The 21-year-old building India's largest hotel network - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34078529 <comment><USER2> There's an interesting article on the other side of the story -[http://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Wil...](http://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Will- the-real-Ritesh-Agarwal-please-stand-up.html)

<comment><USER3> TL;DR: article claims Ritesh lied about his "bestseller book", lied about his "Asian Science Camp invite", lied his way into an incubator, lied his way into the "Thiel Fellowship" programme.

And screwed a bunch of people on his way up.

Confident, assertive and charismatic, he always manages to come on top. In other words, a successful modern start-up artist.

<comment><USER4> Modern? Have you heard of Dhirubhai Ambani?

<comment><USER5> Reading his wikipedia page told me nothing... why is Dhirubhai relevant to Ritesh?

<comment><USER4> [http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/16/style/16iht- booksam.t_0.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/16/style/16iht- booksam.t_0.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What he has done, is standardize the experience in a hotel based on which category it fits (standard, premium, deluxe) and ensure you'll get a certain minimum standard of experience on your stay in any "OYO Room" across India. This is a huge problem in India especially at the lower end (sub $100). Also, what he has been very smart about is that his app/website provides the only interface with the hotel so you have to book it through OYO Rooms only, unlike other websites where you usually just discover hotels and book directly by calling/mailing the hotel itself.

<comment><USER7> really?

I have never experienced this when booking through kayak, priceline, orbitz and numerous other sites

<comment><USER6> Yes, but this mainly holds true at the lower end of the pricing, starting from as low as INR 899 going upto a few thousand per day. He has managed to get such rates by aggregating a good number of guest houses which cost much less, which are otherwise out of the purview of typical hotel aggregators. The room detail page provides you a good description of what to expect in terms of feature list as well as realistic photographs, eliminating the "surprise" factor as much as possible. Instead of searching for a Hotel A/B/C when visiting a new city, you just book an "OYO Room" of your desired category in your desired location.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> He succeeded because he solved a genuine problem. I have experienced the stay at the Hotels branded under OYO rooms. It is better in so many ways than other similar budget hotels.

</comment><comment><USER9> Similar to how Best Western and Quality Inns started as cooperatives of existing hotels some 70-80 years ago. Of course they just had paper directories and no centralized booking at the time.

<comment><USER10> I guess there are a host of problems that could be solved in India in a better way since it is still developing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Clever way to bootstrap a franchise business. Nice work.

I've stayed in some really basic hotels in India. You get to choose between cheap and awful or expensive and decent. The bad places aren't always bad to keep costs low. Often the proprietors don't have the skills to run it any other way.

A lot of mom & pop businesses could benefit from this sort of approach.

</comment><comment><USER12> I hung out with Ritesh for a while two years ago when we were both finalists for the Thiel Fellowship. I found him very impressive even back then, and he was just a really genuine and nice guy. I'm happy to hear he and OYO are doing so well!

</comment><comment><USER13> You need Cash/Caste to succeed as an Entrepreneur in India;

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

</comment><comment><USER14> In the UK, you pretty much gamble whether an independent hotel, b&b, or holiday cottage has decent mattresses. There is less of an issue of quality of service but you really cannot tell how good the beds are.

</comment><comment><USER15> I love that he didn't reinvent the wheel, he found a crappy wheel and sold it's owner on how to make it better. He put a price tag on things we all do when we find a service that could be improved.

</comment><comment><USER16> A bit OT but this stood out:

>A similar idea - which eventually evolved into Oyo Rooms - won him a coveted Thiel Fellowship - a programme sponsored by PayPal co-creator and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel - which pays for 20 teenagers each year to stop studying and try to set up a business instead.

Someone tell me there are safeguards in place, because this just sounds like an award for dropping out. I assume there have to be assurances from the school/college that they can return to their studies later if business doesn't take off?

<comment><USER17> Thats kind of what Peter Thiel is all about, he doesn't believe in the current educational system.

Alot of the fellows do end up going back to school and they're all smart kids who wont have trouble returning to any university they wish to attend.

<comment><USER18> It definitely isn't a lot... I can only think of 6 of the 60 fellows that have finished the program (Classes 2011 through 2013) that have gone back to school. Most if not successful get another job in the technology industry (or start another company). With the two new classes bringing it up to 100, I doubt there will be more than 20-25 that go back to school.

But yea, those that have chosen to go back to school have done much better than if they were to stay in school in the first place... Two of the 6 I was thinking of are now in PhD programs while they never finished undergrad.

<comment><USER19> How many successful companies have actually been started by a Thiel Fellow? The only one I can find is Oyo, but Ritesh had already dropped out of college to work on its predecessor (Oravel) long before he applied to the Thiel Fellowship (which he apparently lied his way into, according to the comment above by Radim, and this article: [http://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Wil...](http://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Will- the-real-Ritesh-Agarwal-please-stand-up.html)).

It seems to me (admittedly an outsider) that Thiel learned the wrong lesson from Zuck's success with dropping out to found Facebook. It wasn't because Zuck dropped out of college that Facebook was successful - it was because Facebook was already successful (already seeing exponential growth) that Zuck dropped out. Thiel then took this incorrect lesson to encourage lots of other students from elite universities to also drop out, which has had predictably disappointing results.

Similarly, Ritesh wasn't successful because he dropped out and became a Thiel Fellow - he was accepted to the Thiel Fellowship because he had already dropped out and had seen some success (or lied that he had, as it seems).

> Most if not successful get another job in the technology industry

Getting a job is great, but that just means that Thiel's stamp of approval has been placed on the individual, instead of the college's. The upside being years/thousands of dollars in saved tuition, the downside being that Thiel is not commonly known outside of Silicon Valley circles. I'd rather take the degree any day.

<comment><USER18> While I wouldn't call mine a success (yet), I'm a 2013 Thiel Fellow and founder of REX Computing, a recently venture funded fabless semiconductor startup. While venture funding is not a measure of success, I would say we are progressing technically very well. There have been a couple of exits (Streem was acquired by Box) and others that are still moving along, but no unicorns.

I think you also misunderstand Thiel's motives for the fellowship... it is not saying that because Zuck was sucessful because he dropped out of college, Zuck was already lucky that he wasn't in debt. The student debt crisis has been getting worse and worse over the past decade, and Thiel's real core idea is that student debt is a huge barrier for young people to take risks (such as starting or joining a startup) during or after college.

For myself, I actually dropped out of high school to accept the fellowship. At that point I already had 3 years work experience at MIT, and was going to drop out of school anyways to accept a position at a large tech company in the Valley making three times the Fellowship's yearly grant. What the Fellowship offered me was the chance to do something very risky and being able to get into the game quickly with an advantage. I think it was the right choice for me.

<comment><USER19> > The student debt crisis has been getting worse and worse over the past > decade, and Thiel's real core idea is that student debt is a huge barrier > for young people to take risks (such as starting or joining a startup) > during or after college.

I also recognize the debt issue, although I suspect that most of the Thiel Fellows would have little trouble getting full scholarships, as I did, or come from stable, upper middle class households with high-achieving parents who would be able and willing to cover the cost of tuition, as I also did. My point is that college dropouts or recent graduates (even from elite colleges) are not necessarily the best people to start successful high-growth ventures, regardless of whether they're in debt or not. Just because Zuck did it with Facebook (although from what you said, this didn't figure into Thiel's decision to start the Fellowship) doesn't mean that it makes sense to encourage high-achieving college students to drop out and start a business - and the results have borne that out (though perhaps your internal data says otherwise).

In essence:

1\. By the time someone is an ideal high-growth startup founder, college debt should no longer be a big concern, either because they never had it in the first place or because they paid it off with the high-paying job they got after college.

2\. Most of those who are suffering from high amounts of student debt are probably never going to be ready to found a high-growth startup that someone like Thiel would be interested in anyway.

The real solution to the student debt crisis is to optimize high school education such that it is sufficient for most jobs (or perhaps high school education, followed by part-time associate degree + co-op), and alter societal/employers' expectations to accept that a BS is overkill. Unfortunately, that is a very thorny sociopolitical issue that isn't easily solvable by throwing money at moonshot companies founded by smart young people, and it's this latter activity that Thiel has the most experience in.

Before a BS became table stakes for decent employment, you could rely on free, government-provided education to get you to a good job. Getting high-achieving students to drop out of elite colleges to start high-growth ventures is a fundamentally orthogonal matter to returning society to that norm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A valid problem this.. I have been in Agra and was pissed off at how simple stuff didn't work.. there seemed to be seemingly simple solutions but the hotel owners/managers either didn't know or it seemed too hard... Similar issues in the trip earlier in the year on a trip via Trivandrum in the southern State..

<comment><USER21> Depends what your standards are. I stayed in a place in Agra with no windows and unusual plumbing, but on the other hand it was $3 per night. Was particularly amusing when people staying in 5 star accommodation nearby came to check out the view from the rooftop restaurant.

Judging from the link, what OYO is doing well is identifying hotels which are in a mid-range price bracket by local standards which can justify that charge on account of service comparable to a Western budget hotel rather than on account of "deluxe" features that push the price up despite elements of the service, power supply or plumbing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I can see why hotels in India might have quality problems:

> 2,200 hotels operating in 100 cities across India ... and 1,500 employees.

... financed with ...

> monthly revenues of $3.5m (£2.3m)

Revenues of ~$1,600/hotel/month? ~$2,300/employee/month? Am I misunderstanding something?

<comment><USER23> Not necessarily. Average wage in India is Rs 3000/mo (~$44) and you can get a perfectly decent single room at a guesthouse for under Rs 500 ($7) -- although at this price range the quality of the room will be a total crapshoot, which is precisely why this is such a great idea.

On the other hand, if you want a 100% guaranteed Western branded hotel experience, you'll pay through the nose for it. Back when I was working in Delhi, 4-star-ish hotels charged $400/night and up and the Trident Hilton in Gurgaon was $700.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how he is profitable or expecting to be profitable. The article states that Oyo pulls in roughly $3.5M/month but has to pay 1,500 employees.

<comment><USER25> A couple grand a month is more than sufficient pay in many parts of India. Heck, it's enough for new police officers in New York City (ok, I'm ignoring payroll tax and insurance for this one).

<comment><USER26> The average pay for hotel staff and call center operators is around Rs. 25,000 here, with junior pay starting at Rs. 15,000. That works out to less than $400 either way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> look customer service is using ubuntu :)

</comment><comment><USER28> How is his age relevant? Would the task be less impressive if done by an 80 year old?

<comment><USER29> If you fall outside the norm then it's usually perceived as impressive. 18 and 80 would both be impressive.

In general, it's important to celebrate when people excel because the norm is a snarky comment on the Internet.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Video format for Web and Mobile? - <AUTHOR>

I'm starting a new start-up and one of the requirements is to be able to show video on the website and various mobile handsets (iphone and droid to start).<p>I haven't been able to come up with a good strategy at handling this particular part of the requirement. Seems like there isn't really any straight answer, so I guess I'm looking for what have others done to minimize the 'pain in the ass' factor with video right now. <comment><USER2> With my last client, we found that the proper encoding of a video to h.264 would work equally well as a Flash streaming file, iPhone/iPod/iPad video link, Android video link, and <video> tag source (in browsers that support h.264 - use OGG for Firefox).

Realistically, given the different resolution, something like 480x360 (4:3) for mobile devices and 720x480 for browsers is fine for standard definition video.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's a great suggestion. I always get tripped up with the 'container' versus the underlying codec.

Edit: thinking about this further, what container did you use that works on everything? Mp4?

<comment><USER2> Yes, MP4, with h.264 inside. I don't remember the exact settings offhand, but we were just using x264 and ffmpeg to convert files.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, good to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Based on going through something similar myself right now...

If you don't have to show live video (ie: just video clips), your best bet is probably to convert the video to a number of different formats and/or sizes when it is uploaded, then detect device type from the request info and then serve the appropriate video stream/size.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's sort of where I'm leaning too. I thought maybe YouTube might be another way to go but I didn't see a way to make the videos private but still available via a custom Ui (mobile/web).</comment></comment>


Umbrella: Open Source, Simple Lessons on Digital and Physical Security - <AUTHOR> https://secfirst.org/ <comment><USER2> Show HN, right?</comment>


Cassandra 0.5.0 released - <AUTHOR> http://spyced.blogspot.com/2010/01/cassandra-05.html

<comment><USER2> Olden but golden? In fact it looks like 0.6 realease is really far along. It's read performance got so good that a bunch of sites are ditching memcached(db) in favor of it.

Speaking of Cassandra, can anyone confirm that facebook is actually moving from Cassandra to hbase?

<comment><USER3> Facebook is tight-lipped about such matters. I do not think you're going to get confirmation here, (not one that I would trust).

<comment><USER4> Facebook is using both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 0.6 beta 3 is the new hotness. [https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0....](https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/tags/cassandra-0.6.0-beta3/CHANGES.txt)

</comment><comment><USER6> ...in January.</comment>


Pennsylvania factory team clocks out after 28 days of live-in work for masks - <AUTHOR> https://www.pennlive.com/coronavirus/2020/04/pa-factory-team-clocks-out-after-28-days-of-live-in-work-making-coronavirus-protective-material.html <comment><USER2> " To accommodate the dedicated workers, the company gave them an increase in wages and provided beds, kitchens, groceries, internet access and iPads, WPVI reported." Bravo! I wish all our essential workers called to do extra work were treated like this.

<comment><USER3> Around here minimum wage workers were declared essential and fired if they get infected.... Thanks Florida

<comment><USER4> Florida = America's trailer park

Georgia, "Hold my beer".... "let's open er back up"...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing the article doesn't mention: What's next for the facility? Is this a shift change, with the next group cycling in for another 28-day shift? Or do they intend to go back to normal shift work, with people heading home at the end of each day? Or have they created enough raw material for now to go into a shutdown? It's an interesting decision point, so I'm curious which direction they took it.

<comment><USER6> The local news says "The group gets a week off before returning to a normal workweek."[0]

[0] [https://6abc.com/braskem-america-marcus-hook-pa- pennsylvania...](https://6abc.com/braskem-america-marcus-hook-pa- pennsylvania/6115590/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice contrast to the 'We are living in a failed state' submission from yesterday...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22938990](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22938990)

<comment><USER8> Why is this a nice contrast... having to require workers to live in a single location for 28 days to meet demand is not ideal, having stockpiles would be an actual solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Super interesting but I want to know where they sit in the supply chain. When they're done, where does the material go? Where did the finish product end up? And not in general, but specifically.

<comment><USER10> From my estimate, they produce plastic resin in pellet form. Imagine a material that is like coarse plastic sand.

If you are making a respirator mask, another factory will take these pellets, heat it to melting, and basically spray the hot plastic to form a sheet with very fine plastic fibers. Because the fibers need very specific properties, they probably use a custom plastic resin, not a regular commodity resin.

If you are making protective clothing, a different factory will take the pellets, heat it to melting, and slowly extrude it through a nozzle. Once you get a sheet, you cut it to size, and maybe glue some different pieces together. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6V0w-ajtN8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6V0w-ajtN8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Meanwhile VC funded bozos asking, "Can i expense my lunch at home?"

<comment><USER12> > "Can i expense my lunch at home?"

You're getting downvoted, but that sadly does reflect the mindset of some clueless entitled participation-trophy-winning employees I know.

<comment><USER13> They should get downvoted. Their example is certainly the extreme case, but the principle that employees shouldn't complain about seemingly small things is completely and utterly wrong.

This is a perfect time for companies to take advantage of the situation by cutting pay, perks, promotions, etc. Employees should absolutely push back.

<comment><USER11> > This is a perfect time for companies to take advantage of the situation by > cutting pay, perks, promotions, etc.

Why is this the perfect time? Is something going on that is affecting the entire world economically?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Inspiring! This is the sort of news that should be in front page headlines.

</comment><comment> tom-thistime Folks in the plant, the rest of us all owe you a lot of beer.

<comment><USER15> No, we owe them good working environments, high wages, good benefits, time off, relief from their mortgages and rents, health care, voting rights, access to education, etc.

I'm sure a few cases of beer would be nice as well, but let's remember that it's the workers who made all those masks and by taking care of those workers we've helped our society as a whole.

<comment><USER16> Why lead with "No"? Dude was just trying to say something nice, and you end up agreeing with him anyhow.

<comment><USER17> Not OP, but he's emphasizing that the increased compensation should be of a different kind rather than of a different degree (of the same kind, one may assume).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It says a lot about mindset between various classes when Silicon Valley billionaires are building huge self-sufficient retreats in New Zealand to hide out in when civilization collapses[0] and working class folks are willing to stay at the factory for a month in order to get essential goods out the door in order to prevent said collapse.

0: [https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/840906009/author-tours-the- en...](https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/840906009/author-tours-the-end-of-the- world-from-prairie-bunkers-to-apocalypse-mansions)

<comment><USER19> It's not particularly interesting or productive to compare the best of one set to the worst of another.

<comment><USER18> The "worst" of that set includes names like Zuckerberg, Thiel and even Sam Altman, among many others.[0]

I'd be willing to bet that a pretty significant percentage of the tech elite have taken serious steps like this, this clearly isn't a small set of obscure players.

0: [https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are- building-...](https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building- bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/)

<comment><USER20> I don't understand why hedging against long-tail events is 'bad'. They bought large quantities of supplies, and hired a bunch of people to build them facilities which could be of benefit in the event of a catastrophe. The tradesmen doing the building were probably happy to do the work, and I am sure the supplies provided a number of manufacturing and administrative jobs. I don't see a problem; unless you think this pandemic was caused by bunker construction.

Is buying a lot of insurance also evil?

<comment><USER21> Traveling to those bunkers could spread the virus. Just stay home is a completely viable option.

Some basic risk analysis shows the trip increases risks and is therefore a dumb move even if the idea of a bunker could be useful in other situations.

<comment><USER22> Did any of them actually travelled to their bunker? Or are you blaming them for something that didn't happen?

<comment><USER23> According to published reports, yes:

[https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to- go...](https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/e2-80-98we-needed-to- go-e2-80-99-rich-americans-activate-pandemic-escape-plans/ar-BB12V3En)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


My Father's "Eviscerated" work - Son of J.R.R. Tolkien finally speaks out - <AUTHOR> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/ <comment><USER2> I'm a little torn on this.

On one hand, the estate is clearly a victim of "Hollywood accounting" (as was Peter Jackson, I believe, which is why he refused to direct the Hobbit movie for such a long time). That's a downright criminal practice and "victims" perfectly describes those unfortunate enough to be targeted.

On the other hand, JRR the man passed away years ago, and his son is almost 90. Copyright law says one thing, but at what point do we as humans say that the creator has died long ago, and his work should now pass to the public to retell as it sees fit? How long should his children, and their children, and _their_ children, expect to control and profit off of the work of a long-dead man? (Yes C. Tolkien did some original stuff with _Silmarillion_ and _Hurin_ but we're talking _Hobbit_ and _LotR_ here.)

That's a loaded question and obviously C. Tolkien and companies like Disney think copyright should be eternal. (And no doubt New Line now wishes its own copyright on its little gold mine would remain eternal too.) But personally I think stuff should enter the public domain much more aggressively for the good of culture and society.

In such a world C. Tolkien might have made a little cash for a while, perhaps been happy that his family created a cultural touchstone, and maybe went on to do something original and no doubt productive with his own talent. But we'll never know, and now he's spending his last days growing increasingly embittered because he feels that he's lost control of something he didn't even create in the first place.

<comment><USER3> It's not only a question about copyright laws, money, etc.

Popularization of JRR works sometimes disgusting.

The most disgusting thing(for me, and I think I'm not lonely): LONG ELVEN EARS.

JRR almost reinvented elves. He transcend them from butterfly-like insects into unearthly beautiful beings almost like humans, but in every aspect better.

This effort is ruined: now everybody knows that elves are "guys/gals with long ears". Of cause: it's a lot easier to make long ears, than to make ... unearthly beauty.

(Excuse me my Runglish )

<comment> stargazer-3 A quick note about elves: it's a misconception that before Tolkien's work an elf was pictured as a fey. Nordic elves were very Tolkien-ish, for example.

<comment><USER4> I've read explanations that elves as winged 5" fairies were a Victorian invention, and it kind of fits. European myths from before then generally much more serious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With regards to the _Lord of the Rings_ movie trilogy:

      Cathleen Blackburn, lawyer for the Tolkien Estate in
      Oxford, recounts ironically, "These hugely popular films
      apparently did not make any profit! We were receiving
      statements saying that the producers did not owe the
      Tolkien Estate a dime."

In "Hollywood Accounting", a $19 million movie can make $150 million and still not be profitable.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollyw...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood- accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml)

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_an...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/05/the_friday_podcast_angelina_sh.html)

<comment><USER6> Isn't it amazing how wildly successful films like _The Return of the Jedi_ never made a dime, and yet Hollywood seems eager to make more every year?

<comment><USER7> I'd like to see this used as evidence that the movie viewing may cost 12$ for a ticket, the movies are actually worth negative dollars.

Use their own tax cheating against themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To call Jackson's work an "evisceration" is just so misguided I can barely stand to read on. J.R.R. Tolkien was an academic of the highest caliber, and it seems his son has retained his love of the more arcane and in-depth aspects of the Middle Earth world. I, personally, agree with them: I find the Silmarillion to be the most interesting work of Middle Earth, but that's only because I'm a massive geek.

As far as a pop-culture and on-screen rendition of the books go, Jackson's work has been superbly loyal to the source literature and to the audience who pays to see them.

This is just straight-out snobbery, and I don't care for it.

<comment><USER9> While the Jackson films may be entertaining and good in their own right, they aren't very loyal to Tolkien's source material, or even their own canon, as someone else has pointed out.

For a Tolkien fanatic like myself, they are almost unwatchable. I can understand changing details and dialogue because it is a different medium. But Jackson changes the motivations and major actions of many of the main characters in LoTR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of "tough shit" responses here. I like to sympathise with sensitive people - I think Tolkien was clearly a very sensitive, quiet, private man, and Christopher similarly. I don't think Tolkien ever imagined his work becoming as popular and mass-culture as it did. He took it so seriously I think it would have shocked him. And from the way this article describes it, Tolkien's work formed the bedrock of a very sensitive, private, tender father-son relationship - and that bedrock is now being smeared around every cinema and toystore in the world. Rightly or wrongly, that must hurt a lot for Christopher.

Perhaps nothing should be allowed to remain private. Perhaps privacy is an affront to the rights of the people. But I don't think so. I think everyone has special, private things from their lives - special things they would be upset to see appropriated and distorted at will by other people with little to no understanding or reverence for the meaning those things hold to you. Christopher is only different because the things that made his childhood special and to which he feels protective have become an unstoppable blockbuster film series.

Hell, I can sympathise. Maybe it's just snobbery, but damned if I don't feel disgusted by the shameless, opportunistic faux-Tolkienism whipped up by by New Zealanders in the wake of the films. Nobody in New Zealand gave a shit about Tolkien before the movies. It was only when people realised that it was going to be huge that suddenly everyone became a lifelong Tolkien fan and every farmer next to a film site was running a Hobbit tour... You know, my grandpa read The Hobbit to me when I was young, and he even has a photo from when he met Tolkien (before the books took off.)

Edit: On another note, I think it's a bit rich for Hackernews readers to criticise Christopher for snobbery/possessiveness - after all, the whole bloody point of Hackernews is to discourage average internet users, prevent that 'Eternal September' thing - and maintain a conversation to an elite- defined standard. Everyone has their own snobbish preferences I think.

<comment><USER11> "Perhaps nothing should be allowed to remain private. Perhaps privacy is an affront to the rights of the people. But I don't think so."

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with privacy. Tolkien _sold_ his books publicly and then _sold_ the rights for the movies.

We can certainly argue about the quality, and correctness of the films, as well as the due compensation to the Tolkien estate. But privacy, really?? It's not like hollywood execs snuck in and recorded these bedtime stories in the dark. They were sold by their owner.

<comment><USER10> I wasn't talking about the legal situation. I was trying to sympathise with why this man might feel wounded - after all, he was young when that decision was made, and he didn't make it. And neither he nor Tolkien everimagined how big LotR would become. But he still has to accept and deal with something very private and special to him being reshaped and reappropriated for the whole world, in a way completely alien to his own feelings about the works.

Like I said, maybe he is wrong to feel possessive, maybe not. But I still think just writing him off as a hyper-sensitive, overly-possessive snob, as a few HN readers have done, is very mean-spirited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? > "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people > aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit > will be the same kind of film."

no, hobbit is worse. the first episode of hobbit was a 3 hour long trailer with zero substance.

<comment><USER13> Wait, what do you mean no substance? We had a rabbit-powered Santa Clause- esque sleigh, a "thunder battle" between two Michael Bay-esque transformers ("robots in disguise" as mountains), lots of silly makeup for the dwarves, Voldemort from Harry Potter made a cameo as the "pale orc," and we got to re- watch maybe 25 minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring again. Oh, and we learn that Kili is apparently related to Legalos, when you see his unrivaled agility and skill with a bow and arrow.

It takes a lot of effort and hard work to take a great story that would have easily made the best 3 hour movie of the decade and turn it into a 10 hour, 3-part ridiculous something. "No substance," he says!

<comment><USER14> The giants were in the book. Everything else was in the books and writings around the Hobbit (apart from the rabbits of course). I'd heard that the Radagast scene was terrible but I didn't think it was that bad in the end - they portrayed him pretty well as one of the wizards that had lost interest in the peoples of Middle Earth in favour of animals.

<comment><USER13> > _The giants were in the book._

Do you mean the mountain transformers? Sorry, they weren't.

Here's a quote from the "thunder-battle" scene:

> He knew that something unexpected might happen, and he hardly dared to hope > that they would pass without fearful adventure over those great tall > mountains with lonely peaks and valleys where no king ruled. They did not. > All was well, until one day they met a thunderstorm, _more than a > thunderstorm, a thunder-battle. You know how terrific a really big > thunderstorm can be down in the land and in a river valley; especially at > times when two great thunderstorms meet and clash. More terrible still are > thunder and lightning in the mountains at night, when storms come up from > East and West and make war._ The lightning splinters on the peaks, and rocks > shiver, and great crashes split the air and go rolling and tumbling into > every cave and hollow; and the darkness is filled with overwhelming noise > and sudden light.

To me, that quite clearly is a symbolic "battle." Not mountains turning to golems or giants or transformers or what-not.

<comment><USER15> I think Tolkien meant the giants to be real in the Hobbit. The paragraph after then one you quoted starts with:

 _When [Bilbo] peeped out in the lightning flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone-giants were out, and were hurling rocks at one another for a game, and catching then, and tossing them down into the darkness where they smashed among the trees far below, or splintered into little bits with a bang...They could hear the giants guffawing and shouting all over the mountansides.

"This won't do at all!" said Thorin, "If we don't get blown off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."_

After the party escapes the goblins and gets through the mountains, Gandalf suggests blocking up the entrance in the pass through which they had been ambushed:

 _"I must see if I can't find a more or less decent giant to block it up again," said Gandalf, "or soon there will be no getting over the mountains at all."_

<comment><USER13> I stand corrected.

<comment><USER16> You shouldn't, at least not completely. The giants in the book are giants-- very large humanoids. They are not mountains that transform into something else.

<comment><USER15> Tolkien never actually describes them, so we don't know if they're stone- giants because they live among the stones of the mountains, because they throw stones, or because they are made of stone. I actually pictured them as Pdonis describes them, as very large humanoids, although I can't be sure.

But I don't think we can definitively settle the question of the giants' form, as we simply don't have enough data. So I suggest we branch out to another unanswerable question: would Gandalf have used Emacs or Vim? How about Sauron?

<comment><USER16> Tolkien doesn't come right out and say "giants are very large humanoids", but so what? They are described as throwing stones, which clearly implies that they are humanoids. The "very large" part is implied by the word "giant"; also, of course, there are plenty of mythological references to giants, in particular in Norse mythology, which Tolkien is known to have drawn upon, and they're always very large humanoids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I sympathize with Christopher. I won't even say that he's wrong to feel the way he does.

However, I do not think what has happened with the films is wrong at all. I think it is a fine and lasting tribute to Tolkien. It has done more than any single thing to introduce a vast audience to this fabulous world _and to Tolkien's original work,_ millions of people that would never have picked up the books otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER18> I read a lot of comments that people felt the movies were pretty loyal to the books, so I thought I would add my own little rant to add some perspective for those who maybe read the LOTR books when they were ~15 or so and never read the Silmarillion.

The movies are fairly loyal to the books from a pure "action" perspective, in that they're about some midgets that find a ring and try to drop it in a volcano, there's a wizard, a ranger who's supposed to be a king, some elves and dwarves and stuff, and some battles, etc ...

The movies are NOT loyal at all to the broader mythology and spiritual aspects of Tolkien's world. The movies are full of scenes where these aspects are sacrificed in order to add very tiny bits of drama and action.

Case in point: Elrond's racist rant in "The Two Towers" movie to his Elf daughter Arwen, trying to convince her not to marry the mortal Man Aragorn. Look, I get it from a screenwriter's perspective: it adds some drama to the Aragorn/Arwen love story (which doesn't get much play in the books), it modernizes the story a bit to add the racism angle, and Elrond is a minor character in the movies anyway, so why not make him a Heel?

The problem from a broader perspective in the Tolkien universe is that Elrond (the Half-elven) is himself a descendant of Elves, Men, and Maiar (angels). His ancestors are among the great heroes of the First Age of the world. And in fact the reason why Sauron's boss isn't ruling the world at the time of LOTR is because Elrond's half-elf dad went himself to the Gods to request their help, on behalf of both Elves and Men. He was returning to the Gods a jewel containing the original Light of the world, that Elrond's human great-great- grandfather rescued from the Devil so he could marry Elrond's elf/angel great- great-grandmother. Oh, and Aragorn is a direct descendant of Elrond's brother Elros. And Elrond himself had lived 6000+ years by the time of LOTR and had fought alongside Men at the end of the Second Age.

From that perspective, the scene in the TTT movie, and the characterization of Elrond in general, is ridiculous. And the movies are full of these sorts of changes, where a little bit of drama/action is added at the expense of RUINING the story from the broader perspective of Tolkien's mythology.

<comment> Digit-Al I would say two things in response to this.

Firstly, think of the plight of the screenwriter who has to a) adapt a story that will take most people about a week to read into a three hour film; and b) has to create something that will make lots of money. I can completely understand the resentment felt at a beloved book being turned into a very different film - I have seen a number of well liked stories turned into something completely different (see my next point). I think you just have to view film adaptations as a completely different product.

Secondly, there is a long history of books being turned into films that do not bear much relation to the original work. A few examples from my own life. The Stephen King novella "The Running Man" was turned into a film that contained the same themes, but was a very different story. The film "The Lawnmower Man" was also taken from a Stephen King short story of the same name. The story of the film bore absolutely no relation to the film, and to this day I can't work out how they could possibly draw any relation between the two. A long time ago I hired a video of a Dean R Koontz story called "Watchers". I had enjoyed the book and jumped at the chance to see a film adaptation. I was to be disappointed. What I watched, whilst having the name of the book was not an adaptation of that book - the story was completely different. I can only think that they wanted the name of a popular author to help sell their shoddy film.

<comment><USER18> Yeah I get it. My point is just that a lot of people consider the movies to be fairly loyal to the books, and I have to agree with Christopher Tolkien that they really do "eviscerate" the story and aren't much more than action movies aimed at 15-25 year olds. That's not to say other people can't enjoy them, many do.

I've thought a lot about how I would do the LOTR movies or the Silmarillion as a TV series if I had the chance! And I really think the choices Peter Jackson made suggest (1) a weak understanding of the source material, and (2) not an especially strong film-making ability, and nothing PJ's done since LOTR has convinced me otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Honestly, I think the only thing you need to know to understand how the books and the movies differ is that, in the books, the ring is destroyed half-way through the last book...

<comment><USER20> I was bummed when they changed the ending; I loved how in the books the Hobbits went back home and kicked ass.

<comment><USER21> I much prefer the movie approach where The Shire and its inhabitants remain largely oblivious to and untouched by all the evil, death and suffering that has happened. It's almost as if everything happened so a little part of the world could remain innocent like a child.

<comment><USER9> Well, this was a major theme in the book - how you can never go back to innocence and pretend all the bad stuff didn't happen. But in Hollywood everything is happily-ever-after and we never have to learn from our mistakes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> He really doesn't like the movies Peter Jackson made? Shit. Other authors weren't so lucky with their movies... The LOTR series is a real success.

<comment><USER23> I wish PKD could have lived to see Blade Runner, (the original) Total Recall, and A Scanner Darkly. He would have loved them.

<comment><USER24> PKD did see an early cut of Blade Runner, and commented that it was 'exactly as i'd imagined it', which was ironic since neither Scott nor the art and set design guys had actually read Androids.

edit: Wikipedia says "given an opportunity to see some of the special effects sequences", but i'm certain that Scott says in the documentary that he showed him a complete early cut of the film

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I usually prefer film adaptations to be as truthful to the original as possible, I think in order to be be good films, they sometimes need to introduce something new. A simple example mentioned in the article are women. I don't really understand what they complain about. While book story can ignore some aspects of the world, visual film is a different matter. Imagine picturing Dale without showing any women. While Tolkien doesn't speak about female Dwarves for example, ignoring them completely while picturing refugees would be simply unnatural. The same goes about Elves and etc.

However not all changes are the same. When characters are changed in some weird manner, which makes them very different from the books - it already becomes bothering and there is simply no justifying reason for it, except for director's ego. In the Lord Of The Rings there were several such examples. For example Aragorn, Boromir and Frodo were changed in a big way. Their actions in the film didn't match their characters from the book (i.e. for their book versions it'd be unnatural to do certain things which they did in the film). So I partially agree with criticism, but only partially. Making a carbon copy of the book probably wouldn't make a good film.

</comment><comment><USER26> Surprisingly, one of the most interesting things on that page is the comment by Thomas John Mosbo explaining a subtle but profound difference between the way the One Ring is destroyed in the book and the way it is destroyed in the movie.

<comment><USER16> I noticed this too, and I agree with Mosbo's take on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Everything I ever heard on the subject says that Tolkien "wanted to write a mythology for England" when he started writing LOTR.

Mythologies are almost by definition uncontrollable, so the fact that it's taken on a life of its own in a way proves that Tolkien actually succeeded with his initial goal.

</comment><comment><USER28> Anyone wanting to know the perspective in which JRR Tolkein wrote his fantasy ought to read this PDF:

[http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories- tolkien...](http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien.pdf)

You should be able to then judge whether or not the movies have done justice to the spirit in which his books were written. Judge for yourself as C. Tolkein may or may not be right.

After reading it, I think the movies get a lot right and a little wrong. It helps to know the mind of the one you are reading.

<comment><USER16> _After reading it, I think the movies get a lot right and a little wrong._

I read this essay years ago (in The Tolkien Reader), and I couldn't disagree more. If the standard is being faithful to the spirit in which Tolkien wrote, I think the movies got a lot wrong and very little right. There's plenty of discussion of this elsewhere in the thread so I won't belabor it, but I'm surprised that anyone could read "On Fairy-Stories" and think that _that_ spirit is what the films portray. The films are Hollywood action movies with a "fantasy" veneer; Tolkien's essay was talking about something very different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> _> Over the years, a sort of parallel universe has formed around Tolkien's work, a world of sparkling images and of figurines, colored by the original books of the cult, but often very different from them, like a continent that has drifted far from its original land mass._

I much prefer the _Legend of the Seeker_ author's attitude toward the television adaptation: The story in the two different mediums are each their own separate things, to be enjoyed in their own separate ways.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth#TV_series_ad...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth#TV_series_adaptation)

Let's face it, there are certain people who will read the books and enjoy them for what they are. Then there are other people who won't read the books but will see the movies. What difference does it make?

As for the "Hollywood accounting," that's unfortunate. All parties in a deal should feel they benefit, and none should feel hey have short shrift.

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't mean to sound so mean, but I am kind of looking forward to the day when C. Tolkien is "out of the way" and J.R.R's materials (which are hopefully somewhat organized by now thanks to CT) can be turned over to an author who is able to spin a proper tale out of those notes. Middle Earth is a great setting, but it took a consummate story teller to make LOTR into a three- volume page-turner. I'm not terribly interested in reading what CT has published. It's like reading a screenplay for an unfilmed movie or code for an unfinished video game. While it's interesting, it just feels like spoiling what could be a great first-read somewhere down the line.

</comment><comment><USER31> I seriously do not understand his problem. I don't like LotR either, but its cultural impact is huge and it does in no way devalue the gigantic literary work that Tolkien has created. Idiotic copyright lawsuits won't change reality, either.

</comment><comment><USER32> Never a fan of Tolkien's works, many friends have been, and I still recognize what's not in the movies. But I don't underestimate the power of the literature that moved so many.

It's not diminished one iota by any attempt at a performance in another medium. Some who've not read the originals may be misled about them for a time, just as a great piece of music may be misrepresented by a crappy performance - say, what Karajan did for Beethoven (not saying Jackson did that or not) - but never diminished by it. One is momentary, one is lasting.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ah he has a book coming out. Mystery solved.

</comment><comment><USER33> This article says Chris Tolkien hasn't spoken to the press in about 40 years.

Consider what the hacker community was like forty years ago, and the meaning that LOTR had to this community forty years ago compared to now.

I could be wrong, but maybe that could be what Chris Tolkien means by "eviscerated."

</comment><comment><USER34> I find it hard to have sympathy for Christopher Tolkien, who hasn't exactly been a model steward of his father's imagination. I'm reminded a _lot_ of Brian Herbert, who really hit left field with the posthumous _Dune_ stuff.

Given some of his actions, calling the film franchise an "evisceration" is the pot calling the kettle black. Yes, let's film a 16-hour word-for-word rendition of each book, because _that_ will work on film. I've liked everything Jackson has done, and I think his work can coexist with the source material without issue.

I'm in the minority; I enjoyed _The Hobbit_ even fully aware it suffered from First Film Syndrome. (Just had a thought: Peter Jackson should film _Dune_ next, so he can annoy _two_ posthumous estates.)

<comment><USER35> Christopher Tolkien can be called many things. He hasn't always done the best job stewarding his father's world, erring on the side of conservatism and disapproving of anyone else's work based on his father's (rightly or wrongly). And he's kind of a jerk.

But the Brian Herbert comparison just means you've never read anything Christopher Tolkien actually published (or you never attempted to read Brian Herbert's terrible terrible work). The _only_ publication where Christopher Tolkien embellished or added to his father's writings was The Silmarillion, published under pressure from their publisher to get it out the door as soon as possible after his father's death and when he was younger (relatively) and less sure about his bargaining position to leave his father's work untouched. The added narrative was mostly connecting prose, meant to keep the story more coherent, and one full chapter replacing a version that was hopelessly out of date compared to the rest of the updates his father had added over decades. He's repeatedly expressed regret about changing The Silmarillion (including again in this article), and has even laid out exactly what he added to the story so you can mentally edit it out.

Every single other book (that would be 13 of them, I believe) that he's published has been literally a written guide to trying to piece together a chronological view of all the undated scraps of rough drafts and notes his father left behind. The only thing he adds are clearly delimited notes about why he thinks some scrap came next and summaries about how some minor change made elsewhere suddenly made ripples of changes through future drafts of other sections, which he then proceeds to include verbatim.

In other words, there's no way to get _less_ respectful of his father's work, short of leaving it unpublished. Again, he can be called many things (he really does seem to be like a total jerk, and there's no way _any_ adaptation would have pleased him, even a word-for-word dramatic reading), but comparing him to Brian Herbert and what he did with Dune is beyond the pale.

Yes, Brian Herbert's work is just that bad :)

<comment><USER34> Allow me to clarify that the reminding of Herbert that Tolkien triggers for me is not based upon the quality of the work -- and I think you and I are going to agree on how bad Herbert's is -- it's only the territorial and overbearing defense of a creation not his own, often with ill effect.

In both cases, I wonder if we'd be better off had forward progress in the canon died with the author.

<comment><USER35> This and your comment above ("Some argued that elder Tolkien would not have published his notes and thoughts in that form") are a fair point, though Tolkien really did want to publish The Silmarillion for decades, he was just unable to find the time to finish it. I actually have some family members who feel the same way as you, and they've chosen to not read The Silmarillion at all because they prefer the off-handed hints and references to earlier times that pop in LotR to remain like that, rather than knowing the full stories. Personally, I've always loved JRR Tolkien's notion that these were legends, so conflicting drafts and different versions of tales were part and partial of that history, just as most mythological characters have sometimes conflicting and inconsistent stories told about them.

While it does sometimes seem slightly strange that Christopher Tolkien spent basically his entire adult life helping with and then documenting his father's work, it's really not that different from what most people choose as their life's work.

And while it might reduce some of the artistic aura around his works, I love seeing his thought process and how he evolved his world and characters. I really don't see much difference between reading the assembled published drafts and visiting Oxford and getting special permission to view the drafts, short of the fact that they've now been curated by the person most likely to be able to put them in close to the order they were actually written in. If it helps, think of them as an academic work, purely for the Tolkien scholars that came later, and not intended to be read cover to cover by most people. It's only an accident that there was enough commercial interest in Lord of the Rings to put these books in regular bookstores.

Brian Herbert sinned unforgivably when he claimed that his books were based on his father's notes and unfinished drafts, so were basically the stories he was going to tell, while constructing the plots around characters that had only appeared in Brian's other made up Dune stories. He and his cowriter should also just not be allowed to write. They have a terrible, terrible way with words.

<comment><USER36> As someone who suffered through the Silmarillion, I can attest that it sucks. If you read it, you'll wish you hadn't. Partly as a result of this, and partly due to other idiocy through the years, I have some schadenfreude knowing the Tolkien estate is mad about the movies (as was inevitable). Couldn't happen to better people. The stories would be much better off in the public domain. I don't think it's a huge surprise the world works this way -- think of Star Wars. Do you really think those stories are better off in the hands of George Lucas or Disney? It turns out heirs are really poor custodians. We don't have royalty either, for much the same reasons.

<comment><USER37> Skip the first biblical section and the Silmarillion is mostly readable. It took me 2-3 passes to realize this.

<comment><USER38> For what it's worth, the beginning of the Silmarillion is by far my favorite part. Maybe it's easier to read if you've had previous exposure to mythology and/or the Bible?

<comment><USER39> I found the Ainulindale to be one of my preferred parts, but I'm also the kind of person who would enjoy reading Hesiod or the Bhagavad Gita as well. I enjoy religious literature without the bother of agreeing with it; it has a different quality that mercilessly bends the strict fiction/non-fiction line we like to pretend exists.

I actually read it while I was young and hadn't the money to buy my own books: I got it as a single, enormous Word document from a friend and read it by CRT display.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have a hard time seeing how the work was "eviscerated" -- last I checked I could still buy the actual work, i.e. Tolkien's books (which I'm sure got a bump in popularity from the movies).

</comment><comment><USER41> "In an era where most people would sell their souls to be talked about..."

What an outlandish and completely rediculous intro. I stopped reading right there.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wish the younger tolkiens were not such artistic snobs and would produce more material for my role playing games- both computer and pen and paper. Moar contentz already. I guess if you're a literary art-snob you retire to France and criticise and rarely produce. Pity

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm sorry, but I think Christopher Tolkien is a pretentious cunt who has wasted his life squeezing the last drops out of his father's writing career. He should have spent his life creating original material rather than fussing endlessly over someone else's creative output.

I think he owes Peter Jackson an apology for pissing on the greatest thing to have happened to the Tolkien books in many decades.

What a whiny asshole.</comment>


Believing Things That May Not Be True - <AUTHOR> http://tynan.com/belief

<comment><USER2> > 1\. I believe that everything will always work out perfectly for me.

What does this mean, to work out perfectly? Regardless of how much you boost your ego through accomplishments, you still will die in the end, and so will everyone you love. Even in the ideal future, technological advances would not prevent entropy ultimately. Also, anything you ever accomplish could have been done so faster. Perfection is impossible.

> 2\. I believe that everyone I meet will like me proportionally to the amount > of time they spend with me.

I think this is generally true.

> 3\. I believe that I can do anything if I put enough time and effort into > it.

This is actually true for many things.</comment>


The story of Homer: Voyage's first self-driving taxi - <AUTHOR> https://news.voyage.auto/the-story-of-homer-voyages-first-self-driving-taxi-f0a6466718af <comment><USER2> Hello all! Oliver, the CEO of Voyage here. I'm here to answer any questions about Homer I can (sat next to him right now actually: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/avznvqa01hftoe2/IMG_1642.jpg?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/avznvqa01hftoe2/IMG_1642.jpg?dl=0)).

Just let me know!

<comment><USER3> So you're a company with 10 engineers ... and you're building self driving technology from scratch? I thought it requires large teams and billion dollar investments.

<comment><USER2> Not from scratch! We use lots and lots of open source (<3 ROS), in addition to secret sauce we've developed over the past year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun project, but the addition of Radar units to the bumpers means the car is no longer street legal. How are you planning to test in an environment that will give you useful results? Emulating a real-world environment seems like a bigger challenge than the DIY retrofit!

</comment><comment><USER5> Are you planning to sell these as kits for hobbyists to retrofit into their cars? That would be way more accessible than having to buy a Tesla.

<comment><USER2> We aren't. But you can always summon one of our Voyage taxis and get the same experience for much cheaper!

Retrofitting is such a tough industry to be in. Every car is ridiculously different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just mounted my new Yakima bike rack on the world's first flying car. Anybody wants to see pictures?

</comment><comment><USER7> This is so amazing! Good stuff guys!!!</comment>


Ask HN: How would you promote/build an audience for a satire news website? - <AUTHOR>

Say you start a satire website, let's say The Onion doesn't exist yet and you're trying to start it today.
Assuming you're starting more or less from scratch, you have your website built and have accounts on Twitter/Facebook posting links.
Obviously "content is king", and focusing on writing great content is the most important thing (that would improve word of mouth/sharing in and of itself). What are other things you should be doing to promote/grow?
Posting articles to Reddit/other relevant forums? Paid advertising/adwords?
Have a startup-style launch? Press release?
Any suggestions would be most welcome. <comment><USER2> Become involved with the comedy community. There's a lot of up and coming comedians out there. There are podcasts, there are forums, there are big-name comedians who interact with smaller names on Twitter and so on regularly.

Create a lot of content. Almost always, particularly when you're entering a new field, creating a lot of content trumps trying to create perfect content.

Be topical. Very, very topical. If you post something moderately amusing about something that a lot of people are thinking about, you're more or less guaranteed to spread virally, at least a bit. The earlier you move on a subject, the better.

Have an opinion. From my observation, even more than most content-driven industries, comedy and satire thrive on people with strong opinions: from Marcus Brigstocke to Margaret Cho. Often, people will share your content as much because they agree with your point of view as because they think it's funny.

Do spend a lot of time self-promoting on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and whatever other social platform works for you. Find one that works, and push your presence there for all it's worth. Don't try to do all of them at once.

Stick to it. This isn't a "done in a month"-type project. You'll need to persist for a year at least, I'd guess, to get some decent traction.

I could continue (at some length - this is kind of What I Do), but I've got to get back to work :) Hope that helps!

</comment><comment><USER3> Be topical so sharing is more likely.

Satire gets old really fast. Be funny and not snarky.

Do something other than write satire on a consistent basis like having a fake Q&A with a fictional character.

</comment><comment><USER4> Making good content is really difficult.

Are you funny enough to write for The Onion, McSweeney's, or a TV show? You can't growth hack a satire website without first being a first-class satirist.

<comment><USER2> Although the only way to become that funny is to write satire - a lot.

So if you want to be a satirist - and bear in mind that there are easier ways to make a living - starting a satire website is a pretty good approach. Just make sure you stick to it.</comment></comment>


Jason Nazar - How To Break Out Of The Pack - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTJYg9AkRYg

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Zig where others zag.

2\. Sometimes, think less.

\- Thinking can prevent you from taking action.

3\. Stop talking about yourself and others.

4\. Repeat... own... then make new mistakes.

\- You're not gonna learn from your mistakes the first time, but make them quickly, own them and move on to new ones.

5\. You should be uncomfortable.

6\. Forget 80:20, it's 99:1.

\- Pareto principle is true for established organizations, but when creating something new there is one important thing to do in your journey right now.

7\. Become a critical optimist.

8\. Kaizen: improve everyday.

9\. The means justify the ends.

\- Do things right, enjoy the process, and the ends will materialize.

10\. Self improvement = 2 questions:

\- What are you pretending not to know?

\- Why aren't we doing the things that we know we should be doing?

11\. Don't be an extra in your own movie.

12\. You can be the 100th monkey.

\- You change our collective consciousness.</comment>


Podcasts for Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://designpepper.com/podcasts-for-hackers <comment><USER3> NPR's Planet Money Podcast: <http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/>

Lots of examples of people hacking various economic systems (i.e. buying dollar coins to get airline miles) as well as the occasional economics behind tech podcast (Marco Arment & JoCo were both featured recently), and a great way to get a sense of the macroeconomic landscape.

<comment><USER4> I also love the Motley Fool podcast. They have a lot of great info packed into each episode, while staying true to the Motley Fool style of humor and amazingly simplified explanations of complex topics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend Back to Work.

The signal to noise ratio is a problem, but we're talking about some pretty high quality signal and some pretty hilarious noise.

Yes: Merlin can be _extremely_ rambly and he often has a hard time staying on topic, but when he is on, he's on. The last three episodes have been especially great on topics such as risk, valuing yourself, and looking at the big picture in determining how to live your life and career. They resonated very well with me as someone who has taken the plunge of quitting my job and working on my own apps and projects.

</comment><comment><USER6> 99% Invisible is in the same category of general nerdy podcasts like Radiolab (i.e. not just meant for programmers). I think this show specifically would be interesting to hackers, on manufactured sounds for digital interfaces, but there's a lot of good stuff in the archives.

[http://99percentinvisible.org/post/3230995265/episode-15-the...](http://99percentinvisible.org/post/3230995265/episode-15-the- sound-of-the-artificial-world)

<comment><USER7> The podcast might be nice, but for some reason they don't publish links to the mp3 in their podcast RSS feed.

Ironic to see a podcast about design making a simple UX mistake like that.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure which feed you're looking at. <http://invisible99.podbean.com/feed/> does have mp3 enclosures.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It may be time to start a news podcast, the "hacker new podcast", where 3 of the top HN users discuss the day's headlines and comments on HN - <USER2> minutes/day.

Think of it as a summary of HN for HN fans who don't have the time to read all the comments.

<comment><USER10> Slate's Gabfests would probably be a good model for these. They're really entertaining to listen to, and very insightful.

They've never discussed it explicitly, but their "formula" seems to include:

\- usually at most three main topics (occasionally more)

\- a closing bit of silliness

\- they make sure everyone has had time to prepare something to say on the topics to-be-discussed

\- each person has a computer handy (but I never hear anyone typing, which is nice)

\- they have some facility for including external audio (for discussion, e.g., music or ads)

\- one person leads the discussion, trying to keep people on topic, and making sure that a transition happens to the next one at the right time

\- keep the podcast between 45 and 60 minutes, fairly consistently

\- they release it at a regular time

\- it's weekly, and comes out at a regular time

<comment><USER8> As another Gabfest fan, I'll add: \- Community involvement. Live shows and a facebook fan page which they stay active on, and refer to during the show. \- Good mix of regulars, semi-regulars (usually other Slate people), and occasional guests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Think Vitamin Radio: <http://thinkvitamin.com/podcast/>

{ cast }: <http://www.curlybracecast.com/>

A Minute With Brendan: <http://www.aminutewithbrendan.com/>

FunctionSource Show: <http://functionsource.com/tags/podcast/>

</comment><comment><USER8> A few podcasts I like which focus more on broad technology trends, tech in society, and the future:

* Seminars About Long Term Thinking: <http://longnow.org/seminars/> A little like TED, but longer talks and more focused on tech and long-term thinking. Don't miss Brewster Kahle's recent talk about the Internet Archive ([http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/nov/30/universal-access-al...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/nov/30/universal-access-all-knowledge/)).

* Triangulation: <http://twit.tv/tri1> Interviews with tech luminaries on the TWIT network

* Technometria: <http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/series/technometria.html> Interview/conversations led by Phil Windley, creator of IT Conversations, which is also worth checking out (<http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/> ; the original home of the StackOverflow/StackExchange podcast).

</comment><comment><USER12> 2600's Off the Hook - <http://www.2600.com/offthehook/>

And there are several very good german podcasts:

Chaosradio - <http://chaosradio.ccc.de/>

Chaosradio Express (CRE) - <http://cre.fm/>

mobilemacs - <http://mobilemacs.de/>

<comment><USER13> Funny how German podcasters pretty much unanimously decided not to do ads or sponsoring while american podcasts are often littered with ads to the point where it gets unbearable.

Compare and contrast the TWiT network or 5by5 with Tim Pritlove or BitsUndSo

<comment><USER14> Isn't the TWiT network a bit of a special case with Leo Laporte trying to monetize and self produce the same niche of programming he was doing with the Screen Savers back on ZDTV? There isn't much of a choice when the point of the screen casts are that they should be your job. Also it helps that we're conditioned to see adverts everywhere.

<comment><USER15> There was a time when TWiT was funded exclusively by donations, making a point of not taking ads in order to stay independent. At some point I guess the temptation become too big.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> how could _"StackOverflow"_ not be listed here? love listening to this show because it is a) technical & b) funny in a _"Statler and Waldorf"_ sort of way ~ <http://blog.stackoverflow.com/category/podcasts/>

and also ByteIntoIt, a real radio show also podcasted & streamed ~ <http://www.rrr.org.au/program/byte-into-it/>

<comment><USER17> will there still be a stack overflow podcast though after Jeff quit stack exchange?

the last episode is from december 8th 2011

<comment><USER18> No. It was mostly on open discussion between Jeff and Joel (There are so many "Let's discuss this after the podcast") about stackoverflow.

It is not going to be. In fact, it has not been ever since Jeff discussed his exit with Joel. (2 months since)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The Lifestyle Business Podcast - <http://www.lifestylebusinesspodcast.com/>

Great podcast about the intersection between business & lifestyle - focused on bootstrapping and hacking your own business to get them off the ground.

</comment><comment><USER20> Stanford's "Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar" is pure gold if you are looking for high-level business, innovation and entrepreneurial discussions.

<http://etl.stanford.edu/>

</comment><comment><USER21> NodeUp! <http://nodeup.com>

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't forget about the Java Posse - <http://javaposse.com/>

</comment><comment><USER23> Software Engineering Radio: <http://www.se-radio.net/>

</comment><comment><USER24> <http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/> has some classic stuff. worth searching their archives. (Woz is good, and Jon Udell)

</comment><comment><USER25> No Podcast list is complete without mentioning Software engineering radio: <http://se-radio.net>

This compilation of podcasts by Skilldrick has some real good ones: <http://skilldrick.co.uk/2011/08/podcasts-i-listen-to/> Especially, The Changelog and FLOSS weekly.

Also another small compilation from infoq: <http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/09/archcasts> I especially enjoy On Architecture with Grady Booch: [http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/onarchitectu...](http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/onarchitecture)

Stack Overflow (now stackexchange, you can find the old episodes on itconversations), and techzing podcasts are packed with wit and humor. Listening to Joel, Justin and Jason, brightens any day.

I also subscribe to Compucast: <http://computersciencepodcast.com/podcasts.html> and Channel9: <http://channel9.msdn.com/>

Herding Code: <http://herdingcode.com/> and radio free python: <http://www.radiofreepython.com/> are on my "to listen" list.

</comment><comment><USER26> Thanks for including some that I'm involved in! :-) I want to suggest two others (which are not mine):

Founders Talk - <http://5by5.tv/founderstalk> \- a frequent interview podcast with founders, true HN style. The guests are often programmers.

Mixergy - <http://mixergy.com/> \- same as above but with more of a business slant. Mixergy is huge though and Andrew is perhaps as much a "friend of HN" as we could get IMHO :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a problem. I really enjoy your shows.

 _smacks head_ Not sure how I missed Mixergy. Thanks for the suggestions! I'll add them momentarily.

<comment><USER26> Oh, and can't believe I forgot <http://thechangelog.com/> also :-)

And.. <http://herdingcode.com/>

<http://hackermedley.org/> was one of my all time faves for.. 5 episodes. Sadly they stopped doing it but every episode was awesome.

<comment><USER27> The pilot episode on GSM security was my favorite one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There's a great collection of podcasts here: <http://hackermedia.org/> and here: <http://www.thelinuxlink.net/>

The 2600 family of shows: <http://www.2600.com/offthehook>, <http://www.2600.com/offthewall> and the Hackers On Planet Earth conference archives: <http://blip.tv/2600magazine/rss>

Security now: <http://twit.tv/sn>

This Developer's Life: <http://thisdeveloperslife.com/>

The Linux Action Show: <http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/show/linuxactionshow/>

Techsnap: <http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/show/techsnap/>

Ubuntu-UK Podcast: <http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/>

Free As In Freedom (The Software Freedom Law Show): <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/>

</comment><comment><USER29> I´d suggest: Hypercritical: <http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/> The Big Web Show: <http://5by5.tv/bigwebshow/> The Critical Path: <http://5by5.tv/criticalpath/> This Week in Startups: <http://www.thisweekinstartups.com/>

</comment><comment><USER30> Creative Coding Podcast: <http://creativecodingpodcast.com/> \- Flash, HTML5, Processing, OpenFrameworks, or anything graphics and interaction-related. Frequent interviews with developers. Irregular.

LostCast: <http://www.lostdecadegames.com/> \- HTML5 game development. Fairly recent and not terribly hardcore. Irregular.

</comment><comment><USER31> ThisWeekInStartups.com

Jason's show and network is what gave me my entrepreneurial spark a year ago. Great guests and great content. He does need to move the show to SF though. You can only interview LA founders for so long. I've really enjoyed the shows the past few weeks @ CNet and Waze because he has interviewed some of the most prominent tech startups.

<comment><USER32> Completely agree. The show itself has great content. Jason is a smart guy who is humble enough to be engaging and relatable, and confident enough to ask the right questions and make poignant comments. (Only caveat to this statement is the mailchimp ads. The "eee eee eee" part of these ads make me cringe every time.)

I really would like him to move up to the bay area too but part of me think he's able to take a more critical perspective on startups because he's not physically immersed in the SV culture. It would be really cool to run into him in a starbucks or something though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I recommend Econtalk <http://www.econtalk.org/>

In addition to the good topics on economics, they also cover technology, e.g. Kelly on Technology and What Technology Wants - [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/kelly_on_techno.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/kelly_on_techno.html) or Hazlett on Apple vs. Google - [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/hazlett_on_appl.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/hazlett_on_appl.html)

My latest favourite is Taleb on Anti-fragility - [http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/01/taleb_on_antifr.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/01/taleb_on_antifr.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> The Morning Stream (<http://frogpants.com/tms>) is a particularly good podcast, although the subject matter does not usually contain any programming or indeed tech related material. The banter, and chemistry between the show's co-hosts, and the interesting assortment of trivia that is often on stock brightens my mornings, and the time that I spend on drudge work. I usually listen to silence, or music with no lyrics, mostly jazz and electronica when I have to concentrate on the task at hand. Podcasts are a huge distraction vector for me personally, or at least were till I banned them from my assigned work hours. Nonetheless `The Morning Stream' is highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER35> I cannot recommend more the BBC Radio4 In Our Time talks:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/in-our-time/>

They cover different topics, from philosophy to history, and they always have the most interesting guests.

</comment><comment><USER36> Thanks for this article and comments, I usually listen to Justin and Jason's TechZing but here there are some links very interesting (i.e. <http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/>, i've seen they put a transcript of every episode so it's useful for me, i use podcasts also to improve my english)

A suggestion for podcast authors: if you cant put a full transcript, at least try to have an abstract (with link,s people, societies etc..)

</comment><comment><USER37> This is obviously missing nodeup:

* Got all the core team members talking about where nodejs is going * Does live events with 150 people nerding out and drinking beer.

It's an obvious miss.

</comment><comment><USER38> Landing Page Optimization by Tim Ash [http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/landing-page- optimization...](http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/landing-page- optimization/id308016010)

Thou not as frequently updated lately, it's extremely informative podcast on landing pages, data analysis and consumer behavior in relation to web pages.

</comment><comment><USER39> €uroTr@sh: Information Security Podcast - <http://www.eurotrashsecurity.eu/index.php/Main_Page>

Using this opportunity I would like to propose to organize some kind of streaming channel (on twitch.tv or similar) about hacking/coding.

</comment><comment><USER40> Thanks for the list. A friend recently did one as well, which was a bit more general, though has some good tips.

[http://makenosound.com/2012/01/06/podcasts-worth-my- time.htm...](http://makenosound.com/2012/01/06/podcasts-worth-my-time.html)

</comment><comment><USER41> CBC's Spark podcast: <http://www.cbc.ca/spark/>

Recent stories: Limor Fried on Open Source Hardware, Cory Doctorow on the War on General Computing, Don Tapscott on the Future of Crowdsourcing.

</comment><comment><USER7> In the same way that Planet Money is being recommended, I have to suggest Dan Carlin's excellent Hardcore History:

<http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh>

</comment><comment><USER42> There's a new one called <http://deductivedevelopers.com> with Matt Woodward and Peter Farrell who both have a long history with open source.

</comment><comment><USER43> I love James Robertson's Independent Missinterpretations podcast about Smalltalk: <http://www.jarober.com/rss/blog_podcast.xml>

</comment><comment><USER44> Perhaps not for "hackers" per se, but Shop Talk (<http://shoptalkshow.com/>) is worth a listen if you're a front-end developer type.

</comment><comment><USER45> Not specifically "hackery" but Buzz Out Loud is a pretty fantastic tech podcast;

<http://www.cnet.com/buzz-out-loud-podcast/>

</comment><comment><USER46> PaulDotCom Security Weekly <http://www.pauldotcom.com/>

Good podcast discussing tech, hacking, sec , exploits and more

</comment><comment><USER47> Quintessential hackers podcast: Thomas Gideon's Command Line Podcast <http://thecommandline.net/>

</comment><comment><USER48> More related to startups than hackers (but so is Mixergy which is on the list), This Week in Startups (or TWiST), is very entertaining!

</comment><comment><USER49> I would definitely add The Changelog [1] to the list.

[1] <http://thechangelog.com/>

</comment><comment><USER50> Steve Blank's Customer Development Podcast <http://clearshore.net>

</comment><comment><USER51> Forgive me, but what has "This Developer's Life", and "The Ruby Show" got to do with "hacking" exactly?

<comment><USER52> "This Developer's Life" is my new favorite podcast. It's introspective, and covers the mental, emotional, and personal side of the life of hackers. And it has great background music.

<comment><USER51> I think you have the term "hackers" mixed up with Fortran/AJAX/.Net developers.

<comment><USER52> You say this on a forum titled "Hacker News"? What definition of hacker are you using?

I'm using definition 3 from Merriam-Webster, "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer", and that is the most compatible meaning for this forum.

<comment><USER51> I see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I was just wondering, if there is any equally great podcast for HTML/HTML5/CSS/CSS3 hackers.

</comment><comment><USER54> Aren't there any Python-related podcasts? Seems like everything is either Ruby or JS.

<comment><USER55> here a good one to add to the list <http://radiofreepython.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> YayQuery! <http://yayquery.com/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the suggestions everyone! I will try to update the post soon.

</comment><comment><USER57> php and java would be excellent!

</comment><comment><USER58> EconTalk

</comment><comment><USER59> techzing

</comment><comment><USER60> Software Engineering Radio <http://www.se-radio.net/>

<comment><USER61> +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Thanks for the link!</comment>


Rails bindings for Opal - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/opal/opal-rails <comment><USER2> I see the benefits of Opal, but can anyone enumerate the downsides? I imagine it generates quite a bit of cruft as CoffeeScript does (of course, one argues that developer satisfaction in using said language outweighs the extra lines added to JS files).

<comment><USER3> It's been a while since I tinkered with it, but the size of the library was the biggest turn off. It's currently at 259k for the min version. That's a lot to add, especially if you're targeting mobile.

<comment><USER4> > It's currently at 259k for the min version.

It's only 59.0 KB, see [http://cdn.opalrb.org/opal/current/opal.min.js](http://cdn.opalrb.org/opal/current/opal.min.js)

<comment><USER3> I'm showing 259KB in linux, 259KB in OSX, and 253KB in windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The people behind Opal are really awesome. I've spoken to them a few times about this project and they really do know their stuff. Opal looks very promising to anyone who's still using Ruby.

<comment><USER6> Seem like a lovely bunch of nice and inviting people.

[https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941](https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941)

<comment><USER7> This witch hunt from someone who never contributed to Opal has nothing to do with web development and maintainers responded him/her the right way. And frankly the brigading from people who never ever used github and aren't developers was so obvious the whole thing was a farce.

<comment><USER8> I agree with CoralineAda on her views, however her approach to these issues is almost always wrong (the two of us had discussion on this many times). With that being said, I wouldn't personally contribute to Opal _because_ of Elia.

The way I see these projects--if I get involved with them--is that it's like a virtual workplace, and everyone else working on it and participates in discussions or otherwise is pretty much a coworker.

If anyone feels this strongly about a certain group (like Elia), they _will_ find "devil's advocate" (for a lack of better expression) reasons to disagree with them simply because they don't like them, or otherwise try to diminish the person in various forms to deter them from contributing. The worst part is that they might not even do it on purpose or even ralise it, so they'd be innocent in their self-perception. Not to mention, that some of the other contributors who've been acquainted with him would likely go to his defence (as is the case with meh[1]). Shit like this has been happening all the time; saying that it does not would be ignorant.

[1]: To a certain extent I also agree with meh, that there shouldn't be any politics/religion/general-bullshit topics within a software project, _however_ Elia's Twitter profile managed to do exactly that. If he's going to have hate speech (call it what you want, but that is hate speech) and talk shit on his Twitter, he shouldn't promote his involvement in a respectable project, because _this_ will happen. Elia is a shitty fucking person and he's put a stain on the project (but, hey, that's just my little, worthless opinion).

<comment><USER9> "If anyone feels this strongly about a certain group (like Elia), they will find "devil's advocate" (for a lack of better expression) reasons to disagree with them simply because they don't like them, or otherwise try to diminish the person in various forms to deter them from contributing."

why on earth do you feel that you're an authority on how people _will_ behave? don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism, almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of opinions causing issues.

grow up.

<comment><USER8> > why on earth do you feel that you're an authority on how people _will_ > behave?

I am not an authority on how people will behave; it was simply a prognosis. I am sorry, if I somehow implied otherwise.

> don't judge everyone else by your awfully low standards of professionalism

Generally, if someone has horrible personal antics, it's very likely they'll carry those into other aspects of their life, even GitHub or work. We're only human.

> almost everyone i've ever worked with has been capable of working with > people with which they have disagreements, without their differences of > opinions causing issues.

Well, consider yourself lucky, then. Not everyone's had the benefit of such experiences. I myself haven't had horribly bad ones either. Although, I know people to whom it happened and how it affected their general emotional well- being; it was horrible watching them slowly deteriorate because they were in such a position.

> grow up.

Eventually, I might.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How easy is it to call native javascript libraries with opal? Having to write wrapping code stinks.

<comment><USER11> Seems pretty easy:

      $window = Native(`window`)
      puts $window[:location][:href]                         # => http://localhost/
      puts $window.document.querySelector('title').innerText # => "Test page"

[http://dev.mikamai.com/post/65322179075/opal-give-it-a- try](http://dev.mikamai.com/post/65322179075/opal-give-it-a-try)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is what coffee script should have been!

<comment><USER7> hmm no. Coffee script can use any external js library without the need of complicated "bindings". Coffee script is mostly Javascript with a different syntax. Opal has totally different semantics.</comment></comment>


Microsoft Using Chromium on Android Is Bad for the Web - <AUTHOR> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/10/microsoft-using-chromium-on-android-is.html <comment><USER2> The article notes Apple's policy of only allowing browsers to use its (Apple's) browser engine on iOS. An additional note should be added that Microsoft also has the same policy on its Windows Store which is why Firefox and Chrome are not available on it [1]

[1] "Desktop browsers like Chrome and Firefox won't be allowed in the Windows Store" [ [https://www.onmsft.com/news/desktop-browsers-like-chrome- and...](https://www.onmsft.com/news/desktop-browsers-like-chrome-and-firefox- wont-be-allowed-in-the-windows-store) ]

</comment><comment><USER3> I read it as the quickest path to getting a browser up and running in Google Play.

Base a product around CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework) and if it proves successful enough they replace the browser engine with edgehtml.</comment>


Worm's hidden map for growing new eyes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/science/flatworms-eyes-regeneration.html <comment><AUTHOR> [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/eaba3203](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/eaba3203)</comment>


Android code now available - <AUTHOR> http://source.android.com/

<comment><USER2> game on! i've played with the iphone sdk and just the process to get started with android is simpler than apples offering. i just dont see how apple can be so closed in their sdk when they have this massive competition staring them in the face. dont get me wrong, i have an iphone and am even called, dare i say, an apple fanboy. but please apple, open up more! or else all your potential devs will bring the cool toys out for android and screw you again like you were screwed when all the apps came out for windows first.

i mean, does anyone really remember why windows beat mac 10-20 years ago? i really think it was because at that time, windows was a better development platform. they had more killer apps. it wasnt the hardware. apple - dont make the same mistake twice!

<comment><USER3> Yes, I do remember why Windows beat Mac 10-20 years ago, but I also look at why Mac is challenging Windows today. And don't forget who reinvigorated this mobile ballgame last year. Your average consumer wants something that does a few things, but does them extremely well. The iPod and iPhone success stories are a prime example of this.

I'm not saying that I believe open markets are bad, I think they are necessary for maintaing a competitive market and nurture innovation. But as far as the consumer is concerned, they'll head in the direction of quality over quantity.

Apple is doing a great job letting technology fit into our daily life without making it a hinderance. I don't expect cell manufactures and carriers to work in conjunction with developers to deliver a seamless experience 99% of the time, and this is where I feel Apple wins in their development offering.

<comment><USER2> it's true that apple is doing well now. it's true that they ship good stuff that people want (and believe me, i own a ton of). but i attribute apples market share gain to windows vista suckin the fatty. their only dominant market is ipod/itunes, the other stuff (macs/iphones) is still small compared to the overall market.

<comment><USER4> I think that's less and less true over time.

Watch the recent laptop intro and see Tim Cook explain how Apple now has 18% of retail unit sales and 32% of retail dollars. That's pretty impressive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Excellent - now all I need is something to run it on. It would be good to see it ported as an alternate OS for a couple of existing smart phones.

<comment><USER6> It would be even better to see it ported for the older ARM CPU in the Openmoko Neo's. Then you'd have truly-free hardware for your free/open-source Google Android. Win-win!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ah! I was searching all day about the app gallery and downloading android stack on the Google Code site. And co-incidently google releases the code today.

Just wondering why the source is 2.1GB? How do mobile phones it as? 2.1GB or a compressed and tailored stack?

<comment><USER8> Source form > binary form. In OpenEmbedded development (what I generally do, not that familiar with Android), my dev folder is >15 gigs and the image I create is <128megs.

<comment><USER7> Can u just upload the 128mb image you created somewhere?

I have a spare old P3 CPU. Will try to get Android running on it. I know its for mobile phones. But guessing if I can use my spare CPU with a lightweight OS(Android should be light for a P3). So that I can develop apps and do something interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is great news. Finally some real competition for Apple iPhone's SDK.

Google couldn't manage to get android.org? I'm split on whether Google is doing the right thing by not paying for it or whether they should buy it and protect their branding for Android.

</comment><comment><USER10> Just waiting for my G1 to arrive tomorrow to really start tinkering.

edit: It just arrived. Woot!

<comment><USER11> Great. I assume you have got a chance to use iphone too. Whats your take ? Would like to hear first hand.

<comment><USER10> Hardware is mildly disappointing. Not as nice "feeling" as the iPhone (though the 3G iPhone also now has a plastic back and doesn't feel as nice as the first-gen iPhone, so I guess things are tough all over). When taking the back off to put in the battery and SIM card, I felt like it was going to break. It didn't, but it felt like it was. Likewise for the little covers for the data/charge port and the SD memory slot...they're plastic and tiny and feel fragile. The one exception is the keypad, which feels very nice to me. Since I used a Sidekick for many years, everything feels very intuitive to me (where, as usual, "intuitive" means, "what I'm used to"). But, keeping in mind that the G1 is dramatically cheaper than the iPhone 3G ($179 up front and cheaper per month for the plan--though I haven't actually looked at different plans, I just kept the one I've been on, which is about $10 cheaper than iPhone--so $240 over 2 years), I think it's a great buy, and a whole lot of hardware for a very small price. Price wasn't my primary deciding factor (openness was), but it certainly didn't hurt that I wouldn't have to pay more per month to upgrade to the G1, while I'd pay out $240 more over 2 years for the iPhone 3G for the same service. I'm going to see if I can drop down to a smaller voice plan--the Sidekick I had before had minimum plan requirements, but I didn't see any such requirements when signing up for the G1, so I might even be able to _save_ $10 per month with the G1 over the Sidekick, since I never use the phone. I use maybe 100 minutes per month of a 1000 minute plan.

Software-wise, it's plain awesome. I find it pretty intuitive...the lack of two-finger gestures, as found on the iPhone, is somewhat disappointing, but it's no slower to use the popup magnifier buttons, once you're accustomed to it. Dragging and such is smooth and accurate, so I guess the touch screen is pretty good quality.

Contacts works well, the phone sounds good and clear, having Google mail, contacts, calendar, etc. is _sweet_ (my old phone couldn't handle more than about 500 messages via IMAP, and I get more messages than that in a week, and obviously GMail just works great with practically infinite mail). Web pages look great, and browsing is fast. WiFi was quick and easy to setup. YouTube videos work great, both on 3G and on WiFi. It's my understanding that T-Mobile's 3G network is still somewhat small...so if you don't live in the valley, your mileage may vary, but it works fine for me here in Mountain View.

I installed an Open Source ssh client off of the web--no jail breaking required...this was a big issue for me with the iPhone. I don't want to have to have permission to install arbitrary apps that I've written or someone else has written. I also installed Compare Anywhere, and a bubble game from the app store, and the quality of everything is really slick. Really impressive for a launch day catalog, especially since everything is free right now. I haven't spent a lot of time with the apps on the iPhone, so I don't have much to compare to. But, I'm excited to play with stuff.

Also, it worked right away when I plugged it into my Linux desktop. No futzing around with weird stuff to get songs onto the device. The iPhone/iPod is a _bitch_ in that regard. That one thing made me ecstatic in ways I haven't felt over a device in a long time. Coming off of years of screwing around with iPods and an iPhone, and it never quite working right, having a drag and drop music experience is miraculous. (Take this with a grain of salt, as I may be strange. I find iTunes incredibly confusing and difficult to use, so on those occasions when I've given up on getting Linux to work and rebooted into Windows and run iTunes for the purpose of putting music onto the device, I've ended up spending a long time futzing around _anyway_ , because I never could figure out what all the syncing options meant or how to use them...so every time I would fiddle until something happened, and occasionally it would just end up deleting all of my songs either on the PC or the device, and I would give up in disgust. I also have trouble using several other Apple software products, and find them hard to use, so I could just be a retard.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder if the dude in the video realizes how ridiculous that earring looks.

<comment><USER13> Hah - I mentioned that to the Google guys on the irc channel. No offense to the guy in question, who is presumably a super badass hacker, but it's really distracting to watch that earing bounce around.

<comment><USER12> It looks like a D20 at the end or something.</comment></comment></comment>


How does Etsy manage development and operations? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/How-does-Etsy-manage-development-and-operations

<comment><USER2> We're really proud of having a low-friction deployment process at Etsy. Today, even one of our board members, Fred Wilson, deployed code:

<http://twitter.com/#!/fredwilson/status/36122482490482688> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/allspaw/5436215259/></comment>


All You Need to Know About Geofencing Apps - <AUTHOR> https://gbksoft.com/blog/all-you-need-to-know-about-geofencing-apps/ <comment><USER2> good</comment>