Pebble E-Paper Watch Raises $1M In 28 Hours  - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/206626 <comment><USER2> The #1 "low-hanging-fruit" place to find additional revenue is from existing customers - getting people to trust your brand, enter their CC once, etc is much harder than getting them to do it a second time.

Kickstarter feels like a social-network of BUYING enthusiasts - it's a brilliant ecommerce model - get the product nodes to do your marketing for you, then enjoy the network effect of retaining those buyers as your own customers.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the general-case solution to technical failure of a Kickstarter project? For example, what happens if the organizers spend the money they raised to build the product, but it turns out that they underestimated the costs, and now can't deliver what they promised to give you if you pledge $x?

I ask because usually when you buy a product, it's already been made -- if a Kickstarter investment is purely a donation that's one thing, but a lot of Kickstarters seem to be a way of pre-buying something that hasn't actually been implemented yet.

<comment><USER4> I had contributed to a Kickstarter project (a piece of software) that failed to finish. Recently, the author wrote an update offering refunds (plus 5% interest) to all backers.

Personally, I consider all Kickstarter donations to be be just that, even if the reward includes some sort of 'preorder' - although saying that, I would be super disappointed if I invested $100+ in a project that then fell on its face.

I guess that the risk of investment, right?

<comment><USER5> So if this team just decided to run off with the $1.6M right now for essentially writing a page worth of text and making a couple concept videos, would there be any legal recourse for the donors? Not that I have any suspicion at all that that's what this team is doing, but Kickstarter projects in general seem like a relatively easy way for someone to make a good chunk of money for the cost of a couple hours' worth of work.

Is there really nothing more to it - donors just have to cross their fingers that the team is legit and isn't just going to run away with the money?

<comment><USER6> I thought they won't get the money until they finish the product?

<comment><USER4> As I understand it, Kickstarter projects get the money as soon as the 40 day countdown is up, but only if they get 100% funded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Congrats to the Pebble team! It's great to see a hardware / software startup like this one succeed. All the standard criticisms of "hey, they'll knock that off in China tomorrow" don't apply at all as integrated hardware and software isn't as easy as it seems. It's also interesting that a lot of HN users are saying "ah, I don't want another device" while the market is saying that there are a lot of people out there that want a cool iPhone integrated watch.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd love the idea, except that I don't want to recharge my watch like a cell phone. I'm used to my watch lasting years without changing the battery.

But if I can program my own custom watch face with a button that turns off the Bluetooth, thus extending the battery life ...

<comment><USER9> Just plug it in when you take it off at night. That step can't be that inconvenient, can it?

<comment><USER10> Yes it is. If you could put it on an inductive charging pad that would be fine, but I'm not going to fish around for a micro USB plug that probably has fallen behind my nightstand for the 500th time every few days.

<comment><USER11> There has been a big uptick in the last 12 years on rechargeable gadgets. We used to put double AA batteries in everything. The only thing that needed a charger was the gigantic Motorola MicroTAC cell phone. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I count seven of them in my house alone. The only thing I need a battery for is my television remote.

Inductive charging pads are a great idea, but you need a big vendor to make a standard one. Apple is probably the only company with large enough marketshare. If they came up with an inductive charger for their iPhones/iPads, their product would quickly become _the_ standard. Eventually Amazon would install the technology in the Kindle, Android handset makers would do it just to keep in the game. 3rd-Parties would make inductive power stations for cars, bedside tables, dressers, desks, you name it.

And I would buy at least three.

<comment><USER10> I already know where I would instantly put 2 of them and probably a third if this ever came to fruition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As a gadget freak and a hacker, I love this product. But I wonder how many people use a watch these days. Of course this is no ordinary watch, but when you have a supercomputer (in the shape of a phone) in your pocket, is it really needed? I suppose it's great for sports, but I'm not sure whether it has mass market potential (selling ~10K in a few hours is amazing, but isn't mass market yet). I'm actually on the fence with this one...

In general I think that watches will make a comeback only if they _become_ the phone. Maybe Pebble will be well positioned to do that in the future (remember iPod -> iPhone?).

BTW It's nice to see a hardware company coming out of YC. Also nice to know that Eric is from Vancouver. Good luck Pebble! I'll buy one as soon as I stop being a starving bootstrapper.

<comment><USER13> I find the use of cell phones as pocket watches tacky. As a grad student, I've seen many speakers come in and open a cell phone in the middle of a talk to check their time usage, which I find utterly unacceptable.

Depending on your situation, look around a bit and see who's wearing a watch. It may not be the norm anymore, but it's still not an unusual thing to do at all. If nothing else, they are a good fashion accessory.

<comment><USER14> Don't you think 'utterly unacceptable' is a just little harsh, remembering that technology, fashion, and language are not fixed things and are always changing. I think it is quite acceptable that mobile phones have replaced wrist watches. Or maybe we should go back to giving lectures in a top hat and monocle, and checking our time usage with a fob watch? ;)

<comment><USER13> It's not the change in fashion that I'm taking issue with. Standing in front of a group of people with your attention fixed on a communication device is not good presentation. If it were glancing down at a clock sitting on a podium or table, that would be fine. This is not how it happens in practice. The biggest difference between a cell phone and a watch or other timepiece on a surface is that a cell phone requires interaction to extract the time. The extent of that interaction really doesn't matter. It goes from a momentary action of pulling a phone out and pressing a wake button to a nervous speaker confounded by a single button press and a screen too dim to see without making a spectacle of the action. This is the more common of the cell phone users I witness. The trouble is that every minute thing a speaker does is on display and just as a speaker expects (or hopes for) respect from the audience, I as an audience member expect the speaker to be attentive and professional.

So can it be done gracefully without my ire? Probably. I have yet to be pleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER15> I normally wear a watch, but still use my phone's stopwatch to keep time during a talk. I find that looking at a stopwatch during a presentation requires less mental distraction than: (i) keeping track of the time at which my talk started (I am talking about conference talks where the talks usually start a few minutes later than the scheduled time), (ii) looking at the current time and calculating how much time is remaining (it usually takes less than a second, but it is more time consuming that a tap on my phone).

The trick is to disable your phone's auto lock, open the stop watch and run it. That way, you can just tap the screen (I am assuming iphone like smart phone) to see the current time. I think this can be done as discreetly as checking my watch.

The biggest advantage of using a stopwatch is that it provides evidence of how long you have been speaking for. I have had cases where the previous speaker overshot his/her time and a session chair tried to get back on time by cutting time from my talk. In such cases, I have had to point to my stopwatch to say that I still have more than five minutes left. (Usually the talks are twenty minutes, so having five less minutes is a big deal). This (a session chair punishing me for the previous speaker's tardiness) has happened twice to me in the last year.

<comment><USER16> I recently used a pointer/controller with stopwatch that seemed to be this one: [http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-2-4-Cordless-Presenter- Black/...](http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-2-4-Cordless-Presenter- Black/dp/B0007KVK8E)

It was loaned, I had no idea it was so expensive. Good design, though. The stopwatch can be 'pumped up' in 5 minute increments to the time for one's talk. All there, nothing else to fiddle with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Neat toy, but it looks like it needs a phone to use data, install applications and so on. Personally, I'm not the type of person that wants to wear another accessory. I used to need a watch. I don't need a watch that needs a phone. Just saying.

I see this as a sample of what's to come from mobile technology. I prefer that phones evolve instead of adding a new accessory.

<comment><USER18> Sci-fi-like rant below:

I agree in that I also don't need a watch, much less a watch that needs a phone. But I imagine I will wear a watch-like device again in the future. Have you ever heard about the expression "the internet of things"? Well, it is going to happen, but we're not quite there yet [1]. And when it happens, I bet we're going to navigate trough it using watch-like devices at first [2]. It's more natural because the watch in one's wrist is much more accessible and therefore has a much lower latency then the phone in one's pocket.

Today, the precursor of the internet of things is the internet of smartphones. So Pebble uses a watch to navigate the internet of smartphones. When the internet of things finally comes, they'll be in a very nice position with experience and brand recognition.

[1] The signs are here though: arduino, raspberry pi... How long until we have a low power 5 dollars board that we can put anywhere? How about a 1 dollar board?

[2] then we'll use augmented reality glasses and finally we'll just implant chips and be ourselves part of this internet of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> How does this compare to the Sony Ericsson Liveview? Other than this being more expensive and only having a monochrome display?

[http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Ericsson-Liveview-display- Android...](http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Ericsson-Liveview-display- Android/dp/B004E2V4NM)

<comment><USER20> this one has an e-ink display. which is readable outside. also as a result, it has a nice battery life. It also looks NICE.

<comment><USER21> Note that it does not appear to have an e-ink display. They called it e-paper which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

The display appears to be this one: <http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/1-26-inch- memory-lcd.html> or something like it.

It's transflective so you can read it outside, and inside you can use a backlight (which they list on the tech specs). It's very low power, so you can leave it on all the time. Those two things combined are why they call it e-paper.

Personally I think it is a bit confusing on their part, but I understand them wanting to get across that it's always on and visible outside. However, it does get confused with e-ink.

<comment><USER22> Their other watch (inPulse) uses an OLED display that looks similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Very intriguing but I personally can't stand watches that 'get in the way', and looking at the prototype it sure looks like this thing would get in the way a lot.

I haven't worn a watch for years, so this may be just a personal gripe.

<comment><USER24> Some would say the same thing about cars.

Or, laptops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just picked up the TI EZ430 dev kit, and then this hits the web. I tried for days not to back it, and then it hits HN. Oops. There goes the money, and my pride. ;) Hopefully its as awesome as it looks!

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm wondering if their iPhone application needs to remain in foreground/active in order to receive notifications? I doubt it because it would be a quite big shortcoming but on other hand given the state of third-party 'multitasking' on iOS I'm not sure it is technically possible without it. Anybody wants to chime in?

</comment><comment><USER27> $1M/28 hours = $850k/day

$1b/2 years = $1.4m/day

Still less than Instagram.

<comment><USER28> May be.... but most of the money in Instagram went to the VCs; here, all of it is going to the company.

<comment><USER27> Not necessarily most… The two founders owned 50% of the company so at most half.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Interesting. I'd buy a watch with e-ink display, front light on demand, independence of phone for basic functions and at least several weeks battery life.

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder how it compares to Sony's smartwatch:

<http://youtu.be/d7C-XuSEBPA>

<comment><USER31> I've been researching both lately..

The Pebble is an E-ink display so its monochrome but lasts longer ("7+ days") while the Smartwatch is an OLED display which lasts around 5 days according to Sony.

Also, the Pebble uses buttons for navigation while the Smartwatch is "multitouch" (9 points in a 128x128 display).

The biggest difference IMO is that the Pebble supports both iPhone and Android while the Smartwatch only supports Android.

Also the Smartwatch is a bit bulkier and it sticks out more as its really thick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> If I hadn't just got a Nike Fuel band, I'd probably get one of those! Don't think I could pull off wearing both.

</comment><comment><USER30> Do people really care more about a watch that may not even be all that practical, to give it $1 million in 1 day, than an ISP that vows to protect your privacy, or is it just because he didn't use Kickstarter (he couldn't):

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57413511-281/privacy- prote...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57413511-281/privacy-protective- isp-raises-over-$43000-in-donations-in-one-day/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder how many of their Blackberry watch they sold. More than this 10,000 preorders?

</comment><comment><USER34> Inspiring. I wonder how helpful YC was to them for being largely a hardware company. Mass production and distribution must be some of the biggest challenges... maybe they can be the next Apple :)

</comment><comment><USER35> Okay, I hate to be _that_ guy, but I can't hold it in. These Kickstarter campaigns for iPhone accessories bother the shit out of me. See the following:

> iPhone dock: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hop/elevation-dock- > the-b...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hop/elevation-dock-the-best- > dock-for-iphone?ref=most-funded)

> iPod watch: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok- > lunati...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunatik- > multi-touch-watch-kits?ref=most-funded)

> iPod speaker: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2107726947/hidden- > radio-...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2107726947/hidden-radio-and- > bluetooth-speaker?ref=most-funded)

> iPhone tripod: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jj1/cineskates-camera- > sl...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jj1/cineskates-camera- > sliders?ref=category)

All of these projects have received hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Notice a trend here? iProduct + Kickstarter + Aluminum(optional) = $$$. A formula for successful/massive funding. I probably have a naive view of what Kickstarter is supposed to be, but I envision it as a platform for launching innovative ideas. Sure, you can argue that these products are a few steps ahead of the incumbents, but let's be honest - they are virtually useless. They products don't leave the world in a better place. They aren't pushing any bounds. They aren't amazing. And the crazy thing is that I have never seen _any_ of them in the wild, _ever_ , despite being surrounded by tech savvy people, Apple fanboys, and iOS fanatics. What's up with that?

I fear that Kickstarter will become a platform to launch new iPhone accessories. But I guess that's what the world craves.

<comment><USER36> And YouTube is full of cat videos. They're what people want, they're not doing anyone any harm, and they're building scale to support the 1% of truly meaningful content.

In any event, have you seen the state of watches in 2012? Digital watches are basically the same as 20 years ago, and are sufficiently un-useful that most people wear analogue if anything at all. Everyone's carrying around a computer in their pocket/handbag that the watch could piggy-back off, it's time to make use of that.

"these products are a few steps ahead of the incumbents" That's how most progress actually happens. The inventors who are immortalised are usually standing on the shoulders of giants and completing the last mile.</comment></comment>


On the importance of Turing completeness - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2846 <comment><USER2> Turing completeness may not be that important in everyday programming, but it's at the heart of CS just like (to pick a lame example) conservation of energy is at the heart of physics.

What still baffles me about Turing completeness is how ubiquitous it is. Everything from Conway's Game of Life to C++ template specialization to Ruby is Turing complete. Only the latter has been explicitly designed for general computation; for the others, it just "emerged". It's almost as if Turing completeness is an aspect of nature, and it takes work and artificial restraint to design an interesting, powerful mechanism that is __not __Turing complete. I find that fascinating.

<comment><USER3> Yes. How many systems 'jump' to universality when they start getting powerful is one topic of David Deutsch's upcoming book The Beginning of Infinity. (BTW it happens in other fields too, not just computing.)

While waiting for that new book, I recommend reading his previous book The Fabric of Reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a very interesting question.. In our world, it doesn't really have any practical consequences. Making a Turing complete language is trivial, you only need increment/decrement, zero and a jump instruction. These things are available on just about any platform.

Given infinite memory (which in practice means an infinite number of states), any particular Turing machine computation can be performed by a specifically constructed pushdown automation or even a finite-state machine. The distinction between the capabilities of Turing machines and less general machines is in what types of computation _one particular machine description_ can perform. There is a particular Turing machine that can simulate any Turing machine (taking a machine description and input for this machine as input), so obviously any Turing computation can be performed by this particular machine.

It would probably be really difficult to program an FSM or a PDA to perform "general" computations, but it would be an interesting intellectual exercise. Try making a programming language (with LISP macros, maybe?) that will let you easily describe a finite-state machine to solve a particular computational problem. Given an infinite amount of code and memory, you could do everything a Turing machine could do.

It's like the recent discussion around the halting problem: how much of a problem is it really in the practical world? You can always design a mathematical contradiction around the _general_ case, but for any particular problem it is possible to describe a solution that works. The difference is that any practical benefit of using a language that is not Turing complete is hid very well.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how many language designers explicitly thought about the goal of turing completeness or just had it happen as they added high level constructs like functions et al.

Certainly turing completeness does not guarantee a nice language (see brainfuck and friends) and I am sure that there are some non-turing complete DSLs which are very nice to work with. It may just be that when people try to design general purpose languages, they end up with turing completeness.

<comment><USER6> > Certainly turing completeness does not guarantee a nice language

Actually, I would say exactly the opposite. Turing completeness _guarantees_ you the ability to write a Lisp interpreter in that language, and thereby have "a nice language."

<comment><USER7> Turing-completeness doesn't guaranty any sort of I/O, which I would make a requirement of a nice language. I may be able to write a Lisp interpreter using Conway's Game of Life, but then I have to represent my Lisp code within the cellular automaton. (The same thing applies to, for example, Brainfuck.)

Also, I'd say that any language which requires me to write a Lisp interpreter to be nice is not a "nice language".</comment></comment></comment>


Xbox 360 Sold More Units Than The Nintendo Wii U In November - <AUTHOR> http://www.redmondpie.com/xbox-360-sold-more-units-than-the-nintendo-wii-u-in-november/

<comment><USER2> Considering the Wii U was on sale for 12 days in November, and the 360 was on sale for the whole month, this isn't as bad as it sounds. And as the article mentions, it's been in and out of stock in many locations (though certainly not to the degree the first Wii was).

<comment><USER3> Exactly and if you factor that into the figures then you see it did better.

Let us not forget that bundle deals with lots of games there mates have will be a weighted factor for 360 sales for many, especialy given the Wii is new. Also I suspect that many Wii U sales were to owners who already own a Wii.

I think the only fair comparision in sales will be in the new year, once the dust has setteled and a truer sales picture can be obtained.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Nintendo's latest export has completely exhausted its initial inventory of stock [..] Moreover, the Wii U only had a couple of weeks on sale in November_

So, it was only on sale for part of the month, and it sold out quickly, leaving consumers unable to buy. OK, so it's a pretty much useless comparison, then?

<comment><USER5> 1.26 million Xbox 360s vs. 425,000 Wii U. Seems to me the Wii wouldn't have caught up even if they'd had more time and more inventory.

<comment><USER6> Since it is an improper comparison, what do you base your hypothesis on exactly?

<comment><USER5> It may have only been on shelves for 12 days, but people were free to preorder it all month, so you can't just divide the total sales by 12 and apply that to the other 18 days.

Also, a lot of people probably bought it for resale since it's the holiday season and the first new console in 6 years. Prices on Ebay are barely above retail though, so demand doesn't actually seem to be outpacing supply by very much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please, _please_ let this be a lesson to Microsoft that gamers aren't interested in gimmicks, and that the casuals who do want gimmicks are far more fickle.

<comment><USER7> The did all right with there casual gimmick - <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12697975>

<comment><USER5> I think that remains to be seen. It sold extremely well, but it was also the only console hardware released in several years and came in several bundles. Not to mention the hacking/non-gaming uses many people bought it for.

Besides, how many Kinect games are in the top 50 for Xbox 360? Zero. And how many of your gamer friends play Kinect games? I'm betting it's close to zero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Linkbait title since the Wii U wasn't on sale for the full month and stock levels were low. I can't foresee a similar article after December.

</comment><comment><USER9> The 360 is on sale in a games bundle for $99. I was thinking of picking an extra one up just because.

The Wii U is a much bigger ticket item.

<comment><USER10> that deal is only if you signup for multi-year xbox live membership i believe.

<comment><USER9> Better than a 299 PC with two years of AOL I guess.

My how the times have changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not surprised. Still don't understand the value proposition of the Wii U, despite the heavy PR and marketing currently in effect.

Why buy a Wii U when you can play your iPhone/iPod/Android and probably have an XBOX/PS3 already?

<comment><USER12> Because first party Nintendo games still have some love and heart put into them, in stark contrast to a lot of the "AAA" titles on their biennial churn (Level 5 are one of the few others who keep franchises going yet manage to keep the quality up).

Granted there is a lot of good indie work on mobile but it's not a like for like, we aren't discussing the DS here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know the accurate count of total units shipped for the 360? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars#Worldwide_sales_fi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars#Worldwide_sales_figures_5) shows PS3 outselling by a hair xbox, but i've seen far more people w/x360 than ps3.

<comment><USER5> > but i've seen far more people w/x360 than ps3.

That would make sense if you live in the U.S. The PS3 is ahead worldwide, but the 360 is winning by a landslide in the U.S.

<comment><USER13> This isn't actually true. Numbers from around the world are hazy but it looks like the 360 is ahead worldwide by a million or so. The lead will be extended over the holiday with Sony potentially surpassing next year since jan-sep are the months Sony outsells the 360 worldwide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yes, but how many of those 360 sales were actually repeat sales because the owner's previous 360 decided to red-ring?

answer: At least one.

<comment><USER15> Not sure how that makes much of a difference, other than the fact that they _still_ chose to purchase a 360 over the PS3 or Wii U after such a hardware failure.

<comment><USER16> It does make a difference, since the person is already locked-in by owning games for the 360.

<comment><USER13> The 360 has the highest games-to-console attach rate of any system ever. If repeat buyers are a significant portion of 360 sales then the 360's attach rate would be absolutely insane. Therefore it's easy to reason that broken consoles make up a very small percentage of total units sold.

<comment><USER16> I don't follow the video game industry at all, so forgive my ignorance. After looking up 'attach rate', I'm not sure I agree with you, though I do believe I follow your logic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how much of that is the stupid, stupid name. Or the DRM. Probably not much I guess, but there is a good chance this is the first Nintendo console I'll sit out since ever, and those are the sole reasons in roughly equal measure.</comment>


Show HN: I lose things constantly, so I built this service - <AUTHOR> http://GoReturnMe.com <comment><USER3> Can you add in how much the service charges? If it is 0$ then make it that. I get the feeling* that you're going to hold my items for ransom after someone finds them. I suggest you make it obvious that you're not a bad actor.

* I think the negative connotation comes from your logo's dollar sign, $. It looks like a scammy pay-day loan or something. I'm not saying to change your logo, or your website sucks -- it looks awesome! -- I'm just letting you know my take on it.

<comment><USER4> I'll say it: the logo should not show $, it's not about money, it's about getting things returned. Money is just a tiny part of the process. The incentive to get new customers is not "$".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You show picture on website with ID 123456. Right now if I enter this number I'm getting error. You should make it DEMO.

<comment><USER6> ... Why? I don't think at any point did they actually imply that's a real tag ID. You'd get an error if you put in DEMO, as well.

<comment><USER7> Still not a bad idea when its moving past the MVP

<comment><AUTHOR> It definitely is an MVP right now. We are thinking about kickstarting, or something, in the future. First we are making the whole service as smooth as possible for all parties. So we really appreciate all your input. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My headphones came with a service like this. [https://www.rewardtag.com/](https://www.rewardtag.com/)

<comment><USER9> well this is awkward...

<comment><USER6> There's plenty of lost item services that use tags, and there have been for many years. I remember being able to buy some tags from London Drugs like 10 years ago.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, there were plenty of coffee shops before Starbucks. Just make your reward tags the best!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Small typo on the "How it works" page:

 _You make up your own reward value per item. If someone find 's your item you can choose to release the reward or not._

Should be "finds"

Yeah it's a nitpick but for some reason these kinds of things really catch my eye.

Edit: Heh... and right above that: _Nobody can compete with us! We 'll give you free tags and therefore free protection of your item's._ Guess my eye isn't as sharp as I thought.

<comment><USER10> Also says "item's". We may be pedantic, but I tend to not trust services that don't have proper grammar and spelling. To me, it makes me wonder what else is sloppy and may come back to bite me.

Nice idea though; good luck!

<comment><USER12> The "123456" tag seems to work now.

But then the first thing you see is a tab about creating an account. The reward information has errors in the text:

"You've found _an_ someone's stuff."

I think you should show reward information first rather than try and get new users. I also think the whole thing needs to be more concise for the person returning the item. Bullet list of steps that are easily actionable.

 _Edit: Formatting_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The website says:

 _" People are returning lost items to owners through GoReturnMe everyday."_

Is this true?

<comment><USER13> So? One day and 9 upvotes later, still no answer to that question. Doesn't breed much confidence, tbh. ;).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ha - this makes me think of the story about Hiram Maxim, the great inventor. [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks09/0900131.txt](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks09/0900131.txt) Search for "§12". The entire book is great too, definitely worth the read.

"THIS WAS LOST BY A DAMNED FOOL NAMED HIRAM STEVENS MAXIM WHO LIVES AT 325 UNION STREET, BROOKLYN. A SUITABLE REWARD WILL BE PAID FOR ITS RETURN."

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm a bit confused --- other than the pretty pre-printed labels, how is this service better than offering a reward and paying it directly myself?

</comment><comment><USER16> [http://www.waramps.ca/faq/keytags.html](http://www.waramps.ca/faq/keytags.html)

<comment><USER17> A Dutch supermarket does this too with the discount card you can attach to your keys (or put in your wallet).

[http://www.ah.nl/sleutelservice](http://www.ah.nl/sleutelservice)

<comment><USER6> Quite a few supermarkets do it in the US/Canada too. Most people don't know it, though, because it's usually written in fine print on the keychain tags.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Looks great! We released something similar last year - [https://loseproof.com](https://loseproof.com)

Did you do much research into rewards vs. no rewards?

<comment><USER19> I was wondering about that as well - intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation - <USER2> would work better.

Did you do any research into it?

I'd also be curious if including the reward amount on the tag would increase or decrease the likelihood of an item being returned. Or does it decrease the likelihood if the reward is under a certain amount but increase it otherwise? And if that's the case, what's the amount, and is it a percentage of the item's value, or is it a constant?

It would be fun test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The idea is nice, I bet it is one of those things people (including myself) will say "Hey I thought of that too" but never did anything with it. You did!

Also, something that holds me back from using your service is that I don't like the design for something like my wallet. It looks a bit sporty so I don't want to stick it on my nice leather wallet or slick laptop. What about creating a few different styles?

<comment><USER20> Or a business-card-thingy that slips into my wallet?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice idea. When someone finds an item, what happens next? It wasn't clear from your site. They enter the tag number and then they're connected with the person who lost the item? Or do they send the item to you and you forward it to the person who lost it? Or something else entirely?

Also, I really think you should consider changing your logo (and matching color scheme). As another commenter mentions, it looks like a pay-day loan logo which has some pretty negative connotations. In addition, you've geared the logo towards the person finding the lost item, when ultimately, your customer is the person with items they're afraid they might lose. For them, you're selling peace of mind, but your logo is not at all reflective of that. You don't really need to worry yourself too much about the people returning lost items as the mention of a reward should be enough to motivate them to visit your website and return the item, if they weren't already inclined to do so.

</comment><comment><USER21> Really simple and cool service; does anything like it exist? I'd imagine you'll eventually take a small % of the reward itself (processed through the site). If people ever marked their item "totally lost" you could also hit them with affiliate marketing replacements.

I think it's a fairly narrow use-case. I'd always just write my name/phone # on a large % of my stuff; but I suppose I would rather put a sticker on some things (phone, wallet, electronics, etc.)

Pretty cool - how long have you been live? And how are you coming up with this 80% "return rate?" Do you have a sense of when things are actually marked "actively lost?" as opposed to "if it ever is... this sticker will come in handy" ?

<comment><AUTHOR> We actually did a test run earlier this year. Our metrics are pulled form our experience during the test run and worthy consumer data sources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Same concept as belon.gs but your site is more clear and better designed. I have several of their tags from a startup event a few years ago but haven't lost anything yet. [http://belon.gs/](http://belon.gs/)

</comment><comment><USER23> It asks me for a state to ship the stickers to. I don't live in a state.

</comment><comment><USER24> CODE-No.com [0] has been doing this in Germany for quite some time (and from the looks of it they are by now active in all of Europe)

[0] [https://code-no.com/](https://code-no.com/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Doesn't this create a new incentive for people to steal your stuff?

<comment><USER26> If they were willing to steal they'd probably hold it for as much ransom as they'd like.

<comment><USER27> This provides a clearly certified contact info and opening bid to streamline the random process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> They were selling keychains and stickers exactly like this for several years now. I saw them sold in Canada and they are also sold in every post office here in Switzerland. I'm yet to see a single person to be actually buying them.

The only difference in your case seems to be that you are targeting online audience and it might be more receptive to the idea, but otherwise I'd say it's a pretty crowded space already.

<comment><USER29> One difference I can see is that if someone tries entering an ID of something they've found to check the reward, it notifies the owner automatically. Someone who's 'found' a wallet or phone might want to check the reward amount, and then feel obligated to follow through with returning it once they realize the owner has already been notified. This contrasts with a contact number, as the person in possession of said item might decide they'd rather keep it than phone the owner when the reward is unspecified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think this is very clever, I've never seen anything like this. Great work, your site does a nice job of explaining itself quickly.

</comment><comment><USER31> Marketing idea: create a case study where you buy a bunch of crap, label it, lose it in various places and then blog the results of how long it took to return and what came back and what didn't.

You wouldn't have to spend a lot if you did it with items with fictional sentimental value or old generation throw away technology.

<comment><USER19> I was actually thinking about that line of marketing too. He'd still need to give out decent rewards though for each item.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everybody. Your response and input is awesome. I will implement as many of your good ideas as possible!

</comment><comment><USER32> What happens when I sell the phone? Can you take the tags off? Or am I obligated to use the service if someone sends it back (as the new owner)? Also what happens if in the time that I lost the item, I've replaced it. Then do you keep my phone? Sell it?

</comment><comment><USER33> The we got tags box has a typo "We have tags that are disigned for all types "

</comment><comment><USER34> Great idea. I don't usually watch Dragons Den but one of the few episodes I watched had this exact thing and they said they were already partnering with Sony and that their tags were in the box of every Sony laptop (I think).

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm amused that the average reward for tablets is higher than phones, and the average reward for phones is higher than laptops.

      Phone $100-200
      Keys $40-100
      Wallet $40-100
      Tablet $200-500
      Laptop $40-100

<comment><USER6> Laptop being the lowest makes sense from a business perspective. The cost of returning a laptop is much larger than a phone.

<comment><USER36> How does that justify a lower reward price even from a business perspective?

<comment><USER37> Probably because people are paying more for not having to deal with restoring their stuff.

Maybe it's much harder to get a new phone to be like your original, so you'd rather pay more to get it back as is.

On the other hand, maybe, getting a new laptop is more desirable than getting an old one back (if you have backups or don't care about what you had).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> A small typo on the how it works page:

>Nobody can compete with us! We'll give you free tags and therefore free protection of your item's.

Should be "items", not "item's"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Would be great if you had some way like RFID to scan for those tags, so that when you lose your phone in your house, you can quickly locate it :)

<comment><USER23> Does RFID work over 10 meters? I thought the issue was that the reader needs to power the tag. If the tag is self-powered, that means it runs out of batteries and that you're carrying something that constantly sends signals everywhere you go.

<comment><USER40> Directional antennas and high-power radios can increase the range a lot. Access-control RFID readers have low-power radios for obvious reasons: any time someone with the right card walked by, the door would unlock itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's like Bungie tags but gamifies it with a reward. Love it. That simple incentive will for sure increase the rate of return. Congrats!

</comment><comment><USER42> I had this idea a couple of years ago. I'm so glad someone's making it happen, good luck!

PS - I would pay for a small card and/or keychain.

</comment><comment><USER43> Pretty sad we need to pay people to do the decent thing. I would be happy to reunite someone with their lost item.

Why can't we all be like Japan...

<comment><USER11> So you find a set of keys. How do you return them, if they aren't tagged somehow?

<comment><USER44> In Japan? Just take them to the nearest koban (police box). Should be one within a few hundred meters in a city. Whether loser or finder, the entire population is conditioned to use this process, so it works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is AWESOME! All you pay is shipping for tags? BEST idea I've seen all day. Ordering mine now for my forgetful ass!

</comment><comment><USER46> Helping people and getting $ for it. I can't wait till those get big and I find phone or keys.

</comment><comment><USER47> Dose GoReturnMe take a cut out of the rewards or we need to pay a fee to receive the lost items?

</comment><comment><USER17> I am amused by "Our system is safe and secure because we use: stripe".

</comment><comment><USER48> Typo on the front page: "notice there is a reward if they reurn it".

<comment><AUTHOR> oh shoot thanks

<comment><USER49> The period before the time on the twitter post makes it look like the posting was .9 days ago - doesn't seem to be a carry over from the tweet either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Just got my tags :) looking forward to sticking this on my phone and laptop!

</comment><comment><USER51> Wow, what a fantastic idea. I'm gonna be ordering a few myself.

</comment><comment><USER52> Currently violating stripe's ToS

<comment><USER53> I'm way to lazy to find out why. Please tell the rest of the class why.

<comment><USER54> No SSL?

<comment><USER52> Yep

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Great idea</comment>


I can't keep up - <AUTHOR> http://danielhough.co.uk/blog/i-cant-keep-up/

<comment><USER2> So you posted a "completely random-topic blog posts where [you ] come to some conclusion, which conveniently allows [you] to segue into a quick little pimping out of [your] app, startup, or whatever"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, maybe - but it was a genuine semi-rant of a topic. I would say that though, wouldn't I?</comment></comment>


I'm a Developer. I Won't Teach My Kids to Code, and Neither Should You (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://getpocket.com/explore/item/i-m-a-developer-i-won-t-teach-my-kids-to-code-and-neither-should-you <comment><USER2> I would, were I going to have kids.

"while these products may teach kids specific coding languages, they actually have very little to do with the work of creating software."

Yes, and learning to read has little to do with the dramatic structures of high literature, but without the one you're going to struggle to express the other.

This article comes across as attention-seeking contrarianism.

<comment><USER3> That's a good point. It also shows that those who are worried about everyone learning to code, and our job market subsequently becoming saturated, is rather a needless worry.

Sure some saturation will occur, but furthering your point, just because most can read and write doesn't mean they'll all become professional writers.

<comment><USER4> what worries me is the code-monkey idea behind everyone can/need to code. I don't want coding to become the blue-collar skill of the next decade.

<comment><USER5> I hope you didn't mean this as elitist as it comes across. There's nothing wrong with blue-collar coding

<comment><USER4> I meant it in a way that if coding becomes a blue-collar job salaries will go lower, people who have ambition will move into another field, work life will get harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My brother asked me when and how I though I could teach my baby niece so that she could make "a lot of money as a developper".

My answer was "when she asks for it".

There are many things a kid should learn, and among them, a huge number are more important than programming (plus sometimes a pre-requisite for it):

\- reading

\- writing

\- basic maths

\- critical analysis

\- building your own idea

\- defending yourself verbally, mentally and physically

\- expressing yourself

\- chosing ingredients and preparing food

\- proper life hygiene

\- understanding the current society, the medias, the political system, etc

\- learning a second language

I recall that when I was a freshman, some kids were still not be able to read out loud correctly.

Programming can come later. Way, way later.

In fact, she may even not enjoy programming at all, or even consider it.

I think the best bet is like with music. If it's something you want to share: demo a lot of it in regular life, associate it with joy, and the kid may just show an interest in it.

Then foster than.

Then setup lessons, discipline, etc.

But don't make it a requirement.

<comment><USER2> I think programming should enter a kids learning environment around the same time and priority as a second language.

How would someone know whether to consider it, if not exposed to it at all?

Most people in the English-speaking western world won't make a vast amount of use of that second language. Some will though, and the rest of us will appreciate that the training we did get helps us see things from a different perspective and maybe lets us interact a little easier on vacation. Most won't use their Chemistry or Physics education in day to day life, but it will help them understand the world better.

As our world becomes dominated by software, training in it becomes similar - even those who aren't going to go all in and follow a career in it, can conceivably benefit from some training.

<comment><USER7> Languages can start very young though. Locally I'm familiar with a lot of families of mixed-nationality. In my own case my partner's native language is Finnish and mine English; our child grew up hearing/understanding both, and now speaks both of them to the appropriate parent.

(It's quite fascinating to see that play out, we were walking in the street recently and somebody stopped to ask me a question. He butted in and said "Daddy speaks English", in Finnish, to the stranger.)

<comment><USER2> True, I meant at about the time languages are often introduced in schools, which tends to be a little later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I gotta say, I had this same thought twenty years ago when my kiddos were pre- teens. Be creative! Make beautiful things! Don't haul up the data on the Xerox line like your old man! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsDkmVo2fg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsDkmVo2fg4)

Man, was I WRONG! What a MISTAKE. My spouse and I fouled up some lives by teaching that attitude.

My youngest wanted to do game dev. So she got Masters of Fine Art from an A school concentrating in 3D animation and motion capture. Now she doesn't make enough money to afford to live in a tiny apartment in the Bay Area exurbs working a full-time temp job for a big game dev outfit.

My oldest also went to a A art school for an MFA. Now she's an office administrator, almost forty, raising a family.

We're super-proud they don't have any debt. That took hard work. Still, there's no way they're going to have the opportunities my spouse and I had.

Who has the labor market power to earn enough to feed their families in the overpriced coastal areas? Engineers, lawyers, executives.

My mom was a classicist and really wanted me to spend a lot of time learning to read the ancient greats in Latin and Greek. But she didn't push me too hard; she let me make my own choices. That was good for me.

Please, please, young parents, be careful about how your ideologies affect the small people in your care. Don't let your ideologies make them think their choices are limited.

Seriously.

<comment><USER9> I think I might be losing something, but why would you put your kids into art school if you want to develop games?

Even thinking about the aspirational reason, game artists don't make the money you might be thinking. That's engineering and engineering only.

It's like a tower of mistakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > This gives the impression that not teaching kids to code is somehow > equivalent to not teaching them to read. That is, of course, ridiculous. > Coding is not the new literacy.

Except coding is like literacy. Not everybody needs to be a professional writer, but there are few jobs today where reading and writing isn't a necessity and even fewer where it isn't a useful skill. Outside of work, reading and writing can be sources of pleasure and applied in many different hobbies and disciplines.

Coding is the same way. If you know how to do it, you may see ways to make your life easier by programming that someone who doesn't know how to could never even imagine. sure, lots of people do fine without the skill, but when reading wasn't taught to everybody, those people also got by without that skill.

There was a time when using a computer and programming one were much more tightly coupled than they are today, but with computers more powerful than ever and users less savvy than ever, their magic is lost on many.

My (already born) children will learn to code, not because I want them to be developers, but because I want whatever job they have to be simpler and easier and more fun.

</comment><comment><USER11> The entire argument seems to be around how painful and pointless it is to teach kids syntax. However most of the tools and courses I have seen that introduce programming to kids do away with syntax, by using visual programming and similar. Does the author think no improvement was done to programming tutorials in the last 40 years?

</comment><comment><USER12> Yep. I was a CS prof for 18 years and I now work as CS R&D engineer and I am not teaching my kids to program. Teach them math. Teach them to solve problems. They can learn to stare at a screen later in life.

</comment><comment><USER13> My son is almost 6 and I can say with near certainty that he will learn to code regardless of what I have to say about it. He is absolutely mesmerized by computers and as soon as he discovers that he can tell them exactly what to do he will most likely teach himself. It's exactly what I did—my father worked at IBM and we always had a fairly capable PC at home but he was a mechanical engineer so I was on my own for learning to code.

I really hope we don't add coding to the laundry list of rote skills that kids are evaluated on in school. Sure, make it available for those who are interested, but let's be honest—most kids will have little interest in coding, and forcing them to learn it anyways will not provide any lasting benefit.

<comment><USER14> "I really hope we don't add coding to the laundry list of rote skills that kids are evaluated on in school."

Why?

<comment><USER9> Seriously.

> Sure, make it available for those who are interested, but let's be > honest—most kids will have little interest in coding, and forcing them to > learn it anyways will not provide any lasting benefit.

This could apply to mathematically skills also. Personally, I would never raise any kids under this ideology. It seems to foster ignorance and conformism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _One day, my son was concerned that a chair of his was wobbly. We looked at > it and he helped me isolate the problem: One of the screws was loose. I > found one of our many leftover hex wrenches and showed him how to screw it > back in. After that, he was curious what would happen if he screwed the > other way, which he did until the screw came out. We ended up taking the > chair all the way apart and putting it back together a couple of times, > often mismatching pieces, before he was satisfied the job was finished. Try > something. See how it works. Try again._

My dad and I did this too! Not the chair, but things like it.

One time he gave me a sock full of shaver parts and said "I took my shaver apart and can't figure out how to put it back together. Can you see what you can do with all these parts?" It took a lot of experimenting and trial and error, but I managed to get a working shaver put together.

TVs had tubes in those days (not just the picture tube, but a couple dozen tubes in the circuit). As the tubes burned out, the TV would "go on the fritz". So I got to pull all the tubes out, and we drove down to the corner grocery where I plugged them into the tube tester, set the dials and checked the meter readings to find the bad one. We went home with the replacement, put the tubes back in, and the TV worked again! For a while.

Mom liked to sew, so I got to be the sewing machine repairman, cleaning and oiling, untangling and threading the bobbin.

Then I went to kindergarten where I had fun pranking the other kids and the teacher. For show and tell I brought a big fat electrolytic capacitor that I'd charged up at home, and a screwdriver. I told them what capacitors were and how dangerous they could be unless they were discharged. Then I "accidentally" touched the two terminals, one with each hand, and pretended I was getting electrocuted.

I somehow managed to break free, and then shorted the screwdriver across the terminals with a big spark and a loud and scary pop. I put my hands on the terminals again, smiled, and said, "It's discharged. It's safe now. You can try it." And a few brave ones did.

What I didn't tell them was I'd only charged it up to six volts!

</comment><comment><USER16> I learned programming in elementary school using C-16 and Commodore plus 4 machines in 80s Hungary. It was amazing that we could type in some BASIC command and the computer did what we told it to do. We learned to manage files on disks, I/O, various conditions, etc. It was crazy how a few lines of LOGO could draw a flower on the screen. I was amazed to see it demonstrated that pseudorandom numbers generate the same number on different machines.

Then I got my C64 a bit later since I guess I was enthusiastic about the subject. My problem was not being able to learn fast enough, I couldn't ask from anybody, there was no internet and books were limited in my language. I wanted to learn machine code, but just couldn't, it was an impenetrable wall without a mentor. So I stuck with BASIC and transitioned gaming. I still remember encoding sprites by hand in my workbook instead of paying attention to the class I was at :)

It was all good for discovering that I actually like dealing with computers and I would be interested in going deeper. It was also good to remember that when I got my first Pentium machine that programming is actually approachable and you don't have to be a superhuman genius to write programs.

> But while these products may teach kids specific coding languages, they > actually have very little to do with the work of creating software.

You have to start _somewhere_, it doesn't really matter where and how kids learn what a variable, loop, function call is.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm generally in agreement with this, but as I grew up programming and have 3 kids now will provide my $0.02 commentary-

* kids are shaped by what you share and demonstrate with them and what others share and demonstrate, and what takes root and grows in their hearts and minds is what you should encourage and support

* following the taking root metaphor, all kids have different soil and growth patterns and acquire different knowledge domains at different rates. A great deal of the domain acquisition is due tho not to IQ, however one defines it, but by EQ. That is, my observation is that feelings of safety, explorability, curiosity, satisfaction, and competition/conformance are what drive acquisition, and those are mostly or all EQ.

* programming as an activity is horrendously dumb, with stupid incantations and magical abstractions, and a complete disrespect of the human's time and engagement tempo. When it comes to kids, this is absolutely worst case.

* I have seen two very small, narrow exceptions to the above- some robotics kits, and Scratch. My son is 8 and found in Scratch a vehicle for exploration, curiosity and satisfaction, and has done some absolutely amazing things. It is a matter of curiosity for me that problems I found interesting in 6502 assembly when I was 13 and 14 he is tackling at 8 in Scratch.

* we don't have a voice interface tool in our house but I can definitely see voice-first being an engaging "programming" platform for kids, especially for girls.

</comment><comment><USER18> Want to share my first hand experience as a kid of a programmer.

My father was a programmer in 70' to mid 90'. He would had loved for me getting into the topic as well and showed me various things like early VESA programming and simple games in the 80' (in Germany GDR on a self made computer wired to a color TV). But programming and how it works didn't caught my interest at all - zero. I was completely hooked by the graphics and games though.

In the early 90' after the fall of Berlin wall, a friend of my dad gave me 3D Studio for DOS on 14 floppy discs, and oh' boy this changed my life.

Started a career in the 3D film industry and it was 20 years after my childhood that I caught interest in programming. I was blown away by what the programmers could do with the 3D software Maya and slowly was dragged into it and the curiosity never ended.

Nowadays I'm mostly a programmer who's also interested in graphics. Have worked on various commercial products with embedded firmware, C++ GUIs and Web/JS projects.

I'm a programmer not because my dad showed me that stuff in my childhood, I got here out of an coincidence of getting 3D Studio for DOS.

Anyway, my dad is glad how it turned out in the end :)

<comment><USER19> I can relate to some of that. My dad, who was a programmer amongst other things, tried to get me interested in electronics, but it just never really caught on for me. Whereas programming I was pretty hooked from the start. I did lots of BASIC and Pascal. He tried to get me onto C, but I was reluctant, although I do remember him explaining pointers (I was maybe 10?) and it finally making sense. Most of the learning I did along the way was driven by me though, going to him when I got stuck.

Now I'm approaching 40 and a full time web developer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Coding is just the means to an end... I bought my daughter (4 yr) a microscope (kid's version) and she is putting almost everything under it's lenses

Of course, being a biologist is much more than playing with a microscope, but it's just a way to get kids excited about science and inspire them to be curious and inquisitive.

Coding is just like this microscope. It enables children to discover the world of computer science and software.

</comment><comment><USER21> I just was thinking about this the other day and I concluded that I will teach my kids TO THINK, but no display or programming language is required for that. You can teach the basics on paper or drawings, teaching a programming language syntax and features can come when they are interested in programming at all. Otherwise, they can apply thought processes in other areas of life.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you don't want to teach your kids to code, ok. I actually think the sugar cookie example is analogous to web development, especially styling/CSS.

As someone who has taught children how to do html/css/ basic JS it's amazing to see how they progress; the creativity a child can have is unpredictable but usually inspiring.

Also, why is pocket acting like amp with the url? :/ :/ :/

<comment><USER23> The real URL, had to search to find it as there's no way to access it from the linked Pocket version

[https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching- ki...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching-kids-to-code- creativity-problem-solving.html)

<comment><USER24> So the post should be linked here instead and have a [2018] suffix added to it, then.

Any mods care to fix?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This sounds like not teaching grammar because your child might not be as goos if a poet. Not every developer is solving interesting problems with creative out of the box thinking.. most just write boring code.

</comment><comment><USER26> The argument seems to mostly boil down to this one part: "Coding books for kids present coding as a set of problems with "correct" solutions. And if your children can just master the syntax, they'll be able to make things quickly and easily. But that is not the way programming works. Programming is messy. Programming is a mix of creativity and determination. Being a developer is about more than syntax, and certain skills can only be taught to the very young."

Isn't that true of most "adult" things taught to young children? Says you want to teach a sport, basketball. At a young age, all the kid is going to do at best is "master the syntax". That doesn't mean it isn't useful to start at an early age.

The author's argument can be applied to anything complex. You don't think kids "master the syntax first" learning math? Should we not start teaching math at a young age?

It seems the author is really just upset that anyone thinks coding is something simplistic to any degree.

</comment><comment><USER27> As a developer, my personal competitive advantage is that I understand humans quite well. Most of the devs I've seen were limited by their soft skills. Learning Javascript is trivial compared to acquiring soft skills that are necessary to be successful in most domains.

</comment><comment><USER28> I don't have kids but I never understood why some parents think that their kids have to learn about their passion, specially at such young ages. I understand this in countries where prospects are poor and your best option is stick to the family business but this is something else with different ramifications.

I'd let my kid learn about coding if he/she asks for it and is curious, otherwise I'd never try to shove it. Let kids be kids and if they become interested then be happy to be their personal teacher.

</comment><comment><USER29> Agreed, and you could say the same of mathematics. If we teach coding as we teach math, devoid of creativity and reduced to a set of rules, coding will be hated by most, just like math.

</comment><comment><USER30> I completely disagree. I've been programming since 1977, when I was 7 years old. My kids, now in their teens, have been coding since they were able to bang on one of my 8-bit machines, having a blast all the way to comprehension and understanding.

Oh, wait, yeah. Sorry. I have every computer I've ever hacked on, going back to '77.

Yeah, now I get it. DEFINITELY don't try to teach your kids to program computers with, say, a modern web stack or whatever..

</comment><comment><USER31> The article is spot on. Teaching kids to code so they learn skills like problem solving and dealing with ambiguity is a good reason to teach them. Teaching them to code because tech jobs pay well today is a lot less likely to be useful in 20 years when they're entering a job market that's _very_ different to what we have right now.

<comment><USER32> I've been in the job market since 1996. While it didn't pay the astronomical salaries that it does now, it consistently has paid a nice wage. What trends do you see that would lessen the need for software development in the next 20 years?

<comment><USER33> I see a trend thats pushing away older experienced programmers just to replace them with young ones.

<comment><USER32> I'm 45. I haven't seen it. I'm getting just as many offers and doors open now as I have since 1996. I'm very focused on keeping a network warm and keeping my resume buzzword compliant.

<comment><USER33> Im happy for you. I personally lost my patience to keep up with the buzz- world, I update my knowledge on a need basis, but never pursue shiny stuff. This is a reason for which being 40 and knowledgable of a mixed bag of technologies but a lot of it older makes me quite unattractive to many companies. When I was in my 20s I was always keeping up but lately I don't care as much. My family's more important and it suits me more to have some tech-unrelated hobbies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I hate when people tell other people how to raise their children. It's the most useless advice. Let children do what they want. It doesn't have to be so serious. If the kids enjoy it then great. They don't have to write operating systems or SAAS at age 10. Syntax, coding style etc doesn't matter at that age, it's better just to learn something.

</comment><comment><USER35> To code or to work with computers (for example doing system administration or testing) is a work skill, and children and teenagers are much, much better at learning them than the essential theoretical subjects at school.

So, instead of turning programming in yet another rigorous and testable school subject, I think kids should be encouraged to make things regardless how bad they seem to be. Maybe not using BASIC, but some web design, but also how to fix common computing issues. Ideally they should be able to do an entry level IT job.

Historically teenagers and bigger children worked as apprentices or helped in the fields. In some communities, this is still essential to their survivor, but people who can afford for their kids not to work discount the boost to self-worth and the practicality of doing some work.

<comment><USER35> I'm also thinking of those kids I've seen who can solve textbook programming problems at an early age, but cannot even setup their IDE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I agree (at least from personal experience w/classes my son has taken) that most "programming" courses, especially those using Scratch-like and gamified environments, have taught him absolutely nothing -- they'll get a sprite to move or whatever through trial-and-error or copy/paste, but I don't think there's much learning -- they just get "games" that look like total crap compared to what they're used to without the slightest clue how to get from here to there. (Whereas when we programmed text games in Z80 asm or Basic, our result was pretty much on-par with what you'd expect to get from somewhere else.)

OTOH, as a developer, teaching your own kid programming, if you are passionate about it, certainly beats teaching them nothing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think there is a set of skills that are really worth learning early. When it actually makes a difference to be "native". Like learning a language, playing an instrument or technical sport like let's say skiing or swimming. I'm fluent in English now but will never sound like a native. I swim several time per week but I'll never be as efficient as if I started at 6. On another hand I started skiing at 4 and I've been doing great in this sport.

For coding, I think the author wants to emphazise the fact that the code syntax and the logic are different things. Syntax is easy to pick up at any age with a bit of perseverance. Kids can practice their analysis skills and logic at a young age but that doesn't require any coding.

</comment><comment><USER38> I got interested in coding when I started high school in 2001. When I discovered that several students were already somewhat proficient programmers, ostensibly because of parents who introduced it while they were young, it was a rude shock. It left me feeling behind some kind of curve.

I did become a software engineer later in life after a career change, but I wonder how a home environment where I could learn the basics would have changed my trajectory.

I take the author's point that the problem solving and creativity are more important than syntax. But you need comfort with syntax to get deeper into the ecosystem to stretch those muscles.

</comment><comment><USER39> There are many things that can help you learn programming. Problem solving is one of them. Language/syntax is one. I don't think it's wrong to teach kids one of them, but yes, we should not forget the other ones.

I think it's usually easier to learn one thing if you already know related things. It might be easier to understand a problem if you know a programming language. It might be easier to learn more about programming if you already know the syntax of a language.

</comment><comment><USER40> I went through an attempt to teach my son (10 at the time) some basic programming principles and he was completely disinterested. I am of the opinion that I am not going to force the topic on him, so I left it alone and didn't pressure him. In the last couple years since then, he has completely blown me away with his programming (mostly logic) capabilities that he has learned from games like Scrap Mechanic and StormWorks.

</comment><comment><USER41> Each generation will have its own bias.

In the analog world, "jack of all trades" is an inefficient model to develop, but in the digital world, knowing something exists (and having working knowledge) makes planning and execution of innovation that much easier.

They just call it smart and dynamic in the tech world instead of "master of none".

How times change.

</comment><comment><USER42> Pushing things to children to be learned is not efficient.

You can try but what goes into one ear leaves the other ear.

My approach: wake the curiosity (for example by playing games on itch.io and showing a tiny glimpse of the possibility to change a game). Then carefully steer. Let yourself be pulled by the curiosity of the child.

</comment><comment><USER43> Link should be changed to: [https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against- teaching-ki...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching- kids-to-code-creativity-problem-solving.html)

</comment><comment><USER44> Source article: [https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching- ki...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/against-teaching-kids-to-code- creativity-problem-solving.html)

</comment><comment><USER45> the reason there is a push to teach more people to code, who would otherwise not, is that it increases supply which then brings the cost down for large companies who need lots of cheap coders.

</comment><comment><USER46> tl;dr: "Instead of teaching syntax, you should actually teach kids to problem solve, be curious, and care about quality! Because those are underlying skills with more value to programming and to life in general.

But, also, most people should not become programmers. No comment on why."

I'm torn between anger at the clickbaity title, agreement with and enjoyment of the majority of the article's valid work and spirit, and acute annoyance at that last bit that shamelessly, sans evidence, recalls the clickbait premise that I originally wanted. The author pulled me slowly out of my disdain, and then shoved me back into it again right before leaving.

I often hear this idea echoed around my social network that most people should actually not learn to program. That it is not a literacy. That it isn't useful for your kids' minds or long term status or for society. But then I often find people slyly avoiding explanations as to why, like here, or merely asserting that the arts also have value (which isn't an exclusive claim!), or mumbling over some hoakum about learning styles and not everyone being capable of being a programmer.

Occasionally there's someone saying, "of course many people will program, but they won't be programmers. But the other things they do will require them to do programming", which is exactly how literacy works. I'm ready to agree with that idea, but it's often similarly wrapped in a "don't teach your kids to code!" label, which it seems antithetical to.

Does anyone seriously feel that developing the skills involved in writing code (and learning to be comfortable using code and computer tools to solve problems) isn't broadly applicable to people's lives at this point? I'd love to hear and discuss a qualified explanation for that belief, and I've been looking, but (as with this article) it seems not to be found where advertised.

<comment><USER47> this isn't really an explanation but some of the most talented programmers i knew at one of the top engineering schools in the world didn't start programming until college. in contrast i have known some mediocre programmers who have been doing it a long time.

let's contrast this to say classical music, if you don't start before the age of 8, it is physicslly impossible to become a professional. your fingers will never move quickly enough. what about soccer? could you be a pro level player starting the sport in college? probably not.

this tells me that the skills to be a good programmer have less to do with programming and more to do with other stuff like being able to think clearly and reason about complicated things like math, problem solving and logic. those are things that don't have to be taught using code and in many ways it feels to me like you need to learn syntax as a prerequisite to begin the intellectually challenging parts whereas you could just do it by studying math directly or building something with legos.

anecdotally most developers i know are not interested in teaching their young kids coding. the ones i see most interested in it are non technical parents. but of course this is not true across the board

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I have a feeling this was posted a couple months ago here...

</comment><comment><USER49> > and Neither Should You

Don't get the point of this part

<comment><USER47> clickbait is the point ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Click-bait title, but many good points.

</comment><comment><USER51> While I have no interest in breeding, if I did have kids I would let them choose their own interests rather than forcing mine onto them.

<comment><USER52> Kids find what they like and don't like by being exposed to things. Giving your kid a book is not forcing your interests on them, its okay if they don't like it. I think the author is expressing concern over feeling pressured to teach his young child coding. I don't think its probably that helpful to teach young kids syntax. My 10 year old recently started playing with Scratch on her own, bought herself a book about it at a book fair. I think the Scratch approach of putting together the steps you need to accomplish something is much better training than learning specific functions or where to put a semicolon.

<comment><USER51> I agree with this. My family didn't have money to buy me things, but I found ways to get into computers and programming myself. In the 7th grade I started helping the school computer teacher run the IT systems because the school didn't know how to do it themselves. In exchange for helping the school manage the computers, they let me play on the computers after school and install BSD and Linux on an older machine that became my toy.</comment></comment></comment>


A Look at the Box S-1 - <AUTHOR> http://kellblog.com/2014/03/27/burn-baby-burn-a-look-at-the-box-s-1

<comment><USER2> This title is obnoxious, but the content is really good. The title refers to "burn rate", not that the company is a house on fire.

I did a similar calculation... they are spending about $40M/quarter on sales people who are generating an incremental $5M in recurring revenue each quarter. Not great, but not a disaster. Especially when you account for the fact most of the sales people are new.

A year from now, with the publicity from the IPO, and more experience and natural snowballing, the same $40M salesforce could be generating $15M in incremental revenue per quarter. That would be a recipe for a quite valuable company.

He came to pretty much the same conclusion that I did:

"When you look big picture, I believe they see themselves in a winner-take-all battle vs. DropBox and in this case, the strategy — while amazingly cash consumptive — does make sense."

5 years from now, I do see a possibility that Box is doing very well in enterprise, and Dropbox gets squeezed hard in the fiercely competitive consumer/SMB space.

<comment><USER3> I agree that's their strategy, and I also agree that it may be their only play. However it feels like they're going all-in a little bit early.

With a $23m/quarter burn rate and a raise of $250m, they only have a few years to "win" the market, and start moving in the direction of profitability.

<comment><USER4> A few years is an eternity, its not like they have to keep burning through $100m a year until they either "win" or run out of cash, they could easily scale back on their customer acquisition spend and extend their timeline.

I think their strategy is very aggressive but far from all-in</comment></comment></comment>


Richard Branson and the Two Million Dollar Heist - <AUTHOR> https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/two-million-dollar-heist <comment><USER2> I wonder how they we're able to recreate the voice so perfectly.</comment>


Surfing the Internet: Introduction - <AUTHOR> http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/surfing.htm

<comment><USER2> I love these old web pages, it always brings back some memories seeing a "Netscape Now! 3.0" button or an ancient link to the Mosaic home page :)

This is also very nice:

The Analemma and the Equation of Time: [http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/lectures/CoordsNtim...](http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/lectures/CoordsNtime/analemma.htm) (last revised September 4, 2003 12:52 PM)</comment>


Majority of health apps on Android tested shared personal health data - <AUTHOR> https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l920 <comment><USER2> In Singapore the health insurance companies have programs to get people to wear health trackers for a discount and people are oblivious as to why this may not be the best idea/ alignment of interests.

<comment><USER3> They do the same in France for car insurance, they give you a box you put in your car, which has at the very least a GPS module (but most probably have tons of other sensors)

I think they are mostly targeting young drivers for which insurance can be pretty expensive, and knowing well that most young adults these days don't care much about privacy

<comment><USER4> Some US companies do this, too.

The unfortunate part is that, if we could trust that the data would be handled correctly (not wide-open to hackers, not used for other purposes like advertising/marketing) this would be an improvement in the efficiency of the insurance industry.

<comment><USER5> I assume everyone who uses mobile networks has their location data being stored, shared, and sold by the mobile network companies. I assume government agencies and other people in positions of power can easily get identifiable information, and advertisers or other businesses can purchase "anonymized" information. At this point, I'm not sure what else is left to protect.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/verizon-and- att-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/verizon-and-att-will- stop-selling-your-phones-location-to-data-brokers/)

They claim they're stopping, but I don't see why I should believe them.

<comment><USER6> Mobile network location data is much more coarse than GPS data, so there's "that" to protect.

<comment><USER7> Are you sure? If the data in question also covers WiFi signals, which include the signals emitted by every phone near you, then I'm not sure the data really is that coarse.

<comment><USER6> I'm presuming here the location data is gathered outside of the phone (eg. by cell towers), not the phone itself. If you have access to the phone itself (eg. malicious app), then you can easily get GPS data as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Clinicians should be conscious about the choices they make in relation to > their app use and, when recommending apps to consumers, explain the > potential for loss of personal privacy as part of informed consent.

That's for me the most important point of that study. It's no good if you avoid data kraken where you can, and meanwhile your physician unwittingly distributes your sensitive data via the latest health app.

<comment><USER9> My only critique of this is that clinicians in the US may be under large organizational umbrellas and may be strongly encouraged (forced?) to go through apps chosen by the org, and so they aren't really making any conscious choices.

(TBF the paper authors are affiliated with Sydney, Toronto, and California Universities so those healthcare systems are likely different)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> And this is why laws like the GDPR are needed:

"Journalists recently revealed that Australia's most popular medical appointment booking app, HealthEngine, routinely shared 100s of users' private medical information to personal injury law firms as part of a referral partnership contract.1 Although the company claimed this was only done with users' consent, these practices were not included in the privacy policy but in a separate "collection notice," and there was no opportunity for users to opt- out if they wished to use the application (app)."

Too bad most of the worst offenders are in the US or other countries with non- existing privacy laws.

<comment><USER11> The US has HIPAA which while not perfect would cover any medical data sharing and does have decently sized fines behind it.

<comment><USER12> > The US has HIPAA which while not perfect would cover any medical data > sharing and does have decently sized fines behind it.

Because HealthEngine looks like it has business relationships with providers, it would probably be covered by HIPAA through provider BAAs in the US.

But if it only had a business relationship with the consumer, ala Google Duplex, and handled medical bookings on the consumer's behalf that would not be the case. So even though the specific case would enjoy covered by HIPAA in the US, it is illustrative of a problem HIPAA may not be adequate to address.

HIPAA may actually be dangerous here, because what lay awareness of it exists seems to see it as protecting health data generally, when it only protects health data held by certain entities, and consumer-facing entities that don't have a business relationship with your health provider or insurer aren't covered, and there are plenty of them trying to vacuum up health data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I also wonder how drugstores manage all the patients' data. For my part, I pay in cash, and never give personally identifiable information unless strictly necessary.

<comment><USER11> In the US a drugstore's information falls under HIPAA which isn't perfect but does force some compliance at risk of large fines. HIPAA basically doesn't allow identified information to be shared except specifically related to treating or paying for your illness. Unlike a fly by night app a drugstore has a physical presence which means that tracking them down to fine is easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If it's free, you are the product.

<comment><USER15> Most open-source software being the exception

<comment><USER16> if you contribute, you are in a way the product still

<comment><USER17> Wouldn't that make you the manufacturer?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How To Delete Whois History From Domaintools.com - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to clean up the public information I've used to register domains back in the old days as it references a lot of old address' and irrelevant information like my parents address and phone number. I've done fairly well but am unable to find out how to delete it from domaintools.com? I've tried sending e-mails to a number of contacts but am unable to contact anyone within the company.
Does anyone know how to do this?
Bonus Question: What other services might be collecting private information on me based on old whois records? <comment><USER2> I don't think you can remove the whois information. It is a matter of public record, and they can and do archive it.

From what I've seen in the past, domaintools will not be willing to remove this information.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know it was public record, but my main problem is that having it archived from 10 years ago is ridiculous. I'm sure many people have entered info into their WhoIs information they don't want publicly available before they really knew what it was really used for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The DomainTools archiving can be annoying. I don't think they will want to remove your data, it would set a bad precedent for them. An archive of previous whois records is by definition going to have out of data information, so that probably shouldn't be your main argument.

Let us know how it goes.

<comment><AUTHOR> My main problem is that it's old irrelevant information that I would rather not have in the public domain and I think they should remove it if requested to or just update it. What the WhoIs information was 10 years ago is irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> DomainTools does have customer service. Their not very secretive, so you could concievably just drop by their offices. They're located in downtown seattle, so not that far from you.

They may have a policy against it, in which case you may need to find a legal way to exert pressure, and get something written up by a lawyer in the form of a cease & desist.

But before going that route, I'd try contacting the founder directly. (His name escapes me, but try checking their blog...)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not worth a drive down to Seattle but I'll have to dig deeper to find out how to contact their customer service.

I suppose I could get a lawyer involved, but I'd much rather figure out how to do this on my own. I'm sure it would be in their interest to keep the information relevant.</comment></comment>


Physicists uncover novel phase of matter - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-10-physicists-uncover-phase.html <comment><USER2> this is how science article should be written in popular science journals. with limited popular physics knowledge you can still extract useful information with being knowledgeable in physics or chemistry. ie know about magnetism and spectral analysis you can get the gist of what discovery was about and how it is important.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a quadropolar magnet?

<comment><USER4> Not quite: the article discusses how magnetic poles are arranged at the _molecular_ level. At the human scale that molecular structure "averages out" to whatever material qualities we can directly observe.

In this case, I would guess it averages out to something non-magnetic (the article doesn't mention it so don't take my word for it). However, as the article mentioned, it also has distinguishable properties regarding reflection (which is how this new phase was detected), and the arrangement could lead to an explanation for high-temperature superconductivity.</comment></comment>