Proof without words: Cubes and Squares - <AUTHOR> http://fermatslibrary.com/s/proof-without-words-cubes-and-squares <comment><USER2> I think the diagram found in wikipedia is the clearest.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Ni...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Nicomachus_theorem_3D.svg/2000px- Nicomachus_theorem_3D.svg.png)

<comment><USER3> The coloring helps very much, at least for me. The black and white image was very unclear to me. Perhaps some grayscale coloring was lost in the linked version?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Visual «proofs» are dangerous. Counter-example: Missing square puzzle: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_square_puzzle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_square_puzzle)

<comment><USER5> For real-numbered measurements, dangerous. For integer measurements that are about seeing the counting re-arrangements, safer.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. But this is an awfully fine point for proofs which are intended to be «simple».

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Technically this is a demonstration, not a proof.

Does it _prove_ the pattern holds? My "intuition" says the pattern holds, but I wouldn't bet my life on it just from this diagram.

Unrelated, I find it easier to see the pattern if you draw it with triangles.

             /\
            /\/\
           /\/\/\
          /\/\/\/\
         /\/\/\/\/\

Bucky Fuller pointed out that associating the second power with the area of a square (as opposed to some other figure; and the third power with the volume of a cube) is a choice.

<comment><USER7> I never thought of that. Where did he say that?

<comment><USER8> Bucky Fuller was big on measuring shapes relative to triangular / tetrahedral coordinates. "Synergetics coordinates".

See e.g. [http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/p6300.html#966...](http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/p6300.html#966.20)

The advantage of measuring area relative to a unit simplex is that it gets rid of a factor of n! in the denominator which would pop up if you measured the area of a simplex relative to a square grid. Likewise it simplifies the formulae for area/volume of the _n_ –sphere.

An equilateral triangle grid in 2-dimensions, and its dual the hexagonal grid, have much to recommend them. They're often more efficient, e.g. it would be noticeably better (less isotropic, more efficient) to represent images using hexagonally shaped pixels than square pixels. Perhaps most importantly, they broaden thinking beyond the square-grid culture we're immersed in in every aspect of our society (textiles, city planning, construction, carpentry, cartography, visual art, written documents, analytic geometry, ...) and just take for granted. It's quite literally a way to "think outside the box".

The downside is that it's not a priori obvious exactly which way to generalize the equilateral triangle grid beyond two dimensions, whereas for a square grid there's a natural choice. We can base our coordinates on just a single simplex, but this doesn't necessarily make measuring or relating arbitrary shapes any easier.

The symmetry system of the tetrahedron has one type of 2-fold and two types of 3-fold axes of symmetry, and regular tetrahedra alone don't tile space in a regular way. The FCC and BCC lattices, based on the symmetry of the cube/octahedron have 2-fold, 3-fold, and 4-fold axes of symmetry (this is the symmetry system of a tiling of space using mixed octahedra and tetrahedra). The dodecahedron/icosahedron have 2-fold, 3-fold, and 5-fold axes of symmetry, don't tile space, and don't generalize beyond the 4th dimensional case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> the same proof is discussed on math.stackexchange

[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61482/proving-the- id...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/61482/proving-the-identity- sum-k-1n-k3-big-sum-k-1n-k-big2-without-i)

</comment><comment><USER10> But is this a proof?

It's seems like essentially the same as 'proving' Riemann by using a computer to calculate the first 100,000 values of 0.. which is considered unsuitable as proof

If using examples as evidence of proof I was under the impression you needed to also prove the completeness and consistency of the pattern from the examples

This reads to me like if instead disproving a finite hypothesis Euclids proof of the infinitude of primes just consisted of listing the first 7 prime numbers allowing the reader to make the assumption, 'well those are getting bigger they must all get bigger'

</comment><comment><USER11> And of course ancient mathematicians knew it already at least around 2000 years ago:

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

"Pengelley (2002) finds references to the identity not only in the works of Nicomachus in what is now Jordan in the first century CE"

Now it is Jordan, but at the time on Nicomachus there were almost 300 years of Greek and 100 years of Roman rule of that area.

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

</comment><comment><USER12> For those of us unfamiliar with this, is this an actual paper? Is something novel being shown here or is the novelty entirely in the visuals?

Damn cool, by the way.

<comment><USER13> Gauss noticed that the sum of the first _n_ numbers is _n_ ( _n_ +1)/2, while in grade school. One can prove, via induction [0], that the sum of the first _n_ cubes is _n_ ²( _n_ +1)²/4\. Clearly the latter expression is the square of the former.

[0] The inductive step looks like this:

      (n-1)²((n-1) + 1)²/4 + n³
       (n⁴ - 2n³ + n²)/4 + 4n³/4
       (n⁴ + 2n³ + n²)/4
         n²(n + 1)²/4

<comment><USER14> The proof is simpler if you don't bother to simplify the total:

The inductive step in the OP theorem is:

          ((1 + ... + n-1) +n)² - (1 + ... + n-1)²
        = n² + 2n(1 + ... + n-1)
        = n² + 2n(n-1)n/2
        = n²(1) + n²(n-1)
        = n²n
        = n³

Working out the algebra is about as much work, or maybe less, than interpreting the "proof without words" (which BTW isn't a "proof", it only illustrates n=1..7 and hints the generalization to the reader). The proof without words is an illustration of the algebraic steps.

<comment><USER15> > which BTW isn't a "proof", it only illustrates n=1..7 and hints the > generalization to the reader

What you've written isn't a proof, either. All of those ellipses are terribly informal. You should really write:

        (\Sigma_{k=1}^{n-1} k + n)² - (\Sigma_{k=1}^{n-1} k)²
        ...

Personally, I find the "proof without words" both easier to read and more convincing than some algebra. I think I'd have a harder time spotting a mistake in the algebra. Do other people really find it easier to find a mistake in a dozen lines of algebra than in a diagram?

<comment><USER16> > I think I'd have a harder time spotting a mistake in the algebra. Do other > people really find it easier to find a mistake in a dozen lines of algebra > than in a diagram?

You're asking about two different issues as if they were one. It is intuitively "easier" to examine the visual presentation. Nevertheless, it is technically much easier to find a mistake in a dozen, or a hundred, lines of algebra because there is a definite, known method of verifying the algebra. With the visual presentation, you're just staring at it and hoping you notice the mistake.

Analogously, it's much easier for people to produce an exhaustive list of things that occur in a known fixed order (say, the 50 US states in alphabetical order) than to produce an exhaustive list of unordered members of some category (say, the 50 states if you never learned them in any particular order). The algebraic proof is like the fixed-order recall; the structure it imposes is, to some extent, error-correcting.

So, visual proofs, which are inherently _convincing_ , are a good tool for persuading someone of their own truth _regardless of whether they 're actually true or not_, and also a good tool for getting people to _remember_ a proof in the future, but they are a terrible tool for formally establishing results. They are best used for communicating results that you have other reasons for believing in, or as an aid to memory or investigation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am not sure that this constitutes a proof. It seems induction would be required to show that the property holds.

</comment><comment><USER18> This must be a reference to Mendelssohn's Songs without Words: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1uvYdW8MSk&t=1880](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1uvYdW8MSk&t=1880)

</comment><comment><USER19> There are full books on these called "Proofs Without Words". On my wishlist. :) [https://amazon.com/dp/0883857006](https://amazon.com/dp/0883857006)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a very nice visual proof! I wonder if there are similar proofs in higher dimensions (or at least in 3 dimensions so that we have a hope of visualizing them)?

</comment><comment><USER21> I still prefer algebraic proofs

</comment><comment><USER22> Very recursive structure.</comment>


Build a Web 2.0-like application in haskell, with HAppS.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.happstutorial.com

<comment><USER2> _"... There is one minor detail... Unfortunately, the documentation for HAppS is cringeworthy ..."_

Nothing kills the urge to learn something quicker than incomplete docs. But it doesn't have to be this way. John Resig of JDoc fame, gets around this problem by concentrating on writing good documentation of the core API ~ [http://blog.jquery.com/2006/09/02/taking-jquery- documentatio...](http://blog.jquery.com/2006/09/02/taking-jquery- documentation-to-the-next-level/) (along with doing stacks of talks, demos) leaving the gaps for others to fill ~ <http://www.html.it/articoli/johnresig/index.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree.

It's not really a "minor detail."

There's a "getting organized" thread on the happs googlegroup about this at the moment, and I really hope it bears fruit.

This should be done via haddock of course, but haddock won't build HAppS documentation at the moment because it doesn't work with template haskell (as discussed in the googlegroup). Optimistically, this should be working again after ghc 6.10.2, which also targets a haddock fix.

Even without working haddock though, the api should be better documented in the source. If haddock suddenly started working there still would be a lot of undocumented functions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A detailed error message is not a good introduction for an application framework: "Server error: templates: changeWorkingDirectory: does not exist (No such file or directory)"

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I'll add load-testing to my to do in releasing web frameworks.

But how ever solid one might think one's app is, there's no reason not to make one's front page static or at least have apache cache it.

<comment><USER3> This story is going from bad to worse. The site was up again and I made it to page 5 looking for code examples (I was pretty interested to see some Haskell). The closest I found was a shell call for find. Page 6, "Server Error". The site is down again.

So yeah, load test and do whatever it takes to ensure you're ready for traffic.

<comment><AUTHOR> This will be the first time I'm doing load testing so gimme some time to get it right :)

<comment><USER3> Ah okay. Try Tsung, the Grinder, or JMeter if you have extra machines. For less heavy-duty testing try httperf. Siege and Apache bench are okay for basic testing. And _always_ use a separate machine to generate load.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I finally fixed this problem.

[http://groups.google.com/group/HAppS/browse_thread/thread/cf...](http://groups.google.com/group/HAppS/browse_thread/thread/cff2b9098c2b7a14/2b64b94525cd28a4#2b64b94525cd28a4)

Basically it was a lazy io issue in haskell, fix was using a strict version of readFile for templates.

Hope it stays up now!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great stuff. You mentioned rails, django, catalyst, and php; I think you want a framework like CakePHP or CodeIgniter in place of php in that list. Also, just for kicks, you could mention that Smalltalk has a framework as well: Seaside.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice - but one thing I noticed - the ORM link points back to the same page (probably was meant to be wikipedia? )

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am announcing happstutorial 5 on hackage and in darcs.

There are new chapters on various macid topics, utf8 gotchas, cookies, and various improvements all over.

Please continue to report errors and inconsistencies as they come up.

This version is "close to final". At least for my purposes, it has boilerplate that covers nearly all the important important use cases for a web 2.0 app. OK I missed a few -- eg, there's still no email confirmation with registration -- but there's a hell of a lot.

So... don't use ruby for your next web 2.0 app -- use haskell!

thomas.

<comment><USER7> live demo?

<comment><AUTHOR> The tutorial site happstutorial.com is a demo. Of a job board. Check it out.</comment></comment></comment>


How to Build a Mobile Office and Work From Anywhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.anywired.com/how-to-build-a-mobile-office-and-work-from-anywhere/84/ <comment><USER2> I have my office on my boat.

As long as it's near the sea I'ts mobile :-)</comment>


British Society for Immunology open letter to Government on SARS-CoV-2 response - <AUTHOR> https://www.immunology.org/news/bsi-open-letter-government-sars-cov-2-outbreak-response <comment><USER2> It's fascinating (and depressing) to watch the difference in response between Asia and the West.

I'm an American living in Myanmar. Here's what's being done in my city all before there are any confirmed cases:

\- Cancellation of large events.

\- Free testing.

\- TV notices encouraging social distancing and hand washing.

\- Temperature checks and hand sanitizer dispensed at entrances of indoor crowded places like malls, grocery stores, large retail stores (not doing this really baffles me, since it's so straightforward and practical).

\- School closures.

\- Travel and border restrictions.

These are simple tactics that every country should be utilizing. Yet when I talk to my friends in US and Europe, they report no temperature checks or hand sanitizer. My family member just flew through SFO and said there were no temperature checks or hand sanitizer being dispensed.

It's sad and perplexing to me that common sense practical approaches to testing and spread control are not being utilized by many countries, and that closures have been reactive instead of proactive. It's unfortunate that the UK is focused on actively ignoring practical efforts to control spread.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Which city are you in? I used to spend a lot of time in Yangon in Myanmar, my wife's family are Burmese doctors who emigrated to the UK decades ago. We live in London at the moment. They also find the difference in approach between Asia and the UK puzzling.

I think the stark reality is, given how easily the virus spreads, you can play whack-a-mole with closures for potentially a very long time, but the virus will eventually spread and overwhelm the healthcare system.

I don't know how many ICU beds there are in Myanmar but I'm afraid it won't be nearly enough, just like everywhere else. I've been to a public hospital in Yangon once, and it was full to the brim with very long waiting times. Ended up just leaving before I come out with something worse I went in with. This was during a time without any pandemic.

<comment><USER4> > _I 've been to a public hospital in Yangon once, and it was full to the brim > with very long waiting times. Ended up just leaving before I come out with > something worse I went in with._

Huh, I was down with severe food poisoning in Yangon in early 2016. A local associate of my friend brought me to the local hospital's A&E department, where I got an injection of some sort and diarrhoea medication. I was out of the hospital in probably 30 minutes.

I'm not in the position to assume that their hospitals can handle a severe outbreak, but their medical system wasn't that bad when I had the unfortunate chance to experience it.

<comment><USER3> Could have been timing, or the hospital. I've heard others have had good experiences also.

Still, I really don't think they have enough ventilators or intensive care capacity to cope with a coronavirus epidemic. 70% of the population live in rural areas where they don't even have hospitals

<comment><USER5> Nobody has enough ventilators.

Also, people in the West mostly underestimate the rest of the world and their capabilities. Once you show them that majority of the rest of the world does not live in caves they are bummed. It's ignorance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This idea that the primary aim of the UK Government is herd immunity is plain wrong. The primary aim is to flatten the curve with specially timed interventions and any herd immunity is a by product of that. The aim is to flatten the curve so that the systems are able to cope better.

Herd immunity will be a by product in almost every western countries actions today. Ask them and if they are honest they will say the same that it's a long term effect but not the primary driver or the main aim.

The difficult non sound bite criticism is about the flattening of the curve based on their models which basically means they need to get both the timings and the interventions spot on for it to work correctly.

<comment><USER7> There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict measures sooner rather than later. Studies supporting stuff like lockdown or containment fatigue is also sorely lacking. Basing our epidemic response on this is completely bonkers.

The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. The government should at least have the balls to admit it and not hide behind 'science'.

(The only issue with closing schools which might affect the healthcare system is childcare for healthcare workers. This is already in place as a mitigation in other countries.)

<comment><USER8> > There are almost no drawback to the health system by introducing strict > measures sooner rather than later

Yes there are, as set out in the chief medical officer and chief scientific offer's press conference.

> The overwhelming consideration is the blow to the economy. The government > should at least have the balls to admit it and not hide behind 'science'.

So, to be clear do you think the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific advisor were simply lying about the science?

<comment><USER9> I'm so glad the tech bros, here and on twitter, are on top of this epidemic. I don't trust the professors of medicine and scientists advising our governments either if I can't see some Python code and a condescending tweet about how no one understands exponential growth.

<comment><USER10> The current response to the outbreak in the UK/US is supposedly being driven by "behavioral modeling", which basically means glorified techbro-Python code. So your argument is backwards, if anything. The WHO didn't used to think of "lockdowns" as a recommended approach either, but they're now changing their mind, as this has _worked_ in China and elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The common hepatitis virus stays in the body forever and may be responsible for countless things we have typically classified as auto immune disorders.

So to say the solution is to get most least at risk people infected without even knowing if those 60000 recovered Chinese are all going to die in 6 months, that's just stupid.

<comment><USER12> They didnt say that the most least at risk people should get infected. I interpreted their guidence to be more in line with what you just said "Avoid infection, because we do not yet know if this virus induces long-term immunity, as many other similar viruses do not."

<comment><USER11> Yes sorry I didn't make it clear I was bashing the govt response, essentially agreeing with this open letter.

<comment><USER12> Got it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> We've got this slightly weird "soon but not yet" thing going on at the moment, strangely reminiscent of Mark Carney Governor of the Bank of England's infamous and ill fated 'forward guidance' policy.

We're being told that some time in the next two weeks all over 70s will be told to self isolate for up to four months. Well if it's going to be four months I think my parents can jolly well start now, thank you very much. Similarly with "not quite but nearly" school closures.

It all seems to be predicated on the theory that if we start too early well get bored of it by the time the real pandemonium starts, which sounds like pretty strange thinking to me.

<comment><USER14> If you lock down too soon the spread will simply restart post lockdown. If you wait a hit, there will be some percentage of the population already exposed and immune post-lockdown which will slow the spread. That's my thought on timing.

<comment><USER15> This is one of those "makes sense to me" kind of things, that the modelling shows is wrong.

Not "kind of makes sense, but needs a set of specific assumptions, so kind of true but risky."

Wrong.

If you wait, you get a different infection rate curve.

That's it. Flat out, it means more people get infected more quickly and more people die.

Long term, maybe the results are less clear, but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong.

<comment><USER16> Long term is what they're thinking of. Ie next winter and beyond.

And there are plenty of experts among the uk Gov't advisers too. "Pandemic" is #1 on the UK's list of national threats, and has been for ages. I'm certain this will have been modelled to death all that time.

Tbh, the "correct" advice depends mainly on your assumptions and priorities, not the mathematics.

<comment><USER17> You may be certain this has been modelled, but that doesn't mean it's been modelled correctly.

I'm having some difficulty believing that a government with a decade-long track record of stupidity, craven dishonesty, and aggressive contempt for the poor, weak, and old, has suddenly decided to be a world-leading paragon of evidence-based health policy - in a way that's making epidemiologists in other countries say "Huh? What?"

And the question remains - if they're thinking next winter, what difference does two weeks make?

<comment><USER14> Two weeks means a significant difference in the number of people infected this season, which means a lower exponent in the rate of spread next time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _... to aid efforts, we call on the government to release their modelling data to allow scrutiny from the scientific community to better predict the course of this outbreak_

It is possible of course that at the moment, no such thing exists to standards expected by members of the British Society for Immunology.

<comment><USER19> It's possible, but given the calibre of the UK CMO and Chief Scientist, it seems unlikely.

<comment><USER18> I watched this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRc389TvG8) and in my mind the Chief Scientist is a political and not an academic figure anymore.

<comment><USER20> Vallance is a medical doctor with quarter of a century in academic medicine and private sector drug research and two years as Chief Scientific Advisor. Chris Whitty, who's identified even more closely with the development of the current strategy, is an epidemiologist.

<comment><USER21> I guess science no longer requires scrutiny and discussion. Two guys with credentials worked on it, that's all I need to hear to feel better.

<comment><USER20> I guess replying to comments no longer requires paying attention to the context. One person claimed, apropos of nothing, that the position was 'political, not academic' and I pointed out the obvious fact the relevant scientific advisor's academic credentials were impeccable and their political experience rather limited.

<comment><USER18> Apropo _apropos of nothing_ , the point was that an argument from (academic) authority is weakned when the authority occupies a political role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The important point in the letter seems to be

>we don't yet know if this novel virus will induce long-term immunity in those affected as other related viruses do not. Therefore, it would be prudent to prevent infection in the first place. More research is urgently needed on this front.

<comment><USER23> It might not be super long-term but it could be. It seems reasonable that immunity would last long enough until a vaccine was produced.

There's no guarantees. You have to balance the risks up, and not taking this approach is risky in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why in the face of absolute emergency do they communicate in such and understated manner open to ignoring and devaluing by politicians?

They should state with absolute clarity what they think should immediately happen instead of meekly asking two questions.

FFS

<comment><USER24> It's beyond belief that any strategy could even be considered that does not have its primary goal to save as many lives as possible.

Containment attempts that.

"Herd immunity" is an experiment that the UK government is going to carry out on its citizens causing massive loss of life for no good reason at all.

<comment><USER25> To be brutally cold: the goal is almost never to save as many lives as possible. Even hospitals don't use that goal. We estimate the economic value of life and use quality adjusted life years to determine if a potentially life saving treatment is worth paying for.

We make these decisions constantly. You make these decisions every time you leave the house. People die every day from things we could have prevented if we had the inclination.

If the goal is to save as many lives as possible, why are driving and alcohol permitted? Because of personal freedom and the economy.

Treating this pandemic differently would be emotion driven.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _[T]here are many unknowns in how the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with the human immune system and how this might play into current scenarios. For example, we don't yet know if this novel virus will induce long-term immunity in those affected as other related viruses do not._

That was really interesting to me. I didn't know infection with related viruses doesn't confer long-term immunity. Anybody know more precisely how closely related? All of Coronaviridae?

</comment><comment><USER27> Has anyone found any good spreadsheet models that might show assumptions?

At a local level, I want to be able to help my mother-in-law. If I and my family got it now, I could help them in a month. That is clear and logical at a local level, but may be counterproductive at a global level. Conflict!

At a global level, flattening the curve is about hospitalization. Early infections among those highly unlikely to be hospitalized reduces future risk. But, how does that square with overall growth?

While the local scenario is clear, the global involves more assumptions that can't be modeled in ones head. Dying to play with models.

<comment><USER28> It remains to be seen whether it will answer these questions, but the government has agreed to publish its own models - [https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1238912217921335297](https://twitter.com/janemerrick23/status/1238912217921335297)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not to mention, the high R0 of this virus means the threshold for herd immunity is unrealistically high. Plus, countries that are trying to delay transmission will also eventually get herd immunity , most probably with the help of a vaccine.

<comment><USER30> I think people believe that a vaccine is 18 mths away. Certainly it seems implausible that 100's of millions of doses of a new vaccine can be manufactured within a few months. The models and history that I have seen (ie. the 1918 flu) indicate that there will be another bump of infection after quarantine. I expect compliance with social distancing will be reduced in the next wave because people will be under economic pressure and also will have lost focus on the issue. In some places there may be events that mitigate against distancing - for example the presidential elections in the USA. I think that producing a plan that is predicated on something (production of a vaccine to any scale in less that 6mths) that is very unlikely to happen is not the best approach.

Here is a discussion including expert comments : [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a- co...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/when-will-a-coronavirus- vaccine-be-ready-human-trials-global-immunisation)

<comment><USER17> The most effective strategy would be wave isolation. The virus _cannot_ be contained except by clean-room quarantine for everyone, which is clearly impractical.

So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or less strict social distancing. The virus will still spread, most people will still get it, but the health care system isn't swamped, so resources remain to treat the elderly and vulnerable.

At the end of the season, most people have immunity - assuming it's possible - and you've limited the total number of deaths.

The economic cost is huge, but so is the economic cost of forcing your health care system to collapse.

It's possibly not obvious yet, but the economics of this are going to be ruinous _whatever happens._ So it would be wise to create some mitigation for that, and suspend the usual market-eats-everything rules.

<comment><USER31> > So the next best option is to spread the peak by alternate phases of more or > less strict social distancing.

Has this been done before anywhere on a large scale?

How is it done, do they just say "it's safe, you can go back to work now _wink wink_ ", do they encourage virus parties like new-age-parents? Are they going to convince the public that everyone should get infected in their allotted wave for the common good? Will they go door to door and just shoot in a blast of viruses? Won't people catch on if they alternate between strict and lessened isolation rules and figure "they're trying to trick me into getting infected, I'm not going back to working at the office, thanks"?

I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today.

<comment><USER30> >I absolutely get the idea, but it's not like you're dealing with a population that has it's memory reset every morning and just acts on the information available today.

Ahhh... Errm... I am terribly afraid that you can see that happening on Twitter every day.

<comment><USER31> I don't know, can you? I believe what you see on Twitter is tribalism in it's purest and decentralized form. It's many smaller and larger tribes clashing all the time, because of how it's set up. People don't forget what $memberOfTheirTribe did or said last week, they fall in line because it's their tribe vs that other tribe, and consistence or purity or adherence to tribal values are less important than winning the battle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Brit here:

I'm not a fan of Dominic's government, but the response seems to be well motivated by a series of reasonable arguments. As I understand it:

1\. We either get herd immunity via infection or cure/end every case of the virus in the world. They discard the latter as impossible given the infection rate and forecast time-to-vaccine.

2\. The counterfactual/needless damage done will be deaths due to NHS capacity saturation, which is a function of (maximum simultaneously infected) - (nhs capacity at that time).

3\. Most controversially, they argue that people are going to be shit at implementing isolation policies of the needed severity, in the particular sense that the effectiveness of isolation measures will drop over time. That seems quite likely to me, having met some humans before. Hard to tell / interested in studies if anyone can point to some.

4\. As a consequence of these things, the goal is to pass severe measures later than now (but perhaps at a relative point in time similar to italy's) such that during the period of these measures many young people will be sitting out the infection without passing it on, and the infection rate will fall to avoid saturating the NHS.

Or, put another way, they are going to do everything the US is doing but in about 7-14 days, as opposed to now, because the limited period of effective social isolation will hit a more high-growth period, and more young people will be sitting it out and becoming immune.

This doesn't sound super-obviously wrongheaded to me. It's unclear what the plan in the US is. Lockdown for ever? Lockdown-till-cure? Lockdown till herd immunity is pretty equivalent to the UK strategy, and seems likely to be the outcome. But herd immunity takes longer to achieve the earlier you start measures.

<comment><USER33> You might want to read this:

[https://giorgio.gilest.ro/2020/03/12/the-uk-strategy-of- figh...](https://giorgio.gilest.ro/2020/03/12/the-uk-strategy-of-fighting- covid-19/)

<comment><USER34> Thank you.

This is the first I've read about waves of infection.

What I gleened: UK government is concerned that China may experience a second wave of infection once the isolation efforts are lifted. So the UK govt is hoping to have a single, much slower wave.

I also like this article's assessment of the UK's strategy: tough choices based on data of uncertain quality.</comment></comment></comment>


Susan Cain on the Power of Introverts, Live-Illustrated by Molly Crabapple - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/10/23/susan-cain-molly-crabapple-rsa/?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer2db20&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> For anyone who is an introvert, works with introverts or wants to understand more about people's behavior I would recommend reading her book. There is nothing groundbreaking or earth shattering but her points about how introverts and extroverts "recharge" are worth understanding. The book is a quick, good and easy read.

</comment><comment><USER3> The live-illustration is beautiful, but it is too abridged by far. If you enjoyed it, though, the full talk (below it) will be well worth your time.</comment>


Phantom Terrains - <AUTHOR> http://phantomterrains.com/

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of a similar (but visual) project done several years ago, called "Light Painting WiFi" [0], which has popped on HN more than once, most recently in April [1].

Are there any city-wide (or larger) WiFi maps available anywhere? We well know that Google and several other companies have been collecting WAP data en masse for many years, but I don't think I've ever seen much done with the data publicly aside from a handful of this sort of small-scale art project.

Are the data considered too valuable or too controversial by the collectors (cartographers?) to publish openly?

0\. [http://www.nearfield.org/2011/02/wifi-light- painting](http://www.nearfield.org/2011/02/wifi-light-painting)

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7581253](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7581253)

<comment><USER3> Well, there's the Mozilla Location Service (MLS) 1), mentioned before 2) which has a completely open API. Of course, coverage is still rather spotty in places.

1) [https://location.services.mozilla.com/](https://location.services.mozilla.com/)

2) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8525148](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8525148)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why hearing aids and not an iPhone?

<comment><USER5> I was wondering the same thing, but I think that a part of the project is exploring the concept that perhaps one day prostheses will no longer just bring those who need them up to parity with the rest of the population, but will instead extend them past the natural capabilities of a human. Technologically the creators could've recorded these sounds with an iPhone, but the message would've been different.

They're exploring the same space as Neil Harbisson's _Eyeborg_ project [0] and John Scalzi's book _Lock In_ [1].

[0] [http://mashable.com/2013/06/01/eyeborg/](http://mashable.com/2013/06/01/eyeborg/)

[1] [http://www.avclub.com/review/john-scalzis-lock-crams-big- ide...](http://www.avclub.com/review/john-scalzis-lock-crams-big-ideas-large- cast-and-c-208446)</comment></comment>


Converting Pi to binary: Don't do it! - <AUTHOR> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/21.42.html#subj5

<comment><USER2> Actually it is not guaranteed that every string of bits will at some point be a substring of pi. Bad joke, since wrong.

<comment><USER3> Can you generate an infinite string of bits that does _not_ contain a given finite string?

Edit: no periods in the infinite string, of course

<comment><USER4> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number#Properties_and_ex...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number#Properties_and_examples)

Sure... the infinite string of 1s, or the infinite string of 0s, or the infinite string of 0s and 1s that is made up of only decimal 3s and 7s. There are an uncountably many number of non-normal real numbers like this, even though the infinite amount of normal real numbers is bigger.

<comment><USER2> > There are an uncountably many number of non-normal real numbers like this, > even though the infinite amount of normal real numbers is bigger.

How sure are you with that one? Mind to supply a proof?

<comment><USER4> I have no proofs; I don't think very many proofs exist with regards to this topic.

From what I've been able to gather, I think the cardinality of the normal and non-normal numbers are the same, even though the non-normal numbers are measurably greater because of probability distributions. This is a paradox that I don't really understand. [http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4270](http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4270)

<comment><USER2> Anything related to the concept of infinity tends to be hardly understandable in an "emotional" or "intuitive" way. We can just apply the rules of logic and accept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Similarly, surely this could land you in big trouble:

dd if=/dev/urandom of=testfile bs=1024 count=1024

You could end up with a copyrighted mp3 file, some trade secrets, various passwords, credit card numbers, etc

And another point... "Converting PI to binary"

What?? What base is PI in to start with? Surely the title should be "Calculating PI and storing as binary" or similar.</comment>


Israeli hacking firm selling the keys to your WhatsApp messages - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/whatsapp-encryption-hack/ <comment><USER2> _WhatsApp encryption is used by Signal, the gold standard for encrypted messaging apps. Signal developers did not respond to a request for comment._

Wrong. WhatsApp uses the protocol that Open Whisper Systems (who makes Signal) designed.

And if memory serves, they had a similar problem before because WhatsApp didn't implement the Signal Protocol correctly.</comment>


Omelette: a simple, template based autocompletion tool for Node and Deno - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/f/omelette <comment><AUTHOR> Omelette is a simple template based autocompletion tool for Node and Deno projects with super easy API.</comment>


Layerboom acquired by Joyent - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bootuplabs.com/2010/07/15/layerboom-acquired-by-joyent/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+BootupLabsBlog+(Bootup+Labs+Blog)

<comment><USER2> Great news for Layerboom (and Joyent). Nice to hear Bootup startup score an acquisition. And oh please, please let this be the beginning of a technology renaissance in Vancouver.

It has the following:

      Two Great Universities, and a solid technical
      college (UBC, SFU, BCIT)

      Reasonable winters, beautiful summers, (okay, rainy
      fall weather)

      Gorgeous scenery.  I never tire of watching the
      north shore mountains tower above Burrard Inlet

      Awesome City Life - I fly back three-four times a year
      just to kick back in downtown Vancouver.  I spend two
      days just eating at places on Robson Street.  Classic,
      Classic Library.   And you truly do _not_ require a
      vehicle to live/work/play in Vancouver.

Fingers crossed.

<comment><USER3> I have concerns (as a Vancouverite) about the ability to attract talent, and the general way business has been handled in general. Vancouver salaries are notoriously low given the very high cost of living. I've also brushed up against a "Hire people from BC first" attitude from several people in the tech sector. I don't think it's a show stopper, but it doesn't help.

Similar thoughts: [http://rochelle.ca/2010/04/10/vancouvers-challenging- busines...](http://rochelle.ca/2010/04/10/vancouvers-challenging-business- environment/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice rebound Bootup, great to hear. Also good news for Vancouver tech and Canadian cloud hosting (which is in its infancy to say the least).</comment>


Management Nightmare - Company runs with 5 CEOs - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/4-reasons-why-you-need-multiple-ceos.html

<comment><USER2> Five? Wouldn't that make at least for of the "EOs" rather than CEOs?

"Each of the five CEOs oversees a different area..."

Or SVPs?

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to work for a really large company that had Global CEOs, regional CEOs, Global SVPs, regional SVPs..u get the picture. I always wondered why but may be I am stupid.</comment>


Show HN: Parametric Activation Pools greatly increase performance in ConvNets - <AUTHOR> http://blog.claymcleod.io/2016/02/06/Parametric-Activation-Pools-greatly-increase-performance-and-consistency-in-ConvNets/ <comment> Ono-Sendai What does 'loss' mean on your graphs? Error fraction?</comment>


Brains scale better than CPUs. So Intel is building brains - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/brains-scale-better-than-cpus-so-intel-is-building-brains/ <comment><USER2> Though neuromorphic architectures are interesting, the Loihi is essentially an ASIC for Spiking Neural Networks [1]. The lower power consumption than GPUs is due to the limited nature of computation that can be performed on these chips (which is generally true for ASICs).

[1] [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/loihi](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/loihi)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't quite understand brain simulation. Most article talks about how neuron works, how they are connected. It seems I can write a simulation easily. [https://medium.com/@bennashman/modeling-your-brain-on-a- comp...](https://medium.com/@bennashman/modeling-your-brain-on-a-computer- with-computational-neuroscience-57596c919c70)

What I don't get is, the interconnected neurons don't seem to be differentiable. How do they learn? How to provided feed back to the system? How to train them like we do to ANN?

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory)

 _or_

"Fire together - wire together"

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I look forward to my brain leaking memory to other threads.</comment>


Show HN: Gravity Game - <AUTHOR> http://saltysoft.github.io/gravitygame/

<comment><USER2> Could benefit from an instructions screen upon first load.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're totally right. Actually it's a weekend project I've been working on, and I just wanted to see if people would be interested in the concept.

I'll add a better instruction screen as soon as possible.

In the mean time, the goal is to revive potential life planets by dropping green, blue and red orbs on them, and giving them energy by dropping yellow orbs on the sun (dropping is the Enter key).

<comment><USER3> Instructions needed Your ship should stay centered Zoom is flakey. Why not just use mouse wheel? Fun little game otherwise though

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had no clue how to do anything. Looked at the help screen, clicked around, nothing happened. Instructions please.</comment>


Cutting the speed of ships has benefits for humans, nature and climate – report - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50348321 <comment><USER2> All well and good, but who is going to enforce these speed limits in international waters?

Reading Ian Urbina's Outlaw Ocean[1] was an eye opener regarding what activities happen in effectively un-policed international waters.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/02/the-outlaw- oce...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/02/the-outlaw-ocean-by-ian- urbina-review)

<comment><USER3> In the US, you already have to report the cargo's arrival date before it leaves its origin port. So the information is there.

Graduate the port fees based on average speed for arrival.

<comment><USER4> It's hard to visualize, but a ship's engine speed is only one factor in its overall speed across an ocean, even with powerful engines, wind and especially current will improve or degrade a ship's overall speed as measured by satellite. So a naive port fee based on time of departure will not exactly work.

<comment><USER5> I thought all ships have some kind of international tracking system now?

You should be able to accurately estimate all ships's speeds, using basic high school physics, from a site like [https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/cent...](https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:4)

<comment><USER6> Speed != to fuel burned.

<comment> frosted-flakes It's a roughly accurate measure though. If there's a storm that slows them down, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to burn more fuel to arrive in port on time.

<comment><USER6> I think you are wrong about this, there are so many variables and sea conditions can affect things, for example older engines and maintenance at sea. AIS data is also known to be wildly inaccurate.

Source: built an engine performance model at a maritime company.

<comment><USER7> Require reporting engine run times and performance stats to regulatory bodies, along with fuel loading data from fuel providers.

<comment><USER8> Too easy to fake. Maybe instead base it off of fuel consumption. At the end of the day, they can't fake a full tank of gas -- Require it to be documented when they buy fuel and use that to approximate what they're using for a cross- seas voyage (giving appropriate margin so that in case of storm/emergency they can still make it, but perhaps tax them if they eat into buffer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 20% increase in the world's trading inventory and working capital tied up to get a 0.7% reduction (24% x 3%) in emissions. Yeah makes complete sense to pursue vs. other avenues! </sarcastic>

<comment><USER10> > 20% increase in the world's trading inventory

Which will most probably cause the producers to want to reduce that inventory by not producing that much anymore, which will further ease the pressure on the environment. Yeah, that will most probably raise some prices, but as a species we can't have our cake and eat it at the same time, at some point we do have to price in the externalities.

<comment><USER11> > Which will most probably cause the producers to want to reduce that > inventory by not producing that much anymore

I don't think that's how that works. I'm pretty sure producers produce because there is demand and they are selling their product. They aren't producing for the fun of it.

<comment><USER10> > there is demand and they are selling their product.

I agree with this, but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products to the consumers, which in effect will reduce the effective demand.

As an example, I bet there's lots of people that would want to have rocks delivered to them from the Moon, i.e. there is a notional demand for Moon rocks, but because transporting rocks from the Moon to said customers is prohibitively expensive the effective demand for such an item is close to 0. Making trans-oceanic transport more expensive works the same way.

<comment><USER11> Wouldn't this just move more goods that need to be delivered time-sensitively to the air, which pollutes even more?

<comment><USER10> Some of them probably, yeah, but it will make them more expensive by at least an order of magnitude so that demand will certainly fell. Measures like these are in effect additional taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> All ships in my region now have to slow down compared to just a year or two ago. In recent years right whales have migrated into the gulf of St. Lawrence. Ships were plowing into a whale each week it seemed.

When the order was given to slow down many cruise ships opted to just not come here. But now it seems they understand the problem and follow the rules.

It's become so bad recently that even a Coast Guard ship hit a right whale.

<comment><USER13> As whales come back to their natural population levels - from memory 100 or 1000 times today! - this will become a big problem.

<comment><USER11> Why doesn't the theory of evolution work here? "The whales who get out of the way of ships will evolve forward"

<comment><USER14> Evolution is really really really slow. Ships are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Analogy: "In the past, a well-meaning body of public servants decided there was a need to slow down microprocessors to protect jobs threatened by automation, reduce resource consumption and benefit the climate. CPU frequency was capped at 25MHz and instruction length was limited to 8 bits. The move was hailed as a great victory for humans, nature and the climate"

As a nation, where would we be today (compared to where we are) if a policy like that had actually been adopted?

<comment><USER16> This analogy is completely broken, obviously.

But off-topic: I wonder what computers would look like if there _were_ arbitrary restrictions like that. What directions would we have pursued in microarchitecture, distributed systems, etc etc if there was a regulation capping clock speed or number of transistors, or a rule that made it illegal to have asymmetric network connections?

<comment><USER15> Enlighten me. How is the analogy broken?

<comment><USER17> Electronic devices != giant diesel engines with very very specific use cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ocean shipping is extremely energy efficient. As the article says, it produces only 3 percent of the global co2. Cost benefit ratio is very good.

There is still room to improve:

* scrubbers or cleaner fuels can reduce pollutants other than co2.

* slower & thinner ships improve fuel efficiency

* rotor sail can improve energy efficiency another 10 percent.

<comment><USER19> It's coming - [http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-20...](http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2020.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The rule of thumb for well streamlined objects in a liquid is that the power required goes up with the square of the speed. So twice the speed costs 4 times the power. This works for ships, aircraft and ground vehicles.

So it is possible that the future will be significantly slower because we are currently like to run well above the most efficient speed for things.

<comment><USER21> Power required to overcome a drag force is proportional to the _cubed_ velocity (drag force is proportional to the squared power). So twice the speed equals 8 times the relative power. Nevertheless, it makes your point even stronger.

<comment><USER22> Your factor of two is removed by the fact that the power is applied for half the time.

A car travelling 70mph gets to its' destination twice as quickly as a car travelling 35mph.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Article completely ignores the fact that most shipping companies are already "slow steaming" because it's cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER24> People here talking about putting a price on speed and letting the market figure it out - on principle I agree with that approach but climate isn't the only impact. Ship noise is enormous and for those who haven't listened to recordings, it would drive a human subjected to it insane. It affects the ability of marine life to navigate, echolocate, and hunt but also subjects them to a torturous condition that we wouldn't put up with. See [https://www.seattlemag.com/article/noisy-ships-affect- orcas-...](https://www.seattlemag.com/article/noisy-ships-affect-orcas- hunting-and-communication) or numerous other articles on the subject.

How do we enact an effective tax to manage the pending extinction of various animals? Is the cost to transit at high speed going to be in the thousands or millions to account for that? Here in the Northwest there are only 70ish orcas left of the local variety (southern resident) and boat noise is a major cause of their dwindling health and numbers. A voluntary speed limit reduction in their main grounds was respected by 61% of boats as part of a trial ([https://phys.org/news/2017-09-ships-busy-channel- endangered-...](https://phys.org/news/2017-09-ships-busy-channel-endangered- orcas.html)) but we need broader ocean-wide solution to noise.

I can't see our culture of instant gratification being worth the permanent loss of flora and fauna.

</comment><comment><USER25> If they are charged by the warming impact, it would create an incentive for warming mitigation technologies. For instance, lofting saltwater with a jet spray can support marine cloud formation, which increases albedo and lowers warming impact. Adding additives to fuel might also optimize marine cloud formation. Note there is currently no economic incentive to develop these technologies, but there would be a huge incentive if companies were charged based on the externality (warming).

<comment><USER26> Charging by the warming impact is fraught, because it's hard to measure that. Instead of investing in technologies, they'd probably invest in lawsuits claiming the "warming amount" wasn't correctly calculated. Seems better to separate the two, regulation-wise.

<comment><USER25> Why do you believe it is hard to measure warming impact? Seems relatively straightforward to determine an estimate based on a CO2-ton equivalent.

<comment><USER26> Estimates are always more easily attacked than measurements. Remember we're not talking about people trying in good-faith to evaluate something, we're talking about a few getting hit with a tax based on that number. A good tax should be hard to question legally.

<comment><USER25> And your view on carbon taxes?

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/carbon-tax-most-powerful- way...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/carbon-tax-most-powerful-way-to- combat-climate-change-imf.html)

<comment><USER26> Carbon taxes sounds reasonable, since you can measure the carbon emitted :)

<comment><USER25> But it won't be a measure -- it will be an estimate

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Cutting the speed of ships has benefits for humans, nature and climate

Owners care about none of these things. Slowing down has to help their bottom line, or they won't do it.

<comment><USER28> Thankfully, it's not only up to owners. People (governments) can set the rules the owners need to abide.

Of course, people need to value this rule changes enough to enact it.

<comment><USER27> The rules need to create a reliable financial incentive, or they will be routinely ignored.

The easiest way to accomplish this would be to utilize existing AIS signals ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_syste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_system)). But doing so could create an incentive for captains to switch off their transponders, which would lead to safety issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You know what actually fixes this the simplest way; a carbon tax set at a high level!

<comment><USER29> Actually, isn't it a tragedy of the commons? I don't think a carbon tax would adequately address the problem, and it would require a large regulatory apparatus to enforce it.

The oceans and atmosphere get polluted because societies don't have robust enough property rights. Markets are really good at efficiently allocating scarce resources, so we need to figure out how to define strong property rights to allow damaged parties to hold shipping companies liable. As I see it, citizens, companies, and smaller governments (cities, counties, small countries) are powerless to hold large polluters accountable, either because there's not an adequate property-rights based legal framework, or the litigation costs too much.

<comment><USER30> Strong property rights require a large regulatory apparatus for their enforcement, regardless of how those rights are allocated. It's not about the legal framework.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this true? As far as I know sea ships are designed for a specific speed. Especially when they have a bulbous bow. Those bows are very inefficient at lower or higher speeds.

Edit: what I mean: I can imagine a speed reduction reduces emission by 20%. But when travel times will be over 20% longer nothing is gained.

</comment><comment><USER25> Just charge them for the warming impact and let the market decide to slow down, if that's the most efficient way.

</comment><comment><USER32> "Shipping generates 3% of all greenhouse emissions" — I would like to see more info about that because the big ocean-going container ships are the most efficient mode per ton per (nautical) mile when it comes to fuel consumption.

And is there any chance the operators of the new China-to-Europe railway has a sponsorship role in this report?

<comment><USER18> oil tankers, bulk carriers and container ships together produce roughly half of the shipping co2 emissions. 1.5% of all greenhouse gases.

There is 19 other ship classes that produce the other half. fast roro, reefers, ferries, , etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Could we get carbon credits for paying these ships to go slower?

</comment><comment><USER34> question: Is transporting cargo via airplanes more environmentally friendly than ships?

Because, one thought comes to my mind: If speed of ships go down, then airplane cargo industry would probably benefit. So, I am not sure if this move would be beneficial for environment at the end of day.

</comment><comment><USER35> Maybe it's time to take another look at nuclear freighters.[1]

1\. [https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo- ships](https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships)

<comment><USER36> Maybe it's time to stop buying so much crap that we don't need.

<comment><USER37> So, encourage lower consumption? Or just produce more goods domestically to reduce the need for international trade?

Neither proposal sounds very practical. Maybe it's more realistic to focus on cleaner propulsion systems like electric.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Ion - <AUTHOR> http://amzn.github.io/ion-docs/ <comment><USER2> I really wish things like this wouldn't call themselves "a superset of X".

It's a different data format, that happens to overlap JSON, and while technically that makes it a superset, that's not what the actual result is.

For example: is calling a plain text file a "superset of xml" a useful claim to make?

I'm also not sure I understand the purpose of this or what it is trying to solve - everything it has clonked on to "Json" already exists in a much more clearly standardized way in xml. XML also has numerous production quality parsers, and a huge ecosystem. The only thing it's missing is a compact binary form - that would be a reasonable argument for a new structured data format. But instead what they've done is published a new "plain text Json superset" that /just happens/ to have a binary serialisation.

<comment><USER3> "I'm also not sure I understand the purpose of this or what it is trying to solve"

From the 'why' page, it sounds like a middle ground between JSON (max flexibility) and protocol buffers (max efficiency of network bandwidth and parsing workload): [http://amzn.github.io/ion- docs/guides/why.html](http://amzn.github.io/ion-docs/guides/why.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Previous discussion (on the launch announcement):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11546098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11546098)

(And not to be confused with the earlier ION project which does something similar.)</comment>


Crash your Chrome with %%30%30 - github-cat http://www.pixelstech.us/article/1442754402-Crash-your-Chrome-with-%25%2530%2530 <comment><AUTHOR> I keep seeing links about this on HN? Beating a dead horse? It exists, we know about it.

It's almost like the same asp.net/mvc tutorials being copied and pasted from blog to blog.

</comment><comment><USER2> Be sure to check out the bug report at the end.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, the bug is interesting. I was also interested to see this is not a new bug for chromium, this was reported in May 2015. And that bug has a potentially related bug from Nov 2014.

[https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=486912](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=486912)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Company is firing all employees – should I still exercise my options? - <AUTHOR> About 2.5 months ago I left my executive position at a promising blockchain startup. As I am nearing the end of my 90 day period for option exercising, i've come to know that the company sent out prior notice to all employees a few days ago, as it is struggling to raise money. All 3 founders are at work trying to raise capital in the upcoming month before money runs out and they are also planing on continuing to do so after all employees leave.
On one hand, I am very hesitant to exercise because of the current status. On the other hand, the company has a remarkable product (which they might decide to sell) and the industry is still very much in it's diapers, meaning there is tons of true potential.
i have a lot of faith in the founders but the recent news really threw me off. Would love to hear your thoughts!
More information: -Company size: 15 employees -Exercise price: $20 (679 options/2.3% of the company) -Company raised from several VC's and also via ICO. -I still hold company's digital currency. -Status: recently launched product (fully functional) after 1.5 years of development with very few customers but high growth rate. <comment><USER2> I don't know your financial situation. Maybe $13K isn't much to you. However, I probably wouldn't buy these shares for the following reasons:

1) The company just fired all of its employees

2) The company just fired all of its employees

3) The company just fired all of its employees

That's a really bad sign. Even if they raise additional money, it likely won't be on good terms. With the price of bitcoin way down from it's peak, and much of the "fools" money in this space dried up, I can't imagine that a company who is so close to the edge that they have to fire all of their employees is going to get great fundraising terms.

But take my advice with a grain of salt, as you obviously know and understand the company better than I do.

As an aside, the fact that you are asking here likely means that you have an emotional investment in the company. I get it. If you really have FOMO, you can always split the difference and maybe exercise _half_ the options, or whatever amount you wouldn't mind losing. I once exercised a few thousand dollars of options _knowing_ that it was a bad investment, but also knowing that if I was wrong and the company did well, I'd have a terrible regret. And it's purely because I worked there for a few years... it's not like I obsess over the fact that I didn't make an early investment in Amazon (where I never worked), even though logically that's the same thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your answer! You hit the spot with some things. I am definitely emotionally involved with the company and considered the option of exercising only some of the options - that might be the best option at the moment. One thing to point out is that there is still a month worth of raising time (with all employees still in the company), which is significant in startup terms.

<comment><USER3> Even if the company did sell, it could be at a fire sale price and you could be inline to get paid after investors, founders, etc. IIRC, the term is Liquidation Preference. I held options for about 0.5% of my company when it was sold. They were worth $0 due to such preferences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> $13k for 2.3% of the company is one thing, but how about $13k for 0.023% of the company? Your company could be headed for a "washout round".

In the end it's a question of how dear that $13k is to you. If you've got millions in the bank, do it. If gathering that $13k would require you to max out a couple of credit cards and call in your last couple of favors, then don't do it.

Wherever you lie on that huge section in between is going to determine your decision, I think. There are a couple of companies that even for nonpublic stock will buy your exercised units, so if they value each unit/share at $200 then this is a simple decision: exercise and sell (some or all).

Alternatively, you might be able to stretch that $13k a lot further by investing in the next round. Get a good finger on the pulse of the ask price and see how low they'll go before they give up. Your $13k may be the lifeline that buys the company the 15 days it needs to not die, and should be valued accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you want to take a long shot bet on something I'd just take the 13.5K and place some ridiculous march madness bets. I'm damn near convinced given the info here that you can get similar odds / price with however you wanted to structure those bets, and you can find out within a few days/weeks what happened as opposed to having that money locked up for who knows how long.

I'm mostly kidding, but also not really -- I would seriously put some thought into whether any part of you thinks that this is really a unique investment opportunity, if you're really on some "inside edge" or discounted price given the admittedly subpar position of the company, and if this really differs in any marginal way from any other more liquid form of speculation or downright betting. I don't have the details but this screams "poor financial decision" from where I'm sitting.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just a bit of reading between the lines (from your previous postings ;-) ): Yeah... I wouldn't touch those shares with a ten foot pole while wearing a hazmat suit (the goggles, they do nothing!)

Unless I'm inter-line-reading incorrectly, the company raised $1m giving away 50% of the cap table. They ran out of money and pivoted. Loaded labour rate of about $150K initially I guess... Then raise money from an ICO -- must have been something around $3-4M given the 15 employees now. That money is gone. Originally 2 founders, now 3 (cap table is shrinking). I think there is no way at all that they will be able to raise money. Even if they sell the IP, it will be a fire sale.

This is not financial advice. I am not any kind of financial expert. I can't tell you what to do. I might be entirely wrong, but I don't see recovery at this stage, no matter what the business is.

<comment><AUTHOR> LOL. loved your comment! You hit the spot with your assessments and thanks for doing the research behind it. I think I should probably run best and worst case scenarios with the cap table alongside me. I agree that from the looks of it, it's pretty risky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How much is $13k to you, as a percentage of your net worth?

If you believe in blockchain and want to make an extremely risky, but potentially high payoff, bet, I'd personally just split the 13k across BTC and ETH. Those can also go to zero, or grow another 10x+, but you are at least exposed to the entire industry, rather than a single startup. The investment would also be far more liquid, and you could sell at anytime. Even the most successful crypto startup (Coinbase) hasn't done as well as an investment in BTC.

Don't get trapped into overvaluing the options because you already own them. If you had never worked at the company, and they called you today asking to buy 2.3% for $13k, would you do it over buying BTC?

<comment><USER8> This would be my advice as well. If you're determined to throw away $13,500 on some blockchain-themed boondoggle, this is a better drain down which to tip it.

Past performance is no automatic guide to the future, but speculating on Bitcoin has often turned out pretty well. Sounds like speculating on the company you used to work for, by contrast, will have reliably turned out poorly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > \- blockchain startup

> \- struggling to raise money

> \- tons of true potential

Run.

<comment><USER10> My sentiments exactly.

From promising startup to out of money in 2.5 months? As an executive, did you not have insight into these things?

<comment><USER11> Crypto prices took a serious beating these last few months. I can imagine most of the company's assets were in cryptocurrency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have done this before, more than once. Some companies were in better shape, some this bad. Every one of them failed. Every dollar I spent was wasted. You may get different results.

Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a good bet. It is a huge gamble that most likely will not pay off. If you can accept that and still want to do it, go ahead. If you don't want to take the risk, don't.

</comment><comment><USER13> Couple of perspectives you could take. Here are two:

1: Would you be willing to invest $13K into the company right now with your own money in exchange for 2.3%?

2: What are the most extreme odds you are willing to take for

[ X % -> $50K+ , Y % -> $13K , Z % -> $0 | X+Y+Z = 100%]

Then figure out what others are saying the chances of X and Y are.

P.S. My (generous) uninformed bet would be X=1-5% and Y=30%

</comment><comment><USER14> I would exercise at least a single option, or whatever 'gambling play money' you have.

If the company eventually unicorns, you will regret having been a part of it but not benefiting financially at all. Even a single share could be a consolation and may actually end up valuable.

If you max out all your options, assuming that's more than your 'play money' budget, you may much sooner regret the decision if the company tanks in a month or two which seems like a definite possibility.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very, very few companies do well after a large firing round. What I would look at is how they handled the firing. Did they do it respectfully? Did they apologize or did they blame the people who they fired? Is morale still high after the process? Did the founders handle the firing themselves or did they outsource it to someone?

Generally the companies that have done turnarounds after a firing round have done it respectfully. Often morale floors after a bad round, smart people leave, remaining people are unproductive. Combined with whatever reasons triggered the firing, most companies don't recover.

</comment><comment><USER16> As others have pointed out, you're going to get diluted tremendously if they raise another round.

When a startup is trying to survive they'll give up a tremendous amount of equity because the alternative is 80% of nothing or 40% of something.

Does that $13k hurt you to pay out? If it's not that painful, you can weigh that.

For what's its worth, I didn't exercise my options when leaving the last two companies and I felt so sick to my stomach when the last one sold for a couple hundred million but then I looked & saw they sold for less than their last valuation so my shares would've been even more watered down in value.

</comment><comment><USER17> 1\. Setting the exercise window to 90 days instead of a more reasonable window (measured in years) should be a strong indicator that whoever is structuring their deals is not at all interested in the welfare of _your_ equity.

2\. You no longer have a seat in the company (much less at the deal table).

3\. Their desperation will be apparent, and they will accept very bad terms in the round (firing your staff = no leverage).

Even if they manage to stay in business, your investment is unlikely to be worth anything. As someone else said, would you really want to invest in this company if not for your history? Why not put that $13k into another investment?

<comment><USER18> A 90 day exercise window after leaving a company is the most common situation I've seen

<comment><USER17> The trend is to move to 10-year exercise windows. Plenty of arguments to both sides, I suppose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Personally I wouldn't touch it. We're going on 10 years of 'blockchain' being inappropriately applied to anything and everything and you can still count the winners on one hand. It's illegal to set money on fire... but that would probably have a better chance of paying off. This is not financial advice.

<comment><USER20> The only winners in the blockchain game are the scammers who are laughing all the way to the bank with all the dirty fiat handed to them by a bunch of naive rubes.

Everybody else, including all the spectators, lose. After all, those coal fired power plants dump a lot of crap into the air to power the energy hog that is Satoshi's Blockchain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > promising blockchain startup

This can't be a serious post

<comment><USER22> I am convinced most blockchain startups are solutions looking for problems. Yes, there are exceptions... Maybe this person is involved with one them?

<comment><USER21> There are exceptions or there could hypothetically be exceptions one day?

I agree with the latter

If the former, please provide examples. I am all ears

<comment><USER22> I was thinking more of the latter. I'd be interested in hearing more details on the company...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Blockchain industry . . . firing employees . . . few customers.

I wouldn't bother, you're going to lose your money. If the company pulls through, or finds a buyer for their product, it's _highly likely_ they will play games and essentially extinguish your shares.

</comment><comment><USER24> Why would you exercise them? Literally throwing away 13k on a company about to implode. The best you can expect is another round allowing a pivot making that 2.3% .23. Pass.

</comment><comment><USER25> Without knowing anything about the product or your engine of growth it's hard to give any meaningful advice. Especially since people seem to slap the word blockchain on anything to get potential investors excited.

</comment><comment><USER26> Assume the company succeeds. You'll probably get screwed out of your current "2.3%" unless the founders create investor FOMO, which it sounds like they can't.

I'd stay in touch with the founders.

</comment><comment><USER27> How would you feel, and what position would you be in financially, if you exercised your options and a month from now the company simply went out of business? Consider that a very real possibility. This does not sound like a company that's in a good position to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER28> > About 2.5 months ago I left my executive position at a promising blockchain > startup

And that's exactly where I stopped reading.

The simple answer is no. Run away. There's no such thing.

</comment><comment><USER29> This might be besides the point, but isn't it strange for a company to issue ~25,000 shares total? More to the point, it seems like this (and almost all) crypto companies will rise and fall based on the price of crypto. You might be better off just buying a few bitcoin with your money.

</comment><comment><USER30> No one's mentioned this yet, but if you do exercise it may cost you more than $20 a share. In the US at least you need to pay taxes on the difference between the exercise price and the fair market value of each share. If FMV > $20, the difference is counted as income by the IRS.

<comment><USER31> Not correct for ISOs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> A quote from somewhere:

>Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that "the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."

But I don't think even he meant _all_ the blood. :) If your company is firing _all_ of its employees, then I would say it's not pining, it's passed on. It's no more - ceased to be. Expired and gone to meet its maker. Bereft of life. R.I.P. Kicked the bucket. Shuffled off this mortal coil. Joined the choir invisible.

 _This_ is an _ex_ -company.

<comment><AUTHOR> Loved the Monty Python reference :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> If you had $13k to spend and felt like making a wild bet I'd just dump it all into AMD right now and sleep like a baby for the next few years.

</comment><comment><USER34> As someone who has invested in over 100 startups, I can absolutely guarantee that every single penny you would spend buying those options would be lost.

You are buying common. The investors have preferred. You won't get a cent from a sale of the company.

Additionally, the founders will not be able to raise money in this situation even though VCs coffers are overflowing right now.

</comment><comment><USER35> If you have a lot of faith in the founders that's a great sign. Good teams can always pivot. However, if they fired everyone and don't have any money then their pivot might be a new company. It also sounds like that their best bet currently is an acquihire that won't be worth much. But you never know.

</comment><comment><USER36> Read your agreement again, carefully - maybe you got lucky and cashless exercise is available to you.

</comment><comment><USER37> Calculate the amount you afford to completely lose right now. Exercise that number of options. In your personal mental accounting, set the options value to $0. Check back with the company in a year or two, expecting nothing. You might be surprised

</comment><comment><USER38> Hard to answer without more details- there are a ton of negative signs here but with the whole crypto market down, this might also be a good opportunity. Contact details in my profile if you want to chat with a crypto founder about it.

</comment><comment><USER39> What's the growth trajectory of a company that lays off all of its employees?

</comment><comment><USER40> It really depends on your financial situation and what $13K means to you. I would probably hedge my bet in case the company does succeed and you end up kicking yourself. Maybe exercise some part of it, not the full $13K.

</comment><comment><USER41> Blockchain has really cooled off. If the founders didn't sell ETH at the peak their capital raised is now down 10x. This is the same reason a lot of ICO companies are shutting down.

I'd run away OR buy 50% just for fun.

</comment><comment><USER42> Exact things happened in case Slack. When they were pivoting.

The fired all their to leave an impression (to existing employees) there is no point of exercising the stock and then after 2 months re-launched as Slack.

Food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER43> > promising blockchain startup

Yeah... sure. You kinda shot yourself in the foot here.

</comment><comment><USER44> Nah. If you believe in crypto, just use the money to buy BTC or something else.

The only other situation where I think it could make sense is if you plan to write it off to offset capital gains elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER45> Are they trying to raise money at higher or lower valuation than your options? Taking liquidation preferences into account are you getting a better or worse deal than the investors?

</comment><comment><USER46> Would you buy a 13K lottery ticket? If you have enough money that you would go ahead man, but the chances of striking it big probably aren't much better at this stage.

</comment><comment><USER47> The company is literally dead in the water. Unless you have some information leading you to believe they will be bouncing back, there is no point in exercising.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'd run. The only chance the company sells at something that makes this worthwhile, is if they take on more investment and dilute your value significantly.

</comment><comment><USER49> Your options will be diluted to practically nothing - the best case is that you get your money back. You're better off investing the traditional way.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you have a few $m in the bank, go for it. It's a loss you can write off on your taxes. Otherwise run away. If they are laying off and desperate to raise funding the next round will dilute your % so much to be worthless. I am on my, hum, 6th startup, making millions on one, 3 crashing and waiting / zombie on 2 others. It is all a risk game, easier to play if you already have the buy in stake. If you do not, do not bet the pot on a suite pair in the hole.

<comment><USER20> > It's a loss you can write off on your taxes

Investment loses aren't tax credits. You don't magically get all the money back. You'll only "get back" whatever your marginal tax rate is. You'll still be out the remainder of the cash you forked over.

<comment><USER50> Losses from investments may be used as tax deductions if the conditions in the tax law are met.

<comment><USER20> Tax deductions aren't tax credits. Investment losses are deductions not credits. It is a huge difference.

"Writing off" a investment loss only reduced your bill by the marginal tax rate of your loss. If it was a credit, you'd be marking down the tax bill by the entire amount of the loss, which isn't what happens for investments.

To many people think that something being deductible makes it "free". No. They basically give you a discount for the item equal to your marginal tax rate.

Note: I am not a CPA. Please see one before doing your tax if you are confusing credits and deductions.

<comment><USER50> My quote was from a document prepared by a CPA. I agree with what you said - you need to check, but in most cases, someone in the Bay Area making the typical pay can write off a loss from a startup over a period of a few year. Your milage might vary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> NOPE. At best, all existing shareholders will get wiped out. Your options are worthless. Don't exercise.

</comment><comment><USER52> Sell them to a VC with the option to buy back half at some price. VC gets more pie, you avoid losing upside.

</comment><comment><USER53> Run away. Put the money in a 'blue chip' crypto if you think that's where the money is.

</comment><comment><USER54> No. It isn't worth anything.

</comment><comment><USER22> Exercise a percentage... say, 50%. Put the rest in a more liquid investment.

</comment><comment><USER55> I have a bridge to sell you

</comment><comment><USER56> I notice that you fail to mention revenue. That's a red flag.

</comment><comment> who-knows95 are your hopes the company will sell to a larger business, and you will receive a large payout?

sorry for the question, just don't know a huge amount about this stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, at this point I believe the company might sell the product or manage to raise sufficiently to rehire employees and exit at a later stage. In the first scenario the payout will not be as big, but it might still be significant.

<comment><USER57> Or the payout might be _less significant than the amount you paid for your options_

Consider that (i) based on what you've told us the original VCs have declined to put any further money in to keep the company alive and have therefore probably written off the entire investment and (ii) any buyer probably needs to hire the founders for a couple of years to actually be able to use the IP, and therefore wants to apportion a sizeable proportion of any money they're willing to pay for the IP to their earnout package rather than compensating shareholders and creditors of the dead company.

And the product apparently doesn't generate non-trivial revenue and was built in 18 months for ~$3m by a team who are all available for hire, so it's not like there's an obvious reason for another party interested in the space to pay massive amounts for the IP - remarkable or otherwise - even if there wasn't pressure to conclude a deal asap...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Blockchain is a meme.

</comment><comment><USER59> "Promising blockchain startup"

</comment><comment><USER60> here's a few perspectives:

zeroth perspective: there are many alternative assets and asset classes for investing your hard-won capital , benchmark any decision against standard alternatives, such as investing in real estate, buying into passive ETFs of the world stock market, buying options of highly-liquid public companies that run at a profit and have years of audited financial reports you can read to help you determine a fair valuation, etc.

if this was a company with a liquid options market, you could sell your options, and with the cash from selling them, consider investing in some new options with a longer expiry time and more attractive strike price -- say +12 months, not 90 days. is anyone willing to buy your options? for what price?

you could attempt to do some discounted cash flow model of the company: e.g. does the company have enough cash and resources to limp along burning cash slowly until its revenue has grown enough to run at a profit? how long might that take under pessimistic or optimistic assumptions about revenue growth? this analysis would be hugely speculative and sensitive to assumptions, but might help you come to a conclusion. to make the analysis simpler you could assume that you own 100% of the company and there are no other shareholders and try to figure out what you think the company is currently worth to you, if you were the sole owner. if there's basically no chance that the company can become profitable without taking a large amount of new investment then arguably the value of the company it its current form as a going concern is zero, although it may have some small value if the company were liquidated immediately and any residual cash left after paying off creditors was distributed to shareholders.

if your rough valuation of the current value of the entire company is less than $590k = 20 * 679 / 0.023 [1] then the intrinsic value of your options is $0 and the remaining time value of the options is rapidly approaching $0 if you are nearing the end of the 90 day exercise window. This is fine, it just means that the financial instrument you currently own, these options, are currently almost worthless and are likely to become completely worthless in the very near future [2]. There are plenty of other far less speculative ways to invest that have a far better chance of giving you a modest return on investment and not destroying your capital.

another angle: let's assume the current value of each option is approximately $0 and ignore them. if you are open to the possibility of investing some of your capital into this startup, instead of becoming a shareholder, would it be a better idea to instead become a creditor? e.g. supposing you had $20k cash you were open to investing, do you think the company would agree to terms where they get your $20k and you become a bondholder with a bond entitling you to e.g. 20% dividend payment per year for n years then full return of your initial $20k capital, and status as a secured creditor with the first claim to any remaining assets when the company goes bankrupt? Supposing the company were having a fire-sale of its assets, how much would you pay for the IP (or the desks or other physical assets with resale value...) [3]

yet another angle: on an unrelated note, you say you already hold the company's digital currency. how much is this currently worth in USD? if it is worth > $0 USD, can you sell this digital currency in exchange for cash? failing that, can you sell this digital currency back to the company to cover the cost of exercising the options?

[1] this assumes each option is for 1 share in the company not 100 shares in the company, as would be the case for options typically traded on the market ... if the latter case is true it would cost $20 * 100 * 679 = $1.36 million to exercise the options, and would only make sense if you valued the company as currently being worth more than $590m

[2] worthless in an optimistic scenario where you refrain from exercising the options. if you exercise when the strike price is above the value of the underlying share, you destroy the time value (maybe slightly more than zero), and take the immediate loss for trading $20 cash for a share worth less than $20.

[3] this is almost certainly not a sensible scenario but thinking about it provides quite a different perspective. If you are willing to invest, is there some way to structure the investment so you win or don't lose too much in the high-probability scenario where the company goes bust?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for taking the time to write this! Extremely helpful and thought provoking. I did not consider the option of leveraging my high amount of the company's crypto (which is indeed worth > 0$.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> No</comment>


Ask HN: Where is all the talent at? - <AUTHOR>

Our startup is looking for that All-Start CTO and have been reviewing candidates, but falling flat.  What are some of the networks/communities out there where people have found talent looking to jump on board startups?  Especially those with traction and revenue! <comment><USER2> Please let us know the following:

\- at what stage is the startup at, how much pre-work is done?

\- what do you bring to the table? (other than idea, idea is worth nothing)

\- why should anybody work for your startup vs starting my own?

<comment><AUTHOR> The posting on Startuphire will help clarify some questions about who we are and what stage we are at. I left the url and description out from this post because I wanted the topic to be less about our company, specifically, and more about the talent pools, networks, and meetups that are in the area for people to connect, talk, and find suitable candidates to join our team.

The startup has a working product/service and generates a modest amount of revenue. Those details are private. The startup is 1.5 yrs old and has thousands of paid customers.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Maybe I should restate my question, but first - yes, we have a working product/service and yes we want a CTO. We have a strategy, support network, growth plans, ect and are executing them appropriately.

My concern is less about " Hey guys, help me out finding a free developer" There is nothing 'free' about our job position and I'm not looking to scrutinize the semantics of the job title. As we all know, we all wear multiple hats. You can call the title what you'd like, but our job description is clear (posted on startuphire).

My main concern is that during our process of finding the right candidate, I've noticed a dwindling talent pool. I am new to the Silicon Valley area and expected those resources to have more exposure in the area - through networks, meetups, ect. Being the new kid on the block, I feel like I am missing some cool hangout that everyone knows about or something.

<comment><USER3> Sorry for almost jumping to conclusions. I'm always overwhelmed with people asking me "do you know anyone who can be my CTO" but what they really mean is "do you know anyone who would program my app for free." This definitely doesn't sound like you.

I hate to be completely unhelpful, but I'm in Phoenix, AZ. Talent here is also few and far between.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Are you sure you want a CTO, or do you really want a free developer/tech- cofounder?

A CTO is someone who offers technical leadership, usually over a development team in a startup. Do you have a team of developers that needs leading?

I agree with krisrak, but you allude to his first point. If you have revenue, I'm guessing you have a product.

For kirsrak's second point, you have to realize that most technical cofounder candidates will think (although may not ask outright) "Why wouldn't I just take your idea, build it without you, and own 100% of the company?" If you have revenue, then the answer is that you've hopefully gone through enough customer development and iterations to achieve a product-market fit.</comment>


How Netflix Deploys Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/06/netflix

<comment><USER2> Netflix, the popular movie streaming site, deploys a hundred times per day, without the use of Chef or Puppet, without a quality assurance department and without release engineers.</comment>


Ask HN: Have you been told to demote embarrasing question on your online Q&A? - <AUTHOR> For admins and developers who have an online Q&A/support section for your service, have you been told to demote or otherwise reduce the visibility of questions from users that are embarrassing to your employer or your service? Not things like abuse but valid questions that are simply embarrassing? <comment><USER2> Why wouldn't you?

If you want to be in business you need to learn a basic business lesson.

You don't point out your own flaws.</comment>