Google IPO? No Thanks (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2004/04/30/google-ipo-no-thanks.aspx <comment> mkr-hn "But these are all just window dressing. Here's the thing that I would fear as a Google investor: Ask Jeeves' (Nasdaq: ASKJ) algorithmic search engine Teoma already receives rave reviews for its results, and Yahoo! recently unbundled Google's search so it could feature its Inktomi technology. And wouldn't you know it, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), not one to leave nickels in billion-dollar stacks lying on the ground, will include an algorithmic search engine bundled in its next generation of Windows products, due out next year."

\---

It's amazing to think that this was only a handful of years ago.

<comment><USER2> Seriously. This article was published a year before Maps existed. Less than a month after the Gmail beta started. Facebook was less than six months old.

This was all seven years ago! How times have changed.

<comment><USER3> What's really crazy for me is that I've been at my current startup for over half of that time span, and that I've been into Rails almost the full span.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's not an unreasonable opinion. Google is dependent on a single product, there's almost no barrier for users or advertisers to switch, and most of Google's proprietary technology in software and datacenter design is completely opaque to investors.

I'm not sure Google is a slam-dunk investment even today. They have their fingers in a lot of pies, but the company is still entirely dependent on an advertising product that hasn't changed substantially in years. If the market changed in a way that disrupts adwords, things could go south quickly. They remind me a bit of Microsoft - very oriented on protecting a lucrative monopoly, but in doing so their other products tend to be designed to support the monopoly, not generate revenue on their own.

<comment><USER5> If you look at what they actually have in AdWords, it's not easy to see how it could be seriously disrupted. You're right that Google's real monopoly is not on search but on their immense network of advertisers and content sites, which has economies of scale built in that benefit everyone involved. Simply by being the biggest, Google's network is the best. The only thing that has come close to challenging that is the walled garden of Facebook, because of its unprecedented scale. Now Facebook surely has some growing left to do but even they would still need to pretty much cannibalise over half of the web's pageviews to have a shot at usurping Google's ad network.

Compare Microsoft, whose monopoly positions are relatively brittle. As we see with IE9, if Microsoft slips to even 66% market share (that's the current US market share for Google Search[1]), they need to start thinking seriously about interoperability. An advertising monopoly is something much more fluid. I think Google would have to majorly drop the ball to get toppled in the medium term (maybe failing to respond to an extreme price challenge over several years from a large rival network, or some really catastrophic privacy blunder).

[1] [http://comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/2/comSc...](http://comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/2/comScore_Releases_January_2011_U.S._Search_Engine_Rankings)

<comment><USER6> These days they have a good hold on their position. But back then, if IE had shipped with ad-blockers built in, Google would have had a serious struggle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Google went public with a $25B market cap? That puts the absurd valuations you see thrown around today into perspective.

<comment><USER8> Even more amazing, I think they only raised 75M total from VCs prior to their IPO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Kudos to the motley fool for keeping that one on their website.

</comment><comment><USER10> Easy to make fun of it now, but the domain "fool.com" fitted well for that article :)

<comment><USER11> Being wrong doesn't make you a fool. He clearly didn't have some of the insider SEO knowledge that some commenters are mentioning, but does not seem to me to be an unreasonable perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's just his opinion advising caution. Not bad advice, really.

On the other hand, Citigroup analyst Glen Yeung was commenting that NVDA runs the risk of having "excess inventory" for tablets. I honestly have no idea how that can happen considering production for Tegra 2 is barely out the gate.

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-shares-jump-on- upbea...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-shares-jump-on-upbeat- results-2011-02-17)

</comment><comment><USER13> Best sentence: "As rivals such as Yahoo! that have access to all their other internal resources catch up, what will the competitive pressure on Google be then?"

<comment><USER14> My favourite was about how Microsoft "will include an algorithmic search engine bundled in its next generation of Windows products, due out next year."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> After seeing them on PBS around '98 The Motley Fool was to me at 19 what I'm sure Jim Cramer was to many folks around '05: a contrast to everything else at the time. I thought they were young, funny, and old-fashioned, which was appealing.

But the disjointed approach soured me on them. I feel like they wrote and spoke about value investing but then sold newsletters on timely hot picks.

So, in my mind they fell back in with everyone else contributing noise.

</comment><comment><USER16> don't like self-linking, but I wrote about this on my blog a while ago, with a link to old media articles being pessimistic about the Google IPO, quotes from 'tech experts' and the comparison to Facebook, Zynga and the new crop.

so instead of a comment, a link:

<http://nikcub.appspot.com/the-google-ipo-skeptics>

</comment><comment><USER17> To call this foolish is pure hindsight bias.

Winning the lottery doesn't mean it was smart to play. (To get technical, it was dumb to play ex ante but smart to play ex post. Or, more simply: hindsight is 20-20.)

Though I admit it's fun to play shoulda/woulda/coulda, as I did myself recently: <http://messymatters.com/babygoog>

</comment><comment><USER18> The key misunderstanding of google here was in thinking that google was merely "better algorithmic search" and nothing more. In truth Google's unique advantages come down to competency in three unique areas: state of the art algorithmic search; cutting edge software engineering; and revolutionary data center management.

Google didn't win the search provider war by providing merely better search results. It won by providing better results _faster_ with greater reliability and at lower cost than the competition. Better due to better algorithms and smarter filtering. Faster due to solid software engineering (sharding, map reduce) using distributed computing. Cheaper because the distributed computing aspect was enabled not via traditional beefy and expensive servers managed largely manually by humans but by larger numbers of low cost commodity hardware based systems largely managed via automated processes.

Each of these aspects is a strong asset for any company, but google had all 3. What's more, each of these competencies are complementary and self-reinforcing with the others. State of the art distributed computing systems and revolutionarily cheap clustered computing systems go together like peanut butter and chocolate. What's more, low cost/high performance server infrastructure means that it's possible to dedicate more of the profits towards improving the search algorithms and the software engineering expertise, creating a positive feedback loop that allows google to out- accelerate its competition.

A lot of companies have been able to match google roughly on a few aspects, but no company has been able to clone google's complete triumvirate of core skills to any significant degree.

Many of the strongest companies in the tech field have a similar array of synergistic but unlikely multiple core competencies. Apple has strong engineering _and_ strong aesthetic and design sensibilities. Amazon has strong software and IT engineering abilities _and_ strong logistics management at scale (to the same degree, perhaps even more so, that led walmart to such success).

</comment><comment><USER19> Note also that this is just one member's opinion that was published on Motley Fool. That doesn't mean the whole MF team was thinking along the same lines at the time.

In fact, I only see a few old writings by the author. It seems he was only active in the member forums.

</comment><comment><USER20> Bill Mann failing to realize the _potential_ of science & technology is not new. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_Mi...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_Microsoft)

</comment><comment><USER21> [2004]

</comment><comment><USER8> I wondered what the author does now for a living. I almost sent him the article. It seems like now he is part of the AOL team through the HPost acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've been in this position many times. I remember when I first heard of Amazon in 1994. I remember when Google went public. I knew google was a great company, because I was in the search industry, but I didn't invest. I didn't feel it was in my circle of confidence. I remember when Apple was at $13 and had $6 of cash in the bank, and I still passed.

I don't regret any of that. Ok, well, I do, it stings a little. I'm greedy, I can't deny it.

But when I have invested, after a few years stumbling I ended up making more than a %100 return a year for many years of the last decade. I saw the housing boom before it happened (when Motley fool was recommending real estate) and profited from the boom and the bust (Which really started in 2006, though wasn't in the popular consciousness until 2008.)

And then I got out in 2007, after my best year ever. Why? The market was not acting the way I believed was rational (or the rational irrationality typical of the market that creates inefficiencies allowing me to profit).

It was a tough decision, getting out in 2007. But I felt great when just the next year it became clear my timing was perfect. (This is not a super power on my part, it was just good timing. I could have made more by waiting 6 months, but by comparison, I did fantastic.)

These hard decisions may look foolish in retrospect or like genius. I don't fault fool.com for being cautious about google.

The point of investing is that you have to do it based on rationality and the calculated return given the amount of risk.

A high price and a low confidence factor in the underlying business can mean a bad investment. Consequently a 100 year old company that is "boring" and thus unpopular can produce a massive return, because the price and the risk is low.

Jumping in to ride up over valued companies (like google was at least for many of those years) is what led to the original dotcom. I lost money on a couple of my positions there because I fell into that trap... and learned my lesson.

So. Don't look at this as stupidity. It is wise to pass. You do better by not taking flyers on things that don't seem like mathematical sure things (risk factored in) within your circle of confidence. I'm no investing genius, but I am disciplined... and that's all it takes.

On fool.com: The motley fool was a great and useful website for investing in the 1990s. When the dotcom boom was happening they advised caution (though they made their rep in the early days by recommending companies like iomega). Then around 2000-2001 they seemed to have a change in management, or at least a change in focus.

They switched from being prudent contrarian investment advice, to more mainstream and more "opinion" oriented.

It is kind of impressive to think that I stopped going there a decade ago. I literally haven't visit that site for 10 years, and I used to spend a lot of time there, to the point where I had quite a following.

<comment><USER23> Is there anyone currently giving the sort of advice that motley fool used to give before they changed for the worse?

<comment><USER22> Not that I'm aware of, but I have long since graduated from seeking such advice.

I think the best source of investment insight comes from studying Warren Buffett's methodology. Mary Buffett wrote a book called "Buffetology" which is really accessible and quite good. An author by the name of Timothy Vick has written several books on buffett. (How to pick stocks like warren buffet is a good one.) For awhile there I bought all the ones I could find, and it was probably the best $100 I spent.

Eventually I created a spreadsheet that I'd use to do my net-present value analysis. I'd take the stock's price, the historical growth, my estimated growth, and work back to figure out what my projected return would be in 5 years.

You know you've mastered investing when you're able to predict these returns pretty accurately, though it takes time to know if you were right or not. It is ok, there is no hurry, you can just put money aside and save it (though I'd hedge against inflation- I'd store it in gold or silver these days.)

Once understanding investment, economics came to play a huge role in my understanding of how things worked and where things are going.

The mises institute: <http://mises.org> is the best source of daily informative articles on economics. They were talking about the housing bust around 2000-2001. Mises himself predicted the great depression, the invasion of Austria (where he was from, and where his fellow economists laughed when he said that by the same time the next year the Nazis would have control) etc. I don't read it all the time, and just read articles that I find useful.

The Mises institute has a lot of books for free from Mises and Rothbard that you can download, and from many other economists.

But probably the best book on economics to read is "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. You can get it in PDF form here, I believe: <http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf>

Studying Buffet is investing 101, studying economics is investing 201.

I also read a lot of books like "The gorilla game" and "the wealthy barber" and stuff like that. They were less useful than the Buffett books, but they all had nuggets of good advice.

Eventually, I graduated to Options as a strategic investment. A $100 book that became my bible.

\--

Please note also, I'm out of the markets right now. I think the outlook for the US is not good, capital controls are coming and that there's going to be a major, and very painful, rebalancing of the global economic structure.

Next time I buy stocks I expect they will be on an asian exchange.

<comment><USER24> Good advice on the stocks, but for those not in the know, mises.org presents a sort of ultra-libertarian point of view, and pretty much only that. In other words, they're not likely to ever present ideas differing much from their own.

While they may or may not have some good ideas, it's not really mainstream economics, and there are some discussions covering that on the net that are worth reading prior to reading their material.

<comment><USER11> And one of Ludwig's chief chips was that we should all go back to the gold standard, so take with a grain of salt the argument that you should put your money in gold and silver to hedge against inflation (they are both in long-run bull markets).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Richard Feynman and the Connection Machine - <AUTHOR> http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/ <comment><USER2> I have found this machine fascinating since they first started making them. I've hoped for a very long time that one day there might be a reasonable way to sorta replicate it using cheap down market SoCs that somehow magically had very good wired networking.</comment>


Ask HN: Why is US city "open" data census not free? - <AUTHOR>

1. This seems contradicting 2. This is concerning given the jaded climate in our Country. 3. Out of curiosity I want nothing more than to explore the evolution of US crime over the last 10 years or so to effectively make empirical observations about facts relative to what the media communicates. <comment><AUTHOR> Via [http://us-city.census.okfn.org/faq/](http://us-city.census.okfn.org/faq/)

[Q] "Is the data available for free?"

[A] "If you have to pay for it – it is not free."

</comment><comment><USER2> I would love to know this as well for a personal project. If you find out, please post an update.</comment>


Robots Evolve And Learn How to Lie - <AUTHOR> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/robots-evolve-and-learn-how-to-lie <comment><USER2> Those guys are morons. They evolved a robot, but not one that cleans or cooks for you. Just one that goes around eating stuff. Basically, they created my wife.

(She's going to do whatever the real life equivalent of down-modding me is if she ever sees that.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hype to get into the press is something that is really annoying about AI and robots. It would be great if people actually understood how most research just doesn't scale into the human analog. This line of research will NOT produce human-like robots that know the subtleties of deceit.

We're talking about "robots with light sensors, rings of blue light, and wheels". Ridiculous.

<comment><USER4> I guess computers will learn to bluff long before they learn to deceit.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is getting banned on Stripe many years ago a death sentence? - <AUTHOR> So 4 years ago, me and a couple of partners decided to start an online website selling vaporizers. Our supplier told us he was using Stripe and so we applied for a seller account. I stupidly put my personal information to get up and running quickly.
In the next few days, I get an email from Stripe that vaporizers are prohibited and they can't accept the payments. We were surprised but moved on since we couldn't do anything.
So we eventually scrape the project and I move on to a new website selling electronics. I signed up for a new Stripe account, but immediately got an email from stripe saying:
"our banking partners prohibit us from helping with payments associated with a business we've had to reject previously."
Has anyone faced this or had any recourse? This was 4 years ago and now I am pursuing building a SaaS using Stripe Connect and using Stripe Atlas. Whenever I reached out to Stripe back then, only response I got was decisions are final.
Are all those doors closed for me since I made a stupid mistake years ago? <comment><USER2> Edwin from Stripe here. If your new business isn't related to your old vaporizer business (or selling any product on the restricted list at [https://stripe.com/restricted-businesses](https://stripe.com/restricted- businesses)), then this shouldn't be an issue. If you email me at firstname.lastname@example.com, I'd be happy to help you get set up with Connect and Atlas.

<comment><USER3> Interesting list there. This cites "computer technical support" as "high risc business", and is thus forbidden. But e.g. Github and most other YC startups do exactly that and are very happy using Stripe as its payment service.

Maybe the wording needs to be improved. Over-generalization never helps. All startups are high risk.

<comment><USER4> Computer technical support is fairly specific. GitHub provide support for their products yes but last I checked they don't help you install device drivers.

I'd imagine it's to stop the phone support scammers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hire an attorney to write them a nice letter; the money you spend on that is like an assurance of sincerity. A good rule of thumb is to allocate 10% of your operating budget to legal resources over the long term.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will look into this. What should the letter entail? Something like, this user made a mistake and needs a Stripe account for a new business? Thanks for your help.

<comment><USER5> Basically. Look at it from Stripe's point of view, they don't want to be associated with scammers. A lawyer will look at the facts of your situation, and at their ToS, and then explain to Stripe's legal department that you're anxious to be a good partner for them because you spent some time and money to clean up that old mistake and see things from their side. That gives someone with decision power something in writing that (I hope) they can put their stamp of approval on.

Best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok I'm going to reach out to a few lawyers I know and see if they can help. Thanks again!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did you reply and say, "This is not the same business that was rejected?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep as soon as I got that email, I replied saying this business is selling completely different and linked them to the domain and where the payments were coming from. They replied that banking partners won't allow them. No way to appeal or anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I used to run a website called roboshout.com... at one point was making almost $1000 a week... I used Stripe to accept payments. The user could send/receive anonymous texts, send 1000 texts, custom robocalls etc... 2 years into a happy partnership with Stripe and decent income... I got a letter pretty much saying the same thing except it was in regards to "telemarketing". Lost the API and my website functionality overnight with no warning!

<comment><USER8> Anonymous? You should be accepting crypto...

<comment><USER7> I had troubles implementing that... due to the fact that it is not a direct transaction which didn't fit into things: [https://gendal.me/2013/10/21/lessons-from-bitcoin-push- versu...](https://gendal.me/2013/10/21/lessons-from-bitcoin-push-versus-pull/) ... and crypto isn't really all that anonymous either. The most anonymous is stolen credit card numbers. Not that we condoned that or anything:)

<comment><USER8> Correct crypto is not anonymous, but it's more anonymous and there are mixers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Do you have considered Braintree?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep Braintree and Mollie are some other options I'm going to consider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'll sign up for you if you give me a cut of the profits :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha one option was to add a partner just to use Stripe, but I'm afraid doing this might make it worse for me and him if we ever want to use Stripe.</comment></comment>


The Crystal Palace - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Palace <comment><USER2> I used to walk home through the ruined grounds of this when I was at school. It was fenced off and pretty strange and creepy. Headless statues and vast terraces of stone alcoves. Almost looked like it could be from a game like Journey.

It's now been tidied up and is open to the public as part of the park. I'm glad I got to experience it when it was still strange and mysterious.

There's also an abandoned train station and huge blocked off train tunnel quite near. We used to make up ghost stories about the place.

<comment><USER3> > I'm glad I got to experience it when it was still strange and mysterious

Yeah, there's something about a raw location that has a much better connection to the history. Bletchley Park today (still a good museum) is almost a theme park when compared to what it was 10 years ago. There are still a few pure historic sites around that haven't had the chance to visitor attraction treatment but almost by definition they're harder to find.

<comment><USER4> Except if you go around the rear to TNMOC.

<comment><USER3> That somewhat reinforces my thesis - 10 years ago you didn't need to go around the rear as there wasn't a fence separating the two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a building in Dallas, Texas called the Infomart that looks like it might have taken inspiration from it: [https://cdn.bisnow.net/fit?height=489&type=jpeg&url=https%3A...](https://cdn.bisnow.net/fit?height=489&type=jpeg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fcdn.bisnow.net%2Fcontent%2Fimages%2F2016%2F08%2F57c6f4f5afe24_Infomart.jpeg&width=717&sign=9GgA4r1ifqbYjhQesenTsIhvqyVdI_eetfo1xppKTCY)

Edit: Ah, so not a coincidence...

 _" The design was modeled after The Crystal Palace, a huge iron and glass building originally erected in Hyde Park in 19th century Britain"_

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

<comment><USER6> I came here to post this, I worked there for a long time. Yahoo used to have a huge datacenter there when Yahoo was a big deal in the late nineties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I live quite close to what is now crystal palace park. I would have loved to have seen the building, even in ruins. It boggles my mind how the Victorians even managed to relocate the entire structure from Hyde park, especially given that the crystal palace park site is on the top of a massive hill (in fact one of the highest points in greater London). The park now is a nice place to go walking and hang out in the summer. There's a natural bowl area which would be great for concerts if only the local council can get their act together to refurbish the stage.

<comment><USER8> There's an Italian restaurant (Pizza at the Palace) at the Crystal Palace triangle that has a series of fantastic pictures and artworks of the Crystal Palace, including pictures of the fire itself, on its walls.

<comment><USER7> I know it well. I have several old prints/lithographs and original photos of the palace hanging at home too :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Crystal Place became a symbol in 19th century Russian literature. These two articles are by a specialist who adds "I live in Crystal Palace and have been reading up on the palace itself and the area, exploring the ruins and generally gaining a new perspective."

The socialist utopian Chernyshevsky ("What is to be done?") celebrated it as a triumph of progress and modernity:

[http://sarahjyoung.com/site/2010/04/20/crystal-palace- russia...](http://sarahjyoung.com/site/2010/04/20/crystal-palace-russian- literature-1/)

Dostoevsky visited it and hated it, and used it for one of his most famous anti-utopian invectives:

[http://sarahjyoung.com/site/2010/04/22/the-crystal-palace- in...](http://sarahjyoung.com/site/2010/04/22/the-crystal-palace-in-russian- literature-2/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I've been to the ruins, which are atop a lovely park. It's a real shame that it never got rebuilt.

</comment><comment><USER11> In a similar vein in Vienna there was also the Rotunde built for the Vienna World Fair of 1873 which burned down in 1937.

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

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotunde_(Wien)](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotunde_\(Wien\))

<comment><USER12> Reminds me also of the San Francisco World's Fair of 1915, which included some cyclopean structures which are mostly gone today:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47URbxlVIg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47URbxlVIg)

[https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/61495/12-photos-1915-san...](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/61495/12-photos-1915-san- francisco-worlds-fair-then-and-now)

As a comment on the video testifies, the construction and then obliteration of such an enormous site is popular fodder for Cultural Layer type conspiracy theorists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sometimes I feel like the Victorian era was bad fiction. Who would believe this?

* Designed and costed in two weeks * Eight months from design acceptance to building completion *100% modular; reassembled into a different building after the event

<comment><USER14> I can gurantee there was no environmental impact assessment, comment period for local residents, nor mandatory safety training, rest periods, or other accommodations for the workers.

Whether or not these things are a net positive they do serve to slow things down dramatically.

Also without safety glass that place would have posed a massive safety hazard of falling glass shards.

<comment><AUTHOR> There was kind of environmental review. At least there was environmental opposition to building it in the park and they added dome to the building so it could fit old elm trees completely inside the building and so trees were saved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can I urge people interested in this to hunt down Bill Bryson reading his own book "At Home" \- the first chapter is mostly the crystal palace history and is fascinating

</comment><comment><USER16> If you want to walk through the Crystal Palace, a virtual copy is being constructed in Second Life by the city-state of New Babbage. Opening next spring.

<comment><USER17> People still play Second Life?

<comment><USER16> Yes. If it were on Steam, it would rank about even with GTA V Online. Average online users, all in the same world, is in the 35,000-50,000 range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think it's a great read that shows how projects (including IT) can be effective if you find right approach for the task.

</comment><comment><USER18> Not to be confused with Crystal Palace FC.

<comment><USER2> Always used to bother me that the football grounds weren't actually in Crystal Palace. It was bloody miles from Selhurst Park to real thing!

(actually - now I think about it why was the football ground called Selhurst Park? It was in Thornton Heath!)

<comment><USER7> It's actually in Selhurst. Though nowadays with the (sub)urban sprawled it's hard to delineate where exactly Norwood, Selhurst and the 'Heath meet or overlap.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon.com attacks new and used textbook market - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/b/?node=465600

<comment><USER2> I used to work in the "Merchant Technology" (third-party sellers) team at Amazon, and textbooks have been a very big part of that business for many years now.

The new thing here is the "Trade-In" program, which lets you ship your used textbooks to Amazon and get paid for all of them right away (instead of listing them and waiting for someone to buy them): <http://www.amazon.com/b/?node=2205237011>

My old boss is the manager of the Trade-In team, if anyone has any questions about it...

<comment><USER3> Interesting. I looked up a brand new book on Artificial Intelligence I paid around $90 for at my university's book store. Amazon is offering $10 to trade it in. I could get much more than that selling it to one of the buyers that set up out the back of trucks at the end of each term on campus.

Edit: I also looked up a linear algebra text I paid around the same for, and the trade-in value there was $43. Seems like there's a large variation even for latest edition text books.

<comment><USER2> My friend at Amazon writes, _"We know that pricing isn't as competitive as we want it. We are working hard with our book refurbishers to fix that."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really hope someone, someday, can successfully cut the legs out from under the racket that is the textbook market. Forced bundles, superfluous editions that do little but change the page numbering, etc. I suspect a healthy enough used-textbook market could do this: As a teacher, if you _know_ students can obtain an older edition easily, you could freeze the version of textbooks you use.

I don't know to what degree university politics would forbid using older versions, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://industry.bnet.com/media/10003790/flat-world- knowledge...](http://industry.bnet.com/media/10003790/flat-world-knowledge-a- disruptive-business-model/) \- Open source textbooks is another alternative - and a pretty exciting one at that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We'll be launching <http://www.textbookrevolt.com> this weekend. I scoff at Amazon and Chegg :)

Peer to peer textbook rentals where students are the ones who save and make money.

<comment><USER4> I wish you great success.

FYI, on Chrome with a window size of 1280x800, the t-shirt image covers up the last word of your title. ("Cheap college textbook rentals just got [t-shirt]").

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the tip...there are some other display issues with Chrome. We'll be getting to those bugs post launch :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just for fun, I clicked on the link and looked for SICP. Amazon gave me a price of $115.44. If you look at the bottom, you'll see a link for the same book, only Amazon is selling it for $69.34!

What is the difference between the two? The links are:

$115.44 : [http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer- Prog...](http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs- Second/dp/0070004846/)

$69.34 : [http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer- Prog...](http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Interpretation-Computer-Programs- Engineering/dp/0262011530)

Aside from price, the only difference that I can make out is that the cover for the more expensive version is a lighter shade of blue. What it looks like is that Amazon is charging a lot more if you buy SICP as a textbook rather than as a regular book.

<comment><USER7> Different editions and publishers, McGraw-Hill vs The MIT Press.

<comment><USER6> No, they're both the same book: both are second edition, with the same number of pages. Each page even has the same reviews (note reviews by Peter Norvig and pg). The only differences are the price and the ISBNs.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, as you note the ISBNs are different. The market is officially divided between the two publishers, one has US, the other the rest of the world.

As a side note it's all online and under a Create Commons license....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm in a group of classes where all the students take the same group, an "integrated core" if you will. For the same 5 books, my classmates who went to our school's bookstore spent $450 +- $100. On Amazon, I got older editions of the same books for $130...

</comment><comment><USER10> Yup this is similar to the cool thing that Chegg introduced after years of just facilitating student-to-student exchanges. I used to just sell to students directly (and usually could come very close to covering initial purchase price), but after graduating I had to turn to Chegg to sell my books. Prices weren't nearly as good as they were with direct selling, but they were much better than what the bookstore would offer.

The HUGE advantage to selling on Chegg instead of Amazon is that Chegg gives you REAL MONEY (in the form of a prepaid debit card). Some functionality on their site could be improved, but the fact that they give REAL MONEY gives them a big edge.

<comment><USER5> We're using a similar model but allowing students to rent their books to other students (get paid & retain ownership). In the long run we think we'll kick Chegg's butt. <http://www.textbookrevolt.com/></comment></comment>


Artfric - <AUTHOR> http://artfric.meteor.com

<comment><AUTHOR> My friends and i are learning to program with Meteor. We decided to build a platform that showcases talented African artists. You design and functionality feedback will be much appreciated. Thanks a bunch.</comment>


Elon Musk hung up on NTSB chief during call about Tesla crash probe - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/elon-musk-hung-up-on-ntsb-chief-during-call-about-tesla-crash-probe/ <comment><USER2> I seriously considered buying TSLA a few times over the past couple years. Every time I think and begin to regret that decision, Tesla ends up being in the news for the wrong reasons.

Not that it would necessarily doom their company, but I'm actually relieved I never invested in them. Too much of a rollercoaster IMO.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sell your shares</comment>


The Trillion-Dollar Annual Interest Payment - <AUTHOR> https://www.cpajournal.com/2019/04/26/the-trillion-dollar-annual-interest-payment/ <comment><AUTHOR> > _Given the recent actions of Congress, and the years of prior inaction in > changing the nation's fiscal path, the U.S. government's annual interest > payment will eclipse annual defense spending in only six years. By 2025, > annual interest costs on the national debt will reach $724 billion, while > annual defense spending will reach $706 billion. To put that into > perspective, in the 2018 fiscal year, the U.S. government spent $325 billion > in interest payments and spent $622 billion in defense (Exhibit 2)._

Why would you cut taxes and debt finance our nation's future?</comment>


City Layout Design: A programmer's perspective - <AUTHOR> http://thedissectionroom.com/ideal-city-design-by-transportation-layout <comment><USER2> The fundamental premise that this is starting out with is flawed which is that cities can be successfully designed upfront. This is what we painfully learned with our grand experiment with the modernist architecture movement.

The argument is roughly the same as the one against waterfall development in software engineering which is that it's impossible to know until actual implementation & use what is successful or not.

Instead, successful cities are evolved and mixed use, with a mix of new and old buildings, strong social fabric and buildings built to be adaptable to changing needs.

See: How Buildings Learn, The Death and Life of Great American Cities and A Pattern Language for more context on this.

<comment><USER3> Didn't suburbia evolved organicaly from regular cities? Should we just accept it, because it's organical growth, so it's optimal?

There's place for organical growth, and there's place for upfront design, both in programming and in urban development.

The best cities layout I've seen was consequences of organical deveopment within some rules - see most old european cities. Building rules specified how broad should streets be, how high the building can be in each region, which functions can't be performed in which part of the city, which way should new streets be built. There were reasons for these rules.

In my country after 50 years of communism (and hideus commie blocks, etc) we went throught 10 years of "free for all" development of cities.

Believe me - I hate totalitarism, but in these first 10 years of freedom cities got much worse - wallmarts in the city center, ugly cheap postmodern buildings near 500 year beutiful houses, commercials hiding half of the city besides them. Now, since +- 10 years there is some regulations coming back, and I'm happy with that.

<comment><USER4> It's interesting that you bring up European cities. I was about to type a post offering the counter example, New York (specifically Manhattan) and to some extent Chicago. Both are products of a strong "framework" of transit and utilities, but the growth within this framework has been more or less organic...all buildings don't have to be the same height a la Paris.

I've felt that organically grown cities, of which most major European cities are good examples, are very sub-optimal for because of the haphazard and random way the cities are laid out. It many such cities, the old, medieval core became so bogged down that cars aren't even allowed and it's basically a pedestrian heaven.

Navigation is hard in these cities, traffic is usually a mess without modern development to route around the "organicness" of the city centers, as a result certain types of goods and services...namely anything to do with lots of manufacturing or bulk goods, ends up moving away from the city core. And while it means that the cores tends to become very pedestrian friendly, they really just sort of end up as extended outdoor shopping malls with some housing for the shop workers above.

It's interesting in some of the older Asian cities which have very old histories, say Seoul, the the haphazard, medieval-style organic planning has given way to a large effort to put the major thoroughfares on a grid and as old areas are redeveloped, to do so with a heavily planned development policy in mind. The city was simply not able to handle the growth and population demands the organic system created.

There's a reason Paris' business center is not in Paris' geographic center, and central London has restricted driving zones, and most of Barcelona's population enjoys the 19th century planned developed residential areas, while the older parts are being turned into tourist hotels, malls, restaurants and more shopping areas.

<comment><USER3> Well, for me most of the disadventages you listed are adventages :)

Pedestrian streets in the center, industry forced out of the city, services concentrating in the center, cars not viable for in-city transport, well developed public transport.

Also, I don't think medieval and older cities were not planed. They were just designed without cars and milions of people in mind. With cars I think it's actualy good - cars and cities don't mix well.

BTW: I know whole city designed by one architect as "ideal town" in 1580, and built according to these plans. It's quite nice to live - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamo%C5%9B%C4%87>

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it totally depends on perspective. I actually love my time as a pedestrian tourist in European cities, hate them with a passion as a driver or when trying to do business.

It's interesting how many old cities were started as a heavily planned Roman garrison towns, straight boulevards, right angles everywhere, etc. Then those cores turned into the medieval rats nests we're familiar with today, then usually outside of that there was a building boom in the 19th century and a return to some kind of order.

But the advantage of the unplanned medieval layout is that the streets are usually an attempt at a shortest path between two interesting points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Orbital routes (such as the proposed circular roads) don't work well in practice because slight delays tend to propagate easily and quickly all the way around the circle, with no recovery time at either end of the route (because there is no end). This is why the Circle line of the London Underground was changed a few years ago into a spiral shape, and why the M25 motorway gets congested so easily.

A better configuration would be three spiral shapes, giving the route defined start- and end-points to allow recovery time for delays.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand why the author chose to kink the subways to preserve the same orientation in each satellite. Those corners are going to slow down trains and impose more wear, which means more failures. It also adds a huge amount of track (and associated road crossings, safety infrastructure, maintenance personnel, etc.) and trip time. This plan already abandons the rectilinear grid system in favor of circular roads; I don't see a reason to preserve the rail system's north-south axis in every city.

[edit] I should mention that overall, I quite like the design. It looks to me like you've arranged the space at a livable scale and with careful attention to the work/live/play cycle of its inhabitants.

<comment><AUTHOR> the major reason was to keep the city structure simple and repeatable, so as to reduce learning. This is one of the issues I found when my parents (even friends) visited NYC, the subway maps were too intimidating.

<comment><USER6> But simultaneously, the subcities are _not_ repeatable in that the relationship between the intercity roads and the local infrastructure will be kinked; you need to adapt the circular intercity infrastructure (both the subway and local roads) to the rectilinear grid in three different ways over six satellite cities. That kind of variance may be desirable, but it will make it more difficult to memorize the layout and could introduce awkward kinks. Sometimes the circular perimeter roads will contact the principal city axis; in other cities they won't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like Oskar Hansen idea - it's called Continuous Linear Form, and it says problems of cities arise from radial growth - city starts in the center and grows outwards in every direction.

So transport routes, parkings have to go throught the city, dividing it, using up space, making everybody go further and further to do anything, and isolating people in the center of the city from the nature.

So he imagined cities that are like lanes - growing from the center in only 2 directions. Everybody will have nature near, between such urbanised lanes will be villages, roads, etc - so transport will go throught wilderness, making it cheaper, and safer. These lanes should be continious, and areas of different functions should be placed repeatedly, in small distances, so nobody will have to go too far from home to servicing areas.

Of course - it's a little utopian idea, but still, I like it.

Some more info about Oskar Hansen, and his architecture:

<http://tnn.pl/Oskar_Hansen,2969.html>

One of the districts he designed (he had to make compromises, so it's not really LCF, but still, it's nice district for its time). [http://tnn.pl/uploaded/zdjecia/200806191346500.hansen_041.jp...](http://tnn.pl/uploaded/zdjecia/200806191346500.hansen_041.jpg)

<comment><USER4> Reminds me of driving on 19 in the New Port Richey/Bayonet Point area in Florida. The only place I know where you can drive for 40 or 50 miles on one road and see continuous strip malls the entire time.

Every 4 or 5 miles the scene will basically repeat. The same set of stores, in virtually the same order, arranged in their various strip malls in virtually the same way. It felt like you were driving in a Zoetrope.

Go a mile or two off that and you're in the Gulf of Mexico or in a swamp if you go the other way.

It was an interesting city plan, but it _felt_ miserable to me (other than the close proximity of nature).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This bears a striking resemblance to Canberra.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inner-canberra_01MJC.png>

It would also be worth checking out New Urbanism, which has very similar goals for the designs of cities.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism>

</comment><comment><USER8> Somewhat relevant, a guy designed the ultimate city, Magnasanti, in Simcity 4. Here's his video [1] and an interview [2]. Choice quote from the interview:

 _Vice: I think most people's natural inclination after watching your video would be awe, followed by fear._

 _Vincent: I am in agreement. That was part of the intent of the video, for those that know, play, and love the game._

Introversion, an indie game company in the UK who created hacker favorites like Uplink has unfortunately shelved their game project played in a fully procedurally generated city, from the major neighbourhoods down to the individual floors of the buildings. You could get a demo of the city generator from the recent Humble Bundle. There are still some fascinating videos to find on their blog [3] or on youtube [4]

[1] <http://youtu.be/NTJQTc-TqpU> [2] [http://www.vice.com/read/the- totalitarian-buddhist-who-beat-...](http://www.vice.com/read/the-totalitarian- buddhist-who-beat-sim-city) [3] <http://www.introversion.co.uk/subversion/> [4] <http://youtu.be/J30i0gABfS8>

[edit]: better link for the Subversion video

<comment><USER9> Cool that you mentioned Subversion. It looked great but it was a way too ambitious project for the limited resources of Introversion's team. And there was somehow a lack of consistency between the heist concept and the need to have this huge procedural city out there. But they had a bunch of great ideas altogether - maybe worth several games, not only one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Let's Kick Around Carfree.com" by New World Economics contains worthwhile criticisms of this design idea.

<http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/111509.html>

Another worthwhile article is "Let's Take a Trip to Suburban Hell."

<http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/030710.html>

<comment><USER11> That site is full of vitriol and hyperbole: "I know this is difficult, especially for retards, so you may want to consult your local Professor of Urban Studies before proceeding."

And he blasts carfree's "green space", but then lists a whole bunch of things which the green space could be (yards, parks, sports fields). I can't help but feel that he's deliberately missing the point.

There's also a fairly detailed discussion on carfree.com as far as "how to get there from here": <http://carfree.com/conv_lyon.html> so it's hardly billed as a 'build it from scratch' ethos either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Satellites emerge in big cities too, they're called neighbourhoods. The extent of how far people are willing to walk in their daily lives will scope the size of a neighbourhood and that also pressures people to concentrate their daily activities within the same neighbourhood.

Public transit will lift the limit somewhat: people are willing to spend only so much time commuting or going to/from hobbies but with good public transit people will frequent other neighbourhoods on a regular basis. Public transit will be cheap as long as densities are high enough and that's why big cities are dense and have public transit. Large car-based "cities" aren't actually cities, they're just glorified urban office parks with people living in the suburbs: public transit will never work there efficiently.

The reason why you can't design a city is that a meaningful city can only grow organically based on whatever people happen to make of it. Commerce will surface when the place and time are right. Predesigning a neighbourhood will result in either a lot of dead space or a preformed area that nobody will consider their own.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones. More than half the cities population will live in the satellite areas, there by making it cheap and efficient to run subway lines 24x7. Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases.

<comment><USER12> _The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones._

This is false, though. The method of growing doesn't affect the feasibility of public transport: the density of the areas in question does.

And no matter how the areas grew, an economically growing public transport network will naturally connect the most dense parts of a city together. That is, provided there are dense areas. Think London's 100+ year history of the Underground where underground railway companies, as soon as funding was secured, built little stretches that made the most economic sense.

 _Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases._

It doesn't if the environment doesn't lend itself to grow, change, and adapt as needed which is a big problem with designed areas. An area also needs both old and new lots and buildings to offer space for businesses that wouldn't survive with market rents. This is something nobody can design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its interesting seeing some of the similarities between the OP and Washington DC. There aren't the mini cities the same way (maybe Reston or Arlington would qualify) but the Beltway is the major highway for cars that circles the city with designated bus lanes on most of the in/out spokes. Large subway/lightrail network with MASSIVE parking structures at the perimeter to encourage public transportation. Fairly walkable downtown areas (especially the national mall area). And yet even despite these advances driving in DC is a terrible experience.

<comment><USER14> Agreed, another problem with DC is the self imposed limit on population density in the inner circle. Buildings in DC must be less than 3/4 high as the the street is wide, or something like that? I don't know the exact rule. Then look across the river at Arlington, and how they smartly designed for urban growth, and you've got some taller buildings, mixed in with vibrant neighborhoods, and single family homes just a few blocks away form the skyscrapers. It really is a kinda nice.

<comment><USER4> Buildings can't be taller than the Washington Monument or 555 feet.

<comment><USER15> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Washington,_D.C.#B...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Washington,_D.C.#Building_heights)

To preserve the grandeur of the National Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and various other key locations, the entire city is subject to strict building height limits. This limitation was placed in effect just prior to the 20th century when government officials realized that structural steel "skyscrapers" could overwhelm the city. In 1899, Congress enacted a height limit for the District prohibiting private buildings from rising more than 130 feet. Contrary to popular belief, no law has ever restricted buildings to the height of the United States Capitol or Washington Monument.[20][21] A revised height law in 1910 did away with that fixed maximum. The newer legislation, still in effect today, states that no new building may be more than 20 feet taller than the width of the street in front of it.[22] The current law is codified as D.C. CODE ANN. § 6-601.05. Thus, Washington has a relatively modest skyline in comparison to the majority of American cities. However the District is ringed by high-rise buildings in many nearby suburbs like Arlington, Silver Spring, and Bethesda.

<comment><USER4> I stand corrected. Growing up in D.C. that was the urban myth. Better to just refer to the actual laws instead!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Read "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander. [http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings- Constructio...](http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Construction- Environmental/dp/0195019199)

<comment><USER17> And "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed" - [http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Institution- Universi...](http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Institution- University/dp/0300078153)

<comment><USER18> Great book! That's actually the book that got me interested in the recent history of my city, which suffered major changes (most say for the worst) that seem to have been taken up from the book's chapters on mdoernist urban development. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceau%C5%9Fima>)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I read

      I have structured my city into smaller circular satellite cities (C1 to C6) which in turn are placed within a circle *with the airport at the center.*

I found myself wondering how happy the inhabitants would be about constant overhead air traffic, not to mention the crash risk for the immediately surrounding buildings.

<comment><AUTHOR> The center radius can be quite large say 8 miles. I currently live 3 miles from LAX and never hear a plane. But yes another idea would be to have most of the warehouses towards the center, which will make distribution easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Surprisingly, I found it rather similar to Tokyo actually.

Tokyo, too, has multiple sub centres which are mostly self-sufficient. They are connected by a train running around in a circle and have central hubs where trains depart into the suburbs. Stations are largely accommodated with large bicycle parking lots to facilitate train usage. However, even though Tokyo is one magnitude bigger than NYC, the transportation fees are fairly high, too. Also, the Japanese solved the parking space problem, by making it a requirement to have a parking space in order to be able to buy a car.

<comment><USER9> Tokyo's fees are not so expensive for public transportation if you have ever been to other cities in Japan. In fact, it is probably the city where you travel a very long distance with a reasonnable fee, something like 1.5 dollar or so. In other Japan cities for the same distance, the fee can double or triple, so Tokyo is rather cheap in that aspect.

The parking space problem is only solved because everyone is using the train to go to work everyday, mostly. If this were to change, they would face major parking space issues, as the innards of the city are not designed to park a great amount of car. The parking space you mentioned is usually the one you reserve in your building when you get a car, but that does not mean there is space available at your destination.

It is quite inefficient to travel in Tokyo altogether. While not too expensive, it takes a lot of time and in the train you cannot seat most of the time because it is overcrowded. I would not pick Tokyo as an example of a city where things work well - it just works, but it's already over-capacity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Check out some of the circular city patterns around Amersfoort, Netherlands -- and of course Amersfoort itself is circular but older and more organic: [http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Nethe...](http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Netherlands&hl=en&ll=52.196165,5.379782&spn=0.023885,0.0315&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.057085,64.511719&geocode=Fc_WGwMdMzZSAA&hnear=Amersfoort,+Utrecht,+The+Netherlands&t=h&z=15)

</comment><comment><USER22> Was anyone else reminded of the early conceptual drawings and plans for EPCOT Center?

<comment><USER23> Walt Disney had a vision for the city/habitat of the future. Is there any website or archive that shows all of those visions and plans? It would be an interesting read since he was such a visionary.

<comment><USER24> He built it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida> [http://architecture.about.com/od/plannedcities/ss/celebratio...](http://architecture.about.com/od/plannedcities/ss/celebration.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> LA is spread-out and almost flat, due to the earthquake active zone.

<comment><USER26> I think LA's automobile and subsequent parking lot history has a lot more to do with it's incredibly low density than potential earthquake damage.

<http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1568281>

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This reminds me of <http://carfree.com/>

</comment><comment><USER28> wont the city center become a bottle neck?</comment>


Interesting Stats On Cell Phones - <AUTHOR> http://cellphones.org/blog/interesting-stats-on-cell-phones/ <comment><USER2> "2.3% of Americans recycle their old phones and 7% throw them away" - I'm guessing that means most people either have a bunch of old phones lying around their homes or they are traded in when they upgrade. Regardless, <http://www.call2recycle.org/> looks like a good option for recycling(I have not used them personally, just did a bit of googling), let's save that lithium, people!</comment>


Cartoon used after Southampton FC's photographer ban - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-10914863 <comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps not, on the surface, typical HN fare, but it struck me as an interesting example of information hoarding or metering. Seems pretty ballsy to tell reporters they can no longer take their own photos of a sporting event, but instead have to purchase "official" images from the club owner.

These attempts to chisel people out of a dollar (or pound, as it may be) here and there are going to end poorly for the perpetrators. It's as bad as AP news insisting on charging by the word for fair use copying of content.</comment>


Anonymous, LulzSec Dump Data from 70 Sheriffs' Offices - <AUTHOR> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Anonymous-LulzSec-Dump-Data-from-70-Sheriffs-Offices-547474/

<comment><USER2> Apparently reddit moderators remove links to lulzsec torrents or news articles that directly link the torrents, as it violates the rule about posting personal information.

I realise this article doesn't do that, but do similar rules apply to hn? I recall seeing direct links to lulzsec dumps on the front page of hn. Is the reddit moderating team enforcing this rule simply as a choice or is it a legal decision? More directly: if for example the New York times posted an article with a link to the torrent front and center, are they breaking the law? And it so would they likely be pursued for the violation?

<comment><USER3> I believe Reddit started doing it voluntarily because of the harassment that was occurring whenever personal information was posted. I do not believe it triggered by any legal action.

[blog post] <http://blog.reddit.com/2011/05/reddit-we-need-to-talk.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Recently a sheriff's deputy pulled me and my family out of a car that we sent off the road at 75 mph. I admire Anonymous, but I believe the world is not always as binary as they perceive it to be.

<comment><USER5> What point are you making here? Is it that since one guy did his job, the rest cannot be looked at hard for corruption? Is it that since your family is now safe from a wreck, that the savers don't need public accountability ever again?

<comment><USER4> Well... no... My point was that police officers are just another slice of humanity - mostly good, some bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Obviously they will be pissed, but I'm curious what the reaction is from the officers and sherrifs in the limelight...

</comment><comment><USER7> does it occur to these people that we might become used to them leaking stuff and not care anymore? i, for one, don't care and don't know what they are fighting for anymore...

</comment><comment><USER8> Nice, let's screw rural sheriffs.. The only ones fighting this massive influx of gangs in the rural areas. But then again, 99% of anonymous aren't in rural America so they have absolutely no idea how it actually is out here.

<comment><USER9> I live in Montana and even our biggest cities are small compared to the rest of the country. I'm not aware of any 'massive influx' of gangs here.

<comment><USER10> If you're a rural cop in need of funding, any brown guy will look like a Mexican cartel hit-man. You can see the same sentiment elsewhere; here in Australia there are horror stories of Sydney/Melbourne/OtherDenOfEvil gangs moving to the country side, going under-ground for decades as farmers/miners/GoodGuys(TM) and suddenly springing to action to kill innocent people & prize whining cattle.

They did a TV segment of a Bangladeshi dentist who evaded taxes. Yeah, a fucking tax evasion case made into a 60-minute segment of hard-hitting journalism. GTFO!

<comment><USER11> You might be interested in _Frontline_. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_(Australian_TV_series...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontline_\(Australian_TV_series\))</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Harvard study challenges assumptions about airborne lead pollution - <AUTHOR> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/harvard-study-challenges-assumptions-on-natural-lead-levels/ <comment><USER2> Mental Floss did a fascinating profile recently on the scientist primarily responsible for getting lead out of gasoline. He was trying to figure the age of the earth, but lead contamination kept getting in the way. Eventually he figured out how much lead in the air was coming from gasoline, and started making waves. Society owes him a debt:

> In the 1970s, lead in the atmosphere peaked to historic highs. It has since > cratered to medieval levels. [...] A 2002 study in Environmental Health > Perspectives found that, by the late 1990s, the IQ of the average > preschooler had risen five points.

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson- scienti...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist- who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it)

<comment><USER3> On the other side of the coin, Thomas Midgley, the inventor of leaded gasoline, also invented CFCs.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The history of the DuPont-GM partnership and their promotion of tetraethyl lead in gasoline is well documented:

[https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history- lead/](https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/)

Despite the many great achievements of their employees, DuPont and the family that controlled it were truly merchants of death.</comment>


Algorithmic accountability - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/30/algorithmic-accountability/ <comment><USER2> TTW I asked Eric Schmidt if he had seen Gattaca: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXk8MJGHaEg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXk8MJGHaEg)

For context, he was talking about letting algorithms run wild on our genome to reduce risk of health problems and genetic disease, then using CRISPR to reintroduce these benefits into our genes.

I ultimately wish I had asked the question more directly, but I feel like the response was ultimately "we won't do that because society won't let us", when what I wanted to hear was "one would need to be incredibly mindful about ethical dilemmas surrounding the proxy of algorithms tell us what's best for us".

</comment><comment><USER3> I was especially interested to read this after reading yesterday's NYTimes story about an opaque, for-profit algorithm that is being used to help judges sentence people:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to- priso...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-prison-by-a- software-programs-secret-algorithms.html)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14238786](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14238786)

The algorithm discussed in the NYTimes story purports to be able to predict a criminal defendant's risk of violent reoffending, recidivism, and pretrial risk. It does so, apparently, by examining historical data, looking at the outcomes of other people who match the defendant's profile, and on the basis of that information providing a probability score.

As I mentioned in my comment on that post, it is entirely inappropriate to use an algorithm that, at best, predicts only _aggregate risk_ to impute individual risk, especially when that probability is being used to determine something as serious as a prison sentence.

And as this TechCrunch piece points out, it's not just this specialized software that has potentially undesirable consequences, but the everyday algorithms used by Google, etc.

One thing that would help is transparency. But we are very quickly getting to a point where lack of transparency is not merely a business decision, but a problem inherent in the technology we're using. A machine-learning model might not be easily interpretable. Its own creators might not be able to fully understand why it's making the decisions it's making.

We may soon get to an uncomfortable place where certain technologies are effective, but nevertheless must be avoided because the cost of making them sufficiently tunable to address ethical and regulatory requirements becomes prohibitive.

</comment><comment><USER4> Big companies should not be allowed to have our data. They should only provide the means (i.e., hardware) to run algorithms on the data. Those algorithms should be created by academia and not-for-profit organizations. It worked well in the beginning of the internet, so why not go back to this scheme, if necessary by changing the law?

<comment><USER5> How would a company like Facebook work without having our data? Or Google, for that matter? "work" as in actually function? Their services are only possible through the storage and analysis of data.

<comment><USER4> Well, academia or government organizations will probably come up with some kind of federated protocol for social media, just like they did with email in the old days. This protocol can then be run by everybody who owns a server (or cluster of servers, depending e.g. on whether the algorithm allows a peer-to- peer configuration).

In this scheme, a company like Facebook would not exist. There could be multiple providers (like hotmail/gmail for email), but it would be easy to switch to a different provider. Or you could start your own (or government agencies could do that if they feared abuse of their citizens' data).

<comment><USER6> Federated protocols works in theory but except email they didnt get a traction and all replaced with propriety protocols. Email survived because it was ancient and it was main identity provider for web.

Ofc i wish a federated protocol can catch up but seems to hopeless with current market situation.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


New Raspbian Release: Scratch 2.0 and Thonny (Python IDE) - <AUTHOR> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-raspbian-desktop-update-with-some-new-programming-tools/ <comment><USER2> Very exciting to see an x86 image being included with this new desktop release. It even includes the ability to install unlike the live image released last year!</comment>


A Leica T Review - <AUTHOR> http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/leica-t <comment><USER4> Allow me to preface this by saying that I currently own four cameras, two digital and two film.

My digital cameras are a Fuji X100s and a Fuji X-T1 (I used to have a Canon 5D Mk II, but decided to go all in on mirrorless digital cameras).

My film cameras are a Leica M6, and a Hasselblad 501C/M.

I use all four cameras on a regular basis, and have made photos with each one within the last week.

I love my Leica M6. It's really a thing of beauty, and is impeccably designed. That said, the amount of unthinking worship I see Leica given makes me roll my eyes.

        Leica has always been a brand of
        uncompromised quality and craftsmanship.

This is a company whose first digital M camera suffered from serious issues with color fringing from infrared light. Leica's solution for this problem with their $5000 flagship camera was to ship their users a screw-on UV/IR filter.

        The reason Leica's products are expensive
        isn't because of a deliberate attempt to
        overcharge for the products. It's a side
        effect of making a beautiful object of desire.

This is the other problem I have with Leica fans. I love owning a beautiful camera (both the Hasselblad and Leica are stunning devices), but I'm far more interested in the quality of images that I can capture than I am in whether or not the camera body was designed by Audi. Many Leica owners, on the other hand, appear to be more interested in having a beautiful camera to admire on their shelf than a tool for creating art ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M6#Leica_M6_special_editi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M6#Leica_M6_special_editions))

        To truly understand the T, you have to fit
        into the type of photographer that the
        camera really aimed at. You have to know
        what you're doing but the camera is also
        going to be underpowered for a pro. It's
        a niche product for a specific consumer
        but also aesthetic preference.

So basically, you have to have more money than sense to want to own this camera. I get it.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention Leicas were far more accessible in their heyday than they are now - there is a widespread misbelief that Leica has always been crazy- expensive, as a justification for their current prices.

The Leica M3 was $288 USD in 1955. That's $2560 in today's dollars. New Leica bodies are $7000.

The original pricing of the Leica, before they became a piece of jewelry, is in line with modern prosumer cameras, not the $7000 neurosurgeon wrist- decorations they are today.

Oh, and the 50mm f/2 Summicron was $159 in 1955 ($1400 today). They are now between $2400 and _$8200_.

I shoot a M6 also and have some pretty great, old glass. But modern Leicas are status items that are _vastly_ overpriced for what they are.

<comment><USER6> ^All of this. As a stalwart Leica shooter of 10 years, it's not bitterness or jealousy I feel, but sadness at their having moved on from making tools to what amounts to more or less "just another camera," albeit of a rarified form.

The key moment for me was the M7, when they _reversed the direction_ the shutter speed dial rotates. Though it seems rather innocuous, but as a daily "lugger" with 2 other older bodies, it basically said "Goodbye, we don't care about your type any longer."

That they couldn't really keep up with the immense digital R&D budgets of more mainstream camera companies was not entirely surprising, and I accepted long ago that a Leica purchase would consist of high cost, and performance (though not _necessarily_ image quality) that equals a generation or two back as compared to Canon/Nikon.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this camera was immensely successful for them. The avant-garde design (as compared to the current retro-schtick) has cachet, <2K is a more reasonable price-point than the M models, it apparently performs adequately, and a new lens mount gives it plenty of "retail therapy" potential. This really is a page out of the Apple playbook.

Leica has been, for many years, not a single monolithic philosophy as manifested in equipment, but a company navigating a rapidly changing market. For a time they found a sizable market that echoed my wants, but no longer. Such is life, and Leica is not alone. Plaubel-Makina and numerous other companies were less fortunate or capable.

My "cred": 15+ years shooting/Leica CL/M3/M6/M7/M9:Canon/AE-1/D30/D60:Nikon/FM-3/F100/D90/D700/D3/D800:Fuji/X100S

<comment><USER6> After reading the reviews linked below, I take back any positive prediction for this thing. Looks like Leica missed an opportunity to make a camera that's competitive with other current models in respect to usability and speed. C'est la vie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having used a great many different cameras what I think about Leicas is that their primary advantage is the state of mind they create in the photographer, which isn't really connected to any tangible usability in design, or engineering marvel in the camera performance.

Just the fact that some photographers know they have a Leica in their hand, makes them feel more liberated and ... how shall I say it ... "photographery".

I think it cannot be denied that with a suitable picture style, you could shoot JPEGs on a 5D MkIII that look similar to what a Leica produces without processing. I bet you most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the JPEGs with their naked eye, and even fewer would be able to pick out which one was from the Leica, and which from the 5DMkIII.

Leicas remind me of French Wine. Everyone waxes poetic about them until they are asked to pick out the Leica photos from a lineup in a double blind test.

At that point everyone then says the Leica is about intangible things like "superior UI".

In the end, I think the Leica is a brand first, and then a camera with certain characteristics next.

A camera made from a solid carved piece of aluminum is just damn attractive. But people feel the need to imbue the Leica with more qualities than it actually has, because maybe they feel embarrassed to have chosen the tool of their trade based on its looks, rather than its utility.

I for one think designers should not apologize for choosing a camera just because it looks good. Design is their whole trade, and they need to surround themselves with inspiration to get into their creative space.

I look at Leica as the cost of doing business for a designer. That is the way their brains work.

And lest programmers develop some superiority complex about their rationality ... I want to suggest that the success of the Go programming language is about aesthetics at this point.

<comment><USER8> In the film days, it really made a difference. You can use a Leica M4 or 6, yeah it'd cost you a little more but your camera took amazing photos at 1/4 the weight and size of say, a Nikon F3, with a shutter that is whisper quiet. You can go closer and shoot more unobtrusively; while a given Nikon has equal optics, if different characteristics, it couldn't go where a Leica could. At least that's my take on it.

Granted, you could get the same effect from, say, a Canonet or a Yashica but still...

Nowadays, though - I am assuming mechanical precision and design is a more commoditized skill amongst companies whereas EE design - semiconductors, sensors, etc is more of a differentiator. In the age of tiny mirrorless Fuji's and Sony's, Leica's value proposition is more or less destroyed.

I think it's the classic story of an original innovator sitting on their asses while a disruptive tsunami -- modern electronics and computer science -- passed them by. Granted, they sat on their asses for arguably 4 full decades, so they had plenty of time to go "oh shit" and adapt, and the fact that they didn't leaves me with little sympathy.

Them and Eastman Kodak.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your general point, though I disagree with the history.

Japanese SLRs wiped the floor with Leica - Leica's competition wasn't originally with SLRs, it was with more cumbersome "portable" cameras of their time - TLRs. Leica was the first major 35mm player to actually make the cameras usable with the featureset professionals wanted.

Leica's Golden Age was in an era where 35mm SLRs _didn 't exist_. SLRs like the Nikon F3 were in fact the cameras that ultimately toppled Leica from their throne.

People loved the WYSIWYG SLRs, they were cheaper to manufacture, and had lower maintenance requirements (rangefinders drift over time/use). Even pros practically completely switched over by the 80s - look at the cameras being used by journalists in the 50s vs. the 80s and you'll see a complete collapse of Leica.

Yeah, Leica was an original innovator who sat on their asses and got disrupted - but the SLR was the disruptor, not really electronics/CS.

That said, the electronics/CS component of it did contribute. After all, the M cameras didn't get an aperture priority mode until 2002. I'm not sure when Av mode was invented, but the Canon AE-1P brought it to the mainstream in _1981_. Leica was literally 20 years late.

<comment><USER8> Leica definitely was at a disadvantage in the marketing arena vs. SLRs. But the arguments that M rangefinder still had photographic advantages to SLR's in a number of situations still held weight. Sadly, I think even that selling point has been erased in this day and age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Leica T ($1850) + Summicron T 32mm ($1950) = $3800 The Sony A7 ($1499) + Zeiss 55m f1.8 Sonnar ($999) = $2498

Thats a differential of $1302

Now lets get a few things out of the way -- Yes the Leica is a 35mm equivalent and the Sony is a 55 mm equivalent. But I wanted to compare the best prime lens in each setup (in Leica T system, that is the only prime lens available so far) - The 55mm is arguably currently the Sony FE mount best lens. Also, I will address the "Leica Way" later in this post.

So what are you getting in the Leica that is much better then the Sony? NOTHING. The Sony is a FAR superior as a camera.

Sony:

\- Full sensor vs Crop. This has been debated to death, but everyone will agree --> bigger sensor = better image IQ \- Faster Autofocus \- Better LCD display \- Better EVF \- Better build (weather sealed) \- Better control (Two dials + exposure compensation)

And the most important quality --- \- BETTER IMAGE QUALITY

Now before you guys go ranting about how Leica has a quieter shutter, better ergonomics, helps me slow down, is a photographic style. Please.

That all applied in the film days -- I have a Leica MP with a Leica 50mm f1.4 and that is the greatest film camera every made. It is worth every penny. But those were the film days.

The playing ground is completely different in the digital world. Leica does not make its own sensors, and their for will never offer "the best image quality".

What it is selling today is a reputation it has earned during the film days and fashion icon for the rich hipsters out there.

Nothing wrong with that, and if you have the money and you value the aesthetics and the feature set, great. Go buy one and enjoy it!

But please, stop with the how the Leica is the pinnacle of photography. It is simply not true in the digital landscape.

<comment><USER10> > Summicron T 32mm ($1950)

Did you mean 23mm?

<comment><USER9> Yes -- I stand corrected. Thank you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I dunno, I've thought about getting a Leica every once in a while, then I see reviews like this with pictures from the camera and I'm always so "meh" about how they look. Everything looks like there's a 2-5% grey filter on it, and anything with any kind of luminescence always looks blown out. Most of the sample galleries I've seen on the have the added minus of all looking just slightly out of focus.

There's a definite "Leica look" for certain, I'm just not sure I've ever liked how it looks.

On the other hand, the B&W photos I've seen taken with it look fantastic.

Looking at other reviews, this is a _heavy_ camera and really slow and clumsy to work with. If I'm going to lug around this much, I may as well just lug around a regular old DSLR and a decent lens.

Online reviews are pretty scathing for something in this price range

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5755088/leica-t- mirrorless...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5755088/leica-t-mirrorless- camera-review)

[http://reframe.gizmodo.com/leica-t-review-a-camera-should- no...](http://reframe.gizmodo.com/leica-t-review-a-camera-should-not-be-a- luxury-object-1591617449)

[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460584,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460584,00.asp) Some more sample galleries

[http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/leica...](http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/leica- t-typ701-preview-samples-gallery#page=1)

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5764700/leica-t-sample- pho...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/30/5764700/leica-t-sample-photos)

[http://www.gizmag.com/leica-t-review-sample- images/31990/](http://www.gizmag.com/leica-t-review-sample-images/31990/)

It seems like this is something people buy only because they want to be seen with a Leica, not because they like photography.

 _edit_ I shoot mostly with a now ancient and well worn D60 that appears to outperform this Leica in almost every measure despite being 7 years old.

<comment><USER12> If money were no object and I were to buy a Leica for B&W it would be the M Monochrom. A true monochrome sensor and a lot more choice in lenses.

[http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M- Monoc...](http://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-Monochrom)

<comment><USER8> Or stash up on a lifetime supply of M6 Classics and a freezer full of Tri-X and x-tol (or ascorbic acid) developer solution...I'm not sure what the going price of a M Monochrom is but I'd bet you'd be able to get at least 5 M6's for that price. Spare parts!

<comment><USER12> True, but that assumes I'd want to do all the chemical processing that comes with film photography. I used to do some of that, but it's not anything I'd want to get back into.

<comment><USER6> You can still generally get negs+contact sheet+scans for ok prices. I do negs+contact sheet at a pro lab, and then shoot them with my D800 on a lightbox, and import into Lightroom. With the proper curve and adjustment presets, they're higher quality than my best film scanner scans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looking at the archives of this blog is amazing. It's the ultimate Connoisseur Consumer in action. Every new product differs in only the minutest details from the previous, bit it's all oh so important. Until the new version arrives and obsoletes the previous one...

</comment><comment><USER14> I think there's too much focus these days on what you can get for the money, and not what you can get.

You have one life, why fill it with particle board and Chinese plastic smell? Why not save up and buy things that last. That bring joy to your life and enrich it. Why buy a three dollar Chinese screwdriver with an imprecisely cut point that strips every fifth screw, when for ten dollars you can get a precision cut, tempered, and coated american made screwdriver that feels weighty and good in your hands. That doesn't strip those screws and makes your job a little more joyful.

America needs to bring back the craftsman and the appreciation for craftsmanship. The LVL1 hackerspace in Louisville just moved into an old factory and I am constantly stunned by the workmanship that went into that old building. The architect filled the place with light using angled windows, but it doesn't get hot. Even the wood floors are beautifully made (and this was for factory work).

Surrounding yourself with crafted things allows you to think on a higher plane. You know what is possible because you are surrounded with it.

If you surround yourself with cheap replaceable junk you become capable of crafting and expecting only cheap replaceable junk. That's why I can buy so much expensive furniture off craigslist for pennies. People have lost the ability to tell that that slightly scuffed up dresser couldn't be purchased for under eight grand new.

<comment><USER11> I don't disagree with your main premise - in fact I very much agree with it. Beautiful tools are inspiring to work with.

But this doesn't actually seem to be that good of camera no matter how you look at it and looking at other serious reviews it doesn't seem to be all that well crafted either.

There's a difference between good, but sometimes funky, craftsmanship and gimmicks. The T seems to be more on the gimmick side of things.

<comment><USER14> I agree, but, have you looked at the cars today? I can honestly not tell the difference in silhouette between a mustang and an acura these days. You can stick as much chrome on the outside of the thing you want in different patterns, but they are the same car.

It's not that I don't know that the Leica isn't a super great camera, but the fact that they tried to make something to a higher design goal than, "it should just work" carries some weight. Just working is very important, but you can go past it. There were tons of mp3 players that just worked before the ipod. Arguably my rio mp3 player worked and sounded better than the ipod. however, the ipod was something that resonated with people. When you put soul into something your soul responds. I hate saying metaphysical junk like that, but anyone who has experienced a truly well designed object or seen a to a perfectly executed musical performance knows this feeling.

I mean, design these days is boring and unenriching. Go to amazon and search for water filtering pitchers. Do any of those inspire you? Are any of them beautiful? Are any of them even nice to use? If you read the reviews they are full of, "it filters water alright, but": the lid is awkward, the handle cracks off after a few months, the old version had more thought in it, the edges of the plastic are sharp, etc.

Something can fully and completely fulfill it's primary purpose and still be poorly designed. Still be a joyless disposable object.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's like getting into an old MG Roadster. Not very fast, unreliable, noisy. But damn if it isn't fun and beautiful to get around in. It's inspiring and it does what it's designed to do, give you a dramatic, noisy, wind blown time out in the country.

[http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mg/b/1673922.html](http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mg/b/1673922.html)

But this camera seems more like something people buy who want to be seen with it, a fashion-vanity item. And I think that's an important distinction to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When discussing image quality, I found this paragraph hilarious:

"The Sony is a brilliant camera with incredible clarity but lacks soul and comes off as being purely engineering driven. There's nothing wrong with these things, it's what makes Sony great."

I can understand people who enjoy beautiful design, but when it comes to taking pictures, everything is literally engineering.

</comment><comment><USER16> For some reason, every time I read "as a designer" and appeals to some magical designer "auctoritee", I cringe. If I can't tell you're a designer from the terms you're using and the points you focus on, well, don't club me over the head with it. As a pedant, I notice details like this.

As for the camera, two programmable knobs seems like a nice feature.

</comment><comment><USER17> The Leica T is simply a rebranded Sony in a tighter package. If you look around at these guys, you'll see its even a Sony sensor and guts. Hassleblad does the same thing - simply look at the Lunar series. It's basically a Sony RX100 and NEX-7 w/ a wood handle. ([http://www.hasselblad- lunar.com/](http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/)). Don't be impressed by this, from a technology perspective. Be impressed by its machining and "re"-design of the Sony consumer brands (by now well under 1,000$ USD). I think they are junk, but when you have two lambos you want bling at the party.

<comment><USER8> I think this is a function of how dependent cameras are on semiconductor and sensor design, and in this day and age, the pillars of expertise have shifted first to Japan, and now to Taiwan/Korea...and possibly in the future to China.

Leica was amazing when machining and optical precision were the key factors in how good your camera is; but in this day and age, that's a solved problem...anyone can set up a factory that equals that sort of precision. But I think Canon, Sony, Samsung and others saw where things were headed strategically a decade or so ago, and dumped money into the R&D needed for chip fabs and EE design teams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have always lusted over Leica cameras and lenses. All of my favorite photographers have used them at some point or another.

I finally got a great deal on M6 with a 50mm Summicron. Now I have a M9P.

For a while, Leica was the only camera company to produce cameras with the same ergonomics of older film cameras. It may have been stubbornness on their part, but I loved the fact that I could have a digital camera that allowed me to control aperture with my left hand, change shutter speed with my right, and have all lenses have focus markings on the top.

I feel that Leica is in danger due to companies such as Fuji, who are creating cameras that have even more options for control than ever before.

Want manual focus markings? There are lots of new lenses from Fuji and Olympus that allow you to shoot with auto focus, then pull the barrel back and enter manual mode so you can do things like zone and hyperfocal focus.

Want to change aperture on the lens and shutter speed on the top? The xt1 and x100s both have it.

Sorry for hating, but if Leica's answer to cameras such as the Fuji xt1 is to throw up a camera resembling a Sony NEX 3 with a "better touch screen" is kind of a joke really. They're coming from totally left field with this one.

They can try and hold on to their legacy of amazing lenses such as the Noctilux, but Zeiss(sony) and Sigma are doing a lot of innovation on fast glass, and will soon probably come out with a 50mm f/.95 or faster lens just to shove it to Leica.

You can view my photos at "moarbokeh" on flickr if you're curious.

</comment><comment><USER19> I apologize for my ignorance, but does anyone know the brand and model of that unusual watch about a third of the way down the page?

<comment><USER20> [http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/issey-miyake-to-by- toku...](http://www.minimallyminimal.com/blog/issey-miyake-to-by-tokujin- yoshioka)

($1400)

<comment><USER19> Ah, thanks! I tried a reverse image search, and Googling various versions of "watch with chrome face", and looked around the site, but nothing.

<comment><USER21> I often see watches (mostly in movies) and I kind of wish there was a good site to get wardrobe info from.

Include the female wardrobe information; and affiliate links.

A quick search shows the desire for this kind of site, but nothing that does it well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Oh, Good news!.

I love photography but I hate so much having to carry enormous cameras just because analog were so voluminous and they put a digital sensor on an old analog case.

I bought different Sony NEX cameras for this reason and I use those a lot.

Good news to see other camera makers(canon,leica) listening.

<comment><USER23> Fuji's X cameras are also great in this regard. I ditched my DSLR setup for the X system and haven't regretted it for a second.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, I really love the X system - I have the X-Pro1 and the X100S. Unfortunately I use them much less after the birth of my daughter, the autofocus is too slow and the video is really annoying. We ended up buying a Sony Alpha6000 which is the perfect child camera IMO. For still images I still love my Fujis though.

<comment><USER25> Looks like X-T1 got much faster autofocus. I have it and now impatiently waiting for X-T2 so it would be "even better" :) Also, Fuji, ship these new zooms finally!!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For the less money, I'd go buy a cannon fixed lens point and shoot - or for about the same money I'd go get two real cameras, and EOS-1 Film, and a EOS-5D with a 50mm f/1.8 to share among them.

Leica makes a very pretty camera - but not one I'd purchase for the task of making pictures.

<comment><USER27> Yea. Leica makes jewelry. They are great cameras. But they are also jewelry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Unlike the M series, which remains unique in many ways, this seems unimpressive compared to some other interchangeable-lens cameras.

A 16MP APS-C sensor was available in the NEX-5 several years ago, and the tiny magnesium body of the NEX-5 is sexy as hell.

I would look at the Sony and Samsung compact interchangeable lens cameras if you want the best sensors, lens choice, and UI. The Sony a6000 is an awesome camera by any measure. Some of the new Samsungs have a "Google logo" Android complete with Google's suite of proprietary apps, and Google is doing some interesting things with the camera APIs.

<comment><USER27> The M series is Leica's defining camera series. These offshoots are just more revenue streams.

Sony has really come out strong. I still shoot film but if I made my way back to digital I would go with a A7.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > The T costs $1850 and the Sunmmicron-T 2/23 ASPH $1950. Yes, the Leica isn't > exactly a bargain.

I'm surprised it's that cheap. The M8 did cost somewhere around $4500 (without a lens) when it was introduced.

<comment><USER30> It's this cheap because it's a Point and Shoot and not a Rangefinder.

<comment><USER27> I don't think "Point and Shoot" is the correct term. Those refer to cameras with fixed zoom lenses.

This has interchangeable lenses and therefore is within the "mirrorless" category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For film cameras at least, the best bang for the buck brand is Cosina Voigtländer. I own a Bessa R4A with a Cosina Voigtländer Color Skopar 21mm f/4.0 Pancake and seriously, what a great camera package for around $1000.

</comment><comment><USER8> The big bugaboo on the wall is: is it any better than the Fuji X100S....

</comment><comment><USER32> The review was well-written, but the photographs are simply beautiful—especially the desaturated color and serene feeling of the imagery.

</comment><comment><USER33> Nice design. Still, I prefer a viewfinder (as a built-in EVF/OVF, not as a $600 accessory)

</comment><comment><USER34> Is that Seattle/Bellevue? But then there's a porsche with Eurpoean plates below :)

<comment><USER4> The first batch of photos are from Seattle (around the market). I don't recognize the second city, but it appears to be somewhere in Europe.

<comment><USER25> Second city is Bellevue. Shots inside the building - Seattle Public Library. Then Public Market in Seattle. Shots with greens to skyscrapers - <USER2> Downtown Park. Shot across highway to two white skyscrapers - Capitol Hill across I-5 with Queen Anne in background (Facebook Seattle rents few floors in one of these buildings) Interior shots - his own apartment. Mercedes - <USER3> car? Porsches - looks like some Porsche exhibit (and this might explain euro plate on one of them?) Neighbourhood/street shots - one of them looks like Bellevue (intersection against the sun), rest - Seattle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> not-hacker-news How did this make it into "Hacker News" ?

<comment><USER35> Alt. title: "Hipster News".

But seriously, good question. I like stuff like this, but I have no idea how it fits the content of this site.

<comment><USER36> There is no "content of this site". Interesting is not a subject.</comment></comment></comment>