The Digital Dictatorship: The Myth of the Techno-Utopia - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection&mg=com-wsj

<comment><USER2> Technology can be used for good and bad. Who knew? But more seriously, an article this long, addressing this question should have looked at recent events like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine as a counterpoint:

Text messaging played an integral role in Ukraine's pro-democracy protests in late 2004 and early 2005, known as the "Orange Revolution." As in the Philippines, protesters used mobiles to help organize a massive protest against fraudulent election results, which eventually led to a re-vote. Hundreds of thousands of voters -- particularly young people -- were able to coordinate their activities through the use of SMS. Gene J. Koprowski, of United Press International, writes, "The court-ordered election rematch in Ukraine this past Sunday, featuring opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, probably would not have happened were it not for mobile phone technologies."

From <http://mobileactive.org/mobiles-in-mass-organizing>

More from the BBC: Text message-obsessed Filipinos used SMS to help bring down President Joseph Estrada in 2001. Organisers say text messages accelerated the scandal-ridden Estrada's exit by two months to two years.

In March, opposition leaders in Lebanon used telephones, e-mail and text messaging to organise massive anti-Syrian protests after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4496163.stm>

</comment><comment><USER3> It's the usual story of every technology: it's an amplifier. For non-technical users, it's very easy to be lulled into a false sense of anonymity, yet actually be monitored more closely than has ever been possible.

And this is not only happening in authoritarian states, but in supposedly free ones, and there isn't much in the way of public outcry because the general public doesn't even notice.

</comment><comment><USER4> When an IT professional allows his or her work to be turned into tools for oppression, it diminishes us all.

<comment><USER5> Don't work on anything open source then. How can one stop another person from using open source to oppress people?

<comment><USER4> And how can anyone stop someone from using proprietary software to oppress someone else? Do you really believe that if Oracle decides they won't sell Peoplesoft licenses to, say, General Zod, that would create as much as a minor inconvenience?

License terms only work when all parts agree they have to respect them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article had multiple points; I found it useful to take notes and summarize: <http://akkartik.name/blog/2010-02-20-23-55-51-soc>

Tell me what I missed.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is one of those WSJ articles that is wrong in so many ways you don't quite know how to start refuting it.</comment>


Operation: Make Stuff - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1739793249/operation-make-stuff <comment><USER2> cant_tell_if_serious.jpg

I'm not really sure how to take this kickstarter. On the one hand, it's very dismissive of the usual kickstarter crap and in some ways pokes fun at it (check out the donation perks). On the other hand, the incredibly low threshold and semi-serious tone of the end of the listing make it seem genuine.</comment>


Ask HN: Best startup accounting software? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for some great web-based accounting software and am coming up empty. Sure, there's Outright, InDinero and other "accounting" services, but they don't have anywhere near the functionality for real, QuickBooks-killing, accounting software. I'm talking about software a real accountant wouldn't sneeze at.
Specifically, I need non-cash accounts to track loans/debt from investors. All the web software I find are trying to make accounting trivial by removing 95% of the functionality, leaving only checking account expense tracking. This is great for some I'm sure, but I need true "QuickBooks online that doesn't suck" type of software.
I'm not saying online accounting software needs to be complicated, but in order to disrupt QuickBooks, it needs that functionality. <comment><USER2> Unless you're a CFO type then don't do it yourself. One of the best things I ever did was get a bookkeeper. They know the rules, prepare everything for your accountant to sign off and will make you more money in tax savings than they usually cost.

Doing the accounts might seem like a monthly thing, but realistically the amount of stuff you have to learn, understand and keep up with takes your time away from working on your business. If you can afford it, don't do it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Truth? Quickbooks desktop edition would be just fine at your size, and has a huge number of consultants that can come help once a month.

We're currently using Quickbooks online, and its also flexible enough to account for convertible notes and loans.

Alternative: Try LessAccounting - they may let you enter in a loan from investors too. Don't know this for sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for this. LessAccounting doesn't let me enter loans from what I can see, and their software was fairly buggy. Kept getting weird errors, and I never heard back from my support email...

I didn't have much look with Quickbooks online either. It was at least a year ago when I tried it, but it said I had to use IE on Windows. They didn't support mac. Seriously... in a browser, it said buy a PC. lol</comment></comment>


Show HN: The Next UI Marketplace - <AUTHOR> http://www.24ui.io/

<comment><USER2> "High Quality Themes 24ui.io provide high quality and awesome themes based on Twitter Bootstrap. We have review each themes and only approve good themes to list on 24ui.io."

If you aren't able to effectively check the copy on your own site, how can you make this claim?

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure I understand sites like this - is the business idea just that you can make money by taking a smaller cut than more established sites? Is it just an attempt to be a better middleman than other middlemen without actually creating anything other than a marketplace?

</comment><comment><USER4> Also: "High Quality Themes 24ui.io provide high quality and awesome themes based on Twitter Bootstrap."

If you aren't able to effectively _design and theme your own site_, how can you make this claim?

</comment><comment><USER5> hey there, you want to partner with us at [http://themes- mart.com](http://themes-mart.com)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, contact us at support [at] 24ui.io. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nothing planned for themes using Foundation ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Foundation will be in the list. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why will this be better than wrapbootstrap.com?

<comment><AUTHOR> We pay higher rate to sellers (55% is too low). Beside that, more competition is better for buyers.</comment></comment>


Escapes.js – Retro ANSI art in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://creativejs.com/2012/02/ansi-escapes-js/ <comment><USER2> I used to use TheDraw to add intro animations to my freshman CS assignments (1989-1990). At first the TAs thought it was funny but then I guess it annoyed them because it screwed up their automated graders.

<comment><USER3> Have you ever found a replacement that works suitably without having to use DosBox?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It takes me back. I need to go and dig out some of those ANSI animations I made for my BBS back in 1989/90.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ahh memories. I remember ansi.sys was susceptible to ansi bombs. Keyboard remaps, dedicated print, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> That beautiful neon banner makes the page almost totally unnavigable for me (Firefox 10/Centos).

</comment><comment><USER7> I haven't seen ASCII art in so long. The nostalgia just made me perk up and giggle.

</comment><comment><USER8> previous discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3596487></comment>


IBM Makes Firefox its Default Browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/ibm_makes_firefox_its_default_browser.php <comment><USER2> I was an employee of IBM up until about 6 months ago, where upon I switched to a start up. But that is not what this is about.

Hopefully, things at IBM have changed internally because a vast majority of their internal applications require Internet Explorer to function _at all_. Pretty much everyone I knew used Firefox, but groaned loudly when they had to open IE6 to use some of their internal tools on W3.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a good strategic move against Microsoft. If IBM lends its credibility to the Firefox cause, other companies will be more willing to get rid of IE, especially IE6.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone know if IBM contributes code to either Firefox/Gecko or Webkit?

<comment><USER5> The IBM/Firefox tie-up started a long time ago with them contributing some accessibility features. <http://www-03.ibm.com/able/resources/firefox.html>

Glad they made it official, though, but Firefox had been an IBMer favorite for a while: <http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/4902.ars>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is excellent. If Google decides to stop sponsoring Mozilla, IBM now has an incentive to do so in their place.

<comment><USER7> Google pays for search placement, as do at least a couple of other search providers I believe. They used to pay people one dollar for getting Firefox plus Google Search installed on a machine so they clearly view it as a money maker rather than a charity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How corporate to switch official browsers away from IE… to a browser that is no longer the leading engine anymore. I wonder why they did not pick a WebKit flavor, like Chrome?

 _Edit:_ Mozilla Corp. is a commercial entity, just like Google and Apple are. Gecko and WebKit are both open source, and Chromium builds show just how easy it would be to build an IBM-branded Chrome, if you will. I don't see IP as a serious factor here.

<comment><USER9> Chrome probably didn't even exist yet when IBM started migrating to Firefox.

<comment><USER8> Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of browser-specific investments have been made? Isn't the idea of a standards-based web that it _hardly matters_ which browser is chosen, as long as it supports the standards in question?

<comment><USER9> Probably testing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who is currently an IBM employee, this is news to me.

<comment><USER11> How very corporate ;-)</comment></comment>


Pioneering 3D printing reshapes patient's face - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26534408

<comment><USER2> Interesting that the surgery was in 2012 but only coming to press now. Perhaps it was only recently published?</comment>


Why Snapchat Spectacles failed - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/28/why-snapchat-spectacles-failed/ <comment><USER3> It's amazing how you can write a whole article on this, but the gist is they built something with low utility value. period.

If you look at it from this point of view, everything else is just side effect.

\- It failed because it's not fashionable? => No. See bluetooth headset. Also see Crocs. If it's useful, people will use it.

\- It failed because it waited 5 months to sell it? => No. See Apple.

\- It failed because the excitement died off by the time it shipped? => No. See all kinds of films that succeeded WITHOUT any initial hype (such as the Matrix)

\- It failed because it couldn't get any influencers to endorse the product? => No, see Snapchat. Yeah their original app itself.

\- It failed because the content couldn't be ported over to other platform without cropping? => No. In fact, if Spectacles would have succeeded, Techcrunch would probably be blabbering about how the key to success is how brilliant its marketing strategy was, so that all the videos uploaded to youtube and instagram had the "signature snapchat crop", which got everyone else curious.

The only arguments I agree with in this article are related to its utility-- how it's considered rude to be video taping someone else, and how it was limited to sunglasses format.

The rest is bullshit because they're one of those "MBA case studies" type after-the-fact interpretation, which in most cases are bullshit.

Just go build something useful and you will never have to worry about being "fashionable" or all the gimmicks. In fact as a tech company you should never see yourself as a fashion company. It's a myth created by ignorant media pundits who's never built a product in their life.

<comment><USER4> I disagree with your entire comment and here's why - in my view, saying that the reason something failed because it relieved no itch or there was insufficient utility is at par with suggesting that trading is simple because you have to "Buy Low and Sell High, d'oh". It teaches no one anything they don't instinctively know.

Everything the article says - be it about influencers not picking up and promoting the Spectacles to difficulties with porting content without cropping - is extremely useful to anyone else looking to launch a Spectacles type device.

<comment><USER5> _> Everything the article says - [...] - is extremely useful to anyone else_

The post you replied to tried to explain why it's actually _not useful_. The journalist uses a style of seductive writing (some call it "narrative fallacy"[1]) which connects _plausible-sounding_ causes to its _supposedly logical_ effects. That style of explanation can actually make readers _dumber_ about what happened because it leaves out _counterexamples_.

That "narrative fallacy" is common in writings from Harvard Business Review, histories, biographies, newspapers & pundits trying to explain why the Dow Jones Index went up/down, why startups/products failed/succeeded, etc. All of those suffer the omission of counterexamples.

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

<comment><USER6> > That style of explanation can actually make readers dumber about what > happened because it leaves out counterexamples.

Thank you for writing this

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So how about this: the influencers on Snapchat are all recording _themselves_ most of the time. These glasses did nothing to help with that particular and most popular use case.

I feel really weird for being the first to bring this up, it seems pretty obvious to me the main reason these glasses weren't going to catch on.

<comment><USER8> yeah, what they need are programmable drones that follow them around, recording. Bruce Sterling suggested such a thing in "The Artificial Kid" \- and I think we've got the tech to actually kinda do it now.

<comment><USER9> That was the Lily: [https://www.wired.com/2015/05/lily-robotics- drone/](https://www.wired.com/2015/05/lily-robotics-drone/)

Spoiler: the video was misleading (California is suing them for false advertising) and the company is dead.

<comment><USER10> Mayfield Robotics is making a non-flying version of this, called the Kuri: [https://www.heykuri.com/](https://www.heykuri.com/)

It is a real product, founded by a bunch of robotics people from Harvey Mudd.

<comment><USER8> The camera angle seems like it could be... problematic, though.

Also it doesn't look like it has the capability to follow me in even most sedate urban environments. I mean, I'm not asking for stairs, but that thing looks like it'd have a hard time with a sidewalk crack.

Both those problems could probably be solved by making it bigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one that thinks that a) it's obvious that these sorts of devices (face wearables) aren't led by people who have worn glasses their whole life and b) if you haven't lived that, you shouldn't try to build devices for people's faces?

I say it's obvious because neither Glass nor Spectacles were wearable by people who need corrective lenses AS corrective eyewear.

None of the leadership had any idea what it meant to have a large piece of hardware on your face all day every day. Nor, importantly, how to convince someone to put a large piece of hardware in their face every day all day.

It's like they didn't even BOTHER to call the guys at warby Parker, or zenni, or even the anti-christ Luxotica

Glasses are SO much more personal than a computer or a phone, or even a shirt or other clothing. They are your face. Your literal identity.

It's so tone deaf of both teams (and everyone in the AR/VR community that thinks some manner of out-in-public eyewear is "close) to not deal with that need for customization at minimum.

Sorry had to rant about that. M sure all those people are actually pretty sharp, and I'm just being grumpy.

<comment><USER12> _I say it 's obvious because neither Glass nor Spectacles were wearable by people who need corrective lenses AS corrective eyewear._

This reminds me of Canon vs Nikon. Fanboys on the Internet wank on about megapixels and whatnot but the real differentiator is the eyepoint of the viewfinder, which is probably literally as simple as, the eyepoint guy at Nikon wears glasses themselves and their counterpart at Canon doesn't.

<comment><USER13> Is there a large difference in viewfinder design nowadays? I wear glasses and use a Canon 1DX2 and have tried out a Nikon D5 — if anything the Canon is more comfortable for me to look through.

The specifications bear me out: Nikon has a 0.71x magnification VF with a 17mm eyepoint, while Canon has a 0.76x magnification VF wish 20mm eyepoint.

<comment><USER12> My experience of this is back in the day when it was a real eye opener if you'll forgive the pun when I switched to a Nikon F5 from a Canon EOS 3. I expect both companies have different viewfinder designers now, but it just goes to show how a simple usability test can be overlooked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was talking to a parent friend of mine a while back, and we both agreed (he owns a pair) that Snapchat Spectacles could be an amazing accessory for parents.

Kids are easily distracted, so if you point a phone at them it'll completely throw them off whatever cute activity it was they were just doing - <USER2> because they now want to play with your phone. No such problem with Spectacles - and not only that, it means you can keep two hands free (not a small issue when one arm might already have a child in it).

The problem is that Spectacles are so tied into Snapchat that it makes sharing the output very difficult. Grandma and Grandpa are not going to use Snapchat, and I'm not sure Snapchat wants them to. You can, eventually, import into Snapchat then export single videos back out again, but they lose the cool display method for circular videos and look awful. I think they could shift some of these glasses with a little rebranding and a spin-off app just for importing videos into whatever destination you want. They'll never do that, though. Maybe if they finally declare it dead they'll open up the sync API, but I'm not holding my breath.

(this is a repost of an old comment I wrote a few days ago in case anyone is suffering from deja-vu)

<comment><USER15> > Grandma and Grandpa are not going to use Snapchat, and I'm not sure Snapchat > wants them to.

There's no maybe about it: Snapchat definitely doesn't want them. Evan Spiegel has been very upfront that he doesn't want the riff-raff. Snapchat has always been deliberately shitty on Android and Spiegel went out of his way to make clear how they definitely weren't going to make a Windows Phone application, back when WP was a potential player. If you're not a cool, hip teen with an iPhone, you can piss off.

He reminds me a lot of that Abercrombie CEO who said that they didn't want fatties and uglies in their stores, which was a winning strategy until it suddenly wasn't.

This is partially why, as much as I hate Facebook, I'm not particularly upset at Snapchat slowly getting steamrolled by them. Businesses that stick up their middle finger at potential customers out of snobbery deserve to fail.

<comment><USER16> _He reminds me a lot of that Abercrombie CEO who said that they didn 't want fatties and uglies in their stores, which was a winning strategy until it suddenly wasn't._

To be fair, my impression is that this aspect of their marketing wasn't the problem; the Great Recession was the problem, because suddenly no one had 2 – 4x the money to pay for a piece of clothing that only differed from the competition in that it told other teens you have 2 – 4x the money.

Great Recession + fast fashion seems to be the real culprit.

The market for elitism has never disappeared in that domain. Maybe any domain.

<comment><USER15> There's a difference between being an upscale brand and actually turning away customers. Apple and BMW are elite brands, but if you're poorer but save up for one because you want it that bad, they'll happily take your money. Snapchat and Abercrombie are looking at people who _want_ to give them money and telling them to go away.

<comment><USER17> Is Snap really telling anyone to go away? You can download and use the app for free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's interesting to go back and re-read the overwhelmingly positive predictions HN users made when Spectacles were announced:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12569182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12569182)

and compare those to the "it was obviously going to fail" responses here.

<comment><USER19> The only people I ever saw say anything positive about them were people that were pumping the IPO or people they paid to hype them.

<comment><USER18> Looking at the profiles of the two top-voted comments in that thread, that doesn't seem to be the case. But just browse the replies: many HN posters genuinely seemed to believe they'd nailed some key niche and important product details. They didn't strike me that way -- which is why I remembered the post.

The contrast struck me as an interesting example of hindsight bias.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was really curious about spectacles, and bought a pair as soon as I could. I lost them about 3 weeks later, and that was that.

In some ways they were really cool, but the article was bang-on about pretty much everything. It's really a case study about how to fuck up a product roll- out.

Portability complications were a huge downer. The shaded lenses made them difficult to use indoors, and what wasn't mentioned was that the mic was hypersensitive to distortion from the slightest breeze, which made them useless outside as well.

But, as the article states:

>To drive demand, Snap needed to demonstrate all the creative things you could do with Spectacles, and the cool people who wore them.

Why the fuck didn't they do this?

<comment><USER21> > and what wasn't mentioned was that the mic was hypersensitive to distortion > from the slightest breeze,

And you can't really stick a micromuff on your glasses.

[http://www.micromuff.com/](http://www.micromuff.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was a Snap power user. Got spectacles very early. Hated the upload UX.

Bluetooth issues galore. Completely stopped using them. As standalone sunglasses, they are inferior to a good $10 pair from amazon - heavier, worse lens quality, and limited viewable area.

</comment><comment><USER23> A few months ago on Hacker News I asked about the low usage of the Spectacles and the response was generally that people who bought it liked it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14562560](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14562560)

Spectacles are a case where appealing to a niche may not be the most _profitable_ endeavor. (and now that Snap is a public company, they have to actually care about profit at some point)

</comment><comment><USER24> Just curious, am I the only one who really, really wants the AR glasses from Daemon by Daniel Suarez? I would very much like a pair of glasses that records information, helps me to recognize faces, and bring information further into my reality.

<comment><USER25> I read Daemon in middle school and became so obsessed with augmented reality that I essentially devoted the next seven years of my life to working towards making it happen: attending conferences, conducting research, and starting an AR hardware company.

So no, you're not the only one :)

Also, unrelated to my previous obsession with AR, I have prosopagnosia, so having glasses that could tell me who I'm looking at would make a major improvement to my life.

<comment><USER26> >devoted the next seven years of my life

Was that a while ago? Or is that still what you're doing?

<comment><USER25> I'm a senior in college now. This was something I worked on from the beginning of high school until this May.

<comment><USER27> What happened in May?

<comment><USER28> Right? Don't leave us hanging!

<comment><USER29> I was curious as well. Looks like he worked on Mira, an AR company that is working on shipping hardware that works with your phone. Reading the about section ([https://www.mirareality.com/about](https://www.mirareality.com/about)), it's kind of funny, lists only three founders, who are not him, in the copy, but the photo at the top of the page has 4 founders. Looked like it could be an interesting product, though I'm sure the right AR glasses that customers will purchase need to be far less bulky.

<comment><USER25> The fourth person in the picture is Evan, our CTO. He wasn't a founder.

<comment><USER29> Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I assumed it was you since you weren't in the copy ("founded by Ben Taft, Matt Stern, and Montana Reed"). Any reason you left the AR world when it seems to be heating up now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> IMO, (well based on actual data from my websites and apps) most people consume media, not produce it, where producers are < 1%. The phone is a device that both consumes and produces doing a great job at it but for the majority of its use, ~99% , consumes. A device only for producing is already at a disadvantage and its a novel one at that. When glasses or contact lenses both consume and produce, we got something pretty great going on. For example, kind of related, when the iwatch becomes 100% an phone in its own right, no tethering, you already sold me and I'll buy it as it just dramatically increased its utility and its novelty vanished turning into a new form factor.

</comment><comment><USER31> Because they were pointless.

The first time I saw them I thought to myself, well that's a cool idea but that was it.

It truly felt like marketing or some attempt to trick people into believing Snap could make cool things... like a response to Facebook/Oculus.

<comment><USER32> If I can use them to shoot videos and make something cool like the japan tour thing[1] I would buy them.

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3i5asc3qI4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3i5asc3qI4)

EDIT: actually looking at the snapchat spectacle webpage, it looks neat and I can see myself buying them. Just not at that price (130GBP) because I will probably not be using them a lot. But if there is a promotion around Christmas why not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Here is detailed usability and feature function allocation analysis. This product was dead in the water from the beginning. [https://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/snap-spectacles-failed- po...](https://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/snap-spectacles-failed-poor- usability-featurefunction-allocation-errors-compromised-potentially- breakthrough-product/)

Mauro Usability Science

</comment><comment><USER34> They took a gamble and it did not work out for them, their product was not the next 'spinner' grade craze. But if you don't try you don't get.

It is only a matter of time before cameras in sunglasses becomes a common thing with people using them in place of action cameras, dashcams and regular cameras. The UX needs to be 'wink' to take a picture so these things can operate hands free with voice control - 'cheese' etc.

Somehow these wonder sunglasses of the near future weigh no more than normal sunglasses, charge magically in their special case and stream 4K HDR+ 3D stereo over bluetooth 24/7 storing all content on a nano-SD card. But we are not there yet and Snap took a punt at pitching a fun variant of the ideal product with low-res functionality seeing if people would go for it. They didn't. People didn't go crazy for them like they did with 'spinners', an equally 'useless' product. But cameras in sunglasses are happening. People have got over lenses in public. There is one in every car bumper.

</comment><comment><USER35> i actually bought one.

1: hard as hell to pair.

2: circular video does not work since a lot of people want to port out the videos away from snapchat.

3: i wear glasses, the lens on these frames are not circular. couldn't find anyone in the bay area who did custom lenses (at the time).

4: towards the end of the year (2016), a lot of people wanted them but were frustrated that even if they got to the vending machine there was zero guarantee they would even get one. at most they had ~70ish in quantity per day. way too low. drove short term hype up though.

5: no marketing at all for this thing.

</comment><comment><USER36> God damn it. These fucking wearable pieces of shit need to stand on their own. They can't be unrepairable, expensive, tethered pieces of shit that die when the battery refuses to charge.

No one wants garbage that only works with one website, and no one wants to pay for an uncontrollable device with a mind of its own.

If you have a free service on the internet, millions or perhaps even billions may clamour to use it. If you're giving stuff out for free, people will happily try it out, if they have the option to throw it in the trash without consequence.

Make people pay for something? It better do what they want, when they want it, or you might have some pissed off people on your hands.

<comment><USER37> In short:

Getting people to spend their free time is relatively easy.

Getting people to spend their hard earned cash is very (very) difficult.

You'd think this would be obvious already :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I can buy a pair of spy glasses for $100 to record at 30fps for an hour in full color 1080, 60fps for half that time. There are no giant lenses on the sides with lights that show my glasses are even capable of recording.

I can even order those glasses with a prescription. They will help me see, and nobody else will be the wiser about being recorded. I'm not saying that I go out of my way to discreetly record people - I don't. But that shows to me these commodity glasses are a superior product to cartoonish looking Snapchat Spectacles.

For me, that is why Snapchat and all other similar recording spectacles will fail.

<comment><USER39> Can you post a link to those spy glasses you mention?

<comment><USER38> There are some similar ones here: [http://www.recordergear.com/camera- glasses/](http://www.recordergear.com/camera-glasses/). They aren't exactly the ones I meant, no longer having the manufacturer's link.

You can also find a bunch here: [https://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=1080p+spy+glasses](https://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=1080p+spy+glasses), but at ebay I'd rather spend $100 instead of $12 for these types of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Notably missing from the list - nobody wants this product.

<comment><USER41> I dunno, they are/were demoing them at Universal Orlando and plenty of people were checking them out. Price tag probably scared most away (who's dumping 100+ on glasses at a theme park?).

I'd buy a pair if they were more like traditional action cam style glasses. The technical limitations right now make them far too expensive for what they are.

<comment><USER42> You'd be surprised: when I worked in retail, I was told that the sunglass stands in the theme parks were 3 of the the top five grossing stores at the time for the luxury sunglass brand that I was working for. Admittedly, this was...almost 20ish years ago, but, I'd still think this would be true today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> They had the application completely wrong. It's not for "social influencers". It's for jocks. People doing extreme sports. Skateboarders. Surfers. They needed to market this as a more convenient GoPro.

The trouble is, that's not Snapchat's target demographic. The device concept is fine; it's the seller that's wrong.

<comment><USER44> The device looks too fragile to use in extreme sports and would have to be completely redesigned, especially for compatibility with ski/snowboard goggles. The shape also reduces peripheral vision which is an issue for some sports.

I haven't heard many extreme sports athletes complaining that GoPros are inconvenient. The helmet mounts seem fine for most people.

<comment><USER43> For helmet uses, the GoPro box is not a big problem. Not all sports use helmets.

<comment><USER44> I see a lot of athletes using chest mounts. For surfing it's common to mount on the tip of the board pointing back at the surfer. I really can't imagine surfers wearing any kind of spectacles; they'd fall off in the first big wipeout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I thought it faced a certain and quick death when it was launched.

The thing is expensively useless. And the design is very cheesy.

Surprisingly, at the time, I saw many articles praising it as "the most brilliant idea", feeling like total flattery. I suspect those were from their marketing team. Guess the market isn't so easy to fool.

</comment><comment><USER46> When people were saying that Snapchat is toast after Facebook stole all their functionality, there was always that one person saying that Spectacles will save Snapchat. Which made no sense even back then.

Also, before this article, I have never seen a single video shot by Spectacles. And now I understand why: they look _terrible_. It's not at all like seeing the world from the glasses-wearer's point of view. It's more like looking into a goddamn peephole.

</comment><comment><USER47> Spectacles failed because they wouldn't sell us the damn things! There was all this hype but it was practically impossible to buy a pair except for scalper prices on eBay.

</comment><comment><USER48> These failed because they built all of their hype around "we have a truck selling them in random cities for a couple days" and they weren't interesting enough to buy second market. To be honest, I didn't even realize I could buy them now. Their whole thing was that you CAN'T just buy them online.

This is the same issue Pokemon Go had---they made a really cool product that would go through a period of super high demand followed by an extreme dropoff, but they didn't roll out their product in time---their release window didn't match the window for the traction they actually generated. Pokemon Go was massive when it released for a couple weeks, and they touted a IoT thing to go with the game that made it even more immersive, but that didn't come out until people really stopped caring.

The moral of the story is to know that if you're going to have a huge release, be ready THEN to sell things. Hype is useless if you aren't capitalizing on it.

<comment><USER49> To be fair, the IoT device wasn't sold by Niantic, it was sold by Nintendo. Nintendo dropped the ball on selling the only thing that was really profitable for them around the Pokemon Go fad since they only receive license fees for the characters I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I think the use case is brilliant, if albeit niche. I would never wear them in everyday life but when travelling I found myself wanting something like this to capture memories, moments or just "atmosphere". A mobile camera doesn't quite cut it because it's hard to get an authentic angle, especially if you're moving. I'd rather not wear glasses when i don't have too but if it's sunny, why not instead of sunglasses?

I'd prefer something with less conspicuous branding however, and something I could export in a decent format. I predict this will be a somewhat mainstream gadget within 5 years (Well, for people who can afford it). Apple will make iGlasses, or some shit like that, with Siri and camera.

Then there's the whole thing about living in the moment, perhaps that's better :)

</comment><comment><USER51> Because it was a BS idea designed to get some cheap press and PR, and doomed to fail from the start?

Google Glass failed for all the technological and social reasons it did, why would a BS subpar imitation from a, in the grand scheme of things, insignificant service, fare better?

</comment><comment><USER52> I think AR sunglasses could be big just needs the right execution.

Maybe it only allows you to see things in the real world based on QR codes embedded in real world objects like objects in a museum and other places where businesses, organizations or governments embeds AR qr codes. The heavy computing lifting is done not in the glasses but in the displays. Possibly making the glasses cheap and barely bulkier then current sunglasses.

Also this way distribution of such glasses could be like 3D glasses ... pay ticket for museum tour and get Their AR glasses for the tour.

A good introduction to AR glasses in the market and other businesses could do the same.

</comment><comment><USER53> TLDR hw is hard, "fashion" hw is double hard

<comment><USER32> It's interesting how on the other side Apple has succeeded with the Apple watch even though you need to recharge it every day. My guess is that it was highly priced and so seen as a "rich people" jewelry. Hence the market being driven by people who want to look rich.

I'm sure that if snapchat spectacles had been priced lower, every middle schooler would have gotten them. Driving the market/trend by mass adoption.

<comment><USER54> In terms of watch prices it is far from highly priced. I don't know anyone that would considering it "rich people" jewelry. I've had my Apple Watch for several weeks now and its usefulness has made it worth every penny. I especially love having cellular service and not having to take my phone with me everywhere I go.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> They should have supported iphone only. And adjusted the projected demand accordingly. It's much easier to make bluetooth peripherals work nicely only with one specific device and specific os. The whole experience would have been much more polished. They could even have used something like airdrop. Iphone users are also more likely to have $150 to spend on a joke pair of glasses. Really seems like the obvious thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER56> Maybe it's because they released sunglasses in November. I don't know California but here in developed Europe nobody buys sunglasses nowadays, because there is no sun.

</comment><comment><USER57> This was obviously a marketing-led disaster from day one. It's hard to accept company leadership that can be be persuaded to do go down a path like this so easily.

</comment><comment><USER58> I wonder if they ever tested the concept before the release. To me, they would have seen the issues with any sort of actual market test prior to the investment.

<comment><USER59> Testing before release is too late. They need to create a dummy mock-up and try it out while they are still brainstorming. If they did that, and were thinking clearly, I expect they would be able to think of a lot of the problems in this thread.

<comment><USER58> Agreed - concept testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is the very first time I've heard about snapchat spectacles, and I frequently use snapchat... Yea, they failed pretty horribly at doing PR.

</comment><comment><USER61> Besides their technical and marketing failings, spectacles are also a failure of imagination. They attempt to digitize moments rather than trying to use technology to enhance what you are doing or to create entirely new artificial experiences. I wish this was why they failed but the reasons outlined in the article are much more realistic

</comment><comment><USER62> > Google's core mistake was allowing geeky developers to become the face of > Glass.

That's us! We're the mistake :-D

<comment><USER63> Wasn't this the same problem with Google+? Facebook started exclusively with college students, Google started a social network exclusively with programmers.

<comment><USER64> FUCK. I thought that when we attained wealth, power, and appeared on the covers of magazines people would stop dunking our heads in toilets and finally pay us SOME RESPECT. This just shows that our society isn't a meritocracy. It doesn't even matter anymore what you do, we're still undesirables to the cheerleaders and jocks and the popular kids.

We'll get our revenge though. We control everything you mfers see, hear, buy, and think. If you look down on us, get ready for your phone to be the new heroin. If you like us, you can be free and dance with us and sample the earthly delights of the real world. We will be Neo, you can elect to be Morpheus or Trinity. Or we can be the machines in zero-one. Maybe that fits better.

Enjoy your new paradise losers.

/s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I wish they would sell these glasses for $50 USD. they would have no problem clearing out quite a few of them. I can't see myself paying $100+ on Craigslist let alone the retail price of $129.99

Here's to hoping they get highly discounted and dumped on eBay/amazon.

</comment><comment><USER66> Because people don't want to put stupid shit on their face that doen not even have any trace of marginal value. There's no transcendental deeper reason.

</comment><comment><USER67> How about: because it was a bad product that nobody needed?

</comment><comment><USER62> I wonder if the ultimate answer is for them to be completely imperceptible and indifferentiatable from regular glasses - the glasshole thing is big.

</comment><comment><USER55> Lol! But guys! Snapchat is a camera company! Interesting how just saying absurd things doesn't make it true.

</comment><comment><USER68> Snapchat is for selfies. you can't take selfies with your own glasses. That's why it failed.

</comment><comment><USER69> Has _any_ wearable succeeded yet? Beyond the obvious ones like earbuds, the smart watch?

<comment><USER70> I'd not heard of these glasses before, but for action sports they seem like the perfect fit. I kitesurf so I can't hold a camera, I tend to clamp a GoPro between my teeth to film. Same with surfers.

If these glasses had waterproof headphones I know tons of people who would snap them sup.

<comment><USER44> GoPro and third-party vendors sell a bunch of mounting accessories to put on your head or chest or wherever. Why don't you buy one of those instead of holding the camera in your teeth?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> It's a hard sell in countries that don't get that much sun (e.g. UK)

</comment><comment><USER72> People didn't want them. That's why they failed. It's that simple.

</comment><comment><USER73> Because it's awkward as fk?

Same as google glass. The tech wasn't the issue

</comment><comment><USER74> iGlass will probably be created by Apple or a hardware startup led by some people like Steve Jobs and Woz. No software company has made a hugely successful hardware product.

<comment><USER75> Microsoft/Xbox?

<comment><USER76> They came close with the 360, and then took 5 steps back with the One.

<comment><USER77> Microsoft is a hardware company. They've been shipping computers, keyboards, headsets and all sort of electronics for a while.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Never even heard of this

<comment><USER79> I'd heard of them, didn't even know they were out yet and today I find they've already failed. Ho hum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> moral of the story: quit hyping things that you know are stupid</comment>


Handbook for Spoken Mathematics – Larry's Speakeasy (1983) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://web.efzg.hr/dok/MAT/vkojic/Larrys_speakeasy.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I wish I'd found this a long time ago. Somehow, I find that reading maths related works is easier is I know how to "speak" what I'm reading, even if I don't actually know what it means in detail. If I'm "reading" something mathematical and don't know how to speak it in my mind, something wants to turn off and say "just ignore this." But if I can read it, and just not understand the details, then my mind is satisfied to read over it; and I can go back afterwards and lookup the details on the bits I didn't understand.

Does anybody else experience dealing with math this way?

<comment><USER2> Yes. Back in undergrad, I would always annoy my math professors by asking how to pronounce some of the symbols they were using.

Having said that, there are also times when I have to avoid reading a piece of math and just look at it visually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing the link to this great resource. I'll let my math students know about this. It's a bigger list with more examples than any I have seen before in a mathematics textbook, with very detailed instructions.</comment>


Oh The Horror! And New Tickets - <AUTHOR> http://ticketstumbler.com/new-stuff/2008/10/18/oh-the-horror-and-new-tickets/

<comment><USER2> WWE, amazing. Do those sell out these days? I haven't been to a taping of Raw in many years, but I remember they used to backing during they heyday of The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin.

<comment><AUTHOR> It depends. If it's at a venue with over 80,000 seat it's very hard to sell out. As amazing as it seems, WWE is still popular. Yes, fake wrestling.

UFC is super hot right now. NASCAR is already the second most popular "sport" (ugh) behind football, but UFC should be grabbing the third spot soon if they haven't already.

<comment><USER2> Third in terms of ticket sales? I know NFL is only third in terms of total attendance due to having so few games.

I read a couple articles recently that said NASCAR attendance is dropping. Their audience is, umm, how to say this politely... the group most likely to be hurt by an economic downturn.

<comment><AUTHOR> Television ratings inside the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Concert site structure and user dashboards are next.

<comment><USER3> Kudos for being so open and also for injecting a bit of humor into these posts. Tom is a badass developer and I know TicketStumbler is going to be even more awesome as you roll out more concerts and more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm afraid I lost part of the thread. Was the final solution to move to a new machine?

Is that what this means?

 _By eliminating all the variables of the current machine, the question answered itself, without days of debugging._

<comment><USER5> Yeah, sorry I didn't clarify better. The real problem likely had something to do with the disk drives as the we'd been having problems with a couple drives on that machine. It basically came down to "re-install software, replace hardware" or just "move to the new stuff now."

The second option was going to be done in a way that didn't have any downtime, but with some many bad things happening at once it didn't make sense to wait.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I take great offense in your unwarranted picking on Danes

:-)

<comment><AUTHOR> If it makes you feel better I'm 25% Danish. :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, how bad was the code before you made it "too awesome" in your latest update? Sounds like you need some new programmers and three new DBAs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

We admittedly cut a lot of corners in order to get launched in two months with only two people. So far, it's been worth the gamble.

<comment><USER8> heh you sure were cutting it close, getting to the point where you couldn't select.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep.

<comment><USER9> Speaking of, you could speed up queries in general by avoiding Select * .

See here: <http://wiki.lessthandot.com/index.php/Don't_Use_>(select_*),_but_List_Columns</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Turkish Prime Minister manhandles citizen @Soma @Turkey - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFZ-wjvR5F4

<comment><AUTHOR> Video has been deleted by Turkish Government from Youtube. Alternative available at here [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ut124_erdogan- vatandasi-b...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ut124_erdogan-vatandasi- bakin-nasil-yumrukladi_news?start=2)</comment>


Facebook deserted by millions of users in biggest markets - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/28/facebook-loses-users-biggest-markets <comment><USER2> When you lose the core users/early adopter types (the ones that used Facebook the most since early on), it's only a matter of time before it spreads to the mainstream.

The decline may be "hidden" in its early days, if Facebook keeps growing in _new_ markets. But the trend remains. It's that happened to RIM, too. They were growing _overall_ (globally) years after the iPhone came out, but losing users in its core markets, which meant it was only a matter of time before the same trend spread to the new markets, too, the ones recently conquered.</comment>


Twinkie Maker Hostess to Close  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578122632560842670

<comment><USER2> Seems like the chief problem here is having to deal with _multiple_ unions. Each union on its own is trying to capture as much producer surplus as they can, but there just isn't enough to go around. In good times, benefits and salaries ratchet up; in leaner times you're stuck with the expensive benefits previously promised so salaries have to go back down again by quite a lot. Or the company folds.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, 18,500 employees let go. I wonder whether or not the unions think that they made the right decision. I can't imagine it's currently easy to find a job as a baker.

<comment><USER4> I agree, the quote:

> It was an untenable proposal for our people

I figure unemployment would be untenable.

After spending the past 6-8 months hearing about jobs from the election coverage, stuff like this just bugs me.

<comment><USER5> What you're saying is people should work because... they should work, regardless of pay, conditions, etc. People have choices.

Clearly, the reasons are far more nuanced than what you're going to get from an article. This company has gone through bankruptcy twice before.</comment></comment></comment>


How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Very interesting article. Wonder what the numbers would be for similarly counted "mass vehicular homocides" involving alcohol?</comment>


FBI chief tells Senate committee we're doomed without crypto backdoors - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/fbi-chief-tells-senate-committee-were-doomed-without-crypto-backdoors/

<comment><USER2> We can only hope; the feds are one of the more dangerous adversaries around. Criminals can steal your stuff and make your life difficult; the feds can straight-up end it. They need to be kept on a very short leash and given as little power as we can manage.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well that HT is out of business, they are really up a creek huh? They are just looking to level the playing field so that they can play too. If encryption is outlawed only outlaws will have encryption.

</comment><comment><USER4> As long as they (FBI/NSA) don't think they did anything wrong it will be hard to believe that they will reform and start to uphold the Constitution.

<comment><USER5> Bravo! The question that comes next is: how to get the FBI to believe it's doing wrong? The FBI is in Department of Justice, vs the NSA in Department of Defense, so I think that the FBI will be easier to reform. Once that happens, the even the NSA can be reformed by pointing to the FBI as a model.

I think the CIA is hopeless. It's become an NGO effectively.</comment></comment>


Rails is half of your application - <AUTHOR> http://ku1ik.com/2014/03/13/rails-is-half-of-your-application.html <comment><USER2> It's been over a year since Obvious Architecture came out and over a year before that when Uncle Bob gave his talk on Ruby Midwest. People seem to just now be catching on.

I've gone really deep down the rabbit hole on these kind of highly decoupled design patterns in Obvious, clean architecture, functional programming, TDD and all of that and I realize now that Ruby is not the optimal language for this style of development and DHH and Rails' purpose is not the same purpose of clean architecture.

I go back and think about the original build a blog in Rails demos, which are great BTW, and I feel like Rails' strength is standing up an application quick and getting stuff done. Yes it can do TDD and clean architecture and all of that fun design stuff, but to be completely honest, it doesn't fit the community or the language as much as it should.

Ruby gives you a lot of amazing tools, but there are a lot of things that make clean architecture way nicer that you end up bolting on to Ruby. Stuff like immutability, type checking, and strong interfaces are not the norm in Rubyland. That is perfectly fine, but by the time you build all those tools, it's hard not to look at a language like Scala or Kotlin and see a lot of those things built in to the language along with a compiler and nice IDE support.

I love Ruby and I use it every day. I live in a Rails app most of the day and I've found ways to make to make the code beautiful, but fundamentally I don't think the Ruby community will ever truly get behind clean architecture. It really flies in the face of the reasons why most people use Ruby in the first place.

<comment><USER3> I think what you say about Rails is true. Rails isn't a framework, it's a lifestyle.

I also started to question whether Ruby's type system was just too loose for serious work and was yearning for something as pleasant as Ruby but with at least some type safety. Then yesterday I read this relatively old post [https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/217617](https://www.ruby- forum.com/topic/217617) about adding static typing to Ruby. There's a lot of recognisable names in the thread, but the posts from Eleanor McHugh nearer the bottom really helped me understand the power and utility behind the apparent simplicity.

<comment><USER2> I would love a compiled, statically typed Ruby, but I don't think the Ruby world wants it. I think Ruby is a fine tool in its current state.

I think there is a need for a different language that makes clean architecture natural, well accepted, normal thing. Ruby is great, but trying to change the community and language doesn't seem to be the right approach.

<comment><USER4> > I would love a compiled, statically typed Ruby

[http://infraruby.com/](http://infraruby.com/) is a compiled, statically typed subset of Ruby, compatible with Ruby interpreters.

<comment><USER3> Is this actually type safe, or type safe up until you include an untyped gem and the whole thing becomes indeterminate? Does the typing actually improve performance over straight jRuby?

Can it handle method_missing and *_eval?

Also why is it closed source?

edit: sorry I didn't mean to sound aggressive. please interpret the stream of questions as extreme curiosity.

<comment><USER4> > Is this actually type safe

The type system is roughly the same as in Java, and, as in Java, there are ways around the type system.

> or type safe up until you include an untyped gem and the whole thing becomes > indeterminate?

The compiler requires type annotations; you can't include an untyped gem! InfraRuby syntax is compatible with Ruby interpreters, so you can still use your code while you write type annotations for it.

> Does the typing actually improve performance over straight jRuby?

Yes. The compiler is written in Ruby, and uses JRuby to bootstrap. The performance of the compiled compiler compiling the compiler is about 7x JRuby.

> Can it handle method_missing and *_eval?

No. The subset of Ruby supported by InfraRuby excludes metaprogramming and reflection.

> Also why is it closed source?

Because 1. give away your work 2. ??? 3. profit! is not compelling :-p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In my experience, projects written in frameworks like Rails an Django have a tendency to end up with business logic sprinkled everywhere:

        Persistence + Business <-> Frontend + Business

You end up with business logic in ORM code, POST validation, Javascript form validation...

You usually want:

        Persistence <-> Business <-> Frontend

That way you can extract a business API and be transparent whether it's making SQL queries, talking to a webservice, a file, or something else.

Another mistake IMHO is going crazy on OO and having, e.g., an `Order` object encapsulate everything like validation, persistence, reporting, serialization, etc... You end up with an object that retains so much state that it's hard to test. By coupling data and function you also end up in a corner trying to do bulk operations efficiently, falling into an awful idiom of iterating objects and calling a method on them, leading scalability issues with N*M queries, and so on. The testable/scalable route is following a functional approach and designing your business API from the start around functions that deal with sets and take all the necessary state as a parameter, or data structure that represents the current state.

<comment><USER6> It's a general problem with poor programming practices. When you see people subclassing controllers to modify behaviour, it's clear something went wrong. On the other hand, splitting out your business logic (which should take clean data structures) and putting your persistence system in its own layer, you get a clean, decoupled system, which you may or may not reuse elsewhere, but that is certainly easier to understand and test than when "good design" means accessing the database in a controller or in a view.

Framework or no framework, you'll get the same design from programmers who stare blankly when somebody says "separation of concerns".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find it really interesting and awesome that Rails and PHP are both (at the same time) in the process of (re)discovering the architecture described in Evan's DDD and Fowler's PEAA.

What's old is new again! Rails has existed long enough to have a need (and a vocal chunk of the php community has matured enough) to think of apps architecture with a longer term in mind.

I think devs are seeing frameworks as a tool to implement an application instead of being the application itself (as originilly conceived before Rails revolutionized RAD).

Great!

<comment><USER8> > I find it really interesting and awesome that Rails and PHP are both (at the > same time) in the process of (re)discovering the architecture described in > Evan's DDD and Fowler's PEAA.

uh? It has nothing to do with PHP or Rails. everything to do with mediocre developers,you must be born yesterday. And you can even do that in JS...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not sure I agree with the idea that `Rails == UI`. A lot of the time I'm trying to fight Rails on this as decoupling HTML means refactoring HTML which isn't fun.

I use Rails as a thing that controls boundaries, a glorified CGI really. It's a router, input sanitizer, and general plumbing that spurts out JSON every now and then. It's a mid-level wall in a fortress: server + OS deal with TCP, Rails + Rack handle HTTP, Rails handles raw user input, proxy objects handle Rails, the actual business logic handles proxy objects.

This is the only workflow that allows me and Rails to be long-term friends:

When a request comes in to the API (say, change password) the controller will sanitize and confirm presence of the right params and collect things like the current user. It'll then pass these off to a proxy object e.g. `CustomerPasswordUpdater.update!(user, new_pass)` which will validate length, entropy, etc and perform any necessary crypto. Then that data gets passed off to another proxy object which abstracts over ActiveRecord e.g. `UserPersister`. There's literally nothing inside the model itself. The core `Customer` object is nothing but a decorated window on the relevant data (accessed through unambiguous proxies e.g. `UserReader`, never directly through the model).

This may seem a bit framework-inside-a-framework but the result of this approach is that specific chunks of logic - _your_ logic, the stuff you write on a whiteboard - is clearly identifiable in these small unambiguous classes.

The grand upshot is that I can plan my application on a piece of paper, write all _my_ logic in plain old Ruby with plain old RSpec and plain old gems at breakneck speed, and there's no stupidity like tests hitting the DB or 40 minute test runs in sight.

Once all that's done wiring it up to Rails takes a day or two. At any point I could write a few new proxy objects and drop the whole thing in to Sinatra&Sequel/ Sinatra&Neo4j/ Sinatra&PStore/ Whatever&Whatever. At no point does the logic that defines and encapsulates the actual _business problem_ that needed solved need to be touched.

</comment><comment><USER9> We use an interactor pattern with organizers to keep domain logic dry and reusable. Skinny models and controllers. [http://collectiveidea.com/blog/archives/2012/06/28/wheres- yo...](http://collectiveidea.com/blog/archives/2012/06/28/wheres-your- business-logic/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Don't restrict yourself to MVC. It's a phenomenal start to any given project but ultimately your going to have to do what real engineers do. Example, lets say I'm building a game. The underlying framework is object oriented and adheres to a type of MVC pattern to manage view states. We use a component entity system to manage game entities and logic. The same goes with Web stacks it's the framework, but not limited to the underlying pattern. Extend your domain logic out from the MVC. It's not rails job to do everything for you. I feel the developer is at fault more than rails. Buck up and break the pattern it's not beyond reason.

</comment><comment><USER10> Half? More like 1/5th or even less. Ruby is the real horse power.

<comment><USER11> I know your point is that Ruby is where it's at, but do this:

In the top line of config/boot.rb above EVERYTHING else, put this:

        require 'tracer'
        Tracer.on

Now, start Rails. Wow that's a lot, huh? Stop again. Now try replacing those two lines with:

        set_trace_func proc { |event, file, line, id, binding, classname|
          printf "%8s %s:%-2d %10s %8s\n", event, file, line, id, classname
        }

Start it again. Lot going on there...

<comment><USER10> Are you implying I even use that pile of turd?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: 5 ways using TODO comments will make you a better programmer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jessepiascik/5-ways-using-todo-comments-will-make-you-a-better-programmer-240abd00d9e4#.sp5w0k614 <comment><USER2> At #3 it became obvious that I was reading an ad, which kind of soured the whole thing. Ease up on the name dropping and keep it at the end if you have to do it.</comment>


Amazon cloud accused of network slowdown - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/15/amazon_ec2_latency/

<comment><USER2> It's pretty disappointing how these types of stories get parroted around the web, without any valuable research added.

As an EC2 user, I'd like to see less words and more measurements. Amazon has dozens of datacenters, probably each containing dozens or hundreds of independent sub-nodes, but we don't have any data regarding who is affected. In fact, Cloudkick hasn't given us any information regarding how they sampled their data.

I know that my EC2 instance isn't experiencing latency problems, so is it possible that a small number of nodes have developed problems, and that is skewing the average?

Anyone with some useful information, please share!

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure if it's useful (and it's only a guess) but I think there are two mechanisms at work here:

1\. Minor technical problems at Amazon affecting [at least] a few vocal customers

2\. Rackspace running a PR campaign in favor to their newly launched cloud product

I'm not sure to what degree these two are connected but the timing seems a bit suspicious, with a bunch of pseudo-benchmarks (paid by rackspace) cropping up almost at the same time as these reports about EC2 problems.

As a matter of fact there has always been some variance in EC2 instance performance, as anyone who has run more than a few nodes can confirm. It's the nature of the beast.

None of the reports I have seen provided convincing data for serious large- scale problems. A peek on a few hundred instances simply doesn't cut it when amazon is said to be running around a million of them. To add a datapoint of my own; we are running almost a hundred 24/7 instances here for batch media processing and I can't see a difference in performance between now and November'09.

And even if the reports are true I'm not exactly worried. Amazon is the first and largest cloud operator, so it's just natural that they hit scaling barriers before others do. If there are problems they will fix them and move on.

Ofcourse all this sounds much more exciting when you wrap it up under a sensational headline, along with a few meaningless but colorful graphs...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think the article's headline is a bit unfair.

I read that and thought that they were/are manipulating the network in some way to slow it down, similar to ISP's that traffic shape torrenting clients to minimize the effect on their networks.

It could very well be that an increase in demand has meant a higher utilization of available hardware, and response times have slowed down as a result.

It could be that they're trying new, higher-density configurations to maximize ROI.

It could very well be that they're prioritizing the higher-paying customers, which seems reasonable (to me, anyway).

Sure, response times have apparently slowed down, regardless, but the headline could sound less "evil" or intentional, I guess.

Still, it'd be interesting to know what's really going on, rather than hear the generic "no over-capacity issues here" mantra from them, or the thundering silence when asked specifically about response times.

<comment><USER5> I don't really care if they are doing any of the above, that is certinally their rights as a Business to optimize their infrastructure, but the problem is all about their lack of communication about the latency issues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Go Cloudkick!</comment>


Shtetl-Optimized » My Enlightenment Fanaticism - <AUTHOR> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4892 <comment><USER2> Reminds me of a comment made by Mike Duncan ( history of Rome, Revolutions ) that in revolutions, the later revolutionaries destroy the early adopters.</comment>


The Computer, the Consumer and Privacy (1984) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/04/weekinreview/the-computer-the-consumer-and-privacy.html <comment><USER2> > _With about $3.5 million worth of MacIntoshes sold just after the > advertisement ran, Mr. Thomas judged the effort ''absolutely successful.'' > ''We also set out to smash the old canard that the computer will enslave > us,'' he said. ''We did not say the computer will set us free - I have no > idea how it will work out. This was strictly a marketing position.''_

<comment><USER3> To be honest, we still have no idea how it will work out.

<comment><USER4> But we do know that only free software can guarantee our freedom: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more- impor...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more- important.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      As technology grows in power, its ability either to disrupt or to heal increases. We can destroy the planet more easily than we can heal the harm we have done so far. To heal, we have to move to new technologies, new social patterns, new types of consumer products, new ways of generating and spending wealth. Such changes will inevitably occur, whether they are brought by healing forethought or mindless destruction. The future will not be a repetition of the past.

James Martin (1978) The wired society. p. 3</comment>


San Francisco officials advance bill to ban e-cigarettes - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/San-Francisco-officials-advance-bill-to-ban-13961282.php <comment><USER2> Ban e-cigarettes until they're reviewed by governing bodies. Continue to sell combustibles that've already received a negative health review for both those who consume them and those in the general inhalation vicinity by said governing bodies.

Makes sense.

<comment><USER3> It seems a common strategy. It should put in the same regime as combustible. For walking in the street, it definitely cleaner.

Yes it still kills and affect the health of the human. But nothing is worse than combustible.

<comment><USER4> Source that vaping kills?

<comment><USER5> Source that second hand vaping kills? I mean, I can legally drink all the bleach I want so long as I don't go around splashing it on others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ban cigarettes or legalize all drugs. The hypocrisy is strong in our drug policy. I personally support legalizing all drugs, or at least decriminalizing them, but I can't stand the fact that cigarettes are legal+easily accessible when weed is federally Schedule 1 drug.

EDIT: Full disclosure: I was a daily cigarette smoker for ~1 year during high school.

</comment><comment><USER7> The thing people don't realize is this. E-cigarettes cut into the tax revenue regular cigarettes generate.

Of course SF wants to ban e-cigs as it cuts into the tax generated from cigarettes.

Someone pointed this out to me. Part of the settlement with big tobacco was big tobacco had to run ads to get people to stop smoking, and to allow states and cities to tax tobacco as warranted.

It's free money for cities and states. If you think they would genuinely ever ban cigarettes you're gravely mistaken.</comment>


EA Acquires BioWare and Pandemic Game Studios - <AUTHOR> http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88189&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1061844&highlight=

<comment><USER2> $750m in cash and stock... not bad.

</comment><comment><USER3> for games that isn't very good news.</comment>


Talking Resilience with Roy Bahat of Bloomberg Beta - <AUTHOR> https://www.range.co/blog/talking-resilience-with-roy-bahat-of-bloomberg-beta <comment><USER2> Thank you for including me... brought out plenty of perspectives I hadn't shared yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Useful insights!</comment>


The Robot That Makes Virtual Sex Feel Real - <AUTHOR> http://www.techblog.co/robot-virtual-sex-feel-real/

<comment><USER2> Nothing like joyless, soulless sex with robotic and submissive women.

Will they be doing a "first time" sex? You know, awkward, quick and potentially painful? Now that's something for an IPO.

Seriously, this sounds and looks stupid.

<comment><USER3> Your description is constructed to exactly dismiss what you already dont like -- but it's digital, you want a soulful dominant woman? You can have that! Whether you install the appropriate personality profile a-la total recall or with current teledildonics tech that avatar could very well be a real human being and the haptic telemetry is now genuine physical interaction, genuine long distance SEX between real people, represented by avatars in the game.

This is huge. Huge as in investors should be clamoring to get in! www.angel.co/frixion ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hey that's us!</comment>


How IKEA is structured to minimize tax and maximize control - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/6919139?story_id=6919139 <comment><USER2> "FEW tasks are more exasperating than trying to assemble flat-pack furniture from IKEA"

Am I the only one that enjoy assembling flat-pack furniture and believe it is extremely easy?.

<comment><USER3> I've bought some flat-pack furniture from some of IKEA's competitors. After having struggled through putting that together I have to say I have new found respect for the amount of thought and design IKEA must put into how their furniture goes together.

<comment><USER4> Never bought any furniture from Ikea. The furniture I have bought from other low end places generally has very low res and out of proportion drawings. Its not a crazy conspiracy that the manuals are not very well put together. If you think about it economically, they already have your money by the time you've opened the box and tried to piece your furniture together.

<comment><USER3> If you think about it economically they only have a tiny fraction of my money. Sure they have the $60 I just spend on a new side table, but they don't have the countless thousands I'll be spending on a new bed, bookshelf, kitchen, dining room table etc. etc. over the next decade. Why on earth wouldn't they want to try to grab that money as well.

<comment><USER5> Low end furniture competes on price more than brand. If you bought a really cheap side table, they know you'll probably but a really cheap bed -- whether it's made by them or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To be fair, Ikea founder Ingvar Kamprad just recently admitted (2011) to the existence of the ownership foundation.

> In an email from Ikea sent to the TT news agency, Kamprad admits that the > Interogo Foundation in Liechtenstein exists and that it owns Inter Ikea > Holding SA, which in turn owns Inter Ikea.

"Interogo Foundation is a company foundation whose only goal is to invest in the expansion of the company business and secure its long-term survival. In other words, the assets of the Interogo Foundation are held as financial security and are only used if Inter Ikea has financial difficulties," wrote Kamprad.

"The assets can also be used to support individual Ikea dealers who have financial difficulties or for philanthropic purposes. Interogo Foundation is controlled by my family and is administered by a board of directors consisting only of outside representatives." he added.

<http://www.thelocal.se/31650/20110126/>

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a pretty common scenario for international companies. Maybe most of them do not go as far as IKEA and lock their whole corporate structure, but most of them manage to achieve pretty low corporate tax rates. As an example Google was estimated to achieve an effective tax rate of only 2.4% [1]

[1] Source: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate- sho...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows- how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)

<comment><USER8> It says right in the article that Google's effective tax rate is 22.2%. It pays 2.4% only on a small part of its income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Love it. Makes my furniture cheaper.

The only thing unethical about it is that these tax avoidance schemes have inherit economies of scale - startups can't afford the advice.

The solution is not to eliminate the tax paradises (which would cause a revolution btw), but to eliminate the tax code altogether.

If your ideology insists on coercion than at least make it a flat rate.

Edit: I get accused of supporting corporatism below. I don't. I just support anyone to avoid taxes as much as possible and oppose all forms of collectivism.

<comment><USER10> I generally enjoy reading hn but such right wing ideologies make me feel sick in the stomach.

Please take into account when making such statements the US (or whereever you live) is not the world. And just because you got brainwashed after decades of conservative government doesn't mean the rest of the world is. But the rest of the world also participates in this community.

<comment><USER11> I generally enjoy reading HN, but reddit-style thought-policing like this makes me sick to _my_ stomach.

The guy's not a rapist or a neo-Nazi, he's just not a socialist. Get over yourself.

<comment><USER12> This whole thread is EXHIBIT A of why there should be no politics here.

<comment><USER13> And the fact that this comment was modded up to eight "Waaaaah, your ideology makes me sick" is a sign that things have gone way off the rails.

I'm gonna set my noprocrast to 87000 minutes now and come back in two months.

<comment><USER12> People's ideologies _do_ make other people angry though. Which is why they should be aired on other sites.

<comment><USER14> IS that the fault of the minority who thinks different and then angers the majority?

Or is that he fault of the majority who is so sensitive it cannot tolerate a minority that doesn't agree absolutely completely?

<comment><USER12> I don't care - I just don't want to see these endless debates here. They are always the same and go 'round and 'round and nothing is ever accomplished other than pissing people off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's with posting articles from 2006? There are more recent sources with updates, including from FT.com (behind a paywall) and the investigative documentary about this which aired last week in Sweden: [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://svt.se/2.150075/1.2304474/granskningen_av_ikea_ett_brett_samarbetsprojekt)

<comment><USER16> This the ft.com article you're referencing? [http://const.it/dewall/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2437643c-29...](http://const.it/dewall/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2437643c-2985-11e0-bb9b-00144feab49a.html) (link bypasses the paywall)

I personally prefer the economist article. I read it back in 06 and I've read a few more on the Ikea tax setup since then. It seems to still accurately represent the situation, some numbers might be out of date but the gist is the same. That ft.com article is a bit sparse, seemingly written as an update for people already aware of the issue, and as you say paywalled.

Thanks for the additional and up to date info though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> They should come to Belgium. We have something called 'notionele interest aftrek' ([http://www.kpmg.com/BE/en/Whatwedo/Interests/NotionalInteres...](http://www.kpmg.com/BE/en/Whatwedo/Interests/NotionalInterestDeduction/Pages/default.aspx)).

As an example:

Suez Tractebel, Energy Europe Invest en GDF Suez CC had a profit before tax : 4,8 bilion euro.

Together they payed 2,3 milion euro tax. This is a tax rate of 0,049%.

Oh these are the Gas & electricity companies in Belgium.

</comment><comment><USER18> I always think of that when I see a PBS show like NOVA, sponsored by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. At one time, they owned Hughes Aircraft, mainly as a tax dodge for Howard Hughes. The tax dodge has long outlived the company.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute>

</comment><comment><USER19> What's terrible about IKEA's whole tax avoidance scheme is that it gives an unfair advantage to IKEA over Target, Walmart, etc. who are all presumably paying expected amounts of corporate tax and additionally, by virtue of being public companies, provide a great amount of transparency versus IKEA.

Another example of a business built in part on a tax loophole--Amazon.com and its online brethren whose customers generally don't pay sales tax. That's a huge, unfair retail advantage compared to Barnes & Noble and other brick-and- mortar stores, especially since retail margins are generally so thin.

<comment><USER20> >gives an unfair advantage to IKEA over Target, Walmart

Ugh. You correctly note that tax avoidance is an unfair advantage but list among your victims some of the biggest companies in the world. Do you think _Walmart_ is at a disadvantage? They almost certainly avoid _more_ taxes than IKEA (if nothing else, because they make a lot more money).

When Adam Smith wrote about "the invisible" hand, he noted that it would only work if companies weren't allowed to grow too large. Once a company gets big enough it no longer has to participate in the market. Massive tax avoidance is just one of the many ways that companies like Walmart can use their size and power to keep small players out.

<comment><USER21> > When Adam Smith wrote about "the invisible" hand, he noted that it would > only work if companies weren't allowed to grow too large.

Citation? I've read most of Wealth of Nations, and I recall Smith spending a lot of time on monopolies - where the monopoly can constantly undersupply the natural demand, and charge premiums because of it.

But I didn't recall anything about companies becoming too large... in fact, he wrote famous defenses of companies like East India importing, so long as they didn't receive exclusive (monopoly) trade rights. That was one of the larger companies of the day.

But Smith wrote a lot, so I might've missed it. Cite?

<comment><USER20> I don't have my sources handy, but this:

>he wrote famous defenses of companies like East India importing

Sounds wrong to me. There is some discussion of it here: [http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2011/01/claims- for-...](http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2011/01/claims-for- invisible-hand-fail-simple.html)

"Also chartered companies were well known as witnessed by Adam Smith's negative assessment of chartered companies in general and the East India Company in particular, contained in the Wealth of Nations."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The story would be much different if Ikea's owners were American.

American citizens don't have the same affordances as foreign nationals when it comes to tax minimization. If these foundations for Ikea were majority owned by Americans, they would be subject to taxation by the IRS, regardless of in which country they were created.

<comment><USER23> If you are big enough and you do not rely only on US market - change country where you live.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is an amazing write-up i read to counteract the piece about google's tax avoidance... I had to find it on another site though, how do you get the link to go around the paywall?

</comment><comment><USER25> Google cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda (Double Irish).</comment>


The Least Boring Programming Book: Chapter 1 (excerpt) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ethanjfast.com/2012/01/the-least-boring-programming-book-chapter-1-excerpt/ http://dl.dropbox.com/u/145900/lbpb.pdf <comment><USER2> I teach computer programming to beginners for a living, and I love the idea of a prose-like book aimed to be accessible to them. However, it's much, much harder than it sounds. You do an excellent job of addressing the programming concepts themselves in the text, but there's a lot more to it than that.

First, and foremost, I'm not sure who your target reader is. Judging by the jargon you use, I'm not sure he exists. Someone who has never programmed before is almost definitely not going to know how to "go back to [his] terminal [and] run the program with the command ruby closet.rb," or even how to "open up a new file called closet.rb in [his] text editor." If he's a Windows user, he probably don't even have Ruby installed. Further, a beginning programer probably does not understand why he cannot easily/should not use Microsoft Word as his text editor.

On the other hand, someone who knows how to do all of this probably understands the basics of programming. I'm not sure they'd want to read this chapter and wade through a few dozen paragraphs of prose to learn how to use the standard input, output, and string concatenation in Ruby. I doubt this is your target reader.

If you're aiming for the first programmer, you probably want a dedicated programming environment to start them off. It could be as simple as a "djinn package" that installs a basic text editor with Ruby syntactical highlights and the command line tools, but a big red "run this program" button on the editor is always nice. You can wean them off of the custom editor later.

Also, you'll almost definitely want to include the most basic an intro to debugging code. A book is non-interactive, and you have to prepare for the event that nobody can say, "Oh, 'Unterminated string meets end of file' means you forgot a double quote here on line 3," to the user. Perhaps have the narrator make a mistake, the genie correct him, and talk about why the computer wants strings to have double quotes. Or something.

It's a great start, but you just need to get past a few more pitfalls.

edit: Fixed a few grammar issues. Also, I'm Math/CS teacher and currently teach 8th through 12th graders.

<comment><USER3> Whole-heartedly concur.

Another issue that my programming students (university sophomores/juniors in a business school) often have trouble with is the concept of = being used for assignment rather than equality testing. It's as natural as breathing for programmers, but a weird shift from the type of math they're used to.

<comment><USER2> Definitely. In my experience, it gets a lot worse when you start re-assigning variables ("But x = 3, you can't say it equals 5"), and worse again when you have to start using == and = concurrently.

And then weak typing vs. strong typing vs. what the student expects, but at least that's easy to head off at the pass if you're anticpating it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice title, but I'm sure that _Why's (poignant) Guide to Ruby_ is the least boring programming book, and it probably will be for a long long time.

<comment><USER5> with Mr Bunny taking 2nd!

<comment><USER4> I forgot about Mr. Bunny. He might even take first for his ActiveX book. Hilarious book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Linode isn't cooperating -- here's a dropbox link:

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/145900/lbpb.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER6> Link is broken. Link to Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.ethanjfast.com/2012/01/the- least-boring-programming-book-chapter-1-excerpt/)

</comment><comment><USER7> You are exposing your Wordpress config in plain text, including DB password and various salts. Please make sure to change your DB password and the salts before you go back online.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure narrative is the best way to teach programming. Programming allows for non-linear exploration and dissemination. Teaching it should incorporate such techniques...which is why I'm a big fan of how Jeremy did his CoffeeScript documentation.

Trying to teach programming through narrative storytelling seems counterproductive.

</comment><comment><USER9> broke link

<comment><USER10> Cached here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.ethanjfast.com/2012/01/the- least-boring-programming-book-chapter-1-excerpt/)</comment></comment>


How to Divide the Pie - Equity sharing for start ups   - <AUTHOR> http://www.vcconfidential.com/2007/04/how_to_divide_t.html <comment><USER2> I dont know about this one but surely i would go for equal split among founders and later on as people add on, the share dilution would be in same percentage in sense that if 1% goes to CFO, then each founder will have to give away to make up this 1%, if any of founder brings his or her own people then he/she better part % of his/her share to hired person (if an equity is promised)</comment>


Why You Should Never Search For Free WordPress Themes in Google or Anywhere Else - <AUTHOR> http://wpmu.org/why-you-should-never-search-for-free-wordpress-themes-in-google-or-anywhere-else/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what good turning eval into echo does. Won't this write PHP code into the page's HTML?</comment>


Where the Unix philosophy breaks down (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/06/30/where-the-unix-philosophy-breaks-down/ <comment><USER2> John - please fix your blog. The black title bar at the top takes up more than 1/3 of the page.</comment>


Virtual assistants - <AUTHOR>

Who has experience with hiring a virtual assistance from India or the Phillipines? Was it a positive experience or negative? What's a reasonable rate to pay per hour? Should I use elance.com or somewhere else? <comment><USER2> Odesk seems to be the consensus for cheap VA's. Also see [http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-virtual-assistant- ser...](http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-virtual-assistant-services-out- there)

</comment><comment><USER3> craigslist philipines is pretty active, you are almost certainly going to get a reply.

Another paid options include onlinejobs.ph

The lowest rate I managed to hire is USD2.5/hr.

My advice is to first have the scope of work type out clearly and the 'interview' challenge throughout first, this will really help you to filter out the good ones.</comment>


Web APIs for Dual Screen and Foldable Devices – By Microsoft Edge - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2020/09/14/introducing-dual-screen-foldable-web-apis/ <comment><USER2> The Duo makes me think of a solution in search of a problem. Anyone has it and prefers it over a standard smartphone?</comment>