Suggestion: YC should provide its founders with W2 benefits for one year. Healthcare, Life insurance... - <AUTHOR>

(Almost certainly, I am not applying but thought this would help those who are).
There is sometimes a perception that YC is perhaps exploiting founders. This is because it is founded on the VC model. This can be removed if it is more like a "temporary job to work at your own startup".
More like IBM or Microsoft provide elite employees, the freedom to work at their own R&D projects aka skunkworks - but in this case, making them into successful businesses.
suggestion: YC should provide its founders with W2 benefits for one year. Healthcare, Life insurance, etc.
<comment><USER2> While I don't think this is a particularly good idea--as pg pointed out, you have to be an employer of people to insure them in any reasonable scalable way, because that's just the way the world of insurance works right now--I do think that this (not just insurance, but all of the boring crap like that) is perhaps the biggest single pain point of building a business. In the first months or year or whatever it takes, you don't have enough to pay for the problem to go away, but you can't ignore payroll, insurance, income taxes, franchise taxes for the corporation, basic bookkeeping and accounting.

I'm not even sure what kind of person to hire for some of these tasks. Obviously an accountant is expensive overkill for payroll and bookkeeping, and the accountants I have known outsource it. Administaff doesn't seem to like very small companies (or at least they charge as though they don't like them). The online services I've used for payroll have ended up with me doing most of the hard work by hand (they're glorified calculators with all the percentages already punched in, but they don't handle actually paying people or getting the taxes paid).

And, of course, no one should ever be without health insurance for any period of time. It's just too much risk. But I haven't found health insurance to be the hardest part to deal with: just call up Unicare. They provide individuals with reasonable health care plans for reasonable price. I pay $84/month for a crappy plan (but I'm in good health, with no bad or dangerous habits, so I just want to know that if I go to the hospital it won't bankrupt me).

Also, as for aston's point, you might be surprised. Group health insurance is much more expensive than individual plans for young healthy people (most of what YC funds). I looked into it and group insurance for me would cost about $280/month, vs. the $84 I'm paying now. The insurance a company buys for you has to deal with pre-existing conditions, dependents, all ages, etc. and generally doesn't even discriminate based on smoker/non-smoker status. Of course, the group rates I was looking at were for a 2-10 person company, while YC would be covering 50 or so people, so the rates might be considerably lower at that scale.

Anyway, it's not a bad idea for YC to do something about all of these stupid but necessary aspects of business. The days I'm doing bookkeeping or payroll or taxes are days that are really painful...I can't think of anything in my day to day life that I hate more. I'm now in a position to pay someone for them to go away, but I'd have to find that someone or someones...

But that's just me complaining. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> We've thought of it. Unfortunately insurance cos don't have any provision for investors wanting to do this. They'd only talk to us if we made all the founders YC employees, which would mess up things for future investors, acquirers, etc.

<comment><USER4> My employer offers health insurance and other benefits through Administaff, a company that specializes in HR outsourcing. Perhaps if YC arranged for Administaff to handle all of the companies it invested in, it could get some kind of volume discount.

<comment><USER5> I've worked for a company that used Administaff too, and it would work out well for a company that needs HR outsourcing. But how many YC startups need HR, much less need to outsource it? We're talking about companies with essentially no payroll, which is the first function of HR that you outsource.

And YC contracting to have Administaff carry founders as W-2 workers has many of the same problems as making the founders straight-up YC employees.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a benefit that YC being a fairly large entity, can provide to their founders to reduce some of the stress and worry.

What about employees who own their business - would that still mess things up for them vis-a-vis VCs?

YC would be a loose umbrella of organizations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Almost everyone here is a young healthy male. Pretty much the only thing we really need health insurance for is car accidents. If you ramp up your deductable > $1000 health insurance will cost less than your cell phone bill. Your company could give everyone high deductable insurance and agree to pay their entire deductable if they get in an accident. Barring a freakish number of accidents you'll probably save a bundle of money. Of course this doesn't account for people with chronic health problems. But they're not likely candidates for startups anyways.

<comment><USER7> Until you get a cavity ($350 and up for a filling, these days), or need new glasses (ditto), or have get some minor infection, and have to visit the doctor for a course of antibiotics (easily $200, not counting the cost of the prescription).

I'm not saying that it's impossible to survive without health insurance -- just don't underestimate the costs of seemingly minor medical services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just add it to your monthly expenses -- apply to eHealthInsurance.com and get either short-term insurance (cheaper, doesn't cover normal visits) or one of the PPOs.

The only trick is you don't know exactly where you'll be living at first, so if you could use YC's address to get the process started then you could apply and get accepted _before_ you move so you don't have a gap in coverage.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is one of the few benefits of a single-payer system.. It might actually encourage entrepreneurship, since healthcare is so prohibitively expensive.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone who can't spare $100 and change a month for a bare minimum plan shouldn't be going into business. Many full time jobs these days don't even come with health benefits during the first 1-12 months.

I second going the ehealhinsurance path.

<comment><AUTHOR> the $100/month individual plan doesnt get you anything. However a group plan gets you much cheaper coverage and much wider benefits.

I know it too well - been on both sides of the fence with the same provider (Blue Cross Blue Shield).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Healthcare might actually be a pretty interesting option. It's cost- prohibitive for small companies, but reasonable for a program as large as YC.

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't CA thinking of doing universal healthcare anyway?</comment>


The Norwegian Secret to Enjoying a Long Winter - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/3052970/how-to-be-a-success-at-everything/the-norwegian-secret-to-enjoying-a-long-winter <comment><USER2> Norway does have a lot of community oriented activities especially if you have children. There are ski-clubs everywhere for cross country skiing, and those clubs often have "lys-løype" (lit tracks) and a man who drives a tracked vehicle that makes the line-tracks in the snow. This means there are clearly designated areas where skiiers can park and ski on a course. The ski-club where I live also produce a map of a nearby forest with all the winter trails marked out. The tourist board of Norway have "get outside days" for children and organised clubs all year around to encourage use of the countryside. Ski- clubs also arrange for garage-sale type events where almost new and used gear can be gotten cheaply. There is no stigma around this in Norway even among the more well off. Buying new gear for growing children is OK, but getting it cheap is more OK (a lot of Norway is wealthy because people are frugal, I think they remember times before the oil boom!).

It's almost impossible to avoid being harassed into going cross country skiing in Norway. Accept and assimilate.

<comment><USER3> One of my favorite books as a kid was _Snow Treasure_ , which involves kids sledding the country's gold bullion past unsuspecting Nazis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Treasure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Treasure)

 _It 's almost impossible to avoid being harassed into going cross country skiing in Norway. Accept and assimilate._

Heh, that's something I think I'd like, too bad I live in a more temperate zone, we're not even _assured_ of getting a serious snow in any given winter. And as I remembered, apropos of it, the sport of biathlon, cross country skiing + shooting, two activities that work at physiological cross purposes, originated in Norway: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Or, move to SF or LA where "winter" means a few months of scattered showers once a week and occasionally days where a hoodie is more comfortable than just a t-shirt.

<comment><USER5> Yeah like how. Do you know how hard it is to get a greencard or residence permit for Northern Europeans?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Well written, thanks</comment>


Ask HN: Dress for interview with an Incubator/VC firm? - <AUTHOR>

This may seem like a silly question, but what is the expectation for dress?
In my mind, I'm not applying for a job, so it would be business casual... a suit would be silly. But I'm not sure if there are any expectations out there with these VCs/angels.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> At YC there are certainly none. We tell people to dress like they do ordinarily. We do. Which in my case means shorts and Birkenstocks.

<comment><USER3> I think the way an individual normally dresses is a reflection of their personality. You can infer quite a bit about what someone is like based on their pants, shoes, shirt, and even overall coordination. Some of these inferences are valuable, others are just interesting. This certainly doesn't mean that you are smarter or more motivated if you wear a suit.

<comment><USER4> Or you could just talk to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Dress how you want to present yourself and your company. Are you planning on being a casual, fun workplace, then dress like that. Are you targeting a financial area, then you need to show you can do the suit and tie.

Personally, I never wear a suit and tie or a white shirt. My standard is a pair of slacks and button down. A lot of that has to do with my extreme height and trying to break it up with color. Everyone's different, you need to find your own personal style. How you want to present yourself to the world.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response.

I never wear a suit or tie, either. I wear sneakers, jeans, and a polo to work everyday. I work for an ecommerce company, so it makes sense. But something about the image of people with money to invest just made me question my perception of what is "acceptable" or expected.

Good insight on just dressing based on how we foresee our company. A suit would definitely make sense if the idea were B2B in the payments industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've wondered about this as well.

I'd guess it would depend on the investor and the type of perception you are trying to convey about yourself and your product. (I'm hip, I'm smart, I'm successful, I'm trustworthy for investment, etc).

Hopefully your funding doesn't depend on your fashion sense, but perhaps there's something to that first impression thing and other intangibles.

<comment><AUTHOR> "Hopefully your funding doesn't depend on your fashion sense" -- If that were the case, a whole lot of us would be screwed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> i agree with the no suit sentiment. but i work in a place where plenty of people look like crap in a suit. it's all about how you take care of yourself. you can look put together in shorts and flip flops. ultimately you're asking someone to give you hundreds of thousands of dollars. your ability to get dressed in the morning will say a lot about your ability to build a company.

</comment><comment><USER8> If i could come to YC or other VCs interview, i would wear a t-shirt with my startup/idea identity. Would it be silly?</comment>


Ask HN: How effective are software trade shows for getting clients? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Given we decided to fly halfway across the world for a big name startup conference to launch, I think it will end up being one of the worst ROI things we ever do. Chalk that up to beginners mistake.

That said, we are looking to attend and sponsor smaller more targeted events closer to home in the future.</comment>


Python.NET (pythonnet) 2.3.0 released with docker and nuget support - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/releases/tag/v2.3.0 <comment><USER2> For those who were wondering about IronPython vs Python.NET here is the relevant SO [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1168914/ironpython-vs- pyt...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1168914/ironpython-vs-python-net)

<comment><AUTHOR> Another non-biased reference here: [http://docs.python- guide.org/en/latest/starting/which-python...](http://docs.python- guide.org/en/latest/starting/which-python/)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Installation options:

[https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/wiki/Installation](https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/wiki/Installation)

Re-designed docs:

[http://pythonnet.github.io/](http://pythonnet.github.io/)

Short intro and tags:

[https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/blob/master/README.md)</comment>


Solar Power Blowing Up in the United States - <AUTHOR> http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/13/solar-power-blowing-up-in-the-united-states/

<comment><USER2> Having just worked at a company that installs solar panels, one thing was obvious - the use of solar panels was driven largely by government incentives, that are steadily being cut back. Perhaps the cost will drop enough over time to make up for the loss of those government incentives, but I don't think that's a sure thing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, as much as I'd like to believe it... a report from "Solar Energy Industry Association" is not a very independent analysis.

And there's the problem with presenting a bar graph showing _linear_ growth over the next few years, followed by a text that says the claim is for "exponential" growth over the next few years.

<comment><USER4> The graph does not show growth increasing linearly, as you say. What it shows is that the _rate of growth_ is increasing linearly, which indicates that there is an acceleration in how fast solar power capacity is being created. Thus, the growth of installed power plants will in fact be increasing quadratically.

In layman's terms, quadratic growth is often referred to (incorrectly) as "exponential" growth. If the article included a graph of the total solar power capacity over time, it would indeed appear to be increasing "exponentially."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Um, no one sees any problems with that chart? Every single point except the first one for the current year is theoretical and assume projections of increases per year that are more than total current capacity. That's like taking the US GNP and making a projection that we will undergo 150% growth the next two years, then stabilize into linear growth after that at the same rate.

Saying that things are "blowing up" currently just ain't so. Where is the 2009 to 2010 curve, and how did they get the starting point in 2010 when the year isn't even over yet.

Sorry, but this is clearly an article placed by solar panel salesmen.

<comment><AUTHOR> if you read through the article, you'll see that solar capacity more than doubled from 2009-2010. it would be nice if it included previous growth, which actually was similar. but this is more about the future based on what is happening now and expected in the future... i'm sure they used the previous years' data though & showing those data in such a graph would be useful as well. however, the site covers that regularly, so I think the regular readers are quite familiar with the info.

<comment><USER5> We might want to clarify here that you are a professional writer for the site in question and the author of the given post; also you post a similar comment there in response to a similar question. Also, despite having access to the alleged pre-2010 data in question that you say is well known to regular readers on your site you provide no links to demonstrate where this data might be.

By the way, on another topic, you need to check out your site in Safari, there is a fatal javascript loop. Probably a bug in Safari since it doesn't manifest in other browsers but it should still be addressed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The most amazing thing about solar energy is clearly it's ability to enable extrapolating a trend line from a single data point, and an estimated one at that. How efficient!

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm really looking forward to the advances that are being made in solar power. Just a few short years ago, it was still mostly an inefficient pipe dream. We're a long way off from being able to fully charge daily-used commuter vehicles with on-board solar panels (to reduce our dependence on coal and oil burned to charge the current wave of electric vehicles) but grid-connected solar farms are gaining a lot of traction. I like that.

<comment><USER8> You are _forever_ away from fully charging a commuter vehicle with on-board solar panels.

given: the daily solar power on a sunny day is about 4 kilowatt hours per square meter.

given: you have a big roof and get 2 square meters of solar panels.

assume: You can have magical 100% efficient panels instead of the 20-30% you could have.

compute: You get 8 kilowatt hours of energy each day.

google: That is about 30 megajoules of energy.

wikipedia: Gasoline has 35 megajoules per liter.

thusly: Your tiny car with a huge roof covered in impossibly efficient solar panels will get you the equivalent of one liter of gasoline a day.

§

But I have to wonder: Why are you carrying your solar panels around with you? That just wastes energy. Let them sit somewhere and send power to the grid. Pick up the power where you need it, when you need it.

The only function for a roof mounted solar panel is to look really cool in concept art.

<comment><USER9> Your analysis is way too conservative. An analysis by Tesla Motors some time ago calculated that if you drive the Roadster an average of 35 miles a day, you need about 105ft^2 of solar panels to produce all the electricity for it, assuming 18%-efficient solar panels. [1]

The Tesla Roadster has an area, when viewed from the top, of 72ft^2. [2] That means if you were able to cover it with solar panels that were 27% efficient, you could power it just from the power it produced.

As far as your last point, I agree: I'd rather put the solar panels on the garage roof, where I can somewhat control how much sunlight it gathers, than on the car.

1\. [http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/electric-cars-and- photovolta...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/electric-cars-and-photovoltaic- solar-cells)

2\. <http://www.netcarshow.com/tesla/2008-roadster/>

<comment><USER8> Good numbers in the Tesla Roadster wikipedia introduction.

wikipedia: The tesla roadster use 490 kiljoules per kilometer.

compute: Our 30 megajoules above will take us 38 miles.

Of course I'm still using mythical 100% efficient solar cells on a biggish flat roof and all sunny days, and Tesla used mythical shape hugging solar cells on all of their exposed surfaces.

I still think the best solution for a solar powered car is to place your solar cells the south western deserts near LA and pull what power you need from the grid. That way you get a lot more power delivered from your cells.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hate to say it, but this felt... spammy. They didn't include any trending data from now, they just... kinda drew a line upwards?

Yeah, solar power is cool, it's growing and reasonable to assume it will continue doing so. Article's rather light on information, though.

</comment><comment><USER11> Harvesting the power of government stimulus.

<comment><AUTHOR> a lot more government money goes into other forms of energy, though</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to determine legitmate enterprise features? - <AUTHOR>

Besides 'support', I'm not sure what should offer to enterprise users. @patio11 says that I should charge more and have enterprise, but I don't know what big companies want in particular that the basic or premium plans don't cover (or, in truth, what you can get away selling to them).
Enterprise features always seem shrouded in a 'contact us' black box, and so there doesn't seem to be a de-facto solution as to what features should be offered. Granted ,there isn't a one-size-fits all anyway, but I'm sure there are generalities that can be picked up on. <comment><USER2> There are some key terms that immediately signal "enterprise solution" that I know of:

\- Single sign on (integrating authentication/authorization with other tools)

\- Auditing (letting them track every action their users take)

\- White-labeling (removing all your branding in exchange for theirs)

\- Maintenance (charging additional ~20% of yearly invoice for bugfixes/support/integration assistance)

</comment><comment><USER3> ideas, though you really should tell us what your product is so we don't have to guess:

\- yearly invoices instead of monthly credit card charges

\- thirdparty authentication (e.g. their LDAP/Active directory), or other user management, multi-user setups, ability for an admin to wipe all data of a employee that leaft

\- on premises installation

\- everything in their brand colors, even if it's an internal tool

<comment><AUTHOR> As stated, I wanted to see which features were generic to enterprise in general.

Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Indemnity in the case of IP infringement.

Source code escrow. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow)

</comment><comment><USER5> What are you selling?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going to be selling a B2B SaaS. Rather than be hyper-specific, I'm wondering if there's a list of highest conversion and most wanted enterprise features to sell?

If support is common amongst enterprise tiers, I'm sure there are some other things as well.

<comment><USER5> Ok. The reason I was asking is that it depends on what scratch you will itching (eh, I'm funny).

Generally speaking, think of it this way: I can buy from multiple vendors, some of which show up in some magic quadrant report which my CTO reads. Why would I pick your product instead?

The usual good reasons are that you can provide me with professional services to do the integration, educate users, participate in project delivery, etc, but essentially that you are able to somehow remove some degree of risk for me and the company. You will most likely need to show some evidence of compliance to best practices for security, data privacy and segregation.... well depends on what you product does and what company you are selling to, for sure, but think of the PCI and Data Protection Act's guidelines at a bare minimum even if not directly applicable.

Specifically around support, I will want to know what are your SLAs including MTTR, MTBF and availability to begin with, and then I expect you to sell me 2 or 3 support coverage contracts (bronze, silver, gold) and offer me a possibility to design my own (platinum) if I need better. See Google's GCE page for instance: [https://cloud.google.com/support/](https://cloud.google.com/support/)

Hope this helps you somewhat, but without knowing more it will be hard for me to get into any more detail.

<comment><USER6> Jumping in here since you seem to have some experience in this: what about on- premise installation? I understand that's often a differentiator for enterprise but how do those work? Is it just distributed as a VM image? Who is responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of that VM?

<comment><USER7> Depends how you set it up.

(I'll caveat below by saying that when I talk about 'enterprise', we're talking about >500 employees and hundreds of millions in revenue annually.)

In many cases, they'll have their environment set up with standard *nix and Windows SOEs. You'll work with their admins to configure your software, and you'll direct them how to integrate it into their environment (DNS, etc). You'll need to think about backups, security, access management, and how all of this will integrate with their existing requirements.

Support arrangements differ, for example if you have an SQL DB underneath your software they might want it on their standard image, in which case you'll have to deploy and configure your software accordingly. Typically, they'll be responsible for the maintenance of the platforms, and you'll be the support for the software. No enterprise will simply deploy a VM image you hand to them (unless you're Oracle or MS).

You'll also have to provide other support materials, so their helpdesk can support their end-users.

As others have mentioned, you'll be agreeing to SLAs with them (eg a Priority 1 incident will need immediate phone support, P2 incidents need acknowledgement within 24 hours, and so on). You'll be issuing a yearly invoice most likely.

You'll have to agree to their standard IT services contract, and because you're a small vendor you probably won't get much say in the way of changes. Depending on how large your contract is (north of ~$50-100k perhaps?), you'll need to make sure you can comply with any of their insurance requirements (things like public liability, etc). You might also have to demonstrate financial stability, both historically, and into the future (with a business strategy, plans, etc)

TLDR: Enterprise companies can seem super hardcore about this if you're used to dealing with small shops.

<comment><USER6> Very interesting, thanks! The VM notion came from the way github distributes their enterprise offering--you're saying most large companies wouldn't like that?

What if the DB tier isn't standard SQL? Will that be a barrier? (I assume the receiving IT dept doesn't get involved until very late in/after the sales process, but presumably they could still put a wrench in things if they find the deployment too complex.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DIY air filter for polluted cities - <AUTHOR> http://particlecounting.tumblr.com/post/55483627230/how-to-make-a-diy-air-purifier <comment><USER2> Smart air filters has a similar idea: [http://smartairfilters.com/en](http://smartairfilters.com/en)

Both projects use a Dylos particle counter, which is a great tool.

</comment><comment><USER3> I built a very similar thing in the US. I don't know where these fans or hepa filters are sold, but I buy a standard 20" boxfan at walmart ($16ish USD), and a 3M Filtrete AC filter in 20x20x1" size (also ~$15USD). These come in different ratings, so I buy the "allergen reducer" rating or higher.

Duct tape to the back of the box fan, done.

<comment><USER3> Fan like this: [http://www.lowes.com/pd_625625-1225-HBF2010A-WM_0__](http://www.lowes.com/pd_625625-1225-HBF2010A-WM_0__)

Filter like this: [http://www.walmart.com/ip/Filtrete-Advanced-Allergen- Reducti...](http://www.walmart.com/ip/Filtrete-Advanced-Allergen-Reduction- Filter-Available-in-Multiple-Sizes/42132268)

They even have a filter embedded with carbon if you're a smoker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would add activated carbon filter to remove even more stuff</comment>


I made a website of icons from Wikipedia - <AUTHOR> http://icons.wiki/ <comment><USER2> It would be nice to see the articles associated with them.</comment>


The Longest Record Broken: Gold/Silver Ratio Hits Highest in Over 5,000 Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-longest-record-broken%3A-gold-silver-ratio-hits-highest-in-over-5000-years-2020-03-17 <comment><USER2> Here's my explanation as an ex fund manager:

Gold is the Schelling point flight-to-safety, anti-inflation good. Silver has similar qualities, and might as well be the same thing economically, but it isn't. You're more likely to have heard of gold bugs than silver bugs.

When it comes to a massive market panic like this, people think about what other people think about. Well, they always do that, but when there's a panic people have certain safe haven assets that everyone "agrees" are more likely to be safe than others.

Bonds are another one, though of course there you have historically had massive government intervention, making it a little less unintuitive why people should buy them.

<comment><USER3> As I wrote below, gold has been a very dubious hedge for equity market crashes. As a matter of fact, in the last 2 decades, gold sold off with the initial market panic and it only started appreciating with the equity recovery.

Truth is that very if (if any) people understand gold, and it's use as a safe haven for market panic is highly questionable. It has certain correlation regimes with bonds and inflation, but given the sparsity of data on market stresses (they are by definition rare events), it is very difficult to draw any sound conclusions.

I explicitly exclude any events pre-2008, as the world now is completely different. The only thing that perhaps translates from the pre-2008 environment to our current situation is the magnitude of the selloffs, but everything else is different.

<comment><USER4> Is it fair to say that gold is just as speculative and prone to panic as ... most things?

<comment><USER3> Yes. Gold has become (or always was?) as much a speculative asset as pretty much anything else. It's difficult to find a safe haven asset in any crash, because there are so many feedback loops and non-obvious relationships. Ex post we see of course many asset managers come out of the woodwork beating their drum on how their expertise allowed them to buy the safe haven asset that happened to work in a crash. This is survivorship bias at it's clearest.

After 2008, central banks managed to stop every single market stress with a firehose of money. Eventually this became an actual trade. Every single selloff was bought heavily by traders because of the near-certainty that CBs will provide a hard backstop to the panic.

Until last week, where a new regime is starting emerge perhaps where CB tools have suddenly stopped working, at least short term. Perhaps once the selloff stops, the massive money supply support will re-accelerate the buying, but right now we are in uncharted territory. The current market behavior is unprecedented. We saw the 3rd biggest one day loss in the entire history of S&P 500. Intraday volatility is through the roof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I bought $300 worth of silver last night, and I plan to buy more while I can. The government is injecting a massively gigantic amount of cash into the economy to counter the decreased velocity of money, but within a year and a half or so, the velocity of money will sharply increase, possibly higher than before. That will cause such a high rate of inflation that I'm afraid of what could happen. I bought physical coins because I don't know if the financial institutions will waver, crumple, or at very least become inaccessible for a while. I've stashed some cash too in case there's a run on the banks, but I don't know if they will be worth as much.

Basically I'm preparing for a global depression. This sudden shock to the economy is unprecedented in any modern time, and we have no idea what could happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope you realize that you think you have figured out something that markets don't. Markets see decades of low inflation.

Central banks know how to stop inflation, that's not a problem for them at all. The problem for the next 10 years will be low inflation, not large inflation.

<comment> radford-neal There may well be serious real problems, which the central bank can't magically solve. But if you're just worried that there might not be "enough" inflation, the central bank has unlimited ability to create that, if it wishes to. (Of course, whether such inflation would be a good idea is debatable, and could depend on the circumstances.)

<comment><AUTHOR> > the central bank has unlimited ability to create that, if it wishes to.

This is not true as the recent decade shows. Japan has tried to increase inflation almost two decades.

Just increasing the money stock does not create inflation if the velocity of money decreases at the same rate.

<comment> radford-neal No, Japan has not _really_ tried to create inflation. If they had, they would have succeeded.

If the government prints lots of cash, and then mails a bunch of cash to every person in the country, then there will be inflation. Lots of inflation, if the amount of cash is high enough. And there's no limit to how high the amount can be.

To doubt that, you have to believe that someone of previously modest means who now has a million dollars of cash in hand will just horde it, rather than go out and buy the $40,000 car they've been wishing they had, or the nice $500,000 house they now could live in, or the nifty $10,000 camera and lens set that would be really fun to play with, or the...

Actually, you don't have to just believe that _someone_ will horde immense amounts of cash rather than buy real, useful stuff with it, you have to believe that _almost everyone_ will horde the cash.

People aren't like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Gold is such an odd form of value. If money, as Felix Martin puts it, is a social technology then gold is an antisocial technology. (1)

Gold and silver look great in a recession because they (unlike the buyer) do not panic. However, in the long run they provide virtually no value to society (unless you make some fancy jewelry or cover your toilet seat) and frankly I find owning large amounts of gold to be a silly proposition.

If society were to collapse I don't think anyone would be hoarding gold or silver... unless your Blackbeard or Scrooge McDuck.

Edit: forgot to link :/ (1) [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/book...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/books/review/money- by-felix-martin.amp.html)

<comment><USER7> > If society were to collapse I don't think anyone would be hoarding gold or > silver

But people have hoarded gold and silver to successfully preserve value over the collapse of countless societies and civilisations for many thousands of years.

Why do you think our society and the one following it would be any different?

> I find owning large amounts of gold to be a silly proposition

I literally can't think of any more reliable, safe, enduring preserve of value across all of our existence.

If you dig up one of their hoards in a farmers' field today the value of the savings of a Roman from two thousand years ago are preserved to this day.

Can hardly describe it as silly?

<comment><USER8> >> "But people have hoarded gold and silver to successfully preserve value over the collapse of countless societies and civilisations for many thousands of years."

In 5000 years from now, I wonder if people will say the same thing about BitCoin.

<comment><USER9> A quick search shows a post from this week titled "Bitcoin drops 50% in epic two day tumble", so somehow I doubt it.

As others have said, Bitcoin is a very shallow market. It is "worth" a lot in principle, but good luck trying to convert it to cash.

<comment><USER10> Presumably, if it gets to the point where you need a safe-haven store of value, you won't be converting it to cash. You'd be transferring it directly to the recipient in exchange for food, shelter, or weapons.

<comment><USER11> I think if you're to the point of liquidating assets for "food, shelter, or weapons", I would prefer a few Krugerrands that fit in my pocket. How can Bitcoin beat them in terms of durability and wide acceptance?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The gold market seems split at the moment: while the price is falling, > meaning there are more sellers than buyers, everything I read on Twitter is > that physical gold is nearly unobtainable – many banks and refiners have run > out of inventory. Apparently there has been a surge in retail demand for > gold coins and bars at the same time as the price has been falling.

Remember: if you "own" gold in some portfolio, you don't really own _gold_ , you own an IOU for gold and you have zero guarantee to get your money back if things go bad. And while fiat money is backed by states, there is nobody to back your fiat gold.

(The same reasoning applies if you own bitcoin or any crypto on coinbase or any other exchange).

<comment><USER13> Not true several etfs have the exact same gold equivalent. If you mean apocalyptic scenarios then yeah

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm a little confused. Maybe I'm interpreting this news or other commenter reactions incorrectly? They seem to be saying that the price of gold is on the rise, but the price of the gold ETF has gone DOWN in the last few days:

[https://spdrgoldshares.com/#home](https://spdrgoldshares.com/#home)

And the futures markets are down too:

[https://www.investing.com/commodities/gold](https://www.investing.com/commodities/gold)

Are other commenters only speculating that the price is going to go way up, and that the price is a good deal right now? If so, that doesn't seem to be supported by financial indicators, and the speculation around it doesn't seem much better than, say, saying that Bitcoin is going to go up in any given environment. I'm surprised to see this discussion on HN. I hope I'm grokking things wrong.

<comment><USER15> My impression of the gold market is this: The gold bugs always say, that now is the right time to buy. It rarely is though. That's because issuers and supporters of fiat currency have an interest in the gold price not exploding, because it's basically a counter currency. So you see the current divide of reported gold demand and the price being "artificially" depressed.

But the gold bugs can't really win, because the fiat currency owners wield infinite power, unless inflation really kicks in at some point. So gold is usually not that great of an investment.

That's my perception, I am not at all an expert on these matters.

<comment><USER16> I don't think that fiat currency issuers have infinite power to _suppress_ the price of gold, because they have at most limited amounts of gold to sell. They can certainly _increase_ the price an infinite amount, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Silver is down because it is largely an industrial metal used heavily in many electronic components. Gold is also used in industry (e.g. Gold plated connectors) but less so compared to its use as a value store by governments[1] and private parties. Since the economy is expected to drop, industrial metals are dropping as well.

[1] [https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/gold- repo...](https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/gold- report/current.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> Peculiar situation. Hoarding Gold purely as an investment strategy is largely a psychological phenomenon now, since it has lost most of its value as a currency in harsh times. Or what exactly are you going to buy with your gold coins when all supply chains are broken and most goods can't be produced even at a higher price? Better hoard canned tuna...

<comment><USER19> I always wondered about this. Gold is now valuable only as a shared fiction. In hard times I'd much rather have useful things (food, meds, water, fire) than a pile of stuff that is valuable only because others think it is... which could and does change over time.

Clearly I'm missing something...?

<comment><USER20> Gold has utility as well: it's highly conductive, doesn't oxidize easily, is hypoallergenic, malleable, etc.

Napkin math tells me that over 50 tons of gold have been used just in iPhones over the past 13 years. Just like any commodity - if there is demand, there is probably value.

<comment><USER21> Bismuth is priced at $.39 per gram, copper at $.0074. I would bet gold would end up somewhere in that range or so as opposed to the $48 per gram it's at now.

<comment><USER22> No because it's much more rare. All the gold mined in the history of the world could fit into one moderately sized warehouse.

190,000 tons of gold mined in the history of the world vs. 700,000,000 tons of copper.

<comment><USER21> Well, we've mined 320,000 tons of bismuth so that's probably a better comparison than copper. This is all just to get a wide ballpark estimate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Gold is long term cash.

Sovereign funds / private wealth purchase gold as a hedge against inflation. Ie their short term cash (actual cash) being worth less tomorrow. It has this characteristic because gold fundamentally has zero yield.

When you enter a crisis period or period of deflation. Which we are seeing now. There is a flight to short term cash (USD).

Good bugs who hoard gold or draw parallels to Armageddon and huge price increases in gold do not account for the simple fact that gold is long term cash.

During the GFC the same liquidation profile was observed for gold.

<comment><USER24> In some ways, gold is the only real money. Governments have been secretly taxing their citizens by forcing them to use the gov't issued currency while printing more of it. Savers lose value in this process to finance short term needs.

You can't print gold. Even when gold prices wildly fluctuate, gold production doesn't b/c it's already so hard. In times like now, we're going to print lots of USD in one way or another.

Is there a gov't issued currency that's held its price better than gold?

<comment><USER23> My first job was at a mining startup that found perhaps the best copper/gold discovery in a decade. We were ultimately acquired. It's a reality. Mines take a minimum of ten years from discovery to bring into production. This is without the typical roadblocks of political/environmental/management/technical showstoppers.

Gold has long been thought of a long-term store of value for this exact reason. Governments cannot help themselves, particularly democratic ones, from following a path of unfunded austerity. It becomes the power cycle, at some point there is a financial reckoning, and citizens' wealth is destroyed.

Then the cycle begins all over again, usually tied to a metal (like gold) before breaking into fiat when the unfunded liabilities exceed the ability of the country to fund them.

US dollars are the best among the worst in fiat. That will change, as it always has historically. Gold will remain as a store of value, as it always has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This really just shows how precious metals (except for gold) have been abandoned as major financial instruments.

There's just no demand for them as a trading instrument anymore, but gold is still used.

</comment><comment><USER26> I agree with others: everyone has heard of "flight to gold" and no one has heard of "flight to silver" If many inexperienced people panic it would be natural that they buy gold instead of silver or even copper for that matter.

This will possibly change, the ratio go down, as people move from "panic flight" to "considered flight" as the crisis deepens and as people become more knowledgeable. And if the price of gold becomes too high for many people.

Perhaps the best thing is to avoid anything that has speculative value or irrational value at this time. Gold has some irrational value because fewer people trading it have a full understanding of alternatives etc.

</comment><comment><USER27> The article has charts, and from it the ratio had been 18 times as much silver for gold in weight up until 1875. The article also mentions it was 2.5x in 3100 BCE, 13.33x in 560 BCE, 10.5x in 300 AD and so on.

The real change starts 1875 where it starts to rise and vibrate between 20x to 100x, trendline inclined at maybe 20x per century. And yesterday's peak was at 123.78x. Maybe I could say the human population is 5000 years high as well, except dips in population is much shallower than for this.

</comment><comment><USER28> Silver's scarcity is less than gold but its practical portability and exchangeability is a bit greater than gold, because typical units of exchange align with practical amounts of metal (coin-size, rather than gram-size).

However, now that a highly-scarce, highly-portable, and highly-divisible Bitcoin is on scene, silver is less useful as a monetary metal because it loses to gold and/or Bitcoin on each of these qualities.

</comment><comment><USER29> Goldbugs have been waiting for this kind of panic for a long time, because these bugs think that non-goldbugs will increase the demand for physical gold, paper gold (say, $GLD), miners ($GDX), junior miners ($GDXJ), and penny stock gold miners. Today, $GLD has fallen to $140, a level matching Dec 24, 2019 prices. Last Friday, $GDX and $GDXJ crashed. Then some rebound, now crashed again.

Anyone with some semblance of how monetary economics works won't go gold full: maybe, 10 percent. Goldbugs dream that one day every economy will be based on Gold; that train left long time ago. These bugs are busy recruiting new 'fools' on various forums. It is like people hoarding bitcoin, eth, etc, who are waiting for the next btc bull run: imagine all those suckers who hoarded tulips after tulipmania!

<comment><USER30> Sure, but all that paper gold isn't really gold. From TFA:

> The gold market seems split at the moment: while the price is falling, > meaning there are more sellers than buyers, everything I read on Twitter is > that physical gold is nearly unobtainable – many banks and refiners have run > out of inventory. Apparently there has been a surge in retail demand for > gold coins and bars at the same time as the price has been falling. It seems > that the "paper" market, the futures and ETFs, is determining the price and > does not reflect the heightened demand on the street for hard metal during > this time of insecurity.

So the price of physical gold is _much_ higher, for anyone who wants it, anyway.

<comment><USER29> Paper gold, like $GLD and $IAU, is safer than hoarding physical gold, since many vaults can't be trusted. They are scams at many levels: coin purchases, physical vaults, fraudulent miners (remember Bre-X).

If one wants to buy 2 lbs of gold jewelry, or even wear a 'gold shirt' every day, that's fine. One such gold shirt guy, Datta Phuge, in India got beaten to death. Another gold man in Hyderabad, who wears 2.5 lbs gold all the time, need four buddies around whenever he goes out.

Or go the wild west way: buy guns, live in a bunker.

<comment><USER30> I don't live in a bunker, but I do have some gold and silver, in a box under my bed. There's also a loaded shotgun under the bed, with dual pistol grips and laser sight, loaded alternating slugs and buckshot :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Would anyone know if low oil/energy prices impact the gold price? With lower energy prices, it's now less expensive to get it out of the ground and refine it. Could that mean more gold flooding the market in the future?

<comment><USER22> Yes. But currently that effect is being significantly offset by massive demand for gold as a reserve metal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is the best explanation I've ever seen of how the Fed and US Dollar money printing actually works:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0)

Most people also don't realize that the Fed, which buys Treasury's drawn on a bank account with $0 in it, is privately owned - and distributes dividends to its private shareholders holders (who are not disclosed).

<comment><USER33> The Fed is not privately owned. Directly from the Federal Reserve's website:

Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

[https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)

<comment> radford-neal "not operated for profit" and "dividend payments" seem to be contradictory.

The question would seem to be how the amount of dividend payments gets set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I have a different theory for the silver drop. The gold value has not gone up significantly. So this ratio drop is caused by a drop in the silver price. People are fleeing to cash now. They still value gold and keep it. But the impact on silver demand this time is Bitcoin. It appears to be even better than gold. Why settle for silver when you can buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin may be replacing silver on its rise to catch up to gold.

</comment><comment><USER35> A year ago gold was around $1300/oz and silver around $15, both started inflating when the trade tariff war (US/China) kicked off.

[https://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au0365nys.gif](https://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au0365nys.gif)

[https://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag0365nys.gif](https://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag0365nys.gif)

</comment><comment><USER36> Both gold and silver have industrial applications. They don't inform the price, and I doubt they inform the price ratio.

Silver and Gold have interesting properties. I hope pricing and hoarding don't reflect behaviours which make them harder to "use" rather than be treated as rei-ified value for hoarding.

That said, the tiny size of the gold mountain amuses me. All that digging, so little outcome.

</comment><comment><USER37> Why is it that there is so much advertising for investing in gold? Many of the podcasts that I listen to advertise it, I see ads for it everywhere. I would think that unlike stocks where you must buy through a broker (for a fee), gold can easily be bought by anyone. So what makes the business of helping people invest in gold so popular?

<comment><USER38> I cannot imagine investing in these types of assets. For those who speculate on gold & silver, would you also purchase futures contracts on oil, pigs, and grains? It's pretty much the same idea unless you are having gold bars shipped to your home.

If your objective is to make money "quickly", I'd recommend averaging any cash you have sitting around into a market-wide ETF ASAP. The trick is to not get emotional. You have to hold every last share through events just like this one. If you don't use leverage or purchase options contracts you can literally forget the stock market exists when monster events are occurring. Assuming you diversified, there's really nothing to worry about under any circumstance. Just keep buying the same market-wide funds on a regular basis. Never sell. Ever. Selling is how you lose the game.

All of this fear has created a generational buying opportunity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Nobody uses silver as a store of value any more. It's more of an industrial metal. With not that many industrial uses.

</comment><comment><USER40> People accumulate gold as a hedge against society collapsing sometime in the future. But if society collapsed, then gangs of young men with guns would hunt down all the people with stores of gold, and take it away, and shoot them while they were at it. Seems like you would be safer if you didn't have a bunch of gold.

</comment><comment><USER41> If there is on thing you can count on it's people over reacting. If you hold uncorrelated assets and rebalance them at mechanical levels as people react you'll have a much smoother ride to the top. Gold and long term treasures play a big role in this type of portfolio.

Edit: lookup volatility harvesting

</comment><comment><USER42> Precious metals and gems will still provide value in areas of the world that are not devastated by war or disease.

If the dollar goes tits up, I think the criminal accounting will take down gold with it, leaving the next in line metals to reap the rewards of integrity.

You cannot trust any of the accounting with gold.

</comment><comment><USER43> The value of these metals is largely driven by the same things that drive any consumer fashion, so the gold/silver ratio hitting a new high isn't any more weird than "hoop earrings hit a 5,000 year high in popularity."

</comment><comment><USER44> Ah goldbugs and silverbugs. I've heard them talk about the economic meltdown for over 20 years now and how I should hoard physical gold and silver and how it will turn me into a MILLIONAIRE!

I bought real estate instead post 2008.

</comment><comment><USER45> It's the highest it's been since the 1940s. Sensationalist headline.

<comment><USER46> You didn't read the article well enough - it blew through that record, but in 1940 it held the record for a year (we've only done it for a short period so far).

<comment><USER45> How is breaking the 1940 not more accurate?

<comment><USER46> You said "highest since 1940" and called it sensationalist.

But it _broke_ the 1940 record, which means the title is correct and not sensationalist.

<comment><USER47> By emphasizing a past date, the headline (and article itself) gives the impression that the record was set over 5000 years ago, and that this is the first time the gold/silver ratio has been higher than at that point in time. "Since 1940" would provide better context, and would not prompt such confusion. It seems likely that the reference to 5000 years is specifically to sensationalize the news and draw clicks.

As an illustration of the absurdity of such a style, one could equivalently put "in over <x> thousand years" in the headline of pretty much any metric that has been on an upward trend through its history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Could it be that people who used to buy bitcoins are now buying gold and that they are preventing the price correcting that every other metal is experiencing?

<comment><USER49> It's hard to imagine that the kinds of people who bought bitcoins as an investment have anything leftover with which to influence the gold price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Read all of this thinking of platinum. More valuable than gold and similar utility to silver. Wonder how that ratio looks.

</comment><comment><USER51> That headline and they don't have a plot going back 5k years? I am disappoint.

</comment><comment> 100-xyz Looks like a once in a life time opportunity!

<comment><USER52> To do what exactly?

<comment><USER53> To buy a bunch of precious metals which can be exchanged for goods and services! Much like actual money but less conveniently.

<comment><USER54> Far far less convenient

<comment><USER55> I buy silver rounds every once in a while when the price seems cheap. They're very handy for a few different kinds of transactions.

1\. They're handy for showing your appreciation and getting past a common "I don't _want your money_" barrier in my region.

If I pass out a bunch of silver rounds to friends with krakens on them while loudly proclaiming "8 ARMED SEA GODS, TO COMMEMORATE THE FACT THAT MANY HANDS MAKE LIGHT WORK" everyone who helped me smiles broadly, laughs and receives them. An aura of gratuity emanates from the situation from everyone involved.

If I were to pass out envelopes with a 20$ bill in each, it would make everyone feel weird. Many would get returned, I probably wouldn't have friends anymore.

2\. Garage sales ran by older people. I've found a silver coin has, on average, a higher buying power than equivalent cash. For 1oz of silver, a nice gentleman agreed to trade a circular saw, bench grinder parts, an electric motor, lathe parts, a few hammers, a tool box and an angle grinder last year.

3\. Gifts for kids. 1 oz silver rounds are not that expensive, shinier than most objects, larger than most people expect, and tend to be received with wide eyed awe every time I've given them as gifts.

Silver is fun.

<comment><USER56> Where do you recommend buying them?

<comment><USER55> JMBullion, ampex, sdbullion are the obvious answers. I tend to like pawing through inventory in person. I live next to Meierotto Jeweler's, I like going there because it reminds me how poor I am, and they generally let me paw through things without getting weird about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> So why isn't Silver keeping up?

</comment><comment><USER58> America has lost its hive mind

</comment><comment><USER59> Silver is an industrial metal. Gold has no real industrial application and is mostly a store of value. So the article is comparing apples and oranges...

<comment><USER60> What? Gold is used in a lot of electronics.

<comment><USER22> It is but silver has many more applications overall. Silver is driven about 50% by industrial need whereas gold is about 10%

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> For years on and on financial advisors tell me not to invest in Gold. And on every '5 year time block' i have seen Gold outperform every other thing of value. The other thing with Gold, is it gives you peace of mind; not having to monitor your portfolio every often.

<comment><USER25> But... it hasn't?

If you do rolling 5 year blocks over the past 20 years I think right now (as in the last 3 days) is the only time gold out performs the Dow Jones.

And even today - on one of the worst days in stock market history - gold only outperforms it by 12% (26% vs 14%).

The gold price now is ~$1500/ounce. In March 2015 it was ~1100/ounce[1]. That's 26% increase. In March 2015 the Dow Jones was 18127, and now it is 21237. That's 14%

That's not a great record for gold! Your financial advisors are right.

[1] [https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-price/10-year-gold- pric...](https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-price/10-year-gold-price-chart- usd/)</comment></comment>


Cardiology Monitoring as a Service - <AUTHOR> Hi guys,
(www.ionedcorp.com)
You may know if any of you have a history of heart disease or have known patients. Holter or patch devices are used for the diagnosis of heart disease. We are working on a business model that will replace these devices, which are both expensive and bad for the patient experience. For the first time, we are moving to the rental model of these devices. We provide diagnostic services for heart diseases.
We set up a business model that can diagnose the disease for a fee of $40 from retail markets. We have already sold in 39 hospitals in Europe.
As a new member of the valley I would like to get your feedbacks.You can reach me at: email@example.com
Best! <comment><USER2> I think it's a cool idea that a lot of people would pay for. What's the difference between the hardware you're using and what's in the latest apple watches?

</comment><comment><USER3> Can you tell us more ? Why are you so cheap... How do you replace them...

Best</comment>


Backup Awareness Week - <AUTHOR> https://backupweek.com <comment><USER2> I know all about the importance of Backups.

Mirroring is not a backup.

Raid is not a backup.

Hard disks are not supposed to sit on a shelf unplugged for extended periods.

Fine. Now, how the hell do I backup my 5TB of photos? :-( :-(

Edit: Lots of fantastic information here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7371725](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7371725)

Is there any service that can burn my terabytes of data onto multiple copies on "made in japan taiyo yuden" CDR? :-)

<comment><USER3> > Fine. Now, how the hell do I backup my 5TB of photos? :-( :-(

I use git-annex. It understands the concept of wanting multiple copies of things, and keeps track of what is where (eg. S3, Glacier, some remote rsync server, or which of my many external drives). When I want something, it gets it for me (eg. by telling me which external drive to plug in).

Then, all I need to keep backed up is my git repository itself, which is tiny. I use Tarsnap for this, which means that I can keep previous snapshots without issue.

> Hard disks are not supposed to sit on a shelf unplugged for extended > periods.

This works fine for me, when combined with some other method. Redundancy is key. And "git-annex fsck" checks a drive's integrity for me.

<comment><USER2> thanks for the new possibility! Very interesting. from their page: [https://git-annex.branchable.com/not/](https://git-annex.branchable.com/not/)

"git-annex is not a backup system. It may be a useful component of an archival system, or a way to deliver files to a backup system. For a backup system that uses git and that git-annex supports storing data in, see bup."

since you said you're using it effectively as a backup, could you please clarify what they mean, and what you mean?

thanks!

<comment><USER3> For context, I was originally answering "Fine. Now, how the hell do I backup my 5TB of photos?". My answer is that you don't need to, since photos don't usually change after they are taken. It is sufficient to simply archive them safely (and redundantly).

I'm not using git-annex as a backup system. I use Tarsnap and my own tool ddar for backups.

I _am_ using git-annex to archive specific large file collections that don't ever change (eg. photos and videos). By storing these collections appropriately in multiple redundant locations, and by also backing up my git- annex repository (using the backup tools above), I have effectively "backed up" my photos. They're as safe as any backup system can make them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To underscore the importance of backups:

We've been aware that our data and backup policies were lacking, and have been discussing ways to improve that. We have more than 500gb of work and client data that is highly valuable, and thousands of dollars in stock photos to boot.

Then one of our systems got hit by cryptodefense (the latest variant of cryptolocker). It encrypted the NAS drives faster than we could notice, and destroyed some 99% of our data. If it had been able to propagate to just 1 other system, which we did a nightly mirror of the NAS to, we'd have lost _everything_. Since then, we've been trying to set up backups to Amazon Glacier.

Don't underestimate the ease with which data loss can affect you. It could be a malicious link in a phishing email, a malicious attachment, bit rot, a natural disaster, or simple hardware failure. The cost of maintaining offsite backups is cheaper than recovering from data loss.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is like Tongue Awareness Month [[http://xkcd.com/972/](http://xkcd.com/972/)] for me. Intellectually I always know the state of my backups is pitiful, but now it's in the front of my mind and I can't stop thinking about it. ;-)

<comment><USER6> I hate you.

<comment><USER7> Enjoy the next four weeks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> While this is a cool project, I unfortunately doubt it will convince the 90% of people who don't back up their stuff.

I had an idea like that a few months ago after spending time with my family and my girlfriend's family. We need a simple page that explains in big images why:

1\. chances are, you will lose your data 2\. here's a one-click thing to make sure it doesn't happen

For 1, we can't use the word "data" because people won't connect emotionally with the concept. "Photos from your last summer vacation", "The video of your kid's first step" etc. would be more powerful.

For 2, I was looking for solutions that provide _automatic_ , _continuous_ and _off-site_ backup that is _easy to recover_. Without any of these criteria, a backup strategy is effectively useless. (+ secure, affordable, etc. but these are extras).

I personally use and always recommend Backblaze for these reasons (one click install that just works and gets out of the way), but there might be other solutions.

Anyway, I'd love to see this project get somewhere, probably a GitHub page where people can contribute and provide 3-step tutorials for iCloud (so many people don't back up there iPhone when it's right there, baked in) and other platforms.

Interested? Get in touch: email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER9> So this is what stemmed from "World Backup Day" guy grabbing a trademark, shutting everyone out and turning spontaneous reddit project into his personal little cash cow?

Pissed masses countered with "Backup Week", which still appears to be thinly veiled ad spread for backup companies.

What next? "Backup _Month_ "? This is getting ridiculous.

[0] [http://www.worldbackupday.com](http://www.worldbackupday.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> What's ridiculous about it?

Getting people to backup their files is important.

What's the problem?

<comment><USER10> The problem is your motivation, which is disingenious - "You should be backing up, we are worried for you, ah, oh, use these products (from random people who just won a bid for our ad spots)".

Ever seen those "hosting provider ranking" sites that rank top entries purely based on the fees paid to them? That's you.

You want to fix this perception? Remove Sponsors, add complete listings of all notable backup products, invest time in reviewing them and allow ranking and comments. Then you will have something that would start to justify your preachy stance. Until then you are in just for a quick money grab and it's pretty damn obvious.

<comment><USER11> There is a link to Wikipedia's exhaustive list of providers right by Step 2 in the Quick Start Guide.

Also, providers have a legitimate incentive to help people. They may even like _why_ they do what they do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So what would be a good, affordable backup solution that doesn't get in my way on my linux machine?

<comment><USER13> I simply rsync my entire server (over ssh) to a large disk on another box. Super easy to set up and the backed up data doesn't need any special software to read/restore, beyond standard 'nix tools.

<comment><USER14> Except if your files get corrupted, then you're screwed.

<comment><USER13> Of course, and the same is true of every backup solution. The way to mitigate that problem is with a decent backup rotation scheme:

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

<comment><USER14> > the same is true of every backup solution.

Rubbish.

A proper backup involves copies that cannot be modified after they are made (i.e. a snapshot after the backup has run if using disk, or for free on tape).

<comment><USER13> As it was ambiguous, I figured you must have been talking about the more likely scenario whereby files become corrupt on the live server, unknown to the either users or admins. Over time, these corrupt files then make their way through all generations of backup until no good copies remain.

There's nothing special about an rsync/ssh solution that precludes the backup server from creating a read-only copy of each and any backup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there any good site out there where people showcase their backup setups, similar in spirit to [http://macmenubars.com/](http://macmenubars.com/) or [http://usesthis.com/](http://usesthis.com/) ?

</comment><comment><USER16> As many have found first-hand for most people there is too much additional research/knowledge required for them to consider the effort worthwhile, although I like the idea of an awareness week for backups.

Having a video I could point people to, or even simple instructions for a specific way of backing up using Windows or OSX would be a more effective way of reminding people.

There are all kinds of local and cloud backup solutions out there that having a site which filtered through them would actually be great, but obviously outside the scope of the site which is more a friendly reminder to be aware and prepare.

</comment><comment><USER17> What do you guys think of [http://tarsnap.com](http://tarsnap.com) ? I need to backup some sensitive client data off-location and the concept seems pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER18> What is your experience in educating non-tech people about the need and adequate methods for backups? I've found that they'll listen, but not act if it takes several steps and new routines.

<comment><USER18> Another problem I've noticed: many people have no idea how fragile hard drives are, and they keep old ones around for years -- with a precious, unique copy of their early photo libraries... Not only is the hard-drive unused for years, but they sometimes no longer have the necessary connections available (e.g. FireWire) on their latest laptop.

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I know what you are talking about, I d wish tech giants started having backward compatibility as a rule when creating any new gadget or a means to store data. Probably there's no ultimate means to save the data now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is this linked to Reddit's World Backup Day on 31st March? [http://www.worldbackupday.com/en/](http://www.worldbackupday.com/en/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey nodata! Actually we tried to get in touch with the creator of World Backup Day but regretfully we didn't get a response.

So Backup Awareness Week is not associated with World Backup Day, but we support each other's goals of increasing awareness of the importance of regular backups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Good thing that today, thanks to Dropbox/Google Drive/OneDrive etc., its more easy to get free backups up and running.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best video hosting solution for a small startup? - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a project this summer that involves user-submitted videos. It just seems like there's a barrage of solutions out there and it's difficult to gauge which ones work better than others. What video hosting solutions have you used in the past? Or which ones do you think are best?
I have some programming experience, so I'm capable of working with an API or framework. However, I'd prefer as little hassle as possible. The solution I choose needs to be scalable (so tiered pricing packages or something of the sort). I would prefer both flash and html5 player options, as well as player customization. Users need to have the ability to upload videos that are attached to their accounts, which probably necessitates some sort of upload API. Also, I'm working with a small budget of a couple thousand dollars to start.
That about sums it up. Any advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated! <comment><USER2> Try Zencoder, their API is really easy to use and their support is quite helpful as well: <http://zencoder.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip. Zencoder looks great, but if I understand correctly, they only handle the video encoding, leaving it to you to find a place to store the videos and figure out how to stream them. I'd prefer something that is simpler, like something that handles storage and streaming automagically.

<comment><USER3> I recommend Vidyard: <http://vidyard.com/> \- the service has many business- specific features, like including a Call-To-Action or redirect after the video plays. Easily worth the subscription.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I suggest DmCloud : <http://www.dmcloud.net/en/> powered by dailymotion !</comment>


Amazon asks court to halt Microsoft's work on Pentagon 'war cloud' - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/technology/479530-amazon-asks-court-to-halt-microsofts-work-on-pentagon-war-cloud <comment><USER2> After 15 years of being a DoD contractor, it is frustrating to see yet another sole source entity getting the contract. Prices will inflate and there is no competition.

HP and Oracle have been reaping the benefits of this for at least two decades now. We put databases on Oracle that should be handled by Postgres or MariaDB since DoD prefers Oracle. We would buy useless HP software because we were a HP shop. I fought to get a non HP solid state array for our data, it was an epic battle (in the end I won, on the extreme we had 6 to 7 hour processes cut down to under an hour, the HP equivalent could not replicate that at the time).

So i can see DoD moving to Azure and then get the vendor lock in and in 10 years if they want to move the cost will be so extreme it will either cause taxpayers a ton of money or not be realistic.

As impossible as it sounds, and somewhat impractical, i would rather see a vendor agnostic approach and DoD spread across multiple gov clouds. i guess years has gotten me jaded with government spending (wait, what, how did we buy 2 extra $50k Cisco chassis and then keep them in storage for 3 years....).

<comment><USER3> > We put databases on Oracle that should be handled by Postgres or MariaDB > since DoD prefers Oracle.

I mean, if you've already budgeted the CapEx for some additional Oracle licenses, the OpEx efficiencies of having unified tooling and a unified ops doctrine are no joke.

I haven't worked with an Oracle DBMS, but I _think_ this is analogous: I'd sure hate to have to manage a cloud infrastructure where parts were on AWS, parts on GCP, and parts on Azure. Sure, there are generic tools that treat all three the same, or over-layers like K8s that don't care about substrate—but what if the projects on each platform were taking advantage of that platform's specialties? What if I was using SNS on AWS, or BigQuery on GCP?

To bring that back through the analogy, what if our Oracle projects were tuned using Oracle-specific query-planner hints, while our Postgres projects did their ETL using PG-specific Foreign Data Wrapper connectors?

In both cases, the only real solution is hiring and retaining O(N) specialized ops headcount, one team for each stack. And that cost gets a lot higher than just paying for another darn Oracle license.

<comment><USER4> Even with an abstraction layer like kubernetes you still have a lot of duplicate work if you're multi-cloud. Services need to be exposed with load balancers, and those will have different configurations to be setup. Same with any Volumes. And then you have platform updates on both sides, bugs, quirks. plus the maintenance and upkeep of two clouds - two bills to inspect, two account managers to deal with, two sets of permissions and overall account configuration to setup, maintain and audit. Multi-cloud is really a set of requirements that changes the whole game in terms of operational overhead. And we limited our example to kubernetes. I imagine any non-fictional-for-the- sake-of-example company would want to make use of other platform specific tools as you mention.

<comment><USER5> I think a lot of this speculation requires inside knowledge of what the DoD's use cases actually are.

Are they doing a lot of compute, a lot of ingestion, a lot of output, and a ton of networking? Are they primarily just doing one of these things?

Who knows?

There's a lot of cases where having multiple clouds could be fine -- maybe even a big benefit. There's also a lot of cases where it could be a major headache.

<comment><USER6> > Who knows?

I know a little about it from a previous employer.

Even the narrow slice I saw was all of "a lot of compute, a lot of ingestion, a lot of output, and a ton of networking", and more.

I think that the internal inefficiencies in the DOD datacenters are so enormous that any kind move to something more 'standardized', no matter what company it is, even with all of the artificial overhead, etc, will likely be a big win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Didn't Oracle just sue the DoD claiming they wrote the requirements in such a way that only Amazon could get it?

<comment><USER8> Wouldn't surprise me. I heard the person who wrote the legislation left when they were completed and took a job with AWS.

<comment><USER9> The British civil servant who championed the use of AWS by the British government took a job with AWS after the deal was done. It is shameful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is standard procedure in these kind of contract fights. I get so sick and tired of government IT contract squabbles. They drag on for years, little usually changes, and, in the meantime the work doesn't get done.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but in this case, the choice of Azure over AWS was due to government corruption, rather than actual technical diligence.

<comment><USER12> That's not substantiated. There are a lot of reasons that Azure could have won this project, highlighted by the fact that they have decades long relationships in terms of executing on government contracts.

<comment><USER13> The claim is not substantiated _publicly_ because Amazon's filing is currently under seal. Of course, there are many other possible reasons but those are not substantiated either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is strange to me that there are even rules about this. Imagine if we decided to halt the Manhattan Project for a few months so the courts could work out whether contracts were properly awarded.

<comment><USER15> Millions of people might not have died unnecessarily. The horror!

<comment><USER16> Actually, millions of people _would_ have died unnecessarily. Japan wouldn't surrender, and was planning to slowly sacrifice its _entire population_ to bleed the allied invasion of the home islands.

Somehow people forget Japan _started_ the war in the Pacific and murdered tens of millions of Chinese, Koreans, and other Asian civilians in the process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how often system implementation delays are caused by excessive government contract litigation? How much does it cost taxpayers because Amazon or Oracle are litigious?

</comment><comment><USER18> This reminds me of a time where the Department of Work and Pensions botched a bid for a Universal Jobmatch system and ended up awarding the contract, to methods consulting, re-tendering the contract and paying close to £1m to methods consulting

I would not be surprised if something similar happened here, although the payout would likely be far higher and I'm in no way comparing Methods Consulting to Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why can't the government run its own computers? I mean, shouldn't it?

<comment><USER20> The federal government cannot compete with private industry salaries and benefits for rare technical talent because of caps on federal salaries. Federal salaries are capped because attacking "government waste" and "lazy overpaid government workers" is popular with politicians and the electorate.

So instead the government outsources technical projects to private contractors... which means ultimately the government _is_ paying those big salaries, _and_ the profit margin on top of them.

One of many many "penny wise / pound foolish" problems with the way we do government services.

<comment><USER19> Yeah I'm aware of how this goes down: in addition to what you say, government management types get their beds feathered by working for the for-profit companies they contract the work to after they "retire" (aka everyone involved in F35 procurement ends up working at Lockheed; total coincidence I am sure). Yet, somehow the NSA manages to run their own data centers[1]. It even looks kind of cost effective!

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

<comment><USER21> Part of that may have been the times. That project started construction back in 2011 which means it was in planning for a while before that. The cloud vs on-premises debate was at a different state back then iirc.

Also it's for NSA's questionably legal spying on US citizens vs the more standard legality of DoD's work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought AWS would win for sure due to its GovCloud adoption [https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/?whats-new-ess.sort- by=it...](https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/?whats-new-ess.sort- by=item.additionalFields.postDateTime&whats-new-ess.sort-order=desc)

<comment><USER23> [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global- infrastructure/gove...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global- infrastructure/government/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Amazon's reaction seems quite defensive, and constantly keeps reminding us how Microsoft is seen as the better overall provider to be trusted in this case. Tech wise they are both capable, no doubt.

I think Amazon should have just acknowledged it, congratulate Microsoft and move on - plenty of other growth ahead in cloud computing. That's what Satya Nadella would have done.

</comment><comment><USER25> What if Microsoft were to assume and any all risk from a possible judgment not in their favor?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is there an objective case for why Azure is better than AWS?

<comment><USER27> If you are a purely-Microsoft shop (AD/Exchange/Visual Studio), using Azure could give you better integration within their ecosystem (i.e. native Azure tooling within Visual Studio). I realize AWS has similar tools and plugins, but there is something nice to having first-party support down the entire vertical. Making your Microsoft account rep responsible for everything really does help to consolidate business administration concerns.

If you are not a Microsoft shop (i.e. >50% of your stuff runs on Linux), I would almost say avoid Azure because of how focused it is on their stack. I know you can run arbitrary Linux on Azure and generally get everything done, but AWS (and all other non-Microsoft cloud vendors) always seemed more friendly/cheaper for non-Windows/Office concerns.

So, it's not just about the cloud platforms and their respective costs per feature consumption unit. It's also about your business and the ecosystem required to support and operate within these cloud platforms.

<comment><USER28> As Microsoft is proud to boast, the majority on instances on Azure are Linux based.

The tooling that matters to me (az cli, terraform, vscode, kubectl et all) runs absolutely fine on Azure. I use Linux to create and manage Linux and open source infra on azure every day.

The majority of complaints I hear about azure tend to revolve around their AzureRM templating, which is admittedly terrible, but irrelevant since terraform exists (and cloudformation is not much better imo).

Also a lot of people dont/didn't like their portal. I don't frequently use the portal, and besides have you seen the aws portal? It's woeful.

One benefit of azure is they name their products logically, like "azure virtual machine" instead of "magic beanstalk" or w/e

<comment><USER29> Majority of our issues with Azure revolve around some of their services, which are still slow to evolve, due to their pre-cloud underpinnings.

An example of such service is their Azure AD B2C service, which is their competitor to AWS cognito. We have been using it and as a baseline login service, and it works fine. However, the service doesn't see much upgrades. Their "user flow" templates, which control the logon process, have been in preview for years.

Yes, Identity Server 4 exists but it would be nice to have decent competitors to Spot Fleets, ECS, Cognito, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> this kind of stuff is such an american way of doing things.

\- bid for contracts that enables government to make some real progress

\- lose

\- sue because you lost, claim winner can't start until your suit is over

\- introduce 1-2 year delay of waiting while your complaint is processed

and people wonder why china gets things done in a quarter of the time

<comment><USER31> Yeah, they get things done because they're a totalitarian, completely opaque regime. I'll take western governments with all their faults and inneficiencies, thank you.

<comment><USER32> Plenty of western governments get lots done efficiently. Parent comment was about US practices.

<comment><USER33> Did you even read the last sentence of the parent comment?

<comment><USER32> Did you read the first?

<comment><USER33> I did. I mean, I /could/ focus on only one sentence of a post, argue from that point alone, and insist the conversation hinge on that point but that would be ignorant and rude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> _Normally_ this might seem like a case of sore loser.

But here's the thing: in government it's _very important_ that contracts are awarded on objective merit, because otherwise there's shockingly large opportunity for corruption and favoritism. Billions and billions of dollars of opportunity.

And also in this case, Trump's deep antipathy towards Bezos is well- documented, as well as his willingness to use government means for personal ends. Trump instructing the Pentagon to drop the objectively best bid seems to fit his established pattern of behavior.

So in this case, Amazon's suit seems to be an entirely reasonable response. If what Amazon alleges is true and they win, it will be a victory for good government and correct use of taxpayer dollars. Presidents aren't kings -- it's vitally important for democracy that objective procedures are followed, and that personal grudges aren't allowed to influence multi-billion dollar deals.

<comment><USER12> I mean, if you piss off a customer on a personal level, it should not surprise anyone if you lose the contract. This is reality the world wide.

<comment><USER34> Nope. There's this great concept called the "rule of law". Also "free speech" which allows you to criticize the government without retaliation. These are absolute _bedrock_ principles of liberal democracy.

I'll admit it's the reality in countries with less developed governments, sure. But it's a reality we ought to _fight against_ for the benefit of all, not to blindly and meekly accept. And historically, court cases are one of the primary tools in waging this fight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This thread is kind of chilling, because everyone within is treating it like it's just chat software or something.

With quotes from this thread like "in the meantime the work doesn't get done," and "bid for contracts that [enable] government to make some real progress," you'd never guess this stuff is going to be used to and to enable murder.

So many people were focusing on how Microsoft Ɛ> Linux or Open Source or whatever (so much so that even rms went to Microsoft and complimented them) yet completely ignore the harm they're still trying to cause.

<comment><USER36> Is all defense-related work complicit in murder?

Do we not need a military?

Nothing is perfect, but we are trapped on a planet with a bunch of violent, highly intelligent apes. Certainly the military does things I disagree with, and things could always be improved, but generally what is the alternative?

<comment> james-mcelwain There's a huge, gigantic difference between not having a military at all and spending 1 trillion a year to be an imperialist superpower. It's almost like... there's a middle ground.

<comment><USER37> The thing is, we spend that much and we're not even _good_ imperialists. When was the last time we annexed any territory? Declared a lesser state a protectorate? Or established a new colony? We spend trillions/year to be the world police so our "allies" don't have to while they mock us on twitter.

<comment><USER38> Annexed? In 2020, there is no need to annex a country to get everything you want from them - on the contrary, it's an administrative nightmare to annex a country when you can stick your military bases there, export your goods there, and make their economy dependent on your country's and your money without it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract – or JEDI

I've been living under a rock, apparently.

Is there some requirement that when a right-wing celebrity gets elected President, they have to use Star Wars codenames?

</comment><comment><USER40> "The cloud" is such a scam - of course a "war cloud" \- why not, just triple the security billing invoice and collect obscene cash and power. Every sucker buys into "the cloud" when running a server yourself is elementary. We are doomed.

<comment><USER41> One server is elementary, yes, but hundreds of thousands working together is an entirely different beast. There's nothing easy about cloud computing and there's a definite reason why it's worth buying into.

<comment><USER40> > "There's nothing easy about cloud computing"

There's the deceptive mantra repeated mindlessly over and over, yet again. And there is nothing hard either. It is just complex. So everyone mindlessly pays too much because some marketing has successfully sold them that this is "too hard".</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Share your successful and unsuccessful launch strategies - <AUTHOR>

- What strategy did you use for launching your product?<p>- How efficient was it?<p>- Did you have to pay for ads?<p>- Did the classical invite-only approach work for you?<p>If your launch was not a glory, share that story too. <comment><USER2> it was 5 years ago, first startup, first launch...first fail :) What we did : We basicly made a press release with a pr agency and sent it to a bunch of various journalists. and we wrote manualy to about 20 influential bloggers. contacted them by email to discuss about our project and eventualy make them write an article about us. What happened : We got cited in 2 national TV shows and in the #1 blog in france (I'm french ...) What we got : For each citation (tv or blog) we got around 5K visits but only one or two conversions... What i learned : -our subscription process was too complex (3 pages) -we were not clear about our proposition -we used some flash (long to load) -our design was not good enough (too much amateur, didn't confort the visitor about the quality of our product) and most importantly, don't rely only on press/blogs coverage</comment>


Best anti-ageing exercise is high intensity interval training - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123825-best-anti-ageing-exercise-is-high-intensity-interval-training/ <comment><USER2> The exercise protocol uses a different definition of HIIT than most, using very long "high intensity" intervals of 4+ _minutes_.

"High-intensity interval training consisted of 3 days per week of intervals on an electronically braked cycle ergometer (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and 2 days per week on motorized treadmill walking (Tuesday and Thursday). The interval protocol was a 10-minute warm-up followed by 4 cycles of 4-minute high intervals (> 90%) with 3- minute rest (pedaling at no load) then a 5-minute cool down. The time per session at high intensity was 16 minutes. The treadmill protocol was a self-selected walking pace (2-4 mph) with a 10-minute warm-up, 45 minutes at incline at 70% VO2 peak then a 5-minute cool down. The resistance protocol was weight training for 60 minutes on 4-days per week of lower (Monday and Thursday) and upper body exercises (Tuesday and Friday). Participants were instructed on proper lifting technique and performed 8-12 repetitions per exercise with one-minute rest between sets. Participants completed two sets of each exercise for week 1, three sets for week 2, and four sets for weeks 3-12. Weights were increased when participants could perform 12 repetitions while maintaining good form. Lower body exercises were leg press, toe raise, lunge, abdominal crunch, leg extension and leg curl. Upper body exercises were chest press, lat pull down, incline chest press, seated row, lateral raise, biceps curl and triceps push down. The combined protocol was 30 minutes of cycling 5-days per week (Monday through Friday) followed by 30 minutes of weight lifting. The cycling protocol was a five- minute warm-up, 20 minutes at 70% VO2 peak, then 5 minutes of cool down. The weight lifting was a 4-day program with lower body (Monday and Thursday) and upper body exercises (Tuesday and Friday). Lower body exercises were leg press, abdominal crunch, leg extension and leg curls. Upper body exercises were chest press, lat pull down, triceps extensions and biceps curls."

<comment><USER3> Thank you for posting this abstract. I agree they were using a very different definition of HIIT when I read the PR article. By most standards this looks like a medium intensity cardio 3 times a week with a low intensity 45 minute walk/run twice a week.

<comment><USER2> No abstract needed -- I quoted from the detail supplement PDF, which (along with the full study itself) is available for free and in full right there on the referenced _Cell_ page.</comment></comment></comment>


The Facebook Intifada - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/the-facebook-intifada.html <comment><USER2> I offer my condolence's for the author's loss. It sounds like his father was truly a great man. However, the author didn't even mention the Israeli occupation, the apartheid system that oppresses the Palestinians, and Israel's outright rejection of a two-state solution. That is the cause of such violence, not social media.</comment>


Facebook overestimates video ad views by 60%-80% - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/advertisers-decry-facebooks-inflated-video-metric-2016-09-22 <comment><USER2> Why are the so hung up on video? Some people like videos some get impatient with them. Why won't Facebook just back off a bit on this? If someone tries to hard sell anything, it makes many people wary even if some others buy right away.</comment>