My startup. Comments? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scriggle-it.com/ Wondering what you all think of this. Does it make sense? Would you use it? Comments in general? <comment><USER2> Nice looking design. I've been involved in the music industry, and I grokked pretty immediately what you're selling--so you might not need to take the comments to the contrary here too seriously. It might be a bit wordy for musicians, particularly bass players, though, so you might try to pare it down a bit.

Any musician knows about the merch table, and they know they want the customers name and address fast and in a format that they can read (probably a quarter or more of paper mailing list signups are illegible and lost). They also know they've got a laptop on the road with them. You might make it clear that the installed software doesn't need internet access (because clubs don't consistently have wifi). I assume that to be the case, since I know you'd have no other reason for making an installable app.

URL is a bit long and tough. Couldn't get "scriggle.com"? Maybe try a different name, instead of adding a special character (hyphen is hard to remember, and scriggleit would be hard to read). Just a thought. I don't think it'll kill you, but word of mouth will suffer--and word of mouth is how this thing will spread. Musicians talk before and after the show with the bands they're playing with...someone will ask, loudly because clubs are never quiet, "Hey, what's that software you're using? scribblit? wiggleit? fizzlemit? Oh, squiggleit! I got it. Cool, I'll go check it out when I get to the hotel tonight." If you send stickers and cards and other logo-encrusted schwag to your customers, they might remember to hand them out when people ask...but I wouldn't bet on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome. Thank you for the suggestions and commentary. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The Scriggler is what's money. Show it off first, middle and last. Don't hide it after a bunch of text. Put the ad copy over background images of the laptop with the Scriggler on it. Honestly, it would be better if you had one of those images as your header instead of the album-cover satellite art. Which is great, and yes, it lets us know you're cool, but you're not in the satellite business.

Also, I now have 2 in a Room stuck in my head.

</comment><comment><USER4> My one suggestion comes straight from the mouth of Steve Krug:

"Take out half of the words on the page. Then whatever is left, take out half of that"

</comment><comment><USER5> Cool idea! Couple thoughts:

\- Agree that the front page is very busy and wordy.

\- I expected that you could click on any of the icons on the left (Code, Mail, Kit, etc.) to learn more about the offerings. "About" has more about the products, but I usually expect About to describe the founders or contact info, etc.

\- I would leave off all the "coming soon" features. Announce them when they are ready.

\- Agree with the poster that news.yc isn't your target market. I'd find some bands, buy them a coffee, have them look at your laptop & get their opinion.

\- Bonus comment ;-) Bands must get sick of trying to get their gigs listed on all the different sites (myspace, purevolume, etc.), having a solution that could push that info to all those different sites would be interesting part of promoting shows.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They're definitely appreciated.

> Bands must get sick of trying to get their gigs listed on all the different > sites (myspace, purevolume, etc.), having a solution that could push that > info to all those different sites would be interesting part of promoting > shows.

In the works!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Go easy on the egregious Flash animation.

Also, realize that you're getting feedback from Paul Graham fanboys and people who read "productivity blogs" and "startup news" websites.

<comment><USER7> Yeah the flash with the moving words on the circular background actually gave me a bit of a head ache, seizure like...

Besides that I really like the site and the product I know a band that had me write a similar one off app in rails so they could have a laptop and have people sign up at their merch table.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I went to your website. I read it all. I have a question:

What is it about??

This is not a joke.

<comment><AUTHOR> > What is it about??

That is the kind of feedback I was looking for. One of the things we struggle with is good information presentation.

It's a mailing list management system for bands. Or it was. Now we call it "fan management and data collection", and we have client-side software that lets fans sign up for bands' mailing lists at concerts. And there's more snazzy stuff in the works that we'll be unveiling in (hopefully) a week or so.

<comment><USER9> It is important to note that a pretty design (and yours is really beautiful) isn't necessarily a good design (frankly yours is almost useless). I think your site fails to communicate what you do quickly enough. I lost patience with it; the only reason I lingered was considering your site as a design exercise.

I think that you are squandering almost all of your front page. No one cares about your news; lose it. You are not in the satellite or civil engineering business; lose the logo graphics. No one looks in flash animations for core messages; make it text.

As far as I can tell your business is charging bands fees to make it easier for them to collect fan contact information and helping them contact their fans. I think you should communicate this boldly in the center of the front page.

I have not thought about the copywriting at all but I think you should say:

>Easily collect contact information at the merch table without an internet connection >Contact your new fans with our email, (snail mail), and text messaging software.

You should not distract your users with anything else.

But, I suspect it may be difficult to sell press packs for $6 a month. I think you could make more money from charging them for snail mailings and sms messages (and you better they aren't free). Further, I think you can additionally monetize your users with affiliate programs for t-shirt printing, cd pressing or whatever else bands need.

As far as I can tell, your team's core competency is graphics design. I think you do a fantastic job and I bet a lot of bands would be willing to pay for you to design their logos or websites or t-shirts or album covers. You can leverage your userbase to find new clients.

I wish you the best of luck and I think you have a good shot if you change your front page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The typography and the white-on-gray color scheme hurt my eyes. The animation is annoying: every time it changes, my attention jumps back to it and I'm distracted from whatever else on the page I was reading. Oh, and <grahambot>take half the text off your front page</grahambot>.

</comment><comment><USER11> My attention span is far too short to understand what this is.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nice! The only thing it lacks is a groovy favicon. Favicons can be one of the most memorable features of a website . . . and keeping with your target audience, I would suggest something like a music note.

Otherwise, very nice site design, and a great idea. I so want to hide behind my code right now . . . way to make people like me feel all kinds of amateur. :)

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks great. It's immediately obvious what it does, and the site design is attractive and clean. One suggestion though would be to rearrange the features. "Code" is more of an advanced feature since not every musician will understand how to embed code into an HTML page, and so it shouldn't be the lead item.

</comment><comment><USER14> Congratulations on the very nice idea and beautiful site.

Critique: The top logo area is so tall that it pushes down the rest of the content down to half the page at lower resolutions. Definitely check it out in 1024x768 if you haven't.

</comment><comment><USER15> Hey, scriggleit.com designer here. Thanks for the incredible feedback, seriously.

I agree with 95% of you.

Thanks for the complements.

Feel free to drop me an email if your interested in some of my work bluecommons (at) gmail.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Fwiw, this guy works with me and designed the Scriggle-it site. I'm the programmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> TAGLINE- Say what it does right next to the logo. Or as a headline.

SCREENSHOT - Show what it does, first thing. Show a screenshot of the data collection screen at a table. Next to that (not in a flash sequence-- two pics), should the admin interface, etc. Something like BlinkSale's home page, mebbe? <http://www.blinksale.com/home>

Overall tho-- nice niche, pretty design.

Congrats!

Speaking of the logo, I'm not sure how much the "it" part of it is clear. I'd go with a simple wordmark.

URL with a dash isn't wonderful, but I know how painful domains are.

</comment><comment><USER17> Gotta get a domain name without a dash.

<comment><AUTHOR> We do have one. As I noted elsewhere, I linked to the dashed version for clarity's sake, but it was probably a bad idea. The non-hyphenated one is in "production" use.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Scriggle it. Just a little bit.

</comment><comment><USER19> It would be interesting, and possibly profitable, to take the user information provided to you by the bands and figure out which combination of bands would do well in an area if they did a concert together... __shrug __

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen Get a good domain name, even if you have to pay a hundreds for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think we have one.

<comment> daniel-cussen The name made sense to me. I just feel your domain name is hindering word of mouth in noisy environments. That doesn't seem like it will matter much because you will do business directly with the bands. It could be better, though. Look at octopart and weebly; their names are easier to spread virally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have trouble reading the tiny text in the "what you get" boxes.

</comment><comment><USER21> I know what it was about instantly, but software geeks are not your customer. Your demographic probably needs some flash glitz but get to the point quicker.

</comment><comment><USER22> i'd cut the initial sign-up form to the essentials.

</comment><comment><USER23> Have you had any luck at underground marketing/promotion?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some. Word of mouth has worked really well. We also get quite a few signups from people who see it in use and check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> scriggleit.com is way better than scriggle-it.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we own both addresses. I linked to the hyphenated address for clarity's sake. But you're right. We use the non-hyphenated version in all email correspondence and the like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is this a YC applicant/winner?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope. Actually we've never taken/sought VC, and we've been working on the thing for about a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Remember that album promoters who will use your site are most likely the one who promote their own work. So i would make that clear and loud. Instead of spending time and $ running around with posters and Flyers, this is the one place where they can do it all. I like the SMS thing in it. You could add another simple feature where they can upload a piece of mp3 and distribute their own ringtone too. Good job man.

</comment><comment><USER27> Drop the verification emails, then drop the text about them which is the only thing on your site I read besides the word "music".

</comment><comment><USER28> Scriggler is DEFINITELY the money. Guy who wrote it must be AWESOME. >.></comment>


I've created an app and website to discover thoughtful content. I'd love feedback - <AUTHOR> http://www.thinkfiend.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Finding interesting and thought provoking articles like the ones shared on this forum takes time and effort. I've created a website and an iPhone app that aggregates and organizes such content. I'd love feedback on sources, the site, app or anything else you'd like to comment on.

</comment><comment><USER2> Android version?</comment>


Show HN: Unplugged - present photos on a big screen from any browser. - <AUTHOR> http://unplugged.io

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the hack I built for TechCrunch Disrupt. It allows you to create a presentation using photos loaded from Filepicker.io. You can then push that presentation to another browser that's at the unplugged.io website (such as one hooked up to a big projector screen).

Once the presentation is live on the big screen, you can control it from the iPad with multitouch gestures, and you can annotate it by drawing on the images.

The demo at Disrupt failed due to a screen resolution issue, but I wanted some people to see it actually working.

I'm using Firebase for all of the data storage and real-time features.

</comment><comment><USER2> The JS doesn't allow one to type in the first number box in both IE10 and Opera, you can only type in the last 3 boxes which makes it unusable.</comment>


How mock objects make Gantt charts (more) useless - <AUTHOR> http://jakegoulding.posterous.com/how-mock-objects-make-gantt-charts-more-usele

<comment><USER3> No, Gantt chart elements can have multiple predecessors. Here's one that actually allows you to do so: <https://app.gantter.com/> and here's Wikipedia with a multi-predecessor example (E): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantt_chart#Example>

Not that many support doing so, nor do most suport the full range of what they're supposed to be able to do. That's a different issue. Personally, I think the single greatest flaw with Gantt charts is that they're (technically) supposed to always have everything add up to 100%. Which means either you set something up to do it for you, or you have _incredible_ book-keeping that becomes ridiculous when you have changes or more than a handful of entries.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point, but does having multiple predecessors negate the argument? Each predecessor is simply another set of mock objects to create. The idea is that Gantt charts show an explicit dependency graph, but mock objects allow you to break that graph in order to continue to develop when otherwise you might not have.

Thanks for the link to the app, but I hope I don't have to create any Gantt charts myself. :-)

<comment><USER3> Essentially, yes, I do think it does. The second example lacks a measure of time to _complete_ those units, so they would end up coming to the right - <USER2> mock objects are just mocks, the real ones have to be made still. The "heavy- handed dependencies" still exist, because it won't compile without the mocks, and won't run without everything being built.

In a Gantt chart, you'd also probably have all those under the same higher- level WBS number[1], so they're conceptually grouped. Reflecting how they are all related, and are developed at the same time. Or maybe you'd group the entire project until completion under a single one. Or something.

In any case, you'd have something like:

      {               1: project scope                         }
      { 1.1: stub it out  }  {1.2: finish it }  {1.3: deploy it}
      [build] \
      [mock]  - [integrate] - [build] - [test] - [deploy]
      [mock]  /             \ [build] /

which is fully within Gantt capabilities.

Not that I'm really a fan of Gantt charts. But most of that has to do with how the UIs have been implemented, which tend to prevent at-a-glance information, because the details are decoupled from the chart. Useful for managers, not so useful for the ones _making_ those parts. They're also usually just a spreadsheet with a static chart nearby, which prevents a lot of simple twiddling of details that are difficult in spreadsheet form.

But the only difference I see so far is that the mock-objects have a shade on the left which shows they're mock. Which is something that is possible to do within a Gantt chart, if not something that's implemented frequently enough to make it practical.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_breakdown_structure>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, I think I understand your point now... correct me if Im wrong, but I think you are mostly pointing out how my headline is sensationalist. I'd probably agree with that, and blame it on my inexperience with "hardcore" Gantt charts. :-)

My real point is that project plans often devolve into "we must do A before B before C", which artificially serializes development. This sequential nature has often been presented in Gantt chart form, so perhaps my ire has been poorly aimed.

<comment><USER3> Gantts do tend to support over-serialization (I think it's the lines. Mustn't mess up the pretty lines, must we, Precious?), but that's an organizational abuse more than anything.

A little sensationalist, yes, but I'm really not seeing any conceptual difference that's not part of the basic behavior of Gantt charts. If I'm missing something (fully possible, I'm a bit distracted), I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

<comment><USER4> Gantt charts were designed for "real" engineers, who worry about things like pouring in the cement foundations before painting the doors.

They are just not designed for agile programmers. They can be used for software, and are somewhat useful, if only because nobody ever reads the spec, but they can see what must be done on the Gantt chart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A mixture of concepts from project management, software architecture, and testing artifacts.

Scary.

</comment><comment><USER6> He's conveniently forgetting the time it takes to define interfaces+contracts and to make mock objects that do decent job of mocking their real counterpart.

<comment><AUTHOR> I certainly didn't mean to suggest that creating mock objects is free. In the second graph, I added an extra week to develop the application logic and the UI. Originally these were scheduled to take 2 weeks, so 1 week is a pretty big chunk of time in comparison!

I also call out this fact later, when I list some potential downsides to developing this way: "The cumulative time for the sequential method is seven developer-weeks, but the parallel method takes ten developer-weeks."

The time to define interfaces and/or contracts should be a wash. If you design up front, then you can just use that, and if you are working in a more agile manner, your teams can communicate and experiment with getting the right interface. Either way, you have to spend time.

<comment><USER6> Good point! One of the things I always end up spending more time on is defining the interface, so I thought I'd point that out. I think spending a week on a decent interface is a fair amount, but (like you also mentioned just now) that doesn't mean that all of the interface design has to take place up- front.</comment></comment></comment>


Blogging Theory 201: Size Does Matter - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/01/blogging-theory-201-size-does-matter.html

<comment><USER2> On a societal scale, the size and "meaningful content density" of communication seems to be inversely proportional to the ease with which it is delivered to it's audience.

Would you bother writing "Java Sucks" with a quill and paying a horseman to carry it 2000 miles? I wouldn't bother writing this comment if I weren't already logged in...

</comment><comment><USER3> """

Amusing true side-story: I met Paul Graham at Foo Camp last summer. After his crowd of admirers had dispersed on the first day (he's pretty famous), I came up and introduced myself. He was very nice and polite, and he was even kind enough to venture: "I've read some of your ...essays." He said the word _essays_ with this funny pained look on his face, as if he'd just swallowed a gob of wasabi and was trying to play it off like nothing was wrong. I think he meant well, but that expression was just priceless.

I already knew my work wasn't for everyone. :)

"""

</comment><comment><USER4> Spending 30 minutes or an hour reading the results of an intelligent/knowledgeable spending hours/days/weeks of their time writing on a topic is a damn good deal from my perspective.</comment>


Modelling a Basic Income with Python and Monte Carlo Simulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/basic_income_vs_basic_job.html <comment><USER3> >shut the fuck up and write some fucking code [links to argument that simply writing code is the best way to learn programming]

Way to confirm stereotypes that programmers are abrasive and narrow minded. Writing code may be a good way to learn programming; that doesn't mean it's ideal for discussing economics. For one thing, even for an expert the code takes longer to read than a baldly stated list of assumptions. And not everyone is a Python expert.

> if I'm wrong, either Python is computing the wrong answer, I got really > unlucky [...] or one of my assumptions is wrong.

Umm no. This is a false alternative. How about a lot of assumptions being _left out_ altogether. E.g. it's pretty clearly assumed that this doesn't affect economic growth, any benefits resulting from changed income inequality [1] are left out, inflationary effects do not exist etc. Any half serious student of economic modeling would have a field day picking out all the details routinely discussed in macroeconomics that this analysis is ignorant of.

And anyway who are these financial results even calculated for? If it's the government, then the expenses are fully incurred, but the "JK Rowling factor" is taxed at less than 100% to compensate. If it's the average person, you need to somehow factor in the benefit of reading Harry Potter!

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index)

<comment><USER4> I am an abrasive and "narrow minded" programmer - I believe in careful thought and analysis rather than mood affiliation and talking points. You might be surprised to discover that www.chrisstucchio.com represents my views and my views alone - I feel like you might have confused it with www.allprogrammerseverywhere.com. <\- Snarky comment again represents me, not all programmers everywhere.

The article addresses what results are being calculated, and why other things you might wish to model are not included: "I'm going to focus on one specific aspect of it - a Cost/Benefit analysis studying the effects on the government budget, and [minus] the value of the work produced by people benefitting from the program. There are other aspects to consider, _but I'm more interested in Monte Carlo than in politics, so I'm going to ignore those for the time being._ "

The ideology I'm pushing hard here is that you should carefully think and model things, rather than just reflexively saying "ooh complex, here are liberal/conservative talking points." I just picked on Basic Income specifically since I see a lot of discussions about it here (e.g. yesterday), and those discussions are just a mix of vapid and innumerate political talking points by people who clearly don't even have a mental model of the world.

If you want to build a better model, please do it. It will be vastly more useful than the normal discussion we see here on the topic of BI (and on many other such topics).

<comment><USER3> >you should carefully think and model things

I agree and that's basically my criticism of the article. The underlying economic model can be expressed in 2-3 arithmetic equations. It competes in a field where people routinely spend years to research very sophisticated models that nonetheless often prove inaccurate in the field [1].

To give an analogy, how would this sound as an argument to develop a business: "I assume that we can borrow 10M at 5% interest and pay it back over 5 years and that sales will increase 50% over that period. Here, I wrote some code and it turns out positive. I'm not interested in discussing the reasons for my sales forecast; if you have a different opinion, just write your own code." And we're not even talking about a business here, but the whole economy.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics#Limitations_and_cr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics#Limitations_and_criticisms)

<comment><USER4> I didn't attempt to claim that my proposal was the economic state of the art. I claimed it was a jumping off point to illustrate how to do monte carlo modelling in the third paragraph.

If you showed me your business forecast, I would indeed tweak the model until I felt the probability distributions governing the assumptions covered all the plausible values. The net result would likely just be a very fat distribution that said nothing. And if so, _that 's useful information to have_.

That's very nearly the result we get here - note that the Basic Job estimates range from $300B to $1.5T. See Scarmig's excellent comment which cuts to the heart of this matter.

<comment><USER5> > And if so, that's useful information to have.

> That's very nearly the result we get here - note that the Basic Job > estimates range from $300B to $1.5T.

The problem I have with this post is this. It is _NOT_ useful information to have.

What is that range based on? Nothing. Your guesses. There is no known probability of the real-life result lying between those values, therefore the values are meaningless.

I'm all for models, models are great, but they _need_ data. There's no point in a model based on assumptions, it's basically just a smokescreen for making your opinion look like fact.

> I would indeed tweak the model until I felt the probability distributions > governing the assumptions covered all the plausible values.

Basically you would tweak the model until the result matched your opinion. If you had data of 100 similar startups and you calculated the distributions of their loans and sales growths, THEN AND ONLY THEN is your model useful

edit: I'm giving up on this thread now because I feel like this - [http://xkcd.com/386/](http://xkcd.com/386/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm sorry but this is a bit ridiculous

There are dozens of completely arbitrary assumptions and nobody could possibly know if they were anything close to being right

> If you disagree, write code.

Ok..

"With a Basic Job, you can't - your choices are a Basic Job for $14480 or possibly a McJob for marginally more (say $15000). I'll model this by assuming the number of non workers will increase by up to 5%, or decrease by up to 20%:"

I disagree, I made my model assuming that the number of non-workers increases by between 60 and 80%

Oh look! My results show that basic income is better! Great, that's what I believed before hand, my model must be good.

edit: I'm all for mathematical modelling, but there needs to be some kind of basis for the assumptions, and it helps if there are less than a bajillion assumptions too. Anyone could tweak all the assumptions so they still sound reasonable and come up with any conclusion they wanted from this model

<comment><USER6> The purpose of doing a simulation like this is to bring the discussion down to more concrete levels.

E.g. "I'll model this by assuming the number of non workers will increase by up to 5%, or decrease by up to 20%: I disagree, I made my model assuming that the number of non-workers increases by between 60 and 80%."

Okay, now instead of arguing about basic income in the abstract, you're arguing about projections of how much the number of non-workers changes. The latter is a lot more concrete and easier to analyze further.

<comment><USER7> No. Making up a model is an absurd way to predict anything, because there is no validation. Useful models have shown to be predictive over time (except when they aren't, and then someone amends the model). "I'll model this by assuming..." is only fooling yourself through confirmation bias. A new model can tell you anything you want it to tell you... An accurate model is the only useful one, and there is rarely any basis for accurate macroeconomic models until decades after a change happens.

Statistics don't come after lies and damn lies accidentally. A naive model of liquid cooling ends in a fatal explosion and the discovery of phase change.

<comment><USER8> I think models of this type are a useful way of "thinking things through" further than you'd be able to do in your head, and a push to make sure you're being concrete about what you are and are not considering. It's not "doing science", it's not meant to give reliable predictions - there are too many degrees of freedom; it's meant to help with reasoning. It would follow, though, that "The simulation says X, therefore we should Y" is an inappropriate use of it.

<comment><USER6> Right. The doing science thing is a red herring. Its not claiming to generate reliable conclusions because it is scientific. Its claiming to generate insightful analysis because it is systematic.

<comment><USER7> Compulsive gamblers and tarot card readers are also systematic. Thinking that systematic implies insightful is deeply flawed.

(Disappointed by the downvotes... I'm not trying to be pithy.)

<comment><USER8> That it is systematic implies you can use it to generate insights into things that are causally linked. In the case of tarot cards, that's maybe a little about the traditions it grew out of but not a lot about the present or future. In this case, it's about the reasoning and assumptions you are using in trying to work out whether the policy is a good idea. This is only indirectly tied to the question of whether the policy is _in fact_ a good idea. Insights about that need support of, y'know, evidence. But this kind of thing can totally be useful for understanding what questions need to be asked.

Incidentally, I am not convinced that tarot cards _cannot_ be useful at generating insights - privileging random hypotheses and reconsidering your situation could be a useful means of reducing the impact of hypotheses you're privileging for other reasons. Everything must still be evaluated in light of actual evidence, though, of course, before conclusions are drawn.

<comment><USER7> _That it is systematic implies you can use it to generate insights into things that are causally linked._

Only if the model is accurate. If (as in the case of tarot reading and failed gambling) you have a system that doesn't correspond to the world you will draw conclusions that are detailed and reproducible but not insightful of the world. Inaccurate models are only misleading, not vaguely insightful.

<comment><USER8> Systematic interaction with a model can be used to learn things _about the model_ whether or not the model is accurate. Otherwise we are in agreement, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've posted a much simpler model than what Chris did, to make it clearer what's driving his results:

[https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7452196](https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7452196)

Run it, and it will look very similar to what the more complicated model results in.

Almost the entirety of his model's result comes from the fact that the BI is given to everyone, while the basic job is not. All the other parameters he brings up are interesting asides but irrelevant to the actual results of the simulations. His model of the basic jobs proposal is pretty much equivalent to a proposal that "if you're unemployed, you should get a basic income; if you're employed, you shouldn't."

Basic income advocates consciously reject this. I don't have time to finesse the simple model right now to represent why we reject that proposal (I have, well, a job to go to =). But I'll hopefully get to it this evening.

<comment><USER10> I have attended a talk by Götz Werner, who advocates for a basic income. In this talk he was basically describing basic income as a reform of the tax system. Basically G.W. argues for most taxes to be abolished in favour of a significant increase in VAT (Value added tax).

He had several arguments for this. One is, that at the moment in Germany, labor is taxed, so there is an incentive to move production to overseas. A VAT is applied to goods from abroad and from the same country fairly.

The basic income would then be a negative tax refund to compensate for the social problems that a high VAT causes (since poor people suffer under high VAT more than rich people).

So let us say a person spends 1000 EUR on VAT-relevant purchases (food, clothes, phone, etc.). Now a VAT is introduced, so the products now cost 2000 EUR. Then a basic income of 1000 EUR would annihilate the additional burden. Another person spending 2000 EUR a month at the moment would soon have to spend 4000 EUR, 1000 EUR being provided by the basic income, therefore this person would have to spend 3000 EUR (1000 EUR increase) to buy the same goods as before. Because other taxes would be abolished, the income would be higher. Furthermore, with VAT there would be less tax loopholes and tax collection would be a lot easier.

As a _second_ idea, this basic income could be chosen to be above the level necessary to compensate for the VAT. This is the idea which is in generally associated with the basic income and outlined in the model.

I will take a look at the model more closely. I find this approach really interesting.

<comment><USER11> > Götz Werner

While talking about basic income we should not forget that he's running one of the largest drugstore chains in Germany. If everyone would have a basic income the difference in income would be going into consuming products. So retail would benefit a lot from it.

On the other hand removing tax on labor would benefit retail too because it's a major cost factor there.

I'm not convinced that we would have better society if we would implement his proposed scheme.

<comment><USER12> I think the biggest item missing when discussing BI is the huge change in behavior you have among those making near to the proposed BI payment. I suspect the marginal value of selling one's labor would increase significantly against the opportunity cost of increased subsidized labor. That is maybe you are willing to work 40 hours/week minimum wage at a shit job compared to the alternative of unemployment. But if the alternative is just BI that that is better than the shit job. But these people still have the time to work and a willingness to earn more - but the bargaining position is different. So I suspect you would see raises rise for lower-end full-time positions, causing fewer of them to exist and spurring more automation while at the same time see lots more low marginal value jobs that have wage values below the new equilibrium point - such as more temp/part time positions where people can quickly enter/exit the job market when they need some additional cash - <USER2> in turn further raises the prices of semi-skilled labor since it will be more sparse. This would even further incentivise subgroups to enter low-effort training to capture these wages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the whole discussion boils down to this:

 _An additional cost is the incentive or disincentive for engaging in productive work created by the Basic Income. On the one hand, the BI creates disincentives for recipients to engage in productive labor. If you are happy earning direct_cost each year, why bother putting down Call of Duty and getting a boring job? (…) My inclination is that it is more likely to reduce labor than increase it. So I'll assume that the number of non-working adults will increase by up to 10%, or decrease by up to 5%._

This is always going to be the crucial input parameter that makes or breaks the whole idea, and no amount of math modelling is going to tell you how millions of people will behave after such radical change.

<comment><USER14> Absolutely.

_My_ feeling is that people would always like a little bit more money. Basic income removes the "cliff" effect, whereby earning more money can actually reduce your income. Therefore people will work more.

After all, if you could go out and work for five hours next week, and be guaranteed that those five hours would give you the cash to buy something you have your eye on, then why wouldn't you?

<comment><USER15> It also seems like people are overlooking an important fact: people find ambition attractive. So anyone without any ambition in life other than to collect a basic income while playing games may find themselves shunned by their preferred sex. If you want to date, then you'll probably want a job. And almost everybody wants to date (or at least to mate). Therefore there may be no basis for being afraid that basic income will reduce people's desire to go work.

<comment><USER4> Write some code and see if altering that assumption changes the result.

Here is the code. You are interested in line 17.

[https://gist.github.com/stucchio/7447067](https://gist.github.com/stucchio/7447067)

<comment><USER15> EDIT: Anaconda worked, thanks. Experimenting with the code now.

<comment><USER16> Your scipy install is broken, it has nothing to do with his code. If you can't successfully run:

        from scipy.stats import *

then it's not going to work.

Try installing a scientific python distribution like Enthought Canopy or Anaconda. On Unix systems it's possible to build it yourself, but on Windows unless you have the right compiler licenses and enjoy pain, you probably don't want to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/lau...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html)

"It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences - an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the "scientistic" attitude - an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, "is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.""

"Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable."

</comment><comment><USER18> Complexity + assumptions. There are too many variables and unknowns to make even a reasonably accurate model. Also, you're dealing with rational and non- rational actors and the creation of new actors as time moves forward. Cute analysis though.

<comment><USER19> I think thats one of the most important points of the article. People who argue definitively one way or the other on basic income are simply making assumptions they can not logically make.

I hope some country/state out there tries out an experiment with basic income (just not mine). Politically, I don't think it will happen. A few poor people getting benefits cuts will ring a lot more loudly than middle class and rich people getting benefits raises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A basic job system and a basic income system do not have the same effect in terms of replacing current 'wealth transfers' (what a ghastly term for such a disparate set of social policies and programs).

16% of US government spending is on pensions (by the posters own source). Those people need money to live. Unless you expect them to work until they die / become disabled, then they are not covered by the naive model of a basic job system.

Indeed the basic job model completely ignores 52 million people who are not in the workforce or disabled (by their own numbers). Many of these people require government money to live as well. It is worth noting that in (small) trials in canada it was overwhelmingly students and parents that stopped working (and that is out of the labour force) and in much smaller numbers than the author suggests (although admittedly this may be because they knew the program was temporary).

Most of the costs and benefits involved in a welfare system are not present in this model. The suggestion that the only value people receiving welfare create is the occasional one in ten million great work is frankly shockingly old fashioned. It is as if 300+ years of political philosophy have simply passed the author by. To say the least you need to think about the effects on child care, students, crime rates and all the latent costs that a lack of financial freedom creates.

</comment><comment><USER21> Without empirical data, it is next to pointless to throw together some assumptions and model them.

No, writing code is not the point here. Anyone can write code to do this kind of modeling. Reducing the huge amount of degrees of freedom in the model in a meaningful and fact-based way is key. And here the author fails big time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Good article, it's nice to see someone not only provide some actual analysis, but also be clear with their assumptions and welcome critique.

<comment><USER23> Welcoming critique? I didn't get that at all. I personally think writing "shut the fuck up" removes any sense of critique being welcomed.

The author does kindly gives us permission to critique as long as we accept his model - a very naive device with zero academic or economic justification.

<comment><USER22> You're leaving the part out where he says "and write some fucking code." He wants people to show him he's wrong with analysis/simulation instead of tell him he's wrong with their opinions, which is entirely valid.

<comment><USER23> As long as the situation is mathematically more complicated than the board game Go (for example), opinions probably beat code.

Expert opinions certainly beat naive code.

This is not to say that code cannot be valuable, but the justification for this code does not even begin to touch upon real macroeconomic issues.

One of the possible concerns of a basic income is rampant inflation - it's clear that the author has not even considered this.

<comment><USER22> Expert opinions are often based on economic models which use incredibly simplified assumptions and questionably appropriate mathematical techniques. At least this guy is willing to post his model for the world to pick apart.

<comment><USER23> As a direct criticism, the choice of the Normal distribution adds nothing to the model other than acting as a cover for the author's choice of point estimates. I believe you would get the same results independent of the distribution. Choosing a Normal distribution serves only to create an apparent range of results that are weighted towards the author's preferred choices of values.

Peer-reviewed economic models would have to justify their model assumptions in a more robust way, including empirical data where appropriate. I'm not an expert but I expect this is a good place to start: [http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic- modelling/](http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-modelling/)

All models use simplified assumptions and questionably appropriate techniques, I agree - that is practically the definition of 'model'. However, a useful model should justify those assumptions and techniques using current research- level knowledge, and/or show how the model applies successfully to reality.

I see this model to be as useful to economic discussion as saying "the world is flat, plus or minus 5 degrees". It ignores all current work in the field.

<comment><USER22> If you're expecting research-level detail in a blog post from someone who is admittedly not an economist, your expectations are too high. The post was meant to present a simple Monte Carlo simulation in Python using a current topic as its subject. He isn't writing a NYT Op-Ed citing his results as evidence that BJ > BI based on sophisticated modeling techniques.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "If you disagree, write code."

Love this.

Also nice application of Monte Carlo simulations. They're great for thought experiments.

</comment><comment><USER25> While interesting, I think this demonstrates why numbers are basically useless in these kinds of discussions.

Even with a very simplistic model, there are too many assumptions that can be contested forever and that will ultimately only depend on what the people debating already think about it. I, for example, would make the assumption that the marginal value produced by a Basic Job worker in an hour would be close to 0, while administrative costs are underestimated by an order of magnitude. Now, it might be fun to try these out when I get home, but I don't think I can get any significant insight from it.

And if you were to refine the model, it would then become too complicated to discuss in ways that could be comprehended by most people - too much effort and they'll stop listening.

Moreover, it fails to account for larger benefits to society, which cannot be measured in the way such a simulation works. For this one we could seem crime dropping (happier society, prison costs diminishing, etc.), global health indicators improving (thus preventing tremendous cost), etc.

<comment><USER24> So should we just go with our gut and intuition? There are places where that's a valid approach (a reason why Amazon Turk thrives) but understanding complex systems is probably not the place for that.

I do agree his model is probably overly simplistic. What could be awesome though is open sourcing something like this and having the debate evolve as a series of pull requests and forks that represent different assumptions and scenarios.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't think you use it anywhere but

> The marginal income from labor under a BI is precisely (1 - tax_rate) * > income, rather than (1 - tax_rate - lost_benefits) * income.

shuldn't the second one be (1 - tax_rate) * income - lost_benefits? I don't know if/how benefits are taxed in the US.

<comment><USER26> Many transfer payments in the US are subject to taxation. This includes Social Security, Unemployment, and some forms of Disability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The purpose of economics is defeated by making "busy work". The government can pay everyone to dig holes, but do we need all those holes? That's the fundamental problem with the Basic Job concept. But give everyone basic income, now they have money to spend. When they spend the money it creates jobs to produce the things that people actually need and want. No simple programming model can account for this.

I should also point out that governments already create far too many "busy work" jobs as it is. The IRS and welfare systems are some of the best examples due to overly complex regulations and means testing.

<comment><USER28> I'm not sure how this observation defeats the purpose of economics. The reason you give people a basic job is not that we need the work done --- after all, the alternative to it is the basic income, which pays them to do nothing. The purpose of the basic job is to fix the incentive problem of a basic income, which would encourage people not to work because there'd be inadequate marginal benefit to a low-wage worker to take a job.

<comment><USER29> It actually pays them to do whatever they are doing. Living != Nothing.

There's no reason to imply that whatever the government tells them to do for their basic job produces more value than whatever they decide to do. It's pretty well established that the more government tells people what to do for work, the less an economy produces.

Lets make people pick trash instead of helping educate their kids, surely picking trash is of much more societal value...

<comment><USER28> The problem isn't that they're doing "nothing"; it's that there is a lot of work that gets done at the bottom end of the income spectrum that would stop getting done if a basic wage were provided. When people stop doing that work, the price of that labor increases, the price of the things that depended on that labor increase, demand decreases in response, more people lose their jobs, and people that depended on goods enabled by that labor --- people that include those people relying the basic income --- are worse off.

<comment><USER29> I'm pretty sure that printing money and giving it to poor people is a much better idea than printing money and giving it to rich people.

How come there's no basic job attached to the money GS gets? How come no one is worried that rich people are going to stop working after we spent 5 years giving them all the money we can borrow?

How many stockbrokers do you know that quit their jobs because the government is flooding the market with free money?

HSBC didn't stop laundering money for drug cartels just because the US gov't was offering them all the free money they would ever want.

<comment><USER28> I agree but don't see what this has to do with the discussion at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd like to propose a third policy, the NOPtransferpayment. The way the new policy will work is, a new tax will be implemented for 1000 times the net income of every person who earns an income (after all other taxes and transfer payments). A new transfer payment will be implemented for 1000 times the net income of every person who earns an income (after all other taxes and transfer payments). This tax and transfer payment will not count toward calculations used by other programs. A new department will be created and staffed by 0 people, and 0 new forms will be necessary to implement the tax and transfer payment.

A policy like this could reasonably be said to cost nothing, produce nothing, and indeed do nothing. If we think that congress generally makes the world a worse place by implementing policies that do things, then it would be an improvement for congress to work on this sort of thing instead. However, its cost-benefit under the proposed model is not $0 or (pay_per_lawmaker * n_lawmakers * nop_debate_time) but $13 quadrillion. The proposed model indicates that this program costs about 180 years of global production at the current rate, or a substantial portion of the value of the entire planet and all humans living on it. If we suppose the planet is worth about $200 quadrillion, we will run out of it about 15 years after implementing this policy.

</comment><comment><USER31> Such a post would really benefit from some analysis of how sensitive the model is to each assumption.

I think that might be the most interesting way of looking at such an abstract model.

</comment><comment><USER32> What if we tied a basic income to accepting 24x7 monitoring of the body and all communications from the body's point of view in space... i.e., a monitoring band that tracks health biometrics, as well as audio and video, ambient temp, humidity, etc. - full instrumentation of each individual who opts in.

The monitoring band would also act as the recipient's communicator (smartphone) - so - they can freely use it to call, text, email, get apps, etc., it's just that all the data they generate - each individual participant's trace - is recorded.

The massive amount of data collected from people willing to trade a homeless lifestyle for one with a steady income would have tremendous value in aggregate, and be unavailable to anyone for nefarious purposes. The only thing you have to do to get the basic income is be willing to have all your data recorded (but not shared publicly!)

Your anonymized data will then be made available (along with everyone else's) via an API to developers of apps, and, assuming you give them permission, they will be able to access your sensitive / personal / private data as well.

</comment><comment><USER33> Interestingly, the cost of even the more expensive option in his model appears to be similar in magnitude of the `wealth_transfers` field (which doesn't seem to be plotted or used later).

If the plan is to replace certain spending with a basic job or income, it would be interesting to see the comparative costs and efficiency of what we're replacing as well.

</comment><comment><USER34> Note that he did not substracte the current wealth_transfers from his cost/benefits analysis.

it does not change the comparsion of BI vs BJ but it is interesting to note that even with his assumptions it means the effective impact on USG Budget is approx 0 for BI and a big reduction of $ 2 trillion for BJ.

<comment><USER4> I forgot about that one. I don't actually expect to change anyone's mind on the political issue - my real interest here is simply writing a monte carlo tutorial and pushing the "model everything" ideology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can't criticize a hypothesis if I cannot create a better one? That's extremely unscientific.

</comment><comment><USER36> What about the increase in family size. If having more children increases a family's income people will have more kids. People receiving welfare do it all the time. These kids will not be contributing towards the basic income but will be drawing from it.

</comment><comment><USER37> if you disagree, write some code

unstated assumption: and do so quickly enough for it to influence the discussion before it slips off HN

<comment><USER4> Post it on your own blog and tell me when you do. I'll certainly upvote it.

<comment><USER37> Deal: I want to investigate the case where everyone is bullied into quitting their job, by thugs who don't want laziness to stop being a social norm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It seems to me that perhaps the title of this link is misleading. The author doesn't model anything and shifts the burden of proof onto the reader if any doubt is cast on his assumptions. He also invalidates any conclusions regarding BI in the premise which makes the entire model meaningless (a kind of syllogistic fallacy iirc).

Really this article should probably be something along the lines of, "Monte Carlo Simulations in Python."

This is not a discussion of BI at all.

</comment><comment><USER39> What a bizarre article. this is a worthless exercise without any data.

the task of building a model of labour market and estimating your model with real data is very complicated.

<comment><USER40> Relevant username, really too bad you're down here.

        import random

        def sky_is_green():
            return random.choice([True])

Please, if you disagree, write some fucking code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> "There are no qualifications beyond being an adult citizen to receiving a Basic Income."

A minor mistake. The only "sorta well known to Americans" basic income is the Alaska fund which does only pay to adults.

However most proposals seem to apply to "living humans" or whatever. After all, kids need to eat too. Or if using the franchise fee model of justification, kids lives are being ruined by the economic system too.

<comment><USER42> As far as I know, Alaska's permanent fund pays to children too, as long as they're born in the state or have lived there long enough to be counted as residents (2 years, maybe? Can't remember.).

<comment><USER41> Well, that's embarrassing, you are 100% correct. I looked it up, and the only non-recipients other than non AK residents are felons in prison (no idea why, I guess to punish their families with less income or make sure they can't pay restitution to victims?)

So, no, I have no idea where he gets the idea only adults would get an income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is great, if only the field of Economics would start to use models based on mathematical assumptions in order to predict the outcomes of policies.

</comment><comment><USER44> This seems like a perfect scenario to try out Bret Victor's "explorable explanations"; i.e. not just documenting assumptions & code inline with your reasoning, but making the document itself explorable and reactive: [http://worrydream.com/#!/ExplorableExplanations](http://worrydream.com/#!/ExplorableExplanations)

</comment><comment><USER45> I fully admit, I didn't read through the details of your assumptions, just skimmed the post, but I didn't see anything addressing the changes in prices of basic goods if everyone can afford them. Do you model any increase/decrease in prices - e.g., a 10% increase in demand for housing cause a 10% increase in housing prices?

<comment><USER41> Everyone can already afford basic goods. Its just at the lowest of incomes instead of a varied portfolio of extremely expensive to administrate benefits, all that would be wiped out and replaced with one simple check.

A slumlord can TRY to raise his rent 10% anytime he wants, including today, but if the residents aren't making any more money, that plan is not going to work very well.

At the highest levels multimillion dollar lakefront homes aren't going to be affected unless we unleash subprime loans again (which would be profitable, so we will, but thats another discussion).

The primary effect would be on the shrinking middle class. Many of those extremely expensive welfare administrators are middle class and replacing those jobs with an extremely small shell script is going to result in massive middle class job loss. That should be modeled.

One mistake in the model was assuming "basic job" would produce anything at all. I suspect the most likely outcome of putting one dude in charge of two dudes, one digging holes, and the other filling the holes in, is both guys are going to pay a small bribe to the boss to falsify the paperwork. Another severe attitude problem issue is you assign a guy to a "basic job" picking up trash in a park, well, if he goes fishing instead, you can't fire him from a guaranteed job. You're supposed to be a teachers aide at school; well, yes, but I'm checking facebook on my phone instead, what are you going to do about it? I suspect the value produced will approach zero.

Another model error is assuming the only unusual payoff will be JKRowling style, but I suspect you'll have 100000 amateur theater geeks and wanna be musicians for every billion dollar author. So the cultural production should explode. Hard to say if it'll be worth anything, but they'll be a lot of it, that's for sure.

<comment><USER45> >Everyone can already afford basic goods. Its just at the lowest of incomes instead of a varied portfolio of extremely expensive to administrate benefits, all that would be wiped out and replaced with one simple check.

I think you and I disagree on this assumption. For one, we still have homeless people, although for a handful it is a lifestyle choice. I'd say it's far more nuanced and complex than to just say everyone can already afford basic goods. If someone loses all their current gov't benefits, but starts receiving $1,000/mo which they are free to spend however they want, how do their buying habits change? No one really knows.

As far as I know, food stamp programs and other current welfare programs have many restrictions on the types of goods you can purchase.

In addition, we aren't considering the marginal costs of increased production of some goods, while others are negligible - e.g., software.

I agree with your other criticisms of the model though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Overall good attempt, but there are factors which are harder to measure.

How many people start new companies since they have a little fallback support? (potential increase or decrease)

How many dual-income families can afford to have a single parent working with the income of two families coming in? (potential decrease)

How many people can afford not to work while in college now? (potential decrease)

In previous question, Does this mean their long term chances of success are higher? (potential increase)

How many people could use the benefits after a layoff + savings to better them selves and their future before re-entering the work force? (potential increase)

<comment><USER4> _How many people start new companies since they have a little fallback support?_

This is partially modelled by the jk_rowling() function. If you feel that is insufficient (I agree, it probably is), add a term you feel is realistic and check if it changes the result. For any parameters you don't know, choose a probability distribution that you feel encompasses all plausible values of the parameter.

Then run your new model. Who knows, it might be the case that no matter what plausible value you choose, it doesn't matter. Or it could change things entirely. These are both useful things to find out, and we'll only know if you write some code.

<comment><USER46> Thanks for responding. I should have clarified in my initial post that I am marketer with only barely passible php hacking skills. If I were to spend more time learning to properly program, it would probably not be in Python.

I'm sorry you felt I needed a downvote for offering suggestions for additional variables (I do not think the jk_rowling function alone solves those issues) was a negative comment. I was trying to help without having the skills to directly participate.

Nevermind the dual Masters in Business or the Minor in Economics. Oh and ignore the fact that I talk to my brother about complex economic issues (he has a Masters in Econometrics).

Ignore the fact, I think this is fascinating topic and have tried to read everything I can on the topic.

I'm sorry I tried to help without code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Remember, folks, there are four kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics, and computer models.</comment>


The strange case of ICMP Type 69 on Linux - <AUTHOR> https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/linux-icmp-type-69 <comment><USER2> The corresponding kernel patch appears to be at [http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.1/02365.html](http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1510.1/02365.html) .

<comment><USER3> His patch after review is linked in the last line of the article:

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/12/427](https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/12/427)

<comment><USER2> Wow. I'd had to search LKML to find the patch, and I wondered why the article didn't seem to have a link. Turns out the article's CSS makes the link almost completely indistinguishable from regular text. Text uses dark grey (#3a3a3a), and links use black (#000000), with no decoration either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if using systemtap could have found the problematic code quicker? (I've used stap a bit, but I'm not over-familiar with it, so genuine question)

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow, nice bit of troubleshooting!</comment>


Lifehacker: Tarek Loubani on 3D-Printing in Gaza - <AUTHOR> https://logicmag.io/bodies/tarek-loubani-on-3d-printing-in-gaza/ <comment><USER2> This is a great and inspirational read. It demonstrates the application of a diy hacker solution to issues like medical shortages caused by the Israeli blockade, but also to dialysis machine vendor lockin which is a global issue.

Check out the section on the difference between QA in the lab and field- testing!

It's also a heartbreaking read to be honest. Check out this quote on why they spread their 3d printers around multiple locations; "There are two reasons we do this. One is that we want to promote the culture. The other is that we're going to get bombed at some point. When that happens, if we are the only place that has all the 3D-printing knowledge or equipment, then we're going to set back the entire movement by two or three years. The more we hoard the knowledge or hoard the equipment, the worse it will be. As it is, when our offices eventually do get bombed, we'll probably only be set back a year. If somebody dies, obviously it will be even worse. "

<comment><AUTHOR> The level of pragmatism/resilience in statements like this is always baffling as an "outsider" who has never been in even a remotely comparable situation

<comment><USER3> It comes with a high toll on the locals mental health.

This is a place that is home to 1.8 million people. The blockade has been on since 2007 (and in some other form before that).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The stethoscope is one of those simple inventions that has had an outsize influence on the practice of medicine.

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Laennec#Invention_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Laennec#Invention_of_the_stethoscope)

René Laennec wrote the classic treatise De l'Auscultation Médiate, published in August 1819[5][6] The preface reads:

In 1816, He was consulted by a young woman laboring under general symptoms of diseased heart, and in whose case percussion and the application of the hand were of little avail on account of the great degree of fatness. The other method just mentioned [direct auscultation] being rendered inadmissible by the age and sex of the patient, I happened to recollect a simple and well-known fact in acoustics, ... the great distinctness with which we hear the scratch of a pin at one end of a piece of wood on applying our ear to the other. Immediately, on this suggestion, I rolled a quire of paper into a kind of cylinder and applied one end of it to the region of the heart and the other to my ear, and was not a little surprised and pleased to find that I could thereby perceive the action of the heart in a manner much more clear and distinct than I had ever been able to do by the immediate application of my ear.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a fascinating read. Love his hacker mentality.

</comment><comment><USER6> He didn't convince me that the occupation of Gaza is almost over.

I may not be an expert on the current state of the near-east conflicts, but it seemed to me as if the state of Israel doesn't really want to acknowledge the Palestinians as either citizens of Israel or as entitled to their own state.

And the Palestinians are not going to cease existing just because they are inconvenient for the established states in the region. Nor do they seem to be able to reign in the radical elements in their midst.

<comment><USER7> I think what's quite often forgotten in statements like this is that Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza 15 years ago, and Gazans then had an election in which they elected Hamas.

Since then, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel with the express purpose of targeting civilians, while Israel has lost a huge buffer zone (Hamas now reaches major cities like Beersheva with their rockets).

Worst part IMO is that there have not been any new elections and that Hamas has started enacting Sharia law in Gaza.

<comment><USER8> ...And what you're forgetting is that thanks to Iron Dome, those rockets kill fewer people than, say, electric scooters in Tel Aviv. And that Gaza is subject to an economic blockade making it basically impossible to do, well, _anything_ but be poor and angry: No fishing, no trade, unreliable electricity, not enough fuel, slow internet, etc.

That's not even mentioning the slow annexation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Israel is now officially rejecting a two-state solution, and they are obviously rejecting the idea of giving palestinians full citizenship (which would render jewish Israelis the minority). That implies, logically, that Israel is now denying Palestinians the perspective of any sort of democracy.

Violence against civilians is wrong. But it isn't unheard of in a struggle for self-determination. It's inexcusably wrong for (some) Palestinians to deny Israel's right to exist within the borders of '68\. But the enormous power differential between the parties simply places the burden of taking the first step on Israel's shoulders.

<comment><USER9> > making it basically impossible to do, well, anything but be poor and angry: > No fishing, no trade, unreliable electricity, not enough fuel, slow > internet, etc.

The blockade certainly makes things difficult, but, like all things, the actual situation is much more complex than that. The people in power in Gaza seem to find it much more expedient for things to remain bad, and all the hate, negative energy, and blame to be directed at Israel, than to put real effort into making things better.

Regarding, for example, your mention of electricity, I've had conversations with people who tried to set up a working electric plant within Gaza, and were stymied by a baffling level of neglect, poor workmanship, and inattention to cleanliness or detail on the part of the Gazans. (I'm not making a general statement about Gazans here, just the ones involved with the project.)

It seems sometimes as though the people there feel that if they were to give up some of the hate, anger, and outrage towards Israel (justified or not), and actually devote their full energies to improving what they have, then they'd be selling out their cause. A prospering Gaza is a less effective critique of Israeli policy, and a less useful weapon on the public stage in the battle to reclaim ancestral lands.

<comment><USER10> > negative energy

Israel burns down centuries -old olive trees, closes access to water, and promotes settlements in occupied territories

"Negative energy"

<comment><USER11> \- Olives rarely make it to hundreds of years. Surely they don't in Gaza which has crappy soil for olives. Are you confused with the West Bank?

\- All water in Gaza are provided by Israel. Are you confused with Hebron or some other place?

\- There are no settlements in Gaza since the unilateral withdrawal in 2005. Are you confused?

<comment><USER6> Israel controls Gaza and the Westbank in pretty much any sense that matters, especially they limit or prohibit trade and they regularly conduct raids of all sorts.

That in turn means they are responsible for providing water and almost everything else, and the Palestinians have almost no agency over any of their affairs, which also makes it hard or impossible for them to reign in their militant fractions.

And it's hard to expect those in Gaza to not have a problem with what happens in Westbank and the other way around.

<comment><USER11> Does it? If US build that wall and stop trading with Mexico, it'll suddenly become responsible to supply the needs of the Mexican people?

Israel supports Gaza because it's an overwhelming consensus that leaving 1.8mm people, most of them innocent by any reasonable definition, to starve to death, is not a viable option. And no one thinks Egypt, a disfunctioning state by itself, will take any action.

<comment><USER6> Completely different situation. Mexico is undeniably a larger country and much more self-sufficient. Neither the Westbank nor Gaza are self-sufficient. Israel does not allow Egypt to help them either, even though Egypt is not dysfunctional at the moment.

So Israel is taking active measures to prevent Palestinians from getting help, trading, or even building their own economy (which is tough when you can't produce construction material and Israel doesn't let any in). Israel is also responsible for putting Palestinians into those zones, because that many people wouldn't move voluntarily into an area that can't sustain them.

Their situation has been likened to that of a prison, and the comparison is quite apt. In a prison, the wardens are almost completely responsible for anything that happens inside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It bothers me that the term "capitalism" is being overloaded to mean "patents and intellectual property".

Other than that, this is a fantastic read, and it sounds like they are doing great work.

<comment><USER13> Capitalism describes a social organization where some people (the capitalists) own the means of production whereas most people are working for them. And nowadays, the «means of productions» are mostly in the form of patents and intellectual property (as most companies almost never build anything themselves[1], and pay contractors to build stuff for them).

[1] Apple don't build Mac, Mc Donald's don't operate most of its restaurants, car manufacturers merely attach together a bunch of spare pieces built by contractors, etc.

<comment><USER14> > Capitalism describes a social organization where some people (the > capitalists) own the means of production whereas most people are working for > them.

This is not accurate. Capitalism describes a system where people are free to own means of production. A hypothetical system where everyone owns some means of production, would still be capitalism.

<comment><USER15> > A hypothetical system where everyone owns some means of production, would > still be capitalism.

No, it wouldn't, because it is _marketable_ ownership of the means of production that defines capitalism; that is, it is the buying and selling, not the ownership alone, that is key (particularly, historically, the marketability of the means of production is a key factor distinguishing capitalism from feudalism, in which much of the means of production was owned but attached to entailments which the current owners were not free to alienate.)

For a version of your example, if everyone owned a fixed, equal share of the means of production which was not marketable, that would be an implementation of socialism.

<comment><USER14> > No, it wouldn't, because it is marketable ownership

I have to be sincere, I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new for me. Perhaps it's really like you say, but that's not the definition I had, nor the one I see as the generally accepted one when checking up the definition of capitalism.

> For a version of your example, if everyone owned a fixed

But that is the thing, it isn't fixed. You are free to manage it, sell it, buy it, as you wish. That's why it's an hypothetical situation, where everyone would end up with a part voluntarily and not forced by the state.

<comment><USER15> You say this:

> I never saw this definition involving marketability anywhere, this is new > for me. Perhaps it's really like you say, but that's not the definition I > had

But then also this about your hypothetical about a "capitalist" system where "everyone owns capital" which makes it capitalist as opposed to socialist:

> You are free to manage it, sell it, buy it, as you wish.

You seem to explicitly recognize that marketability—the right to buy and sell—is an essential element of the kind of capital ownership that defines capitalism in the same post that you claim that it isn't.

<comment><USER14> My bad I misunderstood your answer to my first comment. I understood you were taking about the marketability of the produce, not of the means of production.

In any case, that is the reasoning of my second point when originally answering to you: A hypothetic situation where most people would own means of production, would still be capitalism when means of production are free to exchange hands.

That is too say: it's capitalism by definition as long as the means of production can exchange hands freely, it doesn't matter if they are all concentrated on the possession of a few or not.

<comment><USER15> > it's capitalism by definition as long as the means of production can > exchange hands freely, it doesn't matter if they are all concentrated on the > possession of a few or not.

If they can be freely exchanged, absent active as social management if distribution (which is _not_ capitalism), they _will become_ narrowly concentrated over time. Broad distribution is not a stable condition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Using fucked up in the first sentence, not in quotes, gave me something like the feeling that reading Dante in Italian instead of Latin must have given his audience.

<comment><USER17> I know exactly what you mean. And yet after a page worth of text I felt like the editor made the right call: the text would have lost a bit of its soul if they had redacted it in a socially more accepted way.

<comment><USER16> I don't think it was the wrong call, I was just surprised.</comment></comment></comment>


Phone Number Validation API - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/phnfo <comment><USER2> Awesome, but:

\- Forever free? No limits? Sure?

\- Can I plug this into a production app and make millions of API calls per day? For free? Forever?

\- No support?

\- How often do you update your DB? Moving numbers between carriers is common.</comment>


Review my microapp Divvyus: easily split tasks for people to do - <AUTHOR> http://www.divvyus.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, this is just a first cut at a simple app. I was inspired about Doodle's simplicity and wanted an easy way to share tasklists without all the hassle that comes with other online apps.

Future stuff: \- admin links (instead of enabled for everyone) \- send emails \- list of previous divvy's

The point is to keep everything simple. Don't add too much, only give what's necessary.

</comment><comment><USER2> UI comments -

If I press enter on title, don't create, move me to the first item. If I press enter/tab on items and I'm on the last one, give me an extra one. I shouldn't need to click a mouse button to add more tasks to the list.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good points, I'll add that.</comment></comment>


Microsoft brings 18-year-old game 'Hover' to browser - <AUTHOR> http://hover.ie/ <comment><USER2> Let's complete the effect shall we?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemivUKb4f4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemivUKb4f4)

Dial it down to 240p for the true '95 experience.

<comment><USER3> This was the first video I ever watched on a computer. I will never forget staring at this, realizing that I was seeing the future.

<comment><USER4> Wow, this video and the game are bringing back memories. This is the first experience with a computer I can remember. I didn't really realize what I was doing at the time, I would have been 2 or 3. Thankfully my dad cared enough about computers to have one for the family, that early experience probably contributed to my passion for software today.

<comment><USER5> >This is the first experience with a computer I can remember. I didn't really realize what I was doing at the time, I would have been 2 or 3.

Whereupon I am confronted head on by the relentless progression of aging and mortality.

<comment><USER6> I'll admit, I started programming young, about 8 years old (probably not too atypical in this forum though). The other day I realized, the new hires here were born after I started programming. I now better understand how a couple friends in college, non-traditional students who came back after stints in the military and other career attempts, felt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the best thing MS has done in years. I was just trying to remember what this game was called, and now it's on the web, and plays great.

Now they just need to release web versions of Age of Empires, Age of Empires 2, and maybe do a new version of Combat Flight Simulator...

<comment><USER8> There is the recently released AoE2 HD on Steam: [http://store.steampowered.com/app/221380/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/221380/)

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately it's Windows only... Maybe if I have some time I'll fire it up on Wine. Thanks for pointing that out BTW.

<comment><USER9> Also I've heard that the game will cease to function when Games For Windows Live is discontinued in July 2014

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Competition does wonders. MS didn't manage to sabotage WebGL and had to implement it in their browser. I wish they'd start enabling OpenGL across all their platforms as well.

<comment><USER11> What has MS sabotaged in the web that would lead you to this?

If anything, MS made the current javascript ajaxy freak show.

<comment><USER10> In the past MS used their usual sick lock-in tactics in IE. Intense competition forced them to reduce this idiocy. Unfortunately in other areas they still don't care. So I doubt you'll see OpenGL on Xbox or Windows tablets / handsets, until something will force them to enable it.

<comment><USER6> You _can 't_ use OpenGL on Xbox or tablets, or is it just more difficult?

EDIT: A few google searches later, indeed it's not accessible in XBox or Windows Phone 8. For some reason I didn't expect that.

<comment><USER10> You can't. That's MS way of lock-in and ensuring that porting of games and other applications is much harder.

Why didn't you expect that? I'd say that WebGL in IE is something unexpected, not the other way around. MS has a long history of being jerks and using lock- in with proprietary standards.

As they expressed it in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_lock- in)

<comment><USER12> > You can't. That's MS way of lock-in and ensuring that porting of games and > other applications is much harder.

It is a way of them not having to write, support, and optimize two entire sets of drivers that accomplish the same thing.

I was actually working in Windows Phone when there were talks about supporting OpenGL (I wasn't involved in any, I just watched from the sidelines). The decision ultimately came down to already having people who could write really fast and stable DirectX drivers. The expertise was there, so it was used.

<comment><USER10> Sure, they'll find technical excuses. But as soon as it will start biting them back, they'll quickly find needed expertise.

But probably Windows Phone is not the best example, since it's a minor platform comparing to others. MS has no leverage on the industry with it. Xbox is different. It's quite big. And enabling OpenGL there would only make sense for gaming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This runs much smoother than I ever got it to run on my 166mhz Pentium!

<comment><USER14> It ran ok on my Pentium 60MHz with 8MB ram. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Official press release with amusing promo video: [http://blogs.windows.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2013/10/02/hover- br...](http://blogs.windows.com/ie/b/ie/archive/2013/10/02/hover-bringing-a- classic-pc-game-to-the-web-with-internet-explorer-and-modern-web- standards.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER16> You can type 'Bambi' on the front page for an even more retro version.

<comment><USER17> Much better! Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think they might need to work on their collision detection. When going up the staircase I suddenly found myself _beneath_ the staircase, unable to escape.

[http://i.imgur.com/EUYwin7.png](http://i.imgur.com/EUYwin7.png)

<comment><USER19> That sounds eerily like some of my other experiences with their software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > You'll need a browser that supports WebGL to play Hover.

I'm pretty sure Chrome supports WebGL.

<comment><USER13> Works fine on Chrome 29.0.1547.76 on Mac.

<comment><USER21> Working fine for me on Chrome 29.0.1547.76 on 2013 13in MacAir

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can still download the original version from Microsoft's public FTP server:

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/deskapps/games/public/AAS/Hover.EXE

Plays just fine on modern machines running Windows.

<comment><USER22> Or just pop in your Windows 95 CD. I don't know why they didn't just install it along with Windows 95 -- it was pretty reasonably sized if I recall correctly.

<comment><USER14> Perhaps it was small by todays standards but I remember my first Windows 95 PC had a 290MB Hard Drive. A fresh Windows 95 install took up maybe 30MB or 40MB if I remember correctly so even if Hover was only 1MB it was still a relatively significant amount.

As an aside... I also remember Windows 95 was available on floppy, I think maybe there was 10 floppy disks in total (?). I seem to recall that they used special floppy disks that held more than the usual 1.44MB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I broke it [http://imgur.com/YrdFbLU](http://imgur.com/YrdFbLU)

<comment><USER24> I assume you stacked bounce and went over the wall?

<comment><USER23> nope, walked right through the wall. Or fell, rather. I don't even know what 'stacked bounce' is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This brings me back, but I was really hoping it would be another game I played in the 90s that was very similar except it was a flight sim where you could get off the ground. I've done google searches over the year to find it but have never been able to.

I am pretty sure the game was called 'Chaos'. The aesthetic was very angular; I believe the main craft you steered was a yellow triangular shape. I loved it. Anyone know it?

<comment><USER26> Descent? Terminal Velocity/Fury3/Hellbender?

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately not, but those graphics certainly match the era.

This game's camera was behind the craft, so no POV shots from cockpit. The graphics were truly more mundane than any of these though. It must have been an independent release/demo I came across that never developed into anything significant since there is nothing. It's too bad, my best friend and I played for hours even though there was really no point to the game from what we could tell.

<comment><USER27> There was Spectre VR, and Chaos VR. Chaos was an unfinished demo with no goals. There were enemies and places that spawned infinitely. You were a flying ship and could shoot and barrel roll etc. I think there were some kinds of powerups. Infinite lives, but again, no score or goal. Still fantastic fun to play.

[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131708/runtime_mipmap_...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131708/runtime_mipmap_filtering.php?page=3)

As I recall you could actually press a button to go between cockpit/external views. There were a few versions too - I think the VR was a much later addition.

[http://www.applefritter.com/node/14284](http://www.applefritter.com/node/14284)

<comment><USER25> Yes! Thank you very much for this information and the links.

I am very glad I spent hours configuring a working virtual machine for classic Mac OS last year and that I did not get rid of it!

The unfinished demo and open ended nature of it was totally part of the appeal for me. Infinite map/enemies and no goal was just kind of a relaxing way to play ( for hours and hours ).

Seriously, thank you again!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Within 10 seconds of loading it up, I had already glitched into a wall and trapped myself in a box. Yep, that's nostalgia.

</comment><comment><USER29> Does anyone else know of a small game called Hover by Eric Undersander? I spent so many hours playing it. Too bad it's closed source and not maintained; it'd be awesome on smartphones.

</comment><comment><USER30> Did the original Hover used acceleration-based controls? I don't remember that; I recall it being much easier to control...

<comment><USER31> Thats basically what made Hover a cool game, you "hovered" around the level. That was basically what made it challenging

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I immediately flew out of the map after collecting some speed boost (I was just on a black infinite plane and the map floating above me). I guess the collision detection code needs to some refactor. I wasn't able to get back on there. That's when I closed the tab, after ~40 secs.

Awesome QA for a company of that size & resources. Wtf.

<comment><USER33> Flynn?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The author is answering questions on reddit: [https://pay.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1nl5nk/i_worked_wi...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1nl5nk/i_worked_with_microsoft_to_bring_hover_to_html5/)

</comment><comment><USER35> I really like it but two remarks: -they changed the graphics (it's no longer "pixelated") -I think the physics are slightly different but maybe I don't really remember

</comment><comment><USER36> Since I first discovered Hover on my old win 95 disc, I've dreamed of a multiplayer mode. At last.

</comment><comment><USER37> Works for me in Safari 6.1 on Lion

My MacBook is so old it doesn't even have a GPU. NICE.

</comment><comment><USER38> Tried to drive up a set of stairs; was promptly placed inside the geometry.

</comment><comment><USER39> Somebody know the name of the song of the soundtrack?

</comment><comment><USER40> What are the controls?? Where are the instructions??

</comment><comment><USER41> What's with the snarky title?

</comment><comment><USER42> Funny how all these MS HTML5 websites can be visited only with MS latest browser... latest chrome on Windows, it asks me to download IE11 , i'll pass... that's not how you promote open standards , you make them work on all browsers... unless you dont care ...

<comment><USER43> Worked fine in Firefox 24.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Never heard of this game. Probably because I was playing Spectre VR on a Mac ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(video_game)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_\(video_game\))) around that time, which this is a total unabashed knockoff of. Can't Microsoft NOT copy something for a change?

<comment><USER45> These games look nothing alike,

Spectre VR [http://www.myabandonware.com/media/captures/S/spectre- vr/spe...](http://www.myabandonware.com/media/captures/S/spectre-vr/spectre- vr_1.png)

Hover [http://www.stanford.edu/~cammat/HOVER/images/screenshot001.J...](http://www.stanford.edu/~cammat/HOVER/images/screenshot001.JPG)

Have you taken your medication?

<comment><USER27> If you actually played both the games you'd realize they are really similar. Capture the flag from the cockpit of a 'tank' with various power-ups you can run over to activate against an opposing force. Sure, in one you shoot, and in the other you do not. And the graphics in the browser above look more like the graphics in Spectre than the screenshot you link to.</comment></comment></comment>


WoW - <AUTHOR> http://mattmaroon.com/?p=396 <comment><AUTHOR> Escapism nails it.

Diablo was designed as a series of clicks and rewards. When you clicked on an item in your inventory, a pleasant sound chimed. When you killed Diablo, you got a better series of sounds and more things to click in your inventory.

WoW is so successful because it provides such a compelling alternative to reality. In reality, there is risk, there is emotion, there is change. In WoW, you just have a steady stream of clicks, a steady stream of rewards, and a steady group of pseudo-friends (pseudo because they only exist as long as you play WoW and they won't help you move) that don't judge you. In some ways, it is better than reality. If nothing else, it is much easier. The only way to get better is to play more, and the more you play, the more fun you have.

<comment><USER2> If it were just escapism, any MMO could claim that. But none do. Not anywhere close to what Warcraft has achieved.

I think it's the magic combination of elements that has given WoW the megacrown. And you've listed several. If you've played Wow, you get it, but you don't exactly know why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> #1 Reason easily explained:

Blizzard

Their attention to creating what they consider the 'perfect' game on a platform they create is mind blowing. They have had Starcraft 2 what any other company would consider 'finished' for probably 2 years. But they run massive beta tests, continually tweak and perfect the game.

It shows in every one of their products - look at the Starcraft/Warcraft/Diablo series - not a single flop or poor game.

I bet you right now that Starcraft 2 becomes even more popular than the original - and the original is still played in large numbers ten years later!

</comment><comment><USER4> Submitters, please spare a thought for those of us that read RSS. All I get is:

        Subject: WoW

        [Comments][1]

           [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=228117

        URL: http://mattmaroon.com/?p=396
        comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=228117

If it's worth bothering all of us with your submission, please take the time to add a sentance covering the content if it's not obvious.

</comment><comment><USER5> Wow lets you create YOU.

Unlike the outside world WoW lets you create YOU as you imagine it in your wildest dreams. A 360 degree control that cannot be found anywhere in real life. The game is fair, you are who you want to be as long as you put the necessary effort into it.

I can guarantee you that a lot of players would respond to their screen name if you called them out in the street. You think they escape their bills and work and family by playing, but it is the opposite. They escape their WoW life by doing mundane things.

</comment><comment><USER6> You mean after all this, it has NOTHING to do with the gameplay or the following of users who migrated from the WC3 universe?

<comment><USER7> Agreed, article was weak.

<comment><USER6> Okay, the fact that I got down voted for a completely on topic comment is what I'm talking about when I say people downvote just to disagree without commenting themselves. Matt makes no comment on the gameplay factor of WoW and I think for what it's worth, it's a great technical achievement when you look at the amount of math and raw computations required for items, enchantments, leveling, etc. I know this community isn't built around gaming or about gaming, but I thought it was certainly worth pointing out at least in SOME degree that WoW's success could have something to do with the gameplay, or at least since he decided to talk about the social aspect of the game, mention how many people came to WoW after the success of WC3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's not like Blizzard commissioned a set of commercials to explain this.

Shatner <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyUNDbo2KMU>

Mr. T <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqJE5TH5jhc>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FET09MYis_g>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNg5ysYd0zc>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZqcW-xu5c>

</comment><comment><USER9> Matt,

You really don't play WoW. It doesn't even go up to level 82. Heh.

</comment><comment><USER10> ROFL get a life you are missing so much if you think WoW is anything compared to real life.

<comment><USER11> "ROFL get a life"

Let me see if I understand what you are saying: You assume the author does not have a life, and your response is to laugh so hard you fall off your chair?

That is not a very nice sentiment, and if I am correct in understanding your point of view, it is especially unkind to attempt to publicly shame him for what you perceive to be an unacceptable lifestyle.

I sincerely hope that the choices you make about relating to people in "real life" are much more pleasant than the choice you made here.</comment></comment>


Rate My Startup: Phone Halo, Keep Your Stuff - <AUTHOR> http://www.phonehalo.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HNer's,

Have you ever lost your phone?

Have you ever lost your Keys?

Phone Halo uses a smart phone application paired with proprietary Bluetooth hardware to prevent loss from happening. It's simple solution that's jam packed with features to ensure that it's effective and complete, yet not annoying. The system provides full bidirectional security. Public launch is 3/21.

We are sharing a booth at CES with YC funded Wakemate. Please come visit us at Booth #35117 if you are at CES.

We are having a special promotion where we give a phone halo out once a week to one lucky person who tweets about #phonehalo.

Please give us your feedback and we ask for your support.

-Chris Herbert email@example.com</comment>


I can make it arbitrarily fast if I don't actually have to make it work. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2009/09/29/i-can-make-it-arbitrarily-fast-if-i-don-t-actually-have-to-make-it-work.aspx <comment><USER2> There's something like this in one of Gerald Weinberg's books, probably _Becoming a Technical Leader_, an auto-company story from something around 50 years ago.</comment>