Evernote Hello - <AUTHOR> http://www.evernote.com/hello/

<comment><USER2> I've been a diehard Evernote user for a long time, but making it useful required developing my own complicated system "built on" Evernote. To me, Evernote is a platform, rather than a product or system. I don't find it very useful out of the box, and I feel like they have a fairly myopic vision.

So it didn't surprise me that the product demo video demonstrated a shocking lack of understanding of customer problems and behavior. Okay, everyone's first red flag is surely the idea of taking pictures of faces, so let's pass right over that one. Now, are they really juxtaposing their contact list manager with a rolodex instead of Apple's Contacts app? While showing their app on an iPhone? I know you can import people from your address book, but this is just... a bizarre demo.

Anyway, no one has a problem with how to keep notes on their contacts or remember who they are. People have a problem with not bothering to keep notes on their contacts or remember who they are. The obvious (only?) solution is to automatically "add encounters" when they occur.

I haven't tried norada.com yet, but I've been scoping it out because it seems like using it requires no new behavior (it just goes right into Gmail in Chrome). Any norada users care to comment?

The way I WANT contact management to work is that when I email or call someone for the first time, it starts a case for them, and slowly grows that over time.

Final note, from the appstore reviews of Evernote Hello, another big red flag demonstrating myopia:

"Be aware that this app sends a message (without any warning or chance to review) to people when you add them to the contacts list. In my case it was a little embarrassing to tell my clients that I was trying a new app and didn't know it would send them an email without my knowledge."

<comment><USER3> Check out contactually.com, it just connects to your gmail account and tracks who you contact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think that there's definitely room for an app that helps you remember people, but this is not it. First of all, photographing people to save them in your phone is just plain weird. At least in my circles, it is not socially acceptable to acquisitively photograph people and add them to your own personal database. I think many people would react with, "Is this because you don't think you'll remember me?"

Secondly, "Add an encounter" is too involved.

</comment><comment><USER5> Am I the only one who see's the whole "meet someone, and fill out a profile (or have them fill out a profile)" to be a major source of friction?

<comment><USER6> That was my first thought. Does the iPhone support something like near field communication?

<comment><USER7> The 4S doesn't have NFC but speculators assume the iPhone 5 will.

<comment><USER8> I don't know about that, I can't see Apple wanting NFC to succeed. If they do they will need to already have some killer apps that use it, and have big deals in place with stores. Apple is incredibly secretive, but that'd be hard to prevent from getting out.

<comment><USER9> Are you suggesting that Apple would ignore a whole technology because it's hard to keep the fact they're working on it secret? Surely you're joking.

<comment><USER10> No, square wheel is saying _if_ apple were adding NFC to the iPhone 5, they'd have major apps prepared to use it, and be partnering with retail stores. He or she suggests that those are so big that despite Apple's secrecy, stories would come out. But because they haven't, Apple is unlikely to be adding NFC (Just paraphrasing--no opinion of my own here)

<comment><USER8> Yes, that's exactly what I meant. To do anything big with NFC would require cooperation with a lot of parties, and that would be hard to keep a secret.

This is purely speculation on my part of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Hand someone your phone" is a dealbreaker. Specially someone I want to remember - it means I don't know them already, ergo don't trust them with my phone.

<comment><USER12> Do you often request phone numbers from people who you believe will run off with your phone right in front of you? This seems more like a terrible inconvenience than a risk to your property.

<comment><USER11> Run off? No. Have them peek at my email? Maybe. Have them see a notification popup? Maybe. Have them accidentally lock phone and try to unlock it with wrong code? Maybe. I hand a phone to someone, get distracted and lose track of them for a few minutes? Maybe.

<comment><USER12> I suppose there isn't much you could do about that, aside from getting distracted, but that's stressful having to worry about it every time you hand your phone off to get a new contact. As another commenter suggested though, people do this already when getting people to enter in their own details. All in all, I think the idea of having to hand your phone off sucks regardless of possible privacy or theft issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I saw the video my first thought was: VC money. They have to show how they're spending it, and so Evernote is more likely to develop a product could be the "next big thing" but that feels completely wrong for people outside the "VC money bubble".

Can you imagine if I had to go to a client and ask him to take a picture of him, going to "photo booth-mode"?[^1] Or a potential client, met somewhere?

[^1]: The video says the go automatically to "photo booth-mode" so I wouldn't have to ask, but still…

</comment><comment><USER14> Can someone do a Captain Planet like feature.

All users hold their phones in one hand. Put their phone-holding hand in the middle. And then, all together, raise their hands at the same time. (Think awesome team building morale boost.)

You would get:

1\. The history of which elements were around you during such Captain Planet amazingness.

2\. The contact information for whoever possesses: Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and everyone's favorite... Heart.

3\. The location where Captain Planet should find you.

4\. A clear reminder you grew up in the 90s.

</comment><comment><USER15> First of all, this is silly and far more awkward than just exchanging business cards. I feel like they entirely forgot about business cards while developing this. Why would anyone want to enter in all their contact info over and over when they could just have their face and info printed on like 500 cards and hand you one of them?

That being said, I go to a lot of networking events and I have found that not bringing business cards is the best way to make connections - they often are forgotten or thrown out. What I do is I hand the person my phone and say send yourself an email. Then when you get it tomorrow, reply back and we can talk, maybe arrange to meet up later for drinks or something.

This strategy has been incredibly effective in maintaining the conversaton - usually they send an email with something about the event or what we were talking about and it provides context.

This comment isn't really going toward any great conclusion, really. I feel like they are on to something with the 'give them your phone' part, but doing it wrong by replicating a business card. And nobody wants to take a picture of themselves up close, that's just awkward.

<comment><USER16> I came here to say a version of this, so I'll just comment/expand on your post.

First, like you, I don't think business cards are the solution. Not only are they insanely wasteful, but the only way to "stand out" of the pile of business cards someone inevitably has at the end of an event, is by having the best or most clever design, which is of course all subjective anyway.

I too have started handing my phone over to people I meet who I actually want to engage with later, and usually this involves trading phones, so I can give them my information as well (it's more likely one of the two of us will actually follow up).

That said, it's almost always a different medium where we exchange information. It might be sending a text, adding to contacts, friending on Facebook (if we're really hitting it off), following on Twitter, or simply sending an email. By the end of the night I've initiated conversations in multiple places, and it becomes harder to follow up and remember who is who.

This is why I DO think the design of this application is actually pretty great. The idea of it all being centrally located, based on time/encounters, as well as showing faces, does make sense. The execution, and real-world use however, is where it falls short.

Like others in this thread, I also agree that having someone take a picture of themselves is potentially awkward (I'm sure some people would be perfectly happy to do this, but I'd personally feel odd about it).

The last problem is what kills Bump for me, and that's that it's rare that others have Bump as well. We both have to have the application for it to work, and because of that... I've deleted Bump (as have others). I suppose Evernote has half solved this here, but the trading part of the demo does face this problem.

What makes more sense to me is working with a service like Rapportive, and based on one piece of data, instantly pulling in everything I need to know about this person for future reference, as well as all of their networks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This app fails to do anything innovative in my opinion, as the fact that you have to hand your phone to a stranger and ask them to add their details illustrates. How is that better than just using the contacts app on your phone?

I think Cardflick is a much better solution. It is still not optimal, but definitely a better solution than Evernote's hello:

<http://cardflick.co/>

<comment><USER7> It would be cool if they implemented a QR style code that would work out as such:

1) I have evernote Hello and create my profile. You do the same on your device.

2) We meet and each snap a picture of our QR-like codes generated by the app.

3) Data is imported into our devices and we go on our merry way. It's like bump, but using a QR code.

Downsides: both of you would need the app, but if it saved a lot of typing a networking event I could see it being really popular. Why make someone type their details more than once?

<comment><USER18> Doesnt Bump basically do the same thing with the QR code?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm not sure how this is better than Bump at exchanging profiles/contact info.

<comment><USER20> bump requires that both people have the application, whereas this does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting concept. After spending the last week at Startup Riot and LessConf, intensely socializing with several hundred people, I'm not convinced this would have helped much. The one thing that stands out is taking a photo of the person, though I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable handing my phone to a stranger (nor would they).

I still hand business cards to people, but only after 2-3 minutes of conversation and only as a means to prevent having to spell my name and email/twitter in a crowded, noisy environment. I collect all of the cards I get and batch process them later, following folks on twitter, adding contacts, etc. This systems works much better for me and seems more efficient than typing into my phone.

</comment><comment><USER22> I actually use Evernote for this all the time: I have a note with a list of new acquaintances along with descriptions and how we know one another. Like:

      Becky: Friend of Kellie, works at UT. Likes chicken n' waffles.
      At Nau's: Omar is young. Lulu is young. Gilbert is older.

While this method is far from ideal, I don't see Evernote Hello replacing my list anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER23> It would seem inappropriate to ask people to take their pictures because you can't remember who they are. Can you actually do that to girl you met at a bar? Or a new client you just had a meeting with.

I have been collecting a lot of information on Evernote and I am also getting rid of my online social profile. I certainly do not think social networking in Evernote can be of any use.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'd really rather just find out their full name and add them on Facebook or LinkedIn. Pictures then show up automatically, and it's already a shared platform with network effects that add value while reducing the awkwardness.

</comment><comment><USER25> This app has been around for a couple of months ... why the HN love now? This is OK for random networking. If you're looking for a proper CRM manager on iOS, try out Contacts Journal.

</comment><comment><USER26> Nice idea, but when I meet somebody I am not going to take photos and log who I was with etc. It seems a little overboard.

</comment><comment><USER27> Yet another app I'd buy immediately if there were an Android version...

</comment><comment><USER28> Clever timing ... just in time for SxSW</comment>


How I lost 100lbs in 6 months - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@justinangel/how-i-lost-100lbs-in-6-months-5da2dac582b5#.1w9vxs37u <comment><USER2> PSA: Every legitimate long term study of major non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people. It's basically freakish when succesful in the long term.

1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "]([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453))

2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."]([http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full))

3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."]([https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight- watchers/](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/))

4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.]([http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker- pope-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat- trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)) This is borne out by the above data.

5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.]([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/))

Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.

<comment><USER3> I lost a bunch of weight with calorie counting and then gained it back after 2 years. But I'm fine with that. I started losing it again recently and I've already lost about 8lbs. After you do it a few times it gets easier as your skill in it gets better and your body & mind become more resilient to being in weight loss mode.

The way I'm doing it now is so easy (subway, chipotle, trader joes & calorie counting) that I feel fine in being in a yo-yo of a slow gain of 10lbs over a year and then losing 10lbs over a month or two.

It's not a useful attitude to be fatalistic about weight loss.

I track my weight regularly to make sure weight gain doesn't creep up on me.

<comment><USER4> > It's not a useful attitude to be fatalistic about weight loss.

Nor is it useful to promise people trips to the top of Everest on a hand glider, but that's empirically what most weight loss advice entails.

<comment><USER3> Thats a fatalistic attitude to weight loss advice too. Weight loss advice can be complicated, but calorie counting and eating at subway everyday really does work.

<comment><USER5> Counting calories is _hard_.

[https://youtu.be/HGunZpKLb5o](https://youtu.be/HGunZpKLb5o)

TL;DW: Calculating the actual energy in a day's worth of well labeled foods resulted in a 500 calorie overage.

This doesn't even account for how your body absorbs calories different from every other body, and probably even differently every day.

<comment><USER3> Being perfectionistic about calorie counting is not necessary. It still works. The approximate measure is quite enough. And if you don't have the time to do it, just eating from chains that already do it for you works quite well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a new classic in the Hacker News "How I Lost X Pounds in Y Months" genre. Other favorites:

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8449301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8449301)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279415)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been overweight for almost all of my adult life, and the level has been either steady or rising over the years (31 now).

The only thing making me loose weight was 5 month studying abroad in Ghana (I'm from Germany).

The ridiculous thing about it was: I didn't intend on loosing weight there. I ate as much as I liked whenever I liked it. Still, I lost about 15 kg in 5 months, and I didn't even notice it until the end of the trip when another student told me that I looked like it.

What I noticed as a big difference in my habits: * no Drive-In, no McDonald's, no Burger King, no other franchise. So, no junk eating while driving (e.g. from work) * no fridge at the hostel (at least none you would want to use). So, no "I'm bored and will just get something from the fridge" * I'm not a cooking person, so almost all food required walking the 5 minutes to the small market. Not a long way, but it keeps somebody like me from boredom eating * the fucking heat =D no movement and a lot of sweating ;-)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is one of the best ledes I have ever read:

> I decided to lose weight after my ex-wife cheated on me stating that she > found me unattractive, that she never loved me and that she was leaving and > taking the dog with her.

<comment><USER9> Nothing like a man being faced with a lifetime of no romantic love to get his will power in the right gear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IMHO, The measure of successful weight loss ought to be at 7 years from the start.

There are three cycles to control: 1. the hunger cycle (short, daily), 2. the hypothalamus equilibrium (aka "set-point", 6-months+ cycle, controls inhibitions [1]), 3. the hydrocarbon cycle (i.e. 1+ year hormone release by non-flush fat cells [2]).

We also know that decisions made in the hypothalamus are responsible for energy regulation,[3] and we also know that those decisions happen _before_ we are consciously aware of them.

In other words, the feeling of hunger and short-term control appears to be a surprisingly small portion (pardon the pun) of the dominant forces that control long-term weight - namely hormone cycles and decision making.

So while the 100lbs loss is an achievement, I'd be more interested in hearing how someone kept it off for several years – since that's presumably the ultimate goal and it requires overcoming what appear to be exponentially more difficult challenges.

(The links below touch on supporting the above, but I think I should be able to find the papers/references for all the above.)

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084499/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3084499/) [2] [https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2010/...](https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2010/acs- presspac-october-13-2010/new-evidence-that-fat-cells-are-not-just-dormant- storage-depots-for-calories.html) [3] [http://www.cell.com/current- biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)0...](http://www.cell.com/current- biology/abstract/S0960-9822\(14\)01299-8?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982214012998%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=)

<comment><USER10> I went from 250 to 185 (currently 183) in 7mths about 20mths ago, it's stayed off.

All I do is count my calories everyday and add 10%, if it's less than 2630 (my BMR based on age, weight and activity) I'm good.

If I go 200-300 over one day I go 200-300 under the next.

Weight has been completely stable.

It's the running total in my head that works for me as an incentive to not over eat.

<comment><USER10> In fact I should point out I have the opposite problem, If I'm not careful I gradually start losing weight again, I dipped down to 180lbs over a few months and had to adjust my intake to climb back to 185.

It's really hard to over-eat when you calorie track and eat healthy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _Low Calories Snacks: 0–150 calories snacks_

Besides the pre-packaged engineered foods he listed, there's also fresh fruits and vegetables.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. I called out my favourite one (warermelon) on that list and also called out the Weight Watchers list of "Power Foods" that's mostly comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables.

My issues with a blanket recommendation of fresh fruits and vegetables are around (1) perception as calorie-neutral, (2) prep time and (3) overall caloric variance.

1\. Regarding perception, for me it's very easy imagining apples are "free" (= 0 calories) so I can just eat as many as I'd like. That's not true because an apple is approximately 70 calories. So in a universe where I think apples are calorie neutral (e.g. Weight Watchers has 0 PointsPlus apples) I might be overindulging in apples.

2\. Prep time. Most vegetables require either a certain presentation or preparation. That time investment is a "barrier-to-eating" and could cause me to consume higher calorie foods and that's why I prefer very low prep time snacks. Nature's packaging requires some assembly in most cases.

3\. The caloric variance amongst is meaningful. e.g. Celery being at 16 calories/100g and potatoes being at 77 calories/100g. That caloric variance there cautions me from saying carte-blanche "fresh fruits and vegetables work for my kind of diet".

<comment><USER12> > Most vegetables require either a certain presentation or preparation.

Eh. Cucumbers, bell peppers, mushrooms, and almost all fruits including tomatoes can be enjoyed raw. Broccoli and cauliflower, too, if your teeth are good - delicious with a dash of vinegar and salt - and while we're visiting the Brassicaceae, let's not overlook kale, which can be brined or salted, then dried in a low-temperature oven, to produce amazing kale chips; granted, this does take us a bit higher on the prep time scale, but it's the sort of prep you do once, on a weekend day, and pay little attention, and once it's done, you just grab a bag and you're off and running.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice work! You argued that you were never hungry on your diet. Was that due to the emotional stress you were under, or were the snacks really enough?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for asking!

> "It was fairly easy due to a combination of low-grade depression that > reduced my appetite and having fairly immense energy stores in the form of > fat."

For me, it's all about focusing on the sensation of being full. I'd like to avoid the mental sensation of hunger as it'll be counterproductive to long term weight loss. Whenever I'm hungry I eat something substantial, for example: a quarter of a watermelon (~1 lb, 200 calories) or two bags of Miracle Noodles (~1 lb, 0 calories) with yakiniku/pasta sauce (100-200 calories) or a double bowl of miso soup (100 calories).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> AWESOME effort Justin Angel !!! :D

It is great to see someone achieve their weight loss goals.

Yes it is that "SIMPLE" and I know it can be done, as I too did it myself.

I too had a massive weight loss goal (90 lbs / 40kg) and achieved it with the same basic principals, but in a slightly longer time frame (9 months / 40 weeks).

I wrote a book about it (My Weight Loss Story: 40kg in 40 Weeks Without Exercise (90lbs in 9 months), instead of a medium post. ;)

I personally (Richard Boegli) lost 40 kg in 40 weeks (90lb in 9 months) WITHOUT exercise. [90lb in 9 months (no exercise)].

I'm not trying to hijack your story! I would just like to provide another data point, that the basic principals do work. As I have found their can be a lot of scepticism, even though the math works!

Justin Angel: How I lost 100lbs in 6 months [100lb / 6 months (with exercise)]

I could do a line for line comparison, but these are the points that immediately came to mind as I read the article: Richard Boegli: [90lb in 9 months (no exercise)]: "Just Eat Less", its in the preface of the book :)

Justin Angel [100lb / 6 months (with exercise)]: "Calories In — Calories Out = Weight Change"

Richard Boegli [90lb in 9 months (no exercise)]:: "I reduced my food intake"

Justin Angel [100lb / 6 months (with exercise)]: "I reduced my daily caloric intake"

Richard Boegli [90lb in 9 months (no exercise)]: "I lost on average 1kg (2.2lbs) a week, every week for 40 weeks WITHOUT exercise

Justin Angel [100lb / 6 months (with exercise)]: "I would experience a 3lbs a week weight lose."

I chose to do it WITHOUT exercise, as my theory was that I would keep it off longer, if it wasn't dependent on exercise. Every other time I lost weight in my life, it was a combination of diet and exercise. When the exercised stop, the weight would creep back up, as I was still eating too much.

[http://40in40book.com](http://40in40book.com)

EDIT: Cleaned it up a bit.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hey Justin, just wanted to say good on you.

While the physical change is great, it's a byproduct of the changes in your mind. Keep it up.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm so pissed at your ex. What an a-hole.

</comment><comment><USER17> Congrats. Anyone ever tell you you look like Drake?

</comment><comment><USER14> Why did this article get flagged?

</comment><comment><USER18> This is the Seattle Seahawks. Can you come consult for us?</comment>


Ask HN: Remote Working from rural Alaska? - <AUTHOR> Just wondering if anyone on here works full time remote from Alaska (specifically outside of anchorage). I've been researching a possible relocation and the biggest issue for me seems to be internet.
I rely on video chat throughout the day, and I'm worried I'll lose that if I move to a small town in AK. Anyone out there doing this successfully?
Thanks all <comment><USER2> I don't have an answer for your question, but I hope someone does. That is one place I have considered retirement. My only apprehension is regarding internet speed. From what I have read, it get's really bad very quickly as you get further away from the city.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same thing I have read, but the future looks promising. There's some new developments from what i can tell and infrastructure is expanding

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I was in anchorage last year for work. My experience in the city was internet was similar to at home. I suppose it depends upon the provider in the small town.

I would suggest contacting the cable/phone company in that area and asking for tech specs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks that was my plan. Waiting until I get a little closer to choosing before I make the calls. Thanks for reply</comment></comment>


Silicon Valley Start-Ups Awash in Dollars, Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/business/media/17bubble.html?ex=1350273600&en=459d25192f30dc27&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

<comment><USER2> I have no problem at all paying 8x for $1 of Google's revenue what I pay for $1 of IBM's. IBM is a consulting firm.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wierd little comparison happens in that article

        Yahoo: 38x more employees than Facebook
        Yahoo: 32x more revenue than Facebook (estimate)
        IBM:  8x more revenue than Google
        IBM:  ? more employees than Google

IBM has 27x more employees than Google, something like 355,000 worldwide. I'd say that offers a rational explanation for why Google's stock is worth more. Google has more room to grow.

</comment><comment><USER4> Anecdotally, three people have asked me if they could invest in our startup in the last six weeks. None of them even understand what we are making.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting quote by Marc Andreessen at the end:

 _"The upward valuations pressure is the result of decisions being made by people wearing suits in cities like New York and Boston who would never ever meet with start-ups"_

Really? Aren't most of the big acquisitions being done by EBay, Yahoo, and Google?

<comment><USER6> I think he's referring more to the flood of investment dollars at high valuation rather than acquisition at high valuation. The suits are the managers of Harvard's endowment and the like; their desire for returns creates a large supply of venture financing which increases the demand for startups to park the money in, driving up valuations.

That's a separate issue (sort of) from whatever forces are driving the acquisitions; apparently web startups are in high demand with acquirers and they getting in bidding wars driving up the price. The (sort of) is that the high demand for startups creates the large returns the endowment money is chasing in the first place.

So, fundamentally, I think either 1) startups are creating vast amounts of (expected) wealth and people just aren't used to seeing mostly expected wealth divvied up in public or 2) the EBays, Yahoos, and Googles of the world are acting irrationally.

<comment><USER7> The acquisition issue is related in another way: endowment money is also flooding into the publicly-traded stock market, which drives up the stock price of these large acquirers. They have an incentive to trade their overvalued stock for tangible products that increase the value of their business.

It's a bubble, but it's a bubble where everyone is acting rationally. Pensions & endowments and other institutional investors have an incentive to purchase these overvalued securities and ever-inflating prices because the value of their cash will drop through inflation. Large acquirers have an incentive to trade their overvalued stock for successful companies under "buy low, sell high". VCs have an incentive to invest in more startups at higher valuations because acquisitions are being made at higher valuation, plus they need to put their investment capital to work. Entrepreneurs have an incentive to found more startups, to capture this investment- and acquisition-money. The ultimate cause is the Fed, which is flooding the economy with money and driving the value of cash down.

BTW, this is how capitalism is _supposed_ to work (except possibly the part about the Fed). Textbooks recognize 3 factors of production - land, labor, and capital - and I'd add a fourth, entrepreneurship, responsible for turning those three into products that satisfy consumer needs. Right now, land is cheap (relative to farming days), labor is cheap, and capital is cheap. The limiting regent is the supply of people with good ideas for turning capital into useful products. In economics, when there's a bottleneck in the value chain, it pushes the returns for that industry up. That's what's happening now, with average returns for entrepreneurs being much, much higher than for the general labor force. As more people found startups, it should equilibrate, so that the returns for entrepreneurship are only the difference between their productivity as entrepreneurs and their productivity as employees.

If history is any guide, it'll last until enough wealth gets concentrated in the entrepreneurial class that the ordinary labor force starts thinking of itself as oppressed and hopeless. Then it usually ends in Depression, war, revolution, or some other major event that kills a lot of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> save some for me.</comment>


11 hours a day in front of a screen. This is what it's doing to your eyes - <AUTHOR> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/staring-down-the-dangers-of-the-digital-workplace <comment><USER2> some huawei devices have a 'eye protection' toggle in the notification drawer.</comment>


Don't click it - Website navigation without mouse click - <AUTHOR> http://www.dontclick.it/

<comment><USER2> Slow. Oh so slow. I _hate_ having to wait for the bloody animation to finish unwrapping itself before deciding to show me something that wasn't quite what I wanted, and then having to wait again to find a different hot spot to hover over and see what it deigns to tell me.

It might be a clever implementation, but understand this: I browse by opening up to 30 or 40 tabs, then skimming through the first ones while the later ones load. I can touch and flick through literally 60 to 80 pages per minute. (edited: I said hundreds, but that was an exaggeration. However 60 to 80 is conservative when I'm in fast search mode)

You want to slow me down? Don't expect me to visit again. OK, I'm not normal, and I'm not average, but I'm incredibly frustrated by this interface.

<comment><USER3> Your not the only that does that, I think most people who tinker with computers professionally do that.

Its kind of funny: computer programmers browse the internet the way an operating system does IO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Once you are in their site and play around with the navigation, do not click. Seriously.

Their 'Hey, I told you not to click but you did anyway' screen is not only annoying and headache-inducing. In my opinion, it could also be dangerous.

Reminding oneself of <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/seizure.html> from time to time is a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> This was an absolutely dreadful and arresting experience for me. What was going on in my head:

 _Okay, so I'm looking at this thing, and moving the mouse moves this mouse on the page... WOAH._

 _What? The page changed? I wasn't even done reading the last page. I don't even know what page I used to be on. The back button does not seem to work._

Things were moving underneath the text I was trying to read while confusion was being generated far faster than any enlightening design. Page changes were also very _upsetting_ , I don't want to be nauseated as I try to explore a website.

And I certainly want a way to go back to where I was if I accidentally move the mouse. A click is a commit to do something. Apparently on these pages I can commit to doing something by merely moving the mouse, and there's no way to go back if I do something I didn't mean to commit to! Whats worse, I had to move the mouse to see things more clearly, because the page as-presented was not as clear as it might have been.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, the whole time I was being annoyed with stuff changing even though I didn't ask it to (by clicking, of course!), I was telling myself "They're trying to show me how clicking has ruined my brain! They're going to show me how this is better!"

I never learned how it was better.

I only lasted on that site for about 45 seconds. I saw some "aren't these mouse gestures better than clicking?!?!" examples, but to me they just seemed like roundabout ways of... clicking. Obviously mouse gestures can be more powerful, since a click is basically "execute the action represented by the glyphs underneath my mouse pointer" while a gesture can be "do any number of actions irrespective of where my mouse pointer currently is", but this site didn't seem to take advantage of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was posted a long time ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=644218>

</comment><comment><USER8> Exactly the opposite of what I would want in a usable "humane interface."

I have spent a lot of time as a UX architect trying to reduce the chaotic mess of mouseover frenzy, and here comes a site that is all mouseover frenzy.

Gestures are even worse - they take what would have been an intuitive behavior -- clicking, typing a command, pressing a clearly labeled button -- and replace it with hand waving that you have to memorize in special patterns as if you were waving a magic wand.

It's a clever design, I'm glad he did it - I would just never want to navigate an entire site that acted like that.

</comment><comment><USER9> While I agree, with the general consensus here, that the design itself is pretty useless in practice, I think that some of what they've done is kind of intriguing, from a mouse intent perspective.

When I saw the label of a "clickless" interface, I immediately thought I would constantly be dodging popped in elements trying to get at other elements, but this actually happened far less often than I anticipated, mostly because it was designed fairly well for that use case.

I think in general, mouse intent elements, such as pop up menus on hover, are hugely frustrating on 99% of sites. Just now I was trying to close an ad on the bottom of a youtube video, but the resolution pop up kept jumping in the way. Navigation menus are frequently the same way, they pop over other content without you intending it to do so, and then its frustrating getting them out of the way.

Personally, I dont see the benefit of trying to guess what the user is trying to do by where theyre hovering, but a lot of sites do this anyway, and with some disregard to the side effects.

At the very least, this site offers some interesting paradigms for a clickless UI, and illustrates a somewhat thoughtful design around that interaction.

</comment><comment><USER10> Isn't that very (very) old? I remember seeing it long back

<comment><USER11> Yeah, it's at least 4 years old, I remember this from high school.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Clickless browsing is just another way to say "mouse gestures". Yes, future interface devices may not have a 'click' function and may be gesture-based, but as for my mouse as it stands today, a click is extremely helpful.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm actually surprised people so vehemently dislikes this. While a click-less interface may not be inherently superior to one with clicks it's still an interesting concept to explore, which is exactly what Dontclick.it does.

I personally found the site to be intuitive; although, Areas, a click-less shooter (<http://www.kongregate.com/games/Ridiculous/areas>), did a fine job of teaching me to inhibit my urge to click everything.

</comment><comment><USER14> Oh yeah. Cause if you're already using the mouse to navigate it's so fricking hard to click. And the whole graphics with the mouse and hand, just hides away all the content, so I have to go to extremes to be able to reveal the content. And I mouse over something else by mistake and the whole content changes.

This is not an improvement. This is horrible usability.

I thought this was supposed to be a UI design that doesn't require the use of the mouse.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand. This is just actioning on mouse over. I was imagining that there was going to be some revolutuionary new site design/structure to accomdate this, but no. It's just a normal (albeit flash) website with mouseovers. And it's fu*king annoying. Stuff keeps popping up when you don't want it to. There's a reason links are clicked, not wafted over.

</comment><comment><USER16> I guess it's useful if you're disabled. Otherwise this is a completely silly idea. We've mastered right clicking, left clicking, and double clicking. Why drop that channel of information? The last thing we need to is a novel way of decreasing the amount of bandwidth from the user to the computer. It's already the most restricted path.

<comment><USER17> how is this good for the disabled? if you're unable to click, i'd have to assume you have difficulty moving a mouse with pinpoint accuracy. hell i had problems doing that and i'm fully functional here.

if anything this would be HELL for anyone lacking full motor skills

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can't wait to try this out on my touch-screen phone or tablet PC...

...oh, wait.

</comment><comment><USER19> I find it incredibly ironic that I had to click the flash to get the site to load.

</comment><comment><USER20> The concept of click-less browsing is interesting and might have some potential.

This specific implementation is closed (Flash-based), heavy on my bandwidth, slow and generally not too appealing.

<comment><USER21> > The concept of click-less browsing is interesting and might have some > potential.

I sure hope not. Anyone who builds click-less based sites had better be prepared to lose _all_ mobile users, or develop two entirely separate front- ends.

Clicks are important. They're not going _anywhere_.

<comment><USER22> I think tablets are the reason clicks no longer make as much sense as they used to. Clicks are built into our mental model because of a lifetime of using the mouse.

<comment><USER23> Really? How do you interact with a touch screen on tablets? You _click_. With your _fingers_.

Clicking is the fundamental way we interact with physical objects, unless we figure out how to read minds later. Clicking with mouse mimics this.

<comment><USER22> You do that _today._ Because you're used to the mouse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I love how the premise is to not click- but to get started you have to... click.

</comment><comment><USER25> The only problem is that it is in Flash.</comment>


Ask HN: How can I make this site better? - <AUTHOR>

I created Knot News (http://news.knotist.com) in my spare time and the site has a very tiny but loyal following.  It gets ~100 uniques a day, of which ~80 are returning visitors.  I'd like to grow the site, though I think something must be missing since it isn't growing organically.  Perhaps I need to make it more <i>useful</i>, though I'm not sure what that entails.  Any suggestions/feedback would be appreciated.  Thanks! <comment><USER2> Being that I haven't added any, when I click on 'Favorites', it's empty. So what if the site knew which pages I spent the most time reading, and those were factored into suggestions for my favorites?

Then, when I was done looking at the 'Favorites' tab, it took me a second to figure out I had to go to the left section of the top bar on the other side of the search box and click on the title to get back to where I was when I began. I was expecting there to be a way to go back to the front page in the group of links to the right of the search box.

Other than that, my first impression is good- it looks classy, as it should considering the subject matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks this is good feedback! I def need to do a little work on the favorites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I married a couple of years ago, and I remember there were a LOT of wedding ideas sites on the web. Your site looks clean, the information is presented well and I had fun reading, so no problems there. My guess is that your main concern is being found, when I search for 'wedding ideas', 'wedding sites' or 'wedding blog' your site does not show up on the first page.

Darren Rowse (www.problogger.net) has tons of resources and tuts to get more users. It's really worth looking into.

<comment><AUTHOR> +1 Just started reading, but looks good so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Um. Wedding blog posts aren't very interesting unless you're about to get married or you're in the industry, right? Maybe your market is just too small?

<comment><AUTHOR> Possibly, but Green Wedding Shoes, one of the more popular wedding blogs, gets over 45K monthly uniques and there are probably 5 other wedding blogs with similar traffic. I should be able to get more than 3K!

<comment><USER5> You will, oh you will.:-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> <http://news.knotist.com>

</comment><comment><USER6> I like the site! I agree, the wedding industry is huge!

I've been working hard to build up my UK wedding directory too and launched in Jan this year. I have to say most of my traction has been through Twitter, though I did get a lot of early e-mail registrations that I'm yet to target so hopefully they will result in users too.

Are you aiming to attract the brides & grooms-to-be first or the wedding vendors?

It's the age old chicken/egg scenario when building a community!

</comment><comment><USER7> I think it looks good, but to grow you need to do two things, get people to sign up, and then get people to invite others to sign up.

Think about what it is you can offer to encourage people to invite others.

But apart from that I like the way it looks.

</comment><comment><USER8> When did you launch? Weddings are generally pretty seasonal, so I would guess you'll get a lot more traffic in the next few months. Also, is anybody linking to you?

<comment><AUTHOR> I first made Knot News public last September, though I didn't really have a _launch_. I managed to get a handful of wedding blogs to post links to Knot News at the time, which is how anybody knows about the site. Today, most of the traffic I get is direct or from Google searches for "Knot News" or something similar. I've been trying to get all of the blogs that are covered on Knot News to link back to Knot News, but it's a slow process.

<comment><USER8> The wedding industry is huge - planners, photographers, musicians, florists, etc. If you can get these people to link to you, you'll start to do better in organic searches.</comment></comment></comment>


It's Not an Asshole Problem–It's a Bystander Problem (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.catehuston.com/blog/2014/12/31/sigh/ <comment><USER2> > I noticed how, for most of us, it "just so happened" that a guy was promoted > over them. It "just so happened" that he was the tech/team lead, or the > manager. It "just so happened" that we hadn't been promoted before our > projects were killed. After I talked to the few women I knew who seemed to > be thriving, I thought about the situations where I had thrived, and I > observed a common thread of having a sponsor. Having a sponsor meant having > good stuff to work on.

Isn't that how all promotions and social dynamic in the corporate workplace work?</comment>


A Defence of Sexual Inclusion [pdf] - barry-cotter https://philpapers.org/archive/DANADO-4.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> It's an interesting thought, but the key principle - that the exclusion is "unjust" \- is not substantiated very well.</comment>


HTML5 Annotations for Webpages - <AUTHOR> http://www.se.rit.edu/~agp2572/Notes/ <comment><USER2> When I open in Firefox, I get the error "Your browser does not support HTML5 offline database storage. Please try using Google Chrome or Safari browser for this Web App to work properly." This is a little misleading, because Firefox, Chrome, and IE 10 (but not Safari) all support IndexedDB, which is on track to be the W3C-recommended offline database storage API. Presumably this uses Web SQL Database, which is not a W3C recommendation and never will be because it attempted to standardize SQLite as the only way of implementing a database (<http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/>).

<comment><USER3> there is a common trend of making web apps webkit-only and forgetting about everything else

<comment><USER4> Be careful, some people don't like it when that kind of thing is mentioned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks very similar to the WebKit sticky note example (<http://www.webkit.org/demos/sticky-notes/>).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes but it is an extension of that by using Bookmarklets to annotate webpages instead of just one webpage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks nice, but pretty rough around the edges: things like the hover on the bookmark links flicker, and when you drag notes it selects text as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> I can't click and drag to select text, it drags the entire note. Maybe you could implement a "handle" area?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't work for me in Chrome 18.0.1025.168 m edit: on Win7 Professional

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried your version of Chrome and it works on a Mac. Maybe you have disabled use of offline HTML database storage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> is there a way to show/hide the notes? i tried but closing them did delete em

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a hide link in the bottom left corner of each sticky note. To unhide click on the Show Notes link or bookmark if you saved the link to your bookmark bar.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sticky Notes on the web</comment>


EBay Acquires RedLaser - <AUTHOR> http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100623006637

<comment><USER2> Someone's Paypal account must be looking stuffed this morning... congrats guys!

There is a bit more detail here:

<http://occipital.com/blog/2010/06/23/2010-at-occipital/>

</comment><comment><USER3> This app has always made me feel a little stupid -- what's the use case? I get the SDK use cases (e.g., for a dieting app or a library cataloger), but is the main app a marketing vehicle for the SDK and a "check this out, gee whiz!" kind of thing? Those are valid purposes, I'm just wondering if I'm missing something.

Don't get me wrong -- the technology is super cool, but I remain confused. (Congrats to the team on the acquisition.)

<comment><USER4> I've actually used the app to price match at Best Buy and Pc Richards before. The sales person actually honored the lowest price found on RedLaser. It's saved me hundreds of dollars on HDTVs and home theater equipment.

<comment><USER3> That is sweet. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Original submission (and more discussion) at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1456251>

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that. Missed it.</comment></comment>


Boeing 737 Max Simulators Are in High Demand, But Flawed - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/business/boeing-737-max-simulators.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure where the misconception comes from about simulator training being equal to the aircraft being a new type certificate. The DC-9/MD-80 series/B717 are all the same DC-9 type certificate despite spanning many decades, longer than the 737 even. Pilots receive a DC-9 type certificate to fly any variant, however, for obvious reasons, the FAA requires what's known as differences training in a simulator to transition between the different aircraft.

I can't possibly imagine that the FAA is or any aviation governing body is going to jump from iPad distance learning to full on new type certificate. B737 type rated pilots will receive 2-3 sessions in the MAX simulator and be sent on their way flying 737NG and MAX variants and the aircraft will go on to have a normal safety record.

The more concerning aspect of this entire situation is finding where the system broke down to prevent this additional training to begin with and how do we fix the breaks in that system.

<comment><USER3> They will have to fix the simulator first. As I understand it they can't currently simulate the handling of the aircraft under MCAS failure modes. If they correct the simulator and require pilots to train for the handling of MCAS failures then I have to problem with the reintroduction of the max on the same type certificate. From what we are hearing in the press it sounds like Boeing is still pressing for nothing more that a dumb iPad lesson. If the FAA falls for that they will loose all credibility in my eyes.

<comment><USER4> Has the whole world subscribed to FAA oversight or would other regulators be able to pick their own fight with Boeing?

<comment><USER5> EU has its own oversight that has, at least at some point in the past, been pretty much copying FAA word-for-word. Other countries obviously have their own, but also leaned on FAA for its influence. Yet another aspect of soft power of the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How would you accurately simulate the force needed to turn the trim wheel under aerodynamic loads that vary with elevator position? It sounds like a very tricky mechanical setup.

<comment><USER7> Brakes, or a strong motor.

<comment><USER8> The way I would approach it (based on mechantronics I have done for robots) is to back up the control wheel with an encoded motor. (Position/rotation encoder on the tail shaft.) The encoder will give you wheel position, the motor allows you to apply arbitrary torque to the wheel to simulate the feedback forces felt by the pilot. Typically, that would be done by measuring motor current and writing a control loop that controlled for target wheel position (based on encoder) and target maximum motor current (as a proxy for torque). Then the simulator would give out the simulated results of wheel position and torque, which the control loop would attempt to follow with its control law.

Alternatively, you could put an actual torque sensor between the motor and the control wheel, which might buy you some accuracy at considerably more expense. For a flight simulator, expense is unlikely to be an issue -- I tend not to have that luxury, and typically don't need that much accuracy anyway.

These kind of control systems are all over modern aircraft, much less simulators. Any new grad control systems engineer should be able to knock something like this out.

<comment><USER9> > The way I would approach it (based on mechantronics I have done for robots) > is to back up the control wheel with an encoded motor. (Position/rotation > encoder on the tail shaft.) The encoder will give you wheel position, the > motor allows you to apply arbitrary torque to the wheel to simulate the > feedback forces felt by the pilot. Typically, that would be done by > measuring motor current and writing a control loop that controlled for > target wheel position (based on encoder) and target maximum motor current > (as a proxy for torque). Then the simulator would give out the simulated > results of wheel position and torque, which the control loop would attempt > to follow with its control law.

Or you just buy a COTS servo that does all that for you. Just saying, hardly a need to reinvent these particular wheels...

<comment><USER8> Yeah, good point. I'm sure there are servos that have the required specs. I'm just not in the habit of looking at catalogs where the prices are that high :) Maybe I should switch to building flight simulators so that I can order the good stuff :)

<comment><USER10> racing sim guys already figured it out [http://opensimwheel.wikidot.com/](http://opensimwheel.wikidot.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why does MCAS have to take control of trim at all? Would it not be sufficient to alert the pilot of an imminent stall situation so they can adjust the angle of attack themselves? Is it because doing so would put the MAX too far afield from the old 737 such that it would require simulator training?

<comment><USER12> There's an airworthiness rule requiring monotonically increasing yoke backpressure as the plane approaches a stall. It appears that the MAX violates this rule aerodynamically due to extra lift at high power generated by the high and forward nacelles, combined with the yoke being mechanically coupled. It can get easier to induce a stall as the plane approaches critical AoA.

This isn't directly the same thing as saying the MAX will stall itself: if you aren't pulling back on the yoke near critical AoA then you don't stall. It's just easier to stall with the yoke than regulations say it must be. MCAS "fixes" that handling issue.

I don't think an audible warning would be sufficient to turn unairworthy behavior into airworthy, so if all the assumptions above are correct, that's why it has to use trim -- or a stick pusher, but perhaps that wouldn't have enough control authority and also I'm not sure the MAX _has_ a stick pusher, as opposed to just a stick shaker. It's a very mechanical cockpit, in general the forces you feel are coupled to aerodynamics, in stark contrast to an Airbus (or even more modern Boeing airframes).

<comment><USER13> Maybe it's 25.173(c) [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.173)

In the working case, MCAS presumably triggers at a particular AoA, trims nose down (but is this a fixed amount and what is it?) which in effect requires more stick back pressure to maintain the angle of attack. Thing is, it seems like MCAS, again in the working case, has a trigger AoA and will incrementally nose down until it goes below some defined angle of attack - which is not really a stick force moderator alone. It's acting as a kind of AoA guardian.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training.

As this story develops, it sure seems like there are either gaps in Boeings QA program or there is a culture that overrides quality concerns

<comment><USER15> > A good software assurance program in a flight environment should also be > ensuring simulators are of high enough fidelity for testing and training.

Actually, "must" not "should". Aeronautics certification standards require tools such as simulators to be qualified for their intended use. Similar requirement have been introduced in recent release of railway standards.

<comment><USER14> I agree with you're correcting my imprecise wording, but it still seems like there's an issue with the certification process if this particular "must" didn't get built in.

I guess my question is: why didn't the QA flag get raised on this or if it did, why wasn't it given any credence?

I'm not trying to armchair quarterback this, but I'm legitimately curious if this issue is one the certification process is expected to catch

<comment><USER16> Certification process is generic enough to apply it to different types of aircrafts. There is no specific requirements for different subsystems introduced by manufacturer. Simulation fidelity is tested against real world data but it is not possible to collect data for every condition that might occur during flight. You may refer to FAA FSS Level-D QTG document for further reference. [1]

[1]: [https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Sear...](https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Searchable_Version.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Considering how fast and strong the trim wheel is spinning under MCAS control the simulator may be unsafe to use. Touching a wheel spinning so fast is outright dangerous.

<comment><USER18> The trim wheel spins like that anyway under normal operation, both due to pilot input and while on autopilot.

More importantly, you don't grab the trim wheel while it's moving... If the aircraft is operating normally, you use the trim switch on the yoke.

The only time you'd spin the trim wheel by hand is if you've had to cutout the electric trim motor... and once that's done it's not going to move on its own anyway.

<comment><USER19> > once that's done it's not going to move on its own anyway.

Unless the short is somewhere where you don't expect it to be, which is why a memory item if the runaway trim continues is

        STABILIZER TRIM WHEEL - GRASP and HOLD

<comment><USER20> They teach pilots a specific way to grab the trim wheel for that scenario as to not break their wrists. It still can (and occasionally does) cause abrasive wounds to the hands however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "who will need to approve them before the plane can start flying again."

Yes, thanks. I guess I pass for now.

</comment><comment><USER22> Every simulator is flawed, some are useful.

</comment><comment><USER23> Small nitpick: I don't think MCAS is well characterised as an "anti-stall system".

<comment><USER24> From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Augmentation_System#Operation)

> "The system is explicitly designed to override pilot action and prevent them > from regaining control authority, in order to avoid an inadvertent stall."

If it's not an anti-stall system what would you characterize it as?

<comment><USER23> Good question. Not sure the "flight envelope protection" description in the Wikipedia article is good.

If I'm not mistaken, MCAS was put in to fulfil certification requirements stipulated in 14 CFR § 25.173 - Static longitudinal stability, and § 25.175 Demonstration of static longitudinal stability, which states that "The stick force curve must have a stable slope". The MAX has a curved slope in some regions of the flight envelope, due to the fact that the nacelles generate lift in front of the centre of gravity. (It is not clear to me whether the slope of the stick force at high AoA in a MAX without MCAS goes negative, or just decreases (while staying positive)).

Note the Wikipedia article you quote also says:

> It is thus distinct from an anti-stall device, such as stick pusher which > physically moves the pilot's control column forward when the airplane is > approaching a stall.[5]

See also here [1]:

> Numerous reports have incorrectly said that MCAS is a stall prevention, or > stall recovery, system. It is a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation > System and would not be expected to activate during any normal flight > conditions.

Or here:

>> It does seem MCAS is closely related to protecting the plane from entering a stall scenario.

> Only in the sense that it is giving the pilots the feedback, through the > stick force, about how close the plane is to a stall, that the pilots are > used to from previous 737 models. The point of MCAS is that without it, the > stick force feedback as a function of angle of attack would be different > from what the pilots were used to, so they might misjudge how close to a > stall they were.

[1] [https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/engineers-...](https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/engineers- take-on-the-737-max-design.118273/)

[2] [https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/boeing-737-max-mcas- sy...](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/boeing-737-max-mcas- system.967958/page-3)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Question:

> In a tense meeting with the American Airlines pilots union after the crash, > a Boeing vice president, Mike Sinnett, said he was confident that pilots > were equipped to deal with problems, according to an audio recording review > by The New York Times. A top Boeing test pilot, Craig Bomben, agreed, > saying, "I don't know that understanding the system would have changed the > outcome of this."

Should that be Craig Bomben "disagreed"?

<comment><USER25> No he is agreeing that the pilots were as well equipped as they could have been, because he believes understanding the system wouldn't have made a difference anyways.

<comment><USER26> Ok, so you believe it was a sarcastic response. Very interesting take. You might be correct.

<comment><USER23> I don't think it was a sarcastic response, and I don't think GP meant it that way, either.

Remember, Boeing at the time had not disclosed MCAS to the pilot community. Both speakers are from Boeing, and the first one says that the accident pilots, even though they did not manage to fix the problem, were well equipped (by standard Boeing procedures for stab trim runaway) to do so. The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference.

<comment><USER26> _> The second speaker agrees, saying that knowing about MCAS would not have made any difference._

The article directly quotes him as saying, "I don't know that understanding the system would have changed the outcome of this." The "this" refers to a deadly crash in which everyone died. He is saying that if a pilot knew about MCAS, the plane still would have crashed. He said this in response to a claim that pilots didn't need to know about MCAS. That is disagreeing by using sarcasm. The Times interprets it though as agreeing and doesn't see the sarcasm.

To summarize:

Claim: Pilots don't need to know about MCAS.

Response: Correct, even if they knew, given the system's flawed design, everyone still would have died in this case, so, technically, knowing about it wouldn't have helped.

Now maybe that's not what he meant. But it looks like he did. I don't believe that the context of the conversation supports an interpretation that he was agreeing that sufficiently skilled pilots would not have crashed whether or not they knew about MCAS given that he refers to "the outcome of this" not changing, the "outcome of this" being the crash.

<comment><USER27> What part if that is sarcasm? If anything he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not. Which is alarming and terrifying.

<comment><USER23> Given that he's a Boeing test pilot (and in the context of agreeing with the VP), his take would probably be that pilots should have followed the good old Stab Trim Runaway checklist, and all would've been fine (whether or not you know about MCAS).

<comment><USER27> I am genuinely confused though about how his remarks we're sarcastic.

<comment><USER23> I agree with you that the test pilot's remarks were not sarcastic. However, you write "he's saying a failed AOT sensor means a fatal crash regardless of whether you know why or not", and I disagree with that. He's saying a failed AoA sensor invoking MCAS can be fixed like any other Stab Trim Runaway, regardless of what you know about MCAS.

<comment><USER28> Except that it doesn't manifest like a classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway.

The classic Stabilizer Trim Runaway is a continuous uncommanded actuation of the trim mechanism on a particular direction.

Catastrophic MCAS failure manifests as a series of discrete, amplifying activations, which are far easier for a pilot to dismiss as the normal operation of the Auto-Trim, and speed trim systems.

The is is a manifestly different pattern to look for, and was only caught by one air crew (on the penultimate flight of the Lion Air aircraft) by the assistance of a third, uninvolved pilot along for the ride.

I understand how one could see Boeing's internal test pilot as being reasonable, but keep in mind who signs his paycheck, and future prospects for him if the company gets found liable.

Perspective, and understanding of what different parties have at stake is essential in evaluating what is _actually_ being communicated, and why. Words have long tails in the aftermath of a crisis like this.

<comment><USER23> Yes, agreed with everything. I don't think Boeing's test pilot's dismissal (basically: they had their checklists, and knowing about MCAS wouldn't have made a difference) was reasonable, but neither do I think it was sarcastic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _> Boeing has maintained that simulator training is not necessary for the 737 Max and regulators do not require it, but many airlines bought the multimillion-dollar machines to give their pilots more practice._

Boeing is only arguing this because if they say simulator training is necessary, then the plane _must_ be recertified. Their executive MBA analyst and stock watcher types under no circumstances will tolerate recertification, therefore regardless of facts, their position _must_ be that simulator training is not necessary. Even though it obviously is. Key point to observing this and everything else about this debacle is that Boeing has no concern whatsoever for safety, professionalism or lives, and is only interested in their own profit, executive bonuses, and stock dividend gains and will do absolutely anything to protect those, even though it inevitably is going to lead to another crash and more deaths. At which point they will again start by doing everything they can to blame the pilot and the culture of whatever country he hails from, as well as paying shills to post nonsense and attack pilots, engineers and others who question their narrative publicly.

<comment><USER29> But that's only half the story.

The other half is that the FAA -- which is meant to be the counterweight to those perverse incentives -- is no longer credible.

(I've made this point before [0] but it bears repeating here.)

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19888207](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19888207)

<comment><USER30> That's not making the point; that's just asserting it.

<comment><USER31> I'm confused as to the difference.

No snark intended.

I'm likely missing something.

<comment><USER32> [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_point](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/make_a_point)

"(idiomatic) To argue or promote an idea."

It isn't enough to just say a statement when you want to make a point. It's usually expected, especially here on HN, to put some effort into demonstrating why you believe that statement is true, something which his linked comment doesn't do. It doesn't need to be anything elaborate, even references to other comments mentioning things FAA has done would be more than enough to make the point, which gives people something factual or "real" to respond to or look into.

I don't think there's anything wrong with his statement per se. You don't always need to write a treatise whenever you want to join a discussion or throw in your two cents. Just that when he says he's made the point before, it'd be more helpful to link to something more substantial than the same statement in a different place.

<comment><USER30> Thank you, confirming this is what I meant (except this is better than I could have said it myself).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > Since the two fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 Max, airlines around the world > have moved to buy flight simulators to train their pilots. They don't always > work. Boeing recently discovered that the simulators could not accurately > replicate the difficult conditions

Typical article which does not address the entire context of the issue. In other words it isolates what a 737 simulator can't do without regard to what a typical simulator (for another aircraft or by even a different manufacturer) is or is not able to do. [1] The idea is to make the manufacture look like a total ignorant screw up in every way to create anger and compelling content.

[1] This is like a news story talking about what a company fails to do and then gets hacked without talking at all about how likely the same thing happens at another company.

<comment><USER23> Are you suggesting that most simulators get control forces wrong for things that can realistically occur within the recoverable flight envelope after one single sensor fails? I'd have thought that that is something you'd want to get right.</comment></comment>


Google Glass Application List - <AUTHOR> http://glass-apps.org/google-glass-application-list <comment><USER2> I really wish the folks publishing these apps would have a demo page or some information on their front page, rather than just immediately trying to get an OAuth token from me.

<comment><USER3> So in our case (Icebreaker), our site actually does have a good amount of pre- login info, but this gallery is choosing to only link directly to our OAuth login flow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it just me or does this website look like your typical domain squatter webpage? Even the default Bootstrap template would look better than this. Also why the Sharingan eye?

<comment><AUTHOR> sharingan -> google glass brings great power to your eyes :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a vision for a weather data collection app using the camera and accelerometer to automatically take sky photos, but I don't think the APIs support it yet: [http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/05/weather-forecasting- with-...](http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/05/weather-forecasting-with-google- glass/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Bro, do you even maintain aspect ratios?

<comment><USER7> I knew something was making it look cheap and amateurish but I hadn't spotted it was that. Ugh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oof. I hate to be "that guy" who complains about a new thing, but the icons for these apps could really use some work. The Amazon one is straight up disturbing, and many of them are just uncomposed pictures of things. I guess that's to be expected since most of this stuff isn't even alpha yet.

<comment><USER9> Are these official? Judging from the icon and the description, I...hope, anyway, that the Amazon one wasn't produced by amazon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I saw that Path are on there and, given their recent debauchery involving people's privacy, my heart sank.

</comment><comment><USER11> They forgot Glassnost.me - [http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/06/glassnost-is-a- google-glass...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/06/glassnost-is-a-google-glass- photo-sharing-app-that-sends-you-realtime-feedback-on-what-you-share/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Turn-by-turn directions for cooking is a great idea.

It's crazy-making, though, that there's no way to see a demo page or anything without attaching my Google account to the app. No thank you.

</comment><comment><USER13> It would of been nice if there more apps that were empowered by Glass. These apps are all just the same as any app I can get on my phone.

</comment><comment><USER14> I built a really simple horoscopes app while playing with the mirror api. glassscopes.appspot.com

This site is bizarre, though.</comment>


Bitcoin Gets a Cautious Nod From China's Central Bank - <AUTHOR> http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/bitcoin-gets-a-cautious-nod-from-chinas-central-bank/?_r=0

<comment><USER2> It's unclear that the Chinese government understands that bitcoin is more than just a security you can buy and sell, or a currency that you can wire in a bank.

If someone buys $1M in bitcoin, that money could easily leave the country forever, without the knowledge or control of the government.

Given that China has very strict rules on capital flow - wiring funds out of the country, currency conversion, etc - I'd be very surprised if they are not considering shutting down bitcoin exchanges in China and banning the use of bitcoin for purchases.

If China does not clamp down on bitcoin, that would be a major policy change I'm not sure China is prepared for. And I'm not sure why they would choose to change their policy in this way for bitcoin, rather than continuing to capital markets in a measured pace as they are now.

<comment><USER3> I think they are hedging their bets and are making a trade-off between allowing their citizens to put their savings into BitCoin and potentially letting them run free financially, and also possibly wresting control of the world financial system away from the Americans. They want the US Dollar to stop being the world reserve currency. If they promote BitCoin they have an opportunity to wrest control of the world's money supply away from the US. To them, a currency that no one controls is better than a currency that the US controls.

I think there's also the matter of the public ledger. An anonymized public ledger is still more information than they currently have with even the yuan about when currency is changing hands and where it is going. I think BitCoin libertarians are fooling themselves if they think the public ledger isn't a major asset to the government, who can now track money from point A to point B if it enters and leaves the BitCoin economy at an exchange endpoint.</comment></comment>


Call for Amiga Developers: Kickstarting PowerPC and 68k software development [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://a-eon.biz/PDF/News_Release_Developer.pdf <comment><USER2> I owned an A500 and later a pimped out A1200 (with an 80Mb hard drive!) back in the 90s and really loved them. I learned programming using AMOS and Blitz Basic. I dabbled with 3D modelling and rendering using Imagine. And of course there were so many awesome games - Lemmings, Populous, Civilisation, Monkey Island, Mega-lo-Mania, Speedball 2, Worms, Sensible Soccer, Hired Guns, the list goes on...

But around the time Doom was released on PC, it seemed like the Amiga's graphics performance, once so ahead of its time, had fallen far behind. I switched to a Pentium 60 PC and apart from the occasional twang of nostalgia have never looked back.

I'm really curious what the motivation is for those die hard Amiga fans and hackers now, so many years later. Is it nostalgia, the community, the technical challenge of working within the system's limitations? What is keeping you around?

<comment><USER3> I had an Amiga 2000 with 2 floppy drives and 3 MB of RAM and later an Amiga 1200 with a 120 MB hard drive (ha! beat you!). This setup suited me well also after I got to the university for doing programming homework on them and using the university Sparc machines for internet surfing. I only got a Linux machine in 1999.

So I'm not really part of the active Amiga community but I'm following loosely by reading [http://amiga-news.de/](http://amiga-news.de/) and listening to BoingsWorld, a German Amiga podcast ([http://boingsworld.de/](http://boingsworld.de/)).

I think there are about 3 different groups of Amiga fans.

1\. the hardware group 2\. the emulation group 3\. the demo group

IMHO the hardware group is the one group who wants to run something Amiga-like on their vintage (68k) or slightly vintage (PPC) hardware. Those people get a kick out of having a useful and fast system without all the cumbersome and inefficiencies of modern systems.

The emulation group just wants to use the old software or play the old games. Those usually don't care about the non-68k systems as it is much easier nowadays to emulate the old systems with one of the UAE forks.

The demo group uses whatever system they have to produce stunning demos. Getting new cool effects out of 30 year old systems is really amazing and shows what an incredible machine the Amiga still is.

I think A-EON mostly serves the hardware guys.

<comment><USER4> It's even more sub-divided than that... It's really fragmented.

On the hardware side you have people that want something they will deem as "classic enough". Basically it at least needs to be 68k, possibly with PPC card, and various extents of modern expansions (some of which may not leave much of the original machine in actual use...)

You also have a number of people who care about the architecture for various reasons, but don't care about the actual hardware. There you'll find a number of FPGA projects. There is some overlap here, though.

Then you have the PPC crowd which is split between MorphOS and OS4. OS4 users has been A-Eons primary market given that they are selling actual new PPC hardware (with a second design underway), though they've lately started adding more products for classics, and have been courting MorphOS people too. MorphOS runs on various second-hand PPC hardware.

Then as you say there's the people who are fine with emulation.

Then you have AROS, which is largely hardware agnostic (ports to ARM, PPC, 68k, x86).

Within this there really are a lot of different motivations. E.g. you find classic users who just want to play games, but there are also hardcore classic users who try to use classic Amigas as their main computers.

<comment><USER5> Out of interest, is Natami still a thing? Anything come of CloneA (aside from that scan doubler that used some of its AGA implementation)?

I haven't followed Amiga developments for a while, last I remembered it appeared the Natami project was parked due to some differences in direction, with the project to create a new 68k FPGA CPU splitting off into a separate project.

I noted that the Minimig AGA core reached v1.0 this year, which is good news, is compatibility fairly good now?

[https://code.google.com/p/mist-board/](https://code.google.com/p/mist-board/)

<comment><USER4> Who knows what's going on with Natami. Basically they've went off in different directions, and lately the forum for the Apollo core (the 68k FPGA cpu) was wiped. Whether that means they've given up or just decided they don't want to talk to anyone is anyones guess... I would say that at this point any good news from that camp will be a nice surprise rather than something anyone should hold their breath over.

I've not kept up with the Minimig cores. I'm more interested in AROS (though I check in on the FPGA projects now and again because I find them fun to read about), but have had very little time for that too lately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still use my Amiga machines, but I want nothing to do with AmigaOS4. A new desktop proprietary OS simply makes no sense in the present world, even more so if it only runs in special hardware.

AROS (free implementation of AmigaOS3) and Minimig (free implementation of the hardware for FPGA) is where it's at.

<comment><USER7> AROS runs on Minimig? That's incredibly cool.

<comment><USER6> As of a few years ago, it runs on classic Amiga hardware.

But graphics performance is poor without a graphics card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The vitality of the Amiga community never ceases to amaze me.

I actually headed over to A-Eon's page. I've been postponing getting one of their systems for about three years now, for various reasons, and I finally thought I'd say yes.

Sadly, it turns out they're all discontinued: [http://www.a-eon.com/?page=products](http://www.a-eon.com/?page=products) .

For all the awesomeness of AmigaOS 4, the hardware continues to be sadly elusive, as it has been ever since the demise of Commodore.

<comment><USER9> > Sadly, it turns out they're all discontinued

You can probably blame Apple for this, the CPU was from PA Semi.

<comment><USER10> > You can probably blame Apple for this,

Amiga fans the original Apple haters. I loved running the Mac OS emulator and getting fast performance with a slower chip.

<comment><USER5> > "Amiga fans the original Apple haters."

Probably just jealous that Apple had decent management that didn't throw away its performance lead.

"When the Amiga came out, everyone [at Apple] was scared as hell." (quote from former Apple exec Jean-Louis Gassée, Amazing Computing, Nov. 1996)

<comment><USER10> Well it wasn't differences in management as much as internal Thermal Nuclear War. Great reads to be had here [http://arstechnica.com/series/history-of-the- amiga/](http://arstechnica.com/series/history-of-the-amiga/)

Apple was a big bunch of haters on anything Amiga and told big fat lies about their own machine or the future machines that were right around the corner that would blow away the Amiga. (If around the corner was six years than they were not lying).

On an Amiga had a Motorola 68000 chip just like the Mac, but the emulator on my 1 mhz 68000 would out preform System on a 2 mhz 68000 family chip.

<comment><USER5> > "on my 1 mhz 68000"

Did you mean 7 MHz 68000?

<comment><USER10> Yes 7.09 MHz My bad it was soooooo fast at the time now I laugh. I really thin the move from anything to Amiga at the time was just leaps and bounds greater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how many Amiga users are left by now. I remember the heated discussions (on ANN) about whether Amiga should remain on the PPC track or go x86 (remember Amithlon?). Didn't stick around long enough, but it must've been a shock when Apple announced they were dropping PowerPC in favor of x86. Ah well...

<comment><USER12> In hindsight, by the time all those discussions happened on ANN, the platform (as a meaningful alternative to Apple or Windows) was dead anyway. A lot of energy was wasted on the comments section of ANN in those days that could have been spent on more productive endeavors.

<comment><USER11> ckemp1, as in Christian Kemp, creator of ANN.lu?

I know I wasted too much time participating in flame wars on ANN in those days. In hindsight, I wish I had abandoned the Amiga much sooner and walk away with with mostly good memories.

<comment><USER12> That's me. (As in, creator of ANN and also someone who should have walked away sooner - although I did switch to Windows quite a few years before closing ANN).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The modern Amiga community is weird. I get the nostalgia kick it brings, but there's too many differently vectored "purity" movements all concerned with carving out their own slightly different piece of a rapidly shrinking pie. There's what, 4-5 _different_ OS projects?

Even stranger are the commercial software projects -- for which there are dozens. The creators will _never_ come close to even making their time back with sales of very complex apps, so why not just release everything as Open Source or Freeware? There's no business model in the world where it makes sense to sell Amiga software anymore, and with the massive OS fragmentation any given port must sell in the low dozens even for very popular titles.

It absolutely doesn't make sense and seems very self defeating for what could be a more vibrant hobbyist platform.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you want to see how it all ended, Dave Haynie documenting the last day of Commodore. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaTjwo1ywcI&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER15> If someone from IBM is watching, it would be a really fun project to try to port some form of Amiga OS to run on POWER8. All of the POWER chips add complex instructions to the ISA but are all fully compatible with PPC COM(mon).

<comment><USER4> Getting AROS to run certainly would be possible. The biggest question would be "why", as though there's been some _very_ experimental work on SMP for AROS and claims of work on SMP for OS4, currently all of the alternatives are still stuck using just a single core.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Only the X1000 ist discontinued, the X5000 (Mainboard: Cyrus+) is coming soon and a new lower priced A1222 (Mainboard: Tabor) is coming too.

[http://www.a-eon.com/?page=x5000](http://www.a-eon.com/?page=x5000)

Some background infos and also Pics from Cyrus Board: [http://blog.a-eon.biz/blog/](http://blog.a-eon.biz/blog/)

</comment><comment><USER17> _" we have created a dedicated SVN resource"_

I'm surprised to see such out-dated technology still being used today.

<comment><USER18> I know that git is the standard these days, but my guess is that the majority of devs don't need a distibuted version control system. I personally find git powerful, but often overly complex.

<comment><USER19> I think git is pretty easy for easy workflows (add, commit, push). I just use subversion for old projects, where porting them to git would not make any sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> From what I can gather, it doesn't seem like it runs on PowerPC Macs. Too bad, I would've liked to try it out.

<comment><USER5> You can run MorphOS on some PPC Macs.

What's MorphOS? That's a long story. To save you the convoluted history, let's just say it's an Amiga-like operating system from the Amiga community.

According to the FAQ on the website, MorphOS runs on 'Powerbook G4, iBook G4, Mac mini G4, eMac, Power Mac G5, and Power Mac as well as on computers and systems based on EFIKA, Pegasos I, Pegasos II and Sam460 mainboards.'

[http://www.morphos.de/faq](http://www.morphos.de/faq)

Here's a video of MorphOS booting on a PPC Mac:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB2pT7QiNr4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB2pT7QiNr4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Man, I thought I was an Amiga die hard when I gave up around 16 years ago.</comment>