Hipmunk founders Steve & Adam honored in 30 under 30 - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/30under30/2011/profile-steve-huffman-adam-goldstein-founders-hipmunk.html

<comment><USER2> Hipmunk has a great product, strong brand and a promising business model. It sounds like they are targeting more of an early adopter technology audience in the hopes that the 'digerati' will eventually spread it to the early majority and late majority. Both of my parents use Expedia out of habit, and even though it sucks they have learned how to use it and would only switch to Hipmunk momentarily if I hounded them. Even though much of technology is painful to use the prospect of learning yet another new tool exceeds the pain of using something that sucks but gets the job done.

One way for Hipmunk to reach the baby boomer demographic would be to build awareness among the 18-35 link-happy crowd and let them demonstrate it to their parents thus creating a seamless user recruitment experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Stop reading my marketing plan! ;) I'm hoping for a rocking campaign in the run up to Thanksgiving to get all of our young geeky users to teach their parents so they'll spend less time searching for flights/hotels and more time for pie!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Advertising in this space is completely non-economical..."

Interesting, because I see ads for them on an almost daily basis, yet I barely travel. Maybe they just recently figured this out?

Nonetheless, I love the product—I use it for what little travel I do—and I'm definitely a word-of-mouth proponent.

<comment><USER4> It is probably re-targeting if you hit their site before. I doubt they are doing massive media buys.

<comment><USER5> I also see their ads everywhere, and I have never ever visited hipmunk.

Some discussion of this over on Quora (the discussion is inconclusive, but it highlights that others have also seen many Hipmunk ads): [http://www.quora.com/How-much-is-Hipmunk-spending-on- adverti...](http://www.quora.com/How-much-is-Hipmunk-spending-on-advertising- each-month)

<comment><USER4> Looks like they're advertising on tiny (relative), tech-related sites. People that have probably heard of them - just for branding. Probably with remnant inventory, which is fairly cheap. I doubt they are spending much at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Who is your dream investor? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> If you could have anyone, VC or angel, invest in your startup who would it be (YC excluded)?

For me I think it'd probably be either Ron Conway or Ram Shriram - they seem to be the closest thing there is to a bridge between traditional angel money and VC.

<comment><USER2> Hey Harjy - Jeff Bezos would rock. Very few investors would bring the wisdom bezos brings. Legend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No one. I would prefer to be able to grow a business that is profitable, not one desperate for an exit strategy before funds run out. I've seen what happens when a company tries to gamble on getting bigger and fails (investment bankers are not nice).

With VCs you trade time (to find them) and control in exchange for money and contacts. That is often a good and necessary trade but one I personally would not like to need to make.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're going confusing two things here. Raising investment for your company is not the same as having a business model dependent upon acquisition/exit strategy.

Remember ever investor dreams of getting stock in the next Google - the one piece of their portfolio that will make up for all the other losses combined. A big hit of nature will come either from a massive acquisition (like YouTube - but just how many acquisitions have there been on that scale? The media hypes these up a lot but that distorts the actual perception of the regularity with which they occur) or from running a sustainable business e.g. Facebook that can grow by itself.

<comment><USER3> You're going confusing two things here. Raising investment for your company is not the same as having a business model dependent upon acquisition/exit strategy.

You are correct, the two need not come together. I was thinking of the traditional idea of a technology startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After hearing Fred Wilson talk I'd definitely say Union Square Ventures. At least your best east coast option, together with First Round.

</comment><comment><USER5> Am I restricted to people who are actually in the seed or VC business? If not: Woz.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm interesting question. I suppose there is no need to restrict but I would say that as great as Woz is - would he really add more to your startup than an angel investing veteran like Ron Conway? Investing is as much about bringing a list of contacts to the table as it is about anything else.

<comment><USER5> It's more about street cred than anything else. I want an investor who will make people think "if he's putting his money into this company, it's worth checking out". A knowledgable VC can bring me to other investors/acquirers. Someone like Woz could bring other investors to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not exceedingly familiar with too many VC names at this point, but I'd second Ram Shriram. Dave Cheriton would also be a great person on your side, but he's more of an advisor. For VC, John Doerr from KCP&B; comes to mind.

<comment><USER7> Jeff Bezos once described John Doerr as the center of gravity in the Silicon Valley :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> After reading about his investment style and bootstrapping background (and huge sales), Jesse Rasch. Also, I don't think there are other Angels like him in Canada, unless I missed some - you guys in the US have lots.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sequoia.

<comment><AUTHOR> paul would you pick sequoia over angel if you were early stage and it was the first round of money you were raising?

<comment><USER9> Sequoia in a second, if they actually offered at that stage.

If a startup was super good, so good that what a top VC offered was rounding error compared to what the startup could do for itself, they might be better off with angel money, because they could name their terms, and they'd probably get a better valuation. Google did that for their early rounds. But few startups are that hot.

<comment><AUTHOR> this article certainly provides v strong support for your view

http://www.imitrust.com/thepit/2007/01/25/sequoia-capital-the-entrepreneurs- entrepreneur/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My absolute favourite is Guy Kawasaki. He's a genius. Micheal Moritz and Paul Kedrosky also would be exciting to work with.

<comment><USER6> I'm also a Guy Kawasaki fan. He and YC's own pg have contributed heavily to my idealogies regarding creating a successful product.

<comment><USER2> Guy writes amazing books, no offence, but whats guy's investment trackrecord? Reid Hoffman or Peter Thiel would be great guys to get investment from. Reid has an incredible trackrecord - last.fm, digg, facebook, friendster etc

<comment><USER10> I don't look solely on trackrecords. Business is hard work but to some extent also luck. Hits in the past are no guaranty for future hits. Guy believes that entrepreneurs can change the world and make it a better place. Sounds quite naive but to me a vision is much more motivating than money and trackrecords.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Jeff Bezos, Jason Fried, Tim Oreilly, Michael Arrington, Paul Graham All of these guys are my heros

<comment><AUTHOR> All great names but if it came down to one of them - who would you want to put the money in?

<comment><USER11> Jason Fried

<comment><USER11> Because he will put in Less. Money that is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Can the Cult of Bang and Olufsen Last? (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2011/09/ff_bando/ <comment><USER2> B&O was always one of those things that I felt like owning but had no reason (or means) to own, similar to a Leica M{X} camera - it just looks so good, and most pictures I've seen taken with Leica look phenomenal, and there is a part of you (or just me I guess) that makes me think that the second I have a Leica M10 with a nice Summicron I'll become an instantly better photographer.

Thankfully rational part of me knows that my A7III is a _very_ capable camera and I just need to become a better photographer - and Amazon has a good return policy for wine fueled purchases :). I think B&O played on that same psyche - make something that looks cool and make it expensive enough to seem like it is within reach but not quite. Where they fell short/miscalculated was miniaturization of audio gear and potentially proliferation of audio gear review sites like headroom etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've seen laptops with Bang & Olufsen stickers for the sound so I guess, no, the cult didn't last. The company is milking its former reputation.

The stickers are quite silly since B&O was mostly famous for their good furniture design, not the electronics.

<comment><USER4> And the 'drivers' for that hardware stink, 500 Mb bloatware balloons that include Windows 3 style installers and Windows ME style autoloading overlay bars programmed in .NET

I hope the hardware is nice because the software sucks.</comment></comment>


SuperMeat raises $3M for lab-grown chicken - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/02/supermeat-raises-3-million-for-lab-grown-chicken/ <comment><USER2> As a vegetarian, I'm really excited for lab grown meat. The choice is primarily ethical for me and if we can give people high protein foods they enjoy with confining or killing animals on a massive scale, I see it as a huge win.

<comment><USER3> I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life.

What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed in...

If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?

Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural resource?

I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats (at least we do in the NW of USA) and I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat. Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to feel better about themselves?

I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy industry has done to entire species[0]... is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?

So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's really my main question here.

I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly larvae, etc) which provide comparable protein/nutrient profiles to farm meats while requiring a fraction of the inputs (notably water and land) and a massive decrease in the sentient suffering of the protein source (most are just put into hibernation and don't wake up). I haven't made one yet, but I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and still provide comparable nutrition.

[0] [http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/im...](http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/impacts/)

<comment><USER4> > I'm curious if the lab-grown meat will truly be ethical, which I suppose > depends on your definition of ethics with regard to preserving life.

Yups. But for most definitions it is going to be a heck of a lot more ethical!

> What exactly are the processes by which animal meat is grown and what kind > of resources are required? I assume whatever sauce they're grown in is both > a trade secret and also not just sugar water with some protein powder mixed > in...

Ethically, growing it in a sentient being, thereby commodified, often made part of an industrial production process, is EXTREMELY unethical. The animals that we produce for food know concepts like "family", "pain" and "danger". While they may have the children taken from them, or may be "raped" in order to force reproduction.

> If the process of growing meat in a vat requires vast amounts of amino acids > that need to be either extracted from another natural source (or else needs > to be synthesized in a precursor process) then how much is known about the > negative impact of that resource extraction and/or synthesis?

We're going to find out. I find this more to be part of the economic viability question then the ethical question. I know economics can provide many ethical dilemmas, but in my view they rarely stack up to justify enclosing/hurting/raping/child-robbing/killing sentient beings.

> Will a pound of lab-grown meat use less water than a pound of comparable > nature-grown meat? And if not, is it more ethical to prevent the killing of > farm animals or prevent the continued waste of our most precious natural > resource?

If you are concerned with this: you can switch to a plantbased diet! [http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op- ed/soapbox/article19970922....](http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op- ed/soapbox/article19970922.html)

To my understanding all you give up when going plant-based is some taste bud pleasure and the convenience of not having to change your habits.

And the taste bud pleasure "gap" is being closed by initiatives like the one described in the linked article.

> I'm well aware of the negative impact of factory farming, but you already > have options for spending more on meat for non-factory farmed meats

Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?

Also, while non-factory-farmed is better for the animals, it is still not nice to transport and kill them. Heck, they still need to be fenced!

> I somehow doubt the economics will scale to where McD is gonna be able to > sell $2 double-cheeseburgers using lab grown meat.

$2 burgers is not something sustainable. We should aim for $2 salads or $2 falafels or $2 <be creative with plants>.

> Is this really going to move the needle, or just make some rich people to > feel better about themselves?

Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?

And why only rich people? The has the potential to be lots cheaper on the long run.

> I know vegans who have no qualms eating tofu despite the damage that the soy > industry has done to entire species...

About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.

[1] [http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal- feed](http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed)

> is reducing the suffering of farm animals actually more ethical than > preserving the overall biodiversity of our planet?

Farm animals have nothing to do with biodiversity. Nothing. They are like the mono-crop field in plant agriculture. If you want to preserve biodiversity, preserve forests. And the major reason to cut forests is for (directly or indirectly) animal agriculture.

> So how do the lab-grown meats actually measure up in that context? That's > really my main question here.

As I mentioned time will tell. It is likely to be much more efficient than animal agriculture.

> I, obviously, have my doubts that it measures well and have been advocating > for an increase in entomophagy (eating crickets, mealworms, soldier fly > larvae, etc)

Great! Did you try to eat them?

I'm also concerned with ethics/environment/health, and started a WFPB diet. A major improvement.

> I think a 50/50 ethical-beef/mealworm burger will probably be great with the > right seasoning and would be cheaper to make (at scale), more ethical and > still provide comparable nutrition.

There is no "ethical beef", just "more ethical than the current appalling situation".

Nutrition wise, a well balanced plant-based diet is superior to eating a regular amount of animal-based product alongside your plants.

[https://nutritionfacts.org/book/](https://nutritionfacts.org/book/)

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

<comment><USER3> I appreciate your long and thorough reply, though I think you got off the rails in a few parts.

I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a whole, rather than individuals.

> About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide this > number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal farming > (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to the > land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.

This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their conscious is clean. They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.

It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.

> Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure.

I seriously doubt that. What technology can you think of that has made any discussion more "pure"?

> If we can provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals > suffering, then what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?

Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their paycheck on lab-grown protein sources, though I suppose they'd be more of a "poor fuck". Many people don't bother making a distinction between the two.

> Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a > pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?

One assumption that's constantly made regarding meat consumption, both as it relates to ecology and nutrition, is that we're either talking about 0 meat consumption or the typical average American diet of meat consumption, totally excluding the middle. I do not think that the average American diet of animal meat is sustainable or healthy and this is why I advocate for substitutes that don't cost billions in R&D and have a better chance of reaching the price point for an average American. Lets not forget that wages for average Americans are stagnant, so given inflation and other increasing costs the goal posts for what would be a reasonable protein price point is moving. So even if it gets cheaper over time, it's a race.

My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you are obviously quite passionate about this.

Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response, though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab grown meat vs nature grown meat.

Here is something published 7 years ago which I had to find on my own (found in search of response to your comment, thanks for that) which did a pretty good job of answering my core question and softening me to the lab meat:

[https://phys.org/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions- energ...](https://phys.org/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions-energy.html)

However, I also found a more recent article on lab meat which I found aligned with the core point I've been trying to make on many other issues as well:

[https://phys.org/news/2017-12-lab-grown-meat-humanity- moral....](https://phys.org/news/2017-12-lab-grown-meat-humanity-moral.html)

We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it to become lazier and more complacent. The same attitude that allows people to eat meat without caring about the conditions under which it was made isn't going to change when lab meat becomes available... which means that if companies that make lab meat DO end up having to cut costs by killing some other ecosystem, they probably won't care about that either.

For me, whether you eat meat or veggies doesn't determine how ethical you are as a person, it's how much energy you're actually willing to spend on giving a shit about how your actions affect others.

<comment><USER4> > I wasn't looking to get into a debate regarding the ethics of eating animals > vs not eating them. I'm very clear in my ethics regarding that. I, > personally, find myself much more concerned with the living system as a > whole, rather than individuals.

So go vegan. Have a look at Cowspiracy for example. Our meat consumption is killing our habitat on this planet.

> > About half of US soy is produced for animal feed[1]. I think worldwide > this number is much higher (US imports feed). Also land use for animal > farming (including what they need for growing feed) is HUMONGOUS compared to > the land needed to feed a human on a plant-based diet.

> This is a really good point, though I really wished I used a different > example because my main point was that many veggies and vegans don't really > care about the big picture so long as they can convince themselves their > conscious is clean.

How do you know? I say it's BS as the vegans I know are making a daily effort to improve the shituation, while omnis keep coming with lame excuses.

> They're the people in the Trolley Car Problem who would never push a large > person onto the tracks to save five other people, but if you gave them a > button that served the same function then they would go ahead and push that.

 _laughs_ Sorry man, not even replying to this. Any research to back this statement up? I guess nah.

> It is, of course, the same cognitive dissonance that allows factory farming > to continue since plenty of people admit they could never kill a cow while > munching on a burger. Just a few layers of abstraction give people peace of > mind and technology enables people to hide behind more layers every day.

Yes. And it is the vegans that are the exception here. I picked fruit! I pulled a cabbage from soil. I would never like to kill an animal, not even when it give me taste pleasure.

> > Lab grown meat is going to make the discussion very pure. > > If we can > provide the same experience/conveinience without the animals suffering, then > what sick fuck would still pay for animal-based product?

> Probably any "sick fuck" who doesn't have the means to spend half their > paycheck on lab-grown protein sources

I forgot to say that the price-at-shop is same of cheaper for the faux meat. So that what I mean by a pure discussion: we have the same-price-same- experience right here, why buy cruelty?

> > Going non-factory-farmed hugely increases the resource consumption for a > pieces of meat. I thought you were concerned with resource consumption?

> One assumption [...] it's a race.

Are you concerned with resource consumption or not? If yes: do your research and go (mostly) vegan. Why wait for it to be to expensive for you to pay for?

> My main point in all this was to try to get people to think twice about just > lauding lab meat without considering the potential issues. I'm not going to > continue here because I try to maintain a policy of not h

Without substantial foundation that's called F.U.D.

> Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you > are obviously quite passionate about this.

So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.

> Again, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-researched response

Thanks for noticing. :)

> though I find it noteworthy that neither you, nor anyone else that > responded, seemed to address the actual comparison of resources for lab > grown meat vs nature grown meat.

Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a choice at this point.

> We're not using technology to become more moral or ethical, we're using it > to become lazier and more complacent.

The ethical impact of this tech is a side-effect. The ones investing are simply looking to make money. That we cannot grow further with our livestock numbers is primarily an economic factor for the investors. It just happens to line up at this point.

> The same attitude that allows people to eat meat without caring about the > conditions under which it was made isn't going to change when lab meat > becomes available...

Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re-learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.

> which means that if companies that make lab meat DO end up having to cut > costs by killing some other ecosystem, they probably won't care about that > either.

Srsly. Where do you get this from? What ecosystem are you talking about?

Not the ecosystems in the forests that where cut for animal agriculture of the GMO soy/corn field to feed them...

Get a grip man. You're chasing ghosts.

> For me, whether you eat meat or veggies doesn't determine how ethical you > are as a person

For me it does because, in your own words:

> it's how much energy you're actually willing to spend on giving a shit about > how your actions affect others.

And going vegan is an effort, try it, and you save many animals by doing so. That industry is so ugly you would not be able to swallow that piece of corpse when you had to look at movies showing its practices.

I really wish for you to try to consume cruelty free, you seem to have the capacity to understand it will help (though still trying to deny it with --in my opinion-- highly convoluted reasoning).

<comment><USER3> > > Having emotional conversations with people I can't look in the eye and you > are obviously quite passionate about this.

> So what. Yes I try to make a difference. My passion is not the point here.

You gotta take some deep breaths before you reply because you and every other vegan I end up engaged with lay it on so thick with the defensive self- righteousness that you are more apt to have people dig their heels in. This doesn't end up making any difference except to how you feel about yourself and the social cred you get amongst your bubble-buddies when you share how much you "destroyed" some rando on the internet.

My point was that you can't see me and I can't see you, so you don't truly see me as another person, just some adversary or potential convert to get a notch in the belt. I took the time to calm myself, do some more research and then reply respectfully (imo) to most of your points.

> Because it is still a question mark. It has all the potential to be much > more sustainable. That's why Gates/Branson/etc are investing in this: they > know we need to live more sustainable or die as a species. It is not a > choice at this point.

See, you obviously didn't even click the last two links I sent in your rush to shove more of your own information down my throat, because the first link is for an article about a study that specifically asks the main question in my original post... __and their findings support your position __, I mean wow...

> Says who? At the same price/experience it has the potential to make a huge > difference! I know loads of peeps who'd switch (or pretty much have switch > since the alternative are good enough for them). They do not need to re- > learn cooking, just pick the other "meat" and do as you always do.

> "Srsly. Where do you get this from?"

From the second link you didn't look at, I was literally paraphrasing the article for you, but it makes the points much better than me, cause, ya know, professional writer at scientific publication.

So yeah, if you want to make a difference in online debate then you should probably leave your ego in whatever room your computer isn't and actually try listening to whoever you're engaged with. Good night and good luck in your crusade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think humanity should be spending about 5 to 6 orders of magnitude more money on investment in this space. It's seriously one of the most important, if not the most important, challenge that we currently face as a species.

Does anybody have any more information about the company's specific technology here? I've done some research into this space, and the big blocker at the moment is the use of Fetal Bovine Serum which is used to "grow" the meat. FBS is exactly what it sounds like, so it's not a huge victory to make lab grown meat if it requires liquid-cow-baby to actually grow.

A plant-based FBS replacement would be the holy grail for this industry. Some companies have claimed to have done it but nobody has actually publicly demonstrated it yet. If there are any investors out there looking to make an impactful investment in this space, please invest heavily into solving the FBS problem.

EDIT: From SuperMeat's FAQ:

> Does clean meat contain animal products?

> One of SuperMeat's purposes is to produce meat products without having to > resort to ongoing animal use. SuperMeat has developed a unique technology > that will make that happen, without having to use animal serum or other > animal ingredients.

So, they are claiming to have solved the serum problem, which is good. Others have also made this claim, but so far nobody has had a public demonstration, let alone actually create a commercial product, so this is still vapourware. Still, I wish them luck.

</comment><comment><USER6> I tried an Impossible Burger last week, and it was very good. I could not distinguish it from good beef. It's plant protein with heme, a sort of lab- grown blood. A few places in the Bay Area now serve them. Worth trying.

I think fake meat is having an electric car moment, where there is suddenly a product every bit as good as the previous technology, just more expensive. When the price comes down, real meat will seem gratuitously cruel and unsustainable.

<comment><USER7> To some people real meat (and animal products) already seem incredibly cruel.

I'd argue most people actually know it's morally wrong and just choose to eat it out of convenience.

<comment><USER8> How is it morally wrong? A wolf would eat a cow, why not a human eat a cow?

<comment><USER9> For the same reason it is "okay" for a cat to rape another cat but it is not okay for humans to do that.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. Or, to put it in fancy philosophy terms, there is a difference of moral agency. You can't assign moral blame to creatures that aren't morally cognizant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For the interested in the clean meat (aka lab grown meat) space, there was a recent cover story in Inc on the industry leader Memphis Meats that's well worth a read: [https://www.inc.com/magazine/201711/jeff- bercovici/memphis-m...](https://www.inc.com/magazine/201711/jeff- bercovici/memphis-meats-lab-grown-meat-startup.html)

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Is there any indication that the "lab-grown" tissue is really produced without animal products?

Most mammalian cell culture requires "serum," the non-cellular fraction of blood from a similar critter which contains a pretty complex mixture of growth factors, hormones etc. plus other proteiny things like collagen.

Serum-free cell culture is tricky in well characterized cell lines, and "meat" is tissue culture from cells which is tricky in itself, at production scale which is also tricky by itself. For context, pharma companies manufacturing biologics at scale do use animal serum in cultures despite animal products being a vector for contamination issues which have literally killed successful pharma companies.

Also, cell culture requires antibiotics much more than animal farming requires antibiotics, so don't expect "ethical" tissue culture groups to voluntarily minimize antibiotic usage any more than farmers do

tl;dr cells grown in labs like to eat animal products and other things that people consider unethical

Edit: If you can grow realistic muscle tissue at feeding-people scale you've accomplished something much bigger than "ethical meat." If you're just producing animal cells-- basically textureless slime-- it would be more ethical to process existing waste meat into a palatable form aka rebranding "pink slime" as "recycled meat" or something.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is fantastic! Hopefully they take off like Impossible Foods did with their faux beef burger that is akin to the real thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> "I've been a fan cannibalism for all my life but was never able to participate fully in it, for legal reasons. Maybe they'll start growing human meat and I can finally be myself without having to murder people!" That hypothetical could happen if they start perfecting musculature scaffolding as a very odd side effect. Sorry, just sayin.

<comment><USER14> Just be careful to avoid Kuru.

<comment><USER15> I was under the impression that kuru was a prion disease that comes from eating brain matter. Was I wrong about that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know why companies didn't start with chicken in the first place. A lab-grown steak? Yeah, good luck competing against the real thing (and as a vegetarian, I hope they do). But chicken? I grew up on chicken before factory farming, and then as an adult wondered why I didn't like chicken much anymore. It occurred to me that factory farming has bred all the taste out of it, in exchange for other features. (And I'm open to the idea that my tastes just changed, and chicken is just as delicious as it always was.)

In summary, in the case of chicken it might not be as hard to beat the "real thing". (Though in my book, the "real thing" picks through grass for its food and spends its days running around a barnyard. _That_ might be hard to compete with.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Everyone is focusing on the "ethical" issue of killing animals but in fact I think this issue does not matter to the majority of the global meat market. Instead I think the ecological factors (greenhouse gas emissions from meat production) and economic factors (could theoretically be cheaper, easier to manage, and more efficient than a farm) will be the primary drivers here.

Also, funny to imagine someone walking into a16z with just a piece of chicken and walking out with a $3 million check.

</comment><comment><USER18> I hope this works and provides cheap, clean ways to have chicken nuggets. But that's a long way off because we don't even have a way of doing it cheaply or cleanly right now, let alone have a product that people actually want to eat that is also cheap and clean.

In the mean time, I think this is the wrong way to try to solve the issue. Raising a few chickens is not a big deal. I live in rural Michigan, many of my neighbors have chickens with no real environmental impact and not much cost at all.

All of the problems come from industrialized livestock practices. If we simply outlawed those practices, and/or put huge taxes and tariffs on the products the issue would solve itself (in that the monetary cost of meat would reflect its real costs, and consumption would drop accordingly.)

<comment><USER19> The problem is that people like eating lots of chicken and will not be happy about suddenly paying more, whether it is through taxes or increased cost from regulations. In the US alone we killed 9 billion chickens a year, or about 28 chickens per person. Some of that meat is exported, but at the end of the day I think this is a problem that can only be addressed by working with the demand.

<comment><USER18> They won't like it but tough beans. People don't like a lot of things we have to change for the better of society. Not doing things because people won't like them is why so many things are screwed up right now.

<comment><USER20> > They won't like it but tough beans. People don't like a lot of things we > have to change for the better of society.

IMHO it's not a better society when we're forcing people to eat synthetic meat grown in a lab.

If you've got a real winner on cost, taste, or ecological impact, then compete in the open market and make a better chicken nugget.

<comment><USER21> It's a marketing problem. Take pearls. A natural pearl seems like something you would prefer. But a cultured pearl is more uniform in size/shape/color and more desirable.

What would need to happen is to push the idea that cultured chicken meat is more uniform in quality (well, assuming that it will be.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This is the Samsung Galaxy S9 launch video - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/24/this-is-the-samsung-galaxy-s9-launch-video/?ncid=rss <comment><USER2> Skip the TC adware hell -- it points to a deleted video anyway.

Direct link:

[https://youtu.be/DQBpW-zWMXY](https://youtu.be/DQBpW-zWMXY)</comment>


Unsupervised Machine Learning for Fun and Profit with Basket Clusters - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gaetanconsulting/unsupervised-machine-learning-for-fun-profit-with-basket-clusters-17a1161e7aa1?11 <comment><USER2> Don't delete and resubmit submissions on Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pulled for error correction: PDF link.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Help...Found a gaping hole in my low-level knowledge - <AUTHOR> So I have an on-site interview in 2 weeks with a respectable hardcore software company, and part of the interview prep stuff that was given to me was this excellent article by Steve Yegge: https://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/five-essential-phone-screen-questions
Area 5 in the article was a wake up call, because although I've been writing code and doing web dev since I was 12, I had never heard of bitwise operators like '>>' and '^' ever in my life! I need to learn these topics, and fast, since I don't have much time for my big interview. And since I'm a person who does a lot better when I understand the underlying theory, rather than simply memorizing techniques, I would really appreciate a short book, or even articles to get me up to speed on bits, bytes and binary for a practical, low-level programmer.
Can anyone please share a short and practical guide suitable for a person who has many years experience with high level languages like Python? <comment><USER2> XOR = Addition (without carry)

Left Shift = Multiply by 2 ^ n (without checking for overflow [1]).

Right Shift = Divide by 2 ^ n (without rounding)

As all data in stored, and processed in binary representation right/left shifts are fun hacks we gain from this system. Moving an entire integer 1 space left/right will double/halve its value! Its also very easy to replicate this operation in hardware.

Absolute Beginner Guide on S/O [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/141525/absolute- beginner...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/141525/absolute-beginners- guide-to-bit-shifting)

[1] Sometimes, it depends, its actually complicated, depends on language, machine, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I always find it useful to map a new problem into a space I am more familiar with.

Given that you have a many years of experience with high level languages, you can probably use array algorithms as an analogue for bitwise operations.

Can you shift the elements of an array left, right? Intersect/union two of them? Count the true/false values? Bit level operations are just a special case that CPUs do very efficiently, and happen to be quite useful for a wide set of algorithms.

It is useful to understand how CPUs represent bits (little/big endian, float encoding), and look at a couple of algorithms that take advantage of that (e.g. why multiplying by 2 on a computer is a cheaper operation than multiplying by a random number).

</comment><comment><USER4> [https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html](https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html)

<comment><USER5> I second this website. It has everything that you will need. Also OP if you need practice questions I have all of my past exams from my Low Level Programming class that has tons of Bit wise operator questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good news! It's not a hole in your knowledge. It was useful a long while ago for packing structs and efficiently multiplying and dividing by constants.

That said, you could learn a lot about the low-level by implementing an addition operation for binary strings: bin_add("10001", "111") => "11000". And if you think that's too easy try multiplication and division!

<comment><USER7> > Good news! It's not a hole in your knowledge. It was useful a long while ago

Umm, are you implying these operations aren't used present-day by developers?!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is a fantastic book - Hacker's Delight. Read it. Love it.

</comment><comment><USER9> Buy Gayle's book and read through the bit operator questions.</comment>


An MBA is still a great boost for salaries - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/a2813230-d69b-11e7-a303-9060cb1e5f44 <comment><USER2> This is a nitpick, I know, but its pretty disingenuous to just compare "pre- MBA salaries" with "three years after a two-year MBA salaries". That's a gap of five years: I'd be interested in a comparison of salaries between a cohort three years out of a two-year MBA and a similar cohort that just worked for five years.

(I think that the MBA cohort is still making more overall, but I suspect the value prop is less impressive.)</comment>


PS3 Root Key now Public Domain (Exhibit T, page 247) - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/46819521/04

<comment><USER2> There are a couple of problems with this.

First, encryption keys are not subject to copyright in the first place, so it makes no sense to say they are "now" public domain. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that they were subject to copyright, so we can go on.

Second, a copyrighted work does not enter the public domain by being published in a court filing or record.

<comment><USER3> > Second, a copyrighted work does not enter the public domain by being > published in a court filing or record

Court records in the US that are not sealed are presumptively open to public access and copying. While this may be technically different from a work being "in the public domain", in practice, especially if the goal is secrecy, it doesn't make much difference.

My favorite example of a copyrighted work in a public court record comes from Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994). The Supreme Court decision includes the full lyrics of Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman". <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html>

I guarantee that Cornell didn't bother to ask Roy Orbison's heirs/assigns for permission to include the Pretty Woman lyrics on that site...

kb

<comment><USER4> My favourite example of a copyrighted work in a public court record is that time Jack Thompson submitted gay porn as part of a court filing, now available to everyone, including minors, from public records, forever.

[http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/26/judge-spanks-jack- thompso...](http://gamepolitics.com/2007/09/26/judge-spanks-jack-thompson-for- sending-gay-porn-with-court-filing)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The erk and priv values in the printed website shown there are truncated, so it is not the whole key.

<comment><USER6> Ironically they truncated the public part of the DSA keys. The private key is "k".

For bruteforcing the remainder of the AES256 loader key (erk), as proposed by another commenter: There are still 13 hex-digits left (e.g. 52 bits), that might take a while ;-).

<comment><USER7> The EFF's Deep Crack could do 56-bit keys in a matter of days, and this was a _long_ while ago:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Crack>

AES256 is more complex than DES, but it's still in the ballpark of "possible".

<comment><USER8> AES256 is indeed more complex than DES, but it's important to remember that both were designed partially with fast hardware implementations in mind. The difference is not as dramatic as you might initially think. 52 bits of an AES256 key are _weeeell_ within "doable" in 2010.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also, those ads are probably getting some unintended interest through the legal system...

</comment><comment><USER10> Who said the legal system isn't just?</comment>


Tesla Approaches Terminal Decline - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122890-tesla-approaches-terminal-decline <comment><USER4> Jim Chanos, a famous short seller known for his Enron short (and who's also shorting Tesla), often refers to the book The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse by Marianne Jennings [1] when talking about identifying financial frauds. Here's a brief summary of it [2]. It's eerie how many apply to Elon Musk and Tesla.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008FPVKVA/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008FPVKVA/)

[2] [https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business- ethics/resou...](https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business- ethics/resources/seven-signs-of-ethical-collapse/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Seeking Alpha has been predicting Tesla decline for a decade and had been shorting it's stock. It's a FUD article.

<comment><USER6> SA is a blogging platform. SA does not write these articles, independent contributors write them. Forbes and HuffPo have a similar system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seeking Alpha is bearish on Tesla! News at 11.

</comment><comment><USER8> > if one then assumes that Tesla will be able to miraculously achieve a 12% > net margin per car (more than Audi does for its A4 series or BMW

Given that the "Add Enhanced Autopilot" and "Full self-driving capability" features are basically a $9k software update, I think the Model 3 is going to have some interesting margins once they scale up production.

</comment><comment><USER9> Harsh truths here.

>... As long as 1) wealthy consumers in western nations but also China are eager to seek indulgence by way of green-washing and, 2) are in search of a Steve Jobs replacement persona onto which they can project their hopes for a gleaming future and, 3) are disillusioned with the establishment and its leaders, the company will likely succeed to raise cash again.

> The Tesla narrative is based on an illusion, a contradictio in adjecto - <USER2> > promise that humankind can shop and consume itself into a sustainable > future. However, even a million Teslas on the world's roads will not impact > the environment for better or worse. It is a systemic issue. > ...Sustainability and promoting the purchase of raw-material consuming > heavyweight products are mutually exclusive.

<comment><USER10> I don't want a Tesla because they're green. I want one because they're wicked fast, because they provide full torque from a dead stop. Because I hate the gas station. Because the interior is both luxurious and minimalist. I want one so much, and I could care less about the environmental impact. Long term, electric cars will fully replace the ICE because they're simpler, faster, and cheaper.

<comment><USER11> They aren't that fast they have good acceleration but you'll top out very quickly and your car will throttle down because your battery pack overheats.

The breaks, suspension and handling is also poor.

Want a fast car? A Maclaren 650 Spider can be bought for the same price or so a a new Tesla 100D its much faster and much more fun to drive.

The ludicrous mode in a Tesla is a gimmick nothing more nothing less.

And if you think that the Model S is luxurious then you need to step into a mid range BMW or a Benz, Tesla looks good but feels very cheap.

So far if you want luxury and a low impact then the plug-in hybrids form BMW are the way to go you get about 30 miles on battery which is more or less within the commute range of many people, a proper luxury as far as the finish goes and at less than half the price of the Model S.

I can buy a new BMW 330e today for less than £35,000 a Tesla would start at about double that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "And then, as long as 1) wealthy consumers in western nations but also China are eager to seek indulgence by way of green-washing and, 2) are in search of a Steve Jobs replacement persona onto which they can project their hopes for a gleaming future and, 3) are disillusioned with the establishment and its leaders, the company will likely succeed to raise cash again."

</comment><comment><USER13> Securities news outlets that feed on your euphoria and insecurity:

\- Investor Daily

\- Seeking Alpha

\- The Motley Fool

\- Amigo Bulls

\- Jim Cramer

\- Zero Hedge [edit: adding this. I'm sure there are a bunch more]

They are SEO mills.

<comment><USER14> As someone who rarely follows securities but is interested nonetheless, what outlets would you recommend if any?

<comment><USER13> Even people who are avid followers constantly get played. My advice if you rarely follow them is to let the news trickle in through reputable channels (WallStreet Journal, The LA Times etc.).

Learn about the industry, it's history, the major players, and then try to see how the company you're interested in fits into the picture. There are communities (subreddits) dedicated to those companies and although they are biased, you can also check out the competing company's communities. Try to judge for yourself if you think that the product or service that the company offers adds the market value that their market-cap claims it does. See if you can learn about the company's customers and how they're doing. Hows the economy as a whole doing? What about geo-political / climate situation - <USER3> large a role does it play?

Then, wait. Let things soak in a little. Keep asking questions.

Of course, most people will never do this. I myself am a victim, and let me tell you - I've lost a lot of money by not doing my own homework.

<comment><USER14> Ah, thanks!

Finance is one of those things I find interesting and would like to learn more about for "fun" and general knowledge purposes but (un?)fortunately, I'm not looking to invest. Maybe after a few years, who knows, haha.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uber Buys a Mysterious Startup to Make Itself an AI Company - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/12/uber-buys-mysterious-startup-make-ai-company/ <comment><AUTHOR> Anyone on HN knows anything about Geometric Intelligence beyond what was written in the article?</comment>


Slingshot: malware that hid for six years spread through routers - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/potent-malware-that-hid-for-six-years-spread-through-routers/ <comment><AUTHOR> The question is, how created this? It targeted these states:

> Infected computers were located primarily in Kenya and Yemen, but also in > Afghanistan, Libya, Congo, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and > Tanzania. Most of the victims appeared to be targeted individuals.

Kaspersky labs hints that it was the UK as they said it was similar to Sauron and Regin.

<comment><USER2> Before speaking about hints, you should name 2-3 more similar rootkits. If you do, then it would lead us to a conclusion, that Kaspersky labs really was selective while choosing rootkits for comparison, and it would lead us to understanding of this hints: we would be able to make a guess what the selection criterion was.

Without other examples of rootkits of the same class, hypothesis of "hints" should be rejected due to added complexity, like any other conspiracy theory.</comment></comment>


The Perils of Writing a Provocative Email at Yale - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

</comment><comment><USER3> _What a waste._

Yup.</comment>


Live: Huawei Unveils AI Chip and Computing Framework - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHNdVZp1lsc <comment><AUTHOR> From the description "Huawei launches its Ascend 910 AI Processor & MindSpore Computing Framework in south China's Shenzhen. The company aims at boosting computing power for the development of artificial intelligence technology."

<comment><AUTHOR> Huawei: MindSpore, All-Scenario AI Computing Framework [https://youtu.be/3cvLXCzChhc](https://youtu.be/3cvLXCzChhc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> When the director was asked about ethics in AI, the first thing he can think of is related to the coexistence of humans and nature. That just showed how little consideration was given on moral issues within such an organization.</comment>


Virtual tour of the tomb of Pharaoh Ramses VI - open-source-ux https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=NeiMEZa9d93&mls=1 <comment><USER2> There are a load of these that I found - <AUTHOR> [https://twitter.com/tourismandantiq](https://twitter.com/tourismandantiq)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=d42fuVA21To](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=d42fuVA21To)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=QaGBAsT6yg4&mls=1](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=QaGBAsT6yg4&mls=1)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=ui3dfrQDqB2&mls=1](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=ui3dfrQDqB2&mls=1)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=xmDbt2rfa82&help=1&brand=1...](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=xmDbt2rfa82&help=1&brand=1&play=1&hl=1&ts=2&title=1&tourcta=2&vrcoll=0&dh=1&lp=1&wts=1)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=PKxweZaPG3P&help=1&brand=1...](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=PKxweZaPG3P&help=1&brand=1&play=1&hl=1&ts=2&title=1&tourcta=2&vrcoll=0&dh=1&lp=1&wts=1)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=zBpDdPqxTKz](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=zBpDdPqxTKz)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=zBpDdPqxTKz](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=zBpDdPqxTKz)

[https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=o5Ex5Xo7UkE](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=o5Ex5Xo7UkE)

Absolutely fascinating! I have always wanted to visit these sort of things in real life but the political climate in the past decade or so has put me off. Shame - this is a great alternative though.

I really wish more places would do this sort of thing! Google does _some_ , but I like the quality of these.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for posting these! I made a few of them. I'm glad people are enjoying them! To keep adding to the list, here's the set I worked on:

Islamic Art History and Architecture: Bab Zuwayla gate, museum, and minaret: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=YZXMPtiuR9D](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=YZXMPtiuR9D) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/)) Faraj Ibn Barquq Mosque: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=UCDj6MdbCes](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=UCDj6MdbCes) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/)) Aslam al Silahdar Mosque: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=YsCSsrvXMQS](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=YsCSsrvXMQS) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/)) Masjid Altinbugha al-Maridani: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=C9MTVJbf62k](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=C9MTVJbf62k)

Coptic Art History and Architecture: St. Anthony's Museum: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=FBdkHbQzzVJ](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=FBdkHbQzzVJ) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/)) St. Anthony's Chapel: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=c4j6knCMvww](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=c4j6knCMvww) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/))

Eastern Orthodox: St. Catherine's Monastery Museum: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=1HLpFZqfcov](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=1HLpFZqfcov)

Pharonic Egyptian Tombs: Giza: Tomb of Queen Meresankh III (G 7530-7540): [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=d42fuVA21To](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=d42fuVA21To) Mastaba of Idu (G 7102): [https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-mastaba-of- idu-g-7102-e8...](https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-mastaba-of- idu-g-7102-e894ec57ff86487d83539e9b825c0d5c) Mastaba of Qar (G 7101): [https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-mastaba-of- qar-g-7101-3b...](https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/the-mastaba-of- qar-g-7101-3b6e5b4b81c1413c880b7598505fab2f) Iasen (in G 4920): [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=xkMDSQQL1GF](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=xkMDSQQL1GF) G 6010 Mastaba of Neferbauptah: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=aSQfQx9Mkyj](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=aSQfQx9Mkyj) G 8662 (Sedhetep): [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=53NUC71SV3w](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=53NUC71SV3w) Mastaba Tomb of Khufukhaf I (G 7130-7140): [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=CaEcwJ7Z2HV](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=CaEcwJ7Z2HV) G8670 (Hassan's 'Mastaba F', Selim Hassan, Giza III, 72-75): [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=DKSVgKEnY9n](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=DKSVgKEnY9n)

Luxor: Tomb of Menna: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=vLYoS66CWpk](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=vLYoS66CWpk) ([http://arce.org/](http://arce.org/))

Hellenistic Sicily / Magna Graecia: Villa Romana del Casale - Basilica and North Rooms: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=fd75qjJG9Dp](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=fd75qjJG9Dp) Villa Romana del Casale - Peristyle: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=VhSC8qsGVLe](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=VhSC8qsGVLe) Villa Romana del Casale - East Rooms: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=3bjZH1vAkVj](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=3bjZH1vAkVj) Morgantina - the North Baths: [https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=UjDknPgHBF2](https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=UjDknPgHBF2)

<comment><USER4> Super cool, can you explain a bit how you make these?

<comment><USER5> Here is a review of one of systems that does this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Re- uxp5-gU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Re-uxp5-gU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you are interested, I am trying to build an open source database for places with virtual tour.

Website: [https://gez.la](https://gez.la)

I am currently working on this alone. Anyone interested is welcome to help :)

[https://github.com/stfurkan/gez](https://github.com/stfurkan/gez)

<comment><USER7> Beautiful! Is it safe to assume you'll (eventually) add the links in this thread there?

<comment><USER8> Take a look at HistoryView.org We have over 700 virtual tours of museums, art galleries, and historic sites for free

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Doubly impressive: there are spots you can visit in the vtour, that you cannot see in real life because they're outside the pedestrian walkway.

Example: [https://photos.app.goo.gl/NXdDoDTnNXJgkr8X9](https://photos.app.goo.gl/NXdDoDTnNXJgkr8X9)

<comment><USER10> I'm sure the guards there would encourage you have the privilege of a view from off the pedestrian walkway for a tip.

<comment><USER11> > guards would allow you to go off the pedestrian walkway for a tip

Actually, no. The guards (in the Valley anyway) take their jobs _very seriously_ and have seen it all... you'll get unceremoniously removed for trying to break a rule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Spectacular. It's well lit, and has a smooth experience.

And in one way, this virtual tour is better than the live one- at the end you can step past the guardrails! Check it out (deep link to show it wasn't possible, so just walk or click to the end of the long hall to see what I mean).

Anyone know other tours like this?

<comment><USER13> There are several linked from the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities' Twitter feed: [https://twitter.com/tourismandantiq](https://twitter.com/tourismandantiq)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is amazing.

Anyone knows how Matterport works? Does it extract the 3d meshes from 360 photos?

<comment><USER15> Seems like a combination of 360 photography and off-the-shelf photogrammetry algorithms. Don't know if there is some secret sauce needed (not obvious from the content that there would be).

<comment><USER16> Well, do you know where these shelves are? I'd be interested in photogrammetry software to reconstruct 3D models of environments, mostly to plan construction or aesthetic changes to buildings or surroundings. This is for home use, so I don't really need fancy texturing, etc. But having it reconstructed from a smartphone video feed would be a must.

I looked for open source software a while back, but didn't really turn out interesting results :/

Edit: there seems to be a few interesting resources. It looks like MicMac could be quite simple to use, and desn't have a CUDA dependency, for instance.

<comment><USER17> It's been a few years but in my photogrammetry days the open source options were very unfriendly to use -- either a command line utility lacking documentation or an extension for an outdated version of something else, and I never got a result I was happy with. it can take a couple of hours to process large photo sets and it's really frustrating to get a bad result.

For $180 (non commercial license) Agisoft Photoscan worked the first time and gave me lots of tools to get a good, meshed and textured result that I could export to other software for viewing.

Smart phone cameras are actually ideal because their tiny sensors give huge depth of field -- everything is in focus in every picture == happy stitching

EDIT: you'll be waiting a long time for alignment without GPU !

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would like to see this done for Chernobyl.

<comment><USER19> There's Streetview in Pripyat [1] but not in the Nuclear plant itself apart from a handful of images [2].

[1] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,30.0580859,2a,60y,35...](https://email@example.com,30.0580859,2a,60y,352.27h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Wascrv-i7Y9GHVxjt9IKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

[2] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,30.0990984,3a,75y,16...](https://email@example.com,30.0990984,3a,75y,169h,85.14t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipOFTG9LuY8sDr6D6__Jz04rKmTPkAAQ049w2C0s!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOFTG9LuY8sDr6D6__Jz04rKmTPkAAQ049w2C0s%3Dw203-h100-k-no- pi-0-ya216.31851-ro-0-fo100!7i11802!8i5901)

<comment><USER18> Well, I would like to see _directly_ into the Nuclear plant itself please.

<comment><USER20> Probably not feasible as the radiation fries any circuit getting close. They tried to get a camera in many times, but never succeeded I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Striking how _different_ this is from the pyramid of Giza. For this one, every inch covered with illustrations and hieroglyphs; for the great pyramid, completely bare, devoid of images.

<comment><USER22> To be fair it might as well have been flashy on the outside, but erosion of the surface exposed to the elements (and sandstorms) is very high. We supposedly already know that it was covered in limestone, and some sources even mention looting of the limestone to build forts

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The dollhouse view is a nice way to zoom out without occluding what you want to see. Very impressed how smooth and detailed the tour is. So much better than streetview based tours

</comment><comment><USER24> That's beautiful. It's just begging for translation overlays on the exquisite wall detail.

<comment><USER25> Before High Fidelity VR shut down they were doing tours with an Egyptologist tour-guide of another tomb which was really cool.

<comment><USER26> High Fidelity missed the Coronavirus WFH opportunity by only months. They claim to still be working on something new but, wow, its hard to think of a case of worse timing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Beautiful! I had this same system shown to me for a couple of houses I was looking at buying last year, the real estate agent had these photos taken in the house and stitched together this way with a dolls house view too. Very useful for that kind of application.

Combined with VR glasses it would be a great way to preview things like furniture/new kitchen layouts in somewhere like Ikea or paint colours in a hardware store.

</comment><comment><USER28> The picture/texture quality is mind-blowingly amazing.

Imagine if video games had textures this high-definition!! They'd look so insanely good. And it's not like our present-day technology/GPUs can't handle it. It's probably more that video game makers don't want to spend a huge amount of money on artists and graphics people to create ultra-high-definition textures...

</comment><comment><USER8> Take a look at HistoryView.org We have over 700 virtual tours of museums, art galleries, and historic sites for free

</comment><comment><USER29> I visited the valley of the kings ten years ago. This is a really good recreation: before I went I had no idea how well preserved the paintings in some of the tombs were. It's an amazing place to visit.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's amazing how vivid the blue paint deep into the tomb has remained.

</comment><comment><USER31> Really interesting, the transitions remind me of Myst [1]

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

</comment><comment><USER32> Anyone able to access this via Firefox and VR? It seems to launch SteamVR with my WMR headset active, but no content - and no VR button on the web UI (which the help mentions).

</comment><comment><USER33> The pictures here are very well lit -- anyone know how they achieved this? There do not seem to be visible lights in the photos.

<comment><USER34> There is an LED lighting system alongside the walkways, at floor level. It probably isn't original.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why are parts of the tunnel blurred out? Censorship? Surely it isn't anything objectionable we wouldn't see on Wikipedia or Google Image search.

Censorship of educational material is unnecessary.

Edit: it appears to blur the textures immediately above on the y axis. Perhaps the software isn't correctly interpolating those values even though it has the data. I hope this is the case rather than the censorship I posited.

This is really cool, and I hope more things become accessible in this fashion.

<comment><USER16> Probably just a hardware blind spot, this is quite common to find on panoramic views (google street view, etc). Interesting that it sits above, rather than below the capturing apparatus, as it usually does: the tripod gets in the way. Maybe they lifted it from above?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> For some reason, I am getting motion sickness while clicking around. But it's really detailed and cool.

<comment><USER37> Me too. Wonder if a VR version would be less nauseating.

<comment><USER38> It's probably the smooth acceleration/deceleration. I bet if the movement was a straight ramp instead of a smooth curve you'd feel better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Try and spot a lookalike of the chinese character 大 in this tomb...interesting...

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder how old the greek graffiti in there is?

</comment><comment><USER41> its awesome, although at first i thought i was going to see it as it used to be. that would be a neat project

</comment><comment><USER42> Bookmarking for tomorrow

<comment><USER42> I did come back today guys :-)

Worth the time too! I really wish Egypt were safer for single female travelers. Or just safer for travelers in general.</comment></comment>


FDA calls for heartburn drug Zantac to be pulled from market immediately - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2020/04/01/health/zantac-fda-remove-from-market-bn/index.html <comment><USER2> Some baking soda with water works pretty well for me and give instant relief. It doesn't taste great (although the glass of water they follows tastes sweet, it's funny) but it's dirt cheap and has no adverse effects afaik.

I've always wondered what all these antacid drugs do better than baking soda. Anyone knows?</comment>


Yahoo Can't Cope with Cyber Monday - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/id/21978985

<comment><USER2> This is from 2007</comment>


Santa Clara County has highest median income in nation, but wealth gap widens - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26312024/santa-clara-county-has-highest-median-household-income

<comment><USER2> It's against the HN rules to editorialize titles (i.e. rewriting them to emphasize what you think is important). Please don't do that.</comment>


[WTF] Go Unicode Hack to Get Pseudo-Generics - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5penft/parallelizing_enjarify_in_go_and_rust/dcsgk7n/ <comment><USER2> Favorite comment, apparently to a C++ fan that was horrified by the fake angle brackets. _" MaybE_Tree • 5d c++ allows 0-width spaces in variable names. Where's your god now?"_

<comment><USER3> Innocent looking pull-requests with unicode backdoors don't sound scary?

I never really understood the point of having unicode in the code.

<comment><USER4> Unicode code _comments_ make obvious sense if the software company is e.g. Chinese.

And allowing Unicode characters _inside string literals_ makes obvious sense as well. It lets you have string literals which are, well, literal, rather than full of escape codes.

Unicode _identifiers_ can make _some_ sense for the same reason that comments do; often you'll want to just name something after some un-translatable concept from your own language, but even if you "romanize" the word, it might still require accents—making it Unicode!—to _be_ that word, instead of some other word. (Pinyin and ASCII-/\w+/ do not get along.)

\---

Separately, the devil's advocate position: Unicode identifiers for function names or operators are just plain _fun_ , if your keyboard lets you write them easily. I'm surprised there's no modern equivalent of APL created to take advantage of the symbols you can write easily in macOS using Alt, Alt+Shift, or Ctrl+Cmd+Space.

(I once designed a Markdown variant that used these characters instead of ASCII ones. It also expected the use of IME-inserted smart quotes in the text, and compiled the opening ones to <q> and the closing ones to </q>.)

<comment><USER5> Comments and strings, yes. And even though, non-english comments is considered bad practice at the non-english-but-international company I currently work for.

In identifiers? No way in hell. ASCII is small and well known and yet has its share of subtleties between \r \n \t and whitespaces and case-sensitiveness.

The main point of ASCII is that it is really, totally, viewable without any surprise. Most programming fonts will be unambiguous, and won't make one letter appear like another: oO0, iIlL|1

Also, you can make monospace fonts for ASCII. One character can occupy a predictable space on screen.

Unicode is another level totally. Not only do tons of glyphs look similar but also some of them are hidden, some of them reverse the order of the flow (LTR) some modify others, some (like emojis) are supposed to not be easily colorable. And of course, d̕ia̻̟̮c̨̤͚ri͍͕̪t̘̫̺͎̰̘i̯̫̱̻c̵͔̙̮̻̫͕̝s͉̹ make character expand up and down (I only went smoothly on this one, use [http://www.marlborotech.com/Zalgo.html](http://www.marlborotech.com/Zalgo.html) to realize the magnitude of this mess)

I once had to deal with a program written in Japanese, luckily in UTF-8. I was very tempted to propose patches using accentuated French and emojis.

I'll be a proud defender of my beautiful French language any day, but as a programmer, we have the incredible luck of having more or less standardized on a language and a simple encoding. We should see that as an asset, not as a limitation.

Imagine if Linus commented his code in Finnish. We can't have that.

<comment><USER6> I imagine he would've commented in Swedish, not Finnish

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is this what compiler/languages people talk about when they mention "name mangling"?</comment>


How close are we to 3D printing the human heart? - <AUTHOR> https://humanbioscience.org/2019/08/how-close-are-we-to-3d-printing-the-human-heart.html <comment><USER2> What I don't understand is why we don't use existing biology as a tool. Why do we have to go out of the way to create an exogenous heart? That's like programming with magnetized needles. The human body is the perfect compiler for growing human hearts (and other organs), yet we want to throw away millions of years of evolution and try to roll our own.

I think you'd find much broader application if you cloned humans and neutered the genes for cephalization. It's a little macabre, but think about it: you'd have host bodies ready for organ harvesting and for medical or systems-level biology research. You can even tweak them for whatever experimental (or donor immunocompatibility) parameters you desire.

Of course you'd need to keep the headless bodies alive by hooking them up to machines (at least initially), and deliver a steady stream of nutrients and hormones for development, but this path opens up so many new and exciting experimental pathways. It's revolutionary, but at the same time it's actually kind of simple and elegant. And once you have a facility for growing and maintaining the bodies, you can also produce new ones on site.

The kinds of experiments you couldn't ethically perform before are now broadly available. You can destroy the host immune system, delete immunogenic epitopes, build MHC libraries, etc. With thousands of bodies you could do research rapidly, in situ.

This kind of setup also revolutionizes medical testing.

If I were a billionaire, I'd be investing in this instead of space rockets. Space isn't hospitable for human bodies. We evolved for Earth. I'd wager we either have robots or change our own biological makeup before we have widespread space travel, so it makes sense to invest in the technological reverse salient rather than the flashy sci fi one. Living longer, disease free, gets us there faster.

<comment><USER3> It's more than a little macabre, but hard to argue against if it does work. A few questions:

What if embodied cognition is a bigger deal than we think it is? i.e. i) To what degree do we need an active being to develop the various organs and ii) The uncephalized body might not be that dead

One of the alternatives is using animal organs (xenotransplantation), and we now have the ability to "humanize" them by genetically removing viruses and altering their immunogenicity to decrease the chances of rejection: [https://www.egenesisbio.com/technology/](https://www.egenesisbio.com/technology/)

<comment><USER4> I feel xenotransplants ethically eventually goes zero? A non cognitive shell is less sentient than a clinic rared animal with sharable organs. Xtransplants are a step up from food factory farming but doesnt do much for the rights of non-humans still.

<comment><USER3> You don't keep the animal alive indefinitely in a questionably vegetative just to grow up its organs though - you let it roam about (likely in a caged and germ free, granted, but hopefully large, facility) and when the time comes to harvest the organ, you sacrifice the animal in a humane way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Page is down.

Google cache copy:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N5sMhg...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N5sMhgJK9ysJ:https://humanbioscience.org/2019/08/how- close-are-we-to-3d-printing-the-human-heart.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

</comment><comment><USER6> What happened to washing the cells from the underlying collagen structure and using that as a scaffold?

Roughly ten years ago I saw a Nova Science Now episode on this and it looked rather workable, so what's the state of that?

<comment><USER6> I found a video of the episode:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLs8DeHVkec](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLs8DeHVkec)

around the 7 minute mark there is a pumping heart that was grown ontop of such a scaffold.

<comment><USER6> Oh wow, the woman in the video had to undergo a lung amputation in 2016, and everything shown in the video seems to be the culmination of a crazy amount of unscientific experimentation on a patient:

> Macchiarini admitted that one year after the operation Claudia had to be > repeatedly saved with a stent in her airways, a method which worked so badly > for her before. Macchiarini and his team also claimed in 2014 to have been > watching over his patient "every 3 months".

>It was however too late. In July 2016, Claudia underwent a lung amputation. Luckily, she was Macchiarini's only trachea transplant patient in Barcelona, a second operation was stopped due to technical formalities.

Here is the full, horrifying article.

[https://forbetterscience.com/2016/11/02/claudias- trachea/](https://forbetterscience.com/2016/11/02/claudias-trachea/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Page won't load, so I can only speculate based on the title. Barring miracles, the answer is "very far off". Sure, the macroscopic structure is relatively simple. And sure, it's just a pump. But it's a pump with its own frequency generator (SA node). Which supplies blood to itself. Which is self-repairing to a large extent, in spite of the insane volumes of blood it pumps every living moment and the stresses that puts on its own blood vessels. It's an electromechanical Swiss watch, where timing is crucial and various types of tissue have various conductive properties.

Good luck with the 3D printer. Maybe start with a valve that lasts longer than a pig valve, move up from there.

Edit: nerve replacement would be a nice next step. Or simple muscle replacement. Lots of people would benefit from that, and both are likely prerequisites to "printing" a heart.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not close. I think we'll see lab-grown meat with an identical taste get within an order of magnitude of the cost of natural meat before lab-grown tissue technology rises to the task of producing a functional heart at any price point.

</comment><comment><USER9> We are very far from 3D printing the human heart, in fact, it will never happen. A human heart can only be grown.

<comment><USER10> Why? I mean there are no constraints to printing it at least in theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Usually the rule with a title that ends in a question mark is that the answer is no. In this case "not close" seems to be the answer. Rest assured, it's way more complicated and there are a lot more problems to tackle than just aligning ECMs.

That being said, I love this sort of thing so much. Maybe one day my grandkids might be saved by this.

<comment><USER12> Betteridge's law; I love this sort of thing too, though I hope it comes sooner and humanity/society breaks new ground in science at a more rapid clip (compared to the morass many believe we are currently in)

<comment><USER11> Well we kinda picked all the low hanging fruit over the last 150 years. Each technological advancement seems exponentially more expensive.</comment></comment></comment>


Guy Who Hacked Twitter And Leaked Their Docs Is Under Arrest - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/03/24/guy-hacked-twitter-leaked-documents-arrest/

<comment><USER2> If stealing such information is illegal, fencing it (and making money of it) should be too.

<comment><USER3> not when it is called "journalism"</comment></comment>


Passion Capital Plain English Term Sheet [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/s/pc0208kjk3jti7c/20130620%20Passion%20Capital%20Plain%20English%20Term%20Sheet.pdf <comment><USER3> > If you decide to switch to another investor in that period and it's not > because we've done anything wrong, then we might charge you for our costs.

There's a weird effect when you actually put a price on something which is usually just enforced by a social contract. There was a story about the kids playschool which charged parents $3 if they were late to pick up the kid: it caused more parents to be late. They weighed the costs ("$3 isnt that much") whereas before they would just have had wilting looks and having to be really sorry.

Breaking a term sheet is pretty shitty. If it changed from "pretty shitty" to "this will cost you $5k", that might change the calculus a bit, especially since I can objectively value the latter and compare it to another deal on the table.

(FYI: the terms say the investor is paid costs, but the entrepreneur doesnt get the same deal if the investor pulls out. Also, for someone with a large fund investing lots of money, demanding your costs be paid by the relatively much poorer startup is a tiny bit shitty and feels punitive.)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is so patronizing, like it's being explained to a sixteen year-old. Also, how is are these "terms":

"Board of Directors

We think you should control your board, but we generally like to have a seat too. We don't take board control. Sometimes it makes sense for us just to have a less formal observer, non-voting seat."

If this is a term sheet, then what terms were just stated? 1) investor gets a board seat 2) investor gets a board seat if founders offer one, which they generally accept. 3) investor gets an option on a board seat. 4) investor gets an option on an observer, non-voting seat. 5) 4&5\. It's like saying "We generally like to invest at a valuation of $1M-$2M, but smaller - <USER2> occasionally larger - deals occasionally make sense." Well those are some great terms there.

The section on Exclusivity is directly negated by the section Non-binding Effect. I guess it's only non-binding on them! "If you decide to switch to another investor in that period and it's not because we've done anything wrong, then we might charge you for our costs." But it's totally non-binding, yo.

The section on Important Decisions directly contradicts what was stated about board control, since presumably as the first investors they would be majority investors and have to approve the listed decisions.

All in all this simply seems like an executive summary of a term sheet. And really, completing a Founder's Questionnaire is a condition for close?

This is so incredibly patronizing. It would make anyone want to move to Silicon Valley and get treated with respect. Founders aren't children.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is worse than a legal term sheet in my opinion.

The language is new, and using plain english instead of "Legal" english creates grey areas.

Is this pre- or post-money?

The language around the board seat, which is a critical aspect of building and operating your company, so cavalier as to not be worth including. If you can't sort that out in the term sheet, you have no business moving forward on a financing.

The language around re-vesting is also highly ambiguous, and unclear.

Gosh, I would run away from this. If you want something in english, you can nail it in a few paragraphs, but this isn't it. This is a step backwards. And for what it's worth, most term sheets are pretty easily read even in legal language that is well-used and well-worn (ie, tried and true).

<comment><USER6> Having known all three partners myself for 5 years I am pretty confident they're just trying to be founder friendly. IMO it is intended to give a 30,000 ft view of the general terms and it clearly says it's bilaterally non- binding; so if you breached the no-shop clause and they smacked you with their legal bill you could technically tell them to take a hike. The sheet refers to their "standard legal document" being the actual deal document so you can assume things are less ambiguous there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do not know these guys but I also thought the reason they have it was to be as clear as possible. I thought that was commendable. Unfortunately you cannot share anything anymore without it being negatively criticized.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like what they're going for, but I'm not sure it really works.

\- Some of the terms, as noted by others here, are ambiguous (board seat esp).

\- Some of the terms are IMO founder unfriendly (option pool - though I recognize it's still "normal" to have that in a term sheet; reverse vesting; OMG _monthly_ financials!), and reading the "nice" language gives me the impression of someone trying to fuck me over, even if they're not trying to do it any more so than normal.

\- this makes it harder to compare to other term sheets, which typically use similar language to each other. That makes it harder to spot things you don't agree on. It's also harder to read for people with experience reading such term sheets (eg other founders who are helping you, lawyers).

I would recommend instead giving a "normal" term sheet and including the glossary and explanation alongside it instead. I think that would be well received.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do they really invest in common shares?

<comment><USER8> The document includes a 1x preference, anti-dilution, board seat, etc. Aren't those fundamentally the things that make their shares different than common? Can you disentangle the name 'preferred' from the added rights over common shares?

<comment><USER9> That's a good point. In Delaware, liquidation preference would have to be accomplished through a preferred stock designation. Not sure what English law is, though. The terms might make more sense, both legally and culturally, from that perspective. This could possibly explain why commenters who know these guys are giving good reviews, while US-based commenters steeped in SV culture find this document strange.</comment></comment></comment>