Show HN: AndroidFocus – an OmniFocus client for Android - <AUTHOR> http://androidfocusapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This has been my sideproject for the past couple weeks. The project started because I missed the ability to follow up on my OmniFocus tasks from my phone.

The Omni Group does not have an API but they were kind enough to show me some documentation on their webdav/xml based sync format.

The current feature set is rather limited but it's enough to allow 2 way syncing. I plan to add some more features (notes and attachments) in the coming weeks.

<comment><USER2> This is actually fantastic. As someone who has used Omnifocus in the past, and has switched over to Android, having a client on my phone which can pull from their sync service is amazing. I'm looking forward to the updates you mentioned, and hope you can update it to work with all the bits of information that they store.

This also makes me happy that they're willing to talk with developers about their sync format. That tells me an ambitious dev could create clients for Windows, Windows Phone, Linux, etc. as well.

<comment><USER2> Although as a note: the app immediately crashes after putting in my login information to sync with Omni's servers. This is on a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 running Android 4.3.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm taking a look at the crash logs and I think I have figured out what it is. Give me an hour or so to validate my assumptions and roll out a fix.

<comment><USER2> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You are showing the wrong projects/contexts apparently. at least they differ to my of2 list. status of the contexts/projects arent taken into consideration?

folders are shown as regular projects?

why isnt creating an action instant?

how do i know about the current sync status?

you dont support an offline mode?!? :(

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There is currently a known issue where the app would crash after entering sync credentials on Android 4.3 and lower. A fix is about to be deployed but it might take a couple hours before the updates propagates throughout the Play Store.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been waiting for this for a long time, thank you!

I would have happily paid twice the amount, please charge more.</comment>


Announcing YUI 3.4.0 and the new Node/MongoDB powered YUILibrary.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.yuilibrary.com

<comment><USER2> Huge news for the YUI community. Big hat tip to Ryan Grove, who did so much of the work on this, along with Dav Glass, Jenny Donnelly and the rest of the team. The new site really starts to realize the core virtues of this project and to foreground the excellent community contributions.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You can read more about everything that's new about YUI3.4.0 here: [http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2011/08/18/announcing- yui-3-4-0-...](http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2011/08/18/announcing- yui-3-4-0-and-the-new-yuilibrary-com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Additional tools used: <http://yuilibrary.com/about/>

* Ubuntu

* Nginx

* Node.js

* MongoDB

* Express

* Cluster

* Handlebars

* node-mongodb-native

* npm

* Google Prettify

* Git</comment>


Ask HN: What is the most important field of CS for startups? - <AUTHOR>

Which field of CS do you think that with a little more time will result in the largest number of new innovative startups? <comment><USER2> There is no spoon, there is no important, silver bullet field. There is no golden standard formula creating a successful startup.

In math, 4+4=8. But, not just 4+4. You can arrive at at the same outcome in several other ways: 1+1+1+5, 2+6, 10-2, etc. When creating a startup, you want success, but there is no clear cut path to the solution.

What's important? Identify a problem. Work at it like a puzzle and create a solution. But, create a crappy solution and employ your customers to help drive the direction of your product. Don't be a yes man and don't be afraid to say no to feature suggestions.

Be passionate. If you're not passionate about building something, you'll lose motivation. If you're not motivated, find another problem and work on building a solution for that one.

Trying to come up with what is the most important field is a very open ended question. You could spend a year learning a field/technology/programming langauge and then find out you don't need it. Build something with what you know. Don't prematurely learn something. Learn enough to get started and then only learn more when you need to.

If you think you need to learn a certain field in order to get started, you're procrastinating. You'll find yourself in an endless loop of "I'll start, but only when I start learning or have mastered X."

<comment><AUTHOR> good point, but what happens when you get stuck and can't think of something to work on that people care about? Obviously, a person who loves to learn won't take it as a moment to veg out, but may instead focus on problems that stretch the mind to generate some new ways to think about problems.

But there are lots of problems that stretch the mind. Perhaps you choose to spend your time learning about modern computer architectures. If this interests you, great. But from a startup perspective, it probably has a lower expected chance of spinning out a startup for you than say working on an information retrieval system.

But perhaps it is better worth your time just talking to people about their problems. I'm sure there are success stories on both sides of the spectrum.

<comment><USER2> >what happens when you get stuck and can't think of something to work on that people care about?

It's more complicated than creating something that people care about. You need to solve a problem in a creative way, and also figure out a way monetize, while being passionate about it at the same time.

Think about web analytics. Google bought Urchin years ago and is somewhat the standard authority for web analytics. You would think all innovation in that market would come from Google. Then you have a company like Clicky (getclicky.com) pop up from nowhere. They do analytics, but they add a twist: real-time analytics.

Don't worry about thinking up something people will care about. You're not going to know whether someone will care about or pay for your product/service until you launch. Start by scratching an itch. Don't have one? Scratch someone else. If it were as easy as looking into a crystal ball and figuring out a solution that people would pay for, everyone would quick their jobs and create their own startup. Why did Facebook succeed where Friendster failed?

This is the importance of starting small, or everyone's favorite term, minimum viable product. What are the necessary features that someone will pay for? Maybe you launch with what you think is the MVP, but customers then say, "It's a deal breaker if it doesn't do x." This is the importance of starting small, you can change direction quickly. Tim Ferriss talks about preemptive testing in The 4 Hour Work Week.

>But perhaps it is better worth your time just talking to people about their problems.

Exactly. And the great thing about this is that there are a ton of problems outside the realm of IT that need to be solved, where we have a chance to make a difference and build solutions that matter.

The takeaway is that the barrier to entry is very, very low. A little bit of money and some elbow grease can take you a long way.

Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I suppose the obvious answer would be large scale data analysis. Distributed programming of statistical and learning algorithms.

So, less emphasis on theoretical math, more on applied statistics. Distributed computing. Experience in huge data sets and the infrastructure technologies to analyze them.

</comment><comment><USER2> When I first read your post, I didn't see the second question. I interpreted the first as, "What is it important to know for startups in order to be successful?" Then you state your second question as, "Which field of CS do you think that with a little more time will result in the largest number of new innovative startups?" My answer to this isn't specific to CS, but IT as a whole. The next big breakthroughs are going to come from the field of nano technologies. In this space, you will see some innovative startups.

<comment><USER2> And, to cover CS in particular, expect to see a ton of innovation in the area of data storage. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the relational db, non-relational db, and file system fields.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> MBSE: Model Based Software Engineering

You also need in-depth understanding of a specific application domain, your choice, but it should be one that interests you because you are going to be involved for a long time.

Startups succeed on the basis of solving a problem that is big enough and common enough to get lots of clients who are willing to pay heaps. Do yourself a favour, read up Steve Blank's customer development process if you haven't already done so.

<comment><USER5> Contrary to popular belief software process and design is the antitheses to minimum viable product. In a start-up proper, cash is constrained and getting to market should be the goal primo. Getting senior level technical people up front allows you to short cut software process and go straight to building that persons vision of the minimum viable product.

This is the essence of a software start-up, the freewheeling idea factory, that does not have layers of bureaucracy and work that does not readily translate directly into a product.

You have less people with their hands in the produce so the layers of documentation, design and communication do not have to be as stringent as it does in the enterprise. Even in the enterprise it is overdone due to the pushing of best practices by enterprise vendors with some snake oil to sell.</comment></comment>


A weekly assemblage of startup founders in Palo Alto - <AUTHOR> http://whynotcombinator.com

<comment><USER3> This is a great initiative. But it might need way more customization and polishing and set rules before it can help founders with problems at hand or direction or anything that matters.

Good things where even VC meetings can't help:

1\. Founders have better on the ground idea on petty things but important in a way and tedious to solve. eg. food in office or affordable monitors that are great, a specific case of an employee etc

2\. Founders can relate to problems, help solve or collaborate in solving together. eg. technical issue in infrastructure or log processing say.

3\. Boosts morale and can provide some light even after a week of bad sales or VC meetings. Some can even make you see the truth or accept it if the situation is truly negative

4\. Business opportunities - VCs most always connect startups to pilot with portfolio companies and other startups. This can bring early clients and introductions

However I see some critical issues with this model:

1\. People need many sittings to understand the product landscape, persona of the founder or the team to provide relevant suggestions or advise - <USER2> means either _known people have to meet_ or it needs the _same set of people to meet again and again_

2\. Moderation can be an issue. With known friends who are founders it is easy to converse & open up on issues - but with a random group it might become chaotic or a silent dinner.

3\. The moment the meeting is unpredictable (not consistent week on week) in terms of value the zeal to attend would fade over time.

4\. Given the unknown value of such a meeting you do not have a measure to value this time against a release you planned to do or an interview or even some mundane task at hand which has to be finished.

I am a startup founder in India. Given we lack the ecosystem even when VC/angels are involved it is only founder-networks to bank on here. These meet-ups have worked well only with founders who are friends/ex-colleagues.

<comment><USER4> i think you may be missing the rather casual, light-heartedness of what they're doing and instead you're taking it far too serious.

good thoughts for a discussion about seriousness, but maybe not applicable for this specifically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I completely thought this was a reference to [http://incubatorincubator.com/](http://incubatorincubator.com/) \- one of their joke Incubators was "YNotCombinator".

On a more serious note, how is this different to something like [http://www.nreduce.com/](http://www.nreduce.com/) ?

<comment><USER6> nReduce had it's in person meetings last summer. Since then it's morphed into more of an online collaborative community.

I'd love to see weekly dinners happen again under a different group, as they were pretty valuable when we did them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems tacky to engage in such blatant logo use.

(I understand that parody is fair use— I don't believe in copyright anyway. I just think that it's lame that all you did was rotate it. You're capitalizing on a brand that you did not develop.)

</comment><comment><USER8> From the guys behind strikingly.com?

</comment><comment><USER9> McAfee web gateway flags this site as 'Malicious site.' Something to check there.

</comment><comment><USER10> The favicon is elite. Good luck.

</comment><comment> wes-exp Lost me at the 10pm meeting time.

</comment><comment><USER11> You get my vote simply for the domain name.

Perfect - an elevator pitch in a URL, with self-selection filter built in.</comment>


Cable Company Fees Add $450 to Typical Annual Bill - <AUTHOR> https://www.consumerreports.org/fees-billing/cable-company-fees-add-to-tv-bill/ <comment><USER4> And remember, you have little to no recourse for these hidden fees. Due to mandatory binding arbitration, you are forbidden from courts of law to dispute their fees. You cannot and will not have your "day in court". The companies put a small line item in your contract. You were not required to have a common understanding or meeting of the minds to have been banned from disputing these fees in a court of law.

Instead you must hope your local attorney general defends the public interest.

<comment><USER5> I get that a court of law is preferable in many cases.

But the common refrain is that losing binding arbitration cases is a foregone conclusion.

That is simply not the case. Many times, you can win arbitration cases and it will cost you much less than a traditional court case would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't think of a situation where I would ever want the base price and fees to be disclosed seperately. The advertised price should include everything but sales taxes that vary by region. If I ever care to know why the advertised price is different in state A vs state B, then I would simply look up breakdown of the total price.

> The total amounts to nearly $450 per year in unexpected fees just on TV > service alone.

As someone who hasn't every signed up for anything but flat rate internet service (still from Comcast); the only 'fee' I had was a $15 BS charge for a 'self-installation kit' but it was still discolsed before signing up for service. Are the fee amounts unknown until the first bill? Or are they just baried in the 100 page contract?

<comment><USER7> Welcome to retail. Companies recognize that the best way to get a lead is to advertise the lowest base price out there, and the best way to make money is to have the most leads and then use every tactic in the book to extract revenue from them (close the deal, and then fees, upgrades, upcharges, rate increases, etc.)

<comment><USER8> A few years ago I was in a T-mobile store (making the switch from AT&T) and the sales guy kept trying to get me to include add-ons to my base contract (e.g. unlimited international calls).

He kept trying to convince me, and I kept saying "no I don't want that". At the (final?) step when reviewing the contract I saw he'd still included some of the add ons.

I asked him to remove them, and he started the spiel about why I should include them again.

This is the rudest I've ever been to a salesperson, but I didn't even say goodbye: I just walked out, went home and ordered a sim online.

I've often wondered if he was just new/poorly trained or actually intentionally trying to trick me.

<comment><USER9> Commissions, baby.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In rural New York, US, I had the "pleasure" of dealing with Time Warner Cable (now Spectrum) as pretty much our only provider. We wanted basic TV and internet access, each were priced relatively high on their own but cheap as a "triple play" package when phone was included. I think our overall bill was $70/mo for the first year. After the 12 months, our bill went to just shy of $250/mo (promotion ended). We ended up only really using the internet with streaming services so I called them up to cut back exclusively to their internet dropping phone and TV.

This was the most PAINFUL phone call I've had in a long time that literally resulted in me begging them to remove these services after they made at least a dozen or two "what if we do this..." offers. Since that day we've never thought twice to getting TV again (or phone) and have strictly stuck to internet. I'd say weekly I get a new offer mailed to me but it goes straight into the trash.

It's all to apparent they make their promotional packages sweet enough that most people will sign up for them. Once the promotion ends you're stuck with all the "bells and whistles" at an incredibly high price. I believe they intentionally make their downgrade processes as painful as possible so most people just deal with the payment. For example you can easily increase your channel lineup/internet speeds online but you have to call to downgrade anything...

</comment><comment><USER11> In the US do people really pay hundreds of dollars a month for cable? I could never in a million years justify spending that much for entertainment like that when you can get internet for £30 and Netflix for £6, and we're famously overcharged in the UK I thought!

<comment><USER12> My parents pay Comcast $219/month for cable TV (with HBO/Showtime/Netflix) + internet + landline. I've told them multiple times that this seems outrageously high but they're remarkably blasé about it.

<comment><USER11> > $219/month

This is effectively a small second mortgage. That is absolutely bonkers.

<comment><USER13> Just a thought what does attending a play, movie, or sporting event cost. On a per hour basis, cable TV is cheap.

I really hope that the cord cutting alternates start to drive prices down from the legacy satellite and cable providers. It seems they haven't yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A bit off-topic, but this used to be discussed often on the consumerist.com web site, which Consumer Reports bought, and then archived. I miss that blog.

<comment><USER15> I miss that site a lot too, but there's more to the story than that:

\- Consumer Reports bought the site, all is well.

\- Site was hacked via the comments system.

\- Site returned without the comments.

\- Since comments were why most people went to that site, the site site suffered greatly.

\- They reintroduced comments, but made you jump through hoops to get an account. Only a few (literaly less than ten that I can remember) people commented.

\- Those few people stopped commenting because there was no one else to interact with.

\- The site shut down.

(I had a story that I submitted and was posted to The Consumerist. I also had one of those few accounts after the hack.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I get how fees that appear to be regulatory but are actually from the provider are BS, but we really can't decide if we want flat-fee for everything, a la carte, or packages. The article calls out HD fees and the sports upsell, but Netflix charges extra for 4k, and it's its own sort of package, kinda like HBO or sports, so it's not a solution, it's the same old problem.

</comment><comment><USER17> I cut my monthly bill from $191 down to $79.99 Gigabit/Fios plus $40 for DirectvNow/AT&TTVNOWVIPASAPPLZ. Plus, I converted my mom, Comcast in this case...can't understand why anybody would settle for cable prices...hurts so bad. Well, I'm also the IT helpdesk of the family and get called A LOT more now that I'm expected to fix issues asap.

</comment><comment><USER18> You rent your modem and set top box in America?

That's crazy.

<comment><USER19> You don't have to, but most people do.

I supplied my own modem. I see no fee. I haven't had TV service since 2007.

I have Comcast and my bill is $60/mo (total) for 250Mbps down, 10Mbps up (and get that reliably). When it's about to go back to $90-100/mo in May (promotional price expires), I will give them a 15-minute call to get back down to that $60/mo for another year.

My parents on the other hand have a TV package, internet, and phone through them, while renting a set top box and their modem. They pay somewhere around $200/mo. I've informed them of their options (and offered to set it up for them), but they elect to not care.

<comment><USER20> I had TV then switched to a similar Internet only plan with Comcast.

I adopted a strategy of telling them I have no TV anymore (and I disconnected my TV boxes before calling) and need the Internet for work only. I had to politely repeat myself a few times and decline a couple offers of bundled packages, but they switched me over.

The experience wasn't too bad. I expected the caller to try to upsell me but I just said "No thanks, I don't have a TV anyway and really just need the Internet for my job."

But, people who leave themselves open by telling the rep something like "I don't like what's on TV" or "TV is too expensive" will probably have trouble. They really want you to have any type of TV subscription.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's too bad we can't have laws regulating fraudulent behavior like this. This is just one of many ways that companies continually fuck over American consumers and consumers can't do anything about it other than not using services which isn't always an option. Getting ripped off on an ongoing basis is the norm. How do we expect people to plan financially when they are constantly lied to and screwed out of their money with no recourse? Even if there was a class action suit, it would do nothing for consumers. Voting is completely useless as both parties support this predatory anti regulatory capitalism. It's no wonder so many people turn to violence. One had to think that many of those who do so were probably motivated by getting fucked over by companies, especially since the vast majorities of shooters have no mental health problems. What a fucked up society to live in, where one is helpless and often hopeless.

</comment><comment><USER22> TIL there are people who still have cable. I assume it's just generational? I don't know anyone (including my parents) who have cable anymore - and that's very much limited to tech folks.

</comment><comment><USER23> similar shenanigans with satellite tv. cheaper to just subscribe to all streaming options

</comment><comment><USER24> This is (edited to - regulatory capture. I had mentioned capitalism; I only mean we want consumers to figure out what choices they have and exercise them. But as mentioned below, when there's power, like in a monopoly, that power needs to restricted or removed i.e. by government or if at all possible, meaningful competition.)

Here is your recourse:

Try to become and remain among the educated. If you are in a position to do so, educate others.

Vote with your wallet. This, by itself, is not enough. The masses need to be educated and make this vote meaningful.

When the ones in power play dirty, try to remove that power or restrict their ability to play dirty. Our biggest, most profitable companies seem to increasingly have the ability to influence consumers with underhanded, manipulative means. In that scenario, there isn't enough educated consumer power to effect change.

This morning, I was thinking about Google, and how I personally feel like they have some of the absolute worst customer support in the world for many products. Because they will not fail to profit because a few hundred thousand people are unhappy with one of their services. Likewise, the cable companies can anger customers, but continue to profit, as long as they have some kind of power to reap those profits, such as being the only option in an area, or the only (or most direct) way to see certain content, such as live sports or broadcasts. There's definitely a difference in the analogy above - <USER2> makes most of their money not from consumers, but from businesses wishing to advertise.

Anyway, I think cable companies will get worse as long as they are mixing pipelines and content subscriptions, and certainly as long as they hold the keys to the single wire bringing all of your entertainment into your home.

<comment><USER25> Why would a regional monopoly represent capitalism? Google Fiber had to halt their fiber roll-out because of all the red-tape and lawsuits they faced. The more accurate statement would be, this is regulatory capture.

<comment><USER24> You're right - I mean, they don't have a monopoly in delivery of "any" entertainment being delivered to you, which is why I use cable/fiber for internet and nothing more. I know many people feel the need to have live broadcast and choose to continue paying their cable/fiber provider for content. So far they have not added additional fees to my internet bill - <USER3> when I subscribe to TV content.

So it's somewhat in the hands of consumers to stop paying cable/fiber for TV, within the limits of monopolies on content people feel they need.

I'm not blaming capitalism or saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying - we want better options for consumers to win here.</comment></comment></comment>


DOJ Subpoenas Twitter About Popehat, Dissent Doe and Others Over a Smiley Emoji - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171023/18275838465/doj-subpoenas-twitter-about-popehat-dissent-doe-others-over-smiley-emoji-tweet.shtml <comment><USER2> Blog post by Popehat here: [https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my- identity-is-s...](https://www.popehat.com/2017/10/24/in-which-my-identity-is- sought-by-federal-grand-jury-subpoena/)</comment>


Time Series Prediction Using LSTM Deep Neural Networks - <AUTHOR> https://www.altumintelligence.com/articles/a/Time-Series-Prediction-Using-LSTM-Deep-Neural-Networks <comment><USER4> I find it interesting that Computer Scientists are basically rediscovering statistics.

Now when predicting time series, an issue is that most model (like ARIMA, GARCH etc.) are short-memory processes. When you look at the full-series prediction of LSTMs, you observe the same thing.

So in terms of Time Series, Machine Learning is currently in the mid to late 80's compared to Financial Econometrics.

So if you are a CS, you should now probably take a look at fractional GARCH models and incorporate this into the LSTM logic. If the statistic issues are the same, then this may give you that hot new paper.

<comment><USER5> It's been amazing to watch CS (really the Python community, save statsmodels and patsy) discover statistics. For a while I thought perhaps it was me and statistics that was "behind." Over time I realized that it was mostly re- invention of old ideas: one-hot encoding = dummy variables, neural networks approximating polynomial regression, etc. I decided to double-down on statistics and it's really paid off. NN / random forests and the stats-founded but CS-led approaches are very general models. That leaves statisticians a big opening because a more specific model can be chosen to obtain more accurate predictions. These days I'm positioning myself to clean-up the messes / save broken ML models. Turns out [stats] theory is very practical. :-)

<comment><USER6> Because saying "relevant username" is frowned upon I'll just point out that R A Fisher is "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"[0]

0.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher)

<comment><USER7> It's funny to me, as a professional statistician, because most methods popularized by Fischer et al in the early 1900s are wildly inappropriate for practical problems, especially policy decision science or causal inference.

All the theory behind t-testing, Wald testing, using the detivatives of the log likelihood near to the MLE point estimate in order to also estimate standard errors when no analytical solution exists, ANOVA, instrumental variables, etc.

It is in no sense exaggerative or incendiary to say that whole collection of stuff is truly garbage statistics that is insanely rife with counter-intuitive results, common situations when minor violations of the assumptions can easily lead to statistically significant results _of the wrong sign_ , and common practical needs (like model selection _without_ doing a bunch of pairwise or subset selection calculations, or correcting for multicollinearity in large regressions where calculating something like variance inflation factors is totally intractable) are difficult or impossible.

Modern Bayesian approaches fully and entirely subsume these techniques, and not just for large data (in fact, using Bayesian methods is more critical for small data), and also not because of modern computing frameworks, but because, from very first principle of null-hypothesis significance testing, that whole field of stats/econometrics is fundamentally incapable of giving evidence or estimations that could address the very questions that the whole field is based on.

NHST basically solves a type of inference problem that nobody can ever actually have in reality, and which is almost always not even approximately close enough to actually be non-misleading.

NHST is like the stats analogue of Javascript: a horrible historical accident that gained market traction despite being utterly and unequivocally a bad choice for the very problem domain it's intended to be used for. The historical accident of adoption and momentum in Javascript sets back professional computer science by decades until it's eventually wholesale replaced with something whose first principles are actually appropriate.

That same reckoning is in flux in many fields of statistics, as the fundamental unreliability of NHST estimation is more understood and drop-in Bayesian replacements are more available.

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree with anything you've written. The only thing I'd take issue with is placing NHST at the feet of statisticians. Scientists deserve a fair share as well. :-p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why does everyone naively try to predict price? No 'traders' are interested in predicting it - what traders do is identify good locations to enter or exit the market.

I.e. places with defined risk where you will know if you're wrong if it goes against you by x% while you expect a y% gain if you're right AND y>x is worth more than the number of times you're wrong.

The types of Algos that work well for this are edge identification ones - <USER2> know this because I am (not as well as I'd like) successfully doing it.

LSTMs haven't performed so well for me in this task but non-NN algos have. CNNs however were promising but didn't match what I'd come up with - <USER3> searching for the holy grail that'll make me rich!

<comment><USER9> .. because you buy at the price, and sell at the price (spread and fees ignored for now).

Which means, regardless of your philosophy, you are predicting a price change - a long signal is a prediction for positive price change; a short signal is a prediction for a negative price change. If that wasn't true, your system would not be able to profit.

Predicting price change and predicting price are semantically equivalent, although a specific algorithm might be better at one than the other.

<comment><USER10> Given less than 100% certainty, traders don't want to predict price, they want to predict future distribution of price over some time period.

Source: hedge fund trader

<comment><USER9> True. That's still considered a prediction of price among my trading colleagues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For anyone considering this, LSTM only starts to pay off if you have many many time series. For a single time series like this one you're better off using classical time series approaches like ARIMA or other Gaussian state space models.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've built quite a few of these kinds of models. The real trick is to compare it against other methods AND to properly split A LOT of data. In many cases, (depending on the input data) a random walk does roughly as well as "predicting". This is because signal data (such as stock data) often just follow a random (or seemingly random) trend.

</comment><comment><USER13> Seems to me that this is almost dangerous unless the uncertainty (and therefore confidence) of the prediction can be quantified.

<comment><USER5> Yep, it is dangerous. If you're not quantifying uncertainty, you can't make safe predictions. I think this is reason for the obsession with "data cleaning" in the ML community, "outliers" aka rare observations sink general models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I see here that original poster (OP) of the post tried to use many-to-one LSTMs instead of many-to-many LSTMs. I tell that first by looking at the charts. Then I saw the method named "predict_point_by_point" with the comment "Predict each timestep given the last sequence of true data, in effect only predicting 1 step ahead each time" in his code here: [https://github.com/jaungiers/LSTM-Neural-Network-for-Time- Se...](https://github.com/jaungiers/LSTM-Neural-Network-for-Time-Series- Prediction/blob/6aa5c5124ebfa405bf38bb6674871ab59d458b5c/core/model.py#L89)

I strongly think the system would be better to perform many predictions at once instead, using seq2seq neural networks. The problem is properly explained here at the beginning of this other post: [https://github.com/LukeTonin/keras- seq-2-seq-signal-predicti...](https://github.com/LukeTonin/keras-seq-2-seq- signal-prediction) This other post is, in turn, derived from my original project here doing seq2seq predictions with TensorFlow: [https://github.com/guillaume-chevalier/seq2seq-signal- predic...](https://github.com/guillaume-chevalier/seq2seq-signal-prediction)

OP also forgot to cite the image I made: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_short- term_memory#/media/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_short- term_memory#/media/File:The_LSTM_cell.png)

Well, glad to see that some similar work as mine can get this much traction on HN. I would have loved to get this much traction when I did my post, too. Anyway, I would suggest OP to take a look at seq2seq, as it objectively performs better (and without the "laggy drift" visual effect observed as in OP's figure named "S&P500 multi-sequence prediction").

In other words, using many-to-one neural architectures creates some kind of feedback which doesn't happen with seq2seq which doesn't build on its own accumulated error. It has a decoder with different weights than the encoder, and can be deep (stacked).

<comment><USER15> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17902967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17902967)

The aim of this post is to explain why sequence to sequence models appear to perform better than "many to one" RNNs on signal prediction problems. It also describes an implementation of a sequence 2 sequence model using the Keras API.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm currently learning machine learning at the most basic level, this is the sort of stuff I want to work towards though

I deal with time series data a lot at work, I work in broadcasting/media and 99% of the time the data is fairly "predictable" and follows a regular daily pattern, peppered with the odd spikes during big, unpredicatble news events.

<comment><USER17> Time series analysis requires the data to be stationary.

<comment><USER18> Well, I don't want to be pedantic, but don't you rather mean "Most TSA MODELS require data to be stationary"? My experience has been, that often practical TSA actually involves how to deal (testing, differencing, smoothing...) with non-stationarity, which is often not a trivial task...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Could this approach be applied to a metric monitoring framework to give earlier/more accurate notifications if when a threshold would be crossed?

Typically these are triggered when e.g. 90% of a threshold has been crossed.

</comment><comment><USER20> So, curve fitting?

<comment><USER21> exactly, Judea Pearl's The Book of Why opened my eyes to the fact that most of what happens in machine learning is really just curve fitting

It connected with what i've heard Chomsky say about trying to develop laws of physics by filming what's happening outside the window. We need to do experiments and interventions to learn the dynamics of a system

"What do you think the role is, if any, of other uses of so-called big data? [...]

NOAM CHOMSKY: It's more complicated than that. Let's go back to the early days of modern physics: Galileo, Newton, and so on. They did not organize data. If they had, they could never have reached the laws of nature. You couldn't establish the law of falling bodies, what we all learn in high school, by simply accumulating data from videotapes of what's happening outside the window. What they did was study highly idealized situations, such as balls rolling down frictionless planes. Much of what they did were actually thought experiments.

Now let's go to linguistics. Among the interesting questions that we ask are, for example, what's the nature of ECP violations? You can look at 10 billion articles from the Wall Street Journal, and you won't find any examples of ECP violations. It's an interesting theory-determined question that tells you something about the nature of language, just as rolling a ball down an inclined plane is something that tells you about the laws of nature. Scientists use data, of course. But theory-driven experimental investigation has been the nature of the sciences for the last 500 years.

In linguistics we all know that the kind of phenomena that we inquire about are often exotic. They are phenomena that almost never occur. In fact, those are the most interesting phenomena, because they lead you directly to fundamental principles. You could look at data forever, and you'd never figure out the laws, the rules, that are structure dependent. Let alone figure out why. And somehow that's missed by the Silicon Valley approach of just studying masses of data and hoping something will come out. It doesn't work in the sciences, and it doesn't work here."

\- [https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/conversations-on- lingui...](https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/conversations-on-linguistics- and-politics-with-noam-chomsky-152592/)

It is actually a really interesting subject, marketing people doing a/b tests for ads/features seem at least a little closer to the experimental ideal, not just fitting curves to data

For further reading, I'd recommend the epilogue of Casuality (Pearl 2000), it's from a 1996 lecture at UCLA:

\- [http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf](http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/causality2-epilogue.pdf)

<comment><USER22> I really violently oppose this characterization of ML as "just" curve fitting, as if curve fitting is some simple solved problem. It seems like there is a ignorance about issues relating to model selection, which is an essential part of curve fitting. What complexity of model does the data support? Can you keep a distribution over structures that allows uncertain parts of the model to be interrogated? These are the parts of the fitting equation that allow something like "experiments" to be automatically generated as part of the curve fitting.

<comment><USER23> Not the same kind of experiment. An experiment in the scientific sense tweaks the process that generates the data, not the interpretation of the data. There is an inspiration / hypothesis creation step between old data and new experiment.

Main differences: A hypothesis is sorta kinda like your model's coefficients, but more generally applicable. And you have no feedback loop between model coefficients and input data.

So yeah, you are doing very sophisticated curve fitting. It is useful alright, it's just not very much like science.

<comment><USER22> No, it's the same. It is just about having access to control variables.

<comment><USER23> What Chomsky is saying is that the control variables don't exist until you create them because the most telling things don't happen until you have a specific hypothesis and _make them happen_ to test the hypothesis.

<comment><USER22> I disagree. What he is saying is that there is a special rule for languages that he doesn't think you would get at without an enormous amount of data. So a passive learning algorithm wouldn't uncover this structure in a reasonable amount of time or data (I guess it is poor sample efficiency he is worried about). A learning algorithm that has a distribution over it's own internal model of language would be able to ask questions that minimize the uncertainty of the model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If anyone is looking to get into machine learning, I've found "Introduction to Data Mining" very useful:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808349](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17808349)

First edition: [http://www.uokufa.edu.iq/staff/ehsanali/Tan.pdf](http://www.uokufa.edu.iq/staff/ehsanali/Tan.pdf)

Also see "mining of massive datasets" usually available at this link, but it seems to be down: [http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/mmds/book.pdf](http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/mmds/book.pdf)

Which leads me to another point: Many of these books cost $100+. If you don't have those kind of resources, try Library Genesis. It's been very helpful for getting started.</comment>


Lightspeed Summer Fellowship: Your Questions Answered - <AUTHOR> http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/the-lightspeed-summer-fellowship-program-explained/

<comment><AUTHOR> There were a lot of questions and concerns about this (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2380567>) in the original post on why LSVP gives away money, office space, etc. in exchange for no equity. John Vronis - who runs the program gives a really good explanation of this here.

</comment><comment><USER2> John is honestly a great guy and we had an excellent experience with the program. I'd highly recommend Lightspeed for anyone looking for an alternative to the summer incubator route (though it's important to be aware that, as John states in the blog post, it's NOT an incubator.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I did the program last summer and John was our team's mentor. He was really helpful in brainstorming idea and mentoring. We had a really good experience!

</comment><comment><USER4> John is incredibly helpful and smart. He takes a risk offering the program without any guaranteed upside for himself or Lightspeed. Genuinely generous.

</comment><comment><USER5> Lightspeeds summer incubator has the best of both worlds you get space to work on your venture and money to live off of while you're out enjoying CA.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just curious - is the office space at the LSVP Sandhill offices?

<comment><USER2> There's an office building right next to LSVP's offices, and they have an entire suite there that the teams use. It's actually a great space, although when we were there the AC was off during nights/weekends.</comment></comment>


Dropbox - How do I get free space for using Camera Upload? - - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/help/287 <comment><USER2> Download the dropbox app on your smartphone; open it; it will ask you if you want to save "all your photos" on dropbox; say yes; take a pic. Get your extra free space.</comment>


I'd ride the hell out of this solar-powered electric mobility scooter - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/05/14/boomerbuggy-x-solar-powered-electric-scooter/ <comment><USER2> Big and enclosed, so not welcome on sidewalk. Yet small and slow so not welcome on roads. Seems like a glorified golf cart seeking a use case.</comment>


Where Does Affirmative Action Leave Asian-Americans? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/magazine/affirmative-action-asian-american-harvard.html <comment><USER2> This article is poorly written. Early on the reporter really steps her foot into it by practically insulting the kid. Then he bristles at her and responds as if he's being attacked. It's cringing and I'm learning more about these two people than I needed to.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am an Asian rising senior who is in the process of applying to college, and affirmative action makes me cynical.

I like math. I first came onto this path when my parents got me a Scratch book for my birthday. Scratch was my introduction to programming, and from Scratch's small hacker community, I discovered Snap! (UC Berkeley's Scratch- and Scheme-inspired language) and the lambda calculus. From there, I fell in love with type theory, the beautiful Curry-Howard correspondence between types and propositions, and constructive math. Programming led me to type theory, which then led me to adjacent fields of math, such as category theory. When I read about programming language theory on my own, I would encounter the works of professors at prestigious universities (of course, that's where the research happens), and now, I want to go to a good college where I can learn more about type theory and the related math and possibly get involved in research.

When thinking of "Asians" loving "math," I feel that what comes to mind for most people is competition math. Most people don't seem to realize that there's more to math than tricky word problems, or that there are abstract, beautiful ideas beyond calculus (e.g. topology generalizes calculus). This article lists that there is a stereotype of Asians being academic, or being (the child of) mathematicians. It seems to imply that this is a bad thing. What's wrong with liking math? So what if I want to go into academia? Are Mac- Lane or Grothendieck boring people for being mathematicians? Are the college admissions officers who will decide my fate even aware of the true beauty of math?

The article also points out that there are alternate pathways to success than going to those well known T20 colleges. This touches upon the idea that society is pressuring teenagers into thinking that college determines one's worthiness, and that this idea should be changed. I am sympathetic to criticism of how society is pressuring teenagers into participating in a system filled with taking loads of APs, having loads of ECs, etc. at the cost of authenticity, just to go to a good college. However, I personally don't want to go to a good college because society told me to. I want to go to a good college because my own passions lie in studying the beauty of type theory and math. It's not just about being "successful," making money, etc, it's about my dreams.

The people who reduce this issue into a debate over who is the most oppressed minority, or a Democrat vs Republican thing, are giving me a huge slap in the face. For me, this isn't about "politics." This is about my dreams. Stop using my dreams as a political football.

Being Asian is not a big part of who I am as a person. I am Westernized and don't know so much about my culture. I'm just bringing my race up here because apparently college admissions officers care about it, and will make negative assumptions about who I am based on it. Treat me the same way that you would treat a black person, a white person, a Latino person, etc, who likes math and computer science. Me being Asian had nothing to do with this.

</comment><comment><USER4> These are clearly driven individuals who will excel anywhere. In fact when you consider grade inflation, they'd be better of going taking a scholarship from a flagship state university. Especially for STEM majors.

Affirmative action is an attempt to break the cycle of educational under- performance for certain groups in America. It's a blunt tool that needs to be improved, not discarded.

<comment><USER5> The problem I see is that higher education never really improved performance of anyone. The way it historically worked was that higher education institutions would admit only the smartest people around and so only the smartest people would come out of them, too. Smartest roughly equates to highest performing.

Employers would then be able to use the certificate from those institutions to filter for only the smartest people since those were already filtered for to begin with to be eligible to get such a certificate.

If you put people into higher education that ain't already the smartest, you will get people coming out of higher education that ain't the smartest and employers will learn the hard way that the certificate in question is worthless and will begin to filter through other means. Now those students sit on debt they have no way to pay off, since high paying employers will find the smartest people around some other way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm no fan of judging people by the color of their skin, why not use family income?

This way it's apparent who is getting high scores due to tutoring and who is naturally gifted.

<comment><USER7> They already do that too, but it can't solve the racial distribution problem which colleges care a lot about: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/1995-SAT...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/1995-SAT- vs-Income-Education.png)

<comment><USER8> Originally I was against the idea of affirmative action but I've came around to it, but I still don't understand the need to solve for racial distribution rather than socioeconomic distribution.

In my mind affirmative action's goal should be to break the cycle of poverty, where smart kids have poor/uneducated parents which holds them back and they grow up to be poor/uneducated themselves and so on.

It's my understanding that this problem disproportionately affects minorities (in particular black people), so solving for socioeconomic would "self select" (I don't know the proper term) for black people and avoid the issue of "Asian kid with poor/uneducated parents passed over for black kid with richer/educated parents" right?

Or is that just not a real issue? The article seems to mention pluses and minuses (e.g. "two college-educated parents (minus) from a major American city (minus) with aspirations to study either computer science (minus)") so it could be that the above hypothetical would never happen.

I don't know, I'm just struggling to understand why colleges would care more about solving racial distribution rather than socioeconomic distribution.

<comment><USER9> I read a paper on this - if you cut the data by social-economic status, the number of 'qualified' black students would be just over 2%, and I think the colleges are targeting 8% of each incoming class (they don't call it a quota but it is, since it stays consistent each year regardless of overall applicants' demographic changes).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> they got rid of affirmative action in california. the asians were the only minorities to see growth in the number of acceptances to uc. however, it was no where near the rate of growth of their population demographic. most of the new spots went to foreign students. once again the faculty went back to being exclusively white male. also all state government jobs hiring practices were no longer scrutinized for discrimination. minority elected officials in california clearly have difficulties dealing with their own state government.

nobody bothered to check whether eliminating affirmative action actually helped.

<comment><USER11> This is why so many white-centric right wing groups very much want affirmative action abolished, because it is a massive advantage to the politically powerful and connected, who are mostly white in America.

Lets just say its hardly like they are out for justice for all races...

<comment><USER12> "Politically powerful" are obviously mostly white because the population of the US is mostly white.

There is about 10% of black reps in the House which is well in line with the overall population.

And we also just have had a black president.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Leave Asian Americans?? Asian Americans have the highest income of all groups of Americans.

<comment><USER14> > _Asian Americans have the highest income of all groups of Americans._

Amazing how people in the United States nowadays are sensitive to stereotyping and racism ... except when it comes to Asians.

<comment><USER15> And caucasians.</comment></comment></comment>


California's $327 million web site in operation - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2013/10/02/californias-327-million-web-site-in-operation/ <comment><USER2> I think I found their budget plan. Very, very big numbers.

[http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/BoardMeetings/Documents/CHB...](http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/BoardMeetings/Documents/CHBE_Level2Grant_BudgetNarrative.pdf)

<comment><USER3> To be fair to them, California's population is 38 million. Divide the budgets by that number to get a per-capita cost and it doesn't seem crazy to me.

As an aside the way we citizens run our government, budget bloat is guaranteed. We complain a little about bloat, but we complain a lot when things don't go perfectly, and we also go looking for individuals to blame. The strong incentive is to be very risk-averse. That's especially true in organizations, like government, where stability is prized and careers are long.

I really appreciate a lot of the work that government people do, but I would never put up with half the bullshit they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Lots of snark here; very little thoughtful commentary.

If the document that steveplace posted [1] is accurate, the budget for this program includes things like the 800+ person _call center_ to handle consumer requests, and the staff to figure out what kinds of health plans to offer in the first place. The line item for "technical" is $161M, which is only 23% of the budget.

I'm not going to suggest that's a low number for this kind of project, but then again, it's kind of hard to make it all about the horribleness of public projects when _94% of the technical budget_ is going to "contractual services". It looks like the software was mostly done by _private contractors_.

In other words: let's not allow facts and thoughtful discourse to get in the way of a good government bashing!

[1] [http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/BoardMeetings/Documents/CHB...](http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/BoardMeetings/Documents/CHBE_Level2Grant_BudgetNarrative.pdf)

<comment><USER5> > _In other words, it looks like the software was mostly done by private > contractors._

Wait a second. Government over-spending is beyond reproach when the money is channeled to what are likely politically-connected private firms? To my mind, that is equally egregious, perhaps even moreso because of the taint of cronyism (or still worse than that, regulatory capture by entrenched large firms).

But even if I give the firm-selection process the benefit of the doubt and assume it was done without kick-backs or regulatory capture effects of any sort (seems implausible, but we'll go with that), private firms simply know that when you are bidding on government work, the budget is enormous. You're probably likely to be kicked out of the running for being un-serious if your bid is significantly less than the average bid. And the average bid is high because ... government.

I can imagine feedback of the flavor: "You think you can do this type of complex web application for a _mere fifty million_? Don't waste my time."

<comment><USER4> _" And the average bid is high because ... government."_

I'll admit that I was skeptical when people said that _" everything is different this time because ... internet!"_, but I think your application of the theory is much more elegant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's amazing how even technical minded folks don't forgive launch day bugs and initial traffic overload.

That said, some of these bugs definitely should have been easily spotted during beta testing.

But I too would like to see an itemization of $327 million.

<comment><USER4> Initial reports were that insurance.gov got _1M uniques before 8AM_ on launch day. One can imagine that California's exchange site was also slammed.

I'm not going to argue that this project's budget wasn't bloated, but it's pretty naive to think that your average low-rent startup team could handle it any better. Doing tens of millions of uniques on launch day is a challenge for any team. Most commercial websites with that much traffic have technology budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, if not more.

<comment><USER6> Plus given the politics around it, we don't know what devious behavior might have been going on against it either.

Hopefully none, but you never know. Their stats may have been javascript based and not physical server hits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there some balance sheet that explains how it cost $327M? Is this some massive contract awarded to some goverment guy's buddy?

<comment><USER8> It's actually the opposite. All of the regulations preventing it from going to some guy's buddy mean that only bloated, f'd up bureaucracies can clear the hurdles to land the gig. And in the end, it still helps to have some buddies, of course.

<comment><USER3> Yes. The risks of doing a government contract are enormous.

Once an old family friend with a lot of state government contracting experience brought me in to help out with some technical stuff. One of the clauses in the contract basically said that they could just decide not to pay me.

After I got done spluttering, it was explained to me that they needed the clause in case of certain weird emergencies that never happened. (I can't remember now, but I imagine government shutdown is one of those cases.) So I said, "Whatever," and signed, because I could afford to take the risk.

But there is no way I'd do that for a substantial project. The bigger the client, the bigger the crazy. To be able to take $5m gambles, I'd want to be doing $50-100m/year. Which means I'm running a bloated, f'd-up bureaucracy for sure. No thanks; if I need more crazy in my life, I'll just go read some comments on YouTube or newspaper sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Storytime! Who wants to hear another story of going all-in on poor State IT management?

[http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/case/virginia- statewide-i...](http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/case/virginia-statewide- information-technology-system)

</comment><comment><USER10> My small province wasted 1 million Euros in a bad looking, useless, magento site that will be close after next elections. This is how I imagine it works here in my local administration:

       -EU just sent 1 million euros for helping us out!
       -What's destined for?
       -Technological development
       -Ok, i'll call (my cousin) Jon, and ask him to make a website for 750.000,
       you go and call (your brother) Mike and task him to make an iPhone app for 250.000.
       -Good, what will be the site for?
       -Mmmm, whatever Jon wants, does it matter?
       -Guess not... Lets go have a drink a celebrate our good job?
       -Deal.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this the correct site? [https://v.calheers.ca.gov/](https://v.calheers.ca.gov/)

      Come Back Soon

      Due to the success of the Covered California Marketplace we are experiencing higher than expected users.

      To make sure everyone has a great experience while on the site, we need you to come back in a little bit

      We're sorry for the inconvenience and we look forward to your return in a few hours.

<comment><USER12> > _we are experiencing higher than expected users._

Dammit, Californians, stop smoking all that pot so we can get to the obamacare website!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How much health insurance could have simply been bought with $327 million?

<comment><USER14> Probably not much actually. Google tells me that California's population is about 38 million people. So, on average, you get less than $10 per person as a one-time "credit" (or however you'd call this). Even if only 1% of people needed coverage, they could get $1,000 worth of coverage which doesn't take you very far.

I'm not saying that that budget is reasonable or unreasonable, but that puts the amount in perspective a little bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> State IT project. Unbelievably overstaffed, massive budget. Mediocre results, if not outright failure. Par for the course. Nobody should be surprised.

</comment><comment><USER16> At least CA's site is up and running. WA's site ([https://www.wahealthplanfinder.org](https://www.wahealthplanfinder.org)) has been down since the first. My project for down moments today is to try and determine how much it cost to develop. (Oops, I guess it's up now, just slow, and has an invalid cert.)

</comment><comment><USER17> Apparently I need to find some government institutions for clients.

<comment><USER18> That was my conclusion too ;-) Why do we try so hard right?

<comment><USER19> Mine as well. Seems pretty lucrative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Government business is great when you can get it. The problem is navigating the purchasing process.

In this case I like to think of it as stimulus for the economy.

<comment><USER21> Everyone's tax money goes to a select few who screwed the state over (or.. went through their loopholes successfully, however you want to look at it). None of that sounds like a good stimulus to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is there anything being done here that looks like it should cost more than 500k ? ... Look over here, I've got a bridge to sell that I think you're going to love...

</comment><comment><USER23> Sounds unreal, anybody have any details justifying it ?

<comment><USER24> They don't need to. Their customers are unable to switch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'd love to see a collection of how much these sites cost to build per state.</comment>


React.js: Removing User Interface Complexity - <AUTHOR> http://www.jlongster.com/Removing-User-Interface-Complexity,-or-Why-React-is-Awesome

<comment><USER2> [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=react+user+interface+complexity#!/...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=react+user+interface+complexity#!/story/forever/0/react%20user%20interface%20complexity)</comment>


Lisdin: Life Is Short, Do It Now - <AUTHOR> http://www.lisdin.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Over the past few days since launching Lisdin in beta, and being submitted to hackernews we've got # of responses; mostly ideas of gibberish and few form submissions asking questions, "What is this?", "Requesting Access", etc. In summary, Lisdin is working on a sticky, to bring value, to the users... Also they need help to spread the word, "Lisdin: Life is Short, Do It Now!". Come help the movement.

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't get it... What is this?

<comment><USER3> Me neither...</comment></comment>