Hunting Task Wabbits - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/matter/hunting-task-wabbits-c60679bad0f6

<comment><USER2> Something at the core of a lot of the systemic problems with these "sharing economy"/"p2p market" companies is that they assume workers and sellers are fungible, and are thus in something approximating perfect competition[1]. Instead, much like the dating example in the article, they are actually a Matching Market[2]: there is some close-to-optimal arrangement of buyers to sellers. Long-term happiness with the services involves finding the best fit, rather than just the first sufficient fit.

The auction system of old TR allowed for discovery of these fits via the auction mechanism. I expect that much like a lot of other econ theory mechanisms in addition to the success stories in the article, it led to a lot of large scale usability friction. In the end, it looks like TR chose a smoother system with worse individual outcomes. The holy grail then is a system that elicits information about fit without leaking too much information and being easy to use at the same time.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)

[2] [http://people.duke.edu/~aa88/articles/WorldCongressSurvey.pd...](http://people.duke.edu/~aa88/articles/WorldCongressSurvey.pdf)

<comment><USER3> the system which you seek exists and it's called Thumbtack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >like Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and the rest of the renting economy. (Please, let's stop calling it the "sharing economy": Sharing doesn't involve money.)

This really does hit the mark in qualifying the sort of feeling I get when Airbnb and Uber talk about the sharing economy. The big winners don't seem to be of the "sharing/driving a couple hours a week" variety, but of the "capitalists running their usual games" variety.

Not that there's a major issue on this, but the way these companies present themselves as "helping soccer moms make a little cash" has always felt slightly disingenuous.

<comment><USER5> I always liked "The 1099 Economy":

[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/silicon- valleys...](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/silicon-valleys- contract-worker-problem.html)

<comment><USER6> The problem, as the article points out, is that many of these companies may be misclassifying their workers. Uber has been sued over this[1], and most recently, Handy was sued for a variety of labor violations, including misclassification[2]. Ironically, I pointed out that a description of Handy's operations published in an article raised questions about classification a few weeks before the lawsuit was filed[3].

There's nothing wrong with self-employment (it's great), but most of these startups in no way, shape or form represent the true "1099 economy." It's a total misnomer.

[1] [http://uberlawsuit.com/](http://uberlawsuit.com/)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/handy-cleaning- lawsuit-2014-1...](http://www.businessinsider.com/handy-cleaning- lawsuit-2014-11)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8489834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8489834)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was particularly amused by the silliness of this:

"Please know that it is our policy that all journalists work through TaskRabbit Corporate for these requests. We'd be happy to coordinate interviews."

<comment><USER8> Yep. The proper reply would be, "Thanks. But, I don't work for your company and am not bound by those rules. In fact, it's the policy of journalists to seek the truth regardless of your company policy."

<comment><USER9> I think their issue is that TaskRabbit _contractors_ can't talk to journalists without going through corporate PR. (While nothing prohibits a journalist from asking, I'm sure the contractors would be terminated for speaking with journalists if corporate found out.)

<comment><USER7> But they're still 1099s, honest!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I made an app for a ChallengePost hackathon in this area, [http://rackspacemobile.challengepost.com/submissions/28855-o...](http://rackspacemobile.challengepost.com/submissions/28855-oddjob) . I think TaskRabbit and similar services have a tremendous opportunity to build a base of passionate and trusted workers, but instead they're gouging them (25% commission past the first introduction is absurd) and misunderstanding why every worker I've talked with feels betrayed (from lack of trust on TR's part related to communication from worker to employer, to an oversimplification of scheduling that actually prevents workers from committing to multiple jobs in a day).

Or maybe the business is running smoothly and they're minting money so they just don't care what a minority of dissatisfied-but-loud customers/workers say.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good article. Task Rabbit v1 was great, I have no idea what these people were thinking by changing their formula. From a hirer perspective the new version sucks.

Well, actually I do have an idea what they were thinking. Some VC or MBA probably convinced them to move to this system to create a bigger barrier to entry and increase the proprietary-ness of their product. "Just a market" is not nearly as sexy sounding as "machine learning black magic matching algorithms."

<comment><USER12> I imagine they wanted people to be able to get quotes really quickly rather than wait on a bidding process. And work with fewer, dedicated taskers than a myriad that included no-hopers.

IIRC, Flight Fox changed tack in a similar way, going from their original scheme of people bidding to ending up a lot more like a regular travel agent but where you pay up front to even work with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If the Taskers are complaining and the customers aren't too happy either, then I see an opportunity here for someone to step in and provide services like the TR of the old.

<comment><USER14> Well, objectively speaking, it seems like the old model wasn't working. It wasn't scalable. Without standardizing _something_ \-- be it the buyer- description-input track, or the tasker-bidding-assignment track -- you have an ad hoc system that is not particularly efficient at allocating supply to demand. (Or even particularly good at standardizing supply and demand in the first place).

This new system seems to fit the classically snarky definition of a compromise: a situation nobody is completely happy with.

The article implies a third option: keeping the open-bidding system of old, but focusing on a vertical or two, instead of trying to be all things to all potential tasks. This might be a better solution, but again, you run into standardization and supply/demand allocation inefficiencies. Less of them, but they're still there.

There seems to be a good reason why "second-generation" sharing economy services, like Uber and Airbnb, do really well, while services like TaskRabbit don't. These newer services are on tightly controlled rails, they're standardized (or at least standardizing), and they're operating in specific verticals. They are in the variance-minimization business. Old-model TaskRabbit was in the variance- _creation_ business.

<comment><USER3> It was working, just not enough relative to all the capital they raised. The marketplace was growing 8% month over month, since forever. They wanted faster growth but couldn't get it, so pivoted.

<comment><USER15> Exactly. The folks who put in roughly $40 million wanted a $500+ million exit in 18 months. And that just wasn't going to happen with the numbers they had.

It seems like they were running about $500K a year. Even with 100% growth per year, it's going to take 6 years to begin moving $40 million annual revenue. The investors aren't going to wait for that long. And, as people have pointed out, once I use TaskRabbit, why don't I contact the task person directly next time?

Attempts to quantify TaskRabbit's numbers: [http://www.quora.com/How-much- revenue-is-Taskrabbit-com-maki...](http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-is- Taskrabbit-com-making)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting, I had missed that they changed how they operated from the post- job/receive-bids/pick-a-bid model. Here's the announcement from a few months ago: [http://blog.taskrabbit.com/2014/06/17/unveiling-the-new- task...](http://blog.taskrabbit.com/2014/06/17/unveiling-the-new-taskrabbit/)

</comment><comment><USER17> If the article is implying that taskers and buyers were happier users under the old system, what was it about that system that made it hard to scale?

<comment><USER12> It was harder to define and lock down to a slick process. There is a reply further up to a different question which explains it in terms of variance.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8696134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8696134)

Some platforms have seen a lot of success from doing something limited and simple really well (Instagram, Twitter, etc) rather than trying to be a tool for everything. Maybe that's a parallel?

<comment><USER18> I think lack of growth is a more accurate issue. TaskRabbit wasn't in the business it wanted to be in - they were a matchmaker not a middleman, and match making only turns a profit at huge scales - dating is pretty much the entire human race, so they can only go downhill from that opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems ripe for a Craigslist-type model: keep the code and servers as simple and efficient as possible, cover costs by charging for one or two high-value services that make sense, and let everything else function as a free marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a terrible thought, but my honest first thought when I read the title was, "Yikes. Someone arranged a 'Most Dangerous Game'-style scenario over TaskRabbit?"

</comment><comment><USER21> in marketplaces there is always one side that is in oversupply , it is clear that in Taskrabbit their case the workers are in oversupply and they are constrained by getting "employers" in.

</comment><comment><USER22> These p2p "sharing economy" sites are begging for a solution that's actually p2p. The star-rating of users could be maintained by a modified form of bitcoin. I don't know what the business model would be, but that's pretty much the point.

<comment><USER23> Charge for promoted ads?

<comment><USER22> A p2p distributed ad network would be interesting, if the money can flow back to the server operators maintaining the network. Overall though I just meant there really wouldn't be a profitable business model, much like BitTorrent, and that would be a good thing I think by eliminating a powerful middleman.</comment></comment></comment>


Women Who Left Bad Online Reviews of Plastic Surgeon Being Sued - <AUTHOR> http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/plastic-surgeon-jay-pensler-sues-patients-for-bad-online-reviews/19725863

<comment><USER2> Apparently the doctor hasn't heard of the Streisand effect (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>).

Beyond the fact that the doctor's action is going to have the opposite effect of what he wants, there's a bigger issue. The rise of "reputation" sites like Yelp presents us with new challenges. Previously, it was a bit easier to manage one's reputation. A past bad act or customer complaint wouldn't be immortalized forever on the internet. Even our own postings get archived for anyone in the future to see (and people are starting to care about what they post on sites like Facebook).

On one hand, this is problematic if the statements are libelous (and I'm not saying that they are in this case, but libelous statements do happen). The Streisand effect means, to an extent, that we don't want to draw attention to libelous things said about us since it will bring more attention to them. Whether the claim is true or false, fighting it might bring us greater harm. And some statements are untrue.

On the other hand, this might change the way we view people. Right now, we tend to think that a (singular) bad mark is indicative of a pattern. The thought is that if someone was arrested once, they likely did many other bad acts that they weren't caught for. Likewise, a few embarrassing photos on Facebook are sometimes thought of as evidence that someone wouldn't be a good hire. However, if we find that more and more of our lives are documented, maybe people will stop thinking that a blemish or two on a person's record means that they're a bad person - it could just mean that they're human and interacting with the world.

Personally, I wonder if this fear of documentation might be holding us back. Someone doesn't want their failure documented and so they privately don't try for something. Has anyone else not launched something because of fear of criticism - criticism that would be immortalized online?

</comment><comment><USER3> I posted a negative review of a dentist on Yelp -- I stand by my feelings of having a VERY bad experience -- and the guy emailed me putting me "on notice" and demanding I remove it immediately, or else I'd be "dealing with [his] attorney." I never did remove it, and I never did hear from his attorney. But I felt outraged and scared (I was a few years out of college and had never received this sort of email before), and I will admit I didn't use Yelp much for several years, as I associated the site with risk of traumatic experiences.

It gives me a sick feeling in my stomach and a headache just to think of all this again.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is joke news, right?

From the article, quoting the lawyer of one of the women being sued: "Her breasts look terrible. I mean, I hate the way she looks. She looks so bad..."

What kind of lawyer would talk like that?

<comment><USER5> A lawyer doing her best to advocate for her client.

The woman complained online about a botched boob job. The lawyer would be doing her client no favors by saying she looks great. That would only be helping the Dr's case.

At least the lawyer's a woman.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have had clients that went crazy about any hint of negativity (or what they considered 'inconsistent with their brand') online. In some cases I brought them reports of bloggers that mention their products with a suggestion they send some free samples and encourage the attention. The reaction was emergency meetings where I was asked what we could do about all this.

This doctor is not one of those cases. Seems to be a very web savy practice. He has contributed articles, pictures and diagrams to lots of sites. It's the kind of thing and internet marketing / SEO company would be recommending. One of the reviews mentions being convinced to choose him due to his web presence. I would not be surprised if a lot of his business comes this way. Of surgeons in his area, he's probably one of the prominent online. [http://www.google.com.au/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&...](http://www.google.com.au/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en- US:official&biw=1280&bih=667&tbs=isch:1&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&gs_rfai=&q=Jay%20Pensler%20results)

Now google him, and it's bad news. I would be surprised if his phone isn't ringing a lot less.

</comment><comment><USER7> Doctors aren't used to being reviewed in this way, so some are only going to go into this new world kicking and screaming.

The good news is that it's very hard to win a libel judgement against somebody in the U.S. — as far as I know, you have to show that somebody said something they knew to be false and did so with the malicious intent of harming you.

</comment><comment><USER8> _facepalm_

Can you imagine sitting in the hospital waiting room ready for surgery, when you decide to whip out the smartphone and look up your surgeon on Yelp? It's like something out of Monty Python

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Americans for the "I'm gonna sue you!" culture that's slowly seeping into the UK.

<comment><USER10> An interesting thing to say since America's legal tradition is adapted directly from the UK's. Suing people is actually a good thing, when you consider that the alternative (before suing was an option) is a physical altercation of some kind or at least a physical threat (ie Since you did this to me I'm going to kill/steal-from/otherwise-injure-you).

<comment><USER9> The concept of sueing is great. It's the modern culture of it that's horrible. Adverts on TV screaming "DID YOU SLIP OVER AT WORK BECAUSE YOU'RE A MORON? SUE YOUR COMPANY!!", it's lovely.

<comment><USER11> I've never seen one of those.

All the ones I see are for lawyers who do class-action suits against companies that used asbestos or other dangerous materials, or pharmaceutical companies which released drugs with undisclosed/unknown serious side effects.

Both of which, honestly, should be fair game for lawsuits.

<comment><USER12> Class action lawsuits rarely provide more than a pittance to the aggrieved, the settlement is usually a slap on the wrist to the offending party, and the lawyers in charge of the case make out like bandits.

I fail to see how this contributes any benefits to our society.

<comment><USER13> Those lawyers are a huge source of donations for one of the political parties.

They also engage in conspicuous consumption. Do you really want to reduce demand for BMWs?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Plans to Vet YouTube Premium Video Content - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/google-is-said-to-plan-vetting-of-youtube-premium-video-content <comment><USER2> I don't know how many people (contributors) they have in these preferred channels --maybe they have overwhelming numbers so they have to throw unspecialized bodies at the issue.

My feeling is that at some point they will manage the top tier of their premium contributors more like traditional content production. Idea people, writers, producers and someone who vets the output yay/nay and takes full responsibility for the release of the content. None of this "the views of [contributor] do not represent the values of our company" BS.

Of course, that means more money, less profit but would make things for advertisers palatable.

<comment><USER3> This seems like a defensive no brainer for youtube though. The classic cable business model is to get subscribers by financing top content that brings in viewers. If Disney opened a 'Mickey Tube' tomorrow with exlusive access to all the late show clips, several well-financed existing youtubers then how much of youtubes viewers would pack up and move over?

So really this looks like Youtube maturing into a more traditional media business model. Of course they still have the risk that they suffer from the myspace phenomenom. Not sure they're really preparing or considering that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "the company recently announced it will have 10,000 employees focused on the task"

I can't wrap my head around that number. How can that be true?

<comment> oh-kumudo Contractor, like Call center employees. Probably from outsourcing firms. And, this number seems...low? Considering the sheer amount of videos upload even just from partners.

I guess those platforms are growing so large and influential, censoring is inevitable now.

<comment><USER5> Casually calling contractors employees to the press seems like a decent way to open yourself up to a employment status lawsuits.

<comment><USER6> The "employee" word is not mentioned in Google's post a single time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a strange headline, because the whole premise of Google Preferred is that it IS vetted. Now Google is admitting that it... wasn't? Or at least rarely.

<comment><USER3> Google's entire tradition of content moderation has been to have accounts with privileges and then add/remove those based on content produced. Google Preferred wasn't a set of videos you could advertise on, it was a set of content creators you could advertise with.

There was a watershed early last year when they realized that a relatively tiny number of videos could be picked up by traditional media and used to beat up youtube in the press. So now they're moving away from that. They're going to moderate _every video_.

That started with the low cost: everything monetized goes through the iron fist of the Youtube demonetization wizard.

Now for the high end content they can't treat people like that - because top talent has leverage. So the more the content is worth, the more they'll spend on QA. The fundamental doesn't change though - they're moderating the content not the creator anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> YouTube.

Well, when we say "you", we mean more like "we".

Or, if you prefer, think of "you" as "TV". TV Tube!

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm not a vet, so I won't comment on the subject itself, but on a related note, I always found "Google Preferred" to be a bizarre naming choice.

Why would a global, and generally loved brand, use the name of another to market a product?

<comment><USER10> YouTube is owned by Google.

<comment><USER11> Even so. It's a strange use of branding. It would be like Beats having a line of "Apple Preferred" headphones.

In the eyes of many consumers they're unrelated because they've up until now pushed very separate branding.

<comment><USER12> > In the eyes of many consumers they're unrelated because they've up until now > pushed very separate branding.

I mean we are both speculating here unless there is some data to prove our claims, but I would say that Google dropped any attempt at keeping the brands too separate when they introduced the Google+ comment section.

The "Google preferred" also makes sense because all advertising that happens on Youtube is under the Google AdWords brand. There is no Youtube Ads, only Google Adwords for video.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This might sound silly, but working in these content moderation jobs must be painful -- dealing with a lot of constant negativity if not abuse, etc.

In some ways, moderating all the good content might give you a break.. I imagine they probably won't cross with other such jobs though.

As a society, online really seems to bring out some of the worst in people; and I figure there is not a set of valued peers around you to try and influence your behaviour for the better.</comment>


Blackstone Reaches $4.7B Deal to Buy Ancestry.com - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/blackstone-said-to-reach-4-7-billion-deal-to-buy-ancestry-com <comment><USER2> What is going on with the economy? This is absolutely insane.</comment>


Brb…Deleting SoundCloud - <AUTHOR> http://thisisadynasty.tumblr.com/post/87945465547/brb-deleting-soundcloud

<comment><USER2> yeah not too thrilled with it being sold so that it is easier to end up at the hands of copyright enforcement enthusiast. Imagine if a favorite mixtape on soundcloud contained copyright samples and it was forced to be taken down.

not sure if I would delete my account, I have some piano recordings I uploaded on there, hoping that one day it will make me famous</comment>


Analysts See Oil Demand Peaking by 2030 as Electric Vehicles Boom - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/bofa-sees-oil-demand-peaking-by-2030-as-electric-vehicles-boom <comment><USER2> The year petroleum usage peaks is unknowable at present, but it obvious its coming. But the year will only be significant in hindsight. There have been many plateau years before. In 2007 Worldwide usage was 86.3 MBPD, in '08 it was 85.8, in '09 it was 84.3, then in 2010 it was back up to 86.4. All due to the economic slump, of course, but now every pundit will saying with every tiny slowdown "the end is nigh".

</comment><comment><USER3> I always find it strange that people in the oil business talk about the "oil demand" without respect to price. Maybe this idea comes from when the West was pumping oil at maximum rates, fracking did not exist, and the OPEC cartel could control the price by fiat (and before OPEC I have heard the oil price was controlled by the output in Texas). At that time there was a price set by OPEC and they pumped to meet demand at that price. In that environment the using the phrase "oil demand" for "oil usage" made sense. But in today's world OPEC does not seem to be able to set the price very well. Peak "oil demand", where demand is determined by the peak amount of oil consumed, will depend on the price and uses of oil in the future.

Some crazy future tech in 2045 which makes heavy oil and tar sands profitable to extract and turn into carbon fiber at $100 a ton might replace structural steel. This could push oil usage up to a new peak, even if a previous "oil demand" peak happened in 2030, when we decided it was really stupid to burn this great chemical stock for raw energy.

<comment><USER4> When I studied organic chemistry in high school, I vividly recall one of the authors of the chemistry textbook saying something to the tune of: its unbelievable how much stuff you can make with petroleum but our civilization has decided the best use is to burn it.

If the world's population continues to grow at its current pace, and more people are lifted out of poverty, the demand for petrochemicals and petroleum derived products will only keep increasing. And in the further future when humans colonize other planets, petroleum will be a uniquely Earth-based resource making it even more valuable.

<comment><USER5> _And in the further future when humans colonize other planets, petroleum will be a uniquely Earth-based resource making it even more valuable._

If you have electricity, water, and a carbon source, you can manufacture the hydrocarbons currently sourced from petroleum. Small scientific colonies would import terrestrial hydrocarbons just like they would import terrestrial aluminum and glass, of course, but if you're picturing self-sustaining space industrialization and colonization, it won't be worth sending hydrocarbons from Earth to Mars.

Hydrocarbon synthesis also puts an (admittedly high) upper limit on the cost of making organic chemicals on Earth. Some Peak Oilers were confused about this, imagining fossil resources as irreplaceable magic. "It's not just fuel -- pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and dyes are made from oil too!" they'd say, implying that you can't have modern pharmaceuticals without oil. But that's like saying that you can't make paper without trees. The reason that paper is overwhelmingly made from trees is because that's currently the cheapest way, not because other ways are unknown. If the abundance/cheapness of feedstocks changes, so will their share of the market. (And costs will go up too, of course. The cost of refined liquid fuels goes up nearly linearly with the cost of crude oil. The cost of drugs/dyes/pesticides rises much less, because only a small share of their total cost of production came from simple hydrocarbon feedstocks in the first place.)

With the exception of nuclear fuels, which are truly "used up" during fission or fusion, all atoms are recyclable.

<comment><USER3> I would love to see a chart of the energy required (both theoretical and "currently best working system") to produce various hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O feedstock. Methane, propane, heptane, etc., and then some mixtures like gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt. I quick search did not bring anything up for me.

<comment><USER5> Here's an analysis of methane synthesized with water, CO2, and electricity:

[http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SGC284_eng.pdf](http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SGC284_eng.pdf)

They put it at 52% energetic efficiency from electricity. They're starting with a concentrated CO2 stream as a byproduct of a biological waste digester. If they were starting with a more dilute CO2 source like seawater or ordinary air there would also be an energy cost for concentrating the CO2. In my estimation, a reasonable rule of thumb is that it would take 2-4 megajoules of electricity to make one megajoule of common small hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, ethylene, propylene, benzene...)

For example, a megawatt hour of electricity is 3600 MJ. If it were used to synthesize the hydrocarbon commodity ethylene at 1/3 efficiency, it would yield about 24 kilograms of ethylene. Bulk ethylene prices in the US in July were $645/tonne, or $15.38 for 24 kilograms. Today a megawatt hour of renewable electricity might cost $30 in a favorable location. So the electricity cost alone of renewable ethylene would be nearly double the all-in cost of petro-ethylene. Probably renewable ethylene would be closer to 4x the cost of petro-ethylene once you add other costs. But, notably, not 100x or even 10x the cost; disposable polyethylene packaging might become too expensive for routine use, absent fossils, but durable goods incorporating polyethylene parts would still be affordable. Higher-value materials synthesized starting from ethylene, like detergents and coolant fluids, would also see a relatively modest price increase.

There's a lot of literature on producing liquid fuels and chemicals starting from natural gas and coal. Most schemas proceed through an intermediate called synthesis gas, ("syngas") a mixture of CO/H2 that can be converted into many different products depending on the catalysts used. To get the overall energetic efficiency you'd combine the extant huge literature on synthesis gas conversion with the assumption that synthesis gas is made from the reverse water gas reaction of CO2 with electrolytic hydrogen from water. (Not hard if you're fluent with chemistry and units conversion, otherwise may be challenging. I'd do a table of examples myself if I thought this comment would be more visible.)

Here's a presentation that has a schematic view synthesizing renewable hydrocarbons without biomass -- see particularly the slide "Combining Technologies" where it shows that methanol, gasoline, diesel, and methane can all be produced from the same syngas intermediate:

[http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/51542760/Production_of_Green_Natur...](http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/51542760/Production_of_Green_Natural_Gas_presentation.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the info and the links. Pretty easy to get a pure CO2 stream on Mars and H2O is all over the place. Just need some nuclear generators to get cranking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Shouldn't this change US Mideast policy immediately? My guess is that planners don't believe this to be true.

<comment><USER7> Why would it?

<comment><USER6> Most of the "investments" in "stability" of the region have payoffs in the many decades.

<comment><USER8> By the estimate, peak oil is still a long time off, and just crossing peak oil does not mean that oil will become unimportant over night.

<comment><USER6> True, but much of the political importance of oil has to do with the threat of a sudden oil shortage. The first defense (for the US) is to create massive reserve tanks, the second is to befriend oil producing regimes, the third is to invest trillions propping up those regimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another reading of this report:

Oil consumption will remain at today's level or higher through 2040. Present oil consumption is 99 Mb/d, will peak at 106 Mb/d in 2030, then decrease to ~97 Mb/d by 2045.

Honestly it's a lot less rosy than the title suggests.

</comment><comment><USER10> My question is the demand collapse, and transition to a demand spike. The current models of increased load, like demand reduction and management companies that do nothing more than broker kW for incentives for shut-down during high peak times - et al. [https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/demand- reduction-0](https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/demand-reduction-0) // \--> so, as we shift away from fossil fuels/oil .. who are the great tycoons of electrical grid creeping?

<comment><USER4> Its a good question. I think Tesla is on to something with home Solar re chargers though. If we transition to a model where every (or sufficiently many) homes rely on solar power to generate electricity, the increase in EV's wouldn't much change the demand of electricity from the grid. That seems like a great solution to prevent the grid from being the bottleneck for the growth of EV.

(With self-driving cars I see an even better future: drive your car to the office, then indicate its not required for the next 8 hours. It searches for a nearby solar recharge station and drives itself, charges itself and returns by the time you need to leave. Seems like Sci-Fi right now but oh well... I can still dream )

<comment><USER11> While home solar is great, it is nowhere as reliable as the grid. You can have days when the sun doesn't shine. You expect the grid to bear your super heavy load (once every home goes ev and solar) on cloudy days and don't use it any other day. The grid is going to get much more costlier than you know, or there will be a hefty grid connection fee

<comment><USER4> Let me be clear that I'm not advocating for getting rid of the grid. Like you said, on days when local generation doesn't meet demand, the grid will be very useful. What I'm saying is that local generation would supplement the grid; perhaps make it so that it can handle the additional loads put on it by millions of Electric Vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oil demand has been "peaking" since the 90s...

<comment><USER13> Another commenter replied to your misunderstanding between peak supply and peak demand, but I'll address the issue you actually mentioned too.

Since 1980, we have never had a year where we found more untapped oil reserves than were consumed[1]. Can you explain to me how oil production can continue keep up with demand when demand outstrips new discoveries — and has, for nearly forty years?

[1]: [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/peak-oil- perspective/](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/)

<comment><USER14> At the same time the Permian has been found to contain tens of billions of barrels of oil beyond what was anticipated could be extracted just ten years ago. Undercounting is almost universal throughout oil's industrial history, and tilts toward there being a lot more.

Pioneer pegs Spraberry/Wolfcamp at 50 billion barrels (and Eagle Ford at 25 billion). The Permian will end up being comparable in size only to Ghawar, with ~100 billion barrels or more (Pioneer says 150+ billion, other studies say 70-80 billion, and so on). That's based on today's technology, tomorrow we'll be able to extract more.

Cross the border into Mexico, you're going to find more massive shale deposits that we haven't even looked at yet (it doesn't just magically stop at the Texas border very obviously). That'll happen in the next ten years.

There's $6 or $7 trillion worth of oil in Texas that was almost entirely off the table as a resource as recently as 2007.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When will it make sense for a practical, skinflint commuter to make the switch?

<comment><USER16> Is your commute under 40 miles round trip? You can get a Nissan Leaf today for ~$10k used, or $20k-30k new. Or a Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt, or a reservation for a Tesla Model 3.

Makes great financial sense, as it's half the cost per mile to drive an EV vs an internal combustion vehicle [1].

EDIT: I own a Nissan Leaf I paid $10k for. I charge at home (6 cents/kwh, $3 for a full charge), and my employer offers free charging at my parking garage (which I use whenever I'm not working from home).

[1] [http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2018-1_Abstract_Engli...](http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2018-1_Abstract_English.pdf) WARNING: PDF

<comment><USER17> With the Tax incentive in California, a used Nissan Leaf could effectively cost $6K used now.

And then if your work or city offers subsidized electric charging stations... it would definitely be worth switching now.

However I think there is a real chance that a fleet of automatic driving Ubers may make ride sharing cheaper than buying an electric car for most people.

<comment><USER18> There are tax incentives in California for used electric cars?

<comment><USER17> Apologies for the bad info... Tax credits for USED electric vehicles are only happening in Colorado right now.

I forgot how the math on this worked out exactly. But I saw people getting the Leaf a few months ago for about that amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm not really convinced we will see oil go away. We've been saying peak oil since the 70s. The US military as a whole still relies heavily on oil. Burning oil is still the only reliable propulsion for space programs.

But more importantly the whole global warming, anti-oil movement has been to minimize the impact of OPEC on US, and put pressure on oil producing nations, largely Russia.

OPEC remains the only organization to outwit the US by exploiting their reliance on it. Take a look at the oil shock during Carter's administration.

With fracking the US does not need OPEC/Saudi as they used to and they are freaking out. The main countries whose economy largely depends on oil have already suffered the economic consequences: Venezuela, Russia, etc. They also happen to have earned the ire of US by not submitting to their rule.

Electric cars will still be well out of reach from the rest of the population (Tesla shareholders/shills will say not for long) and combustion engine will still be in demand.

It was one thing to confront the US as USSR or when US oil production was low, it's a whole new ball game now.

It's no coincidence with fracking on US soil, we started to see a decline in crude oil prices, and oil producing countries panicking.

<comment><USER20> Oil isn't going to disappear because of oil. Oil disappears because of batteries and the improvements that have been made over decades.

To say oil will win over batteries (where applicable) is to say that either 1) battery improvements will not continue; or 2) that oil is somehow immune to economics.

Any discussion of the end of oil without mentioning batteries is incomplete. They are the driver of the change.

<comment><USER19> so who is going to replace all the oil that is being used in jets, diesel trucks in third world countries, tanks, humvees, non-nuclear powered naval ships?

Tesla built the largest battery producing plant and they are going to meet the demand? They can't even meet their own supply targets for their cars! Are they going to retrofit F-22s with batteries? How about a farmer in India, is he going to be able to afford a Tesla Tractor vs the one he was using since he's grandfather?

You seem to be absolutely sure that the oil will be replaced by batteries without taking into a lot of uncertainties around it.

<comment><USER20> Key phrase in my post "where applicable". Naval ships, humvees, tanks, and diesel trucks can all possibly use batteries. The grid can use batteries instead of peaker plants too (enabling more renewable energy sources to be used instead of coal).

But the F22 will still use oil--battery development is no where close to provide that level of energy-to-weight.

You seem to be arguing that we're talking about ALL oil production. But that's not true.. we're just talking about the 90+% that is used for transportation. Removing that--which if battery improvements continue absolutely will happen-- oil will never see the demand it has in the past. It'll be relegated to a specialty fuel.

<comment><USER19> your version of 'where applicable' seems to be just about anything. Like you say F-22 will still use oil and not batteries, but its not just weight but ease of transportation and economies of scale of pulling oil from the ground vs. manufacturing and maintaining the whole supply chain.

Transportation in what part of the world? Please be more specific, you made it sound like countries where people can barely afford to live are suddenly going to hop onto Tesla grid and their lives change. Who benefits from this narrative do you think? Definitely not the people who will be shackled into further debts by purchasing the new paradiagm shift in energy tech.

Until you have an infinite source of energy, the battery is not truly sustainable. They all have a shelf life, maintenance and harm to the environment. There's a lot of money thats going to be involved and so will people profiteering and selling their reality and attacking people who say otherwise.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Surviving a philosopher attack. - <AUTHOR> http://philosiology.blogspot.com/2011/04/surviving-philosopher-attack.html

<comment><USER2> I like the post, but I don't think it applies strictly to philosophical discussions (unless you descend to the view that everything is philosophic). I think it's more to do with people being told that their beliefs are wrong, and why they're wrong, and getting upset. Philosophers (and I would argue programmers and mathematicians and scientists) are just more used to this so they don't get upset as easily; they attack because they think they're right and they want to change minds.

My question is, does this adjustment help philosophers change their minds more easily than a normal person would, or even a programmer would? I don't think so. Getting told you're wrong in philosophy isn't the same as getting told you're wrong by a compiler, and in the end whatever profession we practice we're still humans with the same biases. It's incredibly hard to change one's mind...

I've also found that quoting Proverbs 28:1 ("The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.") when debating religious people who don't want to debate (and thus feel attacked) doesn't help.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like narcissism. Peoples feelings do matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> No wonder they made Socrates drink Hemlock.</comment>


Japan's earthquake rescue robot (and more) [video] - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8069435.stm

<comment><USER2> Japan has a thing for developing _cool_ robots. Nevertheless, these robots always seem to be simply showcased and never really put to practical use.

There have been several mine accidents in the past few years in the US and no robots to assist rescuers in a practical way. A roboticist from CMU who specializes in snake robots even says they are still a few years away from something useful. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8536>

Maybe I'm being too critical of these robots, but just seeing them slither on the nice polished Tokyo Institute of Technology floor makes me suspicious that I will never see breaking news in which one of these robots is videotaped as a hero slithering over concrete and bent rebar in an earthquake disaster.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow. If anyone here has seen Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex, they'll immediately recognize the 3rd robot shown. It moves very much like the Tachikoma.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqz8B-Z6ijM>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I particularly like the walking robot that converts into a roller-skating robot.</comment>


It Requires Super Human Discipline to Write Readable Code in Callbacks - <AUTHOR> http://joshaust.in/2014/02/it-requires-super-human-discipline-to-write-readable-code-in-callbacks/

<comment><USER2> If Guido could carefully and objectively study ToffeeScript then he would see that it is much more readable than Python/Tornado.

<comment><USER3> So you're comparing a dialect that was written for CoffeScript which was written for the purpose of improving JavaScript's brevity and readability and was partially inspired by Python and took elements from Python to something that's supported natively in Python?

I suppose anything is possible with a meta-meta-meta language.

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the things I'm most excited about in Python is the new asyncio that Guido was talking about. I hoping that with an IOLoop in the standard library and built in Futures, that many of the synchronous network libraries available today will be able to present a synchronous mode and an asynchronous mode. The big strength of NodeJS is the async ecosystem, but Python could catch up quickly if asyncio really takes off.</comment></comment></comment>


Falsehoods programmers believe about geography - <AUTHOR> http://wiesmann.codiferes.net/wordpress/?p=15187&lang=en <comment><USER2> These "Falsehoods programmers believe about XYZ" sites are interesting and all, but the practical take away always seems to be:

"In order to handle all of these clever edge cases, your [Time|Date|Name|Address|Gender] handling code should be 2,000 lines long, not 2 lines long."

Which is not very helpful if you're just trying to get your product out. Sure, you could take another week to make sure you handle that hamlet in Macedonia whose name isn't a text string, but then again, why not just slap in "address" "city" "state" and "zip" fields and get on with the rest of your actual product? The naive solution covers pretty much all of the USA market. Hell, call those last two "state/province" and "zip/postcode" and you've got most of the world handled. Fix the edge cases in V2, if you even have to.

<comment><USER3> I think you're getting the wrong take away from these articles.

The message is that the real world is messy so don't spend 2000 lines of code trying to validate it to a strict (simplistic) model.

For example my bank's website couldn't deal with the fact that my street address was (representative example) "5/3 Hawthorn Street" because the '/' was an illegal character (as was -,: and a whole bunch of other separators I tried) - but that's how it appears in the Post Office's database. Some programmer has spent effort to implement the code to reject my legal (and incredibly common) style of address. It would have been far less effort not to have done that.

By contrast the DVLA website just gives you a free input text area, perfect. Minimal effort for them, zero hassle for me.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like it's time to write "Falsehoods Programmers Believe about Falsehoods".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would add to that more falsehoods:

1) Every place is in a country.

2) The precise location of country borders is globally agreed and does not vary from country to country.

2) The list of countries is globally agreed and does not vary from country to country.

<comment><USER6> \- the list of countries doesn't change over time

\- when countries appear or disappear there's some sort of logical predecessor/successor country

\- internet address suffixes correspond to a single country

\- a country has only one internet address suffix

\- you can tell what country someone is in by their IP address

\- people don't move from one country to another

\- well, at least companies don't move from one country to another

\- a country has a single language

\- a country has a single currency

\- a currency is used in a single country

\- the currency used in a country doesn't change over time

\- a country has a single legal system

\- a country has a single tax system

...

<comment><USER7> \- a country has a single language

Really? Do people _actually_ believe this?

Some "common" counties off the top of my head:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Switzerland) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Belgium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Belgium) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Canada](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Canada)

<comment><USER6> Yes - that's one of the assumptions implicit in using flags to pick languages

Let me also add: the only languages spoken in a country are the official languages of that country

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> DB Error - cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?strip=1&q=cache...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:d7LeIoy8OkwJ:wiesmann.codiferes.net/wordpress/%3Fp%3D15187+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

<comment><USER9> well, sorry about that, I am a bit AFK and cannot correct the situation until I go home...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This list was clearly made by someone from Switzerland. Other countries have plenty of other crazy examples.

Someone else already pointed out that the city that houses the Dutch government has to different, equally valid names (and is also not the capital).

Not only are there addresses that lack street names, there are also addresses that lack house numbers or towns. It wouldn't surprise me if there are addresses that lack a zip/postal code in a country that normally uses them.

Then there's reassigning addresses to other houses. The original building stays, but gets a new address. I'm a victim of this: a nearby swimming pool had my address until 15 years ago, but I still get a ton of their mail. Clearly in those 15 years, a lot of their contacts never bothered to update their address data. (Or maybe nobody expects a swimming pool to move.)

Edit: Beyond regular enclaves, there's of course also the crazy of Baarle- Nassau and Baarle-Hertog. It's bits of Belgian enclaves in Netherland, some of which in turn contain Dutch enclaves. The country you're in can change every other house. It's possible all your neighbours live in a different country than you. I'm not sure if it's possible a single house is in two different countries at the same time. Maybe the front door in one country and the back door in another? Exactly who gets to maintain the streets, I have no idea.

Links: [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Baarle- Nassau&hl=en&ll=51.442...](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Baarle- Nassau&hl=en&ll=51.44256,4.932003&spn=0.079177,0.227108&sll=51.445137,4.929523&sspn=0.158345,0.454216&hnear=Baarle- Nassau,+North+Brabant,+The+Netherlands&t=m&z=13)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle- Nassau](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau)

<comment><USER11> There are buildings that are in both Canada and the USA. I'm not sure if there are any houses like that but there might be. The two places that this happens are near the Pacific coast, and the border between the province of Quebec and several US states.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Also, pretty subtle thing.. but places are constantly moving due to plate tectonics and continental drift.

A GPS position describing a location will slowly go out of date over time.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_plate_motion_2008-0...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_plate_motion_2008-04-17.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER13> The one about "buildings do not move" is hilarious. People hardly believe this if you tell them about that. But this happens quite often now (although not always by such a large distance). Sometimes it's cheaper to move a building and being able to then use the free place for something's that is more profitable (protection of historical monuments vs. money made).

But I don't know if such a moved building necessarily keeps its address.

<comment><USER14> >The one about "buildings do not move" is hilarious.

In Sweden, the whole _city_ of Kiruna (complete with church, town hall, schools, shops and a station) is moved two miles to the east.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/and-you- thoug...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/and-you-thought- moving-house-was-stressful-huge-iron-ore-mines-underneath-kiruna-in-swedens- far-north-have-caused-cracks--now-officials-are-relocating-the-whole- city-8798772.html)

<comment><USER15> A similar thing happened with the Capital of Egypt when the Nile changed course [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi- Ramesses#History](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-Ramesses#History)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A couple other oddities of geography I have noticed as a geospatial system developer.

\- Outside the US and Europe things tend to get really wacky with geography and geospatial data. Many GIS products are licensed per country for this very reason.

\- In the US, zip codes are the most terrible type of geography to use for any meaningful analysis, as they are constantly changing and do not actually have defined borders. Zip codes are basically just labels that get appended to street segments.

\- If you look in the back of the ~200 page pdf that comes with most digital geographic data, you will find an appendix. 99% of the appendix is a section typically called "disputed territories", and 99% of the disputed territories are China claiming to own another nation. I never realized quite the extent of the megalomania until I read a few of those.

</comment><comment><USER17> > Places have only one official name per language

Better example could perhaps be The Hague (Den Haag or 's- Gravenhage in dutch). It also an example for the first and third one (dutch doesn't use 's (or des) nor den anymore)

edit: oh and it's also the seat of the government but not the capital

<comment><USER18> > Better example could perhaps be The Hague (Den Haag or 's- Gravenhage in > dutch).

I don't think so, the official name is 's-Gravenhage, even though many people and official organizations use Den Haag.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm surprised nobody has already mentioned this (or I just missed it):

\- A country means the same thing as a nation-state (for a counterexample, see the UK)

An Americanism I've often encountered in postal address forms:

\- Every country has something equivalent to "states" and your "state" is a mandatory part of an address

</comment><comment><USER20> Falsehoods geographers believe about server setups - [http://wiesmann.codiferes.net/wordpress/?p=15187&lang=en](http://wiesmann.codiferes.net/wordpress/?p=15187&lang=en)

</comment><comment><USER21> How about 0 meters in wgs84 lat lon (what you get from most GPS) is sea level everywhere?

More info for those that asked: [http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html](http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> "Falsehoods programmers believe" is the new "X considered harmful"

<comment><USER23> Maybe, but not nearly as harmful as nearly all of those X considered harmful articles were.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I grew up in a house whose street address (before 911) was "House 313 behind the School". UPS was happy with that address, but other delivery carriers had some issues.

USPS didn't do home mail delivery, so the PO Box we kept was fine for them, but a lot of folks insist on a "physical address" and didn't like "House 313 behind the School". 911 has changed this in rural communities by giving a street address that means something to the police & fire, but means little to the people living there.

</comment><comment><USER25> Rather than documenting all of the incorrect assumptions programmers make by topic, it might be easier to list the ones that they make that _are_ correct.

</comment><comment><USER26> _most french persons have no clue how to type the "ÿ" character_

Not true. ÿ is very simple to type on a french keyboard, it's like ë (eg Noël), with a different letter.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8B#French_and_Dutch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8B#French_and_Dutch)

</comment><comment><USER7> Addresses map to physical locations that never change or rarely change.

counterexample - military mail (APO/FPO)

</comment><comment><USER27> A experienced developer know that any data/code concerning names, addresses and locations is more complex and error prone than an apprentice realizes.

</comment><comment><USER28> Here's one I've run into a lot that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

\- Any location within a US state will also be within a county.

Virginia treats incorporated cities as county-level entities which are not part of any county. It looks like Baltimore, MD is the only example of this outside Virginia, and so it's not encountered often.

When people ask about county, giving the independent city is generally the "correct" answer, but sometimes it leads to confusion. I remember having to explain to a loan officer, who you'd think would be up on the details of the states they operate in, that my "county" was in fact "Alexandria City" and there wasn't any other sort of answer they could get.

Just recently, I recall checking out some project linked here on HN which needed to know what county I lived in. I currently live in Fairfax County in a zip code that also includes the City of Fairfax. After giving it my zip code, it then gave me two choices for county: "Fairfax" and "Fairfax".

</comment><comment><USER28> I grew up in a tiny village in rural Virginia (maybe 50 houses in total) and we had no address. Mail got delivered to a post office box that was conveniently in the post office next door. For UPS deliveries, we would literally give them the address, "Next to the post office, on the east side."

Every so often we'd get a delivery driver with a poor sense of direction, and he'd give the package to the people on the other side of the post office instead. Aside from that, it worked great.

<comment><USER29> My brother once sent a letter by post to a friend; from Yokohama, Japan to suburban Sydney, Australia. He couldn't remember his friends address but he remember the directions to walk from his friend's local post office; so that's what he wrote as the address, the instructions to walk from the post office to his friend's house. The letter was delivered just fine. In fact the story of its delivery made the front page of a national newspaper (Column 8, Sydney Morning Herald, national edition).</comment></comment>


Sleep Cycle aware Alarm Clock App using iPhone Accelerometer - <AUTHOR> http://www.lexwarelabs.com/sleepcycle/ <comment><USER2> I'm using this application for a few weeks now. The application needs to be calibrated for the first few days, but after that it works really well. I'm pleasantly surprised by the accuracy of the application and the ease of use. The low price ($0.99) makes it easy to try it out too, so if you care about these kind of things, I can recommend it.

One thing I've noticed is that in your sleep, you're sometimes rolling over while being "half awake": you wouldn't remember it if you would fall back asleep, but if you're inside the specific timeframe you've set your alarm to, this application will wake you up, and you indeed do feel more fresh than coming out of a deep sleep.

And the charts are nice too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just have a look at their FAQ to see how badly apple's closed development model hurts applications all over the place. For this application to really work, there's a huge list of precautions you have to take and most of them are based on the fact that third-party apps don't enjoy the same API as the apple based ones do.

The app doesn't work if you lock the phone, the app doesn't support the iPod Touch, the phone needs to be connected to power because there's no concept of different (hardware) sleep states.

And of course, the app would not wake you up if you were to get a phone call or SMS during the night.

Most of these limitations would go away on open hardware with an open SDK.

</comment><comment><USER4> How long before mattresses with the built-in accelerometers start producing? I actually don't move that much, so for it'd be safer bet to have the accelerometers in many places.

<comment><USER5> Smart Mattresses™

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking at the screenshots, it seems that you place your phone at one corner of your bed as you sleep. I am surprised that this would work. Does anyone here have an opinion? There are quite a few critical reviews that say it doesn't.

<comment> brown9-2 I'm curious if anyone knows how this type of solution would work if there is more than one person sleeping in your bed.

Wouldn't two people in the same bed be pretty likely to not have synchronized sleep cycles? Or would they be synchronized? Anyone know about this?

<comment><USER2> From the FAQ:

"How well does Sleep Cycle work with 2 people sharing a bed?

Our experience is that it works very well. Normally your body will "block" the movement of the other person and the iPhone will not detect that movement. You can test this yourself by using the test function in Sleep Cycle."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How did they figure out how to make this, e.g., what movements constitute different sleep states? Are there research papers on this?

I wonder if you could use changes in body temperature instead? (Obviously not using an iPhone though.)

<comment><USER8> There are some papers about it. Look at the discussion for the wakemate, a month ago or so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm guessing, since I sleep in the same bed as my wife and my daughter's new puppy, that this would have no chance of working with me.

</comment><comment><USER10> What happens if I get an e-mail or sms during the night? Will the vibrator cause the app to think I am awake?

</comment><comment><USER11> It doesn't work with Tempura mattresses though, which I have. I haven't felt so cheated in a long while ...

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm waiting for WakeMate.

</comment><comment><USER13> Aww, I was hoping you strap it to your head</comment>


Obama: No Allegations NSA Is Trying to 'Listen in On People's Email' - <AUTHOR> http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-no-allegations-people-are-trying-listen-peoples-email_750065.html

<comment><USER2> The sad part is all these denials do is heighten my awareness of political double-speak.

Of _course_ no one is trying to "listen in on people's email". You don't _listen_ to emails. Says nothing that people's emails aren't being read, scanned, or indexed. But I'm sure I agree with the President that nobody is "listening" to them.

I thought at one point my cynicism couldn't possibly get any worse...</comment>


Ask HN: What do you think of a "varying ringtone"? - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
I have this buisness idea where I create a way for ringtones to slightly vary on each call, either in rythm, tonality or timbre.
This could be done algorithmically, by ensuring the ringtone does not deviate too much from what one can recognize as your phone ringing, but at the same time to vary over time to keep it interesting, suprising, and not end up as an obnoxious sound.
How does the HN audience feel about this? Would you use it?
and would this be feasible to implement in Android and iOS ? <comment> chad-autry As a business idea I don't think it would take off. I had a somewhat related project idea to rotate ringtones.

Such an idea can be done on Android, but would have been impossible on iOS (at the time, have not looked into it since).

It was mildly popular for download on the store, but supporting issues on various phones was a hassle, and Android update occasionally changed the required APIs. Currently the project is broken and on the back-burner to get it fixed again. However, it is freely available if you want a look.

[https://github.com/chad-autry/rototone](https://github.com/chad- autry/rototone)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, this is awesome. Thanks for sharing. Happy to know I'm not the first one to think about it. While it may be a niche thing, it proves that there is actually an audience for it. Did you have a price set for it? Did you do any kind of marketing for it?

<comment> chad-autry It is true I didn't market it, so possible it suffered a bit from that. Some of the 'Doesn't work on my device' comments were a bit unexpected (and unsolvable without $$$ to test on the devices), so I didn't want to spend money promoting it with issues. I was charging $3 I think, it has been awhile.

There was another seemingly popular paid ringtone app at the time, but I can't recall what it was. And a search now for 'android ringtone app' now brings up lists of 'Top X ringtone apps of 2018/2019' populated exclusively by free apps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I don't understand the problem this solves or value it brings. Morning alarms get annoying with repetition, not ringtones. I'd pivot to dynamic/generated morning alarms if I were you

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, thanks for the feedback!</comment></comment>


What To Do With Your Millions - <AUTHOR> http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-to-do-with-your-millions.html <comment><USER2> I've been pretty disappointed that I haven't heard people mention charitable donations as something to do once you've hit it big. That we have talents and opportunities makes us pretty damn lucky and helping out the unfortunate -- not just the less fortunate -- shouldn't be ignored.

<comment><USER3> That's a pretty difficult topic of its own. Philanthropy is like investing, except much more difficult. The good news is, like investing, you have time to think and learn.

Philip Greenspun has some interesting thoughts: <http://philip.greenspun.com/non-profit/> and <http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/>

<comment><USER4> Plus, it is very difficult to tell if charitable giving is actually helping or if it is only helping people to rely on you.

<comment><USER5> Wow. I couldn't disagree more.

I grew up the child of missionaries in Central America in the 70's and 80's. My parents ran a school for Hondurans during a time when 1 out of 100 kids graduated from High School. Half the students paid tuition and half were scholarship students.

In 1997, my parents went back to Honduras to help with the disaster relief after a hurricane destroyed much of the Honduran infrastructure.

And over the course of 6 months they were there, they had dozens and dozens of former students find them after hearing that they were in the country, and they stopped by to say "thank you". Those former students were now Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Company owners etc...

So, I'd disagree rather heartily with the idea that charity increases dependency.

<comment><USER6> While your point about the help your family gave and the long term impact they made is totally valid, you are missing the point I think. The incorrect assumption you're making is that charitable donation == starting a school and teaching self-sufficiency.

I think that the good kind of charitable giving is exactly what your parents did, going and teaching a valuable skill that others can use to help themselves. I guess it foes back to the "education is the key" mantra that so many people tout, but it's true.

So while I disagree with your post and I believe that many, if not most, of charitable donations are poorly spent, siphoned off by bureaucracy, or otherwise wasted, teaching people skills is a type of charity that I would support.

Though the model you post about sounds like it was actually quasi-charity, as students had to pay for the classes. This I believe is the best of both worlds, as it allows do-gooders (your parents and other donors who supported the program) to do good, but it also requires sacrifice from the student and their families, which builds character and makes it more likely that the gift will be recognized for what it is and appreciated - and that the person will go and do likewise for others.

From my iPhone - excuse typos etc

<comment><USER5> _I disagree with your post and I believe that many, if not most, of charitable donations are poorly spent_

Really? I'd be interested to hear why you think that. Are you speaking from personal experience? Have you been involved with different charities and been dismayed or shocked when you looked at how poorly run or wasteful they were?

I gave just one example of what my parents did. But, I was surrounded by people that worked for Christian missionary agencies, and non-religious organizations overseas while growing up. They all did a wide variety of things from straight religious work, education, running hospitals, building houses, schools, wells, teaching better agricultural techniques, etc...

All of that was funded by donations to the non-profits that they were working for. If you want to call that other work "quais-charity" I guess that's up to you. But, I've been involved in the grass roots with many different non- profit's and that's pretty much what the vast majority of them do.

I can't think of a single organization out of the dozens that I personally interacted with that simply handed out cash to people.

<comment><USER7> Haiti GDP graph:[http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=ny_gdp_mk...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:HTI&dl=en&hl=en&q=haiti+GDP+graph)

Haiti population graph: [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=sp_pop_to...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:HTI&dl=en&hl=en&q=haiti+population)

Haiti Unemployment: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haitiunemployment.GIF>

Haiti aid: (for relative scale of aid) <http://www.devex.com/articles/haiti- aid-facts>

USA GDP graph: [http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=ny_gdp_mk...](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb- wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:HTI&dl=en&hl=en&q=haiti+GDP+graph#met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:HTI:USA)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      Go for a walk in the park. Appreciate the trees.

I knew this was coming. You can, and should, do that regardless of whether you have millions or not.

<comment><USER9> Maybe this becomes more important in the case when you have millions.

<comment><USER8> It does. But I think it's even more important on your way to making that first million. It keeps you sane.

<comment><USER10> Has anyone else failed to parse or understand the logical structure of this thread? This is what I see.

Your parent poster: x > y

You: Yes, but y > x

<comment><USER11> Almost, but I think nreece was separating out people who are on their way to their first million, and people who are not. Which makes sense really - it's stressful building something big.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _First, it's important to understand that once you have the basics, happiness comes primarily from healthy social connections and a sense of purpose._

 _Many people with jobs have a fantasy about all the amazing things they would do if they didn't need to work. In reality, if they had the drive and commitment to do actually do those things, they wouldn't let a job get in the way. Unfortunately, if given a lot of money, they are much more likely to end up addicted to crack, or even worse_

I used to watch a lot of cable TV (10-20 hours a week) and from time to time I would hit upon one of those celebrity biographies. As much as they tried to spin it, suddenly becoming rich and famous usually destroyed people's lives.

Meanwhile, some family friends we know who never made a lot of money retired, joined an RV traveling community. Every year the same bunch of people take several months touring the country. It is not very expensive. They are having the time of their life.

The point is this: Paul's advice is good even without the money. Social interactions (I would add travel) and a sense of purpose are foundational to happiness.

Somebody said once that money is a magnifier. It takes whatever character traits you already have and exaggerates them. I'm not an expert or anything, and I'd certainly like to be better off than I am, but I'm willing to bet that giving 5 or 10 million bucks to most people would be about the same in the long run as shooting them in the head.

<comment><USER13> Happiness, by its very nature and definition, is rooted in _feeling_ pleasure about the _happenings_ and circumstances of life. It's fickle and never guaranteed.

Joy and peace (a positive confidence despite the sad or happy circumstances) comes from having a set of principles one adheres to and complete self acceptance.

Paul's advice here is utterly incorrect and sounds ridiculous to even read:

 _...if you quit your job and move to a new city where you don't know anyone or have a clear purpose, there's a good chance that you'll end up depressed or even suicidal._

Seriously? People should spend less time seeking happiness (a fickle emotion), and spend more time becoming at peace with themselves, because inner peace will carry you through no matter the circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> With limitless resources, how do you determine what is truly worth your time?

When do you think, "okay, this project is worth a chunk of my life," and then stick with it?

And then, once you do finally stick with something, something better will come along eventually. What do you do then? You're not tied to your job like a normal person, so you can't say, "if only I had the freedom, I would do that better thing..."

I had never realized how much meaning the "institution" gives to life.

<comment><USER15> That applies to anyone with enough savings to sustain a reasonable period of unemployment and enough skills that a variety of organizations would want to have you. In the computer field, that should be most decent programmers that have been out of college for more than 18 months or so.

I don't really understand this idea of being tied to a job. I'm not wealthy, I'm not financially independent. But if something better comes along, I _do_ have the freedom to go do that instead. It doesn't really take all that much - a few years living expenses and a few marketable skills give you all the cushion you need.

And then, of course, you're faced with the "what do I do with my life" question. But I thought all 20-somethings (well, all middle-class 20-somethings in developed nations) faced that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> More words of wisdom from PB! Especially the bit about people still needing a sense of purpose even though they might not _have_ to work anymore.

</comment><comment><USER17> The letter from Buffet where he outlines how Wall Street has just turned into a source of friction slowing down "real" industry is gold.

[http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fort...](http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fortune/index.htm)

</comment><comment><USER18> The original Ask HN post he speaks about is probably a lie anyway. But that doesn't make it a good conversation starter.

"I'm a 20 year old guy who sold his company last month for $5m in cash. I really don't know what to do with the money or how to manage it. I never gave it a thought and now suddenly I have $5m."

You'd think he'd be smart enough, given he's just made $5m at 20. No further comments left by radicaltype either.

<comment><USER19> I doubt it's a lie. what would be the motivation? There's very little trolling on HN. I see no reason to doubt its authenticity.

<comment><USER20> Do you have showdead on? Do you scroll to the bottom of every post? It seems like every third post has garnered a squadron of useless flip replies that sit at -4 or dead. A troll post of this variety is almost on the level of effort of the one word "yes" and "no" posts that show up when the headline is a question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is all reasonable.

The day before google went IPO and created new millionares, they brought in John Bogle to advise them to stay away from mutual funds or whatever and at the riskiest, stick to index funds if they were comfortable with risk and then just put the rest into stable investments if they weren't.

<comment><USER22> An interesting piece of advice I got from my finance professor way back when: Put your money into either index funds (or the more liquid, cheap to get out of Index Future) or treasuries. If you are risk adverse, do more treasuries, if you are more risk taking do more funds (or if you really want to take on risk, lever up). But always stick with these assets, as they are much more reliable than mutual funds or the ilk.

Not sure what he'd say now. US treasuries arent the sure bet they were 5 years ago and who wants to put any money into the movement of the S&P? There is something attractive to me in having a few gold bars in a Swiss lock box, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Financial advisers are great for people who currently are invested 90-100% in Gold or a stock they saw on Mad Money last night. But if have enough sense to be diversified and are interested in learning about managing your money you are better managing it on your own.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's good to see Paul getting recognized for his expertise in this area. He was ignored and downvoted earlier: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1245906>

</comment><comment><USER25> "RAID for money"

and i was like, "go on..."

<comment><USER26> The analogy doesn't quite hold. The key idea behind a Redundant Array of Independent Disks is that under the assumption that disk failures occur independently with known probability, you can compute the probability of the array remaining intact.

In contrast, with a Redundant Array of Insolvent Banks, there is a very high correlation between bank failures -- but you're saved by the FDIC per-bank insurance limit. You're not modelling your risk based on known probability distributions; you're eliminating your risk entirely (at least as long as you trust the FDIC).

<comment><USER27> _You're not modelling your risk based on known probability distributions; you're eliminating your risk entirely (at least as long as you trust the FDIC)._

To (over?)extend the analogy further, there's always the possibility of a controller failure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I know this goes against common sentiment. But I am going to disagree with the notion of going on your own and just investing in index funds.

It's not as easy as it sounds to stay consistent with it over time (years, decades). I did all the research, read a bunch of books, and used up a lot of my time when I was looking into investing. I picked an asset allocation strategy, and planned to contribute regularly and rebalance annually.

That just didn't happen. Rebalancing annually didn't. Contributing in a timely fashion didn't. My income goes up and down, I have to pay quarterly estimates, so I do keep some degree of excess cash. invariably, I forget to invest the difference for long periods of time.

In the end I hired a financial person to just handle it and manage my money. Yes, there is a drag on returns because of it. But the alternative was being out of the market for periods of time, or off balance. Anyway, just another opinion.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure that wasn't my advice though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> i suggest people in a similar circumstance watch LE NOTTI DI CABIRIA. it doesn't seem like it's on topic, but it may be (incidentally, i just saw the film and thought it was pretty good).

anyway, money is such a hard thing for so many people in the world. my biggest advice, if you don't have a lot of ideas for research projects yourself, is probably to put yourself on a path where you can find people who truly need help that you can partly provide. it has to interest you or else it won't be sustainable. but if you can, with patience, find that path, you'll have locally maximized the use of the money just as you've largely maximized making money.

</comment><comment><USER30> If I have Million$, I will:

1\. Put it in a bank for my security (living on interest if that how you call it) 2\. Quit my job 3\. Go some place cheap (probably asian countries) 4\. Then just enjoy every minute of my time with my family

</comment><comment><USER31> _Sometimes, good fortune can also make people feel guilty_

Fortune, which comes from Greek goddess _Fortuna_ might actually bring both good and bad luck. Like, always only hearing the lottery winners stories and dismissing millions of losers, we take the good luck notion of Fortuna and leave the bad luck out of her.

</comment><comment><USER32> I always wonder why more millionaires aren't building the next iphone or a new operating system. Maybe playing with AI theories.

I mean, am I the only hacker who dreams of being a mad scientist, where I can have teams of people working on all the many new idea's I have. I'm frankly pissed, I want my hoverboard. :)

<comment><USER33> Because you need to be a billionaire to successful at those.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> ("Money can also mess with your identity in bad ways. It's important to remember that we're all made of the same shit, some people are just a little luckier than others")++;

</comment><comment><USER35> Paul, while you're on subject, please explore the 'purpose' finding journey in a blog post. If you think out loud about this, I'd like to read it.

</comment><comment><USER36> To me, this pandered to a lot of purposes and ideals all in the same blog post

<comment><USER3> Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

<comment><USER37> "Pander to" is rarely used positively.

<comment><USER3> I know, but lacking a how or why, I thought perhaps there was another explanation :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm surprised, given this is from Paul, that angel investing is not mentioned.

<comment><USER39> Tim - he says "avoid long-term or illiquid investments, though it's fine to put a few percent into random things such as starups, but understand that you'll probably lose that money, so consider it an educational expense."

<comment><USER38> I probably should've been more clear with what I meant -- I might've also avoided getting downvoted below 0 if I had.

I am surprised that someone discussing what to do with your money (in the context of selling your company and being posted on Hacker News) _and_ discussing what to do with your life did not mention the possibilities angel investing offers beyond trying to make more money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I yearn for the day when I have this problem.

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't remember exactly what is the name of this bias, but people used to believe that if one is successful in some field, say, programming, he is also authoritative in completely different fields, such as philosophy or finance. =)

Actually, it is exactly the opposite, just because you need to spend almost entire life (at least most of your time) to become a real pro in any field, say a medical doctor or system engineer, or philosopher.

'Start early and evolve' is an universal mantra, which is correct in sports, music, languages, communication skills, etc. So, the idea is very simple - stay near your field and do not try to compete with those, who were spent half of their life on it. Or at least do not try to teach. =)

You wouldn't join the boxing championship just because you're famous computer engineer? Would you? =)

</comment><comment><USER42> heya. i would like to donate some like to spend some..</comment>


Swinging the Vote? - <AUTHOR> https://themarkup.org/google-the-giant/2020/02/26/wheres-my-email <comment><USER2> People who want to trash this study with the same old "Have they thought of $obvious_counterargument?" should first browse through their GitHub repo: [https://github.com/the-markup/investigation-wheres-my- email](https://github.com/the-markup/investigation-wheres-my-email)

I did and I have gone through the mbox files and I cannot find anything that would explain the curious difference. That is not to say that there isn't a rational explanation, the probably is, but please give the study authors some credit. They aren't dumb.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think Alex Stamos' take on this is pretty good: [https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1232687398250639361?s=...](https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1232687398250639361?s=20)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd imagine this is almost entirely due to scale - Yang probably sends each email to <100k users while Warren/Bloomberg have 25MM+ list sizes.

Typically an email sent to 25 million people is less important than one sent to 100k, and so should be sent to promotions.

<comment><USER5> I doubt that. 100k is already very, very far into the range of likely promotion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would prefer to send them _all_ to a Politics inbox, to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's just an algorithm. Not a big conspiracy. You can definitely influence in which folder you end up. Seems like Buttigieg's team has done a better job at it.

<comment><USER8> Oh, yes? Pete B is clearly the cabal candidate, so why not assume it's part of the conspiracy?

Google has clearly lied (based on the blacklists that whistleblowers have released) about their political bias.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone else find the relentless grind of errors disheartening? - <AUTHOR>

I love software development except that I find it is an absolutely relentless grind of error after error.
Is this anyone else's experience? Or do you find it all smooooooooth sailing?
Perhaps its just because I'm learning new stuff at the moment. <comment><USER3> Yes, but then I just fix them and they're no longer errors.

Software errors are really the easiest kind of mistakes to fix. The compiler doesn't have any feelings, it doesn't care, it just prompts you to fix things until you get it right. Wait'll you blow up a relationship, or make a fool of yourself in public, or cost your company a few million dollars.

<comment><AUTHOR> Much of my development seems to happen outside of compilers, in browsers, in build systems, trying to make things integrate and talk to each other - <USER2> where there is no formal error checking capability. Ugh.

<comment><USER4> Test your code--it helps a lot here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When it comes to traditional programming languages, no. Thanks to test driven development, static analysis, and experience I feel like I very rarely have to track legitimate errors and more often than not either something changed elsewhere or the requirements have changed (which is a feature, not an error in my mind).

With CSS in particular but JavaScript to a degree, yes it can get frustrating. You will often deploy something which works fine on all current gen' browsers, only for months to years later have it break in unexpected ways and maybe then in only one major browser (but now the "fix" has to be tested in all of them).

I will say JavaScript is getting "better." If you stay away from bleeding edge stuff and use things like "use strict" and popular libraries (e.g. jQuery) not only is it largely now "someone else's problem" (e.g. jQuery updates the library with the fix) but you also see less breaking changes because a lot of features and functions are locked.

CSS, to me, hasn't improved as browsers continue to break fairly old functionality and libraries only add competing styles rather than supersede and simply things. It is also impossible to write tests against, and even if you could one browser version later and your test can be wrong.

Just recently Firefox broke because of how an overflow: auto was handled. No other browser, just Firefox, and even then just during a random normal browser update not a major update revision. We had to fix by adding a float: left to that element and then test it in Safari, Chrome, IE10/Edge, and Opera. We only discovered this issue by luck, otherwise it would have entirely broken a major user facing menu.

That's the problem with having no tests for CSS, there's no red flags to warn when stuff breaks.

</comment><comment><USER6> Linters are a huge help for me since I fix as I create. Testing also helps since its far easier to have an automated build and test process that will tell me what went wrong then having to manually compile and check each part for erros.</comment>