Is your website optimised for social sharing? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/open-graph-tags-more-important-than-you-think-for-social-media-sharing/

<comment><USER2> Every single (social or other) script linked on a website increases the risk of crippling the site should the service providing the script be unavailable to the client for whatever reason.

Even if loaded asynchronously, the added loading time and "elements settling into place" provides a less than perfect user experience every single visitor has to endure, whether they share a link to your site on a social network or not.

I'm not only talking about the panic Facebook caused by being down. I'm also referring to the situations not everyone considers: Facebook being blocked in a corporate environment while your website is trying to load open graph.

There's value to the social engagement, no doubt about that, but as a developer I often feel the urge not to include any of the dynamic "like" and "tweet" buttons unless I'm explicitly asked to, instead I opt in for the regular links where at all possible.

If that means sharing my sites on Facebook won't automatically insert a short excerpt, so be it.</comment>


Hacker Monthly #26 (featuring Elon Musk) is out - <AUTHOR> http://hackermonthly.com/issue-26.html

<comment><USER2> It's amazing that something I submitted to hackernews went on to become the cover story of Hacker Monthly. All I wanted was to understand what made Elon Musk tick.

The only drawback is that the stanford lectures were done in 2003, incredibly outdated. Elon was just starting out back then with SpaceX and Tesla, and haven't dealt with the 2008 economic crash that forced him to invest all of his capital in order to keep his companies alive, and this happened during a difficult divorce. Elon had to borrow money from a few friends, a majority of which was used to pay the legal fees. Elon said that he almost had a mental breakdown and he probably burned out a few of his mental circuits.

Nowadays Elon repeatedly quotes his friend, _"Starting a company is like eating glass and staring into the abyss of death."_

If you truly want to delve into Elon's entrepreneurial spirit, I would suggest reading or watching these links below.

 _On the verge of nervous breakdown:[34:42]_ \- [http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73460184-elon-musk- profiled-b...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73460184-elon-musk-profiled- bloomberg-risk-takers.html)

 _Riskmaster:_ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnauxvhJUw>

_Elon Musk's Risky Business:_ [http://archive.mensjournal.com/elon- musk%E2%80%99s-risky-bus...](http://archive.mensjournal.com/elon- musk%E2%80%99s-risky-business)

Elon rejected eBay's 400 million offer in 2001. Then $800 million, with $100 million at risk. When eBay offered $1.5 billion, Elon still argued against the deal. Elon has obviously learned from the previous Zip2 mistake of selling out to Compaq for $307 million. Elon said it could've been 10 times greater with Zip2, and have a more meaningful impact on the internet. But with Paypal there was a long term risk that eBay could one day prevail with their own payment system. So Elon gave in.

This incredibly high risk tolerance characteristic is displayed at a much larger magnitude with SpaceX & Tesla. To manage two such companies and be successful, is unprecedented.

 _Accurate self analysis, critical thinking & risk tolerance:_ [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMQ0-1jqFs&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nMQ0-1jqFs&feature=related#t=5m55s) _Note:_ Elon once lived under $1 a day as an experiment, he knows what it's like to be truly hungry. Back in Canada, Elon has worked jobs such as cleaning out boilers at a lumber mill; log cutting with a chainsaw; and working on a wheat farm cleaning out grain bins, shooting gophers, etc.

 _Really high intrinsic drive:_ [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hedxehSr-I&feature=relmf...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hedxehSr-I&feature=relmfu)

 _Elon Musk talks about his drive and where it comes from, and the meaning of life_ [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZrnxOQaDU&feature=relmf...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRZrnxOQaDU&feature=relmfu)

 _Work twice as hard as others:_ [http://vator.tv/news/2010-12-23-elon-musk- work-twice-as-hard...](http://vator.tv/news/2010-12-23-elon-musk-work-twice- as-hard-as-others)

 _Getting the job done:_ <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOPgM7Sc2VQ>

_Influence of his father Errol Musk, mechanical & electrical engineer in South Africa:_ [http://www.oninnovation.com/videos/detail.aspx?video=1259...](http://www.oninnovation.com/videos/detail.aspx?video=1259&title=Inspirations)

 _Near-Death experience as the ultimate motivator:_ <https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/152394000857448448>

_"He also revealed that he almost died of cerebral malaria on a holiday to a South African game reserve in about 2000 and that the "near-miss" had given him renewed focus and energy.

"Man, that experience was no fun at all, but it does tend to sharpen your goal-setting,"_ he said. Source: [http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-04-space- oddity-elon-musk-an...](http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-04-space-oddity-elon- musk-and-his-mission-to-mars/)

 _"Elon Musk's leadership, his ability to inspire and motivate the people who work for him, derives completely, and only, from his knowledge."_ Source: [http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200901/elon- musk-...](http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200901/elon-musk-paypal- solar-power-electric-cars-space-travel#ixzz1zW7WzBnE)

I could go on and on.. but that's not really relevant towards entrepreneurship. There's so much more out there, like his charity efforts. <http://i.imgur.com/Mnk7U.jpg> Dr.Evil reference. <http://i.imgur.com/MgdDr.jpg> I'll stop there. :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm honored to be one of the elite few to be published in both the Biophysics Journal, and Hacker Monthly (the latter being way cooler).

Check out "The Psychology of Tackling Hard Problems"

The production value of this magazine is excellent. Kudos to Lim (bearwithclaws).

</comment><comment><USER4> Let me just say, I love Hacker Monthly. I got two subscriptions to it because my dad, a senior vp for sales of a brick and mortar company, enjoyed reading some of the articles so much that he would take all of my magazines. An issue was just lying around one time and he read it cover to cover. He didn't understand anything about NoSQL or python, but he got the business ideas and loved all the shop talk about Amazon and internet retailers.

I highly recommend a subscription. It's the smartest magazine I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

<comment><USER5> How do you feel about the typography and design of the magazine? I looked at a few of their sample pages and was a bit perturbed, but maybe they're just bad at picking sample pages.

<comment><USER4> Pretty good, all things considered. They are taking blog articles and what not and transforming them into a magazine. They are switching the mediums that the writing is displayed in. So, everything doesn't line up perfectly, blog authors don't write for 8x11 paper.

Otherwise, the design gives much more gravity to each article then comes with the original. It makes you want to sit down and read it cover to cover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hacker Monthly is just a great way to enjoy some of the best stories on HN. The feature story with Elon Musk is very inspirational. Humbled to be included in such company (I put together the compilation article 'Coding tricks of game developers').

</comment><comment><USER7> If I subscribe to this can I get all the magazines on my iphone somehow? (I'm not sure what formats are required for iBooks or if you can add custom links to the app?

<comment><USER8> You get ePub, PDF, mobi and iPad-optimized PDF. I usually read the latter, it just looks gourgeous.</comment></comment>


How to Keep Your Best Programmers - <AUTHOR> https://daedtech.com/how-to-keep-your-best-programmers/ <comment><USER2> A pleasantly long article that tries to offer a deeper than usual treatment of a familiar subject. Sadly, it works very well as a career issues bingo card.</comment>


What no indie developer wants to hear about the App Store - <AUTHOR> http://imore.com/app-store-disconnect <comment><USER3> > I fear we've moved into an era where pop — popular, light, snackable, mass- > market — apps, not indie apps

This is some pretencious bullshit if I've ever seen some. "Uhh, you like them 'pop' apps, go back to your herd you sheeple". Like what the hell even is indie app? Based on this context it's anything that isn't doing so well or is "underground" that's not what indie means, it just means "independent" as in it's few guys/gals doing it on their free time.

And what is actually preventing author from giving money to indie app developers "I would if I could", bullshit, have you actually contacted the devs and asked if they would setup a paypal for monthly donations? I doubt it. Sure there are some people who develop apps just for fun and don't want to feel obligated to update the apps (i.e. they don't want paying customers), but I'm sure many on your "indie app list" would be willing to take your money if you just offered it.

<comment><USER4> This was my feel too.

I doubt the author would admit it, but, I think a lot of hyperbole is due to long-standing "Mac devs" and the author's circle of friends and acquaintances being unable to sustain a living from (merely) writing their own apps. Which is especially frustrating for them as the audience has grown dramatically over the past 5+ years.

Sure, the supply has grown considerably, and with that there are more 'light, snackable, mass-market apps'. But, that's what happens when the barrier to entry gets lower, and supply increases.

It is a true shame when we lose gifted 'indie' developers and some truly fantastic apps. But, no one has a right to a living.

Interestingly, and perhaps a hidden message in this article, is that there are _significant_ parallels to draw to journalism.

<comment><USER5> So how's this different from Shareware in the 90's?

I don't think anyone then (i don't know for sure, because I know no one who actually put out shareware, personally) expected to get rich making software that spread like wildfire via floppy disk, but that's somehow changed (replace floppy disk with "social media"). I'd posit that the difference is expectations of grandeur that the startup culture (combined with pop culture) have created.

<comment><USER6> A few did end up making a living at it--at least for a while. But, right, it was a vanishingly small percentage. I probably did better than most and I still certainly wasn't about to give up my day job.

I think another difference today is that shareware, for the most part, was clearly separate and distinct from retail software. Today, the lines are much more blurred.

<comment><USER7> Kagi existed since the mid 90's at least, so it was easy to take folks money as a shareware developer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One problem (not the only one) with the app store (IMHO): all users go through the same funnel (or through several hidden funnels, doesn't really matter since they don't have a say in it), but a single user doesn't care about 99.999% of app store content. For instance, I mostly care about simulation and strategy games, I don't care at all about some other genres. Where is my lovingly curated special place in the app shop that also only cares about simulation and strategy games? Where's the whole community infrastructure around those games? Where are the curators that live and breathe those games, and find the occasional hidden gem?

App stores as simple store fronts may work as long as there wasn't a lot of content (like on the game consoles). But content-wise, the iOS app store is more like the world-wide-web, just with a shitty interface (or rather: it's more like AOL). Apple won't care as long as the overall revenue from the app store keeps growing, and they are the only ones who could solve the problem.

<comment><USER9> Apple categorizes apps just like Yahoo once categorized each site in a directory. But you're not forced to browse through each category. You can simply search for the specific app name or keyword like "todo list".

Also the curators are everywhere - they're called bloggers, tweeters, Etc.

<comment><USER10> "curators are everywhere - they're called bloggers, tweeters, Etc."

That won't change the market for these apps though, there needs to be a way for curators to actually be featured in the app store itself. An example would be how Steam did it's curator-feature. Although it's not perfect, it allows you to follow a curator, or get suggestions for which curators to follow based on apps you have already downloaded. [1]

I see big opportunities for re-igniting the indie-market in this way, I'm just not sure there's an incentive for the app stores to go through with it.

[1]: [http://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/](http://store.steampowered.com/about/curators/)

<comment><USER11> Somewhere in this direction is where I've been wanting to see the iOS and Mac App Stores go. There needs to be a method to incentivize app quality beyond the current method of a set of rules & guidelines for devs to follow, and a bunch of one-off user reviews.

Despite iOS being huge, the universe of _good_ apps (and by extension good devs) is quite limited and tractable by human curators, especially broken down by category. No algorithm can effectively compile the variety of criteria that make up a good app (tho they can inform that compilation process). If I were ran the iOS/Mac App Stores, I'd incorporate select curators as a sort of second party relationship - independent from Apple, but chosen for their credentials in a category/area of expertise and their ability to write for a broad audience within that category. I'd give them first class treatment in the app store, with embedded commentary on why the app matters and for whom.

I think Apple employee curators have their hands tied in not being able to provide real commentary or expert opinion, and thus are not able to pick winners in any sort of explicitly reasoned way (which doesn't really incentivize increased quality, just relationship building with Apple employees). The key bit is curating the curators to ensure their independence from financial incentive and their focus on broader appeal in a given domain, like finding the Mossbergs of different categories. The super niche curators will still have blogs and social media.

Of course the path beyond second party is the Steam example, where reviewers can sort of graduate to a superuser reviewer path. I think Apple has been reticent on this front given that the App Store hasn't been a priority, and that they've had trouble with social with Ping and now even artists on Apple Music.

One of the things I did at my education journalism company was build a near complete database of education apps [1] to help educators make sense of a large universe of possibilities. My experience is that if you're the one with the database + reviews, the best you can do is organize intelligently (according to user needs) and collect relevant data, but that because impartiality matters, your hands are tied when it comes to picking winners. This creates a mis-match with the user's desires, who want to find something quickly and be assured with decent, independent analysis. A solution to this I believe is second party curators.

[1] [https://www.edsurge.com/products](https://www.edsurge.com/products)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I consider myself an indie developer, and I share none of the author's pessimism. On the contrary -- I think that the circumstances have never been better for indie developers.

First of all, customers have gotten used to buying software from individuals. On the app store, my app is sold alongside apps from major corporations.

Secondly, who cares if the app store is dominated by large companies? As a solo developer I don't need millions of dollars in revenue. I just need to find a niche that's worth 100.000€ a year, and there are plenty of those niches! And the nice thing is that these niches are not interesting for big companies, because the market is too small.

If you look for successful indies, you will find them. You won't often read about us in the media, since most of us make mostly boring stuff for small audiences, but we exist!

<comment><USER13> _> On the app store, my app is sold alongside apps from major corporations. ... I just need to find a niche that's worth 100.000€ a year,_

Fyi, the author seemed to be talking about the iOS App Store (phones/tablets) and not the Mac App Store (desktop software.)

In any case, are you talking about your PostgreSQL apps at eggerapps.at earning €100k? If so, that's awesome. To clarify, are you getting most/all of that €100k from the Mac App Store as opposed to sales outside that channel? 30% is a lot of commission to give to Apple and I'm surprised that a typical customer would discover that type of db app in the Mac App store as opposed to a google search or forum recommendation linking to your website. From there, they could download it directly without that Apple middleman.

<comment><USER12> You're right, my personal experience is limited to the Mac App Store. But I do know indie developers who make money with iPhone apps, and I think the general situation for indies is similar: you can find plenty of niches that are big enough to support a single developer or a small team.

And yes, I was talking about the apps on eggerapps.at, mostly Postico. I do sell my apps directly as well, and only around 20% of my sales are on the Mac App Store. Postico has a lower price on my website, but apparently there are some people who really prefer the Mac App Store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I rarely even try apps on Play Store any more since I'm so damn tired of popup ads, video ads and pay-to-play concepts.

And a majority of the sorted, popular and "highest grossing" apps are that way.

If i knew where to get quality apps that don't try to lure or force me into paying for using apps, i would gladly pay for it and install it.

And i think that even more people would - because most people i talk to are also tired and even scared of installing new apps because of this.

I also hear the arguments "We HAVE to do this to get money!", no you don't - if an app is good it's more important to market it and make people notice it.

<comment><USER15> Shameless plug coming up:

This is why I built [https://appapp.io](https://appapp.io) , so it would be possible to search for apps in the App Store (it's IOS only at the moment) while filtering out those with in-app purchases. I'd like to also make filters for advertising models too, but structured data for that is much harder to come by.

I don't think smarter search will entirely solve the problem, but I think it's one piece of the jigsaw to help solve the problems of the App Store.

<comment><USER14> This is very nice and very fast, thanks for the plug!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used to be on the Mac app store and did make fairly good money on it. I ended up dropping it because of the Sandbox which basically makes it impossible to innovate. Instead i focused only on selling directly from my website and through various distributers. Thats ended up being a much better strategy for me.

The biggest problem MAS have isn't that it's only pop apps but rather that it's 1) Not a destination for people looking for serious apps (google is)

2) Doesn't allow for fundamentally new types of apps to be developed.

</comment><comment><USER17> One business problem is that app developers don't have any control over design at the point of sale. The app store template prevents differentiation. The worst turd looks just like the highest art in the app store. Mechanically, it is just as easy to buy turds as art...easier when the turd is "free".

Everybody says 'mobile first'. It just shows waterfall is not dead, just internalized to the point developers are taking app store requirements over the transom and tossing code back over and then doing their QA through the fortress of bureaucracy surrounding the users.

<comment><USER18> > The worst turd looks just like the highest art in the app store

This, and the lack of trials. If I find an app that, for example, looks like a solid iTunes replacement but costs $25, well, if it works, that's totally worth it to me. But there's a very good chance it doesn't work.

Including trial periods would improve the ecosystem - the good apps could go for what their worth and I'd stop collecting $2 promising garbage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Your advantage as an indie company is that you can move fast, experiment with app ideas on all-new platforms. When the App Store was new, indie companies had to compete against other indie companies, where everyone came from about the same background.

Larger companies have the advantage of doing everything at scale. Once an app or platform seems to be proven, they can move in and do what they are best at: carpet-bomb the battlefield.

On the App Store today you will compete against CandyCrushes, who can buy out a massive amount of ad inventory, making CPIs super-cheap. You can still win with an all-new app idea, but it gets increasingly difficult to come up with something totally new that others can't copy in a week.

Or you can do what you as an indie company are best at: experiment with app ideas on all-new platforms.

<comment><USER20> Which all-new platforms would you currently recommend?

<comment><USER21> VR goggles, cars, TVs, smart watches. In that order.

<comment><USER20> TV as a platform? Seems like it's been around for a while.

Or do you mean Smart TVs? I don't know much about the app ecosystem there if it exists at all.

<comment><USER19> It's not so much about how long the platform existed already: mobile phones and mobile apps were around long before iPhone and Android brought the real break-through.

Timing is key, and though I think the time for VR, smart TV, IOT or wearables hasn't arrived yet, I do think that indie devs should keep their eyes open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Another (of what must now be well into the thousands) App Store piece that basically boils down to : The App Store is a maturing market and if you expect to make money from developing apps then you need an actual business plan including sustainable revenue models and marketing strategies. Just like any other business.

For some reason this makes the author sad.

<comment><USER23> What makes the author said is the specific nature of the sustainable revenue models and marketing strategies. The metaphor from the article works just fine. Once upon a time toys were wooden and passed down from generation to generation. They were made by local craftspeople. Now that is a niche within a niche.

It's perfectly ok to feel sad about that time passing. We don't have to choose to also feel sad, but there's absolutely zero wrong with the author's sadness, and it's not a particularly difficult thing to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a former indie I can empathize with the sentiment, but as a journalist, by focusing on his indie friends' fortunes, he's missing the bigger story.

The app business is as healthy as Hollywood or TV, with all the good and bad that implies. You could even say it's the "golden age" of apps. Clash Royale just launched world-wide and immediately rocketed to #1 the same day -- the first blockbuster app launch?

And yet, some indies still do well! There are indies in the top 50 paid (if not grossing) apps list right now. It's an extremely interesting time in the app business. But he's missing this fascinating transition story.

I'm sure he'll rile people up. Unnamed indies, but surely any of his podcast listeners could guess who, wringing their hands because "the value and esteem is gone." What does that even mean? The obvious guess: they can no longer make a living from their note-taking or podcast-player apps. I'm sort of riled up! I bought Overcast. I bought Vesper. Etc. I like indies!

But markets move forward. And this is a very natural progression, from an immature market where anyone could set out a tent and do a brisk business, to a mature market that demands a lot more than just the best mousetrap.

Another note: the successful indies in the top 50 lists are mostly making games. Not utility apps. Not note-taking apps. Not podcast apps. The app store is mostly an entertainment venue. Games are at the fat end of the revenue curve. The indie podcast / note apps are squarely in the long tail.

</comment><comment><USER25> There was a brief period - after the App Store opened, but before people had really figured out how to write good apps - where an indie dev could just put up a new app and expect sales on novelty alone.

Those days are OVER.

It's fairly appropriate that App Store apps are sold through iTunes - <USER2> the issue facing indie developers is exactly the same as the one facing indie musicians. If you don't have a massive promotional budget to drive traffic to your new thing, you'll need to get better at online promotion & connecting with your customers.

It's still an improvement over the indie software ecosystem of twenty years ago, where either you were big enough to get shelf space for a boxed product (good luck!) or you were hoping enough people would get tired of the nag screen and pay the shareware fee...

<comment><USER7> Why do you need a massive promotional budget. As long as the cost to acquire a user is less than the amount they will spend, you can start off small with your advertising spend and go from there. Cost per install ads can be bought at small scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > _Customers, by and large, decided we 'd rather have an endless supply of > cheap than we would a few precious pieces and the market has followed._

Wouldn't it be a travesty if a bunch of developers in ivory towers decided that the customer is wrong and that he actually needs expensive, carefully- engineered apps with features that he doesn't want? There's thankfully no Software Developer's Guild, so the real outcome of this approach is that no one buys your apps and your competitors eat your lunch.

> _Others will continue to rage against the pop-ificiation of the App Store. > There 'll be more tweets and more editorials about what Apple has done wrong > or should be doing better, on how developers "gouge" even while "racing to > the bottom", and how customers are cheap, entitled, and, often, assholes. > And I'll be joining them._

The customer is always right. If you need his money, the customer gets to be as much of an asshole as he wants. If the customer can get a more primitive, but sufficient, alternative cheaper from your competitor, he probably will. If BigTechCompany can make a competing app and sell it for less than indie devs, then it looks like the invisible hand found a more efficient way to produce the product, good! Anyone who thinks it should be otherwise, is it not they who are acting entitled to the customer's money and interest?

<comment><USER27> Some days the code I'm reading makes me wish there was a Software Developers Guild to punish the author of such terrible code.

<comment><USER26> It's a fun fantasy, I admit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Indie developers typically aren't interested in working at BigCorp, but perhaps for survival they could consolidate in to worker-owned companies.

<comment><USER29> what are some examples of worker owned collectives in the US?

<comment><USER30> Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco. I recently bought a two dollar apple there ;)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can someone explain to me why people keep saying you can't have trials on the app store? I've seen 2 ways this is easily achieved:

1) Release your app for free, but make the non-trial features be a single in- app purchase for whatever the price of the app would have been.

2) Release a free or lite version, and also release a full paid version. Users can use the lite version to see if they like it, then they can buy the full version if they do. Often the lite version will inform the user they could do more if they upgraded to the paid version.

Both of these currently exist. What is the impediment that makes developers think this isn't possible?

<comment><USER13> _> why people keep saying you can't have trials on the app store?

>"... the non-trial features ..." "...lite version...full version..."

>"What is the impediment that makes developers think this isn't possible?"_

It's possible to you because your idea of "trials" is crippled version vs uncrippled version.

Other developers are talking "trials" in terms of _time-limited_ -trial. The timed-trial is the _full_ version with _all_ features except it quits working after 30 days or whatever.

<comment><USER31> Thanks for making that distinction!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm glad i didn't dabble with native platforms. Web technologies seem to be finally converging to dethrone them.

But, by god this writer sounds so entitled.

<comment><USER33> Not following. How do "web technologies" not suffer from similar issues to what the author describes?

<comment><USER32> No "app store" to have those isses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is very fast!

</comment><comment><USER35> I'll save us all time by saying that this text is equivalent to "what most people likes is not what _I_ like, therefore what a sad state of affairs!"</comment>


Ask HN: Is (Desktop) HTML5 Geolocation worth anything? - <AUTHOR>

Last night, I added HTML5 Geolocation to my 0 click weather site to provide an alternative to using the GeoIP database.
Chrome and Firefox give a location within 3-5 seconds but seem to just be using GeoIP data from Google's servers.  They (and GeoIP) give my location as a town 10 miles away from me.
Safari 5 on Mac OS X is basically unusable. 95% of the time it can't return a location within 10 seconds which is already way too long for a webapp.  When it does work, it gives my location within a 1 block radius which is wonderful.  It appears to be doing a long 2 way exchange of wifi data to Apple; probably building upon the location service they use for the iPod Touch/wifi iPad.
What are your experiences? Do you think accurate location-based services will stay mobile only?  Or will laptop/computer vendors eventually add GPS/A-GPS units? <comment><USER2> If you're using FF and have a desktop, you can use this addon to set a really accurate location. <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/14046/>

</comment><comment><USER3> I think that accurate location-based services will soon be as important for lap/desk-top computers as for mobile devices. There exists not yet a single app to take advantage of the fact that "The Location is You" and that being able to connect anonymously with real people who are geographically where you need any kind of data from (whether they are mobile, at work or at home) will change the way we search for and discover information.

</comment><comment><USER4> An app I wrote called FoursquareX (<http://codebutler.github.com/foursquarex/>) uses the OSX CoreLocation API (Skyhook) for geolocation. Here in Seattle it's amazingly (and somewhat horrifyingly) accurate.

As far as I know, Safari uses the same API, and always seems to work when I try it. The reliability really depends on the density of wireless networks nearby.

<comment><AUTHOR> Neat, thank you! I suppose my problem may be that there's only a handful of wireless networks around me.

It'd be great if I could use my iPhone's location data on my desktop, hrm...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://geoipweather.com/> is the site if you'd like to give comparing GeoIP vs HTML5 Geolocation a spin.

<comment><USER5> Kind of OT: is the Weather Channel's api any good? I was considering using <http://www.worldweatheronline.com/weather-api.aspx> so that I can query by lat/long.

<comment><AUTHOR> Their API is good aside from going down for a couple hours every once in awhile.

I'm using yahoo's yql to get weather by lat/lon:

$req = "GET /v1/public/yql?q=";

$req .= urlencode("use '[http://github.com/yql/yql- tables/raw/master/weather/weather....](http://github.com/yql/yql- tables/raw/master/weather/weather.woeid.xml) as we;select * from we where w in (select place.woeid from flickr.places where lat=\"$lat\" and lon=\"$lon\") and u='c'");

$data = $this->http_request("query.yahooapis.com ", $req);</comment></comment></comment>


Secure Messaging Scorecard - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/node/82654 <comment><USER2> No update since 2016-04-05. Previous discussions:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8557654](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8557654) \- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11534905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11534905)

<comment><USER3> At the top, it explicitly says so:

> This is version 1.0 of our scorecard; it is out of date, and is preserved > here for purely historical reasons. Please visit Surveillance Self-Defense > if you're looking for recommendations on specific tools to use to ensure > your privacy and security while we work on writing an updated guide to > secure messaging. Again, you should not use this scorecard to evaluate the > security of any of the listed tools, as many of them have been changed since > the scorecard was last updated (some for the better, some for the worse).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wire is missing. [https://wire.com/](https://wire.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> It has definitely improved from the original version. Would like to see references for each point made, however.</comment>


Paypal hacked? - <AUTHOR>

whois paypal.com <comment><USER2> All fine for me <http://whois.domaintools.com/paypal.com>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://i.imgur.com/Yux7v.png>

<comment><USER3> The fully qualified domain name would be "paypal.com.", not "paypal.com". You're just looking at subdomains of other domains, not something in PayPal's records.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is the case for almost every popular domain.

</comment><comment><USER5> whois -h whois-servers.net paypal.com

</comment><comment><USER6> its Not possible.</comment>


1,600 IT workers and engineers denied UK visas - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44113324 <comment><USER2> Good news for contractor day rates!</comment>


Huffington Post Contributors Go on Strike - <AUTHOR> http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/huffington-post-contributors-go-strike-25199

<comment><USER2> This dispute will be worthwhile to follow. Lets look at the 'value' equation here:

Value received: Reader gets content to view/read. Price paid: Advertisements are pushed with content. Market Evaluation: CPM

The more advertisements and advertising 'gimmicks' (click throughs, pop unders, talking flash) that readers deal with raises their perceived 'cost' of the content.

The more Ad clicks, views, mouse-overs, demographic sharing/tracking the web site gets increases the revenue generated by the content.

Costs associated with generating the content - CMS operation, rights clearance (author, images, other media).

There is lots of evidence that as people put more and more intrusive advertisements on their web site readership goes down (higher 'cost') and mitigation efforts (AdBlock, Flashblock) go up (user attempt to lower the cost). Interesting experiment at Ars with blocking content if Ads are blocked: [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad- blocking...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is- devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars)

Versus the paywalls (very explicit cost structure for readers).

All this adds data points to the questions of 'can readers distinguish between good content and not-good content' and what is the marginal value of 'good content' vs 'farmed content'.

Really fascinating to watch these systems getting tested and evaluated in real time in the real world.

<comment><USER3> Also fascinating to see how the free market will settle on the price of the content writers' services. Historically, one could argue that digital ecosystems have placed a clear value on timeliness over quality and depth, with some notable exceptions.

Unfortunately, I just don't see much of a future for long-form, written journalism on the web as a viable profession, unless you are the owner- operator of the content shop or blog. When people want timeliness, they'll go to timely sources. When they want depth, they'll go to message boards or social media channels. The latter are much more dynamic and "living" sources of deep information than static articles are.

Finally, the HuffPo contributors need to keep in mind that they tied their own bonds here. They volunteered their services for free in the first place. If you place such a low value on your own work, what do you expect you're going to get paid for it?

I have sympathy for the writers in this situation, and for writers in general. In many respects, though not professionally, I count myself among their ranks. But the way people consume information is changing fundamentally, and journalism gigs as they've traditionally existed are anachronisms.

Best way to get paid, if you're determined to be an individual content writer/contributor? Build your brand, market the hell out of yourself, and build a following. The size of your following is your most tangible indicator of worth on the market for your services.

<comment><USER2> "Unfortunately, I just don't see much of a future for long-form, written journalism on the web as a viable profession, unless you are the owner- operator of the content shop or blog. When people want timeliness, they'll go to timely sources. When they want depth, they'll go to message boards or social media channels. The latter are much more dynamic and "living" sources of deep information than static articles are."

I think the Jury is still out on this. I subscribe to the Economist and read it primarily digitally on my iPad. I suspect a lower priced 'digital only' Economist will bring in some additional revenue there. And I don't think we have yet seen a 'long form' journalism vehicle which is digital only so its still very hard to tease apart the costs vs revenue. (if there is one then I'm not yet aware of it)

Would love to hear about such a project if one exists.

<comment><USER3> Fair point. By "long-form," for the purposes of my post, I was referring really to anything longer than a handful of paragraphs. The definition of "long-form" itself is changing and is arguably becoming meaningless. But I'd consider HuffPo to be an example of what I was attempting to refer to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> you see a lot of this wailing and gnashing in the media blog echo chamber, but since this is HN I'd like to point out how blatantly off base it is.

one, contributors to "the blog" (the left column on the homepage) are the internet equivalent of a "letters to the editor" page or a cable news guest brought on to have their (employers) say.[1]

two, the traffic generated by those posts is a small fraction of overall traffic. Nate Silver did some spitball math on it a week or two ago and came away with the right understanding.[2]

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/huffington-post- blo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/10/huffington-post- bloggers_n_821446.html)

[2] [http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/the- econ...](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/the-economics-of- blogging-and-the-huffington-post/)

</comment><comment><USER5> It's kind of mind-boggling that the most left-wing, union supporting, socialist website on the planet pays the people who produces the content on their site _zero_. I'm mostly progressive/left-wing/Canadian, but that fact alone makes my want to switch sides in an instant.

<comment><USER6> Really? _Huffington Post_ is the most leftist/socialist site on the planet? Maybe in the eyes of Fox News viewers. Arianna Huffington herself (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington>) is very, very far from being affiliated with socialism.

Here are a few (well worth reading) sites that are actually closer to your description:

<http://www.zcommunications.org/znet>

<http://monthlyreview.org/>

<http://links.org.au/>

<comment><USER7> Huffington Post likes to post headlines and blog posts praising all things green energy, Obama, and NBC. The bias is pretty obvious. The original point of the site was to be a left-wing alternative to Drudge Report--even the name is a play off of it. Ariana Huffington herself has spoken at several Democrat events over the years and is considered politically left-of-center.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A hard lesson to learn the hard way, but there you are. Everyone should have seen this coming as a likely potential outcome for the site.

Either get an agreement ahead of time, or run your own site.

And this being said, I'll bet most authors' takes would turn out to be surprisingly small.

<comment><USER9> The argument for Huff Post (and others) has always been "exposure" but I can't recall ever following a contributing author to other sites from Huff Post (which I don't frequent as much lately) or any other news site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Too bad _Atlas Shrugged Part 1_ has already been wrapped. They could have written into the script the high-minded progressive talking head convincing others to contribute their labor "for the cause" cashing out for millions. This is synchronicity.

</comment><comment><USER11> As I recall, HuffPo's traffic isn't dominated by the blogs, it's dominated by being a link aggregator / discussion site. In terms of its web genes it has more in common with Slashdot than DailyKos.</comment>


Show HN: A corporate card for life science companies - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
Henrique here from Brex. We just launched a corporate card specially tailored for life sciences companies (https://brex.com/industry/life-sciences), and every time we launch something new we get a lot of questions about how we chose to prioritize this feature or product, so I thought it'd be interesting to share here with the HN community. While I've previously posted about launching our initial tech startup card (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17418813), the decision to launch Life Sciences was much different in that we already had two existing products in the market with their own long list of improvements we wanted to make to them.
Here's my blog post going into much more detail (couldn't fit it here): https://brex.com/blog/how-we-chose-our-third-vertical.
Would love to get your thoughts and feel free to ask any questions you might have. <comment><USER2> It would be easier to take Brex more seriously if they implemented basic security practices like 2-factor for login.

Especially as virtual cards and transactions are shown without any kind of additional checks after a basic username/password login flow.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback and totally understand where you're coming from. We're working on adding these security measures in the near term. We care a lot about security too - one of the reasons we started Brex and made virtual cards a feature is that it is a much more secure payments tool. We started on the acquiring side where fraud is a huge issue and we're looking forward to adding more security features shortly.

<comment><USER3> If you cared a lot about security, wouldn't you have built the platform on basic security methods like 2fa and hard sign in from the start? Surely patching these in afterwards will leave gaps. Are there other important security precautions coming "in the near term" like encryption at rest?

<comment><USER4> Is 2fa a norm in the corporate card market?

I've carried a handful of different corporate cards, and do not recall even being offered an option for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> May not be the right post to ask, but here I go.

I am a credit card geek and am very interested in this space. I have some questions

1\. Your rewards are insane. How do you even manage to give 7x on rideshare?

2\. Most millennials and Gen Z spend a lot on rideshare, Airbnbs, online subscriptions and restaurants. Many personal credit cards provide rewards only on restaurants, but not on any of the other categories. It's a huge untapped market. Do you see entering personal credit card space in near future?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great question!

1.) 7x on rideshare is a lot but if you think about the portfolio of spend for a company, most of it is not on rideshare. Since our offering is superior, people usually put all of their spend on Brex, which helps us make up for the amount of money we're giving away on ride share. We also get back discounts from vendors. In general though, we believe in providing the most value to customers, so we're ok with giving away more rewards than the other corporate cards out there.

2.) The personal credit card space is interesting, but our mission for now is to accelerate entrepreneurs, which means we're focusing on building the best possible financial products for businesses. The market for this is huge, so we still have a long ways to go

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Small biotech cofounder here - curious how you think about lab supplies and interactions with other of your customers. One thing that is curious is that you have a list of your life-science customers, but that's also a list of clients/suppliers for other of your clients. Is there any (potential) interaction in that regard between your clients? That seems to be one of the 'perks' in the generic tech industry - trading services between horizontal players. That might be a useful strategy here too. Even more than I want Uber rides, I want DNA, RNA, and other biotech services & products (that might be provided by these other clients).

Also curious about your interaction with CLSA - they're a pretty cool group that, as you mention, serves as a node or hub in the community. What does your interaction with them look like? To some extent they already provide some portal into the larger lab suppliers. It's not on the payment side, but more on the buying power itself.

Helping comply with government-approved accounting would also be a very nice feature for those of us that make use of SBIR-type grants. Though I suspect that that would mostly be true for much smaller biotech startups.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the questions! To your first point, there's definitely some potential interaction between our customers. We're not quite sure what that will look like right now, but we do have our eyes on that in the future. We offer discounts on goods and services through our rewards portal so there's always the possibility of getting customers involved with that.

We're actually partnered with CLSA! You can read more about that here ([https://finance.yahoo.com/news/brex-launches-first- corporate...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/brex-launches-first-corporate- card-130000526.html)) and if you're a CLSA member you'll start to see some communication about our partnership in the coming days/weeks.

Helping you comply with SBIR-type grants is definitely something we're researching. We actually already have some expense management tools (such as our receipt capture/handling) that make it easier to comply and will continue to work to make them better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another credit card geek here, and also a conference organiser.

How are you detecting conference ticket purchases?

<comment><AUTHOR> We leverage merchant level data that's provided by the networks as an input into our auto categorization system, which uses Google Places API and some simple machine learning. We then overlay randomly sampled manual inspections to ensure quality

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I looked at your careers page to get an idea of internal teams and I didn't find any fraud related teams. How do you handle credit card fraud? Do you outsource it?

<comment><AUTHOR> We handle fraud in-house through a joint effort of a variety of teams (customer experience, operations, engineering, etc.) and even have a webpage dedicated to it [https://brex.com/fraud/](https://brex.com/fraud/) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Biotech-AI founder here. Already using Brex and love it!

On the new life sciences support,

1\. How do you know which companies? Do we need to explicitly sign-up/transfer to a life sciences program?

2\. Are the life sciences rewards in addition to or replacing the standard Brex rewards [1]?

Also a feature request while you're here: Easy payment a la Chase QuickPay.

[1] [https://brex.com/startups/](https://brex.com/startups/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Hey, we are a startup in Germany. When are you going to come to Germany/Europe?

</comment><comment><USER10> Henrique - this is super cool. Really fascinating and inspiring to follow your success.

Unrelated to today's announcement, but curious if you could share a bit about your origins in "making a new credit card from scratch" at all: forming a relationship with a bank, card network, etc.

How difficult was it to even enter the space at all - any top takeaways or learnings? Non-obvious struggles you may have had to overcome?</comment>


How Google Screwed Up Google Glass - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/04/21/how-google-screwed-up-google-glass/ <comment><USER2> Methinks the author really needs to read _Crossing the Chasm_ , and understand the difference between early adopters and early majority. Google Glass doesn't _need_ to be pretty and perfect right out of the box. It just needs to be far enough along that the early adopters will use it to shake out the bugs. A mainstream market is still a rev or three down the road.

What Google Glass needs isn't to be instantly perfect and mainstream. No, it just needs to avoid becoming a Segway. That's the hard part.

<comment><USER3> I think what muddies the waters here is Google's track-record with "beta" products. Namely, now-standard things like Gmail were technically in beta forever, but were practically speaking consumer-ready products by the time people were buzzing about it.

Not that I don't agree with your original point (I do), but I think the above is perhaps a relevant peek into the author's mindset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I expected them to mention the camera and microphone. It's not the only thing to pick on but it's what killed my interest in a devkit. The camera turns me from an idiot wearing some nerdy bullshit into asshole. I'll gladly look like an idiot if I have to, but I'm not going to force a camera into social situations and expect people to be OK with it using "just deal with it" rationalizations about how expectations w/r/t cameras are changing.

<comment><USER5> Yup, the camera is also what killed it for me. I'm exactly the sort of guy who would pay fifteen hundred bucks for a hud, especially if it had even a nascent software ecosystem (I've already got a twiddler) And I'm absolutely okay wearing a bunch of nerdy shit on my face.

The thing that annoys me is that because of google glass, the average person now expects a HUD to come with a camera, too, which takes the whole concept from nerdy, which I can embrace, to creepy, which I try to avoid.

Google may have killed the very concept of a ubiquitous HUD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The world "glasshole" has now risen to the same prominence as "selfie" and > "twerk."

No, no it hasn't. With that goes the argument.

<comment><USER7> How did you get from "the term 'glasshole' isn't as prominent as 'selfie' and 'twerk'" to "glass is successful"? Please fill me in on the rest of your argument.

<comment><USER6> I never made that statement. You've invented a quote.

<comment><USER7> The article argues that glass is not successful (that's what they mean by "How Google Screwed Up Google Glass"), and you say you disagree with that argument.

Didn't you read the article? So what did you mean by "with that goes the argument", if not to disagree with the argument presented in the article, and what did you think the article was arguing?

What I don't understand is why you'd throw out the entire argument, which makes a lot of sense to me, just because you don't agree with what it said about selfies and twerks.

<comment><USER6> > you say you disagree with that argument

Disagreeing with an argument does not mean supporting the inverse of the argument. That is a false dichotomy fallacy.

The argument is that Glass is a failure as a product as it is universally disliked and too expensive. Glass however is clearly not an actual product on sale in general and does not appear to be universally disliked.

With that, goes the argument. If Glass were a real product and really disliked they might have a point. At this point however it's a technology demonstrator focused on by people with a loose understanding of these matters.

<comment><USER7> The terms you disagree with were NOT the only reasons they gave to support their argument, you know.

Disagreeing with one part of an argument does not make the whole argument invalid, because they gave many reasons Glass is a failure, and the argument does not depend on every reason they gave to be true.

For example, maybe they wanted to make a joke. To be funny, you know. Ha ha. Oh wait, your name is "hahainternet," so why do I have to explain this to you?

Is it that the word "glasshole" tweaks you so much, and you don't find it funny? Hey wait, you're not actually wearing one of those things, are you??! Aren't glassholes socially obligated to disclose stuff like that in public? Are you recording this??!

[https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/1015157966444465...](https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/posts/10151579664444655)

[https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/1UfNLdZAN4h](https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/1UfNLdZAN4h)

<comment><USER6> Only just noticed this response Don. Sorry for the delay.

Those are the only substantive arguments they offer, and no, I don't own a Glass. I wish I did but I can't justify $1500 on alpha/beta tech.

I wear glasses though, so they could be incredibly useful to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Safe: Set maximum capacity for any room, floor, or building - <AUTHOR> https://www.density.io/blog/safe-by-density/ <comment><USER2> The idea is definitely cool (and important/impactful at this time if successful). That said, in the midst of a global pandemic where human density is inherently dangerous and social distancing is espoused, naming a product "Safe by Density" gives the exact opposite initial reaction you're probably hoping for.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. Should have been "Safe by reducing Density"

<comment><USER4> "Safe from Density"

<comment><USER3> +1

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a cool concept, though it appears to only care about the total number of people being below a set threshold regardless how people interact (i.e. maintain social distancing)

Shameless plug: two friends and I put together a small app that uses security cameras feed to calculate real-time density + estimate "safe" space capacity:

Demo video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTgxhptePxM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTgxhptePxM) Demo site: [https://flou.fyi/](https://flou.fyi/) (takes a bit to load)

</comment><comment><USER6> I think it could work. Heavens know, I will now have to actively avoid places that are not at least careful about how they reopen.

I am mildly concerned about people, who see doing the opposite as a political expression, but some things cannot be helped.

<comment><USER7> > I am mildly concerned about people, who see doing the opposite as a > political expression

Those people are a very small but vocal minority, being amplified by social media.

All the data says that most people are complying with safe practices, even when their governments aren't requiring it.

<comment><USER8> > Those people are a very small but vocal minority, being amplified by social > media.

I disagree. Tens of thousands of people in my state don't obey any stay at home order. People take off masks once in stores.

As someone who also goes out a lot right now I haven't seen anyone be asked to put their mask on or leave.

<comment><USER7> Which state? And how do you know tens of thousands are ignoring it?

<comment><USER9> Georgia reopened weeks ago and yesterday hit their lowest levels of cases and deaths since the outbreak began at 22 and 3 respectively: [https://ga- covid19.ondemand.sas.com/](https://ga-covid19.ondemand.sas.com/)

<comment><USER7> Georgia reopened 14 days ago. The incubation is 14 days.

If their numbers stay low in the next few days then great!

But if they start going up, they will have sacrificed the lives of Georgians to prove that it's not safe to reopen.

I hope the cases stay low.

<comment><USER9> No, they started reopening on April 24th: [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/kemp-shuttered- georg...](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/kemp-shuttered-georgia- businesses-reopen-friday-70250918)

So yeah the models were wrong.

<comment><USER7> It was a very limited reopening on April 24. The full reopening didn't happen until April 30.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love this idea and I love how it looks. The design is top notch. Really hope to see this near me soon.

<comment><USER11> The stylized design makes my brain recognize is as just another random inspirational poster or an add, not something I should pay attention to. We have standard and widespread symbols already for stop/go which should be applied here in some form.

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting point. What would you recommend? Follow street sign structure?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Having seen the way people 'queue' when waiting outside an eatery implementing social distancing guidelines - this only solves part of the problem.

Edit: Perhaps integrating it with some sort of QR Code based ticketing system for entry would alleviate the issues of people queueing (or huddling) outside the store?

<comment><USER3> You're right. "Notify me when it's quiet" is a thing the system supports. In related news, load balancing humans is a two-sided thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So ... how does it work, given that 2m is not enough, and the distance of 10m is thought to be more likely? :)

<comment><USER14> My first thought is this puts way too much stock in the idea that rooms are safe as long as they aren't too packed. To me it seems like this 1.5m rule and person limits aren't actually backed up by real research and are just numbers pulled out of a hat when something had to be done fast.

We shouldn't be finding ways to get people back in to shared buildings as soon as possible because infections don't just give up because the TV on the door said OK.

<comment><USER13> I was just thinking that the difference in fatalities between NY and SF might be that NY has a colder climate, so airtight buildings with more heating.

A virus like corona with a high R0 would spread like crazy in a building with active ventilation piping. Or an airliner.

Corona is really a non-event in SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I could not find whether this integrates with NFPA etc. to help interpret blueprints (or simplified diagrams). While determining capacity is relatively easy, it could definitely be easier.

</comment><comment><USER16> Interesting, but I'm skeptical it could make some semblance of normal life "safe" purely through occupancy counts. It also seems like a likely very expensive solution to something that could be solved with a handheld clicker. Corporate offices might splurge for it, but they're also more likely to just have people working from home.

<comment><USER17> I think people think that shooting down ideas makes them sound intelligent and "in the know", but in reality it just makes you sound rigid and not creative enough to see the merit in a idea.

This seems to be a common attitude on HN, but it's less than useful. Genuine critical thinking is great... dogmatic cynicism is useless.

<comment><USER16> I think people think that criticizing others by over-applying perceived HN tropes makes them sound intelligent and "in the know".

I wasn't shooting it down, I was just expressing skepticism toward the complexity of the solution and opening it up for wider discussion.

<comment><USER3> Skepticism on this stuff is valid. If we're going to distribute large scale infrastructure that measures human movement we ought to be critical of it. So many systems purport to work but don't. Others are way over engineered. And a lot market as if they're sensors when they're really just cameras taking pictures of behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A phone app could replace this right? Using the front facing camera you could run some image recognition to count the flow of people and show the statistics on screen. Put the phone on a stand and leave it running. Much cheaper.

<comment><USER19> Their whole selling point seems to be that their hardware + software can count people accurately without needing a camera. The premise being that cameras spook people.

Cameras are already commonplace enough where I work, for security purposes. So not sure how easily cameras can be eliminated.

The dashboards they provide don't seem to be have to be coupled to the kind of ($850) hardware they are selling. Like you said, cameras should be able to do the job.

<comment><USER3> I don't think cameras will be displaced / eliminated. It's just a question of whether or not they will be accepted as a form of active surveillance or remain a method of security. Today, they are largely security but it's entirely possible the world moves toward mass surveillance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How do these devices actually work?

<comment><USER21> Here's an interview from a while back: [https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2018/07/16/counting- peo...](https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2018/07/16/counting-people-with- andrew-farah/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Indoor Densitivity"

</comment><comment><USER23> Viruses don't care about how many people are in a room, and this doesn't seem like something people are going to worry about much 10 years down the road.

<comment><USER24> At the same time, I'd much rather shop in a small neighborhood grocery store with 5-10 other patrons instead of 200.

Trader Joe's and other retailers (at least in the bay area) have to delegate a full-time employee to the front door to throttle incoming patrons. This would free up that employee.

<comment><USER25> >This would free up that employee.

In my area Walmart has started making each aisle one way and counting people coming into the store. Just yesterday I went in and it's already devolved into no one following the directions on the aisle, no one seems to be in the slightest bit considerate about trying to give others space to go around. People were regularly reaching around someone getting an item and coming into close contact instead of waiting all of 5 seconds for them to get their item and move.

There are already plenty of news articles about customers doing increasingly outrageous things and attacking employees because they dared to tell the customer not to violate store policy around purchase limits, senior hours, mask policies, occupancy limits, etc. The fancy sign telling someone to wait will not free up employees because there will inevitably be a chunk of the population who ignores it outright and when they just walk in the door, others will follow. These policies are meaningless unless there's some actual enforcement.

<comment><USER3> I agree with this. It's compliance will be contextual / regional / etc. This is why the system also support real-time alerts and safe analytics. In the event a place like Walmart wants to more actively enforce they can. Display is just the public facing feature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am sad about how far apart we're growing as people due to virus that is no more scary than the flu.

<comment><USER27> Funny you say no more scary than the flu when the flu is literally the cause of the last pandemic that killed 3% if the global population.

<comment><USER26> Sure, to be more correct I mean a mild flu season, not 1918.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Visual Studio Code. Is the FSF Crazy? - <AUTHOR> Are the guys at the FSF smoking weed?
Point 5 of the license for the Visual Studio Code says:
You may not

    -work around any technical limitations in the software;
    -reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the software except, and solely to the extent: (i) permitted by applicable law, despite this limitation; or (ii) required to debug changes to any libraries licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License which are included with and linked to by the software;
    -remove, minimize, block or modify any notices of Microsoft or its suppliers in the software;
    -use the software in any way that is against the law; or
    -share, publish, or lend the software, or provide it as a hosted solution for others to use, or transfer the software or this agreement to any third party.
 How on earth does this comply with the 4 essential software freedoms?! <comment><USER2> The code is under MIT, that's mostly what matters (and you can do everything with it the MIT license allows, including building and distributing your own variants of it, and distributing it under other licenses, just as MS does)

From the top of the license page:

 _This license applies to the Visual Studio Code product. The source code is available under the MIT license agreement. Additional license information can be found in our FAQ._

[https://code.visualstudio.com/License/](https://code.visualstudio.com/License/)

The FAQ links to [https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-1...](https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/issues/60#issuecomment-161792005), which explains it in detail (TL;DR: the "product" download is the MIT code built with some MS-centric customizations (Logos, telemetry, ...) applied through configuration)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's for the binary you download from Microsoft. You can still download the source and build a binary from it that you are allowed to reverse engineer, change, share, etc. You probability cannot call it "Microsoft Visual Studio Code", though.

If it is all Microsoft's code, they are free to do double-license their stuff. I haven't checked, but the binary could also be slighlty different from what you get when you download the source and build it. For example, it could use a close-source component somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER4> What has Visual Studio Code to do with the FSF? There is something missing in your rant.</comment>


The Mate X is Huawei's 5G foldable - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/24/the-mate-x-is-huaweis-5g-foldable/ <comment><USER2> What kind of journalism is this? Seriously, are these articles neither proof- read nor passed by an editor before publishing?

> The device is thin, as far as tablets go, at 5.4 mm, unfolded. Closed, it's > nearly double that, at 11 mm.

11mm is _more_ than double 5.4mm.

> with a 19:5 aspect ration.

Aspect ration? Are aspects now too precious to waste?

> ...as Richard You takes the stage...

> ...according to mobile CEO Richard Yu...

Could we at least get some consistency in proper noun transliterations?

There's so much more that I feel like I'm reading an article published by a middle-school student. If so, then he did a great job. If this is supposed to be a professional journalist, though, then he should go back to middle school.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your criticism, but I don't get what is the problem with the first point (I am not a native speaker). Doesn't "nearly" just mean "close to" and not necessarily "less than"?

<comment><USER4> I see what you mean, but there's a clear implication of "less than" in that particular case. In the same way, you can't say that a runner has "nearly crossed the finishing line" a few moments after they cross it.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention that it doesn't take a genius to see that a solid object folded in half is not going to be _less_ than twice as thick!

<comment><USER3> That's precisely why I immediately thought of "nearly" meaning a bit more instead of a bit less.

It is still no clear to me what makes "nearly" in this particular case to mean "less than". Curiously enough, "nearly crossed the finish line" indeed sounds totally wrong to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The fold is not perfect. Seems they were careful with not letting journalists hold the device, only showing certain things on the display, etc.

See 1:28 : [https://youtu.be/NnO08HnZf10?t=88](https://youtu.be/NnO08HnZf10?t=88)

<comment><USER7> Some stills: [https://imgur.com/a/z7sgEdS](https://imgur.com/a/z7sgEdS)

Looks pretty bad, hence not letting the journalists hold it. I think they traded thinness for display surface uniformity. The Galaxy Fold is thicker, but uses the additional size to incorporate a stronger folding mechanism, which appears to put less strain on the screen itself.

Hopefully they figure this out before launch. It definitely doesn't look worthy of the $2600 sticker price in its current form.

<comment><USER8> I could argue that the original iPhone didn't look worthy of $500 either. My fist iPhone was iPhone 5. Early adopters are a niche anyway and this device has a bright future. I bet all the phones will be more or less foldable.

<comment><USER9> If you could argue that, perhaps you should try it. I rather doubt you can. The first iPhone was a polished, finished product. These foldables...aren't.

<comment><USER10> The first iPhone was _not_ a finished product. It launched with only EDGE for mobile data, and with no app store. Combined, these limited its utility. It was the next version - with 3G and the first incarnation of the AppStore, that helped the iPhone gain mainstream popularity.

<comment><USER11> It still represented a huge leap over everything else that was on the market at the time, such that Mobile Safari quickly came to account for around 80% or so of mobile data use.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely. It showed that browsing the proper Web on a phone was something feasible to do. It was a great step forward, as these folding phones are.

<comment><USER12> > Absolutely. It showed that browsing the proper Web on a phone was something > feasible to do.

In 2007, the proper web involved tons of Flash. Flash video players, Flash games, Flash-based interactive websites. None of those worked on the iPhone.

Its web browsing ability wasn't much better than what you could already get on keyboard-based phones like Nokia, Blackberry and Samsung. On the iPhone you did pinch to zoom, and on the other smartphones, you were served the WAP version of the page, or you could browse the full page with the scrollwheel.

<comment><USER11> > ts web browsing ability wasn't much better than what you could already get > on keyboard-based phones like Nokia, Blackberry and Samsung. On the iPhone > you did pinch to zoom, and on the other smartphones, you were served the WAP > version of the page, or you could browse the full page with the scrollwheel.

That's a very revisionist version of events. Much of the initial disillusionment around the web on featurephones came from WAP being (mis)sold as the Internet on a phone.

If you go back and watch the original iPhone demo you can see that people were genuinely wowed by being able to browse the Internet ('the real internet') on a mobile.

In fact, 'it's not a watered down version of the internet' was one of the tag lines of one of the first iPhone commercials

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr- ZfoE4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6lZMr-ZfoE4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Since 79% of smartphone users use a case, how is this supposed to work out?

It seems to be me your two options with a mobile device are:

1) Make it durable so that it can be dropped on a variety of surfaces without big concerns of dropping or scratching. This might be a lot easier to achieve if devices got much lighter (or go the Toughbook route and harden it).

2) Allow it to support a variety of case types that a user can choose

This whole thing seems more like a prototype than a great idea. I think foldable and rollable computing devices have a future, but this doesn't seem fully considered.

Although this one looks significantly better than the Galaxy Fold, which reminds me of the Homer Simpson Car: [https://patrickwthornton.com/samsung- galaxy-fold-is-the-home...](https://patrickwthornton.com/samsung-galaxy-fold- is-the-homer-simpson-car/)

<comment><USER8> I believe 79% of smartphone users are over-protective with their phones. What's the point to pay top dollar for a beautiful screen if you cover it with a cheap cover? You will change the phone in 4 years max anyway.

<comment><USER14> When I use the case I'm protecting the body, not the screen. The screen is never obscured by the cases I buy and I care far-more about the durability and functionality anyway (I find the iPhone 6/6s/7s/8s body is awkward to hold without a case due to the thin body).

I plan on getting 4+ years out of my phone too, especially since Apple replaced the battery for free a few months ago. My 6s is close to the 4-year mark.

<comment><USER8> What about iPhone X? You buy it because of its body design(i.e glass back) and cover it with plastic. What's the point?

<comment><USER15> >What's the point?

to keep it intact?

<comment><USER8> Better keep it in a box.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wasn't there news last year that someone in China stole Samsung folding tech? Wonder if that is relevant with this new device that Huawei is working on.

<comment><USER17> Yes: [https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china- tech-t...](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china-tech- theft/index.html)

<comment><USER18> I would totally not be surprised given how non-frowned upon the practice is culturally but I do wish the article had something more material to present than A alleges B of doing X.

[http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard18.html](http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard18.html) Huawei spends more in R&D than Apple or Intel so I wouldn't automatically assume everything they do is stolen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder about the bend in these screens. How will long term use be affected by fatigue? Will we see something like LCD bruising over time?

<comment><USER20> Most phones are disposed after 2 years so they probably factor that in.

<comment><USER21> These foldable phones are $2k plus. I hope they are aiming for multiple times the old life span.

The current flagships are over 1k. I'm not upgrading for the next 4years minimum.

<comment><USER22> The type of people who will spend $2k on these devices will probably (sadly) not be concerned about the phone having more than a two year lifespan. Also in two years, this thing will probably be $500 as 'new old stock' on eBay.

<comment><USER23> iPhone7 was 800 when I purchased it. Now $150, and can even find cheaper on eBay sometimes. With all the competition, it is going to be even cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am very old school but if I want to fold something, I find the One Mix Yoga 2S much more usable -- a 7" 2-in-1 laptop, with a proper Intel Core CPU, PCIe SSD and 8GB of RAM. Oh and it's 670 USD... a quarter of this Mate X thing, or what.

</comment><comment><USER25> While the dispay on the outside is nice, having a soft (bendable) material on the edge of the phone has to be prone to scratches, no? And then when you unfold, you'll have scratched middle of the display, which has to be the worst place to have the scratches.

While not that nice, having display on the inside of the phone at least protects it from scratches.

<comment><USER26> Yeah I think the bend-on-outside seems like a much worse idea than bend-on- inside. Bendable already means the screen will be less scratch resistant, why make it worse?

<comment><USER27> True, but bend-on-inside would probably be a smaller radius, causing more "pinch damage" than bend-on-outside.

<comment><USER26> Good point!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron A solution to a problem that doesn't exist

<comment><USER28> A problem that I now have, after seeing the solution. I've toyed with the idea of getting a tablet, but never made the leap because of how bulky they are. If I wanted a bulky spacious computing device, I'd just use my laptop. If I want a tiny computing device, I'd use my phone. This scratches both itches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm looking forward to phones like these getting more mature. Screen size and pocketability are everything. This first generation from Huawei and Samsung is just step one down the path of what will eventually be a really compelling design.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's about time the smartphone market had some shake-up. Phones haven't seen major form factor changes in several years now, yet their prices keep ticking up.

Neither Apple, nor Samsung can justify prices of $1000+ for flagship models when the benefits are so marginal compared to flagships of even 2 years ago. I paid $900 for a Galaxy S7 in 2016 and decided to import a Nokia X6 from HK for $300 instead of getting a new Galaxy.

Of course, I'm not going to pay $1500-$2000 to be a guinea pig for this new form factor, but it's good to see that in a couple of years, smartphones might not become yet another boring shopping list item.

</comment><comment><USER30> I just don't get the prices.

Samsung foldable: $2,000

Huawei Mate X: $2,600

Why are these devices so expensive?

<comment><USER31> New technology comes at a price. The have spent billions on R&D and this is a way to get some of the investment monetized. It is likely to be a niche product to test the technology and the market. Most likely in a couple of years we will have foldable screen phones that go for less than $1000

<comment><USER32> >The have spent billions on R&D and this is a way to get some of the investment monetized.

That excuse works for Samsung. Huawei stole the tech.

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china-tech- theft...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/tech/samsung-china-tech- theft/index.html)

<comment><USER33> Was the Samsung display manufactured in China? If so, what did they expect?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The cellphone market in developed nations have been somewhat stagnant in the past few years, so it seems that both Samsung and Huawei's foldable cellphone are looking to create a technology that adds a new level to the cellphone hierarchy.

It is likely that both cellphones are not going to pay itself off this year when accounting for R&D (assuming technology hasn't been stolen), but the value of being seeing as the leaders in the industry (brand value) and the increased availability of the technology will likely drop the cost of fold- able tech and hopefully propel the industry to the next level.

Whether these technological updates are true value-adder to customers remains to be seeing. We have seen people buy new cellphones yearly with a lot less changes to it.

I also think that if someone is willing to pay 2-4x more for a foldable cellphone, they are likely to pay a couple hundred to a customized case or at least something that will protect their cellphones. (@pwthornton)

</comment><comment><USER35> I do not see the point of such a device to exist. Not a phone, not a tablet, do we really need something in between the two? Tablets have had SIM capability for a while now. I anticipate in less than years time these will no longer be talked about.

<comment><USER8> I would love to have a such device. An iPhone X which transforms itself into an iPad mini? Yes, please! Definitely a better feature than some new colors(i.e rose gold), new emoji or glass back.

<comment><USER36> As someone who carries iPhone + iPad mini on a daily basis I'd tend to agree.

But won't having both within a single device mean either an iPad mini with crappy battery life or a much heavier iPhone?

<comment><USER8> It doesn't necessary need to be heavier. For example iPhone X uses a combination of steel and glass to make it look/feel more premium. I would give up on that for a folding screen. It's time to focus more on tech and usuability again and less on fashion features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Good luck getting more than two major Android updates on this.

<comment><USER38> Does it matter? By the time there's two major android updates there will be a newer and better version of these devices to upgrade to. Let's not kid ourselves, phones aren't "buy it for life".

<comment><USER39> Yes, because it's $2600. Would you buy a computer for $2600 that didn't receive security updates after 24 months (or less?).

<comment><USER40> No, but I'm not the target market and neither are you.

<comment><USER39> Who is the target market?

<comment><USER40> People who will buy first gen technology to show it off. Sort of like Tesla Roadster 1.0 owners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So these basically fold out to a tablet-size screen area, don't obviously accommodate covers and cost more than current smartphone prices? I don't see it.

</comment><comment><USER42> It is cool. But I think it will probably end up as gimmick to wow your friends, but not a feature that you would use regularly.

Definitely not worthy of the price tag.

<comment><USER22> Kinda like the HTC Evo 3D? There are zero 3D phone currently on the market.

<comment><USER43> Poor HTC. 3D phones, bitcoin phones - you can tell they are really thrashing in the market now that Apple and Samsung have it sown up.

<comment><USER44> And poor Netscape trying to get into a browser market that Microsoft already has sown up.

<comment><USER43> Not an anti-trust issue in this case. Plain old market failure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Hope Xiaomi make foldable cheaper

</comment><comment><USER46> Was hoping a foldable phone would result in a smaller phone, not a larger one. Sigh...

</comment><comment><USER47> Seems I prefer a normal phone and a similar price foldable laptop for now.

</comment><comment><USER48> A glass screen will probably never fold -- so how's the screen texture and hardness on folding phones? I'd guess quite miserable!

At least Samsung can have a glass screen on the outside, more exposed to the elements .

</comment><comment><USER49> I guess this phone/tablet is not intended to be used for video calls at all given how the camera hides on the back of the device in both use cases?

</comment><comment><USER50> Steve Jobs make a joke about foldable phones, and those 2 actually made it... spending billions on RnD in the process...

<comment><USER51> Apple recently put in a patent for foldable phones as well.

<comment><USER52> the patent: [http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20190053388&IDK...](http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20190053388&IDKey=852C82801B1C)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is there a way to disable data collection by the Chinese government on these? Or at least a way to toggle which government agency (NSA, GCHQ, etc) my data gets sent to?

<comment><USER54> I don't get why everyone is so scared of Chinese phones when every brand has huge privacy and tracking issues. As a European, I would rather not be tracked by anyone, also not European companies, let alone foreign ones from either the west or the east.

<comment><USER55> Two wrongs don't make a right.

<comment><USER54> Oh, no, I'm not saying Chinese tracking is good, I'm saying I don't understand why this comes up every time with Chinese phones but not with other brands. I always root the phone and remove tracking (there is always loads and loads).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Ipad will be more cheaper in the future XD

</comment><comment><USER57> I wonder what the chances of Apple jumping on bendable phones is. Apple has transformed into a company that lags in innovation and only makes safe moves. I wonder how long it will take for bendable to become "safe".

<comment><USER58> IIRC Apple jumped on the bendable-phone trend a few years ago, before everyone else.

<comment><USER59> Do you have any reference to backup that claim?

<comment><USER60> Pretty sure its a joke referencing "bendgate".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> So this is the new phone fad? I have never felt the need to fold my phone. It seems like the phone industry invents pointless changes just to show something new to get people to buy a phone again. Curved edges and screen notches come to mind.

<comment><USER12> > I have never felt the need to fold my phone.

What kind of analogy is that? I haven't felt the need to fill up a tank of gas every week, but I still bought a car.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Capacity planning question - <AUTHOR>

How many simultaneous mongrels am I going to need to serve 120K users?  120K mongrels?
Assume the mongrels are sitting at the front of a rails app - any idea of a good metric for this?  I know they're not all going to be hitting the site simultaneously, but I believe each request to rails blocks.
So at 4 Mongrels a virtualized server I'd need 250 to serve 1K simulataneous users.  Is there a good metric for breaking down how many simul users I should plan for based on the total number of users? comments, links, ridicule welcome TIA <comment><USER3> 120K users a day? That's a _lot_ for a rails app. In fact, looking around, I'd be surprised if there were any existing rails applications that serve that many. 43things.com seems to max out in the 50K users per day range (on average). The first question I have to ask is do you really need to handle that kind of traffic? If you don't - don't bother trying to scale to that much yet. If you're talking hits, that's a different story... You'll definitely want to know how many concurrent you're getting. For reference, a TechCrunch post generates between 20-50 concurrent hits on an application that renders in ~1s/page (as of Nov 07). Plan for 2x-3x that for digg/reddit traffic. That TechCrunch load was served with 4 or 5 mongrels. 6-8 is the most I'd recommend running on a dual-core box.

I haven't seen a 1000 concurrent user app since I worked at UPS... so if you have this problem, why are you asking us? You should be hiring someone with the huge amount of money you have. ;)

<comment><USER4> We do 400K+ users an day on our Rails app, 10MM pageviews, and 200 requests a second.

YellowPages.com, which is probably the largest Rails site (yes larger than Twitter) does a lot more than that.

I used to buy in to the whole 'scale later' philosophy from 37signals, but after getting burnt by a fast growing application and being down for half a month - capacity planning is definitely worth it over being caught with your pants down right when you're growing.

<comment><USER5> Cool, that's pretty good. Is that for your page builder or your facebook app?

<comment><USER4> It's just the Facebook app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here are some numbers from our application, let me know if this helps:

We have 400K daily active users, doing 200 requests a second and around 10MM page views per day. All requests are dynamic and hit the full Rails stack. We're probably easily in the top 5 Rails sites on the net based on load.

We run all of this on 5x 4core 8GB application servers and 2x 4core 32GB db servers in master-master replication. We run 16 mongrels on each app server for a total of 80. Our average response time per request is around 100-200ms.

We host on Softlayer and pay around $6000 a month.

Also, the number of mongrels you will need is directly dependent on how fast your requests are, and how you are loading balancing across these mongrels. We use the nginx proxy with the fair load balancing patch. [http://brainspl.at/articles/2007/11/09/a-fair-proxy- balancer...](http://brainspl.at/articles/2007/11/09/a-fair-proxy-balancer-for- nginx-and-mongrel)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you sir - this kind of info is pure gold. Softlayer - do they manage the servers or is that your datacenter and you manage the machines yourselves? Was looking at Engine Yard - they start at $17k for a cluster.

<comment><USER4> Yeah we looked at EngineYard. They are good if you don't ever want to deal with deployment at all, but I really can't justify the premium. The 17K price quoted is probably for their basic cluster of 3 machines - we run on 10 now so it's probably going to be a lot more than that.

SoftLayer is unmanaged, but they do have staff that can help you with sysadmin stuff for a fee.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Each request to Rails block a Mongrel while it servers it, but even on my home server I am getting upwards of 50 requests per second on my app (all logged in pages, so no caching). That means you could have 50 people all requesting the page at the same time and each of them will have it returned inside a second even with a single Mongrel.

You need to be careful that you don't tie up some of your Mongrels doing long running tasks - if you have actions that cause tasks to run that take on the order of seconds, consider queuing them up to be serviced by some other background process (which is what I decided to do).

As someone else mentioned here, try to cache as much as possible - cached full pages take the load off Rails completely, cached fragments reduce the time to serve a request inside Rails, so you can get more from each Mongrel. Make sure and not cache logged in pages though!

Other general advice for a database application - hit the database as little as possible - in Rails don't do things like:

      @user = User.find(params[:id])
      @products = @user.products.find(:all)
      @profile  = @user.profile.find(:all)

That would result in 3 database queries, while this will do it in 1:

      @user = User.find(params[:id], :include => [:products, :profile])

etc ...

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really trying to figure out how much money serving 120K users is going to cost me in servers and bandwidth. Thanks for the tips - I've farmed the image uploads out to merbs running in EC2 - there are some other long running (6+ second) tasks that users could perform frequently - I'll start to farm those out as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > So at 4 Mongrels a virtualized server I'd need 250 to serve 1K simulataneous > users.

Depends on how simultaneous they really are. Are we talking 1000 hits per second? Or are we talking about 1000 unique people viewing some portion of your site/app at a given time?

If it's the latter, you can get away with a lot less.

Also, if you have shared-anything, it will become a bottleneck long before the mongrels. Your database especially will have to be replicated (for read-mostly apps), or sharded (for heavy read-write apps).

If it's a read-mostly app, consider aggressively caching fragments or even pages. (1K users hitting static pages will just hit Apache, given the right set of mod_rewrite rules, and you can have a lot more Apache processes (or threads; is Rails threadsafe these days?) running on a given server than mongrels (which, when I last used Rails, were very resource-hungry).

Consider also ways to extend the functionality of cached/static pages. You could have mod_rewrite check to see if the user has a login cookie and only then hit the non-cached app, OR you could have client-side javascript on the static cached page check for the same cookie and only then display the login name or do an XMLHttpRequest to the server (which then may cache a static html subpage named for that username, which can then be checked by mod_rewrite as well).

Just don't trust non-signed user cookies for looking up private information, or for making any database writes. Signed cookies, however, are a great alternative to centralized sessions (just remember to encrypt anything that you want the user to store, but not see: signing just protects against tampering). Jam the user's IP address into the signed cookie text and guard against replay attacks, as well!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - i'll have to spend some time to grok your suggestions, but for now at least I appreciate them.

Re: 1k simulataneous requests - concurrent requests - just didn't want rails to block.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I dont think your question has enough data to answer properly. We need to know whats the service time(avg request takes how many seconds) for each request and how the arrival rate of your requests like (120K per second or minute?) and whats the limit on your request queue (put them on hold till they get server). Finally whats the tolerance level of the final response time (can support 120K users by serialising across 10 servers but that drives up the response time for end users)?

Anyways probably you can read some books here at <http://www.cs.gmu.edu/faculty/menasce.html>

or if you are in a hurry a quick glimpse at the tactical paper at <http://www.cmg.org/measureit/issues/mit04/m_4_7.html>

Hope this gets you started if not answer your question thoroughly..

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi - yes - looking into how to price a potential large scale licensing deal - but unlike something like MS-Word the cost per instance isn't zero with hosted software. Trying to come up with a per-user or per 1k user metric for the server costs. I'll take a look at your links and post back when I get some data - <USER2>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't mean to be an ass, but you are not going to have 1k simultaneous users. If you did, you would be able to pay someone who had a better understanding of how webservers work.

One decent machine running 10 mongrels on a reasonably well-designed Rails app will easily be able to handle 100 requests per second. That is more traffic than you will ever get, I guarantee you.

<comment><AUTHOR> How many users would 100 requests per second translate to? I know it depends on the app, but figuring an average render, think, click cycle - is that 1000 logged in users? 10,000?</comment></comment>