My Interview Questions for Potential Employers - <AUTHOR> http://www.runtime-era.com/2013/03/my-interview-questions-for-potential.html <comment><USER2> I'm a contractor so long term questions are irrelevant to me, but my standard questions are the following:

Will i have the freedom to use whatever OS and software i want?

If the answer to this is anything other than Yes, i dont take the gig. Give me the tools to do my job and trust me to do it, i'll even bring my own tools, i like a mac and sublime. I once had a potential employer tell me that i was only allowed to use windows, only allowed to use eclipse and i'd be issued an MSDN license even though they admitted it wasnt relevant to me, because that was standard IT policy. Sorry, no thanks.

Is the office a relaxed environment?

I can usually answer this myself if i'm doing a face to face just by looking at how people are dressed and such, but a lot of the time i have a phone interview first, and then i ask this. I absolutely will not work anywhere where i cant wear jeans and a t-shirt and if i walk in at 9.08am and you're going to moan at me for it, no thanks. I've also seen places where they dont allow employees to leave the building except at pre-defined lunch and break times, again, no deal.

While these might seem petty to some people, to me they're indicative of an overall culture of not trusting employees and excessive micromanagement and i have the luxury of totally avoiding places like that, so i'm going to.

<comment><USER3> I used to ask what a company's email quota was. Not a big deal at my last two employers, but previous jobs (banking and state government) had very low quotas, something like 20-50MB. At levels that low you can't just archive your email, you've got to decide what stays and what goes and carefully file away any attachments you might want to retrieve in the future. Not only a waste of time, but it adds unnecessary cognitive overhead to the simple act of checking your email.

<comment><USER4> That's an incredibly outdated policy.

A 4TB hard drive now lists for $150. This means that 50MB costs a fraction of a penny, and the price is dropping.

Every second that a minimum-wage employee spends deleting emails to get down to that low a quota is a flagrant waste of money. The higher-paid the employee, the more flagrant the waste.

This is seriously like paying your employees to collect individual pieces of pine straw so you can save money on landscaping.

Not to mention the fact that those emails probably contain data that's worth more than their storage cost, especially if they're searchable.

<comment> T-hawk > That's an incredibly outdated policy.

Indeed. Hence the question is a useful filter, to identify and avoid companies who have incredibly outdated email systems and technology policies. They won't be leading-edge in anything else either.

Similar: "What does your company use for email? Lotus Notes?" (Unless you're applying to IBM itself.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If during an interview the question gets asked "What's your greatest weakness?" I try to answer as best I can and then I make a mental note to ask this later:

"Since you asked me what my greatest weakness was, I think it's fair to ask: _What's the worst thing about working here?"_

I've only been able to ask it once, and didn't really get a good answer, but I think it has the potential to elicit some thoughtful (or telling) responses.

<comment><USER6> My attitude about the "greatest weakness" question is to treat it as a softball for whatever I would like to most be accommodated on in the workplace. Here are some random example answers to demonstrate. (For each one, I have known someone who that example fits.)

"I live a ways away, and to avoid rush hour won't ever be at the office before 11 AM."

"I can come in to work early, but I always have to leave by 4 PM to be home in time to pick up my children."

"I am an observant Jew and have to leave early on Fridays."

"I have life threatening condition X (asthma, diabetes, whatever) and will need accommodation Y."

And so on.

I originally got this idea from a secretary whose issue was that she was very talkative, she needs to have people she can talk to throughout the day. So she started answering the weakness question that way, and found that her bosses wouldn't complain about her talkativeness because she had already told them that up front.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure any of those things would qualify as someone's "greatest weakness"; they're incidental matters. Turning it around, would you say that the ability to be at work at 9:00am every day could be considered to be someone's greatest strength?

<comment><USER6> In a workplace environment, all can cause problems.

<comment><USER8> They're potential problems for the employer, but not "weaknesses".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How about the standard questions:

* How much money is in the bank, i.e. how long can they go until the next investment round?

* Where does the company see itself in five years?

* What opportunities are there for employee development?

And please, please stop with the cultural fit! Some people do not want to have to go for beers every other night or play Xbox tournaments all Friday!

<comment><USER10> The "cultural fit" stuff is a sore spot with me. If you have any kind of life outside of work (or want one), this can be a real stumbling block. Maybe I want to take a walk during lunch, and relax, and not be forced to talk about work during communal lunches. I might want to go see non-work friends or family once the day's work is done, and not go to the bar and show everyone that I like the same microbrews that the office likes. And Friday evenings? Forget about me wanting to stick around the office.

<comment><USER11> Cultural fit is a huge deal to me, and I think it's pretty essential, at least for the small company that I work for. We don't force people to come out for drinks or for lunch or anything (although most people are happy to). You can still be a great cultural fit without spending _any_ extra time outside of the office with your coworkers. It's how you work together on a day-to-day basis. We have an atmosphere that not everybody will like. Some of us tell really terrible and unfunny jokes. We typically leave the lights off first thing in the morning. We talk through a lot of our internal stumbling blocks and are open about them. The cultural fit is to make sure that you'll be able to work in the atmosphere that the company has established, not to make sure you'll come get drunk with us.

<comment><USER10> What you've described is what cultural fit _should_ be, I suppose. It is just that I've seen it too often degenerate into how the company can control your non-work hours. But yes, it is certainly important that the work environment be compatible with the way you like to work. In that regard, cultural fit makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is a fun one.

 _Why and when did the last 3 people who left your group, leave?_

The answer tells you volumes of useful information. It gets at what organizational turnover is, what people are unhappy about, and something about how much blame there is. Furthermore the question is so specific and unexpected that you sometimes get startlingly honest answers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Three of the four questions are closed.

Try instead:

What was the last thing Potential Co. did to invest in your professional development?

What would you most like to improve about the team's process and workflow?

What was the last thing you did together as a team outside of work?

A couple of others that usually yield interesting results:

What's the most challenging thing about working at Potential Co?

If you could reverse a single technical decision affecting your product, what would it be?

</comment><comment><USER13> Trick question: "If you paid for employee's training and he quits, would you keep investing in training of other employees?"

\</comment><comment> Source:

"The only worse thing to training employees and losing them is not training them and keeping them". -- Zig Ziglar

</comment><comment><USER14> Questions I have learned to ask (the hard way):

-Do you do performance evaluations / raises?

-Do you block any part of the internet?

-Do you allow working remotely?

-Do you have a sane sick day policy?

-What kind of basic hours per week do you expect?

<comment><USER14> Just so people understand where these questions come from, since some of the replies are suggesting I was asking the wrong questions:

-I worked at a place for 4.5 years without a single raise.

-I worked at a place that blocked every port other than 80, and that blocked most websites that used post operations, all email websites, and all personal file transfer apps (like dropbox).

-I worked at a place that literally did not allow working remotely, even though it was the kind of place where that actually would have been useful and productive, especially for emergencies.

-I worked at a place that only gave you three sick days per year. After that you were expected to either use your vacation days or accept unpaid days.

-I worked at a place that required 60 hours per week as a bare minimum, but in reality, expected more like 80+

(And these were all high tech companies)

<comment><USER15> I don't think you are asking the wrong questions, but I also don't think you will get the answers you want.

"-I worked at a place for 4.5 years without a single raise."

Did this place have solid revenues? They very well may not have earned a penny, in which case the backers wouldn't necessarily OK a raise.

"-I worked at a place that blocked every port other than 80, and that blocked most websites that used post operations, all email websites, and all personal file transfer apps (like dropbox)."

Were you in a regulated company? (I know you said high-tech but even within that area there are companies bound by various regulations like HIPAA)

"-I worked at a place that literally did not allow working remotely"

See above

"-I worked at a place that only gave you three sick days per year. After that you were expected to either use your vacation days or accept unpaid days."

How many vacation days did they give you? I've seen some companies give more vacation days but force you to take vacation days when you are sick. All in all, I think I would prefer 4 weeks vacation and no sick days versus 2 weeks vacation and 2 weeks sick days.

"-I worked at a place that required 60 hours per week as a bare minimum, but in reality, expected more like 80+"

I'm reminded of the office space scene with the flair. Especially when you are joining an early-stage company, you should expect to work long hours initially (which should taper off as the business settles.

<comment><USER14> 1\. Yes, a solid revenue stream from previously released projects. The company had no problem spending money on frivolous shit.

2\. No, it was a videogame company.

3\. See above.

4\. Two weeks, though in my case I was able to argue them to three because I had previously received three weeks at a different job.

5\. It was not an early stage company, also it was a company with no proper goals or direction, and massive amounts of mismanagement. You weren't at work for 60-80 hours because you had a lot to do; you were there because they expected you to be there, whether you had work to do or not. Leaving 'early' was cause for shaming because of "letting down all the other hard workers".

edit: I am now working for a company that had answers to all the questions, and did not lie about them, and it is effectively a dream job. Part of asking questions is making sure you get answers, and if you don't, then bail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> These are all very good questions and underscore the need to come to an interview prepared to do no less.

As a manager who frequently interviews developers nothing is more deflating than an applicant who, when asked if they have any questions, fumbles an awkward "no, not really" and the interview comes to an abrupt end.

</comment><comment><USER4> >> "Does Potential Co. value the professional development of its employees?"

This is a good question, but I'd avoid yes/no questions and ask for examples instead. "What are some things you do to encourage employee learning and growth?"

It's easy to say "yes", even if they're not doing much.

</comment><comment><USER17> "Describe a time you chose principle over immediate short-term interests."

This question can be asked of a prospective boss, a co-worker, or adapted to the company as a whole.

<comment><USER18> But whose principles? The employee or the company?

<comment><USER17> It doesn't matter. What does matter is how strong a commitment is shown to principle. Giving up a million-dollar contract because it supported something shady is impressive. By contrast, someone who ums and ahs and comes out with something lame may well be someone who always puts themself first.

<comment><USER19> It's a good question, but some companies may not have had the opportunity to do anything principled/unprincipled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands I learned to take asking questions of the interviewer really serious since the few times I was so enamored by the company, I didn't ask the right questions. A few months later, I was miserable.

The three main questions I ask are:

What do you do that separates yourself from your competition?

Who do you see as your biggest competitors?

How much have you been working with (insert some cutting edge technology - lately for me, it's been stuff like Backbone.Js or Parallax Scrolling)?

In terms of barometer, it gives me a solid idea of where the company is going, and how they view possible new technologies. These also tend to get, "Wow, that's a great question" from whomever is interviewing me.

</comment><comment><USER20> "Do you have any questions for me?" is usually asked by the potential employer in order to politely signal the end the interview and not because he's interested in your questions.

<comment><USER21> I don't have data on "usually" but I always find it a good way to determine whether the candidate is: (1) prepared; (2) interested; and (3) thoughtful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm a hiring manager. Almost by definition, I expect a good candidate to be someone who is asking me as many questions as I am asking them.

<comment><USER23> Otherwise it's probably not a good hire. I agree. Huzzah!

I tend to go for "curious" people. They have to ask a lot of quesstions of me (or at least previous people in the interview loop) to show they want to be there. Asking questions about the company/team is a sign that the candidate wants to buy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> >> "What's the most interesting thing you've worked on since you started at Potential Co.?"

This is my new go-to question. Plus, it works both ways, great to ask interviewees and interviewers. It really opens up the conversation and immediately gets to the core of the company/applicant.

</comment><comment><USER25> I really liked this article for two reasons; one as an interviewer I feel better about a candidate when they ask me questions, and second because knowing that a place isn't right for you really helps with deciding if you want the job or not.

As an employer and an employee what I want is _engagement_ not "headcount" that shows up to the milking barn on schedule, gets drained, and kicked back out into the field.

<comment><USER26> I think you caught a little catachresis at the end there.

<comment><USER25> Oh I _like_ that word. I get that a lot. But In this case I think it is more of a management speak thing. Engagement as the act of 'active participation' as opposed to "passivity" or having things happen around you without either encouraging or challenging them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I like to ask "What's the worst thing about working here at Potential Co?" In addition to (potentially) learning what the group's pain points are, it also allows the interviewer to blow off steam a bit (being on the other side of the table can be stressful too!) And if they dissemble or try to say that there are no downsides, well that's useful knowledge too.

</comment><comment><USER28> Sorry, but to be honest I find all the comments in here a lot more useful than your pretentious questions. Just be natural at job interviews, that is much more convincing than feigning interest in how well the team is doing, bla bla bla. Any interviewer who is worth anything will introduce the company's history to you anyway.

</comment><comment><USER29> I just mention my blog. Not on my CV because of HR walls, but in interviews, I mention its existence. If they still want to talk to me, then they're probably forward-thinking people.

If they don't look it up and are surprised that a certain level of talent inevitably comes with a certain level of anti-authoritarianism, it's not my fault. They were warned.

</comment><comment><USER30> Another article about the tech-industry entitlement culture.

[edit] It's quite fascinating that I get heavily down-voted every time I mention the entitlement-culture phenomenon. It really makes me cringe to read things like this, when less fortunate (but equally skillful) professionals have a hard time just getting an interview. The pendulum will swing back sooner or later, and we'll look back on this as the golden era of being a Software Engineer.

<comment><USER31> It has nothing to do with entitlement. It has to do with the fact that there's apparently a shortage of developers in the world which means that one can be more "picky" about what they expect from an employer. Also, I want a job where my responsibility is to get work done, not be required to follow unnecessary policies or accomplish things that have nothing to do with the task at hand. A lot of companies implement policies "just because" even if they hinder getting actual work done.

<comment><USER30> I think it's the same thing, isn't it? My wife is an Architect -- a real Architect, not a BillG wannabe -- and is gobsmacked at the arrogance of people in the tech industry towards hiring.

"I'm not here to be interviewed, I'm going to interview you" "These tremendous company benefits totally suck" "It is my divine right to work from home" "Co- workers are to be seen and not heard" etc etc

<comment><USER32> So it's okay for a corporation to be entitled but not individual people? Says quite a lot about you.

<comment><USER30> "Let me cram these words in your mouth, and point out how much that says about you". Erm..?

I can't reply so [edit], now you're going to tell me "that's how language works"? I stopped reading right there.

<comment><USER32> My point was presented as a question, you have the right to clarify your thoughts if you disagree. People make interpretations out of what other people have said. That's how language works, actually.

It just seems that you say it's wrong for the employees to have the edge, but not for the employer to have it. In another industry there's a lot more job seekers than available positions (e.g. the supply of jobs is lower than the demand). In those industries the company has the edge, it's entitled to hold all power in an interview situation, and can filter applications that try to make certain demands.

In the tech industry, there's big demand for experienced developers. Software engineers can choose a job from several good options. Therefore the applicants are entitled to make certain demands, like asking questions from the employer.

Besides, many employers except this, and say in the beginning of the interview that it's a "two-way interview".

Your comment made it seem that it's okay for only one side to be entitled, that is the company instead of the individual.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A conversation with Siri on the iPhone 4S - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mNcnj2l6RE

<comment><USER2> Did anyone else notice that at 4:16, when Jason does the dictation into Notes, Siri interprets what he says as 'I need to make some videos about the iPhone 4 ASS'?

In his own words: "it figured out exactly what I wanted it to say!"

</comment><comment><USER3> A data connection is required right? the heavy lifting is done server side?</comment>


Craigslist Casualty: The Story of ApartmentsNearMetro.com - <AUTHOR> http://williamlindner.com/projects/ApartmentsNearMetro.html

<comment><USER3> It's the inevitable fate for anything that uses CL for data. CL is too afraid of competition, yet refuses to innovate. It's a shame.

<comment><USER4> In defense of CL (which I have never before offered), I noticed some UI improvements recently: pic view, grid view, and map view.

These are the first noticeable innovations on CL in many years. Might they be the result of the on-going parade of sites improving upon CL w/ their own data, not to mention the criticisms on HN and elsewhere?

Whether they 'hate' competition is debatable. Clearly they view their data as THEIR property. They occasionally let things like PadMapper go while putting the ban hammer down on other things, very arbitrarily.

The Wired story on them about 5-6 years back suggested they are just very skeptical of third parties and human nature in general. It left me with the impression that Craig is just deeply selfish and authoritarian.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've seen the UI improvements, but haven't needed to use them so I don't know how good they are. If those work: Awesome! In a way, that's a victory. If CL incorporates the best things about 3rd party sites into their own site, I think that's a big win for consumers. If CL refuses to allow 3rd parties to exist because they are skeptical of human nature. Talk about the ultimate irony: a site that lives off of people's willingness to trust strangers being unwilling to trust strangers themselves.

<comment><USER4> Good point. Here's the quote from the end of the article:

"These all signal Newmark and Buckmaster's wariness about what humans, including themselves, might do if given the chance. There may be a peace sign on every page, but the implicit political philosophy of craigslist has a deeply conservative, even a tragic cast. Every day the choristers of the social web chirp their advice about openness and trust; craigslist follows none of it, and every day it grows."

HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=784663>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If the application is blocked, can the author please openSource the script? If everyone starts using the script, I believe it will be quite impossible for CL to block it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's a good idea. Craigslist basically blocked any connections from Google App Engine to their domain. But, if you ran the site from your own computer, they wouldn't really have any way to block it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Similar story as <https://www.padmapper.com/>. It's sad that craigslist isn't willing to either update their application or allow someone to make it more useful for their customers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I had that exact same pain point in 2011. It's too bad the Craigslist refuses to innovate or let others innovate on their platform.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah! It almost seems like a source of pride for them... What were you working on that got squashed by Craigslist?

<comment><USER7> I was simply trying to locate an apartment near Metro. I toyed with the idea of scraping their site but remembered this Wired story from 2009 [0] so I just gave up on using them for my search.

0: [http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/17-09/ff_...](http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/17-09/ff_craigslist?currentPage=all)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you want to compete with craigslist, build a better product and convince people that there is value for them to enter their data. That's what craigslist did.

</comment><comment><USER9> FYI: this is unreadable on my WP8 device. The screen width is set smaller than the text width so I have so scroll left and right for every line.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for letting me know, I implemented a quick fix for mobile devices. Unfortunately I don't have a WP8 to test it on, but it shouldn't require scrolling left and right anymore to read the text.

<comment><USER9> Thank for fixing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't get why people say things like, "It's too bad the Craigslist won't ... let other people innovate on their platform." It's just childish in my view. Here's another child's toys - and, granted, he has a LOT of toys[1] - and he's chosen to share them to every child in the world regardless of their background, yet you're upset because he's not sharing them in such a way that would only allow people to play with the toys on another playground. "He" doesn't want that - he wants to play, play, play with everyone. So he decides to say "No!" to anyone who wants to take his toys off of his playground.

If you don't like the way "he" plays with his toys, then tough cookies - "he" doesn't care and neither does anyone else except those who want to also complain about him not sharing in the way they want him to. You'll see this damn near every time someone posts a "Help! My API provider just changed the rules!" type of post. There are two types of responses: "I hate that - <USER2> should be more open", or "It's ridiculous to even think that you can build a business based off of leaching from someone else and that that other entity would be okay with that forever."

[1]Unlike children (who typically are given their toys), these toys are the result of "his" work.

<comment><USER11> _Unlike children (who typically are given their toys), these toys are the result of "his" work._

Er, no. They are the work of everyone who posts on CL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So there's Walk Score. Apartments near (Washington) metro example — <http://walk.sc/YPUq1a>

This doesn't really solve the problem of Craigslist hoarding all their data to themselves (as pointed out numerous times already), but there are enough other sources to make it usable.

</comment><comment><USER13> `<http://trycourier.com/?utm_source=anm-blog`> linked in the post seems to 403.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, it's just <http://trycourier.com>, I fixed the link. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _Had around 1,500 unique visitors with an average time spent on the site of > about 7 and a half minutes._

With no disrespect to the OP, that's not a _ton_ of users, even for a single day...so I'm kind of surprised Craigslist noticed enough to block them. There must be tons of unapproved scraper scripts checking CL on a daily basis.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very good point. 1,500 unique visitors is tiny. Hell, I will probably get more visitors to this single blog post. Forgoing everything about CL blocking me and such, I never did enough to promote the site. I started the site in 2011 and had little experience with promoting content. As a newb developer, I was leery of promoting something I created. What if it broke? What if people didn't like it? When in reality, I learned over time, that most people frankly don't care. And that's not a bad thing.

The past few years I have been learning over and over: ship it, get feedback, improve, repeat.

So, getting back to _how_ they blocked me. If I understand correctly, craigslist blocked any HTTP requests from the Google App Engine User Agent. HTTP Requests from Google App Engine always append 'AppEngine-Google' to the end of the User Agent ([http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=34...](http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=342#c12)).

You can recreate this block by doing this in python (you need the amazing python requests library, so install that): import requests

r = requests.get('<http://craigslist.com>) print r.status_code

This should print 200 and you're good to go.

Then, try it with the 'AppEngine-Google' in the user agent: r = requests.get('<http://craigslist.com>, headers={'User-Agent': 'AppEngine- Google'})

and r.status_code will return 404

bingo bango, you've been blocked. I could have just moved off of Google App Engine, etc. but I would probably be faced with a similar fate as Padmapper if I ever got any kind of sizable user base.

 __I created this gist:<https://gist.github.com/wlindner/4752122> since the python code formatting is wonky __

<comment><USER15> craigslist is hiring engineers. Interested?</comment></comment></comment>


What Comes After the Roomba? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/business/what-comes-after-the-roomba.html <comment><USER2> Full dosclosure: I am a roboticist. I've been in the field professionally for about thirty years.

I'm _really_ skeptical that there is anything "after the roomba". Or, to be more specific, I'm skeptical that technology used in the home will look anything like a robot, a self-contained intelligent machine that moves around and cleans/folds laundry/does dishes.

Ther are a couple of reasons for this. This first is that these problems are extremely hard to solve. And this is not true just in terms of algorithms, but also in terms of hardware. A humanoid robot is as complex as, if not more complex than, an automobile. Currently, humanoid robots go for $500,000 a pop. Even after economies of scale it's hard for me to imagine that getting below $50,000 — much less $5,000, which is probably the price range that makes them viable as anything other than a novelty for wealthy people.

Which brings up the second point. One thing I have learned the hard way in robotics is that you have to understand precisely what your competition is and how much money that competition requires to solve the problem. In the case of an in-home robot, for most of us the competition is our own labor or that of our significant others/kids/housemates. But we are not the early adopters of this technology. Wealthy people are. For wealthy people, the competition is either a live-in assistant or a contract cleaning service. Contract cleaning services pay their workers approximately minimum wage. Minimum wage is a very difficult price target for a robot to meet.

And the third issue is that to first approximation _these problems are already solved_. And not by what we would consider a robot, but by appliances. My grandmother, for most of her life, kept house without elecricity, and hence without a dishwasher, vacuum, or dryer. These appliances dramatically reduced the effort it takes to keep house, without being robots. I strongly suspect that any cost-efficient solution to folding clothes or taking dirty dishes from the sink and turning them into clean dishes in a cupboard will resemble an appliance. If you want your dishes cleaned robotically, then you don't put a robot in the kitchen. You turn the kitchen into a robot.

<comment><USER3> A friend's family "solved" the problem of cleaning dishes and putting them in the cupboard by having two diswashers, a magnet that said "clean", and a magnet that said "dirty".

<comment><USER4> So they just eliminated the cupboard? They must not have a whole lot of dishes!

<comment><USER5> No, in fact they had two self-cleaning cupboards.

<comment><USER6> That seems like a fire hazard.

<comment> village-idiot It's literally full of water.

<comment><USER6> It was a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think robots have an uncanny-valley effect not just in aesthetics, but utility. For example, I actually really like my roomba because it only does one thing: it cleans my floor (when it doesn't get tangled in some cord). However, if there was a humanoid robot that can walk around and possibly knock over something or do something unexpected, I don't want that thing in my house. What prevents some hacker to compromise the robot and have it stab me in my sleep?

Another example is Alexa/Google Home. Some people love the convenience these in-home services provide, but others find the utility itself a liability: is this thing always listening to me and recording me in my home? The robots can do too much, they have too many functions and abilities, which makes me question the intent of the robot.

For robotics to really take off, I think there needs to be a kind of anthropomorphization that needs to happen: the utility of the robot must be high enough that I know that it understands my intention and can respond accordingly; that is to say, that I can have a relationship with my robot.

<comment><USER8> I 100% disagree with your conclusion. People don't want robot buddies, they want dishwashers. And dishwasher equivalents for other household tasks.

<comment><USER9> People probably made that claim about a ton of other things which turned out false. The best example is music discovery, older generations might've thought "I want to pick my own music, there is no a way a computer could know what I like". But then show them Spotify's discover weekly and they discover 10 songs a week that they live.

<comment><USER10> I.e. Nobody would admit to wanting an camera+phone+email device before the first iPhone was released.

<comment><USER11> Give me a smartphone: "This is great, I don't need a watch!"

Give me a smart watch: "This is great, I don't need to pull my phone out!"

Predicting what people will/won't like seems like black magic to me, with after-the-fact efforts to diagnose why "obviously" people did/did not love something somehow only works in hindsight.

I'm not saying the idea of finding something useful and making money providing it is broken, only that pushing the boundaries is inherently unpredictable, because we aren't terribly logical (or at least have a lot of variables at play)

<comment><USER12> > Give me a smartphone: "This is great, I don't need a watch!"

Who ever said that, and why didn't those people carry pocketwatches?

<comment><USER13> > _Who ever said that?_

When I was a kid in the 90s, my impression was that most adults wore cheap quartz wristwatches. 25 years later, their kids have grown up but instead of wearing watches just carry phones around, because the smartphone is a good enough time-keeper.

Obviously many people still wear wristwatches, and the same type of people who wore watches as status-marking jewelry 20 years ago probably still do today. But wristwatches are no longer _necessary_ for telling time, as pretty much everyone carries a smartphone everywhere they go. For most people the additional convenience of having the watch on the wrist isn't worth carrying an extra device, at least not all of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article mentions "fast, cheap and out-of-control" but doesn't point out the excellent documentary by the same name: [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119107/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119107/)

The 1997 film, directed by master documentarian Errol Morris, covers 4 people: a lion tamer, a topiary gardener, an expert on the naked mole rat, and a then- obscure robot scientist. That robot scientist is Rodney Brooks, founder and former CTO of the Roomba's maker, iRobot.

I haven't seen it in years, but I adored the film. I saw it in the theater and had my mind blown: it was clear Errol Morris thought these very different people had something in common, but he never beats you over the head with it, letting you make up your own mind. I liked it so much I went back the next day and the next, something I've never done with a movie before or since. I'll have to watch it again to see how it looks these days.

<comment><USER15> I attended some lectures by Rodney Brooks - and I similarly had my mind blown. Over a few lectures he covered a wide variety of research, much of it for 3-letter organizations and it included his development of "scurrying" robots with multiple sensors and multiple actuators. Of course, much of it was subsumption architecture - still an interesting topic. He also talked about how he was trying to find a use for his robotic prototypes, and was creating a company to release a product. (So I guess this is yet another case of government investments resulting directly in privatized profit. Pretty typical - though many seem to want to deny it.)

<comment><USER16> > (So I guess this is yet another case of government investments resulting > directly in privatized profit. Pretty typical - though many seem to want to > deny it.)

You mean, like the Internet?

I thought that was one of the justifications for government-funded research. Long-term research that jumpstarts shorter-term private development and productization.

<comment><USER17> > You mean, like the Internet?

No. Most of the ARPANET, much less the Internet, wasn't originated from the government. They contributed maybe 3% of everything that went into it and people like to give them most of the credit. It was constructed of components invented in the private sector, with plenty of private networks among the first connections. Most of the people that worked on ARPANET were not employed by the government. SRI, BBN, Xerox were not government agencies. Harvard, Stanford, MIT, USC are not state schools. The government was the agent behind bringing ARPANET together. They did not form the actual Internet or invent most of its technology. Their single biggest contribution was being so kind as to get out of the way legally.

I'd argue that an easy 97% of everything that has gone into the _Internet_ over the last 35 years, has been private technology and private capital. The private sector has invested trillions of dollars into building out the Internet and making it was it is. The government has contributed a laughably tiny sum by comparison, in both monetary terms and technology.

Besides the myth that the government invented and constructed the Internet, the government barely has a single dollar it doesn't first take from the private sector. Nearly all of its resources derive from private sector production and taxation against that production. The government then redistributes that private sector money. Factually anything that government does, in other words, is first thanks to private money that makes it all possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To me, food preparation is the big void in automation. A few companies are trying it here and there, but being able to prepare a decent-tasting meal (even if you have to do the cleaning yourself) would change some lives dramatically.

These aren't things that necessarily require advanced AI or sensors or anything; the basic elements of cooking are relatively simple. The real issue is the vast diversity of cooking/compilation methods. In other words, automating meals could be done, but automating all meals would require something monumental.

But consider simple baked meals, which comprise thousands of recipes.

There are people in the space, but I think a commercial grade Cookbot is a holy grail for home automation.

<comment><USER19> I LOVE cooking, there is no way to express how much I love it. But strangely this love also has the implication that I hate when I need to cook fast. Sometimes I hang out a lot in the gym or work and come home around 9-10pm. At that point cooking for an hour is not option as it's almost bed time, so I cook fast. I hate this, and I just want ready food (but I never eat out as a principle).

I searched into this, tried to find startups that can automate my food. I'd be willing to pay a lot of money if a robot made my food exactly the way I want it, and then I can cook long meals 3 to 5 times a week. But unfortunately, the only relevant products are liquid food. There are some startups, such as Soylent, who claim their product has complete nutritional value. So you just shake their powder in water and be done with dinner in 2 minutes. I personally thought this is a distraction from the problem, but I honestly don't know how could we automate food.

<comment><USER20> Why not batch cook and plan on sometimes reheating leftovers?

<comment><USER19> Because I think both the process of batch cooking and reheating are bad for the flavor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Before dreaming on, why not make a Roomba that actually works.

I have an older Roomba and a newer BotVac, and the BotVac is slightly more clever, but it's about 10% chance that I won't find it bleeping helplessly on some new minor obstruction that it found. It's impossible to have a house where there are absolutely no cables, dropped socks, dropped toys, rugs, furniture with "tank stopper" properties, curtains that are slightly too low, etc, etc.

When my vacuum cleaner can untangle itself, I will pay silly money for something that takes care of my laundry.

After that, something that loads, unloads and sorts my dishwasher would be nice, but nothing comes close to pairing socks...

<comment><USER22> On that last bit - pairing socks: finally threw out 50+ multi-colored pairs and bought 20 in just two colors. All get dumped into one bin after drying. Three blind pulls guarantees a matched pair. Nice timesaver.

<comment><USER23> Wait until they start fading at different rates...

<comment><USER20> You can solve the uneven wear problem by not replacing them in the bin until the bin is empty. The laziest way to do this is to not launder your socks until you run out.

<comment><USER24> Now I understand why I didn't see what the problem was... :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The fact that lawn mowing or carpet cleaning isn't automated yet makes me think self driving cars are the biggest pipe dream ever.

<comment><USER26> These things are meant to be fab:

[https://www.husqvarna.com/au/products/robotic-lawn- mowers/](https://www.husqvarna.com/au/products/robotic-lawn-mowers/)

But also pricey. A couple of K for one.

<comment><USER27> Where do the clippings go?

<comment><USER28> They leave the clippings to fertilize the lawn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd really like a robot capable of creating standard meals. If something could cook up a small variety of basic dinners with customizations, or make a sandwich, I'd be really pleased. I imagine for a decently sized family, also having it handle ordering food delivery of necessary ingredients as they start to run low would be awesome.

<comment><USER30> I think this is better implemented industrially. It's easier to make a robot that can deliver food (made in a factory), than it is to make a robot that can cook a variety of meals from raw ingredients. Both are super difficult problems but delivery robots are at a more advanced stage. Instead of sandwich making robots we are more likely to see sandwich delivery robots rolling around the neighborhood, waiting for someone to summon them.

<comment><USER31> obligatory [http://tacocopter.com/](http://tacocopter.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Roomba is a great product. I've one that I've used for 4 years thrice a week without any problem. Another one that I've found indispensable is litter- robot. If I pay someone $5 to clear the litter of two cats, I'll have broken even in 100 days.

Sci-fi is rife with humanoid robots doing everything, while all customers want is specialized products that do one specific thing well and don't cost a lot.

Robotic lawn-mowers - considering there's such a huge market for it especially in the US, I'm surprised no one has come up with a cheap robotic lawn mower yet.

There was some rumor about iRobot coming up with their own lawn mower, but that was in 2016 and we've heard nothing of it yet. [https://gizmodo.com/we- can-finally-stick-a-name-on-irobots-r...](https://gizmodo.com/we-can-finally- stick-a-name-on-irobots-rumored-lawn-mow-1782893952)

<comment><USER33> Only speaking personally, but I actually enjoy cutting the grass. It's a sort of zen-like pattern game. I feel like this is a common sentiment.

Sweeping and vacuuming, on the other hand, isn't nearly as interesting.

<comment><USER34> Vacuuming is good when you've waited too long and can really really see the difference it makes (not just a little).

<comment><USER35> Having a vacuum cleaner that's not a complete PITA helps too (e.g. light, cordless and powerful)

I don't enjoy any housework and used to use a robot vacuum cleaner more or less exclusively, but it can't have been off its dock more than twice in the last 6 months. I actually enjoy doing it myself when I don't have to lug around a big heavy device with a power cord trailing out of it. Never thought I'd see the day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A bit off-topic, but as somebody living in Europe, I found it interesting to discover from the comments here that lawn mower robots are not popular in the US. Some of the readers don't even seem to know they exist.

What is the reason for this? I know that estates are bigger in the US than in Europe _on average_ , but there must be still millions of families with lawns smaller than 10,000 sqft? (which is the maximum lawn size for most robots below $1500)

(Of course, there could be some bias here; many HN readers probably live in big cities)

</comment><comment><USER37> Having hacked on Roombas[0], one thing which dissatisfies me is open hardware access. That is, let advanced users SSH into the robots and let them read the sensor data and control the robot. Once you have that you could repurpose the robot for your own needs, which for me in [0] was basic object detection (trying to find something resembling human legs in this case). This could be used for either counting people in the room or to give spatial data information for other use-cases. As demonstrated in my later YouTube video[1] the floorplans created with the vacuum cleaner laser can be used to position IoT devices for your own augmented reality stuff, that is, for real-time position tracking in relation to the room in which the robot is standing in, or just simply calibrating a gyroscope of another device which then uses the pre-made floorplans.

Anyhow, one thing which I have been thinking is that given a smart home, do people rather want to talk to an abstract thing like an Alexa, or will they want to have a physical thing to which they talk to, like the vacuum cleaner. I imagine the interaction is a bit different regarding whether you just command Alexa to turn things off, rather than have a vacuum cleaner, which you can call to come to you, and still respond similarly to Alexa. With kids, I guess they'd essentially prefer vacuum cleaners, albeit I haven't really tested their reaction because the toddlers I know do not speak English for which the speech recognition stuff is mature. My peers do not expect my vacuum cleaner to either talk or listen, which it can do both, so it seems like it should also roam the room around (without cleaning objective) for others to interact with it. Given the time and artistic freedom, I'd probably buy plenty of vacuum cleaners and have them scan the campus corridors for stationary people to talk to, to essentially just see what people talk back to the robots.

Sorry if the text is incomprehensible, it is quite late.

[0]: [https://youtu.be/mlAEZZ5fPbo](https://youtu.be/mlAEZZ5fPbo) [1]: [https://youtu.be/OTlOULeNUUo](https://youtu.be/OTlOULeNUUo)

<comment><USER38> The botvacs (at least my D85) has a uart interface, and a published API[1] that allows you to control and read back all sorts of information, including raw data from the lidar.

1\. [https://www.neatorobotics.com/resources/programmersmanual_20...](https://www.neatorobotics.com/resources/programmersmanual_20140305.pdf)

Edit: damn, they moved the document, or took it down altogether :(

<comment><USER39> Most Roombas that I know of also have something like that -- a UART interface, published spec, and ability to drive/clean/read sensors. I'm not sure if LIDAR data is available on the higher-end ones, though.

[https://www.irobotweb.com/~/media/MainSite/PDFs/About/STEM/C...](https://www.irobotweb.com/~/media/MainSite/PDFs/About/STEM/Create/iRobot_Roomba_600_Open_Interface_Spec.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm surprised (or maybe I just missed it) there isn't a Roomba thing to mow the lawn that works as well as the Roomba does for floors. That is, does a decent, but not perfect job. Maybe this is a harder problem to solve mostly due to the danger?

<comment><USER26> These things are meant to be fab:

[https://www.husqvarna.com/au/products/robotic-lawn- mowers/](https://www.husqvarna.com/au/products/robotic-lawn-mowers/)

But also pricey. A couple of K for one.

<comment><USER41> What do you mean "Fab"?

<comment><USER42> fab = fabulous, which can mean "amazing" to "really quite good".

<comment><USER41> "meant to be fabulous" is a weird construction.

<comment><USER42> "meant to be" means "other people say"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think there's still some innovation remaining for the robot vacuum.

Like a robot vacuum that can handle stairs. The Roomba does a pretty decent job on a single-level, but has to be manually carried up/down stairs and someone still has to vacuum the stairs themselves.

And one that can automatically detect when it's ingested a wire would be nice, I've lost 2 USB cables to our Roomba so far.

And this guy would like his robot vacuum to detect when it's run over soft, pliable waste before it spreads it throughout the house:

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation- now/2016/08/15/po...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation- now/2016/08/15/pooptastrophe-man-details-night-his-roomba-ran-over-dog- poop/88667704/)

<comment><USER44> I have two dogs that shed and was hoping a robot vacuum cleaner would save us a ton of time. I also thought our house was ideal for a robot vacuum cleaner (all wood floors except some low-pile rugs) and my wife and I are very clean and consistent about picking up, but it turned out not to be the case. I bought a high-end robot vacuum (Neato D5) and used it every day for a week. It got stuck every time it cleaned, couldn't clean the whole house without a charge cycle, and I had to empty the bin on it at least two times per cleaning.

Other than the fact that it was unattended, the robot vacuum was significantly worse than a regular vacuum. So I'd say there's still a ton of room for improvement and innovation in the robot vacuum market.

<comment><USER43> I'm sure it depends on the dog's hair, our dogs shed short ~1/2 inch long white hairs that end up all over the place. The Roomba (some mid-range $300 unit) runs every other day (one day downstairs, the next day upstairs) and does a good job of getting the hair out of the carpet. The bin is always full of dog hair and lint.

It hasn't completely replaced the regular vacuum, but we can run it much less frequently (like every other week instead of every other day).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> We just have to look harder for them.

"self driving" cars are effectively cars with a robotic driver. They aren't here yet but they are on the horizon.

Arguably, the car itself is a robot. "Hey robot, go pick up soandso at the airport" or "hey robot please drop off these packages at the UPS store", etc.

Robotic locks "Alexa, lock the front door".

AR technologies on phones is straight out of sci fi, but in sci fi it would have been glasses or goggles offered by a humanoid robot... but now nearly everyone's phone can do it.

The Roomba is a great example of a robot that required a significant redefinition of the "problem" of vacuuming. A normal vacuum picks up some dirt, a Dyson will pick up significantly more dirt. A Roomba barely picks up any. The secret is that the Roomba goes all over the floor many times and eventually does a job comparable to a standard vacuum, but with no human labor required. The task is also stretched in time, the Roomba takes 5x or 10x longer than a human would take to do the same job, but it's OK because it can do the work when nobody is home to be annoyed by the noise.

Industrial automation is significantly enhanced by robotics, and it does a good enough job that we just buy the resulting products at the store, not knowing or caring how they were made.

Some robots that could be made with existing tech that would save lives would be:

\- crossing guard robots that scoot out into the intersection to create a physical barrier before pedestrians begin to cross, then quickly scoot back to allow cars once the light changes.

\- yoga robots that stretch and massage the muscles of humans to gently improve mobility and strength.

\- sex robots create companionship for those who have difficulty with human companionship.

\- tiny pest control robots will detect and help exterminate rodent and insect infestations, preventing disease.

\- guardian robots will accompany elderly people, always ready to catch them if they fall and to call for help if needed. Similar units will accompany children while they walk to school or go about their communities unattended by adults.

</comment><comment><USER46> This article missed an artful nod to Robert A. Heinlen's "The Door into Summer." This terrific novel not only heavily features the rise and use of home-robots, but has a bunch of cat stuff in it to-boot.

I give this a hearty recommend for imaginative cat companion-having, home- robot enthusiasts.

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

</comment><comment><USER47> A Roomba that won't spread your pets sick and poo all over the floor? (apologies this is a long thread and I'm sure someone has this already).

<comment><USER48> hah. that would be awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Usually me with the hoover, doing the bits it missed.

<comment><USER50> This is why you need a general purpose robot - to fill the gap where the specialized robots can't quite make it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I know it's a 1000x harder but I'd pay for a dusting roomba that climb all the hard surfaces in my house and removed the dust. Of course apparently roombas can't even handle the floor so I have no hope there will be shelf crawling min roombas anytime soon.

<comment><USER52> There exist remote control cars that are light enough to stick to the wall with a little suction. Add brushes, a filter, dust storage, and automation and there's your solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> What comes after the Roomba?

Electric cooktops with built in timers.

Why, oh why! does nobody build electric cooktops with built in timers?!

At least, I haven't been able to find one here in Australia at a reasonable price. I think I saw some huge six zone one with touch controls that had it, but it was $6,9999.

<comment><USER36> Something like this?

[https://www.bosch-home.com.au/productlist/cooking- baking/coo...](https://www.bosch-home.com.au/productlist/cooking- baking/cooktops/ceramic-cooktops)

<comment><USER53> Yes! But it's $2,000 and won't fit in the space I have.

Will have to have a closer look when I get home, see if there's a 60cm model with timers.

But yeah thanks, I've tried looking a few times online. Admittedly haven't been in to a store to ask.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Easy: a Roomba that does not smear pet feces.

I would happily spend double the amount of todays best Roomba if they could invent one that would simply stop when it found pet poop.

After breaking 3 robots over my knee for covering my floor in pet poo, I decided to simply not vacuum. :D

<comment><USER55> I've heard about that problem so I only run mine while I'm home. Why don't you do that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> We had a Roomba for two years and then replaced it with a cordless vacuum from Dyson.

The Roomba never cleaned everything and we had to modify our home quite much to prevent it from getting stuck.

So, after the Roomba is before the Roomba, I guess.

<comment><USER57> I laughed when my dad gave me a refurb Dyson "dustbuster" style vacuum -- it's easily the most useful new cleaning item ever.

Robots imo are less interesting than novel applications of lithium ion batteries.

<comment><USER16> I've been tempted. I have a housekeeper every few weeks. But I do need to clean up every now and then. My old canister vac is such a pain to get out for a small job though that I tend to just avoid whatever needs doing.

<comment><USER57> Do it.

It replaces your dustpan, catches bugs, is great for the car, etc. My 6 year old cleans the dinner table with it.

<comment><USER56> Yes, I never liked cleaning much, but these battery powered vacuums are gold.

It improved my life like dishwashers or laundry dryers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> How about a better Roomba? One that can handle obstacles and cables, intelligently avoid dog poop, can always find its way back to home base for a charge, etc.

</comment><comment><USER59> I think the "all-or-nothing" mind might have something to do with it. Obviously tech has a long way to go to have a replacement house maid bot. But there are several bridge applications: e.g.

* a bot that just scrubs dishes and places into a dishwasher

* a stairbot that lugs heavy items up & down stairs

* a bot that separates recyclables from your trash

These are feasible with current tech IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER60> And even roomba is very mediocre. I dont even use it and when i do i know its going to do a lousy job. It's still a demo.

<comment><USER61> I run mine every day. I know it's not going to get 100% of the house clean on the first pass, but as long as the house doesn't get dirtier than the Roomba can clean in one day, we're good. If the Roomba gets 50% of the house clean every day and the house only gets 25% dirtied every day, then every day my house gets 25% cleaner. It's a life saver with two shaggy dogs and hardwood floors.

If you run it very infrequently, it'll never have a chance to catch up. You also need to replace the filters every so often in order to keep the proper amount of suction.

<comment><USER62> My wife and I have bought 5 or 6 roombas over the last several years. We have a 2000sf house, and run the roomba multiple times a day. We run each one so often, that we generally replace the batteries and other parts in it multiple times until the machine finally dies in some weird manner. Our last one "died" when one of the photodetector sensors went out on it. I looked into fixing it, but it was one of those jobs that required you to take nearly half of the robot apart (and the screws are not all the same, and there were something like 40+ screws to juggle) just to solder in a small phototransistor. Without that part, the roomba just goes in a circle and then stops. Instead, we bought another, and that roomba ended up in my junk pile with the others (I'm slowly building a (broken) roomba army to take over the world - don't tell anyone)...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The Roomba is the single worst tech product I've ever purchased, and I've brought a lot of junk. So much more hassle than running the hoover round a few times a week.

I wonder what thier repeat purchase rate is? I suspect it's not that significant beyond a few die hards.

</comment><comment><USER64> Am I the only one who considers a dishwasher and a vacuum cleaner to be a very simple robot? It seems like robot == machine +/\- software. From that standpoint, we have had increasingly complex robots in our homes for a long time now.

<comment><USER65> Yeah I think people want their "robots" to be able to move around. I guess the washing machine is just that, a machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The scale of effort and investment going into freeing us of the burden of caring for the elderly and disabled is astounding.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'd love a roomba that knows to not smear cat vomit/shit. That's the only reason I don't have one.

</comment><comment><USER68> Odd that they didn't ask Rodney Brookes!

</comment><comment><USER69> The Roomba 2.0</comment>


The plight of Japan's hikikomori - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190129-the-plight-of-japans-modern-hermits <comment><USER3> I knew before seeing the source that it was BBC. They've had some strange fixation with dystopian Japan and perceived issues in contemporary Japanese culture for years now. Very rarely reporting about similar classes of stories from other foreign countries like that.

The same stories get recycled again and again.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704?intlink_from_url=&...](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-47033704?intlink_from_url=&link_location=live- reporting-story)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01knsnp](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01knsnp)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rxggk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04rxggk)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39981997](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-39981997)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9IRmUEsz6g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9IRmUEsz6g)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12347219](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-12347219)

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03fh0bg](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03fh0bg)

[https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23182523)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr5y1iP9TfU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr5y1iP9TfU)

(This one is ironic: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064ww32?ns_mchannel=social...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064ww32?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_radio_4&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_music))

<comment><USER4> The banner at the top of this story seems to indicate that it's part of a BBC series called "Japan: Untold stories", which could explain the frequency of similar stories: [http://www.bbc.com/future/columns/japan-untold- stories](http://www.bbc.com/future/columns/japan-untold-stories)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Tom Cahill, in his book "Mysteries of the Middle Ages" [1] explains explains how in ancient times, people had very different attitudes towards hermits, shut-ins, and the like:

"Though often represented as a period of repression... the Middle Ages offered - at least in religious roles - more options than now allowed. ...in the Middle Ages such social oddities were welcomed and assigned a place of honor. While the rest of us went about our worried lives, they prayed for us continually, speaking to God on our behalf."

[1] [https://books.google.com/books?id=_vikHFhqIwIC&source=gbs_na...](https://books.google.com/books?id=_vikHFhqIwIC&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

</comment><comment><USER6> It seems to me that being a young man has become harder. More pressure to achieve and more status trinkets to get. Not like fancy cars, but having a cool job, work out and travel a lot and so on. My dad had it easier than me, and I in turn have had it easier than what my sons will have it.

<comment><USER7> In the documentary 'Flight from Death', Prof. Sheldon Soloman touches on the idea that there are serious psychological consequences of the rising expectations we as a society put on people in a world of diminishing opportunity, which I found rather profound. Here's the relevant clip, if you're interested:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXZB9t_ypO4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXZB9t_ypO4)

<comment><USER8> At about the 3:00 minute mark in that clip he claims that we don't have a set of values in place that makes it acceptable for a person to simply be someone of integrity. I.e. our culture demands that you be rich, famous, thin and good-looking.

This is a ridiculous claim. While our culture certainly places an outsized (IMO) emphasis on celebrity and wealth most people, most of the time, aren't fixated on becoming the next Musk or Kardashian and are able to lead exceedingly satisfying lives.

If the the conditions of the hikikomori - or the West's version of them - <USER2> rooted in their anxiety about living up to what they see on TV and in celebrity media then a healthy dose of Buddhism or Stoicism is probably called for.

<comment><USER6> My view isn't that the kids these days are asking for more than their fair share. What they want is what their parents had; a wife and family, a home and a decent job. But the hoops they have to jump through to get there are much higher than there were for us in the old generation. So they give up and spend their time on video games and porn. They aren't chasing the billionaires of the world - they are chasing Al Bundy!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How do these people live/survive? Do they have income coming in from somewhere or do their families support them? I know a few people that would like to stay inside and do stuff they really like (play games, read books, draw, write...) but they don't have the means to do it. Another issue has to do with the actual physical/materialistic reality. Don't they need to buy food, put the garbage out, visit the doctor, buy stuff...how is it possible for someone to stay months or years inside the house?

<comment><USER10> "Japanese parents feel a strong obligation to support children no matter what and shame often prevents them from seeking help, says Kato."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> My wife's uncle became a social recluse after his wife passed away. Everyone in the family sees him as just this odd person, but I'm pretty sure he is either depressed, mentally ill or both. After his wife passed he would not go out of the house for long stretches. He is retired and collects a good pension so money is not an issue. Despite living maybe 20 feet across the street from us, we hardly ever see him. He goes to his mother's for dinner every day but to catch a glimpse of him is a rare sight. I'd say I've seen him maybe twice a year these past few years. It's unknown what he does at home and how much technology plays a role in his behavior, but I suspect he is a gamer or has some sort of addiction.

I have personally struggled with gaming addiction for years, leaving at times and then getting sucked right back in without any self-control. Just recently I got hooked on Elder scrolls online and it took some struggling to let go. I can say for certain that gaming deepens whatever emotional state of isolation one can experience. Despite having fun, the feeling of loneliness gets stronger. I think if I didn't have my wife and kid I would probably spend my life hunched over a screen dying while I play an mmo. I would get so depressed I'd probably let go of any form of self-care and fade into a blob of flesh and bodily fluids.

For all the bringing together that technology is supposed to do, I feel like it had a complete opposite effect. Sure, for some it's awesome to stay in touch with people you wouldn't have stayed in touch with otherwise, but in general it has made society more closed and people isolated from one another.

<comment><USER12> Your story reminds me of a story about heroin addicts in Russia who started taking krokodil (a homemade version that causes slow body death and decay). Addicts retreat into their addictions to hide from their problems. It gets harder and harder to break the cycle, because they don't address the core issue and they are creating more problems from themselves (physical, legal, social isolation). In the case of krokodil, stopping the drug meant dealing with the pain/shame of open sores and rotting flesh. Many people think of addiction in terms of physical symptoms and mental toughness. In many cases, human addiction is a tragedy on a mass scale. The people that work with addicts are truly doing God's work.

<comment><USER13> It's different in Russia than in America, but this makes me think about the McKinsey news item that came up the other day, and how they essentially guided Purdue to juice opioid sales. Of course, once prices go up and addicts cannot afford their prescription that was likely not issued in the best faith, it is no wonder that they turn to cheaper, but frequently impure and lethal fentanyl. I agree with you that people who work with addicts are truly doing God's work; no matter how secularly I want to phrase it, when I see large scale addiction it is very difficult not to see the abstract idea of the devil. People physiologically enslaved to a chemical, slowly dying, facing an uphill battle against tolerance and death -- it's all so very bleak, even more so because it is in the present moment and was fully supported by the public health care system. One wonders where the oversight was; and who is responsible? Maybe we all are responsible.

<comment><USER14> Agree fully on the points about people working with addicts, and Purdue seem to have no moral compass to counteract the profit motive. About the enslavememt to the chemical itself, it's more complicated. The drugs primarily tend to serve as substitutes for the natural positive reinforcers the addicted person is missing, and there's often a history of trauma and psychological unhealth prior to the drugs entering the picture. Like for the Krokodil users in the parent post, the natural and externally imposed consequences of maintaining the habit lead to a negative spiral where there's more pain, suffering and hopelessness to face when trying to quit. I highly recommend Johann Hari's book "Chasing the Scream", and Gabor Mate's "In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts". Truly enlightening reads if one wants to better understand addiction

<comment><USER15> Thanks you for the suggestions and for pointing to a more realistic point about addiction. As I see - and I've been living in this for many years - addiction has nothing to do with the chemical. Johann Hari has some very good thoughts on the topic. The first time I heard about him was this talk: [https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_y...](https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=talk&utm_term=social- science)

His books worth checking out too. As someone who struggled with addiction since childhood it is something I can very much relate to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Im not sure these people are mentaly ill. In the past such people were lauded as important thinkers. A monk living a minimalist life was not sick. Hermits living alone, most always in pathetic circumstances, were consulted for thier wisdom. How many of our great religeous leaders spent some years huddled in a cave alone? These people may not be normal, but i dont think this is a new problem... if it even is one.

Not everyone gets to have a good job, a wife, kids and a house. Our society is very competative. There are worse reactions than becoming withdrawn. These people are not violent. They are not addicted to drugs. They are not in prison. There are far worse social ills.

And lighthouse keepers. That used to be a thing.

<comment><USER17> Being addicted to drugs is probably not as big of a problem as the hikkomori. While doing drugs you can productively contribute to society and most addictions naturally pass as people get older. I'm not sure the same is true with the hikkomori. Also many hikkomori do become violent or engage in self- harm: lashing out at themselves or their family.

After spending 8 years in your room and only talking to your parents through a door, it probably takes a huge toll on your mental health. And since Japan is a shame/honor-society, the effects compound very quickly. To make matters worse, once you fall out of the "right" track in Japan, you are categorically excluded from certain forms of work and social status.

This means that if, say, you stay in your room a year after high school instead of going to college, you will never be accepted into college for the rest of your life. You will never be able to get a high status salaryman job. This leads to a mindset that there's no going back and that the rest of their lives are ruined.

The hikkimori are a class of people that suffer from a culturally specific syndrome that would manifest itself in other ways outside Japan/Asia. Depression or anxiety probably.

I think a large part of the problem is that it is very common in Japan for children to live with their parents for a relatively long time compared to Western (or at least American) society. And since Japanese culture is built on the honor/shame duality, everytime the child disappoints their parents, the effects compound. This eventually leads to a point where the child is so ashamed, they just lock themselves in their room to escape.

If children just left the house earlier, I think this would solve a lot of problems. They would leave their rooms because no one would be there to judge them.

As an aside, it's interesting that the problem is only with men. Women are held to a lower standard and don't feel the type of pressure as men to become successful and honor their parents.

<comment><USER18> > _most addictions naturally pass as people get older_

Is this true?

<comment><USER19> Apparently yes [https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of- substance/novem...](https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of- substance/november-2014/ageing-out-of-addiction/)

<comment><USER20> I don't see it mentioned so I wonder if that 'aging out' effect takes into account people just dying. I.E: On average these addictions are either dealt with by 4/10/15 years or it's deteriorated bad enough for the person do die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >A government survey found roughly 541,000 (1.57% of the population)

Something's not right about that figger. 1.57% out of a pop of 126MM is roughly 2MM.

<comment><USER22> Presumably only counting people of a certain age, i.e. excluding retirees or people above a certain age and children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-the- world_ticket](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-the-world_ticket) can help them

</comment><comment><USER24> Its fairly typical during the early stages of societal collapse to blame the first victims. Obviously the cultural-wide problem of declining standards of living must be solely the fault of the first victims or their families not trying hard enough. The whole point of the situation is "have a live" was quite achievable to everyone just a generation or two ago. As the decline continues, societal expectations will eventually change to match and the problem and bullying of the victims will disappear naturally, so in a sense its not really a problem.

The victims are likely to get blamed for economic problems such as demand destruction. If an economy for 100M people requires 100M "great jobs" spenders but only has 95M "great jobs" available, those 5M kicked out of society are going to have trouble keeping the consumer economy running. Resulting in economic contraction to a 95M person-sized economy for a 100M nation only having maybe 90M "good jobs" rinse and repeat until collapse.

<comment><USER25> > _Its fairly typical during the early stages of societal collapse to blame > the first victims._

Interesting statement. What previous societal collapses can you cite to back up that claim?

<comment><USER24> Seriously? You first. Find me a counterexample in history, of the decline of a civilization, which resulted in BETTER treatment of minorities, outgroups, or weak sub populations.

I hate to Godwin the discussion but as a trivial example I don't think the Jews got gassed in Germany because the economy was too strong and Weimar was too politically stable. Generally you don't want to be part of a small outgroup during a societal collapse, the masses will demand somebody gotta be burned at the stake and its not going to be the popular group.

<comment><USER26> i don't think he was doubting you, he was asking for evidence of your seemingly insightful claim.

Your points don't seem to be aligned though. Minorities suffering is not the same as blaming the first coincidental victims of economic downturn.

<comment><USER27> I think it's more that during a downturn the powerful find ways to make some victims blame other victims but not the powerful who are doing quite well. Just look at the latest political developments. Workers think that immigrants are the source of their declining job prospects instead of questioning why the upper x percent take an increasing share of economic output for themselves and even give themselves tax cuts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Saying Goodbye to Pylons - <AUTHOR> http://www.mickgardner.com/2011/04/20/saying-goodbye-to-pylons.html

<comment><USER2> Although I respect your decision to go with Ruby on Rails (heck, I've wanted to learn that framework myself for a while) I must ask: did you try Django?

<comment><USER3> I'm curious about this myself. I'm trying to pick one to go with, it's a toss up between rails and django right now.

<comment><USER2> I don't know. I don't want to advocate _against_ Rails, because I haven't used it, but I've used Django extensively and I love the living crap out of it.

There was a time (back in the bad pre-1.0 days) where there was an argument about how things were too integrated and made using a different template language/ORM almost impossible. Nowadays you can use pretty much whatever you like, as long as you don't complain about the admin contrib module not working.

I'd definitely recommend you to give Django a go. Follow the tutorial, stick with it for a bit (the learning curve is a bit steep at first, specially when it comes to understanding how everything fits together) and you'll probably be happy you did.

BTW, I always recommend newcomers (specially those not familiar with other MVC frameworks) to read this article by James Bennet explaining exactly what the heck's going on when a request is made: [http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jun/13/how-django- processe...](http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jun/13/how-django-processes- request/)</comment></comment></comment>


How to take a screenshot - <AUTHOR> http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3gy7f97Ye1qzpapzo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1275803864&Signature=crL3VAhhdyBKuF3NtAe7Xbs26HE%3D

<comment><USER2> Being a site for hackers, and given that Android's source code is available, this is actually a challenge rather than just another internet dick-waving contest, right?

 _Edit_. Like this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1406553>

</comment><comment><USER3> Non-savvy users really get lost at how screenshots work.

I have a buddy who's a programmer at publishing house, specializing in niche magazines, and they deal regularly with non-savvy older users. He's got this story about one such customer who was complaining that something wasn't working on the website and when asked to send a screenshot he proceeded to:

1) Press PrintScreen 2) Paste it into Word 3) Print it out, and finally, 4) Fax it to the company.

I thought that was kind of related, and rather humorous.

<comment><USER4> I REGULARLY receive photos from cameras of someones computer screen when asked to supply a "screen shot". It was kinda funny the first few times...now its just sad.

<comment><USER5> One time, my kernel was crapping out and endlessly printing stuff I couldn't read because it was scrolling WAY to fast and ctrl+s did not work either, so I photographed my screen to be able to read what the kernel was trying to tell me (hardware defect).

<comment><USER6> Once, we had an issue with a single board computer that seemed like a hardware issue so we called support, and they wanted the output of a logical analyzer. Unfortunately, we didn't have an interface for our old analyzer, and so we set up a webcam to show the analyzer screen to the support guy over NetMeeting. It was kind of funny, but worked great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am surprised at how useful what a seemingly superfluous feature is on the iPhone. I often find myself grabbing screenshots of things and sending it to friends, Twitter and Facebook. My location on a map. An amusing article I just saw. An SMS conversation. It's not obvious, but once you know how to do it, it's very handy and I'm surprised it's so difficult with Android.

<comment><USER8> I love screenshots from the iPad maps application imported into SketchBook or some other drawing app. Very useful for whipping up driving directions to forward to a friend.

<comment><USER9> Why wouldn't you just forward them a link to the driving directions page? You lose all the functionality of the awesome Internet we have in 2010 by sending someone a static map. Anyone who can receive that would be in front of a computer connected to the internet, or if they are on the go, would be on a smart phone with internet access so they could look it up themselves. Might as well just carry around a paper map.

Unless you want to be a doormat like that guy in the commercials whose friends call him to ask him for driving directions and movie show times because your phone lets you browse the web while you're in a call at the same time. Let your friends look up their own directions.

<comment><USER10> I typically send all three. I send the link for the driving directions, I send my own summary which makes sense to local people, and a screenshot of a map, with my scribbles on there. "There's this landmark, here's where you turn, this is Xyz Lane which you'll see on your left just before the street you turn into, so be ready when you see it, here's our house on the left. If you're coming from the south instead of west, this is where you'll be coming from." As far as I know, no one's ever gotten lost this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Windows 7 actually comes installed with a Microsoft-developed 'Snipping Tool', which allows the user to drag a semi-transparent box (or free form, or windows size, or full screen) over whatever part of the screen the user so desires. You can annotate, paste, or save the image wherever you like!

/end campus rep plug

<comment><USER4> Sadly though it still pails in comparison with fastStone capture. It is impossible to take a screenshot of a menu such as file >> Save As with the windows 7 too because focus goes to the tool when you select it, where as in fastStone it does not...plus you can annotate, add drawings, and when you save it automatically timestamps the filename for you so you don't have to rename all your freaking files...

In the interest of fairness i take a HUGE number of screenshots (tech support) so the win 7 tool may be adequate for most, i still find it sub par ( also for a mac shift+ctrl+cmd+4 saves a snippet to your clipboard...better than the windows 7 equivalent IMHO shift+cmd+4 to save as a file to your desktop)

<comment><USER12> From the help for the Vista version of the Snipping Tool:

Can I capture a snip of a menu, such as a shortcut menu or the Start menu?

Yes. Here's how to do it: Click to open Snipping Tool. On the Snipping Tool toolbar, click the Minimize button, and then open the menu that you want to capture. Press CTRL+PRINT SCREEN. Select the type of snip you want, and then capture the menu.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
        grep ss[fw] .bashrc
        alias ssf="import -frame -depth 8 -border ~/pic/ss/`date +%Y%m%d-%H%M`.png"
        alias ssw="import -window root -depth 8 ~/pic/ss/`date +%Y%m%d-%H%M`.png"

Results run through OptiPNG.

Other than capturing windows and full screen shots, it would also be nice to have some KISS solution for doing selections, like in Mac OS X.

<comment><USER14> import does just that, if you drop the "-window root" argument

<comment><USER13> Huh, thanks! Will sure add 'sss' (selection) alias :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This really annoyed me. I took screenshots on my iPhone regularly to share things with people.

I _can't_ do that on my Android phone without rooting it (at least, according to the screenshot apps in the market).

<comment><USER16> I've had the exact same experience. Admittedly, I was usually taking screenshots of the iPhone to share amusing UI bugs... but still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I did't know how to take a screenshot on the iPhone but this would be useful. So I searched for other iPhone tips I'm missing, and here is a pretty nice collection:

[http://iphonetoolbox.com/news/ultimate-list-of-iphone- tips-a...](http://iphonetoolbox.com/news/ultimate-list-of-iphone-tips-and- tricks/)

</comment><comment><USER18> I find it interesting that this is so easy on iPhone and so hard on Android.

For some reason, I think of taking screenshots as a poweruser feature (which might or might not be the case), and that Android would make it easy, while Apple wouldn't make it available to regular users.

I wonder what the thinking behind those decisions were. Did his Steveness demand the easy screenshot functionality to capture UI feedback on the go?

<comment><USER19> It is interesting considering the limited number of physical button combinations on the iPhone. It was definitely more than an after-thought. They introduced the feature in iPhone OS 2.0 at the same the SDK was released so I'm guessing they intended it mostly for developers then realized it was pretty handy for all sorts of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hate the way it is done on OS X, too. I can't remember keyboard shortcuts I only use every couple of months.

Usually I use The Gimp for screenshots.

Anyway, this thing should be easy to fix for Android.

<comment><USER21> You can always change the keyboard shortcuts to something else if you don't like Cmd-Shift-3 and Cmd-Shift-4.

<comment><USER22> My prob with using a Mac for he last two years is instructions that use the alt and cmd keys (which are labelled on my MacBook keyboard as alt and cmd) as something else - one is called 'option', the other 'apple' but there is no key labelled either 'option' or 'apple' on the MacBook.

<comment><USER23> The option/apple keys are the alt key - until a couple years ago, there was no 'alt' and the option/apple key was called 'open apple option' by most people.

<comment><USER22> Thanks, but it's not so much the correct answer to the question that concerns me, but why there needs to be a question at all.

If the key is labelled alt, call it alt, if it wants to be called steve, then have the documentation refer to it as steve.

It's a keyboard. It shouldn't be this complex.

<comment><USER21> I agree. Calling the command key apple is falling out of use though. Most people these days call it command or use the cloverleaf symbol, and it says command and has the cloverleaf symbol on it. People have started calling option alt and I'm not 100% sure why that's so, but they key says option and alt, so it shouldn't really be confusing (except that some people might think you hold Fn to make it alt instead of option, or something like that).

<comment><USER22> Glad to know I'm not alone. The Macbook keyboard only has the text 'alt'.

<comment><USER21> Oh, must be a recent change. I don't like that they removed the text on the arrow keys as well. They used to say page up/down and home/end since fn-left is home, fn-right end, fn-up page up and fn-down page down. That's not obvious to switchers from any other OS.

I get that they want to be all zen and remove unnecessary stuff but some of this stuff is necessary. Not good for users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You could also reduce the list to:

1) Root* your phone or install Froyo

2) Install ShootMe ([http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-bw-picme- loc...](http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-bw-picme-local- zmxE.aspx))

*: If you're reading this thread, and you have an Android but it isn't rooted, you're doing it wrong...

<comment><USER25> Some of us just like to use mobile phones, and don't enjoy fiddling with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Question - is there a bug for this on Android ?

if not, I suggest someone file it (I dont have Android.. yet).

<comment><USER27> [http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6547&q...](http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=6547&q=screenshot&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Owner%20Summary%20Stars)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> You have to realize that the android platform is years behind the iPhone. Developing for the iPhone was a nightmare when the SDK was first released to developers. APIs that did not work as described. Talk to iPhone developers that went through that stage of the evolution and you'll know.

</comment><comment><USER29> Am I the only one that thinks this really isn't a big deal, some apple fan (judging by the guys twitter) making a big deal over nothing

[Edit: renamed to fan.]

<comment><USER30> You're right that it's not that big of a deal, but downvoted for using "apple fanboy".

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12985/>

Screenshot pimp: I use the non toolbar buttons in the options. It lets you select the area in the browser you want to capture.

Works in mac, too (but not sure about other linux distros)

</comment><comment><USER32> No idea what the Android team's rationale is, but from a security perspective, I'm pretty happy that random applications don't have access to things written to the screen by other applications.

Not sure why it's not an OS level built-in, though.

</comment><comment><USER33> I find lack of universal copy (as in copy and paste) more disturbing. I wish I was able to select and copy text in just any application, or at least in browser and mail!

<comment><USER34> You can select text in Email, Corp Email and the Browser. Gmail has copy/paste in Froyo.

<comment><USER33> How? I have a nexus one running Froyo, I cannot select any text in browser/email. The only text I can select and copy is the one in text fields.

<comment><USER34> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FePeTdNswcE>

It's right under the "More" menu entry man, dunna how you didn't look there. Also, lmgtfy.

<comment><USER33> my bad. thanks. I was assuming a feature like that should activate by holding on the text, though.

<comment><USER34> I wish it worked like that. That way you wouldn't have to wait for a developer to enable copy/paste in the app, it would be there by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> i don't know many "normals" that take desktop screenshots...but i get your point.

</comment><comment><USER36> Droid Does? What is this, copywriter was a fan of "sega does what nintendon't"?

<comment><USER37> That was the Droid's major marketing campaign, actually. Blame the writers of the ad campaign, not the image maker.

<comment><USER36> Sorry. I wasn't clear enough, I actually meant that as a blame towards ad copy, not the image itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Oh wow. That sucks. Here I am pumped about the future of Android and I didn't realize this. Google, please fix -- I know you read Hacker News.</comment>


Bootstrapping a Business Around Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/10/30/bootstrapping-a-business-around-open-source/ <comment><USER2> I love the people from Phusion and their products. Building an open source business involves many tradeoffs and it is great to see them articulated. I know that they are watching HN so feel free to leave questions in the comments.</comment>


Donation through advertisement - <AUTHOR> http://www.goodeed.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a fan of the idea but I can't help but think of the potential irony... "Kids - please don't forget to watch 20min of Coca Cola ads tonight to help cure diabetes!"</comment>


The computer that put Neil Armstrong on the moon (1960) - <AUTHOR> http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-2-Apollo.htm <comment><AUTHOR> "This is the type of computer that went to the moon in the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972. There was one computer in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) and one the mothership (CM) circling above. It was the first use of integrated circuits, as still displayed in the timeline cabinet to the left. It's cycle time was 1 Mhz, 11 instructions. It had 1K of 16 bit words of erasable (RAM) core memory and 12K of read-only memory (ROM). The ROM held the "Colossus 249" flight control software. There were no disks or tapes in the flight system."

<comment><USER2> Some first person accounts from a SW engineering perspective from Peter Adler & Fred Martin - both from the MIT lab that developed the LM Guidance software.

<http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html> <http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-fm.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer> for more information.

The strangest feature was its core rope memory. In order to save weight only the 1 bits had a core. Whenever a code change was made the memory had to be rewoven by hand by little old ladies, hence the name LOL memory.

This appears to be an earlier version, not the one that was used in the manned missions, the BLOCK II.

<comment><USER4> I worked for Decca Navigator in the 1970s. They had two ladies (not particularly little or old) who made read-only program memories for the Decca Omnitrac civil aircraft navigation computers. These had core arrays with the sense line hand-woven through the cores, going through a core or bypassing it depending on whether that bit should read as a 0 or a 1. They worked from printed charts referred to as 'knitting patterns'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Much more information on the AGC at Wikipedia, including the instruction set: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_guidance_computer></comment>


Robots being used to deter homeless people from setting up camp in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/security-robots-are-monitoring-the-homeless-in-san-francisco-2017-12 <comment><USER2> What a shame!</comment>