What happens when you ask people to draw a bike (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gianlucagimini.it/prototypes/velocipedia.html <comment><USER2> Drawing and painting is almost entirely a visual skill. The mechanical skills of wielding a pencil or mixing paint are almost trivial; the hard part is being able to _see_ what's actually there.

A bicycle is an incredibly simple visual form. You can doodle one in about five seconds. They're not rare or unusual objects and they're relatively homogenous. Nonetheless, most people have never actually _seen_ a bicycle. They've looked, but they haven't understood its form, they haven't decomposed it into lines and shapes. They know that it has two wheels, a chain, a saddle and some handlebars, but they've never actually noticed the shapes that join them together.

[https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain- Definitive/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain- Definitive/dp/1585429201/)

<comment><USER3> > A bicycle is an incredibly simple visual form

I disagree, compared with most objects a human daily interacts with - doors, furniture, lifts, cars - a bicycle is one of the most complex visible forms. I'm talking about what can be seen from outside, since obviously a car is much more complex on the inside.

Most of the stuff we deal with is composed of square/boxes and circle/tubes. Triangular shapes are quite rare in human spaces (I don't have any in my house), and the bicycle critically has two triangles at it's core. Chains are also very rare. So I don't think it's a surprise that many struggle with the core - two triangles and a chain.

<comment><USER2> Clench your fist. Take a moment to notice the complexity of the geometry. Consider how you might reduce that shape to simple geometric forms. Consider how you might represent the three-dimensional form as a set of two-dimensional lines. Turn your hand around and look at it from a different angle. Open your fist and make an "OK" or a "peace" sign.

Go to your refrigerator and take out a lettuce leaf or a piece of broccoli. Look out of your window at a tree or a bush. Go to your bathroom and look at the toilet or the faucet. Look in the mirror and make a funny face.

A bicycle is more complicated than many rectilinear man-made objects, but it's a relatively straightforward collection of lines. Even the drawings in the linked article with their horribly mangled geometry are immediately recognisable as a bicycle. It's not a difficult thing to draw, relatively speaking.

<comment><USER4> You conflate geometry and topology * . The topology of the human hand is right in front of you to examine. A lettuce leaf is like a disk plus a wavy boundary and noise. Broccoli is a tree. A bicycle is topologically complex object with high genus. A bad drawing of a hand can still has the right connectivity, it could be smoothly deformed into a realistic hand. Not true for most of these bicycle drawings.

* using "topology" to refer to the graph structure of the skeleton of the solid, not the typical mathematical meaning.

<comment><USER5> > it could be smoothly deformed into a realistic hand.

It's probably a good thing that this isn't what defines a drawing as good. A bicycle frame has a couple straight lines and that's about it. A hand, or broccoli, has complex compound curves all over the place.

Ask any artist to draw a bicycle and it'll probably end up pretty good. Ask any artist to draw a hand and there's a good chance it'll not end up good, even when using reference material.

There's a reason a lot of artists have problems drawing hands.

<comment><USER6> Hands aren't hard to draw because hands are super complicated; hands are hard to draw because humans are evolutionarily finely tuned to recognize and be disgusted by distorted human bodies, which in nature is a signal of disease. Look at the diversity of broccoli proportion at the grocery, then imagine hands with the same diversity -- grotesquely long or lumpy or twisted, which too few or too many fingers. OTOH, cartoon hands, outside the uncanny valley, look fine, even when (as is common) missing a finger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you scroll down, the designer has produced images that match some of the ideas from the sketches. They are beautiful and mesmerizing.

At first I thought he had actually built out the physical bicycles from the sketches, but it turns out they are just computer renderings. Nonetheless it shows the power of "mistake" driven design, to generate novel ideas.

<comment><USER8> As odd at is - this[1] design has a couple elements that have been reproduced in the real world.

While the exact 2wd system shown in the rendering would have some real issues, 2wd mountain bike systems do exist. They can rely on impressively strange chain routing[2], a system of gears and internal shafts[3], or just an electric hub[4] (which is admittedly, not really the same thing).

As far as the one-sided frame goes, Canondale makes a one-sided fork called the Lefty[5], that's in mass production and reasonably popular. One-sided rear triangles only seem to exist on motorcycles, and there's an interesting discussion here[6] on why that's the case, with an example of a one-off "righty" bicycle.

[1] [http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/Gian...](http://www.gianlucagimini.it/wp- content/uploads/2016/03/Gianluca_Gimini-Velocipedia-7.jpg)

[2] [https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/all-wheel- drive-m...](https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-gear/all-wheel-drive- mountain-bike-test-ride/)

[3] [http://christinibicycles.com/](http://christinibicycles.com/)

[4] [https://newatlas.com/easy-motion-evo-awd-big-bud- ebike/54434...](https://newatlas.com/easy-motion-evo-awd-big-bud-ebike/54434/)

[5] [https://www.cannondale.com/en/International/Innovation/lefty...](https://www.cannondale.com/en/International/Innovation/lefty.aspx)

[6] [http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/why-dont-we- have-l...](http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/why-dont-we-have-lefty- rear-triangles-yet-1025959.html)

<comment><USER9> I didn't know about 2WD bikes existed! I'd love to try out to experience how it feels to drive 2WD.

The Lefty design also looks very interesting, do you have practical experience with it?

What an amazing comment full of new eye-opening information for me, thanks

<comment><USER8> I've ridden a lefty a couple times, and apart from the visuals, it didn't really feel unusual. I more or less didn't notice that I was on a lefty.

Here's an article that looks at it a bit more in depth: [https://factoryjackson.com/2016/02/18/cannondale-lefty- the-s...](https://factoryjackson.com/2016/02/18/cannondale-lefty-the-story-of- half-a-fork/)

I haven't tried a 2WD, but everything I've read suggests that the added weight and friction delivers pretty limited utility, at least in non-electric versions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There seems to be two things tested in this exercise. Technical drawing capabilities and knowledge of bicycle mechanics.

I assume most people that drew bicycles have ridden one, but there are a few basic common mistakes. The location of the pedals (closer to rear wheel, very near to floor), the way the chain operate, and the triangle frame are some examples. I did not notice anyone drawing details around the gear mechanisms nor the breaks. Many people demonstrated acceptable drawing technique while getting mechanical details of the bicycle incorrect.

I think this exercise highlights a great amount of ignorance around bicycles. I purpose society would benefit from better bicycle education. Better bicycle education might encourage bicycle adoption (needs testing to verify), and bicycle ridership improves climate change, obesity, traffic, and heart disease. In addition to increased adoption, bicycle education would improve bicycle safety.

Bicycle education as a semester long optional course in high school is a great reach goal. It could mirror driver education where teenagers learn traffic rules and laws, and also basic bicycle maintenance. Perhaps with enough active bicycle riding time it could count as a Physical Education credit.

A good first step would be more high quality videos and pamphlets on the topic of bicycle education.

<comment><USER11> Ask people to draw the powertrain or running gear of a car and you'd get much the same result.

<comment><USER12> Is that a good comparison? How often does the average person actually see either of those things? The reason it's surprising that people struggle to draw bikes from memory is that most of us see them all the time.

<comment><USER3> The brain doesn't work like a photo camera. It remembers strictly the minimum required to do it's job, in a highly abstract and compressed form.

How a bike fits together it's kind of irrelevant for most people, even if you ride one or if you must dodge one.

<comment><USER13> Which is effectively the point of the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds of of Character Amnesia[1] phenomenon, where people can forget how to write Chinese/Japanese characters, even though they know how to read them.

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

<comment><USER15> I know how to read Mississippi

<comment><USER16> I know how to read miscellaneous. (Thanks autocomplete.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It would be interesting to split the respondents into two groups, one who rides bikes regularly and one who doesn't, and compare the results.

The "2WD" ones are particularly perplexing.

On the other hand, I bet if you asked people to draw a car, 99% of them would draw something realistic --- it's the arrangement of the frame tubes on a bike that most people just haven't looked at in detail or remembered.

<comment><USER18> Pro cyclists asked to draw a bike in 15 seconds: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXwbgio5cU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXwbgio5cU)

<comment><USER19> Wonder how their mechanics would have done.

I think the only reason I could draw a bike with any accuracy is because my dad taught me how to fix it. Otherwise it would be a complete black box.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know if he redid this independently or failed to give credit, but here is an article [1] describing some similar experiments done by Rebecca Lawson. And a formal academic paper from 2006 [2].

[1] [https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/cycleweb.html](https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/~rlawson/cycleweb.html)

[2] [https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195929](https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03195929)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm looking at the third one down and wondering: why aren't all-wheel-drive bikes a thing? (Well, steering...)

I guess there is such a thing: [http://christinibicycles.com/](http://christinibicycles.com/) – sounds pretty complicated: 'A handlebar-mounted switch controls the AWD "shift on the fly" clutch. When the clutch is engaged, the rear spiral gear interlocks with the rear hub and power is transferred via internal shafts to the forward spiral gear set, which drives the CHRISTINI freehub. Due to a slight gearing differential, the front wheel is not actively powered on smooth level ground. However, the moment the rear wheel slips, power is instantaneously transferred to the front wheel. Similarly, the moment that the front wheel decelerates, as in hitting a rock or starting to wash out in a corner, power and traction are transferred to the front wheel.'

Makes me wonder if you could make an electric-assist bike where the assist was on the front wheel, thus saving all the complicated mechanical power transfer. I also suspect driving the front wheel feels crazy on a bike and I just don't realize it.

<comment><USER22> My electrib bike is AWD. Electric in the front and mechanical in the back. Very good for recovery on a patch of ice, impossible with just back wheel drive.

<comment><USER21> What does it feel like when you aren't peddling and it's just front-wheel drive?

<comment><USER22> It doesn't drive if no peddling, legal stuff here in sweden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think this is a great example that shows how our brains remember/recognize things. (Which may be help in machine learning)

This is how people have remembered a bike.

2 wheels, spaced apart Metal connecting Pedal in the middle Seat on top Handlebars connected to the front wheel.

The details of how it's connected, where, spacing, etc. Isn't really noted by our brains unless they see/use them often.

I wonder if this exercise could help use fine tune ML patterns.

<comment><USER24> I think it's funny how many comments give great importance to the object being a bicycle or the person being a bike rider to explain the output.

<comment><USER23> Agreed. It can really be anything. People don't look at things, they scan and store/recognize optimized patterns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder why such a high percentage of females attached the chain the the front wheel in their drawings

edit: a better way to phrase it would probably be: Of the drawings where the chain was attached to the front wheel, I wonder why such a large majority were done by females

<comment><USER26> I was surprised at the number of drawings that connected the front & rear wheels directly. I'm sure those would be fun to ride...

Also the number of bikes that were just structurally unsound, such as just the seat-stay attached to the rear wheel. Quite likely first bump you hit, things would not end well (if it even took that long). I'm not a mechanical engineer, but I did take a single class on statics in college, and that's enough for me to see that things would not end well (at least with current materials I'm aware of).

<comment><USER25> Agreed, some of the frames were surprising and quite funny. I've never ridden a bike professionally, or even as a serious hobby, but I would've guessed that way more people would at least get the general frame shape of a rhombus with 2 connected corners and the fork coming down from the front edge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In Firefox I had to go to readability mode for it to see, but the idea and execution is great!

Reminds me of the company that creates dolls how you design them: [https://www.childsown.com/](https://www.childsown.com/)

</comment><comment><USER28> I thought it was interesting how many of the wrong designs were similar to the lead image, with one central triangle and all other elements sprouting from it. It's tantalizingly close to the "standard" design, yet still incorrect.

I wonder how many of those people would _insist_ that their sketch is correct, even when confronted with the evidence of an actual bicycle for comparison...

</comment><comment><USER29> This is like what happens when you ask the client what they want the website to look like.

</comment><comment><USER30> If I sum up : a guy "pesters" (good way to make sure people do a bad job !) a lot of people to draw a bike, selects the 50 most flawed drawings, and HN commenters conclude "people are bad at drawing bikes"?

The experimental process is flawed on so many levels I'm amazed anyone is jumping to a conclusion besides "That's some funny looking bikes here!". Something the author reckons by refraining to conclude anything himself.

</comment><comment><USER31> I like this. Even if they wouldn't work, some of the designs are really beautiful when translated into 3D models.

It also sort of reminds me a bit of a minor collection I've been making of children's book illustrations of kites, which started out of a morbid fascination with how, despite how very simple an object a basic diamond kite is, very few of them get all the details right.

</comment><comment><USER32> I had to go look up pictures of actual bikes to confirm what (I think) is wrong with the lead picture.

I also wonder how I would have done in the blind.

<comment><USER33> For any still not seeing it: The chain stay from the bottom bracket is missing. The rear wheel should be held by a triangular arrangement of the frame, but the side of the triangle that runs parallel to the ground isn't there

<comment><USER32> I didn't want to mention what I thought was wrong because I didn't want to accidentally influence anybody else, especially if I wound up wrong.

But yeah, after giving it a good, long look, along with his mention that it would break when someone sat on it, I guessed that there should have been a bar between the back wheel and where the pedals are.

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure it _would_ break when you sat on it; the chain would be in tension, holding those two sections together and filling the task of that bar. The problem would be when you started to pedal, and that bar is not there to stop the chain from pulling the rear wheel towards the pedals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> That's odd I noticed this on some vector art just two minutes before seeing this story.

[https://www.cyclotricity.com/uk/custom/mix-match-your-own- co...](https://www.cyclotricity.com/uk/custom/mix-match-your-own-conversion- kit.html)

<comment><USER35> Not to mention the magic drive train.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> >> Some diversities are gender driven. Nearly 90% of drawings in which the chain is attached to the front wheel (or both to the front and the rear) were made by females.

It would be more interesting to know what percentage of drawings had the chain attached incorrectly, first- then how many of them were by female participants. If it was just a couple of drawings, there's not much "gender driven diversity" to speak of. Equally for the overcomplicated frames drawn by males, of course.

(Edit: I'm sorry to pick on such an irrelevant detail of this beautiful posting, but at this point anything that seems to allude to stereotypes about females not being comfortable with the function of complex mechanisms, grates; especially if it's using numbers to make a point).

<comment><USER37> I'm curious about more numbers, too, but even if it's 1 vs. 7 I think it's worth noting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Heh, when I was a kid I used to draw a lot, and I remember being bothered that I didn't know how to draw a bike, so back then I explicitly memorized the shapes (parallelogram in the back, and another line for the front wheels). Wonder if that's common for doodlers.

<comment><USER39> A parallelogram is missing the seat tube, which is a fairly important part of the bike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> To extend this a bit...

If you like watching any of the popular Gym Fail video channels on Youtube -- many people also have poor, or counter- intuitive notions of things like purpose built machines and the physical body mechanics/physics that marry up to them.

Recall is hard, but so is.. deciphering.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'd be interested to see this broken down by country. Do Dutch or Danish people draw more correct bicycles than Americans?

Another interesting thing would be to see if there's any reason why people draw bikes facing left or right. I feel like for me it's natural to draw vehicles facing right, so they'd drive in the direction that you read in. It seems that most of the drawings here are in the opposite direction. The cycle lane signs in New Zealand also face to the left [1].

[1] [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/traffic-control- devices-m...](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/traffic-control-devices- manual/sign-specifications/view/54)

</comment><comment><USER42> Some remind me of Pedersen's [1] which look ungainly and structurally unsound too.

[1] [http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/](http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/)

</comment><comment><USER43> When I applied to art school, I had to draw a bicycle as part of the admission evaluation. My peers would post their admission submissions online whether or not they were eventually admitted. If you search "RISD bicycle drawings", you'll see tons of bicycle drawings. They range from insanely photorealistic to simply abstract.

Obviously, we all used reference material to make sure our depiction was accurate. But it is nonetheless interesting to see what people come up with when trying to impress an art school admissions team.

</comment><comment><USER44> What happens when you ask people to make a mobile friendly website?

<comment><USER45> Most web design has been corrupted by mobile-friendly concepts. It's nice to finally see a site that isn't made crap by giant buttons, whitespace, and thin vertical scroll.

<comment><USER44> The site just didn't work on Safari Mobile without a huge bloated menu.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Little I knew this is actually a test that psychologists use to demonstrate > how our brain sometimes tricks us into thinking we know something even > though we don't.

This seems like a leap, or at least an oversimplification of what the author is referring to in psychology. I'm convinced that my attempt to draw a bicycle would be quite terrible, but I'm also convinced that I would be able to look at my drawing and judge it as terrible.

<comment><USER47> Most people don't do this check though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> So what's wrong with the bike?

<comment><USER49> missing a metal bar behind the chain

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This made me smile. I'm actually somewhat skilled as an artist (just compared to the average person) but I can assure you I have never drawn a respectable image of a bicycle. I really liked taking these sketches and making them more realistic. Maybe there is some genius hidden in these seemingly inaccurate sketches?

</comment><comment><USER51> These are somewhat amusing, but I'd have to say that if you asked a bike tech or anyone that spent any amount of time being their own bike mechanic, even with a very limited amount of artistic talent, there's virtually nothing to drawing a bike that would function adequately in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER52> I won't get the answer to that question, it seems, because their site doesn't work properly on mobile...

</comment><comment><USER53> I have done a lot of biking and saw this article a while back. It makes me look closely at every depiction of a bike I see. We have some pillows with bikes on them. I look close and notice the chainring is MONSTER huge, like a 60T. Whoever rides the bike on those pillows is not to be messed with.

</comment><comment><USER54> I find it strange that no one drew the bike projected on a plane other than the plane containing the wheels. No one drew the bike head-on or at an angle.

<comment><USER55> I speculate that the author created an expectation of a "quick, simple, sketch". Even an artist might prefer that plane, if they are expected to draw quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> reminds me of this meme that gets featured on reddit r/programmerhumor fairly often

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/5fyv4r/kir...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/5fyv4r/kirby_dev_team_attemps_to_draw_him_by_hand_xpost/)

</comment><comment><USER57> S02E06 of Brain Games asks a university class to do this - then they build each of the drawn bikes and attempt to ride them.

</comment><comment><USER58> I love this project! We got some prints of these for a family member who's a rabid cyclist and also one for our house.

</comment><comment><USER59> All the while we're still looking down on GANs. AI has surpassed average human level in this domain.

</comment><comment><USER60> I bet it would be hard going trough all of these and drawing a bike afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER61> Funny, this is RISD's infamous application requirement.

</comment><comment><USER62> These people went ahead and made the mistake bikes[0].

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXwbgio5cU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXwbgio5cU)

</comment><comment><USER63> Similar: draw an ant, top-down view.

Where DO the legs go?

<comment><USER55> Is this really a common misunderstanding? I thought everybody knew that ants have three body sections, and the legs attached to the middle. We learned this in elementary school. Putting legs on the head or the back section would create so many unnecessary complications.

<comment><USER63> > Putting legs on the head or the back section would create so many > unnecessary complications.

I mean, so would attaching a bicycle chain to the front wheel.

After all, why shouldn't an ant have one pair attached to its tail segment? 6 is a lot of legs to cram into the tiny middle segment.

I first partook in this exercise in a small group of STEM graduate students preparing for a youth teaching program. Maybe 2/3 of us got it wrong (myself included).

<comment><USER55> Thank you for this information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> when our programmer implemented exactly what PM required...LOL

</comment><comment><USER65> I've never seen a less mobile-friendly layout. Fixed decorative elements on the page forcefully covering content.

<comment><USER66> Agreed - Unreadable on iPhone 6

<comment><USER67> Funny. On my Samsung I just saw a non-mobile website and zoomed in.

So I guess...

Samsung > Iphone

<comment><USER67> This will get so many downvotes...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The in-game music of Turrican 2 [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNAWNEBXxps <comment><USER2> Now that MAME and various other emulators can be used in browsers, the plethora of video-game-play videos out there strike me as a bit of a bandwidth waste.

e.g. The HD stream of this video is 64 MB. The install files for the Amiga version of Turican 2 are about 1 MB.

How awesome would it be if there was a site where you could record an emulator play-session that would be played back for other people using emulation rather than captured video/sound? Not only would such a site use far less bandwidth, it could have some killer features like, "TAKE CONTROL". i.e. Say you're watching somebody's play-through of an an old game. When you get the urge to actually play that game, it's just a single click away!

There's definitely an opportunity here.

<comment><USER3> >> There's definitely an opportunity here.

A technical opportunity, not a business opportunity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The composer is Chris Huelsbeck [0]. Unquestionably one of the most important Western video game music composers.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> I remember meeting Chris Huelsbeck on one of those videogame trade shows in Cologne, Germany. He was a really humble and friendly guy, who'd chat with anyone. I was lucky to buy one of his first CDs, which featured most of the Turrican tracks. Also, thanks to the Factor 5 programmers who wrote the Amiga version !! Insanely talented, I still look up to them these days.

</comment><comment><USER3> Turrican 2 on Amiga - my favorite platformer of all time.

I've played it end to end so many times I can't count.</comment>


How Steve Jobs threw out US$10 billion - <AUTHOR> http://ca.yahoo.com/_ylt=AnVLN5163XCvgNugv9VN858y17V_;_ylu=X3oDMTNhODluMmpvBGEDZmluIGFwcGxlIDE5bWF5IHQEY2NvZGUDeXJkBGNwb3MDMQRnA2lkLTQwNjYEaW50bANjYQRwa2d2AzYEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RkLWZlYXQEc2xrA3RpdGxlBHNscG9zA0YEdGVzdAM3MTU-/SIG=13cpteu5k/**http%3A//ca.finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/article/yfinance/1601/apple-chief-blunders-on-options-swap

<comment><USER2> The article is not clear about the details. As far as I know options have a fixed expiration date. Shares don't. It's not clear when the options he exchanged for shares were supposed to expire and which was the market price at that moment.

</comment><comment><USER3> The marginal utility to someone at his age between 2 billion and 10 billion is functionally identical.

I'd contend his switch was very logical and turned out great for him.

</comment><comment><USER4> I also threw out 10 billion, and so did you. With the magical hindsight- looking-glass any of us could invest in the right stocks 10 years ago and make a killing today. Big deal.</comment>


History of the browser user-agent string (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/ <comment><USER2> And to think Larry Page wanted to be a "good net citizen" with his user-agent string:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.java/aSPAJO0...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.java/aSPAJO05LIU/ushhUIQQ- ogJ)

</comment><comment> mh-cx Hilarious.

To me the similarity to evolutional processes is striking. I mean, didn't biological evolution also give rise to sometimes bizarr creatures? They somehow coevolved with the other inhabitants in their niche.

Still they live their (sometimes not so) happy lifes.

What a weird world this is.

</comment><comment><USER3> And then Microsoft built Edge and tries to be Chrome too with UA as Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/42.0.2311.135 Safari/537.36 Edge/12.10136

<comment><USER4> The best thing that could happen is that Chrome would pretend to be Edge too, that would definitely kill UA sniffing for good, because there would now be two distinct browser engines with the same user-agent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've always thought the UA header should just be removed. Sniffing is a bad thing and analytics on it are mainly used to preemptively decide not to use features that you should just use feature detection for (and for tools like Google Analytics comes from the js lib not the UA header anyway). Plus it's so many wasted bytes.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use an extension to fake my UA to that of other browser+OS combinations. It's silly how many sites serve you different things based on the User-Agent still.

Google doesn't even work properly if I don't identify my browser - the results show but clicking them does nothing. I still fake the version and OS though.

</comment><comment><USER7> Note that the history of the WebKit/KHTML user agents is more complex than the article indicates.

</comment><comment><USER8> Since browser vendors are clearly out of their minds, it's up to users to end this mess and save a few bytes of traffic in the process: just set your user- agent string to something short (most browsers allow it without add-ons).

<comment><USER9> Not exactly what you are suggesting, but uMatrix has an option to once in a while switching user agent to random one from the list. This is implemented for privacy reasons.

Sadly there still some websites where you want to disable it though, because they block some features otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is great, I often wondered why the user agent strings are so the same between different browsers.

</comment><comment><USER11> This seems to date from 2008 [https://web.archive.org/web/20080904080055/http://www.webaim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20080904080055/http://www.webaim.org/blog/user- agent-string-history/)

<comment><USER12> Ok, we added 2008 to the title.</comment></comment>


Marriott to Pay $600K to Resolve WiFi-Blocking Investigation - <AUTHOR> https://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation

<comment><AUTHOR> Via [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Marriott-Blocked- Hotspots...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Marriott-Blocked-Hotspots-So- Users-Would-Use-Their-Pricey-WiFi-130745).

Also, Marriott's response at [http://www.prnewswire.com/news- releases/marriott-internation...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news- releases/marriott-internationals-statement-on-fcc-ruling-278050441.html) and [http://news.marriott.com/2014/10/marriott-internationals- sta...](http://news.marriott.com/2014/10/marriott-internationals-statement-on- fcc-ruling.html).

In summary, this was specific to one single property in Nashville, Tennessee; however, the ruling appears to be specifically against Marriott (it's unclear whether it applies to all the franchise locations, though).

They were basically sending de-auth packets for any foreign hotspots; something that's very easy to do; you can send these [http://bxr.su/o/net80211/ieee80211.h#IEEE80211_FC0_SUBTYPE_D...](http://bxr.su/o/net80211/ieee80211.h#IEEE80211_FC0_SUBTYPE_DEAUTH) via OpenBSD's hostapd (see [http://mdoc.su/o/hostapd.conf.5](http://mdoc.su/o/hostapd.conf.5)). There's even a way to cycle through all the channels from 1 to 14 (`hopper` keyword), sending these `deauth` packets to everyone; I've tried it as a test years ago --- it works (I think Reyk had a talk about it years back, which was what spiked my interest back then).

Allegedly, as per DSLR, some such `deauth` feature was available as an option in some Cisco equipment (which, allegedly, has since been removed from newer versions of said equipment).</comment>


Saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37703-3 <comment><USER2> "A church in South Korea sprayed salt water inside the mouths of followers out of a false belief it would help prevent the spread of the coronavirus, but by using the same spray bottle without disinfecting the nozzle, it resulted in 46 church-goers infected, authorities said on Monday."

[https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health- environment/article/30...](https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/health- environment/article/3075421/coronavirus-salt-water-spray-infects-46-church- goers)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but the reason it did not work is different:

"they put the nozzle of the spray bottle inside the mouth of a follower who was later confirmed as a patient, before they did likewise for other followers as well, without disinfecting the sprayer"

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also see [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31936-y](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31936-y)

These articles suggest saline water might actually be effective against coronaviruses and similar viruses, contrary to what WHO suggests.</comment>


A look beyond x86: OpenPOWER and AArch64 - <AUTHOR> http://lvalsan.web.cern.ch/lvalsan/processor_benchmarking/presentation/

<comment><USER3> \- Intel Xeon provides the best performance.

\- Power consumption of Intel systems at off, idle and full power states are less then of ARM64 and POWER8 ones

\- ARM 64-bit and Power 8 are currently providing a significantly lower performance / Watt than Intel

Damn.

<comment><USER4> I think Power 8 and the ARM are still on older Gen node. Xeon is on 22nm, with the latest Xeon on 14nm Broadwell.

So Intel wins on Fabs Tech. And this will not change for another 5 years.

<comment><USER5> The Intel chips (Xeon E3-1285L v3 - Haswell and Atom C2750 - Avoton) are both built on 22 nm. The Power 8 processor is using the same process size as the Intel parts, 22 nm. The ARM 64-bit Applied Micro X-Gene 1 SoC tested is on 40 nm. X-Gene 2 is on 28 nm and X-Gene 3 will be build using a 16 nm process. X-Gene 2 is apparently sampling now but we didn't get access to it yet, nor have we seen any publicly available platform using it. Once we'll get access (which should happen soon) to Xeon-D (Broadwell-DE) using a 14 nm process size, the results will be added to the repository at [http://lvalsan.web.cern.ch/lvalsan/processor_benchmarking/](http://lvalsan.web.cern.ch/lvalsan/processor_benchmarking/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Little bit disappointed by the POWER8 data. I guess it would start paying bigger dividends in scale up systems, but the power and thermals are a little shocking - I think there may need to be some tuning and AFAICT Linux may not be running on bare metal.

Same for ARM, but I guess the sweet spot there is scale out.

Intel has been putting out amazing chips since Haswell.

We need the others to do well to keep them honest and innovative.

<comment><USER7> The one big advantage of power architecture is memory bandwidth. Power8 has 230GB/s sustained on a 12 core chip while Xeon Haswell-EP has 102GB/s on 12 core. This means you need more parallelism (=harder to program) and more sockets to get the same speed on Xeons vs. Power8 for memory-bandwidth-limited problems (which >50% of HPC applications are). Power8 has I believe ~50% higher TDP than Xeons, so even in performance per watt for memory bandwidth limited problems, you are still ahead, especially considering all the components you need to power besides the socket.

TLDR; These things are for a specific segment of HPC, albeit the one that doesn't care too much about Linpack performance.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8) [2] [http://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2014/09/08/Memory- Performan...](http://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2014/09/08/Memory-Performance- for-Intel-Xeon-Haswell-EP-DDR4-596/)

<comment><USER8> You should be careful on the memory bandwidth. The more recent xeons (2011v3, ddr4 2133) are rated 68 GB/s per socket. That is 136GB/s in a dual socket.

But, what I really came here to say, is that POWER8 has nearly twice the single thread memory bandwidth available. From some of my tests a single thread can access ~40GB/sec of bandwidth vs the intel at ~20GB/sec. But this doesn't translate into clear cut wins even on codes which at first pass appear to be bandwidth limited. Mostly because the processor cores themselves are about 1/2 the speed in tight loopy code (think nbench) running out of cache.

So, in our in house benchmarks the POWER ran anywhere from 75% as fast to roughly as fast. Only on a few tests did it actually manage to best the E5 xeon we were testing it against, and then never by more than 150%.

Plus, the dynamic thread controls are cool, but beyond 4 threads/core I could never actually improve performance, and beyond 2x it was major diminishing returns.

<comment><USER9> _the processor cores themselves are about 1 /2 the speed in tight loopy code (think nbench) running out of cache._

I wonder where the bottleneck is there, since on paper the POWER8 specs beat Haswell: it's a 10-issue core, 224-entry reorder buffer vs. a 4-issue core with 192-entry reorder buffer for Haswell. But if it takes several POWER instructions to do the work of one x86 instruction, or icache bandwidth is insufficient, the advantage goes the other way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Will shortly be starting at a new company where I get to do things with OpenPOWER. I've never even touched a POWER architecture system apart from the occasional PowerPC Mac, so this will be an interesting learning experience for me.

<comment><USER11> That sounds like fun! Any more details? Why? How? What?

<comment><USER10> I won't go into too much detail as it's still a while before I start - <USER2> programming at a firm that is quite heavily invested in POWER, and does a fair chunk of work out of its Australian offices, of all places.

<comment><USER11> Ah, I see. Thanks for the update -- I must have missed the _at_ -part. Thought you were "starting a company", not starting at a company :-)

It'd be interesting to hear which company it is -- I don't really know who uses POWER these days... email in profile in case you're more comfortable sharing that privately. I of course understand if you feel you can't do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> X-Gene 1 is in ancient 40nm technology. Haswell is 2 generations ahead in 22nm Finfet technology.

The gap should close as the process technologies get closer.

<comment><USER13> How do you see the process technologies getting closer? Intel has an insane R&D budget that they spend on their process technology. Nobody has managed to close the gap yet, what makes you think that's going to change?

<comment><USER14> Samsung is making 14nm chips in volume and has licensed that tech to Globalfoundries, and has demoed 10nm. TSMC's got 16nm, and is planning on starting low scale production of 10nm later this year. So yeah, process tech is pretty similar between the various big chip makers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Page is unreadable on Mac Chrome. Content comes up and then turns into a plain title page with no additional content. Page does not scroll or respond to clicks anywhere.

<comment><USER14> They use a (imo silly) scrollless, etc setup to move through frames. Hit up and down to see the other pages.</comment></comment>


Rush Limbaugh diagnosed with advanced lung cancer - <AUTHOR> https://www.foxnews.com/media/rush-limbaugh-advanced-lung-cancer <comment><USER2> This is sad. Many of the previous generation of radio pioneers are dying off.</comment>


Apple is terrified of iphone web-apps being as good as native apps - <AUTHOR>

Last week we all had a very interesting investigation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997508 ) of how apple seems to have come up with a css/js/html5 framework called pastryKit to make really good "native-looking" web-apps on the iphone before they ever started with the whole app store idea. Some of us, like myself went and looked at it ( http://help.apple.com/iphone/3/mobile/ ) and then pulled it down and put it up on github so we can take a look at what they are doing and learn how we too could do some of the same  css transforms, transitions and "flick" scrolling like they do in their code.
Well, it looks like Apple is scared to death of that idea.  They want to make sure that the web-app experience on the iphone (except for their own help system) remains crippled and seemingly second class when you compare it to one of their native apps (even though their own help system shows the it is possible for it to be just as good).  It looks like they went straight to gitHub and forced them to take it down.  Here's the email I got from them.  Bummer!!
I'm writing to inform you that we have received a takedown notice from Apple regarding your repo, PastryKit.  We have made the repo and all forks private so that they are no longer publicly accessible.  If we do not receive a counter-notice from you within 10-14 days the repo will be deleted.
I would like to encourage you to read up on the DMCA takedown procedure and your rights here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act

    Tekkub
    GitHub Tech Support
    http://support.github.com/
    Join us on IRC: #github on freenode.net
    Discussion group: email@example.com
 <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting the detailed write-up, but I don't believe that the facts warrant this conclusion.

The fact remains that PastryKit is open source, but close-licensed - by which I mean the frontend source code is transmitted when you access the website by necessity, but owned entirely by Apple.

Honestly, Apple is behaving much like Plurk just a few days ago. Their frontend source code was lifted, unpacked, analyzed, and repackaged for another product. Frustrated by having their intellectual property repurposed without permission or license, a takedown order was appropriate.

While I'm all for analyzing techniques like those found in PastryKit and am sort of a "rah! rah! open source!" guy in general, Apple was well within their rights to request a takedown. It sucks that they did, because I'd love to read up on this sometime and learn from it, but that's how these things tend to go.

That said, whether you agree with me or not, I don't think that this takedown notice is any reason to suggest that "Apple is terrified of iPhone web apps being as good as native apps."

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea, you're totally right, apple was well within their rights to tell me to take the code down, I know that. But I would definitely say that the comparison with plurk is inaccurate because in their case Microsoft grabbed their code and re- _used_ it in their own website not only for their own gain, but even to compete against plurk.

I would say that what I, and others, did was more like someone going to a website, hitting view-source, and saying "hmm this is interesting, there is something to be learned here" and then putting the interesting code snippets up on their blog. especially when the first line of my readme said "this is just for learning's sake, dont use this on your real website."

At any rate, I for sure agree that apple is not being a bully, unjust, or outside of their rights to tell me to take it down. But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to _impede_ the quality of web- apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along.

Apple if your listening, why not just open source PastryKit?

<comment><USER3> //But it does kind of suggest that apple is going out of their way to impede the quality of web-apps on the iphone rather than try to help it along

I guess Apple has an incentive in doing so. Improving web apps improves it for all phones. They lose their comparative advantage in doing so.

<comment><USER4> <Sarcasm> Its not like they contribute to the development of open web standards or browser libraries. </Sarcasm>

When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

<comment><USER5> > When Apple is scared of web applications, they'll stop improving WebKit.

And WebObjects.

Oh, wait... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects#2009:_No_longer_supp...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebObjects#2009:_No_longer_supported)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was a license file in the uncompressed files, and it was, if I remember correctly, the Apple Open Source License. This may have not been intentional, but if you archived that license file along with the rest of the repo (or if its still up) you have a clear claim.

<comment><USER7> It's still there: <http://help.apple.com/iphone/2/Parts/license.txt>

<comment><USER8> Whoa, "Dashcode"? I have a feeling I have an idea of what the next Dashcode release has in store for us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think you're jumping to conclusions. It's much more likely in my opinion that Apple simply isn't ready to unleash PastryKit yet. They want to ride their native application advantage while it lasts but they are realistic about where things are heading. The mobile application market is already big and it's going to become gigantic over the next few years. When the inevitable move towards cross platform, standards based, web apps happens Apple will be ready. They are not quite ready today. The big piece that's missing is integration of web apps into the App Store. When that happens I think you'll see PastryKit's future iterations being well supported by Apple. Right now it's just not a public project.

</comment><comment><USER10> Apple telling people not to build a project around unreleased code doesn't mean that they are "scared to death" of better quality iPhone native apps. It means they don't mean for that particular piece of code to be treated as open source.

</comment><comment><USER11> I disagree for two reasons: one, Apple is not raking in huge profits on the app store. After credit card fees, bandwidth, developer/support time, etc., they're probably barely breaking even on their 30% take (although they _do_ sit on your money for a while before disbursing). I still think they're primarily a hardware company that realizes that their sales are driven by software.

Secondly, a web app highly optimized to the point where it acts just like a native iPhone app is not _that_ much more cross-platform than a native app.

<comment><USER12> I don't have any solid numbers on Apple's margins, but I'm not sure I agree with your break-even assessment.

taptaptap recently announced that they clear $1M/month via AppStore sales (and they don't currently have any apps on the 100 Top Grossing list). From a per- customer perspective, I don't think Apple spends their $450,000 take supporting taptaptap. This will pan out differently with less profitable customers, but I imagine that the lower-end customers are effectively subsidized by the giants like EA (13/TG100), Gameloft (5/TG100), et al.

I'd absolutely love to see Apple's fixed and variable costs for developers at different sales levels, but I'm not holding my breath.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You are reading too much into this. This is the way Apple handles everything. They keep everything secret, so of course they are going to kill a leak like this. Now, you _may_ be right separately from this (I still would say your are not), but the logic that lead you to this conclusion is certainly incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think it's a bit of a leap from "Apple sent a DMCA takedown notice to github asking them to remove code for which Apple holds the copyright" to "Apple is terrified of iphone web-apps being as good as native apps."

It is suspicious that Apple has created a library to make web apps "feel" native but haven't shared this library with the developer community, but I can think of many possible reasons why this might be the case.

</comment><comment><USER15> iUI might be an interesting alternative (if I understand PastryKit correctly), a CSS/JS/HTML/images framework for native-looking iPhone web pages:

<http://code.google.com/p/iui/>

<http://iui-js.appspot.com/>

<comment><USER16> Also, see jQTouch

<http://www.jqtouch.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there any place where pastryKit can still be downloaded?

<comment><USER17> I already grabbed a copy:

<http://nxfx.com/demo/pastryKit.zip>

Now looking for some documentation...

<comment><USER17> Too bad I was only able to find the minified version.

<comment><USER18> Hey thanks for the zip download. You can easily un-minify this source using <http://jsbeautifier.org/>.

<comment><USER17> Sure, np. Thanks for the jsbeautifier tip.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Dangerous Ideas" and "Approved Beliefs" at Stanford Business School - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/non-disclosure/dangerous-ideas-acceptable-ideas-acd4fb67b699 <comment><USER2> He should take a class out of the B school, in philosophy. This is a well- trodden topic, and as with his studies of cosmology and biology, understanding what others have figured out already will give him something to stand on.

Although at least he's thinking, which is sadly uncommon.</comment>


Typostrap – a new prototyping tool for designers, developers, content creators - <AUTHOR> http://typostrap.io/blog/typostrap-revolutionary-approach-to-prototyping

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

I'm co-founder of Typostrap. We wrote quite elaborately about the idea behind the project, motives and vision in the blog post: [http://typostrap.io/blog/typostrap-revolutionary-approach- to...](http://typostrap.io/blog/typostrap-revolutionary-approach-to- prototyping)

What do you think?</comment>


Apple lifts block on combo 30-pin+Lightning charging accessories - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/12/apple-lifts-block-on-combo-30-pinlightning-charging-accessories/ <comment><USER2> > _"... but there were technical issues that prevented accessories from > integrating 30-pin and Lightning connectors, so our guidelines did not allow > this."_

They sure resolved those _technical issues_ pretty quickly, no? So quickly, in fact, that one might have confused them for _policy issues completely unrelated to the interoperability of the devices._

<comment><USER3> Yeah, isn't it cool Apple did this? Even though the kickstarter project totally screwed the pooch by not asking Apple before hand if it was good?

<comment><USER4> Wow, just wow. I must say Apple customers are amazing, even through their policy on chargers, to lock down their customers on apple (and to prevent universal chargers/ data connectors) is so clearly against consumer interest, now its a sign of greatness if they change their policy in response to the major shitstorm. Apple can't do wrong right? Apple fanbois make me sick, and stop call yourself hackers, you're contemptible.

<comment><USER5> Nice attitude. Elitism is definitely what the "hacker" community is all about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope these guys <http://edisonjunior.com/about.html> know what they are doing with lithium batteries, and POP is made out of fire-resistant materials and includes proper battery management system.

<comment><USER7> These days you can get a single chip that nearly does all the "battery management" for you.

example: [http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=e...](http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en024903)

<comment><USER6> The example that you've given is is a single cell, linear charge management controller.

For a 26Ah (what voltage?) LiIon (LiPoly?) pack you need a lot more than that. Balancing, temperature monitoring, overcharge/over-discharge protection, current limit.

<comment><USER7> That isn't the only chip microchip makes for recharging, but it's probably the cheapest. There are more complicated (larger) chips that do everything from overcharge protection, temp monitoring, etc. Some applications don't need all that fancy stuff. The chip I linked is 4 years old, but they make new versions of the chip almost every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Man I bet those guys are pissed after manually processing 1000 refunds and now Apple changes their mind...

<comment><USER9> Luckily we had not done the refunds yet. That would have really sucked...

<comment><USER10> <http://sivers.org/itunes>

" I decided to refund everybody's $40, with my deepest apologies. With 5000 musicians signed up, that meant I was refunding $200,000.

Since we couldn't promise anything, I couldn't charge money in good conscience.

I removed all mention of iTunes from my site.

I removed the $40 cost to make it free.

I changed the language to say we can't promise anything.

I emailed everyone to let them know what had happened.

I decided to make it a free service from that point on.

The next day, we got our signed contract back from Apple, along with upload instructions."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "We got very strong feedback saying we should still make a product that just has USB," Siminoff told Ars before Apple decided to update its guidelines, "but I still feel good about the decision to just refund everyone's money, because we just wanted to make a product that we believed in."

This is bordering on pedantic. There is a difference between being honorable and being reasonably flexible. This is not art. This is a product that people use. His own customers told him that they wanted something with "just USB" that they could use, and he refuses it?

What will happen when he can't injection mold his case the same way he 3d printed it? What happens when X Y or Z happens? He'll just throw in the towel?

</comment><comment><USER12> > Apple lifts block on combo 30-pin+Lightning charging accessories

This is so impressive. It sounds like the UN is lifting an embargo on some dangerous and forbidden tech.

"In an unexpected development, the DPRK acquired some Lightning Charging Accessories that it plans to use against the West."

</comment><comment><USER13> What an interesting story. Project goes awry and recovers by using the refund story to build interest for new venture. Apple sees hand and raises. Users throw down 4 aces and collect giant pot of cash. Sounds like wins for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER14> I bet $10 the POP charger is getting cancelled anyway. Those guys really felt like they were just looking for a reason to cancel their kickstarter.

<comment><USER9> I am Jamie Siminoff the inventor of POP. We are in the process of confirming if the changes that Apple PR told the press are true. If they are then POP will be made and I look forward to delivering it to all of the doubters out there.

@Devilboy, I hope you order one as I will hand deliver it and take that $10:)

<comment><USER15> Did your original Project (and the pop charger people pay for) contemplate the use of a lightning port? It didn't. Then why cancel the project when you cannot add it?

Even if you are not allowed to use the 30 pin... Why don't you just use an USB port on the device?

Or just avoid the "Made for iPhone" sticker. I have plenty if iPhone accessories that aren't certified but work nonetheless.

<comment><USER9> We did which is why we felt we had no choice but to refund if we could not support it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Japanese Kids Learn To Multiply - <AUTHOR> http://www.magicalmaths.org/how-japanese-kids-learn-to-multiply/ <comment><USER2> This is a method that is occasionally taught in Japanese classrooms, but one could also say that of chunking or the traditional long multiplication algorithm. Want to know the _real_ super-secret-special Asian magic math sauce? Practice. (But if calling it kungfu math lets you teach it is a US classroom and get precious instructional hours by calling math cultural studies then by all means Orientalize away.)

[Edit: I have a pair of chips on my shoulder about this, one on my right shoulder and one on my left, as it were, and that's why I sort of blew up here. I really don't think I'm wrong re: the irritant, though. The SMSC referenced, for example, is Spiritual Moral Social Cultural (skills), and it is pretty much exactly as froufrou as you are guessing. You'll also note that every sentence in the post mentions "Japanese" and it's at the most rage- inducing Stuff White People Like level of surface-learning one could imagine, too.)

[Edit: Please up vote tokenadult's comment before this one, because while multiplication is taught by drill2kill here, that comment is better than mine re: math pedagogy generally.]

<comment><USER3> I tutored a student who counted on his fingers. He was 21.

Within 6 lessons, using Khan Academy, I had him adding four digit numbers in his head, multiplying large numbers, and doing algebra.

He would learn a technique from me or the video, then apply it in practice drills, then review at the next lesson.

Total instruction time was 12-20 hours. I think he did a bit on his own.

I concluded that no one had actually checked to see if he could understand math. North American students hardly try calculations now; they're given calculators at a very early age.

<comment><USER4> Not trying to disagree with you about the crappiness of this student's education, or how sad it is that he counted with his fingers, but computation != mathematics.

I HATE the fact that American schools force students to do rote computation over and over again, with very little focus on the concepts behind the computations. I hated "math" until my 6th grade homeroom (not math) teacher took the initiative of writing high school level algebra word problems on the board, and not telling us how to solve them until after we attempted them. "A train going from St. Louis is headed toward L.A., and another train from L.A. is headed to St. Louis. they are going 40 mph, when will they pass each other" etc.

Suddenly, when the computation becomes a tool to satisfy an end, rather than the end itself, math becomes interesting.

<comment><USER5> _... computation != mathematics._

This is exactly why giving calculators to children who have not yet mastered any method of multiplication is bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm partial to vihart's perspective on this at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-e8fzqv3CE> It's moderately interesting, but ultimately just a way of doing the exact same thing. Multiplication can be reduced entirely or partially to counting, that's worth understanding. And, if explained correctly, this can give insight into multiplying polynomials. Also, showing that counting the intersections of 8 lines crossing 9 lines is tedious may present times tables as convenient time savers rather than teacher inflicted torture.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a variant of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_multiplication> that does not make it as easy to carry tens a column to the left as that method does.

I also think lattice multiplication makes it easier to understand for pupils why the trick actually performs a multiplication.

So, I would teach them lattice multiplication instead.

<comment><USER8> Another approach: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_method_multiplication>

Of course it's all multiplication, and all essentially the same thing. I find the grid method the least notation-focused of at least these three, and so I think more accessible to assimilation. Maybe I'm biased, I didn't learn multiplication this way but found myself naturally doing it like this in my head and then was pleasantly surprised to find it had a name. It's also amenable to estimation.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the link. The grid is also helpful as a way to visualize things like:

      (1 + a)^2 = 1 + 2a + a^2

There is a square with side 1+a, and the grid consists of four pieces, sizes 1, a, a, and a^2.

Thinking about approximations when a << 1, you can motivate why

      (1 + a)^2 ~= 1 + 2a

really easily by imagining the grid you refer to.

In other words, keeping this grid picture in mind can be helpful to more mature mathematicians/physicists/engineers...probably more useful than the standard multiplication algorithm is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This does not teach you multiplication as much as it teaches you a trick to get the result of multiplication. I doubt anyone is transferring this abstraction that results in the answer into something they can do in their head or extend on paper to larger numbers.

Teach kids to open the calculator app on their phone rather than to do this.

No fast way to learn multiplication other than to practice it.

<comment><USER11> I agree, I don't see how this actually teaches how multiplication actually works. It's a clever method to avoid solving the problem the classic way of using a memorized multiplication table and breaking down the problem into smaller segments. I don't even see how this saves you time once you get up to speed on either method. The only difference is that with my old school way I can explain to you why I get the answer I calculated while this method doesn't seem to offer that ability.

<comment><USER12> > I don't see how this actually teaches how multiplication actually works.

[snip]

> It's a clever method to avoid solving the problem the classic way of using a > memorized multiplication table

Do you think multiplication _actually_ works by means of a multiplication table?

<comment><USER11> No, if that's how I came across then that's not what I intended. Although, I feel you're a bit selective in your snips in an effort to make some kind of point. I know how multiplication works, but the memorization of the table speeds up the process. I was simply trying to say that this method was not much different, nor more superior, than table memorization.

My comment about not teaching how multiplication works is aimed at the statement made that this method is how Japanese students learn to multiply, as in the title of this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The videos only show the technique using small digits. For the larger digits this method quickly becomes cumbersome.

Latttice multiplication is much better for large numbers and deals with a lot of the carrying of overflowing digits which occurs in both normal and "Japanese" multiplication.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cijuPxHgZAA>

edit: spelling

<comment><USER14> yes, there are no '57 * 86' examples, which would be counting intersections for quite some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The more important difference between mathematics education in Japan and mathematics education in (say) the United States is how hard the problems are and the encouragement to pupils in Japan to try to figure things out for themselves.

I put instructional methodologies to the test by teaching supplemental mathematics courses to elementary-age pupils willing to take on a prealgebra- level course at that age. My pupils' families come from multiple countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean Islands. (Oh, families from all over the United States also enroll in my classes. See my user profile for more specifics.) Simply by benefit of a better-designed set of instructional materials (formerly English translations of Russian textbooks, with reference to the Singapore textbooks, and now the Prealgebra textbook from the Art of Problem Solving),

[http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/viewitem.php?item=p...](http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Store/viewitem.php?item=prealgebra)

the pupils in my classes can make big jumps in mathematics level (as verified by various standardized tests they take in their schools of regular enrollment, and by their participation in the AMC mathematics tests) and gains in confidence and delight in solving unfamiliar problems. More schools in the United States could do this, if only they would. The experience of Singapore shows that a rethinking of the entire national education system is desirable for best results,

<http://www.merga.net.au/documents/RP182006.pdf>

but an immediate implementation of the best English-language textbooks, rarely used in United States schools, would be one helpful way to start improving mathematics instruction in the United States. There are accessible descriptions for teachers in the United States of the system in Singapore, for example, "Beyond Singapore's Mathematics Textbooks: Focused and Flexible Supports for Teaching and Learning" American Educator, Winter 2009-2010 pages 28-38.

[http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter2009/wang- ive...](http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter2009/wang-iverson.pdf)

A critique of United States schools by Alex Reinhart that was posted here on HN soon after it was published

<http://www.refsmmat.com/articles/unreasonable-math.html>

begins with the statement "In American schools, mathematics is taught as a dark art. Learn these sacred methods and you will become master of the ancient symbols. You must memorize the techniques to our satisfaction or your performance on the state standardized exams will be so poor that they will be forced to lower the passing grades." This implicitly mentions a key difference between United States schools and schools in countries with better performance: American teachers show a method and then expect students to repeat applying the method to very similar exercises, while teachers in high- performing countries show an open-ended problem first, and have the students grapple with how to solve it and what method would be useful in related but not identical problems. From The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom (1999):

"Readers who are parents will know that there are differences among American teachers; they might even have fought to move their child from one teacher's class into another teacher's class. Our point is that these differences, which appear so large within our culture, are dwarfed by the gap in general methods of teaching that exist across cultures. We are not talking about gaps in teachers' competence but about a gap in teaching methods." p. x

"When we watched a lesson from another country, we suddenly saw something different. Now we were struck by the similarity among the U.S. lessons and by how different they were from the other country's lesson. When we watched a Japanese lesson, for example, we noticed that the teacher presents a problem to the students without first demonstrating how to solve the problem. We realized that U.S. teachers almost never do this, and now we saw that a feature we hardly noticed before is perhaps one of the most important features of U.S. lessons--that the teacher almost always demonstrates a procedure for solving problems before assigning them to students. This is the value of cross-cultural comparisons. They allow us to detect the underlying commonalities that define particular systems of teaching, commonalities that otherwise hide in the background." p. 77

A great video on the differences in teaching approaches can be found at "What if Khan Academy was made in Japan?"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHoXRvGTtAQ>

with actual video clips from the TIMSS study of classroom practices in various countries.

<comment><USER16> Tokenadult, I always enjoy your well-informed comments on topics such as this. I think you may have misinterpreted Stigler's 1999 "The Teaching Gap", though, as many of us did. In that book, he reports on a study of math teaching in the US, Japan, and Germany, and finds Japan's results to be far superior to the others and their teaching methods very different, and different in exactly the way you describe.

But he did a followup study involving more countries to see if most or all high-performing countries used the Japanese approach. It turned out that they did not. Some were more like the US than the US.

Here ([http://timssvideo.com/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Te...](http://timssvideo.com/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Teaching%20Gap.pdf)) is one place where Stigler reports his updated findings and attempts to debunk your (and my) initial conclusion---a conclusion that seemed strongly justified by his 1999 book---that, as you posted above, "The more important difference between mathematics education in Japan...and the US is...the encouragement to pupils in Japan to try to figure things out for themselves."

He points out that another high-performing country in his second study, Hong Kong, was more US-like and less Japan-like on this spectrum than the US itself. On the dimension you're calling "more important", the low-performing US is between the high-performing Hong Kong and the high-performing Japan.

His conclusion was that the main factor was not having kids figure things out for themselves but having teachers carefully teach kids the relationships among things. It didn't matter if the US kids spent time practicing procedures. The Chinese kids spent MORE time practicing procedures and did better, but then the Chinese teachers spent time directly pointing out important relationships, which the US teachers didn't do much of. The Japanese kids had to spend a lot of time figuring things out for themselves, but then the teachers would gather them together and carefully lead them to see relationships that they hadn't seen when working by themselves. The US teachers would tell kids to figure things out for themselves and basically leave their learning to whatever they managed to figure out.

Given equal IQ, time on task, etc., it's the effectiveness with which mathematical relationships are made clear to the students (part of which requires significant procedural drill, which Japanese kids do after school) that matters most. A lot of time is wasted in the US doing procedural drill with no conceptual understanding, with even more wasted on constructivist "discovery" methods whereby kids are supposed to somehow teach themselves and each other the mathematical relationships, and all of this led by teachers who aren't required by their union to even _know_ anything about mathematical relationships much less teach them.

<comment><USER15> Thank you, SiVal. I didn't see contact information in your user profile (and indeed the contact information in my user profile is rather subtle until I do a personal website update). So here I will say thanks for your comment. I'll be revising some FAQs based on what you wrote. Feel free to contact me off- site if you'd like to discuss these issues more. (Much of today I am updating my personal website on its seventeenth birthday, and then I'll have to finish a revised FAQ promised to another participant here a few days ago, a response to a link that shows up too often in discussions on the topic of international educational comparisons.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 32 year old Japanese here. I can unequivocally say I've never seen anything like this in my life. Possibly the younger generations, but I somehow doubt it, as people are pretty slow to adopt completely new teaching methods. Pretty cool though...

<comment><USER18> I have seen students from India use this method for small numbers and a partial sum method for larger numbers.

[http://wsgfl2.westsussex.gov.uk/Aplaws/maths/multicultural/V...](http://wsgfl2.westsussex.gov.uk/Aplaws/maths/multicultural/VedicMultIntro.htm)

Google 'Vedic multiplication'. Its all good because it is unusual here in the UK and it looks interesting.

<comment><USER17> Yes, now that I recall, I believe this was a very popular topic in Japan a few years ago (I wasn't in Japan to see it first hand). It was referred to as "India-style multiplication," and some guy(s) sold millions of instructional books. <http://math.hoge2.info/kakezan/pr04.html>

However, don't think it involves the drawing of lines like in the post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is cool but not a part of any standard curriculum in Japan despite the title.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. I went to Japanese elementary school (in college now, so within the last 15 years) and didn't learn this lines method ever.

What I found greatest about the Japanese method of learning multiplication was actually the method for learning single-digit products. The Japanese use a system called "kuku" (translated, "9 by 9") which involves memorizing a rhythmic chant that goes through the entire multiplication table, with each product being concisely expressed in a few syllables. This is made possible by the various ways in which a number can be pronounced in Japanese.

I think the method is made necessary because to say the full products takes a lot of syllables in Japanese (e.g. 7x7=49 would be "nana kakeru nana wa yonjyuu-kyuu"). So perhaps it doesn't differ too much from the way you learn multiplication tables at an English-speaking school, but a cool method nonetheless.

Video here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hLyzXM53IE>

<comment><USER11> It isn't that different, in my American elementary school I had to memorize the multiplication table up to 12x12. But I don't recall anything about the English language being a hindrance so your example is interesting. There doesn't seem to be that much fewer syllables in 7x7=49 in English but I'm assuming that as the numbers increase then the syllables get worse in Japanese as opposed to English? For instance, 148x385=56980?

<comment><USER21> Using your example 7 x 7 = 49

seven [2] times [1] seven [2] equals [1] forty-nine [3] = 9

七[1] 乘[1] 七[1] 如[1] 四十九 [3] = 7 (without using primary school mnemonics)

七[1] 七[1] 四十九 [3] = 5 (using primary school mnemonics)

Even at that primitive level, a change of language can give you a 23% and 45% speed-up of basic arithmetic operations, respectively.

<comment><USER22> A similar rote recitation exercise I recall from (a british) school was of the form '[Seven] [Seven][s] [is|are] [Forty-Nine]', of which only the 'is' is redundant, and is a single short syllable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Still quicker to do the math in your head:

        123 * 321

        321 * 100 = 32100
        321 * 20  =  6420
        321 * 3   =   963
                    -----
                    39483

You just need to know the times table and keep a little stack in your head :)

<comment><USER24> Keeping the stack has always been the problem for me. At least for larger numbers. Luckily, there's RealCalc on Android which is by far the best calculator app I've ever seen.

<comment><USER25> I'm a fan of Droid48. It emulates a HP-48, so it displays the stack on-screen and has advanced capabilities like graphing if you need them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Interesting in that it shows how geometry can related to mathematics, but very laborious when applied to larger numbers. Amounts to adding up the contents of each place in the numeric result one-by-one. The work involved is the sum of the output digits.

<comment><USER27> _> how geometry can related to mathematics_

Geometry is _part of_ mathematics!

More generally, it's sad to see this attitude all over the place, as if geometry and drawing were somehow "less mathematical" than writing and symbols. Both, algebra/analysis as well as geometry, have their place in mathematics, and complement each other very well.

The same holds for creativity versus stringency, by the way. A theorem has to be proved (stringency), but how did find that proof? By aternating of stringency and creativity back and forth! And why did you ask the question answered by the theorem in the first place? Creativity and real-world problems (e.g. physics or economics)!

Note that the distinction between geometry/algebra is totally unrelated to the distinction between creativity/stringency. However, more often that not media associate math only with the algebra+stringency part, glossing over the other equally important aspects. This leads to a totally distorted image of the wonderful field of mathematics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think that it is important to note that without good instruction no method is "good". It is really really important for anybody learning anything to understand fundamentally what is going on. This is the problem with most people that have math phobia's (I don't believe there are people that are not good at math). They are taught to memorize their times tables with only a fleeting mention that this really a summation. On this weak foundation people add more concepts, and BOOM they are math phobic. The thing I do like about the "line method" is it is a very visual way to show children what is going on. The chunks, if you will, are literally the place of the digit.

</comment><comment><USER29> I wouldn't learn how to multiply from the Japanese. They are clearly pretty bad at it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_195...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bdrates_of_Japan_since_1950.svg)

</comment><comment> sean-duffy This is quite a nice mathematical trick, but nothing more. It may allow children to be able to perform large multiplication at a young age, but it is also setting them up to be confused later on by providing them with a method which abstracts from the actual arithmetic. What on earth is going to happen when they run into algebraic multiplication? I think it is much more useful to teach them to split up the parts of the numbers and multiply those, if they are too difficult to be multiplied mentally. For example instead of 11x22 do 10x22 + 20 + 2.

</comment><comment><USER30> _A good way to introduce this starter is to put up a map of the world and get learners to point out Japan. As a teacher you can then move into how Japanese Pupils learn to multiply._

Shouldn't the focus be on teaching kids to multiply, rather than teaching them that "all Japanese people do it this way, look how strange"? How do the Germans do math? What about Indians?

It really frustrated me that the author chose to illustrate a potentially very helpful teaching aide by focusing so much of the apparent strangeness of Japanese culture. Not exactly setting a very good example.

</comment><comment><USER31> Every time this comes up it's shot down. It isn't part of their curriculum.

</comment><comment><USER32> This method is also referred to as Mayan Multiplication which isn't necessarily exclusive to Japan or a technique the Japanese invented. It's not Mayan either, but just a neat technique to make multiplying numbers easier. Although it might be hard to perform in your head this way.

The babylonians, egyptians, and romans had their own techniques because multiplication by hand is not easy, and it's time consuming. Techniques like these enabled those civilizations to build wonderful engineering marvels. The point is these techniques don't violate math or subvert teaching math because it's not the same thing.

This subject was originally called arithmetic when I was in school which was different than math. Arithmetic was the rudimentary techniques for how numbers were added/subtracted/multiplied/divided where math was word problems that required you know arithmetic to solve but also required logic and abstraction. So yes arithmetic != math, but that doesn't mean teaching arithmetic is NOT useful. They are different concepts that are related, but not the same.

I think this is perfectly fine to teach someone this. The whole computation isn't math argument is a misplaced. We're talking about 2nd or 3rd grade students. They'll learn math at the higher levels again.

</comment><comment><USER33> By the way, if you or you children need a quick and easy way to practice mental calculations, find an implementation of the game <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_chiffres_et_des_lettres> on your phone.

<comment><USER34> Thanks for bringing back memories of ski vacations in the French Alps. We couldn't understand most of the stuff on TV but loved this show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I never understood why this is easier than just manually doing the FOIL. 13 _12 = (10 + 3)_ (10 + 2) = 10 _10 + 10_ 2 + 3 _10 + 3_ 2\. Drawing all those lines and counting intersections seems tedious.

</comment><comment><USER36> How convenient that all the examples use digits in the 1-3 range. This looks painful for normal numbers with a mix of large and small digits.

This method always made more sense to me: [http://www.ehow.com/video_12244670_solve-multiplication- prob...](http://www.ehow.com/video_12244670_solve-multiplication-problem- using-diagonal-lines.html) as it combines the idea of the diagonal lines in the "japanese" method with the mnemonics of the [1-9]x[1-9] multiplication tables that everyone should also learn.

</comment><comment><USER37> Nice trick, but it would be better if explained in correlation to the traditional algorithm, showing you can separate work by units and that they're really the same at the core.

</comment><comment><USER38> What's more impressive is flash anzan. The ability to visualize an abacus and then with it do additions of large sums rapidly and accurately.

<comment><USER39> Indeed. This short video shows the above in action, nothing short of amazing.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m6s-ulE6LY>

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> It's a neat trick, but the method doesn't do much to reveal why multiplication works as it does. Most students will just sit there drawing lines and counting intersections without understanding why it gives them the right answer. Memorizing a routine without understanding why it works is just one step above memorizing a table.

</comment><comment><USER41> My sister-in-law is a Japanese school teacher. I showed this too her and she said she does not recognize it at all. My mom has a master's in math education and teaches at the local junior college. I'll let you know if she has any comment on this.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is indeed very interesting technique, but I don't think it is very practical and fast.

</comment><comment><USER43> My son's home from school when I see this. We try out a few examples, starting with those in the videos. Then we do a few more...and then we do: 13 x 23. I'm obviously missing something hidden in this method, as our result, 416...fail ;(

</comment><comment><USER44> it's hardly practical. Yes, interesting, but I would not use it at all. The way I know how to do multiplication "manually" is superior than this. You line up numbers on top of each other. Then you start multiplying first digit of the bottom number with all the digits of above number, from right to left and adding any carry over. You start writing the result on the same column you are multiplying. Then you add them all.

        123
        123
      x______
        369
       246
      123

+________

      15129

That's what I learned in elementary school and have been using since then. It's interesting to know how others to do it.

<comment><USER45> > That's what I learned in elementary school and have been using since then. > It's interesting to know how others to do it.

well, i generally do it using a 'covolution approach' like this:

         45
       x 86
       </comment></comment><comment>
           0 (5*6 == 30) -> take the units place, and put '3' as carry over
          4  (6*4+8*5+3 == 47) -> take the units place, and put '4' as carry over
        36   (8*4+4 == 36)

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

       3640

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

with sufficient practice, you can multiply arbitrary 3 digits in approx 10-15 seconds or so ;)

[edit-1]: my formatting _sucks_ , cannot seem to align stuff nicely at all.

</comment><comment><USER46> This method does not convey any understanding of the problem. I'm not sure it's a good idea in the long run. It'll create a class of people who know how to solve a particular mathematical problem, but don't understand why.

</comment><comment><USER47> Great. Now do it for 79*86.

<comment><USER48> realistically all this or any other process is doing is expansion and taking advantage of the commutative nature of multiplication.

(70 + 9)x(80 + 6)

70x80 + 9x80 + 6x70 + 6x9

56(00) + 72(0) + 42(0) + 54

Guess what - long story short you need to know your times tables. I don't see how the lines method is any easier than long multiplication, which in itself is not hard with a little time and explanation. If you can use the lines, or any other method, as a way of conveying what I did above - then you've succeeded.

Edit: Stars go to italics and I don't know the escape character

<comment><USER49> * It's not backslash!

I think you can only do * with an unpaired * terminator * ?

I think you can only do * with an unpaired * terminator ?

I think you can only do x _x with an unpaired x_ x terminator x _x ?

[that line is this with no spaces around _ :I think you can only do x * x with an unpaired x * x terminator x * x ?

Nope, looks like as long as it's spaced from the prior/next character then it doesn't cause italicisation.

Help says: " _Text surrounded by asterisks is italicized, if the character after the first asterisk isn't whitespace._ "

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Interesting indeed. Reminds me of this [Chinese suanpan](<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suanpan>).

</comment><comment><USER51> Cool but impractical - hard to do in your head and cumbersome when drawing something more than 3 lines. But indeed magical, no argument here :)

</comment><comment><USER52> I see the video, but how does this work?

on unix/linux I just use bc -l

<comment><USER53> bc is a pretty misleading calculator, without specifying rounding it thinks 2^(40/1.5) is 67108864.

It's not even close.

If you trust your finances to that, you could get in trouble.

<comment><USER18> The man speaks the truth, but I do get a warning

       2.0^(40.0/1.5)
       Runtime warning (func=(main), adr=18): non-zero scale in exponent
       67108864.00000000000000000000

Apparently the ^ function only works with integer powers. The exponential and natural log functions work as expected

<http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/07/14/bc-math-library/>

       keith@xeon4:~$ bc -l
       e(l(2)*(40.0/1.5))
       106528681.30999083085437360438

nice example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Don't try to use this method to do mind calculation, it may cause senile dementia.

</comment><comment><USER55> nice trick for numbers with each digit smaller than 5

<comment><USER53> I think only smaller than 4...

I wonder if this works in binary :D

<comment><USER56> That was my first thought, so I checked, and yes, it does. You just change the carrying rules. But by the time you've accounted for the number of digits you'd need to do anything useful, it's fairly useless except from a theoretical computational perspective - even when converted to logic circuits, I'm guessing it's not the most efficient solution out there.

<comment><USER57> Actually, this method is one of the most efficient ways to multiply in software. It's called the "Comba" method in that context, and is efficient for multiplying 32x32 words or smaller, due to cache effects and function overhead required by more complicated algorithms. Over about 32 words on many architectures, the algorithmic advantage of the Karatsuba method wins out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> It doesn't work for 25x25, so what's the point?

<comment><USER58> It does work for 25x25.

<comment><USER53> You're right, I see it now, it represents 400 + 20*10 + 25 which is indeed 625. They just avoided those cases in the article and only showed those where the number of crossing neatly formed the digits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Now, using this new technique, attempt to solve this problem

4x + 2x^2 + 5 = 100

:)</comment>


Jason Calacanis on What He Would Do Differently Next Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W1rmle4LKY

<comment><USER2> People seem to either love or hate the guy. But even his detractors have to admit that at times he can be disarmingly honest for someone in the public eye. This is a truly classic riff.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "The truth was I knew better than most people, but not all."

<comment><USER3> ... and that is the hard lesson of being smart isn't it?

You can outsmart yourself if you don't listen to people who are smarter than you--or simply have better perspective at that moment.

<comment><USER4> But how do figure out who that is?

I'm just getting started in the startup world and eagerly welcoming advice from all sides, but I know I need to strike some sort of balance between information sponge and intrepid plotter of my own course.

How to find that balance point?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great advice!</comment>


Catalonia protestors use distributed network to securely organize protests - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.co.uk/article/barcelonia-riots-catalonia-protests-news <comment><USER2> They also used IPFS to serve and disseminate the website for the referendum, IIRC. I wasn't aware of retroshare, but it looks like a very useful piece of software.

Personally, I'm glad distributed technologies are picking up steam again and are showing that they can be used by non-technical people for real-world purposes, especially for protesting against the government, which is a pillar of democracy and has been getting harder and harder with the increasing effectiveness of censorship tools.

</comment><comment><USER3> > What at first began as peaceful mass demonstrations has sparked sporadic > violence, with protestors setting fire to buildings and damaging property

As engineers, we should be more careful about the consequences of what we build. It can be used for the good, or for the bad. What will those engineers think when there is first dead person (either violent protester, pacific protester or policeman)? Will they feel responsible?

Pacific protests are allowed every day. Violent protests with people setting fire to cars, bins, etc; and people throwing rocks or acid to the police must be prosecuted.

<comment><USER4> While I totally agree with the idea that we, as engineers, are responsible for the things we build, I think your exposition here ("we have seen violent protests + a group making apps to organize protests => we should be careful") can be a bit misleading or suggest links between this group and the violent actions, which wouldn't be well grounded based on what we know so far.

Without assuming that was your intent, but to add some context: this group (tsunami democratic) is explicitly advocating for nonviolence. At least ~2.4M people voted (2017) for parties that oppose the sentence that lead up to the current protests. We are seeing ~1000 violent protesters, which should be fairly compared to the ~0.5M people who are steadily mobilised on pacific protests.

Given the context, I believe that the terrorism charges that some politicians and judges are attempting to attribute to groups like this (this is the reason the websites have been shut down in Spain) are far more dangerous and can backslash in more violence than any of the apps or websites some activists can possibly create.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The real challenge comes when govt controls / shuts down the underlying nodes – cell towers, mobile providers and ISPs.

Communication patterns in a rioting crowd is vastly different from your average friendly FaceTime chat, but most of the messaging solutions aren't designed for it. I.e. I would be glad to not having offline storage, near real-time delivery or video calls option, if the app allows me to send message "I'm at the point A and I'm fine" to my friend, even if the mobile network is disrupted.

As far as I'm aware it's still a largely unsolved messaging problem.</comment>


Rejected Y Combinator Company, Bandsintown now in private beta! Sign up For your Invite Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.bandsintown.com <comment><USER2> Whatever the reason was for your rejection from YCombinator, I commend you guys for at least pushing through with the project and not letting it hinder your progress.

I'm still awaiting my beta invitation.

Good luck with it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why would I have to confirm my email to get an invite code? If I receive an invite code and use it I've effectively confirmed my email. Further, I just got an email and followed a link back to your site so I could... ...do nothing. Not sure that makes me too excited to click on the next link you send me.

Worth rethinking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for pointing the annoyance of this out to me. I will remove the email confirmation step.

The invite codes will be sent out personally that is why you did not receive it instantly with the confirmation.

Thanks for the help, We will adjust this.

<comment><USER4> Why have invite codes at all? Just let people in the site.

<comment><AUTHOR> We still have some major features we want in place before we open it to the public. But the people on ycombinator are probably some of the most critical we will find so we decided to give an early sneak peak to you guys.

We will be sending out a second batch of codes today. But as we have noticed that some of our emails are going straight to junk.

So if you applied for an invite code last week please type your email address in as the invite code to gain full access. Let me know if anyone has questions. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Frankly, I'd see why they rejected the site. It's an excellent idea, and I'm sure it will work if you guys really exploit the entire social thing - i.e, force people to invite other people. But it's an idea that is already out there, which is why I'd assume that ycomb did not want you.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you... As I had mentioned in one of my previous posts to all the startups, I think rejection should be more motivation for all of you than acceptance. It should push you harder to prove yourself and your idea.

Also invitations will be sent out in batches over the next week or so... But I am looking forward to everyones comments and help.

We have alot in the works, but are very very happy with what we have put together for you.

</comment><comment><USER6> The anti-aliasing is ugly... you should redo the graphic design with different anti-aliasing settings.

</comment><comment><USER5> I see you use verticalresponse.com for your mailing list. I don't get the pricing structure - do you pay per email to one subscriber or do you pay per email to ALL subscribers?

And are their services worth it at all when email marketing is more of a side thing?

<comment><AUTHOR> hi, yeah this used to be a mailing list signup that i restructured for the beta invites. It has some quirks, such as the required confirmation email. But the service is free to capture emails until you use them to actually send out emails. So no this is not the best solution for a beta signup, but it does the trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> See SonicLiving.com, a great site that is somewhat similar and I use daily.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah this is also my personal favorite of what I have seen so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why define yourself as "rejected YCombinator company"? It seems like something that does not deserve mention except _maybe_ on the "Company History" page.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, seriously... I was rejected at YC like 8 months ago (didn't want single founder) and we are doing just fine. I really respect all the advice and connections that YC has, but just because you are rejected doesn't mean anything.

My company is ClassOwl (classowl.com), we are in Alpha right now. And no, we're not another cliche Web 2.0 company.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Make sure you check your junk mail folder for your invite code. We sent them out to about half the list today.</comment>