Google Duo, a simple 1-to-1 video calling app - <AUTHOR> https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2016/08/meet-google-duo-simple-1-to-1-video.html?m=1 <comment><USER3> Why didn't they just update hangouts? I actually use hangouts for video calls with relative frequency, and I wish it was better adapted to changes in network speed like they say Duo is. I think it would be better if "Duo" was just integrated into hangouts as an update. I like hangouts because it allows me to use one app for voice, text and video.

<comment><USER4> Seriously. The entire Google Hangouts experience is extremely unfriendly and difficult to use. It's a great service, but the UX is awful. It's hard to get any non-technical person into a Hangouts call for the first time.

<comment><USER5> [http://hangouts.google.com/start](http://hangouts.google.com/start)

That link can actually make it much easier for the use case you described. The url after it loads can be shared.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know these will be preinstalled on Android, but many friends and family use iOS and I will feel silly asking them to install Duo _and_ Allo.

Hangouts is able to mix voice, video and text just fine. Why start requiring separate apps?

This is Google at its dumbest. They are squandering the small amount of momentum Hangouts has.

<comment><USER7> Google's communications strategy has been bafflingly dumb for years and years now. Almost my ENTIRE social network (that was on chat; this was before every part of society was "on the Internet") used to be on Gchat. That's a massive network-effects advantage that they had ages before anyone else did (including Facebook, but Facebook's network did surpass them with the ability to find someone by their face).

Almost a decade of inexplicably stupid product decisions later, they've squandered their hugely valuable lead (and then some). I can't imagine why anyone would go out of their way to use any Google product whose usefulness is at all dependent on network effects (I've completely ignored the launch of Allo and Duo and, years after everyone else, have pretty much moved to FB Messenger as my primary messaging app). This is a pretty chronic Google problem that I noticed both from the inside and outside: their engineering and design talent are incredible, but the people responsible for the product and marketing side are evidently really, really bad at what they do.

This is part of why products like GMail or Google Search do so well, and products like G+ so poorly: you could be the only person in the world using GMail and it would be just as useful (and well-designed), while the quality of products like G+ depend less on their quality _per se_ and more on network effects, which Google's product/marketing is clearly too incompetent to do well.

<comment><USER8> > This is a pretty chronic Google problem that I noticed both from the inside > and outside: their engineering and design talent are incredible, but the > people responsible for the product and marketing side are evidently really, > really bad at what they do.

See, I don't even think it's marketing, it's Google not understanding what they already have and engineering a solution without a problem. Hangouts as an app on mobile is okay - I have qualms, but it works well enough. Hangouts on Desktop though is horrible, and it's integration into Gmail is frustrating at best (it took them a long time to get something as simple as status messages back to Hangouts after the switch). I get the impression Google saw what was happening with Slack and wanted Hangouts to be that (and also a successor to Wave); a persistent "better than email" communication method with every bell and whistle you could want for communication. But since Hangouts was released, they've removed the few fun social features, removed hangout plugins, and just took what was feature-rich and dumbed it down to the point where I wonder why I should have an entire separate page open dedicated to hangouts when even Skype is a more graceful solution with more functionality.

I really liked gChat when it was small and out of the way. I won't make the claim "everyone used it", but we certainly enjoyed in our GAFE environment as it was an appropriate intermediate between email and phone call.

Duo makes me ask the same question now - why do I want this as opposed to just Hangouts, unless video is going to be removed from Hangouts or only Duo is going to get improved performance updates. This seems like it could easily be a hangouts update instead of a standalone application, and Hangouts is already available cross-platform on iOS and Android, or via any modern web-browser.

<comment><USER9> Oh yes, Googles insistence to the horrible Chrome plugin (and ONLY chrome plugin, you're SoL if you want to use any other browser) instead of a slim desktop app like iMessage/Telegram is pretty much the reason why I've abandoned Hangouts.

<comment><USER10> You're aware Hangouts has a firefox plugin too right?

<comment><USER11> And there's hangouts.google.com if you just want to hit it on a web page...

<comment><USER12> How did I never know about this. How long has it existed?

Google is terrible at marketing what they have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm still putting my money on vector.im and matrix.org. Closed source communication apps are not appealing to me, even if they come with an E2E promise.

From a business perspective this makes sense for Google. A big problem with Skype was always the lack of ubiquity. Lot of people had it, but it required another install and explicit configuration. Now that Skype is nearly bundled with W10 and WebRTC has made skype.com trivial, the gap for Google to move in is closing. If this rolls out with Google branded Android, people will use it irrespective of its merits (a la bundled Internet Explorer). Interop on iOS makes it stand out from Facetime. There's always room to change terms later when it becomes a household name.

Also, with all these services adding an E2E sticker on their communications, Google's hand was forced, they're not trend setters here and they shouldn't be applauded for being extremely late to the privacy game.

<comment><USER14> I'm following matrix.org and vector.im development, hoping they'll get good and take off. Main thing stopping me from jumping on board is that running a matrix home server is said to be very resource intensive and my home server is already overloaded. Maybe later.

<comment><USER15> I've actually been running my own matrix.org home server quite fine for over a couple of months now on a $5/month vps via digital ocean. ADMITTEDLY, the scale of users on this instance is low in numbers, so your mileage may vary with more users, more activity, etc. I'm using this low-spec vps simply to test things out, and learn about matrix.org. You should give it a try. Whether you use digital ocean or any other competitor vps provider, if after installing the matrix.org home server you find its not to your liking, you just kill off the vps; cheap and easy experiment! ;-)

<comment><USER16> does anyone run matrix hosting that you don't need to care about, and is still reasonable about security and privacy?

99% of people will never run their own matrix server, and 98% of people will never pay $5/mo for a chat service.

Basically, where can the general public sign up for a matrix account that's free, offers a good experience, and respects my rights?

<comment><USER15> Yeah good points, not everyone needs to host their own matrix.org home server; users can simply hop on existing ones. The one on matrix.org or vector.im are pretty robust and actually allows public registration (and you can have private rooms for privacy, etc.). Check out: [http://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix- now.html](http://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now.html) or directly to [https://vector.im](https://vector.im)

Also, I should have stated, I hosted my home server on a vps, but one can also totally just do it on your own server at home (so you could avoid paying any vps provider)...again, for those who have an interest in hosting their own.

Personally, my goal was to host the server for my family...but the really big advantage of decentralized platforms like matrix.org (and others like gnu social, etc.!) is that my host can connect with others...hey email has worked successfully connecting billions of decentralized people for so long now, so there is precedent for this type of concept.

I suggest heading over to vector.im - its the easiest on-ramp - and give it a try! i hope that helps!

<comment><USER16> That sounds ideal, thank you. I'm generally increasingly convinced that while decentralised services are great for many powerusers, they too often shift too much of the burden onto users, vastly diminishing the market penetration of what are nominally good ideas.

Another example of this is the current IndieWeb movement, which while great, doesn't fix very much because 1) low penetration means you have to republish all your content back into proprietary silos, regranting them license to use that we're supposed to be escaping and 2) by forcing people to set up and develop their own platforms means that the majority of indieweb blogs are subtly incompatible through bugs and mostly suck up time that could be used blogging with time spent to fix the blog.

:(

<comment><USER15> You hit the nail on the head with the challenges that you stated! While I'm a really, really big fan of decentralized platforms AND indieweb, i acknowledge that many (though not all) of the apps to allow users to on-ramp are not yet as simple as those that the proprietary silos/platforms might offer. Or the apps might be ok but requires more time/committment for users to set up things before extracting benefits. This of course sort of prevents otherwise willing new users from joining the fray...but I'm comforted by the fact that this is almost exactly how it was many years ago when the web first became available to the public, and many people thought things were "too tough" to get people onto the web; and yet here we are with so many people on the web. I'll admit that perhaps I'm an optimist. ;-) But i feel we just need to get a few Goldilocks-type killer apps to drastically ramp up user engagement. Cheers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sounds like Duo has a simple user experience, which is great. But it doesn't solve the eye-contact problem with video calls today.

When you look at the person on the screen whom you're talking to, that person sees you looking away, because you're not looking into the camera, which is somewhere on the edge of the screen. So you don't make eye contact with the person you're talking to.

And for me, that makes video calls feel weird.

<comment><USER18> Can't they just put a camera behind the screen? Been waiting for this for over a decade

<comment><USER19> Now that people are coming up with ways to put people's real facial expressions in VR, most video calls are probably going to be replaced with avatars generated from your face that use your facial expressions captured by the front-facing camera.

[https://vimeo.com/156034648](https://vimeo.com/156034648)

<comment><USER20> I think a floating head is a lot scarier than people not looking directly at me...

<comment><USER21> I was imagining something a bit more like [http://store.steampowered.com/app/274920](http://store.steampowered.com/app/274920).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wow, I'm so glad they made yet another video calling app. I was almost beginning to feel like I knew how to call the people I care about. So glad I'll start hearing 'I'll call you on Duo', which will be great when I'm at my desktop computer.

<comment><USER23> And it let's the caller see what you're doing before they call. Brilliant!

Of course, people like Zuckerberg can't use this feature because they cover up the camera lens on their laptops with tape.

<comment><USER24> No, it lets the recipient of the call see the caller, so they can choose to answer or not. It does not let the caller see who they are calling before they answer. Also the tape on your laptop won't matter since it is phone only for now.

<comment><USER23> It responds to a call by accepting the connection and a payload (video) before the user has decided whether to "accept" the call?

"... since it is phone only for now."

For now?

Yikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Guess i'm in the minority of users here who loves this app and really wanted a facetime like thing on Android.

Hangouts work, but it's heavy and not a good experience overall. And facetime is ios only, so Duo will definitely bridge this gap.

I read on a Verge's article that Google wants to make Hangouts enterprise focussed by integrating more into the Google apps and keep Allo/Duo as the consumer focused communication apps which i think is a great strategy.

Once all of android users get this pre installed, i think its not difficult to get rest of the users use this.

<comment><USER26> As a Project Fi user, I will very much miss the ability to seamlessly carry on SMS conversations from Hangouts on all of my devices. I really hope that functionality is added to Allo.

<comment><USER27> Have you tried pushbullet? I use it for texting from my desktop and it works quite well. I'm not affiliated with them, just a happy user.

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

<comment><USER26> Yeah, pushbullet is alright (it's what I used before switching to Fi), but direct integration with Hangouts is _so_ much cleaner. It just works everywhere, on every device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> No desktop support, one device only, they must be joking.[1]

I just hope it can be disabled with rest of the Google bloatware when I buy my next phone.

[1][http://www.reddit.com/r/android/comments/4xxnjl/_/d6jawai](http://www.reddit.com/r/android/comments/4xxnjl/_/d6jawai)

<comment><USER29> Yes, this my major complaint, too.

I have 3 Android devices and can use this only on the one that has a SIM card? And even if the others had SIM cards, they'd be on different accounts? WTF.

<comment><USER28> Viber solves this. You need a phone number to create an account, but other devices can be added as trusted devices.

When you install the client on such device, Viber app on the main phone serves as a authenticator and displays a QR code/PIN that you enter on the other device. This adds the other device as trusted and can use the account, contacts get synced to it.

I have no clue who in Google really thinks their solution will be popular. Someone need to shake up that company a bit and make it step out of their bubble.

<comment><USER30> Wire also takes a similar approach.

I think google is trying to mimic whatsapp here: A single device with end to end encryption so that your keys never leave the device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I still think this is a huge mistake. It's great it's easy to use but now Google has _two_ products that do video chat and they do not work together; why? If they eventually discontinue Hangouts then now we have to use two apps for texting and video?

The past several years have shown that providing a more integrated experienced typically brings a better user experience so this just smacks as a mistake.

<comment><USER32> > providing a more integrated experienced typically brings a better user > experience

Has it really? One of the reasons I originally signed onto the google ecosystem, was that they had their services split. My youtube was separate from gchat, which was separate from gmail. Now I don't use almost any google products, because I don't want everything linked back to one account. Whenever they do this, google half-asses the integration, and things end up in a weird state

<comment><USER31> > Has it really?

Absolutely and without a question. You will find exceptions here and there where the integration was done poorly or ultimately didn't make sense but the idea around providing integrated experiences is eliminating friction. Smart phones are fast but switching from one application to another is _incredibly slow_. Yes it's easy and yes you can download special launchers to slightly improve this but the fact remains that switching applications runs the risk of an application being unloaded from memory, it requires typically several taps and possibly yet another initialization.

But what if it works together in the same app? Take Google Maps and Waze for instance. Waze is awesome for gathering social data around traffic whereas Google Maps had some of that but not nearly at the same level of detail. Google integrated the Waze data into Google Maps so now, in the same application, you have both. No switching required. No need to run two mapping apps (because, let's face it, Waze's directions were never the greatest).

Let's go in a different direction now. Android didn't natively support finger print readers when companies, such as Samsung, started to include them. Due to the terrible integration you couldn't use finger prints so much of anything beyond unlocking your phone and even then there were several security vulnerabilities around that very point. Now that Google has included finger print reading, natively, into the platform you can use it everywhere. It's no longer a weird, separate, nebulous thing.

Maybe those examples are not the best but the point is that you must always march towards less and less friction. Once your app is fast and good enough the next step is integrations into other apps / systems to decrease the friction.

<comment><USER32> If all your focusing on is UI, than yeah, sure, I guess. I think things are more complicated than that though.

<comment><USER31> I'm only focusing on UX. Sometimes that's UI. Sometimes that's APIs. Sometimes that's shell commands. UX covers a wide range of items from casual users to hardcore software developers.

The best UX typically wins. If the implementation is complex or not is immaterial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's already bad enough that I have a row of chat apps (WhatsApp, Messenger, Hangouts, Skype, Slack, Telegram etc.) on my phone because I can't get everyone I know to agree on one app and now, Google's trying to get me to add yet another icon to that list! I love Telegram but I couldn't get more than a few friends to try it out and even then, no one checks their Telegram anymore because none of THEIR friends are on it. Even though I love the tech here, I can't get enough people to try and use it.

Not sure why this had to be its own app. Could have just been included into Allo. Also, all of the other apps I mentioned above have some form a desktop app (which is in a way, the biggest factor for me considering that's where I spend most of my time). Sigh! Great tech, terrible packaging.

<comment> T-1000 Someone should build a meta video calling app: Make a normal phone call, and if the app detects that both parties have a common video calling app installed on their devices, the meta app notifies the caller ("Press * for video") and helps reconnect the call with the video calling app.

<comment><USER34> Hmm that's how iPhone works.

<comment> T-1000 And that is an open standard that works with Skype, Duo and other non-apple alternatives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I don't have a number on my Pad...there is not even a Sim in there. Why can't it be just their damn Google account?! I dont even want to give my phone number to them and when I'm in a foreign country i don't want them to easy Switch between WiFi and the super expensive Roaming just because I went in the wrong corner of the Hotel room...

<comment><USER36> The device you activate Duo on doesn't need a sim. Just put in your phone's number and you can activate when it comes through.

<comment><USER35> As I wrote above: I don't want to give them my phone number.There are other ways of registration. I don't want my phone number flying around in God knows what ad Networks. This is unneccessary madness and nobody should be OK with that

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Have they announced when it will be discontinued?

<comment><USER38> A bit cynical but that was my initial thought as well. It's sad because FaceTime exists for so long and is so easy to use and I'd really like to have an app that I can use with both of my parents (one Android, one iOS). But I see Google failing with this already.

<comment><USER39> So you rather Duo not exist and keep not having an app that you can use with both of your parents?

<comment><USER40> Because there are absolutely no other video chat apps in existence on both Android and iOS? Duo is the only possible option?

The point is given the many, many other video chat apps that do already exist and fill this function, several of them produced by Google, what does Google think it's doing bringing out yet another one.

<comment><USER41> I thought Google already has a product that does video calls across iOS and Android... Hangouts. I don't understand why they are doing this independently of a product they already have.

<comment><USER42> No one understands anything at all to do with Google's strategy on Hangouts. Certainly no one working at Google does.

<comment><USER43> Agree.

> Mr. Nikhyl Singhal joined Credit Karma after four years at Google, where he > held several senior product roles, including leading Hangouts, Google Talk, > Google Voice and Google Photos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Wow this is so much the future... Between my 4g video native capability, skype (remember), facetime, etc. that was missing. Thank you Google for putting well-paid engineers to solvant this.

<comment><USER45> How does this add any value above existing products that do the same?

<comment><USER24> Well, I heard skype got rid of encryption, while this is encrypted end to end.

You don't run this through your google account, only your phone number is needed to sign up.

The new video protocol supposedly degrades better if you go somewhere where the service is slower.

I'm sure there are others.

<comment><USER46> > _You don 't run this through your google account, only your phone number is > needed to sign up._

This does not add any value if I want to have two different Duo accounts - e.g., one for personal use, and one for business use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Why is Google launching multiple apps with similar functionalities?

They already had Hangouts, they recently launched a group sharing app "Spaces". And now a new video calling app "Duo". They also have an app "Allo" which is another chatting platform.

I am not complaining or anything, I am just curious about what are they planning to do with their old apps? i.e. Hangouts?

<comment><USER48> AndroidPolice has an article today[1] that Hangouts has failed as an all-in- one messaging platform. They're going to focus it in on the enterprise - <USER2> usage is much more prevalent, apparently - whatever that means.

Hangouts is likely to become a Google Apps Slack competitor, I guess.

[1]: [http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/08/16/google-planning- focu...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/08/16/google-planning-focus- hangouts-business-consumers-allo-duo-release/)

<comment><USER49> I guess it depends on the enterprise... lots of places outright block google services: drive, e-mail, hangouts, etc.

<comment><USER50> I guess they mean those that already pay for google apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> On the same week that they discontinued Hangouts on Air in favor of YouTube? Why is Google always making and closing stuff?

<comment><USER52> Google culture is hiring the smartest or most motivated college grads, paying them to babysit legacy money printing systems built by the generation before them, then occasionally encouraging them to team up and clone popular services from other companies and startups.

The clones get passed around the campus for dogfooding until enough interest builds up and the project goes up the chain of command until a VP (at the time Marissa) signs off on it with notes on what to improve along with granting the necessary resources to spin it up.

Then if someone decides the project has legs they figure out how to engineer it for Google's audience and launch. If it doesn't work then the team disperse and move on to another project. Or it works and the team gets a moment in the sun.

Every single popular thing on the internet has a Google clone somewhere in the intranet.

<comment><USER53> It's an unfortunate situation for Google product engineers. It's basically a competition. It has some benefit and has some really big downside. If my reference is correct, usually there are more than one team building the same product (e.g. Google Plus).

<comment><USER52> It's run now like a big college hackathon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Sounds promising. But not sure what this adds on top of Hangouts, which has a great group (and of course one to one) video calling feature. The only difference seems that Duo works with phone numbers, not Google Accounts.

<comment><USER6> This limits and subtracts from Hangouts for no real benefit.

Hangouts works on phones, tablets and laptops. It does voice, video and text. Fragmenting these features across apps and devices seems to be a major step backwards...but apparently two apps is simpler than one?

<comment><USER54> This strategy seems to have born out of Facebook's success with breaking up the app into specialized features (Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp etc.)

<comment><USER55> The only break up here was Messenger, and even there they did not just continue the feature but gradually phased it out to make sure people are actually following. Messenger still uses the same network behind and did not create a separate one.

Instagram and Whatsapp are just examples of how not to kill a successful product. Turns out it's quite simple: You change nothing.

<comment><USER56> >Instagram and Whatsapp are just examples of how not to kill a successful product. Turns out it's quite simple: You change nothing.

For a long time it seemed like the strategy was to change nothing. Now it's become clear the strategy is to be scared of changing anything, just leave it to fester and fall behind then panic and recklessly start cloning competitors features and diluting what made the service compelling in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> "Announces", yes; "releases", no. The Google Play Store offers only a "pre- register" button. Yet it has 4.9 stars already.

Looking forward to seeing an analysis of the protocol. Does it go through Google servers, or is it really peer to peer? How does the "end to end encryption" work? How are the keys generated and exchanged? Do the servers have the keys? Are you sure?

<comment><USER58> From the post: "We're beginning to roll out Duo for Android and iOS today, and it will be live worldwide in the next few days."

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> End-to-end encrypted but not opensource is just trusting that it's really (well)encrypted.

Thanks, but no thanks.

<comment><USER60> I'll trust that Google knows what they're doing when implementing encryption.

<comment><USER61> The question is not whether Google knows how to do proper end-to-end- encryption, the question is whether they want to do it. They have a clear incentive to not do it properly, which is being able to sift through your data to sell it to advertisers.

<comment><USER62> Would be an interesting test to start chatting on an well established account (a few years old) about something you have never talked about before and see if you get relevant ads.

<comment><USER63> I did that some years ago on hangouts and it was almost real time. My buddy was on a machine without ad blocker and as soon as we started talking (as an experiment) about cars and mentioning a certain brand a few times, he received ads for that brand moments later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Ok, just a FaceTime clone. When Apple added it to iOS it seemed redudant initially (because of Skype etc), but now everyone is using it all the time, because it's phone number based: It's a success.

So the real question is, if they wanted to make this, what the hell took them so long?

It really smells like a mistake, and catch-up, almost pitiful at this point.

<comment><USER13> I agree, they're really late to the game. It seems like a slam dunk business- wise as they can get the android and IOS market on the same app and cultivate a household name.

They would have been better doing so before the E2E craze went mainstream-ish, again from a business perspective. Now they can still leverage meta data, but it's not a juicy and lucrative as say, reading everyone's emails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> > You shouldn't have to worry about whether your call will connect, or if your > friend is using the same type of device as you are.

...From the blurb from app that only runs on two operating systems (notably excluding Windows Phone), is proprietary (preventing third party clients from being written for other systems), and has no support for desktop operating systems (laptops are devices too).

On the last point, I suppose mobile-only for messengers is the new normal, but I for one frequently use iMessage and FaceTime from my MacBook in addition to my phone - depending on which device is closer, mainly - so Allo would be a significant downgrade for me. For video calls, laptops have an advantage over phones if there's more than one person on your side of the call, since you can get farther away from the camera to let everyone into the picture, without awkwardly keeping your arm held out horizontally or whatever.

<comment><USER66> Credit where credit is due, most Microsoft apps, like Skype, work on Mac, iOS, Android, and Windows. I have gravitated to Skype not because it isn't an awful piece of software (it totally is), but because nobody can tell me they can't run it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Wasn't WebRTC going to solve all this (e.g. [https://appr.tc](https://appr.tc))? What happened, has it become browser cruft?

<comment><USER68> WebRTC handles the actual p2p audio and video, but has no method of signaling the other party for attention to actually join the "call", -- no concept of userid, so you'd always need to send a link to your WebRTC service via another channel - SMS, WhatsApp, Email, IRC, ... or some other "new" service, that's really just a wrapper to handle the userid / notification problem, and uses WebRTC underneath.

<comment><USER69> Notifications are possible with Service Workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> No reason to get excited about this, they'll just abandon it in a year or two like the rest of their products which aren't selling ads.

</comment><comment><USER71> I'm going to presume that this isn't available to anyone who has a Google Apps account, as that has been the trend of nearly all product launches by Google recently.

[https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/play/86WVa8b_...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/play/86WVa8b_3i4)

Not available to Apps accounts:

* Google Family Library Sharing (Android apps sharing)

* Google Play Music Family Sharing (music collection sharing)

* Project Fi

* Google Spaces

* YouTube Red

* YouTube Music

Given that is most of the recent product launches, the chances of Duo and Allo being added to that list would appear to be very high.

<comment><USER72> This one actually says no account required. Seems to use your phone number, like WhatsApp etc. do

(that also probably means it'll never leave mobile to be usable on desktops, like Hangouts?!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I think there's definitely space for a video conference app that's simpler then Hangouts and cross-platform in contrast to Facetime.

Here's the US play store link where you can pre-register [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.tachyon)

</comment><comment><USER74> Is this using the same parts underneath as hangouts?

</comment><comment><USER75> I still like google talk better. It was simpler. Elegant. And it was paradise for IM lovers.

</comment><comment><USER76> In my entire post tech life and post tech environment I have never seen anyone use, talk or desire to have a video call. (Save 1 when a patron tested FaceTime on their new iPhone.)

What will make video calling desireable for the average Joe?

<comment><USER24> My daughter uses facetime every evening talking to one or another of her girlfriends from high school. I think certain demographics will be more inclined to use it than others.

<comment><USER77> So in essence this is an attempt to be a facetime competitor?

<comment><USER24> Facetime/Facebook video chat/et. al. Granted it has some limitations that would prevent it from, at least initially, being a full competitor. I suspect that over time Google will flesh out it's features with either a web version, or dedicated apps for other platforms. Right now I think they are at the minimal viable product stage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why would one use this when similar functionality (Hangouts video streaming) has just been killed and moved to Youtube Live?

<comment><USER78> Video Hangouts has been killed? Isn't Hangouts a business-centric offering, I haven't heard that its been killed. Its a large part of "Chrome for Work."

At any rate these have different use cases, one is enterprise focused and the other is mobile only.

<comment><USER24> The hangouts-on-air live streaming was killed/moved to youtube. You can still do group video calls in hangouts, just not spin out a live stream for non- participant viewers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Facetime benefits from Apple's consistent hardware compression.

It's why Skype and other platforms have had such a hard time touching it in terms of video quality.

</comment><comment><USER80> Knock Knock feature is probably the worst feature i can think of to put in a video calling app.

It sounds so fun rejecting a loved ones call because you're busy.

</comment><comment><USER81> Is there anything currently that works similarly without a google or Facebook account? My dad is so computer/phone illiterate that he cannot/won't register for either of these.

It should work across iPhone/Android.

I ask because video calling between my son and my dad is no longer as simple as FaceTime after I switched to Android

<comment><USER82> Some searching yielded [https://appear.in/](https://appear.in/)

(I'm not affiliated with that website)

<comment><USER83> Which by the way works very well for our daily meetings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> yay! one more app to do the same thing, but "simpler" "faster" and now its "human"

here is what Hangouts was described as

[https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-hangouts- now-...](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-hangouts-now-simpler- faster-more.html)

simpler, faster, beautiful

and what more, now I have to use ONLY my mobile to use duo, which means no more comfort of my mac or desktop, I have to keep my phone attached to my face. yay!!

I taught my technology challenged mom to use the terrible hangouts interface, now I have to teach her Allo? thanks, I am moving her to facetime or skype. at least they work reliably and no danger of a new epyks or timefaceme improvments anytime soon

</comment><comment><USER44> How many similar apps do we have already? We are increasingly solving problems that dont exist.

<comment><USER85> > We are increasingly solving problems that dont exist.

In the process, we are attempting to divert attention from unsolved real problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Are the same people responsible for Microsoft's endless rebranding of products and services now working at Google?

It's exhausting keeping track of what's either just been released or cancelled on any particular day.

</comment><comment><USER87> Man this and allo looks really interesting. I really can't wait for it to come out in Canada. I definitely wanna know how these product managers/owners or product feature creators are doing it in Google.

</comment><comment><USER88> What's in this for Google? Another source of information to collate?

</comment><comment><USER89> It sounds like they're just trying to replace Facetime. I know my parent adore Facetime but they don't know all about this email stuff. They just know they want to call me.

<comment><USER39> What email stuff?

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Is anyone able to download this? I am trying to download this on iOS, the App Store is giving me the message "this application is not available to download the in the US Store"

strange!

<comment><USER91> "We're beginning to roll out Duo for Android and iOS today, and it will be live worldwide in the next few days"

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I still long for the days of a real gtalk native app

</comment><comment><USER93> Can't wait to hear how they're going to change it four times then abandon it and announce they're working more on Hangouts.

</comment><comment><USER94> Terrible name there is already a popular security auth app called Duo with a similarly named mobile app. [https://duo.com/](https://duo.com/)

This is likely trademark infringement because they are both on the app store and it is easy to confuse the two apps and they are both the top 2 apps now on the play store

</comment><comment><USER95> I'll be happy if they can settle on a plan and stick to it for more than 6 months. The GChat, Voice, and Hangouts strategy has been frustrating because the features I wanted would land in different apps with varying levels of support. For example, hangouts dialer is nice for free voip, but I am not sure I can fully let go of voice.

</comment><comment><USER96> It is really painful that Apple couldn't open source FaceTime because of a patent troll.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_hap...](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_happened_to_making_facetime_an_open/)

</comment><comment><USER44> Reading the comments... You guys know that any 3G/4G phone with a camera can make videocalls with awesome quality, right ?

<comment><USER97> For only 60c/minute and I think I've had one call where it was correctly configured kn both ends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Guy with beard and hipster glasses - check.

</comment><comment><USER99> I wonder why there is no integration with default contacts app in android . I think its a bad idea to release app with simplicity as objective with out providing a simple way of using it with out knowing much about it.

.. or is it because its two teams at google ?

</comment><comment><USER100> APK is now available: [http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/google-inc/duo-by- google/duo-by...](http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/google-inc/duo-by-google/duo- by-google-1-0-130018012-rc1_rc29-release/)

</comment><comment><USER101> Hope it works better than Hangouts

i.e. without randomly having to reboot your laptop before it will work

<comment><USER102> I can assure you that you will never have to reboot your laptop before it will work... as it will not work at all on your laptop. It is for Android and iOS only.

<comment><USER103> don't you know that you can run android apps on any computer that can run google chrome ? [1]

personally I stay far away from chrome and any thing google, so for running android apps on my laptop I go the emulator route [2], I use genymotion.

[1]: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8339197/android-apps-on- win...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8339197/android-apps-on-windows-mac- linux-chrome-os) [2]: [http://techapple.net/2014/05/5-best-android-emulators- linux-...](http://techapple.net/2014/05/5-best-android-emulators-linux-run- android-apps-linux-ubuntulinuxmintfedoraarchlinuxopensusemageiacentos-etc/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I have been trying to get my phone number verified but it's not working

<comment><USER104> They block non US phones for now

<comment><USER54> It's working now though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Not for everyone, just People on Android and ios mobile devices...

<comment><USER105> By my math and some light search, Android | iOS accounts for 95% of smartphones sold [1], and there are about 2 billion smartphone users [2].

Is 1.9 billion a small number? I understand there are people who don't use smartphones, but this obviously isn't targeted at them. Besides, many people use phones for nearly all personal communication [I use mine for everything, including email].

I certainly get being upset that some apps are mobile only [especially productivity apps]. But this one kind of makes sense.

[1] [http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/96-8-percent-new- sma...](http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/96-8-percent-new-smartphones- sold-are-android-or-ios-record-slowest-growth-gartner-278605.html)

[2] [http://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of- smartpho...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone- users-worldwide/)

<comment><USER106> Yes, it matters. Google et al. we trying to convince the world desktop is dead because they make more money on mobile. Maybe fine for snap chatting teens, but the rest of the world needs grown-up software that Google doesn't want to bother to provide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> I think it's uncool for Dug and team that google decided to name this the same thing as their product. But, the big dog will always eat your food first.

</comment><comment><USER108> I like that the apps name is tachyon.

</comment><comment><USER109> Why should a video app be required for N of M situations? Just do one app that works well.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does this even work from a deskop computer or is it a mobile app only?

<comment><USER110> that's a great question. I cant test it because as it stands it isn't showing up for me (just showing that I'm still "registered" for it) but since it connects using a phone number (like whatsapp) I wonder how they authenticate the phone number on desktops/laptops? surely it'd be some kind of 2 factor auth, so it should be possible.. but I wonder whether it ships ready to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> No desktop version? Why would anyone use this over hangouts?

</comment><comment><USER112> They are trying to do what viber has been doing for years

</comment><comment><USER113> Just bring back google talk and end this madness.

</comment><comment><USER114> So much for being easy. I don't have sms

</comment><comment><USER115> Facetime Rival? Nope.

</comment><comment><USER116> Not in India :(

</comment><comment><USER117> aaaaaaand it's not on the App Store

<comment><USER54> It's mentioned in the blog that it's going to be rolled out slowly over the next few days.

<comment><USER118> But there's a link. And clicking it doesn't work

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> Reminds me of Microsoft. Makes a bunch of products.. nobody cares.

</comment><comment><USER120> Aren't a bit late to the bot party?

</comment><comment><USER121> >a feature in Duo called Knock Knock which lets you see live video of your caller before you answer, giving you a sense of what they're up to and why they want to chat

Where can I report this as a bug? That literally misses the point of "call". Call starts before it's started for a caller.

<comment><USER122> Does Knock Knock offer the same possibilities as chat roulette?

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> Cool, let's try this. Oh my device (android 5.1.1 cm12) is not supported (yet? anymore?). Well, I think I can survive also without this super cool application :)

</comment><comment><USER124> Video calling is a great example of something you don't need, but because you can do it, you do it. It's also impossible to refuse a video call for fear of being seen as secretive or worse when in fact you just don't care to look up somebody's nose when you talk to them.

I also wonder if it's mainly nerds who care about video calling because it speaks to their otherwise rather broken social skills. "Normal people look at each other when talking, right? Look! Using this heap of high tech makes me a normal person!"

Meanwhile, I note that amongst actual normal people, interest in video calling is low because they see it for what it is: a poor substitute for the real thing. Just as no normal person is into cyber dildonics.

<comment><USER125> > It's also impossible to refuse a video call for fear of being seen as > secretive or worse

Really? I refuse video calls all the time (or answer with audio only), and people never make a problem of it.

> I also wonder if it's mainly nerds who care about video calling because it > speaks to their otherwise rather broken social skills. "Normal people look > at each other when talking, right? Look! Using this heap of high tech makes > me a normal person!"

That's a pretty horrible thing to say.

> Meanwhile, I note that amongst actual normal people, interest in video > calling is low because they see it for what it is: a poor substitute for the > real thing. Just as no normal person is into cyber dildonics.

Your personal experience is wildly different from mine. I know a ton of people who care deeply about video calling, and most of them are not technical at all. Parents and their adult children often use video calling to keep in touch (no as a replacement of real world visits, but as a supplement), and pretty much every expat or immigrant I've had extended contact with uses it to talk to their family back home.

Just because you have a personal distaste for it, doesn't mean you have to be mean towards everyone who does care about it.</comment></comment>


How to Get into Farming with No Money (1980) - <AUTHOR> https://smallfarmersjournal.com/how-to-get-into-farming-with-no-money/ <comment><USER2> > An important item here, as well as in the future, is to deal on a CASH > basis. You MUST NOT borrow to pay later. I don't want to give all the > reasons for everything I'm recommending — you will have to trust them. Pay > as you go, EXCEPT for a SINGLE exception (later stated) is the best.

A farm is a business. Starting a business on a cash-only basis is possible and arguably safer than borrowing, but it's very slow going.

The way most farmers get started is they take out a great stonkin' loan from the bank ($10mil+) and buy land, stock, machinery etc. They then run their newly established farm and try to turn enough of a profit to pay the interest plus a bit of capital.

That's why farmers tend to be "asset rich and cash poor" for the first 20-30 years and then (if they're both diligent and lucky) are suddenly super wealthy once they've paid their loans off.

(Source: dairy-farming relatives)

<comment><USER3> Small bit of pedantry: the nature of paying off a large loan over 30 years is that you gradually become wealthier at an accelerating rate. The sudden change after the mortgage is paid off is to cash flow, not wealth.

<comment><USER2> True, I should have said "suddenly have loads of cash once they've paid their loans off."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it is much easier to get out of farming with no money, than to get into it. In the US, policy has punished rural communities and farmers for a long time:

[https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Rage-Oklahoma-City- Beginning/...](https://www.amazon.com/Harvest-Rage-Oklahoma-City- Beginning/dp/0813332931)

<comment><USER5> Mind giving some highlights because all I hear are about farm subsidies and never about any policies that hurt farming.

<comment><USER6> In my country (Oz) it's the same story. Families who've owned properties for generations can't keep up with the mega-corp style of farming, particularly when drought, or other semi regular calamity hits. A mega Corp can go into 'the negative' during these times, but only really experience a 'blip' on the balance sheets. A family farmer will have a 2nd/ 3rd mortgage rejected, when only a generation or two previously they had no debt whatsoever.

Governmental help comes in the form of lacklustre subsidies, or too small and too delayed financial aid, while at the same time providing massive grants to companies that are in the agri business system.

One example is the legislation of allocating "water rights" to the main river systems here, all of which has caused farms to go bankrupt, the middle men to get rich and we now have increased rice (!! Rice in Australia) production.

<comment><USER2> > Families who've owned properties for generations can't keep up with the > mega-corp style of farming

You'll notice that families who've been cobblers for generations can't compete with Nike on price, either. Economies of scale and international wage arbitrage really matter.

<comment><USER7> On a grand scale, it's the same with car companies. People have started car companies (Tucker, Bricklin, DeLorean, Tesla), but they usually underestimate by a factor of 3 or more how much money it really takes to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's another way that I've seen people do it and that's farming as a service. You get people to give you cash upfront for a subscription that guarantees them a certain amount of fruit or vegetables. You rent all your equipment by the hour to plow and plant the field. Because your subscribers pay you upfront you have no need to borrow money.

The problem with subscription farming? You have to grow what your customers want to buy not what you want to plant. If you have a natural disaster you may need to refund some of your customers money. You also have to learn to sell which to some people is anathema.

But I've seen people successfully do it. There are even people doing it in the inner city of Detroit. In Detroit with the city selling lots for $100 it may pay to buy your land upfront. You also can use city water for irrigation.

</comment><comment><USER9> I grew up in farm country. Notably, it was mostly small family farms or co- operative farms that I lived around[0]

The observation I made about farming that always made it difficult (financially) was that all the wealth was tied up in _things_. Your acres, your livestock/crops, your home(s) and other property. High value equipment as well (tractors aren't cheap, neither are their accessories).

The issue was always turning these _things_ into cash. So mortgages were one way (though if I'm being honest any one who has run a large scale farming operation probably doesn't lean on the mortgage. You can get agribusiness loans with much better terms and crop/livestock insurance[1]).

Contrary to popular belief though, the land that is actually farmed is mostly leased/rented, but its typically a long term deal, so you don't have to borrow millions of dollars just to increase acreage [2]

This was something that large corporations don't have such trouble with (not to mention, most large agriculture companies have a portfolio of assets that they make money from, not just their production). I also noted that those in good co-operatives didn't have as much of an issue with this either (co-ops are good market makers and can help small farmers with buying power if they need to change crops quickly in response to market demand.

See all the bankruptcies and delinquencies hitting wheat farmers right now [3] some of which is in part to the trade issues we're having with China. They're a huge net importer of certain cash crops. Most of these guys were all in on their cash crop, without a good way to get ahead of market demand to re- calibrate their crops. Livestock is much harder in this sense, but its still doable)

This is the common reason why older farmers tend to sell (beyond simply crushing debt. It does happen for a lot of reasons. I'm not trying to under sell this. its just hard to write up a lengthy post here without it becoming an article). So they can actually _cash out_

[0][https://www.ufcmn.com/About-Us](https://www.ufcmn.com/About-Us) [1][https://www.farmermac.com/](https://www.farmermac.com/) [2][https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use- land-v...](https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value- tenure/farmland-ownership-and-tenure/) [3][https://www.wsj.com/articles/this- one-here-is-gonna-kick-my-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-one-here-is- gonna-kick-my-buttfarm-belt-bankruptcies-are-soaring-11549468759)

EDIT: if the people of HN will it, I could do a long write about about Agriculture economics. I've got a strong background here.

<comment><USER10> please do write about Agriculture economics. It is a fascinating topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The modern American way is to announce it on a website, promise to make a movie, and do everything with crowd-founding and hire a bunch of college kids for nothing, plus two Mexicans. Actual knowledge of the business not required. See the current movie "The biggest little farm". [https://www.sundance.org/projects/the-biggest-little- farm](https://www.sundance.org/projects/the-biggest-little-farm)

The previous famous way was "Farmer John" near Chicago, which was similar, but more of a collective.

</comment><comment><USER12> The 8 forms of capital

[http://www.appleseedpermaculture.com/8-forms-of- capital/](http://www.appleseedpermaculture.com/8-forms-of-capital/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Followup article: "How to stay in farming and make no money"

<comment><USER14> "How to make a small fortune in farming".

Start out with a large fortune.

<comment><USER15> I was about to share the same joke, which I was recently told by a worker at a California vineyard. In the major wine-growing valleys of California, land now sells for millions of dollars an acre, hence the large fortune necessary for entry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Obligatory Mitchell and Webb: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pDTiFkXgEE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pDTiFkXgEE)

</comment><comment><USER17> i just came across this article in google and tried to submitted on HN. what a coincidence, u did tat just 2 hours back.

<comment><USER18> Their karma is much higher. It's a vetting process here. [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) Read the FAQ / Rules.

<comment><USER17> lol lot of downvotes. hard to understand. i was just searching about farming. want to point out randomness. wat astonished me, even this is not hot topic, somebody submitted same link to HN just few hours ago. didnt get why too many downvotes to point it out for fun.

<comment><USER19> In the last month downvotes seem to have made a break with reality. I used to argue vehemently that one could learn from them; now I'm not so sure...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems really useful, especially in an age where there's food insecurity.</comment>


Ask HN:  Anyone using Vertx(Node.js inspired for the JVM)? - <AUTHOR> I saw mention of vertx in an earlier thread regarding Node.js and VoltDB but this was the first time I've heard of the project.  The creator of the project apparently is Tim Fox known for the HornetQ messaging project. Any feedback on this?
From the site( http://vertx.io/ ): What is vert.x?
Vert.x is the framework for the next generation of asynchronous, effortlessly scalable, concurrent applications.
Vert.x is a framework which takes inspiration from event driven frameworks like node.js, combines it with a distributed event bus and sticks it all on the JVM - a runtime with real concurrency and unrivalled performance. Vert.x then exposes the API in Ruby, Java and Groovy as well as JavaScript. <comment><USER2> Haven't seen it before, but it looks exactly like Node. Is it just the Node API on top of Rhino?

<comment><USER3> (Tim Fox here, project lead)

The core api is similar to node.js, but that API is available in not just JavaScript, but in Ruby, Java and Groovy.

Unlike node.js it also includes websockets and sockjs support and a distributed event bus so you can link together multiple nodes on the server side and extending into client side JavaScript.

Since it runs on the JVM and has real threading (unlike V8) it means you can scale with a single instance far better than you can with node.js. And you don't have to resort to hacky forks in order to scale it over multiple cores.

In my perf tests so far, performance (far) exceeds node.js for some simple HTTP test cases. I will hopefully publish some results in the next few weeks when we release 1.0 final.

So one way of thinking about it is node.js, on steroids and not just for JavaScript.

Vert.x is a VMware sponsored project.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for your hard work. I really love seeing the continued effort on your part to keep up-to-date with the awesome sockjs protocol.

Don't see anywhere docs on integrating it with rails apps. Are there references anywhere (or is that too heavyweight for your 1.0 release)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Clickable: <http://vertx.io/></comment>


Desktop Linux – The Case for a Single Distro - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@robsandhu/desktop-linux-the-case-for-a-single-distro-2dac8b2b8c8e <comment><USER2> I bet if I swapped out xfce when someone was upgrading from win7 to 10, and could sed -i s/ubuntu|xfce/win|ms|etc/ in just the main screens maybe a quarter of all users would never notice. Buying a computer was a thing everyone took seriously in days past, clicking around the Dell website for days. Today, not so much. People often __still__ have a computer, and they view it that way. I can imagine many will not even other replacing aging machines once they croak.

Desktop linux will be bigger, probably much bigger, but as a share of the total desktop market. That market itself is not exactly promising. I think the last data I saw was that desktop sales had been falling for the better part of a decade! Counting laptops. With a dead cat bounce here or there.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that there is still a fight to be had for linux, but it's on phones. Desktop share will not be won, it will be conceded by the big guys as a sales pitch to the primarily techy types using it to embrace their SDK on mobile, where the money is.

</comment><comment><USER3> As a new Linux user, I used to think along these lines as well. The problem is that the whole reason I was using Linux in the first place was my dissatisfaction with the offerings from Apple and Microsoft. I started on Ubuntu and became dissatisfied with that. I tried a handful of other flavors and eventually settled on Arch.

One of the issues I see with requesting Linux consolidate to become more like Windows or MacOS is that the people who abandon those platforms likely will not be happy with a one-size-fits-all solution. From my perspective, the diversity of choices is one of the main strengths of the platform. If there is already a platform that better suits your needs you have no reason to switch in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER4> > In a world of Chromebooks and virtualized/web apps, the need for > customization and multiple flavours is dwindling — we are good with the > browser running smoothly.

> What we need is snappy window management, smooth scrolling and simply a > beautiful environment.

I love having single purpose native applications running on my laptop. The current situation with a GNOME desktop environment is terrible.

Where are the regularly updated RSS feed readers, native blogging clients, journaling applications, podcast players? Moving from a macbook to a linux laptop has now become a massive downgrade.

I wonder if the iOS and Android app stores have become so profitable that developers who would previously build linux desktop applications have all moved on to greener pastures.

<comment><USER5> I'm confused by this. In my experience there are PLENTY of up to date and generally consistently updated apps on the Linux desktop. In a lot of cases, I can find more things that work out of the box on Linux than I can on any other system. If we go with the idea that the universal Linux the author speaks of should be Ubuntu with GNOME, then RSS is covered easily by 'feeds' which is still updated, as is 'feedreader', native blogging is a bit more complex, what does that mean? Microblogging is well supported. Multiple options for twitter, or mastodon are available. If you're hosting your own blog, hugo, jekyll, nift, are all easily supported. I admit I don't do Journaling at all, so I can't help with that, but I'm pretty sure there are options. Podcasting though is pretty easy to cover. Spotify if you just want something quick and easy, GNOME podcasts, Vocal, just look in the Ubuntu store and you'll see heaps of options. If you just like your macbook, that's fine, but let's not malign Linux because it isn't apple...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Change a few of the details, and this post could have been written twenty years ago.

The situation in 2020 is different though. What do you gain with XFCE, Gnome, or your favorite window manager, that is not done better in MacOS or Windows? Both of those environments already provide *nix support, and they have much better (understatement) hardware support.

<comment><USER5> I'm not entirely sure what hardware support you're missing, but in my experience using Linux works out of the box far more often than Windows. Can't speak for Apple obviously. I can guarantee it won't install and run on my PC without a LOT of work though... But hey. If Windows works for you, then stick to Windows!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> And better 4k support...

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe not single a distro, but consolidate? yes.

</comment><comment><USER9> Really?

You really think that an article is necessary to discuss the fragmentation of Linux and how it's holding back the platform.

The fragmentation predates Linux, System V vs BSD, it was a problem in the 80's.

Linux is the technology equivalent of protesting COVID-19 lock-downs. Everyone is so selfish, and self absorbed that they are unwilling to yield for the greater good.</comment>


FREE AppStore and GooglePlay screenshot generator - <AUTHOR> http://www.appscreenshot.me/

<comment><AUTHOR> I have created a free tool to allow mobile developers to be able to create their screenshots easily and fast. The tool allows you to change any parameter in the screenshot and also export it in all the dimensions you need.

Enjoy! Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com with suggestions. I would be happy to contribute more to the community. This tool is free and will stay free :)</comment>


VCs Are Not Your Friends - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2011/02/03/vc%E2%80%99s-are-not-your-friends/

<comment><USER2> It's not as catchy a headline, but I'd phrase it differently: whether or not VCs are your friends, their relationship with you is a business one.

Imagine Steve had been in a somewhat different situation: a friend of his was running a company that was a potential strategic partner, and after an initial investigation decided that it didn't make sense. Would that mean they weren't friends? Of course not: it just means that the business relationship didn't work out in this case. Real friendships survive that.

<comment><USER3> He meant to convey, that person X, _when acting as your VC_ , is not your friend.

More clearly noted here, when he writes about not confusing a VC's good behavior, as their personal trait.

 _... they add tremendous value to your startup (recruiting, strategy, coaching, connections, etc.) they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts._

 _... At the end of the day VC's have to provide their limited partners with great returns or they aren't going to be able to raise another fund. If you succeed so do they. Great VC's do everything they can to make you successful. But just like your bank, credit card company, mortgage holder, etc. they are not confused where their long term loyalty lies._

<comment><USER4> From my personal previous experiences with VC's, my general issue with them is how they wish to make you successful. They are concerned with the short term success, pump and dump to a certain extent. If that is your concern as well, then excellent. If not, beware that your definition of success, and theirs are going to conflict at some point, and could end up hurting both of you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You could write a similar article called 'The CEO Is Not Your Friend' or 'Your Boss Is Not Your Friend' -- whatever your relationship with someone, when they've got a job to do they're going to have to do it.

A couple of my angels are invite-to-the-wedding friends, but I still expect them to make rational decisions when it comes to their pro rata in later rounds, and I don't automatically expect them to invest in whatever I decide to do in the future.

<comment><USER6> True. You could easily say this about all professional relationships:

"Don't confuse being friendly with your ___'s with ___'s as your friend"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The interesting part of the story is not that they refused to fund the company. It's that they refused, and expected the CEO to continue to work at it.

If that signal truly meant there would be no follow on round, why would you expect the CEO to not throw in the towel as well? I've neve been in that situation - anyone out there who's been there care to comment on what it's like to face the world after your lead investors bail?

<comment><USER8> I can't comment on the situation, but I think throwing the towel as a CEO is the wrong decision. Just because you don't have an upcoming round, your duty as a CEO is to the company in any condition that it's in, come hell or or high water. I would even argue that a CEO is almost married to the company.

Throwing in the towel when the going gets tough seems like a spineless move.

<comment><USER7> Clearly there has to be _some_ point at which the CEO calls it quits. Having a death-warrant placed on your funding seems like it might be one of those times - again, I'd love to hear from someone who has been there.

<comment><USER9> As founder and CEO, the point at which you call it quits should be the point at which the company officially declares bankruptcy. That's your duty as CEO.

<comment><USER7> Is it? I thought it was to maximize the value to your shareholders.

<comment><USER9> And when it becomes clear that that's no longer a viable option, your job is to take care of bankruptcy, etc. You don't just jump ship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand why financial relationship has to be perceived as a negative thing. A business relationship can be excellent, just like a typical friendship.

Expectations are different, sure. There are a lot of good things that can come from it in spite of that.

It's the people involved that make it crap or awesome.

<comment><USER11> I think John Rockefeller said it best: "I'd rather turn my business associates my friends than my friends into business associates."

<comment><USER12> Not to be glib, but did Rockefeller have many friends? I'd bet he didn't say this.

<comment><USER11> Real quote: "A friendship founded on business is a good deal better than a business founded on friendship."

src: [http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/john- rockefe...](http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/john-rockefeller- quotes.htm)

<comment><USER12> Doubtful. The internet is chock full of these cuckoo quote sites. If Google doesn't yield a primary source, it's almost certainly fake. This is one area where absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

Edit: not a criticism of the quote itself. These things wouldn't get misattributed if they weren't worth repeating. But they wouldn't get repeated if they weren't misattributed, either; it's a kind of cultural appeal to authority.

<comment><USER13> The quote is from Rockefeller quoting his business partner Flagler. For a primary source, see "Random reminiscences of men and events" by JD Rockefeller, 1913.

Google Books is great for verifying this sort of quote: [http://books.google.com/books?id=IHnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=A%20fri...](http://books.google.com/books?id=IHnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=A%20friendship%20founded%20on%20business%20is%20a%20good%20deal%20better%20than%20a%20business%20founded%20on%20friendship&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=A%20friendship%20founded%20on%20business%20is%20a%20good%20deal%20better%20than%20a%20business%20founded%20on%20friendship&f=false)

<comment><USER12> Good catch!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Given how inexpensive it is now to start a software company, and how costs can scale linearly with capacity as managed cloud-based capacity comes online and goes down in price, I'm not sure we (that is us software guys) need VC in a significant number of cases.

The recent blanket offer by Yuri, I think, adds credence to this line of thinking: money is getting cheaper for software startups as demand for it falls. (An alternative theory, which I am also sympathetic to, is that we are at the tail end of a reflationary credit bubble, set to burst Real Soon Now.)

But, regardless, why sleep with the enemy if you don't have to? You can build a POC on heroku or EC2 for peanuts...

<comment><USER15> "the cloud" has massively changed the cost model for hosting on the low end; which is a great thing, the low end of hosting has always been ridiculously inefficient.

However, "the cloud" passes on very little of the economies of scale involved on to the consumer, so while it's great to start in "the cloud" you want to be careful not to lock yourself in. It's a great place to start, but once it makes sense to start buying your own hardware, you want to be in a position where you can do so.

<comment><USER16> Citation needed

<comment><USER15> 1\. amazon wants north of 0.08 per gigabyte transfer. he.net wants $1 per Mbps. This is something like 1/3rd of a penny per gigabyte. _I_ get that deal from he.net, this isn't something only available to the huge.

2\. a 32GiB ram 8 core, 4 disk server is around $2000 worth of parts. renting something like that is going to cost you around 1/3rd to 1/4th that /every month/

3\. power costs need to be factored in. you can get a full rack with 15a power (remember, only use 3/4 of that) which can handle maybe 8 or 9 of the aforementioned servers for around $400/month

Of course, there are a bunch of other costs that come with owning your own hardware, and certainly, on the small end of things, the cloud saves you a lot of money if you don't have a hardware guy on staff.

My point is just that you have to be careful, because as you scale up, the "cloud" prices don't scale down very much at all. We can argue all day about when reach the point where owning hardware starts to make sense for the stuff you leave on all the time, but it's pretty clear that at some point you do reach that point.

Moving off ec2 on to your own hardware, usually, isn't that difficult. Linux is Linux. But moving off something like appengine on to my own hardware? that starts to get... difficult.

<comment><USER16> How do you explain Netflix's move whole hog to AWS?

The equation of cloud vs not cloud is much more complicated than pricing. In fact, I'd argue price is the least impactful component, especially since it's getting cheaper and cheaper.

The most important questions are around personnel, risk, time, and so on. The cloud dramatically changes these and my view each day that goes by it makes more sense to run your business on AWS than it does to rack your own servers.

<comment><USER15> >The equation of cloud vs not cloud is much more complicated than pricing. In fact, I'd argue price is the least impactful component, especially since it's getting cheaper and cheaper.

for some parts of some businesses, you are right. if compute time is a very small portion of your budget, who cares if you pay a little more? I mean, tools are a vanishingly small portion of my budget, but they are really important to the continued functioning of my company, so I'm willing to pay a very hefty (percentage wise) premium for nice tools. It's only a few bucks extra, even if it is a 50%-80% premium over the cheap stuff, so who cares?

My understanding was that netlfix moved it's cpu to the cloud, for the reasons you stated. If processing is a small portion of your budget, paying more for hosting of your CPU, and having the excellent flexibility of the cloud might make a lot of sense.

My further understanding was that netflix used something else for actual streaming distribution of the movies; amazon wanted too much money for that, and unlike CPU time, bandwidth /is/ a significant cost for Netflix.

The parallel in my business is that probably the largest monthly cost of mine is new hardware (followed by power for my existing hardware) Unlike netflix, my margins on each bit of hardware I get are pretty thin. An 80% increase in the cost of my hardware would kill me outright. I put a lot of effort into keeping my hardware (and my power) costs down.

(to be clear, moving to amazon ec2 would increase my costs by quite a bit more than 50%-80% - in most cases, ec2 would charge me more wholesale than my customers pay me, retail, for guests.)

and I don't know. Maybe if I started actually selling hardware (which I've considered... I'm pretty good at choosing/assembling, and can do it quite a bit cheaper than Dell's retail prices; the big hangup would be sales.) and I started spending thousands of dollars a month on tools, I might want to spend more effort getting the cost of tools down.

That's the idea behind using standard parts. A screwdriver is a screwdriver; I can easily switch brands. The same, really, could be said for "unix box on demand" services like ec2. It's not that difficult to move from one provider to another, or on to your own hardware, if that makes sense down the road.

On the other hand, with the "proprietary programming environment" systems like appengine, it may be somewhat more difficult to move off of the system. (the open-source runtimes may have progressed further since last I looked, but last I looked it was pretty much run it on google, or re-write your code.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I might be wrong, but VC's are only friends to those contribute to the fund. So say the VC gets a $1 billion dollar fund, they take there 20% commission to run the fund (fly around, acquire space, etc...) then they go out looking for the biggest risk with the biggest return. They are making a killer salary with the 20% commission to run the fund. They don't have any friends at that point.... at least that is what I have come to learn.

<comment><USER18> As I understand it, their "commission" is closer to 2%, not 20%. The 20% figure you're thinking of is the carry (think a VC-imposed capital gains tax on profits). So, a dollar invested gets the VC 2 cents. A dollar of net profit gets the VC 20 cents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like the end of the posting, as well as most of the comments in this thread.

VCs have a job to do, just like everyone else. Sometimes they need to make hard decisions.

It's important for every business professional (entrepreneur or anybody else) to understand the basics of other people's goals and incentives.

</comment><comment><USER20> one issue to be noted here is that he was funded in the first place because they were his friends and not because they looked at the business critically...</comment>


Why The Linux Desktop Doesn't Matter Anymore - <AUTHOR> http://readwrite.com/2014/01/23/why-the-linux-desktop-never-mattered

<comment> at-fates-hands One word - Adobe.

If Adobe had a creative suite on Linux, it would be a windfall for most of the developers I know. It's quite literally the only thing keeping them anchored to a Mac or Windows machine.

Even more frustrating is how Adobe see this issue:

"All the evidence says that the Linux market for (paying) desktop software is just too small.

Linux has to develop a real market, or at least lower the cost of entry (seriously: how long can they go without standardizing APIs?), to make it attactive to developers."

From an Adobe staffer on their forums Sept. 2013: [http://forums.adobe.com/message/5484652](http://forums.adobe.com/message/5484652)</comment>


A Printer That Can Print a 2,500 Square Foot House in 20 Hours - <AUTHOR> http://www.industrytap.com/the-printer-that-can-print-a-house-in-20-hours/9056 <comment><USER2> Hm. A whole house, except the flooring, walls, wiring, plumbing, windows, roofing, lighting, heck anything but the bare frame and walls. You can already do that, prefab, in a few hours. This is custom, but so is prefab.

The problem is the usual: a single material isn't enough to make anything but the simple constructs. Almost everything is complex these days. Materials Science hasn't been a science for a century for nothing.

<comment><USER3> Prefab needs a factory to make the prefab sections.

Also, you can lay down multiple materials by making the head swappable. I would also say plumbing and electrics are nowhere near as complex as they used to be. Everything is available as clip-on fittings these days, which is perfect for automation.

<comment><USER4> You don't even need to be a plumber to do plumbing; PVC the whole thing.

<comment><USER5> Correct slopes and various other things to meet code are a lot harder than joints.

<comment><USER3> Getting the angle right is easy if all the plumbing is specified as a parametric model then machine cut, getting it wrong would be more tricky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sigh, if this guy had an actual 3D printer he would realize those doors and windows are a no-go :-) More seriously, there are unsolved issues in printing unsupported structures, the current best solution is a second 'support' material that can be dissolved/blown away once the part is completed but that rules out voids which are part of what you hope to make with this sort of thing.

Also as others point out this is just the frame (and if you do the robotic crane thing you can add a roof. You might also be able to use your robotic crane to do joists for overhangs but the finish suffers as your joist material is exposed on the underside.

No doubt solvable problems but they take away from some of the 'magicalness' of fused deposition printing. Stereo lithography where the part is neutrally bouyant in the construction fluid doesn't have those issues but it has other issues associated with strength and material choices that can be laser activated.

For now doing a concrete lay-up would be pretty killer but building the forms on site isn't that hard and in both cases you need to transport the concrete at the last minute.

Bottom line I think the stuff that BluHomes [1] is doing is much more creative than trying to do this with 3D printing.

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

<comment><USER7> Just read the info on the "Why Blu" page as the photos look intriguing, but as soon as the page mentioned "pre-fab", it became a non-start for me in the SoCal market.

The problem is that pre-fabricated or pre-manufactured homes are a very specific category of homes and require specific disclosures when selling and financing. It's basically a derogatory term used to describe cheaply built structures that are a step above mobile homes.

Home being one of the most valuable assets a typical family holds. In SoCal and many other places, land makes up the bulk of the value. Place a structure on that land that then detracts from the value doesn't seem very prudent. Not to mention difficult to finance, as banks do not look favorably on that class of building.

So, unfortunately, innovation has to deal with current market and regulatory frameworks. 3D printing as proposed (though my not be valuable), would probably fall under the "custom house" label, which is the most valuable classification. Even if it's just a tract home, it's still a lot better than being considered pre-fab/pre-manufactured.

<comment><USER8> Prefab and preamnufactured homes are different. Premanufactured homes are also known as mobile homes. There are probably a lot of prefab homes around you that you never knew about.

<comment><USER7> While I agree that it's not exactly the same, the only definition I could find is the one for manufactured homes in CA: [http://law.onecle.com/california/health/18007.html](http://law.onecle.com/california/health/18007.html).

The above definition lumps them together and unfortunately if there isn't something that makes the home not fall under that definition, you are going to have to disclose this at sale and financing will be a PITA...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting, but this still has the classic issue where the "printer has to be larger than the object printed." A few weeks back I got a tour of MIT's media lab, where they have a robot arm they're strapping to a bucket truck, in which case they have a mobile, 3D printer with a 100 foot wingspan.

This arm has an attachment for a polyurethane foam sprayer, a milling device, and a paint sprayer. In which case they can spray out a concrete form, mill it to get more precise (urethane foam is a bit imprecise), and paint it.

Then they want to get a series of these trucks to work together in a "hive" format... crazy kids.

<comment><USER10> > Then they want to get a series of these trucks to work together in a "hive" > format... crazy kids.

The crazy bit is sending that hive to Mars to build accommodation units for settlers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The 3d visuals of this printer have been on the internet for more than a year but there are still no pictures and movies of a working version.

Concrete printing is not new so I wonder what is keeping them from building the printer over a year later.

<comment><USER12> Did you see the video and pictures of the printer in the video? It wasn't full scale, but it wasn't far off either.

<comment><USER11> Yes I've seen the video's (a year ago). That's why I wonder why they didn't built a house already. They have the knowledge and tech.

Some speculation: maybe it's very hard to print concrete out in the open with all kinds of weather messing up the print. Or companies just don't believe in the benefits so investors are hard to find.

<comment><USER13> I remember reading that D-Shape[1] had clogging problems with their printer. Perhaps CC has the same issue.

[1] [http://www.d-shape.com/tecnologia.htm](http://www.d-shape.com/tecnologia.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wonder how building's made like this can withstand the cold. In Canada or northern US we do not construct houses and building the same way that southern countries do. For example, exterior walls are 1' wide with an R value of close to 30, most houses have a basement that is below the freezing line, etc.

<comment><USER15> Foundation work won't change. You'll have to have digging equipment and lay concrete/masonry blocks for the base so this equipment can be used to print the rest of the house. The fun part of course will be how easy it is to position one of these house printers where you have a 7+% grade.

Another thing too. How does one recover if the printer screws up or worse yet the program loaded is the wrong one or somehow corrupted? That could generate a whole house's worth of concrete waste.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Construction is the most hazardous job. It is more dangerous than mining and agriculture."

Interesting if true. I had no idea.

<comment><USER17> Yep.

Even for just houses: consider framing, or doing roof work--walking around on joists is not really safe.

<comment><USER18> Is it more dangerous in terms of injuries, or in terms of deaths? I would expect injuries to be very frequent, but frequent deaths would surprise me.

<comment><USER10> Here's the website for the UK Health and Safety Executive.

[http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/index.htm](http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/index.htm)

There are not so many people mining, and there are ridiculously strict regulations around mining. (I used to build, inspect, test 'chock interface units' which can be thought of as 'active walking pit props'. A cutting head removes a long stretch of coal, which falls onto a conveyor. That new section needs to be pit-propped, so this first line walks forward with the cutting head.)

Farming has many accidents - busy people, lots of opportunity for accident. Also a high rate of suicide. (Again, access to means and methods. Farmers are one of the small number of people allowed to own guns in the UK.)

It would be interesting to see the number of deaths per 1,000 workers for each sector, to try and get a better comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> As the owner of a physibles domain name, and hopefully one day a company; fanciful stories like this are a bit too soon. Actually, I hope we never have to resort to living in manufactured houses. The overly strict building codes and approval processes in the U.S. might bring this kind of building a reality though. Right now, I think we need to work on ending homelessness. Yes, build pyramids in the middle of the country where land is still cheap. Nothing fancy, but livable. Kinda like kibbutzes, but on a much larger scale.

</comment><comment><USER20> now if there were a printer that could print a 5000 sq feet lot for the house, with all the building permits approved, kickbacks/bribes/political donations paid and utilities connected...

The 3D printed houses will be a life-saver on Moon and Mars though.

<comment><USER21> Or for regional/rural areas, building stalls for animals or shelters or even simple holiday houses. Or emergency or refugee accommodation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wrote a bit about this and it's implications some years back - [http://www.ciocookbook.com/philosophy/thecodeisthedesign.htm...](http://www.ciocookbook.com/philosophy/thecodeisthedesign.html), and the Times has reported on a group working on concrete printing - but as is pointed out here, it's very hard - but on e the basics are in, well software eats another industry

</comment><comment><USER17> So, I realize that the return on investment for VCs in something like this is probably pretty low--the AEC industry is terrible (though real estate is alright).

That said, can we at least be honest that having that much capital locked up in stupid consumer and enterprise gambles is actually a pretty obviously sub- optimal use of that money for the common good?

<comment><USER23> So, you, as venture-capital-extraordinaire, spend all your money on helping the poor. Maybe you do better in the short term. But what do you do once that money's gone? There's no long-term in that picture and charity for developing nations is not a short-term endeavour.

Meanwhile, trivial enterprise and consumer products may not be going to uplift a country any time soon, but they can be recursed upon, and the technologies involved in those industries - which have a wide range of potential applications, including some charitable potential - continue to advance.

It doesn't make any sense to build a system based on what you would like people to be rather than what they are. And for better or worse people's relatively direct purchasing of utilions for others tends to be both fairly rare and inefficient.

#

I'd be interested to hear how you think CAM and computing technology would have evolved without funding for 'stupid consumer gambles,' and the need to compete with other manufacturers in that regard.

<comment><USER17> CAM machining advancements were mostly pushed forward by car companies and government spending, right? Almost all of the computing technology we use today began as a .gov or .mil project, or came from some private lab with funding from the .gov or .mil.

I think that that rather neatly undermines your point.

It wasn't the VCs spending lots of money. The big desktop revolution (outside of Apple) was initially driven by IBM, Commodore, Tandy, and Atari...all relatively established businesses partnering with younger firms for software or whatnot.

Sure, we had Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics, but at the end of the day it seems like they're all gone and blown away while the more lasting impacts remain attributed to academia (.edu and .gov again), defense (.mil), or consumer software not really driven by venture capital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess this is cool if your into ugly concrete construction, check out rammed earth to see something beautiful. [http://www.rammedearthconstructions.com.au/gallery.php?mp_id...](http://www.rammedearthconstructions.com.au/gallery.php?mp_id=11)

</comment><comment><USER25> Its interesting to see the world of "just like plastic filament printing but with concrete" collide with the world of highly automated manufactured housing. Bring the jobsite to the printer or the printer to the jobsite, sorta.

</comment><comment><USER26> Obviously this technology isn't ready for prime-time yet. But there is no compelling reason why it shouldn't be able to compete with prefabbed housing. In any way, this 3D-printer collaborates with prefabbed parts, so you can combine custom or tricky bits with prefabbed parts for the easier portions.

Where I see additional advantages is complicated buildings, for example pig stables where you want hundreds of bays, and maybe special channels for herding pigs etc.

Also for larger settlements once the robot is on-site it can just keep on going while the logistics train is a lot simpler than if they had to coordinate all the different types of parts.

</comment><comment><USER27> You'll notice a whole lot of hand waving around auxiliary issues like wiring and painting. Solvable yes, but projects in their own right.

Biggest point he makes is around the danger. It's also why autonomous cars might take off incredibly quick. Once the lawsuits start rolling in by people hurt/killed by people driving cars large companies will have to go autonomous pretty quick.

</comment><comment><USER28> I love this idea, but where would this be useful?

Is there really a shortage of single family homes anywhere? Maybe in some sort of disaster area or 3rd world, but I imagine there are better/easier/cheaper alternatives for those situations.

<comment><USER29> The aim is to make them cheaper, and with less injury to workers

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> As cool as this is, it's scary to think where our economy is going. What will all the construction workers do?

</comment><comment><USER31> I love the way nascent thought is being given to the use of 3D printing on large size implementations

</comment><comment><USER32> And the house will still cost $1 million.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is wicked. I want one. :)</comment>


Should I learn macOS for new job? - <AUTHOR> I'm starting at Amazon soon. I heard you get the choice to pick Mac or Windows. I've never used Mac or unix type system but I heard that Mac integrated bash is really nice.
Is it worth it to switch?
Also I know AMZN is Java based. I don't know any Java atm, which subjects are best to know? <comment><USER2> As far as I know, AMZN does use a lot of Java, but there are lots of languages used there and the company didn't hire because you know Java (clearly). If you want to learn it, go ahead, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you need to know it, you'll learn it on the job.

With regards to Mac vs Windows. I switched to Mac years ago and I think most would agree that Linux or a Unix-like system is superior for programming, but plenty of developers used Windows just fine. Personally, I much prefer Mac because I work in the shell a lot and don't like the Windows command prompt. Give Mac a whirl, you might like it.</comment>


The Goodyear Blimp - <AUTHOR> http://www.goodyearblimp.com/faqs/faqs_construction.html <comment><USER2> Is this some kind of experiment in how many people will automatically upvote something from a karma-leader user?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually thought it fit the description of something that _good hackers would find interesting_ and something _that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity_

I was actually surprised by how detailed is Goodyear's description of it.

Guess I was wrong.

<comment><USER2> It's nothing personal, it just seemed odd to submit the FAQ page of a blimp.

If blimps are interesting to you, Airship Ventures might be of interest as well --

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link.

I know. After looking for a blimp in the sky the other day I actually started wondering how much they weighted, and was surprised to find this answered in a faq.

And the faq also posed questions/answers I had not imagined before, like:

 _If the ship doesn't let off helium, how does it come down?_

 _What type of engines do the blimps have?_

 _How fast and how far can the blimp go?_

And even a soft reference to Hindenburg accident[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Photos of teenage life in a post-Brexit Belfast - <AUTHOR> https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/toby-binder-wee-muckers-belfast-youth-brexit/ <comment><USER2> Haunting images. Please consider tagging for the nsfw elements along the right hand gutter.</comment>


MySQL founder's new company is "hacking business models" - <AUTHOR> http://zak.greant.com/hacking-business-models This link came directly from his blog post talking about his departure from Sun:<p>http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-to-move-on.html <comment><USER2> This reads like a long list of "employees should GET x, employees should GET y, employees should GET z".

...and there's absolutely nothing in there about how employees GENERATE utility.

It's always fun to sit around and speculate on how you'd like to SPEND your wealth, but it's a lot more work to actually figure out HOW TO GENERATE it.

When I read "business model" in the title, I assumed that there'd be something in here about new ideas on how to deliver utility to customers (and thus capture some revenue).

There's not a single word on that topic.

The blog post subject line and the HN subject line are both wrong. This isn't "hacking business models", it's "having a wet dream about compensation packages".

Amusing enough to some, I guess, but entirely uninteresting to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting stuff. Though I'm not sure that what they're describing is a business model. Sounds more like a "Terms of Employment" agreement.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The link to this comes from his blog post on resignation:

<http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-to-move-on.html></comment>


Options for dropping out of modern life (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://ask.metafilter.com/144952/Options-for-dropping-out-of-modern-life

<comment><USER2> > Options for dropping out of modern life? I'm bored with it. My only > requirement is having internet access (preferably on my laptop).

Internet access, laptop, somewhere to plug the laptop in, and a way to shelter it from the elements -- as well as its owner?

Hilarious. Translation: "I'm not really interested in dropping out of modern life."</comment>


How I left London to travel, live, and work from a DIY converted Land Rover - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/i-live-and-work-in-my-car-heres-how-2018-5 <comment><USER2> Tired of being falsely accused of running an Ad blocker, I ended up reading this in lynx.

Partially a challenge, but genuinely a refreshing change from all the graphics, ads, layout glitches, _etc._

I know many sites make their revenue from ads, which is actually why I _don 't_ run an ad blocker. If their content is worth reading, I'll let the ads display. But having an undismissable pop-over falsely accusing me of running one means I'll either not read the content, or find some other way.

It's a dilemma for content providers, I know. What I _don 't_ know is how to fix it.

<comment><USER3> What I don't understand is why not just provide quality text content and run native ads with a contact me section for monetization and opt-in marketing?

How I Quit My Job and Lived In My Range Rover Selling Software and Consulting

[body text here]

"and by the way, did you know that Range Rover is offering a 25% discount in financing rates through my affiliate link? please click here if your're interested or contact me for more info

[more body text here about life in the Range Rover and selling consulting services]

"thanks guys! please feel free to email if you are bored and want to chit chat about anything cool and unique."

Why did the web deviate from this format? Partly because of design by committee, partly because its easier to sell wholesale data to some shitty ad company rather than actually forge real relationships</comment></comment>