Why our online startup releases a print product, and how we do it. - <AUTHOR> http://weddinglovely.com/blog/why-our-online-startup-releases-a-print-product-and-how-we-do-it/

<comment><USER2> I really like how the LookBook is viewed as a way of "increasing customer happiness." You're essentially helping the customer validate how great they feel about themselves for doing business with you, which I would expect goes a long way to keep them around as a customer.

<comment><USER3> Yes, exactly. It's one of the best ways we've found to differentiate ourselves in the wedding space — I'm really dedicated to being personal and real with our vendors, and promoting them as much as possible (like the lookbook, the blog is also primarily a promote-good-feelings-for-vendors tool). It just makes sense, since it more than pays off for our company and our bottom line in the long run.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What other solutions did you look at for printing and distribution for your print product, besides MagCloud?

I've been looking at different printing options and always seemed to get weighed down by the trade-off between lower cost (e.g printing myself or finding a large volume printer with low costs) or something more on-demand like MagCloud, which costs a bit more but gives you greater flexibility.

<comment><USER3> Since we're bootstrapping, we've pretty much only looked at MagCloud for the past three editions, but for the Spring edition coming out next year, I'm definitely looking into printing it ourselves. If I went that route, I'd probably look into a local printer so I could ensure press quality rather than another online solution.

I liked going with MagCloud to start too because it allows us to not worry at all about the printing aspect to start — I feel a lot more comfortable with the production of the lookbook so now we can branch out into printing solutions which'll cost less but take more of our time.

Keep in mind that the cost through MagCloud is only when someone buys — free to upload and distribute, and you can just tack on a "profit" to their base cost per issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very interesting. How did you go about signing up 1,600 vendors? Cold calling? What tactics worked best in your experience?

Related question: how do you think the competition (WeddingWire) signed up 200k+ vendors?

Thanks!

<comment><USER3> It started as a bunch of cold-emailing — that's probably how we get the first 100 or so vendors on our directories. The rest comes from things like the Lookbook (vendors sharing with their vendor friends), and our blog (we run a long of vendor-promotional posts, then new vendors sign up with us so they can participate). I try to keep vendor acquisition as easy as possible on our side since again, we're only two people. We're also launching new features on the directory side to further promote vendors encouraging other vendors to join.

WeddingWire does a LOT of vendor profile scraping — vendors can search for their name and find that WeddingWire created a profile for them, which encourages them to sign up and "claim" the profile. I won't deny it's a working tactic for them, but it leaves a bad taste in vendor's mouths and I'm not comfortable with it personally.

Another interesting thing they do is have a "WeddingWire Award" — which gets sent out to every vendor, practically. These vendors display the award on their websites, which gets more couples and vendors to sign up with WW. That's a good vendor acquisition tactic that I'm looking forward to improving on soon with WeddingLovely.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, thanks. Could you post an example of one of the vendor- promotional posts that you mentioned? And how did you get the blog itself going? - did you have to do plenty of SEO work there to get it off the ground?

Also, how many vendors sign up for free vs. paid accounts in your experience?

(We're thinking of doing something like this involving local merchants (not wedding-related) - hence all the questions).

<comment><USER3> Pretty much every post on <http://weddinglovely.com/blog/> is by one of our vendors, uses our vendor's content, or promotes a vendor. :)

Blog just has been blogging at least 1x daily, getting the vendors who we promote to promote the posts about them, and making sure the SEO is semi-right (there is a big SEO issue I've yet to fix, but it's not disastrous).

Vendors almost always signup under a free account, and through these promotion opportunities, we eventually encourage about 10% to upgrade.

Hope that helps!

<comment><USER5> Sure does... thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is refreshing. The value of print gets lost too often, but here it finds a very nice home. I'm impressed with the process to create the actual print book with so many vendors in it. I expect there is a market for auto- generating magazine-like publications from a database of some sort. Very cool.

<comment><USER3> It's too bad EasyCatalog costs so much, but I expect that's they're targeting big name, high-budget publishers. I was very pleased to see the trial, and would love to buy if I could — it does what it says it does very well. That said, I'm still on the lookout for better, cheaper solutions for next time.

<comment><USER7> It's not crazy expensive compared to the value of the labor you're automating; but yes, it's steep for an individual if you're not yet producing revenue.

For something similar (and priced differently), we use software from <http://emsoftware.com/> to import data into InDesign to automate some of the production of Kirkus Reviews' print magazine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm the author of the article — I'm happy to answer any questions or help anyone out if this is something they want try out too!

<comment><USER8> I'm more interested in what lazyloading plugin you are using for jQuery -- is there an out-of-the-box one that works in Nov 2012, or did you make your own?

<comment><USER3> Out of the entire article, that's the question? ;) I kid... it's a Wordpress plugin - Lazy Load v0.5. We haven't had any issues with it, would definitely recommend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well this is fun - thanks for sharing. Have you found anything that's similar to MagCloud but operates on a push-button API basis? I didn't see an API link on MagCloud when I clicked around for a bit.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, I haven't yet!</comment></comment>


Ex-Enron boss Jeffrey Skilling's sentence cut to 14 years - <AUTHOR> http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-23011482

<comment><USER2> The guy was the "smartest guy" in the room. He's able to pay a fine of $40 million. He was an offshore accounts juggling inventor, he mentored ethics and craft to Wall Street and investment banking, who gave us 2008. What else available wealth does he have out there? How much does $40m "timed served" buy, and who did the selling?</comment>


One of the dumbest things I've ever published - <AUTHOR> https://dcurt.is/a-faulty-opinion <comment><USER2> It's frustrating to read articles making the kinds of points that Dustin's original piece did, and it's slightly cheering to see somebody change their mind. But this:

"There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users."

I think this is something that you don't need hindsight to understand is wrong. Modern ad driven companies work to maximize 'daily user interactions', not quality of experience. A lot of people think these are strongly correlated, but I think optimizing for that is likely to drive your products into bad directions for users.

<comment><USER3> >"There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea. The fact is that if a company had better data and analyzed it more completely, they could obviously produce better experiences for their users."

There is a simple counterargument to the phrasing: _could_ does not imply _would_.

When you have relatively little information about your users, the two goals "make the user happy" and "make the user engage more with the product" are approximately the same goal. So making the user happy = engagement, with little data.

But when you have a _lot_ of data about your users' emotions and behavior, the two goals become separate. A typical business is going to pursue the second goal, not the first. They're not charities.

It's sort of like an archer shooting at two neighboring targets. With fuzzy vision, they look like the same target, but with clearer vision, the archer sees them separately. The users want the archer to hit one target, but the archer will aim for the other. So, the users may be better off if the archer's vision is a little fuzzy, to make the targets blend together.

<comment><USER4> This is a good take, well phrased.

To add another example:

In the abstract, the fact is that a government with absolute monitoring and enforcement power over its citizens could obviously move faster to improve society and address injustices.

However, like you said, _could_ does not imply _would_ , and most people would say that giving governments absolute power to monitor and enforce their whims on citizens is a terrible idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the gist of the original piece (from 2014):

> Apple is going to realize very soon that it has made a grave mistake by > positioning itself as a bastion of privacy against Google, the evil invader > of everyone's secrets. The truth is that collecting information about people > allows you to make significantly better products, and the more information > you collect, the better products you can build. ...

[https://dcurt.is/privacy-vs-user-experience](https://dcurt.is/privacy-vs- user-experience)

How the times change. Not a whiff of Facebook. Snowden who? Google was still mostly not evil.

From the more recent article:

> I argued in my essay that Tim Cook had conflated privacy with security. He > may have. But in the five years since 2014, the following fact has become > absurdly clear to me: there is no difference between privacy and security. > Security is an illusion, just like the lock on your front door. ...

In time we'll all come to realize that privacy is merely a special case of security. What can't be seen can't be attacked.

Until then, a lot of damage will have been wrought on people too distracted or naive to care.

<comment><USER6> Overall, I agree.

It's a bit amusing, though, that the original piece wasn't far off. I've heard the 2015 mbp was the best laptop they've made, and since then have been a number of missteps. I was unfortunate enough to personally experience the awful lack of a tactile escape key on one of the newer mbp+touchbar laptops for about a year.

<comment><USER7> It doesn't take data science to understand that putting a purely _visual_ button on a device that people do not look at while using is a tremendous blunder.

A computer company forgetting how a keyboard works. Really now.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, in retrospect, I probably should have emphasized that I was amused by the coincidence, not that there was causation.

Obviously, gathering usage statistics from hardware / software analytics wouldn't have captured the fact that there are touch typists who would be quite displeased by (a) the loss of the tactile escape key, and (b) the downward quality of the keyboards in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> First of all, I commend the author for publicly acknowledging their mistakes here. Though I admit I still struggle to understand the mindset that allowed the author to make those wrong-headed conclusions on this topic in the first place. The best I can figure is that this person bought into the great neoliberal lie of our time - the claim that most corporations will value long- term societal stability and well-being over short-term profits + market capture opportunities.

When the author writes the following, I wonder if he is still struggling today to make that connection:

> The building of tools to aggregate private information in order to > ostensibly improve user experience has in fact, at scale, caused strange and > negative things to happen. Some of these things are threatening totally > unrelated social constructs like democracy, addiction, and human decency.

Those constructs are absolutely all related private information in a predictable way. They're related by the fact that the disruption of those fields can be very profitable. Disrupting democracies at scale is profitable to governments. Addiction has been profitable for all of human history. Training people to believe that human decency can be something expressed through which brands of products they buy or do not buy is incredibly profitable for certain brands that sell a certain "ethos", while simultaneously convincing buyers that any other sort of direct action (protests, legislation) are not necessary because the market can make meaningful change if people would only choose to buy from more ethical companies.

The problems we're currently facing as a society, due to the the motivations of powerful corporations being misaligned with the best interests of the general public is not unique to tech either. It's long past time to acknowledge that these outcomes are neither strange nor unpredictable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Unpopular opinion, but: I think too much privacy is bad for society.

Consider the world where privacy is the absolute king:

\- Much harder to solve crimes as police work is thwarted at every turn

\- Much easier to plot terrorist attacks/mass shootings/etc

\- Can't setup cameras/audio recording on your own property/phone/car/etc. without consent of the recorded (even if they are a criminal) or you are breaking the law.

\- Hard to create companies that deal with data because of the high legal barrier you have to clear

\- Much easier to hide your past mistakes, making things like "background checks" less useful

A world where privacy is king has a lot of problems and a lot of avenues of abuse. Before you grab your pitchforks, I do think there is a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle, but some of the privacy "purists" I see on this site have some really extreme views, in my opinion.

<comment><USER10> The role of the purists might be to counteract the "privacy is dead and buried" crowd

<comment><USER11> Yes, but I've always disliked the idea that one extreme will balance out another. Like advocates of Fox News or CNN saying their bias is justified because is balances the bias of their counterpart on the left/right. In theory if people watched both, digested the arguments of both sides, there might be some balance. In practice, it tends to simply entrench people with confirmation bias.

<comment><USER12> I think you should consider the differences between types of extremism.

The difference between Stallman and Fox News is that Stallman's extremism is well reasoned and consistent while Fox News is only consistent in serving the interests of "the man behind the curtain". Stallman offers a base for logical reasoning while Fox News offers a bunch of positions only good for uncritical acceptance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That post might have been wrong, but that doesn't make it dumb.

When something is wrong and a waste of time (in the sense that the author should have known better) _that 's_ dumb.

When something is wrong but not obviously so, and it helps us summarize existing opinions, or guide exploration, and/or otherwise advances the state of our understanding, it's not dumb.

For example, a wrong scientific hypothesis or a wrong startup thesis is not always dumb; they are only dumb when the author should have known better, but chose not to do the homework. Incidentally, this might be the easiest way to fail a YC interview - demonstrate that you think the homework is beneath you.

It's ok to be wrong, just make sure it's "the right kind of wrong".

<comment><USER11> Absolutely. Something can be wrong, but constructively so, adding to the discourse in a positive way by still raising valid points even if it draws conclusions that don't quite follow from those points. It's why I often find myself upvoting things I might really disagree with because I nonetheless believe it adds to the conversation in an interesting and constructive way. And conversely, why I sometimes downvote things I agree with when the comment is shallow, snarky, antagonistic, or dismissive of other possible views.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article really grates on me. The author seems to live in a bubble of his own mind and making. Never once considering that, maybe it wasn't the expansive changes of a whole five years that set him wrong, but maybe the fact that he never once considered outside opinion. It's not as if Richard Stallman or Jaron Lanier or countless other people have been warning against this exact moment in time for decades now.

<comment><USER14> That's Dustin for you.

He steals "kudos" even. If you hover over a little icon on his website to try and find out what it does, he'll record it and publish it as praise of his article.

<comment><USER15> That's a standard Svbtle thing, and yes, it's awful.

Oh! I just realized Dustin is the guy behind Svtble.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Five years ago I believed this same thing, exactly as you described. I went all-in on Google services and left all the options to send them data on, trusting them to be the benevolent system you described. And believing that the benefit I was getting in terms of cool UX would be worth it.

Now with how horrible ad-tracking has gotten, and the decline in Google's products (Inbox especially, for me) the shine is wearing off quickly. I'm strongly considering abandoning the Google platform as completely as possible whenever my Pixel 2 bites the dust.

<comment><USER17> Google is bad, but at least they normally let you control your device; Apple lock things down so much that you can't even do that.

I really hope that there's a real market out there for people who want to own their phones and control their destinies. I really _don 't_ want to live in a world where my only choice is which feudal lord I serve.

<comment><USER11> This. Though it seems to be getting harder to root android phones, at least from my very limited perspective. It's also why I'm a bit horrified at the direction Windows has taken, making some things nearly impossible to disable or remove. I find myself having to dig into the registry much more than I used to in order to stop annoying behavior or system-draining processes. (For example: I'm happy to stay updated with the latest security patched, but _do not_ reboot my computer on your own authority when I may be running very long processes on it. Rather annoying to wake up and find a model I was training was aborted because Update decided to reboot)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > _But in the five years since 2014, the following fact has become absurdly > clear to me: there is no difference between privacy and security. Security > is an illusion, just like the lock on your front door. Advanced cryptography > can prevent immediate threats, but in the long run, it is impossible to keep > things private at scale. Humans can only build flawed software. There will > always be bugs. And thus your "private" information is not now and will > never be safe in the hands of a third party, no matter how competent. The > only solution is to keep the information within only your control, and that > is how Apple has attempted to architect its systems._

> _And: (2) If, after Snowden, Experian, and countless other examples of > leaks, you think security is going to protect your privacy, you are either > ignorant or insane._

This feels incoherent. Security is exactly what Apple is leaning on, e.g. by designing iMessage so they themselves can't read the content.

And just like Google, they are also asking you trust them, e.g. to not release an update that uploads all of your plain text messages to Apple.

What's different is the size and nature of the attack surfaces, how distributed vs. centralized they are, and how each company agrees to use the data they do legitimately collect.

There are interesting, persuasive arguments to be made in favor of the different approaches out there, but I think it's important to have conceptual clarity.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm not sure if this represents a personal fault, or something any self-aware, self-critical person would experience (I hope it's the later) but it seems to me that when I look back on anything I wrote 4-5 years ago (or longer) then 1/3 of it is at least vaguely embarrassing, with my views becoming more nuanced, more scaffolded with experience and information as time goes by.

<comment><USER19> I think that's normal and indicates growth over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> the dumbest thing anyone wrote (and he did it on this later article) is to personalize the algorithm.

the algorithm is code. put in place by someone. it is not magical. it is not hard to predict. it doesn't run around gainig sentience.

personalizing the "algorithm" is idiotic. and remove all the guilty from the operator, who is the one who fine tuned all the trade offs.

think of what he describe as the algorithm as a person that works as your personal assistant. if that person uses all the info on your life to help you, they are a good assistant. If instead they use that information in ways you didn't know about, just like google does, that person is a criminal. yet, google gets a pass because it wasn't them, it was the algorithm.

see how dumb and detrimental (to everyone but google) speaking of the algorithm as an entity is?

</comment><comment><USER21> _" The truth is that collecting information about people allows you to make significantly better products, and the more information you collect, the better products you can build."_

This is basically right; the only thing making it wrong is the question "better for whom?"

</comment><comment><USER22> >There is no valid counterargument to the abstract idea.

I think that there is. It's hard to explain on short notice, but it's the intersection of the abstract concepts of model overfitting, precognition based on data (such as pregnancy), and what happens when the products are not built to serve the user whose data powers them.

</comment><comment><USER23> From the title and the domain name I was sure this was going to be about his 2011 article rationalizing that iPhone 4's 3.5 inch screen was a better size than larger Android screens of the day.

[https://dcurt.is/3-point-5-inches](https://dcurt.is/3-point-5-inches)

<comment><USER24> Just because Apple has changed their mind doesn't mean he was wrong? I know multiple people who won't upgrade past the iPhone SE because it _is_ better for them. One of them has pointed out that Apple used to market iPhones as "the perfect size for your hand"\---they don't say that anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This seems like a post he should have published to his private diary. It comes off very self-important and navel gazing.

Everyone wrote dumb stuff years ago. Move on with your life.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd say the dumbest thing that Dustin ever posted was when he said his blog could only be updated by his email address, and then I updated his blog for him by simply spoofing the sender. Via Gmail SMTP.

Edit: Aftermath. He deleted the blog post. It's still in the way back machine I suspect. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1441914](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1441914)

<comment><USER27> I think when it comes to superlatives and this particular author, he hit somewhere very close to the theoretical maximum a while back and it's still public and helpfully labeled.

[https://dcurt.is/the-best](https://dcurt.is/the-best)

Although if someone has invented a mouthfeelier fork in the meantime and Curtis has written about it, I'd like to read that piece as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't know what I just read but it comes across as a delusion of grandeur.

There is nothing about the original article that makes it a 'thesis', or a 'piece', or even an 'essay' by any standard. I was scrolling up and down wondering if I'd missed something, expecting some seriously detailed research. It is being given an inflated opinion of itself.

'Privacy vs. User Experience' is a 500 word long opinion. It starts off like this:

> Apple is going to realize very soon that it has made a grave mistake by > positioning itself as a bastion of privacy against Google, the evil invader > of everyone's secrets. The truth is that collecting information about people > allows you to make significantly better products, and the more information > you collect, the better products you can build.

There is no thesis or structure here, it's a fucking blog post. There are no references, there is no research. It's opinion.

In my personal opinion this follow up is even more dumb than the earlier post it criticises.

Edit: if I was to offer something more constructive, this follow up post should be called 'Famous Last Words'.

<comment><USER29> I think that's an uncharitable view of the author's choice of words. He also doesn't even use "thesis" in the way you imply, he refers to "the thesis of the essay", which unambiguously is the meaning of the word that is "the central claim of the essay".

<comment><USER28> I disagree. You accept his blog post as an essay and in those terms I'll agree, you can see a thesis in there.

But it's not an essay. It's a blog post. There are no references or sources. There is no way for you to take that post and research the underpinnings of its conclusion. It is wholly self-referential.

The original post is a hot-take, it's pure opinion. It's not even a noteworthy post, it's just part of the Svtble echo chamber and has inflated worth.

There is no essay in either the original post or the apology for it, and similarly so there is no thesis. Language changes and a thesis now is commonly accepted as a significant body of work with academic significance and a grounding in empiricism or at least extensive research.

Going back to the Ancient Greek (and beyond) roots of 'thesis' to claim an innocent usage of the term is a monumental stretch.

<comment><USER29> I don't think the lack of sources make it "not an essay". You can dispute the value of the writing, but it's a bit weird to think it's pompous to use words with the definition of the most common usage:

Essay

1\. A short piece of writing on a particular subject

Thesis

1\. A statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


FCC refuses to delay net neutrality rules - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/2920171/technology-law-regulation/fcc-refuses-to-delay-net-neutrality-rules.html

<comment><USER2> "The net neutrality rules will hinder deployment of broadband, the group added."

No problem. Local governments and utilities will be happy to step in and deploy broadband. In this area, local governments and utilities appear to be cheaper and more nimble than commercial broadband providers.</comment>


Show HN: GraphBrainz, a GraphQL Endpoint for the Full MusicBrainz API - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/exogen/graphbrainz <comment><AUTHOR> Developer here. While people are discussing PostGraphQL I figured it would be neat to show off a GraphQL project I've been working on for a couple weeks: the MusicBrainz schema, available via GraphQL.

MusicBrainz actually does use Postgres as its database, but this doesn't use PostGraphQL or even talk directly to the database – it simply translates the GraphQL query into calls to their REST API, orchestrating multiple queries for you as necessary. It would be possible (and more optimal) to talk directly to the database, but it'd require setting up your own server. This way, it can be pointed at the public MusicBrainz API (or any private deployment).

GraphQL is awesome and this was actually surprisingly easy to develop. Most of the work was simply around making optimal REST API calls (taking advantage of their API's subquery features, etc.) instead of doing it naïvely. Also, making sure every field and type in the schema had a useful description.

The documentation part is huge. Reading the official REST API docs [1], it's nearly impossible to get an _accurate_ overview of which parameters each endpoint accepts (in fact, some aren't even listed in the docs), what fields to expect, or even find a description of what every field means. Compare that to the "Docs" sidebar you get in GraphiQL (click the demo link), or the Types document [2] that I was able to automatically generate from the schema. Sure, you can work hard to document a REST API and keep those docs up-to-date, but GraphQL encourages it and makes it easy.

No idea if the Heroku-hosted demo server will survive HN, but have fun playing with it.

[1]: [https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Development/XML_Web_Service/Vers...](https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Development/XML_Web_Service/Version_2)

[2]: [https://github.com/exogen/graphbrainz/blob/master/docs/types...](https://github.com/exogen/graphbrainz/blob/master/docs/types.md)</comment>


Square Worth $40 Million Before Launch - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/01/square-worth-40-million-before-launch/

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like a large valuation for a pre-launch startup.... What do you think?

</comment><comment><USER2> Hype!</comment>


8 CMS is the most simple, lightweight and fast file-flat CMS in the world in PHP - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/volter9/8-cms <comment><USER2> Almost everything in this title is misleading.

1\. This isn't a CMS[1]. It doesn't manage content, it just delivers it. You can't edit the content using this software, for example. This is more akin to Jekyll[2] than a true CMS like WordPress.

2\. This is not the most lightweight content-delivery system. Serving flat files would be lighter. Again, see something like Jekyll. Something like a bare Node server would also be faster, because it wouldn't require a web server (nginx or Apache) running in front of it.

3\. I assume "file-flat" means "flat-file", which I then assume means "using the file system rather than RDBMS or document store software". This again is misleading because few people would think of a PHP file, which (in this system) can contain both display logic and data, to be a "flat file" in any traditional sense.

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

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_\(software\))</comment>


The Violent Afterlife of a Recycled Plastic Bottle - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/what-actually-happens-to-a-recycled-plastic-bottle/418326/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> The article mentions the Bottle Bill system: this is a system where you pay a small deposit on every bottle you buy which is then refunded when you return the bottle to the supermarket.

This results in the bottles being recycled.

We have this system here in The Netherlands and I must say it's fantastic: we get proper thick Coke bottles and my bin doesn't get filled up so quickly.

Sadly this system isn't used for all bottles - 500ml bottles aren't covered - and it's only drinks (soft drinks + beer). It's also far from Europe-wide - the UK for example doesn't have this system.

Recently the soft-drink manufacturers - presumably Coke/Pepsi - have been lobbying hard to kill this system.. Nice to see how they care about the environment..

<comment><USER4> A number of the states in the US have a bottle deposit, which sounds like the same idea. Problem is, it is only 5 cents, where it has been for like forty years, so it is only worth collecting and trading in the bottles if your time is effectively value-less. And it's not universal, so we still get the crap thin plastic bottles, they just cost a nickel more in some places than others.

There was a Seinfeld episode involving Kramer collecting a busload of bottles in NY (with $.05 deposit) and driving them to Michigan, where there is a $.10 redemption value.

<comment><USER5> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1blsZxXDCU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1blsZxXDCU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regardless of one's feelings about 'climate change,' it really behooves us to stop doing a variety of things in a way that are hugely destructive to the planet and ourselves. That would be good policy no matter what, but the fact that so often our hugely destructive actions are in the service of deriving relatively minimal value makes it patently absurd.

So it was quite striking that in the few images I saw from the recent Climate Summit in Paris, there were people standing around tables scattered with plastic water bottles. Really? Given the subject matter under discussion and you're going to sit around drinking water from a material derived from oil, that after it's brief service to you will have negative and hugely long- lasting effects on the biosphere, really?

<comment><USER7> >So it was quite striking that in the few images I saw from the recent Climate Summit in Paris, there were people standing around tables scattered with plastic water bottles. Really?

I'm pretty sure the people there are politicians. So my cynical view is that most of which only care about the environment only because their constituency does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article says plastics are washed repeatedly, so I'm trying to figure out if putting dirty plastic in the bin is acceptable or not. My city's recycling instructions say to wash plastics before putting them in the bin, and if I can't adequately clean something I've been more inclined to put it in the garbage instead. What's the right answer?

<comment><USER9> It also says:

> "Unfortunately the bags themselves can't be recycled—they are too dirty, so > they will end up in a landfill." This holds true for all plastic items that > haven't been cleaned properly—hence, the leaflets calling for us to "rinse > our recyclables." The cleaner a plastic bottle is, the more likely it will > be marked for reincarnation as something new.

That bit happens before the washing, so I think the advice to wash plastics is correct. Sounds like there may not be harm in placing all plastics into the recycling bin regardless of their cleanliness, though; sounds like they'll just end up as waste if not clean enough.

<comment><USER10> _Unfortunately the bags themselves can't be recycled—they are too dirty, so they will end up in a landfill_

I think at some time in the future they should also be excavated and reprocessed, because plastic is a petroleum product and the natural sources are known to be very finite. There is plenty of plastic in landfills that we just don't know how to effectively reprocess, or we would. That's also why I think the biodegradable stuff is not a good idea in the long term; sure it "disappears back into the environment", but overall a lot more energy needs to be spent in producing it --- really, extracting it from the environment --- than just reusing or recycling plastic that has already been extracted and gone through most of the production stages.

<comment><USER11> TL:DR - we will never run out of raw materials for plastics

The resources used for plastic are so vastly plentiful that considering them unlimited is a good approximation -- they may get more expensive but the market will sort that out. A lot of smart, well-meaning people get derailed by belief in imminent scarcity - and waste their time that could be spent on real opportunities.

* only a couple of percent of petroleum and natural gas production is used for plastics [http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6)

* crude oil reserves (a very conservative measure) are immense and growing - [http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/...](http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/interactive/current/FileZ/XL/T31.HTM)

* natural gas reserves (a very conservative measure) are immense and growing - [http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/...](http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/interactive/current/FileZ/XL/T32.HTM)

* consumption is growing globally (production is outpacing the growth - hence the crash in crude prices), and in the US (the larges consumer) it's actually fallen over the last 10 years [http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us)

in a couple of centuries, maybe, we will have some difficulty meeting the petroleum needs for petrochemicals - but only if we keep using the crude and natural gas for vehicle fuel, heating, and electricity (currently 95% goes to these). Since we are already on the cusp of using renewables (and could switch to nuclear if we needed) for most of these while we are swimming in cheap oil - you should not worry about the future of plastics. So, don't waste your time opposing biodegradables from a 'finite resources' perspective - <USER2> consider air pollution and greenhouse gasses on their own merits.

<comment><USER12> You are forgetting exponential population growth and _developing_ nations. "It just costs more" meand it won't run out, but not won't be usable everywhere desired either.

The reason not to care about using it up is that tragedy of commons means we can't stop from being used up.

<comment><USER11> not at all - and exponential growth is a more nuanced term than you may realize. UN population growth projection for the next 100 years shows (95% conf) at most a doubling of population. development of nations has roared ahead since the industrial revolution, and petroleum reserve development has easily kept pace. I really am saying that time spent worrying about running out of oil -- ESPECIALLY running out for the purposes of plastics production is a complete waste of your time and a distraction from actually important things. Come to think of it, worrying about over-population is also a curious preoccupation of rich, privileged, people like ourselves.

Malthus was wrong.

That there is a commons does not mean there is a tragedy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm old enough to remember when the milkman delivered glass bottles of milk into a box at our back door and picked up the previous week's empties. I remember reading once that the average milk bottle had a life span of 38 round trips. The same was pretty much true for soda bottles.

Some progress, huh?

<comment><USER14> Glass bottles still work that way. Cleaned and reused. And at least in Germany, sturdy PET bottles get reused too; Wikipedia says 50x for glass, 25x for PET.

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrwegpfand](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrwegpfand)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So dumb question but when they recycle plastics into water/soda containers - how do they know it is food-safe plastic making it back into the chain and not contain molecules that will "bleed" into the beverage/food?

<comment><USER16> Read the article. It addresses that.

<comment><USER15> I did read it, it doesn't address that, at least not in any detail what-so- ever.

 _The plastic flakes must be sterilized and tested to meet food-grade standards_

Is that tested like how a certain number of roaches are allowed into food mixes in factories and that there is 1 FDA inspector for every thousand factories so there is no actual regulation going on thanks to congressional defunding?

Because that means the plastic is most definitely contaminated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Metals, such as, tin and aluminum are then extracted by magnets.

How would non-ferromagnetic metals be sorted using magnets?

<comment><USER18> Curiously, by moving a magnetic field through a non-ferrous metal an eddy current is induced. Then the magnetic field interacts with that current, to produce a force!

<comment><USER17> Of course... I've done the "magnet in a copper tube" trick myself. Thanks for helping me connect a couple dots!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wasn't there an article circulated recently where they were advocating reverting plastics back to their base ingredients as a much saner alternative to recycling?

</comment><comment><USER20> i'm fanning an interest in getting involved in moving legislature making plastic bottling illegal

anyone have any early objections i could work on developing responses to?

<comment><USER16> Not so much an objection, but more of a line of inquiry on tactics. Why try to make something illegal? Why not make something legal? Like instead of 'No Plastic', bonus for Plastic01 and 02. Plastic, like guns and cars and markets, are inherently useful. It is the production, use, and misuse that is the problem.

On a legislative level, I feel it is a mistake to always use the limitation of action as an agent for change. Any time there is a problem, people demand a law be made, and Law makers make some action punishable or unavailable. In some cases, this makes sense (drinking and driving), at least initially. But on balance, drinking and driving opens up so many areas for innovation and profit _when you factor in self driving vehicles and on demand car services_. The problem is going to be how long it will take to alter the Open Container laws. It is hard to undo legislation in my country (USA). I wish people would think to create motivators for desired behavior instead of consequences for undesired behavior.

<comment><USER20> i've been thinking a lot about your inquiry and my response, so i thank you for taking the time to make it

you've caused me to really consider what my goals are

i am uninterested in making plastics illegal but rather i'm interested in reducing the amount of plastic waste in the world

my initial reaction is the best way to halt this is to remove the ability to create more plastics

but as you pointed out it's more interesting to promote stead limit

so perhaps instead of making plastic use for superficial, yet to be clearly defined, uses illegal perhaps there is a buy in for use allowance

meaning plastic bottling is illegal unless you pay for the rights for so much plastic use

but the caveat is two fold

first: in order to pay for the rights you need to agree to reduce overall plastic waste in the world

meaning, you can use plastic bottles for your product, but you need to be diminishing old plastic accumulation

if you fail to reduce at the rate agreed in the permission then your rights are again revoked

second: the only ones who can buy the rights to create plastics are research teams attempting to decompose existing plastics

in this way the research is funded by the sponsorship of plastic users

meaning, a big corp that bottles in plastic uses profits to fund research in plastic decomposition for the ability to continue to bottle in plastics

.

any thoughts?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What about mbapolymers.com ? They seem to be able to recycle efficiently any sort of plastic. Why there are other recycling processes still in use ?

</comment><comment><USER22> The cycle of modern consumerism and corporations is disgusting. I laugh to myself when I think North America looks down on third world countries. In many cases, it's the exact opposite. I'm a spoke in the wheel like most, however this article makes me want to change.

Recycling isn't the answer, it's part of the problem. We're all wearing, eating from and washing in, plastic. Plastic or PET comes from _crude oil_. No health concerns here.

\- Plastic in our clothing? Polyester is PET: [http://qz.com/414223/if-your- clothes-arent-already-made-out-...](http://qz.com/414223/if-your-clothes- arent-already-made-out-of-plastic-they-will-be/)

\- " PET, a plastic derived from crude oil that's used to make soda and ketchup bottles."

\- "In the last few decades, production of the material has surged. Between 1980 and 2007, the year polyester definitively overtook cotton as the world's dominant fiber, the amount of polyester produced annually increased from 5.3 million tonnes (5.8 million tons) to 30.9 million tonnes (34 million tons), according to Tecnon Orbichem. By 2025, that number is projected to nearly triple, to 90.5 million tonnes (99.8 million tons)."

\- "Over 50 percent of what is placed into New York City's recycling ends up in a landfill"

\- "Unfortunately the bags (used to transport platics) themselves can't be recycled—they are too dirty, so they will end up in a landfill."

\- "There is plastic in everything—in your car, in your home, in every part of your life," says CarbonLite's CEO, Leon Farahnik. "Globally, 100 billion pounds of PET are used in a year: 70 billion pounds goes to carpet and clothing; 30 billion pounds goes into packaging." That's a lot of plastic

\- "We don't know if and how many people die from plastic exposure," says Dr. Halden, "but we do know that in the developed world we suffer from a lot of diseases—breast cancer, obesity and early onset puberty—that are less prevalent in developing countries. These are a result of our lifestyle." He adds: "From a public health perspective, we should consider heated plastic an unnecessary source of exposure to harmful elements and eliminate it." [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873244937045784332...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324493704578433290465517564)

\- "(BPA is used) in everything from the lining of metal soup cans to receipt paper. The FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles in July 2012, because of growing consumer concerns over its link to developmental delays.

While the recycling numbers at the bottom of plastic items "are not meant to provide health information or risks," Dr. Halden says, they can sometimes provide clues to the chemicals in them. For example, No. 7, says Dr. Halden, means "there is a high likelihood" that Bisphenol A is in it. That reusable water bottle sitting on your desk? "Think of it as one big BPA vessel," he says.

<comment><USER7> >Plastic or PET comes from crude oil. No health concerns here.

So you're saying that plastic/PET comes from crude oil, therefore it's bad for your health? flawless logic.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why isn't Zappos the first result for the query "shoes"? - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/search?q=shoes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Shoes.com has a pagerank of 5 and 200k inbound links.
Zappos.com has a pagerank of 7 and 2M inbound links. 10 times that of shoes.com!
Does the domain name matter that much? <comment><USER2> Google's ranking algorithm give's significant weight to keywords in the domain name.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps it's deliberate? Can they really maintain their level of customer service if they get too big or grow too fast?

<comment><USER4> They're number 2, so they work harder?

EDIT: My comment was a reference to the Avis marketing campaign back in the 60's. [http://www.buildingbrands.com/didyouknow/16_avis_we_try_hard...](http://www.buildingbrands.com/didyouknow/16_avis_we_try_harder.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Any particular reason why they should be?</comment>


Hydroxychloroquine Covid-19: a multinational registry analysis [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2931180-6 <comment><AUTHOR> UPDATE:

[https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246](https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246)

> Today, three of the authors of the paper, "Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine > with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational > registry analysis", have retracted their study. They were unable to complete > an independent audit of the data underpinning their analysis. As a result, > they have concluded that they "can no longer vouch for the veracity of the > primary data sources."

</comment><comment><USER2> From the paper: "Interpretation: We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in- hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19."

<comment> huy-nguyen I guess that's the end of the road for hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.

<comment><USER3> Yes it's probably the end medically, but it's not the end of its use as a political wedge.

To people who believe the current political rhetoric promoting hydroxychloroquine, a study in a medical journal doesn't change anything, as their interest in it was never based its medical efficacy, but rather as a symbol used to rally around their leader and their movement. Just look at the anti-vaccination movement, which continues despite being debunked for years.

And we shouldn't so quickly dismiss this phenomenon. We underestimate the power of that kind of fictional narrative group-think to our peril. The only way to fight falsehood based narrative is truth based narrative. The dry statistical or scientifically derived truth that eggheads like most of us wish would prevail is largely powerless. Stories are what ultimately wins.

<comment><USER4> It's been absurd that I have people on my Twitter feed attributing the low death rate in India to India's "widespread daily use of HCQ".

31 years in India and I've never even heard of it!

<comment><USER5> I suspect this was people thinking "chloroquine is a malaria drug and India has malaria, therefore it's used in India". Which sounds vaguely convincing at first glance, but malaria in India has been immune for decades.

<comment><USER4> Don't even get me started on the people hoarding tonic water because it has quinine in it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wasnt Zinc supposed to be part of the equation along with Hydroxychloroquine? Most anecdotal evidence from practitioners includes Zinc along with Hydroxychloroquine.

<comment><USER7> Yes, and the practitioners boosting the drug combo have also said that in order to be effective, it should be administered early, similar to Tamiflu.

<comment><USER8> Was this done in the study linked?

All doctors I've seen promote hydroxychloroquine have been adamant that it must be administered early in the disease's progression in order to have any effect.

But most of the studies being performed that I've heard of, have explicitly been on late-stage patients. This includes the central EU study.

It would be tragic if the drug works when administered early, but all the studies have happened at a late stage, incorrectly disqualifying a treatment that can save many lives.

<comment><USER5> As mentioned in the paper they only include people where the drug was given within 48 hours after diagnosis.

<comment><USER9> 48 hours is two days! "48 hours after diagnosis" is NOT early treatment. See my earlier post!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh this is good. After reading this, the US President will be able to stop taking it.

<comment><USER11> I'd easily bet he was never taking it - easier instead to just say he was taking it, say "Look, I'm not sick!", instead of having to admit he was wrong.

<comment><USER5> That seems likely; it would be quite risky for a doctor to actually prescribe it to him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The study say nothing on what stade of infection the treatment was applied. The HCQ + AZT treatment was shown effective on initial infection stages, before heavy symptoms appears.

</comment><comment><USER13> tl;dr: " There was no evidence whatsoever of any benefit with any of these treatment regimes. There was significant evidence of harm. ... Tell me again why anyone should be advocating such treatments. But your reasons had better stand up to 14,888 patients versus 81,144 comparators. Make it good."

[https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hy...](https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine- enough-already)

<comment><USER5> I'm convinced the only reason this is being advocated by laypeople is to provide false reassurance to vulnerable populations that an effective treatment is available.

<comment><USER14> I'm convinced the only reason this is being advocated so certain people can make money

<comment><USER15> Who is making money on a generic drug that costs $0.04 per dose?

<comment><USER16> It's wrong question. The correct one is "Who is NOT making money because of this generic drug that cost $0.04 per dose?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Analysis of all available papers as of Apr 20: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1545C_dJWMIAgqeLEsfo2U8Kq5WprDuARXrJl6N1aDjY/edit)

<comment><USER18> Written by who? Reviewed by who else for correctness and (just as importantly) completeness? Paid for by who, with what potential conflicts of interest?

For something purporting to be the current consensus of evidence-based medicine, it sure lacks the usual hallmarks of scientific inquiry: openness, transparency, review.

Edited to add: Plus, that anonymous Google doc doesn't even represent the latest research, because the Raoult paper (under the heading "12 April 2020") has already been retracted:

[https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/21/french- hydroxychloroq...](https://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/21/french- hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-study-withdrawn/)</comment></comment>


Equity Structure for technical lead? - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for some help here and am just wondering what the opinions of others are who have been in my situation before.
In this scenario I was approached to be a technical lead on a project. I am in a unique position in that I do not need the cash and I think the concept could be very good though obviously I will not work for strictly equity.
I have owned and been part of the sale of my own company previously but have never been brought into a project where I was not the person structuring the deal before, so my question is what should I definitely ask for in the deal and what should I avoid?
Restricted stock is obviously high on my list and I was thinking of an upfront payment for server equipment costs that I may incur in the upcoming weeks as well.
I am just wondering what sort of structure I should be expecting and what I should be looking for both good and bad
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Why would you incur any costs? Surely the company will pay for servers etc.?

Weird.</comment>


Real-Time Touch Controller for the Yamaha DX7 Synthesizer - <AUTHOR> https://spectralplex.com/incredible-real-time-touch-controller-for-the-yamaha-dx7-synthesizer/ <comment><USER2> Pretty much every synthesiser for 15 years had the same two-row LCD interface as the DX7. My first job out of university in 1995 was as assistant editor of Keyboard Review magazine (UK), and the vast majority of synths I reviewed - wonderful beasts from Ensoniq, Roland, Korg, technologically way ahead of the DX7 - had exactly the same bloody awful UI. Akai's S-series samplers, which everyone was using back then, did provide a decent display... but at a price. When someone finally made a sampler affordable by the home market (Ensoniq's ESI-32) it too had a greatly compromised display, though at least four rows rather than two.

I've always suspected this actually influenced the electronic music styles of the time. The 90s were the start of the analogue resurgence. Sure, an 808 or a 303 is a fabulous-sounding beast in itself. But twiddling knobs is just so much more rewarding and responsive than spending hours squinting at a two-line LCD.

<comment><USER3> Having made the impossibly un-portable CS80, Yamaha decided to try something different with the DX7 UI.

The DX7 was designed to be a gig-able synth that anyone could throw in a car and set up on their own. It was a brilliant success because you had good- enough epiano and other stock sounds in a package that was far more portable than a real epiano, clav, basic poly, etc.

This was purely a cost/weight issue. The hardware required for one-knob-per- function would have doubled the weight and probably tripled the cost.

E.g. a company called Jellinghaus made a full-sized analog-style programmer and it was bigger than the DX7.

[https://www.matrixsynth.com/2008/01/jellinghaus-dx- programme...](https://www.matrixsynth.com/2008/01/jellinghaus-dx- programmer.html)

People like analog synths because they have a very simple programming model that only makes a relatively small range of sounds, most of which sound good more or less by default. You trade immediacy against sophistication.

The DX7 etc went the other way, which infuriated musicians used to those analog sounds, but created an entire support industry of sound designers and libraries.

If you want a tactile UI now you can create one on an iPad. The surprising thing in 2019 is that synth designers still haven't fully explored touch screen interfaces, and are mostly just recycling ideas from 30 years ago.

<comment><USER4> >People like analog synths because they have a very simple programming model that only makes a relatively small range of sounds, most of which sound good more or less by default. You trade immediacy against sophistication.

Well and they sound completely different.

The UI differences don't come down to number of controls but the fact that most analog designs have a 1:1 relationship with the sound, every knob you turn has a very distinct impact on the sound and usually, applying that to any input generates more or less the same impact on the output. It's extremely intuitive to learn how changing a knob changes the sound.

FM is completely different, where altering simple things like the operator ratios and modulation index have _massive_ changes on the sound and don't create the same effect on different sounds - it's naturally non-intuitive. Most FM wizards get there through tons of experimentation, not through established fundamentals.

Imagine playing a wind instrument and changing your embouchure alters the pitch of the differently depending on what note you finger. That's what programming an FM synth is like.

iPad synths are a dime a dozen these days. Lack of a physical interface is as big a problem on them as with larger synths. They are hardly tactile.

A corollary here is the success of wavetable synths compared to granular, additive, and FM in the softsynth space. Wavetables have the same subtractive model as traditional analogs, and incorporate many of the same features as semi-modular synths. But they are extremely versatile because of how their interface is intuitive even for first time users - it's stupid easy to change the sound, the only additional dimension is the wavetable but that's quick to pick up. Compared to say, granular synths which are possibly the most versatile paradigm, but whose controls are extremely divorced from the timbre of the sound you design.

<comment><USER5> The first version of Polychord for iPad had a fully-functioning FM synth under the hood, but I ended up disabling it because it didn't fit with the simplicity of the product. Even providing a nice set of presets to choose from was turning into a time-suck — it really is an art.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The DX7 is directly the reason I'm where I'm at in the world. As a kid, when the DX7 was new, I'd spend hours making sounds and writing music on it. I explicitly went to uni (an Electrical/computer systems Engineering degree) to learn how to make my own synth. I learnt pretty much how in the first 12 months (although I never got around to making my own). I got head hunted from uni and here I am 3 decades later.

If it weren't for the DX7 I would have stayed in the classical instrument stream and done a music degree. I wouldn't be on HN today.

So, it's great that people are still applying new tech and gizmos to the DX7. It's got a special place in my heart.

<comment><USER7> Have you seen the Reface DX?

It's the new life of a DX7. Still FM, but something you can bring to a campfire. Or a party. Or to the office. Always at your fingertips.

I never leave this thing at home; it's either in my car, or my backpack.

[https://usa.yamaha.com/products/music_production/synthesizer...](https://usa.yamaha.com/products/music_production/synthesizers/reface/dx/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have spent a few months this year trying to wrap my head around FM synthesis. Unfortunately I don't think the DX7 is hard to program just because of the user interface. I have read up and thoroughly understand the theory behind FM synthesis. I have followed various tutorials to design patches. At the end of the the day FM synthesis is powerful but it is inherently much less intuitive and also much easier to get horrible ugly sounds out of than something like the subtractive synthesis seen on most analogue synths.

The reason FM synths need to be digital is that very precise pitch ratios between oscillators are important in order to get good sounds. For example you may want to modulate the pitch of one oscillator with another exactly a fifth up (3 to 2 frequency ratio). It can easily sound terrible if the fifth up oscillator goes slightly out of tune.

These sort of precision and nonlinearity in output are also one thing that makes FM synthesis a lot harder to use.

<comment><USER9> > Unfortunately I don't think the DX7 is hard to program just because of the > user interface.

That was my first thought. And actually, I kept trying to understand (from the article) how exactly this UI makes FM programming easier. Does it? Or is that not the point?

Because one of my "sound designer dreams" is being able to get the sound in my head coming out of the machine using FM. I can do that with regular subtractive synthesis (more or less) but with FM, I feel like I'm twiddling knobs until I like the way it sounds. And that's with a really good interface!

<comment><USER10> I think the trick to getting FM into a better UX would be to apply more computation to it to identify ahead of time which parameters and ranges will produce dramatic variation from a given starting point, and so reduce the programming to a model where you aren't repeatedly searching for where sweet spots are, but rather quickly paging into the zone desired and then adding minor adjustments.

However part of the challenge of this would be in covering numerous combinations and identifying places where two or more parameters need to be changed simultaneously. Still basically a problem governed by combinatorial constraints.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I had a dx7. I will vouch for it being difficult to program decent sounds for. Despite having a map of how the 6 oscillators interacted on top of the Keyboard. See photo: [https://mn2s.com/news/features/brief-history-yamaha- dx7/](https://mn2s.com/news/features/brief-history-yamaha-dx7/)

It didn't help that in the 90s when I had that keyboard they're weren't many online sources of info about it..

The dx7 was neat but couldn't make very realistic instrument sounds. Very popular though.

</comment><comment><USER12> The DX7 uses FM synthesis which is all digital meaning one can more or less the same results with vastly more flexible interface (Bazille, Dexed, Operator etc.) all inside a computer software. Despite that fact this is incredibly cool and impressive!

<comment><USER13> On this topic, something I don't understand which is probably just a limit of my experience in the field is if one is sufficiently talented at digital synthesis, why not use CSound for everything? It supports virtually any synthesis technique and can run in real-time. It also gives designers the freedom to define their own parameters on their instruments. And it's open source. But it seems mostly relegated to art projects, which confuses me.

<comment><USER14> > why not use CSound for everything?

Because there are a ton of alternatives to CSound.

I use Max/MSP. But you could also use PureData, SuperCollider, Chuck, JUCE, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For those who are interested in the DX7 but can't obtain one, there's a VST version that is literally a perfect recreation. It's called Dexed and you can get it here:

[https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/](https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/)

Personally, I'm a synth nut and Dexed is my go-to when I'm in the mood for FM, but I prefer good old subtractive synths over FM most of the time.

<comment><USER16> And if you don't want to use a PC to get the DX7 sound you can purchase a Korg Volca FM for really cheap. It's sound engine is modelled from the DX7 and you can load in DX7 patches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The key concept of this control pamel is the ability to recall a patch preset, and have all the real-time controls immediately present the new paramaeter values, ready for tweaking. the only way a knob box can do that is by using motorized pots, or rotary encoders & LEDs.

The fact that it's running a DX7 series synth is simply because I wanted to see how much easier it would make a synth to operate, so why not try it out on the one with the scariest reputation, a DX7. The result was much more than I had bargained for, it actually made it a fun instrument to play with. Of course, it could operate about anything that can be digitally controlled.

I wanted to use capacitive-type touch sensors, but the problem with touch technology is it's sensitivity to ambient electrical noise, which can wreak havoc with the sensing signals. So I designed a variation that ignores electrical interference. This lets it be responsive & reliable; no lag, ever, giving it a more natural feel in use than you'd expect.

</comment><comment><USER18> Has anyone tried to take the parameters of an FM synthesis chain as if they were the hash of a particular timbre?

In other words, you start with a recording of the sound you're after and then just start brute-force iterating through the parameter choices until an analysis of the output looks close enough to the input?

I mean, fftw3 takes about a full minute on my Chromebook to measure the quickest algo. So I'd hope that generating output analyses would be fairly snappy...

<comment> xkcd-sucks [https://fo.am/activities/midimutant/](https://fo.am/activities/midimutant/)

An Aphex Twin collaboration, naturally

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> For anyone interested in FM synthesis without the DX7 "baggage" and more limitations which help you steer away from too harsh sounds, check out the Elektron Digitone.

As an added bonus you get a very capable sequencer and it can act as a groovebox on its own for quick sketches.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow, very cool! This seems like a great thing to pair with a DX7 and a Reface DX [1], which seems like Yamaha's attempt to take the linage of the DX7 and do it justice in modern form with an increased emphasis on usability. I once had a DX7, and I loved it to pieces.

The DX7 is one of my favorite synthesizers in history, and its software successor, FM8 [2] by Native Instruments is my favorite synthesizer that I regularly use. As with many of the 61-key workhorse keyboards of the 80s, the DX7 is extremely solidly built and has excellent synth key action which makes it a joy to play. It's not weighted, but it also doesn't feel like a toy, and the velocity range (while oddly bound to 0-100, one of its few unnecessary flaws) is very playable throughout the entire range. Beyond that, the DX7 as a synthesizer is technologically a legendary synthesizer that contributed heavily to 80s and 90s music [3][4]. It had great presets, the most recognizable of which is the default patch which is it's rendition of a Rhodes piano. Many folks bought it for that purpose, and you'll that patch in many songs that you may recognize.

The DX7 uses a type of synthesis called FM synthesis, which (sort of like FM radio encoding) allows any of its 6 operator oscillators to be used additively or as an operator which feeds its signal to one or many other oscillators, potentially in a cyclical manner. Operators can use frequency multipliers and dividers with base oscillators (I believe only sine waves for the DX7 although there's a fair amount more in FM8) so that you can have operators sound harmonically many octaves above a base oscillator, or vice versa. In FM8, you can use multipliers anywhere from 0-64 with a 0.001 resolution. Through careful usage of envelopes and oscillator feedback structures, you can go quite a bit beyond your usual virtual analog style subtractive synthesis. but you can do quite a bit of semi-realistic physical modeling and beyond, whether it be orchestral instruments, drums, or punchy cartoonish caricatures of either. It's easily the most versatile form of non-sample based synthesis I've ever found.

The wonderful thing about FM8 is how intuitive and flexible the synth gets once you begin to get used to it. The envelope editor makes it straightforward to create arbitrary stage envelopes with the curvature of each stage customizable and really straightforward to visualize. I personally lean on FM synthesis so heavily for a variety of reasons. It's a taste thing, but it's also a matter of practicality. If you're judicious about patches you use, it's easier to tune FM instruments to make them take up less spectral space, and clash with other elements in a mix without extra post-processing. Additionally that they tend to be quite CPU light, so the number of distinct instances you can run in realtime without maxing out your CPU is a fair amount higher than hefty virtual analog synths like Massive (it may potentially be the same for Spire). Finally, when it comes to soundscape design possibilities, long envelopes and frequency modulation open the door to ambient shape design that is borderline impossible to do otherwise. I believe this is why the DX7 became Brian Eno's favorite synth [4].

FM8 is not free (although it and Komplete were some of the best investments I ever made in my music) but there are a variety of free DX7 synths out there that you can use, some of which are compatible as editors for DX7 SysEx patches. The one I'd recommend is Dexed [5], which is open source and pretty nice, because you can use it with the giant free DX7 patch ecosystem that's built up over decades. Give that a go with REAPER (trialware), LMMS (open source but a little hard to use with VST/AU plugins), Live (evolving and likely the best for professional musicians to create on), or a DAW of your choice and you're in business. Which reminds me, I have a track I need to finish...and based on my commentary, you can probably accurate guess whether there's at least 1 instance of DX7 on it.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3PGO_DiuYU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3PGO_DiuYU)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx_L9dPIa78](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx_L9dPIa78)

[3] [https://reverbmachine.com/blog/exploring-the-yamaha- dx7](https://reverbmachine.com/blog/exploring-the-yamaha-dx7)

[4] [http://bobbyblues.recup.ch/yamaha_dx7/dx7_examples.html](http://bobbyblues.recup.ch/yamaha_dx7/dx7_examples.html)

[5] [https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/](https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/)

<comment><USER7> I have a Reface DX, and it's my most favorite keyboard of all time.

Frist, it _is_ a DX. While the architecture is not identical to the DX7, it is a 4-OP FM synth with feedback on each operator, which gives it a huge tonal range.

Second, the UI is _great_. And yes, there are 4 realtime controls that make it easy to change the timbre of the sound as you play it.

But the most important part is its compact size and built-in speakers. I've brought the Reface DX to campfires, into the desert, on an airplane, to the top of a mountain, on hikes, to the beach, to the office. I jammed with strangers in the streets of Madrid. With me, I bring cheesy 80s music (FM was all the rage back then), jazz (the e-piano sound on the DX just cuts it), and whatever else I want.

<comment><USER20> I tend to do most of my music composition in the box nowadays, so there's much less jamming for me and more noodling around on a keyboard until I come up with an idea (if that), and then developing the rest of the idea fully in the sequencer. But even so, it might be nice to play around with and be able to take places without having to worry about or deal with a computer -- just having the immediacy of the machine and nothing else seems nice.

The main question I think about is whether I want to grab it or one of the volcas. When it comes to live jamming, it's likely that a groovebox is closer to my cup of tea.

<comment><USER10> One of the simplest options is also the cheapest - just get a Casio toy keyboard. You wouldn't get those for the sound quality, but if you opt to run one through a multi-FX pedal you can achieve a pretty sizable lo-fi tonal palette in a small package.

<comment><USER7> Well, to note: Reface DX, in addition to sounding great, has built-in effects (2 FX that can be chained), and is smaller than any Casio keyboard currently on the market (that I know of).

My next-size-down setup is an Akai LPK25 controller running into the cellphone (running an FM synth, for example).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This looks like basically a MIDI controller that has some software so it can send presets to the DX7.

I wonder how much those touch sensors cost, because I'm sure it could quite easily be used as generic MIDI controller.

<comment><USER17> Anything that can be computer controlled, it could work for if built appropriately. As it sits, the midi interface will let it work with about any midi-based device, if the software is written to match. My next step is going to be having it run my Ensoniq VFX. At that point I'll have it be able to switch between the DX7 and VFX at the touch of a button. I've already used it with a DX7 MkI, and a DX21.

A very early prototype got hooked into a theatrical lighting system, just because. I only had it wired in for a few minutes, the guy that did the lighting design for that theater really, really, wanted me to leave it. The ability to be able to be so interactive with the lighting appealed to him.

As to cost, the sensors themselves would be dirt cheap to mass-produce, the most expensive part would be the display. This one uses discrete LEDs, but I think an old-style, low-res, low cost monochrome LCD would be plausible, allowing more sensors in the same space, and a alphanumeric for labels & such. Most of the circuitry could be replaced by a simple microcontroller, it doesn't require any high-power math or signal processing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is this:

[https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/dtronics-dt7-has- just-m...](https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/dtronics-dt7-has-just-made- the-yamaha-dx7-easier-to-use-636276)

<comment><USER23> Looks like a clone of the Jellinghaus DX-Programmer. Supposedly only 25 were made, and it's hard to find info on it. There's a good picture from when Brian Eno's was auctioned:

[http://www.spheremusic.com/Bargaindtl.asp?Item=4626](http://www.spheremusic.com/Bargaindtl.asp?Item=4626)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nowadays, Patch Base is the way to go.

[https://coffeeshopped.com/patch-base/editor/yamaha- dx7](https://coffeeshopped.com/patch-base/editor/yamaha-dx7)</comment>


Reliable system was so reliable, no one noticed its licence had expired - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/08/on-call/ <comment><USER2> [https://www.ibm.com/search?lang=de&cc=de&q=Server.%201.0.11....](https://www.ibm.com/search?lang=de&cc=de&q=Server.%126.96.36.199)</comment>


YC Interview Advice From a Guy Who Got An Interview and Didn't Get Accepted - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/u/0/117964673266913360417/posts/FyFtW4FqpaB

<comment><USER2> HN really needs to extend the little "domain preview" in the title to include sub-domains. Seeing "(google.com)" and then ending up on a G+ page always throws me for a loop.

<comment><USER3> They do this for some domains already ( tumblr.com, blogspot.com, posterous.com, etc.) I have the same issue with plus.google.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > YC is an amazing opportunity to work with some of the finest people in the > technology industry, it's not a ticket to automatic success

Find something you are passionate about, work hard, be persistent, and go for it. YC is a great opportunity, and you should be looking for opportunities whenever you can.

But without your own hard work your company will be nothing, and this doesn't change with or without YC.

Yes, it sucks getting rejected from anything, but the only time it's the end of the world is if you give up because of it. My last startup that interviewed at YC, was rejected, and shut down soon after, probably weighed too heavily our rejection (though it was far from the only reason we shut down).

(Disclaimer: I'm a two time rejected applicant, one time rejected interviewee)

<comment><USER5> Just wondering, were you rejected twice after being interviewed the first time? I'm wondering if they will dismiss you more easily after having met and decided you aren't the type of person they want to fund...

<comment><USER4> It was a flat reject first, then an interview rejection, then another flat reject. I wasn't actually the one who applied the first time though.

About your statement, I don't know. I can't waste my time thinking about that though. I'm really excited about what I'm working on right now and I've learned a ton in the last few years. Going for it is all that matters to me now.

I will be applying again next round though :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thanks for sharing. It's always nice to hear the tale from the side that didn't get in.

By the way, I've seen one or two outdoor advertising startups pop up here and there over the last year or so ... which means your original idea may have legs. If I remember the names or stumble on them again, I'll be sure to come back and post the companies ... in case you're interested or just mildly curious.

<comment><USER7> Adstuc.com is one. Saw a presentation a while back and it looks like they have some traction although its still in beta.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was just taking a look at ycuniverse and noticed that the 4th startup on the list, trunk.ly was acquired by AVOS(Delicious) and I have not gone through the whole list yet. A friend of mine always reminds me "are you playing to play or are you playing to win?".I would also like to quote the last paragraph from the blog post.

"We still know that chance is there and believe that we can do it. It's always been up to us to prove it, being accepted into YC, or not, doesn't actually change that fundamental requirement. We've got great supporters and more ammunition in the bag still - so it's back to the grind stone again and let's move forward (another thing that wouldn't change whether we were in YC or not)."

</comment><comment><USER5> It sounds like they were excited to hear about as you said "extending your tenacles into the offline world." You probably didn't hit the notes they were hoping for. I know the article was to serve as more of an informative on the interview process but I'm wondering why you didn't take the acceptance as a sign that you should continue you working on the idea. Sure it might need some restructuring but that's where the persistence comes in.

Great article though regardless. Oh yeah, and the design/logo sucked ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't think getting into YC should impact your decision to move ahead with your startup. It should not matter. And you should assume you won't get funding and you will take longer than expected and you will be in debt. Then figure out how you will make it work... so when it happens, you won't feel like throwing up and getting a panic attack

</comment><comment><USER10> Oh. Hey, I remember you! I got rejected with you guys! (At that same bar, with the Plurchase fellow.) This is a small forum indeed.

Just one piece seems missing from this article. If you're not doing Adeptley.com - what are you doing now, and do you regret not doing Adeptley?

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks for sharing your story. Are you guys still pursuing 'Adeptley' or pretty much gave up on it after the rejection?

</comment><comment><USER12> Very interesting post nhashem. Btw, what was the second idea that got rejected from YC, any possibility you can share?

</comment><comment><USER13> I got about 30 blog entries by interviewees over here: <http://ycuniverse.com/interviewees.php>

</comment><comment><USER14> No offense, but if you didn't get accepted, wouldn't it be better to _not_ follow your advice?

<comment><USER15> So you only learn from your successes and not your failures?

<comment><USER16> No, but perhaps only success can prove you've learned from your failures.

<comment><USER17> Regardless, it's still good information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Top Advice: When In Doubt, Make Sure to Capitalize Every Word (Except For a Few of Them) To Grab People's Attention and Make Their Eyes Bleed

</comment><comment><USER19> _shrug_ sometimes a lame idea is just a lame idea. Sounded more like you just wanted to be part of YC for the sake of being part of YC and not start a company you would be super-passionate about.

I mean, also, your website you put up kind of looks like you spent 2 nights on it.

<comment><USER17> I thought the website looked neat. It's not going to win any competitions but it's well done and a good start. The idea is interesting too. If this person wasn't passionate about what they were doing, I'm sure they wouldn't be writing a post to improve their visibility and exposure. I wish them good luck and so should you :P</comment></comment>


OH: We use puppet, chef and a grain of salt - <AUTHOR> http://www.devopsdiary.com/blog/2014/01/09/we-use-puppet-chef-and-a-grain-of-salt/

<comment><USER2> What an odd article. Sounded interesting but was painful to read and I don't see anything insightful, unless you include "think before you act". Oh, and silly gif :-(</comment>


How to Lose Developers & Alienate Others - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/5001827532/how-to-lose-developers-alienate-others

<comment><USER2> So he needed to be more sincere but less personal, and it can't have a hint that your name was just substituted in?

That's an awfully high bar considering the next guy is going to complain that the email that suits you takes itself too seriously, shows that these are just biz-heads looking to ride a wave and can't connect on a meaningful level.

I think you're making much ado about nothing. Ignore the email if you want. Or use it as an opening just to get a feel for the team. Either way, what you've done here just feels crass. Because they weren't telepathic, and stepped on some unwritten rule or another, you call them out publicly and target them for ridicule.

We've all seen much worse when it comes to these types of emails. Time is limited. If you're willing to give people the benefit of a doubt there's as often as not someone genuine and decent on the other end of the line, even if the pitch ends up being something you're not too keen on.

Maybe it shows a lack of experience on my part, but it does seem to me that _someone_ went to some pains to write up that email, even if it was used as a form, and it shows IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know what article you read. but i clearly stated that Andrew is talented and he isn't the only one at fault for this behavior. It maybe crass but its simply not targeting them for ridicule. I am simply giving my point of view on a issue that i feel could be avoided if the writer of the email were bothered enough to add a couple of humane sentences to build a rapport. As supposed generically copying everyone, in order to get developer attention. He clearly did put time into a automated message. As did I here:

Dear ssmoot,

Thanks for the comment.

Sincerely myusuf3

<comment><USER2> Maybe I was being overly sensitive. I do think you could've got your point across as easily without naming names though, or scrubbing the email to protect the "innocent".

Since you did name names, I doubt any amount of compliments would avoid leaving a bad taste.

As far as the message, maybe I'm just in a funny mood, but it strikes me as a great balance, and while I mentally get less excited about a project whenever I see "MySQL", it is probably about the nicest I've seen.

In an attempt to be on topic though: If we're going to critique mailers like this, targeting the ones with the extensive Qualifications/Requirements list from recruiters to be allowed to work with their client's run-of-the-mill app seems fair enough.

Here's one of my recent ones:

      Qualified candidates will possess the following skills and experience:

      *   A proven background in Ruby on Rails design and development
      *   Expertise in MVC architecture and design
      *   Experience in MySQL RDBMS
      *   Test Driven and Agile Development experience
      *   If you have experience with other languages (e.g. PHP, Python, Objective-C), frameworks, multimedia, etc. all the better.</quote>

Ok, so Rails+MySQL is about as vanilla as it gets in my book. MVC architecture and design though? Seriously, you can count the number of Rails developers who've put any thought whatsoever into that on one hand. In Rails it just "is". You don't think about it. Compare to <http://codebetter.com/>. _Years_ after I left .NET and stopped following the blog yet these guys are still talking about fundamentals of OOAD in-depth, and exploring testability with an output from just this one multi-blog that probably equals every Ruby blogger ever. ;-) I mean, if you rule out the blogging about how you should use the latest vegetable themed testing framework that business people are going to use to drive requirements and change the world anyways.

When I see "Agile Development" in a job pitch I automatically think "cowboys without a plan" these days. If you have flexible scope and/or deadlines driven by client collaboration and/or goal-oriented operations, make sure that's clear if you're going to mention the "A"-word. Without expanding on your process using the "Agile" phrase just comes off as shifting responsibility to developers to get it right without due-diligence from the business side. And when it's not right, or the requirements or goals are not well understood, it's typically going to be the Developer making up the difference by putting in extra hours to compensate for the lack of planning, with no realistic expectation of renumeration for his/her time.

And again, I probably should know more about MySQL. I never did master it. After making the switch to PostgreSQL I managed to drastically reduce the effort required to get complex queries to perform as I'd expect a modern RDBMS should (my previous experience being with MSSQL, which other than portability issues is really an outstanding product in my book, really the only MS product I'm a fan of) and didn't look back. That's my own hangup based on my own personal experience though I suppose. It's probably not fair to mark down a mental demerit for it. I do anyways. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of HN readers would probably enjoy getting an email like that. Perhaps you can't see a good thing for what it is?

There are worse problems to have.

</comment><comment><USER4> A sharp eye may optimize the code a bit:

 _boolean isTopGun = isAuthorTopGun(author);

if (isTopGun) { author.setAttitude(Attitudes.DICK); } else { author.setAttitude(Attitudes.DICK); }_

</comment><comment><USER5> I find it a little odd that you complain about the quality of content on HN, but when I look through your submissions you have 17 links to your own blog and 0 to other sources.

Just sayin'

edit: Also, the definition of 'bacn' is that it's _not_ unsolicited.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true; it's a tool I use. I will contribute what I find interesting and believe in. Doesn't mean i am abusing it. the community will upvote what they like.</comment></comment>


Everything you learned about the shape of DNA is wrong - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/31/dna-shape-double-helix-dekker/ <comment><USER2> The money sentence is: "Each DNA molecule is six feet long. Our cells have to wind it tightly to fit in their interior — without tangling them in knots in the process. In fact, our cells have to unfold and refold DNA in order to read their genes."

Holy crap! This sounds so unbelievable at first sight that I googled it: From [http://wow-really.blogspot.com/2006/11/your-dna-would-reach-...](http://wow- really.blogspot.com/2006/11/your-dna-would-reach-moon.html)

"The human genome, the genetic code in each human cell, contains 23 DNA molecules each containing from 500 thousand to 2.5 million nucleotide pairs. DNA molecules of this size are 1.7 to 8.5 cm long when uncoiled, or about 5 cm on average."

So 23*8.5cm ~ 2m. From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus) we learn that the average size of a nucleus is 6 micrometers. if we just folded the total DNA like rope, halving it at each turn we need about 19 folds, which is huge! It would be interesting to calculate to see if a structure like the 3D Hilbert curve has enough packing efficiency to fit a strand this long into the nucleus.

<comment><USER3> > Holy crap! This sounds so unbelievable at first sight that I googled it

That's nothing. If you want to see something even more unbelievable, look at what happens when it is unfolded for replication:

[http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna-replication- advanced-...](http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/dna-replication-advanced- detail)

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZXT2uOcD2w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZXT2uOcD2w)

There is some pretty amazing stuff going on in the cell outside the DNA, too. To move stuff through the cell there are a series of things called microtubule. Think of them as like catwalks connecting various regions. To move things through the cell things called "motor proteins" are used. These are long proteins that attach at one end to thing to be moved, and (I'm not kidding) have a couple little feet at the other end that they use to walk along the microtubule towing their cargo.

Here's an animation of one walking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPDEpimzB8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPDEpimzB8)

Here is an explanation of how the hell it does that chemically:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAva4g3Pk6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAva4g3Pk6k)

<comment><USER4> The closed captions on that last video are pretty a-ok:

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/whek2qi8o1yldwk/Screenshot%202016-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/whek2qi8o1yldwk/Screenshot%202016-03-31%2017.21.35.png?dl=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You could stand to turn down the hyperbole in the title. I knew that DNA was a double helix, and apparently that isn't "wrong".

</comment><comment><USER6> clickbait headline. Most people learn about the abstract double helix structure that is a rigid rod, but that's still quite applicable and correct for many situations. What this article is really about is that DNA folds into complex 3D structures; most of this was actually known in the 80s and 90s and very little additional work has been done, much to my chagrin.

<comment><USER7> That title is so egregious that rather than trying to fix it we just flagged the post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "We each have about 20,000 genes, all of which sit together on a molecule of DNA."

Not a great start there...</comment>


Is Websummit the Internet's Primordial Soup - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@taigaio/on-the-origin-of-the-startapus-invincibilus-c565dd395641 <comment><USER2> Interesting article. While the central conceit pointing out the event's evolutionary traits is a bit laboured there are a few good points in there:

"...turning startup entrepreneurship into a spectacle akin to The Voice is demeaning and disconsiderate, unbecoming even of Donald Trump. Because 6 minutes are… well 6 minutes, the "competition" degenerates quickly into a contest of style over substance."

I was at the event and it certainly was strange to see some companies embrace 'startup culture' rather than running a business.</comment>


Migrating to Public Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/adrianco/migrating-to-public-cloud

<comment><USER2> "Netflix could not build new datacenters fast enough."

Seriously? We're supposed to believe that? No, they chose not to spend the money required to do so. If there continue to be enough datacenters for Netflix, then it -is- possible to build them fast enough.

There are many advantages to moving to the cloud. There's no reason to say things that are so obviously false.

<comment><USER3> To me that quote sounds like Netflix didn't have enough time between when it found out the capacity was needed and when the capacity was needed to build datacenters. So they had a problem with data center build latency and not throughput.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Adrian Cockcroft will be speaking at the "Talk Cloudy to Me" event today: <http://www.meetup.com/cloudcomputing/events/16701362/> \- swing on by if you're near Mountain View!</comment>


Explaining and inducing savant skills: privileged access to lower level info - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677578/ <comment><USER2> I'm more interested in how it can be suppressed.</comment>


Death by 1000 cuts - <AUTHOR> http://www.standardista.com/death-by-1000-cuts/

<comment><USER2> Choice quotes from the blog:

> Since the reaction was based on hearing a forking sexual innuendo joke, a > joke was heard whether or not it was intentionally made.

> The man who was terminated chose to post the experience on HackerNews. To > me, that is a TOTAL overreaction. To you that might be a normal thing to do. > This is definitely not what I would have done, but it is the option he > chose. He apologized, which I think was awesome. I just don't think > HackerNews, being a troll Eden, is a place to post personal information > about yourself or others.

> This is not the first time a "private" offensive joke has been overheard. > (If others can hear you, like when you're on your cell at Starbucks, it's > not private). The first few times we let such things slide. The next few > times we give a "if looks could kills" stare. The next few times, we inform > the perpetrator that we're offended. For the comedically inclined, the next > few times we mock the perpetrator. The next few times we ask them to shut > up. The next time we tweet.

> So, who is to blame? I don't think it really matters anymore. All I know is > that this week has been horrible.

> Who should have been professionally disciplined? How about the SendGrid > sysAdmins who couldn't handle a DDoS attack? Seriously! SendGrid focused on > the wrong staff people when their site went down.</comment>


Serverless = Distraction-Free - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@glikson/serverless-distraction-free-c439d9ef29c9 <comment><AUTHOR> Yet another attempt to define what "serverless" means, in the broader context of recent technology trends.

</comment><comment><USER2> _TL;DR: it is all about removing distraction._

Which is just silly of course.

It doesn't "remove" distraction - but rather ameliorates some of your distractions while creating others. And as with any other interface / abstraction -- whether it's a good idea or not is a matter of tradeoffs involving various factors.

TL;DR same old, same old.</comment>


Raphaël 2.0 is available - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/DmitryBaranovskiy/raphael

<comment><USER2> I think Raphaël is a nice idea: it's great for people who want their stuff to be compatible with old versions of internet explorer, and it makes it very easy to build trivial things.

To be honest though, I found that in trying to build anything more complex or with much user interaction, just working directly with SVG APIs and building up my own abstractions as necessary was easier and much more flexible. People shouldn't be afraid to learn SVG: it's pretty easy!

For anything driven by data, I recommend looking at D3, which is designed around some very powerful ideas.

<comment><USER3> But SVG isn't supported in any version of IE... For me, that's the main reason to use Raphaël.

<comment><USER2> It's supported in IE9+, and for earlier versions (if necessary) there's SVG Web or Chrome Frame.

<comment><USER4> So your project just fails on IE7 and IE8?

<comment><USER2> Different projects obviously have different needs. I'm just pointing out that much of what I've heard people say about Raphaël is along the lines of "it's nicer to use than raw SVG", and providing a contrary data point.

Often, when trying to figure out what technology stack to use, developers look around at what seems to have chatter and hype. I think that in some cases they'd be better served by just learning the lower-level API, which isn't too hard.

<comment><USER4> You didn't answer the question.

<comment><USER5> If he uses plain SVG, and IE7/8 doesn't support SVG, ________________.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Check out the presentation at JSConf EU about the new release: <http://raphaeljs.com/jsconfeu/>

<comment><USER2> How does one get past slide 10?

The UI of this slide deck is highly frustrating.

<comment><USER7> Shift-click (via [http://twitter.com/#!/DmitryBaranovsk/status/120131811857797...](http://twitter.com/#!/DmitryBaranovsk/status/120131811857797121)).

<comment><USER8> Thanks, now I'm stuck at slide 16. A simple changelog would be better...

<comment><USER9> It's not a changelog but the documentation has been updated.

<http://raphaeljs.com/reference.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> what puts me off raphael 1.0 is the lack of grouped transformations. you can collect elements into sets and perform operations on those, but that doesn't not give you a hierarchical transformation space.

i could be wrong but from a cursory glance it seems this is still the case with raphael 2.0.</comment>