Twitter is Pivoting - <AUTHOR> http://daltoncaldwell.com/twitter-is-pivoting <comment><USER2> I hate to be that (negative) guy, but I'm starting to get really tired of Dalton constantly pissing all over twitter. Particularly because he's competing against them. I'm an App.net backer, and I think it's cool what he's doing, but FFS, let someone else carry the water, if it even needs carrying at all. This all just feels really petty and whiney, particularly when you're already at work solving the problem.

<comment><USER3> This adds news (Chernin's involvement) and knowledgeable analysis in context.

And, for an insurgent platform/viewpoint to succeed, it needs tireless promotion. (Graphomania, even.)

Skip his blog posts if you don't like them, others find them valuable.

<comment><USER2> Look, his post may be insightful and interesting, but the point is that if any other startup on here spent post after post publicly criticising their direct competitor, it would hopefully be viewed as a negative thing. Why is App.net any different? There are plenty of ways to promote your scrappy and noble insurgency without sticking it in the eye of your competitor.

Again, I think what app.net is doing is interesting and great, just not these types of blog posts.

<comment><USER3> But the predations of the Facebook/Twitter business model are both the founding impetus and sustaining animus of App.net. They're always on topic for Caldwell, and _especially_ when new information advancing and refining the critique comes up.

And the analogy of 'spending' posts isn't quite right. There is no budget constraint on internet writing to advance your cause: in many cases more is better as long as you're not repeating the exact same points. (And as I mentioned: I see both new news and analysis in this post, even though it advances a familiar theme/viewpoint.)

<comment><USER4> Eh, maybe. Twitter got started after Facebook, but I don't remember seeing Twitter talking _about_ Facebook.

<comment><USER5> That's because Twitter didn't know what they were or were trying to become. They probably didn't see themselves as a competitor to Facebook, but as a complement.

<comment><USER6> Facebook didn't try to become Twitter-like until later on, when Twitter was already becoming popular, IIRC. It was more of a "Twitter is social-network- ish, maybe we should incorporate Twitter-like features into our product."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Of all the rhetorical points that Dalton makes, this one was the most damning for me:

>>> _His announcement was formatted as a direct reply to the official Twitter account._

 _This means the announcement would only be seen by his followers that also follow the official Twitter account. I don't get the feeling he did this on purpose. An experienced Twitter user would know to add a "." at the beginning of his message so that his followers would see it._ >>

It seems a bit pedantic. But when top-down leaders don't get even the basic details of their operations right, then there are a lot of other big-picture things that they seem to get wrong as well. In the case of MySpace's crushing defeat by Facebook, the difference really was in the details, not in the overall ambitions of the two companies.

<comment><USER8> [http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/Why-do-some-tweets-have-a- per...](http://www.quora.com/Twitter-1/Why-do-some-tweets-have-a-period-in- front)

i knew twitter was broken but this takes the cake. i have been using twitter for years and had no idea.

<comment><USER9> Hey, Quora got slightly less obnoxious about blocking their content. Finally. Just a week or two ago, I followed a link to Quora and they were still doing the scummy old Experts Exchange trick of blurring out most of the answers.

<comment><USER10> I tried them two days ago and they were doing the same. Seems like a very recent change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _An experienced Twitter user would know to add a "." at the beginning of his message so that his followers would see it._

Signed up for twitter on the day it launched(I think) and did not know that. Twitter is a painful product to use. It isn't made for humans.

Twitter doesn't _have_ to show a username in tweets; they can easily translate it to the name.

Twitter doesn't _have_ to require each reply to appear like an out of context note. They can easily group them as _complete conversations_ (like facebook allowing comments).

Twitter doesn't _have_ to make lists so hard to use. They can easily make it very similar to facebook(except on twitter there is much more need to use this since they do not filter out tweets).

Twitter doesn't _have_ to insist on this 140 char limit that looks funnier every coming day and result in butchered communication.

Twitter doesn't _have_ to subtract 100 characters if I post a URL that is 100 characters; it could automagically shorten it or not count against the 140 at all. Instead, I am forced to manually use bit.ly to shorten it.

Twitter doesn't _have_ to show me a stream filled with url strings; it could easily show the title of the page or something similar to facebook.

Dear Twitter, PLEASE stop this stubbornness in your product philosophy. It is hurting your users and it is hurting Twitter Corporation.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, but it's painfully obvious from your post that you don't actually use twitter, at least not regularly enough to "get it".

\- user names are a huge part of what makes Twitter interesting, imho it's not meant to be the type of service with real names

\- replies do get grouped as complete conversations, and it's been that way for a while now.

\- lists really aren't that hard to use, I don't know what your problem with it is

\- and the 140 char thing is your craziest point... 140 chars is exactly what makes twitter so great and so interesting, if the messages were longer it would drastically affect how the service works and feels.

Basically what I'm getting at is that Twitter is already fantastic for users... unfortunately it isn't making them enough money, which is why they're changing so many thing about the service, but let's not pretend they're changing things because the user experience is so bad... if the experience was so bad, they wouldn't have the millions and millions of users that they have now.

<comment><USER11> _\- user names are a huge part of what makes Twitter interesting, imho it's not meant to be the type of service with real names_

I am genuinely curious of the use cases where the username adds more value than the name associated with the account. I'd also like to know what type of service twitter is _supposed_ to be in your view.

 _\- replies do get grouped as complete conversations, and it's been that way for a while now._

 _Technically_ they do, but visually they are a mess. The way humans naturally converse is by adding their comments to a topic. This is why facebook lets you comment on a wall post. If you read a wall post and the comments, they make sense. On twitter, it begins with reading some random comment and _then_ having to reverse engineer the conversation it possibly may belong to.

 _\- lists really aren't that hard to use, I don't know what your problem with it is_

On twitter.com, in order to see a list, I have to click on an icon on top, click on "Lists" and then click on a list name. That is 3 clicks _and_ a page reload compared to facebook's 1 click. Furthermore, so I click on a list, browse and want to click on another list. I must hit the "back" key resulting in a page reload, and then choose another list.

 _it would drastically affect how the service works and feels_

Sure it may feel drastically different...but that could be for the better, no? 140 char was a great thing to launch with just as facebook restricting to college campuses was a great hook - but products evolve to accommodate wider audiences. Twitter hasn't.

My personal reading is that twitter long passed the threshold where it would be some underground place and increasingly tries to _present_ itself for the mainstream--without changing the product to accommodate the mainstream. The equivalent would be facebook opening up to the world but building features mainly for the college market.

<comment><USER13> _\- the username adds more value than the name associated with the account_

Well; username is actually the ID; what you use to follow someone, reply someone, promote someone, etc.

 _\- 140 char was a great thing to launch with just as facebook restricting to college campuses was a great hook_

No, the limitation is actually good in the long run, you _have_ to be concise, very useful for most kinds of massive streams of information. In my view it would be like Youtube hosting pics and users having to navigate through both kinds of media.

In the other aspects I agree with you; Twitter haves many many problems and hasn't really improved much in years. The back button is extremely broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ok, third comment here, guess the previous two comments (memesisj and jamesmoss) pretty much define 'polarizing' :-)

Dalton raises some interesting questions. What exactly _is_ twitter ? And perhaps more importantly what does Twitter think it can become? The churn in API restrictions, usage and messages certainly can be confusing.

<comment><USER15> I don't see these options as mutually exclusive. How is consumption of information canceling out sharing information? Especially with the ability to email tweets now. This seems to run contrary to what Dalton is writing about.

My favorite twitter comment is that you don't have to tweet to use twitter. You can contribute to the news, and you can consume it, Twitter isn't pushing for people to use just pursue one.

<comment><USER16> Twitter is pushing people into using their service in particular ways (eg, by restricting clients), and by the sounds of what is to come - the advertising will gradually get more aggressive.

Dalton understands what makes social media work - and you can see it in how he advertises App.net. If you ask "what is App.net" and look for Dalton's answer somewhere - he never explicitly states. He is deliberately vague about what it is - because it isn't anything until its users have defined what it is.

That's how twitter became successful in the first place - the service was defined by its users to become what it is now. Not just twitter, but every major social network grew the same way, and the ones that failed are those that didn't understand this.

So Twitter, Inc. need to be careful not to piss off it's content creators with aggressive advertising or constraining how they interact with it. What Twitter, Inc want their service to be is ultimately not their decision - it's up to the users.

<comment><USER15> Well put, it's a 100% user driven service, and has been historically friendly to developers. While the later point may be shifting, they can never lose site of their content creators value, and have to actively listen and work with them in order to make their publishing as easy as possible. I think that makes sense of their recent purchase of Vine, a beautifully crafted service on the twitter platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is how I use Twitter now -- to consume news and discuss said news with my social circles. I certainly wouldn't be upset if Twitter took this as the core use case of the product.

<comment><USER18> Twitter is like RSS for people who don't know what RSS is. And I mean that in a good way. :)

<comment><USER15> Totally agree, I think Twitter understands this too, their their recent work in NLP to analyze trends, and grouping tweets to create adhoc discussion board like centralizations of discussions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I get the impression that social media douchebags already pivoted Twitter in that direction a few years ago, and now Twitter is just confirming it. The sad part IMO is that it seems like they could fix their developer relations problems and their business model by charging to send relevant tweets to existing followers, not unrelated ads. Of course, I don't even use Twitter so you probably shouldn't ask me.

<comment><USER20> True, but the root problem is in education. Our schools are passing out "social media douchebag" degrees left and right - we can expect nothing less.

This is only partially tongue-in-cheek. The balance of information systems operate on trust, just as economies do, and eroding trust at the institutional level is a bad sign.

<comment><USER19> As much as I like to make fun of the douchebags, I have to admit that there is some merit to the idea of Twitter as an opt-in marketing channel or a character-limited version of Google Reader — at least those use case are useful to some people. The original Twitter, although authentically social, ranged from boring (I don't care what you had for lunch) to frustrating (you can't have any meaningful discussion in 140-character chunks).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For those unaware: Dalton Caldwell is the creator of app.net, a direct competitor of Twitter (with a subscription fee model instead of an advertising/data model).

I think it's important to read the post with that context in mind.

</comment><comment><USER22> "What is post-pivot Twitter supposed to look like?

The best way to consume "news and information". Important content is mostly created by media companies, whether they are blogs, television, radio or movies.

The main reason that "normal users" would write messages is as a backchannel to discuss media events such as the Olympics, Election Coverage, or a new television show. "Normal user" tweets are something akin to Facebook comments.

Even though this backchannel exists, it's not expected that brands and celebrities are supposed to pay much attention to everything that is said. Chernin himself hasn't replied to the numerous replies he received."

That's funny because that's how I used Twitter from the beginning (5 years ago).

</comment><comment><USER23> I have to disagree with author on some of the points. And looks like he doesn't like the fact that FB and Twitter are part media, part software companies.

"a media company writing software that is optimized for mostly passive users interested in a media and entertainment filter."

What's wrong in being media company? We all agree that software is eating the world, so why is it bad if Twitter is "disrupting" real-time media consumption? I loved Twitter's Olympics coverage. Even though I was thousands of miles away from London, I could feel the excitement.

Same for Hurricane Sandy. It was so useful to get latest news update in such a terrible time (for everyone involved). I was caught in another disaster few years back and the biggest problem was not getting important news updates from credible agencies/people. Twitter solved that problem for Hurricane Sandy coverage.

Twitter/FB are becoming like "breaking news" for every news. Be it earthquakes, celebrity gossip, world cups, olympics or new product launches!

</comment><comment><USER24> I actually have used and are using twitter. It is a horrendous user experience - but I know how to fix it.

My main problem is my diverse interest in different subjects and twitters current inability to let me organize and follow what I like.

I'm following approx. 200 people divided 30% technology, 30% cycling and 30% friends/locals. For me, it would be impossible to imagine following more than 250 or 300 people with todays interface - because they are all thrown into each other and reading the raw feed is a clutter and mess of subjects.

You would think, considering their main goal is to get people following their interest, that they would get this part of the interface right. But the contrary - it is what is worst with twitter.

The solution (and problem) I'm hinting to is of course _lists_ and as Facebook, G+ and virtually every other social network already have found out: people like to organize interests, people and subjects into different "buckets". Facebook had a lame interface for this many years, but does a better job now.

My point is, as an experienced twitter user, I know where the pains are and my first day in office I would make sure that the accessibility of lists were greatly improved.

The second day I would use to fix a decent conversation view and comprehensible reply scheme.

EDIT: To point out the inaccessibility of lists today, here is the general way to read up on a subject: tool-icon > lists > choose list. That's 2 clicks too many. You could also use the shortcut "gl" and spare 2 clicks, but still, it is 1 request too much and way too complex for the regular user.

<comment><USER25> I have a similar issue. I go to Twitter for many things -- work info, to laugh, friends -- and it doesn't work to have everything jammed into one stream.

I would like to see something split the list of accounts I follow into subject-based lists or something so that I can consume with context.

At some point, I think following becomes less important. Ideally Twitter could just show me tweets that I should enjoy. I'm not looking to get every update anyway -- I just want to dip into a stream of info that I'd find both timely and relevant.

<comment><USER26> Have you tried tweetdeck? It does just this. Set up columns for hash tags that interest you, and you can see what the entire twitterverse is saying about those topics in real time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps a true _commercial_ social network is a contradiction in terms; the friction from the user=product formula necessarily becoming unbearable with time. Perhaps an open source non profit solution wil have suited it much better.

</comment><comment><USER28> Although I'm fairly indifferent about app.net I could read Dalton Caldwell's blog posts all day. He's a clever guy that puts across his points well.

</comment><comment><USER29> So just reading the post I got a little confused (and then i found out he's the creator of App.net and wondered if his passion isn't clouding his best judgement) Firstly the quote: "Given that most of their traffic comes from us, if we build adequate if not superior competitors, I think we ought to be able to match them if not exceed them." - I just wasn't quite sure what this quote meant - I certainly didn't assume it mean't we're going to block them though. Maybe they did block them but shouldn't the correct quote end with "I think we ought to be able to block them"?

He's been using it for a long time to consume news and information. Ok, makes sense. Yet this is apparently objectionable or at the very least damming. I _think_ it's damming because he says he's a consumer not a producer of tweets. Is this news to anyone?

"Admit failure and give up on trying to get normal people to tweet" The balance in twitter's tweet creation and consumption happened organically. Kudos to Twitter for allowing it to happen vs forcing unnatural acts? "You should tweet more!" I don't look too closely but it seems like it's been an open secret for 2 + years that 80% of all tweets come from 5 - 10% of users or whatever.

I guess I wouldn't call it a pivot if Twitter is focusing heavily on the 10% that do 90% of the tweeting vs trying to get the other 90% to tweet more.

</comment><comment><USER30> Dalton was just on This Week in Startups. Great to hear more in-depth insights on iMeem, social, ad sales, and app.net <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6ZsIlfzSBU>

While I don't necessarily agree with his wording in every blog post, this is an awesome interview.

</comment><comment><USER31> 1\. I like, support and (pay for) App.net 2\. One tweet, by one famous media guy (admittedly a board member, yes, but really only known for being a great media executive) does not a strategy make. 3\. The title "is pivoting" is extremely assertive and not really backed up by, well, a preponderance of facts or data.

</comment><comment><USER32> Hard to say you're a "long time user" if you've only been on since 2010. Been on 6 years, that line made me laugh.

</comment><comment><USER33> To me, what's implied by this piece — since it's written by Dalton — is that Twitter is leaving behind an opportunity that he plans to take advantage of. What remains to be seen is whether the thing they're leaving behind can be fully realized.

Do people really need a short-form messaging platform for communication?

<comment><USER34> Or perhaps Twitter has already figured out that there is no opportunity, and Dalton is mistaken in believing it exists.

<comment><USER35> I think the opportunity Twitter is leaving behind won't pay off for Twitter's investors, but it is enough to be worth Dalton's time and effort to scoop up in Twitter's wake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The one point that really did not resonate with me is that companies will take over. Currently, companies are by far the worst tweeters and are totally dominated by individuals whether thy be celebrities, experts, citizen journalists, etc. Even the good tweeters who sort of tweet under a company umbrella define themselves more than their companies. Twitter seems to me that it will remain the anti-company network since it provides so much advantage to the collection of individuals.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think its outrages that a member of the board of directors of twitter has absolutely no idea what he's doing on twitter. I have no knowledge of Dalton's other business then this blogpost, and therefore it doesn't strike me as annoying, just a well written critical analyses of what twitter is doing wrong. I really hate the protectionistic (i.e. stupid) way twitter is doing business and I hope if enough people vocalize it, twitter _might_ do something about it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Interesting, but it's reading an awful lot into a single tweet.

</comment><comment><USER39> If you want more insights about the things discussed here, there's an interview that Mark Suster did with Joel Spolsky last year where they talk about the "API wars":

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZWBtfSBlp8#t=2240s>

They cover everything from the early days of Excel's API to the downfall of myspace and the rise of YouTube and Photobucket, and how twitter took off. It's worth your time.

</comment><comment><USER40> "Admit failure and give up on trying to get normal people to tweet."

What are you saying? Fourteen year olds and ethnic minorities use this website. How normal can you get?

"An experienced Twitter user would know to add a "." at the beginning of his message"

Thanks for the protip, Dalton.

</comment><comment><USER41> So are we finally moving to our own status.net instances?

</comment><comment><USER42> TIL what the '.' in front of '@' is for. Interesting.

</comment><comment><USER43> Sounds like Chernin wants to make a news wire.

<comment><USER44> So, Google Reader with poorer infrastructure?

<comment><USER18> 99.13% of Internet users don't know what RSS is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I like that twitter forces you to be concise.

<comment><USER46> I have a theory that it was Twitter forcing people to be consise that was one of the major factors of the Arab Spring revolutions.

Think about it: Politicians who have been trained in the art of speaking in soundbites have been ruling much of the world since the advent of electronic media.

Those who can't phrase their arguments in bite-sized pieces for busy people to digest come across as being ineffective intellectuals.

Titter gives ordinary people the ability to communicate in soundbites. Sometimes less is more. This is society-changing powerful stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> they're just gonna concentrate on content/media sharing via url, and that isn't necessarily big-company driven. people sharing links and talking about them etc.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm a longtime twitter user. He should've checked out my account for an example of best practices - <http://twitter.com/mullingitover>

</comment><comment><USER49> Imagine a Hacker News without Dalton Caldwell or 37 Signals.... Mmmmmmmm</comment>


Ask HN: How does Groupon or Grubwith.us do their group payment system? - <AUTHOR>

I have heard that they don't use PayPal. And I cannot imagine the hassle of rolling your own system. Any ideas? Maybe WePay? <comment><USER2> I believe they are using a custom interface from Braintree. Pretty sure living social is the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will check them out. Thanks a lot.</comment></comment>


Priority Queue on Ethereum with a 15 ETH Bug Bounty - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zmitton/eth-heap <comment><USER2> Cryptocurrencies, and especially Ethereum, are truly novel innovations in computer science that cross many academic disciplines. The linked example is a great write-up. It's sad that there is a vocal group, especially on HN, that knee-jerk hates everything blockchain related and wishes with their entire being for it to fail.

However, I think smart contracts are fascinating and wish more people would keep an open mind.

<comment><USER3> The term "Smart contracts" (Ethereum/EOS/hyperledger) is often used with wild claims for supply chains and cross border business deals, but why would any real business want to use a public blockchain?

Smart contracts can't even do anything interesting without a trusted source of data input. The threat model and legal questions of smart contracts are another huge deterrent for most businesses.

Latency, throughput, security threats, and cost are all fairly understood with normal databases, yet with blockchain software all of these are measurably worse.

Where are the completed successful smart contracts deployed?

Why would any person or business want/need to use an existing blockchain when some bug or mining operator might cause a catastrophe of that system, who would they sue for damages?

A single user who spent less than $5000 crashed the entire market for Ethereum last summer. Most of the supply of ETH, XMR, BTC and other crypto tokens are owned by a very small population of crypto-oligarchs.

It all seems like a marketing scheme to sell cyber beanie babies to people who are unfamiliar with the engineering flaws in distributing computing and the marketing lies from "investors" who need to pump the price on their magic beans.

<comment><USER4> > why would any real business want to use a public blockchain?

I think it is only important for a business when public trust is important. For example, a news agency could publish its articles in a public blockchain so the original article and any updates to that article would forever be auditable from that blockchain.

<comment><USER5> It's exhausting arguing with the same bogus "use cases" every other week but here goes in short:

\- In your scenario you're not decentralized, you have a clear authority: the news agency

\- The news agency can broadcast a signed merkle tree of the articles it publishes alongside the normal newspaper/news program etc... For instance through their website.

\- Anybody who cares about it could maintain a copy of this signed tree locally.

\- If the news agency censors or edits an article anybody with a copy of the original tree can prove it by showing that their tree has a valid signature from the news agency and yet the hashes don't match.

There, problem solved without having to worry about proof of work, proof of stake, transaction costs, 50% attacks of what have you.

<comment><USER6> Just because I feel like arguing a bit, here goes:

>\- _In your scenario you 're not decentralized, you have a clear authority: the news agency_ Only due to current technical limitations. Shift to Blockchain, get distributed news agencies, with reporters[1] residing all over the world. Think of the time and costs saved by not having to send reporter out of a central office

> _\- The news agency can broadcast a signed merkle tree of the articles it > publishes alongside the normal newspaper /news program etc... For instance > through their website._ Doesn't help a bit, given how they have total > control over the content of the website, they could just as easily swap out > the merkele root and claim it is the original one. Blockchain denies them > this sleight of hand.

>\- _Anybody who cares about it could maintain a copy of this signed tree locally._ ...and there's a well known tool for distributing that in a verified & timestamped format - Blockchain.

>\- _If the news agency censors or edits an article anybody with a copy of the original tree can prove it by showing that their tree has a valid signature from the news agency and yet the hashes don 't match._ Introduces a 'he-said, she-said' problem. Which the Blockchain neatly avoids.

[1] possibly with a lot more "citizen journalists" who do the reporting as a side activity, rather than mostly plain old full-time journalists.

<comment><USER5> >Shift to Blockchain, get distributed news agencies, with reporters

You'll have to break that one down for me. Can the blockchain also cure male pattern baldness? Asking for a friend.

>and there's a well known tool for distributing that in a verified & timestamped format - Blockchain.

News agencies typically already have a way to distribute information since that's literally their job. Even if they don't they could just tweet it or whatever. That's not really a problem.

>Introduces a 'he-said, she-said' problem. Which the Blockchain neatly avoids.

No it doesn't, if you can provide a valid signature from the "News Org" public key that doesn't match the article's checksum then it proves that "News Org" at some point signed conflicting data, proving that something has been tempered with. It doesn't matter if the person pointing that out is some anonymous user on 8chan, as long as the signature is valid it can only mean that the news organization did something shady or that their key got compromised.

That's the whole principle behind public key cryptography. I signed this comment before posting it, which means that if tomorrow I delete this message and you kept a copy you could show that I in fact authored it (or at least endorsed it somehow): [https://pastebin.com/XKnQSFew](https://pastebin.com/XKnQSFew)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, great write up. Excellent example of computer science fundamentals being used to tackle a novel problem.

I recently had to use the concept of table doubling to improve a system where rough estimation was being used to determine the size of a data structure. It certainly felt good to recall the concept of table doubling and design a system using it's concepts.

<comment><USER8> Thanks, I basically did a brain dump on the README. I plan do do many more bounties like it in the future. Really glad it's made some traction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> by the way. I deployed the same thing on the KOVAN test network at this address (if people want to test their exploits for free first): [https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0xfbc23099a8bd0ce4227920d...](https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0xfbc23099a8bd0ce4227920dc559fcfe9c7fa3ce3)

<comment><USER9> > […] if people want to test their exploits for free first […]

This sounds like a bad idea, since it would allow other people to extract the script and put it inside a transaction that's published on the real network, thus unfairly claiming the bounty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If I were a malicious actor with a good way to attack this, I would wait until this was being used in real applications which deal with larger amounts of ETH, and then attack.

Why should I reveal my cards for $3K?

<comment><USER11> Because you know if you can find a given flaw, someone else can; and whoever attacks second gets nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Code bounties are a great use-case for cryptocurrency. I wonder if gratipay[1] for example was built exclusively using BitCoin or Ethereum if it could have survived?

[1] [https://gratipay.com](https://gratipay.com)

</comment><comment><USER13> The flaws of ETH seem to show daily. The fact that this is a necessity to keep ETH flowing is a bad sign of things to come.

Bitcoin not blockchain.

<comment><USER14> Or neither Bitcoin nor Blockchain. The thing is, inflation is actually what keeps the entire economy moving. Deflationary currencies actively dissuade investment and lending. What would a loan even look like denominated in a deflationary currency? Lenders are incentivized not to give you the one, as their cash reserves appreciate risk-free.

Oh, and also, why trust this random ad-hoc group of self-appointed economists (the core dev team) over a selected group of professional economists with degrees an arms-length away from politics (the federal reserve)? None of it makes sense. If the core team wants to create more bitcoin _they can_. Just like the fed.

Inflation is _not a bad thing_ \- it's solely a regular haircut for unproductive capital. Nobody should be hoarding cash. They should invest. Salaries are indexed for inflation so they don't go down. This isn't rocket science.

<comment><USER8> Your economics are all wrong. Ever heard of the Cantillon Effect? [https://www.aier.org/article/sound-money- project/cantillon-e...](https://www.aier.org/article/sound-money- project/cantillon-effects-and-money-neutrality)

<comment><USER9> > The Cantillon Effect refers to the change in relative prices resulting from > a change in money supply. The change in relative prices occurs because the > change in money supply has a specific injection point and therefore a > specific flow path through the economy. The first recipient of the new > supply of money is in the convenient position of being able to spend extra > dollars before prices have increased. But whoever is last in line receives > his share of new dollars after prices have increased.

This theory is fundamentally flawed, because it assumes that whoever receives the "new money" buys consumer goods. If this is indeed what happens, then prices should increase. But what if he buys bonds?

If newly produced money is used, not to buy consumer goods (or commodities), but bonds, then the injection of new money into the economy has the _opposite_ effect on the price level, because the new money is used to improve the efficiency of production. E.g. if a producer of chickens sells a $250m bond (bought with "new money") and invests the proceeds in a chicken plant[1], the price of chickens will _decrease_ , due to increased productivity of producing chickens.

In the above scenario, the only price that will increase is the price of bonds, which is the same as a falling rate of interest (the rate of interest is inversely proportional to the price of the bond). And this is exactly what has been happening for the past 35 years or so[2].

[1] [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/costco- plans...](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/costco-plans-to- keep-rotisserie-chicken-at-5-dollars-2018-9-1027555791)

[2] [https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/...](https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/12/Screen-Shot-2015-12-16-at-3.26.43-PM.png)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


360° 4k – kpop korean dancers (require Google Chrome or a smartphone) - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujYyE0lfSUk

<comment><USER2> Just in case, like me, you're on a smartphone and wondering what this is about, slide around the player...

<comment><AUTHOR> It should work with just the accelerometer. But you might have to use the youtube app. Reddit discussion here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3b9c90/360_4k_kpop_k...](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3b9c90/360_4k_kpop_korean_dancers_to_properly_view_you/)</comment></comment>


Google, HelloFax, Expensify And Others Want You To Go Paperless In 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/02/google-expensify-paperless-2013/

<comment><USER2> As someone who has spent most of his career in report creation and management (specifically in financial asset management), I find the current state of enterprise reporting in flux. In finance, most documents are still laid out for print (PDFs, Word Docs, and even PowerPoints), but users are printing them less frequently and viewing them either online or on their tablets, and IMO the user experience leaves a lot to be desired.

At the same time, there is so much tooling and infrastructure out there for print, that change is slow. There is a whole layer of increasingly senior managers from my generation who grew up with Microsoft Office, and are slow moving toward new reporting technologies. As a technologist this can be frustrating (see: <http://baus.net/documents-are-skeuomorphic>), but change is inevitable.

<comment><USER3> Tell me about it. I run into this a lot. Companies spend these vast fortunes on ERP and Data warehouses only to have the final output be PDF Crystal Report documents or 500,000 line item exports into Excel.

<comment><USER2> As a technologist I sometimes forget that for many office workers their tool kit is Outlook, Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. They can't imagine a world where they don't spend most of their time using those applications. At times I see what people do with Microsoft Office, and I'm dumbfounded by the inefficiency.

I think the consumer part of this technology cycle is pretty well played out, but there is still a lot to be done for businesses. I'm calling for the death of what I call the "PC operator," which many office workers are. I think the valley is going to catch on to this in the next year.

<comment><USER4> I used to (vehemently!) agree with this sentiment!

Then, for a startup I worked for, I said "Enough is enough. I'm going to automate this report for you and it will be so much better!" I was automating a 12-step Excel-macro-vlookup-pivot-table report. I was using python.

And boy was it a pain. Have you ever tried implementing pivot-table functionality in python? Holy smokes. (You can use numpy, but seriously don't add that as a production dependency if you can help it. There is some pivot table library but it doesn't actually do all the things real pivot tables do.)

First you filter on column A, then sort by column B, then vlookup, then pivot, then... oof. Shoot me now.

And don't get me started on matplotlib. It is theoretically great, but doesn't work on OSX, which is what I was using as my dev machine. What a cluster.

My point being that, in my limited experience, I really couldn't imagine a world where devs had to write tools to do things that Excel has been doing for decades! And without any intervention from the dev team too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I keep trying to get my dad to get rid of his landline. But he won't, because he sends faxes.

"Here," I said, "try this." I showed him HelloFax. That was a no-go, citing privacy concerns. How can he be sure they aren't stealing or saving his personal information? Even if their ToS says so, there's no way to know. And most faxes are for things like insurance, which have SSN's, etc.

"But you realize," I said, "that every fax you send nowadays is going to someone's email. Nobody is receiving physical faxes anymore." Sure, he said, but then he is no longer the one responsible.

He's savvy enough to read the news and read about awful terms of service changes, privacy breaches, and startups and services going out of business.

Plus, he reasons, what if you lose internet?

There's no substitute for a physical paper record. (What if the house burns down? Well, he has a scanned copy on his computer too. We could go on forever.)

And even if there was a substitute for a physical paper record, it is hard to give peace of mind to my old man about whether hard or soft copies are admissible in court. When _are_ soft copies admissible in court anyway?

So unless some service (somehow) is able to give privacy peace of mind to my dad and address all of his issues... it is unlikely I would be able to convince him to move into this century with respect to his personal information, documents, and finances. What startup is solving that?

<comment><USER5> Many (most?) hospitals still use fax machines to get medical records from outside hospitals. There's not really a good alternative yet. Radiology studies are still mostly sent on CD or DVD. We're actually working on solving a small part of this problem -- see claripacs.com. Due to FDA and liability issues, we're going after the research and education market before tackling the clinical market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was discussed yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4993463>

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been hearing about the "paperless office" since the mid-80's. What is needed is not something to replace paper, but something better. For example, the paper memo was replaced by email.

Paper is just another technology, and a very good one at that.

</comment><comment><USER8> I went paperless back in 2011[1], never looked back since.

[1] <http://www.devotedit.com/2011/11/09/paperless-office/>

</comment><comment><USER9> I've tried paperless. I hated it. Having printouts that you can write on and highlight and put tags on can make work so much easier in a lot of cases.

<comment><USER10> This is also a problem with e-books: There's no way to just scribble something on the pages. I hope there will be a solution for this soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if these companies are themselves paperless? While I admire the movement too much business still happens on paper.

In our case, we can't go entirely paperless due to the government and lawyers. There are too many things we need to send snail-mail but here's hoping that changes.

<comment><USER12> Can't speak for the other members, but HelloFax has been completely paperless since inception.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I hope in the future every person will have a personal A4 sized device capable of displaying text and pictures of every format from any source.

<comment><USER14> I hope we just have everything in digital non-fixed size formats so we can display them easily on a device of any size.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but what about stuff where the format really matters? Most people want numbers on receipts to line up vertically. There exist spreadsheet looking reports that are just big tables of numbers. There are, perhaps, ways of presenting that data in a more fluid layout friendly way, but that's not an easy thing to do.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: TODO list with points system to spend on rewards you assign - <AUTHOR> The general idea, is that you assign a score for each task, and whenever you finish that task, you get points equal to the score you assigned, and on the side, you'd have a list of rewards each with a number of points where you can choose which one to spend your points on. I looked all over the internet for something similar, but nothing popped up. <comment><USER2> Are you asking whether we would use such a system, or whether we know of one?

If it's the latter, I don't know of one, but it's certainly not impossible.

If it's the former...I've toyed with gamifying my todo lists, but found some drawbacks to the idea:

\- It adds more time to an already demanding and tedious task

\- It's hard to objectively award rewards to yourself

\- Since there is no real 'competition', the points system becomes a bit meaningless when it operates in a vacuum

Generally, I find that completing a task (any task) and not having to worry about it anymore, is reward enough ;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> I haven't used it, but check out Habitica. (formerly HabitRPG, I think) [https://habitica.com/](https://habitica.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Just put them all on the same list and use negative points for the rewards. A spreadsheet would work perfectly.</comment>


"Computational Photography": On the Lookout, With a Digital Security Camera - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12novel.html <comment><USER2> I love this stuff.

A few months ago I wrote a multifocal composer in python - like HDR combines images with different exposures, this combined images with different focuses. Turned out to be easier than expected (and there are much better toolkits out there.)

The plenoptic cameras are going to change this field once someone figures out how to make them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some links on Computational Photography, for those who may be interested in this emerging field:

[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/computational- ph...](http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/computational-photography)

<http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/6/sp07/6.088/index.html>

[http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/courses/15-463/2005_fall/www/463....](http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/courses/15-463/2005_fall/www/463.html)

<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2005/cs4803cp_summer>

<http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs448-04-spring></comment>


How Olark Turned a Side Project into a Business with 10,000+ Customers - <AUTHOR> https://www.groovehq.com/blog/ben-congleton-olark-interview

<comment><USER2> Hats off to these guys, I personally felt this is one of the few interviews I've done where the resulting story captures a lot of the flavor of the early days of Olark.</comment>


The Hackers Who Recovered NASA's Lost Lunar Photos - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/04/lost-lunar-photos-recovered-by-great-feats-of-hackerdom-developed-at-a-mcdonalds/

<comment><USER2> Wired seems to often not include links directly to whom they're writing about. Check out the LOIRP at [http://www.moonviews.com/](http://www.moonviews.com/) and find some of the original images they've recovered... along with lots of other great information.

<comment> rkuykendall-com Traditionally-print publications have a huge problem with linking to whatever they are talking about. I've seen articles about a video which don't link to the video the article is about.

<comment><USER3> It's even worse when a publication has hyperlinks in seemingly-relevant places, but they're just a link to that keyword on their own site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _Between 1966 and '67, five Lunar Orbiters snapped pictures onto 70mm film > from about 30 miles above the moon. The satellites were sent mainly to scout > potential landing sites for manned moon missions. Each satellite would point > its dual lens Kodak camera at a target, snap a picture, then develop the > photograph. High- and low-resolution photos were then scanned into strips > called framelets using something akin to an old fax machine reader._

Before they were doing this, spy satellites would hurl the data back to Earth in a capsule, then use a plane to try and pick it out of mid-air. You had to wear gloves when pulling it into the plane's cargo hold, the capsule would have been searingly hot. One time the recovery crew saw a Soviet submarine in the waves beneath them, from then on they stuck to radio transmissions only.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_\(satellite\))

</comment><comment><USER5> This have been an ongoing project for many years and a lot of really nice articles have come out over the years. I remember once seeing a lot of nice photographs from the old McDonalds restaurant that showed some nice details about their setup.

The guys even have their own Wikipedia article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_Image_Recovery_Pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_Image_Recovery_Project)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is amazing work, beautiful pictures. See also, their ISEE-3 Reboot project: [http://www.rockethub.com/42228](http://www.rockethub.com/42228)

<comment><USER7> Submitted [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7636013](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7636013)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> BusinessWeek (2013) also has a video interview at McMoon:

[http://businessweek.com/videos/2013-08-15/abandoned- mcdonald...](http://businessweek.com/videos/2013-08-15/abandoned-mcdonalds- holds-glimpse-of-life-on-moon)

Also yelp reviews of the former McD's (map position is wrong)

[http://yelp.com/biz/mcdonalds-mountain-view-4](http://yelp.com/biz/mcdonalds- mountain-view-4)

Correct map locating McMoon (green arrow):

[http://goo.gl/maps/LhQGw](http://goo.gl/maps/LhQGw)

</comment><comment><USER9> I found the 2009 Computerworld article worth reading too.

[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134771/The_lost_NASA...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134771/The_lost_NASA_tapes_Restoring_lunar_images_after_40_years_in_the_vault)

</comment><comment><USER7> So, how do I get a wall-sized print of these?

</comment><comment><USER10> When you spend that much money on a scientific project (Lunar program) you should get as much PR as possible.

</comment><comment><USER11> Honestly I'd love to know what tech they used to print the images out back in 1967.

<comment><USER12> Here you go: [http://www.moonviews.com/2012/06/printing-the- moon.html](http://www.moonviews.com/2012/06/printing-the-moon.html)</comment></comment>


Taiwanese woman may face hefty bill for US plane birth - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/taiwanese-woman-might-pay-compensation-us-plane-birth-063735397.html <comment><USER2> Huh. My (mainland Chinese) wife told me about this story after reading about it in the Chinese press. I thought it was sensationalized a bit, but this article lines up with what she told me pretty well (though maybe that just means the AP is sourcing the Chinese press in its article).

Apparently a _lot_ of better-off Chinese women travel to the US to have their children, though they don't stay there, so they're not technically "anchor babies." Still, given the prevalence that it happens, I'm surprised I've heard so little about it in the US press, especially given how the citizenship-at- birth issue has been debated recently. And apparently this particular woman's other children were also born in the US in the same manner…

<comment><USER3> "Anchor baby" is a mythical beast used to stir up xenophobia. Fears of yellow peril in the US died many decades ago, so pushing this incident serves no special purpose.

Instead, it's falls into the long history of people doing exactly the same thing. For example, the father of former New Mexico governor and one-time presidential candidate Bill Richardson "had a complex about not having been born in the United States" (quoting his son), so "[j]ust before Bill Richardson was born, his father sent his mother to California to give birth" (quoting Wikipedia).

<comment><USER4> > Fears of yellow peril in the US died many decades ago

It's not totally gone, it just morphs over the years.

<comment><USER3> What we have now is generic xenophobia. It's not "yellow peril" in any meaning of the historical sense.

There are no pogroms, where Asians have a "Chinaman's chance" of avoiding lynching. There is no "Asiatic Barred Zone" from which people could not immigrate. American women who marry an Asian alien do not lose US citizenship. People from India and Japan can become US citizens.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Spotify's Discover Weekly is getting really boring? - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/10/25/spotify-discover-boring/ <comment><USER2> I definitely disagree with the premise of the article. I have a playlist where I pull in my favorites from Discover Weekly, and it just turned one year old. I still consistently get great new songs to add to the playlist.

I've also gleaned some insight into my general disposition over the least year from the playlist. I can tell exactly when I was in a "mood" or a rut... When I was listening to lots of angry music, that was reflected in my suggestions and my picks. And when I was opening up and relaxing—that also shows through the playlist.

I'd say that if your taste in music has a wider range and not specific to a single genre, your Discover Weekly will be a lot more rewarding. And also, if you rotate through musical moods like seasons where some tastes come and go over the course of a month or two, your Discover Weekly will support that and help you indulge in the mood of the month.

<comment><USER3> >I have a playlist where I pull in my favorites from Discover Weekly

Do you do this manually, or use the API?

<comment><USER2> I do this manually. Usually after several listens to the entire Discover Weekly I'll already have a couple in mind I want to hear more, and I'll pull these into my collection playlist.

On the other end though, some Monday mornings I pull up Discover Weekly and there's this soul-crushing moment when I realize there's a brand new playlist and I forgot to add some treasure I'd been listening to all the last week. I've lost one or two songs in this manner. But if they're still relevant to me in the future, I trust Spotify to eventually lead me back to them somehow. That's how crazy good Spotify is to me. :P

I once saw a service that automatically saves your Discover Weekly to a new playlist each week. I've done this manually to "snapshot" a few great Discover Weekly sets, but if I was a little smarter I'd use automated service to save me from those occasional regretful Mondays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Having talked with people that have close insight into Discover Weekly it actually only checks your last few thousand songs though (weighting them accordingly) and checks if those songs are on other peoples playlists, then choosing the songs on their playlists that are not on yours. This means that you have a pretty big pool of songs to start with (people with similar taste) that is getting smaller and smaller. The fact that those people also use discover weekly could lead to a bit of a feedback loop.

I found a friend who during a party came up and said "I listen to this song all the time, it's amazing!" and then the next and the next and the next song the same happened. We had been listening to the same (semi-obscure) music for the majority of the past year. It was only later that we discovered that we had both found the songs from discover weekly and were not at all as obscure and knowledgable about music, but hey: we had the same taste in music.

<comment><USER5> Please don't reveal intellectual property secrets on HN. It sounds like you got that information from a privileged source.

(EDIT: I was wrong; this algorithm is public knowledge.)

<comment><USER6> Ha, those algorithms are far from trade secrets! Here's one of the Discover Weekly developers talking about how they implemented this feature: [https://atscaleconference.com/videos/creating-and-scaling- sp...](https://atscaleconference.com/videos/creating-and-scaling-spotifys- discover-weekly-playlist/). If you're interested, here's a deeper technical explanation of the algorithm used: [http://www.columbia.edu/~jwp2128/Teaching/W4721/papers/ieeec...](http://www.columbia.edu/~jwp2128/Teaching/W4721/papers/ieeecomputer.pdf)

<comment><USER5> I see. Pardon, my mistake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I use Spotify's discover weekly and I'm consistently impressed by the new music that the app shares with me. Bands I've never heard of before that all fit beautifully within the type of music I enjoy. I totally disagree with the author's point.

<comment><USER8> I am always looking for Mondays because of that playlist. So definitely disagreeing with the author.

<comment><USER9> By the time Monday rolls around, I've barely had enough time to explore all the bands from the previous week!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Discover Weekly in this article is a microcosm of the problems with Spotify generally.

Spotify (especially on desktop) has a LOT of issues. From poorly implemented shuffle play to random removal of features (notifications to ctrl-f to playlist organization), and a complicated by a total lack of dev communication on any platform.

I think the issue with Spotify is not that their core is bad, it's that they never manage to improve and while they act like they're listening, they're not _really_ listening. If there was any worthy competition, I'd switch.

<comment><USER11> Regarding their desktop client; totally true. I recently discovered that keeping the Spotify App idle over 2 days, it had written 50 GB to my SSD. Not worth killing my disk over this service.

Recommend this thread, where I became aware of the problem [https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/56auoi/huge_amount_o...](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/56auoi/huge_amount_of_data_written_to_disk_by_spotify/)

<comment><USER10> Ugh, there's so many things like this. My Spotify is also constantly adding data to my local app directory even though I told it through advanced settings to store all music on a different drive.

For an app that's just a web backend in a wrapper, it is horrifically inefficient.

<comment><USER5> [http://play.spotify.com/](http://play.spotify.com/)

Skip the app!

<comment><USER10> I would, but I honestly find the web experience to be worse, especially when it comes to playlists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's my current discover weekly playlist: [http://imgur.com/a/6l5bN](http://imgur.com/a/6l5bN)

The songs with a checkmark are the ones I've liked and added to my collection. I haven't finished listening to the playlist yet, but I like almost every song that it recommends. The songs I didn't save aren't bad either and I've never had a recommended song which I totally disliked.

It's incredible how it can suggest songs of various genres and still hit my sweet spot.

So I don't agree with tfa.

I _would love_ to be able to re-generate the playlist on demand and also suggest the 'direction' in which it should go - like 'mellower', 'harder', 'sweeter', etc.

But all in all, Spotify is doing a really great job.

<comment><USER13> How long have you been using the Discover Weekly function? After almost a year, I find my current discover weekly playlist looks very similar to yours. I have a similarly large number of check marks against songs in the list, but not because I've recently added them. Or recently discovered them.

I've since switched to the Daily Mixes, which also seem to have the same stuff most days, and then Release Radar, which finally now gives me something fresh.

So +1 for Release Radar, but everywhere else I feel is lacking, and ultimately, I do agree with tfa.

<comment><USER12> I've been using Discover Weekly for less than a year I think. But I'm a Spotify user since 2008, so it has my whole listening history for the last 8 years.

I haven't noticed repeated songs in my Discover Weekly so far, so I can't complain..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Despite Spotify's vastly superior user interface and a much quicker Android app, I've found myself switching to Apple music for the singular reason that their curated playlists are much, much better than Spotify's.

I don't have the hours and hours to spend online on music blogs downloading obscure MP3s like I did while I was at university, trawling through to find stuff I like. So now finding new music is more of a challenge.

I've found the curated approach of Apple to be much better than the algorithmic approach of Spotify (and Spotify's curated playlists are also worse).

<comment><USER15> If you used to like finding new music through blogs, Hype machine does a pretty awesome job of taking the pain out of trawling for new stuff. They aggregate everything for you on their site so you just see and stream a playlist of music from all of the blogs you follow.

<comment><USER16> Good tip, thanks! i just found the Hype Machine "profile" on spotify and now I'm following their playlists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have a similar feeling, but the "daily mix" playlists are even worse. Why is it called daily if I get the same songs over and over every day?

I miss the infinite streams of Rdio with the adventurous -> familiar slider a lot. You could stay on the same station for months at a time ;(

<comment><USER18> I miss Rdio in general. When I had to look for an alternative I was really surprised how far behind everyone else, including Spotify, was and still is in terms of overall user experience. Especially if you actually enjoy looking for music and labels instead of being served a weekly playlist that isn't completely irrelevant, yet still rather underwhelming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Spotify's Discover Weekly is crap. It schows me the same crap songs over and over again. A simple mix of albums similar to albums I downloaded on my phone would give a way much better selection. Or simply a

IF song have been seen at least 3 times in DW and skipped after 10 sec THAN do not show song again

would be a high improvement.

[edit] Spotify seems to spend more time curating this forum than curating Discover Weekly.

<comment><USER20> > IF song have been seen at least 3 times in DW and skipped after 10 sec THAN > do not show song again

I am still amazed about the same thing. Why are they not understanding such obvious behavior with all the sophistication the app otherwise has (eg the match-running speed to music-beat).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've had the same thing happen with book recommendations. While I was traveling for work more frequently, I picked my next books from the Hugo and Nebula award winning websites. I happen to enjoy space operas more than alternate history or fantasy books. After reading and rating a couple, Amazon / GoodReads' recommendations started recommending only stories that involve humanity venturing out into the void and (eventually) saving the galaxy. I happened to like the first recommendations. It saved me the trouble of looking up the next book to be devoured!

However, after six months of this, I noticed that I was stuck in a literary (can I say "literal?") reading rut that became increasingly obvious. Humanity discovers X. X becomes increasingly useful, but there's a hidden price. Y reveals the cost, and that humanity is now an underdog. Human Z, with side kicks, ventures out, and little did he know, plays an important role on the galactic stage.

Customization is nice in software. However - recommendation engines (today) seem particularly dim-witted, and result in the creation of a single-person echo chamber that becomes increasingly lonely the longer you spend interacting with it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Every Friday I quickly scan through the Spotify new songs/discover and top lists and add the new stuff I like to my main playlist since I don't listen to the radio anymore so it is really the main way I get exposed to new music now. Discover I am lucky to find maybe 1 song a week on that I like and is new. It has just never worked well for me. The new releases by artists you like list is a goldmine though. But none of them are great to listen through on their own in my experience.

</comment><comment><USER23> My guess: take jazz fans on one hand, and Justin Bieber groupies on the other hand. The jazz fans would in general appreciate way more the DW service than the Justin Bieber ones. Why so? Because the 'vector' that describes a jazz fan's playlist is probably much more specific and 'unique' than the vector of an heavily standardised MTV-based playlist. Everyone gets the recommendations they deserve...

<comment><USER5> I mean there are artists that I like as an exception because they're sentimentally meaningful to me. I don't want to hear other music, even in that genre. Bieber fans might only be fans of Bieber's music and not other pop.

I wonder if anyone's studied this. Maybe it's not a common sentiment...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> For the people who like Discover Weekly, what was your previous music discovery process?

</comment><comment><USER25> Discover weekly is hit and miss for me. Some weeks I find plenty of great material, and others I find a lot of junk - that being said I can understand it would be hard to match music you'd like all the time.

</comment><comment><USER26> The fact that we're even talking about "Discover Weekly" means it's a huge success. That it doesn't work for everybody is another matter.

</comment><comment><USER27> Minor nitpick: There shouldn't be a question mark in the title, because it makes no sense. There is none in the title of the linked article either.

</comment><comment><USER28> Agreed, is mostly the same sounding stuff over and over since weeek 8</comment>


Ask YC: Best first functional programming language? - <AUTHOR>

I've suddenly found myself reading about many different functional languages in the past weeks, but alas, I never learned anything about them.  I studied engineering as an undergraduate and now as a graduate student in applied math, functional programming just isn't something that has come up in normal coursework etc.
I read through Paul Graham's bayesian spam filtering as a curiosity and became frustrated that I didn't know lisp to figure out his algorithm, which turns out to be incredibly simple.  Of course, in the perusing of his site i've his new functional language arc, and then stumbled onto this news site, which I now read more than slashdot (the horror!).  So the question I pose to all you intrepid functional programmers on this site:
What functional language should I learn first?
As I study math, something that can be used for math would be good, but not necessary.  Any books that I can get at the university library on the language you recommend would also be appreciated in your recommendation.
quicknote: I wanted to try to do some of projecteuler.net's challenges in a functional style instead of my normal python/matlab iterative approach.  Its a cool site btw. You should check it out. <comment><USER2> Erlang's pretty good, because it's quite practical - you can do cool real- world things with it.</comment>


PyMO – an AVG game engine for mobile devices - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pymo/pymo <comment><AUTHOR> Few days ago _pyMO 1.2.0_ released, after 3 and half years since previous major release.[0]

Binary builds prepared for Android, Symbian 9.x & Windows.

[0] [https://sourceforge.net/projects/pymo/files/pymo_1.2/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/pymo/files/pymo_1.2/)</comment>


How to get beyond the parasite economy - <AUTHOR> http://www.ericgarland.co/2014/03/29/parasite-economy/ <comment><USER2> Such discussions always remind me of the short-sightedness of man. Anyone with a cursory understanding of history knows that if left to their own devices, the rich continuously consolidate wealth until there is a single Monarch, apparently chosen by God, who rules above everyone with impunity.

That this is not obvious shows how far we've fallen off the path of simple rational thought.

<comment><USER3> Yes history is full of monarchs but our current configurations of government in the West are also reactions to them. We are programmed from birth to revolt at the notion of an American King, and safeguards exist to prevent concentrations of power. What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented.

<comment><USER4> >What isn't always obvious is the ways that new abuses are being perpetrated, but once that reaches a certain level then the threshold for action is crossed, and new safeguards can be implemented.

Why do you assume that the novel abuses of the system become non-obvious in time for anything to be done about them?

It's perfectly feasible that the creeping forces of darkness stay hidden until _far_ after it's too late to do anything to stop them.

Life is not a movie. In reality, you sometimes lose; the hero sometimes dies alone; the person you love sometimes marries someone else and lives a happy, fulfilling life never thinking about you. In reality, you can't rely on literary clichés to save you. Nothing will save you. You are on your own.

<comment><USER3> Yes, there always is the possibility of "full fail", but look at how difficult it is for autocratic regimes of the world today to suppress human curiosity. My faith is in the endless reaching and searching embedded in the human DNA, though one worry is that we could reach a future state which may not be obviously dystopian but still represents a far from optimal resource configuration. We may in fact we approaching that now. One trump card humans have always held is violent revolution, but the TV shows keep getting better and better, and as long as they aren't murdering union members and forcing children to work in dangerous factories, our corporate overlords may be able to escape a new round of safe guards.

<comment><USER4> >but look at how difficult it is for autocratic regimes of the world today to suppress human curiosity.

Westerners say that, as if the Reganesque march of progress will destroy any and all nation-states not ideologically subservient to the US of A, but in reality, China is never going to fall; Iran is never going to have free elections; not even Myanmar or even North Korea are going to shift.

The greatest and most heralded revolt of the 21st century replaced an autocratic president with a military dictatorship. But we pretend that Twitter can solve the dire social problems we face; that autocratic regimes can _never_ suppress human curiosity; that one day, maybe not this day, maybe not the next day, but one day, freedom _will_ ring.

But again, life is not a movie; you are not Mel Gibson; you live in reality, and in reality sometimes you lose.

<comment><USER3> I wasn't making a jingoistic point, but you can take the opposite side of 'never' quite easily. China already has fallen, the communist revolution took place in 1949. Iran recently (from a historic perspective) had free elections in 1951, see Mohammad Mosaddegh. Ideas really are the most powerful things in the world.

<comment><USER4> The Soviet Union did actually fall, as well; that was before globalization. Iran will never fall while the world buys its oil. China will never fall while it makes your computer.

But this point is too far afield to be useful here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I tend to dislike pieces like this. Advice like this: _... but in the meantime, you can help as an individual. I recommend that you refuse to buy as much as a guitar pick from any company currently owned by a private equity firm, or any financial entity that does not come from the music industry itself._ tends to not be very practical or helpful. It means that for many people their choice is do this evil immoral thing that the author is decrying as the downfall of civilization or go without entirely. Given that choice, most people will do this presumably immoral, evil thing. Because people have needs.

Stuff I would prefer to see: A list of websites helping to support alternative business models that the author thinks is not all evil and immoral. A list of businesses that try to source their products from approved, moral places as much as they can. Other pro-active things that one can actually do (other than "just don't buy from Bad Guys" \-- I mean more in the vein of "here are the Good Guys you can and should buy from").

Last, "parasite" economies tend to kill themselves. Historically, Greece, India and Persia all placed extremely high value on bees as a naturally occurring mental model for business, basically: Bees neither kill flowers nor get killed by them. They exchange their service (pollination) for product (pollen, with which to make honey) and both sides gain something of benefit without being harmed. This is a brilliant thing to value culturally when most of your examples from nature fall into the category of "kill or be killed".

It is brilliant because it is the only paradigm that is sustainable. If you are enough of an asshole, you can and will be taken out eventually. Even Roman emperors sometimes got offed by their own Praetorian Guard for being too assholish to put up with. No one is beyond reach. You learn to engage in a symbiotic exchange where both sides gain something or you eventually get a Darwin Award. That's just how it is.

<comment><USER6> > _Last, "parasite" economies tend to kill themselves_

Yeah, the problem is that there are a lot of good people who depend on this economy. This is why its last near-death experience resulted in a bailout sponsored by "the rest of us".

<comment><USER5> I don't see how that is really any kind of response to any of my points. The author is suggesting we basically kill that which we do not approve of rather than telling us how to better foster something they think would be good. There are other things going on in the world. The business he criticizes is not the be all and end all of the economy. Advocating killing that which you do not approve while not promoting or fostering that which you do approve is absolutely not a solution to the problem you posit. In fact, it is part of the problem.

<comment><USER6> > _I don 't see how that is really any kind of response to any of my points_

I wasn't addressing all of your points; just the one I quoted. The implication that "parasite economies tending to kill themselves" is somehow helpful because the problem is thus self-limiting has a major flaw. That is, the death of such an economy can be catastrophic for everyone; not just the bad actors.

Otherwise, I agree 100% with your sentiment that we should promote positive solutions vs. simply attempting to punish businesses we don't like. I have long believed as much myself, and have worked to that end. In the meantime, we do also have to be aware when an economy threatens the greater good and take specific measures (regulatory, activism, and otherwise) to directly address the threat.

I upvoted that comment, by the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is something funny when you have an entire post about supposed "parasites", that then try to sell you $800 dollars conference seats ("Transition Economics", "Book Now!").

</comment><comment><USER8> "...but in the meantime, you can help as an individual. I recommend that you refuse to buy as much as a guitar pick from any company currently owned by a private equity firm, or any financial entity that does not come from the music industry itself."

Well, ok, but how many people really pay attention to the ownership structure of companies they purchase products from?

I know that 'vote with your dollars' is a typical answer to problems like this. On average, I suppose I purchase ~5 individual items each day. I don't really have the time to make sure that each of these companies that make these products conduct themselves in a manner that I consider ethically sound.

<comment><USER9> There's an app idea in the making:

Scan a bar code before you buy a product and see either a big red "EVIL" banner or a big green "GOOD" banner, depending on the ownership structure of the company who makes the product.

Version 2 could let you configure what things you consider evil (owned by private equity, venture-backed, owned by cigarette companies, etc.)

<comment><USER8> I used to work in Investment Management, primarily with wealthy clients.

Some clients would request that portions of their portfolio be devoted to 'Ethical', 'Socially Responsible', 'Green', etc. companies or funds. Ask them to elaborate on what exactly constitutes a 'Socially Responsible' company, and you get wildly different answers.

I guess what I am getting at is any definition of 'EVIL' or 'GOOD' is highly subjective. For example, not everyone would consider cigarette companies to be 'EVIL' ;)

<comment><USER10> Easy, just set a number of traits for each company/product and let the user decide what doesn't they want to buy.

Add info about country of origin, political affiliation of owner, or things like that, and you have a nice tool for boycotts.

Didn't something like this already exist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This piece is entirely incomplete. It purports to examine the entire ecosystem from the angle of a single company, and writes an article not unlike painting eagles (or vultures as the case may be) as the villain conspiring against the innocent rabbits.

Let's go through this logic again. So a hedge fund comes in, buys a company, levers it up with a partner's money, leaving a pile of toxic debt on their neighbor's lawn.

With you so far.

The company issues more junk bonds in order to pay it's existing creditors, and that gets snapped up by other PE firms / Hedgefunds, who need it in order to fulfill a never-ending quest for returns.

Yup got it.

GC then goes bankrupt and the banks are evil.

Whoa, wait a minute. Where is this whole process did anyone get hurt? The author seems to think Guitar Center, and YOU, the average consumers. But in order to really understand that, let's look back in time.

Guitar center, if were any other company, were started by a few enterprising individuals with a passion for what they do. In turn, they were able to build a great business, and grow it to serve the entire country. After a while, wanting to cash in their success, they sell the company to a buyer, knowing very well what they planned to do with the company. The rest is history.

Not as clear anymore is it? Now lets look at what happens in the future.

GC goes bankrupt. Or it doesn't but becomes irrelevant. The 800-pound gorilla in the space dies, and there's room in the space now for another innovator, a new group of passionate individuals who can now bring their vision to life.

And the cycle starts anew.

<comment><USER12> He's pretending to present a well-researched article, but he's not actually saying anything. What a waste of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A great article.

But now maybe Eric Garland should look into the capital structure of Fender Musical Instrument Company. Then we can all get really depressed.

</comment><comment><USER14> So, if there is a large amount of money that is searching for risky investments to the extent that investors are willing to finance an obviously failing business, how come more of it doesn't end up in risky ventures that might actually go somewhere?

Is the problem a lack of information, the lack of better investments, or that investors don't care about their money?

<comment><USER8> I think what the author may be getting at, and I hate using this term, is moral hazard.

Those investing the in debt (most likely with someone else's money, mind you) are yield chasing. They probably aren't betting the farm on this company, just a small % of whatever money they manage.

If it works out and the company doesn't go under, great! They just make 8% in a low-yield environment, they look smart, they get bigger bonuses! If the company goes under, that sucks. But, they can rationalize it to investors as 'this stuff happens' and becomes a write-off. Imagine this is a hedge fund, the managers probably didn't lose their money, they lost their investors' money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Despite the title, the article lacks any exploration of "how to". This is disappointing.

<comment><USER16> "I recommend that you refuse to buy as much as a guitar pick from any company currently owned by a private equity firm, or any financial entity that does not come from the music industry itself."

The problem is that any boycott initiative needs both a datasource and a UX that integrates into our buy habits. Something like a "PQ" \- a parasitic quotient.

<comment><USER15> But that's about all he says, and it's coupled with this:

> _There are dozens of industries that have been locked up by a few players in > this way_

I can perhaps see boycotting working for musical instruments, at least in the short term. They're crafted items that are infrequently bought, heavily researched, can be sent direct from manufacturers, and have a talkative and reputation-based community. But that doesn't really address any of the countless sundry-supplying industries that have been dominated in the same way.

Now, maybe I'm just one of the "people [who] believe that ... there is no other game in town", but I don't see that "voting with your wallet" works well in general. _Perhaps_ with some automation it could, but similar automation would also help people compare prices, which is the thing your average person will be interested in. And at any rate, he really needs to _expand_ on how he thinks boycotting can be made to work this time.

<comment><USER16> > but I don't see that "voting with your wallet" works well in general.

I agree. Would need to span all products - not just music - and mindlessly enhance my existing buying behavior. The problem is that boycott-able products are a small fraction of my total purchases. Could work, once I start buying everything with a smart phone. Then a plug-in, similar to those found on iPhone's Passbook, could pop up with a vendor rating. I would subscribe to such a service.

Until then, I'll just boycott Guitar Center.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Who exactly are the parasites, who is the host, and how did the parasite benefit at the expense of the host?

If the parasites are investment bankers, and the hosts are the investors with 401(k)s, then fine. But that has nothing to do with music.

If GC is the host and the investment bankers are the parasites, that doesn't quite make sense. GC apparently sought out the "parasites" at every turn, and that doesn't sound like a normal parasite/host relationship.

It sounds to me more like a business that just used too much leverage/debt, presumably to grow quickly. That works sometimes, and sometimes collapses. This time it collapsed. The times it works it doesn't make the news.

So what's special about GC?

</comment><comment><USER12> ...so what wrongdoing did the banks do, exactly? Told another way, a failing company was headed towards bankruptcy, until the banks stepped in and saved the day by recapitalizing the company, saving thousands of jobs and a good brand in the process.

<comment><USER18> It was failing because of the amount of debt it had loaded up in it in the previous buyout.

<comment><USER19> Yes, I think the gist of the article is that interest in outcomes evaporates with financing and consolidation. The creative destruction of capitalism becomes capricious destruction under those circumstances.

<comment><USER12> That's what he's saying, and it might be true, but he hasn't demonstrated that in the article. He's done all of this research which supposedly demonstrates that Guitar Center is going to be run into the ground, but he never actually goes anywhere with his research. He's just using this as an opportunity to gripe about banks, which is fine, but he shouldn't have fluffed up his vitriol by pretending like he has a scoop.

<comment><USER20> He's not griping about banks, but rather private equity firms.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>