Scroll bar for terminal window - <AUTHOR>

After recently installing debian 6 lenny, and having installed many debian systems in the past, I can honestly say Xorg is beyond comprehension at this point.  You can't even find docs to make the thing work as advertised, and certainly not on my system.
So my server foray was a bit different this time, I tried 6 with the kde desktop, not happening, I tried a few blends (to get the old kde desktop), not happening either.  The server is for development, and the on the old one I used debian 5 and kde, since it seemed light enough, and usable to be able to configure easily.  I tried xfce, things just not installing, so I gave up, and finally built a "black box" server.
All said and done it worked out, and I'm better for it.  I eventually wound up installing Xorg, and the terminal window improved to where I could read most everything before it scrolled off the screen.
I seem to remember a time when you could get it to scroll a page at a time but can't find/remember the command or switch.  Really the only thing I wound up missing was the scrolling ability, and since Xorg wouldn't configure beyond the very basic, a scrollbar at the side of the terminal window would be a VAST improvement, and would allow you to scroll the text editor as well.
Now I know that the arrow keys are taken, but I could probably use the control key in combination and get control to scroll up and down.  MCPAN, perl and other outputs get pretty long, and having configured my terminal window to allow a few hundred lines, it really helps sometimes.
I anybody could give me a heads up where to start, or just come up with a way, it'd be great. <comment><USER2> A sort-of-substitute for a weak terminal is to use control keys and helper commands.

For example, control-S or its equivalent mapping will "stop" text from scrolling, and control-Q will resume it. A control-Z will suspend the process entirely, at which point (in most shells) "fg" will resume it in the foreground and "bg" in the background.

If you run the entire process through a pipe or create a file (e.g. with "tee"), it is often easier to control the output and then you can't really lose anything if it happened to scroll by too fast. Piping to "less" or "more" gives you things like page-by-page output and search.

Yes, good terminals handle all of this too, but it's very useful to become comfortable with the Unix commands and keys that do the same kinds of things.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I eventually wound up installing Xorg, and the terminal window improved to > where I could read most everything before it scrolled off the screen.

You're running an xterm? Run it with "xterm -sb" or look up xrdb and use "xterm*scrollBar: true". You can usually scroll an xterm using shift+PgUp/shift+PgDown.

A terminal muxer like 'tmux' or 'screen' might help you out. They can both page content. Or you could use a pager like 'less'.

If you have other questions, check out #debian on irc.debian.org. I can usually find helpful people there.</comment>


Ask HN: Outdoor readable screens/tablets? - <AUTHOR>

In an attempt to disrupt an industry that is stuck in pen-and-paper-and-camera world, I need laptops or tablets that are usable outdoor.
Not direct-sunlight outdoor, just sitting-in-the-shade or sitting-in-the-car outdoor. There are outdoor screen laptop models from HP, Lenovo and others (for $100-$200 more than the basic model), but they still don't make the laptops really usable outside on sunny days.
eInk is out of the question for now, because I do need the ability to show detailed color photos and short movie clips (and possibly edit them) to disrupt said industry.
The way this industry works right now is take photos or videos with camera (they've only switched from film/tapes to digital in the last 3 years!), take notes on paper or tape recorder, and then go back to the office to process everything. If they could do the work sitting an in improvised shade outside, they would much more effective.
I've almost given up on finding a device that can actually be used outdoors for real work - but perhaps someone int he HN community knows of one?
Alternatively, do you have experience with any hacks like hoods or screen protectors or sunglasses that actually make outdoors work feasible? My experience with these so far is "nice concept, execution fail", but perhaps yours is different? <comment><USER2> I use an anti-glare MBP outside. works great. Bought it for that purpose</comment>


Facebook is down - <AUTHOR>

Facebook Will Be Back Soon Facebook is down for required maintenance right now, but you should be able to get back on within a few minutes. In the meantime, read more about why you're seeing this message. Thanks for your patience as we improve the site. <comment><USER2> Those "few minutes" have lasted for at least an hour now.

</comment><comment><USER3> who gives a damn?

</comment><comment> tough-crowd Can it stay down?</comment>


In the 1820s, a new kind of lens saved ships - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20190620-the-invention-that-saved-a-million-ships <comment><USER2> This article seems to paint Fresnel lenses as some new kind of optics. They're not. The point of Fresnel lenses is to save weight and thickness. In an ordinary lens, its thickness is proportional to its diameter. In a Fresnel lens, thickness is (almost) constant, irrespective of diameter. So if you need a lens that's a meter in diameter (e.g. for a lighthouse) the weight is enormous if you use ordinary lens technology. Fresnels are lighter because Mr. Fresnel figured out that all the glass in the middle was unnecessary. The _angles_ at which the rays meet the lens surface are what matter, and in his lens the angles are preserved without all that heavy glass in the middle.

<comment><USER3> It sounds like the Fresnel lens was an engineering breakthrough rather than scientific.

<comment><USER4> Was it an engineering breakthrough in the sense that people had realized it was a desirable design before, but didn't know how to make it before Fresnel (I assume) figured that out?

<comment><USER5> Good question. When you tour these old lighthouses, the gigantic glass lenses are certainly impressive in their construction. The technology may be well understood today, but I doubt you could procure such a thing. (Well maybe if you're the NRO.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, saved me from the clickbait title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> A whole long article about a lens design, with zero images or diagrams of the lens. I know what they look like so I don't _need_ it, but I just don't understand how or why someone would publish this without a picture of the subject of the article.

</comment><comment><USER9> Fresnel lens are everywhere now... I most recently came across them embedded as a planar lens in a semiconductor part used for DNA sequencing:

[http://41j.com/blog/2018/12/quantumsi/](http://41j.com/blog/2018/12/quantumsi/)

<comment><USER10> They aren't!

Years ago they used to be common on the backs of cars, so you could look where you were parking. Vans and estate cars invariably had them.

But now?

Backup cameras.

Same with the original lighthouse application. They don't use Fresnel lenses any more.

The lighting tech used for aircraft has superceded the Fresnel tech of old. So lighthouses are done differently now.

Even in home applications Fresnel lenses don't last the distance, You don't have hacky Fresnel lenses in products to make up for them having a naff CRT for the image.

But then again, Fresnel lenses do live on, but in better ways. There are many compound lenses for lights that are not a classic Fresnel lens but work nicely.

<comment><USER11> Nikon makes fresnel telephoto lenses, and they save size + weight vs their classic counterparts

<comment><USER10> In practice though most lenses and applications move away from being Fresnel. The lights get better or a camera or other screen technology replaces it.

Fresnel lenses are like motorbike sidecars, they are a cheap hack. But if I was to post 'you don't see motorbike sidecars these days' then some nitpicker on HN would Google search a new Kickstarter project of a motorbike sidecar and - two seconds later - mod me down for being generally but not universally correct.

As I understand it the Nikon lenses are not 'Fresnel' as we know it. The idea is to combine a regular lens with a Fresnel lens to remove chromatic aberration. The weight saving isn't what it is about since there is still a regular lens that the Fresnel lens works with.

<comment><USER12> > But if I was to post 'you don't see motorbike sidecars these days' then some > nitpicker on HN would Google search a new Kickstarter project of a motorbike > sidecar and - two seconds later - mod me down for being generally but not > universally correct.

I'm of course not going to downvote you, but just to help you out with your point IMZ-Ural still manufacture motorcycles with sidecars to this day, and in fact are working on a fully electric model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For SV folks who want to see a (not operational) Fresnel lens, there is one nearby at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_Point_Lighthouse](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_Point_Lighthouse)

<comment><USER14> Point Bonita is closer, if you're in SF.

Alcatraz and the Faralones are technically within SF city limits.

[http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us- ca/usca30023.jpeg](http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-ca/usca30023.jpeg)

[https://californiathroughmylens.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/...](https://californiathroughmylens.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/point-bonita-lighthouse-16-640x427.jpg)

[http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=100](http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=100)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _" Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a > chapel to some saint; but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be > to build a lighthouse." — Benjamin Franklin, July 1757_

I had a look out of curiosity and cannot find any record of him subsequently building a lighthouse. He is a politician however and didn't actually say that he would vow, just if he were to vow. I did find out that he made money writing poetry about dead lighthouse keepers at the age of twelve however, just nothing about building any.

<comment><USER16> > He is a politician however and didn't actually say that he would vow, just > if he were to vow.

That's really harsh for a sentence that has the word _perhaps_ in it! It's a perfectly ordinary hypothetical, not a misleading trickery of words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I first came across Fresnel lenses in a cute place. I bought a "Where's Wally pocket edition" book for my daughter and since the book was very small (A6), they included a small plastic Fresnel lens in a little pocket inside the front cover. This made it practical to find Wally.

I have one in my card wallet for "emergencies" :)

</comment><comment><USER18> I always thought it was tight lips that saved ships.</comment>


Publishing Simple Books with Jekyll - <AUTHOR> https://bradleytaunt.com/2019/06/20/publish-with-jekyll/ <comment><USER2> You might also check out Pollen [0], a publishing system written in Racket. The creator of Pollen, Matthew Butterick, uses it to produce his own digital books—including the outstanding Practical Typography [1].

[0] [https://docs.racket-lang.org/pollen/](https://docs.racket- lang.org/pollen/) [1] [https://practicaltypography.com](https://practicaltypography.com)

Edit: I see after a quick search that Pollen has already been featured on HN multiple times [2] [3], but I still think it might be helpful to reference it again here.

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20027116](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20027116) [3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15335010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15335010)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an interesting use of static site generators.

If you are interested in the (Markdown content -> publishable format) pipeline, take a look at Pandoc. Ultimately this is more developer-oriented however.

<comment><USER4> [https://bookdown.org/](https://bookdown.org/) is an r implementation of this toolchain that's been used to make some great looking books.

<comment><USER5> I've been looking to write an interactive book - think of Apple Books but in HTML and this tool seems to do the job, only thing is that I don't know any R.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I tried something similar to this the first time I heard of wkhtmltopdf some seven or eight years ago using css to emulate an A4 size box. (it was meant as a replacement for mssql reporting server)

First, 40 page reports experienced a few millimeters of sliding. It became more apparent at 60 pages.

Second, I could not go above 75 dpi.

<comment><USER7> pandoc is usually the solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> One more "cons" can be hyphens, for a comfortable reading a book is normally justified text with hyphenation. Not sure if wkhtmltopdf will respect that

</comment><comment><USER9> Gitbook is another good tool for generating e-book formats (PDF, epub, mobi) from markdown. I've used it for a guide book and it's been good.

</comment><comment><USER10> While I would love to see a decent Jekyll workflow to work with books, this is not it.

The output looks nice enough, but there aren't even _links_ from the table of contents to the chapters. Neither in the HTML nor the PDF version. Nor does it say what page number to find the chapter on in the PDF.

Additionally, as mentioned in the "cons" section of the article, "Chapters are spit out as one long, single page." This includes the PDF, where there aren't even page breaks at the start of new chapters.

This is no way to publish a book. Even a simple one.

Does anybody have a Jekyll theme or workflow that actually works well with books?

<comment><USER11> Good points. I'm the author of the simple book theme. For more book theme alternatives see the [https://github.com/bookdesigns](https://github.com/bookdesigns) repo that includes a jekyll copy of the "famous" (old/classic) gitbook style (see [http://bookdesigns.github.io/book-git](http://bookdesigns.github.io/book-git) ). Another project I started a while ago is called octobook that lets you - surprise, surprise - use jekyll for (online) books, see [https://github.com/octobook](https://github.com/octobook) and [https://github.com/geraldb/talks/blob/master/octobook.md](https://github.com/geraldb/talks/blob/master/octobook.md) Anyways, you're right all book themes still a work-in-progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have published two books so far using the most obscene of methods; I parse my own HTML into XeTeX using a mix of bash and Python.

Parsing HTML is supposedly a big no-no but what's the problem when it's your own code?

Anyway, it seems like most comment here are trying to reinvent the wheel when any variant of LaTeX is a great solution; there are never any compromises to be made with TeX.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great article</comment>


Microsoft Ebooks Will Stop Working Because It's Shutting Down a DRM Server - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k3wkk/microsoft-ebooks-will-stop-working-because-its-shutting-down-a-drm-server <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297331)

</comment><comment><USER3> ffmpeg allows me to turn my audible books into mp3 as I like to listen to them using smart audiobook player.

Isn't there a script to do the same for Microsoft too?</comment>


Ask HN: How do I master Front End development? - <AUTHOR> Interviewed for a pure Front End Dev role today. Realized I have a long way to go. Just wanted to find some inspiration in this community and understand how did you get into Front End Development, and followed through your ambitions? From an .NET Web Dev background, focusing mostly on backend and a lot of other stuff . However , I feel I should  focus on one Front End or rather master one framework, since I have over the course of my (short) career have developed an lot of inclination towards the field. After a botched up interview ,looking for some thoughts on this. I do want to add that the wonderful HN has been instrumental in making me decide to pursue Front end Dev. <comment><USER2> Welcome! Don't be down about the bad interview.

Master HTML through and through. Know it so much you hate it again lol.

Master CSS... or don't. CSS is something that you don't want to be scared of. Luckily for you, we're now in a post-IE7 world, so it can be quite easy now.

Master JavaScript: seriously, this is what will get you a job. Don't touch React/Angular/Ember until you know exactly what vanilla JS can do. You can learn frameworks first, but you'all be outed in an interview with someone who knows your type.

Good luck!</comment>


Netflix Premium in the Netherlands: €13.99 a Month in Chrome, €15.99 in Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/gertvdijk/status/1105073424232337408 <comment><USER2> When using certain user-agents the result is either €13.99 or €17.99

Run this command a few times:

      curl -s -A "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:61.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/61.0" -c /tmp/curl-cookiejar -L 'https://www.netflix.com/signup/planform?locale=nl-NL' | grep -Eo '"planPriceAmount":{"fieldType":"String","value":"[0-9]+\.[0-9]+"}'

</comment><comment><USER3> Yeah, not sure why this is causing such a freak out. Is this not standard A/B testing? Maybe A/B testing user agent isn't the best differentiator, but at my current gig, we've considered pushing a pricing difference based on Mac vs PC as Apple products are more of a Luxury device compared to the average PC.

It could even be a persistent fingerprint issue. Perhaps their A/B system is fingerprinting, and the two browsers are consistently fingerprinting in such a way as to produce a more deterministic split.

The market will pay what the market will bear, so if you don't like the higher price, then don't buy. Game the system and shop for the lower price if you want to drive the price lower.

<comment><USER4> As a Mac user, macs are not luxury devices. They are a little more expensive for a vastly (in my opinion) more coherent and Unix-y experience, in comparison to Windows machines. In reality I spent a few hundred more on a computer that I've used going on 5 years now, recouping the extra cost with a few more hours of freelance work.

If any software I use suddenly charged more for Mac than Windows, I would use a different product immediately.

<comment><USER5> How is more expensive for a better experience _not_ a luxury product?

<comment><USER6> I'd equate it more to the difference between spending an extra $100 on a solid pair of boots which last 4x longer (cheaper over time) - we're not talking diamond-encrusted phones here

(That said, Apple are doing a great job of losing this value prop)

When I've bought Macs they've often been an older model - luxury-pricing-wise that's nothing next to an Alienware or Surface

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> According to the participants in that Twitter thread, the prices are somewhat randomized in a certain range (€13 to €18).

Some people suspected that this might be A/B-testing similar to the tests Netflix ran in Italy, but others are reporting that the price they end up with after going through the subscription process matches what they were initially shown.

<comment><USER7> >others are reporting that the price they end up with after going through the subscription process matches what they were initially shown.

That's consistent with an A/B price test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "A Netflix spokesperson gave the site the same response it always provides when asked about similar tests, that not all users will see the prices, and that Netflix might never use the new tiers. The test can still be very revealing for the company, as it'll inform Netflix how much customers might be willing to spend for access and how price hikes might be perceived by new users." [https://bgr.com/2019/02/28/netflix-price-hike-more- expensive...](https://bgr.com/2019/02/28/netflix-price-hike-more-expensive- plans-testing/)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is the Italian test, but when I try to open a new account I get shown the exact price shown to me in the 'test': €15.99 in Firefox that is (but this will be random for anyone giving this a go).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Freedom comes with a price.</comment>


Show HN: The simplest Perceptron you'll ever see, in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/victorqribeiro/perceptron <comment><USER2> Really interesting and indeed simple to understand!

I ported it to Golang if you're interested in checking that out:

[https://github.com/montanaflynn/simple-go- perceptron](https://github.com/montanaflynn/simple-go-perceptron)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool</comment></comment>


Destroying the Earth is harder than you may have been led to believe - <AUTHOR> http://qntm.org/?destroy

<comment><AUTHOR> See Also:

* According to the International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board, the current earth destruction status is GREEN ("not destroyed").

* See the IEDAB website at <http://qntm.org/?board> for more information and further announcements.

</comment><comment><USER2> This was far more entertaining than I expected.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had trouble with the headline. It's a hard concept to convey in fifteen words.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many hours do you work? - <AUTHOR> I joined Facebook as an engineer straight out of college a little less than a year ago. During my time here I've constantly felt like I'm not working hard enough. I spend around 9 hours a day at the office, but not all of that time is spent working.
To get a better idea of how much time I actually work I started using the pomodoro technique a few weeks ago. I've noticed I do around 12 pomodoros (about 6 hours) of solid work before calling it a day. Usually by the end I'm mentally exhausted (is this normal?) and want to go home.
I'm really curious to know if six hours of work a day is normal. How much time do people spend actually working at the office? A lot of people at Facebook put in long hours, but I feel like that may be because they spend some time browsing reddit, reading hacker news, etc., rather than working.
So far after compiling feedback I've received from my manager and peers I'd say I'm performing above average but not exceptionally.
I hear about people working 60 hours a week and I wonder how they do it. Do you compromise on productivity? How do you stay focused for so long?
How many hours do you put in at the office? How many of those are spent doing productive work? <comment><USER3> Most programmers have stated on HN that they work on avg 4 hours per day. Most ppl cannot work more than that. Of course there exceptions but about 4 hours of pure programming (reading documentation, writing/refactoring code) is acceptable. Otherwise you risk burn out.

<comment><USER4> cool information btw, thanks a lot

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I run my solo bootstrapped SaaS business and have put in consistent 80-100 hour weeks (total computer time) for the past 4 years and am 60-85% "productive" (according to RescueTime). Of course there have been some odd weeks of only 20 hours (...and some 120). Not really proud of it. It is what it is. It's been working. I think in the next 2 years I'll be able to figure it all out and taper down (which I really look forward to!). It's just that every hour adds such clear value to the company... so I keep going. The hours come easy when its all yours. I've had a programming job before and could hardly stay awake for the 8 hours... let alone be productive!

<comment><USER6> I can understand the motivation of investing so much time when you personally get to reap all of the rewards, but do you ever worry about burnout? Seems like you've been going at 100% for two years now, how long more can that continue before your mental or physical health takes a beating? When was the last time you took a vacation/holiday?

<comment><USER5> Worrying or thinking about burnout would condition me to inevitably burnout. It doesn't really even enter my mind, because I know it will just make me and the business weaker. I simply look at it like: I want a successful business that gives me freedom to do what I want. Bootstrapped, staying small, and making money is the path towards that for me. I've been going 100% for 4 years, so I think if I were to ever burnout then that would have happened already. I take "workcations" somewhat regularly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the average person's capacity for deeply focused work is generally considered to be around 6 hours per day. I've found that to be the case for me as well. However, I can be maxed out at my day job, but go home and work on an unrelated side project for several more hours.

I highly recommend Cal Newport's blog as he writes phenomenal content on "deep work", the importance of focus, and how to maximize your "deep work" output. \--> [http://calnewport.com/blog/about/](http://calnewport.com/blog/about/)

Separate out "deep work" (design, coding, problem solving) from "shallow work" (email, social media). Do as much deep work as possible every day, but then fill in the rest with shallow but necessary work.

P.S. My average day-job working time is 8 hrs.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I highly recommend Cal Newport's blog as he writes phenomenal content on > "deep work", the importance of focus, and how to maximize your "deep work" > output. --> > [http://calnewport.com/blog/about/](http://calnewport.com/blog/about/)

I used to read his blog quite regularly in college - perhaps I should go back and reread some of his stuff again.

I found his piece on deliberate practice also worth a read: [http://calnewport.com/blog/2011/11/11/if-youre-busy-youre- do...](http://calnewport.com/blog/2011/11/11/if-youre-busy-youre-doing- something-wrong-the-surprisingly-relaxed-lives-of-elite-achievers/)

> Separate out "deep work" (design, coding, problem solving) from "shallow > work" (email, social media). Do as much deep work as possible every day, but > then fill in the rest with shallow but necessary work.

That's an interesting thought - in general I've noticed writing email and attending meetings tend to require far less mental strain than focused work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 9:30 AM: Arrive at office. 11:30 AM: Stop working 11:50 AM: Go to lunch. 1:30 PM: Get back from lunch. 4:55 PM: Go Home.

2 hours a day.

<comment><USER9> Did you miss the time between 1:30 PM - 4:55 PM. Shouldn't it be 5 hrs. ?

<comment><USER8> 11:30 AM: Stop working

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recall reading interviews of some top mathematicians (probably at the end of the Princeton guide to Mathematics), who stated that they couldn't work on their problems deeply more than a few hours a day. The rest of the day would then be spent attending seminars, reading papers or typing. So yes, it is perfectly normal to be "mentally exhausted" after uninterrupted hours on a mentally challenging task, albeit you could probably spend 9 hours straight on some routine programming without problem, except perhaps boredom.

<comment><USER11> Fair point, but I would say that a mathematician might require more intense concentration than a programmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Frontend lead (basically a js engineer tbh) for a moderately large site, and I put in 4 hours of proper serious work, 2 of less focused work where I refactor, tweak stylesheets, try to smooth things out, and then the rest of the day is spent swanning around, smoking and chatting shit with the guys in design, marketing, qa and ask the parts of the business we don't generally talk to enough.

The later part of my day is often the most productive - fag break meetings have initiated most of the best work we've produced by having an informal chat before something becomes a thing.

Working hard is genuinely admirable, I did startups and put in some serious deathmarch shifts, but I honestly believe that if you're delivering what you signed up to do, and using any leftover time productively, you're making a positive net contribution and probably becoming a better developer as a result. It's a win-win and you won't burn out.

Write beautiful, elegant code, deliver everything you've promised you will, the rest of the time just enjoy doing something you love.

</comment><comment><USER13> As someone operating a start-up, about five hours of serious production work per day, seven days a week. About three hours per day of problem solving, research, dealing with various issues, and a dozen other things that go into trying to build a business out. Productivity stays high so long as the production side of the work stays under 50 hours per week. Occasionally I'll blow off a day on the weekend and use it for whatever I feel like, I find that relieves any feeling of creeping burn-out; and I allow myself to do that any time I want to, it acts as a pressure valve.

Total time invested is typically 50-70 hours per week depending on what I need to get done. I don't have a family, so that makes it a lot easier for me personally. I take breaks throughout the day whenever I feel like it. I try to heavily restrict demands on my time, I find that's hugely beneficial both to my work and non-work life.

</comment><comment><USER9> Pair programming eats up so much time. If I'm just given a list of tasks, I usually work 7-8 hrs at work (1 hr. break). Return home do an extra 2-3 hr. non-work related coding.

</comment><comment><USER14> Few months ago I started working on my new startup [http://betapage.co](http://betapage.co) , so I have to work hard. I am working 7 days a week, I spent my 11-12 Hours in my office on product development and marketing , and 2-3 hours at home in reading new things about startups and blogs, mostly I read questions and answers on quora.

</comment><comment><USER15> I try to put in 15 hours a week max (4-5 hours a day, 3-4 days a week), so you're way outperforming me :)

The first 10 years of my career were spent trying to work more and more hours to make more and more money. These days I try to work as few hours as possible while still maintaining a decent standard of living.

</comment><comment><USER16> I tend to work in two bursts during the day when working from my home office.

I work 10 - 1 have an hour break and then do 2 - 4.

I find I can get most work done using that framework whilst still allowing me time to get other stuff done in the morning/late afternoon that might otherwise be a distraction!

</comment><comment><USER17> About 9 billable hours after being there 11 and a half hours. I struggle with exhaustion. I was trying to do 10 - 11 billable hours a day but cut that back to 9; doesn't do the client any good if I make a major mistake because I'm tired.

</comment><comment><USER18> That's exactly my problem, I can't work for more than 5-6 hours because of exhaustion. But in my case, I'm still in school and work full time, so that may be part of the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm still in school and work full time

That sounds incredibly stressful. Out of curiosity, how many hours do you typically put in at school (attending classes, studying, working on assignments, etc.)? What sort of work do you do?

I've thought about studying for a Master's degree while I work here - <USER2> wanted to experience a 'real' education since my undergrad was really disappointing as far as academics were concerned. A top school from a developing country still doesn't come close to an average school in North America or Europe unfortunately :(

<comment><USER19> I've been doing that for the last 2.5y - university(Soft. Eng.) + work. For the first 6 months I've been working 40-45h a week + 20h at uni and around 10h-20h (depending on the week) more to do assignments. I just needed to change how I do stuff for uni, instead of always listening on lectures(obligatory), I'd study something else. I've not skipped any classes. It was __very stressful __and I 'd not recommend that to anyone, after 6 months I've switched to 30h a week and it's very good right now. What came surprising for me it's that while it's 25% less, I didn't do much less than I had before.

type of work - Ruby and JavaScript coding in a software house, remotely, with very flexible hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Since Facebook employees are (almost) required to have the website open for chats and groups while working, I'm just curious:

how distraction-free are you able to keep your pomodoro work intervals?

<comment><AUTHOR> I usually keep one tab with Facebook open, but I simply ignore any messages or notifications during the work period and check them during the 5 minute rest period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I average about four hours of programming per day. That's been pretty consistent over the past ten years. Attempts to increase this over the last couple years have been in vain.

</comment><comment><USER22> 3 hours actually working, 5 more in the office, 3 hours a day commuting.

</comment><comment><USER23> Around 5 billable hours a day.</comment>


Learnings from having Mailchimp ask me to kindly leave. - <AUTHOR> http://www.eteanga.ie/mailchimp-asked-me-to-leave/

<comment><USER2> Sounds like there should be some recalibration of those figures for small lists. Typical on-target mailouts for small businesses (1000-3000) are usually accompanied by at least a couple opt-outs based on the content no longer being relevant / changed interests, but I'd hardly call the list spam.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is something strange in this story.

      Despite the double opt-in nature of mailing list
      subscription, it may not have been clear enough
      that ebook == mailing list.

Perhaps some of the people didn't want to subscribe to the mailing list after all,

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's what I thought. They were told "Sign up for our mailing list and get a free ebook" in the text. The header was "Ebook - [title]". And then a big email input box with a submit button. But after that, they still had to double-confirm their subscription by clicking on an email link sent by Mailchimp.</comment></comment>


Why Your Company Should Ban Email - <AUTHOR> http://rocketship.fm/episodes/ep-74-thomas-knoll/

<comment><AUTHOR> Thomas Knoll, Founder of Primeloop, talks about why he's baked the "no internal email" rule into his company. He talks about the insane benefits to workflow, culture, and sanity, as well as how any company can start to implement the same processes, regardless of size.</comment>


ASP.NET Core with Angular2 – Tutorial - <AUTHOR> https://devblog.dymel.pl/2016/09/08/aspnet-core-with-angular2-tutorial/ <comment><USER2> Is it just me or are hello worlds getting much longer - especially on web platforms?

<comment><USER3> The original asp.net was pretty shit, too.

<comment><USER4> I hate asp.net webforms as much as the next guy, but this is the same program in webforms:

    	<title>Hello world</title>

Hello <%= Request["name"] %>

How many lines of code and config files are in that blog? 100? Compared to the 1 line of actual code in this...

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not really the same. The tutorial shows how to setup two frameworks to work together, so it's easy to extend the application in both front- and backend with other functionalities. Noone in their clear mind wouldn't combine asp.net and angular to display simple message

<comment><USER4> Keep moving the goalposts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting tutorial. I just wished the author used open source tools or more precisely visual studio code.

I recently installed .net core on my chromebook (crouton with ubuntu 14), and used visual studio code to develop a basic web api + angular2 app. Lot's of tutorial take for assumption you use visual studio, and this makes it harder for those who don't. I always had issues finding the right package, right version and right package namespace. I really miss the VS functionality that finds includes missing libraries for you.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious how much faster a Core solution runs compared to it's predecessors, and how many libraries you can really shed.

<comment><USER7> Some benchmarks can be found here: [https://github.com/aspnet/benchmarks](https://github.com/aspnet/benchmarks)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> To be honest you should look into Python. It's really short code and getting very popular. It uses decorators and those template garbage %> that no one uses anymore (extra). It also is by default the cleanest code and in my opinion the shortest code. It also has a library for everything. It also is the fastest for big data crunching.

<comment><USER9> I don't think comparing a language to two backend and frontend frameworks makes much sense. Especially in the context of a tutorial about the frameworks (not an article evangelizing this particular stack). I mean, if someone posted a Django / react tutorial and I said "You should really look into Rust. There are benchmarks where it's faster than Python. It is also by default the cleanest code and in my opinion the best structured code.", it wouldn't be adding much to the discussion surrounding a tutorial. Is Python a better language than C#? Maybe, but that's not really something the tutorial is trying to argue against and is an entirely different discussion. To me, this is an apple and oranges comparison.</comment></comment>


Tech workers pledge not to work for DoorDash until it pays drivers better - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90314622/engineers-pledge-not-to-work-for-doordash-until-it-pays-drivers-better <comment><USER2> It's a nice gesture, but 100 is not much. Doordash probably won't even notice. I also wonder how many of those 100 would have been interested in doordash otherwise.

That being said, I applaud it and hope that boycotting employers for bad behavior becomes more common.</comment>


Ask HN: When do you use brute force vs complexity to solve a problem? - <AUTHOR>

For most problems we face, there's two major ways to solve it.
One is to slowly think of a solution covering all your bases and finding the most efficient way to do it.  The other way is just to "throw money at the problem" and put more and more people to it until a solution appears.
How do you know when to use one vs the other?  How and when did you learn this skill? <comment><USER2> In this kind of situation, I estimate for each kind of approach: (i) how many problem instances need to be solved, (ii) how complex the instances are, and (iii) what combination of resources (time, money, knowhow, ...) are available. These together give you the practical feasibility of the approaches.

To learn the skill, apply also the other approaches after the problem is solved. All the solutions you manage to produce give reference and verification anchors for your further efforts.</comment>


The next generation of cancer treatments may be delivered by nanoparticles - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12551598 <comment><USER2> wish something like this was around in 1990. Father died from cancer that year.</comment>


Mastering Linux debugging techniques - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-debug/

<comment><USER2> A section on "memory debugging tools" that doesn't include valgrind? This article is crap, sorry.

<comment><USER3> The article is from 2002, but even so I don't think that predates Valgrind.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is your favourite software being intentionally comprimised? - <AUTHOR> With most software projects openly advocating and endorsing the destruction and lawlessness that the BLM movement has brought to our societies I can't help but worry that if I am to be responsible I should now regard them as compromised if our societies decend further into chaos, especially so since many have demanded their core contributors share such politics.<p>I was always taught that our politics should be kept seperate from our professional lives. HN, am I wrong to be worried? <comment><USER2> Please attend a peaceful protest and observe what's happening and what people are saying. There's probably one near where you live. I believe your question has a faulty premise.

<comment><AUTHOR> The latest peaceful protest as described by the bbc here: [https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1269574979680702470](https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1269574979680702470) left 27 police officers injured, one with a collapsed lung and shattered ribs after a rock was thrown at her horse.

Would you care to explain why my question has a faulty premise? I am genuinely concerned about this.

<comment><USER3> Until police finally start policing themselves, some 'bad apples' are bound to express their oppression through rage. How many of your friends and family would have to be killed for you to react in a similar fashion?

BLM doesn't advocate violence, and in many videos are helping stop looting. They simply want cops to stop killing black people, why is that so hard to understand

<comment><AUTHOR> There seem to be too many 'bad apples' though. I had family killed during the troubles in Belfast, and though I was too young to take action I am sure it would not lead me to deface statues and burn flags on the cenotaph.

Britain has arguably been amongst the best places to be an aspiring black person. Weaponising race is directly acting against them.

<comment><USER3> I was using the phrase ironically since that's usually used to describe the cops. I believe many blacks disagree with you though, but I can't state that as a white person, you'll just have to pay attention to the thousands people protesting, because that's what they're trying to tell you.

I'm sorry to hear about your family. We all want the killing to stop

<comment><AUTHOR> I have many friends that are black that do not support this now, why would they support the weaponisation of their race?

Do you not think it's fishy that the Open Society donated £33m to this movement?

<comment><USER3> I guess I just don't agree with your characterization of weaponization

So in that context, no I don't think it's fishy

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps it's because my father probably had to take redundancy from his factory job when the UK ultimately lost most of its automotive sector in the wake of Black Wednesday, so I know how this organisaions leadership has no qualms, better yet, takes delight in destabilizing nations.

As for myself I can not complain. I have not quite been able to erase my black country accent (ranked least desirable & lowest class in the UK) but I managed to get a hardship fund so I could go to university, I am the first generation in my family to do so and since then I've been able to score contracts so tbh it's happy days. My parents (I think) are proud though I know they worry sometimes I might accidentally encounter some Marijuana (now it is Elon endorsed, I don't feel quite as guilty :)

I have been taught to consider the police as much of my people as black folk. The UK does not have a problem in relations between the races, I have worked with many black people at a professional level in large and small organisations, some of their children call me uncle. The problem if I am honest is more knife and gang crime in London, driven by a gangster culture that rap and hiphop producers (who many of which were not black) thought was wise to use as a message. This also indirectly affects me through tourism, as people dont want to vacation in London or other large cities, that are no longer what is on the postcard.

My point is this movemnent is making me worry that they are instead being used as an asset to enact change, but in the worst possible way you could concieve to do so, something that the left has proven they are willing to do before, and something that I worry could be a cause great enough for them to act on, to comprimise my software, and my clients.

(edit: grammar)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced - <AUTHOR> https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/11/leaked-draft-trump-executive-order-censor-internet-denounced-dangerous <comment><USER2> A lot of outrage on reddit. But it seems that this is not a censorship law at all: instead it makes social media sites liable to be sued if they remove political content they don't agree it.

So it's more a free speech law that avoids censorship.

Copy paste from a reddit comment:

Since no one apparently read the article or paid attention to the actually meaningful quote:

The draft "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms."

In other words, this isn't about the federal government removing content. It is about the extent to which social media platforms are legally shielded from lawsuits when they choose to remove content.

The "worst case scenario" of this leaked draft isn't the federal government picks and chooses what content is censored—it's that platforms might have to allow almost every kind of content or risk being sued. Which is the opposite of censorship.

(Please note: I am not arguing in favor of this draft. Only pointing out what it is actually saying sans the rampant fear-mongering going on right now.)

<comment><USER3> So basically if you run a forum and someone posts a Nazi manifesto, and you choose to remove it because your forum is about Chia pets, the government can come after you. Do you think this makes sense? I would argue that removing something from my own site is as much me exercising free speech as adding something.

<comment><USER4> That is a strawman argument. Re-read the article, this does NOT say everything is protected. Rather, it is clarifying what is protected and what is not.

<comment><USER5> Regardless, why can't a platform censor anything they want? It's their platform and they can do what they want. If censoring eventually pushes people away from your platform, then the market corrected itself.

<comment><USER4> There's nothing factually wrong with your opinion. I understand it and respect it. For me, I believe that platforms as massive and widespread as Facebook or Twitter distort the free-market ruleset, and that some amount of regulation is in fact healthy for the industry they participate in and society as a whole.

Once we get to take a look at the actual text, we'll be able to have rational, reasoned discussions about whether this particular regulation is healthy, or unhealthy.

<comment><USER5> I respect and understand your opinion as well, but making companies become regulated as far as what content they can or must show is opening Pandora's box. Especially with a government that gets a lot of bad press, they could use that regulation to drown out any voice.

If the government is really concerned about people's voices and free speech being impeded, they should make their own forum or social feed where nothing is censored. We'll see how that turns out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> master-litty This draft isn't available anywhere. This article cites a CNN article:

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social- media...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media- executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html)

In that article, CNN reports on the draft order:

>According to the summary seen by CNN

CNN hasn't even seen the draft apparently. They've only seen a summary of it and they dare make all these extrapolations.

This seems deceitful. I'm not impressed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please don't flag or remove this. This seems rather important and worthy of rational discourse on a site like this.

P.S. If this Executive order comes to fruition I'm going to file a lawsuit if this post gets removed!

<comment><USER7> No, the article completely distorts the truth. It makes the order sound as if Trump is implementing a censored internet in the style of China.

A less-biased article would describe the order as an attempt to reduce the political favoritism being done by social media.

<comment><USER8> Attempting to reduce political favoritism by social media is presumably the stated aim; however, I don't think it is clear that it is the actual aim. Assuming that any politician, and particularly Trump, is altruistic seems like a bad idea to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have become the de-facto public square and therefore, freedom of speech needs to apply to them in order to have a real democracy. However, I think that a better way to approach this might be to declare the platforms to in some sense be public utilities.

<comment><USER9> It seems strange to me that something becoming popular is what means it suddenly should be regulated. Pens are very popular yet they are not regulated. And sure there are many to choose from but really Bic has a pretty extensive hold on the market. Should we regulate what people can and can not write with Bic pens? Twitter is Bic here. If Trump and his followers don't like using Twitter then they are free to go use Mastodon.

<comment><USER8> I don't think that pens and social media are comparable in this way. Pens are a tool for writing while social media is a platform for having your writing be heard.

In addition, choice of pen has no effect on the ability to communicate your message while choice of social media does. Switching from Twitter to Mastodon isn't a solution because Twitter is the place where the public discussion is taking place.

Finally, writing instruments such as pens are something that anyone can easily make on their own. On the other hand, due to the required technical expertise, infrastructure, and network effects it is difficult to enter the social media market.

<comment><USER9> I'll most certainly agree that Twitter has the market cornered. But if tomorrow Trump tweeted that he was switching to TrumpNet and would only be using it from then on, how many people would join. He could create the market if he wanted to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tj-teej If the problem with Twitter/Facebook is that they have too much influence (a fair point IMO) and thus need regulation shouldn't we solve that monopoly problem rather than trying to remove the right of forums to choose what content they host?

</comment><comment><USER10> > Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and > First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration > edict—dubbed by critics as a "Censor the Internet" executive order that > would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose > which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go > into effect.

Why doesn't this article directly link to the allegedly leaked documents?

The quoted paragraph (the article's first paragraph) contains a link to a Tweet which links to a blog post which links to a CNN article.

AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents.

To future journalists: link to the documents in your article. Otherwise you run the risk of readers writing the whole thing off as a misinformation campaign. This possibility can't be ruled out at this point.

<comment><USER11> > AFAICT, none of them link to the actual documents.

Nobody involved has the actual documents.

From the second paragraph of the CNN article:

> The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN,

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I clicked through several links and can't find that document.

</comment><comment><USER13> Until there is a draft available, there's no story.

If they claim a draft is available and it isn't, there IS a story, and it's that they are deceitful.

IF CNN and Politico can both claim to have seen it yet neither sees fit to make full and original text available... while telling us there is serious evil afoot...

...then I just shrug it off with an eye-roll and conclude they are "The Enemy Of The People".

And of course I'm using Trump's rhetoric just to annoy them and save a lot of breath trying to explain it further. Oh the time it saves!

</comment><comment><USER14> We know AG Barr is against the 4th amendment. It's not hard to believe Trump would float an idea regulating the 1st amendment.

</comment><comment><USER15> Google and Facebook etc are acting like online government and run their censorship at will based on their own ideology, they need to be checked and held liable legally, the top management should go to jail for any wrongdoings.

While we hate censorship from the government, the same should be applied to those de facto online big guns and those who actually are in control inside the companies.</comment>


If knowledge is power, then sharing your knowledge empowers others. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.gnome.org/markmc/2011/01/16/if-knowledge-is-power/

<comment><USER2> _> If knowledge is power, then sharing your knowledge empowers others._

Yeah and in my nieztschean perspective I don't especially want others to be empowered.

Either you have to work hard to beat them, either your competitors are weak enough. Ideally: both.

<comment><USER3> This is a vast oversimplification, but some markets are ruthless zero sum games, others are not. mature markets that are either fixed in size, growing very little, or shrinking are usually zero sum games with all competitors trying to screw each other and their customers for every cent.

Other markets, especially those with potential for large growth, behave differently. Growing the market is more important than trying to maximize your share of the market. You don't want to have the smallest piece of the pie, but sacrificing a little bit of your share in exchange for a larger pie can be a win.

In knowledge businesses like consulting, educating customers often means educating competitors simultaneously. However, it can still be a win to share knowledge.

Finally, one must consider brand. Sometimes you trade knowledge for brand. If you write about programming, you may make your competitors better programmers. Some clients may feel empowered to write their own code instead of hiring a consultant. But your brand can now open opportunities for you that didn't exist before.

I guess what I'm saying is that knowledge is power, but sharing it can be an investment under certain circumstances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is called globalization</comment>


Y Combinator And Mithril Invest In Helion, A Nuclear Fusion Startup - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/14/y-combinator-and-mithril-invest-in-helion-a-nuclear-fusion-startup/ <comment><USER2> It's interesting that you can justify this investment in at least four separate ways, independently:

1) Even if there is a low chance of success, it would be wildly profitable if successful, and investing early gets you a good share if it's successful.

2) Fusion power would make the world a better place; investing in this way, when you already have huge returns and it's someone else's money, is actually rational even if you think it's not the best financial investment.

3) This looks like an amazingly smart team; even if they fail at fusion, they might find something worthwhile in the process. Just handling magnetics and high power well could be a useful toolkit for other problems.

4) "Halo effect" \-- both because it's awesome science/engineering and because it shows a willingness to take extreme risks -- boosts YC (which probably doesn't need it) and Mithril (which is maybe even more awesome than YC, but nowhere near as widely known). If it loses $1.5mm but makes it more likely the next Facebook comes to either of these funds, it's a win.

<comment><USER3> The risk of #3 is that they don't create fusion but they do develop a machine that can emit streams of hot plasma which is then turned into the Navy's weapon of choice for close weapons support on carrier battle groups.

That said, I am looking forward to at least one of the fusion efforts bearing fruit. I'm something of an optimist here but I expect a durable solution to the 'energy problem' to emerge from our developing understanding of both quantum mechanics and particle physics. I am also cognizant of the fact that it also raises the bar on both good and bad things that humans can do. The tricky parts are in the transitions, pre and post event.

<comment><USER4> We've already weaponized nuclear fusion into the most destructive bomb ever created. It probably couldn't get a whole lot worse than that.

I think there are other paths to sustainable energy, but certainly viable fusion power is the holy grail.

<comment><USER5> I don't understand why this was downvoted. I'm not going to discount the possibility to invent something worse then our most powerful fusion bomb, but if we talk probability here, developing processes that allow greater control is likely to result in a worst case scenario where we have a weapon that is at most as powerful as what we already have, but more focused.

IMHO focused fusion destruction is likely to be far more humane than the indiscriminate destruction caused by the weapons currently in our arsenal. i.e. a highly focused weapon is likely to to result in instant death for the victims instead of minutes to months to years of suffering for victims depending on their exposure levels.

<comment><USER6> I'll never understand being able to kill someone in a humane way(through acts of war). You're killing someone.

<comment><USER7> I won't deny it's complicated, but there's more to thinking about how we conduct war than just the proximal individual act of killing. Two cultures that, for instance, respect military vs. civilian distinctions may war with each other with much less total damage than two cultures that practice Total War, even if the political outcome is the same in the end.

Just because war is bad does not mean we are forced to throw up our hands and stop making distinctions between degrees of badness. War is not simply infinitely bad... that's ultimately a very sophomoric view.

<comment><USER8> War, itself, is a pretty damned sophomoric thing.

<comment><USER9> This is a simplification. Defending yourself against unprovoked attack is not juvenile, although there are moral systems that advocate rolling over and giving up if you are attacked. And there is a whole spectrum of combat actions where "defense against unprovoked attack" is one extreme.

In industrialized countries, wars of aggression are usually never profitable, but the same can unfortunately not be said for less-developed societies. Even Europe didn't find this obvious until after World War 2. So I guess it ends up being a question of how you define "sophomoric".

<comment><USER10> Actually, wars of aggression are almost never profitable. Accumulating riches via conquest is almost always a myth, because armies a) destroy much that is of value and b) are unbelievably expensive.

"Wealth through superior firepower" has hardly ever been achieved. Even Rome mostly got rich through trade after its armies conquered Europe and North Africa, and a lawful peace was imposed. Had everyone been economically rational pretty much the same end could have been achieved through trade (spoiler: not everyone is economically rational.)

Simple looting of the kind the Spanish engaged in in the New World was never a very good path to wealth, partly because its first effect was to create massive inflation (if you use gold as money and inject vase amounts of gold into your economy without increased productive capacity, you get inflation, not wealth.)

So the conditions of gaining wealth by war are very, very narrowly defined. It's not impossible, but it's amazingly difficult.

There are defensible moral reasons for engaging in mass organized violence--I support the current American efforts to kill people in Northern Iraq, for example--but economic rationality (profitability) is never one of them, because the first step to creating wealth is never to engage in the wholesale destruction of everything the creation of wealth depends on.

<comment><USER9> Interesting that wars of aggression have almost never been profitable; this fills a hole in my understanding. I've always understood that this fact only became obvious after WWII, and almost 10 years of terribly destructive fighting in Europe and elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nature had a fun article a few weeks back on the current trickle of VC into fusion startups.

[http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion- upstart...](http://www.nature.com/news/plasma-physics-the-fusion- upstarts-1.15592)

It's certainly interesting, and I wish these companies all the best. The consternation I see occasionally over a company like this getting a (relatively) small amount of funding confuses me. There are so many software startups that receive equivalent or greater funding that eventually die or pivot into something else. Here, you have physical cutting edge engineering with potential implications that blow something like Slack, or Square, or even Uber away. Personally, I love seeing companies in the physical space get in on today's Silicon Valley high.

Semi-related, but I've been to NIF (National Ignition Facility), since I spent a summer at LLNL, and the inside of that facility is like the dream vision of every little kid that was into science and science fiction. Unfortunately (as my physicist significant other who was not working there found out) the public tours are far more restricted and you don't get to see the cool stuff.

<comment><USER12> > or even Uber

Talk about an understatement. Uber is just a cheaper cab. Commercially viable fusion is a game-changer on a planetary scale: Halting global warming by replacing fossil fuels, hydrogen fuel cells become viable by generating hydrogen through hydrolysis, energy-intensive desalinization plants deliver fresh water for drinking and irrigation.

<comment><USER11> I was trying to be nice. I'm a strong environmentalist via academics (BS/MS in environmental science), and currently a research analyst in renewable energy economics, so I have very strong feelings (and I like to think a well-grounded sense) about how fucked the environment and incentives around it are.

I was giving a (very) charitable reading of the occasional claim that Uber will change the way everything works via its framework. A more tempered tone normally does better on HN, but to be totally honest, I don't think any of those companies I mentioned could even come near what Helion would achieve if successful.

<comment><USER13> Maybe offtopic, but what do you think about the economics of plug-in hybrid cars (like the Chevy Volt)?

<comment><USER14> You didn't ask for my opinion, but I'll give it anyway. We need cheaper batteries, period. That's the limiting factor to wider spread adoption of electric vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15>
      Safe: With no possibility of melt-down, or hazardous nuclear
      waste, fusion dose not suffer the drawbacks that make
      fission an unattractive alternative.

Eyeroll. D-He3 fusion produces less neutron flux than D-T, but it's hardly aneutronic-- otherwise they couldn't breed He3 from it. After a decade, the whole reactor will be nuclear waste.

I wonder what the service interval on an installed reactor will be? Or are they doing isotope separation on the produced helium on-site?

(Fun fact: you can get deuterium from water[1] but helium comes from natural gas fields![2] It's literally a fossil gas, which is why we're running out of it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Occurrence_and_productio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Occurrence_and_production) )

1: Commercially, heavy water is a byproduct of electrolysis plants: since deuterium doesn't electrolyze quite as easily as light water, it tends to accumulate in electrolysis stacks

2: The same rock formations that trap natural gas also trap helium.

<comment><USER16> >D-He3 fusion produces less neutron flux than D-T, but it's hardly aneutronic-- otherwise they couldn't breed 3He from it.

You can't "breed" 3He; you have to breed tritium, which decays to He3 with a half-life of 12 years. D-3He reactors do produce some neutrons, roughly 1% of the flux of D-T, and almost entirely from D-D side-reactions.

Actually, a big problem with D-3He as of today is the lack of neutrons -- since you only get one neutron per 100 (e.g.) reactions, you can't possibly breed enough tritium to break-even. You have to come up with some other neutron source, or send rockets to Jupiter.

>After a decade, the whole reactor will be nuclear waste.

Fusion reactors are generally made from boron carbide -- a material unique for the fact that it does not become very radioactive when irradiated with neutrons. 14C which is produced can be extracted by oxidation and centrifuging, and in any case is not nearly as scary as, say, 90Sr. No other concerning radioactive isotopes exist with atomic masses between 10 and 21 (cf 22Na).

>commercial helium comes natural gas fields! It's literally a fossil gas, which is why we're running out of it:

Nope, that's 4He. There's basically no 3He in natural gas (because the helium there is radiogenic), so obtaining fuel that way wouldn't work even if we wanted to.

<comment><USER17> Great reply. The wiki also has a long discussion about Helium 3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3) Fusion produces neutrons either in the first or secondary reactions, but there are ways to minimize the amount of them and their energy (and damage/radioactivity)to where you don't generate "nuclear waste". There is an interesting continuum of fusion reactions from pure D-D (which produces little energy, but lots of lower energy neutrons) to D-He3 (that produces some neutrons and lots of energy) to pure He3-He3 (that is called 'anuetronic').

D-D fusion makes Tritium (that decays into He3), Helium 3, or Helium 4 through the fusion process itself, with no breeding.

We believe that there is a correct ratio called Self-Supplied in which you have a small amount of 2.4 MeV neutrons, only deuterium as an input fuel, and the majority of the energy is from the Helium 3 fusion. The hard part is how to separate out the right isotope mixture from the exhaust between pulses.

<comment><USER15> He3 is never added? How long can a reactor run without supplying He3?

(This thread is having a hard time settling on a single isotope notation.)

<comment><USER17> The best way to make Helium 3 is with Deuterium fusion. Its a very interesting bootstrap question -- how do you build new reactors, if you have to have working reactors to generate fuel?

<comment><USER15> So really it's a mixed-mode D-D/3He-D reactor? How much more common are D-D reactions than 3He-D reactions while the reactor is running normally?

How much does the initial charge of 3He cost, given that the stuff costs $7,000 a gram?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's the plasma configuration of the machine? I think there's a research group at U of Washington working on merging spheromaks which create a field reversed configuration. Is this a spinoff of that group?

edit: looks like it is - this is the group: [https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/plasmaDynamics/phdx.h...](https://www.aa.washington.edu/research/plasmaDynamics/phdx.html)

<comment><USER17> Yes! Prof. John Slough is the Chief Scientist at Helion and the inventor of the Fusion Engine. UW has been leading the field of 'alternates' fusion for decades. Our 'About Us' page has a short blurb: [http://www.helionenergy.com/](http://www.helionenergy.com/)

<comment><USER19> There's a video of him talking about his earlier fusion rocket engine prototype [http://on.aol.com/video/peripheral-vision-003--professor- joh...](http://on.aol.com/video/peripheral-vision-003--professor-john- slough-517930800)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain why this team is confident that they can build a commercially viable reactor in 3 years? Conventional wisdom is that nuclear fusion is "decades away". What does this team know that others don't?

<comment><USER21> The type of Nuclear Fusion they are talking about is quite different than what ITER is working on. It's on a much smaller scale - around 50 MW, which is on the scale of a large diesel generator. The cost is also not that ground breaking - around $0.04/kWh, which is around where Natural Gas and Coal plants are.

<comment> bjelkeman-again To say that electricity from fusion at a price similar to coal is "not that ground breaking" is quite the understatement. That would be huge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can someone with some knowledge on nuclear energy explain to me how this solution varies from say, General Fusion ([http://www.generalfusion.com](http://www.generalfusion.com))? They're a company more local to me, and while these companies are looking to accomplish the same thing, their approaches are wildly different.

<comment><USER17> Both GF and us (Helion) are attempting to dramatically shrink the size and cost of fusion reactors. We are doing that by compressing a fusion plasma repeatedly to generate energy, rather than trying to heat and confine it for long periods. The main difference is that Helion uses high field pulsed magnets to compress the plasma, GF uses pistons to generate liquid metal shocks.

<comment><USER23> Are you guys thinking in a crowdfounding campaign, I'll give money to help projects like yours.

<comment><USER17> Not yet, right now we are focused on pushing the technical milestones as fast as possible. This is a great question, what do people here think about a crowdfunding campaign for something like fusion, is it worth it?

<comment><USER24> I helped out with the recent Focus Fusion crowdfunding. Our goal was $200K, we raised $180K, but it also brought in some new investors who took us well over the goal, and who gave the crowdfund the credit for their interest.

We had a very low budget so our marketing was bare-bones.

We had a lot of excitement, but also a lot of skepticism and pushback. Our hired marketing team insisted on an extremely optimistic presentation and that turned a lot of people off. Of course I don't know whether we would have done better with a more measured approach. With LPP being such a small team and so far off the beaten path we faced a lot more skepticism to start with.

The Solar Roadways campaign ran on Indiegogo at the same time and raised over $2 million. They managed to make a video go viral.

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion- empowerthewo...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion- empowertheworld--3)

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar- roadways](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways)

<comment><USER25> That's very interesting. So what do you think solar roadways did better? Or is their concept just more reportable by media because it's more understandable.

What role did you play? Do you think a marketing team is necessary for a successful campaign?

By the way, email me if you want to chat sometime. I've been kicking around an idea for a better kickstarter.

<comment><USER24> This video helped a lot: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU)

I don't know whether they had a bigger marketing budget or were just good at it. It does seem like an easier-to-understand hook. Various people have criticized the idea's practicality but say "solar roadways" and you've got the concept. That probably helped media coverage. For us, it was complicated to explain why it was more than "here's another guy in a garage who thinks he's solving the world's energy problems."

I'm on the board of the Focus Fusion Society so I debated and voted on various decisions, got interviewed a couple times, and spent a lot of time commenting online various places, mainly reddit.

A marketing team at least helps do a lot of legwork. If you want to pay more for expert advice it can be hard to determine who's expert enough to give good advice for your particular situation.

I'll email later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The New Yorker wrote an amazing article on ITER and the pursuit of nuclear fusion: [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/a-star-in-a- bot...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/03/a-star-in-a-bottle).

</comment><comment><USER27> > Helion Energy [...] says it has a plan to build a fusion reactor [..], a > challenge whose solution has been considered decades away for, well, > decades. Helion CEO David Kirtley says that his company can do it in three.

Three decades? Either this is a very long-term investment, or a very confusingly written article.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, that's a clumsy sentence. He means 3 years.

In this article, he estimates commercial viability by 2019:

[http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/07/helion-energy-plans-to- enab...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/07/helion-energy-plans-to-enable.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Guess that explains this:

[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/499448951372660736](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/499448951372660736)

 _I had office hours today with a co in the current YC batch whose (genuine) TAM is so big I worry investors won 't be able to parse it._

</comment><comment><USER30> YC used to get a lot of criticism for only funding "trivial web companies". You don't hear that so much these days.

<comment><USER31> I'm not up to date on everything YC funds - what other non-web companies have they funded?

<comment><USER30> Cruise Automation, for example, is working on self-driving cars.

There are some biotech companies too, but I don't know much about those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> They're using a deuterium reaction? That's not bad (per se), but the neutron production can create difficulties: major regulatory hurdles (can be used for nuclear material refinement?), difficult to extract energy, and causes a lot of nearby material fatigue.

Another big contender (IMHO) is Tri Alpha's aneutronic approach: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri_Alpha_Energy,_Inc).

Either way, cool stuff!

<comment><USER24> Fwiw, high school kids build small reactors and fuse deuterium with basically no regulatory hassle at all. Lots of larger fusion experiments use deuterium too and do fine. Getting permission to experiment with fission is far more difficult. I'm sure there will be some regulation but it's unlikely to be very burdensome.

Boron fusion is pretty much the ultimate of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> > Helion CEO David Kirtley says that his company can do it in three.

Three... years? Decades? Days? Millennia?

<comment><USER17> We are hoping three years, three decades is just too late to matter. Part of what was not mentioned are the years that we have put into this already. Fusion is definitely a tough problem, but one that is worth it to solve.

<comment><USER11> Forgive me if this is forward, but are you guys hiring? I'm in no way a physicist, but I do know a few with strong experimental backgrounds (mostly in nuclear), and I try to keep my ear to the ground for intriguing job opportunities for my friends.

<comment><USER17> We are hiring for Redmond, WA, but only people that are excited and forward! Our Contact page [http://www.helionenergy.com/](http://www.helionenergy.com/) has the link.

<comment><USER11> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> As much as I hope this succeeds and as glad as I that HN is betting on such "moonshots", I remain skeptical about the practicality of nuclear fusion as a commercially viable power source.

Fusion works particularly well for stars because of gravity. We're trying to use magnets to contain superheated plasma.

The Sun generates less energy on a kg-for-kg basis that compost [1]. And it has gravity to contain the byproducts (other than energy).

But the real problem is neutrons. To start a fusion reaction with a small amount of matter we use heavy isotopes of hydrogen (specifically deuterium = 1 neutron, tritium = radioactive isotope with 2 neutrons). The fusing material releases neutrons that damage the containing reactor.

This is using the most "promising" deuterium-tritium reaction.

Alternatives are suggesting using He3. Unfortunately that's super-rare, which kinda defeats the point of "free" energy.

I remain skeptical but hoping to be proven wrong.

[1]: [http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm)

<comment><USER24> The second-easiest reaction is deuterium-deuterium. Half the time it produces He3, and the other half it produces tritium, which decays into He3. So start with D-D and bring in He3 as you get it to reduce neutron output.

Even with D-D alone the neutrons are a lot less energetic than with D-T.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I think these guys are using MagLIF (Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion).

Here's an article about MagLIF research using the Z Machine at Sandia Labs: [http://www.nature.com/news/triple-threat-method-sparks- hope-...](http://www.nature.com/news/triple-threat-method-sparks-hope-for- fusion-1.14445)

<comment><USER36> Close but with some important differences. We've tried that approach and it has some interesting potential applications but, when it comes to building a power plant that has to last decades, we think the engineering is just too difficult. Instead of pushing on a liner that then pushes on the plasma, we directly push on the plasma with magnetic field. The engineering, while still difficult, is much easier to tackle.

<comment><USER35> Is this a purely magnetic approach? I recall recently reading about a MagLIF variant that used lasers for pre-heating.

<comment><USER36> It is. We use electromagnets to make the plasmas, move them, and finally compress them all without moving parts, just magnetic field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Amazing that this kind of research can be funded with a mere .0015 Instagrams (or even better, .00008 Whatsapps).

</comment><comment><USER38> When talking about breaking even, does that include the energy needed to make the deuterium? Or rather to collect it, considering it has to be extracted from water or something. IIRC deuterium costs quite a lot of energy to produce and as a result for a while it was only produced by countries having large amount of hydroelectricity available.

Not exactly related, but this made me wonder : inside a tank full of liquid hydrogen, do the DH and DD molecules lie on the bottom? Is it possible to just siphon them from there?

<comment><USER36> That's a good question. The short answer is the energy that it takes to extract D2 from water is so small compared to the fusion energy released it isn't a factor. That is reflected in the cost of D2O at about $0.70 per gram. In a fusion reactor, even with inefficiencies, that gram of D2O will create about $1000 worth of electricity.

<comment><USER38> Yeah that makes sense. Now that I think about it, I realise the energy needed to extract deuterium is related to the chemical energy binding water molecules together. This chemical energy is orders of magnitude lower than the nuclear energy released by fusion. So the cost of fuel production will likely be irrelevant for fusion power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Anyone have more insights into how this works?

The figure, deuterium fuel is confusing as deuterium is an isotope and am unsure what they mean 'extraction' (how?).

<comment><USER40> Right now we just buy deuterium off the shelf, it is low cost and plentiful. You can get deuterium by electrolysis of heavy water, see here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water)

<comment><USER39> Perhaps low cost (25L, ~$600) is relative, depending on the purity, but am unsure how much scale a project like this would use.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't be surprised if that cost is still a drop in the bucket compared to salaries though. How much deuterium is a startup like this likely to go through in a month?

<comment><USER36> Totally correct. Right now we simply purchase D2 gas in small quantity so the price is relatively high. But even at those prices we'll probably spend on the order of only $100 per month on D2 when we're operating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Am I the only one who finds the names in this headline SO FRICKIN AMAZING?!

They are all so apt -- A steampunk-sounding mechanism for combining things[1], a mythical element/alloy of magical powers, and a naked Helium nucleus. It just tickles something very artistic for me.

Edit: [1] ok fine it's actually a math function, but I like my perception of the name better.

</comment><comment><USER42> For that kind of money they could've just kickstarted it.

<comment><USER43> Focus Fusion tried that, and it netted them only $180k plus some private investments.

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion- empowerthewo...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/focus-fusion- empowertheworld--3)

<comment><USER24> True but their goal was only $200k, and they started with minimal funds for marketing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> They're using deuterium, but the figure mentions that they're fusing it with helium. But helium-3 is very expensive, and I'd been under the impression that deuterium / helium-4 fusion required impractically high temperatures to work?

<comment><USER45> helium 4 is stable (it's the alpha particle) so fusion with helium 4 either doesn't produce energy or it produces very little.

It's possible that the reactor does two reactions: 1) D + D -> 3He + n, 3He + D -> 4He + p.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> One thing that I am curious about: What does it mean by "the expanding plasma is converted directly into electricity" ?

Directly how? No boiling water driving pistons, no intervening steps at all? It seems a bit like "and then a miracle occurs" to me.

<comment><USER15> There's a couple of ways of doing it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This whole discussion about weapons seems strange. It's true that the words "nuclear fusion" appear in the article, but my reading of the article doesn't make me feel that this research will lead to some terrible, existential risk to mankind.

For comparison, consider robotics, drones, nanotechnology, and AI. I am fascinated by these subjects (and, apparently, so are many other HN readers), but I have some concerns that these non-nuclear technologies may end up having very negative consequences. Yet these high tech areas, with which I would guess the HN readers have a better understanding than fusion, don't engender such negative reactions here.

</comment><comment><USER48> Excellent news, I can't wait to drive a Tesla powered by fusion power.

<comment><USER49> I don't think mobile fusion reactors are what they're going for. And if you're looking to reduce global carbon emissions try walking, biking or using public transportation. It's true electric cars don't emit carbon the way a fuel based car does, but the production and maintenance of an electric vehicle certainly does.

<comment><USER50> fusion plant -> mains electricity -> your tesla

<comment><USER48> Yes that's what I meant, I think this is the future of transport.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The reasons Nuclear Fusion presents a difficult problem:

1.) There's no chain reaction mechanism. 2.) The probability of a reaction constrains reaction size. 3.) The absurd amount of heat generated by fusion. I think I once heard it was 100M degrees.

Curious, anybody know how they design around this? Are they using some form of magnetized containment?

Excited to see this funded.

<comment><USER52> > 1.) There's no chain reaction mechanism.

There's something like it. Fusion happens because plasma is hot -> fusion products heat the plasma to keep it hot -> more fusion happens. A chain reaction is exactly what you don't want in a nuclear reactor.

> 2.) The probability of a reaction constrains reaction size.

Can you be more specific? The probability of reaction does constrain the design, but via the Lawson criterion [1].

> 3.) The absurd amount of heat generated by fusion. I think I once heard it > was 100M degrees.

That's about right, but temperature != heat. Even though the plasma has a very high temperature, it is also extremely diffuse: about 3 million times less dense than air.

The main concern is keeping it hot in the proximity of colder stuff and managing the electromagnetic energy (the fields have many times more energy than the thermal energy, and has the potential to all be dumped in a single spot), not necessarily worrying about the heat.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion)

edit: lots of silly typos

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Nuclear fusion is a good investment for the world. Truthfully, fusion power is the final answer to our future energy needs. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8n7j5k-_G8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8n7j5k-_G8)

</comment><comment><USER54> is this the equivalent of throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks?

why do vcs with a specialty in software suddenly stray into completely unknown territory? nothing left to fund in software? rarely does this end well.

<comment><USER55> Expected value.

<comment><USER56> I would guess either personal interest or PR, rather than a solid return calculation. YC doesn't want to be seen as the "web startup incubator", even if that's where they can best maximize ROI. And besides PR, the principals likely don't want to _be_ that, either, but have loftier goals. Which is perfectly fine; maximizing investor returns is rarely a good way to do anything important or interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Slightly tangental but "end energy dependance on other nations" grates me. It sounds so nationalistic.

<comment><USER58> It's not really a nationalistic sentiment, but rather one of economic independence. See, for example, Europe kowtowing to Russia because they supply a large fraction of their natural gas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> $1.5 million is not much runway.

<comment><USER60> especially for a product that is just hoping to break even on power generation.

<comment><USER61> They break even and are billionaires. They manage to create 2+ EROEI and we are talking trillions.

<comment><USER62> or dead; possibly both (i dearly hope not for both cases!). a working fusion reactor with advertised properties will disrupt the current political balance of power on the planet. intelligence agencies of certain fossil fuel-driven countries might get orders to not let the situation go that far. hopefully certain other intelligence agencies will be able to protect the effort.

<comment><USER63> This is needlessly conspiratorial. Oil companies and sovereign wealth funds are some of the biggest investors in renewables on earth. Everyone knows we will reach peak oil at some point, whether through increasingly costly extraction/taxation or increasingly cheap renewable competitors. There is no 'grand conspiracy' to quash alternative energy sources.

<comment><USER64> He takes it a bit far... but its true that fuel is a primary driver of politics in our current times. What that means though is a bit less known. Honestly i'd assume it would be a stabilizer more than anything. It could lead to the end of propping up regimes in the middle east for instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> The most important question: what are the demographics of the founding team?

</comment><comment><USER66> another perpetual motion machine?

<comment><USER67> Nah. Just a very risky investment. ITER uses "safe" physics that we know how works - it's a magnificent engineering exercise, but there are no new insights in fusion per se required. These guys seem to be aiming for an alternative solution with more eccentric science behind it. It will probably not work out, but neither does most start-ups.

<comment><USER68> What is meant by eccentric science? Would you be specific?

<comment><USER67> Well, I don't know much about the subject, but the way I've understood it there's ITER and then there are a couple other reactor projects. Everyone except ITER is violating some kind of popularly held belief among physicists - they could be cheaper and better, but it's far from certain that they'll work at all. This just looks like another one of those.

<comment><USER24> I don't think it violates physicists' beliefs, it's just that they're more confident in tokamaks like ITER because they've been studied a lot more.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>