About CRDTs - <AUTHOR> https://crdt.tech/ <comment><USER2> For those wondering: From the site: " Conflict-free Replicated Data Type (CRDT) is a data structure that simplifies distributed data storage systems and multi-user applications.

In many systems, copies of some data need to be stored on multiple computers (known as replicas). Examples of such systems include:

        Mobile apps that store data on the local device, and that need to sync that data to other devices belonging to the same user (such as calendars, notes, contacts, or reminders);
        Distributed databases, which maintain multiple replicas of the data (in the same datacenter or in different locations) so that the system continues working correctly if some of the replicas are offline;
        Collaboration software, such as Google Docs, Trello, Figma, or many others, in which several users can concurrently make changes to the same file or data;
        Large-scale data storage and processing systems, which replicate data in order to achieve global scalability.

All such systems need to deal with the fact that the data may be concurrently modified on different replicas. "

</comment><comment><USER3> For those that can't get enough CRDT info, I've got a list going at [https://github.com/alangibson/awesome- crdt](https://github.com/alangibson/awesome-crdt).

Mine definitely doesn't have the name pedigree though, given that 3 of the biggest names in CRDT research run crdt.tech. Keep up the good work!

</comment><comment><USER4> Great resource!

One addition that would be valuable to newcomers to the concept would be a comparison to other techniques (OT, rebasing, 3-way merge, LWW, …), the pros, the cons.

For instance, memory overhead (minimizing tombstone cost, truncation, …), intention preservation (lost with LWW, depends on careful implementation in OT and CRDT, with OT being potentially subtler because of the implementation difficulty of having a large number of operations to transform with each other), centralization (implied by rebases, unnecessary for 3-way merge, hard to avoid in OT), and byzantine resistance (can malicious users with write access corrupt the data permanently or get priority writes).

It would probably help them understand the problem space, and avoid them rejecting CRDTs altogether when they stumble upon its subtleties.

</comment><comment><USER5> oouuu timely for me. thank you.

<comment><USER6> what are you working on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey, my Open Source database is the #1 CRDT rated system on GitHub, and is used in-production by 10M+ people a month, at non-profits like the Internet Archive, and others.

[https://github.com/topics/crdt](https://github.com/topics/crdt)

Mind adding it to the site?

<comment><USER8> There's an "edit this page" option on the top right of the page: [https://crdt.tech/implementations](https://crdt.tech/implementations)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, was on mobile which doesn't show it.

Edit: (reply is now showing)

<comment><USER7> Not sure why my post was flagged.

Just to be clear, Martin (site owner) added GUN to the list, not me. Proof:

[https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1244672269395406849](https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1244672269395406849)

<comment><USER9> As usual, you continue to mention GUN one way or another in every post that is slightly related to CRDTs or decentralization. Your comment would actually fit this submission but I guess at this point people are so tired of your spamming that they had enough, even when it's relevant.

Edit: I just checked out the link you put as "proof" that he added GUN to the list himself, not you. Link: [https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1244672269395406849](https://twitter.com/martinkl/status/1244672269395406849)

Martin Kleppmann

> To all interested in CRDTs: Marc Shapiro, @anne_biene and I have set up a > little CRDT community website. Lots of links to papers, blog posts, talks, > and implementations. Contributions welcome!

You (Mark Nadal)

> Saw this on HN.

> Can I ask why mine was excluded?

> I'm pretty sure you know about it.

> It is rated #1 CRDT system on GitHub ( > [https://github.com/topics/crdt](https://github.com/topics/crdt) )

> It is used in production by HackerNoon, non-profits like Internet Archive, & > other large sites.

> Handling 10M+ monthly users.

I'm not sure I or you misunderstand "Just to be clear, Martin (site owner) added GUN to the list, not me" but it seems pretty clear that you prompted him to add GUN to the list, he didn't discover GUN on his own and then added it.

Mark, when you're gonna realize that this excessive spamming of GUN is not helping your case?

<comment><USER7> I get some hate my Open Source project & actively abuse downvotes/flagging to censor me.

But for every 1 hater there are 100s of hackers that have found, starred, used, or told me (in our chat channel) they were thankful they discovered GUN via HackerNews.

& HN guidelines encourage on-topic submissions & comments ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)) "Anything that good hackers would find interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" even you have to admit that GUN discussions have sparked a lot of intellectual & algorithm chats.

Finally, you state I'm not spamming then say I am spamming. Spam is indiscriminate posting of something, yet your very own comment says "you always post GUN in discussions about CRDTs & decentralization." That is indeed on-topic according to HN policy.

<comment><USER10> Sorry for the delay, but I only saw this now.

The way you promote your product on HN is so aggressive as to amount to spamming, and you've been doing it for years: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Amarknadal%20gun&sort=byDate&type=comment)

Nearly every comment you post has some cunning (or not so cunning) promotional reference baked into it. Examples are legion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22252497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22252497). Your rare comments that _don 't_ include something like this are so boilerplate as to come across as shameless padding.

I asked you to stop this 2 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17000657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17000657). You've kept doing it.

Given that we've banned countless other users for lesser abuses, and given the regularity with which this pattern devolves into user complaints and off-topic flamewars like the current thread and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22499177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22499177), I think it's time to bite the bullet and ban your account. I don't really want to—which is no doubt why it's taken so long—but you're clearly not using this site in good faith, and enough is enough.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Create chatbots for events using Google Calendar - <AUTHOR> https://probotdev.com/event-chatbot/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, I submitted this, looking forward to your feedback!

The stack: React with Material UI, Scala, MySQL, Redis. The static website uses Hugo with custom theme (it was based on some themes, but I can't remember).

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing. Who is your target customer? Is there a way to demo the service before signing up?

<comment><AUTHOR> Event organizers (including for private events).

Here's a demo that you can chat with: [https://www.facebook.com/Awesome- Brand-479830779178972/](https://www.facebook.com/Awesome- Brand-479830779178972/) — I think it uses this calendar: [https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=YTgxNzBzc3Btb2ZkaGd...](https://calendar.google.com/calendar?cid=YTgxNzBzc3Btb2ZkaGd2N2xiZGFmajltdmtAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ)

I understand HN's general aversion to FB/Google login, but since the services _uses_ FB and Google, unfortunately that's how it is for now.</comment></comment></comment>


World Record for Compact Particle Accelerator - <AUTHOR> http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/12/08/world-record-for-compact-particle-accelerator/ <comment><USER2> The accelerator is pretty tiny! Unless you count the FREAKING GIANT LASER sitting next to it. Seriously, it's not just big, it's old-computer big:

[http://www2.lbl.gov/ehs/news/assets/img/news/setupBELLA.jpg](http://www2.lbl.gov/ehs/news/assets/img/news/setupBELLA.jpg) [http://www2.lbl.gov/ehs/news/assets/img/news/finalBELLA.jpg](http://www2.lbl.gov/ehs/news/assets/img/news/finalBELLA.jpg)

Although smaller than the LHC, i guess.

</comment><comment><USER3> Non-physicist here: Can this be used for science in the same way as LHC or are the applications totally different?

<comment><USER4> Physicist here, typing from the room next door to a linac. For the sake of full disclosure, I work in the low energy (nuclear) regime, and I am not a qualified high energy physicist.

The short answer is yes and maybe yes.

The primary intention behind researching laser wakefield accelerators is to provide a way to get to higher energies, like at LHC or beyond, without the huge cost. Physicists would love to test theories at higher energies than LHC is capable of, but the budgets for building a normal accelerator of that size are prohibitive. You don't necessarily need to figure out a way to make the beam go in a circular method to do this; linacs like SLAC just collide the beam with a stationary target. An effective wakefield accelerator would save $billions.

However, what this article doesn't say is what are the efficiency and luminosity of this accelerator. Just like a car is measured by more than just horsepower alone, accelerators need high efficiency (amount of power to run them, and cool them) and high luminosity (how much of your beam can be usefully put on target). I can't comment on this yet, because I'm not up on current wakefield research.

If you have good efficiency and luminosity as well as acceleration gradient, it might be valuable in the medical linac field. Much of the cost of medical linacs is in controls and software, but having a smaller head makes the whole linac cheaper. You can move it around and do stuff like Cyberknife does. It may provide a cost advantage which allows a new company to compete with Varian and Elekta. But reducing the size of a 1 meter object to a 1 cm object is not as valuable as reducing a 100 km object to 1 km.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So how are the portable ectoplasmic containment units coming along?</comment>


Ask HN: implications of using GPL'ed Ruby library inside a SAAS service ? - <AUTHOR>

I'm quite puzzled by this question - maybe someone here will be able to give a clear answer.
My current understanding is that I'd have to state I use the GPL library, and would have to send the library code (not the whole server code) to anyone asking (including modifications, if any).
Did I understand properly ? <comment><USER2> You can use all the GPL code you want on your server without telling or sharing it with anyone. GPL only matters when you're redistributing a program using GPL code.

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

<comment><USER3> I _think_ AGPL changes this, but I'm not sure. Frankly, GPL licensing after version 2 is so confusing to me that I just avoid it whenever possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yay. I'm totally confused as well. I read things that tell very different stories, and all end up with "you should ask your lawyer" (who has no clue).

Currently I just think I'm going to stay away and find an alternative, it's just too confusing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting thread on the topic: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/94346/can-i-legally- incor...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/94346/can-i-legally-incorporate- gpl-lgpl-open-sourced-software-in-a-proprietary-clo/94433#94433)

So having a hosted service with GPL2 would be ok, but GPL3 seems to be an issue.

It also opens the question on weither a project with just "GPL" specified (not 2 or 3) automatically moves to GPL 3.

I'm not sure to understand. I'll definitely go away from the library if I don't.

</comment><comment><USER4> it's Free as in libre not gratuit And free means that your source code has to be available, users should be able to modify the application etc etc. But it doesn't mean you can't charge money for it. Enterprises can't do GPL because then their users can ask for the source code of internal applications and that is a big no no because they could sell them to competitors etc

So I think you're correct ;)</comment>


GE Woes Deepen as SEC Investigation Throws Wrench in Turnaround - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/ge-says-company-is-subject-to-sec-investigation-jct57d0k <comment><USER2> Long-term care insurance is a racket. If you buy it, read the terms _very_ carefully. Most policies are loaded with escape clauses and will end up paying only a small fraction of any eventual long term care costs.

<comment><USER3> Several years ago, I looked this up. The LTC payout ratio for men was ~.8 and for women was 1.05. The average was close to 1.0 since more women had LTC insurance. So, it's possible that LTC provides too little coverage, but that'd mean it is also underpriced.

<comment><USER4> Why do you think it may be underpriced? A policy with a payout ratio of 1.0 can still be highly profitable for an insurer.

<comment><USER3> Not highly profitable without assuming too much risk, but yes, 1.0 is profitable.

But let's say the LTC underwriters can pay out 10% more and stay in business. That would mean that in The OP's "scam" scenario situation, instead of getting, say, $100,000 in benefits over two years, they could get $110,000. However, the inflamed wording suggests OP wants a lot more than his relative is getting, not a little bit more, like $300,000 over four years. That wouldn't be possible to do in aggregate without charging a higher premium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm glad my employer never merged with GE. IIRC it was blocked. Of course they still implemented much of the management BS, such as stack ranking (firing 15% of your workforce every year).

I have no respect for a company that moves from manufacturing to the worst kind of finance; high interest credit cards.

<comment><USER6> > they still implemented much of the management BS, such as stack ranking > (firing 15% of your workforce every year)

I believe GE scrapped this system in 2015.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hmm, you'd think this would make the stock go down (today), but it hasn't yet.

<comment><USER8> Daily stock movements are practically random. Stocks go down even if earnings beat estimates.

<comment><USER9> _Stocks go down even if earnings beat estimates._

Only if you beat estimates by less than people had estimated you would.

<comment><USER8> [https://investorplace.com/2017/11/workday-inc- wday/#.WmioNOi...](https://investorplace.com/2017/11/workday-inc- wday/#.WmioNOi7_Sw)

Workday beated estimates by over 50%, yet shares fell. I can give a lot more examples...

Lots of investors also sell when earnings beat estimates because they think they'll be selling high, etc. Point is there are tons of factors and it is way too simplistic to say beating earnings = price increase on that day.

<comment><USER9> There are two estimates you need to consider. The official estimate and the 'secret' estimate that investors really think you should beat. Although most people focus on the first one, it's only the second one that really counts.

 _Point is there are tons of factors and it is way too simplistic to say beating earnings = price increase on that day._

Absolutely agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am sad they got out off the light bulb business.

<comment><USER11> Have you seen the new crop of LED bulbs? The clear ones with the filaments visible are almost as brilliant as "traditional" clear bulbs, and the light is indistinguishable for me–all at 10% of the power usage of traditional lighting.

I had avoided CFL bulbs for aesthetic reasons, but the advances of the last year have convinced me.

<comment><USER12> Is the light spectrum continuous and is the bulb not flashing with very high frequency anymore?

<comment><USER13> I want the spectrum to be relatively flat, i.e. lacking the spikes that we see with most fluorescing materials. The flatter it is, the more well behaved it'll be compared to what our biology is designed for: black body radiators.

Also, the aging profile is important. Just because the thing won't stop working for 10 years is not what's important. If it starts color shifting in a year, which to date they do, that's pretty much shit. Try mixing and matching bulbs, it's horrendous.

<comment><USER14> There are LEDs with smoother spectrums but they're expensive and not widely used, especially in products targeted at consumers.

[http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/technology/Sunlike/](http://www.seoulsemicon.com/en/technology/Sunlike/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Let's not forget the time GE sold its Swiss subsidiary to Hungary for 40k and back an hour later for 6,7 Billion to avoid paying taxes in Switzerland. [1]

[1] [https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/standard/Die- Steuerv...](https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/standard/Die- Steuerverwaltung-war-vollstaendig-informiert/story/21328250)

<comment><USER16> When I hear of accounting like that, my immediate desire is to see GE Switzerland nationalized, and its shareholders get paid $40K for it. That's what it's worth, right?</comment></comment>


Negative 1.5 Mandelbox - <AUTHOR> https://sites.google.com/site/mandelbox/negative-mandelbox <comment><USER2> More on Mandelbox: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbox)

Software used: [http://www.ultrafractal.com/](http://www.ultrafractal.com/)

<comment><USER3> And * [https://sourceforge.net/projects/mandelbulber/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/mandelbulber/) * [http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=downloads;cat=...](http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=downloads;cat=5) * [http://github.com/trafassel/Gestaltlupe](http://github.com/trafassel/Gestaltlupe) * [http://rrrola.wz.cz/downloads.html#effects](http://rrrola.wz.cz/downloads.html#effects) Realtime: [http://www.peternitsch.net/blog/?p=769](http://www.peternitsch.net/blog/?p=769)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So pretty, I wish one could wander around inside of them but I assume it might be difficult to render in real time.

<comment><USER5> Check out subBlue's work [http://sub.blue/fractal- lab](http://sub.blue/fractal-lab)

<comment><USER4> Man that was fascinating. I wish he had released it already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where is the day-glo pterodactyl?

</comment><comment><USER7> Would be nice to 3D-print it!

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately, the resolution would be lacking :)</comment></comment>


Follow the Bitcoin: Wikileaks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@DemocracyEarth/follow-the-bitcoin-wikileaks-f2218dece347 <comment><USER2> > [Wikileaks] has been the most influential actor during the US 🇺🇸 2016 > presidential election

As they say, citation needed.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what the first chart in the article showing twitter conversations throughout all of 2016 regarding the election aims to prove.</comment></comment>


Each Lyft ride costs $0.14 in AWS fees - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/MohapatraHemant/status/1102401615263223809 <comment><USER2> Wow. And I have 15 cloud apps on a 30$ Windows server.

And I thought Windows was expensive... ( In the past)

Serious though, how can this be this expensive. Is it because of microservices?</comment>


Angel Investor Chris Sacca To Launch $5 million Early Stage Venture Fund - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/28/angel-investor-chris-sacca-to-launch-5-million-early-stage-venture-fund/ <comment><USER2> _Said Graham: "This fund could make a difference, because Chris is so different from most VCs. He isn't driven primarily by fear."_

Is it just me or is PG starting to sound more and more like Yoda?

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. He was reported saying: "A hacker's strength flows from Lisp."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can someone explain how moving existing investments to a new fund works?

"Our understanding is that the fund is partially closed, and some or all of Sacca's previous investments, including Twitter, will be moved to the new fund. Meaning new investors in the fund will start off with stock in Twitter."

</comment><comment><USER5> Chris seems like a groovy dude, but I have to admit mild annoyance at people labeling themselves a venture fund when doing basically angel-level investments. It just sets up different expectations and causes a bit of confusion.

<comment><USER6> Just means he'll have an excuse to value your investment round instead of just participating in convertible. Now in the valley we have SofttechVC, Lowercase, OATV, FirstRound, Baseline, and a handful of others trying to extract 20% from you for money you used to be able to get for 3-10%. On the bright side, more competition is good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I the only one who finds the uppercase lettering rather puzzling?

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting timing, after this discussion from a couple days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=788504>

I think that investments in the $50k-$150K range and possibly a bit more (~$300K) definitely match a need

</comment><comment><USER9> We definitely need more funds like these. It's been our experience that raising this amount of money is inordinately time-consuming.

I wonder what kind of proposal/plan/due diligence an entrepreneur needs to present to get $150,000.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Meaning new investors in the fund will start off with stock in Twitter." !.

</comment><comment> puzzle-out Sacca is a mega impressive guy, when presenting on Google based material. I've seen him present his own lowercase capital stuff since he left and it lacked the wit and insight which he is famed for; infact one presentation was damnright lame, bring a horse to water nonsense. He needs to employ an script writer like his Jesus, Obama, if the Sacca-brand is to continue.</comment>


Ask HN: Service/APIs for getting User's Info. - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone here know of any service / apis that can give information about users based on their Twitter ID.
Like their LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr, Youtube, Hacker News, Reddit, Digg, etc profiles.
Something like Rapleaf. or something like what Rapportive is using.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> Incarnate <http://visitmix.com/labs/incarnate/></comment>


Telstra to switch off 3G network in 2024 - <AUTHOR> https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/10/telstra-3g-switch-off-date-australia/ <comment><USER2> Cant wait for Telstra to rollout 5g across all of Sydney.

</comment><comment><USER3> Switching off 3G before 5Gs even out!</comment>


Ask HN: any changes in the last year to make getting insurance easier? - <AUTHOR>

I'm self-employed with an outrageously expensive Aetna insurance plan for my business.  The premiums are increasing to a seemingly astronomical $1,650/month for my family of four.
Degree of difficulty: Wife and older son(11) have some medical conditions and have typically been tough to insure.
I haven't been paying too much to the Obamacare and related initiatives but I figured I'd do some research before committing to renewing.  I know that there have been some changes made to allow people who were previously considered uninsurable to secure insurance.
We are in Florida, I'm not sure if this matters. <comment><USER2> That rate is actually in-line with other family plans. What makes it more expensive is you don't have the employer contribution component being self employed. I have a PPO plan that is actually more than that per month but my employer covers ~75% of the cost.

Some states, like MA, have a "Health Connector" which is a marketplace for insurance. Unfortunately FL isn't too progressive when it comes to state funded insurance initiatives so you probably won't find much, particularly if you are in the non-poverty income bracket. The self-employed get the shaft when it comes to health insurance in the US because they lack collective bargaining power against the insurers. .

I'm not too well versed in what is going to become of "Obamacare" as nothing major has been rolled out. Some of your more immediate options are:

\- Consider looking into a p/t gig that includes health insurance. \- Have spouse look into p/t gig (Municipal/Town Job!) that includes insurance. This is what many tradesmen in US do. \- Look into joining a trade group or professional group for discounted rate \- Look into state funded insurance marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER3> As of September 23rd, 2010, you should be able to get less expensive insurance for you son: [http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/ChildrensPCIP/child...](http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/ChildrensPCIP/childrenspcip.html)

It also looks like there will be a federally run plan that your wife could be included in: [http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting/states/...](http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting/states/fl.html)

I purchased the domain, <http://healthcarelawfacts.com>, to answer these types of questions. I really need to get that going... Anyone wanna help? ;-)</comment>


What's the best way to learn JavaScript (in web dev context) - <AUTHOR>

As a web developer that primarily writes ruby, css, html and a bit of JQuery. I'd like to step up my game in writing Javascript. We're headed towards a client-side heavy world and I seem to be a bit behind with JS. It just feels archaic.
What are some books, guides, or tutorials that helped you become better at programming with JS and JS related libraries like JQuery, CoffeeScript etc... (in the web dev context).
Please share! <comment><USER2> Watch Douglas Crockford's video series that he made at Yahoo. Get a copy of his book and read it.

Make sure you understand the prototypical nature of Javascript as opposed to the class structure in other languages and how to use it effectively. Also make sure to understand scope, how "this" keyword relates to scope and finally callback functions.

That is pretty much it. JS is very powerful once you get comfortable with it. It was designed in a very short time (~2 weeks) so it has some quirks but do not let those get to you.</comment>


UCT student upsets Newton's apple cart with her demand that #ScienceMustFall - <AUTHOR> http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2016/10/14/UCT-student-upsets-Newton%E2%80%99s-apple-cart-with-her-demand-that-ScienceMustFall1 <comment><USER2> >A so-called "fallist" has asked students at the University of Cape Town's science faculty to consider scrapping science as a whole if it is ever to be decolonised.

>At a panel discussion this week' published to YouTube' the woman responded to a question about the decolonisation of science.

>"Science as a whole is a product of western modernity and the whole thing should be scratched off. Especially in Africa'" she says

Maybe she should be colonised and educated out of her savage ways.

</comment><comment><USER3> Welp. Stupid is winning one more time :/</comment>


New Zealand is about to test long-range wireless power transmission - <AUTHOR> https://singularityhub.com/2020/08/30/new-zealand-is-about-to-test-long-range-wireless-power-transmission/ <comment><USER3> Guys, This is Greg Kushnir, founder of Emrod.

I am excited and humbled by your support.

At Emrod we have safety and environmental considerations at the core. I'm happy to explain why our tech is not only safe but also has a far smaller environmental footprint than any powerlines, communications antennas, etc.

As with any new transformative technology, there will always be sceptics. All we can do is rely on solid science and engineering, listen to the public and address their concerns.

I invite you to engage us in an open honest conversation. We would love to hear your concerns, thoughts about possible applications, or even just drop us a line to say what you think about wireless power.

<comment><USER4> What frequency are you using and over what bandwidth? How many dB down are your sidelobes from your main beam? Are you using parabolic reflectors for your primary antennas, how big are they relative to your wavelength (what's the beamwidth)? What role do meta-materials play, are they the collimating relay? What about the sidelobes on the relay?

Why do you think 100 mW/cm^2 is 'safe'? You must know from experience this is enough for tissue heating, even from sidelobes many dB down.

Over what ranges do you think this is feasible? With, say 20 km of free space path loss in the 2.4 GHz ISM and 40 dB antenna gain at each end you're going to be at least 50 dB down. Doesn't this mean for things like transmitting power to islands this tech is not useful?

Even if you start at 1 KW in (60 dBm), over 20 km the receiving antenna is going to get about 0-10 dBm, or milliwatts.

With the same generous setup at 1 km and 1 kW you get 10 watts at the far end.

This just doesn't work out.

<comment><USER3> The antenna size is governed by the wavelength and the distance between Tx and Rx (or relays).

There are no sidelobes. We are using near-field and catching close to 100% of the radiated energy.

Range is only limited by line of site and an antenna size which is practical. Mind you, we can reduce antenna size and increase range by using passive relays.

Using a phased array, operating in the near-field. strictly point-to-point between Tx/Rx.

At the moment we are working with about 60% end to end efficiency so sending 1kw means you will get 600w at the far end… not 1w :)

<comment><USER5> As far as I understand it near-field effects stop being relevant at a couple of wavelengths away from the transmitter. For 2.4ghz that would give you what, a meter of distance?

Can you link me to reading material explaining how an antenna can have no sidelobes?

<comment><USER6> Near-field is only a few wavelengths away when the antenna itself is a half wavelength in dimension. Otherwise you would calculate the size of the near field as a function of the physical dimension of the antenna and the wavelength: r2 = 2d^2/λ.

E.g. The radiating near field of a 2.4GHz antenna about 8 meters long would extend about 1km.

[1] - [https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/anttool/regions.shtml](https://www.giangrandi.org/electronics/anttool/regions.shtml)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for clearing that up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Microwave beam, not magnifying transmitter.

AFAIK, Tesla's theory about how to do wireless power transmission was to use a specially modified absolutely gigantic Tesla coil (a "magnifying transmitter") to resonate the electrostatic sphere of the Earth; spark-gap radio and lightning strikes, only tuned to resonate.

It remains unclear to me if this was ever actually attempted - Tesla's original attempt, Wardenclyffe Tower, was never completed and AFAIK no-one has since attempted it.

None of this has anything to do with this attempt in NZ, since it's a beam, instead.

<comment><USER8> I thought the general reason nobody had tried it was that the resultant EMF would fry pretty much all electronics globally?

<comment><USER7> Could be, but that wouldn't have been true for 30+ years after Wardenclyffe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 70% efficiency is nothing to sneeze at. Stewart Island, which they envision serving with a commercial system, is powered by diesel generators with a cost of electricity of ~$1/kW-h. It's about 50km across the water from Bluff, where there is a surplus of energy due to a large aluminum smelter served by a dedicated hydroelectric plant.

With only about 300 people, the community on Stewart Island can't justify an undersea cable. But a microwave power beaming system could be built for much less, and supply energy much cheaper (and greener) than burning diesel.

<comment><USER10> would this also be the technology to use for satellite -> surface energy transfer?

<comment><USER9> Yes, it's essentially the same architecture: two large phased arrays pointing at each other. The terrestrial technology development could transfer to the space application, or vice versa.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think i've figured out how they are doing it. This is copy paste about a company he co-founded on his linkedin page. Case cracked! Psychic power transfer... awesome.

Zodiac Psychics operates a marketplace for online spiritual and psychic consulting. A rapidly growing number of advisors are servicing their clients daily over the Zodiac Psychics platform.

Zodiac Psychics has become a top destination for anyone looking for guidance about love, relationship and life's day-to-day challenges. Professional Psychics and spiritual advisors from around the world are available for online psychic readings, spiritual coaching, and connection with deceased loved ones via confidential, one-to-one online chat. Qualified Psychics and Tarot readers are enjoying lowest fees in the industry and timely payments. see less

Edit: Reference: [https://www.linkedin.com/company/zodiac- psychics/](https://www.linkedin.com/company/zodiac-psychics/)

<comment><USER12> Wow, so he's a grifter?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wait I've seen this movie:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Earth_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Earth_\(film\))

<comment><USER14> I came here looking for this comment. Well done! (Great movie btw).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "A famous image of inventor Nikola Tesla shows him casually sitting on a chair, legs crossed, taking notes—oblivious to the profusion of artificial lightning rending the air meters away."

Oblivious, because the image was a double negative.

"The photo was a promotional stunt by photographer Dickenson V. Alley; a double exposure. First the machine's huge sparks were photographed in the darkened room, then the photographic plate was exposed again with the machine off and Tesla sitting in the chair. In his Colorado Springs Notes Tesla admitted that the photo is false:

        "Of course, the discharge was not playing when the experimenter was photographed, as might be imagined!"

Tesla's biographers Carl Willis and Mark Seifer confirm this."

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikola_Tesla,_with_h...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikola_Tesla,_with_his_equipment_Wellcome_M0014782.jpg)

<comment><USER16> Tesla had figured out the math for the minimum safe distance from his coils and had a habit of building the biggest one he could get away with in the shop space he had. Which meant they tended to nearly exactly fit into his workshop.

Which led to a situation mentioned in one of his biographies, where he was on the far side of the shop and somehow the switch got thrown. It was either make a new exit through a wall or window, or leverage the fact that discharges are sphere shaped but shops are generally box-shaped; army crawl out through the little 'triangle' of space between the floor and the wall/benches outside of the radius. I would hope some new safety protocols were introduced after that, but I couldn't rightly say. The rest of that story sort of overshadows such details in your memory.

<comment><USER17> Perhaps the circular fence in the photo is a safety protocol?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how they're thinking about this versus the steady march of solar + battery performance.

I would think that in the 5-10 years it'll take to get this safe enough for a commercial product, solar + battery would be scaling and they'd never be able to catch up on price due to the efficiency ceiling.

Maybe there's something possible in aviation for this. There might be electric drones/planes applications which would be way better if they didn't have to carry batteries.

<comment><USER19> This does not compete with this solar/batteries so much as it competes with electrical wires.

<comment><USER20> Yeah that's the idea. But if you have somewhere remote enough that's there's no power there then solar and wind are competitors to building wires. There are thousands upon thousands of houses in the US that choose to put up solar and wind and use batteries vs spend $50k to have wires pulled. Same for wells and septic vs city water and sewer.

<comment><USER21> Probably thinking about west coast of the South Island, New Zealand. Its rugged weather down there, still no mobile reception for most of it, sparsely populated and right up against the Alps.

They struggle to get powerlines/phone lines through already so I'm not surprised they're thinking this might be a valid option to relay power for small settlements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think the most exciting application for this would be for launching spacecraft.

The tyranny of the rocket equation makes launches super expensive because rockets have to carry fuel to lift the fuel and so on.

So it we can provide energy for a launch from the ground it could be amazing.

<comment><USER23> I don't think wireless electric spacecraft are really viable for getting into Earth orbit, at least not in the foreseeable future. In order to escape Earth's gravity well, a spacecraft must be accelerating at more than 9.8 m/s (1 g), and realistically at double or triple that rate to minimize fuel consumption.

Imagine a spacecraft with a mass of 100 tons (including fuel and payload). Let's also assume a specific impulse of 2,956 (the highest thrust version of VASIMR according to this source: [http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#...](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#id --Electromagnetic_\(Plasma\)--VASIMR)). If we require an acceleration of 2 g and assume that our engine is 100% efficient we would require about 28 GW of electricity. This is approximately equivalent to the average electricity consumption of California. I don't think it would be possible (with current or projected future technology) to build a receiver that could handle 28 GW of electricity and still stay under 100 tons. If we could build such a receiver I don't think it would be able to survive accelerating through Earth's atmosphere.

The silver lining, though, is that wireless power transfer is a very useful technology for use in space after getting to orbit. Lasers are probably a better technology than microwaves for transferring power over interplanetary distances, but the concept is the same. If we ever travel to another star there is a pretty good chance that the journey will be at least partially powered by an array of very large lasers.

<comment><USER6> > _...and realistically at double or triple that rate to minimize fuel > consumption._

But that's the whole point, with traditional rockets every second spent on the way up is wasted fuel combatting the cumulative force of gravity.

But if your energy is being beamed up, as long as that energy is enough to overcome gravity, you eventually achieve orbit. You're no longer burning a limited resource just to "hover + 1".

I'm not saying it works, but it does fundamentally change the equation if you can beam "fuel" to the rocket on the way up.

Unfortunately energy =/= fuel. In the end, mass has to exit the rocket at high velocity out one end in order to provide acceleration in the opposite direction, and that mass is limited.

<comment><USER24> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightcraft](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightcraft)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm certainly not an expert of electricity nor radio nor microwave emitters, and such...And, the approach here sounds really amazing...But would a heavy enough downpour of rain act as a strong enough obstruction to trigger the lasers? In essence would weather - at least precipitation - have a negative impact here?

<comment><USER3> Using 2.4GHz-5.5GHz means minimal (if any) weather related interference. Rain wont have any effect...unless its heavy enough to bring down the antennas. but thats going to be an issue for any outdoors structure such as pylons or communication towers.

<comment><USER26> If you are using 2.4 GHz, how are you remaining in the near field yet extending the distances out to many km?

At 2.4GHz, λ is approximately 0.125m. Since the wavelength is small, the antenna is likely to be "electromagnetically long", i.e. the size of the antenna is of comparable size to the wavelength.

The edge of the near field in this case is defined by the Fraunhofer Distance [0][1]. Let's assume we want the edge of the near field to be 1km away. Running that through the Fraunhofer distance equation to compute the largest dimension of the radiator, we get ~7.9m. That's huge. For 10km it is 25m.

0\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Electromagn...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Electromagnetically_long_antennas)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If this is functional I think it would have huge implication w/r to disaster relief. Much easier to start transmitting power to an area wirelessly then start repairing broken infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER28> All the fussing over Marconi was a bit painful to read through - it's not "Marconi's radio waves" \- Tesla was there first too. Unfortunately it happened after both their deaths but Marconi's patents were invalidated and Teslas were held up. It's annoying to see this myth about Marconi still perpetuated.

More: [https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla- invent...](https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/tesla-invented- radio-not-marconi)

<comment><USER29> Thanks, I was thinking the same thing. Marconi deserves credit for developing the concept of radio as we know it for long range communication whereas Tesla invented radio and demonstrated remote control but did not pursue communication. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boat)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am trying to reconcile what I read in the comments and the article. Namely,

\- we are using nearfield. No sidelobe.

\- 2.4 - 5.5 GHz

\- long distance (I am assuming km's)

Is there anything to read so I can better understand the technology?

<comment><USER31> No, you're right. They call it near field for a reason. Likely single or double-digit meters in distance depending on the antenna size for that frequency range.

For example, 10 foot antenna, 4Ghz == 12 meters of "reactive near field" or ~250 meters of "radiating near field" though the claim is it's not radiating, therefore it's safe.

Either this is bs, or something important isn't being said.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > The system uses a net of lasers surrounding the beam to detect obstructions, > like a bird or person, and it automatically shuts off transmission until the > obstruction has moved on.

The sensor + electronics part is what is different today from what Nikola Tesla could do.

But the ISM band usage might suck for anyone who needs high SNR for other use, because the scattering on moisture + a 1kw/sqm power delivery means it will look like shining a laser through a dusty room.

</comment><comment><USER29> The introduction is a bit off. Tesla even invented the concept of radio before Marconi but only utilized it for remote control. Marconi invented the concept of radio for long range communication. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio#Tesla's_boat)

<comment><USER15> The introduction is _really_ off. The image of Tesla and his transmitter was a double negative, no wonder he looks so relaxed. He wasn't actually sitting there with the transmitter turned on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm totally uninformed about wireless power and it's safety, but it seems like a lot of people in these threads are so I'd like to fire it this question: can high gain 5Ghz WiFi cause any adverse health effects? I just got a new MikroTik router yesterday that has a really high gain radio on it. It shipped with the 5Ghz dedicated radio disabled, and I have it sitting under my desk. When I turned the radio on, I started to feel a tingle and a dullish pain in my ankles. When I switched my phone to the 5GHz network I perceived increased radio noise, and noticed a tingling sensation in my hands. Prolonged use seemed to irritate my forearms. It's entirely possible this is a psychosomatic effect and I've kept the radio on based on that assumption. Still, I'm concerned. It feels similar to the effect I feel standing off-axis from my microwave while it's running 1100W full blast.

Is this in my head? Am I safe to use this radio at full gain? Should I not keep it by my desk?

<comment><USER34> Have some third party toggle it a few (3+) times and see if you can tell the difference.

<comment><USER35> Yes this is a great suggestion

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The famous photograph of Tesla sitting with the lightening hurtling out from his coils was a double exposure.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Ultimately, the technology may help power rural areas or transmit energy from offshore wind farms, both cases where it's expensive to build physical infrastructure to tap or feed the grid."

While I understand case 1 and I worry some people don't understand that even if we get the tech figured out it's going to only make sense in certain contexts (at least until/unless we have infinite `free` power), but I think #2 is a bit weird.

Yes building that infrastructure to the wind farm is costly/difficult but also... It seems weird to bottleneck the generation at the gen site. I guess if the infrastructure costs for wireless transmission are minimal you could get things bootstrapped easier/cheaper but it def seems shortsighted if you're already creating a big loss at the first stage of generation.

<comment><USER19> You can have a satellite at low earth orbit taking energy from the sun or even more ambitiously nuclear fusion(like the sun) that may very well be easier to archive in low gravity of near space, then transmit this to a base earth station. It would be near-free in the same sense that the suns energy is near- free.

<comment><USER38> Just use some mirrors and ground based pv?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> How It Works

The system consists of four components: A scientifically illiterate public, a gullible trade press, desperate capitalists, and wide eyed entrepreneurs riding the hype cycle all the way to the exit.

</comment><comment><USER40> Yeah, there aren't enough details here to prove the claims. Not to mention, how much power do the "transmitting relays" use. Those sound like they need to be active devices that require a power source. Yes you can siphon off power from the beam, but with all the losses involved it doesn't seem to make sense.

Regards, Rick Derrick <a href="[https://123hp-com- setup.net/">123.hp.com/setup</a>](https://123hp-com- setup.net/">123.hp.com/setup</a>)

<comment><USER41> This is AI generated spam. Spam itself is not notable, and soon AI generated spam will not be notable either. But it's interesting to see the beginning where it starts showing up in the wild.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Every single one of these companies to date has been vaporware, but very interested to see if we ever get one that isn't.

</comment><comment><USER43> Edit: As several have pointed out... I'm wrong. I was confusing energy with power.

> microwave energy—an electromagnetic wave just like Marconi's radio waves, > only a bit more energetic

Sorry for the nitpick, but, the difference between microwave and longer wavelength radio waves is frequency, not energy! I see this all the time in popular science reporting and it drives me nuts... Microwaves are electromagnetic waves, just like UHF, VHF, etc., except that they are a higher frequency (and thus, shorter wavelength). In fact, in general, longer wavelength radio waves are often transmitted at higher power than shorter.

Unless they mean that this microwave energy transfer scheme itself is using more energetic radio waves than other types of radio systems... but it doesn't read that way to me.

<comment><USER44> Higher frequency means more energy per photon. You seem to be referring to power not energy.

You see it reported all over as energy because that is the correct term for what is being discussed.

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

<comment><USER43> Thanks for the link.. yes, I had energy and power confused.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I was hoping someone would write down a list of companies or startups doing wireless transmission better! Would be great!

<comment><USER46> Powerlight Technologies does power transmission via lasers, and does it at non-toy power levels (they have demonstrated 1kW delivered @ 1kM). They do both free-space and power over fiber. The main downside to doing it optically is the cost of the system as the focus so far has been on custom tailored systems for use-cases where there isn't any other way to get power.

Disclaimer: I'm involved with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Is there a safe, simple way to demo this with a led light? Curious to create but I'm not too good with circuits.

<comment><USER48> It's very similar to a LED and a solar panel.

Except instead of a LED converting electricity into visible EM radiation, it's an antenna that converts electricity into a _focused beam_ of microwave EM radiation. And on the other side instead of a solar panel you have an antenna to convert back from EM into electricity.

A similar example is WiFi/Bluetooth where you have antennas converting electricity to EM radition and back. Except they're at much lower power - <USER2> under a watt for phones/laptops, and up to a watt for routers, and generally the antennas are omnidirectional instead of focused.

If you really wanted to use visible light instead of microwave and not have antennas you could do a laser and a solar panel to get effectively the same product. Pretty sure laser power transmission is a thing with some niche use cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> What happens when there is fog?

</comment><comment><USER4> Unless there's some physical reason you can't run physical conductor there's every reason not to do this.

This setup proposes to use 100mw/cm^2. That's just not acceptable unless you're sure no humans or animals are going to cross the beam (or even it's sidebands!). Even a horn has diffraction sidebands, and unless they're all at least 8dB down in all situations that's bad. The laser trips won't cover this.

This exceeds the safety standards established by the US Navy back when they were dealing with their high powered radars for the first time. They found that anything over 10mW/cm^2 can cause enough heating in animal eyes to cause clouding of the eye. Humans' deep set eyes and brow ridges help (depending on freq) but 10mW/cm^2 can still cause health issues. The measured e-field for that powerlevel, depending on wavelength, will almost certainly be above the electrical field limit for exposure in the USA. I hope that's also true in NZ.

<comment><USER22> I wish HN commenters would try to think of solutions instead of automatically listing the problems.

This place is pretty depressing sometimes.

<comment><USER50> Inspectors of finished works

<comment><USER4> Well, okay guys, I'll give you a "solution" since this is proposing to use RF anyway. Instead of doing it entirely wirelessly use a very thin conductor surface wave transmission line (SWTL). That way only one conductor is needed and the RF energy is mostly contained within a wavelength or so of the SWTL (think "inside-out waveguide). The conductor can be very thin, like 28 awg. Or, for spanning larger distance, SWTL mode has been demonstrated on twisted aluminum cord used in normal power lines. It's just a matter of adapting the coaxial to SWTL launcher (sort of cone).

<comment><USER51> Except "Surface Wave Transmission Lines" leak.

A lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Let's do the math. edit: math was wrong, I am very sorry

<comment><USER3> :) you need you replace you envelop or do some serious research.. your assumptions and calculations have very little to do with reality.

Unfortunately, this is typical armchair, internet commentary some people prefer instead of doing actual research.

<comment><USER52> I agree my math was wrong, I am sorry and I have removed it. I should not be commenting on the internet late at night.

I have crunched the numbers again on a new envelope, and with some realistic Tx/Rx panel size (3 meters) at 5 GHz, I see how you may end up with 70% efficiency assuming diffraction limited panels but also with 100% efficiency of the electronics.

Since I have the idea that you are part of Emrod, I would like to ask you why you opted for rectennas at receive and not some other antenna tech? Is it simply the integration between antenna and rectifier (smaller footprint?) or are there more reasons?

<comment><USER51> > ... Rectennas at receive and not some other antenna tech?

A Rectenna is just a dipole with a rectifier at the feed point.

They could be in a phased array (of dipoles), or in the center of a parabolic reflector.

There is no possible way to increase on efficiency in a passive antenna.

<comment><USER52> > They could be in a phased array

So could any other type of antenna, basically. It doesn't have to be a dipole, though.

> or in the center of a parabolic reflector

Based on the images, that's not what happens here

> There is no possible way to increase on efficiency in a passive antenna.

That is absolute horseshit. Large dipole arrays will suffer from high mutual coupling which could drastically reduce performance (depending on design choices). Different antenna types might be more suitable for different scenarios, but that's why I would like EmRod to explain their choices.

Furthermore, a rectenna gives you DC power out, but why would EmRod want this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Uh oh.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089869)

<comment><USER54> I was thinking the same

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> What about exposure to radiation?

</comment><comment><USER56> Just for the record there is NO ISM band in ITU region 3 (in which NZ is located)

<comment><USER51> There most definitely ARE ISM bands in Region 3.

The ITU has allocated 12 different ISM bands world wide, with some local differences.

see the "Table of Radio Spectrum Usage in New Zealand"

[https://www.rsm.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/pibs/ff001f...](https://www.rsm.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/documents/pibs/ff001f5055/table- of-radio-spectrum-usage-in-new-zealand-pib-21.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This would be great for crowd control.

</comment><comment><USER58> What could possibly go wrong...

<comment><USER59> What are you even implying could go wrong? Seems perfectly safe to me.

<comment><USER60> It's a very manageable risk (i.e. this isn't like dredging a canal with a nuclear bomb), but high power electromagnetic radiation can hurt you. Not in the 5G-causes-arse-cancer sense, but you could end up at least microwaving some birds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> In 2020?? Can't we just wait 4 months, we don't want to give it any more fuel</comment>


How biased is your news source? You probably won't agree with this chart - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28 <comment><USER2> I've seen this chart before and I generally agree with it. However, it's hard to take it too seriously since it was compiled by what seems to be a random patent attorney and not a more reputable source.</comment>


How to create a top journal by accepting (almost) everything - <AUTHOR> http://www.colinphillips.net/?p=3470 <comment><USER2> More than the open access aspect of the issue, it's the reviewing practices that appear to be the real success here.

Papers in EECS area are typically published in so called "top tier" conferences. These conferences like to have acceptance rates of 20% or lower. Supposedly this ensures that only the best of the best papers are published in these venues. In practice, the 20% or lower criterion ends accepting a motley crowd of papers with all sorts of biases. IMO papers submitted by PC members are favored, certain "hot" subfields tend to be favored, papers written by well-established research groups are favored over papers from "unknown" groups. I'm sure there are many other biases.

From the authors' perspective, we end up playing all kinds of "positioning" games to try and increase the chance of acceptance. Maybe I really have a technique that I designed to increase performance, but the hot new thing program committees are looking for is reliability. So I'll try and sell my paper as a reliability enhancer with a side-benefit of better performance. Or maybe I have some technique that works really well in practice but is just a combination of two previously known ideas. If my papers says so in plain English, there's almost zero chance of acceptance a top tier venue. So instead I'll go to great lengths to obfuscate the connection between the prior art and my work and spin it as brand new revolutionary insight that just so happens to be vaguely related to these previously known techniques.

The original point of peer review was: (a) catch unsound experimental practices and methodologies and (b) provide authors feedback to help improve the paper. The competitive nature of modern peer review seems to have lost sight of these original goals. Instead it's being used as some sort of ranking system for estimated future impact/novelty based on necessarily limited current information. The review practices in the OP seem to be going back to the original goal.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Our little publishing experiment was not supposed to go like this. Largely > by accident, we created a peer-reviewed outlet with impact that matches the > top journals in linguistics, with time-to-publication that is almost > implausibly fast relative to peers, that saves institutions money, and that > saves authors lots of stress.

in the movie version, a sr executive at Elsevier, talking on his iPhone says "liquidate these two with extreme prejudice"

</comment><comment><USER4> Recently I had the idea of a FIFO review process. That is, when you submit a paper, you must then submit a review of the paper that has been sitting in the same queue the longest. Thus every researcher winds up reading as many papers as he/she submits; papers written by groups would presumably jointly submit reviews. This, I think, is the closest one can get to having one's peers in research review your papers without having your specific peers (i.e. colleagues at a university) reviewing your papers (and the likely corruption that it entails).

I haven't thought about whether this process would be better or worse than the currently common peer review process, but it is at least interesting in its simplicity.

This FIFO process could be chained with the traditional panel-based review process. I am not sure whether that would undercut or improve upon whatever benefits that a FIFO review process would provide.

</comment><comment><USER5> Fascinating glimpse into the state of the art in open access publishing, which only a few years ago was thought of as the academic equivalent of a vanity press. Seems very clear that with acceptance increasing so rapidly in academia, traditional publishers are looking like draft horse breeders c. 1909.

</comment><comment> barry-cotter If only this spread to the social sciences. The time to publication there is ridiculous. I'm also a partisan of publishing everything that's valid and letting readers figure out if it's important.</comment>


If we build it, why would anyone care? - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/if-we-build-it-why-would-anyone-care-a278393accd8 <comment><USER2> Regarding the point about Google/other large company easily being able to build something that can put your company out of business: it's a valid concern, but what if the exit strategy is to be purchased by Google?

<comment><USER3> And here is a great example of the valley dysfunction in action: why would you found a start-up predicated on an exit strategy?

<comment><AUTHOR> It isn't about an exit strategy; it is hard to get funded if you have little defensibility.

<comment><USER4> No startup is truly defensible against a company with tens of billions at their disposal. "Google could clone it" is so obvious that it doesn't seem rational to even consider it a problem. Yes, they could. You can't let that stop you though.

It's far more sensible to worry about your idea being cloned by a teenager in her bedroom who could give the same product away for free a week after you launch. _That 's_ the real threat for most startups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not a bad heuristic tool and set of questions. I think the 3rd step Economic questions are the most difficult for new founders and where people get tripped up:

 _Are your costs viable?...What is the effort for a user to switch to the product?...Is it easy for a competitor to copy the startup's ideas?...How might user adoption grow?...etc._

Potential founders see some startups bootstrapping costs very early and see other startups unprofitably burning dosh for years and years even past their IPO (eg hello Twitter, with Snapchat about to join them).

Competitor risk analysis can be paralyzing for a new founder who reads the news. Google, Facebook and Amazon et al. can essentially build anything they want. While copycat startups can pop up overnight. Sure the big guys might buy you, but they might also build themselves or acquire one of these competitor startups that started after you. 1st means nothing anymore. Even the example doesn't really overcome Google as a competitor. Competitor risk can be very subjective and VC forecasts are not much better than founders here - this is the easiest area to disagree on and get pushback on.

Honestly these 1-page biz planning tools are fine for college kids learning about startups. Or for VCs keeping their public profile active. But before VCs give a founder real money I think most VCs do a set of "common sense tests". This is what this is, a version of a common sense test for a founder. If you're overly optimistic as a founder while not having thought out potential future scenarios Plan A thru Plan C that would fail a common sense test.

Seems like the stronger your idea, your I.P. or your team's technical skills, the less common sense needed, you are worth mentoring even though you don't get it yet. Still do a common sense check regularly...

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that the heuristic is far from complete. I've been tempted to add to it many times, but for me, it starts to diminish its usefulness.

I'll use "my test" to indicate areas that might have less consideration. For example, solution design tends to get the most attention from founders. You have an idea and start to run with vision and possibilities.

But, as you noted, the attention given to economics may be lacking. This can help remind you to try to balance your planning.

<comment><USER5> My experience is similar that adding to these tools starts to diminish usefulness. I use a 4-point sheet that sort of resembles SWOT analysis and I think that is about as far as it can go for me. Also worth mentioning what and when these tools are relevant, for coffee shop meetings or initial/weekly KPI meetings a "back of the envelope" type tool makes complete sense. But whether a founder or an investor, at some point it's worth a deep dive into each piece of the puzzle to really back up initial thinking with more info and data (market research, user feedback, comp discounting, sanity checks, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I haven't read this site, but the design and look is great.

<comment><USER7> It's built on Medium</comment></comment>


Microsoft makes more money from Samsung than from Skype, Windows Phone, and Xbox - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/276242/microsoft-makes-more-money-from-samsung-than-from-skype-windows-phone-and-xbox-combined/

<comment><USER2> And Google makes all of their money by scraping other websites while not allowing you to scrape their website.

And Apple makes all of their money by locking down their hardware and software and creating a virtual monopoly for themselves which they then proceed to abuse their customers with.

But Microsoft is just the worst for licensing their patents.

<comment><AUTHOR> ironic :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does it mean even companies like Mozilla/Apple pay Microsoft for the patents for FirfoxOS/iOS phones ?Or is it only android phones that end up with heavy patent fees?

Why are the list of patents kept so confidential?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "How much is Android actually based on Microsoft technology?"

Anyone have relevant insight?

</comment><comment><USER4> So is there a definitive list of these patents anywhere? Or is it, like SCO's list, confidential?

<comment><USER5> Recently published by Chinese gov, [http://www.zdnet.com/310-microsoft- patents-used-in-android-l...](http://www.zdnet.com/310-microsoft-patents-used- in-android-licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov-7000030564/)

<comment><USER6> The list in the article will make your headspin. It's almost like there is nothing left afterwards.

<comment><USER5> They are working to _add_ Novell & Nortel patents to the list:

[http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475344/e-commerce/micr...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475344/e-commerce/microsoft- and-apple-team-up-to-drop-patent-bomb-on-android-and-google.html)

[http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Micros...](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Selling The Moon One Piece At A Time; Grab Yours - <AUTHOR> https://traxarmstrong.com/selling-the-moon-one-piece-at-a-time-grab-yours/ <comment><USER2> "...So far, more than 7 million people have purchased a piece of the moon..."

Ulimate proof of the old adage "A fool and his money..."</comment>


Selling to Developers: Dealing with "I'll do it myself" - <AUTHOR> http://blog.windsoc.co/2011/04/05/dealing-with-ill-do-it-myself/

<comment><USER2> This article is somewhat blogospam.

But it does raise a point that I wanted to mention. In many cases (and Windsoc is such a case) when you are trying to sell to developers, your competition isn't the developer's wish to "do it myself". Your actual competition is the plethora of open source tools that already do the thing that you're trying to sell.

Software development has changed, and those vendors trying to build a business selling libraries and toolkits are going to find it difficult to stay relevant.

Protip: If a search on <http://ruby-toolbox.com/> turns up half a dozen gems that do the same thing that you're trying to sell, well, you're doing it wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think there are important differences between libraries and platforms.

1\. Libraries are static, with versioning and upgrades, whereas platforms are real-time.

2\. Libraries are based on a one-time usage, whereas platforms depend on providing constant value to maintain users.

3\. Libraries do not generally offload any work to other servers, whereas platforms can provide efficiencies.

4\. Libraries are platform, language, and version specific, whereas platforms can be built through protocols like REST and JSON that are known to most stacks.

That being said, open source libraries aren't always free when it comes to support and technical costs, and not all platforms are closed-source.

<comment><USER2> _That being said, open source libraries aren't always free when it comes to support and technical costs.._

While it's true that you can't always compare open source support with vendor support, I definitely feel the tide turning on this one. In the past 2 years or so (and this is just my experience, YMMV) I've found it much easier to get changes made from a project maintainer, than from most software vendors.

Github has changed this _drastically_. I can fork projects, fix things myself, send pull request back to the project maintainer all in less time than it usually takes for a traditional software vendor to even put my support request in the queue and acknowledge the problem.

I'm just saying, things are changing. Your business will have to change too if you want to sell to developers. You can't keep repeating the same aphorisms about support and technical costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point. We're trying to disrupt the existing API platform market by being leaner and faster. Putting some Windsoc code on Github hasn't been ruled out, either. I think that assuming that for-profit vendors would never consider supporting and leveraging the open source movement would be just as dangerous as an assumption about open source being unreliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like Yosef K's six criteria for deciding whether to adopt an external dependency: [http://www.yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies- which-...](http://www.yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies-which-is- worse.html)

It's not _only_ that developers are always confident they can do things themselves (though that's common), but that me using your thing actively introduces a dependency for me. If that saves me a huge amount of work and your dependency doesn't seem too scary, that's still a win. But dependencies have a whole host of issues of their own: is this thing unwieldy, do I actually understand what it does, is it well documented, is it going to be around and maintained, if it's for-pay is that pricing going to stay stable, is the API going to be stable? Etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are wary of the issue of dependency as well. As you point out, there are ways of mitigating the risk, and we are making it a top priority:

1\. Stability and security will be maintained by a gradual roll-out and a user-driven testing phase. We're still working out the details on this.

2\. A standard documentation format is a key requirement for each documented API call; no call will be released for general usage until it has all included information (parameters, possible success and error results, example response).

3\. Pricing / service contracts. We are looking at providing guarantees on pricing stability and uptime, and we're thinking of not charging in advance, but after service has been rendered.

4\. Source release pledge. It's too early to know how to proceed with open sourcing, but we do expect that at a minimum our client libraries will be open source. And we will pledge to release all code if there were to be an impending service shutdown, with three months minimum for transition.

I think that's all we can do when starting out to show that we aim to be a reliable component. The real evidence probably can't come until we earn a reputation over the coming months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Selling to developers strikes me as mostly a bad idea. If you deal with non- technical people, being able to code up a solution to their problems, to save them pain and time, may seem like 'magic', and they'll love you for it, if you do things right.

</comment><comment><USER5> This kind of comes out in this post, but the way I always look at the "I'll do it myself" argument is in terms of time. If you have a product that people known is easy to use (more on that in a second), you just say, look a license costs $100/yr or you could do this yourself and spend 10+ hours working through all the issues I've already solved. So if your time is worth $10/hr, go for it, otherwise I'm saving you a lot of your valuable time.

The only wrinkle to this is that you have convince people that your product actually does make their life easier/save them time. If they think they'll end up spending a lot of time understanding how to use it and integrating it, that's when people say, not worth it. For instance, you could be selling an awesome jQuery table plugin, but if it doesn't support some feature I need (say, a find as you type search box), I'm probably not going to use it because the time to build that feature onto your plugin might be longer than building my own.

<comment><USER6> It's not just about time you can save right now, it is also about risk.

Depending on a 3rd party, proprietary solution may be considered a form of technical debt. If (or when) the 3rd party raises their prices, goes out of business or does something else unhelpful to your business, you'll have to replace them.

Depending on what it is, that kind of work can be far more costly late in the game than it is at the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have the same exact issue here:

<http://www.devside.net/server/webdeveloper>

How to convince the developer that the solution provided is ahead of what he/she can just put together...

It really is, but conveying that is difficult.

I imagine the questions are "Why would I buy what I can get for free?" and "I can probably do better myself?"

Both of the questions are false (other solutions are free only if your time is worthless + the solution is a product of 7+ years of improvements/iterations) but try to tell that to someone (who right at that moment thinks they know better).

Perhaps I should look into other market segments.

<comment><USER8> Have you seen xampp?

<http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html>

The page you linked to says to me "we're selling xampp!" If that isn't what you are doing, then you should look at your sell page.

If you are indeed just a paid version of xampp, then good luck with that.

<comment><USER7> Do you mean that literally (re-packaging xampp) or metaphorically (I can get this for free, over there)?

WampDeveloper has nothing to do with xampp. The only similarities are: WampDeveloper uses Apache, PHP, and MySQL on Windows.

That's another problem: that some visitors think "xampp"?

Even though WampDeveloper is a completely different system/framework, switches between all versions of Apache, PHP, and MySQL with a click, creates and manages all websites/VirtualHosts, has a full user interface, has a web application installer for Wordpress, Joomla, MediaWiki, Drupal, Magento, controls "local DNS" ... etc. All the things xampp does not do.

Or are you coming back to the "Why would I buy what I can get for free?" question.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into it some more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It sounds like your best market to pitch to would be startups. And if that's the case, it's a tough sell since they're usually very financially conservative, and they want things that will directly lead them to profit. Simple to use APIs is nice, but I don't know if it's a must-have for startup developers. Most of them want to quickly ship something to market.

If you're targeting the enterprise, keep in mind that developers who code for big companies aren't the ones making the buying decisions. If it's not free or open source, most will not have the initiative to pitch to upper management (they just want to get the least done in the least amt of time so they can go home to their families, and watch TV)

<comment><AUTHOR> We are definitely looking at startups for now, expecting that finding success with startups will naturally lead to interest from larger enterprises.

What I'm hoping to emphasize (and maybe I haven't done that enough) is that startups who are heavily integrated into social services and will see high usage would have a monthly charge, but startups just using Twitter once per user to grab a list of followers wouldn't have to pay more than the $50 license fee unless they had a very large number of users (I like to say a million, but it all depends on the specific API calls).</comment></comment>


Reliable novelty: New should not trump true - <AUTHOR> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117 <comment><USER2> I'm surprise the solutions section didn't include the most obvious solution of all: require the hypothesis, procedures, and expected results to be published before beginning the experiment. This would force them to publish their results if they fail, and also publish if they changed their methods and why. It still wouldn't be 100% reliable but it would help.

The other solutions presented were also good though. Making the data cleaner for other to analyze is always a good thing, especially in the "machine learning" age.

<comment><USER3> I believe this practice should be inculcated in most research projects. However, if I put my adversarial hat on - I see one challenge. Scientists could still perform their experiments beforehand with the hypothesis, procedures and results. During submissions, they will _phase_ these two-stage information and give an impression of not performing posthoc rationalization. However, in reality they would. Such a system could be business as usual for the scientists unless you control the power for scientists to perform their experiments which seems impractical.

The idea is extremely great but I believe this could be difficult to implement at a publication level.

<comment><USER2> For short experiments you could game the system, but for an experiment that requires two years of work, it's unlikely that you'd hold your results for two years to maintain the illusion.

Also you could tie the release of funds to publication of expected methods.

<comment><USER4> Global. Warming. Exponential. Curve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In my experience quality vs prestige is a U-curve.

At one extreme you have the really crappy journals that publish nonsense, at the other the really "prestigious" journals that are more like tabloids reporting exciting sounding conclusions with totally inadequate methods sections.

In the middle are the topic-specific journals that you need to read to guess what they did to get the "exciting" results.

"Science" in the late 1990s and early 2000s is the absolute worst example of this.

</comment><comment><USER5> At least in my field there is the running joke of "it was published in Nature, but it still might be correct."

</comment><comment><USER6> Well yeah, obviously: high risk, high reward. Without the benefit of hindsight (and subsequent tests), a paper that proposes something truly transformative will look a lot like one that is just wrong (albeit, wrong in a creative/novel way). If you want to publish the former, you're going to have to take a lot of risks and publish a lot of duds. Don't we complain all the time that NSF doesn't fund high-risk science?

<comment><AUTHOR> That isn't what is going on. The stuff that gets published in the "tabloids" (Nature, Science, PNAS, etc) is sloppier.

<comment><USER6> I don't know your field, but that hasn't really been my experience at all. Just about as much sloppiness all the way across the board.

My only systematic complaint here is that short format means much of the substance has to go in an inconvenient supplement, but that's hardly unique to Nature and Science.

<comment><AUTHOR> The supplements have vastly improved the situation. There is no denying that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Nature", outside the biology area, tends to be an example of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you make an exception for biology?

<comment><USER8> They might be familiar with a subfield where there's a strong culture of accountability through reproduction of experimental results. Certain parts of molecular biology at least used to be that way.

<comment><USER9> most bio papers in nature are irreproducible, except by a few top competitive labs, and even then, most don't bother unless they don't believe the results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Should" is an amazingly dangerous word (in the usage often embraced in the US, at least).

I find that asking why something "should" be XYZ is much more enlightening, both for the writer and the reader, in terms of exposing structural problems that make it so.

"People seldom do what they know to be right. They do what is convenient, then repent" —attributed to bob dylan

(Corollary: make the "right" thing the least inconvenient thing to do, and the odds of people doing it will rise appreciably.)

</comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like a dangerous title since the word _true_ is subjective and requires variable amounts of support, even no evidence, to qualify its use.

<comment><USER12> What?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> it's better to think of the top journals as idea forges, designed to maximize the flow of thought between the top labs, rather than the authoritative location for technically correct research.</comment>


Red Hat Introduces Open Source Project Quay Container Registry - <AUTHOR> https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-introduces-open-source-project-quay-container-registry?sc_cid=701f2000000tyBjAAI <comment><USER2> ProjectQuay.io landing page is now live! [https://projectquay.io](https://projectquay.io)

<comment><USER3> This is really great!

I recognize your username because I met you at Kubernetes Community Day AMS, after Helm Summit, when you told everyone your username from up on the stage...

By the way I loved your talk "Convergence of Communities" and everything about the Jellyfish modeling, so for the benefit of anyone who maybe does not know who you are, or why you posted this one-liner... this is Diane, Director of Community Development at RedHat, and you can find that talk on YouTube.

So, thanks for doing this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the basic installation page:

[https://docs.projectquay.io/deploy_quay.html](https://docs.projectquay.io/deploy_quay.html)

"For a Project Quay Registry installation (appropriate for non-production purposes), you need one system (physical or virtual machine) that has the following attributes:

        Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL): Obtain the latest Red Hat Enterprise Linux server media from the Downloads page and follow instructions from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Installation Guide.

        Valid Red Hat Subscription: Obtain a valid Red Hat Enterprise Linux server subscription.

"

So, is it truly tied to RHEL and a subscription, or is that page just making me FEEL that way?

Annoying either way. :/

<comment><USER5> The RHEL version linked is 7.5, not 8.1. They might just forget to update the doc.

<comment><USER4> The docs right now refer to using `docker` as well, but `docker` isn't officially supported in RHEL 8+.

So guessing the docs will slowly shift to RHEL8 and podman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Prerequisites: CPUs: Two or more virtual CPUs RAM: 4GB or more

Why does a container registry need so many resources?

<comment><USER7> First, this prereqs are about what you could get on a netbook in 2012 and on a modern day cell phone.

Second, I think it would help to know why you think a container registry wouldn't need a moderate amount of resources.

I don't necessarily disagree that the resources could be lower at the minimum (and in fact, I recall they are quite a bit lower than this when running it on your laptop without any load), but is this really anything unexpected?

It's written in Python so it's not going to be as efficient as Go or C++ but it certainly isn't Java levels of resources being requested here.

<comment><USER8> > _First, this prereqs are about what you could get on a netbook in 2012 and > on a modern day cell phone._

High resource requirements mean that I need to spend more on compute, whether that means paying a cloud provider for a beefier instance, or spending more money on hardware and electricity.

<comment><USER9> 2C/4G is hardly "beefy". If that is too much to run then use the quay.io service and not worry about self hosting your registry?

<comment><USER10> "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody"

(yes, that was in reference to a PC, not a server.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Newbie question: How does quay differ to docker hub?

<comment><USER12> Once of the nicer features is that they offer an "encrypted password" where you login to quay and click the "generate encrypted password" option in your user preferences. Then instead of hardcoding your plaintext password into your docker config json, it puts the encrypted password that is only applicable to quay.

For those that use LDAP authentication for this, it makes is a much smaller attack vector.

The per-team "organizations" is very nice and allows you to give teams their own flexibility while still running things within your own firewalls (on-prem or in a vpc). It is an alternative to docker hub with a lot of really nice features.

The ability to do scheduled mirroring of images from other registries (such as docker hub) and replication between different instances of quay is also really beneficial.

Disclaimer: commercial quay enterprise user for some time.

<comment><USER13> Quay also integrates very well with OpenShift. It works fine stand-alone too, but if you're already using OpenShift it's worth looking into.

<comment><USER14> DISCLAIMER: I work for Red Hat Consulting focusing on OpenShift.

In fact, a version without the Container Scanning bits and some of the user management is the default internal registry in OpenShift 4.x.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love this. After Red Hat acquired Ansible I thought for sure they would cave on their open source principles, but _they didn 't_. They really believe in open source, and we are all the better as a world for it.

Disclaimer: I work for Red Hat but have been a fan decades longer than I've worked there.

<comment><USER15> A competing product (Harbor) is already open-source and part of CNCF. Quay wouldn't have had any future if it was to stay proprietary.

Regarding RedHat (or IBM) truly committing to open-source, I'll believe when OpenShift 4.x is open-sourced.

<comment><USER7> Openshift 4.x is open-source. I'm guessing what your speaking towards is the fact that there is no prebuilt distribution of it that doesn't require a subscription, ie: OKD, which is something being worked on. Clayon started off the conversation on this back in June: [https://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift- archives/users/...](https://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshift- archives/users/2019-June/msg00043.html)

But everything it's being built with is entirely FOSS. Making OKD happen is a high priority and is being worked on.

From my understanding, most of it's been blocked on Fedora CoreOS being at a state that it can be used for OKD and just putting resources onto setting up the automation for building everything for OKD.

Remember that Openshift 4.x fundamentally changed how Openshift does updates and that affects OKD a lot. Claytons email touches on this quite a bit.

Disclosure: I work at Red Hat, on projects related to Openshift.

<comment><USER15> > Openshift 4.x is open-source.

That's great to hear. My mistake then, last time I've opened [http://github.com/openshift/origin](http://github.com/openshift/origin), I saw OpenShift 3.11 even though latest release was 4.2 at the time. From that, and given the fact that all other RedHat products are upstream first, I've made a conclusion that OpenShift 4 is no longer open-source.

> From my understanding, most of it's been blocked on Fedora CoreOS being at a > state that it can be used for OKD and just putting resources onto setting up > the automation for building everything for OKD.

What's the difference between OKD and OpenShift? Why does OKD use Fedora CoreOS, while OpenShift doesn't? Is it not the same code?

> Remember that Openshift 4.x fundamentally changed how Openshift does updates > and that affects OKD a lot. Claytons email touches on this quite a bit.

Don't know Clayton or seen his email. I'm confused why would OKD use a different code than OpenShift. I though that the only difference between OKD and OpenShift would be the subscription.

<comment><USER16> We needed fedora coreos. OpenShift used RHEL CoreOS. It took longer for fedora coreos because we also wanted fedora coreos to be a sufficient replacement for ContainerLinux. That integration started passing CI with openshift today.

Readme updates and lots of this stuff need to be done - we left the readme at 3.11 because that was a coherent install (vs the more work in progress of fedora coreos).

Every bit of source code was there (and developed in the open), but it wasn't all "pulled together"

<comment><USER17> Is there already some documentation on how to play with it?

<comment><USER16> Coming very soon - hopefully ready for KubeCon

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "What is Project Quay? It's an open-source distribution of Red Hat Quay."

So, what is Quay? And why the information pages assume everyone knows what it is?

<comment><USER19> A quay is a the platform you load or unload containers to. It's usually paired with a wharf in a harbor.

<comment><USER20> In that case, I'll be a software longshoreman going forward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How to pronounce Quay: [https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/04/cay-key- quay.html](https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2018/04/cay-key-quay.html)

Edit: I called it Kway myself and googled it after getting puzzled looks from my UK peers. The referenced article says "key" is the older pronunciation but either is acceptable.

<comment><USER22> The "most correct" pronunciation of Quay is "key", as that link says, but the CoreOS team always pronounced it "kway".

(I assume this has carried through to Red Hat.)

<comment><USER12> I asked Brandon Phillips (Then CoreOS CTO) on a call how they said it. He was quite frank it was pronounced "kway" and not "key", much to the chagrin of our Aussie coworker who still calls it "key". I've called it "kway" since.

<comment><USER23> Yes, the team calls it kway.

However, when I worked at SUSE a running joke was: as long as you love using it we don't care how you pronounce it.

<comment><USER24> "You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis & Cathy Lee; I don't care! Just as long as you call me" \- @RuPaul

<comment><USER25> RuPaul cribbed that one from Bill Saluga's Raymond J. Johnson Jr. character. Saluga basically made an entire career out of this stupid spiel.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Worth noting this is happening after the incorporation of VMware's harbor registry into cncf. Harbor provides a solid enterprise registry with auth, Clair scanning, and a reasonable ux. [https://goharbor.io/](https://goharbor.io/)

Still, it's great to see quay make it out into the open.

<comment><USER13> I'd be interested in hearing more analysis on why it is "worth noting." What are your thoughts?

<comment><USER27> It's probably because after Harbor got incorporated into CNCF its development kinda skyrocketed.

It was in a mostly stagnant state, a release once in a while, and now it's going regular and strong.

The thing is, after things get the "CNCF" stamp they kinda go viral and become the "de facto" standard.

This means that Harbor would become the most usual way to run a private registry and thus Quay would lose ground (=> harder to sell).

Source: just implemented Harbor at work. Quay would probably have been better (probably "production ready") but Harbor was free & open source.

<comment><USER13> Thanks znpy. Can I ask what your orchestration stack looks like?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does Quay support deleting images/tags/repositories in the registry? That's a huge pain point with the official registry image, it's storage requirements grow constantly and we have yet to find a way to actually remove data completely (the garbage collector never worked for us).

</comment><comment><USER29> > IRC: #quay on freenode.net

They're note using Slack!

<comment><USER8> That's very refreshing. I'm glad that more teams are choosing open chat options like Matrix or IRC.

<comment><USER15> RedHat has been using IRC a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "...the on-premise offering of Quay was released."

It's my premise that the author of that press release doesn't know the difference between "premise" and "premises." I know we have a habit in American English to evolve the meaning of words faster than any other language but surely IBM's press team could offer to proof-read things like this before posting.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/premise](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/premise)

(And yes, I die inside a bit when someone on NPR ends a sentence with a preposition...)

<comment><USER31> IBM use "on-premise" all the time. Like it or loathe it, it's become the accepted neologism for "self-hosted".

<comment><USER32> My personal preference is to use "on-prem" because:

1.) There are arguments but no definitive justification for choosing between on-premise and on-premises.

2.) A lot of what gets lumped under on-prem is not actually on your premises anyway. It's in a colo or a managed hosting provider, etc.</comment></comment></comment>