Can a Puppy Sell a CMS? - <AUTHOR> http://www.webpop.com/blog/2013/04/16/can-a-puppy-sell-a-cms <comment><USER2> First of all, great work. It looks like you boosted your conversion rate from 0.19% to 0.43%. Which is a 125% improvement, or with confidence intervals, 55% - 179% improvement.

However, before everybody goes out and puts puppies on their homepages, they need to realize that there are a bunch of things being tested.

Image vs. no image: Is it possible that having any image at all improves the conversion. You should test with other pictures: perhaps some animals, people, nature, and see if the puppy is what makes it work.

Call to action: The 'puppy' version also features a more succinct call to action in "Sign up now" rather than "Start your 30 days free trial." Perhaps this also contributes some of the difference.

Button size: The button size in the 'puppy' version is smaller. Perhaps this has some effect as well.

Length of text: The 'puppy' version has more description of what is involved in the free trial. It says "Pick a plan & sign up in 60 seconds. Upgrade, downgrade cancel at any time." vs. the no puppy version that says "Start you 30 days free trial."

Vertical vs. Horizontal Layout: The 'puppy' version has a vertical layout of the text and button, where they are stacked on top of each other rather than left or right.

So there are at least five different changes made between these two designs. Clearly the second design wins on conversions, but it's not entirely clear to me why it wins.

<comment><USER3> Not sure how you can get much of value from an A/B test with multiple changes, especially if one is claiming that only 1 of those changes is what is responsible for all the improvement.

<comment><USER4> If nothing else, they have a hypothesis to test in the next experiment.

Even when possible to isolate and remove ancillary changes to improve split test purity, it's often not beneficial. If there's a significant number of changes, achieving statistical significance across the full matrix probably isn't even possible.

But that's ok, because limiting changes to a single test queue restricts your ability to move fast and try lots of stuff, which _is_ beneficial. So when you test, try cheap multivariate methods (there's a bunch!) to quickly understand how interactions between multiple changes affect results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Emotions do sell things. I like to think of myself as a rational person, but it certainly works on me.

For example, when I was living in Japan around 1996, we needed a kerosene heater for our apartment. We went to the big department store, and they had a lot of different ones. Each of them had a sticker affixed describing the various features and advantages, but they were mind-numbingly similar. But one of the stickers had a photo of Mai-chan, the cheerful and engaging child star of a cooking show that we had enjoyed on Japanese TV a couple years earlier.

My wife pointed it out to me, and we ended up getting that heater. Not because it was any better, but because we liked Mai-chan, and her photo was on it. Of course Mai-chan has absolutely nothing to do with heaters, and we knew it. But we didn't care.

We always called it the "Mai-chan" heater, and even though we left it behind when we returned to the states, I guarantee if I mention the Mai-chan heater to my wife today, nearly 20 years later, she'll smile and know exactly what I'm talking about.

The puppy screenshot in the original post has a similar effect on me. A part of me wants to reach out and pat the cute dog on the head. But I can't. But I can click the button, which is what he obviously wants me to do. Sure it's not at all rational. But it motivates people. I suggest keeping the dog and adding it all your advertising. Make it your mascot. You can't go very wrong with a puppy!

<comment><USER6> _I suggest keeping the dog and adding it all your advertising. Make it your mascot._

That's exactly what I imagined when I saw the title; a startup testing/comparing the conversion rates of a dog mascot/logo. It goes hand-in- hand with establishing a memorable brand. I'd be really curious to see how the conversion rates are affected by a complete website/brand overhaul containing a dog mascot.

<comment><USER7> Not a dog, but my startup (tabuleapp.com) added a koala as our mascot, and our conversion rates more than doubled. We help college students organize homework, so the fun koala face helped differentiate us from most homework planners that just use a book as their logo.

<comment><USER8> If you ever plan opening in Poland, add a panda instead.

There's a known few years old meme now, featuring a panda and a number "3". It's a rebus that should be read as "panda 3", and understood as "pan da 3", which is a kind of impolite way of saying "sir, please give me a 3 (D grade)".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The article title gives the puppy image credit but I think the additional text had as much if not more of an impact on the conversion lift than the image.

      "Start your 30 days free trial" text

vs

      "*Sign up now* 30 days free rial.  Pick a plan & sign up in 60 seconds.  Upgrade, downgrade, cancel at any time." with a puppy image.

The second version is so much better because it tells the viewer what to expect... the 60 second signup, flexibility in changing plans, no long-term commitments. The dog image does help since he is looking at the call-to- action, which also draws the viewer's eyes there too.

It is a great post and just goes to show how testing can really help boost conversion. It's often a lot cheaper to grow your business by improving conversion rates than by increasing traffic.

<comment><USER10> Totally agree. The OP wrote:

 _"But we can still be fairly confident that the image was the main factor since this test had a much higher change in click through than what we typically see when we just test text vs text."_

How can you be fairly confident? They broke the cardinal rule of the scientific method.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's worth noting that while we're interested in the general science of puppies and conversions, our end goal with this test was not to determine the exact value of the puppy picture, but just generally finding the best way to get people to click our call to action button...

<comment><USER11> Except you have 2 variables - puppy/no puppy; and copy A/copy B, and therefore 4 combinations. You only tested two combinations, so you have no way of knowing if the puppy or the alternate copy was the reason for the increase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, dogs do sell. I've used:

\- babies (various poses, ages)

\- tools (wrenches, screwdrivers, axes, etc)

\- clothing

\- auto parts

\- aliens (as in fake grey aliens)

\- people in weird situations

\- women crying (this one works well near saint valentines)

\- an animal with a cast (better yet if its a small bird)

\- toilet paper (a _new_ roll. not used)

\- random charts (pie, bar, etc.)(The charts doesnt even need to make sense)

\- a lock (big master lock)

\- and one time I ran an alpaca. Weirdly, it converted better than anything else. Don't ask.

<comment><USER13> \- aliens (as in fake grey aliens)

I wonder how well real aliens would do.

<comment><USER12> I meant fake looking. Not some realistic image. Still, I'd like to test a real alien, too. (:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> At one point in my career I had two job offers on the table - my wife was helping me decide, and when she saw that one of the companies had a dog on their site, she said I had to work for them. In the end, I did accept that job offer for my own reasons - but it's interesting how the emotional response is to the cuteness factor.

Coincidently I now work at a company with currently 4 dogs in the office.

<comment><USER15> "Coincidently I now work at a company with currently 4 dogs in the office"

Jesus, and I complain about how hard it is to concentrate in a noisy open plan office. A bunch of non-human animals roaming about might just tip me over the edge.

<comment><USER14> I was concerned about this at first - but overall it's really great. There have obviously been a few altercations between them, but those are rare. One of the dogs is owned by a member of my team so he sits right by me all day - occasionally he'll come by just to be pet, and when I am stuck on something work related we play fetch for a few minutes to clear my head. Our daily standups are pretty awesome too since we generally have a dog or two there with us, for example, yesterdays standup: <http://i.imgur.com/3DABSti.jpg>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We all know that puppies can sell CMSs. That's a given. What they should A/B test is the effectiveness between a black lab and golden retriever. Joking aside, the text version has no picture at all (could be just that screenshot), one thing I haven't forgotten from my marketing 101 is that pictures grab attention 10X better than text.

<comment><USER17> > the effectiveness between a black lab and golden retriever.

Good call. Aren't black dogs the least likely to be adopted from shelters?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is that the sound of a thousand startups adding puppies to their homepages instead of running proper A/B tests?

<comment><USER19> Yes, yes it is. The question remains as to whether there is a small number of stock puppy photos that will end up being used by the majority :)

<comment><USER20> Just use pugs.

<http://pugbomb.me/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising>

(to elaborate for the downvote-debbies: there is an entire industry designed around getting users to use your product based on ideas such as this, and this link is one place to learn more about that)

<comment><USER22> We learnt about this in marketing class. If you're feeling lazy about getting creative, use cute animals.

<comment><USER23> Pretty much this, that's why most TV ads have animals and many huge corporations base their entire brand around them.

What's next someone telling us they increased conversions because they used photo's of smiling people?

/debbiedowner

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The lead designer at Mailchimp wrote a really good book on this subject (designing for emotion): <http://www.abookapart.com/products/designing-for- emotion>

</comment><comment><USER25> In my experience "image beats text" is a really common result of an AB test. For an encore, I'd suggest testing an image of a (smiling) person in that same space.

<comment><USER26> Worth testing, but in my experience stock photos of people make websites look cheesy and fake. Untrustworthy, even. Like one of those fake sites to gather extra domain traffic.

<comment><USER25> Very good point. OP, be wary of stock photos, especially if the model is wearing one of those asinine phone-headsets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If a puppy can sell a CMS, what about a Hippster Cheetah?[0]

[0] <http://www.extensis.com/>

</comment><comment><USER28> From KISSMETRICS, color is also a major factor in buying decision. <http://blog.kissmetrics.com/color-psychology/>

The most popular color? Blue! IBM is blue, now Windows Blue, Mac OS X aqua blue... you name it.

</comment><comment><USER29> This reminds me of Windows Bob but I don't think it worked very well for Microsoft putting that dog there. Initially people (women and children) were impressed with how cute it was but five minutes later they were trying to kill that annoying yellow dog.

</comment><comment><USER30> Would be interesting to see puppy vs kitten results.

<comment><USER31> me too. +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The change is more than just adding an image of a puppy:

You added an image, period. You also changed the CTA button style.

The split-test did not test an independent variable.

Having said that, it's good that your conversion went up.

</comment><comment><USER33> The whole marketing of the cellular company is based on puppy: <http://www.fido.ca/>

</comment><comment><USER34> But was it really the puppy? There was a lot more text explaining what was involved (okay, not all that much, because there wasn't a lot on either, but significantly more) on the puppy version.

It could just have been that you described what signing up entailed. Plus you included 'cancel at any time', which might help some people decide.

</comment><comment><USER35> Newsblur also employs a puppy on the sales page: <http://grab.by/lIYE>

<comment><USER36> Newsblur's puppy has a much better emotional connection - pay for this app and the dog gets to eat.

<comment><USER37> I'm sad to say that was one of the reasons I signed up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> More people clicked through to the sign-up page, but did the actual number of sign-ups increase too? After all, in the end, that's what matters. If people click your link just because they want to see more pictures of puppies, it might not be such a great improvement.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's not the puppy.

People used to game Google Adsense by putting their own images next to the adsense blocks in order to get more clicks. MFA sites did this so much, Google banned the practice of using images next to their ads. This is the same result.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd like to see tests between that dog, and a person, or a group of people. Having images generally will help with conversion rates, but what kind of images would produce a better result? And for what kind of services?

</comment><comment><USER41> It says "the number of clicks on the signup button" was measured. That does not seem like the metric they are interested in which would be "number of actual signups".

</comment><comment><USER42> SUMMARY OF ARTICLE:

Question: Is a skillfully designed bug-free easy to use CMS package more important than a picture of a puppy?

Answer: The picture of the puppy is clearly more important.

</comment><comment><USER43> This lacks a control test: a version with _any_ image.

Just the fact you used a graphic can make it superior to the text version, not necessarily because it's a dog.

</comment><comment><USER44> You changed the text, thus ruining the results, or at least, making them worthless with respects to measuring the success rate of the puppy.

</comment><comment><USER45> It's a nice test. However, I'd like to see how many of each group stay after the 30 day trial.

</comment><comment><USER46> "People like puppies" seem to be Rogers subsidiary Fido's business plan in a nutshell.

</comment><comment><USER47> Of course, look how much traction Drupal has gotten from a raving water droplet .

</comment><comment><USER48> i wonder if it simply has to do with the fact that there was AN image there ? Maybe verify by putting something not as cute - say an ORC or something like that? and something neutral like a fruit?

</comment><comment><USER49> Very interesting result, 100% more signups. Try now with a cat.</comment>


The Side-Project Considered as a Necessity - <AUTHOR> http://www.exratione.com/2011/03/the-side-project-considered-as-a-necessity.php

<comment><USER2> Knowing how to host a repo considered basic

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2675464> (I can riff off of Dijkstra too!)</comment>


OK Seriously What Is BizSpark? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wekeroad.com/microsoft/hey-kid-come-over-here <comment><USER2> I'm one of Loopt's co-founders. Loopt uses Microsoft's stack (the reasons why are off topic here), and was licensing Windows Server, SQL Server, and Visual Studio through the SPLA program before BizSpark was available. We joined BizSpark right when it launched.

BizSpark consists primarily of two things: (1) a one-on-one contact to provide advice, to arrange partnership opportunities (marketing, etc), and to provide introductions to the Microsoft product teams as needed; and (2) free software licenses (which you get to keep at the end of the program). Loopt has also received other benefits, like access to their compatibility labs, conference passes, etc.

With BizSpark, Microsoft is confident enough in the quality of their offering that there's no commitment. You chose to use as much or as little of what is offered as you want, and there is zero pressure. We make use of various open source technologies[1]. It's not a problem. Also, at the end of the program they offer an extremely generous graduation offer[2] with no financial obligation.

After that, Microsoft's volume licensing is reasonable[3], the tools are well documented, and everything works as expected. Their stack is predictable, consistent, and dependable. If you want to be able to focus on your product instead of the tools you're using[4], then the Microsoft stack is great. Note: It's cheaper to have your tools work than to hire someone on salary to maintain and debug them.

[1] Ubuntu, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Ruby, Rails, etc.

[2] <http://www.bizspark.com/Programs/Pages/GraduationOffer.aspx> I can't discuss the details of Loopt's custom offer (we exceed the standard usage by a fair amount), but we'll be much better off after BizSpark than we were before. Microsoft has been very generous.

[3] See the SPLA program: [http://www.microsoft.com/hosting/en/us/licensing/splabenefit...](http://www.microsoft.com/hosting/en/us/licensing/splabenefits.aspx)

[4] Not that they aren't extensible if needed. Back before ASP.Net MVC and WCF (and before Thrift, Protocol Buffers, and Rails) we wrote a ton of our own custom web and RPC tooling. ASP.Net is actually really nice but gets a bad rap because of web forms (which you don't have to use, and have improved substantially in the latest release). IIS 7 rocks as a transport agnostic application server, and can do MSMQ, TCP, UDP and more (it's extensible) in addition to HTTP.

<comment><USER3> > _the tools are well documented, and everything works as expected. Their > stack is predictable, consistent, and dependable. If you want to be able to > focus on your product instead of the tools you're using[4], then the > Microsoft stack is great. Note: It's cheaper to have your tools work than to > hire someone on salary to maintain and debug them._

I don't doubt all you say is true. But consider someone (like me for example) with a Unixy skill-set. I know PHP, MySQL, PhpMyAdmin, Python, Django, Unix text processing tools, etc, and while the MS equivalents may well be very good, when you factor in my time learning to use them, I'm not going to be as productive.

One of the reasons I know all these tools is that getting started is simply _sudo apt-get install whatever_ and I'm off. If MS want a higher uptake of their developer tools, they might make them as easy to get at as that.

I understand that with BizSpark I can use Microsoft's tools without paying much money. But there's a bureaucratic process to getting on the BizSpark program, which I'm guessing takes days or weeks to achieve. By comparison, _sudo apt-get install_ takes seconds.

And that's why I'm using Unix-based tools in my startup.

<comment><USER4> You've created a nice little strawman there.

Microsoft offers free versions of their developer tools with the various Visual Studio Express editions and Sql Server Express.

If you're looking into more enterprise-y software, Microsoft offers free time- limited versions of pretty much all their server and productivity software.

<comment><USER5> It's not a straw-man. To get that free version, I've got to go to MSDN, register, jump through a bunch of hoops, download some way-too-big installer, run a long installation process, reboot a couple times.. I mean, not that I would ever think of pirating software from a giant corporation that wouldn't even notice the lost revenue, but bittorrent is only very slightly more work than all of that.

apt-get is a whole different plane of ease. It adds about a 3-second fixed- cost to trying a new tool.

<comment><USER6> Have you ever actually _done_ it? The process of "fill out a form once," hit the Download button and walk away then come back an hour later to answer a few setup questions with Visual Studio is far from the onerous task you make it seem.

I'm no MS fanboy -- my current side project is PHP/LAMP all the way, but I have made money with their free tools.

<comment><USER7> And if their stuff doesn't work as expected? "Sorry, you are not paying customer, so buzz off" or "sorry, but not enough paying customers want that fixed. You are minority, your money is worthless, so buzz off". While with Free Software you can have your people fix it, or hire consultant. I don't believe in that Bill Gates' ( <http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html> ) "Microsoft code has no bugs" religious gospel. All software has bugs, except Free one can get fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a co-founder of a little startup project that got accepted in the BizSpark program and I can say it has definitely been a benefit to us and will be to our users when we launch in late January. We're building a web app for a vertical in the attorney space, it's a rails app built completely on an open source stack.

Why do we need BizSpark? While we would like for our customers to use our web app exclusively, the reality is the majority of practices run Windows and Office. So we built Exchange and Outlook integration using the tools provided by BizSpark. If we hadn't had access to those tools we still would have built the product, but we wouldn't have Exchange and Outlook support at launch. The benifit for us; We built a product better suited for our customers. The benefit for MS: They have another product on the list of thousands that has custom support and integration with their office suite, their bread and butter.

Clearly the biggest benefit for us has been access to thousands in software we otherwise couldn't afford. But we will be looking at the opportunities to network with partners and investors through BizSpark when we're ready.

I see it as a win for us and an ever so tiny win (because of our small user base) for Microsoft.

<comment><USER9> What kind of conditions do they impose on you as a part of the program? Is there any stuff like "an app built using Bizspark that supports Microsoft office cannot also support OpenOffice / LibreOffice," or "your app can't be open-source?" Etc?

Is it just software, or do they provide any sort of assistance with doing the integration with their stuff?

I'm curious since I could see a use for Sharepoint integration and even Outlook / Office integration for some of what I'm working on, but I'd still be leery of the whole "it's a trap" thing with Microsoft.

<comment><USER10> I work for Microsoft. Part of my job is talking about BizSpark.

BizSpark doesn't impose any conditions like you listed, to qualify for BizSpark, you just need to meet the requirements listed here: [https://www.microsoft.com/BizSpark/Faqs.aspx#Startup- Questio...](https://www.microsoft.com/BizSpark/Faqs.aspx#Startup-Question1)

We don't have a formal way to offer assistance to startups looking to integrate with our software. That said, I'd love to talk to anybody who is interested doing integrations with Microsoft software.

<comment><USER9> Hmmm... when I tried that URL in Chrome, I get:

"You attempted to reach www.microsoft.com, but the certificate that the server presented has been revoked by its issuer. This means that the security credentials the server presented absolutely should not be trusted. You may be communicating with an attacker. You should not proceed."

Just FYI...

<comment><USER10> Odd. Are you getting the correct certificate? You should be getting a certificate with a fingerprint of: "ea 22 6c ac ce 3f 1c b3 47 d9 f7 8f 60 31 d3 ba 41 07 91 99"

You can use this command to double-check the certificate on your local (POSIX) machine or on a remote server:

      echo '' | openssl s_client -connect www.microsoft.com:443 | openssl x509 -noout -fingerprint

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In short, free MSDN subscriptions for startups.

Our company is part of the program and we basically get access to _everything_ for 3 years. We're talking VS 2010, SQL Server, Windows, Azure hours and much more.

<comment><AUTHOR> But it's not free if it's only 3 years - you still have to pay don't you? I'm not arguing the utility of it - I'm wondering if you would have paid anyway - or if the 3 year "loan" made a difference.

<comment><USER12> It's not a loan. It's free. At the end of the three years you can keep the software, continue using it, and never pay a dime to Microsoft (actually $100).

You can in theory, build Google on it, make $50B over 20 years, and never pay MS a dime, all while using MS software.

With that said, if you do want to upgrade to new versions of the software after 3 years, then you'll have to pay for upgrades. But that's like saying that someone giving you a new car for free isn't really free, if they don't give you a new car every year. Or if ATT and Apple give you an iPhone and service free for 3 years, its not really free unless they give you a new iPhone every 3 years (and free ATT service).

<comment><AUTHOR> Have a read here (I think this is what you're referring to): <http://www.bizspark.com/Programs/Pages/GraduationOffer.aspx>

Note that if you keep your MSDN license, it doesn't entitle you to use much in production. You can't, for instance, run SQL Server in production using an MSDN license. Nor can you use Exchange and Windows Server.

So it's not free :).

<comment><USER12> To quote:

"Startups may keep and continue to use, for development and testing purposes, all the software they received as part of their BizSpark MSDN Subscription. In other words, they have perpetual development and test rights to that software."

"The BizSpark Graduation Offer allows BizSpark startups to keep, at no charge, all the software they acquired through the BizSpark program"

"Under the graduation offer, the MSDN Ultimate licenses that came with BizSpark are perpetual, so startups keep all the tools and platform software they got from the program for development and testing purposes, including Visual Studio and Expression"

"Similarly, startups will also have perpetual rights to all of their Windows and SQL Server production licenses"

Now your claim may be that BizSpark doesn't supply enough licenses for you, but it is FREE. After BizSpark is done, you never have to pay MS a cent to keep and use the SW acquired in BizSpark.

In fact, I didn't realize they'd waived the $100 fee.

Like I said, if you want to upgrade or get additional licenses, you have to pay for those. You can build your $50B empire all on BizSpark, although you'll just have to write a very efficient backend to handle the transactions with only a couple of SQL instances, but there is nothing stopping you, but your ingenuity :-)

<comment><USER13> From that same page: _The BizSpark Graduation Offer assumes a standard production configuration of 4 Windows Server Standard Edition and 2 SQL Server Standard Edition (Proc) which we believe will meet the needs of most startups. For startups who have different or greater needs, the BizSpark team will work with them to build a customized configuration at graduation._

<comment><USER2> I can't reveal details but the graduation offer Loopt has received (a customized configuration) is fantastic. We'll be much better off at the end than when we started, and don't regret it for a second.

It's absolutely not a bait and switch.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great that it works for you - and I don't think anyone is suggesting it's a bait and switch (I tried to be very careful with the post's wording). My point in this thread isn't that it's duplicitous - more that it's not free.

I'm sure you guys had to work some licensing (which probably came under an agreement to enroll in another program). This isn't free - it's an engagement. If you left the program you would have to pay, I'm sure.

And if it works for you - that's good stuff. I'd be very interested in reading about your choices and why you went this route.

<comment><USER2> You're absolutely right. I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I've just had discussions before where that came up.

Loopt was paying for licensing before we joined, and will be paying less after.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it:

* The dev tools are free, and continue to be so at the end. This is a huge deal by itself.

* Some number of server licenses are perpetually free.

It's possible for it to be completely free, though it needn't be if you aren't careful or choose to exceed the limits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Unless you don't plan on your software running on a Windows-based machine, seems like a no-brainer.

Regarding MS's lack of self-promotion. They tend to self-promote what they believe and are mum on other stuff. Like WP7 and Azure -- they won't say its the best, but that its a marathon, not a sprint. But with Visual Studio, they'll happily tell you that it is the best. SQL Server, they'll enumerate the scenarios where they're the best. And with Office, they have no problem making the claim that it's the best office productivity platform.

While Rob would like more self-promotion... I think its fair to say that if you don't know what your tools are good at and are looking at a company to tell you then BizSpark (or any other program) probably won't help you.

</comment><comment><USER14> We are a bizspark company.

It is a great way to get noticed by Microsoft. If you do not already have lots of contacts at high level, this will help.

All you can eat software really helps.

I develop in C# because my visual studio ultimate edition makes it extremely convenient. I can write code directly as a result of creating a UML model.

Bizspark accelerates startups by removing software barriers. We integrate with Exchange and Dynamics CRM, so for us it was an obvious strategy.

Bizspark One is like an incubator.

</comment><comment><USER15> BizSpark is nothing particularly unusual.

Most commercial software vendors have similar programs and analogous offers available to developers, and seemingly most featuring the "for development and testing purposes" restrictions.

If you're operating within the particular vendor's realm and particularly developing over a longer horizon, these programs can be reasonable.

But these programs are also sticky-traps or "free samples" leading to addictions or vendor lock-ins or whatever analogy you'd prefer. (Which is why they exist; duh.) Once entrenched on (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, EC2/S3, hosted services, whatever) porting out or switching from development to production use can get costly.

Looking forward, consider if the end-users are even particularly going to know or care what software is running under the hood in a few years. While it's a now very successful model, what are the growth trends in three or five years? Between hosting (Azure or slices or otherwise) and virtual machine guests and embedded clients, the operating system and the bag of drivers that it provides is becoming a component of your application, or something you (or somebody else) runs for your customers.

Pick your bag of drivers and choose your particular software addiction(s) appropriately. If that's BizSpark, go for it. Just don't get dazzled by the word "FREE!" from any vendor.

</comment><comment><USER16> My interactions with BizSpark in Silicon Valley have been nothing short of stellar. I organize the Hackers and Founders meetups [1] in the area, and Joel Franusic [2], the BizSpark evangelist for the area is one of the huge reasons that I have nothing but good things to say about BizSpark.

Joel is a Perl, *nix hacker with a dash of Lisp mixed in. He's been working startups for years, and he helps organize Super Happy Dev House in Silicon Valley. He joined BizSpark because he thought he could help a broad cross section of startups.

Joel doesn't push the Microsoft stack very hard. He's very much a soft sell kind of guy. But, if a startup is interested in working on the Microsoft stack, he's a phenomenal resource.

ref:

[1] <http://www.hackersandfounders.com>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jf>

</comment><comment><USER17> I was rejected for Bizspark. As part of a wider product, I develop an Open Source OpenXML module for Python.

This requires testing on Office 2007 and 2010, as these apps don't implement the OpenXML spec exactly so there are quirks.

Not sure if the rejection was because it was whether the component that touched the MS stack was OSS, whether MS don't realize that Python runs on Windows, whether they don't want people to use OpenXML on other platforms, or some other reason.

Weirdly enough, I actually started in IT as a Windows NT 4 MCSE when I was 17. I had a very different view of Microsoft then.

<comment><USER13> You should contact jf <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jf>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> _Believe it or not - I disagree with this. Sort of. Microsoft _is_ almost completely invisible in the Valley. I worked there for ... well pretty much my entire career. That's what I do - startups - and only one of them went with Microsoft tools. And that was back in 1997 when Active Server Pages was all the rage._

This page (<http://www.bizspark.com/one/Pages/default.aspx>) tells me otherwise, some hot startups are using MS bizspark. So it's not really invisible in the valley.

<comment><AUTHOR> That page lists a number of startups - sure. It's atomic compared to the startups out there. I do agree - it's impressive to see some of the names on the list and it would be nice to see it grow. All the same, you have to admit that it's rather small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't care much about Bizspark but I want this guy to write the front-facing text on my startup's web page when the time comes, he's great in summing up the value in few, well-chosen words.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've heard about BizSpark before.

But if I didn't, I would know pretty quickly that ridiculous buzzwords like that could only come from a place like Microsoft.</comment>


Show HN: Breathe 2.0 – Boost your calmness and focus while you work - <AUTHOR> https://www.github.com/filipeisho/breathe <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone!

Breathe is a (distraction-free) peripheral breath trainer, it helps you breathe correctly so you can stay calm and focus on what matters.

I started breathe 2 weeks ago after reading some articles on the benefits of breathing correctly (you have the link to those articles in the repo). And the app consisted of a gif embedded inside a macOS app that always stayed on top, but besides that there was no speed control, no customising, it was just a gif. For me this was enough as my only objective was to start breathing correctly without the need to go out of flow.

The same day I finished this 5-minute gif embedded coding adventure I found myself very happy as not only I could breathe correctly but I felt more focused and less anxious.

After I got a lot of positive feedback two weeks ago on my first Show HN ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008678](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24008678)), I saw that the project had value for a lot of people and started spending most of my free time on making breathe usable.

Today I have released version 2.0 with all the features I deemed necessary for breathe to be a 100% functioning app.

The most requested features were being able to customise the breathing exercises time intervals, the color of each step and to be able to progressively increase the intervals to train yourself to breathe deeper.

Besides that, the most important features in terms of usability that I have implemented imo are transporting the window between spaces (so it always stays on top, it doesn't matter if you go full screen), status bar icon with all the settings and the option to open at login.

Any feedback is highly appreciated!

<comment><USER2> Great update! What's a recommended routine to start with?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! There are plenty of breathing exercises but the one I use the most is the 4-4-4-4 (it comes by default). I also enable progression, increasing each time interval by 0.1 seconds every two minutes for 20/30 times (you can tweak all of this in preferences).</comment></comment></comment>


Why Don't We Have a General Purpose Tree Editor? - <AUTHOR> https://pcmonk.me/2014/04/01/why-dont-we-have-a-general-purpose-tree-editor.html <comment><USER2> You might want to add "(2014)" to the title.</comment>


Show HN: Type and download your personal punch cards: The Virtual Keypunch - <AUTHOR> http://www.masswerk.at/keypunch

<comment><USER2> You can pre-fill the card, too: [http://www.masswerk.at/keypunch/?q=hello+hn!+dont+forget+you...](http://www.masswerk.at/keypunch/?q=hello+hn!+dont+forget+your+archive.org+donation)!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Further info: The page is a free add-on to "Google60" <http://www.masswerk.at/google60>

Ideal tool to make a gift card for your geeky friends ...</comment>


Show HN: Mouin, a sane way to create native mobile apps - <AUTHOR> http://mouin.com/blog/2011/10/10/a-sane-way-to-create-native-mobile-apps/

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. After my previous two "solo" projects (ViEmu and Codekana), I started Mouin some time ago, now with a co-founder and with a great team of hackers. We hope to provide a great alternative to building native mobile apps without losing your sanity.

I'll be happy to hear your thoughts, we're trying to understand how we can best serve this market.

</comment><comment><USER2> Great idea !!! The concept of tapatalk, but expanded to any kind of website. Does it work whit every CMS ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It's similar, but it also builds & submits the custom-branded client app to the app-stores.

Indeed, it can work with any CMS or HTML-creation pipeline. It's one of the great strengths of the model.

Will have a look at Tapatalk, wasn't aware of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'd be interested to hear how this compares to PhoneGap.

<comment><AUTHOR> Phonegap allows you to embed a standard HTML5 web site/page/app into a native "shell", for running on iPhone/Android and submitting to the app-stores. It also includes some advanced APIs for device access. The app you interact with is actually a web-view control.

Mouin is a set of vendor-specific CSS extensions you can add to your regular, online HTML content, and the Mouin client app can read these and create native iPhone/Android/BB/J2ME OS UI controls. The UX will be more native, while content is distributed as a regular web page.

Sorry if the explanation is complex, mobile is a really complex space right now. Actually, PhoneGap and Mouin are similar in allowing web devs and designers to create native mobile apps. How they allow it and the resulting apps are radically different in every aspect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks good. Gonna try it!</comment>


Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-cell-phone-radiation-study-reignites-cancer-questions/ <comment><AUTHOR> Study report is here: [http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...](http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf)

The results do not seem all that convincing to me, even though the authors seem to be saying that the results are significant.

But it's not like a significant percentage got tumors while the controls did not. The differences are in the order of a few percent. Probably worth a closer look, but does not seem to me you can draw some major conclusion from this.</comment>


Has Microsoft Lost Its Mojo with Developers? - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmableweb.com/news/will-windows-10-win-developers-back-to-microsoft/analysis/2015/08/03

<comment><USER2> Given the lack of enthusiasm that Windows generates, I don't think it ever had "Mojo". But it has market share, which is probably more important.

</comment><comment><USER3> MS started to lose their Mojo w/ devs ages ago, not sure if they'll ever bounce back</comment>


Show HN: Revibes, the good vibes network (that wasn't launched) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/arisAlexis/revibes-server <comment><AUTHOR> I have spent almost one year coding it as a side project. I like programming and the idea so I first started the project, implemented a ridiculous amount of features and then decided it is not suitable as a startup-for-profit project.</comment>


First Science Results from NASA's Juno Mission - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/a-whole-new-jupiter-first-science-results-from-nasa-s-juno-mission <comment><USER2> The lifetime cost of this mission is $1.1B.

For the price of a space shuttle program, we could get 200 of these. ISS is worth 100 of these.

If we're really serious about space exploration, robot probes and telescopes give by far the biggest bang for the buck, and they go where no human being can ever go. That Jupiter flyby would cook you like an egg.

<comment><USER3> Robotic missions won't make us a multiplanetary society though (neither does the space shuttle...). I think that's important too.

<comment><USER2> A lot of us think that's a specious goal. Earth has oxygen, the food is good, there's decent nightlife. And all my stuff is here.

<comment><USER3> Luckily humanity has enough resources to pursue multiple goals simultaneously

<comment><USER2> Not this one. To create an outpost off-planet capable of sustaining human civilization at its current level in the event something happened to Earth would consume our entire economic output for many years, if it were even achievable.

<comment><USER3> Or it would consume a tiny fraction of our economic output for several generations while maybe also throwing off some sweet tech that is useful back here on Earth.

<comment><USER4> Do we have that long?

<comment><USER3> Who knows? Better get started sooner than later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The failure of its main engine is going to turn out to be a blessing as fabulous new Jupiter photography every 53 days could be a nice regular treat for us space boffins.

<comment><USER6> I hadn't heard about this failure, this explains a bit about it [https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/02/juno-dives-over- jupite...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/02/02/juno-dives-over-jupiters- cloud-tops-with-main-engine-still-offline/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Beautiful.

I find images of Jupiter absolutely stunning, and that the dynamics behind the auroras is sophisticated (ie, something complex happening above the core) is even more interesting.

I can't wait for Juno to bring us even more results!

<comment><USER8> Do you know if these images have been colour-enhanced, like those photos of glowing nebulae? [http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Nebulae/Horsehead/FullSizeJpg/...](http://www.imagingdeepsky.com/Nebulae/Horsehead/FullSizeJpg/Horsehead.jpg)

<comment><USER9> Enhanced color isn't exactly right. Most nebula images are done with Narrow Band filters that only let a specific wavelength through. Typically those of Hydrogen alpha, sulfur II and oxygen III emissions. This gives three monochrome channels of data that you can combine however you please to RGB. Or supplement with even more data from broadband R, G, B or luminance filters. Not sure about the Horsehead image, could be a HaRGB or even Near infrared composite. In the case of Juno there are 4 filters: R, G, B and a methane filter (~840nm narrow band). The data you can map to RGB arbitrairly, usually with a linear combination. It's just as much art as science

<comment><USER8> Thanks. But excuse my dumminess, just need to get this right: so the three channels of data can be converted into RGB to give the "shades" to make a photo ... but you can pick a dominant colour filter, like blue, green or in the Horsehead's case, pink?

I am mesmerised by Juno's photos but wondering if it's true to the human eye (like as if we are there.) The photo caption hints otherwise [1] but I'm not sure if my understanding is correct!

[1] _Multiple images taken with the JunoCam instrument on three separate orbits were combined to show all areas in daylight, enhanced color, and stereographic projection._

<comment><USER10> Basically, each narrow-band filter gives you a grey-scale image. You can assign whatever color you like to each of them, and then mix them to get a color image. If you have filters for the Red, Green, and Blue wavelengths, and then apply Red, Green, and Blue colors _of the same wavelength_ to the images before mixing them, that'll get you as close to a true-color image as possible. (That's essentially what's going on in your camera, for capturing an image and then displaying it to you.)

Red, Green, and Blue are used because their wavelengths match the wavelengths that the cells in our retinas are sensitive to. That allows cameras to approximate human vision. But scientists use lots of other wavelengths too in order to see specific things more clearly, like Juno's methane filter. Every chemical gives off specific wavelengths of light when it releases energy, so filters that are tuned to those wavelengths make it easier to detect those chemicals. (I'm simplifying a bit here.) The false-color images you see from these missions are designed to combine multiple filters (that aren't RGB) and mix them using contrasting colors so that you can still see highlights from each of the filters.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Virtual gaming headset Oculus Rift raises $16 million from Spark Capital - <AUTHOR> http://pandodaily.com/2013/06/17/virtual-gaming-headset-oculus-rift-raises-16-million-from-spark-capital/ <comment><USER2> Fantastic news.

We've had a dev kit for a few days and it really has blown everyone away that's come into our office. They instantly say "This is the future, isn't it?"

Hopefully this money will help get a top quality headset to market sooner.</comment>


Cities with Uber Have Lower Rates of Ambulance Usage - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/18/571689807/cities-with-uber-have-lower-rates-of-ambulance-usage <comment><USER2> I injured myself and needed to go to the ER. The injury wasn't life threatening, but I definitely needed to go to the hospital immediately.

I called an Uber.

I don't have the time or expertise to do the months of legalese and calculus it would take me to understand my insurance policy, so I have no idea how much an ambulance ride would have cost me. $0? $400? $15000? None of those numbers would surprise me. As best I can tell, insurance companies throw a dart to decide whether you're covered or not, and then the healthcare provider makes up some insane number if you aren't.

The Uber got me to the hospital faster than an ambulance would have, for less than $10, and I knew it would cost less than $10.

The injury, though extremely gruesome and painful, only warranted an x-ray, some tylenol, and an ace bandage.

I'm insured. They sent me a bill for over $900. For taking a picture, and giving me tylenol and an ace bandage.

I view insurance as a tax my employers pay to the American healthcare system to be compliant. When I have my end-of-life event, whatever that is, I fully expect a choice between death, and living a little longer in bankruptcy. I'll probably get treated outside the US or choose death.

The system works if your net worth is somewhere above $5 million. For everyone else it's just the mechanism that sends everything you earned back to rich people right before you die.

Or maybe I'm wrong! I hope I'm wrong. The stack of papers is 4 inches high so I'll never know, but I sure hope so.

<comment><USER3> There is pretty much nothing that infuriates me more than the health insurance system. Here is just one example (other than your ambulance example, which is like some trolley-car problem come real):

We use "insurance" for _routine_ medical examinations which are supposedly to be done _regardless_ of health. We use "insurance" for YEARLY checkups.

The absurdity of this is on par with insuring yourself against getting hungry, or buying gasoline insurance to fill up your car.

Gas in $8000/gallon. But pay $900/month and we will cover the cost!

It is absolutely embarrassing that this is the system we have allowed to exist. I consider myself a pretty staunch capitalist in most regards. Health insurance is definitely not one of them.

<comment><USER4> Insurance should be used for what it is — an financial instrument to protect against unforeseen and catastrophic financial loss.

Car insurance doesn't pay for tires or oil while it could be argued that bad tires increase the risk of accident. However tires and oil are an inextricable requirements to owning a car.

This idea that health care should be paid for by someone else has always puzzled me. It's the equivalent of food being "free."

For the legitimately poor, there is definitely a role for government just as governments don't let people starve to death, but for everyone else — its just wacky that the government ought to be involved at all beyond safety regulation. We went wrong when some groups started claiming health care as a right — nobody has a "right" to the labor of other people. In other words — I don't have a right to make you produce something for me.

Health care costs have spiraled out of control because of the detachment of who is paying from who is receiving the service — much like higher education.

<comment><USER5> > _Health care costs have spiraled out of control because of the detachment of > who is paying from who is receiving the service — much like higher > education._

No, they have spiralled out of control because health care is something where no real market can exists, so you need good regulation (which the USA doesn't have). If you have an urgent and life-threatening health problem you can't shop around for a cheaper hospital or decide to go to none at all if the alternative is death. So they can charge whatever they want if there is no regulation.

<comment><USER6> Why not?

You also can't live without food but there is a market for that. Even when you don't have time to cook and need food on short notice, there are plenty of fast food and delivery options available.

There is nothing impossible about a situation where a hospital has a reputation for being cheap but having long wait times while another hospital is more expensive but has shorter wait times. Then in an urgency you wouldn't need to shop around, you would decide based on each hospital's reputation.

Unfortunately hospitals don't publish their median wait times, patient outcomes or even their prices. If they were forced to publish those things, maybe a market would emerge.

<comment><USER7> You can live for weeks without food, it can be stored easily (unlike services which aren't stored at all), and the barrier to entry is low... Many people even have their own food gardens. It's also very amenable to nearly complete automation. Therefore food is super cheap.

<comment><USER8> >I understand that healthcare is more expensive than food for all those reasons. What I don't understand is why there can't be a market for it. Expensive services can have markets too.

At the moment the only thing I can think of that are expensive services are also luxury services. Most people consider health care to be a basic service that should be open to those who need it, regardless of wealth.

<comment><USER6> Back to the food analogy, people who can't afford the food they need to live are given food stamps. Even so, there is still a market for food. People know ahead of time what the exact price of the thing they are buying with their food stamps. Nutritional information is available on the packaging.

Why exactly can't I know ahead of time how much will each hospital in my area charge if I have a heart attack and have to go to their ER? Why can't I know which hospital has better survival rates, or the shortest wait times?

That information is all that is needed to have a healthcare market. It should not be impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you don't get bogged down in details of the service, I see this as generally net good. For many, ambulance rides are prohibitively expensive, and while I certainly wouldn't be cost-conscious taking an ambulance in the event of a seizure or heart attack, for something like a broken arm, or non-life- threatening ailment, an Uber/Lyft/Cab is a good alternative to trying to drive myself.

Beyond that, I'd like to see statistics on whether people ride-sharing to emergency rooms / urgent care facilities was freeing up ambulances or causing them to sit idle. I suspect it's the former, which would mean ambulances could be more available for more people with more serious conditions, but I could be wrong.

<comment><USER10> Six years ago I had something similar to a stoke. I had a relative drive me from work to the ER in outer suburbs because:

a) I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance. I put my money where my mouth was on that.

b) I knew from previous experience their ER was far cheaper, cleaner and quicker than the one in the cities.

Maybe I am just particularly frugal but I had the presence of mind to consider costs while I could not feel one side of my face.

Another time, I needed surgery and called around to get quotes. The place I ended up was something like a quarter the place my doctor wanted to send me.

<comment><USER11> > I would literally rather die than pay for an ambulance.

I wish more people realized this was an option. You can't even imagine how common it is to see the claim "medical care is a special market, because if someone is dying, they will pay ANY AMOUNT for care no matter how high".

Sure, if that person is dying and rates their own health _infinitely_ higher than the welfare of their family, maybe. That's not many people.

Incidentally, the same stupid argument also proves that scamming a life insurance policy by committing suicide is impossible. Life insurance companies, in general, do not agree.

<comment><USER12> > _Sure, if that person is dying and rates their own health infinitely higher > than the welfare of their family, maybe. That 's not many people._

I don't think that's true. I think that's actually the vast majority of people. Nearly all of them, even. The human survival instinct overrides so much of a human's rational thought processes or even their higher-order emotional processes. You may be one of the rare few for which that's not the case, but, well... you're of a vanishingly rare breed.

And it's not even exactly that. When you're in a life-threatening situation, it's likely that you're either a) unconscious, or b) completely unable to have even a remote grasp of what the cost will be to "fix" you. As in, not even a ballpark figure. Given the potential urgency, you may not have the time to get a second opinion or shop around for a cheaper fix. Just the cost of stabilizing you to the point where you can sit back and make an informed decision could bankrupt you.

Also, just a side note on:

> _... the welfare of their family_

There's also a cost to their welfare if you die, too. It's hard to put a number on that while you're healthy, let alone in the midst of an emergency or life-threatening illness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Coming from a country where ambulance usage is free for citizens, it would be interesting to see the stats in Uber cities. The only reason not to call an ambulance here is if you feel it would be unethical (e.g. if you broke your arm and your partner could drive you).

EDIT: That is, I imagine you might be able to see whether Uber provides a better alternative than the local cabs. This still holds in US cities though, why is Uber specifically good? Why don't people consider calling their local cab company, which will still be much cheaper than a $250 ride.

<comment><USER14> I also come from a country where ambulance usage is free but I can tell you from experience that getting one of these ambulances isn't as simple as one might think.

I imagine, maybe, there are keywords or phrases that result in instant dispatch but the default behaviour seems to be to frustrate you as much as possible to the point where you just hang up and drive yourself to the nearest hospital accident and emergency department.

This is, I suppose, a result of the service being costed and allocated to different departments who are all under pressure to manage their own budgets?

Accident and emergency departments obviously get the brunt of all this because they don't have anyone to pass the buck to.

So, yeah, maybe utilising a service such as Uber is actually going to be a way around this problem?

<comment><USER15> Free ambulances are always going to come with the problem of abuse, followed by a reluctance to send an ambulance.

Resulting in news stories of how some people call of help and don't get any. But these stories are rare, it's seem better than letting poor people die.

This said, we probably should add a tiny ambulance fee ($50), and apply a fine for inappropriate use.

<comment><USER14> 'This said, we probably should add a tiny ambulance fee ($50), and apply a fine for inappropriate use.'

I agree although reclaiming this fee from those who abuse the system is likely to prove difficult?

I can remember a time in the UK when ambulance and, IIRC, fire service would bill you after the event for attendance.

Not sure if this was every case or just where they deemed it appropriate? But, I do remember, it was common knowledge there was no penalty or follow-up if you didn't pay.

<comment><USER15> > I agree although reclaiming this fee from those who abuse the system is > likely to prove difficult?

You assume everybody that abuses free services are broke. We need data to tell whether that's the case. I would assume that a significant portion of the abusers mostly just lack manners.

Anyways, the point isn't to kick the ones who are down (poor). It's only to limit abuse... But first maybe it should be assessed of abuse is a problem.

And maybe, having a deal with taxi company is a better solution...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd be more interested to see the reduction in medicab or medivan usage.

My father had the misfortune of having a stroke, and transporting him via van is outrageous — you're talking >$250 for a 15 mile drive, in what amounts to a cargo van with zero service beyond driving.

It's one of those weird markets where the pricing is driven by the Medicaid reimbursement, which is a price floor.

<comment><USER17> Same situation for me, and I've seen the same with regards to price.

That said, I also suspect the med transport niche is heavily regulated (a la taxi service). Special training for drivers, insurance, etc. I don't think that covers the full $250; just saying they're not identical to a Uber.

<comment><USER12> Right. If the Uber driver fails to get you to the hospital in time to save your life for any reason, they have no liability or consequences whatsoever, because they're not intended to be a life-saving or emergency service.

If the ambulance driver screws up in some way, they're in for a world of trouble and legal liability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here in the UK, there has been a major campaign to try and reduce the usage of ambulances and emergency departments. Many of our ambulances literally have "this is not a taxi" written on them.

[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ff/1e/5cff1eac4bef3b52f76d...](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/ff/1e/5cff1eac4bef3b52f76d3ca92b041bec.jpg)

Because it's free to use, a lot of people call ambulances when they really don't need them. Women in the early stages of an uncomplicated labour. Young people with minor injuries. Elderly people who want a repeat prescription. Discouraging these people from abusing the service without putting off people who are genuinely in need of an ambulance is a complex and delicate task.

The US healthcare system is clearly an unmitigated disaster, but our single- payer utopia has a different set of problems.

<comment><USER19> Your example is the result of years of government failure to provide adequate funding and support to the health system, not some kind of fantastical moocher, using ambulances for no reason.

<comment><USER20> Not sure why you got downvoted, what you say is true.

People sat similar things as GP about A&E - "the problem is all the people who use it who shouldn't". No. Those people are easily triaged and sent away. The problems with A&E are all the people who need a hospital bed who spend hours on a trolley in a corridor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been wondering about this for a while but, is there a reason why Uber or an alternative cannot/should not get into the Ambulance space, if it were able to get qualified staff.

I feel like Ambulances/Hospitals charge way too much and using the app/tech at a basic level to connect the ambulances with patients addresses may be a good start for everyone and also the increase in supply may reduce costs.

<comment><USER22> Are paramedics/ambulances so unregulated in the US that it's /not/ a bat-shit crazy idea to suggest Uber Ambulances?

<comment><USER23> There are a lot of private ambulance services in the US, they're anything but unregulated though as you'd expect with anything in the US medical field (one of the most regulated industries on earth).

There's no theoretical reason why Uber couldn't get into the driving side of the business, with human drivers. Their future is in autonomous however, which will never be the ambulance business (it will _never_ be autonomous, ambulance drivers frequently have to break standard driving laws in emergencies, drive at high speeds, drive around vehicles, etc).

<comment><USER22> > It will never be autonomous, ambulance drivers frequently have to break > standard driving laws in emergencies, drive at high speeds, drive around > vehicles, etc).

And because they have to perform emergency medical treatment, right?!

Are we talking about different things - a mini hospital on wheels staffed by highly trained paramedics, and glorified taxis for the elderly/non-critical?

<comment><USER12> Some ambulances are just glorified taxis, others are staffed with EMTs who can do more.

If it weren't for the need to drive in a "non-standard" manner, you could likely save on costs by having an autonomous vehicle staffed by an EMT. The EMT can't also drive the vehicle, after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Healthcare in the US sounds nightmarish. I'm a UK citizen and broke my leg badly in France; ambulance etc. Whole thing was <75 GBP. That was for the cost of crutches and medicine in France, X-ray+ER visit was free. Then after I got my train back to the UK I had complex reconstructive surgery for free on the NHS.

</comment><comment><USER25> A relevant personal anecdote - I hit my head earlier this year and gave myself a concussion, but did not realize it at the time. The next day, I began experiencing severe headaches, sensitivity to noise, sensitivity to light, etc. and decided to go to a hospital. I called an Uber.

I'm not sure what I would have done without Uber. I guess I could call a cab, but I don't know that I would have wanted my ride to the hospital to be 30 minutes late, to refuse to turn the music down, and to tell me the credit card reader is broken when I get to my destination and then insist on taking me to an ATM. So I might well have called an ambulance.

<comment><USER26> > my ride to the hospital to be 30 minutes late, to refuse to turn the music > down, and to tell me the credit card reader is broken

As much as I'd like to stick it to taxis because of their decades of price gouging due to being granted a monopoly, I have not had many bad experiences riding a taxi. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say that less than 5% of my taxi rides were in any way unpleasant other than for the cost. What city or country are you in if I might ask? Are taxi experiences really that bad for most people?

<comment><USER27> This really depends on where you live. Harassing and other similar situations are very common in Taxis where I live, while Uber drivers seem to be well- behaved.

None of my female friends dare get into a Taxi due to, well, harassment, (some have stories of groping, attempted rapes, etc.). Generally, they'd only take a taxi in groups, or walk. Uber seems to be working well in that regard (at least for now).

<comment><USER28> In my country, Uber service is far better than taxis by a mile... many taxi drivers are poorly-paid employees which don't care much, and they're basically immune to any kind of incentive or threat.

On the other hand, Uber drivers with a bad score are usually suspended or banned from the app, keeping out the bad apples, and they're usually the car owners themselves, thus having an incentive to drive better and take more rides.

I believe than something similar to Uber scores for taxis with similar effects (removing bad drivers from the service) would create a huge improvement.

Another unfortunate side effect is that there's some segmentation - poorer and older people still take taxis, while more affluent people take Ubers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Well yeah. I had a kidney stone earlier this year. Pain so bad I couldn't move or think. Went to the hospital in an ambulance and ended up paying nearly $3k for the ride. First round they thought it was muscle spasms, so when I inevitably had to go back again I got an uber. The only reason I wouldn't take that option again is if I was bleeding / puking / doing something that would make a mess in the car.

</comment><comment><USER30> Various insurance companies had contracts with the taxi company I drove for. Part of our usual fares were taking people to and from emergency rooms. If a person with Medicaid had a problem they'd call their insurance company, whose representative decided whether to send an ambulance or a taxi.

The hospitals also had contracts to send their patients home. One pre- obamacare passenger comes to mind: she didn't have a problem that wasn't related to being poor/homeless/childhood abuse, but the E.R. couldn't address her actual problems, and gave her a prescription for "something". She waved the prescription and said, "I can't afford these pills..." The hospital sent her to her sister's apartment. I called twice to check up. She was doing okay the first time. The second time the passenger's sister said she was at the State's psychiatric hospital.

A non-insurance passenger with a non-life-threatening injury asked to go to an emergency room. I suggested going to the full-service emergency room at the heart hospital. They got in & out in a fraction of the time that people usually spent at the big hospitals.

I knew of that emergency room because the Fire Department had a contract with the taxi company too. They sent people who didn't need an ambulance via taxi to the nearest emergency room. That guy was homeless, iirc.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm currently a student in the Bay Area. One of the first thing that my seniors told me here was if you are ever injured or in an accident do not call 911 unless its life threatening as the ambulance bill can bankrupt you. We do have insurance but the system is too complicated and the consequences are the too scary if we don't get reimbursed.

<comment><USER32> Are you from the Bay Area? Is there anything in particular that would cause it to be extra expensive?

During undergrad in the Midwest, I heard a freshman who was way too drunk fall off his lofted bed around 4 in the morning during the last couple days of the year. I heard his roommates discussing whether or not to call the ambulance because last time this guy got super wasted and hit his head drunk, the ambulance ride was a couple thousand dollars.

It was so messed up to hear them talking. He could have a brain bleed going on and they were discussing how handle the situation. Ultimately they did call 911 and he was fine the next morning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm happy that in Lithuania (northern Europe) you can call ambulance even if you have fever and it's free (paid by you with taxes). Of course it's not perfect, medical personal don't earn much, and yes, it could take longer than Uber (except might be rush hours when ambulances can skip the congestions).

</comment><comment><USER34> I've personally found this to work great, the only exception being the moment of surprise and confusion when I asked the driver to pull around to the emergency entrance.

</comment><comment><USER35> Medical stories from the US always sound like from third world countries to me...

<comment><USER36> Yeah, most people don't tell the stories about how they go to luxuriously built hospitals that make most corporate offices and hotels seem cheap by comparison, with parking lots full of BMW's, Mercedes, and other 6-figure foreign cars, and are treated by teams of highly paid people using millions of dollars of the best equipment in the world ...

As long as you have money the US is great.

<comment><USER37> "As long as you have money the US is great" even if you have money you will still have to go to the local hospital for emergency and will have to wait for specialist appointment some stupid amount of time unless you actively spend time and money donating to the hospital some serious $ so you have direct numbers of people in charge etc.

<comment><USER36> It depends on where you live. The US tends to be highly segregated by income/wealth. In the high income places they have ERs advertising to get more business because they are underutilized.

<comment><USER37> I live in a third county by per capita income in US and #1 and #2 are right next to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Notably, in the US.

this speaks more to a failure of the healthcare system than it does to the success of ridesharing

</comment><comment><USER39> Article should have "in the US" qualifier.

</comment><comment><USER17> Good stat but there's nothing about outcomes. Uber might save money for transportation but how does the lack of a proper ambulance effect outcomes?

<comment><USER40> I imagine most of the cases involving people opting for an Uber instead of an ambulance aren't in obvious risk of dying if they don't make it to the hospital in time. The first things that come to mind are broken bones, lacerations, and severed digits. Then again, there are plenty of things that can be fatal without being readily apparent, especially if the only person making that judgment call is the patient.

<comment><USER17> I don't disagree. But let's see the data and not assume. One or two extreme cases could make any savings moot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > Researchers often cite costly transportation as a significant barrier to > receiving quality healthcare. A study by Samina T. Syed and Lisa K. Sharp, > doctors at the Kalamazoo College, suggests that cost-efficient access to a > vehicle is consistently associated with increased access to health care.

Uber is using venture capital to subsidize rides. Drivers are often providing the services by going underpaid and putting up their own capital without getting the appropriate rent.

This is not a sustainable model. If there is a real need that is currently not met it has to be provided through other means in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER42> Never ever have I thought this would be a side effect of not having any proper health care. I've never had to take an ambulance, but it's a second nature where I live in Europe to just call the equivalent of 911 and they'll send out the best unit depending on the injury. It can be a plain ambulance or a faster car with doctors that definitely is very expensive if you weren't covered.

What a shame.

</comment><comment><USER43> Had a bad bicycle accident about five years ago. No taxi would stop for me as it probably looked like I'd been in a drunken brawl. Uber or Lyft would have been nice, as I could have probably texted the driver not to be alarmed but that I needed a lift to the ER (at that point I still had not gotten a smartphone). I ended up walking 2.5 miles to the nearest hospital.

</comment><comment><USER44> They (uber/lyft) work well for my dog emergencies too.

<comment><USER45> Drivers don't have issues with an uninvited dog passenger? As a dog owner, I find this surprising. But if drivers are OK with it it would be a great option for me because I don't own a car.

<comment><USER46> It depends on the city, culturally, and it's a good idea to call and ask first.

Obviously if it's a service dog they're required to transport it, but from knowing people with service dogs, it's still worth calling because some drivers are allergic and would rather you call another

<comment><USER47> > if it's a service dog they're required to transport it

But Uber is not a cab service; instead, they are trying to evade all the rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> We can view this as either a positive for how Uber works or a negative for how taxi cabs work. If the pervasive means of transportation other than ambulances are unresponsive or expensive compared to ambulances, then obviously ambulances are the choice. One might also drive oneself, get a ride from a friend or family member, or hope that a city bus will be fast enough. An Uber ride could be faster than a ride from friend or family and safer than driving oneself.

<comment><USER49> I took a taxi to an urgent care clinic when I broke my ankle in a bike accident. Would've taken an Uber or Lyft if taxis hadn't been around, but there were a lot of them. Whatever was fastest. I really wasn't worried about saving a few bucks on a ride at that point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Does nobody else wonder how an un-peer-reviewed paper from Kalamazoo College is being reported by a tech blogger from NPR?

Why would anyone take this seriously?

</comment><comment><USER50> Good, former EMT and Paramedic for busy metropolitan city here. Your exorbitant costs are subsidizing the homeless, system abusers, and illegals who can't be billed. 90% of the calls we were dispatched to were not acute emergencies. And 90% of those calls were people of the lower socioeconomic demographic systematically abusing medicaid.

</comment><comment><USER51> > Many potential emergency room patients are too sick to drive themselves to a > hospital. But an ambulance can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars without > insurance. This is where a popular ride-sharing app can step in, while also > freeing up the ambulances for those who need them most.

The rich?

</comment><comment><USER52> Cities with Taxis have lower rates of ambulance usage too.

In fact, any kind of public transportation will result in lower ambulance usage. Because when there are alternatives some %age of ambulance rides will be replaced by some %age of public transportation rides.

</comment><comment><USER53> Would be nice to have a service like Uber where you have a virtual doctor's visit by phone in the car on the way to the pharmacy or to the hospital if it turns out to be more serious.

<comment><USER54> What are you going to do if it turns more serious during the ride? The Uber driver (probably) has no medical training and certainly has no advanced medical equipment, the best he can do is pull over and hope that a real ambulance can meet you at his car before you die.

If you have a condition that is so serious that you feel you have to keep in contact with a doctor while you're transported to the hospital in case it gets worse, call an ambulance since they can actually treat you in-route.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> How is Uber any different than taking a taxi to the hospital?

<comment><USER56> If Uber says 5 minutes, it might be 7, or even possibly 15 if things go very, very wrong. Heck, if it's gonna be 15 you know this ahead of time because you can see the driver making wrong turns.

If you call a taxi service, and they say "15 minutes," it could be 30, 45, or 60. Maybe they're mussing with the truth, maybe they're outright lying. You don't know, and without the map showing the driver, you have no way of knowing.

<comment><USER57> A lot of modern taxi services have apps (often written by just a few big shops and contracted/branded out, but still). So you can start to get some of the same assurances from Taxis that you could get from Uber.

Also even before Uber/apps, I never had a problem with calling a Taxi and it not showing up within a few min, and I've lived a lot of places.

<comment><USER58> I've called a taxi three times in my life.

The first time was in 2012 because Microsoft was paying for it. It was from downtown Bellevue (so not an obscure place). I called them, they estimated 15 minutes, and it took them 40 minutes to show up. I'd never called a taxi before so I didn't realize this was normal; I called them back a few times to ask what was wrong, and they just said "soon!"

The second time was in 2015 in a country that didn't have Uber. They had an app. The app didn't work. They also didn't answer the phone. I tried multiple times, including an hour later after eating lunch. I gave up and spent 50 minutes walking home in ridiculous heat.

The third time was in 2016 because it was in a small town in the US that didn't have Uber. They did have an app. Their "app" displayed a phone number and told me to call it. That was the entire app. I called it, they estimated 30 minutes and showed up in 45 minutes, and they charged me $40 for a ten minute ride. Small town so I can understand the wait, but the price was definitely because they knew I had no other choice.

Meanwhile, I get annoyed when Ubers take longer than 5 minutes to show up because they take wrong turns.

I think it's definitely a matter of luck and location. Some places have horrible taxi services, some places have okay taxi services. Some places only have okay taxi services now because of competition from Uber. Ubers are still nearly always a huge margin better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Can't you pay directly for private insurance in the US?

I pay directly to the insurance company. It costs me about 145 usd/month and includes health insurance (with urgent care), long term care insurance, life insurance (about 500k usd) and some more.

I could have done it through my employer, but when I leave for another place I'll have to renegotiate the price with the insurance company, and also this option has less good of coverage IMO. It is cheaper by 70% tough.

<comment><USER60> What's the name of the insurance company? Oscar? Thay seems incredibly cheap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Correlation != causation

<comment><USER62> The title of the NPR article would be more accurate as "Cities See a Reduction in Ambulance Usage After Uber is Introduced".

The paper looks at 700 different cities, each with a different Uber market entry time over a two year period. The researchers also control for some seasonality effects.

Perhaps more covariates could have been considered, but this seems like a pretty decent design to measure a before/after causal effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm curious, this article spins the whole "lower rates of ambulance usage" as a positive thing, but is there enough evidence to say that?

From the article:

_______ With demand for ambulances decreased by available Uber drivers, emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster while also applying necessary treatment on the way to the hospital, according to a new economic study from the University of Kansas:

"Given that even a reduction of a few minutes can drastically improve survival rates for serious conditions, this could be associated with a substantial welfare improvement."

The study investigated ambulance rates in 766 U.S. cities from 43 different states. Taking into account the timelines of when Uber entered each city, the researchers found that the app reduced per capita ambulance usage rates by around 7 percent. _______

Okay they claim the study says "emergency personnel have been able reach critical patients faster" but decreased usage does not necessarily equal faster response time. It would have been much more solid if they actually looked at the ambulance response time, not just how many are being used. (My skeptical side leads me to think this is because _that_ data-set didn't match their narrative.)

There is also the question of: Is this actually a good thing? Are those 7% less people using ambulances all not having serious health issues? Especially when something is wrong, you are often not a good judge of your own health.

How many people having chest pain thought it wasn't too bad so they called an Uber instead of an ambulance and died on the way to the hospital? Might not have turned out that way if they just called an ambulance in the first place..

Need more data to decide if this is an Uber propaganda piece.

<comment><USER57> I agree. 7% is a really low number, and people shouldn't be afraid to call an ambulance just to save money. That's fucked up. Especially with comments talking about strokes and heart attacks. In most western countries, this isn't even an issue.

I honestly question of the numbers are even statically significant, but even if they are, this is seriously fucked up and not something Americans should be proud of at all!

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Here in the UK ambulances are paid for by the NHS, to which Uber steadfastly evades contributing to. Now that their drivers have been legally classified as employees, there's a shed load of back NI they owe us.

</comment><comment><USER65> It may be an overall improvement in efficiency, but it's not going to help patients long term. Whoever pays for the ambulances is going to eventually reduce their funding because they're being under used and revert them to the same state they were in before. If that wasn't the case, then they would have already been paying for more ambulances before Uber came along.

<comment><USER7> This is simplistic and probably wrong. Part of the reason ambulances are expensive is not because of the intrinsic /cost/ of the service but because the consumers have no choice but to choose the ambulance. They are, in effect, a monopoly and therefore can charge monopoly rents. And Uber (or whatever) is helping to break that monopoly.

(It doesn't have to be that way. Other countries have managed to keep ambulance services affordable.)</comment></comment>


CMU: Covid Voice Detector - <AUTHOR> https://cvd.lti.cmu.edu/cvd/ <comment><USER2> I am highly sceptical that this can beat a baseline model built on common symptoms (coughing, fever, etc.) of COVID-19.

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious to see how this plays out long term. I just submitted my voice for their data.

Also, anyone have a guess where to contact the authors to let them know their link to telling.ai is relative and not absolute? Goes to a 404 right now.</comment>


New Community Site for Rails Developers Launches - <AUTHOR> http://railsdeveloper.com

<comment><USER2> I'm one of the developers behind the project. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch!</comment>


Segway Meets Big Dog - The Cajun Crawler, Interviews & Video - <AUTHOR> http://ultoday.com/node/408 <comment><USER2> It's more like a scooter meets a spider. No dynamics or sensing in the thing whatsoever, from what I can tell.

</comment><comment><USER3> theo jansen

strandbeest

his talk at TED: [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talk/theo_jansen_creates_new_cr...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talk/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html)

see the animal under this invention about 3:30 into the clip

<comment><USER4> correct url: [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_c...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I didn't get from the interview was 'why'. Does this thing have any significance? With the Segway, even if it wasn't a commercial success,it was popularized for what was an amazing technical achievement. What is it that the team who created the Cajun Crawler has achieved.

I'm sure there is something, I just don't know what it is.

<comment><USER6> I'd say there is very real significance in creating an elegant personal transport powered by a pair of 18W drill motors, but from the article:

"We had to do a kinematics project with Dr. Chambers the semester before, and I made a walking device out of chicken bones. When I started working on my senior project, I wanted do something that carried weight. It just kinda grew from there."

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do not operate without a helmet and a mouth guard.

</comment><comment><USER8> Its Humma Kavula <http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3066140928/tt0371724></comment>