Wanted: Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/510071/wanted-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby/

<comment><USER2> First, I'm highly dubious that a reconstructed Neanderthal embryo is really that viable: look at the success rates of assisted reproduction when the parents are alive and in the room, let alone dead for tens of millenia!

Second, what ethics board would approve this experiment? There are risks to the surrogate mother, and, even if the child did come to term, what are the chances that it would be physically healthy? What about its psychological health?

As with mammoths, I can see the appeal, but this is about human beings.

<comment><USER3> > _look at the success rates of assisted reproduction when the parents are > alive and in the room_

What are the success rates?

> _Second, what ethics board would approve this experiment?_

Probably one outside of the United States. Which makes me excited to meet a Neanderthal, but very worried about their treatment in a country that would go forward with this experiment.

<comment><USER2> _> What are the success rates?_

Poking around on the HFEA website, I found the national averages for the UK. Using fresh embryos from donor eggs (which seems the closest equivalent to the present case), 31.7% of embryo transfers result in a live birth.

That will vary by clinic and country, of course.

Source: [http://guide.hfea.gov.uk/guide/HeadlineData.aspx?code=157...](http://guide.hfea.gov.uk/guide/HeadlineData.aspx?code=157&s=l&&rate=i&rate_sub=DEF)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Additional coverage:

[http://gawker.com/5977130/could-you-be-the-adventurous- woman...](http://gawker.com/5977130/could-you-be-the-adventurous-woman- scientists-need-to-give-birth-to-the-first-neanderthal-baby-in-30000-years)

[http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/genforscher- georg...](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/genforscher-george- church-will-neandertaler-klonen-a-877554.html) (in German)</comment>


Script or Not to Script - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/12147148179/script-or-not-to-script

<comment><USER2> A couple of questions I don't see on the list:

Will writing the script be fun/rewarding? (arguably related to the "Will I learn something new?" question, but not exactly the same).

Will doing the job by hand be soul-crushingly boring?

There are long-term quality of life/job satisfaction metrics that aren't necessarily apparent when you only focus on the task at hand. :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Almost always, yes. If you script everything all the time, even if it takes you longer, twenty years later you'll be able to script anything so fast you'll be so productive your head will spin.

It's like learning Vim. :)</comment>


Ask HN: VC firm reached out to me, what are they looking for in an initial call? - <AUTHOR> My company is about a year old and we are profitable. A VC firm reached out to me and I have a call scheduled with them next week.<p>What is the VC looking for on that initial call? What do they want to hear? And finally, what should I avoid? <comment><USER2> They'll be trying to decide if they can make a deal work with you.

Be honest, be prepared to decline to provide proprietary information (some are fishing for this to build clones of you), and treat the call like a prelude to either cashing out or getting fleeced.

Check that VC's background at thefunded.com, and take stock of yourself. Build yourself a "gut-check" spreadsheet table of amount invested in you vs. percentage taken. They may want to invest more than you want to take. Figure out where on that table your sweet spot is, and bear in mind that depending on how well your company is doing, that the sweet spot might have zero size.

Develop yourself a strategy of if you're going to approach other VC's with an offer you get. Others may be willing to value you higher or offer better terms if you can shop your term sheet around. You may not feel comfortable doing that, but be certain internally what's on the table.

In the end, remember: no deal is too good to walk away from.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Who reached out? Is it a partner or an associate? If it's the latter, realize that associates screen deals and partners fund companies. So, temper your response accordingly. You want to get to the partner ASAP.

Be careful using thefunded. It's much better to get references on the partner, not the firm.

They are looking to see if you have momentum and match their investment areas. What problem you solve, proof of whom you are solving the problem for (target market(s)) and the growth story. That's all you should go into, at best, for an associate screen or first call. If you hit those points and are a match for the firm, you'll get a partner interview if they are really interested.

Don't indulge too much fact finding. Worst case, they have a competitor in their portfolio or they are vetting another company for investment and you happen to be in the same space.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! It was an associate, quick call, stuck to strong growth narrative and kept it casual. Seemed to go well but who knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Probably fishing for info for their competitor portfolio companies? Not sure why you'd take this call without a goal for yourself ...</comment>


The Gentleman Grafter - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2006/05/grafter200605?currentPage=all <comment><USER2> I was at the Union Square market in September and watched this guy in action a couple times (he takes 2-3 minutes to run through his entire spiel and demonstration-- which is incredibly impressive-- then sells about 20 of them, then repeats)... he sells the peeler for $5 (or 5 for $20, I think) and it's a Swiss-made Star brand peeler that you can find on eBay for around $3-$4, but then you have to pay shipping.

The actual peeler is very sharp and well-designed, but it's not magical-- he just happens to be incredibly good at wielding it on huge amounts of potatoes and carrots. Also, he has something of a reality distortion field...

<comment><USER3> I just used one of his peelers to peel apples for an apple pie for thanksgiving. I have no idea if it is any better than your average peeler, but it works great for me ;) He has an amusing line if you only buy one - "one for the man with no friends." I think I'm going to buy a few of these and send them off to some ex-New Yorkers I know. They make great memorabilia for those in the know ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's the guy in action:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGOjFhKeLiU>

<comment><USER5> Shows the importance of having an exceptional demo of your product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have one of these (or had - lost somewhere) and they are fantastic. A real pleasure to use. They fit snugly in hand, and you can drive force into the work. The metal itself somehow feels soft. There's even an integrated component for removing eyes from potatoes (I never use that; but I like the idea).

I don't know if they are really all that great - however, they are so much better than the standard ones (pencil shaped).

As in the old saying, you don't have to make a perfect mousetrap - just a _better_ one.

</comment><comment><USER7> Its interesting to me that he's not making eye contact. Does that project confidence ("I don't need to look at you to know that I've got your attention"), or am I overthinking this?

<comment><USER8> I think it's like he says in the article - he deals with crowds, not with people. His focus is on the product alone.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that's right. His relentless focus on the product keeps _your_ focus on the product. And it sends the message you want to send about any product: This thing is so damned fascinating that you could spend all day playing with it.

Also, eye contact is subliminally threatening. That's probably not good for sales, particularly in a big city like New York, where a stranger who approaches you and makes eye contact activates the Shields Up response. (The odds that he is about to ask you for money are really, really high. Especially if he starts some big, rambling story instead of just immediately asking you for directions.) Moreover, scaring people is not something you want to do if you want to have a decades-long career, in one neighborhood, doing something that is technically illegal. One's first on-street encounter with a squatting, potato-obsessed geek with a knife in his hand is probably scary enough without having to know that _he's looking at you_.

Finally, I'd guess that eye contact is risky because it turns the show from a monologue into a dialogue. What if the mark starts an argument? Or runs away in terror? How would _that_ play to the rest of the audience? Even a friendly chat could be bad for business if it takes up too much time that could be better spent running the spiel for a fresh set of passersby.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looking at YouTube it seems to be he sells the "Star Swiss Peeler" .. Can anyone verify this?

I really want one after looking at him use it. Godamn he's even good across the tubes :)

<comment><AUTHOR> if he is selling it, he does offer a pretty good deal at $5

this site: <http://www.simplygoodstuff.com/star_peeler.html> sell it for $6.95 (not including shipping and handling)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting guy, and good article too. It's not every day I read an article about a guy who sells potato peelers and enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER12> RIP</comment>


Basic Computer technology tutorials - <AUTHOR> http://www.comptechdoc.org/index.html

<comment><USER2> Woooow, that is some bad website design. Hmm, sounds like a project I can work on :D</comment>


Can we please do useful things with software? - <AUTHOR> https://codewithoutrules.com/2017/08/07/do-something-useful/ <comment><USER2> I lose my patience with screeds like this, that choose not to examine the systemic reasons why this happens, instead preferring to yell at the dumb jerks who took jobs programming things the author doesn't like.

<comment><USER3> First of all - you poor thing. But for reals, yes, capital seeks returns. And the people who need the most help have the least capital to make themselves interesting to capital.

And that's why we need infrastructure spending from the government. But if anything, we have a government (in the USA) that's more interested in demolishing infrastructure that helps actual people, and instead wants to offer tax cuts to very, very rich people.

Douglas Rushkoff is right. All these companies are going after the data-play when in fact, most people simply have no more money to spend.

And one of the reasons why we got both Trump & Sanders during the primaries is because labor has no pricing power. Most people are afraid to ask for a raise, and apparently nobody with any power seems to give a damn.

We have an increasingly supply-side economy. Normal people will reliably spend any extra dollar they get. But I bet you could throw money at super-rich companies like Apple all day long and it wouldn't increase demand for anything (perhaps except the stock price - if they had an aggressive dividend policy, I guess).

And now they want "tax reform" which I suppose will lower corporate tax rates. That's not going to help generate demand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been thinking a lot about this topic recently. I've worked in finance my whole career (20 years) and am consistently amazed by the waste, inefficiency and wealth.

Banks make money in spite of themselves.

The UK challenger banks like Monzo, Atom and Starling have taken this on as their mission - to provide a great banking experience _for people_.

My personal challenge is that I'm the sole income provider for my wife and two kids so salary/rate has always won, but maybe there's an employer out there that can both pay well and make the world a better place.

Or maybe a few of us should start one.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amen and amen.</comment>


Why Some Men Don't Work: Video Games Have Gotten Really Good - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/upshot/why-some-men-dont-work-video-games-have-gotten-really-good.html?ref=business <comment><USER2> Another article blaming video games?

Honestly, the reason some people out of work play video games are more likely one of the following:

1\. They're fun and they reduce the tedium of everyday life. Others could do the same thing with sports, tabletop games, chess, TV shows and movies, etc. There's no practical difference between an unemployed guy playing video games all day and the same person watching TV all day or playing golf all day. It's merely a way to take your mind off all the boredom while looking for a job.

2\. Playing games can in theory be a way out of poverty, at least in today's internet social media driven world. How many of these people have YouTube channels or popular presences online? If you have no other practical options, then trying to make money through video game Let's Plays and YouTube monetisation seems like a decent last resort.

And yes, the job market is broken too. Maybe if companies stopped trying to look only for people with every skill and piece of expertise needed in advance and were willing to train people to do jobs, we might have less people unemployed at the moment. Heck, maybe the New York Times could help here. Stop doing the common media thing of mostly hiring upper class college graduates from privileged families (which seems to be a trend at the moment) and start hiring people who want to work rather than those who whine about how poor people act in internet editorials.

<comment><USER3> YouTube, although marketed as a great entrepreneurship channel, is nothing of this sort, and the stats tell that story , that only a rare few can make a living out of it.

And this is part of a larger "scam" being perpetuated currently, that today is a golden age of entrepreneurship and that's the job of the future , mostly because of all kinds of platforms(like Amazon fulfillment, t-shirt printing, etc) open so many new opportunities for entrepreneurship.

While the stats tell a different story , that there's a decline in entrepreneurship, and if you look carefully, you'll see how platforms actually suck the core out of many small businesses and leave them to run empty shells, businesses largely without a competitive advantage or value creation.

<comment><USER2> Well that's actually a good point. The 'sharing economy' could arguably be better described as the 'work for free so some millionaire gets richer' economy. Or the 'low paid contractor' economy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The reason must be video games for sure, surely not because you need 5-year experience for a shitty part-time cashier job paying minimum salary because the job market collapsed.

<comment><USER5> Where do you need 5 years of experience for a minimum wage job? Everyone I know who wanted a minimum wage job got one without any experience, maybe I just know a lot of outliers though.

<comment><USER6> That was probably a bit of hyperbole on the poster's part, but as an example I once had to work for free for a week in order to secure a minimum wage job washing dishes. I had no formal dishwashing experience and had to prove I could actually wash dishes. This is in CA and I have no education beyond high school.

<comment><USER7> I didn't think that was legal. Hiring you for a 1 week period with your employment up for renewal at the end of the week sure, but not this.

For example, in Massachusetts unpaid internships are illegal unless you can prove it is job training AND that it does not perform a job functions that you would otherwise have to pay someone to do. Your situation fits the first part (it can be called training) but not the second.

<comment><USER6> It definitely wasn't legal. But I was desperate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Counter-opinion from twitter: [https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/881862753115230208](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/881862753115230208)

"Table from their latest paper. 1) Nonemployed 21-30 men devoting _less_ time to leisure overall since '04-'07..."

<comment><USER9> That doesn't contradict the claim that they're spending more time on video games. To illustrate: suppose leisure time goes from 25% to 23% and leisure time spent playing video games goes from 1% to 80%.

(N.B.: the core claim is ridiculous for other reasons...)

<comment><USER10> It contradicts the claim made in the title that they're not working because of the video games.

<comment><USER9> The point is precisely that it doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's a counter hypothesis: some men don't work because the economy is bad for them, and they're only playing more video games than they used to because video games have gotten less expensive over the past 20+ years.

<comment><USER2> The price is definitely a factor here. Look at Steam, Humble Bundle, etc. You can now buy tons of games for less than a dollar each if you time it right.

<comment><USER11> Steam et al is only half of the equation. Hardware is vastly cheaper also.

It used to be that a decent gaming PC would cost over $1500. Now you can get one (or an equivalent console, thanks to the proliferation of the x86-64 architecture) for around $500.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seems its hard to to trace causation either way. It could be that people play video games to escape the tedium of being un- or under-employed, rather than are unemployed because they play video games instead of seeking work.

<comment><USER13> This. The same people that can be addicted to games may have the potential to be addicted to Chess in other time periods.

But they will be regarded as genius chess masters.

On the other hand, with our surplus of resources, its no wonder a percentage of our people can afford to do nothing but play games.

<comment><USER14> Also, with our constrained resources, no wonder a percentage can only afford to play video games (as opposed to other pastimes that require significantly more space, transportation and equipment).

Superficially both resource arguments look like exact opposites, but I don't think that they are really conflicting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The whole argument is built on ignoring the question "why aren't employers hiring young men" and asking the very presumptuous question "Why don't young men want to work?"

I can't get access to the full paper without paying $5, which I'm not going to do, however the abstract doesn't sound very convincing either, making the argument that video games take up a larger percentage of men's leisure time, and younger men have more leisure time than older men, so video games must be stopping men from working.

It's not a very convincing argument, and the converse could just as well be true: older men would prefer to spend more time working than enjoying leisure time.

<comment><USER16> The paper can be freely accessed at NBER ([http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552](http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552)). There's no need to pay anything.

Anyway, it's not really a presumptions question. Or at least, it wasn't supposed to be: the fact that people are doing something doesn't imply anything about what they _should_ do, and neither does describing their choices imply anything about either the socially preferred set of choices or the authors' preferred set of choices. So if young men were putting in less work hours so they could stay at home and play video games, that would be nobody else's business.

But the issue is that that doesn't to be the case, and the authors made no effort of trying to tackle alternative explanations. When I read an economics article, I expect that even if the authors won't try to address alternative explanations, they will at least acknowledge they exist. After skimming the article, that doesn't to have happened at all.

Don't know how the authors want me to believe that video games are to blame for the lower working hours of young males when they followed closely the working hours of older males up until 2008, either. Are they gonna pin it all on Halo 3?

<comment><USER15> > You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for > electronic delivery.

> You are eligible for a free download if you are a subscriber, a corporate > associate of the NBER, a journalist, an employee of the U.S. federal > government with a ".GOV" domain name, or a resident of nearly any developing > country or transition economy.

I am none of these things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The drop in employment is mostly that men in college aren't also holding down jobs. Maybe video games have something to do with that but I'm not very concerned.

[https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/295750/Ar...](https://www.economy.com/dismal/analysis/datapoints/295750/Are- Video-Games-Killing-the-Labor-Market-for-Young-Men/)

</comment><comment><USER18> > One hears this regret in talking to older gamers. "Of course gaming has > interfered with any attempt to look for or do any serious work," says > Arturo, 29, who reckons he has spent 600 hours playing Kerbal Space Program, > a space-flight simulator, and possibly more at Starcraft II, a strategy > game. He doesn't just miss the forgone income and opportunities; he could > have been reading, he laments. But those hours are gone for ever.

I've been working for 10 years, since my early 20s. I've also played Dota (2) for 2000 hours, and read VB.Net books, and spent time with friends I no longer have contact with, and working out even though I'm now kind of out of shape for the last couple of years (started a c25k to catch back up).

My point is, a lot of things I've done in the past are "gone" now. A lot was leisure, some was exercise, some was work related. None of it is relevant now, to my life, to my work, etc, yet I see no point in regretting any of it.

All experiences shape you, no matter if they were good, bad, productive or not. And even if you spend all your (free) time being "productive", you don't guarantee that it's long term relevant, or that you don't die of stress.

A balance is probably good, and games are a lot better than other passive pastimes.

</comment><comment><USER19> Ugh, wouldn't be working either if I could find a switch already.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like this article much better: [https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another- worl...](https://www.1843magazine.com/features/escape-to-another-world)

</comment><comment><USER21> Just as an interesting datapoint, people subscribed to gaming-relating subreddits as of June 2017: 22,482,107

Versus people subscribed to programming-related subreddits (not counting r/ProgrammerHumor): 2,287,089.

There are currently ~290 video-game related subreddits with over 10,000 subscribers.

</comment><comment><USER22> Just wait until VR MMOs. I guarantee many lives will be completely destroyed...

<comment><USER7> Only if they can make the headset comfortable enough to wear for hours on end. I have a PSVR and the longest I can go without taking a break is an hour for some games (i.e. Rush of Blood) and 15 for others (Resident Evil).

For the first one, I just get sweaty and fog up the lenses. For the second one I actually get motion sick (even though Rush of Blood has far faster motion, the presence of a fixed position object alleviates the motion sickness)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Games have become more popular and potentially more addictive, not necessarily better (for my definition of better, games nowadays are generally worse than in the 90s and early 200s).

<comment><USER24> Whats your definition of better

<comment><USER25> A lot of Games these days, especially in mobile and online, are focused towards giving players quick rewards and keeping them addicted rather than providing a meaningful experience.

On the other hand you have some excellent experiences available like Papers Please, Hotline Miami, KSP etc. So it isn't like games in the old days were better, rather you have more shittier stuff available today that is much better marketed.

<comment><USER23> Games like Papers please are outliers, not representative for today's gaming market. Back in the day you'd have AAA teams constantly trying to innovate (classic examples Bullfrog Lionhead Looking glass Westwood Black isle and so on and so on). Nowadays AAA teams simply rehash old concepts, focus being put on milking existing franchises and marketing, artistic freedom sacrificed in the name of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Games today are generally worse because of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I know women who play puzzle games on their phone but don't consider them games.

<comment><USER27> Had a girlfriend ages ago addicted to Candy Crush. I remember one Sunday - she'd invited her sister and mum round for Sunday lunch, which I was cooking.

Came out of the kitchen and saw all 3 playing the same game. Went outside for a cigarette and the lady upstairs was leaning out of her window playing the same game but with the sound on ('tasty...' etc)

We didn't last long after that.

I'm not having a go at them playing the game, I am pretty good at procrastinating myself in different ways (on this site for example), but I swear there has got to be a scientific study somewhere on the birthrate being affected by people playing CC or mooching on Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Got a laugh out of "Recreational computer time"

</comment><comment><USER29> If these men aren't working, where are they getting the money to buy vidya and keep a roof over their head while they play? Their parents?

<comment><USER30> It you didn't read, they are talking about overall average declines in working on the order of a couple hours a week.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are you using a VPN service? Why? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I currently live in Dubai so a lot of services like netflix don't work here, so a vpn lets me use my subscriptions instead of letting them waste away. Plus it gives you slightly more privacy (depending on your vpn provider). Can be useful for anonymity if you combine with tor like so: [http://www.deepdotweb.com/jolly-rogers-security-guide-for- be...](http://www.deepdotweb.com/jolly-rogers-security-guide-for- beginners/combining-tor-with-a-vpn/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Nope, coz chinese cannot use VPN so i use socks proxy like github.com/spance/deblocus</comment>


Darpa Spends $51 Million On Matrix-Like Cyber War Firing Range  - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/darpa-spends-51-million-matrix-cyber-war-firing-range

<comment><USER2> This sounds like a Marshall Plan for the mother of all Games. Hope they make it multi-player open source:)</comment>


[Infographic] The Mobile Developer Journey - <AUTHOR> http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/11/infographic-the-mobile-developer-journey/

<comment><USER2> Nice graphic, but seriously top score for ui for flash? Cannot agree on that.</comment>


I rewrote my blog in Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.ironzebra.com/code/103/i-rewrote-my-blog-in-go

<comment><USER2> _" I am now loading less static assets. I removed the Disqus comments and the many many lines of CSS from the old site and replaced it with only a couple of lines of CSS alongside a CDN-hosted copy of Twitter Bootstrap. Finally, the Go site is deployed to a free instance of Heroku and the MongoDB hosted on a developer version of Mongolab, while the old Django site was hosted on a Webfaction shared server."_

So...the Python/Django to Go/Revel comparison is basically worthless then? These are huge changes that completely invalidate any speed improvement the author is trying to prove are a result of using Go.

A lot of upvotes for an article with an obviously flawed conclusion.

<comment><USER3> Did you read the next sentence?

"All these things influence the validity of a direct speed comparison between the two versions, but the speed improvement is nevertheless too overwhelming to attribute only to these small changes. And in fact, many of these changes might even have negatively impacted the speed of the new version in exchange for saving on the monthly bills."

<comment><USER4> That assertion isn't backed up with data, though.

Without showing how many seconds were spent loading Disqus, we don't know how much of the load time improvement was based on eliminating Disqus vs. the switch to Go.

Based on experience I'm guessing the lion's share of the gain is due to eliminating Disqus.

<comment><USER5> Isn't Disqus loaded client-side? If so, it's not comparing to Go as much as rendering comments server-side, which you'd see performance increases with PHP or Rails as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While rewriting things in different language is fun (and fun is a _great_ reason to do stuff), the speed of delivering what is ostensibly static content is a solved problem. This was completely unnecessary. Bake the blog post into static HTML and tune up Nginx to shove it down the wires as fast as possible. Stick it on an CDN somewhere if it's important. Then move on to a problem that doesn't already have an optimal solution, and share the solution if you're nice. That's how _everything_ should be done.

<comment><USER7> Even if you don't bake it into static HTML, this is a solved problem.

I serve my homepage/blog off a small Sinatra (Ruby) app, and while that's not slow, mostly because it caches every single page in memory permanently (my written content grows much slower in size than available memory on dirty cheap servers) just because it's simple to do and makes my testing easy (it does stat to check for modifications), there's pretty much no excuse not to have a CDN or a fast server like Nginx with caching turned on in front of app servers these days, which makes the backend performance pretty much irrelevant for cases where you don't have content that needs to be dynamically generated for a huge percentage of requests.

<comment><USER8> I don't suppose you've put that repo anywhere we can have a look at? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "I removed the Disqus comments"

Wouldn't that by itself be enough to account for the download time differences?

<comment><USER10> Yes:

"I removed the Disqus comments and the many many lines of CSS from the old site and replaced it with only a couple of lines of CSS alongside a CDN-hosted copy of Twitter Bootstrap. Finally, the Go site is deployed to a free instance of Heroku and the MongoDB hosted on a developer version of Mongolab, while the old Django site was hosted on a Webfaction shared server. All these things influence the validity of a direct speed comparison between the two versions"

Indeed, all these things _invalidate_ the direct speed comparison between the two versions.

<comment><USER11> I don't see how he can say, "Well I moved stuff to a CDN and changed hosts off of a shared server and greatly reduced my CSS file size, but surely it was the fact I changed languages that caused my page times to increase!"

No, author, Go had very little to do with your page load times. Both Go and Django are going to serve a simple blog at the same speeds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It seems that people on hn just fell in love with go. So many new articles lately. It's like the node.js fever all over again.

<comment><USER13> Or Ruby on Rails, Arc, or whatever is the flavour of the year.

Additionally it is funny to see the usual comparisons of young developers discovering execution and compilation speeds already possible in 16 bit systems.

<comment><USER7> I was surprised at how amazed people on one of the recent Go threads was with Go compilation speeds, given that _gcc_ delivers similar compilation speeds for C code per line of code for me on my old, slow home server.

As for 16 bit systems, I'd love to see a comparison with the Turbo Pascal compiler, for example, on modern hardware. Maybe my memory is deceiving me and the program sizes just weren't comparable, but it sure did seem like it was just _flying_ on a 4.77MHz 8086 based PC. It'd be an interesting comparison.

Especially given I remember how frustrated I was with a lot of other contemporary compilers (whether for C, Pascal, dBase or others). The only other compiler I remember fondly for being fast was the AmigaE compiler (by Wouter van Oortsmerssen, the strlen.com / Cube engine guy, who I see is now working at Google on Android gaming - nothing but good can possibly come of that)

<comment><USER14> Is this true?

I'm not sure about C, but it's definitely the case that Go compiles magnitudes faster than C++, for any reasonable sized project. For example, the ~200k lines of Go standard library compiles in about 14 seconds on my workstation, while random C++ libraries frequently take much longer (just my anecdotal impression from waiting on "brew install").

<comment><USER13> C++ compiles pretty slow due to templates being in the header files, and the need to re-parse them in every compilation unit.

Also the language is quite complex and requires multiple analyses at parse time to decide what the developer is really trying to do.

C code can be compiled fast if not many optimizations are being made. For example the Tiny C compiler was compiling the Linux kernel around 15s in 2004, not sure about which modules were configured though.

Any proper compiler for a language with modules should anyway be able to beat C and C++ compilers hands down.

<comment><USER15> The slowness of C++ compilation is more complicated than you imply. Walter Bright details the causes here: [http://www.drdobbs.com/228701711](http://www.drdobbs.com/228701711)

<comment><USER13> I know, but that is why Walter's information is an article and not a plain simple post. There is too much compiler related information to discuss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How did you achieve a 16 second response time for your _blog_? What the heck were you doing?

<comment><USER17> Yeah, it's not surprising that any change would make it faster. Plot twist: OP was previously typing the server response BY HAND.

<comment><USER18> Those cookies can be a real pain if you make a typo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I built a small site in Go and I didn't really see the need to use a framework. Here's what I did for routes.

      func getRoutes() map[string]customHndlrFnc {
    	  r := make(map[string]customHndlrFnc)

    	  //routes
    	  r["/route_to_url"] = handler
    	  r["/route_to_url2"] = handler2

    	  return r
      }

      for key, value := range getRoutes() {
    	http.HandleFunc(key, handlerWrapper(value))
      }

All of my routes for this sample were get requests but it could easily be extended.

<comment><USER20> Why do that versus:

      http.HandleFunc("/route_to_url", handlerWrapper(handler))
      http.HandleFunc("/route_to_url2", handlerWrapper(handler2))

Is the map used elsewhere?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> After playing around with an Arduino in my spare time, I've realized how important it is to start thinking in multi-threaded concepts in programming. Nothing makes a better example than watching delay(); physical prevent your sketch from taking the next step.

Golang (Still can't believe Google would release a language so piss poor for SEO) WILL be the language I pursue when I start down this path, but right now I don't have any projects that force me to start rebuilding my libraries from scratch.

<comment><USER22> Save yourself the pain and go with Scala and the JVM ... mature platform with battle tested GCs, all the libraries and concurrency idioms you'll ever need and a modern FP language designed for scale.

<comment><USER23> Only if you don't mind paying approximately an order of magnitude penalty in RAM usage, which has long been an achilles heel of JVM languages.

[http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?te...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=scala&lang2=go&data=u64)

<comment><USER24> It uses exactly as much memory as you specify. It would be pretty stupid to have plenty of RAM and NOT using it. With enough memory GC becomes essentially free, by not having to do any work.

<comment><USER23> Nonsense. I'm talking about the SAME data taking more memory to represent. Plus, all things being equal a larger memory space will take more time to GC, and GCs become longer, not shorter.

The JVM does things suboptimally in a number of ways. Object memory overhead is relatively high - typically 8 or 16 bytes per object, strings as UTF-16 (vs Go's UTF-8), etc. It really adds up, and funtional languages tend to churn lots of GC.

<comment><USER25> > strings as UTF-16 (vs Go's UTF-8), etc.

Strings aren't traced, so that has no impact on GC time.

<comment><USER23> It does, however, impact memory usage quite substantially if your data is string-heavy, which most web-apps are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm not sure why you wouldn't cache anything. It doesn't matter if x is faster than y. If both were cached the difference might be milliseconds and in the real world that is what will happen.

</comment><comment><USER27> OT but please don't put the solutions for Project Euler problems on GitHub, it is directly against the rules ([http://projecteuler.net/about](http://projecteuler.net/about), section "I learned so much solving problem XXX so is it okay to publish my solution elsewhere?").

You can put the solutions in the dedicated thread on the site though if you want to share :)

<comment><USER28> First, just a note, you can only see that section if you're logged in.

Second, I disagree that it is 'directly against the rules' \- no where there does it say specifically that you must not post solutions elsewhere. I think the intent is there - but if someone simply cribs off another answer somewhere, they're not really learning anyway and are really robbing themselves. Project Euler is altruistic anyway and there's really no 'advantage' to stealing answers. (I guess someone could show off their progress, but I don't think that's much of an advantage, since they aren't really learning anything)

I have learned quite a bit from looking at Project Euler answers from others and am glad they published their solutions. For example, there are many different ways to do #2 in Haskell and it is enlightening to see how they work.

<comment><USER29> let me guess, you only managed to solve "publicly available" problems right?

<comment><USER28> In the interests of full disclosure, I have only answered 3 problems on Project Euler, and I did them all myself, because I have the willpower to _not_ look at other answers before creating my own. (I have the same username there: [http://projecteuler.net/profile/jcurbo.png](http://projecteuler.net/profile/jcurbo.png)) Anyone looking to learn something and not just check boxes will do the work and exert the same willpower to ignore solutions already out there.

The core of this problem exists in education at all levels; the learner must be coerced or convinced that it is in their best interest to actually learn the content rather than cheat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> For the record, this is the same graph after moving my Drupal based blog from Media Temple to Linode. Nothing else changed. So yes, hosting can make that magnitude of a difference. [http://i.imgur.com/8esmvJS.png](http://i.imgur.com/8esmvJS.png)

</comment><comment><USER31> You forgot to provide an RSS feed of your blog posts.

</comment><comment><USER32> ~15 secs to load a blog post??? Sorry - that's not a problem w/ Django. Something else goofy going on here. Whether or not Go/Revel is ninjarockstar faster than Python/Django, I don't think this is the benchmark to prove it.

</comment><comment><USER33> Source code:

[https://github.com/hermanschaaf/ironzebra](https://github.com/hermanschaaf/ironzebra)

</comment><comment><USER34> |and I decided to give it a go.

Never gets old.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think the comparison is a little misleading as the author admitted that the newer version is slimmer and tighter. Django is heavy. It'd be interesting if somehow the author could have used Bottle (Python) and compare it to Revel (Go).

</comment><comment><USER5> Anytime you move rendering off the client (Disqus) you'll see performance increases. Everyone is focused on server-side speed, though most of the load time is network latency and DOM rendering.

</comment><comment><USER36> Heroku, MongoDB, Go, Revel, Bootstrap, with a sprinkling of overkill..

<comment> bulte-rs Your absolutely right, this article sucks... No mention of mythical horselike one-horned creature whatsoever. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How many Go articles do we need a day? Google must be desperate.

Tomorrow: How I rewrote my bedroom and kitchen using Go and saved lives.</comment>


When will static site generators become main stream the way Wordpress is? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Probably never. The audience for SSGs are developers.

Netlify CMS and Ghost can feed an SSG but both require a difficult setup for the average user.

WP is complicated too but there are many services that install it for you so you can just pick a theme and start writing.

Medium is probably the easiest to use but... well it's Medium. Super bloated website with annoying popups and a company with questionable morals.

 _Disclaimer: I 'm building a blogging platform so I'm probably biased._

<comment><USER3> Agree in part; disagree in part.

Most WP site owners are average Joes and Janes. Probably 95% of them. They get a 'dev' (college kid) to help them here and there, but most are being 'run' by complete amateurs.

On the other hand, SSGs are a hot mess. You have to know 'deployments' and 'libraries' and how to break down your site into partials and a ton more.

And that assumes you are familiar with CLI, the O/S, and sometimes various 'template' languages.

Go read the "first blog post" tutorials by any SSG. No mere mortal stands a chance.

If I see one more "so easy! First type 'npm install yummy-blog -ldx' and then clone my repo theme into your blah blah blah'.... uh, what? Do you think your kid's fourth grade teacher has a chance?

But they can sign up for a free WP.com account and post something in 10 minutes. Or if they are slightly more techie and know how to buy a domain and setup a hosting account, they will have a "one-click install".

WP will (eventually) be "performant enough" as PHP advances and they ditch legacy code. Even a lot of more techie websites and companies use it when they have the ability to use SSGs because it's just rarely worth the hassle for the trade-off in performance. Inevitably, even those companies want Tina in Marketing to write posts and if she saw a code editor or a command line she'd quit. (And not being sexist - could just as well be Dylan in Accounting who needs to post about his company's 'transparent' finances to show how hip the company is with their 27 employees.

SSGs might never take off. Even 'easy' ones that can have a web-based login or ones like Publii have a very limited audience.

What amazes me is that... people keep building more! StaticGen must list 100+. And it seems ne'er a month goes by on HN where some lonely dev doesn't announce they are building yet another one.

I personally don't get it. The new ones have all the same friction and nothing innovative over the existing market of SSGs. And no, using Rust or Go to speed up build times by 12 seconds doesn't count.

<comment><USER2> > _WP will (eventually) be "performant enough" as PHP advances and they ditch > legacy code_

The problem is not really that PHP is not fast enough IMO but it's a matter of cost.

Most performance issues can be alleviated with a CDN and a cache plugin. Regular people will not know how to set up those but (I think) WPEngine, Wordpress.com, etc, do that for you but those services are not cheap.

Even if you get the same performance in WP as a SSG the cost will always be superior.</comment></comment></comment>


How customer development landed me at a top VC firm - <AUTHOR> http://www.verespej.com/2013/02/how-customer-development-landed-me-at.html

<comment><USER2> Inspiring story, thanks for sharing! Centralized recruiting for portfolio companies is something I'd definitely love to read more about. I believe it can be an extremely valuable service from a VC firm to provide.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! Some of the bigger VC firms have been starting to provide more services to their portfolio companies to add value and help them grow. Madrona also recently hired a wonderful PR person.</comment></comment>


How a Football Field-Size Asteroid Caught Us by Surprise - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/62313-asteroid-flyby-not-detected-sooner.html <comment><USER2> Football-field size, surely</comment>


HARO vs. PrManna (out of control lawyers) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2010/03/01/haro-vs-prmanna-out-of-control-lawyers/

<comment><USER2> " _The point: anyone with money can sue anyone else who has less money and put them out of business. It doesn't matter whether you have a case or not_ "

yeah, um, duh. this is why companies invest in lawyers and lobbyists in addition to investing in value-add activities: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capitalism>

PG talks about this: " _no one will sue you for patent infringement till you have money, and once you have money, people will sue you whether they have grounds to or not. So I advise fatalism. Don't waste your time worrying about patent infringement. You're probably violating a patent every time you tie your shoelaces. At the start, at least, just worry about making something great and getting lots of users. If you grow to the point where anyone considers you worth attacking, you're doing well._ " <http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm the guy behind PRManna who got the C&D from HARO. If anyone is interested in this whole debacle, I posted about it Friday on HN:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1154159></comment>


Tesla 'autopilot' car hits Phoenix police motorcycle - <AUTHOR> http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/03/27/tesla-self-driving-car-hits-phoenix-police-motorcycle-second-accident-involving-automated-vehicles-days/99710786/ <comment><USER2> Flaaging this because of the "you're today's lucky gift card winner" pop-up on my iPad.</comment>


$35B startup Stripe considers move out of San Francisco - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/35-billion-startup-Stripe-considers-move-out-of-14453688.php <comment><USER2> The huge advantage of working in Downtown SF is that it opens up the option of living in East Bay while keeping a reasonable commute.

<comment><USER3> The huge advantage of moving anywhere else is that it opens up the option of living in considerably nicer places while keeping a reasonable commute.

<comment><USER2> Where are these nicer places in the Bay Area? Living on the Peninsula would seem to mean losing all the walkable urban amenities and having to drive everywhere.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon spins off Kindle Fire products into separate company called Seesaw - <AUTHOR> http://fusible.com/2011/10/amazon-spins-off-kindle-fire-products-into-separate-company-called-seesaw/ <comment><USER2> A spinout is an absurd and nonsensical level of speculation from the mere fact that Amazon filed some trademark registrations via a separate LLC.

Amazon is already a maze of separate entities for tax purposes, for example to tap-dance around 'nexus' standards for assessing sales tax.

Much more simple (and thus more likely) explanations for this 'Seesaw LLC' registration entity are thus:

(1) this allowed them to obscure the filing (especially as of the earlier, foreign, 'priority date') from people searching for Amazon registrations

(2) it allows some tax advantages from cross-entity IP licensing

I'd go with (1); clicking through to the registrations shows the marks first registered in Tonga ('Fire' in May 2011; 'Silk' a few days before the public announcement). I believe I've heard of Apple using a similar tactic to acquire registered trademarks without tipping off outsiders.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. Literally ridiculous "journalism".

</comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady More than likely the trademarks are being registered by a holding company. It's unlikely that Amazon would spin the product to a separate entity. Most big tech companies register domains and trademarks under holding companies to protect the product identity before launch.

</comment><comment><USER4> Could this have something to do with protecting the rest of Amazon's corporate structure (AWS, Amazon.com, etc.) from patent liability?

<comment><USER5> Very unlikely. You can be sued for selling an infringing product even if you didn't create it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how this will differ from Lab126, which was the subsidiary that developed the E-ink Kindle. Their web site features the Kindle Fire, too. <http:///www.lab126.com></comment>


An electric crate motor you can drop into your car - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/finally-an-electric-crate-motor-you-can-drop-into-your-1839168140 <comment><USER3> One thing to bear in mind when that converting ice vehicles to electric is that they are constructed with a vertical firewall between engine and driver with lots of protection around location of fuel tanks and fuel lines. EV's are typically designed with a horizontal fire wall to protect the occupants from the batteries beneath them, which become unstable in a violent impact and often burn repeatedly. The centre of gravity in an ICE vehicle is very different to an EV. It is therefore arguably better to build some sort of EV kit car with a crate motor than to attempt to convert an ICE monocoque imo

<comment><USER4> How is that any different than adding a fuel cell to an ice which has similar constraints? Couldn't an aftermarket battery pack be made that has all the requisite fire protection built into the case (again, similar to fuel cells)?

<comment><USER5> Or have a battery that's shaped like a fuel tank? Maybe you won't get the same range as battery all over but it's prob enough for most people?

<comment><USER6> I suspect the aversion to a more blocky shape (higher volume/surface-area ratio), has to do with heat dissipation, which if I recall correctly, improves with surface-area.

EDIT: hence the flatter/thinner batteries we see in EVs.

<comment><USER7> That actually mostly doesn't matter for most batteries. Most EV batteries are actively cooled/heated with fluid moving inside. So the heat dissipation occurs in the radiator for the battery, not at the surface of the battery. We see flat batteries because sticking the battery at the bottom of the car helps with weight distribution and handling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If it were possible to convert an old econo-box compact car to electric for a reasonable price with roughly the same sort of effort and knowledge as it takes to do an engine swap (which I can and have done several times) I'd do it.

I don't care about range beyond what it takes for me to get from home to work and back again, with the occasional stop at a super market and I don't care about performance beyond what it takes to properly merge into traffic like competent driver.

On the occasion that find myself in need of some other sort of car for some special purpose I can rent something appropriate for that.

<comment><USER9> The difference between this and a typical engine swap is that the car was never intended to be run this way. Are you planning on putting the batteries where the gas tank was? Will they fit? Will this have an adverse impact on vehicle dynamics? How are you going to manage charging these things? What happens if the battery pack ruptures? Is safety even a concern? Do you want regenerative braking? What sort of range is required? Does the fuel gauge show battery life or is it now useless? What about oil level gauge? Any other internal electronics? How are you going to drive an A/C compressor or is this no longer a concern either? Hydraulic/vacuum assist steering/brakes?

There are new problems to solve with this approach. It's certainly not going to be a straightforward process compared to a factory engine swap. There will probably be some body work involved. You will probably have to fabricate completely custom parts to get certain things to work together.

I don't see this as a reasonable solution for existing gasoline powered cars. It seems it's a much safer/cheaper/simpler/reliable option to purchase a vehicle designed from the ground up for an electric drivetrain and all of the nuances that go along with that.

<comment><USER10> > Are you planning on putting the batteries where the gas tank was? Will they > fit?

No, batteries are larger. People tend to use the trunks for batteries, or convert pickups and put them in the beds.

> Will this have an adverse impact on vehicle dynamics?

It can, which most people deal with by placing the batteries carefully to maintain the same balance as before.

> How are you going to manage charging these things?

Most people put the charging plug where the gas cap was.

> What happens if the battery pack ruptures? Is safety even a concern?

Same as if your engine explodes. Safety is a concern in any car. Problems can happen in any car. Most DIY EVs put a cutoff switch, or even a main line you can literally cut right next to the driver as a final safety net in case of extreme emergencies. Better to kill the car than a person.

Does the fuel gauge show battery life or is it now useless?

Most people replace the gauges with new ones more applicable to the new information they'll need.

I know you had other questions, but it has been 10 years since I dabbling this space, and I don't remember every detail. But yes, there absolutely are new problems to solve. And people have been solving them for 20+ years now. There are books written on it, so if you truly want to know the answers, go read some of the books. Most of your questions either have easy answers, or are just a matter of making a choice between a few options.

The hard part is not putting together a working EV system. Most people's hardest task was mounting the motor to their transmission, because it often meant a custom designed, and custom machined mounting plate.

So again, you are correct that it is more than an engine swap, but not to the scale you are describing.

<comment><USER11> Funny how many folks wondering where to put the batteries, trunk seems so obvious after you hear it :)

 _Most people 's hardest task was mounting the motor to their transmission_

Seems like this product is trying to solve that problem. Sounds like a big upgrade from what is currently available to people interested in these type of projects.

<comment><USER12> except of course most trunks have load limits which batteries can quickly exceed.

I find it disappointing how quick they are to dismiss issues with ruptured batteries by falling back on "well gas explodes" not acknowledging the issue of environmental and personal danger batteries create that require special handling

sure you can cram batteries here and there but the reason for the skate board layout companies have adopted that is to have management of weight, ease of manufacturing, sufficient space for range needs, and more.

<comment><USER13> So "gas explodes" doesn't carry its own environmental issue and personal danger too ?

<comment><USER9> Gasoline has a whole host of issues, but as far as I know there have been zero recorded cases of a modern gasoline tank spontaneously exploding while the car is sitting undisturbed in a parking lot. The advantages gasoline has here is that it ultimately requires tons of oxygen with a consistent fuel-air mixture in order to combust reliably. Burning gasoline in the open is not nearly as energetic as the process which occurs in a gasoline engine under ideal operating conditions (which are controlled meticulously by a computer for most cars), so even in an accident which results in a fuel leak+fire, you usually have a bit of time to get away from the car before it turns into a complete inferno. Obviously, there are exceptions to this, but it seems to be in a majority of cases the driver/passengers can get out in time.

Battery packs do not have the same 'problem'. They have all aspects of their chemical energy available nearly immediately, and can go from zero to 'you are dead' in just a matter of seconds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This reminds me of a Latin American startup, Exponential Motors [0], which developed a hybrid conversion kit. Not fully EV, but it can help to reduce fuel costs and CO2 emissions, and is not much more expensive than fitting a compressed natural gas tank to a car (a common practice at least in Argentina).

[0] [http://exponentialmotors.com/](http://exponentialmotors.com/)

<comment><USER15> The gas tank adapation is also common practice in Brazil, especially in taxis and ride sharing cars.

<comment><USER16> It's also common in Bolivia, and for personal vehicles as well.

The reason we don't have it in the US, from what I've heard, is because it doesn't meet our safety standards.

<comment><USER17> > The reason we don't have it in the US, from what I've heard, is because it > doesn't meet our safety standards.

These are decently common in Europe so it's relatively doubtful that there are significant safety concerns.

<comment><USER16> In Bolivia you have to get out of the car while fueling, because there's a nonzero chance the car will explode. We're a little too stringent about that sort of thing in the US.

<comment><USER18> Including passengers?

<comment><USER16> Especially the passengers. They have buses running on natural gas, and when they need to fill up everyone piles out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Fresh on the heels of this announcement from VW: [https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20851784/vw-beetle- electri...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20851784/vw-beetle-electric- conversion-frankfurt-motor-show)

<comment><USER10> VWs were the first popular cars for EV conversions. You've been able to buy conversion kits for them for well over a decade. The fact that this one may be coming directly from VW is interesting, but this isn't really a game changer in this niche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> While sticking a 110hp electric motor into a car might have some appeal, I am FAR more interested in putting it in a small plane. A Rotax 912 is roughly the same horsepower and a few pounds heavier. Using this electric motor as a replacement for that for short joyrides around the patch has real potential in the experimental / homebuilt crowd.

With the standard caveats of batteries and weight issues.

<comment><USER21> The energy density of batteries isn't close to good enough. Small personal aircraft have a _very_ narrow weight allowance - and do remember the FAA mandates a minimum of 30 minutes of reserve fuel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am surprised more mechanics aren't developing conversion kits for their customers. It would be a good way to deal with the impending decline of ICE maintenance requirements.

Plus you'd think it would really scratch the gear head itches a lot of mechanics have.

It would create demand for car bodies that were well built and easily serviceable. I guess I just wish things were very modular.

<comment><USER23> Because most mechanics aren't also EEs? I would sooner expect a third party parts manufacturer to start developing them than a mechanic.

<comment><USER24> Mechanics are naturally curious, they figure stuff out through experimentation. One of the characters in the Electric Koolaid Acid Test, was Hassler. He kept the magic bus going. Or the NZ guy who set a land speed record on a homebuilt motorcycle. Or just about every NASCAR team in the '60's. Motoring is full of characters like these, not formally schooled, but schooled in practice. You don't need an EE, ME or any schooling at all, you need a willingness to bust knuckles, take things apart put them back again, take them apart, modify them and put them again over and over.

<comment><USER25> You're mainly talking about the "old school" mechanics, not the more prevalent ones today who are mostly in it for the money and barely know anything beyond what their certification courses taught them.

<comment><USER22> This seems like a broad generalization.

<comment><USER25> It's true, good mechanics are hard to find.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Crate engines are a neat concept I only learned about recently. Suppose you bought some awesome old car from 70s and its engine was on the way out. What if you don't want to risk a junkyard buy? You get a crate engine, that's what.

Straight from the factory, ready to drop in a 50 year-old vehicle, and infinitely better made than they were back in the day. GM alone has dozens of engines available. They're not cheap--$8,000-$10,0000 isn't unusual--but what a cool option for a real enthusiast.

<comment><USER27> As long as you're custom building a car, Chevy sells the Corvette's engine[1] in a crate for $20k. Might also need to upgrade the transmission on a 50-year old car to handle it, but it's totally an option!

[1][https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate- engines/ls9](https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines/ls9)

<comment><USER28> They also have the "Connect and Cruise" option that includes a transmission and a warranty. The E-Rod versions have a longer warranty and are CARB approved.

[https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/connect-cruise- powertr...](https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/connect-cruise-powertrain- systems)

My method was to get a low mileage drive train from a recent Camaro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My daily driver is a 2009 Citroën C1 ev'ie. Converted by a company in Denmark with a conversion kit from a company in England. Sold to a car rental company and then I purchased it when they sold it at an auction. It's pretty interesting, fun to drive. Would recommend a conversion for people able to get their hands on it. I like it so much more than an ICE.

</comment><comment><USER30> This highlights the commoditization of parts that will be part of EV market changes as well as the plug and play nature of EV assemblies. Massive changes to the current ways we build and maintain vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER31> _> It weighs only around 154 pounds and makes around 110 horsepower—a pretty decent number considering how compact this thing is, and that includes everything: motor, single-speed transmission, cooling system, and power inverter._

Yeah, includes everything. Except, you know, for the battery.

It's pretty amusing how little attention the article gives for the actual batteries. The fact that you can easily swap out the engine will do so much when you still need to figure out where to cram an array of batteries smartly and safely.

<comment><USER32> since you remove the fuel tank, the gearbox and the engine there are nice chunks of space. Someone should start working on modular battery packs that could be assembled to fit current space.

<comment><USER31> I don't think the fuel tank and gearbox in my car take up that much space when compared to the batteries in a Leaf or a Tesla. And you still need to put this where the engine used to go, so it's really a limited amount of space there as well.

Just for reference, this is the fuel tank in my car: [https://traversparts.com/download/normal/246883_1.jpeg](https://traversparts.com/download/normal/246883_1.jpeg)

And this illustrates where the batteries in a Leaf are: [https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/nissan-leaf- bat...](https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/news/nissan-leaf-batteries-to- power-brazilian-homes-127747_1.jpg)

<comment><USER33> The Leaf is more of a golf cart with a compact car shell around it. Range is only 60-miles or so. You should be able to get that with a gas-tank sized battery pack in any compact car.

<comment><USER34> The leaf has 150-226 miles of range depending on the battery option. Even the first generation nearly a decade ago had more than 60.

<comment><USER35> I've heard that cold weather combined with high speeds and a very degraded battery and running the heater can leave some of them with an effective range around 60 to 80 miles.

<comment><USER36> You don't even need to have high speeds or heater usage. 1st gen Leaf's have 60mi range pretty consistently just because of how small the battery was, and how degraded they are.

In general the Leaf seems to be a bad buy, IMO, just because they do not have any liquid cooling. I don't know why they think they can get away with it... but literally every other EV manufacturer decided liquid cooling/heating is necessary for operating... but not Nissan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is cool but where do you put the battery?

<comment><USER38> Gas tank, trunk, engine bay, under rear seats, etc.

Important to consider:

* They don't all need to go in one spot. You can spread them around

* You don't need to use that many. These are classic cars that are likely trailered to go any distance anyhow. 80 miles of range to cruise around town is often more than enough.

<comment><USER39> Also worth considering: many of these classic cars are underpowered (especially after a few decades of wear & tear), have terrible handling, and not that much range to begin with. The EV conversion can address all of this. Apparently the art is in not overdoing it on this front and preserving the original character of the car. The best conversions are fully reversible if the owner chooses so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Batteries unfortunately are expensive and heavy and hard to find space for in a car designed for an ICE.

So what I have been idly dreaming of is taking a classic car and making a very simple hybrid - use an electric motor like this, the smallest battery and gas engine possible, and only connect the motor and gas engine to the battery, not to each other, but only have enough battery to buffer acceleration needs.

Mileage wouldn't be fantastic, but you'd have electric torque and smoothness, and the gas engine could run at one constant speed as a generator.

<comment><USER18> Why you would need a constant speed engine, though? Railway engines do fine with variable speed industrial specification prime movers. Constant speed ratings are 30% lower than automotive grade ratings, too.

<comment><USER40> I meant that loosely, just that without a big R&D budget, the programming would need a KISS approach. Maybe even use an off the shelf generator.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> About eight years ago there was a flash in the pan company that was claiming to be in late development stages on a drop in replacement for the alternator. Combine with a small supercap bank, it was intended to turn any car into a mild hybrid.

What I can't remember now is whether it simply stopped drawing power when you were accelerating, or if it actually ran as a dynamo when the throttle was open.

They kept posting updates for a while but I think they must've figured out that reliability was a much bigger issue than they initially thought.

<comment><USER42> Mazda has productionalized it and is shipping it in cars today: [https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-eloop/](https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-eloop/)

<comment><USER41> Yeah I think GM called them BAS or some such. I brought it up not for existing, but for being a retrofit kit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> From the manufacturer site:

[https://swindonpowertrain.com/uk/news.aspx](https://swindonpowertrain.com/uk/news.aspx)

>So compact is the 70kg HPD EV powertrain - 600mm wide by 440mm deep by as little as 280mm tall, that the motor, inverter, single-speed transmission and cooling system assembly fits under the bonnet of a classic Mini, in a quad bike _or under the loading platform of a light commercial vehicle_

I can see an utility of a (relatively) low cost version of something like this for a large part of services (think of repairmen/electricians/plumbers/small couriers) that could maybe make their vans "hybrid" without replacing them, and even if they wouldn't have that much of autonomy, it could be enough to allow for entering city centres on electric (at the cost of some reduced carrying load, lost to the batteries) and do the delivery/whatever without polluting there.

At least here (Italy/Europe) a lot of cities have pollution issues that they try to resolve by limiting traffic to vehicles older than a given Euro level or even entirely prohibiting ICE vehicles circulation.

That is a problem for a large number of small activities that cannot afford to buy (besides their current ICE one) another electric van for the city.

</comment><comment><USER44> It hooks to the driveshaft, so you get rid of the transmission. That's a win. Fewer problems, and more space for batteries.

YC has a company in this space: "Open Motors"[1] They sell a "sled" on which you can put kit car bodies.

[1] [https://www.openmotors.co/product/tabby- evo/](https://www.openmotors.co/product/tabby-evo/)

</comment><comment><USER45> Chevrolet is also preparing an EV crate motor alternative to the venerable small block chevy.

[https://insideevs.com/news/340975/chevy-camaro-ecopo-and- ele...](https://insideevs.com/news/340975/chevy-camaro-ecopo-and-electric- crate-motor-detailed-in-interview/)

</comment><comment><USER46> [http://londonelectriccars.com/](http://londonelectriccars.com/)

<comment><USER47> [https://www.voltimer.de/](https://www.voltimer.de/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> This sounds great for a small 4 cylinder vehicle - until you start thinking about most cars today only have power steering so a manual steering box isn't available. Then you need a 12V battery to operate most of the lights, speedometer, radio, etc. What do you charge this with? If you do a step down transformer there's more of your range eaten up. Then there's other power stuff: seats, wonders, wipers and roofs. More range bye-bye. Sounds like you would still need some other power source to make all of the modern creature comforts in a standard ICE powered vehicle operate.

</comment><comment><USER49> Neat. But still going to require a bunch of custom machining to adapt to the existing drivetrain and engine mount, and will need a custom box for battery, designed around the car chassis; plus DC-DC converter, charger, and computer systems.

</comment><comment><USER50> I love it, I was wondering when someone would come along with something like this. It looks like it's pretty well thought out. I am imagining a 356 speedster kit with one of these in it would be a ton of fun!

<comment><USER24> It exists, EV West has kits for 356s and 911s

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> It seems like the cost of a kit including batteries would cost more than most of the frames youd build on..

If it were affordable, I could see standard kits for popular car models - <USER2> the Civic or the F150. Imagine an f150 with 6 inches of battery across the original flatbed and a new bed built on top.

But it isn't.

In hindsight, this is probably most useful for antique show-only restorations, where the restored car doesn't need a battery range of more than like 20km since it is just going to drive from the trailer to the show and back and maybe around the area a few times.

</comment><comment><USER52> That's small and light enough to conceivably do 1 motor per wheel on off larger off-road vehicles. That controllable torque might give some advantages for crawling.

<comment><USER53> Keep in mind that lots of unsprung weight is not a good thing. Causes lots of issues with wheel control in acceleration and braking.

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

<comment><USER54> Would a motor be unsprung weight if not connected to the suspension? By reading that wiki, it looks like unsprung weight is basically wheels, tires, suspension directly supporting those things. The parent comment seems to be referring to putting two engines in the front, and two in the trunk, not necessarily above the tires (if that's even possible?).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> 110 HP upgrade to my MG Midget (about 65 HP for the 1275) would be almost a waste. That said, I like the idea of this upgrade.

<comment><USER41> It'd be just about right in a TR6 or a GT6 though. If your MG body is solid you might be able to get away with it but if it's rusty, that torque could be bad.

There's plenty of room under the hood of a spitfire for a bigger engine but I'd heard you have to upgrade the half shafts if you do as they're the weak point. That and maybe weld some plates into the hourglass section of the frame. But they were around 100hp already.

The monobody on the MG might be okay if it's not full of holes...

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> But where do the batteries go? If you replace the fuel tank with heavy batteries you're going to have terrible handling.

</comment><comment><USER57> _The drivetrain includes multiple mounting points and it's designed to be flexible enough to be mounted by either axle of the car, front or rear._

That should be "... mounted by BOTH axles of the car, front AND rear."

Why should only Teslas have Ludicrous Mode?

</comment><comment><USER58> _It weighs only around 154 pounds and makes around 110 horsepower—a pretty decent number considering how compact this thing is, and that includes everything: motor, single-speed transmission, cooling system, and power inverter._

</comment><comment><USER59> For those who, like me, are wondering what a crate engine is:

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

<comment><USER60> They're hugely popular amongst auto enthusiasts. Not only do "race shops" sell crate engines, but most OEM's sell them too. For example, here are Chevy's offerings. [https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate- engines](https://www.chevrolet.com/performance/crate-engines)

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> This would be interesting to swap out on a small farm tractor. Dont need much horsepower and the tractor frame is a beast. In fact you normally add counterweights in areas when doing heavy work

<comment><USER62> At first this didn't land for me but i have a 35 hp compact tractor that i can work hard for hours on five gallons of diesel. Plus the pack weight would help with traction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Hey that's a first... a motor that is actually a motor.

</comment><comment><USER64> Motor is the easy cheap part. Batteries is where its at.

> it's essentially the same drivetrain used in their EV-converted classic > Mini, so if it fits under a Mini's hood, it should fit almost anywhere.

Author doesnt realize you can fit Honda B16B in the classic Mini [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ8RLM8eWRU&list=PLp0KnUFYB-...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ8RLM8eWRU&list=PLp0KnUFYB --g4RJ0SomuWRqckXHCYkabS&index=13)

</comment><comment><USER65> This is awesome. I want something 350hp+ I can drop into a truck. Compact cars cause back problems for the very tall among us.

<comment><USER66> Same. I drive a truck just because I'm too tall for most cars, and even those that do fit hurt my knees to get in and out of(ride height). I don't even need such horsepower, just give me some old dog like the straight 6 f100 and I'll be set. I just hope they don't cost 75k or more like most of the 'more luxury' full sizes today...

<comment><USER67> How come nobody in Europe is so tall that they have to drive a truck instead?

<comment><USER68> Europeans don't mind being crammed into tiny apartments either.

<comment><USER31> European point of view is that Americans are just wallowing in huge excess.

<comment><USER49> I heard an interview the other day with the president/CEO of a major northeastern ski hill. He said they have had to re-adjust their charlifts over time because of the increasing weight of North Americans. Average weight going up meant having to remove chairs etc. in order to balance them and keep them to safety spec.

Truly a gluttinous civilization. Growing up I never heard anybody complain about the size of their sedans (which were always bigger than the European median anyways.) But trucks and SUVs have taken over the market here. I'm sure most of it is marketing (you _deserve_ all this power and space, and why would you want to be _below_ all the other deserving people on the road?) but I guess some of it is comfort for larger framed bodies these days.

Personally I've never enjoyed driving a truck, and don't own one despite growing up rural and now living on a hobby farm.

<comment><USER69> Let me guess: you drive a Subaru?

<comment><USER49> Guess again?

<comment><USER70> Prius plastered in the kind of bumper stickers that would make a sociology professor blush?

Volvo wagon because your hobby farm is economically successful?

I can go on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> _" I suspect you could use two in one car for all-wheel drive and more power"_

Sure, I imagine that's super simple.

</comment><comment><USER72> That's awesome! Awaiting further news while I dream about what kind of vehicle to drop it in.

</comment><comment><USER73> Price will be the deciding factor, but none disclosed in the article.

<comment><USER49> Price of motor, controller, and inverter is not the majority of the cost of an EV conversion.

Battery modules are. Hence why so many people use salvage Teslas, Volts, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Looks like it replaces the rear diff. So not a drop-in replacement.

<comment> kube-system It's a drop-in for vehicles with transverse engine configurations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> No price listed yet, and only 110 HP. It's hard to find a car with only 110 HP today (at least in the USA). I know that electric motors have instant torque, but once you pass 30 mph, that low HP will really start to be a drag.

</comment><comment><USER76> This was the scam at the start of the digital camera boom: a consumer back you could dock onto your camera (I know there are some medium format replacement digital backs, but the consumer replacement was a joke).

</comment><comment><USER77> I wonder if they could make a 65hp variant.

<comment><USER78> The issue with lower horsepower motors is that regenerative braking is not as effective. For the most part, regenerative braking can only absorb as much torque as it can put out, and anything above this has to fall back to the traditional brake system (or some other system).

I've been pricing out how to perform EV conversions as cheaply as possible. Battery capacity is by far the most costly section, and having a smaller horsepower motor isn't going to change how much power it draws (assuming driving habits stay the same). I've been basing my calculations off a 40HP motor and here are some preliminary numbers you might find interesting

On a typical car, a 200 mile radius will require around 44.4kWh of capacity (at around 45MPH, no stops). This is the capacity of 3483 3.4Ah 18650 cells, costing around $13.6k (you can bring that price down if you have some connections and more supply, but that's the cheapest rate I could find for a non-business). 100 mile range is also pretty reasonable. The motor and all other components cost less than $1.5k, man hours required for conversion is another main question, but hopefully that becomes more streamlined over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Batteries?

</comment><comment><USER80> great now i just need a mechanic who will do the entire conversion

</comment><comment><USER81> Super inefficient. Need to do cleansheet electric car design like Tesla.

<comment><USER70> That's not the point. The point is to have a second option for "engines you can drop into classic cars with nothing more than a credit card" (the first option being an LS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> I stopped reading because the ads are obnoxious

<comment><USER33> Wonderful! I'm happy for you.

But what does this have to do with electric crate motors that can be retrofitted into gas cars?

<comment><USER83> fortran sucks

<comment><USER84> I don't have the correct screwdriver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> This needs to come with an crate battery that you can also drop into your car, as well as a wiring harness to hook up the pedals, ignition, telemetry, and so on and so forth. Without all that you can't really "drop it into your car".</comment>


Ask HN: Allowance for "for fun" post and comments? - <AUTHOR> Recently, there was post on HN [0] about SETI being baffled by a signal from the stars. While there were serious comments, there were also some comical discussions [1] as well, just having some fun. I think that these frivolous comments are frown upon here as these comments were either flagged or downvoted.<p>My suggestion is to allow one fun post that allows for humour and fun to be posted as well. What do you think?<p>[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12388228<p>[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12389594 <comment><USER2> I think HN should probably stay the course. The current guidelines attract interesting and insightful comments and thought provoking stories. You can teach things through humor and not every academic discussion has to be dry. So why not add humor to something insightful? Because that raises the bar and I think that's what we want. If we just add humor/fun posts, we've just lowered the bar and then invite low effort posts and comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you are right. Insightful humour is very difficult to produce, especially if it should be with technical focus to it.

I guess that's why Dilbert or xkcd works well with the HN crowd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I can find thoughtless humor anywhere. I like HN because the comments tend to be more "meat & potatoes" and less "cotton candy". The ratio has definitely gotten worse over time, and I wish moderators would detach and sink the Twitter-style one-liners.</comment>


Toshiba to make quad-core Android 4.0 tablets in 7, 10, and 13 inch sizes - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/04/toshiba-to-launch-a-line-of-quad-core-android-40-tablets.ars <comment><USER2> Its shocking how effectively Apple is able to move the eight-ball on companies like Toshiba. "We have lots of cores!" "Available in any screen size!"

Hey Toshiba: no one cares about those specs right now - Apple shifted the conversation for the majority of the tablet market to screen res, where they have an essentially unassailable competitive advantage for quite some time. And, Toshiba missed the boat, which makes their claims for cores and screen sizes seem flat and mis-timed.

Note: I have an awesome toshiba laptop that I carted around the world for me in 2008, which is still going strong. Added a hybrid ssd/platter drive to perk up win7 performance, and its still my daily driver. Toshiba makes great products, they're just eating Apple's dust, like everyone else.

<comment><USER3> * "We have lots of cores!" "Available in any screen size!" Hey Toshiba: no one cares about those specs right now*

We're talking about the Apple that is trialing a 7" tablet, right? The one that talked up "4 cores" at the 3rd generation unveiling? Same Apple?

There are millions and millions of non-Apple tablets being sold. This seems like a laughably tiny number compared to the incredible success Apple has yielded, but in consumer electronics it is substantial. It is bloody sad, however, that every time someone tries to make a product this whole clucking "nah nah Apple is better" nonsense gets carted out.

Keep on keeping on Toshiba, and samsung, and LG, and...

<comment><USER2> You've managed to nail my point exactly in your pugnacious response. A year from now, when Toshiba, Dell, and everyone else have pivoted and are talking up even better screen resolution, Apple's going to move the eight-ball again: maybe to 7 inch tablets, maybe to cores, nobody knows but Tim & Jon.

Did you even read my post? I don't think Apple is "better" - I think they're great at wagging the dog, the dog being us consumers.

<comment><USER4> I believe it's only a matter of time before tablets become commoditized like the smartphone market is doing right now. Amazon is working hard on that.

Some will still care for the Apple brand and whatever quality advantage it has but in the end Apple won't be forever selling 5 times what it's competitors are selling.

You don't have to be the best at this point, just managed to sell enough to make some money per run.

<comment><USER5> > I believe it's only a matter of time before tablets become commoditized like > the smartphone market is doing right now.

Why wouldn't tablets be more like, say, the iPod than the iPhone? The phone market is significantly warped by carriers. When people's contract are up, they walk into their carrier store and ask the salesperson what phone to buy. Articles about the Lumia 900 launch indicate AT&T is planning to push it as their primary high-end phone[1]. In this regard Apple does not control their sales channel as they do with all of their other products. This is significant, as recent data show that the vast majority of iPhone buyers purchased their device at the carrier's store[2].

The only real vulnerability Apple has in tablets right now is price, but I think the chances they'll leave a price umbrella where people can continue to swoop in at $199 and undercut the iPad is very small. I expect their pricing to play out like the iPod, where eventually there was a model at every price point from $50 to like $400 at $50 increments. They've also done this with the iPhone, where what started out as either a $500 or $600 phone is now sold for $300, $200, $100, or $0.

If the quality of competing tablets does not improve significantly, there is nothing at all inevitable about the tablet market playing out like the phone market.

1: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/att-going-big-with- lumia-90...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/att-going-big-with- lumia-900-advertising-could-spend-as-much-as-150-million/)

2: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apple- only...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apple-only- sells-2percent-more-iphones-than-best-buy/2012/03/23/gIQAIvEoWS_print.html)

<comment><USER3> _The phone market is significantly warped by carriers. When people's contract are up, they walk into their carrier store and ask the salesperson what phone to buy._

The phone market is indeed significantly warped by _subsidies_ from the carriers. If carrier subsidies didn't exist (if people didn't fall for it being subsumed into the cost of plans) the iPhone market would never have taken off (Ballmer in his original dismissal of the iPhone was actually right -- people won't pay $600 for a phone. They will, however, pay $149 and pay the rest over the contract period while acting blind to it). Those value options would decimate it.

Aside from that whole "carriers against Apple" bit ( _completely_ opposite of reality), the tablet market already is playing out like the smartphone industry. With each successive quarter Apple's share drops (while their volume increases just as in smartphones). They once had it in the bag, and now account for about 1/2 of tablets, heading ever downwards.

<comment><USER6> Except that the original iPhone launch was gangbusters, and it _did_ cost $600. But Apple had the advantage of absolute novelty and a dose of fanboysim back then. So Ballmer was right in general about the phone market, but he was oh so wrong about the iPhone launch in particular. Apple just needed to pivot to a carrier-subsidized model once the initial enthusiasm wave receeded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 7" is a great form factor.

I have a cheap 7" Android tablet (along with a 10.1" Transformer, and iPad2, a Galaxy S, and iPhone 4 and and iPod Touch..), and I love the size.

It's _slightly_ heavy for me to use comfortably as an ebook, though. I've tried the Samsung 7", and that thing seems fantastic - roughly as light as my ebook reader, but _so_ thin.

Toshiba as a tablet manufacture.. meh. I'm not impressed with what I've seen so far, but I guess they might get there.

I'm not sure about 13", but I'm sure for the _I'm a basketball coach with big hands and 10" is too small for me_ market it will be a big hit.

</comment><comment><USER8> To me, this seems akin to Gillette's ads. "Now with 20 blades!!!" 1 core is good enough for most and 2 cores is good enough for anyone with a tablet. Maybe later, _after_ all the usability and product design issues are solved and mobile software can properly make use of multiple cores, this change would be justified.

Edit: This points towards a more global trend I keep seeing with product companies (with apple as the poster child) focusing on a single product with minor variations in the product line and iterating that, versus hardware companies coming up with 6 new tablets every year with model names like tsb- vtbl-32blk. Guess which one generates more of a user following.

<comment><USER9> The point of cramming lots of cores into mobile devices is apparently to reduce battery drain, not to gain processing power. This might or might not be new to you, but to me, short battery life is still an inconvenience :)

(Random corroborating source: [http://www.tested.com/news/news/articles/1483-more-cores- mea...](http://www.tested.com/news/news/articles/1483-more-cores-mean-more- battery-for-your-next-smart-phone/2/) )

<comment><USER10> This makes no sense to me. More cores means more processing throughput. Design advances lead to reduced power consumption. Both are happening at the same time, which is the only reason there might be any correlation.

<comment><USER11> Well - when you can turn all but one of the cores off (or down to extremely low power consumption), and/or when you have asymmetric cores where the one core that runs alone most of the time (when the device is sitting there, waiting for user input) is an extreme low power one, then yes, more cores mean stingy power use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> These guys can't make a "better" tablet than the iPad no matter how many cores they put in it. Take a hint from the HP touchpad sellout.

We don't need another me-too ipad. We don't need 4 cores. We need capacitive multi-touch tablets that don't completely suck for less than $200.

If they're not planning on delivering that, they should just save their research dollars until they can. I need _another_ not quite as good as iPad for the same price as iPad choice like a broken leg.

</comment><comment><USER13> "the Excite 7.7 will start at $499.99"

Wasn't Asus going to launch a 7 inch tablet with Tegra3 for $250?

If that's the case Toshiba is borked, big time.

<comment><USER14> Borked in a big way. You can't sell an inferior tablet for the same price as an iPad. The ones who are succeeding against Apple (like Amazon) are effectively competing on price.</comment></comment>