when the price is high, so I doubt on the whole shareholders benefit. It feels good to see a stock go up, but dividends are nice too.

<comment><USER6> _Tax evasion_ is a crime. This is _tax avoidance_ , which is not, and which we all do to varying degrees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yawn. If you look at why companies like Apple use debt for buybacks, it's because the US corporate tax system traps earnings overseas. Sure the Trump tax cuts made things slightly better, but returning foreign profits still cedes about half of them to the tax man.

Buybacks are just dividends with a more tax efficient method of distribution.

I still don't understand why we tax savings and investment, which is what corporate income taxes do. Make the corporate rate zero, and compensate by raising capital gains and dividend tax rates to individual income rates. That rewards reinvesting into American production and pulls back all those foreign profits.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure how taking the corporate rate to zero addresses any of the issues raised here.

The 16th amendment only authorizes an income tax. A tax on unrealized gains would likely be a "direct" tax, which makes it a non-starter.

So, if you take the corporate rate to zero and raise the capital gains rate, you will push any remaining dividends into buybacks. Because most equities are ultimately owned by households that don't need to sell shares to finance consumption, the result will be a dramatic reduction in tax revenues.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the US should collect less taxes, but if that's your point you should just come out and say it.

I agree with your broader point that buybacks are themselves neutral. Corporate leverage, however, is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, confused. I didn't propose any tax on unrealized gains.

Raising capital gains and dividend rates to ordinary income rates should favor neither, with one exception. Capital gains would need to be indexed against inflation, otherwise in any high inflationary period they could produce effective tax rates over 100%.

And investors require dividends and buybacks, or their is no reason to own stocks. So both will continue and most stock owners will pay significantly higher tax rates on them, partially offsetting their higher dividends and returns.

But you are correct that this will probably lower tax receipts in the near term, but it will also increase investment and R&D, which will help tax receipts catch up over time.

And of it does lower tax receipts it's also evidence we have been eating our own seed corn, capital wise.</comment></comment></comment>


Is Your Data Yours? - <AUTHOR> https://themargins.substack.com/p/is-your-data-yours <comment><USER2> The author talked about if data is "yours," but they never mention the truest form of that: ownership. If ownership of data becomes an established concept, data will fit nicely into existing legal frameworks.

If a random person could come and take tools from your garage, you would have a problem with that, since you only have one set of tools and they're expensive to keep repurchasing. The ability to make zero-cost copies of information and transmit it instantaneously for effectively free has made our relationship with information totally different than anything else in history. We can't run from it, but we can build better systems.

<comment><USER3> I have to agree. I mean it's not like you're the one storing the data, but you are the one giving it up by participating in using the technology at hand.</comment></comment>


Optimize JPEG images without compromising quality with JPEGmini and Cloudinary - <AUTHOR> http://cloudinary.com/blog/optimize_your_jpeg_images_without_compromising_quality_with_jpegmini_and_cloudinary

<comment><AUTHOR> How to reduce JPG image file size while delivering photos of high visual quality. This article introduces Cloudinary's JPEGmini add-on: on-the-fly cloud-based JPEG optimization using simple manipulation URLs. The JPEGmini image optimization reduces bandwidth consumption, improves user experience and ensures your photos are delivered in high quality. Included are sample image manipulation URLs and code snippets for Ruby on Rails, PHP, Node.js, .Net and other frameworks.</comment>


Www. is deprecated - <AUTHOR> http://no-www.org/

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately on Google App Engine you can not use primary domains (or whatever they are called). So www seems like an obvious choice for apps there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Keeping www allows hosting static content in cookieless subdomain (without getting new domains) which speeds up page loading.

<comment><USER4> Using www.* gives you more options for load-balancing and distributing your website too, since an A record can only resolve to an IP address.

I recently learned that the hard way when the Amazon Elastic Load Balancer IP address we were pointing our A record at abruptly went out of service. Serendipitously, we had already been preferring www.* for some arbitrary reasons so it was an easy fix. And it turns out we're reaping the benefit of what Johann describes too, as we are also serving a large number of images from a separate subdomain.</comment></comment>


The Advantages of Dyslexia - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-advantages-of-dyslexia/ <comment><USER2> Disclaimer: I have dyslexia.

I'd like to see this studied further but reading the article and glancing at the studies there are more unknowns and possibly conflating issues than there are solid pieces of data right now.

So I guess what I am saying is, take this with a grain of salt for now. Dyslexic scientists putting out studies which prove they're special snowflakes should be taken with some skepticism, particularly when it is so hard to control other variables.

Do I think dyslexics might "think differently," maybe? But I bet everyone thinks that about their own in-group.

<comment><USER3> Eh, everything is a two-edged sword. Nature doesn't design "bad" things. It just tosses stuff out, sees what doesn't fail catastrophically. Whatever doesn't die out is called "the fittest" by humans.

Cystic Fibrosis protects against Typhoid Fever* which is likely why it is so much more common in some populations than others. Sickle Cell protects against malaria, so if you are born into an area with malaria and an inadequate medical treatment for it, hey, having the gene makes you less likely to die, not more.

I have raised two special needs sons with multiple issues. I have found it very valuable to look for the so-called silver lining or, perhaps more accurately, to try to look at their characteristics as objectively as possible and assess not only what's bad about it but also what's good about it. This article may or may not have much real scientific merit in that it may not have much solid research to support it. But the general idea that it posits -- that dyslexia (and other "disabilities) may have an upside -- is extremely sound and should be talked about a good deal more.

* [http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may98/niaid-06.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may98/niaid-06.htm)

<comment><USER4> For a while society just plain ostracized anyone atypical, and then swung back really hard to our current position of "everyone is the same". I would like to think we're near a point where we'll settle back on a more nuanced middle ground, where instead of having a single box we shove everyone into (with those who don't fit being either left aside or crammed in awkwardly), we can instead recognize the benefits in "disadvantages" like you mentioned.

I think we'll come to accept that dyslexia, autism, ADD/ADHD, and countless other "disorders" are really just specializations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > people with dyslexia may see things more holistically, and miss the trees, > but see the forest

> people with dyslexia were able to pick out more words spoken by voices > widely-distributed in the room, compared with people who were proficient > readers.

> Logan of the Cass Business School in London.. found that dyslexia is > relatively common among business entrepreneurs; people who tend to think > differently and see the big picture in thinking creatively about a business.

Richard Branson: _" From a young age, I learned to focus on the things I was good at and delegate to others what I was not good at. That's how VIrgin is run. Fantastic people throughout the Virgin Group run our businesses, allowing me to think creatively and strategically. This isn't a skill that comes easily to some, but when you're dyslexic, you have to trust others to do tasks on your behalf. In some cases, that can involve reading and writing. You learn to let go."_, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on- innovations/richar...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on- innovations/richard-branson-and-the-dyslexia- advantage/2012/11/07/67a05b2a-2906-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html)

Related 1: font for dyslexics, [http://opendyslexic.org/](http://opendyslexic.org/)

Related 2: _" The auditory system is crucial for the development of language and there is an enormous amount of evidence in the population of hearing impaired children that auditory perceptual deficits at the periphery can cause significant delays and disorders of language development. It seems reasonable, therefore, to expect that for at least some of the children with phonologic dyslexia, there may be a disorder within the auditory system that has disrupted the normal acquisition of language."_, [http://www.readingrockets.org/article/16285](http://www.readingrockets.org/article/16285)</comment>


What do you think Valve is doing? - <AUTHOR>

I think they're going to make a play at the console market in a big way.
Valve has been working on a console. I don't think Valve brand hardware is the big deal. The big deal to me is that it establishes a minimum standard of hardware. Right now, many PC games are limited by what the PS3/Xbox360 can output, just because they are ported pretty directly to the PC.
With a minimum standard ("This PC's hardware runs Steam Level 1 games." for example), a slim quick-to-boot operating system, and a leaked app store style category system (showed up on Steam Mobile), I can easily see "Boots into Games by Valve" in the future.
You can easily imagine Gabe Newell's latest comments on Windows 8 (it's not good) plus Steam for Linux tying together. If Valve were to release "SteamOS" on "Steam Hardware Level" performance hardware, it could make PC gaming a lot easier for a lot of people. Maybe he is just protecting himself from Windows 8 being a massive failure. That alone is a smart move.
You'd get all of the advantages of consoles (the software doesn't break) with the advantages of PCs (openness). The fact is, even with a minimum hardware standard, the OS (and all of the cruft installed on it) can greatly affect game performance.
I expect that in near future we'll hear about virtualization (possibly even GPU virt) and/or an operating system from Valve.
This is all conjecture but what it boils down to is that one of the biggest challenges for PC gaming is that it's not as easy to get into as console gaming. I think Valve is actively trying to solve that. <comment><USER2> Gabe announced that windows fails and he wants to go linux. So based of this, the console will be Linux based that either allows to run Windows based games, or, what I think Gabe is aiming at, urging the developers to make hardcore games for Linux. Either way, this will be the first time Valve is going into hardware (at least to my knowledge) so we'll see where this goes.......

All in all this is about integration and innovation :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that the big deal is that they would essentially be setting a baseline level of hardware for developers (and consumers) to target.

<comment><USER2> True.

One thing though, I do not agree with you that game devs target consoles first, before porting to PC. In fact, I its the other way around. Battlefield 3 and the engine it is built on, targeted primarily PC performance, scaled down to run on consoles. Same thing for most games out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Or they're preparing to move into the console market through the Apple TV.

<http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/apple-meets-with-valve/></comment>


Airbnb Commits To SF By Signing A 10-Year, 169,000 Square Foot Lease - <AUTHOR> http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/02/airbnb_commits_to_soma_by_signing_a_10year_169000_square_foot_lease.php Airbnb signed a 10-year lease for the historic 888 Brannan building. The lease is for over 169,000 square feet, and Airbnb plans to move in by February of next year to accommodate the company's anticipated growth to more than 1,000 employees. <comment><USER2> 888 Brannan does _not_ look anything like the pristine building pictured in the article. Why would they need to post a clearly 'shopped picture of a building that already exists unless they were hiding something?

The actual building's windows are all painted over and that tree in the foreground does not exist. The freeway overpass pictured just across the street is a homeless encampment strewn with shopping carts, human feces, and needles. The city comes by about once a month to hose the sidewalk down with a noxious bleach solution.

btw, 888 Brannan is just around the corner from Zynga and Adobe.

<comment><USER3> Presumably they'll be renovating and this is planning artwork from their architect. This is the equivalent of my sending my family concept sketches of my kitchen renovation. I can't imagine what they'd be "hiding".

Edit: this seems to be pretty close to the angle in the picture: <http://g.co/maps/xj758>

<comment><USER4> Speaking from having met someone on the renovation project, That is indeed artwork from the architect, The building itself quite nice, but it's gone a bit to shit recently, the renovation is supposed to be rather impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For any other europeans, 169,000 sq ft = 15 700 m^2 (or slightly bigger than two football pitches joined up).

I don't know enough about retail space to say if this is ambitious or not? On the one hand, a ten year lease is a big commitment, on the other hand I guess AirBnB is thinking 'go big or go home', and in that case it might well get cramped sooner than that.

<comment><USER6> Thank you. I was wondering why they were renting such a massive amount of space for a moment there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So every time a startup signs a lease for office space we have to read about it on front-page HN? Who cares? This isn't even interesting. As for the "commitment," a lease is simply an asset and can be sold like anything else.

</comment><comment><USER8> 1,000 employees? For what?

<comment><USER9> I imagine that AirBnb needs a very large customer service team, for one.

<comment><USER10> Our customer support team is primarily home-shored, and works around the world in over 15 countries - less than 5% is in SF. The majority of people will be product, design, engineering... plus marketing, bd, operations, G&A, etc.

<comment><USER11> Completely sincere question that I'd love to hear your thoughts on: why in the world do you need 1000 people doing that stuff? I get how sales/marketing/customer service require high headcounts -- but product people?

Is there really something useful for 500 developers to do that the top 50 of them couldn't have done?

I've always assumed (since I don't understand it) that it's just a momentum thing. Did you ever consider keeping Airbnb under 100 employees? Would your investors have freaked at that idea? Would it have hurt your growth?

<comment><USER12> To get big, you have to grow your headcount. Staying lean forever will not support the kind of growth that AirBnB is currently enjoying or would like to achieve. The "lean" mentality is fine when you're searching for a business model or want to run a lifestyle business. It's suicide if you want to build a large company to service a large customer base. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to grow big. In fact, it's admirable.

<comment><USER9> I don't think that's a global rule- look at Instagram (nothing to do with the sale, just the number of users served by a company with two employees). Obviously, AirBnb is a very different business, but it is possible to grow by orders of magnitude without also growing headcount.

<comment><USER13> It's about revenue, not user count. Money changes everything: when customers pay, they expect a different level of service.

A company's revenue per employee is a common benchmark, and is usually around $600K-$1MM or so for successful companies at or near scale, up to $2.2MM for outliers like Apple(1). A company cannot grow to $100MM revenue and higher without having a large number of employees just to manage those revenue streams, partnerships, contracts, and support issues.

I should add that Instagram had ~13 employees, not two. That is a very low number, but mobile apps are easier to scale, support-wise, than web apps – users are just less likely to bug you, especially with a free app.

(1) Comparing Google, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon's Revenue per Employee: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=revenue+per+employee+ap...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=revenue+per+employee+apple,+google,+microsoft,+amazon)

<comment><USER14> A different level of service means customer support, it doesn't mean 10x-100x the number of developers working on the product.

So honestly, I'm curious---what is AirBnB going to do with ~1000 developers. Facebook expanded their headcount and created a whole suite of products glomped onto their original vision. I'd like to know if AirBnB intends the same and if so what are their plans.

Ofcourse, they have no obligation to blab about them early.

<comment><USER12> 1,000 developers? Downvote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What could they possibly need this much space for, and who is paying for it?

Bubblelicious.

<comment><USER16> Airbnb is frequenty cited as a counterpoint to all the bubble talk because they have a real business model and are making money. Same goes for all the other highly valued YC companies(Dropbox,OMGPOP,Heroku,etc).

<comment><USER17> There seem to be non-trivial possible legal landmines though which are likely to multiply internationally.

<comment><USER18> That's not unusual--PayPal was in the same boat and they made billions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: GetJSON, make ajax requests to anywhere - <AUTHOR>

GetJSON is a quick weekend hack - a proxy service that fetches whatever you specify and returns it wrapped in a JSONP request.
This makes it easy for in-browser JS to fetch data even from services which don't support JSONP or "Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *" header, without running your own proxy service.
Link: http://getjson.net/ <comment><USER2> Nice. Have you seen <https://github.com/izuzak/urlreq> ? Same thing, just on steroids and without the pretty Web app :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know about it, you've got some cool features there.

Since you shared the GitHub repo, I first thought you have to install that yourself, but apparently you also host it on AppEngine: <http://urlreq.appspot.com/req>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: <http://getjson.net/></comment>


Ask HN: Clueless recruiting tactics? - <AUTHOR> I've been bombarded with recruiter contacts for a number of positions lately, and I'd like to poll the hivemind about whether or not these are standard fare in Europe:<p>- Not telling me who they're hiring for (from a recruiter that "specializes in relocation")<p>- Not disclosing base salary (but asking for mine)<p>- Asking me for a CV when they already have a complete LinkedIn profile (and an online resumé)<p>- Wanting to "chat" and tossing me into an impromptu phone interview<p>- Trying to connect on LinkedIn and then going away forever<p>Is there anything I've missed? Discuss. <comment><USER2> Happens plenty in the US too.

There are some good recruiters but their are also a lot of dolts.

The main good thing I can say about recruiters is that if a company has bothered to hire a recruiter they are serious about hiring someone. The largest employer in my town (and state it turns out) is notorious for listing positions that go unfilled for years, refusing to interview qualified candidates (who would inevitably be overqualified) and interviewing and rejecting C- and D-players as if tire kicking was a national sport.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, sadly very similar to low-level 'contingency' style recruiting in the US and elsewhere.

What to do?

Push back-- tell them, if you are serious about moving forward in any dialog-- answer these basic questions.

1) Can you forward a detailed position summary?

2) Can you share the client/hiring manager info? * I'll keep it confidential, even sign a mutual NDA if necessary.

3) What is the budgeted compensation range? If it's not at least $175K then I am NOT interested.

4) What's the interview process like?

5) Tell me about you and your firm-- how long have you been in the business?

Their answers should inform you whether or not you're dealing with professionals. Incidentally, good recruiters are an indicator of a good potential employer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Start of financial year and resume database building in anticipation of anticipated hiring.</comment>


Sacramento Bee Leaks 19.5M California Voter Records - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/sacramento-bee-leaked-19-5-million-california-voter-rec-1822835127 <comment><USER2> First question - why did the Bee have these records?

Second question - what is this spokesperson smoking?

 _" The spokesperson added: "We know that in databases apparently targeted, no personally identifiable information, as defined by the State of California, was involved.""_

According to California Civil Code4 §1798.80  81 "Personal information" means any information that identifies, relates to, describes or is capable of being associated with a particular individual, including, but not limited to:

● name

● telephone number

● address

● signature

● passport number

● medical information

● social security number

● insurance policy number

● bank account number

● physical characteristics or description

● driver's license or state identification card number

● credit card number, debit card number, or any other financial information

● employment or employment history

● education

● health insurance information

So exactly what information was leaked?

 _" It contains the voter's name, phone number, address, gender, date of birth, political affiliation, among other election-related details."_

If that's not PII, I'm a butterfly.

<comment><USER3> Regarding Q1:

> Under state law, access to voter data is restricted; however, journalists, > political campaigns, and academic researchers can acquire the data for > certain purposes.

I guess the question is, what are the "certain purposes"?

<comment><USER4> Here's the law for CA: [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=ELEC&sectionNum=2194).

"Shall be provided with respect to any voter, subject to the provisions of Sections 2166, 2166.5, 2166.7, and 2188, to any candidate for federal, state, or local office, to any committee for or against any initiative or referendum measure for which legal publication is made, and to any person for election, scholarly, _journalistic_ , or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State."

Looks like ultimately it's whatever the Secretary of State allows.

<comment><USER5> The difference is that counties _charge everybody but party central committees_ for voter data or extracts. (Or such was the case when I did voter data wrangling 15 years ago).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking forward to the actual votes leaking, that'll be a nice shit show.

<comment><USER7> Unless the Bee has a backline to a shady person at the Secretary of State's office, their dataset would not contain votes. I believe what they have is the voter registration database. It varies by state, but at most, this would have whether or not you voted for a given election/primary. This is how stories about various persons' electoral participation are researched:

[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/22/fact- check-t...](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/22/fact-check-trump- skipped-three-presidential-primary-votes/)

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/andrew-mccabe- vote/i...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/andrew-mccabe- vote/index.html)

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/report-despite- campaign-v...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/report-despite-campaign- video-lena-dunham-didnt-vote)</comment></comment>


Customer Loyalty Is Overrated. Focus on Habit Instead - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2017/01/customer-loyalty-is-overrated#one <comment><USER2> The counter point article - old habits die hard, but they do die - adds an interesting dimension too. Any theory that seeks to explain cause and effect relationship operates with in a set of constraints. A theory that works beautifully under one set may fall apart under another.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products is a great book that focuses on this more [http://www.nirandfar.com/hooked](http://www.nirandfar.com/hooked)</comment>


Ask HN: Any integrated e-commerce, CRM and help desk solution out there? - <AUTHOR>

We are going to setup an online shop soon for our products (Actual, physical products). In order to assist our customers better, we need to setup a help-desk solution, which should have an integrated discussion forum and a file download area as well. Also, we would like to use a CRM to manage all our customer relationships, leads, campaigns, etc.
Looking at the available software (free or commercial) we were unable to find any solutions out there which combine all these functions.
What we want to achieve is this: A customer buys a product through our online shop. His contact information is immediately registered in our CRM and also in our Help Desk. He can login to our Help Desk and download supplementary software/documentation about his product. He can also login to the discussion forums with the same credentials that were used during the purchase.
Is this too much to ask?  I would appreciate any recommendations. <comment><USER2> I'd be surprised if SalesForce doesn't either offer something to this effect or provide the tools such that an ISV makes it available. Seems like it would be easy enough.

That being said, I will say that I cocked my head at this statement: "He can login to our Help Desk..." Look - no one wants to log in to a help desk. No one. We log in to view our receipts, change preferences, download apps, but no one wants to have to log in multiple times (once to the main site and once to the help desk).

Best of luck.</comment>