Insane Clown Privacy: Juggalo makeup is the key to defeating facial recognition - <AUTHOR> https://www.rt.com/usa/431748-juggalo-makeup-facial-recognition/ <comment><USER2> Using make up to defeat facial recognition has been a thing since at least 2010: [https://cvdazzle.com/](https://cvdazzle.com/)

Juggaloes make for a good headline though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17447987](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17447987)

</comment><comment><USER4> There have been papers on recognizing humans by the ratios of their limbs (ie. what the exact ratios are between your various limb lengths). These can be recognized because it's easy to identify the points where the limbs rotate in video. It also has the advantage of still mostly working after death, if for instance you find a skeleton.

So don't move ... at all. Ever.

<comment><USER2> Wait, so the skeletons are moving?

<comment><USER4> No but you can get a very good model of the skeleton from a living walking human. If you find bones, you can measure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Until they'll use a combination of UV and IR cameras which will penetrate the makeup (UV can be blocked with sunscreen but multi spectrum sensors do defeat these masking tactics).</comment>


OpenAPI and JSON Schema Divergence: Part 1 - <AUTHOR> https://philsturgeon.uk/api/2018/03/30/openapi-and-json-schema-divergence/ <comment><USER2> I have an idea. Why don't we give up on a strictly declarative format/solution? What if, associated with each possible API call, was a pseudocode or generalcode representation of the code executed to validate the request?

Is reading code snippets that difficult? For a short validation program, a machine could certainly infer if a type would be accepted (just run the validation).

I know that a declarative format seems like the right choice, given validation in mainstream programming languages is expressed declaratively via the type system, but these standards, to me, often seem to only translate awkwardly an implicit validation program into a very verbose declaration.

<comment><USER3> That's a really interesting idea! The language for API validation could be a total programming language [0], something similar to Dhall [1] for configuration.

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

[1]: [https://github.com/dhall-lang/dhall-lang](https://github.com/dhall- lang/dhall-lang)

<comment><USER2> Reading up on those now. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really like the idea of declarative and machine-readable validation and API descriptions, but JSON schema is often pretty frustrating to work with in practice. Building a compliant implementation is quite difficult.

The $ref resolution, as defined in the spec, is hideously complicated, to the point where many implementations just don't even bother supporting external $refs. It feels like it really should be a totally separate concern from validation, especially since how you store and compose schemas may end up being somewhat specific to a given use case.

<comment><USER5> I compose my json-schemas in yaml, and therefore use yaml-anchors to stitch together repetitive code.

The errors I've run into are more alongside implementation details like: `number` being interpreted as a float (not a decimal) which makes it's related property `multipleOf` erroneous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's certainly possible to talk about API specifications without mentioning either of those.</comment>


Man as a Rationalist Animal (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ <comment><USER2> There's a ton of (especially early) nerd culture idolizing many forms of what most people know as the "Spock" character (somewhat more accurately, Vulcans in general). This is typically contrasted with emotions, sometimes as a mystical part of the human soul that exists outside of logic, sometimes as the source of evil.

It's a constant bother. The only way to apply pure logic to any problem is to pare it down to a mockery of the real world problem. That's why we have "gut" or "emotions": We apply imperfect patterns to complex issues, otherwise we'd never make it through a single day; it's an optimization.

Tech/nerd/stem types absolutely love to do this. We take a problem, pare it down to its essence and then solve it. When no one listens and no logical counterargument prevails, the cries for technocracy start to ring out. A classic attempt to dissect this fallacy was the old blog post "What color are your bits?" [1]

As technology companies continue to grow in power relative to all other companies and governments, I'm very interested in watching how this plays out.

[1] [https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23](https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23)

<comment><USER3> _" Tech/nerd/stem types absolutely love to do this. We take a problem, pare it down to its essence and then solve it."_

In my experience, the tech/nerd/stem types being hypothesized about actually do not pare a problem down to its essence. They instead do the equivalent to attempting to solve the screaming of a hungry child by assuming the essence of the problem is that "too much sound", so we put the child in a soundproofed room.

In truth, it is entirely possible to apply pure logic to a problem _if the problem is appropriately scoped to closely align with actual reality_. In my experience, to deny the emotional aspects of something is actually irrational behavior- it makes incorrect assumptions that the only things that exist are what the tech/nerd/stem person understands themselves.

This results in the hypocritical behavior of a tech/nerd/stem type crying out (emotionally) to solve the problems of emotionality.

<comment><USER2> I think we agree, but I appreciate that my wording wasn't perfectly clear.

"pare down to its essence" was a bad way of saying "disregard intersecting issues and focus on one logically resolvable issue." Your soundproofed room analogy is apt.

I also agree with applying pure logic to a scoped problem being not only possible but desirable... but I'd argue that properly scoped problems are rarely as useful to solve as the scoper might think. In many cases "merely" scoping the problem in a novel way leads directly to a truly useful course of action, and is most of the hard work.

I agree completely with emotions being something we should not deny, but rather be something to /include/ when trying to solve problems. (My complaints are around emotions being placed outside or opposed to the realm of logic, where accounting for them is "illogical")

<comment><USER3> Yes, I agree- but what fo you mean by "merely scoping the problem in a novel way" and how does it differ from the way I describe scoping?

(Not attacking, genuinely curious because I'd love to find new and more useful courses of action when it comes to problems...)

<comment><USER2> I think we are both arguing that some people narrow the scope of arguments to the point that they aren't useful to the original problem, merely more amenable to logic. Let's call this "not useful scoping".

I further argue that useful scoping (isolating the problem in a way that solving it provides a solution amenable to all those who proposed the problem) often /is/ the hard work, itself a product of much time and logic.

Far from proposing a useful course of action: I simply lament that we will often choose our scope to support simple logic, rather than use complex logic to improve the scope.

No surprise either: each life only has so many hours.

<comment><USER3> Ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.

It is possible to genuinely enjoy scoping the problems out though, evaluating their complexities, etc. It's also possible to say "I don't have time to evaluate the thing, so I'm not going to conclude anything about it" (although the latter irritates lots of friends, haha)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The concept that emotions are irrational is itself irrational. They are a physiologic reaction to environmental conditions that is a byproduct of untold generations of evolutionary development. To dismiss them out of hand for the sake of deifying a comparatively infant-like intellectual culture is not reasonable. Emotions are Us, not some inconvenient creature to squash for the greater good.

<comment><USER5> A common mistake (those who see themselves as) clever people make is that they believe that if you win an argument, you are correct.

That's why when a person is upset and has a hard time expressing themselves, or when an old person struggles to explain the importance of some traditional custom to a new generation, people tend to automatically dismiss them. We often care more about winning arguments than about finding truth.

<comment><USER6> > A common mistake (those who see themselves as) clever people make is that > they believe that if you win an argument, you are correct.

You contradict this later by saying "We often care more about winning arguments than about finding truth." This is right - it's not that people think that winning the argument means they're correct, it's just that it feels good to win an argument. Winning does matter more than finding the true. Why? Feelings. Feelings govern everything. Life would literally have no meaning without the feeling tones that give it meaning.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but even total hedonists believe that sometimes you have to not spend everything you have on candy, sacrificing immediate pleasure so you can eat more total candy in the long run.

We should also resist the temptation of declaring victory in a discussion and instead listen carefully to what irrational, emotional, even inarticulate people have to say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really like the Daodejing on this topic.

Chapter 17:

The greatest of rulers is but a shadowy presence;

Next is the ruler who is loved and praised;

Next is the one who is feared;

Next is the one who is reviled.

Those lacking in trust are not trusted.

However, [the greatest rulers] are cautious and honor words.

When their task is done and work complete,

Their people all say, "This is just how we are."

Chapter 29:

Those who would gain the world and do something with it, I see that they will fail.

For the world is a spiritual vessel and one cannot put it to use.

Those who use it ruin it.

Those who grab hold of it lose it.

[...]

(Phillip J. Ivanhoe translation)

<comment><USER8> Reminds me of

Lao Tzu: "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

<comment><USER7> Yep, that's actually the last three lines I quoted from chapter 17 in a different translation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The account of pessimism and optimism which the author begins with is too simplistic.

What matters for our outlook is not, in the first instance, whether humanity's failures in the past are attributable to malign motivations or technical incompetence, but whether the problem - whatever it is - is soluble.

If our major failures are ultimately the result of ill will, but humans are _inherently_ malign creatures, or our collective endeavours are _always_ undermined by the malignant actions of some individuals, then this would be little comfort indeed.

<comment><USER5> > If our major failures are ultimately the result of ill will, but humans are > inherently malign creatures, or our collective endeavours are always > undermined by the malignant actions of some individuals, then this would be > little comfort indeed.

If people really believed that they wouldn't complain so much about it and they certainly wouldn't be politically active about it. There would be no point.

Arguably, this is true for most of the population. But there is a big loud minority that works very hard to make sure the correct lizard rules over us, so they must believe that not all humans are inherently evil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found the Slate Star Codex review (recommended by this article) more readable.

[https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing- lik...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a- state/)

I think there are fascinating comparisons to be made to legacy code and the full rewrite.

<comment><USER5> Especially when the thing that is being rewritten and refactored is not the software but the human processes that the software is meant to facilitate.

How many managers choose to enforce, say, an Agile methodology on their team, not because they are any good at Agile but because existing tools like JIRA support that workflow and it's easier to just go along with it?

<comment><USER10> I think that's a separate interesting application of the principles involved, but interesting as well to be sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What a sophomoric article. For example:

> At first, the state just puts random names on the streets. This helps some, > but the residents still colloquially go by the old terms they know, which > causes problems for dispatch. Moreover, most of those alleys are still too > narrow for ambulances to get through. The state decides on a more radical > project: it's going to plow through what it can and build new, ordered > streets based on a grid. While they're at it, they decide to make one > commercial district and one residential district – it's just a better > system.

Just count the absurdities. "[T]he state just puts random names on the streets." Ludicrous. I mean, we can't even talk about this because we've lumped so many different things into the term, "state." To even begin thinking about this, we have to assume, as I'll do, a first-world democracy, for the sake of having something to talk about. I'd give even odds that in no first world democracy has "the state just [put] random names" on streets, especially where the residents have "old terms they know." Even if they did, how likely is it that no dispatcher would be, or know, a resident? How likely is complete ignorance on their part.

Then, we have: "The state decides on a more radical project: it's going to plow through what it can and build new, ordered streets based on a grid." What? Here we can go quite a ways down the scale from "enlightened democracy" down toward "tin pot dictatorship" and we still strain credulity to think of a public welfare project where "the state" whimsically decides to "plow through what they can" and rebuild "based on a grid." (As evidenced, I suppose, by all the recently reordered neighborhoods on Google Maps, and by the news stories of the brand new kind of urban displacement that would entail.)

And they just "decide," "while they're at it," to rezone? Unlikely to the point of making one angry. It shocks the intellect.

The article is pablum, meant to rehearse a mushy market ideology so that a pathetic kind of know-it-all can feel better about their vaguely held lazy beliefs.

<comment><USER12> I think the example was meant to be hypothetical and a bit absurd so that people can understand the point being made. There are enough real world examples of state intervention for the "common good" gone awry.

<comment><USER13> When you take examples over the top, you are simply lying, because that is the difference between sensible choices made in reality and insane nonsense choices made in ideology tinted nonreality. And extrapolating examples globally is just as absurd... taking an exceptional mistake, and just assuming it's the status quo.

These kind of bad mental shortcuts are the result of decades of propagandistic programming, not any kind of reflection of reality.

<comment><USER14> What is normal changes, what seems absurd today might be quite possible tomorrow.

Besides that, there is the fact that "Authoritarian High Modernism" absolutely existed in the past century and resulted in all sorts of "insane nonsense choices" being made to the great detriment of millions of people.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/ <comment><USER2> Choice quote:

"It's not called that. What it's called is "freedom," but "freedom" means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That's what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism about "there is no society, only individuals.""</comment>


Code Smells in CSS - <AUTHOR> http://csswizardry.com/2012/11/code-smells-in-css/ <comment><USER2> Heh, my programmer view is CSS smells cause it's CSS. with aids you can work on fixing the syntax to be more logical, but it could have been done much better in the first place.</comment>


Flickr is about to sell off your Creative Commons photos - <AUTHOR> http://www.zeldman.com/2014/11/29/flickr-is-about-to-sell-off-your-creative-commons-photos/

<comment><USER2> This issue is currently being discussed here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8674342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8674342)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best Keyboard nowadays? - <AUTHOR>

Hey hackers
I am standing for buying a new keyboard, but finding it difficult to find a really good one.
One thing I find is that many keyboards has numbers on them, which i never use, and i just makes the keyboard look more chunky.
I really like the Logitech Dinovo Edge - slim, good keys and looks good But it is some years old and use Bluetooth, the unify Ghz from logitech is a more seamless technoglogy.
I also liked the Logitech Media Desktop, slim, good keys again, but that is also years old, and do not work together with the new software that i use with the logitech MX Revolution mouse.
What keyboard do you use for your hacking? Help me hackers, I am curios to know! :)
-Kevin <comment><USER2> Best _for what_?

For programming and writing, I'm extremely happy with my Microsoft Natural Ergonomic Keyboard 4000. No interference, pairing or batteries to worry about - just plug into the USB port (1.8 metre cable) and off you go. The key travel and resistance is _just_ right, so that my fingers don't tire after a whole day of work, and the ergonomic design helps against wrist pain (I've had that with straight keyboards). It does have numbers, though: both in the top row and on the numeric keypad (not sure what your issue with numbers is, they're quite essential in all the typing I do).

It also has some cute additions like the zoom lever, browser and multimedia keys, but that's just icing on the cake :)

<comment><USER3> Another vote for the MS Natural Ergo 4000. I've bought 3 total, on two continents. My wrists also feel better than with a flat keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I bought the standalone Thinkpad keyboard [1] and love it. It's compact as it doesn't have a separate number pad, and feels just like the legendary Thinkpad keyboards. At $59 it's not cheap, but IMO is worth it.

FWIW it also includes a TrackPoint, but I never use it as I prefer a mouse.

1\. [http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPo...](http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:item.detail?GroupID=460&Code=55Y9003&category- id=3FB2CEB78A0F49D18148731559AF4603&hide_menu_area=yes)

<comment><USER5> IIRC, there have been two versions of this keyboard. The first included a trackpad. The current does not. Some user comments that I read also seemed to indicate a bit of difference in the flexing of the overall board, between the two models, but I no longer recall those.

The first version was also significantly more expensive.

If I can ask you, how large is the palm rest in front of the keys, on your model?

I was tempted by this model, but I have trouble when the front edge of a keyboard extends so far in front of the keys that it presses against my wrists, particularly when I'm typing on a surface whose height I can't control, e.g. a standard table where my forearms end up pointing somewhat upward instead of being level. (A design that, unfortunately for me, is quite prevalent in laptops, these days.)

<comment><USER4> > how large is the palm rest in front of the keys, on your model?

I'd guess it's about the same size as the palm rest on my T410 Thinkpad laptop. Certainly it's bigger than the non-existent palm rest on most keyboards, but I've never found it an issue.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. I've poked at a 420 in the store, and it seemed while the palm rest was about at the limit of what I could tolerate, in size, that it might work for me.

Tell Lenovo they owe you a commission. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After having tried many keyboards in the past, now I only go for those that have the following features in order of priority:

1\. mandatory: no built-in numpad, i.e. tenkeyless. This reduces the right hand mouse sweep and reduces strain on teres major, rotator cuff and right wrist.

2\. mandatory: adjustable forward-back tilt, must be able to flatten to horizontal. Reduces wrist strain strain and makes it more comfortable to tuck elbows backwards and into your sides - the optimal position.

3\. mandatory: wired and USB connectivity. Wireless/Bluetooth optional. Not a fan of worrying about input lag or driver support across varied hardware or OS.

4\. optional: mechanical keys - tactical not clicky and equal to or lower than 45g actuation, i.e. Cherry MX Brown not the fancy clicky Blue (also has "bonus" of annoying coworkers), heavy Red, very heavy Black or quiet and heavy Clear. Topre switches are ok but hard to find and expensive. If normal rubber dome keys, then it better be a very good keyboard otherwise!

5\. optional: full split with 40cm+ separation capability. I would rather have a Happy Hacking or normal tenkeyless keyboard than a full split keybard with less than 40cm+ separation.

Given all of the above, I use a _Kinesis Freestyle Solo_ with Kinesis Low- Force Numeric Keypad.

Also, oddly enough some of the best keyboards are "gaming" keyboards due to how robust and well-spaced the keys are. But good luck finding one that is tenkeyless.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like a Steinway Baby Grand. It's expensive, but it doesn't have numbers.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's an excellent (and funny) overview from Ars Technica of different kinds of switches in keyboards. [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/02/ask- ars-ergonomi...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/02/ask-ars- ergonomic-keyboards-101.ars)

The "Happy Hacking" keyboard looks very nice, and has no numeric keypad. But it's ridiculously expensive. edit: apparently RMS [http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?13526-Richard- Stallman-%2...](http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?13526-Richard- Stallman-%28proud-HHKB-user%29-Sez-It-s-OK-to-Block-Visa-for-Wikileak-Protest) and Bjarne Stroustrup [http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?18556-HHKB-spotted- on-des...](http://geekhack.org/showthread.php?18556-HHKB-spotted-on-desk-of- another-famous-programmer) use them :)

To actually answer your question, the wireless Apple keyboards have nice scissor switches and are surprisingly decent to program on. And no numbers on the side!

<comment><USER9> I'm a huge fan of the Happy Hacking keyboard. Everything feels so close on it, and I always find myself wishing I had one when I have to type on other keyboards for a very long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I will join philh and sepeth in saying I really like the TypeMatrix 2030. Even if you don't make the switch to Dvorak, which the TypeMatrix makes trivial-- like the old "DVORTYboards" the switch is done at the keyboard, no messing with translation on the computer side--the non-offset rows of keys will give your hands a break. It does have CTRL where IBM keyboards put it rather than where God/DEC intended (next to the left pinky), but most of us have had to get used to that, alas.

They offer keyboard skins designed to fit the keyboard: either translucent (with no labels, to work with all variants), translucent with labels, or black with labels. An anecdote: the translucent skin I first got with the keyboard had worn through in spots, so I ordered two of the black Dvorak skins. They arrived, and happily fit far more snugly over the keyboard than the first had --but after a few minutes use, though, something was clearly wrong. Turned out I'd pressed the num shift key, but the skin covered the LED that would have shown the problem. A call to TypeMatrix turned up that it was a communications issue with the company that did the skins--they recommended a leather punch of appropriate diameter as a temporary fix, and said that once they have corrected skins, I should contact them with explanation and email address, and they'd send replacements back at no cost, no questions asked. IMHO, that's service. (Now if they'd just get it out of their head that blue for labels for Fn functions is some kind of standard and make them orange on the black skins, it would be perfect--though they are aware of that issue as well.)

UPDATE: Once I am again among the employed, I will ask my employer whether I can bring in my own keyboard (just as I'll ask about being able to bring in my spare Logitech trackball to use instead of a mouse), and if I can, buy a second TypeMatrix for the purpose.

<comment><USER10> Duh. Make that "explanation and address".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'll second the motion for Unicomp, Ultra Classic.

It's an IBM Model M keyboard, with updates.

It's clicky. I like this, personally. My hands love they keyboard, the feedback from the 'clicky'.

You mentioned 'looks' twice. This confuses me.

When I use a keyboard, I don't spend a lot of time looking at it. It's an input device. A tool.

What matters is how well it works, not that it looks sleek and ready to spring into the air. Get one your hands like, not your eyes.

</comment><comment><USER12> Filco Majestouch Ninja Tenkeyless [1]

It's a mouthful, but the important points are 1) mechanical switches (mine has Cherry brown switches), 2) heavy -- it feels solid and stays put on your desk, and 3) no numpad. I guess there's also 4) it looks cool. It's the best keyboard I've ever used.

[1] <http://www.diatec.co.jp/en/det.php?prod_c=775>

</comment><comment><USER13> I was on a 3 month gig recently coding for iOS and I liked the keyboard that came with the iMac so much that I've bought another one for my main Linux development machine.

It does have a numeric keypad but there's also a wireless version available without: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard#Apple_Keyboard_....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Keyboard#Apple_Keyboard_.28109_keys.29) (I've got the A1243)

It does have some issues with key placement but that was easily solved with xmodmap.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've heard really good things about Topre keyboards but can't afford one myself since I am a student. Google around to learn more but good models are:

-Topre Realforce 87U (around $260)

-Happy Hacking keyboards (around $300)

I told you they were expensive. Otherwise older IBM keyboards tend to have a good reputation (model M).

To find some great keyboards, you can have a look here : <http://www.elitekeyboards.com/> (no I don't work for them).

<comment><USER15> Elitekeyboards also offers models from Leopold.

([http://elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=leopold,tenkeyles...](http://elitekeyboards.com/products.php?sub=leopold,tenkeyless))

These are a lot less expensive than happy hacking and also have a reduced size form-factor (no numpad).

I got the model with cherry-mx blue switches (very clicky and tactile like the old 80's IBM keyboards). I got the "otaku" model without the key markings and it looks very cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find the feedback of a mechanical keyboard makes typing more enjoyable in a general way. At home I have a razor black widow which has cherry blue switches (which are my favorite), at work I have a dasKeyboard with cherry brown switches (much quieter so I don't irritate my team).

For me, nothing matches the visceral feel of mechanical keyboards. I have a friend who described it as feeling like he was typing with a machine gun

<comment><USER11> I've used a machine gun. Keyboards are a lot quieter, and have way less recoil. But your friend has a point.

Have you ever used a late-model IBM Selectric typewriter? Now that is the acme of keyboarding. IBM knew their users would spend hours at the keyboard, designed with that assumption in mind.

An IBM model M (now made by Unicomp) is the Selectric of keyboards.

<comment><USER17> The old (late 70s/early 80s) IBM 5211 Terminal used to include a large solenoid in the keyboard that fired a metal rod into the metal base of the keyboard as a mechanical "clicker". Holding down the spacebar was very akin to the sound of a machine gun!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's my question: why are there arrow keys on a keyboard?

And if there must be, why aren't they on top rather than the bottom?

It is precisely the movement of tilting your wrist to the right and moving it back that causes strain. If the keys were on top, there's enough flesh around your elbow to allow extending the hand straight forward without strain.

</comment><comment><USER19> Two best are Dinove Edge & IBM model M... I have both and I prefer IBM (buckling spring is priceless when you grook it)

<comment><USER17> Unicomp still makes buckling spring keyboards with IBM's Model M (as well as other IBM) designs. They're loud as hell but feel great. <http://www.pckeyboard.com/> You can ask them for Mac keycap replacements to swap out the ctrl/windows/alt keys with control/option/command keycaps. Works great on my Mac with swapping Alt and Option key functions in the keyboard preferences panel.

<comment><USER11> _They're loud as hell_

I work in a semi-open plan office. I was concerned about this last year when I got my Unicomp keyboard.

I've been assured by my peers that the sound is noticeable, but not loud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have a Happy Hacking and a DasKeyboard, and often I prefer the Das because I like the clicking sounds it makes. They are both excellent, but the keys do feel much nicer on the HHK. You have to learn to live without easy access to the arrow keys on the HHK. On the HHK arrows, pgup, and pgdwn requries holding the FN key.

<comment><USER16> Happy hacking uses topre switches, which are about as high quality rubber dome as it gets, but you really pay through the nose for them. Das uses cherry mx, which are spring buckling switches (like the model m), and are much cheaper then topres, even though they cost more to produce. I am also a big fan of cherry switches, but I know many huge keyboard nerds who swear up and down that topres are the best there is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I love typematrix 2030 dvorak keyboard. <http://www.typematrix.com/2030/why.php>

But Control key position isn't good for Emacs users and there seems to be no alternative key to replace it with Control, like CapsLock on standard keyboards.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm a fan of the TypeMatrix 2030: <http://typematrix.com/>

It's not perfect - in particular, the double-height shift keys take too much good pinky real estate. But it's very comfortable.

I haven't tried any other ergonomic keyboards, so I can't compare.

<comment><USER18> It needs other improvements too.

The cut, app, play, calc, www buttons are largely getting in the way (particularly www.)

PageUp and PageDown are nearly useless, since you have to strain your wrist to get to them being down there.

And the Fn key is frighteningly useless, hidden as far left down as possible. How could anyone use the blue arrow keys with it?

Also, has anyone noticed the TypeMatrix 2020 was softer than the TypeMatrix 2030?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Kinesis FreeStyle with an Ascent. Your wrist will thank you for it.

Do not try to go vertical immediately. The Ascent is nicely notched, start at notch 1, work yourself up every 1-2 days. I know some people stopping before getting fully vertical. That's still better than all the horizontal keyboards.

</comment><comment><USER24> I use the genius keyboard. No numpad and costs less than $20. [http://www.amazon.com/Genius-LuxeMate-Compact-Stylish- Keyboa...](http://www.amazon.com/Genius-LuxeMate-Compact-Stylish- Keyboard/dp/B003YGVDDU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333762634&sr=8-1)

</comment><comment><USER25> I think one of the biggest failings of Macs/Macbooks is the "feel" of their keyboards. I'd love to see what their industrial designers could do if tasks with making an IBM Type M sort of feel with an Apple twist.

<comment><USER13> I guess there's no accounting for a person's preferences: I recommended them elsewhere on this page because I love their feel so much :-)

Never liked the loud "clickety" sound nor the feel of the Type M keyboards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I really love Dell's keyboard <http://www.dpro.ru/netcat_files/catalog/1_12005.jpg> I found it quite ergonomic.

<comment><USER27> I agree, especially in contrast with all those horribly overpriced "hacker"-keyboards. I've used it for 5 years now, and love it. My only complaint is that I wish it had no key pad as it takes up too much space between the typing keyboard and the mouse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This one for APL of course: <http://pckeyboards.stores.yahoo.net/adcolkey.html>

</comment><comment><USER29> If you're looking for a cheap tenkeyless cherry blue that you can easily find locally, I recommend the cmstorm quickfire. Warning: it's gamer ugly.

</comment><comment><USER30> Apple wireless keyboard is great. Really good form and function.

Of course, it helps if you've bought into the whole Apple ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER18> What makes you believe there is a negative correlation between keyboard age and keyboard goodness?

<comment><USER31> Good question!

Case-in-point, this is the exact keyboard I use to this day:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MS_Natural_Keyboard_Pro.JP...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MS_Natural_Keyboard_Pro.JPG)

It's ancient, but I love it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> the one you are comfortable with</comment>


Ask HN: Abandoning one project to pursue another - <AUTHOR>

Let's say you've just got the first version of project A working. It has a web site, billing, but no traffic or users. It seemed like a great idea at the time, but you just came up with an idea that you think is 10x better. What kind of criteria do you use when deciding to abandon one project for another? Does always working on your best idea mean a trail of abandoned projects? What if I'm wrong, and my best idea is dumb to someone else? <comment><USER2> If you have a working version, and you think that it can generate revenue then you should see it through. Revenue helps to generate capacity to pursue future ideas. If you abandon it now, you are guaranteeing that you have the capacity to pursue a single project at least until the next project is done. An item to consider, would be can you box this thing and sell it off to generate revenue? Could you find a web marketing guy and hand it over to him for 20% cut with an agreement that you get the 20% but are only a passive partner, if he generates revenue he must find a technical person to extend it, maybe you stipulate that you must approve of the selection. I imagine if it is a half way decent idea you could find a guy to run with it. Point is you want to ensure that it generates revenue for you or outright fails before you move on. New ideas always have a importance factor that you mind adds weight to so make sure you are not going to fall trap to the newest idea is always the best one. My recommendation would be find a way to see it through to revenue, with as little investment of time as possible. Consider either an outright sale or finding someone that wants to carry the torch.

</comment><comment><USER3> We recently been through this exact same situation. We have a working product, billing, but next to no traffic or users... even initially. We pushed on for a while and tried to cram it down people's throats. When the sales cycle got too demoralizing, we simply took a 1-2 week break, during which we pretended as if we have never worked on our first product.

We came up with another product and released it in just 10 days (though by reusing some of our old code), and the reception seems better. We of course hope to some day be able to sell our flagship product as well, in hopes of recouping the sunk cost, but we won't need to _count_ on it anymore -- it would just be an added bonus.

In this sense, I believe that it can be wise to:

1) Throw a few (well-thought-out-and-validated) things at the wall and see what sticks.

2) Throw quickly-and-easily-prototypable MVPs at the wall in the first place. Anything that requires 3 months to prototype would present a risk that you probably don't have the stomach to bear. E.g. Twitter probably didn't take long to prototype, same with Formspring. If you can prototype things in 2 weeks, and use the next 2 weeks for marketing, you can pursue 12 ideas in a year, thus increasing the probability of you succeeding.</comment>


Anti-surveillance mask lets you pass as someone else - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/urme-anti-surveillance-mask-lets-you-pass-as-someone-else/

<comment><USER2> From three days ago, this submission has a few comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7722415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7722415)

These do not:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711512](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7711512) (one comment)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728974](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728974) (no comments)</comment>


What the hell is the point of facebook? - <AUTHOR> http://hollywoodphony.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/what-the-hell-is-the-point-of-facebook/

<comment><AUTHOR> it's a way to let a certain set of people express themselves, a translation of a social process to the internet. while some of us have outgrown it, we haven't forgotten what it was like for us: phones, chat rooms, geocities.</comment>


If Marijuana Is Legal, Will Addiction Rise? - <AUTHOR> http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/ <comment><USER2> the substance itself is not physically addictive. it can be considered mentally addictive, but so can the internet and world of warcraft, so thats not a very good argument against it.

the only way the "product" will become more addictive is if, as it was suggested, big companies dive into it and insert more addictive things beyond simply the original substance.

<comment><USER3> What is the difference between physical and mental addiction?

<comment><USER4> Physical dependence results in withdrawal symptoms that are physical: headaches with caffeine, shakes (and much, much worse) with alcohol.

Mental/emotional dependence results in withdrawal symptoms like depression and anxiety.

One could argue that mental/emotional withdrawal is just as physical (as it results from imbalances in neurotransmitters) as physical withdrawal.

One could also argue that the only serious withdrawal symptoms out there are from alcohol - arguably one of the only drugs whose withdrawal symptoms you can die from.

<comment><USER5> _One could also argue that the only serious withdrawal symptoms out there are from alcohol - arguably one of the only drugs whose withdrawal symptoms you can die from._

Citation?

<comment><USER4> I was a little off - sedative-hyptnotics like benzos and barbiturates can also kill you through withdrawal.

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

"Withdrawal from sedative-hypnotics other than alcohol, such as benzodiazepines or barbiturates can also result in seizures, delirium tremens and death if not properly managed. Withdrawal from other drugs which are not sedative-hypnotics such as opiods, marijuana, cocaine etc do not have major medical complications and withdrawal is therefore not life threatening."

Galanter, Marc; Kleber, Herbert D. (1 July 2008). The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment (4th ed.). United States of America: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. p. 58. ISBN 978-1585622764. <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6wdJgejlQzYC>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Legalization advocates note that pot addiction is not nearly as destructive as, say, abuse of alcohol."

Interesting that the word "addiction" isn't used with alcohol, which _is_ physically addictive, but is used with pot, which isn't physically addictive. Seems like a better writer would've gone with the simple and straightforward "... as destructive as alcoholism." Adding the "say," in there, and using the more detached "abuse of alcohol", seems like an intentional weighting of the comparison.

<comment><USER7> Physical addiction of all narcotics is way overblown. The inability of "dependent" users to stop using drugs, including alcohol, is way less about physiological issues than it is simple habit.

Contrary to what they show in the movies, alcoholics and smack heads do not writhe around and wail when locked up away from their fix.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps not, but serious alcoholics can die from withdrawal: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome>

(siezures, delerium tremens, and excito-neurotoxicity)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Economist has been all over this for many years. A few months ago they had another issue devoted to the subject. Try this search for marijuana from their site:

[http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?google_rv=2&c...](http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?google_rv=2&cx=001087441947416295956%3Al- gk8r9zm4i&cof=FORID%3A9&qr=marijuana&area=1&keywords=1&frommonth=01&fromyear=1997&tomonth=07&toyear=2009&rv=2)

There are many articles to wade through covering everything from addiction to crime to the economics of legalization. In all they are pro legalization, as am I. So what if addiction needles up? On balance, the pros outweighs the cons imho. We already have an issue in this country with addiction to controlled substances, why not add marijuana to the list and deal with it within the same framework as we do other addictions?

</comment><comment><USER9> It depends whether or not Big Tobacco takes it on as a cash crop. I'm sure you could make marijuana addictive with enough additives and advertising.

I've met a lot of messed up people, the vast majority were primarily addicted to alcohol. All of them smoked pot on occasion. None of them had anything resembling a 'pot addiction.'

<comment><USER5> I think cash is involved, but I'm thinking more along the lines of sales tax and state budgets. I don't think the tobacco lobby is quite as strong as it used to be. The FDA just got the right to regulate the nicotine content. And I'm not sure the tobacco lobby was ever quite as powerful as you seem to think it is today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing that I think isn't regularly considered is the 'hemp' side of the issue. Hemp is an incredibly useful material, and if it was more widely available, it could really benefit society. I saw an article a while ago about how good it would be when used in construction, but that it probably won't happen because of how hard it is to obtain hemp.

So aside from the medicinal, economic and social factors, the industrial sector could be benefitted greatly by increased hemp availability.

</comment><comment><USER11> How easy is it to give up marijuana forever, having once smoked it regularly?

<comment><USER12> I have a close friend who fucked up his first year of college royally by becoming a habitual pot user. After the realization that he was actually going to get kicked out of school for academic probation, he quit cold turkey. Multiple tokes daily to zero, overnight. He turned his grades around and graduated with distinction.

After he graduated, three years later, he started smoking again. He says he only smokes once or twice a month and even then only on weekends. I honestly believe him when he says he just enjoys it and feels no real addiction. It seems no different than how I am with alcohol: mmmm beer.

That's just one anecdote. I don't know if that is common at all.

<comment><USER13> It's the same as anything. I got bad grades in college for spending my time contributing to open source projects. Probably more useful than getting high all the time... but just because something can be misused or overdone doesn't mean it should be a crime to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If the countries where marijuana is legalized (or at least decriminalized) are any indication, then no, addiction will not rise. The main examples are the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany.

<comment><USER15> FTFA:

"What if marijuana is legalized? No one can say for certain. Using one country's reform example to estimate what would happen in another is very risky. How countries differ (cultural, social, political, economic) makes a big difference."

"However, the Dutch "coffee shops" example might give us a little insight. The de facto legalization policy in the Netherlands did not, in itself, affect rates of marijuana use among adults or young people. But rates of use among young people increased when the number of coffee shops increased and the age of legal access was 16. Then these rates declined when the numbers of coffee shops was reduced and the age of legal access became 18."

Interesting that no mention of addiction stats are given, just usage.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are stock options a good incentive for your work? - <AUTHOR> During the last 20 years I've seen many times companies giving shares/stock options as incentive for your work. This because the company couldn't/wouldn't pay in cash, as bonus or as an incentive to keep you working for the company. The question is, would you accept it instead of cash? <comment><USER2> In almost every case, I'd say "no", I wouldn't accept stock instead of cash, at least not at a one to one correspondence. The only case where I would, would be if it were a stock grant of actual shares, not options, AND if there was a real market for the shares (either the company is public, or there's an active secondary market) AND the shares don't come with some weird clause which pushes the date that they can be sold out so far that the price is likely to vary a lot between now and then.

The chances of all three of those conditions being true at the same time is approximately zero though.

Generally speaking, I treat stock options as worthless, especially if it's a company where there is no market and no known price for the shares. It's easy to wind up in a case where exercising your options would cost more than the stock is worth, by the time you're able to exercise them.

A stock grant is worth _something_ , but those are much less common. And how to value them is, again, dependent on "is there a market?", "are there restrictions on when and how I can sell them?", etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> I understand you've been offered options at some point, right?

<comment><USER2> A few times. I go in with the assumption that they're completely valueless, and figure that if they ever amount to anything it's basically "found money."

So far, that position has been borne out. Promised options have either:

a. Never actually materialized

or

b. Were never worth enough to bother exercising

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The startup and VC culture has being the dominant model of a lot of companies. The difference with solid businesses and burning-money machines is that one gets funds to build, and the other builds to get funds.

The average lifespan of a startup is 3 years, so unless it's zoom and covid 2 comes in the next 3 years, your stocks won't be worth much.

I'd take the money.

Specially in an era like today with financial crisis and scandals, cash is king.

<comment><USER4> Counterpoint .. you will NEVER get rich on a salary. A 25% bump in salary (e.g. via yearly cash bonus) vs. options ... with options, you can get rich.

<comment><USER5> Buy lottery tickets, you can get rich. It's the same thing, one just has slightly better odds. Not good odds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It depends on the company. I went to work at Apple in 2001 and received a large option grant. I made a lot of money when I exercised them in 2011, taxes notwithstanding. If the company is a start-up, their options are probably worthless and should never be an excuse for an artificially low salary.

<comment><AUTHOR> Congratulations on your journey. I'm myself in a situation in which I'm being offered tons of shares for a company that did ok pre Covid-19 but now is dead. I'm inclined to decline.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a mind map tool meant for large, detailed node hierarchies - <AUTHOR> https://www.jumproot.com jumproot.com <comment><USER2> I tend to believe people naturally think in graphical structures, not trees. It's sort of an impedance mismatch though because our physical world is tree based - you can't put an object in more than one container. So we're continually struggling to transition back and forth, to the point that we unnaturally try to force our thoughts into tree structures like outliners.

<comment><USER3> Exactly this. Also most information of any complexity has multiple "categories" it could fall into.

What you actually want is a network graph of concepts and notes. This will let you see relationships.

<comment><USER4> Trilium Notes[0] allows that. In fact I'm surprised that it's not mentioned here, because when I discovered it (via HN IIRC), it seemed to me that Trilium had already implemented everything I could have ever thought of for a note taking/personal knowledge management tool, and more.

[0] [https://github.com/zadam/trilium](https://github.com/zadam/trilium)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is categorically not a mind map.

Mind Maps are visual in ther organisation and structure.

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

<comment><USER6> I know this kind of hierarchical list as an outline. But good point, it doesn't look like a mindmap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In a similar vein, I recommend workflowy: [https://workflowy.com](https://workflowy.com)

Kudos on the design though. Clean and simple, and reminds me of the Windows XP help window that would come bundled with every major desktop app.

<comment><USER8> Workflowy is nice and easy, but seems a bit like the crappy MVP for Dynalist.

<comment><USER9> Agree that Dynalist is nicer, as it has features like multiple documents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://gingkoapp.com/](https://gingkoapp.com/) is another similar app.

Like some of the other commenters in the thread, I gave up on these apps and went back to using filesystem folders/files.

<comment><USER11> The editor Ulysses supports markdown, but more relevantly, supports folder/file structure such that trees of hierarchy can be selected at once to become part of a same generated master document.

[https://ulysses.app/tutorials/split-merge- glue](https://ulysses.app/tutorials/split-merge-glue)

(You can also just select and then export, which does a temporary glue, more or less.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice tool. Some feedback: The drag and drop functionality has some accessibility issues: it works with a mouse, but not keyboard navigation. This interface would be difficult to use with mobility issues: moving items requires fine-grained gesture control.

If you're interested in an accessible implementation of drag and drop, here's one I've encountered that does an excellent job:

[https://github.com/atlassian/react-beautiful- dnd](https://github.com/atlassian/react-beautiful-dnd)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I miss "The Brain", a mind map tool from the late 1990s, beginning of 2000s. The cool thing was that you could link an object (called "idea") to any other object regardless of it being a parent, child, part or not of the same tree structure.

<comment><USER14> This Brain? [https://www.thebrain.com/](https://www.thebrain.com/)

<comment><USER13> Yes! Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Zettelkasten method and The Archive allow you to link to other ideas/notes. It takes a bit more effort than I've given it, but it looks promising. They have a pretty active forum with a lot of good ideas for using it. The method can also be used in other apps such as nvAlt, Sublime Text, and Notion (I believe).

[https://zettelkasten.de/the-archive/](https://zettelkasten.de/the-archive/)

[https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussions](https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussions)

</comment><comment><USER16> Another hierarchical organizer: AGPL, desktop- and keyboard-oriented, highly efficient, I use every day because org-mode was more awkward to me: [http://onemodel.org](http://onemodel.org) . (My progress has been slow lately but I have plans: feedback welcome, especially if on the mailing list.)

Anything can be nested anywhere, so I put effectively _all_ my notes in it on everything. In college it would have been a huge help. It exports to text outlines (w/ or w/o legal numbering) which I've found useful when sharing info before the real sharing feature is implemented.

(The idea behind it is to reduce knowledge to an atomic level, as an object model: things we _know_ have relationships to other concepts, can be expressed as measurements, etc. But it is cumbersome to create an object model anew, for every app. Right now, it is really good at supporting a big, efficient list of lists (based in postgresql), with attributes, and very minimal support for defining classes on the fly as a side-effect of use. But I really hope to be able to add anki-like (spaced repetition / flashcard-like) features, internal scripting, hosting, and secured sharing of info between instances, so it becomes like a wiki in convenience, but more efficient and computable rather than piles of words for everything).

</comment><comment><USER17> I just stopped using such tools and use visual studio code and file system. Folders and text files I can grep it and I can keep history in git.

<comment><USER18> Had the same general idea but with Sublime Text and Dropbox. Searching text files is all the ways faster. Also, no need to use the mouse most of the time. Syncs seamlessy and moving around notes/files is way easier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Fun! I started building my own Workflowy replacement too, mostly because I got tired of not being able to extend it, I can only export my data. My idea is to not stop at 'basic' data types, but to provide a pluggable architecture to _code_ in. Godspeed to you good sir.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup. We're on to it. God speed to you too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm still looking for a good replacement for Dynalist, which is not free software (important because such data/workflow is too important to be at the mercy of a third party).

Extra structure would be a nice addition, but without the source code I don't think this will do.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a very good point. Does it help that one can export his/her tree to a very readable JSON file? From that perspective, the data is not locked to jumproot.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I see a lot of comments revolve around the note taking, mind mapping aspect of jumproot (which is 100% on point). I just want to invite everyone to try the other aspects of the site, such as document structuring/viewing and the different node types. Have fun!

</comment><comment><USER20> As someone who's used several outliners, this looks like a neat tool.

I'm curious why you decided to call this a "mind-mapping tool", which makes me think of visual graphs rather than textual hierarchies. Can you talk about that decision?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. To answer your question:

To me, a mind map is a tool with which one can map his/her mind. I see some comments that claim that colourful and interesting graphics should be a part of that definition. I disagree. With such mind mapping tools, I've found that it's that "cartoony" nature that limits their size. I wanted a mind-map tool in which I could store every little piece of minutia that I want and have it organized. I don't need the graphics, have search.

I hope that relays my thinking a bit.

<comment><USER21> A mind map usually has a relational component. Can one Item show up on two lists, and if it changes in one place, it changes in the other? They also tend to be drawn from the center outward, and have color as an additional dimension of information (categories?).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Keep it all plain text, but still have lots of functionality with org mode

[https://orgmode.org/](https://orgmode.org/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Reminded me of KeyNote NF [1]. Very reliable, super small, keyboard shortcut friendly, supports images and cross links has everything I need for organizing my data except data sync and that its windows only.

[1]: [https://sourceforge.net/projects/keynote- newfeat/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/keynote-newfeat/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I have to reply just because this is so bizarre. Just last night I had been conceptualising a product just like this in my head... right down to the "viewer" nodes which are a representation of their children. However I was thinking that instead of having a rich text node you would have a viewer node and each paragraph, heading could be its own node.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great minds think alike. Let's work on it together. Give me some feedback on what you'd like to see. Thanks mate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It looks like OneNote where you can have several NoteBook, Section, and Pages that can be at different levels. In the end, you can have a similar hierarchical structure. The advantage of OneNote is it is native cross- platform (Android, Mac, Windows, iPhone) with sync, ink, etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> Looks cool, I always loved the hierchical nested node structures (like folders or e.g. trees) to organize my data.

Would you be willing to tell what your tech stack is like? And what are you using for Rich text editors?

Great work tho. Looks good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. I don't mind sharing at all. Please be forgiving and constructive because I am a one man show here.

Tech stack: \- This is a django app. MVC. No separate API project and UI project. \- Front end is basically Bootstrap 4 and jquery. \- The tree is FancyTree \- The DB is SQLite because there are no users. When usage becomes significant, I can easily migrate to MySQL. \- Rich Text is Summernote.

I am 100% sure I would do this differently now. But I started it a few years ago and have kept it pretty much private. Thanks for checking in!

<comment><USER26> Love the stack. Great call on Django, definitely makes it easier for a one man show. Also good decision to eschew an API for now as it's just more overhead that's not currently needed.

Have you checked out the great djangochat.com yet? Awesome content there.

Also, just curious, what would you do differently if you started from scratch today?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> what does this gain over Zim ([https://zim-wiki.org/](https://zim-wiki.org/)) which is additionally muuuch faster

<comment><AUTHOR> It's online.

<comment><USER27> considering that I'm typing this message from a train with a very spotty connection, I'd consider that a huge downside.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like this. This could become the basis for a personal outboard memory. Add some intelligence and this could become the basis for a personal virtual agent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What are the differences compared to WorkFlowy?

<comment><AUTHOR> The differences are mainly:

\- Features (I'm a one man show) \- The UI (I think mine is better organized) \- Node Types (Jumproot has different and interesting node types)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Looks like .org mode. I love trees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it does! Someone showed me that and it looks great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> the great advantage of mind maps like those from the old FreeMind app, is that by putting the root in the middle and branching on both sides, you can fit a lot more information in a standard screen without scrolling.

</comment><comment><USER32> Hierarchical note taking tools aren't new.

Here's my favorite:

[http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/](http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/)</comment>


Useless Feedback - <AUTHOR> http://www.instigatorblog.com/useless-feedback/2010/06/14/

<comment><AUTHOR> Key paragraph:

Without a strong hypothesis and problem statement, there's no reason to get feedback. Asking a friend, "What do you think of my idea?" is almost completely useless. Asking a friend (or someone else who isn't as biased as your friend, "Do you have this problem, and how painful is it?" is a much more useful query</comment>


If I were a single founder... - <AUTHOR> http://www.foysavas.com/blog/2011/08/30/if-i-were-a-single-founder.html

<comment><USER2> As someone who went through YC as a single-founder, then got a co-founder, then became a single-founder again after a year I've been on both sides of this fence. I've been meaning to write an article about this experience, and I guess this post has given me motivation to actually do it. There are so many misconceptions from both sides about the other. Hopefully I can find time in the next few weeks to write it all down. Are there any questions/topics you would want to see included in such a write-up?

<comment><USER3> Whenever I read articles railing against single founders, I usually assume the person writing the article doesn't have a meaningful amount of single-founder experience. This makes me question their reasons given to not be a single founder.

I'm sure some of these reasons should actually be carefully considered before deciding to go it alone, but I feel that many of them can be safely ignored given one's appetite for risk. After all, if you aren't willing to take chances, why are you trying your hand at a startup in the first place?

tl;dr - Of the common assertions against being a single founder, which are myth/overblown and which are serious concerns?

<comment><USER4> >the person writing the article doesn't have a meaningful amount of single- founder experience

Yes, that... or his name is Paul Graham! :)

From investors point of view second founder is social proof of the idea and the first person, a much lower chance of entire team getting hit by a bus, and a demonstrable ability to work in teams. They have no downside in modest increase in the number of founders, unlike the first founder who is slashing his pie in half.

You, too, should worry about social proof. If no one wants to hang out with you, maybe your idea _is_ on the wrong side of crazy, and you are the kind of person unable to tell good ideas from bad ideas. Who knows? The thing is, if you have bad judgement, you likely don't know about it, can't know about it.

<comment><USER5> I think it also keeps you focused and on track. A single founder can easily just keep changing directions (which I've done myself) when they should be focusing on one idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This mirrors a lot of my own feelings (being a single founder myself). I originally applied for YC for the W11 round, and I rushed to find a cofounder before applying (even wrote this for HN: [http://www.limedaring.com/technical- co-founder-wanted-for-di...](http://www.limedaring.com/technical-co-founder- wanted-for-disrupting-the-wedding-industry/))

I spent a few weeks "interviewing" cofounders and working with a few, before choosing one and starting to build a product and applied (and scored an interview) for YC. But during that time I realized that this person was _not_ the person I wanted to start a startup with. Thankfully we didn't get in, and parted ways. Since then, I've decided that having a partner would be _awesome_ but I'm not wasting time looking for someone (especially with the very small pool of people that want to work on wedding startups)... instead focusing on building as fast as possible on my own (product: <http://weddinglovely.com>, launched and making small bits of revenue).

I'm applying again for YC this round as a single founder, and I would encourage people not to rush out and find last minute cofounders just to apply. Spend time now finding a cofounder, then apply for S12 after a good few months of working together — and if you can't find the right cofounder, then start building yourself (especially if you're not technical).

<comment><USER7> There seems to be a misconception here that the observation _most successful large startups have more than one founder_ implies _if I were to add another person to my startup it would be more likely to succeed_. It doesn't, unless that person is addressing a particular deficiency to the extent that they deserve ~50% equity.

If a complimentary skillset, alternative perspectives and/or shared workload isn't worth that to you then don't look. However important it may be to an external investor betting on you, you don't need to signal to yourself you're committed enough not to drop startup life in favour of that dream job at Google or pivot towards a "lifestyle business". People looking for cofounders _solely_ to improve their chances of getting into incubators probably ought to reassess their priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm a single founder with a fairly profitable business (low-mid six figure profits after 1 year). I guess out of ignorance, I never even considered getting a cofounder. I can't say I regret my decision. Having 100% control over the course of my company is something I wouldn't easily give up. In terms of workload, what does a cofounder give you that you can't get for much cheaper with contractors or employees? In terms of emotional support, I think being married actually helps quite a bit. Even though my wife is not actively involved in the company, I bounce ideas off of her all the time.

Perhaps a cofounder is more useful for startups that want to grow very fast (the type YC likes to invest in). But for the organic/bootstrapped style startups (ie 37Signals / FogCreek) is having a cofounder really necessary? Everyone likes to quote PG on this, but consider the source. His experience is with fast growth, VC funded, shoot for the moon style companies. So it may not necessarily apply to everyone's situation.

<comment><USER9> I'm also a single founder with a fairly profitable organic/bootstrapped style business. Having a supportive wife has been huge for me as well.

I imagine it can feel better to have a cofounder, to feel like you're not in it all alone. But if you want to make something great, there needs to be one person with a vision and the power to make it reality. Nothing really great was ever designed by committee.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article rings very true to me. I applied to YC in Summer 2010 with two fellow grad students I picked by sending out a "founders wanted" email, then meeting each of them for lunch. We got invited to interview, but weren't accepted. So we went with another accelerator, Betaspring, and proceeded to fall apart almost immediately.

The biggest problem was that we didn't really have a template for making decisions. Up to that point, our only goal had been getting into an accelerator, which we somehow expected to solve all our problems. And I'd already decided that I'd rather lead a startup than get a PhD, so I was very focused on that goal, while they were more focused on schoolwork. So the way decisions were made before the summer was that I'd say "I did some research, and think we should do this" and they'd say "OK." It was very unilateral. Once we started working together full-time, though, that wasn't tenable, and there was a very fine line I had to walk, to provide both autonomy and a sense of direction. And we never could come to an arrangement that made everyone happy.

That's not to say that I would have been more successful as a single founder—I had pretty minimal dev experience at the time—but there's a very good reason that one of the YC application questions is "Please tell us about an interesting project, preferably outside of class or work, that two or more of you created together." If you don't have a good answer for that, my advice is to hold off on doing YC and just figure out something substantial that you can build together.

</comment><comment><USER11> Awesome piece. Having great cofounders is certainly ideal, but scrambling to find them unnaturally because you think you need them to satisfy a requirement is a bad idea. Most successful founders seem to find each other naturally and work together over and over. It's pretty hard to find people you genuinely like, respect, and want to work with.

In my experience the best way is to start alone and actively promote your work to others. Pretty soon people who are serious about working with you will present themselves.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've seen a LOT of "single founder companies" just sort of sit around and never really make any irrevocable moves. It's easy, especially if you have other income, to just keep something at the hobby stage.

The absolute best way to prevent this is to have customers demanding your product now (or by a certain date). The next best is either to be dependent upon the startup for income, or to have other people pushing (and pulling) you forward (or pushing them, at other times). Not sure which is better.

<comment><USER13> What does "single founder" have to do with "keeping something at the hobby stage"? I don't see those two as having much to do with each other. I've known single founders who've pushed ahead, and 2-3 founder startups stay a hobby for a long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Being a single founder has made me tougher, sharper and focused. I've been through Hell and back for the past 4 years. Finance background turned brogrammer.. to mobile strategist / development firm working with large clients.

I've been focused on credibility and positioning. Waiting for the right co- founder. Forming strategic relationships, staffing up and making key investments. Book deal pending, just acquired a software company.

Crush it...

</comment><comment><USER15> Related: If you're a single founder (I am too), I'll help you make 10 cold sales calls to get feedback. No strings attached!

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2943170>

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd be curious to see any actual data about relative success rates with single and multiple founders (where success is measured as 'business profitable or sold after N years' rather than 'got funded').

Like in so many things, it's best to minimize the hand-wringing and make a decision based on your personal working style, who's available to join you, and how badly you want to be funded by an entity with a strong bias against solo founders.

<comment><USER17> Here a little 'data' here from Ron Conway and David Lee video: [http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/david-lee-and-ron-conway- bu...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/david-lee-and-ron-conway-bust- entrepreneur-myths-on-stage-at-disrupt/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Forgive me my ignorance, but why is it such a disadvantage having a single founder? Think about it: if the founder is a Jack of all trades, gets the product out and hires specialized staff when the startup gets revenue, why would he need a cofounder?

<comment><AUTHOR> Startup founders get tired now-and-again. Knowing a co-founder is working while you're resting is a source of invaluable relief against the pressure to get things done.

Long-term, this kind of emotional stability prevents burn-out. That's important because startups don't die, founders quit.

<comment><USER19> A very valid point. If you are a solo founder, nothing happens unless you make it happen and as you experience the downs it becomes very easy to lose momentum. Co-founders can provide a good counter balance and keep progress steadier.

<comment><USER18> It has been my experience that, while working in a group, it's actually harder to get things done. You have to reach a consensus first before you can act. The progress may be steadier, but in the long term slower.

Maybe I'm suffering from a bad college trauma. During college, we were forced to work in project groups. This was always a disaster, I remember calling group members at 2AM to email their contributions to the project, only to find it full of mistakes and largely copied/pasted from the internet. I'd spend the rest of the night editing the piece 'cause I sure as hell wasn't going to flunk on their behalf. When I would do a project on my own (my Thesis, for example) I'd get substantially higher grades with less hassle in less time.

<comment><USER20> I don't think college projects correlate well, for the main reason that you often can't pick your teammates like you pick your cofounder. The motivation is a grade, not money, and there are other grades (distractions) you must concern yourself with. With a good cofounder (or even coworker) there will be division of labor and trust to speed things up. And hopefully you'll see how you work together before you commit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm a single founder, and while I haven't found success with my first app, I've definitely noticed some unique challenges.

First, designing and building an app by myself is different than anything else I've done in my career. It's incredibly exhilarating. Also a bit scary. Everything is on me. It can be stressful, but I don't think I could go back to the old way.

Second, when people realize it's just me behind the scenes, they don't take the app as seriously. I don't try to hide it. Kind of similar to how tech bloggers don't take you seriously unless you have funding. (But that's a different topic.)

Third, it's tough to get context or a neutral perspective. You're so close to it that seeing where you go wrong can be difficult. This is why I disagree with point #2 in the post. I worked on an app for a year and didn't realize it was a lost cause. (Dumb, I know.)

By and large, I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since I had cofounders bail on 4 projects before I went solo.

</comment><comment><USER22> YC summer 2011 had 9 single founders (out of 64). <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2938349> Although YC doesn't favour them, it's far from impossible.

However, I'm not sure what the odds are for _successful_ single founders. And at least some acquire co-founders (like dropbox).

</comment><comment><USER19> > A lone founder never wastes time

I find it quite difficult to agree with this statement based on personal experience. For me, it is quite easy to try things to see if they work which often leads to going round in circles until a solution becomes obvious. I found that when working with other people, it is a lot easier to put ideas out there and you usually get the weak points shown to you right away. Also, having said that, I am also finding that the most of my dev activity on my current project involves stripping out functionality that simply turned out to be unnecessary or half baked. I feel that having a co-founder would be great help in avoiding some of the unnecessary work in first place.

<comment><USER23> I think the idea is that the force multiplier WORK(2 people) / WORK(1 person) < 2, which IME is very true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I keep hearing the same story of how most people meet their co-founder "x and y met in school".

I'm a few years out of university and have moved around a lot. Most of my trusted friends now days are non technical which makes my candidate pool near empty. I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know well is a bad idea.

It seems to me that all the rules placed around how you must have a team to get funded is restricting startups to the realm of college/uni students and there's probably a lot of opportunities being missed.

<comment><USER25> "I agree completely that getting on board with someone you don't know well is a bad idea."

Eh I kind of disagree about this.

I ended up working on a project through a friend of a friend. A guy was doing some work on his own and needed some pro-bono help for his project. We have very different personalities but our skills complemented one another perfectly. We ended up moving out to the Bay Area together to work on our own projects. A year later, we've meshed extremely well given some tough circumstances.

There's absolutely no way we would've met back in Uni, as we frequented different circles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'd argue on the fact that having two business oriented co-founders can sometimes hurt you more than having a lone co-founder.

<comment><USER27> I don't see how a 2-bizhead team can hurt, unless they're focused on an market outside their areas of expertise/work experience.

A lot also depends on the type of product. E.g. for a consumer oriented startup with a tech-enabled (not tech-centric) product, the immediate big challenge (assuming business model has been established) is often sales & other "businessy" challenges.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Question for anyone: if you're not a single founder, how did you meet your co- founders?

<comment><USER28> I met my first co-founder in college and my second one through the local tech scene. In both cases I made sure that these were people that I could get along with before anything. Skills are picked up along the way but if you don't work well together it's going to be a painful ride.

Co-founding is like getting married, except without the sex.

<comment><USER29> You are obviously not married

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have the same reasons for being a single founder.

<http://www.chimkan.com/2011/07/05/the-pros-of-going-solo/>

</comment><comment><USER31> encouraging and well thought out points.</comment>


One reason to think that Rails is "all that" - <AUTHOR> http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/11/30/one-reason-to-think-rails-is-all-that

<comment><AUTHOR> This thread got me thinking:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=84771></comment>