23andMe Is Terrifying, But Not for the Reasons the FDA Thinks - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-reasons-fda <comment><USER2> If my fear was that an organization holding genetic data was going to break policies and law against my interests, I'd be at least as concerned about the State of California (and other states). Every state (by federal law since 1963) screens almost every newborn baby, via a blood test, for genetic diseases:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/19/opinion/la-oe- timmer...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/19/opinion/la-oe-timmermans- infant-genetic-screening-20130719)

California retains the residual blood spots for followup studies, apparently indefinitely – see the section "Storage and Use of Dried Blood Spots":

[http://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn- screening/states/calif...](http://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn- screening/states/california#second-section)

California currently screens for 79 disorders:

[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/nbs/Documents/NBS- DisordersD...](http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/nbs/Documents/NBS- DisordersDetectable011312.pdf)

And, results lookup long afterward by disorder is possible, since there's a routine, by-email procedure for checking the sickle-cell status of NCAA athletes:

[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/nbs/Pages/NBSFAQTraitAthlete...](http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/nbs/Pages/NBSFAQTraitAthletes.aspx)

The policies for the data and the retained sample are described by the 'babysfirsttest' site above as allowing use "for medical intervention, counseling or specific research projects which the California Board of Health approves" and "anonymous research studies". Those sound about equivalent to the 23andMe policy... and at a similar risk of reinterpretation or rule- bending if organizational priorities or technology change.

<comment><USER3> Look I know that much of HN has a libertarian and pro-corporation bias. But, I think the article is pretty specific about the profit motive being cause for concern.

The California Board of Health reports, however indirectly, to the taxpayers. This accountability, however insignificant you may perceive it, is simply absent from 23andMe.

To summarize your comparison:

\- 23andMe collects genomes to please their VC and Wall Street investors.

\- The CA government collects genomes to please the taxpayers.

Be honest, and forget your bank account: who do you really trust more?

<comment><USER2> I do trust the profit motive of a small company, bound by various contracts and laws, public perception, and their own need for future customers to voluntarily opt-in, moreso than the state's shifting policies, pandering to the different fears of various eras.

Even where the profit motive can lead to abuses, those abuses pale in comparison to the history of even very good governments. California is one of the most accountable governments in the world, but in the memory of its living residents has imposed both forced internment of its citizens by their ethnicity (WW2) and forced sterilization (until 1963).

What future crime or health scares could lead to the repurposing of this broadly-collected state data? (It's quite hard to opt-out of this collection, whereas it's costly to opt-in to 23andMe's program.) And if state-repurposing happens, those who implement the change, perhaps including for-profit companies in partnership with the state, can be insulated from accountability, because when the state decides to do it, it is 'legal'.

Perhaps you assign those scenarios much lower probability than the more common and mundane privacy abuses of profit-seeking sleazeballs. OK, fine. Still, the magnitude of damage the state can do, with its powers of compulsion and confiscation, is much larger. Fewer events, yes, but much worse when they happen.

So if you're 'terrified' by the chance 23andMe might misuse voluntarily- offered genetic materials, against their own policies, state law, and customer preferences, you ought to reserve at least some fear as well for the danger from the much larger cache of genetic data, collected without explicit consent, already in the hands of an institution that – when it occasionally misfires – does more damage than any single company can.

<comment><USER4> Really. You trust "profit motives". How adorable. But yet you couldn't find space above to relate for us all the charmingly ethical conduct of companies "bound by various contracts and laws, public perception, and their own needs for future customers"...companies like Union Carbide, Monsanto, Enron, Kerr- McGee, British Petroleum, Halliburton, FlowTex, Bayer etc etc ad infinitum.

No thanks. 23andMe is yet another group of shady, for-profit slimeballs making money off people's fears, called out by the FDA for the same kind of arrogant adolescent libertarian horseshit that gave us Vioxx.

And yeah, most of us actually prefer to deal with the "state's shifting policies" \- you remember...the policies we vote on.

<comment><USER5> Right, and the State has never violated our trust either.

Nobody should trust any corporation OR government agency blindly. Duh.

But to suggest that corporations are somehow inherently less trustworthy that the government is just... silly. And unsubstantiated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was excited about 23andMe, but I decided against it solely for this reason. You can change your passwords, but you can't change your genetics. Whether it's the mundane and real concern of invalidated health insurance claims, or the far-flung hypothetical concerns (future clandestine organizations developing individually targeted assassination viruses), giving away one's genetic code involves too much risk and moral hazard.

(It's a shame, too. I badly want my full ATGC sequence to be a zip file on my hard drive.)

<comment><USER7> Clarification: while 23andMe could fully sequence your genome using the sample you provide (which I assume they bank...), that's not what they actually do currently - your DNA is instead chopped up into short segments and run on an Illumina SNP genotyping microarray (to obtain variant calls at thousands of genomic loci found to be relevant in various association studies).

Your DNA is never actually fully sequenced, because that is _currently_ too cost prohibitive...

<comment><USER8> _Your DNA is never actually fully sequenced, because that is currently too cost prohibitive_

Q> Does anyone know the actual/current pricepoint for this?

<comment><USER9> Currently about $3,000 and falling.

See [http://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_per_genome_apr.jpg](http://www.genome.gov/images/content/cost_per_genome_apr.jpg)

<comment><USER10> Not quite... that it the _raw_ sequencing cost and doesn't cover the prep work required, or likely the computational resources required for processing. It is actually almost to the point where the computational costs are more than the costs of raw sequencing.

And, for the places where you can get a $3K genome sequenced, it isn't likely that they will service outside (non-research) customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 'Sound paranoid? Consider the case of Google. (One of the founders of 23andMe, Anne Wojcicki, is presently married to Sergei Brin, the founder of Google.)'

That's where the article lost me …

<comment><USER12> Sure, that was an awkward transition, but you gave up too early. One paragraph later justifies this:

"What the search engine is to Google, the Personal Genome Service is to 23andMe. The company is not exactly hiding its ambitions. "The long game here is not to make money selling kits, although the kits are essential to get the base level data," Patrick Chung, a 23andMe board member, told FastCompany last month. "Once you have the data, [the company] does actually become the Google of personalized health care."

<comment><USER13> The author is trying to use that relationship to stress a point which stands no matter whether the founder is related to Google founder or not. Take that piece of information out and the point that the author is making still stands. Google has showed us that by luring people to share their private information, it is possible to sell your users eventually. Now you don't have to be related to a Google founder to learn and use that business model. If there was any other company that followed the same practice and didn't explicitly allow me to own my data and delete it from their databases I'd be worried about that company as well. No matter whether they are related to Google or not. The relationship to Google just make me extra worried because of the history of Google.

<comment><USER14> The point has nothing to do with the relationship between the companies. Like the commenter upthread said, it was a clumsy way to transition into the topic. 23AM could be a Microsoft spin-off, or a Bloomberg company, or a Koch Brothers company: the same points would stand.

The reason Google matters is that it demonstrated that the business model of hoarding and capitalizing on personal information works. The rest of the article spells out ways in which 23AM is already capitalizing on its stored information.

<comment><USER15> >>> it demonstrated that the business model of hoarding and capitalizing on personal information works

Marketing companies and spammers are using this model all the time. AFAIK most of Google's income is from ads which use very little of personal information (yes, I know about targeted ads but I have a feeling marginal utility of those vs. just having ads on Google which everybody uses is not that high).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Recently watched Gattaca. Found it interesting how in that world, DNA profiling for job placement was illegal, but because the technology was so widespread and available, it was easy to circumvent the regulations without getting caught. Just shake someone's hand or take a drug test, and they have your entire genome.

</comment><comment><USER15> The article failed to terrify me. Yes, genetic testing is coming, and yes, very soon genetic information will be as easily accessible as any other information about the person. The governments already have large DNA databases, and those will expand. There's no "portal" that 23&me is luring us through - there's the future towards which we move inevitably, and since the technology exists, it will be used. Out of all possible usages of this technology, the one 23&me presents seems to be pretty benign. I'd rather be afraid of the government of which I have very little control and which knows or can know pretty much everything about me than of the company that can be shut down by any FDA bureaucrat.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone know if 23andMe would be restricted from disclosing your info under HIPAA?

<comment><USER18> If they don't think FDA rules apply to them, why would they think HIPAA rules do?

<comment><USER19> HIPAA and FDA are completely independent. HIPAA is much broader and at the same time much less cumbersome to comply with. I'd be extremely surprised if they weren't being HIPAA compliant, not just because of the law but because HIPAA doesn't ask much that they wouldn't be insane not to do anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I know I have the bright light/sneezing mutation :-)

Would this be a concern about privacy exist if there was no way your genetic profile could be used against you? If you couldn't be discriminated in any way on that basis, what else would need to be hidden?

I'm not asking rhetorically -- what else do we have to hide about our genes?

<comment><USER21> It is highly disruptive in terms of insurance. Insurance can only work if many people pay for the few who actually need the insurance. The best way for insurance companies to increase profits is to get rid of the people who actually need them from their pool: if they can have access to a good set of indicators to remove people with high incidence of diabete, kidney failure or cancer, they will use it. And once people understand that, nobody will use insurance anymore.

Health may become another kind of risks you can't insure against anymore, like divorce or unemployment.

<comment><USER22> That was true in the past, but is irrelevant now that insurance companies can't refuse to insure you, or even charge you more for pre-existing conditions.

<comment><USER23> Not true at all. If you know you are at higher risk thanks to your personal genetic test, you are more likely to buy yourself good insurance coverage.

1) More high risk customers buying the insurance concentrates the 'pool' of insured risks...

2) ...leading to more payouts

3) ...leading to higher insurance

4) ...leading to those without the risks opting to take cheaper, lower level coverage

5) ...leading to more concentrated risk in the pool of insured people in the good coverage

6) ...and back to step 2. The insurance fails, or becomes too high a cost to be worthwhile for anyone.

<comment><USER22> I agree with your points, but the result will probably just be higher rates, not failure. You can see it start to happen already with the early implementation of the ACA. However, that that isn't what I was talking about, and it doesn't support the parents claim that, "they [insurance companies] can have access to a good set of indicators to remove people with high incidence of diabete, kidney failure or cancer, they will use it."

My point was, no, insurance companies can't use the data, even if they had access to the it, which they won't.

<comment><USER23> I was wittering on about this earlier today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6807778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6807778) and other comments in that older story - but my brief summary is: if _you_ know your genetic data, you can then make insurance policy choices based upon it without telling the insurers. But when enough people do this collectively, the insurance market will (possibly) fail or be forced split offerings into various levels of cover. Customers then self-select and the end result is the same as if the insurers knew the data in the first place.

<comment><USER22> At this point do you really need the genetic data to get the same effect? I throw out my back, I upgrade my insurance, then I get the surgery. The doctor says I have 90% blockage in my arteries,I upgrade insurance, then I get the bypass. It seems like genetic data will have less influence than people making changes based on empirical observations of their health.

<comment><USER23> I don't know specifics about the USA, but certainly in the UK, private healthcare insurance works like most other forms of insurance, i.e. Pre- existing conditions or other relevant information is either not covered or must be declared and will be used to adjust premiums.

No car breakdown insurance lets you take out a policy to cover the vehicle after it has already broken down...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This commentary points out, "But as the FDA frets about the accuracy of 23andMe's tests, it is missing their true function, and consequently the agency has no clue about the real dangers they pose. The Personal Genome Service isn't primarily intended to be a medical device. It is a mechanism meant to be a front end for a massive information-gathering operation against an unwitting public." Yes. That was reported in a _Fast Company_ magazine profile of 23andMe[1] submitted here to HN 44 days ago, with a lot of discussion.[2] The basic problem that 23andMe faces is a business model that by its own acknowledgement really doesn't provide much benefit to the consumers who are paying to have their DNA SNP-sequenced and their personal health history data collected for 23andMe's use.

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3018598/for-99-this-ceo-can- tell-...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3018598/for-99-this-ceo-can-tell-you- what-might-kill-you-inside-23andme-founder-anne-wojcickis-dna-r)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6549600)

</comment><comment><USER25> I wonder what 23andMe would find if I submitted my dog's spit. Might be worth teaching him to spit.

<comment><USER26> I considered getting sheep spit and sending it in claiming that I was welsh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I signed up for 23andMe, got the results, had a brief chat to my GP. She said it's interesting, but only useful if you're looking for the source of a problem.

Even my health insurance doesn't care, they only worry about diagnosed conditions. Plus any pre-exisiting conditions are covered after three years.

On the other hand, the country where I live has universal healthcare.

<comment><USER28> In the U.S., denying insurance or raising rates based on pre-existing conditions will be illegal as of Jan. 1. Doing these things based on genetics has been illegal for several years now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this article is a little short sighted. DNA profiling may be bad for some people in certain situations (health insurance), but the long term effects, for our species as a whole? I don't have a problem sacrificing my individual genetic privacy if it brings us closer to a Gattaca style utopia.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can someone summarise why the FDA have any say in genetic testing? It's not as if they are selling a drug or other substance that might be incorrectly made or labelled. Presumably spitting into a vial can't cause harm.

<comment><USER31> If you're going to market something that can allegedly test and diagnose illnesses, it sure as hell should be tested and regulated.

I hope 23andme is shutdown.

<comment><USER32> I don't understand the anger and animosity at 23andme I've seen on HN lately. Maybe I'm not understanding something the way you are.

My understanding is they sequence some of your dna, and then link to various publicly available studies to show users "This paper showed this mutation correlates with this disease".

Is that not a correct description of their service? Why do you want them shut down?

<comment><USER31> The problem is, most people aren't trained doctors. They will have no idea how to interpret the results. They will likely go waste their own doctors time worrying about everything. 23andme is preying on some peoples fears, and turning them into hypercondriacs.

The absolute vast majority of people will die from heart disease or cancer. What is the point of paying money to find that out?

Obviously there's also the privacy aspect as well - trusting your DNA to some private company who wants to make profit.

If you have a symptom, or family history of some disease, go see a doctor. That's kinda what they're there for. And they train for years in order that they can interpret results correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is a lot of unwarranted 23andMe hate going on here. Not only do they offer at the end of sign up to delete/remove your genetic sample, you can also inform them you want to do this at any time.

DNA is extremely stable at low temperatures so they can periodically re-assay the sample and give you more information on SNPs they have found important or you can opt-out and just get the one sample.

</comment><comment><USER34> With 23andMe I'm waiting for the entertaining family scandals to happen when people suddenly discover they have cousins they didn't know about. It's going to be a cataclysmic mass phenomenon and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

</comment><comment><USER35> I hope the FDA forces 23andMe to take back their results that I'm getting Alzheimer's. Unless they already have. I forget.

</comment><comment><USER36> Pretty sure we need laws that protect this information from predators.</comment>


No Warrantless Searching of Our Emails, Chats, and Browser Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/no-warrantless-searching-our-emails-chats-and-browser-data <comment><AUTHOR> _Backdoor searches are searches in which FBI, CIA, and NSA agents search through the communications of Americans collected by the NSA without a warrant. This practice violates the Fourth Amendment._

Hard to believe our "representatives" think this is up for debate.</comment>


Barrett Brown's project for secure digital collaboration now has a Kickstarter - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/85883596/barrett-browns-pursuance-project <comment><AUTHOR> Been following this for a bit, glad to see it gaining momentum. It looks like they redid their main website too.

From the site ([https://pursuanceproject.org/](https://pursuanceproject.org/)), it seems they are seeking contributors (mainly React devs and UX).</comment>


Everything is Miscellaneous ... - <AUTHOR> http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/02/everything-is-miscel.html

<comment><USER2> it is actually a very good book. i read it a while ago when it came out. It is great how it starts off giving you some very detailed background on the Dewey decimal system and then moves rapidly on with how information could be structured in the future.

You can´t have too much meta data :)

They are right though, it is a hell of a book.

Basti.</comment>


Indian iPhone users are getting a sloppy deal, *really* sloppy deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobiletechblog.com/2008/10/21/how-apple-airtel-and-vodafone-are-ripping-off-indian-iphone-users/

<comment><USER2> I want to move to Hong Kong to be able to use iPhone without getting incarcerated in a carrier jail!</comment>


What if an algorithm could predict your unborn child's intelligence? - <AUTHOR> https://onezero.medium.com/what-if-an-algorithm-could-predict-your-unborn-childs-intelligence-a546153707de <comment><USER2> The problem is I know smart people who do very little because they are too lazy, and people who are not that smart but keep working on a problem until they solve it.

IQ is only the potential of a person, not the guaranteed result.

<comment><USER3> In fact, by that logic, its a negative correlation!

My old Engineering Professor noted that his B students were the successful ones that reached high levels in the real world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What if? The USA, at least, is heading towards a fairly strict "human life begins at conception" legal stance. That makes abortions, and many birth control methods, into murder. USA citizens, at least, wouldn't be able to do anything about this. Less righteous countries would have an advantage in 20-30 years of selection for intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think, from reading the article, the question seems more like what if it couldn't?</comment>


A profile of Sergey Brin: Enlightenment man - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12673407

<comment><USER2> I skimmed through the article, but couldn't find anything really new there.

<comment><USER3> The history was interesting, but it seems they threw up a lot of stuff of no substance to pad it out:

 _Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google, believes knowledge is always a good thing—and that more of it should be shared_

Like.. for real? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How do magazines do business? They have stories suggested and paid by PR firms who are paid by other firms. So this is really an advertisement.

Eh, and I actually like Google and the Economist..

</comment><comment><USER5> What happened to The Economist recently? First, day say that intelligent men have better sperm then stoopidos. Now, they treat Sergey like an example for super-human. A few more articles and they'll be explaining why euthanasia for poor and stupid is a good thing.

<comment><USER6> _First, day say that intelligent men have better sperm then stoopidos._

Is this actually false? I thought that adoption and twin studies were pretty clear on the matter.

 _A few more articles and they'll be explaining why euthanasia for poor and stupid is a good thing._

There is actually a pretty huge gap between, e.g. "People inherit traits from their parents, including intelligence," and "All people with trait x must be killed." Maybe if you didn't immediately make that logical leap to a policy conclusion, you'd be more comfortable considering the facts.

<comment><USER5> Well, nazis also never said directly they're killing weak people in camps. I just meant the overall style they represent. It reads like the newest findings of Nazi science or something...</comment></comment></comment>


SEOs Are Not Growth Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.johnfdoherty.com/seos-growth-hackers/#comment-11777

<comment><USER2> I feel this is a little pet issue of mine or maybe even its just due to my limited domain experience but I have still yet to meet a single "SEO" who doesn't feel slimy and feel like a snake oil salesman. Everyone that I have personally encountered have been what seems in my eyes a few months behind, non technical and willing to ultimately screw over the client with stuff that is clearly aimed directly at manipulating google instead of improving the overall user experience for the end customers.

I personally see and feel better taking the approach of building a technically sound websites with good UX, getting a dedicated marketing manager who can write good copy (and not this SEO drivel of 10 paragraphs with no substance) and then know how to engage with customers instead.

<comment><USER3> Sigh. The snake oil argument again. I thought we were done with this? Apparently not.

Well, here's an SEO (and I can point you to probably 300 others) that don't feel slimy. We don't do "10 paragraphs with no substance". We help companies make their websites more usable, more targeted, and with better content so that they deserve to rank. I wish I could show you the websites that we work with that are actively doing SEO. Any big site is.

<comment><USER2> The stigma is there because thats all I have experienced, now don't get me wrong I believe there are excellent individuals out there but unfortunately I have not clearly penetrated any of those circles of individuals. If anyone wants to show me the networks where I need to keep my foot in the door then thats going to be really helpful and go a long way into changing my views.

I suppose part of the problem is the low barrier to entry combined with the fact that it's the web (which is also there playground) so you see and hear more of the bad ones than you do good

<comment><AUTHOR> It's unfortunate that there isn't, and really cannot be, an accreditation for SEO -- the industry move too fast, and the techniques are in flux, it's just the nature of things.

But I look at it the way the way I look at mechanics: There are a lot of great ones out there, and a lot of slimy ones out there. The slimy ones make a bad name for all their peers, despite the many people doing hard, important, quality work.

There are many wonderful SEOs (and Mechanics) out there, but if you're ever in doubt, just ask to speak to some of their clients. You'll know the good SEOs because their clients will be ambiguous in praise, with clear definable results they can discuss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just read this before hitting HN, but isn't the title supposed to be "SEOs ARE Growth Hackers"? Some would argue that "SEOs are the original growth hackers", but that's just a very short sighted view as their domain of expertise is siloed in the domain of all things search engine related. I can see the overlap, as some more technically inclined SEOs have already made the jump, but there needs to be proficiency in understanding many different platforms (not just Google) and of course the ability to actually code to smartly exploit and scale marketing efforts. SEO is just one piece of the puzzle.</comment>


Study Offers Clues to Racial Differences in Alzheimer's Disease - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/07/682036486/study-suggests-alzheimer-s-disease-may-work-differently-in-african-americans <comment><USER2> I wonder if these correlate precisely to correspondingly differing incidence of herpes infection.

</comment><comment><USER3> Confused about the link with poverty and stress. A linked article states: "Several teams presented evidence that poverty, disadvantage and stressful life events are strongly associated with cognitive problems in middle age and dementia later in life among African-Americans.

The findings could help explain why African-Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to develop dementia. And the research suggests genetic factors are not a major contributor."

Since there are more poor whites than African Americans, I don't understand why being poor explains African Americans being twice as likely to develop dementia?

<comment><USER4> According to the State of Working America:

> Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty > rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 > percent. [0]

[0]: [http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact- sheets/poverty/](http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/)

<comment><USER3> US population: African-Americans 40M, Whites 200M.

People in poverty: African-Americans (27%) 10,8 million, White: (9,9%) 19,8 million. So there are twice as many poor white people as black people.

How can poverty explain that black people get dementia more often? There are twice as many white poor people as there are black.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No mention of diet? Across the two populations in America, the diets between whites and blacks are vastly different.

<comment><USER6> While diet may play a role in dementia, it has no role in this study. It's showing that there is a innate difference in the amount of a molecular biomarker in different races that should be considered when testing for dementia. A further study could test if diet causes a difference in the biomarker, but there's no reason for them to mention it here.

<comment><USER5> Why would the molecular biomarker not be subject to diet, are you sure it isn't?

<comment><USER6> There are tons of things that the biomarker could be subject to, there's no evidence that diet is relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That was a bit unsatisfying, it seems no real answers, but I suppose that's to be expected considering the research is only in it's very preliminary stages. Considering the costs involved - getting volunteers and spinal fluids, it seems like we're not going to get meaningful answers in the near future.</comment>


Two Students Reinvent the Box - <AUTHOR> http://www.industrytap.com/two-students-think-outside-box-reinvent-box/17778?utm_source=EngNet&utm_campaign=b43be28330-Industry_Tap_Volume_75&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dca7a88a7b-b43be28330-40696861

<comment><USER2> I was scratching my head thinking this was something that has stood the test of time well enough. It looks good and I hope they're able to get some traction.

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you prevent someone from stealing what is inside if it is that easy to open? Cutting open a box at least requires some effort.

<comment><USER4> It is in cardboard. If you want to steal something in any cardboards it will be easy even in today structure. I do not see this new design as being that much more easy to steal. Cardboard is cardboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is an irregular laser-cut shape less materially wasteful than a sheet of slotted rectangles?</comment>


There Is No Pickup-Truck Emoji, but Lots of Other Transportation Emoji - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/this-is-the-pickup-truck-future-liberals-want-i-guess/569125/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> That's a very odd complaint or a very specific feature request.</comment>


Twitter, The Social Lubricant of the 21st Century - <AUTHOR> http://laughingsquid.com/twitter-the-social-lubricant-of-the-21st-century/ <comment><USER2> Hmm. I like twitter _and_ martinis. Do I really need to decide what century I belong to?</comment>


Ask HN: NDAs, do you sign them? - <AUTHOR>

We started doing some consulting recently and a new "potential" client sent us an NDA to sign before telling us what he wants us to build. I've read that it's not good for consultants to sign NDAs and a lot of them don't. Do you sign NDAs? <comment><USER2> Every single client we work with has an executed NDA. If you're going to consult professionally, you need to be able to sign reasonable NDAs.

What that probably means is, you need to get a lawyer to do contract review for you. In other words, every NDA you sign is going to cost you a couple hundred bucks.

Early on, you might eyeball NDAs and then sign them (D.C. Toedt's resource posted crossthread being one way to do that), but once you have an established practice, the risk/reward on freelancing your own legal review stops making any sense at all.

Anybody who tells you consultants never sign NDAs is someone who doesn't do serious consulting. How could it even be _possible_ to consult seriously without signing NDAs? You'd only be able to work on and with public information for clients. I get the sense that a lot of this "never! no NDA!" sentiment is a mix of two things: (a) confusion over the fact that venture capitalists don't sign NDAs (though maybe they should) and (b) the fact that a lot of people who call themselves consultants are really doing one-off freelance work for tiny companies, which, sure, if that's your cup of tea, but...

<comment><USER3> I think the question to some extent is about the stage you sign an NDA. While it's perfectly normal to sign an NDA when you start a contract, I wouldn't sign one before initial conversations unless I strongly trusted the client, because without knowing the scope of the project you have _no idea_ what's going to be covered by the NDA and it may include things that cause you significant problems down the line.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a general proposition, someone being asked to sign an NDA in a situation like this will want to look for provisions such as:

1\. a requirement that all confidential information be reduced to writing and marked as confidential (to reduce the chance of the discloser later claiming "but I told you that, and I told you it was confidential!");

2\. explicit exclusions from confidentiality, e.g., things published, things independently developed or received from others, etc.;

3\. a time limit on the confidentiality obligation.

Self-cite here: For a detailed discussion of various types of clauses in NDAS, see <http://www.oncontracts.com/confidential-information/>. It needs some stylistic editing (I was experimenting), but it includes:

* colored-symbol "ratings" indicating my personal view of how acceptable-versus-dangerous various clauses usually are;

* extensive commentary in a MAN-style format;

* links to actual contracts in the wild that contain similar language.

<comment><USER2> This is extremely, extremely cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is the client real? I only ask because I frequently find that unfunded companies are the first ones to ask you to sign an NDA. Also a company that is doing anything really confidential will employ people on site as opposed to outsourcing.

I can't tell you how many times I've signed an NDA and the person turned out to be a total flake. Usually said flakes know nothing about technology and some idiot told them that having an NDA was important. It's like a child playing dress up — and what's sad that child may be a lawyer or some other vague professional who doesn't know what they don't know.

<comment><USER6> I've had that. Some one-person marketing agency who wants a Wordpress installation, and you have to sign an NDA because they're going to 'revolutionise the industry'.

<comment><USER5> It drives me up the wall I tell you!!! The worst are the non-tech types who think they're the next Zuck — you sign the silly NDA and their "idea" is always some vague parody of something that's out there. It's like being a character in a sitcom except it's wasting your time.

I think the only solution is to charge a consulting fee to "look at the idea" which scares away the amateurs. After all if you aren't willing to spend $1k for me to evaluate your "idea" then you aren't serious any way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If the gig looks like a real thing, I sign the NDA and other related paperwork after review with my lawyer. He quite often gives the agreement a good beat- down. My favorite voicemail of all time was from him after reviewing one such agreement. The entire voicemail was "Egregious".

I don't sign NDAs casually--that is if someone wants me to hear about an idea for a startup, I won't. But for any situation that I have done actual business with there has been a signed NDA.

For perspective, many of my engagements are multi-month situations.

If a company is into something interesting and you are doing interesting work for them, this means that 1) they are in some kind of competitive position and 2) waht they are doing is Interesting and 3) you are part of their leverage in their business situation.

I do like a lot dctoedt's recommendation (do check out his link), and have made some of them bi-directional. That is, they also have to pony up agreeing to keep whatever trade secrets I bring to the equation under the same terms. This, of course, triggers their reflex to say "well you have to tell us first" and then there is no trouble making that symmetric.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not if I can help it and hopefully never again. I now have my own NDA that's fair to both sides that I will try to get them to agree to instead of whatever horrible NDA they found on the web.

But I've found that I can often rule out working with a client without ever seeing their NDA material. I've learned that the number one question I need an answer to is whether they've ever worked with subcontractors or consultants before. If they haven't, they're wasting my time.

</comment><comment><USER9> no. I point them to FriendDA and then they usually feel like an idiot.

<http://friendda.org/>

</comment><comment><USER10> No, never. The risk you are taking is tremendous when signing an NDA. Who is to guarantee that an exact same of your client's idea/technology is not developed elsewhere and your client will hold you responsible for leaking it?

There's also more realistic concerns as well. Most NDAs are written way too broadly. Excluding yourself from a part of the market because of such an NDA is just silly.

<comment><USER2> What kind of clients do you work with? I'm trying to understand who could be engaging consultants who would be free to post to Twitter anything they learned about upcoming business plans or software releases.

<comment><USER10> Clients mostly with MBAlike backgrounds come up with NDAs. If I were to stereotype; an investment banker with a lower to mid six figure bonus, who watched Social Network over the weekend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> No never, although I read them, point out the bits that actually mean they are worthless and - well never yet lost an opportunity as a consequence.

<comment><USER2> I'm curious about the general profile of your consulting clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sure, if it's well-written and comes with some consideration (as in, you get some cash money for agreeing to the NDA).

</comment><comment><USER13> They're meaningless, so no harm in signing, so I sign.

It's a lot like when a guy claims he's the devil and gives you $50,000 if you'll sign away your soul. Meaningless, so you sign. But that case is slightly worse because you have to sign in blood and the needle pricks.</comment>


The Science of Software Estimation - <AUTHOR> https://blog.amirathi.com/2018/02/05/science-of-software-estimation/ <comment><USER2> [http://scribblethink.org/Work/kcsest.pdf](http://scribblethink.org/Work/kcsest.pdf)

[http://scribblethink.org/Work/Softestim/softestim.html](http://scribblethink.org/Work/Softestim/softestim.html)

Until Amit Rathi grapples with what J.P. Lewis proves, Rathi is just guessing.

Software systems are complicated enough that it just might take longer to estimate how long it would take to develop a system, than it would to actually develop it.</comment>


ProcessOut chooses the best online payment service for each transaction - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/06/processout-chooses-the-best-online-payment-service-for-each-transaction/ <comment><AUTHOR> ProcessOut cofounder here. Happy to answer any questions you may have :-)</comment>


Origin launches protocol for building cheaper decentralized Ubers and Airbnbs - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/10/origin-protocol/ <comment><AUTHOR> Origin employee here.

DApp (Mainnet beta) live at dapp.originprotocol.com

Happy to answer any questions!</comment>


The Death of Jesse Gelsinger, 20 Years Later - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/the-death-of-jesse-gelsinger-20-years-later <comment><USER2> I work in this field and Jesse's death pretty much halted gene therapy research for almost two decades. It's been absolutely remarkable to see the resurgence of research and the positive data that has come out of the field.

We certainly aren't out of the woods yet. Several gene therapy companies are struggling to work out the kinks. With AAV vectors targeting the liver, the immune response can kill any therapeutic effect and even if it doesn't, some gene therapies are seeing limited durability.

It's truly a golden age for gene therapies. You're seeing patients who were absolutely crippled by their disease for decades (hospital bound, can't go to school, can't work, need constant home care), and with a single administration are effectively cured. What's interesting, is now a big problem is the psychosocial issues - what do you do after you're given a life you never thought you'd have? I've actually heard of patients who refuse such treatments as they would lose an identity they've had since they were born.

I'm stealing the quote, but it's the closest thing we have to the resurrection of the dead.</comment>


Pricenoia shuts down - <AUTHOR> http://pricenoia.tumblr.com/post/96524879555/pricenoia-shuts-down

<comment><AUTHOR> This is how it looked back in 2005:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20050110075119/http://www.pricen...](https://web.archive.org/web/20050110075119/http://www.pricenoia.com/comp/B0002I9AGK/0/index.html)</comment>


Someone just bought all the cocoa in Europe - and it's not futures - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/7895242/Mystery-trader-buys-all-Europes-cocoa.html

<comment><USER2> ...and that someone is Anthony Ward

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/789...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7897075/British- financier-Anthony-Ward-behind-658m-cocoa-trade.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops! Thank you.</comment></comment>


3D Slides Built with HTML5, CSS3, and SVG - <AUTHOR> http://blog.codinginparadise.org/2010/10/3d-slides-built-with-html5-css3-and-svg.html <comment><USER2> That is pretty cool.

Perhaps the most exciting use of WebGL will be novel interfaces on platforms like TVs and tablets, where smooth and intuitive interaction is key. I just hope WebGL makes it to these devices quickly!</comment>


Curiosity - <AUTHOR> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/curiosity/ <comment><USER2> And then you have the rare individuals who can make everyone feel important, if just for a moment in their lifetime

> I once shook hands with Bill Clinton, and for one tiny moment, he made me > feel like the most important person in the world. That's charisma.

It's not far off from love, is it? When someone's in love with you, they see you as the most wonderful person in the world. It's a hell of a feeling. If you can do that for people you're not in love with, you've got charisma.

<http://ask.metafilter.com/128697/What-is-charisma>

</comment><comment><USER3> Curiosity is great. When you aren't motivated by money, what else is there? For me it's curiosity.

Also, Scott Adam's post reminds me of this little passage (from <http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues>):

"The first virtue is curiosity. A burning itch to know is higher than a solemn vow to pursue truth. To feel the burning itch of curiosity requires both that you be ignorant, and that you desire to relinquish your ignorance. If in your heart you believe you already know, or if in your heart you do not wish to know, then your questioning will be purposeless and your skills without direction. Curiosity seeks to annihilate itself; there is no curiosity that does not want an answer. The glory of glorious mystery is to be solved, after which it ceases to be mystery. Be wary of those who speak of being open-minded and modestly confess their ignorance. There is a time to confess your ignorance and a time to relinquish your ignorance."

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been trying to live by the motto: _better to be curious than right._ (In other words, try to continue seeking information about someone's viewpoint before proving that yours is better, which generally leads to defensiveness and/or makes people think you're an ass.)

I find this difficult, because I love being right.

</comment><comment><USER5> Furthermore, you can fake curiosity in hopes of generating reciprocal curiosity. Everyone likes an opportunity to talk about himself.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've always liked reading Dilbert; I've found it to be an interesting and amusing perspective. More serious than most comics yet still humorous. But Scott Adam's writings apart from Dilbert are pretty awesome. The Dilbert Principle especially was a more interesting perspective on management than any management class I've taken.

</comment><comment><USER7> I find similar effects from remembering random details of people's lives, as well as creating inside jokes.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd like to read this article, but the belly fat ad is too much.

<comment><USER9> whats in YOUR google history? ;)

<comment><USER10> Does your google history really affect the ads you see on one independant website ?

<comment><USER9> if the website is serving google's adds, you're damn right they're targetted at you personally.

a week after i got back from vegas last year, hotel receipt hits my gmail, and every freaking ad was about vegas hotels.

<comment><USER11> We all know Gmail uses text clues to serve ads. The question was about the ads on an independent website?

<comment><USER12> Yeah, Google can track your intentions not only by search queries or your email(if you use Gmail that is), but also the sites you visit - if they run Adsense/Doubleclick ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sandra Bullock is not attractive.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get Hotmail unblock our Domain? - <AUTHOR>

It seems for some reasons Hotmail decided to block against our company's domain name.<p>Is there anyway to contact them to unblock it ? <comment><USER2> Did you Google this? Did you try the directions on this page? [http://cubicspot.blogspot.co.at/2011/01/how-to-get- unblocked...](http://cubicspot.blogspot.co.at/2011/01/how-to-get-unblocked- from-hotmaillive.html)</comment>


Amiga – The Deathbed Vigil (1994) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvJjFYHGTnU <comment><USER2> Shameless comment: i'm in that video: [https://youtu.be/jvJjFYHGTnU?t=34m29s](https://youtu.be/jvJjFYHGTnU?t=34m29s)

The Amiga was a good product, the engineering team was solid: the love for the product did not translate into success.

<comment><USER3> The product found deserved success in Europe, where it was the #1 home computer for quite some time... If only the management at the American parent company hadn't been so clueless, they could have built on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm confused by some of the model discussion in the text overlays in this. It mentions the A3000 and A4000 and describes them in ways that don't seem to match the actual products.

It describes the A3000 as the first AA-based (AA was called AGA by the time it went to market) machine that was never released, but the Amiga 3000 was actually an ECS-based machine with a 68020 or 68030 CPU, a hard disk, and a built-in flicker fixer for solid VGA output. It did reach market and sold modestly. I owned one. It could be described as slapped together from Amiga 2000 parts, I guess.

The A4000 is described as slapped together from A3000 parts, but it was actually the first AGA-based machine (followed by the 1200), with the whole new chipset and architecture, and a 68030 or 68040 CPU.

On another front, the CD32, at the time, seemed like such a ridiculous distraction to me, and stories at the time seemed to indicated Commodore lost money on the massive bet they made on it. But, in everything I've read, the company really bet hard on it, and many folks who tell the story from inside seem to believe the CD32 was a great idea and maybe should have been pushed even harder. I don't know what to think of it.

I loved my Amigas, and it was really heartbreaking to see Commodore fail so spectacularly, and seemingly because of extremely poor management. Reading the article yesterday about the various post-Tramiel CEOs was really interesting, and a story I'd never seen in its entirety. I mostly knew about the failures. Gould was well-known and well-hated at the time, the others and their various failings were less famous/infamous.

<comment><USER5> > "I'm confused by some of the model discussion in the text overlays in this. > It mentions the A3000 and A4000 and describes them in ways that don't seem > to match the actual products."

Knowing about the unreleased A3000+ may help clear up the confusion:

[http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/prototypes/a3000plus.html](http://www.amigahistory.plus.com/prototypes/a3000plus.html)

Regarding the CD32, it was basically an A1200 with a CD drive. I think it had one CD32-only custom chip, I forget what it was called. In any case, it was possible to convert a CD32 into an A1200. The A1200 was a popular machine, I'm sure the CD32 would've lasted a little longer if Commodore didn't close, even if it was just lived on as a living room version of a desktop Amiga rather than as a pure games machine.

As an aside, I believe the first GTA game was originally being developed for the Amiga, but the Amiga version was dropped after Commodore went bust. If the CD32 needed a 'killer app', it may have found it in GTA.

That said, both the CD32 and the A1200 were a couple of years late IMO. I remember reading something from Dave Haynie saying that AGA could've been ready in 1990. If the CD32 was competing with the SNES and MegaDrive instead of the Saturn and PlayStation, I suspect it would've been a lot more successful.

EDIT: My memory may have mangled this Haynie quote (different chipset, different year:

[http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/acutiator.html](http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/acutiator.html)

I messed up on the quote, but considering OCS was released in 1985, 1990 for AGA doesn't seem too much of a stretch.

<comment><USER6> The CD32-specific custom chip is Akiko ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_custom_chips#Akiko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_custom_chips#Akiko)), which did chunky-to-planar conversion in hardware.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, Akiko, that's the one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's amazing how something that is in the end just a computer company can be so uniformly loved (contrast with apple with equal parts of love & hate). I've never heard anyone rag on Amiga (other than to criticize its mismanagement). And I was an Atari owner and I still wish I hadn't missed out on what turned out to be such a landmark system.

<comment><USER8> You don't get a lot of hate for any of the classic systems now. But, there were, and still are, valid criticisms of the Amiga. Bil Herd is on record in the first edition of the Bagnall book as being unimpressed with the Amiga hardware. I think there's still widespread agreement that they really fucked up Amiga's OS layer with AmigaDOS. And the initial Amiga UI has got to win the prize for ugliest 1.0 GUI ever. The Mac looked better, even though it was limited to B&W. Etc.

All classic systems had their weak points.

<comment><USER5> > "I think there's still widespread agreement that they really fucked up > Amiga's OS layer with AmigaDOS."

That's because it was a rush job.

[http://www.thule.no/haynie/caos.html](http://www.thule.no/haynie/caos.html)

> "And the initial Amiga UI has got to win the prize for ugliest 1.0 GUI > ever."

That's highly subjective. Many users (myself included) see that early 1.x interface as iconic. Here's another example of someone who probably liked it (as the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery):

[https://www.chromeexperiments.com/experiment/chiptunecom- gui](https://www.chromeexperiments.com/experiment/chiptunecom-gui)

One design issue with Amigas was lack of support for chunky graphics modes. I remember reading an interview with Jay Miner where he implied he'd have supported chunky graphics (alongside planar graphics) if he'd considered how much cheaper RAM would become.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The beating that we Apple IIgs owners took in the BBS scene from the Amigans in the early 1990s was downright brutal. It gives me no particular pleasure to note that the Amigans suffered approximately the same fate as we did (horrible marketing, unnecessary obsolescence). Either one of our machines would have been more fun than what we ended up with, no?

<comment><USER10> True, although you must agree, that Amigas were slightly better.

 _ducks_

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Still got three A500s in the garage. One was recently saved from going into landfill and is in pristine condition. Still got the original 'Simpsons' packaging and discs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Meanwhile, people wanting a mix of nostalgia and pragmatism still have MorphOS to enjoy:

[http://www.morphos-team.net/intro](http://www.morphos-team.net/intro)

I wasn't an Amiga owner but still might get a hold of it. Looks nice.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, MorphOS is meant to be pretty decent, it's definitely worth a go, especially if you've got a compatible PPC Mac lying around (IIRC the demo version of MorphOS is free).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had owned an Amiga 1000 and 500. It was better than the other computers at the time. Commodore made blunders in marketing and other things and the other companies had caught up once IBM made VGA and Creative Labs had that Sound Blaster card.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you liked the video, looks like you can buy the video to support the author here, albeit a disc: [https://www.createspace.com/358043](https://www.createspace.com/358043)</comment>


The Road to Zig 1.0 [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv2I7qTux7g <comment><USER2> It's hard to overstate how nice the ergonomics of comptime execution are. I wrote a Cuckoo filter library in C a couple of years ago and then stopped because it really took too much effort to do all the things I wanted.

Now I've rewritten it in Zig in one evening, it's drastically easier to understand and it even has more zero-cost features, all of this in less lines than the original macro-ridden code.

I will soon add more comments and safety features, but for now it felt really good to be able to remove all the redundant code without having to recur to hacks.

Here's the link: [https://github.com/kristoff-it/zig- cuckoofilter](https://github.com/kristoff-it/zig-cuckoofilter)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice talk! I could watch any PL talk for hours on end I think.

Unrelated to the language, but at ~41 or 42 minute mark I noticed the pronunciation of 'executable' and it made me really think. He says it in a way that highlights 'exec', which makes a lot of sense, whereas I normally would say it with emphasis on the third syllable. Now I wonder how most programmers say that word...

<comment><USER4> That is interesting and I was too engrossed in the talk to even pick up on that the first time through.

According to :

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/ex...](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/executable)

He's using the American pronunciation, and yours is likely the UK version. I've always used the UK pronunciation myself and didn't know there was an alternate way to say it until today.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that's exactly the difference. While I'm an American, I'd only previously used and heard the UK version..(not that it's a common word).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hmm.. never heard of Chariot Solutions yet they have a lot of technical presentation videos for my consumption, thanks.</comment>


Small town, big ideas, no one to talk to - <AUTHOR> I'm a junior software developer from a small town in Nova Scotia. I've always had great ambition, but most of my ideas were either too grand or too fanciful to pursue.
Lately I've been developing an idea for a startup. It's very exciting but I don't know how to proceed. The technical feasibility is good, the market seems available, and the potential value seems enormous. It's a perfect fit for my personality, and it's something I would love to see exist.
The catch is that I live in a bubble, don't have any professional connections, and don't know who to talk to. Somehow I ended up living like a recluse. My coworkers smirk when I talk about the future. I believe in my ideas, and want to act on them, but "Silicon Valley" is a foggy and faraway land.
How do people proceed from this position? Would you focus on networking and save your ideas until you felt like you were part of the world? Would you focus on saving money, and plan to move and get a foothold in California? Would you ask for time off work and develop a prototype in private? What would you do when you had a working prototype?
These questions may be difficult to answer, but I am looking to decide whether to continue, or whether to let it go. <comment><USER2> My background is somewhat similar to yours. I'm from a small(ish) Canadian town as well (Whistler, BC). I've always had big ideas, didn't know how to get them out there.

I was fortunate that I had been working back and forth in LA, and was exposed to some people and expertise, but for my first start-up, I was in Whislter, teaching myself how to code, no other programmers locally, no tech community etc etc. I think in some ways it can be a benefit more than a hindrance. You get to focus on your idea and just get it done.

I've spent a lot of time in the Valley, as well as other start-up hubs, and I can tell you, a lot of the people in these places are just full of talk, a lot of it is just a bubble and echo chamber.

On the flip side, it's great to have a sounding board of knowledgeable people, that's what's so great about getting feedback from HN.

However, if you look where you are, you've probably got better access than you think. You don't have to run all the way to California, Montreal, Boston and NYC all have great tech communities, and you don't have to move there. Find interesting meetups that are around the area you're idea is, and go for a night or two (assuming you can get the time off work). If your market is as large as you think, you might even find something in Halifax.

The Valley is cool and all, but I was very surprised the last time I went to the HTML5 conference, most of the people there where actually quite behind on the technology stack/experience compared to the people I work with in Sydney, Australia.

One thing to consider, when you think about the faraway magical land of Silicon Valley, though the valley has a large number of unique technologies and businesses, most people are still working on your basic I/O type apps.

<comment><USER3> This, absolutely agree. I am from an extremely small town in northern-coastal Maine that very often felt like an episode of "Trailer Park Boys". California was always a magical and far off land, and I ended up here mostly by accident. I don't think I'm as experienced as pedalpete (I've only worked in Southern California), but I can relate to the "from a small town, moved to California" thing.

I've worked for three startups, a mid sized company, and a large corporation, as well as have done a little freelance work. I'm currently starting my own .com company with one other person. I've attended events within the startup community, hacker community, and as events typically thought of as "corporatey".

Much of the startup community is, as pedalpete said, an echo chamber. However, there are great people and I'm very grateful to have such close contact with them and even call some of them personal friends.

I don't know the specifics of your situation, but based on reflection of my own background, you probably are in a better position than you realize.

Macu, if you're interested in setting up a skype or hangout call some time I'd be more than happy to be a sounding board for some of your questions in more detail. Even if I can't bring solid advice to the table, I'd be more than happy to tell you where I've made mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ignore your co-workers. Don't wait. Just get started.

Waiting kills startups.

Put up a landing page, build 1.0, start figuring out if anyone would really buy your product/service. If you can't get anyone to bite, maybe the idea isn't ready. If you get any traction then you know the market is there.

Living in "small town" NS has some advantages. You probably have a decent internet connection and your current paycheque goes a LOT further than it would in the big city. If you decide to quit your job and dive into your startup full time you'll have a longer runway.

You are NOT alone. You ARE part of the world. You can make connections HERE (you've already started) or reddit or just about any other place where other people in the same situation as you hang out.

<comment><USER5> I agree with this. I built a free landing page on unbounce built an adwords ad. Just to see if anyone would click the get started button. Ran the add for 3 days, cost was like $50 all in. Then added a free lead page with wuffoo. for people to sign up. still risky but you know people will bite then.

<comment><USER6> ...and? Don't leave us hanging, what happened?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am in Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley won't help you much. What does help is talking to anyone who is your target customer...unless the early adopter Silicon Valley crowd is your target market.

Find where your target customer hangs out, maybe forums, blogs etc and approach them there. Start blogging about your idea and people will be able to find you easier. You'd be surprised what kind of opportunities may come your way if you just start putting your thoughts out there.

</comment><comment><USER8> You don't need to wait for permission to build this thing.

Start now.

Building a product and marketing it are two completely different things. Most of your concerns are connected to the marketing aspect (no connections etc) but there doesn't seem to be anything stopping your from building it?

If you build this thing and it is a flop then you still come out with a few wins: you show yourself to be someone capable of building a complete/ussable system and you have something to put onto your CV. You'll also probably learn a bunch of new things and come out a better developer.

Once you've built a proof of concept/MVP then you are in a better position to attract some people: showing your work to people is going to get more interest than "I've got this idea but I've done nothing with it" will.

Sales and marketing are a whole different ballgame and are fricking hard but I don't think you need to worry about those yet. Build the thing first, then worry. You have nothing to lose from building it and everything to gain.

"Would you focus on networking and save your ideas until you felt like you were part of the world? Would you focus on saving money, and plan to move and get a foothold in California? Would you ask for time off work and develop a prototype in private?"

None of those, I would build the prototype in my spare time, the safest option as you still have your status quo if the product does not take off. The Web gives us freedom to start companies for next to no money from anywhere in the world, the fact you are not in Silicon Valley does not hold you back at all.

Stop looking for excuses and getting to work!

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Spot on. I'll keep working with this attitude, that any outcome will be positive, and work toward MVP while most other concerns can wait. This brought me back to thinking clearly.

<comment><USER4> Beware of letting your excitement about your idea work against you.

Your marketing effort should start BEFORE the product gets built. If you start with the product, you run the risk of building something that almost nobody needs.

It's that "almost" that will get you.

You can build just about anything and find people who think it's great. The feedback from this group of early adopters will be infectious but it may not be a market.

The trick is to find something that a lot of people think is great, that's a market and you can build a company on that.

[http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/stop- perfuming-t...](http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/stop-perfuming- the-pig-why-real-marketing-is-done-before-the-product-is-created-)

<comment><AUTHOR> "Your marketing effort should start BEFORE the product gets built" is in contrast to others' comments (like "use your spare time to build") but I think you may be right. There is certainly risk, and the likelihood that enough people will be interested (and have the time) is difficult to assess. That's exactly why I need to start discussing the idea with people who know better than I do. Marketing is a completely new challenge to me. I'll have to think about this further, but for now my primary concern is to finish the design documents, at which point I'll have something tangible to offer up for feedback. Thanks for keeping the mammoth task of marketing on my radar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would try to launch the first version of the product on your free time and take it from there. Take a week of holiday to work full time on it, maybe on a quiet week at work with a holiday on on the middle of the week.

With one week full time, you will probably give it a huge boost. This is the least risk path.

If your employer is open to unpaid leave, take one month without pay. That goes in a flash at work and its easier to sell to management.

With one month of solid work full time on it, you would give it even a further boost, then take it from there depending on the reaction.

You mention you are a junior developer. You should likely try to become a freelance with your own company as soon as possible, that would give some funds, equipment and a company. I don't know if that is feasible in your local market or somewhere near.

</comment><comment><USER10> Have you ever attended a conference? I live in a small town in Alaska, and I don't know anyone else in my town who writes code. I started attending Pycon, and it opened up a world of connections for me. Pycon is in Montreal again in April, if you're interested in Python at all.

</comment><comment><USER11> One thing to consider is you can't just move to the US. You need a proper visa, which as a Canadian means either a TN or H1B most likely. So you'd need to get a job first, and you'd need the proper experience or degree qualifications for that visa. Unless your business was already successful and qualified under another type of visa.

If you're okay with moving, consider moving to Montreal or Toronto.

Why not just build the first iteration of the product in your spare time and see where that takes you first?

</comment><comment><USER12> How far are you from Halifax? I seem to remember hearing about at least a startup coworking space there. It would at a minimum give you an opportunity to meet some like minded people.

When I think about it, I'm pretty blown away by how much is going on here in Saskatoon. When I first moved here, there was a lot of biggish companies but not much of a startup scene, but it's really grown in the last 10 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Around 100km. I might move there next spring after fulfilling my current lease. It should offer more chances to meet like-minded people anyway. Small cities can be surprising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > don't have any professional connections, and don't know who to talk to...

Search HN posts, news stories, blog posts, and Linkedin for potentially interesting contacts working in and around your space. Reach out to them on a professional networking basis. You'll be surprised how many folks will be receptive to your call/email.

</comment><comment><USER14> Use the free time and isolation to build.

</comment><comment><USER15> Off topic: It may be a good idea to prepend an "Ask HN:" to the title to get more visibility.

</comment><comment><USER16> There are any number of people who have shown that by leveraging the Internet, they can build and launch almost anywhere. Build on-line relationships, leverage on-line communities and see what you can accomplish. Then, if it still doesn't work out, move.</comment>


USBImager – A minimal GUI app that can write disk images to USB drives - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.com/bztsrc/usbimager/ <comment><USER2> YES.

This is the replacement open-source GUI USB imager app I have been waiting for.

> 500KB vs 210 MB

Essentially this is a 99.99999% reduction of disk space and run-time usage with the same functionality which really puts its electron garbage counterpart to infinite shame. There is no contest here.

Feel the satisfying moment of removing this 'balenaEtcher' bloatware and replace it with a true, efficient and magnificent cross-platform native alternative app.

<comment><USER3> Balena means whale, btw.

Not sure why one would choose it, when there are so many options.

<comment><USER4> I think it is recommended on a lot of websites for making raspian images.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Suggestion for the developer if they see this - please add a PayPal or other donation option in addition to BTC. Just a bit too much friction on BTC for normals/muggles like me, but if there was a PayPal link you might have had money in your account by now.

I want to support this just because of what it represents - native app development, small executables, tools that are optimized. None of this bloated Electron junk. I bet they could even put some Etcher like graphics / PNGs into this interface and it would still be 100x smaller than Etcher.

I wonder if it would be possible to port this natively to Haiku too?

</comment><comment><USER6> Related projects I know of (might be useful if someone can point out salient differences):

\- Rufus: [https://rufus.ie/](https://rufus.ie/)

\- UNetbootin: [https://unetbootin.github.io/](https://unetbootin.github.io/)

\- Win32 Disk Imager: [https://sourceforge.net/projects/win32diskimager/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/win32diskimager/)

<comment><USER7> \- YUMI [https://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb- creator/](https://www.pendrivelinux.com/yumi-multiboot-usb-creator/)

\- Ventoy [https://www.ventoy.net](https://www.ventoy.net)

usbimager_1.0.4-i686-win-gdi crashes without error and leaves a USB corrupt (works fine again after a format)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Kids this is how one does cross platform properly since the early days of computing, without Electron fat.

</comment><comment><USER9> dd is just 79K

As simple as

sudo dd if=name-of-iso.iso of=/dev/sdb status="progress"

[https://medium.com/@tbeach/use-unix-dd-command-to-os- bootabl...](https://medium.com/@tbeach/use-unix-dd-command-to-os-bootable-on- usb-drive-6671945d95a6)

You're Welcome.

<comment><USER10> Actually you can just use cp

        cp name-of-iso.iso /dev/sdb

<comment><USER11> If you care about showing the progress

        pv < input.iso > /dev/sdX

Is a more portable way to do that, as "status=progress" is a GNU modification to dd, as I recall. Of course the most portable is to use one of the POSIX mainstays like cat or cp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be an interesting test to test all USB imagers alongside one another, and then use a different USB imager than the one used to write the USB stick, to verify it.

Or, use every USB imager other than the one used as the writer -- to perform multiple verifications...

Perhaps one would find interesting discrepancies in some, but probably not all, USB imaging softwares -- that way...

Anyway, this one seems to deserve some points for being quite close to as simple as possible, with as minimum dependencies as possible...

<comment><USER13> This does seem like excellent work.

Maybe Etcher accomplishes some of this too.

Seems to me the imaging is more perfect than the subsequent hardware interaction.

Different USB drives and controllers can have greatly dissimilar working geometries as they carry partitions & filesystems, so the hardware is not really interchangeable enough to begin with for direct imaging to be a very reliable means of getting a different partition and/or filesystem onto a flash drive for instance.

The working layout may or may not be based on the _native_ detected geometry of the device.

And mainboards can have their preferences as to which geometries they prefer and when.

This can make data appear to disappear depending on where you plug in the USB drive, and more commonly cause difficulty booting.

The IMG file of a floppy disk is standard but the blank disk always needed complete perfect sectors to write the IMG to, afterward their FAT12 filesystem was universally accessible and bootable just like it had actually been formatted indivdually by standard MSDOS. It was just a clone.

The ISO of a CDROM is standardized too.

USB drive behavior is not very standard, so an IMG or DD type file captured from a particular device can not be expected to perform indentically unless it is restored in an identical way to the original device or an equivalent device which has no show-stopping dissimilarity.

Since the beginning until just recently USB flash drives were sold pre- formatted with FAT32. Now they are just getting too big for FAT32, so over 32GB has NTFS.

Now not always will most of the drives in the world have been originally formatted with very Microsoft-compatible procedures. At least one major supplier has a fundamental formatting error propagated for years. Different mainboards will tolerate this to different degrees.

Depending on what you start with the image you capture might not be the best to rely on.

Defragmentation can also be an issue to work around.

A Live Linux distribution intended for direct _burning_ to flash drives is not a good distribution method compared to burning the ISO to disk.

Rufus is good because it takes a bootable ISO and writes it in a file-based way onto just about any USB device, and various USB drives end up more bootable than you can get from perfectly copying a prepared master image bitwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Side note: macOS ships with Disk Utility, which as far as I know can do exactly this, relatively easily, so I don't think you need 3rd-party software.

<comment><USER15> GNOME Disks can also write an image to a disk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does this produce bootable drives? Thought you needed al kinds of custom stuff for that.

</comment><comment><USER17> balenaEtcher has spyware?

The size versus Etcher -- 256 kb to 210 MB -- makes this worth checking out!

<comment><USER18> balenaEtcher has advertising for sure. Not sure about spyware.

<comment><USER19> It's debatable whether there's an actual difference nowadays.

<comment><USER20> I can't really see it as spyware if it's your own product, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It just says "USB image writer has stopped working" when trying to create a backup image file from device (on Win10 Pro here).

</comment><comment><USER22> i wonder how this compares to rufus?

<comment><USER23> Rufus is great, but Windows only.

<comment><USER22> yeah maybe i should give this a try then</comment></comment></comment>


Face Detection with OpenCV and Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://nakkaya.com/2010/01/12/fun-with-clojure-opencv-and-face-detection/

<comment><USER2> There is actually more elegant binding for .NET called EmguCV. It has auto- dispose policy and follows more closely to the OpenCV development (a month behind the C lib). I don't know why there is no such thing like EmguCV for Java.</comment>


Why Wall Street's Layoffs Are More Serious Than You Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/11/16/why-wall-streets-layoffs-are-more-serious-than-you-think/ <comment><USER2> It is deeply uncharitable of me to say so, but: cry me a goddamned river.</comment>


Swatch Internet Time - alexis-d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time <comment><USER2> I think the biggest problem with time keeping systems is that they counts up, but our lives are not infinite. For us, time is really counting down.

After trying to reconcile the solar year with decimal time in a way that made sense, I abandoned my effort and created a time keeping system with 1095 units of time of time per year (1098 in leap years).

The units are 8 hours long, because no progress on hard problems is made in an hour.

I call it Maker Time:

The web site is @ [http://willholloway.net/makertime.html](http://willholloway.net/makertime.html) A JSON API is @ [http://makertime.willholloway.net/api/current](http://makertime.willholloway.net/api/current)

Checking the current Maker Time reminds me that I have 1060 - 349 (for sleep) = 711 opportunities to make cool things this year.

<comment><USER3> Jan 1 is a entirely arbitrary demarcation that's not actually terribly useful to the way we actually experience time and the year. IMO a better place would be one of the solstices or equinoxes (I'm partial to the spring equinox).

Also breaking the year into quarters, from equinox to solstice would be a better match for to scale we live an think on. Also it's just the right amount of time for a good portion of a large one-man project.

<comment><USER2> I agree with you cosmically, but January first has real meaning for me because its the start of a new tax year.

Feel free to create your own fork: [https://github.com/willholloway/makertime](https://github.com/willholloway/makertime)

<comment><USER4> On the other hand, 6th April is the first day of the tax year in the UK, so that would work out quite well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When people say Bitcoin is a money standard for the internet, it reminds me of this. A time standard for the internet, similar to UTC but human-friendly.

A few things worked against its adoption.

First, it was too proprietary. A modern initiative based on open standards would have a much better chance of gaining a foothold in niche communities, much like Bitcoin.

Second, it was before its time (no pun intended). The web was already popular, but not very real-time. There was some chat, but it was pretty geeky, not like Skype or Facebook IM now. And hardly any videoconferencing or live-streaming. And not as much distance working as happens now. So there wasn't that much demand for syncing time.

Third, digital phones were locked down by the manufacturers and carriers (watches too). It would be hard for a grassroots movement to grow if no-one could make apps supporting the new time standard.

<comment><USER6> "grassroots movement"

Having lived thru it, it was astroturf at most. It was a marketing gimmick to solve a problem that still doesn't exist.

"Here, try this, its just like things that work perfectly such as UTC or Eastern Time, but way more confusing"

<comment><USER7> Eastern time means nothing to me. How many hours do I go forward or back? How do I know if you're in daylight savings? What if I'm in saylight savings?

Sensible time for wod wode use is still a problem for casual users.

<comment><USER6> That's kind of the point. NASDAQ trading hours are 0930 to 1600 eastern. At a former job thats what mattered, although we were not in the eastern zone and had sites spread across 5 or 6 timezones. Live where you want but production hours on the production boxes were 0930-1600 eastern. A large chunk of financial world workers live in eastern standard time. They might live anywhere in the world, but that doesn't matter.

With the almost sole exception of the financial world, the rest of the world wide users stick with UTC.

<comment><USER7> Sure, professionals use real time. We're not talking about anything where time is critical.

We're talking about kids wanting to meet each other on a Minecraft server, or a band releasing a video, or simar casual online meetings.

<comment><USER6> One example is the ham radio guys scheduling a contact/net on a certain freq and UTC time.

Live "events" like superbowl and the endless self-congratulatory entertainment industry awards. I'll meet you on IRC during the superbowl and we'll comment on the commercials.

To some extent computers and the internet are a tool for making time not so critical. We both need to be available for a phone call, but not for email. To watch the same network TV show we both need to watch about the same time, but we can watch youtube videos anytime. Thats the other oddity of "internet time". If we're going to make obsolete concepts, why not "internet distance" or even worse "internet long distance"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've always loved this idea. It just makes sense. People argue against the "circular notation" of a clock face and how it relates to 60 minutes/seconds, but all that analog stuff is dead.

<comment><USER8> And as long as we're discussing "out there" time notations, I'll throw out my support for a calendar system that makes more sense. 12 30-day months with a 5 (or 6) day "Holiday Month" at the end. Adjusting the "week" to be 10 days instead of 7. 3 weeks a month, 9 weeks a quarter, 36 weeks a year. Work 7 of the 10 days in a week would be the same as a 5-day work week (2 more days off a year actually).

<comment><USER9> I honestly ask why?

<comment><USER8> Dates would be the same day forever. Financial quarters would be even and easily divided. Never print a new calendar. Etc.

<comment><USER10> Seems like all the complexity and special casing of the time keeping is moved into the "holiday month" at the end. E.g., Which financial quarter does it belong to? Moreover only 5 or 6 out of the 10 weekdays will occur in the holiday month, then you have to reset to "Monday" again to have a fixed date->day mapping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It was a nice idea but I think Swatch made a big mistake by taking their headquarters as the base to calculate it.

It needed to be an independant concept to bring other companies/competitors on board.

<comment><USER12> It's an arbitrary choice, just like how Unix time is since 1970, or how UTC is timezone for Greenwich England.

<comment><USER13> Greenwich wasn't arbitrary at all.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meridian_Conferen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meridian_Conference)

<comment><USER12> Historical precedent and agreement make the choice no less arbitrary - <AUTHOR> degrees could have been anywhere, there is no technical reason that Greenwich was chosen.

<comment><USER13> It says so right in the article.

Choosing Greenwich as 0-longitude meant that the International Date Line would be located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, avoiding a situation where it could be two dates in the same country simultaneously.

<comment><USER12> Have you looked at the map for the IDL?

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Internati...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/International_Date_Line.png)

That not jiggered by politics at all.

<comment><USER13> I thought we were talking about the "arbitrary" choice of Longitude 0. What's the political (and not economic) basis for the later IDL modifications?

<comment><USER12> That fails to make the first choice any less arbitrary - the choice was made to line up with existing sea charts - which of course used the Greenwich as 0 - but Greenwich as 0 was an arbitrary choice in the first place - not all arbitrary choices are bad ones, that was the crux of my argument in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Handy tip: one .beat (or a milliday, if you like) is about 1.5 minutes. This means that one percent of one day is about fifteen minutes. Try thinking of tasks in terms of percentages of a day. You spend about 30 percent, give or take, sleeping. You spend 30-40% working most days. How does one spend the remaining 30-40%? One percent showering. Three or four percent preparing meals. Adds up.

<comment><USER15> God this system would have been beautiful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lots of things would be easier if everybody uses the same time.

It could stay the 24h/day time format, but timezones are a pain - I always have to recalculate them for local time. Why couldn't everybody work with UTC?

And by the way: when will we finally get rid of the daylight savings time?!?

<comment><USER17> Consider this. Suppose I want to phone someone who lives in Japan and I live in the UK. Japan is +9 hours ahead of UK local time (GMT). Therefore I know if I phone slightly before lunch then I'll be phoning them in the evening.

Now suppose we all had the same time. If I phoned them just before lunch, which would mean shortly before 12:00 in the UK then I'd have to try and figure out what Japan would be doing at that time. Would 12:00 in Japan be early morning, late at night, would they be eating a meal, would they be at work? Now I have to remember where in the day different times are for different counties. However, with timezones all I need to remember is a numerical value and I can easily figure out where Japan is in the progression of a day (i.e morning, evening, night).

<comment><USER18> You need to remember the exact same bits of information in both cases, so I don't see the problem. In one case you remember it as "time difference" ("now is 12:00 +9 there"), in the other case you remember it as earlyness/lateness compared to you ("12:00 here is LIKE 12:00 +9 there").

So that would need the same exact effort.

The man benefit would be for the "let's meet at the same time online" etc coordination stuff -- where's its brain-dead easy when everybody has the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's a great collection if decimal time ideas, many of which are linked at the bottom of that wikipedia page. I personally always liked the idea of making 1 day into the base unit. Then 0.5 would give you noon, 0.75 is 6pm. It seemed less arbitrary than making a unit into a 10th of a day, since that has no value except in reference to a day.

<comment><USER20> Having worked at a software company whose internal date format was indeed based on days as the base unit, I suggest that this is an extremely bad idea. 0.75 may be 6pm, but what is 7pm? 0.7916666666666666 is as close as computers will generally come, but of course it's lossy; try adding increments of an hour and sooner or later you've got an irritating rounding issue.

This is solvable using arbitrary-precision decimal libraries, but relying on one of those for just dealing with general time stuff is a Bad Idea.

<comment><USER21> I think the idea is that, switching to a decimal system, we would no longer have a use for 7pm - we would just do things at 0.8d

<comment><USER20> Sure, but trying to persuade billions of people to switch to a new system with unclear benefits and no backwards compatibility is not a recipe for success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It should have been based on UTC ("zulu time"), not UTC+1.

Zulu Beats.

There, I fixed it.

</comment><comment><USER23> I remember those, I don't think enough people realised/needed the utility of them at the time for it to gain critical mass. Not that many people in the population at large, have friends all over the world that they need to have accurate timesync with.

It also might have benefited from being based on UTC instead of a decimal time. It was awkward to describe any time below an hour as you needed to break down into fractions of a beat to describe regular time intervals like 15 or 30 minutes. Whereas maybe a UTC-beat watch with 86400 seconds/beats in a day could be more relevant? Probably not, it'd still have huge hurdles to overcome with the network effect, apathy and such.

</comment><comment><USER24> I was a 14 year old who attended the initial launch at MIT. I remember at the time thinking: why have a random synthetic time, perhaps we can just accept GMT as internet time.

I still don't understand why you'd have Beil Mean Time - perhaps I haven't grown.

<comment><USER25> What would the internet time be when GMT areas are on BST? Surely you mean accept UTC time.

<comment><USER26> GMT doesn't change twice a year. GMT doesn't mean "the time people in Greenwich observe", it means, roughly, the solar mean time of Greenwich.

<comment><USER25> Who uses GMT in the summer? My bigger point is that metrologists and/or people that care about time use UTC not GMT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ever since I heard about this, it became an exciting idea to me.

60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day is just a mess for doing math and analyzing how long things take and what of our life they make up.

Eliminate all the timezone conversion nonsense and you've got another huge plus... the time system will eventually change, sooner or later. Coordinating the change will be difficult, but it's too obvious not to happen.

<comment><USER28> Actually, I don't think you can have a sensible humane time and a sensible scientific time measure use the same unit. For science you want every hour to be just like every other hour. For people, it's probably way more important that an hour is a fixed proportion of a solar day. I think it's best to just leave the scientists with second and strike out on our own for humane time.

I also have a time system that eliminates timezone conversion nonsense by being based around UTC, however to make that feel a bit more 'humane', I rotate the clock face so that local solar midday is always at the top of the face and local solar midnight is always at the bottom. You can see it here [http://kybernetikos.github.io/UIT/](http://kybernetikos.github.io/UIT/) if you're interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've always found it funny that PHP has this built in, I think it's nice when tech is weirdly political and opinionated, obviously in ways that don't screw things up.

</comment><comment><USER30> Time zones are kind of arbitrary.. there are infinite ones, for each horizontal movement around the earth.

</comment><comment><USER31> Related: [http://thepresent.is/](http://thepresent.is/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Lisa Simpson would like this

<comment><USER33> [http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/theysave...](http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/theysavedlisasbrain3.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I for one welcome our new logical programmer-sanity-saving standard.

</comment><comment><USER35> wow I just nostalgia'd really hard now.</comment>


Japan's 'Flying Car' Gets Off Ground, with a Person Aboard - <AUTHOR> https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-08-28/japans-flying-car-gets-off-ground-with-a-person-aboard <comment><USER2> EHang, a Chinese company, is way ahead on this. Here's a video of the 216 model flying passengers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_mezyLhvlA&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_mezyLhvlA&feature=youtu.be&t=85)

I know there are American and European companies working on similar things, but where are the videos of passengers actually flying in them? Why are we Americans so far behind?</comment>


OS X Preview.app corrupts PDF form fields - <AUTHOR> http://kb2.adobe.com/community/publishing/885/cpsid_88564.html <comment><USER2> 9 years old

<comment><AUTHOR> and still not fixed :(

I encountered this issue today. The cleanest fix I've found on linux (which took me a day to trace the history starting from 2009):

pdftk corrupt_input.pdf generate_fdf output - | pdftk corrupt_input.pdf fill_form - output fixed_output.pdf

Which dumps form fields into text form (FDF format) from PDF. Then loads them back.

This restores missing watermarks preview.app fails to set when saves PDF.

Few more relevant links:

Adobe support ticket: [https://community.adobe.com/t5/acrobat/text-gets- hidden-on-p...](https://community.adobe.com/t5/acrobat/text-gets-hidden-on- pdf-form/td-p/3686995)

Adobe forum thread: [https://acrobatusers.com/forum/forms-acrobat/inviisible- data...](https://acrobatusers.com/forum/forms-acrobat/inviisible-data-form- fields/)

which refers to the dead link of user _pdfdevjunkie_. they archived his blog recently.

finally still alive link to another Adobe user blog (link from the topic) [https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/388774-script-to- fix-...](https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/388774-script-to-fix-mac-osx- preview-app-form-fill-and-save)

Still doesn't help on linux, but gives a hint how to make it work.</comment></comment>