App-Powered Car Service Leaves Cabs in the Dust - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/app-stars-uber/

<comment><USER2> This:

 _Even if all the world's fastest supercomputers were put to work, they couldn't generate a perfect algorithm to solve this classic puzzle, which computer scientists call the traveling-salesman problem._

made me a bit sad; it's overcomplicating the description by introducing the word "algorithm", when just "generate a perfect solution to this classic puzzle" would have been so much simpler, and also actually correct.

I had read more Wired, this is where I would lament over how it used to be better, and chase kids off my lawn, I guess.

Sure it's a "popular" text, but when it's _easier_ to be correct, I think it's a bit saddening. This is a quite central sentence in their description of Uber's algorithms, so I think they should have gotten it right.

<comment><USER3> I'm actually going to support Wired's wording on this one.

While it's possible to come up with a perfect solution to any specific instance of the traveling salesman problem, it's the actual process of solving that instance, the algorithm, that's actually interesting.

Remember, solving the traveling salesman problem is easy/trivial, it's finding the shortest/optimal path that's hard. And for that you need a good algorithm.

<comment><USER4> There are several errors in your comment (and in Wired's wording).

Computers don't normally come up with algorithms; programmers come up with algorithms. Using the algorithms we've come up with so far, TSP of the complete graph of 4000 points, or even Euclidean TSP of 4000 points, is intractable except in special cases.

We don't have a proof that there's no tractable or efficient algorithm. We have evidence in the form of an NP-completeness proof, but although unlikely, it's possible that P=NP and there's an efficient algorithm for TSP.

As far as we know, it's possible that a computer doing some kind of search for algorithms — genetic programming is the sexiest kind of search, but of course not the only one — could find such an algorithm. We just don't have any idea. One of the consequences of the unresolved status of the P=NP conjecture and the infancy of AGI is that we can make very few statements about the capabilities of yet-undiscovered algorithms, or how easy or hard they are to discover.

> Remember, solving the traveling salesman problem is easy/trivial, it's > finding the shortest/optimal path that's hard.

You're quibbling about technicalities, and you happen to be wrong about them. Formally, TSP is a decision problem: whether there exists a path shorter than a given length L. That's not "easy/trivial". As far as we know, it's as hard as computing the shortest path. Maybe you're talking about finding a path covering all vertices, which is not "solving the traveling salesman problem".

<comment><USER5> I don't understand why they're bringing the traveling salesman problem into this at all. The core problem Uber has to solve is simply to get one driver (of many) to the customer as fast as possible, not to determine the most efficient route between all of the customers.

<comment><USER4> It's not that simple. They need to figure out which assignment of drivers to customers maximizes some utility function. If they just send the closest available driver, that may degrade service for some other customer, or leave an important area of the city uncovered for the next unexpected call.

It's not the same problem as TSP, but it's surely reducible to it, given the NP-completeness proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> An interesting thing about this is that they're still basically a taxicab service; they just have a better user interface and scheduling algorithm. While the disappearance of taxi stands and radio dispatcher squawks in favor of network servers and algorithms may highlight how much of our everyday infrastructure serves an informational rather than a purely logistical purpose, it's the small story here.

The bigger story is Craigslist ridesharing, and carpooling startups like Zimride, PickupPal, Carpool to School, and CarBuddy. In countries like the US, where the average car has something like 5 seats of which 1.2 are full on any given trip, taxi and bus services are only able to exist _at all_ due to an market failure of truly mind-boggling proportions.

Any time you drive _anywhere_ in a city, there's probably a reputable, trustworthy person or two within a couple of blocks who wants to go close to where you're going, at the same time. If you knew about them, you could go pick them up (the 80% of the time that you don't mind driving an extra couple of blocks), and magically your cost of driving would drop by half or two- thirds.

It's a good deal for the passengers, too, compared to a cab. If your cost is 50¢ per mile, they might pay 25¢ per mile, compared to some 90¢ per mile in a taxicab; and of course, as with Über, they can just walk outside as the distance meter on their phone approaches zero.

<comment><USER6> Transportation inefficiency isn't a market failure-- cab supply is deliberately limited by most cities, and the price a cab can charge is fixed by the city as well. Similarly, jitney buses or other forms of efficient private mass transport are completely outlawed. The government doesn't want private bus routes competing with its clunky, unionized services.

The empty seat problem in private cars is more of an issue with personal safety and the broad increase in crime over the past fifty years. Technology should help here, but the reason low-tech hitchhiking has all but disappeared is that it is not safe for the rider or the driver. This didn't used to be the case-- the boomer generation hitchhiked across the country to college, for example.

<comment><USER7> "The empty seat problem in private cars is more of an issue with personal safety and the broad increase in crime over the past fifty years."

It's more of an issue of the American perception of danger, and the anti- hitchhiking laws passed as a result. Lots of people still hitchhike all across the US.

<comment><USER8> I'd say that the danger in picking up a random stranger as a passenger isn't really about the danger that they're going to try to kill you. There's any number of other ways it can go wrong. They can smell bad. They can talk loudly or offensively. They can start going off with their theory about how the Jews run the country through the freemasons. They can be drunk and throw up. They can wind down the window and scream obscenities at nearby women. They can... well, ask any taxi driver for stories about what the worst things random strangers can do to your car.

If I were going to pick up random strangers to disrupt my otherwise-peaceful me-time alone in my car, it'd have to have a _big_ incentive, and being able to split the money I pay for gas just ain't it. Being a taxi driver is a sucky job, and I don't wanna do it in my spare time for cents per mile.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, you have a good point — aside from people in the US being paranoid about crime, they're also unbelievably intolerant, to the point that they're not comfortable around teenagers talking loudly, drunk people, or people with different political views.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure you're in a position to be lecturing others about tolerance after a comment like that.

"Tolerance" is a noble concept in some sense. It means I respect the right of others to be stupid and annoying in the abstract, not necessarily in my passenger seat.

<comment><USER4> I'm a US citizen, and I don't claim to be an exception to our general lack of tolerance; I mean, I've been unreasonably annoyed at teenagers talking loudly, or people dropping cigarettes on the sidewalk, or making racist remarks, just like most people from the US. I'm just observing a fact.

As for "noble concepts", well, there's the kind of tolerance that's a "noble concept", and then there's the kind of tolerance that's an actual description of how some people behave toward other people, some of the time. Like, how Argentinians behave toward children, that people from the US don't. Or, for that matter, how Argentinians behave toward US tourists.

Turns out that there are real benefits to turning down your annoyance and smarter-than-thou attitude and digging folks who don't shop at the same supermarket you do. I can't always do it, but I'm glad when I can.

(By the way, when you complain about how awful it is to have to talk to someone who's stupid, you should consider how that would sound to someone who's a lot smarter than you are.)

<comment><USER8> Well that's great, but are we still talking about how folks don't want random strangers riding in their cars? Because I _still_ don't want random strangers riding in my car, and I don't reckon that's in any way unreasonable.

<comment><USER4> I never said people from the US were unreasonable, just unbelievably intolerant. That's a matter of preference, and I don't think it makes sense to describe preferences as reasonable or unreasonable. It's like saying that it's unreasonable to have the flu or be short. Preferences aren't voluntary choices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now, combine this with autonomous cars about ten to twenty years hence, and you've got a recipe for a major sea change in how we get around. Just another example of why I think naively projecting 20 years into the future as if there will be no changes in anything is a foolish waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER10> It seems like the biggest risk with this company is that they're effectively skirting laws designed to limit the sort of service they're providing.

How long before cities up their rent-seeking and require all hired transportation to have a medallion?

<comment><USER3> They're not skirting the laws at all. The hiring of privates cars, limos, or buses is usually not restricted or regulated by cities.

The innovation here, and the reason the cab companies are up in arms about it, is that it's now on-demand hiring of private cars via phone. The cab companies used to have a lock on on-demand hiring via handwave or cabstanding.

<comment><USER10> "Skirting" was a poor choice of word on my part. I didn't mean to imply they were doing anything unethical or borderline.

I simply wanted to point out that regulating cab companies and selling expensive permits is a source of city revenue. If an innovative new business disrupts that revenue, it may quickly find itself the subject of new regulation.

Now, if their success is based on efficient routing algorithms and higher- class service, then they have nothing to worry about. If it's based on the fact that they don't have one of the cab companies' major expenses, then they're at significant risk of being regulated out of profitability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Full, unpaged version: <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/app-stars- uber/all/1>

</comment><comment><USER12> Perhaps I'm spoiled by living in NYC, but I don't see a way that this could actually work here.

San Francisco is a notoriously awful place to catch a cab, but I hardly see how taking advantage of a local policy/market failure represents something that might be disruptive to a whole industry... particularly at a 40% mark-up.

<comment><USER13> As a New Yorker, I'd have to agree. There already seems to be a glut of taxis for most times of the day (in addition to the higher-end sedans that very few people use).

<comment><USER14> Even here in Brooklyn, where hailing a cab is more difficult than in the city, calling a car service is super fast and not much more expensive than a yellow cab.

Arecibo (car service) almost always arrives within 5 minutes, and on numerous occasions I've had them say "ok, they're downstairs already" while still on the phone with them.

Not really a problem in need of solving in NYC, although it certainly will be interesting to see how it is received here.

<comment><USER15> Are you kidding? Pressing a button is way easier and faster than calling a person and telling them where you are. Seeing the fare and paying it on your phone before even reaching the destination is way better than settling with the driver using cash or credit cards while sitting in the car at your destination. This is a far better experience than calling a normal cab service.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, it doesn't make things so much easier that i'd pay more for it. The process is about 10 seconds right now, and settling up payment is easy if you're not a tourist in NY. It'd be one thing if it was a frustrating experience, but to be honest it's pretty easy already.

Plus I'm sure the car services are going to be resistant to the fees associated with it, changing their work flow, and are thinking about all the income I'm sure they don't declare. Actually, I just remembered this article from a while back about the car services: <http://nymag.com/news/features/54678/>

But sure, maybe someday I'll tap a screen to take care of it once we hit a quorum of use, I have no opposition to it. It just doesn't seem to be a problem in my life that needs solving. Yet another third party trying to get in between the transaction to skim some money off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Excellent, the more things we're making more efficient with math, the better. If the pricing proves to be a huge hurdle I think they should try a subscription based model as well, and/or selling rides in bulk for cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER17> How uber is the experience if you cannot get the cab on Halloween because it's $500(or $x) and you cannot afford it?

<comment><USER6> That's a STRONG price signal that will bring more cabs into the marketplace at peak times. $500 fares won't happen often or for very long-- I'd fire up my own ride and pick you up for $250!

<comment><USER13> That's a cool idea of crowdsourcing peak times. You sign up to get texts when people are willing to pay for rides above a certain threshold and then just drive your car out to pick them up.

I'd use it (and possibly do it, although hard to say and it'd have to be for a ridiculous amount of money ~100+ range/trip).

<comment><USER17> There would need to be a reputation component like airbnb; otherwise, you would run the risk of shady people picking you up knowing that you have >= $x dollars on you and steal it.

<comment><USER18> According to the article payment is handled via credit cards in the backend so you could have $0 on hand. Your broader point definitely still stands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The heat map on page 2 is pretty interesting

</comment><comment><USER19> Paging tptacket - our resident taxi expert!</comment>


Were Rousseau's Children Victims of His Moral Theory? - <AUTHOR> https://irfankhawajaphilosopher.com/2015/06/28/were-rousseaus-children-victims-of-his-moral-theory/ <comment><USER2> It's the other way around. Rousseau's children were victims of his utter selfishness. His abandonment of his children to almost certain death was roundly condemned by Voltaire who despised him. This caused Rousseau social embarrassment not remorse, which threatened to compromise his livelihood as a parasite on the idle aristocracy. Rousseau attempted to evade Voltaire's condemnation by rationalizing that the fault should not be laid at his door, but that of society: in a perfect society, those infants would have received proper nurture, and Rousseau's actions would not have mattered.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a good article.

My understanding of Rousseau is that he had, as he himself said, a very odd personality, and rather than admitting that he would always be a misfit in society, he invented a morality and psychology that would support a political philosophy that would in turn produce the sort of society that he thought would make someone like him happy.

By the way, if you want to read about something bizarre from Rousseau's life, check out the feud he got himself into with Hume.</comment>


Redesign: Users: Thrilled. Conversion Rates: Up. Sales: Unchanged.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/04/19/ab-testing-is-frustrating/ <comment><USER2> Happy to answer questions, as always.

By the way, roughly 3/4 of A/B tests I participate in (my own and for clients) fail to improve business results. This compares with approximately 2% of A/B tests I've ever seen with in-depth blog posts, so I tried to redress the balance here.

<comment><USER3> How do you break that news to clients after they've paid $$$ for your services? Do you heavily caveat the potential before the engagement?

<comment><USER2> That's surprisingly less of a problem than I naively thought it would be. I'm upfront with clients prior to, during, and after engagements, and I try to set expectations accurately. That said, for the overwhelming majority of my clients, if e.g. the entire budget for my wedding was spent on a project whose final conclusion was "Experimental results: we now know one more thing that didn't work" that would not be a catastrophic loss.

Businesses routinely spend $$$, $$$$$, and $$$$$$$$$ on things that don't end up working out the way they were planned. They're pretty much OK with that, since they run "portfolio strategies" in terms of directions. Nobody is betting the company on a two-week engagement with me, any more than they bet the company on any particular man-month of engineering time.

n.b. This is partially influenced by being picky about clients and working with people who are clueful and have budget. This is one reason why if a startup with $X0,000 in the bank comes to me and asks to roll the dice on an engagement I give them a link to my blog, some suggestions, and invite them to come back when we're a better positioned to help each other out.

<comment><USER4> I suspect that people hire you not to do "a successful experiment" - but so that they can learn _how_ to experiment in productive ways.

It's a skill that seems sadly lacking with many of the folk that I talk to :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure if I have high expectations, became too damn good at it, or this is just a bad designer.

So take this as a constructive criticism and I have nothing against the designer, nor I know him.

I'll begin with the HTML/CSS parts. He is a Web Designer, and not simply a designer; so he should use the best practices

1- Use the HTML5 Doctype

2- Removes unnecessary space (empty lines and spaces). Why the extra bits?

3- JavaScript, I see that you are loading a good chunk of JavaScript in the HEAD and you are loading a bunch of it in the end. For example the Amazon JS file ([http://s3.amazonaws.com/new.cetrk.com/pages/scripts/0004/737...](http://s3.amazonaws.com/new.cetrk.com/pages/scripts/0004/7378.js)) is certainly not usable, and is yet a whole HTTP request.

4- In the JavaScript file ([http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/javascripts/bcc- all.js?1...](http://images2.bingocardcreator.com/javascripts/bcc- all.js?1134712726044062)), you are loading a ColourPicker and other unused stuff. This is a waste of bandwidth, latency, memory and speed. You don't need JavaScript in your main page, apart from the analytic and maybe A/B testing stuff.

5- Unobtrusive JavaScript. (line 181 of the HTML)

Enough, though there are endless problems with the coding part so don't take this list as an exhaustive review. For the design, it just sucks. I agree that simple designs (K.I.S.S) are better, but they should be crafted. I won't complain much, but here are two snapshots of what I'm talking about

1- <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2777218/shot1.png>

2- <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2777218/shot2.png>

Again, take this as a constructive feedback and I have nothing against your business; and what matters finally are the sales/$$$.

Take a look at <http://www.premiumpixels.com/> if you want to see some carefully crafted designs.

<comment><USER6> Patrick bootstrapped himself out of his previous full-time programming job, replacing his salary and then some, in single-digit hours _per week_ , using the OLD DESIGN.

You gave a numbered list of good suggestions and wrote the kernel of a detailed, thoughtful comment, but sabotaged it with poor framing and assumptions. I don't care or anything, but for your benefit: this is a nerdly inclination that will serve you very, very poorly in your professional career. HN often has the opposite problem from your comment (a bias towards being "right" even when we're not "correct", such as in civil liberties stories); here, you're "correct" but not "right", since adoption of all your recommendations is unlikely to change the bottom line for Patrick at all.

One consultant to (I presume) another: my suggestion for next time: either:

(a) (expensively) do exhaustive research so you can frame your high-level assessment and recommendations in the context of someone's business (ie, expend the effort to make sure you're both correct _and_ right), _or_

(b) (much simpler) develop a habit of writing your comments in a neutral, helpful tone, so that you can be correct without having to be right at all.

By the way, I feel comfortable writing this comment because I have _oh my God_ exactly the same problem with my comments. Look at me on a crypto thread sometime.

<comment><USER5> I apologize from Patrick and the readers if my comment made more harm than good. That wasn't my intent. Sometimes I'm a bit of an "asshole", and I have to acknowledge that. I thank you for taking the time to correct that side of me.

<comment><USER6> Getting the tone of a message board comment doesn't make you an asshole.

I hope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Something fundamentally missing from both versions - trust signals. Why does a user want to trust this software? You go to <http://www.seomoz.org/>, you see Zillow, Home Depot, Yelp and etc "love their software". Same with 37signals - WB and Kellogg's are using Basecamp? <http://37signals.com/> Why isn't my company?

It is not explicity apparent that anyone loves this software, especially nobody they know or have heard of, so why should they use it? It doesn't have to be who uses it, but could also be "featured on" if you (Patio11) got coverage and co-linked to the service there as well, which I bet is more prominent. Of course, families don't care about Techcrunch - relevant news is needed.

<comment><USER8> I think that's important to people that want to be in good company. Not when futzing around with your Macintosh, trying to put together 30+ bingo cards for tomorrow's class.

EDIT: removed an article to clarify

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Honestly I think the site is really ugly - the color scheme, all the same size text, '96 aesthetic... it looks like a ghetto SEO trap website. Please don't take offense, thats my snap judgement of seeing it. What if you tried letting a designer do something on par with your payment processor Stripe.com - picture those cards on the right as bingo cards, good simple headline, call to action.

<comment><USER10> I hope you're talking about the old design.

The site shows the old version to some visitors. You can click the link in the footer to get the new redesign.

<comment><USER11> Both designs are pretty bad unfortunately.

<comment><USER12> I agree. Old site, doesn't look that good, but benefits from old school 'mom&pop web design' look that might or might not inspire trust in buyers.

New site has less character and is more bland. I cannot get over the cards and the mac. Why is background in screen same as outside - totally breaks the message of software in a computer, make it black at least, so that the image can be read more easily, now the computer looks like an open frame. Or show a stylized screenshot of the software. And why does the cards look so boring? Add some shadows or something. Why are links underlined in menu. Why is try now more prominent than buy now? New design need to get it's priorities straight!

I would like to see an A/B test on whether changing some of the fonts to ComicSans would increase conversion. I think that for this audience it might.

<comment><USER13> Ditto. The new design looks too bland, like a gazillion other 'designed' sites. Keeping the mom&pop look is important.

I'd keep the old layout, but fix the colors. If you get a designer to improve the colors and the gradients so they are less Windows 95-ish, it would be much better.

<comment><USER14> Keeping the mom&pop look is important for what?

<comment><USER12> Trust. The mom&pop look properly executed is the perfect carrier to convey honesty and earnestness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I own a subscription-based online business, and I've done many A/B tests of new designs, and my conclusions is pretty similar to yours.

Namely, it's always _way_ more work than you expect, especially when you have legacy customers with prior expectations.

And results hardly ever budge.

My hypothesis is A/B testing can move the needle for light engagement, like "try a free trial". But pulling out a credit card requires a lot of motivation, and the 0.1% of your visitors that have this motivation are relatively unaffected by your design.

<comment><USER2> Any particular change (like this redesign) might not move the needle, but there exists SUBSTANTIAL evidence that A/B testing can help the bottom line of the company. Read e.g. any of the multiple times the 37 Signals blog covered how they got like 40% lifts to paid account signups by redoing a pricing or landing page.

Do you find me credible on this topic? I'm legally, morally, and practically constrained regarding how much detail I can go into here, but if you trust me: I have recent experience which makes me disagree in the _strongest possible way_ with the generalization of your hypothesis. A recent client CCs me on their weekly Optimizely status report. I've been evangelizing A/B testing for a few years. Every time I read one of those emails my mind gets blown again.

<comment><USER16> Are you aware of anyone experimenting with the automatic evolution of web pages?

For example, use genetic programming to periodically modify the page served up. Both pages are served up, A/B style, and the page which has the highest metric (eg. $ earned) survives. Repeat.

It would be interesting to see what the results are after an extended period of time.

<comment><USER17> Not quite what you're asking about, but an interesting related innovation:

[http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing- and-m...](http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing-and-make-out- like-a-bandit/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You don't have enough data to really draw any conclusions. In the last step in the funnel, the completion rate with the redesign is between 94-97% with 95% confidence. With the old design it's 92-96% with 95% confidence. Those regions overlap and the designs might be the same or they might be different.

</comment><comment><USER19> In the past you have talked about just using off the shelf themes from ThemeForest and tweaking those. Is there a reason you thought BingoCardCreator needed a truly unique design?

I'm building a couple sites at the moment and am having them designed from scratch but I'm wondering how you determine the cost/benefit of tweaking something off the shelf versus building your own?

<comment><USER2> BCC doesn't _need_ to look very good -- it sold $200k of software on the backs of either a template or the uncoordinated mishmash of the previous designer's work being slowly butchered by myself. I just was willing to experiment with whether turning up the pretty a few notches would move the needle.

As to cost/benefits: I'm at a point in my life/business where "Spend a week hacking a template to save < $2,000" is an _astoundingly_ poor use of my time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Thanks for sharing. Just wanted to add that if people's subjective perceptions of BCC (modern! clean!) are improved, this may improve (admittedly hard to measure) word of mouth. Keep it up!

<comment><USER21> Actually, I wonder if a simple email referral template might help with nicely measurable word-of-mouth. Plenty of parents will have their kids' teachers' email address, and could shoot them a targetted recommendation with a little help.

<comment><USER2> I tried giving people a send-to-friend option with a double-sided referral incentive. (i.e. Think like Dropbox: you and they both get something if they sign up.) It was epically unmotivational: only ~1,300 people clicked through to send an invite to anyone (of > 50k users invited to), less than 200 people signed up as a result of invites, and a grand total of _two_ ended up buying BCC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Personally, I think the landing page should simply be this (minus the "Featured Bingo Activities" heading and half-horizonal line on the bottom): <http://imgur.com/GyRu8>

and then add the rest of the info that's currently below this part into an additional tab up top, perhaps called: "Info" (and it should be the first tab -- furthest to the left).

</comment><comment><USER23> VLC is the media player that can play anything!

Well, when it couldn't play something, it was very memorable to me.

</comment><comment><USER21> Thanks for writing this, these are some cool numbers to poke at.

You mention in the write-up that you've already done a lot of work to get your User Success percentage high. Is this the first time that you've seen a disconnect between User Success improvements and sales increases? Or did you pick this more as a useful, dramatic example?

</comment><comment><USER24> Bingo card creation is one of the few apps where I would probably avoid a "simple, elegant, modern" design. I would expect more of a cartoonish, game-y design.

</comment><comment><USER25> Great article, Patrick, but I'm a little concerned about this line: "I will likely finalize the redesign and kill the old version in the coming weeks."

Please, please tell me that if you kill the old version you will have the numbers to show that that the old one is not, say, at least 5% better than the new one. At the moment you seem to be 'leaning' towards the new version even though sales from the old version are higher!

It doesn't matter how much time and money you spent on the new version, or how much better it looks, or how much easier it is to use. What matters at the end of the day is how much money it makes, so run the split test until you are (statistically) confident that you are not throwing money away when you kill one of the designs.

<comment><USER26> Given that Patrick's tentative conclusion was that the new version makes a similar amount of money, but allows more people to get value from his software, leaving up the old design would seem a bit... hard-hearted.

<comment><USER25> The problem is that such a conclusion is _too_ tentative at the moment. It's possible that the old version is 5% better than the new version. My guess is that 5% of revenue over the next 10 years could be around $40,000 - that's a lot of money to give up! Why not keep the split test running until you can be statistically confident that the two versions make similar amounts of money?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Part of it might be that people who really really need something are more likely to convert even if a design is a bit ugly. By improving design you get more of the less serious people to give it a try, but then they are not as likely to convert.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is probably what Craigslist figured out a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER29> Hi Patrick! Good article, thanks.

I don't see the new web page as an improved design though, the lack of alignment between elements, weird open spaces and element sizing not being appropriate to the layout are all evidence the designer was amateurish.

If interested, commentary on the page as annotation is available here: <http://imgur.com/HsG6E>

(Fair disclosure: I don't sell such services and am not pimping, just commenting.)

</comment><comment><USER30> I think it is too early to judge. I've never done A/B testing, but I think the point is to do it continously; not for a week and decide it is stupid.

Let's say Patrick would continue this for 9 more weeks; so far we've seen 10% of the whole test. Let me illustrate an edge case: after 10 weeks, the new site has made 134 sales, the old one has 125. 13/13 after 1 week seems about right, but 134/125 is more than 7% increase.

<comment><USER31> A test of statistical significance can answer that question easily - I think most optimizers use it.

<comment><USER4> As well as the issue with the low numbers only showing a very significant effect at this point, there's also the assumption that the redesign will act immediately.

Some products don't have a "search, find and purchase immediately" pattern to sales. Especially when you move out of the B2C market.

Some businesses sales can look more like "Visit half a dozen different sites. Go away for a week and think. Visit best sites again. Go away for a few days and come to a decision. Visit final option, browse and purchase".

Tracking these multiple visits can be non-trivial/impossible since it may be different people and different browsers visiting the site at the different stages. It also leads to long lead-times for the effects that design changes make.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One comment on the amount of time you've looked at the new redesign over. A pattern I've noticed with A/B testing more radical redesigns is that there's often a dip/level track for the first week or two - followed by another more radical jump (in either direction :-) in the following month.

I'd be interested if you see something similar as the month progresses.

Also - a question not directly related to the new design - but I'm curious :-)

On either home page design there's no social proof info (testimonials, number of users, total #bingo cards made, etc.). Which intrigues me since it's something that pretty much always has a positive affect in my experience (which, I admit, is largely in sites fairly different from BCC). In once case we got a twenty-something% increase in conversion in the checkout process by adding in some targeted quotes on value-received/money-saved on the final "give me your money" pages.

This seems like such an obvious thing that you've probably tried it already. Is there a reason you didn't go for it?

</comment><comment><USER32> Lesson learned in the opening paragraphs - unsolicited email still works, even amongst the most internet-smart targets.

* with the right circumstances

</comment><comment><USER33> > _and the before and after redesigns are very compatible at the DOM label_

level?

<comment><USER2> Thanks, fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is a wonderful example of "Working Code Wins". Keep in mind though that often this complexity doesn't scale, for those of you on a team looking to implement similar A/B test code ;)

Way to be scrappy, Patrick.

</comment><comment><USER35> Isn't the obvious next step to further restrict the freebies? I have a hard time putting this in the "didn't matter" category.

</comment><comment><USER36> I would suggest adding some human faces to the design (e.g pictures of a classroom, family playing bingo). Add a tutorial video on the front page displaying how "easy" it is to use bingo card creator. Also remove the "try now" button since you already have a 30 days return policy and see how it goes.

</comment><comment><USER37> Patrick, why chose 50% as the split for the new design? Were you concerned with about confusing customers if the new design tested poorly and you switched everyone back to the old one?

</comment><comment><USER38> You know, just because you have an immaculate Bingo generating website, doesn't mean people's interest of making bingo cards will suddenly go up.

</comment><comment><USER39> Thanks for sharing. There is some very useful and interesting information in this article.

<comment><USER40> Hi! Sorry, but I didn't get how much - roughly - you paid for the design.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you be interested in being provided daily option plan entries - <AUTHOR> I currently utilize a system to trade for myself. It has impressive returns and is fairly simple to enter plans.
With a developer skill set you would be able to enter the trades automatically and sell whenever you decide. Generally at 100% you want to take profits and keep a contract or two extra to catch the run.
The system I use provides entry points similar to this:
[PLAN] If BIDU breaks over 264.25 the Jun 15 210.00 Calls can be used. [ 600k on a 3minute chart is required.]
In the above case an API call can be written with your brokerage, i.e. Interactive Brokers, to monitor the 3 minute volume, and if it hits 600k while crossing 264.25 purchase, otherwise, wait for the price to increase 25-50 cents to enter.
Another entry would be:
[PLAN] If BIDU breaks over 264.25 the Jun 15 210.00 Calls can be used. [ Break over 264.25 ]
If the stock price goes over 264.25 buy the calls.
Would people be interested in a system which provides plans but doesn't get you into them automatically. I currently provide consulting privately however the people are at work and miss many trades, which lowers the effectiveness of the strategy. <comment><USER2> I'd be interested. I have my brokerage web site open most of the day at work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Follow me, see profile for details.</comment></comment>


What I'd Change about Data.gov - <AUTHOR> http://sunlightlabs.com/blog/2009/05/28/what-id-change-about-datagov/ <comment><USER2> Sunlight Foundation is doing tremendous work, and Data.gov is a step forward.

But we're winning the battle while losing the war...in the last 10 months the government has created a mult-trillion dollar array of bailout programs-- PPIP, TARP, TALF, Fannie/Freddie conservatorship, Bear, AIG, Citi, GM, Chrysler, etc. All of these new "emergency" programs are highly opaque and lack real oversight-- in sum they are a stunning departure from the normal functioning of our economy and democracy. (A panicky Congress has delegated unprecedented powers to the executive branch and the Fed). This is the real transparency challenge. Bloomberg News is actually suing the Fed for some this information:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatl...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatlky_cH.tY)</comment>


The rise of the 99-cent Kindle e-book - <AUTHOR> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-20037800-82.html <comment><USER2> An actual book written to be sold at a dollar isn't expected to be much. In fact, I would assume any book written _for_ that price point is probably one of those scammy "Send me $20 for a PDF all about being a video game wizard!" website type of books.

However, for content that would otherwise be languishing, it can be a terrific move.

Like Jerry Pournelle said, 70% is a hell of a lot more than you ever get from a publisher. Hell, 30% is a hell of a lot more than you ever get. Ten percent (what you'd get from a publisher) on a $20 book is going to get an author a couple bucks. On Kindle, they could sell it for $3 and still make more money.

And at a buck or three, you're more likely to pick up more spontaneous sales and they can add up to ten or even a hundred thousand sales, pretty fast. If you are smart enough to have included a rights-reversion in your contract, it's a good way to make some additional income on what might otherwise be forgotten and ignored.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a lot more willing to pay $1 for a book than $3, especially for an unknown author and a book that has a description that doesn't say much about the actual book. (Not talking about this author, but in general.) And more than $3 would never happen.

Amazon might actually be doing them a favor by their $2.99 policy, too. It forces everyone to sell for more, keeping the playing field up. If they had the same policy for $.99 items, many authors would just drop the prices and a new floor would be set... And some would drop lower to try to generate sales, just like this guy did.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the 99c price point provides a lower level of risk, especially when the book is in the charts. You don't know whether or not you'll like the book. At $12.99 you may as well go to a bookshop not to buy the book but to try a few pages. At $2.99 you might be put off by the book's price because you don't know the author, but the risk is fairly low. At 99c the book is going to cost less than a newspaper.

If all books were 99c I'd definitely jump. At that point you're seriously disrupting print media to the point where future generations would refer to this period as a dark age.

<comment><USER4> Amazon offers samples of books before you buy (usually the first chapter, or more if it is short) and that kind of solves the try a few pages problem.

I think most people just are more willing to fork over 99 cents for a mediocre book rather than 8 dollars for a decent one.

I have a kindle but sadly prices aren't set for my market (the used papberback shopper).

<comment><USER5> While you are probably right, I find it sad that people would rather read lots of mediocre books than a few good ones. But maybe I just value my time more than most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> my 6-year old just wrote/illustrated a 99 cent ebook for the kindle:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-little-Bunny- ebook/dp/B004W3FYOS/r...](http://www.amazon.com/The-little-Bunny- ebook/dp/B004W3FYOS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1303105060&sr=8-1)

<comment><USER7> Nice! How are sales?

<comment><USER6> She has 3 sales (dad, uncle, friend) as of this morning! I think the hardest part of self-publishing isn't the technical aspect of putting an ebook together, or even creating the content. I think the hardest part is marketing.

<comment><USER7> ain't it always!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have been watching this ebook phenomenon with amazement. I bought 1 e-book: Learning Python. I bought it through almost every store, to see where it works best. Online, offline, laptop, tablet, desktop, phone. My favorite setup: ePub from O'Reilly (no digital restrictions management) on Stanza (not a slave to one store) on the iPad (works offline).

I spent a ton of money on that book, but I found out what works best for me. And I stand to gain something at the end of reading that book. I can't imagine reading contemporary novels when I haven't finished the classics yet. $1 for a contemporary novel seems like I'm paying someone to take 20 hours off my life. It's like whittling, only worse.

<comment><USER9> > $1 for a contemporary novel seems like I'm paying someone to take 20 hours > off my life.

I am genuinely a bit confused by your comment. You're saying $1 is too much? If you view reading 'contemporary novels' as a waste of time... well, don't! You could read HN or watch TV or read lots of classics for free. It doesn't seem like the price point is the problem, but that you just don't like that kind of book.

<comment><USER8> Valid point, which I considered before posting. Here's what kicked me over the edge: maybe somebody reading this is wondering "Am I missing something? Maybe I should start reading $1 books." So I it adds value to the conversation to know that there's somebody else out there who doesn't see value in this category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I bought a John Locke book once just because of the 99 cent price. John Locke is the pseudonym of the author behind most of the 99 cent Kindle top 20 bestsellers, and probably one of the few that makes 6 figure sales this way.

I read the entire novel hoping that the ending would make up for everything, and in the end I just felt like that was a massive waste of my time and 99 cents. It was a mystery/thriller that ended up being so bad that I was laughing the whole time at the absurdity of everything going on. It was rather well edited, unlike most of the indie and 99 cent crowd, which was all it has going for it. And this book and many others have nearly the same rating by just as many customers as a traditionally published 1000 page behemoth like _The Wise Man's Fear_ , which was (to me) worth every penny of the $15 ebook price and many, many hours spent reading.

I love seeing markets being revolutionized and people self-publishing easily, but the state of 99 cent ebooks today feels to me as bad as an iOS App Store with all 99 cent fart apps as bestsellers would feel. There isn't much quality or thought put into most of these, and the Angry Birds and Tiny Wings of the ebook world are few and far in between. I can only wait and hope to see improvement, instead of seeing more drivel being spewed out by the current set of bestselling 99 cent authors all celebrating their six figure sales of their godawful books.

<comment><USER11> I hear what you're saying, but I think this experience shows a failure on the part of the Reviews and Feedback section of the ebook store you used. Sure, 99c is a bargain price (and you're right, you think to yourself "what's 99c?") but some books may only be worth 99c.

There are exceptions, I'm sure, but you get what you pay for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of the things driving this is that e-publishing has lowered the entry barrier for people who write "genre fiction". It's easier to get published and put your work out where an audience can find it. By "genre fiction", I mean stuff like military science fiction or vampire romances, etc, that has emotional appeal to a fairly specific audience. In the days before e-publishing, John Norman's Gor books would pretty obvious example of that sort of niche-appeal content.

For this sort of fiction, "well-written" is less important than pushing the right buttons (the plots are usually fairly predictable). To use an analogy, the rise of e-publishing is similar to the rise of blogging, in that they both allow for the easy production and consumption of targeted content (and predictable button-pushing is the raison d'etre of many blogs, particularly those discussing politics).

Note, I'm not claiming all e-publishing is genre-fiction or poorly written, just like all blogs don't fall into the predictable button-pushing category.

</comment><comment><USER13> Two more thoughts here:

1 - This is almost entirely a fiction phenomenon, at least for now. While there are plenty of nonfiction books priced at 99 cents, the books on the Kindle Top 100 are consistently all-fiction. Even bigger name nonfiction authors who are traditionally or self-published, including NYT bestsellers, are finding it near impossible to hit or stay on that list.

2 - Many of those self-pubbed fiction writers on the kindle top 100 list are using the 99 cent price point for single books as points of entry or loss leaders (though they're actually still making money) into a funnel for a much bigger body of work. Amanda Hocking and J.A. Konrath experimented with rotating certain books into the 99 cent slot knowing that once a reader likes their style, fiction readers often attach to the author in a way nonfiction readers dont. That fuels them to want to read the authors other books...for $2.99 to $4.99. So one 99 cent book can lead to many more higher priced sales and readers for life.

</comment><comment><USER14> I can't speak to the other fiction categories, but there are a number of readable books in the Kindle SciFi category in the 99-2.99 range. In particular, if you just want to turn off your brain and pick up something in the "space opera" category, it's an excellent release.

When I buy a 2.99 book, I'm not looking for the next Gibson novel. I'm just looking for something that will let me put my brain in neutral that isn't either beer or streaming video.

</comment><comment><USER15> There's also Amazon singles from the low end. See - [http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=2486013011](http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=2486013011)

</comment><comment><USER16> How far is this from web content supported by advertisement?

</comment><comment><USER17> Maybe not entirely on-topic, but I'm very willing to pay a dollar or three for a book in the public domain that hasn't had the Project Gutenberg treatment.</comment>


Right now Facebook is having issues with messaging and Authenticating - <AUTHOR> https://developers.facebook.com/status/

<comment><USER2> Just noticed!

API Response time is growing fast! [https://developers.facebook.com/status/](https://developers.facebook.com/status/)

Not good to have customers call in on a Friday afternoon!

</comment><comment><USER2> Just received an email from FB stating there is increased latency on the API and to expect some 500-503s when querying.

ETA for fix: shortly.

</comment><comment><USER3> I also saw a broken like button on my website, and profile pictures were not loading 5 min ago.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Many websites relying on Facebook Authentication are also suffering from it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Started working for a few minutes then went back down.

</comment><comment><USER4> Having Facebook issues here. Won't authenticate.</comment>


Liberals and Conservatives Can Believe Fake News, but for Different Reasons - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/liberals-and-conservatives-are-both-susceptible-to-fake-news-but-for-different-reasons/ <comment><USER3> I believe it. I've got friends on both sides of the political aisle. I can't believe some of the stuff my friends think is true, and they think the same of me sometimes.

I think confirmation bias is really strong. We're all best off if we take care to ingest a balance of news. (One of my techniques: I read 'RealClearPolitics' daily. It contains outrageous articles from both sides, which I hope gives me a more balanced perspective.)

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't see how this study is valid. Participants were shown "unfavorable stories [that] reported that the target was facing criminal charges". But is it necessarily bias to think that Trump is more likely to commit criminal behaviour before reading the story, and therefore more likely to think such a story is true?

If I see a story that "an unseeded female tennis player beat the top-seeded male tennis player" shouldn't I rate it less likely to be true than a story with the genders reversed?

<comment><USER5> Because we actually have data and some scientific understand about gender differences, that question is not very representative of bias. Change gender with race like: "an unseeded white player beat the top-seeded African American tennis player" \- Should you rate it less likely to be true if the race was reversed?

Trump vs Obama becomes less a bias test the more factual information a participant has. The test I can only guess assume that participants do not actually have factual information about either president, thus all being equal they should not have anything concrete to base a logic conclusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is interesting, but I think it's important to note one thing. Susceptibility to fake news != rate of believing fake news. This experiment seems to have measured susceptibility.

>For instance, in the first study stories were either favorable or unfavorable about either former President Barack Obama or current President Donald Trump. Favorable stories reported that the target had donated $50 million of their personal fortune to selected charities, while the unfavorable stories reported that the target was facing criminal charges related to voter fraud in the 2016 Presidential election. Participants then made "legitimacy judgments" of each story, rating how much they believed the story to be true, reliable, and trustworthy.

I'm pretty left-wing, so my biases would presumably lead me to believe the favorable story about Barack Obama, and disbelieve the favorable story about Donald Trump. [1] How does that work out in practice? Well, at first glance it seems pretty accurate. Trying my best to abstract away from the context of this study, I'd give about 2% credence to the story about Trump, and maybe 35% to the story about Obama (does Obama even have $50M of personal wealth?). Hypothesis confirmed, right!? Not exactly.

It's true that I'm answering these questions according to my existing beliefs about each politician. But those beliefs aren't _simply_ the result of "bias". I came to those beliefs for reasons. For example, I know that Trump is infamously stingy. [2] Him donating 50 million in personal wealth would be a real shock to me, and for good reason. I know a bit less about Obama, but I don't have a strong reason to think he's stingy, and I do vaguely recall some news indicating that he has made a number of large charitable donations. [3]

So yes, both liberals' and conservatives' judgments are based on their beliefs, and if you put those people in a position where they have to use those beliefs to judge claims in the absence of other evidence, they are liable to believe lies. But _one_ of these groups believes the truth - <USER2> Obama is more charitable than Trump - and the other does not. In other words, much of the liberal susceptibility to fake news can be explained simply by pointing at the justifiably higher credence they have in many pro-liberal stories.

[1] I'm relatively well informed, so I'd give ~0% credence to either story about criminal charges. But if one of these stories were true, it would probably be true about the person who's already under investigation for his actions in the 2016 election.

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of- his-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-boasts-of-his- philanthropy-but-his-giving-falls-short-of-his- words/2016/10/29/b3c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html)

[3] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/02/06/obama-d...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/02/06/obama- donated-over-1-million-to-charity-as-president-heres-where-the-money-went/)

<comment><USER7> Not that I think giving away stuff is a desirable qualification for the presidency, but...

Trump provided his private plane to transport Andrew Ten, who had been refused by commercial airlines due to complicated life-support equipment. Trump provided Jennifer Hudson with a place to live after her family was murdered. Trump has donated his entire presidential salary, to various causes, most recently alcoholism research.

The big donor though is neither Obama nor Trump. It's Mitt Romney.

<comment><USER8> There is an active industry devoted to providing charity vehicles to help launder bad reputations of extremely wealthy people.

Simple application of Goodhart's law.</comment></comment></comment>


Best Practices for Technical Debt in Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://matthewmcateer.me/blog/machine-learning-technical-debt/ <comment><USER2> I highly recommend reading this post. I have been following Matthew's work for quite a long-time and his articles articulate sophisticated concepts in such a precise language.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice one Matthew! Bravo.

</comment><comment><USER4> this is a cool post</comment>


Kickstarter's Year of Turmoil - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive-historic-tech-industry.html <comment><USER3> Well that is gangsta. It's an unlikely coincidence that these three people had poor performance with such timing that led to firing in the same week or two. You gotta space out the firings to give the cover story more plausibility.

<comment><USER4> Critics of unions would point out that under-performing employees are more likely to benefit from unions, so they're more likely to try to organize them.

I have no idea if this is actually the case. It certainly makes it hard to sort out what's actually going on, here.

<comment><USER5> I remember a story my father told me when he started working (in Belgium). It was a bit before 9am, and everyone was standing in front of their workbench. My dad, a farmers son, thought it was weird and started working on his task. A colleague came up to him and said "we only start working at 9". Since then he, like all the others, stood there doing nothing until it was 9 o'clock.

Unions have a "us vs them" mentality, where the boss tries to pay you as little and try to get as much work out of you, and you do the least amount of work for the most pay.

I myself like to see a cooperation more as a win-win situation, where you do something for me and I for you. The more we do for each other, the better for both of us.

<comment><USER6> Would the workers have gotten paid more if they started before 9am? If not, it wasn't a "the more we do for each other" scenario, it was a "the more the workers do for their employer, with no additional compensation" scenario.

<comment><USER7> When you are trying to build a friendship with someone, do you only pay for coffee if they did it for you before? Or do you out out a good faith effort and buy them coffee or lunch a couple of times? Companies and employees are the same way. Companies will sometimes overpay someone in the hope for extra effort, or an employee may put in extra time in the hope for future rewards.

A win win approach is much better than a zero sum mindset to relationships and employment.

My employees who have a win win approach have been massively rewarded over time, those with zero sum mindsets don't last long here or anywhere else and never get beyond entry level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why are American companies so afraid of their employees unionizing? Because American unions have a history of creating an adversarial relationship between managers and employees. They're self serving and have a zero sum game outlook where they try to grab as much as they can from a company. The unions were a major contributor towards the collapse of the American auto industry.

European unions differ in that they are more focused on building a collaborative relationship with managers and aim to ensure stability and sustainability for the business. To achieve this, you need a certain level of societal trust and unity, which just isn't realistic at the moment in America.

<comment><USER9> > Why don't American's like unions?

Unions are a layer of bureaucracy, red tape and an entity that cares more about the Union than anything else.

Add to that, as a conservative and right leaning individual, the last thing I want is be forced to donate to left leaning organizations that go against my best interests.

Color it for what you will... I think there are cases where Unions do important things. But most of those cases are long in the past and most unions today are Yet Another Bureaucratic Mess that is useless and leaches off of society as a whole.

<comment><USER10> Well, great. Exactly 0 people are "forced" to pay into a union they don't want to be a part of! If you don't want a union job the solution is simple: don't take that job.

But I guess the numerous benefits you enjoy today because of unions don't matter all.

<comment><USER9> As of today... that may be true. It wasn't this way a few short years ago.

[https://reason.com/2019/04/09/janus-211000-workers-fled- seiu...](https://reason.com/2019/04/09/janus-211000-workers-fled-seiu-afscme/)

And, as expected... those who aren't forced to pay - don't. Because the fees aren't worth it in most cases.

> I guess the numerous benefits don't matter

As I said... in some cases and at one point most unions did "Good Things (tm)".

But like most "Good Things (tm)" that time has ended - for most unions - <USER2> we are in a point where the unions are largely useless and extra baggage that causes more harm than good.

And again - your "Unions don't matter? /tear" doesn't approach what is personally my main problem: My inability to decide where union dues go to.

<comment><USER10> You aren't following.

Before that law if a worker saw a company that was unionized they had every right to not take that job. If the job decided to unionize while he/she was employed, that worker also had the right to leave. There is no "force" at play, at all, no matter what reason.com or breitbart tells you.

That lawsuit was about enabling free riders with the ultimate goal of kneecapping unions. Arguing otherwise is silly.

<comment><USER9> You say kneecapping unions... I say not being a slave to an institution that doesn't represent me.

You say "they have every right not to take the job"... I say "if Unions were worth the price, they wouldn't have to force membership"

I'm not following? I know what unions are and what they aren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I might be missing something, but that's a plain out crime to do it right?

<comment><USER12> So's operating a taxi without a license or running a hotel in a residential area. If you can get enough investor money to ignore the consequences, laws don't stop this.

<comment><USER13> You are smuggling a connotation in with your denotation. When most people think of "crime", they think of robbery, assault, and other violent acts. They don't think of disregarding various business laws or (to use an example I think you'd agree with) possessing and using certain drugs. To give another example: By the technical definition, Martin Luther King committed crime by violating the racist laws of the south. Yet one should immediately become suspicious of anyone who says, "MLK was a criminal."

The technical term for this is the noncentral fallacy.[1]

1\. [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the- noncen...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral- fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world)

<comment><USER12> Nestlé straight up murdered a worker for unionizing, but sure, the problem is that the flagrant lawbreaking is not representative of corporate conduct, because only unpopular laws are publically broken.

<comment><USER13> I don't understand what you're getting at. Do you think I want union organizers to be fired from their jobs or murdered? I was simply pointing out that your argument is a cheap dig that could also be applied to pot smokers and MLK. People who disagree with you will see it as such and remain unconvinced by your arguments.

If you want to convince people, you have to figure out what would change their minds, not just hector them. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.

<comment><USER12> Maybe by presenting examples of hidden and public corporate disregard for law in their pursuit of profit. If you don't like the idea of a law as an absolute, maybe the same examples, framed as being against the public good. I want sunion organizers negotiated with, not fired OR murdered. If you're willing to overlook hidden events as "improbable" and public events as "not that bad" I don't really know what would convince such a person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Slate published an article about this on Thursday that has a lot more information and background: [https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter- turmoil-uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil- union-drive-historic-tech-industry.html)

Was submitted to HN here, but didn't get much attention: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962696](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962696)

<comment><AUTHOR> Much better link, suggest replacing mine with this article.

<comment><USER14> The tweets are a good follow-up too, since the article only said that sources had told them that Taylor Moore had been fired, so it's good to see his confirmation and additional info from him personally as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not a big fan of this headline - it's inflammatory and incomplete. This is one (unproven and completely unsubstantiated) accusation from one side of the story, made in a handful of tweets. Kickstarter also tweeted, and of course denies this:

[https://twitter.com/kickstarter/status/1172230162588536833](https://twitter.com/kickstarter/status/1172230162588536833)

The problem with this type of link on HN is that it's not a 'story' \- there's no investigative reporting - heck there's no reporting at all. Unfortunately this is a story is that most people will look at it and believe whichever side lines up with their personal belief system, in spite of a complete absence of facts.

The pro-union people will believe this is union busting no matter what is said or proven, and the pro-corporate people will believe that this individual deserved to be fired for other reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> What are the chances of _three_ people trying to unionize in a company being fired in a very short span of time for 'performance' reasons? Are you holding out until the company says 'Ok, caught, yes, we did fire them for trying to unionize'?

<comment><USER16> I could definitely a envision a theoretical situation where three poorly performing employees decide to unionize to protect themselves, then eventually get fired for poor performance.

Is that what happened? I don't know, but I'm not going to trust two tweets from two parties whose interests are against one another.

<comment><USER17> You need to back up your claim with evidence. In order to establish a union, you'll need at least 30% of the workers signing a petition. Would you sign such a petition if your incompetent colleague put it forward to you in the hope of protecting their job? Honestly, your scenario is far-fetched.

<comment><USER18> _In order to establish a union, you 'll need at least 30% of the workers signing a petition_

Why do you, what's the reasoning behind that kind of law? And to whom do they petition - does the company have to agree, or rather, does the employer have the right to forbid employees from forming agreements between themselves? It sounds counterintuitive when you only need 1 person to start a company, or 2 people to have a contract, and when employers have no other control over who employees meet with and little control over how employees spend money (e.g. 'work dress code').

<comment><USER17> I don't know the answer to your questions, but it is simply the law unless the employer voluntarily recognizes the union. Obviously employers don't have much incentive for doing so.

source: [https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats- law/employees/i...](https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats- law/employees/i-am-not-represented-union/your-right-form-union)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article was posted to HN yesterday or maybe the day before: [https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil- uni...](https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/kickstarter-turmoil-union-drive- historic-tech-industry.html)

It looks like unionization wasn't the only point of contention. In particular, a segment of Kickstarter's workforce conflicted with company leadership over an "Always Punch Nazis" comic book kickstarter project apparently made in reference to violence against Richard Spencer. Employees pressured leadership to reverse this decision.

The Slate article mentions that some employees saw a union as a means to exert more pressure over leadership on these sorts of decisions:

> Afraid that they would be dismissed next—and that they didn't have enough > leverage to pressure Kickstarter over ethical issues the next time there was > a disagreement—employees started discussing a union. Since March, the > organizers haven't requested recognition from the company nor have they held > a staff vote through the National Labor Relations Board. But the topic has > been ever-present.

My guess is that the company leadership doesn't want to be associated with this sort of promotion of violence against purported "Nazis" and took note of which employees were most vocal in drumming up support for keeping the project. While there is a far left segment that likes this kind of content, most people are adverse to promotions of violence - even against purported "Nazis", given how liberally that term is applied these days. Kickstarter probably doesn't want to have to go through employee drama every time this sort of content gets taken down.

Reply to PorterDuff, HN isn't letting me reply to your comment:

The solution is to push back against tribalism, which is exactly what Kickstarter is doing here.

<comment><USER20> Alternately, doesn't this mean Kickstarter censored satirical content due to a far-right hit piece?

Shouldn't people be decrying censorship at every turn? Because that's exactly what happened in this case when leadership decided to veto the decision and take it down.

<comment><USER19> Sure, but on the flip side this sets the precedent that promotion of violence is okay as long as it's "satirical". What happens when a far right group sets up a "satirical" comic about violently repelling illegal immigrants along the southern border? I'd hazard the guess that these same people would not want Kickstarter to host that content, and would pressure leadership to take it down - and the result is that Kickstarter is perceived as biased. Kickstarter probably doesn't want to get pushed into this corner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The moment I read the title, I came up a very satirical comment which I believe everybody came up so I don't bother to write it.

<comment><USER22> Was it a comment about running a kickstarter for these guys? Cos that's why I checked the comments, and was sorely disappointed :(

<comment><USER23> Wouldn't it be "start a GoFundMe" \- I thought KickStarter was for projects, not causes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> re: Unions

If a software union only existed to deal with the following:

. Pensions . Health insurance

I can see the point.

<comment><USER25> It could use the Hollywood unions as a model, at least partly. The Screen Actors Guild for example doesn't limit actors' ability to negotiate salaries independently but does allow for freelancers to get health insurance paid through employment in a larger network.

There are other benefits too. Elimating crunch without overtime.

<comment><USER24> That's an interesting point. I have friends in the movie makin' business and should ask how their unions work in terms of benefits, negotations, etc. The jobs all seems to be split into individual films as independent businesses so to a software contractor there would be a lot of similarities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Kickstarter is not a damned tech company. This whole stinking "tech" economy can't crash fast enough. A 2000'ish reset is needed to get rid of the dogfood.coms.

</comment><comment><USER27> I know close to nothing about unions or the KS story but I am from the US and myself along with almost everyone I know tend to associate unions with extreme wasting of resources. This is coming at it from a spectator's point of view (ie. not a union worker / not a unionized business owner).

For example, I've witnessed an overpass taking over 2 years to finish (it was blocked off / limited access / under construction the whole time) which involved fixing about 30 feet of road from a unionized crew. Every time workers were on the site it looked really inefficient. Over a dozen people there, but half of them were standing around on their phones, etc.. I've seen countless examples of this over my life time living in the US.

If I were a company I would be terrified that such inefficiencies are protected by a union. Personally I wouldn't fire anyone due to trying to organize one but can someone more knowledgeable in this area explain how a unionized workforce benefits both employees and the business hiring them?

<comment><USER28> That type of inefficiency isn't exclusive to unions, you realize that right?

You realize that maybe there were other factors involved that caused the bridge to take that long?

You realize that construction is often a very sequential process that can block other steps from being completed until the first is done?

Every part of your comment is completely anecdotal and could be due to myriad other factors.

> associate unions with extreme wasting of resources

sounds like 30+ years of anti-union propaganda working its charm.

<comment><USER27> > Sounds like 30+ years of anti-union propaganda working its charm.

I dunno. I see it all over the place.

Look at the US government. Most of the govt. run customer facing services are abysmal when it comes to efficiency (DMV, etc.). From my quick Googling the DMV is unionized. It doesn't end at the DMV either.

I know some types of construction jobs are usually sequential but I don't understand how in any circumstance it can take 2 years to fix 30 feet of road while it disrupted traffic the whole time. This isn't an isolated case either, I see similar things all the time.

<comment><USER29> Yeah because Comcast, EA, Verizon, and there are numerous private today constructions crews that aren't unionized and they are all known for great service. Unions have zero impact on quality or speed of work. All unions do is create a group of individuals to balance the power that corporations have. If unions had any real power in the United States, then wages wouldn't have failed to rise with the rate of efficiency for the last 50 years. Since Reagan went union busting wages have barely increased for the average worker against inflation. You know who has been getting more money? The corporate owners who have devalued all the public stocks while keeping the private stock for themselves. We don't live in a republic in the US anymore, we live in an oligarchy.

You know the single most efficient medical insurance? Medicare. Government doesn't need to be a bureaucratic mess, but when half of government is literally platformed on making government fail to prove government is broken, it's not really difficult to see why we're in the mess we're in. All I want is us to pay down our deficit instead of kicking the can down the road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Aren't Kickstarter salaries quite high already?

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kickstarter- Salaries-E49199...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Kickstarter- Salaries-E491996.htm)

<comment><USER31> Ignoring for the moment the non-salary benefits of a union: Look at it this way - aren't corporate profits quite high already? Yet they still merge and consolidate and cut costs and try to increase them further.

Why should labor not do the same?

Also, this seems like a reasonable question (with source for the claim!), that no doubt many others would share. I don't think the downvotes are warranted.

<comment><USER32> > " _Ignoring for the moment the non-salary benefits of a union: Look at it > this way - aren 't corporate profits quite high already? Yet they still > merge and consolidate and cut costs and try to increase them further._"

Imagine your waiter at a restaurant found out that you are a well paid programmer and tried to charge you extra on the bill for your meal because "aren't programmer salaries quite high already". Does that sound reasonable to you?

<comment><USER33> It sounds like a ridiculous and misleading analogy.

I don't employ my waiter. The restaurant employs my waiter.

I would be perfectly fine with a restaurant paying a waiter slightly more in return for happier waiters - especially if it meant that I didn't need to feel that my tips were keeping food on the waiter's table, instead of the restaurant's pay.

But imagine this - suppose a waiter at a restaurant discovered the restaurant was making millions for the owners, while their pay was so low they could barely cover rent and other basics?

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That is _exactly_ the situation many workers in the US and UK are in today.

Essentially there are two kinds of people - those who understand that this is a real problem, and those who don't.

The economy is run by those who don't - and it's much the worse for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Glassmaker Who Sparked Astrophysics (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/11/light/the-glassmaker-who-sparked-astrophysics <comment><USER2> Interesting statement in the article: "Though modern science finds minute variations in the speed of light in a vacuum or empty space..." I thought that this was a largely discredited hypothesis - is there more recent research in this area?

<comment><USER3> The vacuum isn't empty. Virtual particles are constantly popping in and annihalating nanoseconds later with their antipairs. They affect light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great article about the discovery of light spectra lines and their impact on astronomy. But the article should have also mentioned they lead to quantum physics.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. This is a great lecture that explains the connection: [http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec05.html](http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec05.html)</comment></comment>


Show HN: 2015 Walk and Bike commute rates by zip code overlaid on OpenStreetMap - <AUTHOR> https://davidbailey.github.io/bicycle.html <comment><USER2> Matches up with my expectations (very low rates regionally here). Is the underlying source data publicly available?

Also, note that the OpenCycleMap tiles you are using request specific attribution: [http://www.thunderforest.com/terms/](http://www.thunderforest.com/terms/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. The data is from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey: [http://www.census.gov/data/developers/data- sets/acs-5year.ht...](http://www.census.gov/data/developers/data- sets/acs-5year.html)

Here is the script to generate the GeoJSON file: [https://github.com/davidbailey/py/blob/master/walkbike2015.p...](https://github.com/davidbailey/py/blob/master/walkbike2015.py)

Thanks for the info about attribution. I've updated the page.</comment></comment>


Women-led companies perform three times better than the S&P 500 - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/women-led-companies-perform-three-times-better-than-the-sp-500/ <comment><USER2> In a 12 year period. So what about a 15 year period? Or a 20 year period? Or in a 12 year period but 10 years ago?

Results like that are generally bunk, or if they really cared, they would have made a broader statement (in these and those periods they performed like that).

I have only looked at the Credit Suisse paper that I think started this meme, and they clearly use a cut off point that makes women led companies look good. If they start their comparison a couple of years earlier, suddenly it looks different.

That's just standard methodology for companies like Credit Suisse whose main business is convincing people to buy stock. That same method is used to make stock market funds look good all the time (so that gullible people pay the 5% premium for the seemingly brilliant manager of that fund).

Other explanations of course could be: categories of businesses were trending that were more attractive to women (like digital services vs mining or something like that). Or the market in the time favored a risk averse approach and women tend to be more risk averse (don't know that) - there was a bad economical recession in that period of time (as they claim women "manage risk better" \- well there are times when more or less risk taking are called for).

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if women are CEOs and lead companies. I'm just wary of "narratives" that sound too good or too ideologically motivated.

<comment><USER3> 1\. A colleague of the author has commented in a lower thread that 12 years was the size of the data set available.

2\. If n is very small in a several-year period, you wouldn't be able to do meaningful analyses on that period. How many women CEO's were there in the Fortune 1000 in the 80's? 90's? I'm going to guess epsilonically few.

3\. Possible explanation that isn't hand-waving: selection bias, somewhat akin to the immigration effect. Because it's more challenging for women to get on a career path that eventually leads them to become a CEO, only the most determined/resourceful/hardworking will get there and be measured in the sample, whereas fewer men get weeded out. (e.g., IQ scores of H1B recipients from Asia is not representative of Asia as a continent, where IQ is a standin for whatever measurable trait you want here; and overall Asia and North America may well be quite comparable along most dimensions.)

<comment><USER2> So suppose they had done the study, and found no improved performance for women. Would they have published it? I guess the chance to get a result was roughly 50% (since stocks tend to go up or down, and the sample set of women- ceo-companies is probably small).

As to your explanation 3: that's just the kind of thing people want to believe who cherish such studies. At the same time there were also women who failed as CEOs (as the article said). Sure, it's a valid hypothesis, but there would be many ways to test it. For starters, there must already be studies correlating IQ to CEO success. What do they say?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is a link to a companion post to the Fortune article with more detail on the study: [https://www.quantopian.com/posts/research-an-update-to- inves...](https://www.quantopian.com/posts/research-an-update-to-investing-in- women-led-companies)

You can check out the full analysis and data set in a shared IPython notebook.

The study was done over a 12 year period because that's the full length of the pricing data available in the backtester Karen was using to do the study. It would be interesting to extend the analysis back in time as well.

NB: I work with Karen at Quantopian and we both have two X chromosomes :)

<comment><USER5> If you have a Bloomberg terminal, you can get more pricing.

Also, if you have a source of split-and-dividend-adjusted prices, you don't have to do a daily simulation, you can just simulate on the days when there is a buy or a sell.

Also, why does the leverage vary? Shouldn't it be 1.0 every day?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > ...finding that women CEOs in the Fortune 1000 drive three times the returns > as S&P 500 enterprises run predominantly by men.

Apples to oranges. Why not compare female-CEO companies in the Fortune 1000 to male-CEO companies from the Fortune 1000? Why not include how male-CEO companies from the Fortune 1000 compare to the S&P 500? Why not compare female-CEO companies in the S&P 500 to male-CEO companies in the S&P 500 to the average company in the S&P 500?

Most importantly, why do people's critical thinking skills go right out the window when female positive news stories hit?

<comment><USER7> Lack of data. If I could find the historical lists of the S&P500 including CEO gender, or the entire list of Fortune 1000 companies by year, I'd look at any of the alternatives you suggest. The reality is getting the data is pretty tough, so we work with what we have. I've actually just gotten a dump of data from Morningstar that should allow me to expand the scope, but as with everything, there is work involved to make it usable....so stay tuned.

<comment><USER6> OK, I've spent too much time on this.

First, sorry but no excuses for releasing questionable studies that will spread like wildfire due to confirmation bias. Just because something is 'girl positive' doesn't mean we should all abandon our critical thinking skills. It's a small fraction of these feminist studies that go viral that can withstand any amount of scrutiny which makes the movement look worse.

I figured out how to get Fortune 1000 companies arbitrarily far back, and the S&P500 back to 2005. But the information is under copyright. I spent a long time thinking about the implications of helping you subvert copyright and decided that it's not something I'm going to do even though I'd like to see the study done better.

If you want the 2014 Fortune 1000 with contacts (i.e. CEO names) it costs $1799 from Fortune, the historical data from 1996-2013 costs $399/yr though it's unclear if that includes CEO names. ([http://www.fortunedatastore.com/](http://www.fortunedatastore.com/)) Fortune's contact for historical data is female, she may be sympathetic to your cause. The S&P500 data might cost another $5-10k.

Since what you're doing is commercial your company has a responsibility to go through the proper channels to get your data. Really, the project is being used for advertising and brand-recognition. I also think your company has a responsibility to make sure you have the data you need to do proper analysis when you're representing the company.

Honestly I can't believe a company focused on quantitative market analysis doesn't already have this data!

Once you have CEO names it should be fairly straightforward to assign gender.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Fortune article refers to analysis done by my colleague Karen Rubin.

The research was done in an IPython notebook, on the Quantopian platform. You can see (and copy) the full notebook here: [https://www.quantopian.com/posts/research-investing-in- women...](https://www.quantopian.com/posts/research-investing-in-women-led- fortune-1000-companies)

</comment><comment><USER9> How about, instead of attackin the methodology, in some suspiciously misognistic approach to proving women cannot be the cause, we propose some hypothesis for why this might be true.

\- women in business today are like female scientists of merely one or two generations ago. Only the brilliant / driven can overcome the obstacles, and brilliant driven people will outperform, and as CEO they drive the company to perform.

\- companies that have sufficient internal mobility that a female CEO is able to be appointed, also are likely to have many other qualities that will allow the company to outperform.

Personally I prefer the second as an explanation for why the companies shown are doing better, and the first as an explanation of why those particular women are CEOs. (I'm not a big fan of the superstar CEO theory)

Thoughts?

<comment><USER10> > Thoughts?

Yes. We should take methodological criticism seriously.

If the methodology is flawed, why should effort be put into searching for hypotheses? If the methodology is flawed, then the results are not valid, and any hypotheses are meaningless as well.

</comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter Free Money! Just buy the stock of all Wiltshire 5000 companies with a female CEO and we should be good. Who wants to subscribe to my index fund?

More seriously there's research on company performance before and after either Norway or Sweden put a quota of woman members on company boards. I have heard differing things on it, positive and negative and would be delighted if someone who wasn't skiving off work could add to the discussion by citing some of that research. In general female and male executives are dissimilar in their career trajectories. Women are much more likely to be company lifers for one. That's not going to be the only difference but it is plausible that there are more intervening factors than whether or not the CEO has XX chromosones.

<comment><USER2> Maybe CEOs of ill performing companies are more likely to be fired, and their replacement less likely to be a woman (since there are few candidates overall).

Just guessing - that's probably not it. But I think results like that are generally interesting as something seems to be going on. I just can't stand it if people jump to conclusions, usually to the ones that support their biases. It would be great to learn what is really going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Selection bias. Only the best and brightest get to run companies. Much easier for men to run companies. Which obviously says something bad about our society - but it does not mean that women run companies better than men.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hey moderators, did this set off the flamewar detector? Because I don't think that's the article's fault, and people may well have things to say that aren't flamebait.

Current count of comments = 31; points = 37.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if this is more an effect that because a fewer number of women become leaders of the companies that the leaders they get are better then average.

Similarly to how during World War 2 when African American pilots were finally allowed to fly (The Tuskegee Airmen) they outperformed many other squadrons due to all the barriers put up ensured that they had the most dedicated, smartest and toughest pilots.

</comment><comment><USER5> My concern is that he didn't calculate internal rate of return (IRR) correctly, and adjust for market conditions when the female CEO was hired/fired. It's hard to tell without verifying the details.

For example, suppose a company hired a female CEO during the market bottom in 2002 and fired her before the crash in 2008. Then, that would cause the "female CEO" statistic to be inflated relative to the S&P 500. If you calculate the relative IRR, it's more correct.

I.e., instead of a buy-and-hold S&P 500 investment vs buying/selling when the female CEO is hired/fired, you should instead buy $100k of the S&P 500 and female CEO stock SIMULTANEOUSLY, and then cash out both holdings when the female CEO is fired.

If you buy-and-hold the S&P 500 for 12 years vs buy/sell during a female CEO tenure, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. That isn't properly adjusting for the market conditions when the female CEO was hired/fired.

He didn't provide enough details for me to check. I'd need a list of female CEO Tickers, hire/fire dates, and split-and-dividend-adjusted share price on the two dates.

<comment><USER8> There's a slightly different methodology here, but one consistent with what you're looking for.

On one line, buy-and-hold the S&P 500. Re-invest all dividends. You are 100% in the market at all times.

On the other line, buy-and-hold all companies run by female CEOs, weighted by the number of companies. Rebalance your portfolio every time a company is added or removed. You are 100% in the market at all times.

I think that if you look at the IPython notebook that the Fortune article refers to you can find the details spelled out in code.

(FWIW, the calculations are done by a she, not a he! It's my colleague Karen.)

<comment><USER5> What link?

The method you mention is correct. It wasn't clear reading the article that was what she did.

I'm looking for the raw list of female CEOs, Tickers, and hire/fire dates. I'm also wondering if the results are different based on sector.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> oh look—a provocative headline with poor science, practicing poor prudence. Clearly, no one's trying to make money, especially not fortune.com /s

</comment><comment><USER14> Couldn't this just mean that firms who hire a new CEO regardless of gender see an increase in stock price?

If they did the same test but for any new CEO I wonder what the results would be.

</comment><comment><USER14> "You've heard that companies with women executives at the helm tend to perform better than those led by men..."

What a nice sexist introduction.

<comment><USER15> "Now anyone who disagrees, has never actually heard this, or is bothered by opening with a sweeping prejudiced claim, has stopped reading. Let us proceed to strengthen the confirmation bias of those still reading..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Companies can afford the marketing luxury of a female CEO when they're on the upswing. Companies fighting to survive appoint ugly fat dudes.

</comment><comment><USER17> It really should be no surprise that these progressive companies have performed better than average. Society places higher expectations on women, so of course they must overperform!</comment>


Corporate Open Source Repositories You Never Knew Existed - <AUTHOR> http://www.manageability.org/blog/stuff/open_source_repos

<comment><USER2> Another (probably more-known) one: <http://opensource.apple.com/>

They get ( _ahem_ ) behind on the GPL code releases (especially for iOS), but it's still a useful site.

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr Eight repositories, and there's probably a reason why you didn't know about those eight repositories. Many, many other references to permutations of Java and "Open Source" at that site. Certainly looks intended for SEO, too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Additionally: <http://gpl.ea.com/>

</comment><comment><USER5> the ads on the page are larger than the actual list of repos.</comment>


Cisco Introduces Foundation for Next-Generation Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Cisco-Introduces-Foundation-Next-Generation-Internet-The-Cisco-CRS-3-Carrier-Routing-NASDAQ-CSCO-1128931.htm

<comment><USER2> _The Cisco CRS-3 triples the capacity of its predecessor, the Cisco CRS-1 Carrier Routing System, with up to 322 Terabits per second, which enables the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress to be downloaded in just over one second; [...]_

How much longer until LoC finally becomes an official SI-unit?</comment>


Ask HN: What tools and practises you use for capacity planning / metrics? - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested to find out what tools (if any) people are using for capacity planning and metrics on growth.
(By growth I'm talking about Database, Disk, Performance and of course number of users etc...)
Are people just using spreadsheets with input from monitoring sources, or are there some fancier tools out there? (F/OSS please!)
Background:
I work for a web app company with 300~ servers and we need to be smarter with our capacity planning, some of our larger apps don't currently scale well horizontally and I'm interested to know when and where to target our efforts (i.e. redevelop parts of the apps vs just throwing money at hardware / virtual hardware upgrades). <comment><AUTHOR> I think I accidentally a word in the title.</comment>


The Threat of a Brain Drain Under a Trump Presidency Is Real - happy-go-lucky http://motherboard.vice.com/read/trump-election-science-tech <comment><AUTHOR> The big loss will not be emigration, though some will undoubtedly occur, but lack of immigration by those of ethnicities or beliefs that would _feel_ unwelcome (and many of whom would undoubtedly _be_ unwelcome to many of Trump's fans).

</comment><comment><USER2> Let's give him one or two days in office shall we? People thought Obama was going to destroy this country too.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I hate that he won, but it's done and this sort of speculating is a waste of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hyperventilation and hysteria seem to be a greater threat at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER5> Considering Miley is leaving (supposedly), I reckon the collective intelligence might go up under Trump.

</comment><comment><USER6> At this point I think we the elite liberal college-educated urban dwellers should round up all the Trump supporters and lock them all up behind a great big wall in Kentucky. There they can be happy and ignorant in their own bubble. It is clear that the educational system failed these people and that we are superior. We need to rise up and stomp them out.</comment>


Intelligent and Efficient Home Automation for Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.exahome.net

<comment><AUTHOR> I am so proud to be finally able to share the project we were working on for the last six months. Developed by two fanatics for efficient electronics and high performance software, Exahome is the first intelligent home automation system that improves your comfort while saving energy and resources. It is designed as an open ecosystem allowing everybody to extend it and build modules or extend the software via APIs. We would love to read your feedback.

<comment><USER2> Is there anything you can actually show? It's pretty pictures and nice promises in the text, but not many useful concrete details anywhere? Or did I miss something?

A lot of your description could be (probably misleading) marketing material for already existing solutions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally see your point and you are right, we were just so excited that I posted too early.

We already started writing a page with technical details. We have a prototype that is running for months, and we are making a video to demonstrate the hardware and the app.</comment></comment></comment>


Announcing Etcd 3.4.0 - <AUTHOR> https://kubernetes.io/blog/2019/08/30/announcing-etcd-3-4/ <comment><USER2> Learner status looks like a nice improvement !</comment>


Showing the power of social media: Rovio marketing budget for Angry Birds: $0 - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-20122192-250/new-bird-coming-to-angry-birds/?tag=mncol;posts

<comment><AUTHOR> Monthly users: 130 million. Daily users: 30 million. Minutes of gameplay a day: 300 million ~ Marketing budget so far: $0</comment>


YouTube - TRANSFORM Your IPHONE INTO A STUN GUN - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0lxnkNZEw&feature=player_embedded <comment><USER2> Nice job indeed (with the video), but looks totally fake to me. Like they did the electric arc in After Effects.

One thing's for sure, there's no way they're getting that into the App Store... Apple doesn't like it when you repurpose the buttons!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is going to get out of hand pretty quickly. Nice job though.</comment>