Ask HN: Designer co-founder? - <AUTHOR>

I have no problem contracting jobs to designers. However, it will be nice to iterate through a few projects with a crafty designer in a partner-partner setting as suppose to a client-vender setting.
Ideally this should be someone who not only understands the problems of user interface on a psychological level, but also is proficient in HTML/CSS/Illustrator etc.
Unfortunately, I just never had any friend like that.
I have been thinking about hanging out at art schools or meetups. Can someone who has some experience with this give me some tips? <comment><USER2> Yeah, I feel you. I'm looking at <http://99designs.com/> and <http://www.deviantart.com/> right now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm currently working on a few projects and finishing my last semester of college, but I might be able to help if I like your idea. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. Which college are you studying at?

I have a bunch of ideas. I'm sure every one does. I have become less of an idea person overtime because I know they are a dime a dozen. To me it's more important to have the right people to evolve and execute an idea.

I'm imagining a process where we meet once a week, brainstorm an idea, build a mock-up/prototype, test it and iterate. My experience tells me that many ideas will get thrown out of the window.

How do you feel about that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> email@example.com. Let me know what you're needing in terms of design and I'll see if I'm interested or can recommend someone for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a bunch of ideas. I'm sure every one does. I have become less of an idea person overtime because I know they are a dime a dozen. To me it's more important to have the right people to evolve and execute an idea.

I'm imagining a process where we meet once a week, brainstorm an idea, build a mock-up/prototype, test it and iterate. My experience tells me that many ideas will get thrown out of the window.

Do you know anyone who would be interested in doing that? Or should I change the process a bit.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: It's impossible to stop someone from downloading a stream, correct? - <AUTHOR> I just want to make sure I'm not missing something. By "[download] a stream" I obviously mean "save video that you're streaming to permanent storage". I'm doing an interview project that involves working with a "streaming as a service" (terminology?) provider, so I thought I'd go to PBS's website and download some video to use in the project. I found that all of the video there is only available to "stream", and in fact uses a video player and "streaming as a service" provider that's in the same space as the company I'm interviewing for. Five seconds on google revealed a "PBS video downloader", which I assume just locates the video segments in the browser's temp folder, stitches them back together, and saves them to a location that won't be cleared on reboot.
My question is basically, "That basic procedure can always be performed and there's nothing that can be done to prevent it, right?" Isn't the distinction between "streaming" and "downloading" ultimately just about how the video data is delivered? The server is incapable of ensuring that the client doesn't save it to permanent storage, and a "cooperative" client can always be modified by the person who controls it to save the data, assuming it's physically connected to a storage medium.
Am I missing something fundamental that allows there to be a hard distinction between streaming and downloading?
NB: I don't have any moral qualms with providing streaming video, I just think that the business folks wish that there were a technical distinction that, AFAICT, does not exist. <comment><USER2> You are not missing anything.

Streaming is merely a subset of "downloading" where the data is decoded and displayed on screen as it "downloads" generally without also being saved into permanent storage.

From the servers viewpoint, it is merely pushing bits to a client.

The client is merely receiving bits from a server (and receiving bits from a server is downloading).

And, yes, given a technically competent user owning the client, the client can be modified to save the downloaded stream data to storage.

Much of the streaming work is "security by obscurity" \-- the systems only provide security because the end user either: 1) lacks the technical knowledge to save the data or 2) lacks the desire to do so (presuming they do possess the technical knowledge).

<comment><USER3> The only way to (somewhat) prevent this is if you control the client, like games consoles and phones. Even then, with enough effort it can be broken, see the PlayStation hacks and iOS jailbreaks.

At the end of the day, if you're pushing data to a client they can save it, and if you provide the client but the user still has physical access to it they can still crack the restrictions enforced by the client and get the raw data stream.

DRM merely makes this more difficult (and sometimes causes problems for legitimate users) but can never make it impossible (until quantum cryptography becomes mainstream maybe?).

<comment><USER2> > never make it impossible (until quantum cryptography becomes mainstream > maybe?)

Even in the 'quantum cryptography' world it still has a hole. In order for the client to "use" (i.e., view, play, etc.) the encrypted stream, the client needs:

1) the encrypted stream data

2) the key necessary to decrypt the data (because without the key, the client can't decrypt the data in order to play/view it).

Item #2 is where the breaks will always occur, even with quantum cryptography. An attacker does not have to break the cryptography, they just have to find where the key exists that allows decryption and once they have that key, they can decrypt as they like (at least for that stream, assuming one-off encryption for that one stream).

If you give people a locked box, and you also give them the key necessary to unlock the box, some number of them will use the key to unlock the box, even if you tell them not to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not all streaming services are DRM-free, though.

This article [0] is 13 years-old, I wasn't able to find a better source with a quick search, but e.g. Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+ AFAIK have DRM, and there's a whole scene of crackers around this, if you check Torrent-sites, you can probably find the aliases of the ones that are currently active.

Looks like you're lucky PBS has pretty lax security.

[0]: [https://betanews.com/2007/08/09/netflix-drm-cracked-with- fai...](https://betanews.com/2007/08/09/netflix-drm-cracked-with-fairuse4wm/)

</comment><comment><USER5> It is improbable to the point of impossibility, and somewhat worse than you've outlined.

To stop just me a device/service that prevented dling a stream would need:

-strong end-to-end encryption, otherwise you'd just grab the packets to recreate the stream, then save it.

-to be self contained, otherwise you'd just grab the stream from the audio/video output.

-to be tamper-proof, otherwise you'd just bypass the software by messing with the hardware.

</comment><comment><USER6> True, it's an ideological difference not a technical one.</comment>


Ask HN:  Do this as a book? - <AUTHOR>

So I wrote a post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1823521 about how I got divorced without lawyering up.  At least a couple of people seem to think I should really turn this into a book.  Thought I would ask for feedback here.
1)  Any links, resources, advice on self-publishing a book/ebook: Pricing, how long should the book be, etc?
2) I really don't know anything about law.  (When I took statistics and environmental law, I blew off statistics the last half of the quarter to do more studying on law. End result:  Highest grade in the class for statistics and an A- in law. Phooey.)  So this would basically be a negotiation book (for lack of a better term).  What I know is how to deal effectively with people and with highly emotionally charged situations/problems.
Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> Re: eBook info: Try Google, using search terms: writing ebook

You'll get back links like this that might be helpful:

<http://www.copyblogger.com/write-and-sell-ebook/>

(which led to this: <http://www.copyblogger.com/create-ebooks-that-sell/> )

[http://www.internetbasedmoms.com/articles2/write_sell_ebooks...](http://www.internetbasedmoms.com/articles2/write_sell_ebooks.html)

The person behind that, btw, did this, which demonstrates, by example, how one can sell an ebook...by selling an ebook about creating and selling ebooks: <http://www.easyebookcreation.com/>

This is barely even scratching the surface of what's out there.

Re: writing a book based on dealing with a medical issue: <http://www.infertilitydiet.com/story.html> \-- it's a regular book, but this demonstrates that there's a market for such content. (The author also has a line of books on getting published and the like, which is her main thing, if you want to put out dead-tree books, which are described here: <http://www.pbjpress.com/>).

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Much appreciated. I have been thinking this cannot be a 'how to' book, more like 'slice of life' piece but with potential to be instructive in some sense. Then it can be called "entertainment", I don't have to worry about lawyers getting all up in arms about it or something, and provocative is good when it is entertainment, not good when it is advice.

<comment><USER2> On the other hand, you could get a lawyer to vet it. Or, if you wanted to give it more heft, get a divorce lawyer to write a chapter or two about the legal ramifications or how a lawyer like him/her see these things. You could pay the lawyer to do it or give a cut of the profits. In addition to allaying your concerns, it might also let you charge more for the product.

I say all this because I'm not sure how easy it would be to sell a slice-of- life type of eBook vs. How To's, which are all over the place.

Slice-of-life would work on a blog, though, which you could monetize with Google Ads, ads from other networks, etc., but that's not likely to be as good as an eBook.

Though you could also monetize it by being an affiliate for related eBooks and regular books -- if you went to ClickBank.com you could probably find some related eBooks that you could get commissions for and similarly with Amazon w/r/t dead-tree books.

One other idea: start small with a short report -- say 10-20 pages -- and sell that cheaply, say $9.99 or less--and see what happens. And/or give it away to build up a mailing list, if you can think of how to sell related stuff. This sort of thing is done a lot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all your feedback.

One of the reasons that I don't do well with "giving advice" is because other people generally cannot do what I do and I get reactions like I am suggesting they should walk on clouds, "What? Like it's hard?" (channeling Elle Woods). Showing them the path I took and why I think it worked is more likely to be instructive and helpful and inspiring.

In the original discussion, someone indicated that most divorces are done without lawyers. To me, this is actually encouraging information. I know there are do-it-yourself divorce books that address the legal side of it. I really don't think the lack of a lawyer is what blows people's minds. I think the "genuinely amicable" part is what blows people's minds.

Most people I talk to who are divorced have ugly nicknames for the ex and are clearly still quite bitter and carrying substantial baggage. I have had a number of experiences where women have tried to dump on me on the assumption that I would agree with their deeply hostile view of men. It is an extremely inaccurate assumption. So I think if there is anything instructive about my experience, it is that putting down your baggage can be done and that life generally goes smoother if you do that. This is not the type of information that goes over well as "advice" because the people who most need it are in a mental and emotional space where suggesting they let it go is generally received as judgmental, unsupportive, not understanding and so on. But a good story they can identify with and a good cry might help whereas a lecture tends to just make their bitterness and baggage all the more intractable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clickable: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=182352>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.

<comment><USER3> You're welcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You may want a different title, "social engineering" usually refers to running a con.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I have edited the title, though I am open to other suggestions. (I have no idea what a book would be called. But this did seem to get a big response in the thread where I told the story.)</comment></comment>


E-scooter company goes bust after spending big on Facebook ads - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50713723 <comment><USER2> They sold 350 scooters at $700 each. So just under $250k in sales. They decided, right before Christmas, that they would tell all those people their $700 has been thrown right in the trash.

The founder of this company is the founder of Tile, a VC-backed company worth $XXX million that has raised $104M+. If this person had any morals he would cash out $250k of his shares in Tile and pay back the people who ordered his scooters. Hell give them half back for $125k. That is chump change to a successful SV founder.

I know that legally he has no obligation, but how can he sleep at night? This wasn't "oh making hardware is way harder than we thought and we couldn't afford it" this was "well I figured if I couldn't sell a million of these I'd rather just give up so I spent all the money on ads".

What a jerk. Merry Christmas from Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER3> How do I sleep at night? For the last three weeks I've been waking up at about 2AM every night with anxiety running through my body. My life absolutely sucks right now and it will for a while. I absolutely would pay people back personally if I could. I'm working on a way to get refunds back to people.

Things were not going in the right direction and we started moving forward with a more graceful exit that would have gotten scooters to our current customers, but it fell through and then we reached the point of no return.

Basically my only job right now is to find a way to get returns back to people.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for sharing your side of the story. I was wrong to attack you so personally on a public forum and I apologize for that. It's too easy sometimes to forget I'm insulting a real person when I'm critical online.

I hope your work pays off and you find a solution.

<comment><USER4> I purchased a unicorn and as someone who has started multiple companies I am utterly shocked. Unbelievable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems they "only" had $150,000 in funding, but as they were basically white labelling the Segway ES2[1] I'm surprised they didn't just hold onto their sales revenue to purchase the product...

Interestingly enough, about 2 clicks around their site and you realise they didn't even put the effort into setting up their Shopify site correctly... - [https://unicornrides.com/collections/all](https://unicornrides.com/collections/all)

[1] - [https://unicornrides.com/pages/unicorn-shipping- update](https://unicornrides.com/pages/unicorn-shipping-update)

<comment><USER6> I'd rather they white-label the Segway than build the monstrosity in the video. Though the Ninebot won't let you tote your three year old on it like in the video. (WTF? I know people do it, but advertise it as a feature? I ride a Boosted Rev to work every day, and my advice is: no one under 13 admitted, at all.)

Others in this thread are saying it was $700? Why not buy the Ninebot for $100 less? Or were the shipping models really going to have custom deck as in the video?

<comment><USER7> EDIT: Sorry, mis read your comment the first time. I was excited that you had a hookup for $100 scooters.

~where do you get a Ninebot for less than $100? [1]

[1] [https://store.segway.com/segway-ninebot-kickscooter- es2~](https://store.segway.com/segway-ninebot-kickscooter-es2~)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you give $700 to a company that promises to deliver a scooter, and they spend that money on advertising, that's fraud.

They have no plausible argument that they didn't know they couldn't deliver or refund customers after they started spending pre-order funds.

I hope customers get successful chargebacks and there's a class action lawsuit. This wasn't a crowdfunding campaign. Consumers were lied to, and the law should make clear that this is unacceptable business practice.

<comment><USER9> You're not wrong, you're an idealist, which typically are very closely intertwined when it comes to reality.

If you gave $700 to a company who promised to deliver you a scooter a few years down the line if all of the dominoes fell exactly as planned... I would argue that you got what you paid for even if it amounts to nothing tangible in the long run.

Which is to say, you paid for a pricey digital lottery ticket with a very low potential ROI.

It's a crying shame, absolutely.

But it's nothing to burden the court systems with.

<comment><USER10> > If you gave $700 to a company who promised to deliver you a scooter a few > years down the line if all of the dominoes fell exactly as planned... I > would argue that you got what you paid for even if it amounts to nothing > tangible in the long run.

Is that what happened with this company? That's the model of kickstarters and the like, but this story sounds like it was a real company offering a product for sale. If a company can form, offer a product, sell 350 units, pay employees & expenses, then fold without delivering product or refund, nor facing any legal repercussions, what's to stop the same employees and founders from following that method ad infinitum? Form company #2, offer a different vapor, take in money from sales of the never-to-be product, spend it on salaries, declare that the product won't be delivered nor refunds given, and move on to company #3. If that's what this company has done, and the court systems are never burdened with tackling such an issue, it is a viable if entirely unethical model for the people involved.

<comment><USER11> >what's to stop the same employees and founders from following that method ad infinitum?

Informed consumers

<comment><USER12> I didn't realize scamming was a legal business venture.

<comment><USER13> Depends who you're scamming. Quite a few powerful and rich people who I would classify as being "scammers", but their victim is usually a group of people such as taxpayers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hyped industry, sort of hyped name, wasting money on FB ads. It seems like they were "hacking" their way to quick success instead of focusing on delivering a proper product - exactly like Paul Graham described in his recent essay [http://www.paulgraham.com/lesson.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/lesson.html)

<comment><USER15> > It seems like they were "hacking" their way to quick success instead of > focusing on delivering a proper product

Generally - not specifically - speaking, in a world where your competitors can throw away millions of VC dollars into hacking their way to quick success and market share, this is a valid strategy. It may, in fact be the optimal strategy.

Of course, if you don't have said millions of VC dollars to throw into that game, then you're not going to meet much success by trying to play it.

<comment><USER16> It might be better using other advertising channels if your competitors are pissing away VC money drastically raising bids and making it virtually impossible for any "proper" business to do well in digital advertising utilizing the same channels.

You can notice this even within _sub-segments_ of Google Ads and Facebook Ads where there is a propensity for advertisers to just throw millions at the channel without expecting to be profitable right away (or ever).

But the good news is that if some channels are over-saturated with "free money", then chances are there are other channels are that undersaturated.

<comment><USER17> That's assuming those other channels aren't also saturated by the same companies.

Organizations spending millions aren't going to leave a big opening in another medium that's able to reach the same consumers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Here's my take: the company needed to raise $X to deliver their $700 scooters. They had raised $Y where $Y < $X.

Since the only way for Unicorn to raise money is by preselling scooters They had to sell more scooters. Word of mouth wasn't doing it so they tried advertising for customer acquisition. Nothing unusual here.

So when they say the as we expensive what they realty mean is customer acquisition was really expensive. To put it another way conversions were really low.

So they likely completely understood these costs. They may have been unrealistic. They may have been sold a bill of goods (as agencies are notorious for unrealistically optimistic CPA costs). They may have simply not budgeted enough or expected more organic sales.

So they may want to blame this on expensive ads butt what they realty mean is they screwed up and underestimated customer acquisition costs.

<comment><USER3> This is accurate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Snarky comment about LLCs being able to shirk responsibility by just going bankrupt...

But really this seems like a basic class-action fraud suit on what they hoped would be a bootstrapped ponzi-scheme. (Spend enough, fast enough to get enough customers to be able to actually deliver your product) but not keeping at least enough money in reserve to make minimum refunds is a major liability.

<comment><USER20> An LLC does not protect anyone from fraud...

<comment><USER21> Would be very difficult to get this to qualify as fraud. Maybe if they used the funds for their uncle's advertising company.

There have been many startups that have wasted money on things that make less sense than advertising before going under.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I feel horrible for the people who had to scrape together the $700 for a Christmas present for their kids, who won't be getting their scooter (like the person in the article). For most middle class people, that's a lot of money. I second the comments about successful chargebacks, because this will probably be ruining some kids Christmases out there otherwise. :(

<comment><USER23> this is a fabricated scenario.

you could have bought a xiaomi scooter on amazon for $300 - $400 anytime this year. who would ever buy into some maybe-scooter kickstarter if they were low on cash? and who low on cash is buying $700 christmas presents?

<comment><USER24> > this is a fabricated scenario.

Not sure why you would jump to such a dismissive conclusion without at least doing some reading - media reporting has first-hand accounts from customers[0]:

> "I am upset he basically robbed everyone of his customers and is closing > without delivering any scooters," Rebecca Buchholtz wrote in an email to The > Verge. "This was my daughters Christmas gift and now I cannot get her any > gift."

[0] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/7/21000094/unicorn- electric...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/7/21000094/unicorn-electric- scooter-shut-down-refund-tile)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What's more insane about this is that they went broke after whitelabeling an off-the-shelf Ninebot/Segway ES2, that retails on Amazon for $480, $220 less than what Unicorn was offering. All I can see that they offer on top of the scooter is "UnicornCare," basically insurance for $1/day on top of the $700 price.

</comment><comment><USER26> Chamath Palihapitiya talked about this problem in an interview from 2018. Many tech startups spend 0.40c of every VC dollar with FB/Google/Amazon.

Here is the original interview: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwRZtZQoLtQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwRZtZQoLtQ)

<comment><USER27> Ironic considering most tech startups' exit plan is essentially to be acquired by FB/Google/Amazon. They are de facto R&D branches for FB/Google/Amazon with all the attendant risk and none of the benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have read people say that a key difference in entrepreneurship in the US versus European countries is that European company founders are much more likely to be held responsible for their companies' debts and are therefore much less likely to experiment with new businesses at the rapid pace we see in the US.

Would that have been true here? If a German startup had raised $150k in venture capital and taken $250k in orders from consumers and shut down without sending any products to any customers, what would happen to the founder? Would he end up paying someone $250k--$400k out of pocket for a long time?

<comment><USER29> There's a Germany company, called Relocatly that took money from hundreds of people shipping household goods from Europe to the US -- they went insolvent, our goods were held in port by the actual shipping company and now we have to pay the shipping company despite having already paid Relocately.

They took money for shipments even after they already knew they were insolvent. Now our original payments are trapped inside the insolvency account and the managers of the company? No consequences at all even though they took money for a service they knew they wouldn't be able to provide.

Small anecdote, but the claim that "European company founders are much more likely to be held responsible for their companies' debt" is not true in my experience. If anyone is interested in reading some of the customer stories of Relocately: [https://www.international-movers- reviews.com/company/relocat...](https://www.international-movers- reviews.com/company/relocately/)

My point isn't to complain about that specific company, but to provide a counterexample that the idea that European corporate governance isn't necessarily "better" at all. They scam and fraud just as readily as anyone else.

<comment><USER30> That's negligence and AFAIK as a GmbH the general managers/ceo are personally liable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I find it interesting that the CEO - Nick Evans co-founded successful (?) start up Tile. [https://www.linkedin.com/in/thenickevans](https://www.linkedin.com/in/thenickevans)

From tile to scooters to blowing money on FB ads - seems like a bizarre path for an experienced (?) developer.

</comment><comment><USER17> There seems to be two companies named Unicorn in the scooter business:

The failed one: [https://unicornrides.com/](https://unicornrides.com/)

The other one: [https://www.unicornscooters.com/](https://www.unicornscooters.com/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Facebook ads are way too expensive and tend to not convert that well. There are stories of fake likes and fake clicks. If your growth strategy involves buying click ads, find another strategy or business idea. Groupon is another company that overpaid on Facebook ads to build its email list. Disney and other multinationals are the only companies that should buying such ad.

<comment><USER33> This may be tinfoil hat territory but I'm convinced Facebook (as I can't see what someone else gets from fake clicks) produces fake clicks/likes.

I had a startup and ran very targeted ads (gender, city, occupation). We were running small dollar amounts ($200-300 campaigns) and would get likes on our ads. The use would have a modest profile set up, usually a visible minority (which wasn't out of the ordinary for our target) but often weren't in target city and would never respond to any communication. I would message them (usually very shortly after they clicked like) and would _never_ hear anything back. Why 'like' a Saas product offering ad if you have no intention of engaging with the maker? I also couldn't understand why they were shown the ad in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think the cost of Facebook and Google ads blindsides many founders who take them for granted as a distribution channel when planning their startups, particularly founders who have no experience with them, or (even worse) founders who used them several years ago when they far cheaper and are unaware of how the landscape has since changed.

You should assume they will simply not be available to you for planning purposes. Occasionally you might stumble across an untapped niche where it is still possible to run ads at a cost permitting reasonable ROI but in my experience that is now the exception rather than the rule. If you do find such a niche it is more likely to be on Google, since their keyword-based model permits such niches to theoretically exist, whereas Facebook is an all-out competition by all advertisers for the same newsfeed slots.

</comment><comment><USER35> Oh the compound irony of a company LITERALLY NAMING THEMSELVES UNICORN coupled with someone actually being dumb enough to invest in said company, coupled with it failing.

</comment><comment><USER36> Ouch - 150K in a seed funding round from Y Combinator

<comment><USER37> This makes me wonder about Y Combinator. What this scooter company so new and innovative that it warranted investment? Isn't it one of dozens?

Or is it that there's must too much VC money without enough places to put it...?

More pessimistically, it's plausible that a lot of VC money gets spent on expenses that directly or indirectly benefit those VCs, so it's less about the viability of the startup and more about the money flow.

<comment><USER38> It's possible that the goal of VC is _not necessarily_ to make the highest performing investments, but rather _convince_ prospective and existing LPs that the VC is making the highest performing investments. After all, the LPs pay the management fees. In order to do this, you need to sell a good story, and a good one to sell is one that is already established by social proof: "Look at these scooters taking over cities - don't you want to be part of it?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Assuming for a moment that there's no fraud with this company, this is a great example of how you can quickly go broke selling a popular product. If the payment terms, product delivery logistics pipeline, etc. are more protracted than your suppliers', you will get strangled by your accounts payable before your receivables can save you. This was the genius of Dell's built-to-order system: they had (have?) a negative working capital position.

Of course it's also a great example of how you can, if you're not careful, light a pile of money on fire with performance ads. Please, people, please, test your advertising!

</comment><comment><USER40> I just don't understand people that shell out 700 for a non-existing product. What's the rush? What would they be possibly missing out?

it is one thing to jumpstart a novel product for $25 but a scooter ... really?

<comment><USER41> There was no indication of this not existing when I ordered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Is "But Facebook ate all my money" the new "But a dog ate by homework" ?

</comment><comment><USER43> Supposedly this company was profitable in March. From [https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/here-are- the-85-startups-t...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/here-are- the-85-startups-that-launched-today-at-y-combinators-w19-demo-day-1/)

"Unicorn rents scooters by the week or month and is already profitable"

So what happened?

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't understand how companies like this think they are going to make money? Electric scooters are a solved problem. When there are too many companies in the same market it becomes a game of who has the biggest bank account to spend on marketing. Clearly they didn't, and they lost the game.

</comment><comment><USER45> I just can't understand how someone can be so irresponsible. They knew exactly what their ad spend was and how many pre-orders they had in the pipeline. Since they only had several hundred pre-orders, they could have easily set that money aside for refunds, but they didn't.

<comment><USER46> As others have pointed out it is obvious at the outset what ads cost, and you can set budgets. None of this should have come as a surprise or a "opps we spend 150K in one day" kinda thing.

I am assuming their line of thought was:

1 - make some sales

2 - spend income from step 1 on more ads to drive traffic to site

3 - go to 1

Kinda like they put themselves into their own recursive ad-pyramid-scheme or something.

Condolences for the customers who go burnt by this.

<comment><USER47> Another possibility is that their reasoning was:

1\. Raise some money.

2\. Spend it on sales, even if their COS exceeds the margin on each scooter.

3\. Rack up some "engagement" and "traction."

4\. Raise another round.

That's basically what WeWork was doing: Spend so much on commissions that they were losing money acquiring tenants, but raise money based on various BS "metrics."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> As a startup entrepreneur myself, I've bought into a few Kickstarter projects and I haven't gotten hosed yet. However, I think this is because I'm pretty cautious. I look into the track records of the people, assess the viability/difficulty of completing the project based on my experience and I tend to buy in quite late in the process.

There have been a lot I've passed on due to the fundamental uncertainty of manufacturing offshore hardware. I just bookmark them and buy it from Amazon when it's actually shipping for real. Often it's not much more than the Kickstarter price (and sometimes it's less).

</comment><comment><USER49> I count at least three scooter companies in the capital.

They are all startups funded by quick venture capital. Their scooters litter the street for blind people. They pollute the sound space of the street with battery charging sos sounds. Questionable. There is not much difference from one brand to another. The scooters last about 6 weeks until they need replacement. I question how good is this for the environment?

<comment><USER50> Now do cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is exactly the case. You should spend as little on Facebook and Google Ads as possible. And spend the money on anything else.

</comment><comment><USER52> The fact that the company's name is "Unicorn" makes this seem like a much bigger deal than it is. The company raised just $150k. And it sucks that they screwed over their customers who paid, someone should be accountable here. But it's not like someone went and blew millions on ads only to realize it wasn't sustainable.

</comment><comment><USER53> Why 'unicorn' companies don't appreciate the 'organic, non-fast foot, non- money-burning' way to do marketing? (e.g. word of mouth)

Why are them so keen on using investors' money to bump up 'sales' as further investment into 'cash flow'? Why are their primary goal be money-making?

</comment><comment><USER54> A rotten offer will never sell no matter how many ads you buy. This thread says that the scooter is a whitelabeled product. The margin priced it out of the market. Most people comparison shop. What is really new to learn here that isn't common sense?

</comment><comment><USER55> This is relevant: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVVsdlHslfI&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVVsdlHslfI&feature=youtu.be)

Silicon valley Ponzi scheme

</comment><comment><USER56> Only run Fb and Google Ads if you have a proven (not hypothetical CLV) positive business case. They deplete ressources so fast without building a lasting owned channel...

</comment><comment><USER57> The CEO of this company was the co-founder to Tile. I'm sure he could have paid out refunds if he tried to plan this out more responsibly.

</comment><comment><USER58> What? Surely go fund me style cash raises should go mostly towards the product and maybe a bit to salary

</comment><comment><USER59> What a waste of a good startup name.

<comment><USER60> the iScoot is next

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Ironic name of the company, comes off as a Onion article, sad that it's true

<comment><USER62> Onion articles seem to write themselves these days

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Not everybody has the privilege to burn trucks of money like ie. Uber.

</comment><comment><USER64> > payments for loans

Yeah... that smells bad. There must be more to this story.

</comment><comment><USER65> They were even called Unicorn. That's just great.

</comment><comment><USER66> The title is super misleading.

They have only 150k in funding. I wouldn't attribute their bankruptcy to Google or FB.

<comment> toby- The company's founder did state this in an email however:

>The cost of "Facebook and Google ads, payments for loans, and other expenses" ate through the company's funding quicker than Mr Evans anticipated.

>"A large proportion of the revenue went toward paying for Facebook ads to bring traffic to the site," the email says.

<comment><USER66> What I meant this level of funding is not adequate for the company's operation, regardless of the planned ad spending.

Yes they shouldn't spend on ads, like not at all. They should instead focus on raising more money to be serious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> took me a second to realize company's name was unicorn.

<comment><USER68> Thanks for this, I was looking for the name in the article. They clearly had different idea about the company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> reddit.com/r/shittykickstarters

</comment><comment><USER70> Corporation gets taken advantage by another corporation.

</comment><comment><USER71> There is a strict set of conditions that a Kickstarter donation should meet:

1\. The product should require relatively large upfront costs such as design or tooling. If I'm ordering a pair of hand-knitted gloves there isn't much fixed cost so it should not be a Kickstarter.

2\. The _excess_ value of the product to the donor should be more than the expected loss if the delivery fails.

3\. The product should be on the "bubble" of being produced so that the donor's contribution makes a material difference towards the product actually being produced.

4\. The team should be qualified to deliver the specified product with the funds raised. Qualified teams can fail but unqualified teams will certainly fail.

5\. The money should not be significantly impactful to the lifestyle of the donor.

6\. The product's market should be small enough that it will likely be produced in one "batch" with no opportunity to buy it on the open market afterwards with the execution risk removed.

An example of such a product for me would be a display platform for one bottle of Pilot Iroshizuku fountain pen ink, made out of Japanese cypress wood (hinoki). The ink bottle is beautiful and I've always thought it should have a hinoki stand (just a thin board of wood with a small depression routed out of it). The product would need some CAD and CNC design work, but not too much, there is not that big of a market for it, and I would be happy to pay $100 for such a thing even though it should only cost $5-10 to produce. Let's say it sells for $30, I'd be expecting $70 of excess value so I could accept even a 50% likelihood of failure.

</comment><comment><USER72> [deleted]

<comment><USER73> This is not an on demand company. They were selling physical goods to consumers

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Just wait until the scooter companies and operators get nailed with an injury class action lawsuit. A good friend was seriously injured on a rental scooter, going 2-3 mph, catapulted onto her face, ended up with brain damage and multiple facial fractures requiring reconstructive surgery. A high school physics student could work out that tiny wheels combined with a high center of gravity is a bad combination.

<comment><USER75> The problem is lack of helmet. If the injured party wasn't wearing a helmet, and the scooter clearly stated that a helmet should be warn, the case will get thrown out.

Everybody knows that nobody wears a helmet while riding scooter company. The manufacturers know, the ride-sharing services know, and the riders know. But if a helmet warning is clearly displayed, that gives the scooter company virtual legal immunity from injury lawsuits.

Even if the scooter's unsafe _with_ a helmet, the situation prevents any serious legal damages. Only a small minority of riders will actually wear the helmet, and the company can just settle with on an individual basis. This pool is too tiny to attract high-powered class action attorneys.

The vast majority of riders, and therefore injuries, will be helmet wearing riders. Proving the counterfactual that they would have sustained the same injuries even with a helmet is very difficult. Head injuries by far are the highest damages, so again the pool of non-head injuries is too small to attract serious class-action attorneys.

<comment><USER76> Bird puts out a lot of promotional material without people wearing helmets. They lobbied the CA government to change the law so that helmets are not required. They tried the lobby Oregon to change the same law there but were basically laughed out of the state.

A good lawyer could argue that riders do _not_ know they need to wear helmets on the scooters.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Pencircle – Platform for reading, writing and collecting articles - <AUTHOR> https://pencircle.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I've been working on a side project which morphed from a college newspaper to a site where people can submit articles for review to a general site for people to publish their own long-form content or collect content from all over the web into magazines and showcase it to the world. I would love to hear your thoughts. You could even write or collect something. Hope you guys check it out!

<comment><USER2> It looks like a nice piece of work. Graphically, the design is thoughtful. But the site doesn't explain how a person uses it. There is not a clear value proposition for signing up. For example, where is content hosted. How is content created, uploaded, edited. There are a lot of practical questions that the developer knows from working on the project, but a person surfing the web lacks all that familiarity. Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! It's true, one of the problems I face is that it's really hard to see the website through the eyes of someone who's seeing it for the first time. I might never be able to see it that way. I guess the only way to solve that problem is to show it to new people and watch them use it and then get real time feedback.</comment></comment></comment>


Drupal 7 Released - <AUTHOR> http://drupal.org/drupal-7.0

<comment><USER2> There is a lot of cool stuff in here: * A complete rewritten database layer with dynamic query building capabilities. This allows for queries to built in a way that are DB agnostic. Also makes it very easy for other to modify them.

* A generic entity system. In practice this allows data fields to be attached to objects dynamically. A cool thing about this system is that field storage is completely configurable on a per field basis so you could have your data stored in a bunch of different system (Mongo, Cassandra, S3, etc.)

* There is a really nice URL routing system. Drupal 6 had some really irritating problems, but there is a lot of cool stuff in here now.

* jQuery UI has been integrated so it's available for use on every Drupal 7 installation.

There are a lot of other things too. If you're looking to develop an application in PHP Drupal definitely isn't a bad choice.

(Disclosure: I work for a Drupal shop and am a core contributor)

<comment><USER3> The new database layer is... nice-ish, but what ever happened to Dries Buytaert's prediction/dream of finally having an object-relational mapper in Drupal (<http://buytaert.net/drupal-predictions-for-2008>)? Last I heard was that a Doctrine integration got rejected chiefly because "it would slow Drupal down".

<comment><USER2> ORMs are nice for simple things, but once you get to a system with a decent amount of complexity they really start to fall down. Case in point, doctrine has a custom query language to deal with a lot of the complexities. This is actually the reason behind the slowness you pointed out.

Thankfully, there is the entity system which for all practical purposes is an ORM on steroids. It abstracts storage away from the developer, has attachable fields with per field storage configuration. Plus every entity has a completely customizable controller class. There are now modules that give you an entire controller architecture (<http://drupal.org/project/entity>). I think it's a pretty cool idea and blasts ORMs out of the water.

<comment><USER3> I'll take anything over the pre-7 approach of either extending nodes, trying to wrap your head around programmatically using CCK or doing plain SQL... but an ORM on steroids? The code samples on [http://www.istos.it/blog/drupal- entities/drupal-entities-par...](http://www.istos.it/blog/drupal- entities/drupal-entities-part-3-programming-hello-drupal-entity) aren't exactly what you'd call elegant, bundles are a poor man's inheritance, you need a contrib module (Relation) to do something as basic as relations, and EntityFieldQuery doesn't even come close to the expressiveness of e.g. SQLAlchemy. It's an enormous step forward, but don't get cocky :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I gave Drupal 7 a fair shot for a site I had to build quickly for my dad during the xmas holidays. I've a background in PHP and it was fairly easy to get shit up and running easily but then I gave up when I had to install tons of plugins to get image upload working. Supposedly they've integrated the file/image classes into the core for 7 but I didn't manage to get the stuff working fast enough, so I tried wordpress instead and although less powerful it at least could publish pages (wysiwyg) and handle image uploads without tons of configuration and plugins (and plugin dependencies).

I suppose that like for all open source projects documentation is lagging but it'd be a lot easier to adopt Drupal if the image stuff had just worked out of the box.

<comment><USER5> (Shameless plug time: I work at Acquia, surrounded by the developers of Drupal Gardens.)

If you want a Drupal 7 site with working image uploads (and galleries) out of the box, Drupal Gardens can probably help you:

Go to drupalgardens.com and sign up.

Create a site and make sure you have "image galleries" checked on the template page.

And now you have a Drupal 7 site with image uploads working. Here, I took a few minutes and built you an example:

<http://mechfishflickr.drupalgardens.com>

Now for the kicker: If at any point you don't want to keep your site running on drupalgardens.com -- perhaps because you feel the need to hack directly on the code, or because you really, truly need one of the 6,794 other Drupal modules that aren't yet supported on Gardens -- there is an "Export" option on the "My sites" page which you can use at any time to download the code, files, and database in a big tarball. Then you can install it on your local LAMP stack or upload it somewhere else.

<comment><USER6> I'll second this. Drupal Gardens is well worth checking out, especially if you are new to Drupal. You can get a site up and running _very_ quickly, the built in theme editor is amazing (think Firebug with a save button), and you really can get a tarball of the whole site with a couple of clicks.

I build Drupal based websites, but I'm not affiliated with Acquia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This major release is a long time coming (~3 years).

While the list of new features is long (see CHANGELOG.txt) in my opinion the biggest improvement is the commercially sponsored user experience additions.

Out of the box it still feels a little rough to me but there are some interesting Drupal distributions in the Drupal 6 space (Open Atrium, Open Publish and more) that I expect to really shine as they and others move to Drupal 7.

(disclosure: I build Drupal sites)

<comment><USER8> > This major release is a long time coming (~3 years).

For some of us this is a blessing. Upgrading can be daunting if you've customised heavily or used modules that don't work in a newer version. Anything less than 3 years for an upgrade that is incompatible with older modules/themes is too short in my view. Looks like we'll have to start thinking about upgrading to version 6 now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was doing hardcore Drupal 4/5/6 for about 4 years, but have been out of the loop for a while. Perhaps somebody can answer these for me:

1) Have any significant improvements been made to simplify and streamline the Drupal Forms API?

2) Is there now any easy and reliable way to define models/CCK-types in code rather than web interface?

3) Is there now a programmatic schema and data migrations solution that does not have to be used from a web interface?

4) Do modules still have to be named *.module ?

5) Has any namespacing been put into place?

6) Have any new measures been put into place to discourage developers from putting SQL queries in template code?

7) Do modules and "node" objects have better OOP integration?

Thanks

</comment><comment><USER10> I love Drupal but it's not a great testament to the technology when the announcement site is broken:

<http://screencast.com/t/RE6gn0gIZL>

<comment><USER11> It's working now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How is the codebase? OOP? MVC? Do they still use those weird file extensions (it was ".include" or ".module" maybe, don't remember now)?

<comment><USER3> They've been slowly moving to a more object-oriented approach, but in general the consensus seems to be that procedural code and a very, ahem, loose separation between logic and views is just fine. See <http://drupal.org/node/547518> which makes some good points (Drupal uses a lot of patterns commonly found in object- and aspect-oriented code, even if it's neither) but also reads like a long apology for crummy software architecture.

It's a mixed blessing, I think. OOP can be scary to people new to programming, and the PHP ecosystem has a lot of new programmers. On the other hand, I'm very, very glad I don't have to maintain the Drupal codebase.

<comment><USER13> The 'us too' quality of that blog post is disturbing. They don't need to defend their architecture choices against people who naively assume that OO is an appropriate paradigm for all domains. The list of how 'design patterns' are really in there somewhere is particularly off-putting. I didn't like developing for Drupal, but I certainly support their right to do the things in the way they think is best for the problems they are trying to solve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Im eager to try this out, I hope they fixed the cache system as before the only way to get a fast website was installing and configuring properly the boost module (drupal had a lot of database load, and shared hostings cut mysql connections at a limit that drupal exceded easily).

Ill give it a try!

<comment><USER15> Among other things Drupal 7 has better support for reverse proxies like Varnish. From the changelog:

"Improved support for HTTP proxies (including reverse proxies), allowing anonymous page views to be served entirely from the proxy."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Download Link: <http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/drupal-7.0.tar.gz>

</comment><comment><USER17> Ah! Just yesterday I moved a site running on PostNuke+PNPHPBB2 to Drupal 6 like this:: PostNuke -> Drupal via manual SQL instructions on Drupal website | PNPHPBB2 -> vBulletin3 via Impex | vBulletin3 -> Drupal via vB2Drupal module

Now gotta get moving upgrading Drupal 6 to Drupal 7 :)

<comment><USER15> Drupal 6 will still be supported until Drupal 8 is released in a few years and it will for a while still be more stable than Drupal 7 and have more modules supporting it.

So no need to rush an upgrade - you can safely stay at Drupal 6 for at least a year or so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My first impression from Drupal 7 is that it's much easier to use and get started with. Great work from the community! Now it's time to move in to the larger corporations where expensive licenseware still rules.

</comment><comment><USER19> Congratulations to everyone who helped create Drupal 7. I took a quick look at it, and the Admin UI looked much improved.

</comment><comment><USER20> thinking about using drupal 7 on a new site we're making for a client. besides the whitehouse site, does anyone know some good government sites using drupal? any using drupal 7 already?

<comment><USER21> Many more than you would think: <http://groups.drupal.org/government-sites>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Congratulations!</comment>


Comparing Compiler Optimizations - <AUTHOR> http://blog.regehr.org/archives/320 <comment><USER2> I work in compiler development, and have worked on a C/C++ compiler. Let me first say that these side by side comparisons are excellent for pointing out the weakpoints in compilers, and showing where extra optimizations could be made, they are, as presented in this article, not very useful.

When's the last time you saw a program that was just a single function? In real production environments, you're going to be running programs with hundreds of modules, thousands of functions, and millions of instructions. Optimizations like inlining, partial inlining, partial redundancy elimination, and inter-procedural analysis become much more important.

When you're a compiler developer looking for more performance, the typical process starts with profiling an important benchmark (like SPEC2006) and looking at where the program is spending most of its time. Then you take a look at the offending code and see if it can be distilled down to one of these microbenchmarks. There you can decide how best to optimize this. Without this context though, these type of microbenchmarks are nearly pointless. They show some optimization that could be done, but who knows if it'll be worth it, or even make any sort of impact on the final performance of a production workload.

<comment><USER3> Do you also use real world applications for benchmarking? Or is that too difficult (too big)?

<comment><USER2> Absolutely, I can't talk too much about what we actually benchmark, but real world applications are always used for benchmarking a compiler. Especially if it's a JIT compiler. Though it is in a repeatable environment with scripts and such to minimize variation and allow us to measure more accurately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Most compilers typically do a good job, but I was surprised to see such a difference on some examples.

On those examples, Clang seems to be usually better than GCC at static code evaluation and local optimizations.

However, GCC beats Clang in examples 2 and 3 due to better loop optimization capabilities (such as unrolling), allowing it to use SSE instructions.

Example 3 show that the Intel compiler has even stronger unrolling and vectorization capabilities. Not unexpected, as their compiler has to be especially good at this in order to get good performance on the Itanium architecture (IA-64).

I'm also impressed by the trick used by ICC in example 7 (using a bittest against a statically computed bitmap to implement the comparisons).

It will be quite interesting to see the results the researchers will get on many more examples...

</comment><comment><USER5> Acovea (<http://www.coyotegulch.com/products/acovea/>) is a genetic algorithm for analysing the performance of code with various optimization flags.

There's a practical example of this being used on a Haskell program at [http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/evolving-faster- hask...](http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/evolving-faster-haskell- programs-now-with-llvm/)

</comment><comment><USER6> As someone who finds this kind of optimization story interesting, but to whom optimisation in everyday life means adding an index or caching a query, wouldn't it be equally important to analyse the worst case optimisations as well?

Then again, that is probably done as part of regression tests by the compiler makers.

</comment><comment><USER7> FWIW, -mfpmath=sse is default on x86-64</comment>


Amazon tells worldwide ops employees to stop all foreign and domestic travel - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/technology/coronavirus-disrupts-industry.html <comment><USER2> Drone delivery is suddenly looking very compelling.</comment>


Blockchain's AOL Moment - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gridplus.io/blockchains-aol-moment-9ad91385b5b7 <comment><USER2> Why was this bumped from the front page?

<comment><USER3> Maybe because it's basically an ad?

<comment><USER4> You mean a highly informative and thought-provoking piece about revolutionary technology and roadblocks to its mass adoption - which references a future product not yet available for purchase? I'd read these kind of "ads" all day, but they are too few and far between.</comment></comment></comment>


Build Your Own Programming Language with Scala - <AUTHOR> http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/BuildyourownProgrammingLanguagewithScala.html <comment><USER2> Good article to explore parser combinators with practical example. Not about creating your own language, but quickly handcraft a parser for jsonnet.

</comment><comment><USER3> We have too many programming languages as is. The last thing the world needs is more of them.

<comment><USER4> He must have read your mind in the first paragraph:

" One strength of Scala is implementing programming languages. Even if your goal is not to implement an entirely new programming language, these techniques are still useful: for writing linters, program analyzers, query engines, and other such tools. "

<comment><USER3> We already have that. It's called an integrated development environment.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Did you receive the private Google glass invite? - <AUTHOR>

I got the "public" notification that I was accepted on google+, but no private email... Not sure how to do polls on HN, so upvote the 2 comments maybe ? <comment><USER2> yes! picking mine up in mtv tomorrow. only i/o 2012 glass explorers are getting the formal invites right now. #ifihadglass folks will need to wait a bit longer.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I haven't

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I did</comment>


Dog sits on the editorial boards of seven international medical journals - <AUTHOR> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/the-perth-dog-thats-probably-smarter-than-you/news-story/a4de0d201ce420e0302c69532a399419 <comment><USER2> And no one was suspicious when the journal published the article "who's a good boy?"

Animal employment is surprisingly common. IIRC there's a cat in Japan that is a railway station master, another cat serves as a town mayor in America, a monkey was once signal operator for a railroad in India and a physics professor once put his dog on a paper because the editor complained about using the royal we despite there only being one author.

I'll look up sources when I'm not on my phone.

<comment><USER3> The original railway station master was Tama, who ran Kishi Station for eight years with her assistants Miiko (her mother) and Chibi (her sister).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tama_(cat)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tama_\(cat\))

Before passing on a couple of years ago, Tama trained Nitama to perform her duties, so the station remains in good paws.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/japan/ar...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/japan/articles/New- cat-stationmaster-appointed-at-Japanese-train-station/)

<comment><USER4> The Economist ran a wonderful obituary on Tama when she died in 2015 [1]

[1] - [ [http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21656623-tama- station...](http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21656623-tama- stationmaster-kishi-station-and-vice-president-wakayama-electric-railway-died) ]

<comment><USER3> That really is a wonderful piece of writing, thank you for sharing it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> took 24 years but it happened.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog)

<comment><USER6> Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> My takeaway is that "fake it 'till you make it" applies to both dogs and journals.

Really, though, the problem here is that the "publish or perish" metric for careers has created demand for willing outlets. It's interesting that this can create circular authenticity, as was the case here. This seems like it also might be a driving factor behind the issues reproducing experiments--things can get published without proper peer review if the journals aren't really in it for the science.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a magic bullet here, since it's a product of a lot of disconnected incentive systems coming together to accidentally create a monster.

</comment><comment><USER8> I love these stories, although they are not new. See, for example, the renowned painter Pierre Brassau:

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

"Rolf Anderberg of the Göteborgs-Posten wrote, "Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.""

The problem was that Mr. Brassau was a chimpanzee.

Still, we need more dogs like Dr. Olivia Doll, to call mediocre publishing for what it is.

"Arf", she said*

* Frank Zappa lyric

</comment><comment><USER9> "Dr. Doll refused to comment unless she was taken for walkies."

Taking a stand on principle, even when under criticism. That's leadership material, right there.

</comment><comment><USER10> See also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_with_fraudulen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_with_fraudulent_diplomas)

<comment><USER11> I am very disappointed the See Also section didn't contain "List of animals with legitimate diplomas".

<comment><USER12> It did however contain a link to Non-Human Electoral Candidates [1], which some might think would be just animals. It's not. The best one seems to be a foot powder that won a mayoral election, but it also includes various attempts to run assorted puppets a ficus tre, and various other inanimate objects.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- human_electoral_candidates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non- human_electoral_candidates)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is not the first time this is happening: [http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090401/full/458557b.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090401/full/458557b.html). I know the owner of that dog.

</comment><comment><USER14> Dr. Doll is amazing. 13/10.

</comment><comment><USER15> If it wasn't clear already, anyone reading this should be persuaded that journals provide no service. Meanwhile, they hold back real research by putting their publications behind paywalls and charging exorbitant fees for them.

Just as a reminder, we don't have to put up with this. There is an alternative:

[https://sci-hub.io](https://sci-hub.io)

[https://sci-hub.cc](https://sci-hub.cc)

<comment><USER16> "Journals" are not a monolithic category. Some are poorly edited scams meant to defraud researchers who don't know better or who are desperate.

There are also some that are a major source of support for professional organizations.

<comment><USER17> What kind of support?

All I've heard is that they take free labor and add their brand to it so they can charge to distribute it.

<comment><USER18> It depends a lot on which discipline are we talking about - a computer science journal is nothing like a biology one.

Having said that, the requirements to publish in a good journal are quite high - reviewers will point out mistakes, demand more data if yours is not convincing enough, point out related literature that you might have missed, and so on. The journal will also check that the reviewers are not simply friends of the author. It can take about a year to get a journal article published.

After seeing some of the stuff that gets submitted (and rejected), I don't feel I can trust research that has not been peer reviewed. A good journal ensures that a minimum standard of quality is met, and that I'm not building my research on lies and fluff pieces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I view this in the same territory as the earlier article about Daryl Bem and the replication crisis - scholarly research has bit of housekeeping to do.

</comment><comment><USER20> "One does not make it this far in a dog-eats-dog world, if one is not willing to bite, the hand that feeds just as well as the competitors and keeps his teeths sunken into the steak until the steak is yours. You cant just sit when told to- you got go out, mark your territory, be allover the competiton. Sometimes you just got to get your paws dirty and do it. You got to get out there, playing the game. Dont be a squirrel. The stick wont fetch itself."

Dr. Wuffet, legendary CEO - the management lectures

</comment><comment><USER21> Did the dog get fees or at least some treats?

</comment><comment><USER22> This is funny.... and concerning.

</comment><comment><USER23> Who's a good boy!!???!!

</comment><comment><USER24> That's one real argument against remote work I guess.

<comment><USER25> Why? If the worker's results are up to your standards, who cares if he's a dog?

<comment><USER24> Apparently humor is dead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It truly is a dog-eat-dog world.</comment>


Why books are the length they are (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/03/cmap-5-why-books-are-the-lengt.html <comment><USER2> Since the OP touches on serial fiction and the types of dynamics that might arise if length restrictions on books were removed by technology, this post [0] by successful web serial writer Wildbow provides an interesting response. The relationship with the audience and the need for consistency become paramount for a successful serial fiction author.

[0] [https://wildbow.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/thoughts-on- writing...](https://wildbow.wordpress.com/2017/05/22/thoughts-on-writing- serials/)</comment>


Trump suspends H1B and non-immigrant visas - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/us/politics/trump-h1b-work-visas.html <comment><USER2> There is already a thread about this

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23605557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23605557)

<comment><USER3> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585596](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585596) and probably others

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What horrible wording they have:

> Trump Suspends Visas Allowing Hundreds of Thousands of Foreigners to Work in > the U.S.

"[X] suspends [A] allowing [B]"

So, what's doing the allowing, the [X] or [A]? Super ambiguous unless you already know or read the article!

<comment><USER5> Strangely, the title of the page has "that allow for" instead of "allowing".</comment></comment>


Measuring cross-country standards of living using purchasing power parity - <AUTHOR> https://kyso.io/KyleOS/purchasing-power <comment><AUTHOR> The post is an IPython notebook and everyone is free to download the attached datasets or fork the entire study.</comment>


Cancer Progress: Much More Than You Wanted To Know (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/01/cancer-progress-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ <comment><USER2> This author writes so well. The introduction, in just 169 words, tells you exactly what the article is about. I wish more articles had such good introductions.

<comment><USER3> Rather than starting with some personal anecdote contrived for some sort of empathy, as is the common style these days!

Thank you.

<comment><USER4> Or something like:

"""

"I've always hated coffee" said Joe Bloggs, sipping his chai latte as he sits somewhat dishevelled in a grey overcoat that insulates him against the wintry London weather. The Hackney coffeehouse he chose for this interview specialises in Peruvian blends, an apt reflection of his latest film set in South America.

... (insert interview)

... Joe, for one, will be hoping reviews for his next film is more of a blend than a roast.

"""

<comment><USER5> I know the kind of article you mean. I always exit them quickly. If that style helps in SEO, surety it is offset by people not wanting to read that kind of crap. Funny post, though.

<comment><USER6> I really don't think people do it for SEO reasons. People that do that for SEO tend to write text that is on-topic but explain simple things in drawn out ways using lots of related keywords.

I think people that write articles that start with long anecdotes (which are usually linked back to in the end) are trying to emulate the writing style you'd usually see in newspapers and magazine going back decades. It doesn't work well on the web I feel when there's an abundance of information where you're trying to filter through what's useful to read and what isn't. It's different when you're e.g. reading a magazine and have limited articles to pick from.

<comment><USER7> > It doesn't work well on the web

It doesn't work in magazines and newspapers either, but certain writerly circles (mostly American ones) consist of telling each other that this kind of fluff is a good idea.

You will find this kind of writing in _Time_ magazine, but not in _The Economist_. Which is one of many reasons why _TE_ is a better paper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When I read this in August it was fascinating. Since then an immediate family member was diagnosed with cancer, and it all feels so much more real and painful :(

<comment><USER9> Hang in there ... I've ridden that particular train[1][2]. You have to be strong, positive for the family member. Know you are not alone, there have been many people who've gone through this, and as I discovered, it helps to talk to them.

I am happy to report that as of 29-Dec, we are at 7 years post op. On the 1 year anniversary of when we got the diagnosis, I saw an xkcd strip[3]. That gave me some hope of an eventual return to normalcy. A few years later, I saw one of the followons[4].

Little things like that help. They really do.

[1] [https://scalability.org/2011/11/ot-it-really-focuses-your- at...](https://scalability.org/2011/11/ot-it-really-focuses-your-attention-on- the-important-things/)

[2] [https://scalability.org/2012/01/ot-what-is-and-what- should-n...](https://scalability.org/2012/01/ot-what-is-and-what-should-never- be/)

[3] [https://xkcd.com/1141/](https://xkcd.com/1141/)

[4] [https://xkcd.com/1928/](https://xkcd.com/1928/)

<comment><USER10> Currently riding the train for my mum who is doing fairly well after ~9 years with one recurrence, and my dad who isn't doing so well @ 4 years and two recurrences.

There's another xkcd strip that, while not as optimistic, is just as important: [https://xkcd.com/931](https://xkcd.com/931)

<comment><USER11> My mom was diagnosed 1.5 years ago, and the uncertainty of it all is the worst part. It soothes my heart to know I'm not going through this alone.

<comment><USER9> You aren't alone. You need to stay strong and positive for her, but you need to be able to talk with others who've tread this path before. Many have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would have thought that smoking cessation and earlier detection are - in a sense - medical advances?

Medicine pushed for these, as the most effective ways of fighting cancer. And it's working.

The same will hopefully happen to air pollution in cities, as a public health problem.

<comment> toper-centage The same will also happen due to diet changes in the next years. More and more people are severely cutting back on meat intake, specially smoked and processed meats, and it will likely have an impact on a multitude of types of cancer down the road.

<comment><USER13> Which types are caused by which meat though? I haven't seen a strong correlation between the two (unlike smoking and cancer). The charts on that article don't really show much change in most types of cancer over the past 50 years, despite changing diets and a higher availability of meat and processed foods.

<comment><USER12> [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham- sa...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages- processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think "the War on Cancer" is a great teaching moment for technologists: be careful with huge promises that millions latch on to: they won't forget, and when you fail, it will be (very, very) hard to win their trust back (thus, in the case of cancer, the continued fallacious narrative which the author so nicely deconstructs that we aren't making progress on cancer)

</comment><comment><USER15> Well that's fantastic news, and I'm glad to hear it. I expect we will more or less beat cancer someday, and heart disease too. Probably long after I'm gone, but I'm happy for future generations that will no longer have to fear this scourge. (Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out some other way first.)

<comment><USER16> The sad thing is that most instances of cancer and heart disease are down to diet and lifestyle. We already have the "cure" to these conditions, but people won't take care of themselves.

<comment><USER17> No, you're absolutely incorrect that most cancer is down to lifestyle. As someone with cancer, I don't smoke, I never really drank, there's no history in my family for my type of cancer, and I haven't eaten meat in years. I've exercised more than the average person. Most cancer is due to dumb luck. The only cancers we know of that are attributable to lifestyle are basically lung cancers. Breast, Colon, Pancreatic, Stomach, Leukemia, etc. are all just dumb luck or family history. You obviously didn't read the article. We're only better at things we know how to screen for. Survival rates in Asia for Stomach cancer are significantly better than the US because they have regular screenings for it. The typical cases are salty diets, but Americans still get this even though we've changed our diets.

There's no "cure" for cancer as of yet, you can't even guarantee prevention. It's a combination of genetic damage and an immune system that gets prevented from stopping the proliferation of cancer cells because the cells mask themselves as healthy cells. In effect cancer is an immune disease, but that's not fully accurate. Saying it's down to lifestyle is like telling people who got the plague they should have just moved. We have barely more understanding about cancer causes than doctors at the time did about disease.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not sure I buy the logic of ignoring improved detection when it comes to survival chances. As the article and pretty much everyone else tells you, early detection is the key to a better prognosis in most cancers. If all malignancies proceeded to stage IV before detection, survival rates would be very low despite the medical advances we've made. Successfully treating a cancer, usually indicated by being cancer-free 5 years post-treatment, is not discussed in this article at all and seems like it would provide some evidence for or against cancer treatment getting better from the perspective that matters most -- the likelihood that a diagnosed cancer will kill you.

</comment><comment><USER19> As someone who has quite unsettling health anxiety and somewhat of a cancer- phobia, these articles kinda calm me. But what doesn't calm me are usually the comments because it seams that cancer is really all around me, and it's just around the corner, just waiting to snatch me. I don't have any cases in my closer or further family, but I'm frightened I'm going to be the one... The 1-in-2 statistics doesn't soothe either...

<comment><USER20> I have 1000s of moles and get checked once a year. I live in crippling anxiety that one they, melanoma will pop up and I won't notice early enough. So I get your fear _very_ well.

All we can do is to reduce the probability by causing less DNA damage through all the various means. Even then, pure chance can still strike because this is what life is at its core: a cumulation of (seemingly?) random chance events.

<comment><USER19> Yep, I have quite some moles myself and get them checked. Although, thanks to the place I live in, I don't get too much UV exposure and try to protect myself well. That's the thing, I'm not too frightened by the things I can control, it's those that do not have so much prevention, such as pancreatic or leukemia... I think I did some permanent damage to my psyche by just reading too much about those things and too much statistics. Sometimes I see myself as just a number when reading these articles.

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to therapy and I'm not depressed. Just scared :) .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > The only contrary data point I can find is this study of laryngeal cancer, > which finds worsening stage-specific survival rates for high-stage laryngeal > cancer since 1977.

I seem to recall someone theorizing that the increased prevalence of oral sex is responsible by putting HPV deeper into the throat and thereby increasing the prevalence of throat cancers.

HPV vaccinations should cause a corresponding down tick shortly if that is true.

<comment><USER22> > Recent data suggest that individuals that come to the disease from this > particular cause have a significant survival advantage,[20] as the disease > responds better to radiation treatments than tobacco caused disease.

From Wiki + [https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/2010/06/hpv-positive- tum...](https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/2010/06/hpv-positive-tumor-status- indicates-better-survival-in-patients-.html)

It does seem indeed that there is more prevalence of laryngeal cancer due to HPV however according to that link above, it should not worsen survival rates but rather make them better, wouldn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> can't wait to see how much improvement whole genome analysis will bring to patient outcome.

</comment><comment><USER24> I wonder how widespread was cancer in, say 17-18th century. Obviously there would not be much technology do diagnose it, but still, if someone has any references, that'd be of interest.

<comment><USER17> It would be by necessity less of a killer as people didn't live as long. The average age of death in those times was late thirties, far lower than the common age of cancer in the mid to late 60s. Keep in mind that sanitation, food preparation, medical science, and clean water were all huge advances in life spans and general health.

The PBS series "How We Got to Now" is a great resource for the huge advances in health made in the 19th and 20th centuries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I always thought this plot: [https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cancer_tobacco.jpg](https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cancer_tobacco.jpg)

Looked eerily similar to this one: [https://i.ibb.co/cLbTRfM/nuctest.png](https://i.ibb.co/cLbTRfM/nuctest.png)

Source for nuclear test data: [https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally](https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally)

And before there were nuclear tests, there was a big fad to expose yourself to radiation early in the 1900s: [https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy- glow-...](https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-drink- radiation)

Is the argument that the nuclear tests, etc had zero effect on lung cancer rates? If not, what was it?

<comment><USER26> The usual strategy is to control for smoking. If nuclear test rate correlates with lung cancer rate, but does not correlate with non-smoker lung cancer rate, nuclear test is not causing lung cancer.

Epidemiology is a field of study about how to do this right. One of the great achievement of humanity in the 20th century was advance of epidemiology.

<comment><USER25> But here you go:

> _" the lung cancer mortality rate has risen substantially between 1914 and > 1968 among persons who never smoked cigarettes. For white males the relative > increase for ages 35--84 years has been about 15-fold; the relative increase > for ages 65--84 years has been about 30-fold."_ > [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/285289](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/285289)

<comment><USER27> That's interesting -- doesn't seem to have a graph, but states a significant increase between 1914 and 1967 in nonsmokers. There doesn't appear to be any control for secondhand smoke, however, which could also be a significant factor over that time period.

<comment><USER25> Sure, another thing to consider is fallout incorporated into tobacco and then smoked...

But do you see why I didn't care if a correlation existed? There are a bunch of ways to explain such a correlation. That line of reasoning was based on the affirming the consequent fallacy[1]:

If

      H: Nuclear tests are a significant factor in lung cancer rate

Then

      O: We should still see a correlation between lung cancer incidence and nuclear test frequency [in non-smokers]

We can't conclude "O is true, therefore H" (since there are a million potential reasons for O besides H), so we don't learn anything from it. Now if O had been some very specific prediction unlikely to arise from other hypotheses, I would care.

In terms of Bayes' Rule, I only care if p( O|H[0] ) dominates all the other possibilities (H[1:n]) in the denominator. The mere existence of a positive correlation isn't specific enough for me to care:

      p( H[0]|O ) = p( H[0] )*p( O|H[0] )/sum( p( H[0:n] )*p( O|H[0:n] ) )

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

<comment><USER26> Yes, epidemiology is not deductive, and in the end it depends on whether observation is "specific enough" for you st unlikely to arise from other hypotheses, which in turn depends on your prior, which is informed by laboratory results in addition to field results. Epidemiology is a truly fascinating subject.

<comment><USER25> > _" epidemiology is not deductive"_

-Not sure what you mean by this, it is quite possible to deduce precise predictions from an epidemiological model. See, eg, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2007940/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2007940/)

> _" it depends on whether observation is "specific enough" for you [is] > unlikely to arise from other hypotheses, which in turn depends on your > prior"_

-This has to do with the likelihoods, p( O|H[i] ), not the priors: p( H[i] ).

> _" [the prior] is informed by laboratory results in addition to field > results"_

\- Yes

<comment><USER26> Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy. It is not a fallacy in probabilistic reasoning, because the consequent _is_ an evidence of the antecedent.

Re: laboratory results, it is noteworthy smoking and non-smoking lung cancer have different molecular signature. Lung cancer probably should be considered two separate diseases, and this probably overstates smoking connection because some lung cancer by smokers is of non-smoking kind and not caused by smoking. This can be better understood by including such signatures in epidemiological study.

<comment><USER25> > _" Affirming the consequent is a deductive fallacy. It is not a fallacy in > probabilistic reasoning"_

Nevertheless, people commit that fallacy all the time in epidemiology. They say stuff like "if smoking caused cancer, then people who smoked would get cancer more often". Then if there is a (statistically significant) positive correlation between cancer and smoking, they conclude smoking causes cancer.

That is quite obviously affirming the consequent. I explain the (completely different and correct) probabilistic way to think about this situation using Bayes' rule in my post.

It has nothing to do with arbitrary cut-offs for telling us whether a correlation exists or not. Instead it requires comparing the relative performance of the various explanations (at least the top few candidates since extremely unlikely ones can be dropped from the sum in the denominator).

<comment><USER26> I don't think anyone serious about epidemiology says stuffs like that. On the other hand, it is true many people _interpret_ what epidemiology says as such.

Saying smoking is a risk factor of cancer is very different from smoking causes cancer. As you said, you must consider alternative explanations. On the other hand, people can disagree about what alternative explanations are "extremely unlikely" and "can be dropped", that's what I meant by prior. For example, nuclear test causes cancer, is probably extremely unlikely.

Smoking being a risk factor of cancer _is an evidence_ of smoking causing cancer. Being evidence of causal relation is completely different from being sufficient to prove causal relation.

<comment><USER25> >"I don't think anyone serious about epidemiology says stuffs like that."

Pick a paper, I bet they do.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


5 Steps To Scaling MongoDB (Or Any DB) In 8 Minutes - <AUTHOR> http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/9/13/must-see-5-steps-to-scaling-mongodb-or-any-db-in-8-minutes.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Decent high level points (with a lot of room to add specifics).

First thing is that your data design has a huge impact on everything your applications do, so getting that right is critical. I would say these points assume so.

Also I'm not sure i agree with his point that caching your data layer isn't a good idea. Yes, MongoDB has pretty awesome in-memory performance, but having dedicated caching servers have numerous advantages like:

\- Allowing you to manipulate the data structures better for use-cases or to cache preprocessed items (that might not require persistence).

\- Resources. A memcached box doesn't need the type of hardware a MongoDB box needs so it's easier to increase your global cache size and performance w/o adding new DB servers or dealing with indexing size vs working set size voodoo.

\- Specialization. Caches are built and optimized for doing exactly that. Why would you think your DB code can do it better?

\- Flexibility. I can control my caching lifecycle independently of how my persisted data changes.

At any rate, i'm enjoying my MongoDB work and it does help a lot for the push button scaling, but unfortunately, whole _systems_ need to scale, not just the DB servers so these suggestions won't solve all your problems.</comment>


Ask HN: Developers how do you spend you Sunday? - <AUTHOR>

Its been a long while that i have spent my Sunday away from work ( programming / project management ).
How do you spent your Sunday, Do you work or do you really enjoy your week end. Kindly share
Thanks <comment><USER2> Full-time 9-5 developer here. I leave my work at work and spend my Sundays with my fiancee and my friends. I tend to either go for a run or play disc golf in the mornings, make a homemade lunch, then, weather permitting, spend the rest of the daylight hours outside at a park or hiking or shopping or anything that can get me out of the house. If the weather sucks, I'll go see a movie or something.

Last year, I spent a non-trivial number of hours working on costumes for Halloween and other events. I learned how to make soap from scratch. I wrote a novella (~45K words). I taught myself piano (very poorly). Basically, I just want to stay busy and learn a lot.

My personal philosophy is that work stays at work. I get paid for my 40-ish hours -- not my Saturdays and Sundays. Don't get me wrong: I don't mind working a bit late during the week, and I'm always the first one into the office. It's a good job, and I like it a lot, but I think part of why I haven't burnt out is that I have a clear separation between my work and personal life. If there's a weekend emergency, I'll respond. In my experience -- and I believe this is true for weekdays as well -- there's nothing that can't wait until tomorrow (or Monday, as the case may be on the weekends.)

Sunday is fun day. Saturday, too, for that matter.

<comment><AUTHOR> "work stays at work" is perfect philosophy

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Back when I was in grad school I worked Sunday but took Saturdays off (not for any religious region)

Today I have a family and work at home and I usually work less on the weekends, but I often try to get a 2 or 3 hour session on each day, usually coding, almost never biz dev.

As for what I do for fun, I go for walks, play video games, watch a movie, go see family in the next town over, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> Rule #1 - No email or social media on Sundays!

Since most of my time is spent slouching over my laptop I use Sundays to escape to the outdoors. Having a dog is a great excuse to explore the wild and the fresh air clears my mind.

If it rains, I still try to avoid TV/Laptop in favour of getting creative in the kitchen or having a few beers and banter with friends.

</comment><comment><USER5> I take my (three-month-old) son for a walk in his stroller every Sunday. It gives my wife time to herself to do whatever she wants, it gives me some bonding time with my son (well, once he's more aware of me being a thing that exists), and it gets me exercise and a reason to get outside.

</comment><comment><USER6> IF I am behind on a project, I'll work on Sunday. Otherwise, I'm taking the day off.

Good weather > outside doing something (could be anything: photography, hiking, biking, etc)

Bad weather > sitting inside binge watching a TV show or playing video games

</comment><comment><USER7> Pharmacist here, I spent Sunday's with Family, Ruby and some exercise :-)

</comment><comment><USER8> Away from my computer as much as possible.</comment>


Math As Art - <AUTHOR> http://www.homeschoolargentina.com/math-as-art

<comment><USER2> Obligatory link to Vi Hart's YouTube channel <http://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart> (try "How to Snakes" or anything in the "Doodling in Math Class" series) and blog <http://vihart.com/music/> and discussion <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2390801></comment>


OpenSSH now supports certified/signed keys for users and hosts - <AUTHOR> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=126721648405075&w=2

<comment><USER2> Good to have the option, I know I'd prefer it to distributing and maintaining a known_hosts file to a whole network.

That said, I really prefer the idea of using DNSSEC with SSHFP records to CA infrastructure, but that's obviously not as feasible with VPSs / EC2 and the like. Revocation is certainly more straightforward.</comment>