The perils of short-termism - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190109-the-perils-of-short-termism-civilisations-greatest-threat <comment><USER2> Part of the issue with longtermism in the present politic is pessimism on climate change. Specifically, because people treat tech and development as antithetical to healthy futures, they don't develop a positive vision of the 50 year future.

We need a positive vision. We need to be optimistic that we _are_ addressing the environmental issues and that humans _will_ be thriving and flourishing in 2100. Therefore, what will that look like? And what is the work we need to do to design and develop that positive future?

</comment><comment><USER3> What this author forgets is that many young people today are not procreating because having children is increasingly becoming a luxury of the upper middle class. Why should childless individuals care all that much about how issues like global warming and growing economic inequality will affect future generations when they're desperately just trying to hold onto their current jobs in order to service increasingly unjustifiable levels of debt (home, medical, educational,...)?

<comment><USER4> That's a weak argument for antinatalism. The global middle class is much larger and more capable of supporting the necessities that children require. People consider upper middle class lifestyles table stakes for child raising, which is why they choose to opt out of the children having status tournament. Diapers and food are actually not that expensive, but toddler yoga, dual earner flexible childcare, private school and similar absolutely are.

<comment> marble-drink I cannot find a woman who will be a full time mother after giving birth. I will not put my children into day care for 12 hours a day. I could afford to support a family in my own, but only with my very frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, no eating at restaurants etc)

<comment><USER5> > very frugal and minimalist lifestyle (no fancy car, no expensive holidays, > no eating at restaurants etc)

That's not "very frugal and minimalistic lifestyle", that's just living for 95%+ of the world population. It's not so bad.

<comment> marble-drink I didn't say it was bad. But women who work tend to do all of this and want to maintain that lifestyle which is clearly ridiculous to do on a single income with children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> this is not a new problem. it's been around since at least the industrial revolution

</comment><comment><USER7> When the next collapse of civilization happens those that caused it will be holding most of the money. They will then use this money to rebuild civilization and make yet more profit...

<comment><USER8> There's a good chance that the next collapse will be more comprehensive than previous ones though. In particular, it's very easy to imagine nukes getting thrown around as nations compete for rapidly diminishing topsoil & fresh water.

<comment><USER9> It's also easy to imagine the financial elites burrowing down into their premade bunkers to wait it out.

<comment><USER8> They're entirely welcome to what's left at that point as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><USER9> The issue is that

a) they have a lot of influence over how humanity reacts to existential threats

b) they're nowhere near as concerned about the collapse of civilisation as everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The opposite is true. We're currently so occupied with imagined problems from the future that we forget to take care of present issues. The interesting time span for normal folks and most politicians to deal with should be the next 5 years, not the end of the century. Leave that to science fiction authors. Better and more interested people will deal with problems in 81 years, whatever they will be.

<comment><USER11> A lot of great projects -- subways, tunnels, bridges, constitutions, the metric system, manifest destiny, the marine chronometer, GNU -- wouldn't have happened if people only cared about the next five years.

<comment><USER10> All of these were built in order to immediately improve the current situation, not the one in 100 years.

<comment><USER11> It takes longer than 5 to pay back the investment, and many are planned in anticipation of future growth.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The iPhone and Disruption: Five Years In - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/iphone_disruption_five_years_in <comment><USER2> By the way, I highly recommend Clayton Christensen's book The Innovator's Dilemma, which was mentioned in the article. If I ruled the world I'd decree that no-one was allowed to allowed to apply the word "disrupt" to technology or business without reading the guy who actually defined the term in the first place.

It seems lots of commentors here could use a primer: a disruptive innovation is usually cheap, considered as "worse" by existing customers, and enters the market at the low-end. But it serves a new market who have different needs to the existing customers. Over time the disruptive innovation gets better until eventually it replaces the original. Classic example: PCs and mainframes.

(Note: technically the disruptive innovation doesn't have to be cheaper. It's just _better on metrics the new market cares about but the existing market doesn't_. Often that's price, but not always.)

[http://i.saac.me/post/startup-related-words-youre- probably-u...](http://i.saac.me/post/startup-related-words-youre-probably- using-incorrectly-disrupt/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This last week I was re-reading what, for me as a 19 year kid, was a seminal article in understanding the power of the web and personal devices:

<http://www.cs.umd.edu/~golbeck/LBSC690/SemanticWeb.html>

Discounting the structured data bits (a lot to discount) it's amazing how close we are with tablets and Android/iPhones and Siri and Google Now. I fear the siloing of valuable data in apps, but I have to acknowledge that without the iPhone I don't think we'd be as far along as we are.

</comment><comment><USER4> > What's happened over the last five years shows not that Apple disrupted the > phone handset industry, but rather that Apple destroyed the handset industry > — _by disrupting the computer industry_.

That's a bit of a stretch. There is still a large difference between an iPhone and a desktop/laptop computer from a user point of view. I'd be very surprised if smartphone sales had any noticeable influence on computer sales (in the developed world). The traditional computer industry doesn't seem to have been much impacted by the iPhone and I can't see by what definition of disruption it was _disrupted_... Sensationalism is probably good for pageviews.

<comment><USER5> Microsoft is betting their future on a redesigned Windows with an unprecedented upgrade price of $39, and just pissed off their hardware vendors by launching their own PC devices.

And you don't think the PC industry is being disrupted?

<comment><USER4> Microsoft has redesigned Windows and lowered prices multiple times in the past, before the advent of the iPhone. I wouldn't call this a disruption. Furthermore, I would guess only extremely few people are choosing an iPhone _rather than_ a laptop/desktop computer.

<comment><USER6> Microsoft redesigned Windows around tablet interfaces and _launched their own ARM hardware_ to run it.

How much does it take before you'll call it a disruption?

<comment><USER4> I was specifically talking about the iPhone. Tablets definitely stand a better chance at "disrupting" the industry although this is also debatable.

I will call it a disruption when people start using iPhones/iPad _instead of_ laptops/desktops. This doesn't seem to be the case for a large majority of people.

<comment><USER7> It's not necessary for it to be a majority to be a market disruption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The biggest disruption being that the phone, mp3 player, email, etc. were just "apps" and none was any more important than the others. So, instead of making a phone that is great for just one segment (see the ill fated ESPN phone), the phone is now a platform with personalized features for each user via apps and it's always on, always connected, always up to date.

Funny enough, the web is being disrupted by smartphone apps and yet web devs are crying "fad" just like the hardware guys were yelling "fad" when the iPhone came out, but web apps on desktops aren't growing like mobile is ([http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/07/mobile-is-where-the- growth-i...](http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/07/mobile-is-where-the-growth- is.html))... and so what happens to all the web app companies who are just hoping mobile doesn't kill their web apps or web sites?

In many industries it's as simple as making a product that does 80% or 20% of what the leading product does, but has a iPhone, iPad, Android app and you're likely to make sales on that fact alone. It's like going from desktop to web all over again.

<comment><USER9> I'd place less emphasis on "apps". Remember, the original iPhone was released with a total of zero third-party apps; all third-party content and functionality was delivered via the Web.

The disruptive event was the sudden confluence of always-available data, a decent web browser, and an interface friendly enough to make use of it. "Apps" had been around for years on the "smartphones" of yesteryear, be it J2ME, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, etc. They were a clunky mess, however, and you had to pull out a stylus or fuddle around with a tiny joystick to use them. Their browsers just plain sucked.

Webkit on a device that could render full-screen Web pages like candy is what Apple contributed to the cellular arena, and that is what changed the game. Coincidentally, the browser is the main point of what reviewers of the era missed; most of them were lamenting the lack of apps.

<comment><USER10> I'd agree. Connectivity was the game changer. Functional Internet everywhere? Sign me the fuck up.

Native mobile apps in my mind simply bridge the user experience gap that HTML5 is having a hard time filling. It does some crunching too, but most apps that are worth their salt are either games or apps that do some processing before or after connecting to the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> matthew-wegner Regarding the original quote:

 _They've launched an innovation that the existing players in the industry are heavily motivated to beat: It's not [truly] disruptive. History speaks pretty loudly on that, that the probability of success is going to be limited._

This could still very well be true. One possible 20-year-out future is that wearable computing has completely replaced handheld devices (or indeed most devices of any kind). The era of touchscreen smartphones will be looked back on fondly as a strange transitional blip.

Now, the likeliness of this scenario is a totally different discussion. But calling the game 5 years in feels a bit premature.

(Perhaps the massive wealth Apple has accumulated in the iPhone/iPad era will cement their ability to dominate all future tech. But maybe not, in a post- Jobs environment...)

<comment><USER11> If you pick a long enough time span everything is eventually transitional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The iPhone itself did not bring anything new except a slick interface coupled with multi-touch. We already had powerful smartphones, for example ones running Microsoft's Windows Mobile.

But the iPhone brought smartphones to the public's attention, and the iPhone later brought the App Store.

<comment><USER13> The "slick interface" is, I think, the entire genius of the iPhone (especially when compared to its competition). Sure the functions of the iPhone were all (mostly) present in competing devices when it launched, but it was hard(er) to leverage them on Windows Mobile or Blackberry because the interface wasn't nearly as polished and easy to use. (If you doubt that statement, try using a web browser on a 2007-era Blackberry. Even today, with much more of the internet being "mobile aware", the experience is so awful it is almost disingenuous to say that those devices can browse the internet at all).

Simply put, it was very much the "slick interface" that "brought smartphones to the public's attention", and ultimately, illustrated how powerful having a pocket computer really is.

<comment><USER12> True. But the iPhone was far from the first in its category.

You might say, however, it was the first _good_ device in its category.

<comment><USER14> It's more important to be good than to be first. Otherwise Microsoft would be the king of tablets right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> must be a slow day at DF. "Hly crap, a general computer in my pocket?!" has to have crossed everyone's mind the instant Jobs showed it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yes. It's the iPhone disruption... That over half the market there that's android? Doesn't count cus they entered later (well they were working on it before but launched later) and therefore nothing they contributed counts. Yes clearly

"All of this, because of the iPhone."

<comment><USER17> Apple's disruption is not the hardware, the software, or the integration of the two.

Apple's disruption is spending several hundreds of billions of dollars on marketing to tell people what they could do with the hardware and software.

Androids, Windows _Mobile_ , Blackberry could do everything the iPhone could do, and usually faster, cheaper, and better. But they never told anyone _how_ to do all the cool stuff, or even that the cool stuff was possible. Which is a shame, because most people actually credit Apple with inventing the smartphone, more than a decade after smartphones hit the market.

<comment><USER5> If so, why didn't Microsoft spend their money on marketing instead of replacing WM6?

<comment><USER17> Microsoft targets enterprise customers. Their customers are swayed by personal relationships, _not_ television ads.

<comment><USER18> Ha. Yes Microsoft targets enterprise customers. By purchasing tons of print ads in PC Magazine etc. Take a look at the SG&A for both companies and you'll see that for a company that doesn't manufacture many tangible goods (the xbox is a blip on the radar compared to Apple's manufacturing) sure spends a lot of money, much of it on advertising:

[http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/sga_expense#series=type:co...](http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/sga_expense#series=type:company,id:MSFT,calc:sga_expense,,id:AAPL,type:company,calc:sga_expense&zoom=10&startDate=&endDate=&format=real&recessions=false)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Downside of Specialization - <AUTHOR> http://personalmba.com/downside-specialization/

<comment><USER2> Good points. Specialization is for insects!</comment>


'Malemployment' on the Rise - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetakeaway.org/blogs/takeaway/2010/nov/08/malemployment-rise/ <comment><USER3> _The problem isn't that precious college graduates have to get their hands dirty. Rather, the issue is that people who paid for a college education aren't getting the expected return on that investment – and might never get it._

This sounds a lot like the underwater mortgage issue. Maybe people are overpaying for college because of easy government-backed credit?

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Here's a solid video on the topic where Peter Schiff explains why college tuition is so high: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIcfMMVcYZg>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know why they made up a new word for this or why they think it is different from underemployment. From wiktionary definition of underemployed: "Employed in a job for which one is overqualified" <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/underemployed>

<comment><USER6> I suppose that depends on what you mean by "overqualified". I'm a computer programmer, and let's say I lost my job and started looking for a job in construction. I've never worked in construction before and while I'm not out- of-shape I'm not exactly ready for heavy-lifting.

So am I overqualified or underqualified? Or both?

<comment><USER7> I would think of it like this- If the job on paper requires you to be a high school graduate, you're overqualified because you have education beyond high school. If the job requires vocational training/certification/licenses/experience etc, that's a different story. The fact that you wouldn't be that good at the job in practice doesn't mean you're not overqualified.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A bit of anecdotal evidence; I graduated university in the UK the summer before last, and "malemployment" as defined in this article applies to almost all of my friends and classmates. I have been very lucky to land a job doing what I love. Many of my newly graduated friends are doing service jobs or doing brainless admin tasks in offices. Most are simply unemployed, they cannot bring themselves to settle for these jobs and would rather sit at home on unemployment benefit. Often these jobs only pay one or two pounds more per week than what they are receiving in benefits.

The worst thing about this situation is the sense of helplessness and having been lied to it instills in young people. We have been told by our parents, rightly or wrongly, for the first two decades of our lives that if we simply work hard in our education we will land well paid, secure jobs. This was the reward for all the hard work at school, and for all the debt uni now requires. Now these kids are graduating, and finding that their £30000 of debt and three years of hard work might get them a job in macdonalds, if they're lucky.

When you combine that with the fact that those responsible for this situation got all their education completely free and were given large grants to pay their way through, you end up with the events of last week: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE3IEKWu4rA>

<comment><USER9> Was there an option in, say, 1980, or 1990, or 2000 for people with brand spanking new English degrees that wasn't a braindead job in an office? The entry level job mix changed a bit but the character strikes me as fairly consistent: if you have no commercially valuable skills at graduation (and if you majored in English, you probably don't), you get a low-responsibilities job while becoming acclimated to your industry and learning some soft skills.

<comment><USER8> You would've been able to get a job as a junior sales/marketing/etc person. Now they will hire you as a secretary if you're lucky.

Edit: this was also due to the relatively smaller proportion of the population with degrees at that time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I liked where the article started out, but the only advice they offered was keep your chin up and go to mint.com. The line between news and advertisement is thinning.

Of course, maybe good financial planning is helpful if students are graduating with $4000 of credit card debt... That is the nu mber I will never understand.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well, most jobs _don't_ need degrees. That doesn't mean they're any less worthy, mind. But it's the truth.

I'm not even talking about unskilled jobs - just jobs that require some other kind of training that academia.

<comment><USER12> Yes. Vocational training and apprenticeships are probably undervalued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _In 2000, about 30 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds were working in jobs that did not require college degrees. By 2010, that percentage had risen drastically to almost 40 percent._

20-24? A lot of students are taking more than four years for degrees these days. This statistic doesn't specify if it counts students enrolled in college working at a campus job or not.

 _At the beginning of this year, there were twice as many four-year college graduates working as waiters and bartenders as engineers._

Is the problem just that it's mostly expected that everyone moves on to college, whether or not they can pick a degree they care enough about to make a real effort in succeeding with?

<comment><USER14> > At the beginning of this year, there were twice as many four-year college > graduates working as waiters and bartenders as engineers.

Umm, maybe this is because 60% (or more) of college students studied the humanities rather than engineering?

<comment><USER13> I assume this is related to my point, though, that most people aren't going to college because they care about something but rather because they are expected to. They then wind up picking something easier somewhat at random and can't get a job because of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Higher education should be free! Then the 'return on investment' issue would not be as serious

<comment><USER16> "Higher education should be free!"

Do you mean no one should be paid to provide it?

<comment><USER15> Society should pay for it, since society will benefit from it.

<comment><USER17> Society doesn't seem to be benefiting from it right now if it's employing grads as waiters and bartenders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Conversation at a wedding reception the other day. Approx. 120 Civil Engineering BA graduates for the 2009 and 2010 graduating classes from a major university. As of this fall only 5 graduates from those two classes, actually have been hired into engineering positions. My friend's son happened to be one of those 5 but what a dilemma for the other 115, do you double down and go to graduate school? Do you take whatever you can get and hope to enter engineering later? I don't know.

</comment><comment><USER19> Malemployment is very subjective. I can't see how you could effectively measure it and it mean that much.

I think a job happiness index would be better. You could just ask, "From 1-10 how happy are you with your current job (1=couldn't be more unhappy, 10=couldn't be happier)," would be enough. If this score dipped, morale is lower overall, and productivity will suffer.

<comment><USER20> I think they covered the basics of it - malemployment is employment that's not paying the expected ROI on someone's education level.

<comment><USER19> Yes, but just being accredited by an institution as having been educated in a subject doesn't mean that you are qualified for a job. I'm not saying that it isn't a valid indicator, just that it seems subjective and fuzzy.

If some "over-educated" employees still happy and perhaps have substantially greater output than their "less-educated" counterparts, then there could be a significant enough ROI on their education to justify it. However, you can't differentiate those from the "over-educated" workers that are unhappy that would be more productive in other roles. This is why I think a work happiness index would be a better indicator of how well those that are employed are fairing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How long do we have to hear the same "college is a ripoff" fact, wrapped in different stories, before people actually stop promoting a four year degree as _the_ primary post secondary path for young adults? The return on investment has been questionable for quite some time now.

<comment><USER22> <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm>

Education / Unemployment Rate:

Didn't finish high school 15.3%

No college degree 10.1%

College Degree 4.7%

That looks like a solid ROI to me. I think this article is indicative of the fact that education + not much experience means you get left out in the cold when people with the same education and more experience are looking for work. Note that they talk about recent college grads in the low 20s - <USER2> typically aren't people with lots of degree-related work experience. You can also argue that not all degrees are created equal, in terms of employment. But hearing 'college is a ripoff' a lot (like, say, here) doesn't make it true.

<comment><USER21> Those statistics don't show an ROI, they show a correlation between education and unemployment. There could be many reasons that people with higher education aspirations have lower unemployment. Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm sure you can imagine that if somebody has the drive and mental capacity to finish a college degree, they also likely have the drive and mental capacity to land and keep a job. It is not the college degree that matters necessarily.

Using your own statistics, 89.9% of college dropouts have a job. And 95.3% of college grads have a job. Is four or five years of your life and tens of thousands of dollars worth a 5.4% increase? What if you were to dedicate those four years to personal study and lower job market experience and work your way up for four years instead? Can you be sure that the college route is _the_ better solution, knowing that it only gives a 5.4% increase in those statistics?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This situation's looking a lot more like Iceland's (right country?) workplace dimorphism, with a majority of women graduating college and entering office, technical and desk jobs, and men working more traditional (manly) jobs such as fishing and oil-rigging.</comment>


My Google Summer of Code with Code for America - <AUTHOR> http://zachwill.posterous.com/google-summer-of-code

<comment><USER2> Good job! Seems like writing the python wrappers and making the data more accessible was an important accomplishment. I'd say your summer was well spent!

Question: on madewithdata.com, when searching for the nearest radiation facility, is there no facility name included in the lat/lng data?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, man. I believe most have a `PRIMARY_NAME` key — but I can't guarantee they all do. The RADInfo data is suprisingly patchy in some parts — but I did manage to download it all from the API and convert it to JSON (the link should be near the bottom of the page to download).</comment></comment>


Node.js 7.6 Released - <AUTHOR> https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v7.6.0/ <comment><USER2> So this, having V8 5.5 means async await is now stable and available without command line flags? Awesome!

<comment><USER3> Yummy. No .then() chaining, no async.waterfall(), no pyramid. Not _totally_ seamless as parent scope has to be run with `async` but still excellent:

        async function logFetch(url) {
          try {
            const response = await fetch(url);
            console.log(await response.text());
          } catch (err) {
            console.log('fetch failed', err);
          }
        }

<comment><USER4> Here's my attempt at a slightly less contrived example:

        router.get('/users/:id', async (ctx, next) => {
          const user = await db.getUser(ctx.params.id)
          if (!user) return ctx.send(404)
          let data
          if (user.admin) data = await api.getSomeData(user)
          return ctx.render('show_user.html', { user, data })
        })

<comment><USER5> This would quietly swallow all the errors though

<comment><USER4> That's actually one of the whole points of using promises: it _doesn 't_ swallow errors.

Errors bubble up to the top-level. It's the old callback-style that swallows errors unless you manually handle them every time. It's one of the chief advantages of promises.

In my case, errors bubble up to error-catching middleware and, at the end of the chain, into a 500 error that gets logged.

<comment><USER5> The errors won't be swallowed only in two cases: either if router.get actually supports promises (thus catches all the bubbled errors on its own) or if you have unhandledRejection global listener. Some node versions do show unhandled rejections automatically (e.g. v7.x), but that is getting deprecated soon.

So, there's quite a real risk of quiet failures in that bit of code.

Upd. Looks like even though the unhandled rejections warnings are getting deprecated, the rejections themselves will actually stop the code execution with non-zero exit code! Which means most of the issues I had with that code are gone (which is awesome)

<comment><USER4> Of course the code in my example handles promises. It's actually an example of koa code.

Not sure why that is a "real risk". You generally want to be using promises with libraries that support them. That's why I wouldn't use promises in vanilla Express as my daily driver abstraction.

Compare this to callbacks where there's an actual real risk of silent error dropping any time you forget to `next(err)` or `.catch(handleErr)`, which is something you have to carry around for the life of the project instead of my example, where you choose a framework (once) that supports them.

I'd say it's a great demo and addressed all your concerns so far since it's this kind of context where async/await really pays off compared to the logFetch example.

<comment><USER6> I really hope that this release means that koa2 will release soon.. been a little painful to determine which versions of what modules are supported. Really enjoying koa2 though.

<comment><USER4> You can keep track of the stable async/await-native koa release here: [https://github.com/koajs/koa/issues/533](https://github.com/koajs/koa/issues/533) (scroll to the bottom).

Looks like this is the release they've been waiting for.

<comment><USER6> yeah, now I'm having trouble getting webpack + hmr working with koa2 in node 7.6... the webpack page mentions issues with v7, so trying what I had in v6, will see if I can get it working.. :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > fs: allow WHATWG URL objects as paths (James M Snell)

Can someone explain this to me? Does this just mean I can open files using the 'file:' syntax or can I somehow open URLs with readFile now?

<comment><USER8> The linked PR[0] says it's just using the file: syntax

[0] - [https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/10739](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/10739)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the best software companies in Raleigh/Durham NC? - <AUTHOR> I currently work at one of the big 5 software companies, but am from RDU and want to move back soon. The area (Durham especially) is awesome, but it seems like there are few software companies. What are the best places for a SWE to go that will still result in career growth? <comment><USER2> Few software companies?

RedHat IBM Cisco Fidelity Dell SAS eTix Epic Games

[https://www.wraltechwire.com/2018/07/06/employers- struggle-t...](https://www.wraltechwire.com/2018/07/06/employers-struggle-to- fill-tech-jobs-even-without-apple-amazon-hq2/)

</comment><comment><USER3> People sure seem to love SAS.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some emerging technologies that nobody is talking about? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [CENSORED]</comment>


Ask HN:Did github deal with homakov appropriately - <AUTHOR>

Is github justified in suspending homakov or is it just a case of killing the whistleblower. <comment><USER2> homokov could have handled this much better than he did, and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. He did break the terms of the service, and he did it by committing to an active project rather than just creating a dummy account for a proof of concept. That proof of concept would have made the front page of this site in no time, so it's not a matter of exposure. Github is completely "in the right" for their decision, yet it was still a bad one.

The simple fact that this discussion is occurring shows that they didn't deal with it "appropriately". They are completely in the moral right- he violated terms, and even if he didn't it's still their website. However, they completely failed from a business and public relations perspective- if your actions result in a bunch of people being pissed off at you (particularly when those people are your active and vocal users) then you messed up. They had a huge opportunity here educate people about how to report these things, and lay the ground work to suspend people in the future, but they chose to lash out instead.

</comment><comment><USER3> AFAIK he did warn them about it, and they did nothing. His actions are a bit childish but he did no harm. Plus he brought shitload of attention to them which isn't a bad thing. It's totally understandable they suspended his account but if they want their reputation restored, they better contact him and sort this out together.

</comment><comment><USER4> He violated the TOS, if they didn't suspend him I would question hosting anything with them.

<comment><USER5> If they suspended everyone who could be suspended under the TOS no one could host anything with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yep, justified. He could have simply told them about it. In my experience, Github is proactive about security and general usability of the service. There is no reason to think they would have dismissed him out of hand. The right thing to do was to give them a chance to fix it.

He acted like a bit of a dick, so they gave him the flick. Bad luck.</comment>


Digging into the Odd History of "Blade Runner"'s Title - <AUTHOR> http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/why-is-blade-runner-the-title-of-blade-runner.html <comment><USER2> I've generally interpreted it in two different ways, neither of which is this accepted version (though I would not contest that the title must've originated as described in this article).

First, as in reference to gardening, where a blade may be run along a stem to remove undesired branches or buds. [MINOR SPOILER[?]]This especially fits with the "tree" motif that features through the second film.[/SPOILER]

Secondly, as a roundabout reference to Ockham's Razor, in that Blade Runners have a responsibility to make sure that the "official explanation" (most likely to be believed) for something is the "simplest possible" explanation for something - i.e., they cover up what is a complex situation for the public by eliminating the source of moral or ethical complexity (specifically, by "retiring" replicants).</comment>


Relationship Hack - <AUTHOR> http://patriciojeri.com/2014/04/12/relationship-hack/

<comment><USER2> >and congratulate her for reaching day number X without a fight.

Maybe it's just worded wrong, but if this is serious, then I think I found the problem.

It takes two to tango.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're fighting that much with your girlfriend a better hack is knowing when to walk away. A relationship like that just isn't worth the energy, especially with work as demanding as ours.

You shouldn't have to reach into your bag of tricks until things get real, i.e. marriage + kids + money problems, etc.

<comment><USER4> What a presumptuous post. You're assuming OP doesn't have kids, or money problems or any other issue that would make it hard to walk away from just because he used the term girlfriend (rather than wife). With no information other than the word girlfriend, you made a series of assumptions and ended up implying OP's relationship wasn't 'real' cause it isn't a marriage.

<comment><USER3> Links to three of his social profiles are next to his post if you care to learn more about him.

I guess if my opinions don't apply he could choose to ignore them. But if they do apply, maybe it'll help him. I consider that worth it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I don't see how computer science has a relation to this, as you imply.</comment>


Review OurDoings again - <AUTHOR>

I've made tons of changes since the last time it got reviewed here, so please give it another look.
It's thousands of lines of BRL (i.e. Kawa Scheme embedded in HTML) and a few dozen lines of shell script.
http://ourdoings.com/ <comment><USER2> Don't you know that asking for re-reviews is frowned upon at HN? That's the whole reason I created launchly afterall! Launchly does iterative feedback for web startups. Check it out at <http://www.launchly.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know that. I would actually like to see more re-reviews on HN. It's encouraging for me to see other people sticking with a project and making it better in response to feedback. To me that's more exciting than a shiny new thing that will be discarded next week.

That said, I'll take a look at launchly.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Recommend a nice man-bag/briefcase - <AUTHOR>

So I just got my first macbook pro, YAY!, after being a Windows junkie for at least 10 years. So far am loving it. I am graduating from grad school and won't be carrying a school/shoulder bag anymore. I got an 'incase' neoprene sleeve for the 13" MBP, but I need to have a bunch of papers and possibly a notepad or two with me when traveling.
I would love to get some feedback on what a good man-bag/briefcase is, that will hold my macbook pro nicely (including adapter, which the damn sleeve wasn't built to hold...grrrrr) and also my dozens of print-outs, one or two paper/hardbacks I am currently reading, a notepad, pen, iPod, etc.
Thanks in advance :)
[edit] I am looking for functionality as well as style. Nothing too bulky and cumbersome, something sleek and executive-ish looking. Preferably something that Steve Jobs would carry around, if he wanted to hold everything I do without having his bank account. <comment><USER2> The bags I use are very sturdy and functional, but they're not exactly sleek or cheap:

[http://www.saddlebackleather.com/categories/79-SaddleBack- Le...](http://www.saddlebackleather.com/categories/79-SaddleBack-Leather- Briefcases-Leather-Bags)

I have a bunch of them (I bought in 'bulk' to give them as executive gifts one year, and I also bought several colors for myself. Turns out I only needed one for myself.) I could sell you a used one at a discount if you like them but price is an issue for you.

Even though this is probably not the bag for you, I thought I would post about mine here, because the merchant _can really sell_ and is adept at using storytelling. Look around on his website for customer action photos and story:

<http://www.saddlebackleather.com/19-saddleback-story>

<comment><USER2> His straight laptop bags are sleeker and cheaper, but I like the vibe/storage capacity of the briefcases more.

<http://www.saddlebackleather.com/categories/87>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use the Boa 3 laptop bag. It's a sturdy design, and my MacBook Pro 15" fits perfectly, and it even includes some pads for providing snug fits for smaller laptops.

Plenty of places to put things, and it looks and feels very professional. It gives me all the practicality of a backpack, while looking sleek and professional.

Here's a good review :

<http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4360>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all for your feedback. I think I am going to go with the Tucano suggestion. The Work-Out for the 13.3" MBP, is perfect for my needs.

</comment><comment><USER4> Tucano. Simple and functional portfolio type case, very slim.

Also has a leather option.</comment>


World's first gene-edited babies created in China - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/26/worlds-first-gene-edited-babies-created-in-china-claims-scientist <comment><USER2> If this is ultimately verified it will mark a turning point in gene editing. Notwithstanding all the condemnation, no country will want to be "left behind" so to speak and a race to the bottom will ensue. I expect that initially gene editing will be used for viability purposes but will inevitably spread to other "desirable" characteristics such as physical traits and mental ability.

<comment><USER3> Depends on how risky it is. CRISPR is pretty messy in a "don't do it to anything you can't afford to lose" way from what I heard given outright deaths in subjects from peripheral damage. Fine with plants or livestock but a damn good reason not to apply it to humans cavalierly.

It is probably preferable to certain severe genetic issues but that should rightfully give pause.</comment></comment>


USB-If Publishes USB Device Class Specification for MIDI Devices v2.0 - <AUTHOR> https://www.techpowerup.com/269977/usb-if-publishes-usb-device-class-specification-for-midi-devices-v2-0 <comment><AUTHOR> Just a copy of the pdf press release. The actual spec is at [https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20MIDI%20v2_0.pd...](https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20MIDI%20v2_0.pdf)

Most excited about the jitter correction time stamps for midi 1.0, like a few (old?) non-class compliant midi interfaces has, as I don't expect to have any midi 2.0 gear any time soon. But if some one makes a range of midi usb 2.0 interfaces that just supports midi 1.0 DIN with better timing, I'm sure that will make a lot of people happy.</comment>


Why Flutter Uses Dart - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/why-flutter-uses-dart-dd635a054ebf?source <comment><USER2> The article is nice to read, but the AOT/JIT combination is quite old.

Lisp, Mesa/Cedar, Oberon, Eiffel are just a few examples, just to show how back this goes.

Regarding UI design like in Flutter, maybe one can see how NeXTSTEP designer started its life, implemented in Lisp.

[https://paulhammant.com/2013/03/28/interface-builders- altern...](https://paulhammant.com/2013/03/28/interface-builders-alternative- lisp-timeline/)</comment>


Memory Layout of a Program in C - <AUTHOR> http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~huangj/cs360/360/notes/Memory/lecture.html <comment><USER2> So this is a whole lot more complicated these days. There's not one stack but many for the different threads, regions have guard pages typically, and all these regions are setup with mmap (so there's no sbrk syscall anymore) just for starters.

<comment><USER3>
        strace ls
        execve("/usr/bin/ls", ["ls"], 0x7ffd86646d90 /* 61 vars */) = 0
        brk(NULL)                               = 0x5581b6542000

I see brk(), that's glibc.

<comment><USER4> brk() is undefined behavior if mmap is ever called.

<comment><USER5> Can you post a definite source supporting this?

<comment><USER6> There isn't one, because it's wrong.

Source: run strace on almost any useful Linux command (e.g. ls, sort, which, ...), you'll see it makes calls to both brk() and mmap().

<comment><USER7> The OP admitted it was wrong, but just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's not undefined behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > As I have said previously, memory is like a huge array with (say) 0xffffffff > elements. A pointer in C is an index to this array. Thus when a C pointer is > 0xefffe034, it points to the 0xefffe035th element in the memory array > (memory being indexed starting with zero).

I'm not sure how true this is outside of a particular platform/compiler. As far as I'm aware, C doesn't actually define how pointers are represented, only that they are a reference to memory (although null is a special case). Pointers in C are very abstract which allows for much more aggressive optimisations.

And all this is before we get into how memory actually works in practice, such as CPU cache lines.

<comment><USER9> Indeed and it was really fun to work with pointers for programs targeting 16 bit (real mode) MS DOS.

<comment><USER10> If you thought segmented memory was weird, then try something like an 8051 (3-byte "generic" pointers, stored in semi-big-endian order) or other Harvard- architecture microcontroller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Unfortunately, you cannot access all elements of memory

That's rather fortunate, instead. Programming (esp. in C) under an operating system/hardware architecture that does not provide this protection is a real pain. Memory protection is a feature that is meant primarily to help developers (to say nothing about security).

</comment><comment><USER12> A noob question here.

 _As it turns out, the first 8 pages on our hydra machines are void. This means that trying to read to or write from any address from 0 to 0xffff will result in a segmentation violation._

I have similar issue. I was following "A Whirlwind Tutorial on Creating Really Teensy ELF Executables for Linux"[0]. And decided to put the start of .text section at virtual address 0x0:

        ; tiny.asm
        BITS 32

        org     0x0

        ;
        ; (the same as the one in the teensy elf tutorial)
        ;

It results in segmentation fault when ran as normal user. But fine when ran as super user. Changing the code to use address 0x10000 fix the problem.

My question: Is my issue because I create an elf that has .text section inside that void region? Is this void region documented somewhere? What purpose does it serve?

[0]: [https://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.ht...](https://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html)

<comment><USER13> You may be running afoul of mmap_min_addr:

[https://wiki.debian.org/mmap_min_addr](https://wiki.debian.org/mmap_min_addr)

It's a security feature meant to protect the kernel from null pointer attacks.

<comment><USER12> Thanks. It's been bugging me for a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Fun trick you can do, at least on windows, it to append your data to the program's file with the offset as the very last thing you write so that it's easy for it to find. I've run various programs like this through virus scanners and the only type to false flag it were the "neural network ai" scanners. So that shouldn't be a problem.

<comment><USER15> Works in bash, too ([https://makeself.io/](https://makeself.io/)), as well as in PHP ([https://www.php.net/manual/de/function.halt- compiler.php](https://www.php.net/manual/de/function.halt-compiler.php)).</comment></comment>


Solar flares affecting rates of radioactive decay? - <AUTHOR> http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/ <comment><USER2> Comments here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629998></comment>


Should we do more to incentivize open source? - <AUTHOR> http://jackealtman.com/should-we-do-more-to-incentivize-open-source

<comment><USER2> I think the answer is yes, but with a huge caveat: incentives _must_ be build around the social norms that made open source successful in the first place. Incentives built on financial norms would be disastrous and act as strong disincentives instead. Humans are weird, and we act differently when operating under financial norms than we do under social norms. Dan Ariely explains this quite nicely in a lot of his talks, you should google it if you haven't seen it.

This is why I'm really skeptical of things like gittip or other "we'll pay you pennies to spend hours of your life building open source projects" approaches.

I much more excited by the cultural shift that seems to be happening around "my github account is my resume". It's not just a "write open source as resume padding to get a better job" thing, it's an increase in the amount of social capital resulting from contribution to open source. Basically if people find out I contribute to a "good" open source project more people care and the people who care, care more than they used to.

I think this is an excellent incentive scheme. A popular open source project cannot generate enough revenue to pay me what my contribution is worth so it's impossible for them to incentivize me with money. But if my reputation is increased because my contribution is recognized and my peers think more of me, my ideas are more easily heard and my financial career path opportunities are expanded because of that reputation then I am highly motivated to contribute.

I think there's a big place for the patronage/sponsorship model as well (and the incentives to be a patron are quite similar), especially for getting the necessary but boring/less sexy things done. It can also push back, in one way, against the problem of reputation based incentives undervaluing boring but high-value work.

<comment><USER3> Would it be reasonable for a developer to ask, I want to devote 1 year of my time to open source project X, please fund me on Kickstarter to accomplish Y & Z?

<comment><USER2> I like the kickstarter model but it does put things in the world of financial norms. How much work are you going to put in to an open source project when the other guy working on it is getting paid by kickstarter money?

That said it's a great way to let people actually get what they want most from a project by putting something on the line to make it happen. For single person projects or small teams who are all getting funded I think it's nearly perfect. Certainly very exciting.

The only thing worrying is that it's much more likely for those funded projects to stop development when the money stops. Who knows if that will be an actual problem or not.

For larger projects, when everyone can't get paid from the pot, it's a bit tricky. I'm pretty sure that we'll see some successful projects completely implode from the internal arguments and demotivation resulting from allocating crowdfunded money.

Anyway, I could dream up fun scenarios all day but it's just predicting the future so it's probably all wrong. I think kickstarter type models are really promising for all sorts of things so people should go for it.

One thing to always keep in mind though: A human will happily do something for free for all sorts of reasons, if you start paying them they will be even happier for a while, then will normalize to just as happy as before. If you stop paying them they will never go back to being happy doing that thing for free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One area where open source makes a lot of sense is in government infrastructure. It lets governments avoid having everyone's data stuck in propriety formats and then extorted by software companies for access later.

The UK government, for example, has recently mandated a preference for open source: ([http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240179643/Government- man...](http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240179643/Government-mandates- preference-for-open-source))

Unfortunately, governments are still getting caught in proprietary solutions. Here in New-Brunswick, Canada for example, the government has just chosen an officially sponsored electronic medical record system for the province.

Unfortunately, they picked a proprietary SAAS system which means that if doctors signup, everyone's medical records will be uploaded to some private company's servers.

The company charges $24 000 per doctor upfront plus $400 a month subscription for continued access with a price guarantee for only three years. After all our medical records have been converted to their proprietary format at a huge cost (not included in the $24000), this company will be in a position to charge whatever they want.

The government gives incentives to doctors to signup to the proprietary system ($16000) and have given monopolistic exclusivity for at least three years to this system when it comes to connecting to hospital lab results.

There is actually a good open source alternative developed in other Canadian provinces. The OSCAR open source EMR is quickly becoming the most popular system in those provinces. Support plans often costs less than $100/month (it would be free if you were a geeky doctor willing to install and support it yourself). Somehow, the vast marketing and sales budgets of proprietary companies compared to the more minimal OSS sales push was able to sway our government into giving a quasi monopoly to a costly proprietary system.

<comment><USER5> Sadly that preference has been made rather less strong (presumably after some behind the scenes lobbying...). [http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Open- source-preferenc...](http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Open-source- preference-blunted-in-UK-Government-guide-1889015.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Although building a company on the heels of the open source community flies in the face of the its spirit_

No, this is false. Free as in speech vs. Free as in beer. Make all the money you can, just keep the software free (as in speech).

<comment><USER7> This is a meaningful distinction, but as far as I can tell, not a practical one. I have never seen any way to make something free-as-in-speech without as a side effect making it free-as-in-beer. Speech itself is free-as-in-beer. Even if you charged admission for people to hear the initial speaking, the things you spoke are no longer yours to profit from once they've been passed on to others (unless you take measures to abridge their free speech). Can you name a piece of free-as-in-speech software that cannot be had without paying money? There definitely seems to be a tension there.

As far as I can tell, very, very few businesses actually make any money off writing and selling free software. They either open-source some tertiary part of a larger non-free piece of software, or they just give the software away for free and try to make money on support and consulting contracts.

<comment><USER8> I've been wondering for a while whether the app store model will foster more paid open source software. Theoretically, the app store owner can protect the original creator from unwanted clones, and most users won't bother to find and compile the source code to avoid buying the $2 app.

I've not seen much evidence of this so far, but StormCloud, a weather applet available on Ubuntu and Chrome, is one example (more or less - I'm not sure that the "Don't be a dick public license" meets strict definitions of freedom).

<comment><USER9> Here's another example, then: A while ago I found [https://github.com/gjtorikian/Earthbound-Battle- Backgrounds](https://github.com/gjtorikian/Earthbound-Battle-Backgrounds) which is an animated wallpaper app for Android. Between the dollar it costs on the store and the time it'd take to build it, I quickly chose to spend the money.

But, if the choice had instead been between a $1 closed source version on the store or an open source manual compile, I think I would have taken the build/install option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Heroku should not be put alongside Firefox, Linux, Django, etc. It is not an open source platform, only their client-site tools are open source.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Summary: open source is a public good / has positive externalities, and thus is likely underfunded.

<comment><USER12> Excellent summary. The language of economics is often very good for succinctly communicating things like this.

As far as what should be done, that's a lot trickier. My inclination is that it should mostly be limited to universities and government having something of a bias for open source with very liberal licenses. That's a big vague, but I'm a bit tired, so it'll have to do. I do not think the government should get involved in funding software it doesn't actually need in a big way.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure either. The academia model seems very ill-suited for FLOSS because, while it does incentivize releasing source so other people can use it, it _doesn 't_ incent any sort of ongoing maintenance or improvement except in the rare case where doing so can generate more papers and publications (which, unless the initial functionality was amazing, means that the released source will quickly become useless and bitrotten - saw it happen multiple times in Haskell-land).

One mode which does seem to work very well is Google's Summer of Code. For pretty modest investments, it seems to yield a lot of useful functionality, and because it piggybacks on existing projects & communities, the improvements seem to generally stick. I've watched the Haskell-related Summer of Codes for years now ([http://www.gwern.net/Haskell%20Summer%20of%20Code](http://www.gwern.net/Haskell%20Summer%20of%20Code)) and there's been some great stuff accomplished via them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There was an excellent talk on this same topic this week at the Open Source Bridge event in Portland. The topic was "No, I Won't Contribute to Your Open Source Project". Slides are available. [http://opensourcebridge.org/sessions/957](http://opensourcebridge.org/sessions/957)

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra What do we want from open source? For a long time, foss movement rallied around building desktop experience, but now given the prevalence of macs and non-desktop computing this seems to be no longer the case.

What kind of open source should we incentivize?

For example, do we really need to incentivize ten thousands of ruby on rails testing frameworks?

I would argue that grassroot open source needs help in discovery and reaching their audience more than they need "incentivizing", and discovery means filtering.

<comment><USER14> I think we should be incentivizing open source software and infrastructure that promotes peer-based architectures and descentralization of the control over data, for a start. How is open source going to displace Google as the search leader? That would be a good start, and things like PRISM would be less the powerful for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't think incentives should be created and awarded to developers of open source work. That will only attract more of the type of coder you don't want developing open source code, causing a reduction in quality.

People work on open source projects because they are driven and motivated by the challenge of creating great software that lasts, the mastery they develop while doing it, and the fulfillment and satisfaction of making a contribution to the community of fellow hackers.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm actually working on a letter to encourage my city to make the transition from Windows to F/OSS.

</comment><comment><USER17> So how do you mean "incentivize"? Financial renumeration can often be had, by getting hired by a company that benefits from your open source project (this probably covers thousands of open source developers today).

But money isn't why people start open source projects, for the most part. What's their motivation? Pride? Political freedom? Helping the world? Depends on the person. Incentives need to be aligned with the individual being incentivized. But honestly, money isn't a good open source motivator. If someone wants to get rich, there are usually better ways via closed source.

<comment><USER17> Thinking about it, we should maybe be incentivizing existing businesses to support on-the-clock open source work by their own staff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting question is why academia/research is treated differently from the OSS community. Think about all the money being funneled into research from government and non-government agencies and this is never considered penny pinching / charity. Why isn't there a similar channel for companies / government agencies to sponsor OSS projects?

</comment><comment><USER19> That government is best which governs least. -- Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Years ago, I read a biography of a prostitute and political activist. She wanted prostitution decriminalized, _not_ legalized. She felt legalizing it would create problems. She cited Nevada as an example, where there is a fair amount of regulatory burden on the women but the pimps and johns still essentially do as they please. She just wanted the right to charge for services without risk of arrest.

I will suggest that since there is already open source, incentives are probably not a good idea. But removing barriers of some sort might do a lot.

I have thought a lot about such things over the years, not open source per se but, for example, how to make money from making information freely available. It is a challenge but can be done and has been for years (broadcast radio, broadcast tv, etc). So I would suggest you work on removing barriers rather than providing "incentives." Or at least balance the incentives piece with also removing barriers.

My 2¢.

Edit: Someone want to kindly explain the downvote? Is there some problem with suggesting a removal of barriers instead of providing incentives? Or this just a helping of lurv from one of my many anti-fans? Thx.

<comment><USER20> I think you got a downvote because I can't imagine what your second paragraph has to do with anything.

Also, broadcast radio, broadcast TV are not freely available, so they're poor examples for you to use. (They have licensing terms, prohibit rebroadcast, embed commercials that are not desirable with no legitimate way to remove them, you have to pay to get a DVD or watch on iTunes or Amazon, etc.)

<comment><USER19> Well, it looks relevant to me. Incentivizing something is similar to legalizing it whereas removing barriers is similar to decrimilizing it. And broadcast radio and TV work for my purposes as an example. They do not directly charge consumers for the information they share yet they manage to make a buck. I will note I am 48, so maybe I am remembering a broadcast era a lot of members here would not remember.

Note to self: Folks on HN routinely think sex and prostitution references are irrelevant, not on point, not a meaningful example, ad nauseum. Maybe someday I will remember it gets perceived that way, even though I think we are all adults and it should be nbd.

But thanks for the feedback. Have an upvote.

<comment><USER20> It's the flaws of TV and radio that make them no longer work as an example. The technology advanced to the ridiculous stage - we really are living in _the future!_ , but the licensing did not. The laws enforce restrictions, and the content owners exploit them, to a degree that's absurd to most of us.

<comment><USER19> Thank you for the feedback. I think I see a bit of our disconnect.

My main interest is in the general model of making info/entertainment available to an audience for "free" while still finding a way to monetize it. Broadcast TV and radio have done that for a long time and there are some websites that exist which do much the same. There are no membership fees. You can read/participate for free. Yet the site owner somehow makes money. Some take donations. Some use advertising to pay the bills. Some sell merchandise. (And one invests in startups, which is way more complicated than my modest goals, so not a model I am looking to emulate but it does exist.)

Perhaps I am merely a fool, tilting at windmills. But that is the general model I am shooting for. The details on how that works varies, but that model has been around for decades, both before the Internet and, in recent years, on the Internet. It can be done. It is being done. I have yet to make it work, but it is a viable model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Companies should sponser open source efforts similar to some pro athletes. Pro skateboarders make a living off sponsorships. They get free gear and travel expenses from their sponsors and in turn get their sponsors name out. More Organizations should do this for key open source projects. I guess you kind of see this with Joynet and Node.js

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm looking into starting a nonprofit organization to help sustain developers to contribute to open source.

</comment><comment><USER23> BProwd.com organizes open source developers to create profitable projects where each contributor gets an equity split on the project.

</comment><comment><USER24> Attach crowd-funded bounties to feature requests.

<comment><USER25> To a large extent, this is what we currently have...

A company needs an OSS feature so they hire one of the devs to work on the software, full-time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Isn't this what gittip is for? It seems to maintain the right social incentives without turning open source into a rat race.</comment>


Ask HN: Would you build an Android app to min API 7 or 8? - <AUTHOR>

I'm not familiar with all the capabilities made available by SDK version 8 (which corresponds to Android 2.2).  Is it worth excluding 25% of your potential users to use the (almost) latest features available? <comment><USER2> If possible include 7 , still 30- 40 % user are on 2.1 update, or you can develop on 8 but specify min-version as 1.6 to maintain backward compatibility</comment>


Fluidium - open-source platform for developing Rich Internet Applications in OSX - <AUTHOR> http://fluidium.org/

<comment><USER2> Platform specific / Site Specific Browsers are going to be immensely useful. I'm a little sad to see this fall of the main page with so few votes/comments... Having developed two medium to large desktop applications using XULRunner, I can say that there is massive room for improvement here.

Using Todd's Fluid.app SSB generator, I was able to create a menu item that displayed an appropriate window with the letsfreckle.com timer as a small popup bound to a hotkey. The more you think about that, the more powerful it should sound. Can I do that in XULRunner? Sure (maybe... it has Windows SysTray at least). Fluid.app took a half hour, XULRunner would have taken all day. Google Chrome is supposed to have something similar, but not for Mac, which supports the platform specific strategy. I don't need one framework that works everywhere, as long as each platform specific framework has the same general API exposed.

So, rock on Todd, I'll be using Fluidium soon.

</comment><comment><USER3> The thought of writing desktop apps using web technologies is weird but appealing. I've struggled with XULRunner, which I found to be powerful but difficult to use and lacking on documentation.

I've tried Adobe Air which is nice, but has too much sandboxing and restrictions. (no ability to shell out to another program, for example)

What I really would like is a simple webkit-based client that exposes its api to a higher-level language like Python.

I actually started building one based on the Chromium Embedded Framework but temporarily put it on the shelf.

</comment><comment><USER4> The title is misleading. Shouldn't it be "open-source platform for developing Rich Desktop Applications in OSX"? The fact that it's Max OSX only seems to contradict the internet aspect.

This seems to be a part of the alarming trend of calling any development framework or platform, an RIA platform.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yeah, it's something I wanted to see as an open-source app. Adobe Air looks good in theory but it's closed source.

Too bad this one is OSX-centered, hopefully we'll see a Chrome-based Rich Internet Application.

<comment><USER6> The Cappuccino Framework:

<http://cappuccino.org/>

Might be more to your tastes.

<comment><USER2> Huh? Cappuccino is a web framework and Fluidium is a delivery mechanism: they are completely orthogonal.

Also, <http://sproutcore.com> is a cappuccino competitor worth mentioning.</comment></comment></comment>


It's time to abolish web monarchies - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/d2c76abfc03d

<comment><USER2> The person who hosts this product is still king, he just now gets to wield power via proxy. This seems to be a closed source application as well with single corporate ownership?

The idea that mob-rule, a popularity contest, is significantly better than motivated, educated moderators is nonsense. Unless you gate the communities with "proof of worth" any number of random people can flood into any community and hijack it, no matter how specialized it intends to be. IF you allow 'proof of worth' \-- then you just shifted the moderation to whomever decides if that person is worthy to be in this group.

You could try to make a plurality of existing members accept all new members, but then the system would degenerate into just constant voting on new membership issues.

Web Monarchies might be a bad idea, but this one is worse.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author here. I've been carefully considering flooding and hijacking of democratic forums since the idea popped into my mind in April 2012. We have solutions for it.

<comment><USER2> Well -- as long as you have unexplained, undocumented "solutions" in your closed source corporate controlled democratic product, why was I worried, silly me!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is that the author posing for the picture?

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Nope :) and I admit he looks similar to me. I had alternatives, but this one was the best.</comment></comment>


AWS status messages remixed with Markov chains - <AUTHOR> http://amazingsupport.heroku.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Based on [http://dbasch.posterous.com/lamabot-fortune-cookies-and- mark...](http://dbasch.posterous.com/lamabot-fortune-cookies-and-markov- chains) and text from <http://status.aws.amazon.com/>

</comment><comment><USER2> This is too funny! Now I just know I'm going to spend my weekend remixing source code repository commits.

</comment><comment><USER3> "We can launch a short note that appear to recover." Yup. That's what it looked like.

</comment><comment><USER4> We will not target a significant progress in US-EAST-1. (I knew it!)</comment>


Cuban youths self-injected HIV as a political protest in the 1980s - <AUTHOR> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950117&slug=2099882 <comment><AUTHOR> Also, via Radiolab: [http://remezcla.com/features/culture/los-frikis-cuba-hiv- rad...](http://remezcla.com/features/culture/los-frikis-cuba-hiv-radiolab- radio-ambulante/)</comment>


Our product is self-funded -- should we apply to Winter YC? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitsybox.com

<comment><USER2> You need to remove the "annoying" client reference in your video and change it to something like "highly involved" client or "detail oriented" client.

Our clients are not annoying, but some of them are far more immersed in the details than others.

I can't very well tell a client I'm using Bitsybox for their site if your site labels them as "annoying clients".

<comment><USER3> Strongly seconded. You wouldn't treat your clients with contempt, and you shouldn't treat their clients with contempt.

People use services to solve problems. Some problems demand that level of focus to get it right fast. If you don't take their wants/needs seriously, why would they take you seriously? They are paying you, not the other way around, (and even in that case, it's a bad idea to treat people like that).

I see what you're trying to do, but it's coming across as "if you wear a tie and need it right and right now, you're an uptight jerk". Perhaps they are, perhaps they're not, but you're doing yourself no favors by pointing it out.

Also note that people with those requirements are the most likely to pay a lot for satisfaction; they might be the most profitable segment of your client's customer base.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the feedback we were looking for -- and you're right, the most interest in the concept has, so far, come from site owners looking to take back control of their content. BitsyBox was built with them in mind, but from a developers perspective (that's our background).

We showed the video to just a handful of freelance developers, so we really didn't focus too much on the perspective of the clients.

We're planning to make some changes to the video this weekend. Thanks guys.

<comment><USER3> That's one of the hardest parts of business; seeing things from other people's perspective. The concept of that banality of evil can be applied wider as a thought tool: the banality of I don't get why they did that, but they thought they had a good reason at the time.

Come to think of it, that might be one reason why YC seems to be having good luck teaching programmers about business; we're more used to adjusting our views to reality than most professions. So just think of it as a syntax error that you've found and fixed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Has anyone applied to YC, got accepted, and quit their day job?

That is the scenario we're facing with BitsyBox. We love every minute that we're working on it but I wanted to get some feedback from the HN community about whether we should start thinking about it as our big jump out of the corporate developer's life.

Basically right now, we go to our corporate jobs during the day, come back at night and work for four hours on it -- this can't be uncommon. We're ready to make the leap to work on this everyday / all day -- but we'd really like to have some seed funding or be ramen-profitable first.

<comment><USER4> Most founders quit a job to do the startup. Only about 20-25% were students before.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. I hadn't picked up on that ratio from your essays, although I certainly didn't think all YC applicants were students/fresh out of school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sure; that scenario is quite common.

<comment><USER5> do those people get to keep more equity?

<comment><USER4> The amount of equity we ask for doesn't vary that much, actually, because the ratio of applications to people we fund is so high now that everyone who makes it is pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> YC is one of the few VC's out there where the money really is secondary, it certainly won't hurt.

Applying for funding is also a great way to express to yourself and your team what it is that you do, writing all that stuff down is not just communicating to the outside, it changes you. Even if you get turned down you will _still_ come out ahead.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a great perspective on it. The application process itself almost always helps the applicant. Will keep that in mind.

<comment><USER7> The same thing goes for a business plan. The act of writing the business plan is more important than the plan itself. Combine those two and hopefully you have new perspective on your product and positioning.

My favorite questions include: What do you get that your competitors just don't get? (straight from the YC app) What are you intentional shortcomings? Defensibility: What is your competitive advantage and how do you respond to big names coming into your space?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bitsybox seems nice but judging by the video, CushyCMS appears to be easier to use (I am freelance designer and that's what I currently have my clients set up with).

<comment><USER9> I definitely think that there's space for both Bitsybox and CushyCMS, but it would be interesting to hear you talk about the differences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why is this better than CushyCMS - which allows you to tag a div - give FTP info, then edit the content from the backend of CushyCMS - which can be whitelabeled ... you could then sell this whitelabeled cms to your clients - as a monthly fee...

</comment><comment><USER11> I apologize for sidetracking, but I am curious what did u guys use to create your video presentation? And of course, of course best of luck with BitsyBox !

<comment><AUTHOR> I used Adobe Illustrator/Photoshop for the still photos and graphics, then brought them into Apple Final Cut Pro for the editing.

The narration was recorded at my desk (with pillows around me to stop echos) using an Audio Technica AT2020 USB condenser mic.

<comment><USER11> Thank you for your input, I appreciate it !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If you think the money you get from YC is the most important part, you've missed the point of YC.

<comment><USER3> I didn't mean this to sound snarky. The advice and help, and the fact that they are invested, (in _all_ meanings of the term), in you are far more valuable than the ~15k you get.</comment></comment>


Gmail results in Google Search available to beta participants - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/11/3235959/gmail-results-google-search-field-trial-open <comment><AUTHOR> I think I will be turning this off if/when it becomes available for everyone. I don't want to search for something with my boss standing behind me, and accidentally reveal something private.</comment>


A Cyprus university is first in the world to accept bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/cyprus-university-bitcoin-tuition-2013-11

<comment><USER2> I'm quite surprised this happened in my country where people are usually afraid to embrace new technology.</comment>


Sumerian.io: A Modern JavaScript SPA Development Suite - <AUTHOR> http://sumerian.io/

<comment><AUTHOR> I recently deployed an open source project of mine called sumerian.io. sumerian.io empowers the JavaScript developer into creating structured MV* applications on both the server and client side with a no fuss connector between the two. It is stable, but still considered beta, so I appreciate any feedback. Thanks!</comment>


Proof of Riemann-Hypothesis - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01209 <comment><USER2> Probably a new entry for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Attempted_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis#Attempted_proofs) but one can always hope an attempted proof will withstand scrutiny.</comment>


Valeant's Drug Price Strategy Enriches It, but Infuriates Patients and Lawmakers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/business/valeants-drug-price-strategy-enriches-it-but-infuriates-patients-and-lawmakers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> FTA: "It says patients are largely shielded from price increases by insurance and financial assistance programs the company offers, so that virtually no one is denied a drug they need. But Mr. Pearson, a former McKinsey & Company consultant, has said he has a duty to shareholders to wring the maximum profit out of each drug."

This is the classic coupon strategy to maximize revenue - if you set the price very high but offer discounts to those who can't afford it, you can get more revenue than if you pick a single price that would be less than what some buyers were willing to pay and more than others were willing to pay.

In the first example of the article, an older woman (Susan Mannes) had to take on a second job to afford a drug that Valeant increased the price on in order to keep her husband from dying. I don't know what the upper limit is on how much Susan and Bruce Mannes will pay for this drug, but I suspect it is limited only by their current assets. In other words, Valeant could feasibly take everything they own.

I don't see a way out of this without regulation, and I don't see that happening when the pharmaceutical industry has been so effective at influencing federal laws.

<comment><USER3> > I don't see a way out of this without regulation, and I don't see that > happening when the pharmaceutical industry has been so effective at > influencing federal laws.

For many of these generic drugs, this is a case where markets have literally already solved the problem. They're available from European and Indian manufacturers at extremely low cost.

All we need to do is lower the trade barriers.

Remember, these are drugs that are already FDA approved. But the manufacturers can't sell in the US because the ANDA approval process is too onerous.

<comment><USER2> > For many of these generic drugs, this is a case where markets have literally > already solved the problem. They're available from European and Indian > manufacturers at extremely low cost.

This fixes part of the problem, perhaps. But the article explains that it can take other manufacturers years to ramp up production if they aren't already making the drug. This also doesn't fix the problem for non-generics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Relevant is the soon-to-be-debated-in-public trade agreements regarding "intellectual property" (a regressive and fiercely harmful concept spawned by greed, but that's a rant for another day) as it relates to the pharmas. The pharma companies lobbied very, very heavily for certain clauses in that trade agreement. The TTP is going to send their profits through the roof, likely by forcing formerly exempt countries on board with their pricing scheme.

The money that the pharmas have allows them to corrupt the political process, enabling them to abuse patients/insurers with insane prices... this isn't new. The incentives are completely fucked at every level of organization: drug development, clinical trials, patient care.

As far as the claim that patients are largely shielded from price increases, I think that claim was made in bad faith, and is laughably disconnected from reality. Medical-debt induced bankruptcy is very alive and well in the US, and is not in other places.

<comment><USER5> Very true. The medical-debt induced bankruptcy is the most visible sign but don't ignore the absolutely huge sums diverted from paying employees to paying for health care

The USA pays more than twice what the rest of the rich world does for health care for no better outcomes. This isn't only due to drug pricing but drug pricing obviously cost USA consumers tens of billions a year in increased health care costs just because it means they pay much more in insurance costs (or even less noticeable have part of their paycheck diverted to pay inflated drug prices impact on health care costs) doesn't mean they avoid the high costs of this corruption based pricing.

It is very unlikely this system is going to be changed. It has been going on for decades at huge costs to the USA. Maybe (I just maybe) it will be slowed some if the public forces politicians to reduce the amount of the paybacks given by the Democrats and Republicans to drug companies at the expense of everyone else. Meaningful change is very unlikely. The parties are far too corrupt at this point to make any significant change in policy likely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't help but think these drug companies are playing a very dangerous game. The last thing they want is regulation, but of they keep this up that's what they will get...

<comment><USER7> What I'm wondering about, however, as a European who never actually sees his own medical bills, how this will affect me or the country I live in. Will the powers that are in charge of buying medicine just suck it up and pay the bill? Will they use the power of the collective to get a better deal? How does this work?

<comment><USER8> I think countries could first try to legalize cheap generics of that drug, as it already happens in India. But then an economic war would ensue. Each country would counter sanctions with other sanctions. Then negotiations would come, where a middle point would be sought between the trade blocks, similar to WTO, or patent portfolios and non-aggression pacts.

<comment><USER5> Yes and the factors are the costs of accepting the government granted monopoly pricing (free markets don't have government saying you can't sell this thing because some other people have gotten the government to say only they can sell it) and the costs of saying we don't accept the current patent system.

The costs of fighting the existing copyright/patent cartel led by the USA is very high. Countries want to avoid this and if the cost is diverting a few percent of their GDP to the USA's drug companies they likely will do so. If however that diversion because too great they will have huge incentive to decide the cost is too high and we have to fight the USA's governments policies put in place at the behest of their drug companies.

The costs will be enormous to the countries that fight, especially at first. The USA is enormously rich and can accept losses internally and use economic power to punish those defying it's dictates.

If several rich countries decide to align with India (which seems to be by far the leading advocate for fighting the copyright/patent cartel) costs to the USA will also get step. At some point step enough that others force the government to stop using the rest of the USA's economic clout to benefit the drug companies.

But I think it is very unlikely the other countries could sustain the losses long enough for the USA to cave. It is a big if, but if China grows well economically for the next 20 years it is much more likely India and China together could work together on this to bring together a large coalition.

I don't think China and India would work together as strong allies but they could come together in this area if the USA continues to demand large percentage of countries GDP be diverted to the USA drug companies.

All these types of things get complicated. It isn't as if the Drug companies don't understand this same path. They will obviously seek to use corruption in other countries as successfully as they have in the USA to get those governments to act in their interest for cash payments that are peanuts compared to the costs those governments will place on their citizens to benefit the drug companies.

The payments to corrupt political parties doesn't only work in the USA, it works most everywhere. So don't count out the insane movement of wealth into drug companies coffers changing anytime soon.

If you want to be practical buying stock in these companies will likely reward you well. That is what I have done. I can understand if you think it is repugnant to profit from corruption in the political system on such a massive scale (very little corruption ever impacts multiple percentage points of GDP but, as this does). That is likely a higher ethical decision, weighing my options I accept that "hit" to my karma. If I were given the authority to decide the policy I would make a decision that would harm my stocks but I am not given that option. And based on my estimates of likely future outcomes betting on the USA political parties staying very corrupt in relation to providing benefits to drug companies seems a very likely bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personally I see this as a result of the incentives for the drug makers to be completely disconnected from the people that depend on their product.

Imagine other markets were similar: one company purchases the rights to manufacturing all laptops and now you must pay $10K for the same thing you used to buy for normal prices last week.

Its interesting to consider how many people's lives would be greatly improved (or even saved) if vendor exclusivity rights were reduced in this market.

<comment><USER9> "For now, with Congress in the hands of Republicans and election season in full swing, quick government action on drug prices is considered unlikely." (Quote from the article) Not that I associate with any political party, but it confounds me why a political party would like to have a reputation for upholding such extreme corrupt corporate opportunism.

<comment><USER10> Both major parties have their favorite cronies. Although you could shorten that statement to "election season" and expect the same outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Huh, I just realized that the Silk Road or a similar online black market could literally save lives in this case.

People could sell generics and alternatives that are not yet approved by the FDA or whatever local authority at a much lower price, everyone wins (except the government and Big Pharma).

Though there would be a lot of fraud I presume, sellers with fake pills and the like...

<comment><USER12> If fraud wasn't a problem for hard drugs, I doubt it will be significant for these.

<comment><USER11> There were cases of fraud, of course, but the review system apparently worked ok (never used it myself).

However, dealing drugs that literally save one's life is kind of a big deal - one month's supply of a fake or impure medication could be deadly, unlike with shitty MDMA and meth...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just give Medicare and Medicaid the ability to negotiate and publish what they pay for drugs. Right now they are forced to accept a (self reported) average market price for every drug they buy.

They buy over half the prescription drugs in this country. They can be a bully and negotiate great prices for themselves. And once the prices are public, see if any insurance companies are willing to accept a 5000% premium over the Medicaid price.

<comment><USER14> Medicaid and Medicare are very different beasts. Medicaid takes 23.1% off the top of most drugs and typically pays the _least_ out of any insurer (including the private ones). There is even a "best price" provision that says Medicaid either gets a hefty discount or best price, whichever is lower. I wouldn't worry about Medicaid.

Medicare (for physician administered drugs) pays the average of all the private payers, which isn't a bad way to do it. For prescription drugs, it pays list price, except for the Part-D private plans which already negotiate.

To be honest, allowing Medicare to negotiate is a little bit like any company "negotiating" with the gov't. It's a take it or leave it proposition and is a more like "price by fiat" than a negotiation.

Having the federal gov't negotiate drug prices is not necessarily a panacea. The largest US insurance companies cover 30-40M lives, that larger than the population of Canada. Yet, they pay more for drugs than Canada does. You know why? Because the Canadian gov't makes them (back to the "price by fiat").

<comment><USER13> You're right about Medicaid paying the least and having very favorable pricing in general. Also repayment rates vary wildly by state, etc. But the baseline rates are still based off the reported average price. Drug manufacturers know that the government will always pay some fraction of sticker price, regardless of the volume the average price is based on. CMS can't negotiate in the face of these dramatic price hikes.

And yeah, it's price by fiat, through the market. Welcome to government contracts - plenty of people have become very rich in this space, and I have no sympathy to those that complain about their slim profit margins on incredibly high volume transactions. It's a big job. Get rich doing it, or get out of the way for someone who will, because it's got to get done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This strategy only works because its so expensive and time consuming to bring a competitor drug to market. If it was a lot easier to get a competitor drug approved and to market then this strategy wouldn't work. Alex Tabarrok has some enlightening opinions on the FDA:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/?s=FDA](http://marginalrevolution.com/?s=FDA)

<comment><USER16> Most of these went off patent years ago though. Why is it so hard to bring a generic drug to market? The drugs already have studies proving their efficacy, so the only issue should be a clean manufacturing process.

<comment><USER17> In some cases, the generics have to prove that they have the same effectiveness/bioavailabilty as the brand name. The brand names have been restricting the distribution of the drugs to prevent this from happening easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The cost of living in India being much lower than the US, what prevents people from engaging in medical tourism for prescription drugs combined with a nice trip abroad?

I think ultimately this is what will keep caps on the price that can be charged -- if your treatment plan costs you $1,800/month, and a return airfare from the U.S. East Cost to Delhi is $600 return on a budget, I'm surprised people are not booking trips _right now_.

</comment><comment><USER19> Looking into it, according to [http://www.drugpatentwatch.com/ultimate/tradename/CUPRIMINE](http://www.drugpatentwatch.com/ultimate/tradename/CUPRIMINE), Cuprimine is not covered by patents, so all the talk about intellectual property and evil patents is moot point.

We have 2 main competing interests. 1\. Creation of new treatments 2\. Affordability of treatments

At the same time, we should have a minimum burden on the free market in terms of regulation.

I believe we can do this with the following.

1\. For all non-patent drugs, Medicare signs a 5 year contract to supply the drug at a given cost. This will allow off-patent drugs to be available for low expense.

2\. For drugs covered by patent, Medicare should negotiate a price based on differential Quality adjusted life year, with the price per quality adjusted life year set by law. For example, if we set the price for quality adjusted life year to $100,000, then Medicare should pay up to $100,000 for a treatment that gives a person 1 quality adjusted life year.

Drug companies are allowed to sell to others and negotiate a private sales without other regulation on what price they charge.

I want the pharmaceutical industry to be one with outlandish rewards because I want very smart people to be thinking outside the box and taking risks with they try in pursuit of cures for disease. Even the rewards to life-saving medication should have outlandish rewards. If we continue to see outrage at pharma about the price of life-saving treatments (see Solvida), we will see companies shift resources away from such treatments to more elective drugs such as sexual enhancements, requiring less sleep, etc where they can still have great rewards without the moralizing by critics.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think one of the big dreams of the "biotech revolution" that has yet to materialize is to reduce barriers to entry in drug manufacturing so that drug companies have less market power, at least for drugs/jurisdicitons that are not encumbered by IP. Fingers crossed...

Isn't it weird that we can custom order synthetic cathinones from China for $100, but apparently no one has tried this with theruputic drugs?</comment>


JPRG-inspired game Pixel Noir will miss it's chance to get founded - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/397981048/pixel-noir-pc-mac-ios-android-ps4-vita

<comment><USER2> great!</comment>