Apple receives permit in California to test self-driving cars - <AUTHOR> http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-apple-car-idUKKBN17G1CJ <comment><USER2> In some markets, it is more about getting it right than getting in at the right time. We've seen many carcasses of products that were ahead of their time, not because they were bad ideas but because they were not formulated for mass adoption. Apple's own Newton is one example. It took the iPhone formulation to make the product features successful in the market.

A more recent example is the telepresence robot. Many entries, but still more Newton than iPhone.

With Apple, it's easy to pick out their winners and losers: iPhone, iMac, MacBook, ... vs, Apple TV, Lisa, Newton, ....

At their current scale, Apple needs to enter really big markets in order to move the needle on sales and profits. There aren't many really big tech markets left. Cars are an interesting play in that it combines robotics and consumer tech, and puts them into a market that has room for multiple large players and plenty of opportunity for disruption. The transition to an electric drive train and autonomous navigation presents an entry point. There will be multiple winners.

<comment><USER3> Your reasoning is excellent. The only problem is that Apple doesn't have sufficient drive, talent, or reputation, in the auto industry to actually make and sell a good car.

No employee wants to leave Tesla to work at Apple. No consumer wants to buy a car made by Apple. Hopefully Tim and the gang won't blow through too much money before they accept that.

They're pretty good at making phones and computers. They might want to focus on keeping that reputation in the meantime.

<comment><USER4> Your reasoning is excellent. The only problem is that Apple doesn't have sufficient drive, talent, or reputation, in the cell phone industry to actually make and sell a good cell phone. No employee wants to leave Motorola to work at Apple. No consumer wants to buy a phone made by Apple. Hopefully Steve and the gang won't blow through too much money before they accept that. They're pretty good at making computers. They might want to focus on keeping that reputation in the meantime.

<comment><USER5> I mean from a computer to a mp3 player to a phone is the same ballpark. Electronics. Moving to mechanical systems is a whole different thing.

I'm not saying it won't work out, but I don't think their plan is manufacturing cars. Maybe it's just licensing the self driving tech along with the infotainment system.

<comment><USER6> Yet somehow Elon Musk went from internet payments to building rockets and cars. Musk had zero background in rockets or cars. Remember Apple is a company that has more cash in the bank than the entire value of Tesla. It's foolish to think that Apple can't execute. Remember Apple has a long history of the last mover advantage: they take promising but cumbersomely executed tech and expand on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dear Car Companies:

If you would really like to advance the state of the art for self driving technology, I invite you come up to the mid-west, especially in the winter months, and make your toys work under those conditions.

Working up here will push your technology quite far, with snow, slush, worn away lane markers, cold temperatures, wind, potholes, washboard roads, ice, clogged sensors, blocked GPS, and any number of the above challenges thrown together in random and unpredictable patterns.

If you can get to level 4 or 5 automation in those conditions, making them work in the eternally sunny portions of CA will be a snap.

Sincerely, a Montanan (who is annoyed they had to deal with snow, ice, blocked sensors, and cold temperatures just this morning)

<comment><USER8> Dear falcolas,

If you really need to understand why car companies will not take your advice, you should look at their sales numbers. Car companies don't sell many cars in Montana. They sell a lot of cars in urban concrete jungles and suburbs like those that exist in California and basically every major city. Solve one major city (especially one with hills like San Francisco), and you've likely solved _most_ major cities, worldwide.

California has 14.5 million cars registered and 2 million new cars are sold in the state each year. There aren't even 14.5 million _people_ in Montana. It's an incredibly easy market to "disrupt" as it were, and they have people in California that are known early adopters to lean on for buying, testing and validating their product. The people of countryside and similar locales are recalcitrant and will see products like these as extraneous, "taking their jobs" and "killing their freedom of driving."

So once they've tackled the low hanging fruit market of California, maybe they might consider expanding into the harsher wilds. But, similar to public transit, the infrastructure worth investing in is infrastructure _most_ people will use, and unfortunately that is not a self-driving Ford F-150.

Signed, Common Business Sense.

<comment><USER9> Car companies sell plenty of cars in Chicago, New York, Toronto, Boston, Montreal, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Denver, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.

<comment><USER10> Exactly! And Montana is a safe place to develop the tech in a lower density/risk environment.

<comment><USER11> It is not necessary for them to operate at full Montana conditions to have a successful initial business. The nice thing about machine learning is that it gets better and better as more data is collected.

So the rational path here is to launch in moderate temperature areas with beta software and eventually refine the tech to operate in adverse condition areas.

Pushing or expecting perfection from the beginning is how thousands of products have died before launching.

The best way to do product development is getting it out of the door as early as possible (in a reasonably safe state) with a competent subset of early adopter users and if possible in an idealized environment/use case. From there you expand and heavily capitalize marketing.

This is what Facebook did when they launched in Harvard and restricted it to only Ivy-league schools. Before slowly expanding to other universities and then the public at large. They called it the bowling pin strategy.

"If your project doesn't experiment first your entire project will be an experiment" \- Joe Armstrong (creator of Erlang)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Of all the SV tech giants (obviously Tesla excluded), Apple has the best DNA to build cars.

They know how manufacture in scale. They know how build a vertical product. They have the cash to do it and they have a strong brand.

But most importantly, if the world moves to a car-sharing car-hailing model of autonomous cars. Ultimately, it becomes a consumer mobile play. This is where both Google and Apple own that experience. Siri will know where you are and when you need a car. This is something both Lyft and Uber wont be able to compete with.

<comment><USER13> > Apple has the best DNA to build cars. They know how to manufacture in scale.

Something tells me shipping your phones off to be built by other people in China and building your own auto assembly factories from scratch are two completely separate things.

<comment><USER14> > Something tells me shipping your phones off to be built by other people in > China and building your own auto assembly factories from scratch are two > completely separate things.

This is the question. Indeed, an electric auto is far simpler to manufacture than a legacy auto. Drastically less parts. Similarly, Tesla has demonstrated huge value in software component of the car, from the app, dashboard, OTA updates, not to mention fleet-wide machine learning.

Don't also forget Apple is extremely good at creating electronic devices. Apple has less than 20% of the phone device market but makes well over 90% of the profit. They hardly ever have supply issues (such as Google's Pixel) or quality issues (such as Note 7). Apple is known for their cachet and design but the reason Tim Cook is now the CEO of the largest company in the world is because their supply chain is, by far, the best in the world.

If a company is well placed to make an amazing electric car, it's Apple.

<comment><USER15> If there is any company well placed to make an amazing phone, It's BMW.

<comment><USER16> Well Denso did make a phone in the 90's...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is it just me, or have folks living in the bay area noticed a huge increase in the number of "self driving" cars driving around? I've even seen a minivan with what looked to be a hastly assembled lidar driving around Sunnyvale. The space seems to be really heating up.

<comment><USER18> It's tempting to strap random hardware to your roof to make other drivers fear you and give you more space.

<comment><USER19> It may result in the opposite effect though: pedestrians more willing to cross the street in front of you, and other cars trying to mess with you. (A friend of mine was telling me how he tried going really fast then braking hard behind a self driving car in front of him). The car swerved into the bike lane and almost hit a bicyclist before the driver regained manual control of the car)

<comment><USER20> Good thing California requires license plates on the front of vehicles. That way, if the bicyclist was hurt/killed, the video recorded by the self driving car would show your friend was the one liable.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure that's correct. The self driving car should have stayed in its lane because an accident between two cars is preferable to an accident between a cyclist and a car, especially if the cyclist is not otherwise involved.

Self driving cars should _protect_ the weaker traffic participants, not use their space as a 'get out of the way' option if that space is occupied.

<comment><USER20> Not entirely sure, but my point was that the accelerating and sudden deacceleration was a dick move.

<comment><USER15> Absolutely but your friend may have exposed a pretty dangerous bug in the software of that self driving vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is pretty exciting but it is also the worst kept secret in the Bay Area :-) I suppose they could have surprised us and filed for a rocket launch license.

I'm not sure what Apple expects to bring to this party but I know if you're getting a masters or PhD right now make sure your thesis topic is machine learning autonomous action in health/life/safety situations :-). I expect you will be recruited heavily.

</comment><comment><USER22> I doubt Apple will ever launch its own car. However it seems that quite a few large IT firms consider DaaS (Driving as a Service) a viable B2B market. If you can create a superior suite of machine learning tools (including always up-to-date road data) that successfully drives passengers and goods from point A to point B then you can secure big revenue streams from automobile companies for years to come.

<comment><USER23> > _I doubt Apple will ever launch its own car._

It's a large consumer market that's changing rapidly and ripe for disruption. Why would you doubt that Apple will enter it?

<comment><USER22> Because manufacturing your own car in large quantities is very difficult. Tesla is a good example on how difficult it is to scale up production numbers. And even though the market / products themselves are changing rapidly the required expertise for a mass production of cars remains the same. I think an acquisition would be slightly more realistic. But has Apple ever acquired an entire product line? I don't think that's in their DNA (EDIT: Beats being one notable and recent exception...).

<comment><USER24> I agree with your conclusion, but I think your analysis is dead wrong. I don't think Apple would have problems manufacturing cars at scale. They have virtually unlimited money to aquire people with the know how, and to invest in factories. And they have lots of experience with manufacturing already. Sure, cars are different from consumer electronics, but not in any insurmountable way.

The real reason I think Apple would pull the plug on it's car project, is if they believe we are about to move to a transportation as a service world. Ride sharing and self driving cars are trends that point in that direction. Apple is a (consumer) product company. Their internal structure is set up to make the best consumer products and sell them directly to consumers. They are not set up to be a services company. Being a (successful) services company is to some extent antithetical to being a successful product company. Apple knows this.

<comment><USER25> > _Sure, cars are different from consumer electronics, but not in any > insurmountable way._

Perhaps not "insurmountable"...

...but you realize that what Apple currently manufactures is equivalent to one single, near-insignificant component of what goes into a car: the on-board navigation system.

Building a car is hard. I don't think Apple _can 't_ do it, but I'm convinced they won't find it "worth it".

<comment><USER24> No, building a car is actually comparatively easy, as evidenced by the myriad of boutique super cars. It's especially easy if what you want to build is an electric car, because electric cars have an order of magnitude fewer moving parts compared to an ICE car. What is difficult is _mass producing_ a car, as evidenced by Tesla's difficulty in doing just that. But Apple has lots of experience at mass production, and they have the means to acquire whatever talent they lack. That's not to say that they are guaranteed to succeed, but they have a much, much better chance than almost any technology company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So far all the articles I have seen are about Apple experimenting with autonomous technology and most people assume that they are also building an electric vehicle. Those are two very different and challenging projects. I have been an Apple user since 2000 and a Tesla driver for four months and I don't see the current Apple being able to pull off an entire new car platform like that. This isn't a "one more thing" kind of reveal. Look at how long it took Tesla to get to the point where they can mass produce a relatively inexpensive electric vehicle with a basic self driving platform. I am a huge fan of both companies and have stained teeth from all of the Kool Aid, but just getting the battery manufacturing in place seems like an impossible feat for a company that is going to take over two years to design and release a new modular desktop computer for content creators.

<comment><USER27> _Those are two very different and challenging projects._

Exactly. Some self-driving projects have used electric or hybrid cars because they usually have electric power steering, which is easy to control by computer. But the technologies are unrelated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> been seeing Apple Maps marked vans with Lidar units in SF and East Bay for months. Presumably theyre done building the base map.

<comment><USER29> comment from someone that works in maps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Heres a question, I know a lot of companies are investing their time/money into working on self-driving cars.. but from what I see, a lot of the cars use the same sensor. LIDAR and cameras being the main sensors. Of course, we have already seen Tesla perform well with these sensors.

However, my question: Is/Was this industry only held back by sensing?

edit: Restructure paragraph

Regards,

<comment><USER27> For testing purposes, today's clunky rotating LIDAR units are OK. For deployment, something better will be needed. That's coming along well, but due to lack of a market, nobody is producing in volume yet. I'd bet on Continental, the auto parts company, which is using flash LIDAR technology from Advanced Scientific Concepts.[1] That's known to work well, and ASC has been selling it to DoD successfully. Space-X also uses their units for docking the Dragon spacecraft.

Quanergy has been in "fake it til' you make it" mode for a year now; they announced an impressive product 14 months ago and didn't ship. Their web site looks as if they're shipping, but they're not. Now they're trying to get in on the Trump border wall security business.[2]

[1] [http://continental-automated- driving.com/Navigation/Enablers...](http://continental-automated- driving.com/Navigation/Enablers/High-Resolution-Flash-Lidar) [2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/03/24/silicon-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2017/03/24/silicon- valley-lidar-maker-quanergy-angling-for-a-trump-border-wall- contract/#64b69f81513f)

<comment><USER31> Their logo is a curious mashup.

Tag-line "the future in motion".

Logo character: a horse.

Really?

It's as if they wanted to present themselves both as an old and respectable company (hence the horse, and name), and yet still modern enough to define the future.

The mashup though is so clumsily done it makes me believe the company is either a _very_ early stage startup, or an utter scam.

<comment><USER32> 145 years old, 39 billion in revenue, 212000 employees. Quite the scam :)

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

<comment><USER31> Let me revise my thoughts...

[http://www.conti- online.com/generator/www/start/com/en/index...](http://www.conti- online.com/generator/www/start/com/en/index_en.html)

Their main website has a splash flash page, which lead me to believe that they didn't put a lot of effort into "public", but not customer, branding. That's reasonable since they're a manufacturer.

However, I've also noted that they're German.

It's not very surprising that a German enterprise isn't spending a lot of effort on its English-language portal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I guess you never know with Apple but it just seems like a really crowded space for them to come into, especially if they insist on controlling the whole ecosystem like they do with their other products.

First of all, it's a high price tag for them to get top talent in the area. Waymo, Uber, Tesla, Ford (and a dozen other car companies), and who knows how many start ups are all vying for the same pool of engineers. Even if they get top talent, it's another story holding onto it. If you look at the LinkedIns (Anthony Levandowski, Jur van den Berg, Chris Thrun, all the founders of Otto and Argo AI), they change jobs every two years.

Their success I feel depends on how much control they are willing to give up in partnerships and how good they are at choosing winners in the race to autonomous vehicles. They already have $1B invested in Didi last year--it will be interesting to see where they go from here.

<comment><USER23> > _I guess you never know with Apple but it just seems like a really crowded > space for them to come into…_

The iPhone entered a crowded phone market and now controls the vast majority of smartphone profits. There's really no such thing as market "saturation" when you can grow the market and eat old participants.

> _First of all, it 's a high price tag for them to get top talent in the > area._

Apple has $250 billion in cash, so this doesn't strike me as a huge concern.

> _Their success I feel depends on how much control they are willing to give > up in partnerships…_

As with phones, their hypothetical success in this area will be due to how much they _won 't_ give up. Apple learned this lesson with the disastrous Motorola ROKR E1, a.k.a. the one where they tried to be a "good industry partner" and play by industry rules.

If Apple enters this market, they'll play by Apple's rules and give up virtually nothing. Any launch partner(s) will profit, but on Apple's terms.

<comment><USER33> > _There 's really no such thing as market "saturation" when you can grow the > market and eat old participants._

The car companies aren't making the same mistake that Microsoft and other old tech companies made with smartphones. They all see that autonomous vehicles are coming and they're doing their best to put out their own solutions. For them to "grow the market," they have to do AVs far better than everyone else. It's tough to imagine them doing that with Google working on this since 2009.

> _Apple has $250 billion in cash, so this doesn 't strike me as a huge > concern._

It's an arms race to outspend in this area. Yes, they could muscle their way through, but only at a huge cost. And even then, employees could leave to start their own startups (see Faraday Futures, Otto, Argo AI, etc.)

> _If Apple enters this market, they 'll play by Apple's rules and give up > virtually nothing_

There are way more parts in building an autonomous vehicle than a mobile phone. This graphic [1] does a good job of getting into some of involved industries. Shareholders won't stand for them to sink money into reinventing the wheel (e.g. car components, vehicle to vehicle communication software, AI.)

[1] [http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/SELFDRIVING- SUPPLI...](http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/SELFDRIVING- SUPPLIERS/010040KW194/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Interesting how many toyota vehicles are used as development mules

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm guessing if and when Apple enters the market, they won't be selling cars. They'll be selling the service of transportation.

<comment><USER36> Idk, services have never been their primary product. It was always a hardware product, and all the software and services around it were enablers of that hardware. Sure, they could change and start a service product, but it just feels awkward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wow. Amazon is probably working on it too. Great that 10 years from now we'll be seeing Teslas, Apples, Googles and Amazons on the road more than Fords, Chevys, Hondas and Nissans. Interesting times.

<comment><USER38> You think Ford, Chevy, Honda and Nissan are not working on self-driving technology?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Uber and Google/Waymo do it in Phoenix quite a bit. The roads are perfect for first iteration/testing, mostly 1 mile squares and less intense. I see many Waymo and Ubers on the road here.

</comment><comment><USER40> Apple decided making wifi hardware was too hard, but they can make cars?

<comment><USER41> My guess: they saw a flooded market with no brand loyalty because its a box that sits unnoticed in an office or living room and said "We can leave the scraps for Linksys and TP-Link" then saw Tesla's margins and said "Yeah, _that_ looks nice."

<comment><USER42> Tesla burns cash, loses more than $4,000 on every car sold

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-teslamotors-cash- insight-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-teslamotors-cash-insight- idUSKCN0QE0DC20150810)

<comment><USER41> 1.) That article is from 2015. 2.) Dividing operating losses by number of cars sold is...not a very good way of calculating things. You're taking R&D, new capital (Gigafactories, retail outlets, acquisitions like SolarCity) and all other expenses and dividing by number of cars sold. It makes for a nice clean Excel spreadsheet (A1 divided by A2) but a poor understanding of how emerging businesses with huge growth potential work under the hood.

<comment><USER42> Why Investors Love Elon Musk, Even Though Tesla Is Losing Money (2017)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhyu/2017/02/24/why- invest...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardhyu/2017/02/24/why-investors- love-elon-musk-even-though-tesla-is-losing-money/)

<comment><USER41> It's a more recent article but doesn't invalidate the primary point: the cars aren't losing money, vast capital investment results in losses. The stock price remains high despite this because significant investments implies significant future growth and innovation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Tesla has such a head start on car production, I don't see how Apple can catch up.

<comment><USER24> Are you kidding me? Tesla? Tesla owns _one_ factory, which they bought used from Toyota. They have yet to demonstrate the ability to manufacture at anything approaching the scale of other, more affordable car brands. Catching up to Tesla's ability to produce cars will _not_ be the problem if Apple decides to enter that market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> self-driving cars are becoming a crowded space. Too many players, with no clear winner in sight. The real problem to solve here is not technical , its regulatory.

Tesla and Google have some advantage, but it is still far from reality.

<comment><USER40> The main problem is totally technical! Robot cars can barely deal with following white lines on the road. How about rain, construction, poorly marked roads, fallen trees, badly parked delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc? Can cars read roads signs and understand them? We'll have full-on AI before self-driving cars are for real.

<comment><USER45> I've been parroting this on every self driving thread. I finally found one person who agrees with my thinking that driving is as hard as general AI.

Why is this idea so opposed by everyone?

<comment><USER40> At least we have each other.

Honestly, I am completely baffled that people who write software think self- driving cars are just around the corner. At this point I think it's basically a futurist cult.

<comment><USER46> 99% of situations are the "easy" part. It is the last 1% that will take a long time. Snow. Rain. Missing headlight. Etc.

<comment><USER31> Can't we just accept that the car won't drive itself in the snow or rain or with a missing headlight?

I'd find that totally reasonable, and get back behind the wheel to take my own risks in a snowstorm (or ... you know... stay at home like the advisories always tell you to).

<comment><USER47> I would absolutely not find it reasonable if my "self-driving" car won't drive itself in the rain or snow, given that in my climate, it is raining or snowing >270 out of every 360 days of the year.

Such a product would still have a large market value since there are nice climates with dense populations in the world too, but not everyone lives in California.

<comment><USER48> What you said -- plus: the last thing you want is a car that 'self drives' until the conditions suddenly change at high speeds and the half-aware driver is forced to take over unprepared and unalert and convinced that his/her car is supposed to be driving for them.

<comment><USER45> Exactly, if we are forcing drivers to stay focused on the road with hands on the wheel. It's not "self driving", as in it's not level 5 autonomy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This thread is going to be golden in 10 years: a time capsule of cynicism.

</comment><comment><USER49> See, it's not that hard Uber

</comment><comment><USER50> Apple is good at UX and design. A L5 Self-driving car implies no UX at all, and most people won't care of the design if Self-driving cabs become a commodity. Apple is not about logistics.

So, Apple's opportunity will be L2-L3.

</comment><comment><USER51> Autoplay video, closes tab.

<comment><USER52> Thanks for letting us know that you closed the tab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> First,who dies Uber think it is circumventing the medallion sytem that taxi companies must abide by. Second, who does Apple or Google think they are by imposing dangerous obstacles on us on our roadways.

</comment><comment><USER54> Does anyone care that regulatory realities will prevent driverless cars from ever carrying human passengers?

Planes and trains have been driving themselves for many years but they still have human pilots. The human need for somebody to blame is stronger than market forces trying to eliminate human drivers

<comment><USER55> Do you have anything meaningful to back up your point? Any sources? Anyone else who agrees?

<comment><USER56> On the train point, humans have operated fully automatic rail systems for nearly fifty years (the London Underground Victoria Line opened in 1968; BART in San Francisco is similarly automated and open in 1972). The first unattended train to my knowledge, the Vancouver SkyTrain, didn't open til 1985, or 17 years later.

My interpretation: it took a while—17 years—for people to warm up to driverless trains on fixed routes with no at-grade intersections.

<comment><USER57> Who is the person who sits at the front of the BART train? That isn't the operator?

<comment><USER58> It is. What they spend most of their time operating are the doors, though.

<comment><USER59> Although it wasn't that long ago when BART workers went on strike, replacement workers (former BART operators) stepped in to operate the trains, and then promptly ran over and killed two workers performing track maintenance.

<comment><USER58> It also didn't really have anything to do with the train operators.

[http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to- NTSB-R...](http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to-NTSB-Report- on-Accident-That-Killed-2-Workers-299797051.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A Stripe Atlas Alternative – Blook - <AUTHOR> https://blook.io/stripe-atlas-alternative <comment><AUTHOR> Hi Everyone!

I founded Blook after working with a few other indiehackers and tech entrepreneurs :) (Shout out to indiehackers.com)!

We help global entrepreneurs register their company in the US. In our package we include:

-Company Formation (In multiple states) -1st Year Registered Agent -Operating Agreement / Bylaws Template -US Federal EIN -US Business bank account -Lifetime customer service and chat support :)

</comment><comment><USER2> To gain legitimacy, need to properly identify the organization, structure, principals and legal domicile

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks nice, I'll keep it in mind!</comment>


One hedge fund's plan to fix Yahoo: Fire 9,000 – and Marissa Mayer too - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/14/technology/yahoo-shareholder-mayer/index.html <comment><USER2> When the CEO of a billion dollar company was appointed for publicity reasons, a home-run to the bottom is not a stretch.

Lack of focus is ultimately going to render yahoo's demise. Their cluttered homepage tells it all.

</comment><comment><USER3> _" \- End employee perks, such as free food, which cost the company $450 million over the past four years."_

...thus driving off the remaining talent.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best one line definition of a start-up ? - <AUTHOR>

The word start-up seems to be pretty loosely defined, it would be nice if we could settle on what is a start-up and what is not.<p>What is the very best one sentence (preferably a short sentence) that according to you defines the word start-up ? <comment><AUTHOR> To me a start-up is a company that has achieved a small fraction of its potential, where the owners know all employees by name, and communicate with them directly.

</comment><comment><USER2> provide something innovative that people want and are willing to pay for

</comment><comment><USER3> idea & hard_work => success | failure

</comment><comment><USER4> getting high with code to earn some money.</comment>


Political Bias Is Destroying Peoples Faith in Journalism - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/02/26/political-bias-is-destroying-peoples-faith-in-journalism/ <comment><USER2> It's not political bias. People's faith in journalism is being destroyed by the journalists themselves.

[https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage- live-s...](https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/media/abc-news-stage-live- shot/index.html)

ABC faking a crime scene.

[https://i.imgur.com/QDU9OGE.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QDU9OGE.jpg)

Anderson Cooper faking a scene.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- politics/wp/2016/04...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be- president/?utm_term=.168f32c16721)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact- checker/wp/2016/04/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact- checker/wp/2016/04/07/sanderss-incorrect-claim-that-clinton-called-him-not- qualified-for-the-presidency/)

Which is it Washington Post? One of these articles is FALSE.

We are losing faith in journalism because the journalists are WRONG.

<comment><USER3> In regards to the Anderson Cooper thing: [https://www.snopes.com/fact- check/anderson-cooper-hurricane/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anderson- cooper-hurricane/).

He also did an on-air segment with the full footage: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2018/09/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning- mix/wp/2018/09/18/anderson-cooper-accuses-donald-trump-jr-of-tweeting-lies- with-old-hurricane-photo/).

Not to say that CNN is not often wrong, but this is a meme that isn't true.

<comment><USER4> You need to realize that snopes is a propaganda site that lies all the time. They are very liberal and don't believe in the truth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> [https://vimeo.com/34419805](https://vimeo.com/34419805)

The massive corporate centralization of all media channels is the primary source of distrust in journalism now. It seeks profit by whatever controversy, fake news, or distraction that will sell ads, regardless of traditional value.

Being a staunch environmentalist I obviously loathe most Republicans and hate centrist-dominated Democrats almost as much.

But it is clear to me that the partisanship of the country is due to a flood of media desperate for clicks, overwhelming people who have not or cannot adapt to the propaganda firehose.

Here's a fun little experiment: where can you tune in on TV for balanced opinions on issues that will actually account for more that a single viewpoints, coming out of the same mouth? You know, things like "caveats" or saying "granted" about some aspect of the opposing side?

Moderation doesn't fuel emotions, and emotions and radicalization are what gets you constant viewership.

Like all other industries in America, the conglomerates need to be split up.

<comment><USER6> I like how they try to blame subversion and propaganda on the "current divide" in politics.

Most people know good and well whats happening, its more the intellectuals who are making out well in this current environment who are doing (in good faith) the mental gymnastics to put the fault of the american media's decline on some abstract idea as if tree's didn't bear fruit.

[https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals- propaganda-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda- ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how much of it is really bias or people perceiving bias. I know people who think that if they read something negative about a political figure they like then the person and publication who wrote it are automatically biased in favor of the other side.

It also seems like it might be hard to write about certain political stories without being accused of bias. Is it possible to write anything about the shutdown and border wall fiasco that doesn't paint he President and GOP in a bad light? Wont many people incorrectly perceive that as biased reporting?

I don't mean to imply that there isn't actual bias but it just seems like a strange thing to bring up at a time when certain political figures are acting in such extreme ways. Simply reporting on those actions and their consequences if often going to be very negative.

<comment><USER8> Here in case you didn't read:

> It is not hard to find examples of how far we have strayed from reporting > standards in the Trump era. A simple example is Time Magazine falsely > reporting on President Donald J. Trump's first day in office, stating that > he'd removed a statue of Martin Luther King from the Oval Office. The news > went viral. But the writer did not follow the most basic rule of journalism > — pick up the phone and ask the White House if it was really gone, and why? > The writer late wrote a correction on his Twitter account, stating "The MLK > bust is still in the Oval Office. It was obscured by an agent and door."

There are numerous examples. Most recently the entire media running with a Buzzfeed story to the tune of "Trump is finished" that Mueller himself disputed, or the stuff about the MAGA hat kids that allegedly surrounded and mocked a Native American peace activist (turns out he had muscled his way into their gathering and was physically intimidating them, but the press ran with a selectively edited video and didn't bother corroborating it). This is stuff that gets widespread coverage before any journalist bothers with due diligence.

I think it's a shame because a free press is one of the only ways to keep the government in check but they are shredding their own credibility, apparently because of personal biases (but who really knows), and the result of that is a government that can rightfully dismiss a lot of what gets reported. How do you recover after "crying wolf" too many times?

<comment><USER9> That's part of it but I think it goes much deeper than just recent examples like the Covington kids. I can't stand most of cable news because any topic that I know anything about, political or not, I know I'm being lied to through omission of key facts. CNN/MSNBC are especially unwatchable because, like clockwork and for many years now, they bring on several "experts" that magically always champion Democrat's causes but will only bring on few or very weak proponents of any other opposing view. Many media outlets will continually bring out their best champions for something to go up against the absolute worst proponent the other side has to offer. To people who only watch CNN/MSNBC, it will look like Macho Man Randy Savage is constantly beating down Spongebob but that's simply the purposeful illusion they carefully cultivate.

There is also a tendril that reaches into Academia. Free speech on most campuses is dead. The left has seen to that. Kids are being militantly trained to shut down speakers with whom they disagree, simply because they disagree. This empowers the rest of politics because these kids will never let fairness and unbiased reporting happen and the more prestigious the school this happens at, the more likely these students will affect the media in their lifetimes.

<comment><USER8> > these kids will never let fairness and unbiased reporting happen and the > more prestigious the school this happens at, the more likely these students > will affect the media in their lifetimes

You're not wrong, but I see that as self-correcting. If the media continues to undermine their credibility, then independent journalism will continue to rise. We're already seeing YouTube creators with bigger followings than any of the traditional media channels. This is a double-edged sword because a lot of these channels don't have the same level of journalistic training that traditional media champions, but training is also a moot point when the traditional actors have abandoned their best practices to chase sensational headlines.

We are rapidly approaching a place where people can choose whatever facts they want to believe because everything is questionable. That is more dangerous to democracy than the so-called fascist president the media is railing against.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recently watched the "Hulk Hogan / Gawker" Netflix documentary, "Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press." It was only about the Hulk Hogan / Gawker trial at the beginning, and then it turned into a full-on propaganda piece about how journalism is good and orange man bad. Maybe I am too dumb to have understood, but my takeaway was the morals of the story were basically: (1) it's bad that rich people can influence journalism and that needs to stop and (2) people need to start believing in journalists again because journalists are fundamental to democracy and actually they're very good etc.

I agree with #1 to some extent, but they came up with the dumbest possible example in pointing out that the lawsuit was funded by Peter Thiel. I'm pretty sure there's a concept on the "left" that says it's not your right to "out" a person's sexuality. Gawker violated that. Not that I (or even the law) care one way or another, and not that this was the focus of the trial (it wasn't), but I get why Thiel was livid with them. Thiel (secretly) funded a lawsuit against Gawker for _posting a sex tape of Hulk Hogan_. I'm not even sure what mental backflips you have to do to presume that this was newsworthy or okay. They tried to explain it to us, and the best they got was the meta-point that Thiel funded the lawsuit. Nothing worthy of note about why they had a right (via Freedom of the Press) to make a sex tape public against the wishes of one of the participants. Maybe if it was a sex tape surrounding the impeachment of a current president, I'd understand.

And somehow, I'm supposed to believe that this means there's a slippery slope now, where journalists can no longer freely state the news, for fear of being sued. As if this case weren't limited to the example of, _maybe don 't post a sex tape of some D-list celebrity as news_.

All that said, and per the article here, I am unhappy with "journalists" as a group, specifically with their sanctimonious claims that they're protecting democracy. And the conclusion of this idea, when you take it to the end, is that people simply _need to believe them on moral principle_ , non-believers are against democracy.

They're the victims here, the perpetrators are all the people who don't believe their stories any more--as if there was nothing they did to put themselves in this place.

<comment><USER11> > (1) it's bad that rich people can influence journalism and that needs to > stop

But when ~6 companies own 90% of US media, that doesn't count as influence.

The best part is, they don't even have to lie. They can shape public opinion just by selecting which stories get covered, or get more prominence, without giving you a smoking gun false-story you can point at to prove their bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's hard to take this article seriously coming from the New York Post [1], which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of dozens of politically biased news organizations and Fox News, a propaganda outlet made expressly to protect the Republican party from another loss like the Nixon impeachment.

[1] [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york- post/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/)

<comment><USER13> It's hard to take a criticism of an article seriously if it only involves an ad hominem absent any critique of the actual content of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't even bother clicking on most news links anymore. I follow a Reuters RSS feed for business and market news and a few NPR feeds for general news. Over the past couple or years I've lost a lot of faith in most of the major news outlets. Some are little more than propaganda, and the ones that manage to remain factually correct most of the time have their reporting clouded by bias.

</comment><comment><USER15> She's saying journalists are becoming activists rather than seekers of facts and corroborating evidence. Today they will cherrypick data and facts to advocate for one side or the other, but because roughly 7 out of 10 journalists are registered Democrats this attitude will favor Democrat/liberal narratives over Repub/Conservative narratives.

One of most hilarious things happening, as others point out is the "fact checks" which should be called "gotcha on technicalities". No, it wasn't 200,000 gallons, it was 189,480 gallons, liar! No, unemployment isn't down to 4.2%, it's actually expected to be down to 3.9%, you are so wrong!

</comment><comment><USER16> I agree. News is supposed to be presented in an unbiased way, but virtually every source now heavily injects some spin with each article.

It's a shame, really. But I'm very glad Lara Logan is speaking out. It will cost her, but by raising awareness of the issue maybe things can start to improve.

</comment><comment><USER2> It's not political bias. People's faith in journalism is being destroyed by the journalists themselves.

<comment><USER17> I'm curious, what's wrong with the two CNN articles? One is written 2015 and the other 2019 by two different persons and one seems to be a doctor?

<comment><USER2> There's tons of bullshit from the media: [https://i.imgur.com/QDU9OGE.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QDU9OGE.jpg)

<comment><USER17> And you don't think it's legitimate to write those two pieces, although there are 4 years between them, two different cases, and two different persons that wrote them? I think for this particularly case, you can't say it's wrong. It's two different pieces telling two different stories by two completely different persons with four years apart. Much can happen in four years. I'm mostly impressed that you picked them up, with them written so far apart.

<comment><USER18> Considering all of his examples were top boogeymen of the alt right, I'd be surprised if there was any deeper reasoning behind it than parroting talking points.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've weaned myself almost entirely off of sensationalized news, especially social feeds. I try to eliminate any "colorful" (read: opinionated) news sources, be they progressive or conservative. I will only consciously consume objective reporting, from outlets which I respect for neutrality.

Reuters, for example, still does a great job at focusing only on the facts, without attempting to interpret or inject personal opinions. They hold their journalists to a very high degree of journalistic integrity, and it really shows.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the issue is instead the rush to publish. With the internet you have to put something out on a story almost immediately 24/7\. Even basic fact checking is a huge time drag when you have less than hours in which to get something out.

Political Bias is in my mind largely a side effect: politically charged stories get lots of eyes and getting to them late means missing out on the inevitable flutter of angry and indignant retweets about the story. So loads of political stories get rushed, which means we see a lot of slanted ones (because more are written), and because they were rushed they are missing facts or have incorrect facts.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yellow journalism is not just a thing of the past. A free press is important, that doesn't mean all press is high-quality or well-intentioned.

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

</comment><comment><USER22> This thread consists of conservatives whining about CNN and others, vs others taking shots at the post and the author of the article.

So yeah, bias. I'm not at all convinced this is a "both sides" issue. You can find errors in coverage and examples of bias, but the scale of the Murdoch/Mercer news empires really has no match from the center. The actual left wing is pretty well unrepresented.

The big problem I have is their obsession with ridiculous fact checking now. Not checking how many bodies are actually in the morgue, or whether or not a statue was removed. I mean the bullshit pedantry. Donald Trump says in the state of the union that the US has been at war in the middle east for almost 19 years. The NYT "fact checks" that as "actually it's only been almost 18 years". What does that accomplish? Is anyone more informed? Is there any story there? Is there any commentary on the state of the union, or just a summary? Does it matter at all? Is their fact check even accurate?

My problem with it is that this has replaced any sort of quality journalism with just a mass of worthless fact checks and the important stuff gets buried.

<comment><USER23> There's huge bias on both sides, especially to the extremes.

There are very few moderate left or moderate right news outlets, perhaps because moderate news isn't as prone to the virality of the far left/far right viewpoints.

"Fact checking" largely seems to be an attempt at appeasement to the error- rate of instant news.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Deterministic Style Sheets - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/giuseppegurgone/status/1017787578194583552 <comment><USER2> What does deterministic style sheet mean?

Can you show a side by side example showing the difference between plain old CSS Style Sheets and deterministic Style Sheets

<comment><AUTHOR> deterministic as that when you apply class names to your templates you get deterministic resolution eg:

class="red green" makes your element green class="green red" makes your element red

i.e. there is no cascade anymore but classes are applied in the order they're used.

DSS is pretty much like CSS, the only constraint is that it must be compilable to atomic CSS classes so there are a few restrictions [https://dss- lang.com/supported-css-features/](https://dss-lang.com/supported-css- features/)

As for an example you can take a look at the source code of the components that make the website: [https://github.com/giuseppeg/dss/tree/master/website/compone...](https://github.com/giuseppeg/dss/tree/master/website/components)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Staffjoy V2 – Text message-based employee scheduling app - <AUTHOR> https://www.staffjoy.com/?v2 <comment><AUTHOR> Today Staffjoy (YC Fellowship 1) is launching a new version of our scheduling application. We started by focusing on bringing big company scheduling technology to small businesses. We found some early success with on-demand startups and call centers. Yet, we had trouble crossing the chasm.

We stepped back earlier this year to focus on why so many businesses still run on pen and paper. We found that offline scheduling was a symptom of deeper communication issues.

Staffjoy V2 is a ground-up rewrite that focuses on sharing work schedules in less time. We do this by sending workers their schedules over text message. When there are changes, we send the latest schedule to affected workers.

We optimized our architecture for messaging, and we plan to expand beyond SMS soon. You can read about it here: [https://blog.staffjoy.com/staffjoys-v2-architecture-9d2fcb40...](https://blog.staffjoy.com/staffjoys-v2-architecture-9d2fcb4015fd)

We chose to focus on text messages after doing extensive user studies in the service industry. We found that many workers lacked email addresses, and operated on prepaid phones. Managers would text them photos of the schedule because it was the best way to reach them. So, we automated this process.

Moving forward, we will focus on improving the core scheduling experience. We plan to use text messages to engage directly with employees and create flexibility. We also plan to integrate scheduling with other business tools. To do that, we plan to announce our first integration partners later this month.

Finally, today we're excited to announce a $1.2M seed round of funding, led by Caffeinated Capital (detailed here: [http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/10/staffjoy- raises-1-2-millio...](http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/10/staffjoy- raises-1-2-million-to-help-small-businesses-manage-workflow-scheduling/) )

If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them!

<comment><USER2> Well done Phillip. I think you should be commended for actually going back and finding the deeper reasons, rather than doing the usual throw more marketing $/hire expensive sales team.

I think it's also great that you're building a product that is aimed at people who aren't quite as 'online' as the usual HN crowd, which make up a quite large %age of the population but are generally totally overlooked.

The only problem with that is it is harder to reach these companies (for the very reason your product is interesting to them). I'm curious on what your marketing strategy would be to those kinds of companies?

<comment><AUTHOR> We actually had some insights about reaching small businesses in our user studies too. Restaurants largely ignore their phone now - orders and reservations are online. They get bombarded with emails, which they ignore. However, they look to peers through google groups and facebook groups for recommendations.

So, we started a content series called Breaktime where we highlight small businesses and the tools that make them succeed. Our goal is that the businesses we feature will share the content with their networks, which is our target market! We're using the articles and episodes to create rich content across our social channels, too, and we plan to feature more Staffjoy customers!

Here's Breaktime: [https://www.staffjoy.com/breaktime/](https://www.staffjoy.com/breaktime/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> As someone who ended up working in a company with "dynamic scheduling" after college, i.e. Walmart and call centers, I have an ethical problem with this product. Many workers at the bottom of the wage scale have a need for multiple jobs just to pay for rent and food. The companies I worked for with dynamic schedules seemed to use the scheduling to force their employees into a sort of indentured servitude by pressing on this need. They would change your schedule every week, and if you didn't say you were available your hours would be cut to nothing which would make putting food on the table literally impossible some weeks.

The only thing that helped alleviate this pressure from the company was arguing that you couldn't have seen a schedule change over the weekend if you had not been originally scheuled to come in that day. All I see this tool doing is helping managers force schedule changes ay any moment and forcing employees into an even worse situation.

Nothing against the founders for their hard work, but this is the sort of business I couldn't ethically invest in even if it gave me a guaranteed large return

<comment><AUTHOR> This V2 product is not dynamic algorithmic scheduling. Managers manually schedule, just like they would on paper. The focus is more on clear communication to the employees. In the future, we want to focus on data integrations (e.g. surfacing vacation days from other apps) and shift swaps (which largely benefit workers).

<comment><USER3> My point is that managers are already manually scheduling employees on a way that hurts the employee but benefits the company. The inability to guaruntee that scheduling updates were seen by the employee was the only thing I saw that kept people from being put to 0 hours or getting fired.

I witnessed multiple events where someone had acknowledged a schedule change with a manage with a <1 week notice and had to refuse it. Every single time that happened, that person suddenly had 0-4 hours of work each following week.

I don't see this product doing anything but forcing employees into even tighter servitude for the worst paying employers with how the current situation is in America. If there were greater workplace protections for employees concerning schedule changes I would not have such an issue with this product

<comment><AUTHOR> We're seeing the market care more about responsible scheduling now. The delayed Obamacare rules means that many more workers are eligible for overtime. We've seen many workers happy about this, and we're seeing more businesses take ownership of scheduling.

If nothing else, Staffjoy maintains strict audit logs and could eventually help companies evaluate managers (average lead time per schedule, etc).

<comment><USER3> I might be talking from a position of ignorance then as I haven't worked these jobs in about 5 years, but how are the Obamacare rules making companies care? My experience was that any benefit got tied to n hours of work per week, employees were scheduled to n-1 hours.

This was held to so strictly across multiple companies that at one point I was told to work 2 hours overtime on a Thursday. The next Friday, the last day of the week for the business, I had the owner show up from their home in another state to take over from me exactly 2 hours before my shift was scheduled to end and I was sent home.

If you're targeting mid tier and above businesses where someone can live off the salary of that one job, I could see them using this for a great benefit for both employee and the employer.Unfortunately I can't see any way that an employer paying minimum wage wouldn't use this to control their employees even more strictly than before

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I worked with a competitor in the text-message-based scheduling space a little over a year ago. They skipped out on the bill, claiming that they "didn't reap the value" that I invoiced them for. A lengthy legal dispute later, and we recovered a fractional percentage of the amount owed, after determining it to not be worthwhile to go after the entire amount.

I worked with the competitor because I felt that this is a space ripe for innovation, and that it's been a long time coming. I am incredibly happy that someone is bringing the vision of my former client to life.

</comment><comment><USER5> This looks like a great idea. There were a few times I got in trouble at work in high school because I didn't see updates my boss had made after I checked the schedule. This would avoid any of the he said/she said BS.

Can this be used for covering shifts. When I worked in a job like this, we were allowed to get shifts covered, as long as we found someone to cover it. It would be neat if this service could be used to text everyone that is eligible to cover a shift for the opportunity for extra time.

"Your coworker is looking for someone to cover their front desk shift, Fri 12/9 from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Would you like to cover it?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! When we built our V1, we started to investigate building in shift swaps. However, when we started doing the user studies, we had an "oh crap" moment when we realized that so few of our users had smart phones or even email addresses. P2P swaps wouldn't work with such low engagement.

We realized that we had to fix a communication problem before we could build swaps. So, we went back to the drawing board and released V2!

You're spot on with your message - now that we have higher engagement with the workforce, we hope to build in that feature :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It would be nice if you could post incoming jobs to the API, and any staff members currently available could accept/decline the jobs (like uber does). Currently it seems like it only handles scheduling availability, not job assignment.

I'm currently building a similar product for a client who manages staff across the country. He gets job leads, then the program needs to (1) identify who is available during the requested time slot, and (2) assign the job to one of the available staff members by texting them sequentially with a timeout asking if they would like to accept/decline the job.

It seems that staffjoy v2 solves (1) and does a good job of keeping track of an availability calendar. I would love to use it for that instead of reinventing the wheel. However, without (2) job assignment, it's a non- starter.

Possibly I could use staffjoy for maintaining the central availability calendar, and then build out the job assignment functionality on top of that. But that causes some usability problems for the staff member who now has two numbers to text.

So, from this, two feature suggestions:

(1) Job assignment functionality (complex, logistics vary by use case)

(2) Ability to send arbitrary messages from the phone number to the user

It seems that (2) would be a simple feature to add and could make integrating staffjoy much easier, because I could fill in the gaps for any missing functionality by building on top of the messaging layer.

Right now, this product is about 50% of what I need, but there's no easy way for me to add the additional 50%.

If you want to talk about this you can email me at email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER7> i mean do employees really want to deal with work stuff via text message too? We have email, calendars, various video and chat messaging apps, old fashion face-to-face communication, etc.

I'm pretty sure employees want to feel less on call, not to mention keep their one last silo of personal communication free from yet another greedy overlord.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our goal is to create flexibility for workers. We looked at why so many companies still used pen and paper scheduling, and built a product for that market.

We found in user tests that many employees don't have email, and even run on prepaid phones. So, every Sunday they drive to each of their jobs (sometimes two or more) to find out when they are working. Alternatively, their manager (or a coworker) takes a photo of the schedule and texts it to them.

That's the person we built this V2 for. We're saving them time compared to traveling to work to see a printed schedule.

We want to further increase flexibility with tools like shift swapping. However, like I detailed in our other comment, using methods like email didn't have high enough engagement to give workers access to the feature. So, we built Staffjoy V2 with the idea of increasing engagement so that we could build more worker-friendly tools.

Finally, the workers can turn it off if they want.

<comment><USER8> When I did part time shift work, I always checked my schedule when I was at work... but that may not work too well if you only work at a job occasionally, or if your boss is too incompetent to make the schedule in advance.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's tougher for employees who work multiple part-time jobs. They're in the business less frequently, and they can't keep up with changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm not familiar with this, but how is this better than just using calendar invites and an intranet? (Can't access the link currently, pardon me if this is addressed on the website)

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Workers on prepaid cell phones don't have access to a calendar. (Many don't even have email addresses.)

2) When workers are onboarded via text message, we send them an ical links so they can add the schedule to their phone calendar directly!

3) Calendar invites don't scale well beyond 5 employees. We've seen it in user studies. It's ugly and hard to use.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who's having account issues with Coinbase? - <AUTHOR> I made the mistake of purchasing bitcoins on Coinbase (DO NOT USE COINBASE). Until then nothing wrong besides some ridiculous fees. They recently put a restriction on my account for no reason and I can't BUY/SELL anything until they investigate what happened. They can't give me a reason why nor a timeline. They're obviously experiencing a large amount of transactions since bitcoin went viral in the news after thanksgiving, but meanwhile, I'm left with my money/BTC stuck on coinbase and I'm not able to do anything about it. I kinda feel dumb for using this platform.<p>Who's having the same kind of problems? <comment><USER2> I've been super happy with Coinbase ever since until about a few days ago, when the service got pretty unstable. Clearly quite some scalability issues.</comment>


UK cops say visiting the dark web is a potential sign of terrorism - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pay4gz/uk-cops-say-visiting-the-dark-web-is-a-potential-sign-of-terrorism <comment><USER2> For those making snarky comparisons to "eating food" or "waking up in the morning"...

If I had a group of people, and wanted to find out the terrorist, which would be a more useful metric for raising my probability of discovering them?

      1. The person eats food
      2. The person wakes up in the morning
      3. The person uses the dark web

It doesn't mean everyone using the dark web is a terrorist -- but no one said that. It means that it's a useful metric when trying to spot terrorists.

Pair it with other useful metrics and you have a good algorithm for who to keep an eye on.

</comment><comment><USER3> something about the phrase "visiting the dark web" just makes me laugh; it sounds so nonchalant.

anyway, vice doesn't do journalism.

<comment><USER4> > vice doesn't do journalism

Really? I like vice and certainly enjoy their brand of coverage vs other offerings. Why do you say they "aren't journalists"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 100% of all terrorists consumed food within 72 hours of their attack/attempted attack. We need to stop being so gutless and just ban food altogether.

</comment><comment><USER5> With this line of thinking i guess so is waking up in the morning?

<comment><USER6> Be careful when you buy that book about buildings, criminals live in buildings!!

Sounds about the right level of logic for upper echelons of UK police, who also for the most part still live in the 17th century...

I wouldn't be surprised if they thought online piracy was kids building ships in Minecraft...

<comment><USER7> UK managed to break Enigma Machine in WWII, and discover public-key cryptography way before it was public.

Safe to assume that they know way more things.. about things... than you or I do.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Portrit.com - My Visual Facebook Experience - <AUTHOR>

It's been four months of hacking and now I am ready to show the world Portrit. Portrit brings you your Facebook friends in visual experience.
Portrit is all about your friends photos and making the Facebook experience cleaner, quicker, and more fun.
Create a account at http://portrit.com/create_account/ Use the key HN. Limited supply!
I started working on Portrit because Facebook's photo service is junk and I wanted something better. Originally this was a personal side project but it has grown into my first startup! This is just a limited preview launch with official public beta coming soon.
If you don't have a Facebook account or just don't trust me with you data :), check out this blog post showing all the functionality of Portrit. http://blog.portrit.com/what-is-portrit <comment><USER2> Suggestion, repost as a post with a link, then add your blurb of text in the first comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a bunch, will do.

<comment><USER2> Good luck! the screenshots look nice!</comment></comment></comment>


Led Zeppelin did not steal 'Stairway' riff, jurors say - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-ledzeppelin-idUSKCN0Z914Z <comment><USER2> Discussions of this sort are always seem to lack nuance. There are countless dimensions to music, including things like rhythm, tempo, time signature, pitch, melody, harmony, instrumentation, timbre, sound design, and production. Any of these traits could be copied, but people only seem to complain with melody. Also, for each of these dimensions, something could be copied at differing degrees of fidelity, from an exact copy, to slight modifications, to just hints of the original. And in fact, that's true of every piece of music in existence - at least one of these dimensions has been copied to some degree from a pre-existing song. With our recent omnipotent control of sound through digital techniques, music can and does cross the spectrum across pretty much every dimension possible, and thus drawing a line at where something is "copied" is pretty damn arbitrary.

<comment><USER3> This guy does a great job going through similarities and differences (without commentary on the plagiarism):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCEg9gMJakU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCEg9gMJakU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> NPR did an interesting story on this and the effect it'd have on future music cases.[1]

What could really be argued (if they were found guilty) was that you can sue people for infringing on the "feel" of your song. That's a real scary future when so many songs "feel" similarly!

One could imagine how it'd put even more power in the hands of the big labels to sue smaller upcoming artists for stealing their sound. Happy this went the other way!

[1] [http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/04/22/stairway-to- heaven...](http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/04/22/stairway-to-heaven-song- lawsuit)

<comment><USER5> > infringing on the "feel" of your song

(Popular) Country music would cease to exist.

"Truck ... girl ... warm beer ... boots ... mud ... tractor" (computer-altered guitar riff)

<comment><USER6> As a long time country music fan, I find this current generation of "bro- country" to be grating at best and downright insulting and degrading at worst. But I can't tell if it's just because I'm older or the music is legitimately simplistic and terrible.

<comment><USER7> It's probably a bit of both, but definitely the latter is true. I'm only 23 and I greatly miss good old country music like that of Johnny Cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not going to comment on this case directly, but there is no doubt that Led Zep borrowed heavily from other artists/songs in many of their songs; arguably a lot more than most bands of their stature.

Yes, there are influences and its sometimes difficult to say who copied what or what came first. But in their case, its happened again and again and again.

Case in point: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye2N_2ce3QE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye2N_2ce3QE). There many more examples from Led Zeps music like this.

Massive Led Zep fan here, btw.

<comment><USER7> The truth is that musicians have been doing this for centuries. It used to be seen as a complement. There are a tremendous number of dimensions which can be copied/have influenced derived from them in any piece of music, and honestly the world benefits from this proliferation of musical ideas. If the artist had made something as good as what Led Zeppelin did, they would have profited from it, even if Led Zeppelin was able to profit from it as well. Intellectual Property rights in music hardly makes any more sense than Intellectual Property rights in software (and I think neither make sense).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not surprising, since Randy Wolfe apparently thought it was different enough and the suit only went forward after he passed away.

<comment><USER10> I always figured Davey Graham is the one that should have complained about Jimmy Page. See here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWeejHJxGjs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWeejHJxGjs) at around 20 seconds. That riff is a straight copy. But even that is probably not a reasonable basis for a copyright suit.

<comment><USER3> I don't know what you are listening to, but even the riff is not the same. It takes more than three notes to be a plagiarism.

<comment><USER11> They're listening to the intro, which has a lot more similarity to the intro of Stairway than three notes. I've no idea if Jimmy Page plagiarised it or even heard it, but it is very similar. Same key, same arpeggiated chords, very similar bit where it transitions from the arpeggios to strummed chords.

If I heard that intro and didn't know about Davy Graham I'd think someone was doing a jazzed-up version of Stairway.

<comment><USER3> Relevant Stairway: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPvNqOb6RA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pPvNqOb6RA)

Relevant Taurus: [https://youtu.be/xd8AVbwB_6E?t=44s](https://youtu.be/xd8AVbwB_6E?t=44s)

If you listen to taurus not having heard stairway recently it might be vaguely reminiscent. If you hear them side by side it is obvious they are different, which the jury could easily hear.

<comment><USER11> Weren't we talking about Davey Graham?

<comment><USER3> I'm a dumbass. I really didn't know what he was listening to -- I had just gotten through listening to the songs in the lawsuit. However, the same applies to Davey Graham. I don't hear anything in the posted video that is even three notes close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The chromatic descending bass starting on the tonic of a minor chord is a cliche that appears all over the place, and is a staple in the blues.

Triumph: "Young enough to Cry": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em8OqpGjUPI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em8OqpGjUPI)

George Harrison: "Something": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9lgfa0Nh3c&t=26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9lgfa0Nh3c&t=26) (0:26)

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

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

</comment><comment><USER13> "The jury was not legally allowed to hear the original recordings of "Stairway to Heaven" and "Taurus" in determining their verdict."

<comment><USER14> This is good. I don't think a jury could accurately identify that one song is "copied" from another just through hearing the songs. They could only identify similarity and then confuse themselves conflating similarity with copying.

There are other means to demonstrate copying that are less prone to errors in human pattern-detection.

<comment><USER11> How do you mean? If I write a song that happens to have the same words, melody and chords as All About That Bass, should it be assumed I wrote it myself unless somebody catches me red-handed transcribing the original?

<comment><USER15> During the trial, they _did_ bring in a pianist (defense) and guitarist (plaintiff) to compare and contrast the two songs. With a test like that, if you copied lyrics, melody, and chord progressions from another song, it'd become obvious.

<comment><USER11> That test only works because it conflates similarity with copying.

<comment><USER15> 50% similarity: likely not copying. 90% similarity would be much more arguable, and you'd have to rely on other evidence to make a decision. With 100% similarity (as in the scenario you originally outlined), it's extraordinarily unlikely that you _didn 't_ copy the original song.

Even if % similarity and % copied don't have a direct mapping, there's going to be a correlation between them. It's the correlation that's important, not some mistaken idea that "similar = copied".

<comment><USER11> You and I seem to agree that at some point similarity is good evidence of copying.

I was just interested to know what the "other means to demonstrate copying that are less prone to errors in human pattern-detection" are, that were proposed as an alternative above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _Page and Plant, who have attended court ..._

Aha! This was nothing but a ploy to goad a Zep reunion.

</comment><comment><USER16> Forty three years after Stairway and they can still sue over it? I am so glad that LZ won but still this is just annoying. I can see a suit over copyright infringement being filed if someone copied the Taurus rift today and made real money, but to be able to sue over events forty plus years ago? Simply because the target has money?

<comment><USER17> It's because the guy died, the people managing the estate are the ones going after LZ now.

<comment><USER18> And now one wonders who gets to sue the lawyers for bringing this stupid lawsuit in the first place. Pretty much every IP lawyer I've talked to thought the case had no merit, so at the end of the day the estate is that much poorer after paying this legal firm to pursue a case that was (in the folks I've polled) unwinnable. Seems like a case of the law firm trying to get more money out of the estate and denying it to the heirs.

<comment><USER19> Presumably the heirs brought the case, so it's only fitting that it should come out of their pockets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This thing talks about Led Zep (~1m35s) among other things and is great: [https://vimeo.com/14912890](https://vimeo.com/14912890)

All the Everything is a Remix stuff is great, if you've not seen it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Another article at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11963695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11963695).

</comment><comment><USER19> Good. I'm listening to the "Spirit" on Youtube right now, and "Stairway" is similar in the sense that it has some of the same chords in a progression (which happens all the time because there are only so many ways to pleasingly combine chords), and the notes are arpeggiated.

They're alike enough that you could probably make a mashup with just those few chords and it'd sound nice, but the entire rest of the songs are utterly different.

<comment><USER21> > They're alike enough that you could probably make a mashup with just those > few chords and it'd sound nice, but the entire rest of the songs are utterly > different.

To amplify your point:

You can mash up "Hot In Here" by Nelly and "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees and _that_ sounds good. (In that: Even if it isn't your taste in music, it works in some objective sense. It sounds like what that kind of music is supposed to sound like. Can you tell I don't know anything about music theory?)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekwod6Py1RI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekwod6Py1RI)

Anyway, my point is that on a basic, mechanical level, all music is derivative. That's part of what a 'genre' is. That's part of what a 'musical tradition' is, why Mozart sounds different from Chinese Opera.

Infringement has to be based on something more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why didn't the statute of limitations on civil copyright infringement apply here? It seems like the law says you have three years after discovering infringement to sue.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/507](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/507)

<comment><USER11> The claim is for future infringement, not past infringement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> They said the lawsuit was for $500 MM!

<comment><USER11> According to Wikipedia the song's _past_ royalties are estimated at over $550 million in total, but the lawsuit was for a share of _future_ profits.</comment></comment>


We know a lot less than we think about the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/06/we-know-lot-less-we-think-about-world-which-explains-allure-simplism <comment> radford-neal The examples like zippers and pianos are rather different from the social/political examples that are his real target.

The difference is that the complexity of a piano is an inevitable feature of it (at least until someone invents a simpler version). But it is far from obvious that the complexity of the tax code, or the EU, or how schools are funded is functional.

These political systems may be complex precisely in order to confuse the voters, in which case it is quite rational for the voters to try to push for simplicity - for example, avoiding the complexity of the EU by simply leaving it.

</comment><comment><USER2> _It is not a coincidence that politicians have developed this ardently simplist sensibility at a time when complexity is growing. Voters are simplists too._

The article is jarring, as it seemingly describes the Dunning-Kruger Effect interspersed with other related cognitive biases, which are generally applicable to the society as a whole; which then is contrasted with the mile- wide-inch-deep philosophy of politicians, to segue into the hook of 'Simplism'. The vague 'elephant in the room, suggests that there will be more bull in the shop' type of writing is devoid of any incisive views. There is no identification of the group that are most accused of being simpletons, nor is there any _real_ explanation of how/why they came into existence. Whilst politicians are dismissed by the virtue of having mysteriously acquired a new skill-set, even though it is their trade-craft to deliver platitudes, repeat meaningless slogans, spout ambiguous words, peddle fallacies, twist statistics, promise bottled unicorn farts etc.</comment>


Ask HN: How many side projects did you work on this year? - <AUTHOR>

I personally worked on five.
iOS Game - Harvey Vs TheBadBits: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/harvey-versus-thebadbits/id477710593?ls=1&mt=8%20%20
Sinatra App - eight - twitter magic 8 ball - eightapp.safetyscissors.co
Ruby Gem - Cloak: encrypted password storage - http://rubygems.org/gems/cloak
Rails app - Styylt: Style sharing app (Still working on it) - http://styy.lt
iOS Utility - StatusPad (Still working on it, well just waiting for iTunesConnect to come back) - News, Twitter, Schedule and Weather feed for the iPad.
What did you folks work on? <comment><USER2> ObjectAL - iOS audio library that makes audio easy: <https://github.com/kstenerud/ObjectAL-for-iPhone>

IOS Universal Framework - Xcode template that adds iOS static framework support: <https://github.com/kstenerud/iOS-Universal-Framework>

KSJSON - World's fastest JSON library for iOS: <https://github.com/kstenerud/KSJSON>

Objective Gems - Ongoing iOS programmer's toolbox: <https://github.com/kstenerud/Objective-Gems>

And a couple of stealth projects that I'm not ready to reveal yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just one since I was busy with my senior design project for the first half of the year in order to finish college.

Skillow, A pinboard for entrepreneurs: <http://skillow.com>

</comment><comment><USER4> Many that I never made public, but one that survived.

<http://www.dialshield.com/></comment>


The Forgotten Female Programmers Who Created Modern Tech - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/345799830/the-forgotten-female-programmers-who-created-modern-tech <comment><USER3> The piece mentions CHM's Oral History interview with Jean Bartik, which is available here: [http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102658322](http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102658322)

There are a lot of other interesting interviews — [http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/](http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/oralhistories/)

</comment><comment><USER4> My high school CS teacher taught us about Grace Hopper. He had been a nuclear engineer for the Navy in the sixties and seventies if I remember correctly, so he seemed to really enjoy surprising the largely male class (and encouraging the female students to stick around) that a woman had invented Cobol.

I'm pretty sure the first time I heard about Ada Lovelace was from the Boy Scout Computers Merit Badge book when I was 14. Ironic, given that organizations reputation as of late.

I don't really recall any college courses really focusing on the history of technological development unless it was particularly relevant, except maybe grad level courses in which we read historical research papers.

<comment><USER5> To me, the saddest part of this is that there are plenty of high-caliber female computer scientists out there _right now_ \-- Denning, Liskov and Wing, Hamilton (computer science _and_ the Apollo program!), Greif, and many others. On a more prosaic and less-theoretical level, I recall that my copy of _A Quarter-Century of Unix_ showed that women were key developers in many parts of that OS. But, of course, those were more elegant applications for a more civilized age.

<comment><USER4> It's pretty silly that although a common (and fallacious) argument against women as software engineers has something to do with math ability when a casual look at the wikipedia list on Women in computing ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing)) mostly lists women with theory and systems programming, which are arguably a lot more mathy than most work in tech. The ACM even had it's first female president in 1974!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why do Ada Lovelace or Grace Hopper count as forgotten?

<comment><USER7> Doesn't seem that way to me, either. She comes up in any discussion about women and programming (in a historical perspective). She even has a programming language named after her.

Ada Lovelace is the Marie Curie of computer science - the canonical example of a woman scientist that is brought up any time one is talking about women being ignored in CS, which makes the fact that she is so famous kind of ironic.

<comment> mkr-hn I don't know if it counts if they're only wheeled out as token examples when the topic of women in technology comes up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are two questions here: forgotten by whom, and forgotten compared to whom?

I have to say that Ms. Bartik's name rang no bells. But Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper are not at all unknown. Nor are a number of other women in the field, some of whose names are mentioned in other comments.

Next, how would Grace Hopper do on a name recognition quiz versus John Backus, Adriann Van Wijngaarden (whose first name & double-a I had to look up), or John McCarthy? Remember, I'm talking about the general public, not the HN gang. As for Ada Lovelace, she greatly expanded on a description of Babbage's Analytic Engine, and added the algorithm, but how many of us can name the Italian engineer's description that she started from? I sure can't, without looking it up.

</comment><comment><USER9> Walter Isaacson has created a playlist for his book, and has a personal video post on the female programmers here: [http://milq.com/bead/great-digital- innovations?sort=recent](http://milq.com/bead/great-digital- innovations?sort=recent)

The playlist is a collaborative; where Walter asks the community to provide the top digital innovations: "I've just written a book, The Innovators, about how a group of inventors, hackers, geniuses and geeks created the digital revolution. I thought this Bead might be a great way for us to share examples of great innovations around the development of computers and the Internet and the stories behind them."

</comment><comment><USER10> I was taken more by the lack of historical grounding of the students in the story. Then I remembered two things:

1) The journalist probably didn't have dig hard, but could easily have cherry- picked a fun interaction for story color. 2) Most history is taught as iconoclasm until the college level, leaving most college students with just a vauge idea of how events happened and why.

I think it more important to show that women have always been part of computing and that they, traditionally, did not get the desired work. They got the parts the men did not want. The "lack" of women in Computer Science then becomes a challenge: Can you highlight and surpass the work of the un-sung who came before?

</comment><comment><USER11> I knew of Lovelace and Hopper but not the others by name.

I do wonder to what extent this is a socioeconomic class thing.

<comment><USER3> Before that time, 'computing' was considered largely 'women's work', along with other clerical tasks like filing and word processing. I'm fond of this photo of a room full of computers, taken sometime between between 1909 and 1932: [http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/90710989/](http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/90710989/)

<comment><USER12> The "computers" being the people, the machines are computing machines - <USER2> more likely here, merely calculating machines. At least that's the early usage in the UK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd be interested in how many people do not know Ada Lovelace but do know Charles Babbage.

</comment><comment><USER14> Forgotten? This is the fifth time this year alone I am reading about both (Hopper is a bit overrated and part of military propaganda). Besides how could someone who knows about Babbage wouldn't know about Lovelace?

</comment><comment><USER15> _I took a trip to ground zero for today 's computer revolution, Stanford University,_ _and randomly asked over a dozen students if they knew who were the first computer programmers._ _Almost none knew._

I'm simultaneously horrified and amused at myself because, as I was reading along with the article, I thought to myself, "Linda Lovelace!"

<comment><USER16> Not sure if you meant to say Linda, but I make this mistake all the time too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Please never talk about politics, HN.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can we have a publication named "The Forgotten Male Programmers Who Created Modern Tech" now?

<comment><USER19> this is from a newly-created troll account from a dorm in the netherlands. please go back to 4chan.

<comment><USER20> While the GP comment is completely inappropriate, I also think it's inappropriate for you to use your power to dox the trolls. Can't their comment stand on it's own demerits and downvotes?

<comment><USER21> With people like Kathy Sierra pushed off Twitter, Kevin Mitnick threatening the job of a woman who stood up for her... And the high-profile guy who previously attacked Kathy coming out as a Nazi... Such harassers should be dealt with aggressively. (Deleted ASAP would be great.)

<comment><USER6> That's kinda funny of you mentioning the "high-profile guy", because he wrote the following post not long ago, which mentions some lesser known women in tech than this article does:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2hoffe/weev_stop_bash...](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2hoffe/weev_stop_bashing_bash_and_gnu/ckv5rtj?context=3)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: The Tao of tmux, available for free on the web, has been newly edited - <AUTHOR> Hi,
Last year I began a book for learning tmux called The Tao of tmux. It is based off a free resource originally part of the documentation [1] of tmuxp, a tmux session manager [2].
I made it available for free online at https://leanpub.com/the-tao-of-tmux/read.
Since February of this year, I have incorporated suggestions and feedback from readers on quality and completeness of the book. For one, I have passed the book through a professional editor, as well as rounded out chapters with summaries and even added 3 new sections, including:
- Sending keys to tmux, aka `send-keys`
- Copying pane contents to the paste buffer programmatically, aka `capture-pane`
- Building and using tmux-mem-cpu-load [3]
Countless areas of the book have been rewritten for clarity. The process of editing alone fielded over 650 tweaks. New graphics have been added. The configuration chapter has been overhauled, and various new examples of usage for targets (`-t`) [4] and formats (`-F`) [5] have been added.
The book is available for purchase on Leanpub, in DRM-free epub, mobi and pdf format at https://leanpub.com/the-tao-of-tmux.
In addition, the book is available on Amazon Kindle at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MG342KU.
The book will always be available for free on the web.
P.S. If you found this book helpful, please review on Goodreads [6] and Amazon [7].
[1] https://tmuxp.git-pull.com/en/latest/about_tmux.html
[2] https://tmuxp.git-pull.com
[3] https://github.com/thewtex/tmux-mem-cpu-load
[4] http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-5.9/man1/tmux.1#COMMANDS
[5] http://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-5.9/man1/tmux.1#FORMATS
[6] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33246223-the-tao-of-tmux
[7] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MG342KU <comment><USER2> Question: advantages of tmux over gnu screen ?

<comment><USER3> The one real advantage I know of is Tmux is compatible with mosh. I made the switch from screen to tmux and have noticed that there's a more active community.

</comment></comment><comment> nick-ma Great job! Bro.</comment>