Proof-of-Work is the only solution to Byzantine Generals' problem - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/oleganza/8cc921e48f396515c6d6 <comment><USER2> There's been a lot of FUD against PoW and some of it is warranted. The problem is saying "PoW is a bad solution to the problem" doesn't provide any path forward. PoS is not a solution, and neither is so called dPoS where block producers are nominated by or purchased from the development team. Lots of smart people are working on better PoW algorithms, more resistant to centralization and hopefully at least one succeeds. Otherwise a new model for trustless p2p exchange of money will need to be developed.

It seems to me a lot of so called "decentralized currencies" are moving away from the model that brought billions of dollars into the market, in favour of recreating shitty versions of what already exists. To do this they dance around terms and attempt to claim they're actually MORE decentralized for reasons blah blah blah. I have a feeling the anti-PoW is orchestrated FUD from teams building decentralized-in-name-only platforms like EOS and NEO. Yelling about electricity costs and how "trust is needed!" is getting old. People like the trustless idea, even if so far it hasn't turned out well. A platform that lets you run "unstoppable dApps" when stopping them only requires shutting down 21 known nodes isn't unstoppable at all and is frankly worthless.

<comment><USER3> > Yelling about electricity costs and how "trust is needed!" is getting old

It's still a valid concern, Pow has currently lots of difficulty to scale because of that, not to mention that the electricity needed is enormous to sustain the system.

<comment><USER4> You have your causal chain reversed: enormous amounts of electricity are spent on proof-of-work because it is profitable. There is no minimum amount of work required to "sustain" the system. Of course you lose security with less work performed, but the system can be sustained.

<comment><USER3> Yeah of course but if you want Bitcoin to be used by everybody (that's the goal of a currency after all), it becomes thus very profitable to mine and therefore an enormous amount of electricity is used. That's what I meant by a scaling issue, it works as long as there's not too many users.

<comment><USER5> The energy cost of mining gold is proportional to the price of gold.

<comment><USER6> When discussing environmental damage, I'm not sure gold is the thing you want to be comparing to.

<comment><USER5> Just making a point about the economics. The environmental destruction is caused by the energy production in the case of Bitcoin mining. In the case of gold mining, it is done by the mining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Nothing is Cheaper than proof of work"[1]. The best that can be said about Proof of Stake is that you get marginally better security while sacrificing liveliness / allowing the consensus layer to be captured by regulators [2]. PoW forces the machine to advance, if you refuse (or are forced to ignore) a block, the business dies but the network moves forward. If PoS was new and research was underfunded, you might have a plausible claim that it might turn into a workable solution. The fact of the matter is, it's been 6 years since PoS' proposal and millions of dollars in R&D funds have been pumped into trying to unsuccessfully obviate PoW.

[1] [http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow- cheapest/](http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/) [2] [https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/956461360161935361](https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/956461360161935361) "Conjectured governance under proof-of-stake seems to involve programmers & other amateurs making legal & accounting decisions. Bitcoin governance does not. Even when lawyers & accountants properly take over PoS governance, PoW governance will likely be far more socially scalable."

<comment><USER8> >allowing the consensus layer to be captured by regulators

The opposite. You can't hide mining at the required scale. Miners must have a registered companies to get access to cheap electricity, employ workers etc. Any mining business that doesn't register is going to be outcompeted by those that do.

PoS can work over Tor/I2p with anonymous validators.

<comment><USER7> PoS creates a system by which block nomination and chain-tip extension is an elective procedure. Meaning companies could censor transaction at effectively 0 marginal cost. Under a legal mandate, that method of consensus is untenable. See Szabo's tweet.

<comment><USER8> If by elective you mean that validators can easily ignore past blocks, that can be solved by a commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation.

<comment><USER7> >commit/reveal algorithm or multi party computation

Which is out-of-band work that erodes the claimed 'savings' of PoS, relative to PoW, and would have been better spent increasing the security of all transactions on the chain. It also means that I have to be online see those orphaned blocks and to ensure those solutions algorithms acted.

Example:

US Government to Coinbase: "Thou Shalt never honor a block that originates from an 'IP out of' Iran"

Coinbase to miners: "Hey Sorry we can't sell any eth from blocks that originate out of Iran"

Miners: "Ok well if you promise to use the new chain, I'll create a costless alternate version, But you have to promise!!"

Business A to Business B: "Wait I just got two chains, Which one is the real one? _Has to check news_ hmmm this USGOV edict is bad. So which chain are you going to go with? Hmm I dunno Coinbase is so important, I Dunno maybe the coinbase chain. Ok I'll go with the coinbase chain if you go with the coinbase chain, But you have to promise!!"

 _Move social consensus churn that erodes social scalability_

Business B: "Well, we're going to have to compensate the miners for this roll back some how"

Business C: "Hey wait I accepted a transaction (15 blocks deep), shipped my products and then went offline and now had my payment rolled backed!"

Total Not Centralizing Foundation: "The Foundation will cover all losses....again"

<comment><USER8> It's not possible to orphan blocks that are already in the chain you confirmed, as that's a contradictory vote. So at best one generator could orphan a few blocks, but then, what if the next block generator doesn't ignore them? Anything longer than a few blocks would require cooperation among majority and that's a failure mode in PoW too.

<comment><USER7> >It's not possible to[...]

Because there is no time-value trade off associated with delaying block create in PoS you can play games in the interim period of time. In PoW you pay a penalty for not building on a block. PoS basically tells network participants that there is 0 cost to not building on a block. See the lecture: Formal Barriers to Proof-of-Stake Protocols[1] for other failings of PoS.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Boy, the logic in this article is bad.

PoW is not the _only_ solution to the BFT. PBFT PoS, DPoS, etc are all "solutions", in that they represent a series of tradeoffs to achieve consensus in the presence of faults, just as PoW does.

Further, PoW itself as implemented in large part today is vulnerable to attack via selfish mining.

Finally, purely empirically speaking, PoW in most systems like Bitcoin today is highly centralized and far from trustless. Consensus authority has accumulated in the hands of large mining operations. Many people foresaw this outcome. In the author's analogy, you are not provided any certainty of consensus on your bunker, rather, massively resourced authorities controlled by a handful of people are dictating state to you and you have nowhere near enough resources to change that.

</comment><comment><USER10> > Imagine you are sitting in a bunker. You have no idea what people are out > there and what are their intentions. You only receive some incoming messages > from strangers that may contain anything. They can be just random garbage or > deliberately crafted messages to confuse you or lie to you. [...] When two > propositions arrive into your bunker, "X" and "Y", we have no trusted > reference point to figure out which one is supported by the majority of > other people. We only have "data in itself" to judge which one we should > choose as the main one.

What if the true answer is "neither", and both have been forged by an attacker? If he's sitting in a bunker with no contact to the outside, and an attacker can intercept and manipulate his every communication, how can he "estimate how expensive it is to produce an alternative"? Was the difficulty too low because it's a forgery, or because everybody's abandoned that PoW chain?

IIRC, Bitcoin's answer to that situation is that somehow word of the correct chain will get to him (perhaps smuggled by a carrier pigeon), instantly invalidating all of the attacker's work. That makes sense in real life, but not in imagined scenarios where there are no alternative communication channels.

</comment><comment><USER11> not only is this not a proof, but also implicitly sweeps many issues with the implementation of the current system under-the-rug, which is the more insidious part of this argument.

> Proof that Proof-of-Work is the only solution to Byzantine Generals' problem

this is an argument for PoW's validity as a solution, for starters. in no way is this a proof, let alone one of uniqueness.

> In case of Bitcoin mining farms, such an alternative would require a very > expensive and complex production chain, requring either outcompeting other > firms that use chip foundries or building single use datacenters in the most > cost-effective locations on the plane

that is exactly what we have right now! SHA256 has become so optimised in these chips that the whole issue of "consensus" has been almost diluted to "consensus between a _very_ small number of people".

it might appear as though i'm identifying a 51% attack, and whilst that is entirely un-addressed in this "proof", that's not what i mean.

bitcoin was created to decentralise money. there are so few actors in the mining business now as to negate the benefit of requiring trust in a small number of centralised entities. which, by the way, happen to be well-known, non-anonymous, and culpable when mistakes are made/crimes are committed.

sure, the majority of the resources must be used to create a "message", but it certainly does not necessarily represent the consensus.

bitcoin, in its current implementation, has failed. that largely stems from the fact that SHA256 PoW as a means of proof, has failed.

<comment><USER2> 100% correct, but bitcoin isn't centralized because of PoW, more because of a bad implementation of PoW that was too soon and too easily optimized (if you had the cash). Existing algos will all be eaten in the same way SHA256 was, but why does that mean PoW as a concept is a failure?

<comment><USER12> _because of a bad implementation of PoW_

See yesterday's YC article from a cryptocoin ASIC designer.[1] It's possible to design an ASIC for any proof of work algorithm that will be more cost- effective than a general purpose CPU.

Monero was supposed to be resistant to special-purpose ASIC approaches. It isn't. Someone quietly built an ASIC for Monero about a year ago and made a ton of money.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17059858](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17059858)

<comment><USER2> I know. A flexible ASIC is a GPU. Optimized hardware will always be more cost effective, but like I said elsewhere in the thread, algos that are hard(er) to optimize than even cryptonight are being worked on. People didn't notice monero had asics because no one was paying attention. Looking back on the hashrate graphs and price make it very clear.

Monero has since forked and removed the ASIC threat temporarily, and they will continue to fork to keep them at bay. Anti-ASIC is a cat and mouse game where the coin developers have the upperhand at all times. Do you really believe there's no conceivable algorithm that will reduce the cost-effective difference between general purpose and specialized hardware? The goal isn't to prevent someone from optimizing, it's to prevent the difference from being so large that no one else can compete. Monero managed to do that for years, and that was using an algo that claimed ASIC resistance solely on memory prices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This does not at all seem like a rigorous proof

</comment><comment><USER14> My conclusion about cryptocurrncies is: they can never take over traditional payments. People want payment methods to be:

\- secure

\- fast

\- cheap

While traditional payments do relatively well on all three accounts Bitcoin cannot. Yes, we might argue that it's (in theory) more secure, but it's also slow and expensive. What's worse, as the article just proves Bitcoin cannot fix those flaws because its security relies on mining (and therefore transaction processing) being slow and expensive - that's the very concept of PoW.

<comment><USER15> There's nothing secure about traditional payments. I have to give away the keys to my account (routing & checking number) in order to transact with my checking account. Similarly, I have to hand over all my information to a 3rd party to process a credit card transaction. The fraud and theft is merely subsidized by the banking institutions themselves, who more than make up for the costs in high interest fees.

There's also nothing fast about traditional payments. The actual transferring of money between banks and accounts still takes 24-72 hours, if not longer in some cases.

It's also not cheap. The hidden costs are rolled into the banking system, credit card interest and merchant processing fees (which are rolled into the price of products).

<comment><USER14> >> I have to give away the keys to my account (routing & checking number) in order to transact with my checking account.

What a strange country you live in! :) I do a lot of payments and I had to google what a routing or checking number even is because I never needed one for making a payment. Also, I can't see how giving up your account number would mean giving away control of it. But that might be because in Europe we do not use such a peculiar payment methods as checks.

<comment><USER15> All that's necessary in order to forge a transaction is routing & checking account number. Similarly, with credit card numbers. This is why cryptographically signed transactions make so much more sense and are much more secure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> PoW is not a solution and they are not even discussing the problem.

Author is mixing Byzantine Generals' problem to completely different set of trust and consensus problems.

</comment><comment><USER8> If every participant is online and all messages are public, then only a majority vote is necessary, as time itself becomes exclusive (only earlier votes matter). There's no need for PoW here.

For participants that join later both PoW and PoS are probabilistic, but PoS can be much better: if everyone has to vote the maximum possible classical security is 1-of-n, ie. one eternally honest party exists in all past blocks, so no attacker can obtain 100%, ever. This model can stall but it can't lie.

The 100% model is not practical and by itself requires everyone to be online, but for some m in m-of-n, it is. Another variable is how long do the honest assumption must hold: it's relatively easy to construct a scheme that makes honesty for eg. four months nearly certain.

Combined with the fact that money is inherently a social thing, it works. It's not an abstract consensus for people in bunkers, but people that want to interact. So if you return after a long time, it's enough to check in several places that accept a specific cryptocurrency what chain is wanted by them.

</comment><comment><USER17> That was a nice article which may or may not be true. How does that solve the Byzantine General's Problem [1]?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance#Byza...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance#Byzantine_Generals%27_Problem)</comment>


Why Google isn't for me - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@satyajit/why-google-isnt-for-me-de26edb1ceba <comment><USER2> I really dislike articles/posts/editorials like this. There's very little information in here from an objective standpoint and it boils down to little more than "I heard this bad stuff so I don't like whatever". It's fine if someone doesn't want to work at Google because they've heard bad things, but was it really that important of a paradigm shift that you decided to dedicate an entire article to it?</comment>


Sony PlayStation press conference summary - <AUTHOR> http://gaming.icrontic.com/news/sony-playstation-press-conference-summary/

<comment><USER2> The OLED display, of all things, has me the most excited. Overall, I'm happy with what Sony is doing with the NGP. I preferred the classic PSP shape (not so much with the PSPgo), and all the added gadgets I can see being at best fun to have, and at worst just extra gimmicks that can be overlooked. Way to go, Sony. :D</comment>


What happened to the 90,000 cars a day the viaduct carried before it closed? - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/the-cars-just-disappeared-what-happened-to-the-90000-cars-a-day-the-viaduct-carried-before-it-closed/ <comment><USER2> They probably stayed home because they expected traffic to be really bad based on the media labeling it "Viadoom". Now that they've heard traffic isn't that bad it will get worse.

<comment><USER3> Week two was definitely worse than week one as people got lulled into complacency I think. I walk through the city every week day during commute time, and the first week was surprisingly light of traffic, and the crowds for the bus were visibly larger. Last week, bus crowds still seemed large but suddenly traffic through downtown was very backed up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Postulated in 1968: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox)

</comment><comment><USER5> yep, just close all the roads and the cars just disappear! seattle has got it all figured out</comment>


Ask HN: Co-founder performance issues. How to not loose everything? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I need some much needed guidance in dealing with cofounder relationship problem.
Context: Both me and my co-founder (CEO)(equal owners of the company) come from very good educational and professional backgrounds and have worked in the valley before we started the company together. I manage the tech side. The team was a marriage of complimentary skillsets but we had not worked together or knew each other much before we started the company. Given our backgrounds, we were able to raise a decent angel round, enough to quit jobs and work on our idea.
Problem at hand: In the last couple of months, the team has been extremely demotivated and our earliest couple of employees left us citing issues with management. Almost all the issues are related to my cofounder's attitude. If I had to summarize them
1. Extremely authoritative and a lack of inclination to learn/understand - This is very demotivating for the tech team
2. Non performance, Lying and erosion of credibility - We hardly get any customer interactions and employees often wonder what my cofounder is doing and some have directly asked me. However, whenever questioned either we get false confirmation of work that never happens or get asked to just wait and be patient as things take time.
3. Stingy - My cofounder is penny wise pound foolish. This has led to massive compromises in the hiring as well as internal team frustration due to unnecessary cost optimization
Independent of all this, I very much believe in what we are building and hence want to take this to a good logical end at least. We also have some very good investors who have been extremely supportive (to the extent that they hardly question us of our progress, and it kinda becomes tough for me to reach out to them with these problems). I thus want to do justice to them and the employees who have worked with me while also, getting basic reward for all the efforts and sacrifices I and my cofounder have put in the last 18 months. <comment><USER2> Trigger the shotgun clause.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have no experience but start documenting everything to begin with. Then talk to the investors. And then to him too- hard for him to try and refute everything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. But since, there has been no priced round, dont think investors have any voting rights in the company either. Can they still effect any change in the company then?

<comment><USER3> Go and talk anyway but without voting rights they can't affect change. They can however tell you the best course of action to save their investment if you can assure that it will happen. Show them that their effort will not go waste and they can try.</comment></comment></comment>


Being a Man in the 21st Century (Part 2) - <AUTHOR> http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/being-a-man-in-the-21st-century-part-2.html <comment><USER2> Basically, being a man in the 21st century, according to this author, is basically not "being a man" at all. The entire article applies to women as well. It's just being "yourself", with no guidelines laid on you based on your gender.

I am not expressing agreement or disagreement; I just think the article beat around the bush and (probably not deliberately) went to great lengths to avoid the very conclusion it is drawing, which is that being a man has no particular meaning anymore, according to the author.

<comment><USER3> "being a man has no particular meaning anymore"

And unfortunately, men are also not needed much anymore. I read somewhere recently that people are descendants of many more women than men (meaning women have children more often than men - few men are fathers).

Women not needing the money of their spouses - will they really just be attracted to a wider variety of men? Another thing I read recently is that women are becoming more likely to care for physical attractiveness now. Good for them, but I can't really see the benefit for men gained from that.

Also what tires me is the assumption that women where held down by barriers we erected. I think in "former times" it simply wasn't possible to survive alone, and the traditional roles where one successful approach to managing life. Women were supposed to do the household chores because men were working at their jobs earning the money.

What really freed women therefore was not the destruction of barriers. It was the invention of dish washers, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and frozen food.

<comment><USER4> According to genetic research, 80% of women reproduce, but only 40% of men reproduce.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm assuming that those percents are historic, not current.

In the past, men were far more likely to die in war than today. I'm curious what that would mean in terms of evolutionary biology. Would Darwinism suggest that we self-selected a more peaceful human race by breeding men who stayed home, or a more aggressive human race by breeding men who were more _successful_ at fighting wars and then returning?

I realize that evolution works over extremely long time periods and we've been fighting wars regularly for our entire recorded history, but only recently has technology really started to remove humans from the business of fighting.

<comment><USER3> I think it just shows that it is women who decide who reproduces. It is probably easy to find some sperms somewhere (these days there are also sperm banks), but it is hard to find a willing womb. Hence only the top fraction of men gets to reproduce (with several women), because women can just stick to the top fraction of men for reproduction.

<comment><USER5> Tell that to the woman who is desperate for a mate.

<comment><USER3> Desperate for someone to mate with, or desperate for someone to pay the child support? The former would be easy, but I suspect most women who are feeling lonely are really looking for the child support aspect.

As the blogger told us, it is increasingly becoming a non-issue as women are better able to earn money themselves.

<comment><USER6> While it's true that procuring material/financial support from a man isn't the necessity it used to be for women, I would suggest they are still hard-wired, to an extent, as well as socially conditioned to be attracted to men with available resources (also consider the increasingly popular belief that an acceptable lifestyle requires two incomes.) Keep in mind, too, that emotional support is likely considered by women more important than it used to be. They are less likely today to be satisfied with a man who just goes to work everyday and is then distant and uninvolved in domestic life. This is another reason for women to be selective of their mate for what he can provide (rather than just who he is,) despite their opportunity to be financially self- sufficient.

<comment><USER3> I think since women can afford to let men work for them (their "service" to reproduction is more expensive, so they can ask a higher price), many will just choose to not work and let the men pay instead.

Not everybody LIKES to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The unstated (but unavoidable) conclusion of the article is that we are all now non-gendered, generic "individuals." Despite his best efforts at suggesting otherwise, what he's describing is not a new definition of masculinity, but the end of it. By definition, if a word or idea can mean anything at all then it really means nothing.</comment>


The Used Bookstore Will Be the Last One Standing - <AUTHOR> http://www.theawl.com/2016/02/the-used-bookstore-will-be-the-last-one-standing?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAwl+%28The+Awl%29 <comment><USER2> A good piece, but the author does not seem to have heard that Amazon is now moving into the bricks-and-mortar bookstore space.</comment>


Apple Q4 Results - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results/ <comment><USER2> MacStories and Six Colors created graphs comparing the data from this quarter to past quarterly results

[https://www.macstories.net/news/apple-q4-2019-results-64-bil...](https://www.macstories.net/news/apple-q4-2019-results-64-billion- revenue/#graphical-visualization)

[https://sixcolors.com/post/2019/10/apple-results-64b-in- reve...](https://sixcolors.com/post/2019/10/apple-results-64b-in-revenue-on- record-services-income/)

<comment><USER3> What terrible charts.

I won't go through it line by line but why highlight Q1 vs Q4 instead of prior year Q4 vs current period Q4 (ie, year vs year).

Highlighting periods with holiday sales against current nonholiday periods is ridiculous.

<comment><USER2> I updated my comment to include Six Colors's article, which has more year- over-year graphs

<comment><USER4> Most of the graphs on Six Colors have 2019-Q4 missing and some of the numbers are wrong. For example compare total revenue change for 2019-Q2 with the actual numbers in the second chart above.

<comment><USER5> ... not paying close enough attention to Apples fiscal year...

<comment><USER6> Apple's fiscal year begins in October and ends the following September. The just released results were for the fourth quarter of the 2019 fiscal year, 2019-Q4.

<comment><USER5> Wow sorry!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What exactly is the advantage of reaching a cash neutral position? If you are a company that can reliably do that does that mean you no longer have to grow — since your investors are primarily attracted to a reliably stable ability to generate dividends?

<comment><USER3> The history is that apple had a crazy cash position partly because of the need to keep cash overseas to avoid tax on repatriation. What they did was borrow against that overseas cash to get US based on dollars.

Cash neutral doesn't relate to growth, if you grew you'd need to increase cash to cover working capital needs generally (ie, Apple first has to pay for parts, inventory, factories, staff for them etc before it gets revenue from sales).

Excess cash above this - it can be argued is not useful for apple to hold. Ie, investors can earn as much on cash as apple AND might want to invest it in things that theoretically could earn more - especially now with low interest rates. They can get to cash neutral a couple of ways. Because gross net income is going down, share buybacks one option - they've already been doing lots of that. Dividends is another. Pushing a bit on R&D might be another. No rush on that change.

<comment><USER8> Not only is excess cash not very useful, I'd argue that it can be actively harmful, as it makes the company a target for a leveraged buyout.

Though maybe this does not apply to Apple, as a potential buyout would have to be about 30x as large as the largest leveraged buyout in history.

<comment><USER3> What is impressive in some ways is their spending discipline with this mountain of cash. Many business have tried to buy their way to growth with horrible results in my view.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it too early to tell how much the Apple Card contributes to Apple's revenue?

<comment><USER10> Apple Card is likely one of those services which will have little impact on revenue and earning, but outsized impact on stickiness of the iPhone as a platform. If you prefer Apple Card and the way you interact with it, it's going to be that much tougher to move to Android.

<comment><USER11> Have I missed some feature of the Apple Card that exclusively ties with Apple Pay (nfc)?

I love Apple Pay, have all my cards in Wallet, don't have an Apple Card. So I don t see how it's a lock-in feature.

<comment><USER12> It's not Apple Pay, it's the wallet. You used the wallet to track spending and pay it off, and collect the cash back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For context: the Q4 revenue/EPS results came in ABOVE sell-side consensus per Factset and Q1 guidance is also ABOVE Factset consensus on both revenues and gross margins.

</comment><comment><USER14> > revenue between $85.5 billion and $89.5 billion

A $4B margin is a pretty big margin...

<comment><USER15> The target is $87.5 billion +/\- 2.5 percent. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

<comment><USER14> Totally reasonable, especially for a company like apple! In real terms, it ends up being like half a WeWork.

<comment><USER15> Half of WeWork is probably closer in value to my car than anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Definitely my best stock pick of the year.

<comment><USER17> It was good, but everything went up this year. It was extremely easy if you bought the dip last dec.

I'm waiting for another dip... hoping to cash in. Might be waiting a while after this earnings report & fed announcement today.

<comment><USER16> Everything is easy in hindsight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Net income was?

Also this BS about stock buybacks and dividends to become cash neutral is stupid. They should be betting on moonshot things that will be the next iPhone instead of all of this financial engineering.

<comment><USER10> If finding "the next iPhone" just required spending large enough sums of money, then Microsoft would have beat them to the punch before the iPhone came out.

In all of history there have only been a few iPhone class disruptors. They are rare, and they come based more on timing and the presence of enabling technologies than any particular company simply investing billions in R&D.

<comment><USER19> yeah, these tech giants are constantly hiring tons of people and snapping up every interesting startup that rolls along in a desperate bid to turn money into more profitable products

Although I do wish Apple would buy some AAA game studios and make some AAA- quality games for their platforms..

<comment><USER20> The game market is extremely small compared to other markets.

Sony just announced their quarterly numbers. The PS4 just crossed the 100 million unit threshold over its entire lifetime. Apple sells that many phones in two quarters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> just last year I thought how much more can they grow now that they're over a trillion dollar market cap? Now I see people lining up for disposable $250 earbuds and now I know. (the same people that were happy with their terrible $15 ones btw)</comment>


Ultra marathon runner earns awards for both first place woman and overall winner - <AUTHOR> https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/news/a28720398/ellie-pell-wins-green-lakes-endurance-run-50k/ <comment><USER2> Wasn't there a mexican tribe where they run marathons all the time? IIRC, a woman from the tribe participated and won an ultra marathon hands down (and wearing slippers made of tyres or something like that)

Found it - [https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/05/24/inenglish/1495618559_31...](https://elpais.com/elpais/2017/05/24/inenglish/1495618559_311854.html)

<comment><USER3> The same tribe detailed in the book "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall that was very popular a few years ago.

<comment><USER4> The book that led to the runner's fracture in my left foot. Note to future readers who tend to overdo things: we may be born to run, but not on concrete.

<comment><USER5> I came to this conclusion after trying to run in Vivo Barefoot shoes on tarmac (thankfully without the extra prompt of an injury). The technique he describes - avoiding heel strike and running on the balls of your feet to allow your Achilles tendon / calf to provide spring - is a good one, but it's just as effective in cushioned running shoes. I do wish running shoes had wider toe boxes like the Vivo ones though.

<comment><USER6> That's where Altra's come in. Wide toe box, zero drop, but cushioned.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, will take a look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Barely, if any, difference between the sexes in races at this distance. More women competing mean more will continue to win. Congrats to the BAMF who won.

<comment><USER8> It's great when women win these races, and I wish there were more, but don't get the misperception they are somehow faster in this sport compared to men than in other sports. It all depends who shows up on the start line. Elite women are faster than nearly all the men, so if an elite woman shows up, but no elite men do, she will likely win. List of ultrarunning records: [https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine- all-...](https://ultrarunning.com/featured/ultrarunning-magazine-all-time- lists/) Normally awards are for "First Place Male" and First Place Female." Not sure why this race had an award for "overall."

<comment><USER9> Honest question: why do you consider it great when women win these races, as in, is it in some sense worse when men win them?

<comment><USER10> That women are winning these races, is a credit to this sport. Sports have no intrinsic value that isn't somehow tied to the good they do for humanity. We should judge them by their fruits. Even so, the vast majority of sports are constructed so that, on average, men have big advantages. It could be that it's easier to construct a sport that way. It could also be that constructing a sport that way better appeals to the prejudices of society. After all, there are some sports in which women compete at the highest level. For example, horse racing, open-water swimming, and as we see here "ultra" running. It's not necessary for women to win all or even most of the top prizes, but it's great that they win sometimes. Personally, although I enjoy watching gendered sports like ice hockey and American football I definitely see them as inferior to sports that exhibit more gender equality.

<comment><USER11> I don't think anyone "constructed" running. People have been running for millennia.

<comment><USER10> Sure, running in general is basic to humans. The particular circumstances of particular races, like "so many laps over this particular course through the mountains" are very much a decision that some people made. Such decisions affect the results of those races.

<comment><USER11> It is illogical to believe that races were "constructed" by somehow varying the number of laps or terrain to make sure men win. It is far more likely that races were "constructed" to mimic the types of terrain people already ran.

<comment><USER10> Yeah well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

<comment><USER11> It's generally accepted history. But believe as you wish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > "I ended up taking both awards—the overall winner and the first place > female," Pell said. "I felt bad that the first place man didn't have one, so > I tried to convince them to blot out the 'fe' on 'female', but they said to > just keep both trophies. It was pretty funny."

<comment><USER13> That's just an incompetent race director. There is no end to the lack of thought put into award schedules. I once got three (cheap plastic) medals for winning various categories that all overlapped during an awards ceremony that went on _way_ too long.

I suspect that this is the same (boring) situation, but runner's world being the garbage magazine that they are figured they could push the sociopolitical angle and get more clicks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> In running, female only trophies follow the same philosophy as age group trophies. Overall winner is reserved for whoever crosses the line first. Then there are M/F age groups for older runners (5y wide age groups most often starting at 30), and "female overall winner".

Having male only trophies is most often redundant because 99% of overall winners are male. That's just life. From time to time, an high/elite level female runner shows up when there are no elite male runner and she takes the overall winner. And that only happens in niche races (niche being every race longer than a marathon and some smaller city races). Ultras are also more likely to have DNFs (did not finish).

There's yet to be a popular race (6 majors, olympics, world championship, even regular "city marathons" etc.) where there's an overall female winner, because both m/f elites show up and men win by a huge margin.

<comment><USER15> >There's yet to be a popular race (6 majors, olympics, world championship, even regular "city marathons" etc.) where there's an overall female winner

Courtney Dauwalter dominates men in Ultra races, you can call them niche races if it helps your ego, but lets call those races what they really are...the longest and most grueling races, stacked with elite and professional runners.

<comment><USER16> Nonsense from a user with a throwaway.

>Courtney Dauwalter dominates men in Ultra races

She will sometimes beat them, if that's what you mean.

>you can call them niche races if it helps your ego, but lets call those races what they really are...the longest and most grueling races, stacked with elite and professional runners.

Even the most competitive ultra is a niche race. If the award money for ultras increased 10x overnight then east africans would be dominating in 5 years (the most competitive ultra in the world, UTMB, has a reward of €35,000).

And competition wise, races in america are a far cry from european ultras which will often have thousands of runners. Not to mention thousands of meters of elevation.

The fact that this woman's many extraordinary achievements are buried under titles like "Women are better then men in ultras" is disgusting to me.

EDIT: Oops east, not west africans.

<comment><USER15> >She will sometimes beat them, if that's what you mean.

Yes, by as much as 10 hours in the MOAB 240, she set the record in a 100K race, she won another 100 miler by 75 minutes. She set another record in a 24 hour run.

>Not to mention thousands of meters of elevation.

Like the MOAB 240 in Utah she won by 10 hours with 29,467 feet of elevation?

>The fact that this woman's many extraordinary achievements are buried under titles like "Women are better then men in ultras" is disgusting to me.

Where did you get those quotes? Maybe you should consider you are "disgusted" by the woman's accomplishments and frame them as "She will sometimes beat them," without being able to acknowledge the degree of her victories over 2nd place male runners. Does she win every race she enters? No, of course not, but when she wins, she sets records and we are not talking seconds or minutes.

<comment><USER16> Running 240 miles thru a desert and winning against all competition is very impressive, but how on earth do you spin that to a generalization like "she dominates men in ultra races" is totally beyond me.

>Does she win every race she enters? No, of course not, but when she wins, she sets records and we are not talking seconds or minutes.

You literally made my point.

<comment><USER15> So to say she dominates, mean she must win every race she enters? I don't think so, otherwise you just literally made my point, men don't dominate women (i.e. they don't win every race).

Yes, she dominates...when the 2nd place male athlete isn't even close that is domination. 10 hour victory from her 1st place to 2nd place, 75 minutes from 1st place to 2nd place...that is domination in running.

<comment><USER16> This is what domination looks like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%ADlian_Jornet_Burgada#Sel...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%ADlian_Jornet_Burgada#Selected_results)

She is THAT, for women. She is not that for men. Case closed, or at least it would be with anyone who actually runs ultras, or runs at all.

If you can't understand that breaking a record by 10 hours means that the previous record was shit, then I don't how to help you understand that.

In any case I don't like discussions with people who hide behind throwaways. Because I have a feeling you're just trolling me.

Push your weirdo agenda as hard as you like, I don't care. People like you are ruining this forum.

<comment><USER15> No one would argue that isn't consistent success at the highest levels of running.

>If you can't understand that breaking a record by 10 hours means that the previous record was shit, then I don't how to help you understand that.

I get it you don't like women, and their success threatens you and your identity. What were you saying about weirdo agenda? You can't seem to acknowledge the few hundred men who have been unable to break her record (or come anywhere close for that matter).

>Case closed, or at least it would be with anyone who actually runs ultras, or runs at all.

I look forward to watching you compete against her in a future Ultra and showing us all how she is shit and her records are shit. In fact, as your accusing me of using a throwaway, tell us all your real name and these Ultra's you have competed in and lets see if we can find a single race where a women didn't beat you.

<comment><USER17> Would you please follow the site guidelines ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)) when posting here? You've been breaking them with bits like these:

> _I get it you don 't like women, and their success threatens you and your > identity_

> _You really seem obsessed with penises_

> _you can call them niche races if it helps your ego_

We ban accounts that make a habit of posting in the flamewar style, so please edit such swipes out of your comments here, even if another commenter is wrong or annoying. They degrade discussion badly—it's notable how much worse this comment is than where things started out—and I'm sure you can make your substantive points without them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> An example where we treat men as the default and women as atypical?

[https://www.abramsbooks.com/product/invisible- women_97814197...](https://www.abramsbooks.com/product/invisible- women_9781419729072/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Happy for Ellie Pell (aka "Woman" in the article title)

Sexism of low expectations. Race director wanted to be sure to include a best in class trophy for women, which is fine, but assumed (incorrectly) that there wouldn't be a need for a best in class trophy for men. Assumed that they'd just get the 'best overall' trophy.

<comment><USER20> > Sexism of low expectations

> "It's tricky, because in the world we live in now, people would think I was > being sexist if I just gave out overall awards and didn't have female- > specific awards,"

Ironically, it seems that the race organizer had first set out not to have gender-specific awards at all, but they chose to add the female-specific award to avoid accusations of them marginalizing women's achievements (and being labelled "sexist").

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> From what I've observed running those ultras are just as much of a mental task as they are physical. Granted you need to be in extreme physical shape to do one of these. I feel that if you were to take a bunch of people that are physically capable and enter them, those with the mental fortitude are going to be the ones coming out on top and/or finishing.

I am wondering if this is part of the reason why women are able to compete just as well as men on equal footing.

<comment><USER22> Nothing against women but they are not able to "compete just as well as men on equal footing" in ultras. Her time of 3:58 is more than an hour behind the men's record, suggesting the men's competition at this race was not strong.

At the shortest distance, 100 meters, Flojo still has the world record at 10.5 seconds, a full second behind Usain Bolt's 9.5. Whether long or short races, women cannot physically compete with men.

In the ultra world Sierre Zenal was just recently run where Killian Jornet set a new course record, and Pike's Peak Marathon is in a few days. Most of the serious ultra runners are doing those events, not this one.

That being said, very cool for her.

<comment><USER23> > Whether long or short races, women cannot physically compete with men.

[Citation really seriously needed]

 _Edit_ Haha, love the downvotes for asking for evidence for an unsubstantiated claim.

<comment><USER24> I think it might be because most everyone here understands that human sexual dimorphism is a thing, and it's unrelated to personal politics. If you need evidence, check literally every single track and field record on the books. Show a counter example, and people here might be more willing to entertain your snark.

<comment><USER23> You're literally commenting on a counter example.

<comment><USER24> Read that again - I didn't say a single outcome in a single race, I said records.

<comment><USER23> You said, "show a counter example". You really need to work on your phrasing if you were referring to records.

<comment><USER24> It's clear you're being intentionally intransigent here. If you're willing to have a discussion about the facts, as opposed to your inability to comprehend simple sentences, then I'm game. Otherwise, please take your axe and grind it elsewhere.

<comment><USER23> My only axe is with people who make sweeping claims without evidence.

<comment><USER25> Says the person who, when confronted with objective evidence that defeats his argument, refuses to accept it.

Male elites do not run every single ultra race out there, obviously. Why should they? A course record is not a world record, and there is not a single world record a woman holds over a man in running at any distance, from 100 meters to 100 miles.

Your refusal to admit the obvious makes you seem like you're just trolling people in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Title should be "50K ultra organization failed to manufacture a 'male' trophy.", clickbait 100

</comment><comment><USER27> Fiona Kolbinger outright won the most recent Transcontinental bike race, in Europe. 4000km from eastern Bulgaria to northwest France.

[https://www.transcontinental.cc/report](https://www.transcontinental.cc/report)

</comment><comment><USER28> I look forward to the day that gender is removed from the Olympics and the football World Cup.

Not only will it be non-sexist it will half the cost of staging it letting poorer countries do it too. A win for everyone.

<comment><USER13> So back to countries only sending men, then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> There has been a theory going around for a while, supported by a growing body of evidence, that women might actually be better at some endurance events than men.

[https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=wom...](https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=women+better+at+marathons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

EDIT: POTENTIALLY better obviously, not ACTUALLY better, since currently these events are generally won by men.

<comment><USER30> Marathon/Ultra swimming is one where women do much better. Multiple theories as to why; higher body fat and low bone density makes it easier to float, bigger hips means more buoyancy towards the back of the body when swimming, and/or higher pain tolerance. Men can't get anywhere close to the records that women ultra swimmers set.

<comment><USER31> Confirming: there was an ultra marathon swimmer on Rogan a few months ago who does various swims between the Hawaiian islands - he said the exact same thing.

<comment><USER30> That's where I got this information! Great episode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Sign of the times: I had to look at her picture to see if she was an actual woman.

</comment><comment><USER33> What's the length of the run?

50k could refer to 50km, yet, ultra usually refers to longer runs like 100km - 50 miles are 80km, so what would make more sense.

Judging by the time per mile they state in the article, it's 50km.

<comment><USER34> Ultra refers to runs longer than a conventional marathon (42km~). 50km is generally the starting point for the ultra distance though and 100km is a more common benchmark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I could not understand their reason for not having a best male trophy in the future. Can someone who understood it explain it? Thanks.

<comment><USER36> It's just the way this particular competition was set up. Instead of male and female, they added a top female award and kept the other one "overall."

<comment><USER37> seunosewa is referring to these paragraphs:

> After the race, Hardy ordered a first place male trophy to be made for > Ellsworth. When asked whether the race might offer first place male trophies > in the future, Hardy said probably not. Instead of giving out more awards, > he is more interested in awarding the top six finishers, regardless of > gender.

> "It's tricky, because in the world we live in now, people would think I was > being sexist if I just gave out overall awards and didn't have female- > specific awards," he said. "But I think a race is a race, and the best women > can beat the men on a given day. And that's awesome. Other times, they don't > make the podium. What we don't want to do is water down the prestige of > placing on the podium, no matter if you're a man or woman."

<comment><USER38> > people would think I was being sexist if I just gave out overall awards

So having female award is sexist and not having that award is also sexist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The exception that proves the rule.

</comment><comment><USER40> She didn't win the 'Male' trophy, she won the winner's trophy and the 'First Female' trophy.

<comment><USER41> The whole article is confusing.

> Unfortunately, while there was an award made for the first place female, > there was no award prepared for the first place male. Instead, there was > only a trophy for the overall winner, which was predicted to be a man.

What the heck? This confusing logic is all throughout the article.

<comment><USER42> The issue is that the man didn't get a trophy for winning his class. Most times, that's the overall trophy, and then there's an additional one for the fastest woman.

So the article is clear enough, I think, given that most runners know this already.

Edit: I haven't commented on if I think this is a good thing or not, just explaining the article.

<comment><USER43> There isn't, and shouldn't be a "male" class. There's a "human being" class, and a "human beings without the testosterone gene" class. The only reason to have the second class is because only half of the human population has the "testosterone" gene (aka the Y chromosome), and the other half still like to run. If you can win the "human being" class without needing the testosterone gene, more power to you.

<comment><USER44> > There's a "human being" class, and a "human beings without the testosterone > gene" class. The only reason to have the second class is because only half > of the human population has the "testosterone" gene (aka the Y chromosome), > and the other half still like to run.

While it's always cute when people pretend that human sex is simple and things only get complicated when gender identity is considered, chromosomes aren't genes, the Y chromosome isn't the "testosterone gene", XY females exist, XY females with a normal copy of sex-determining region Y (SRY) exist, and, as was discovered recently, XY females with a normal copy of SRY who have borne children exist. Also XX females have testosterone at various levels.

It's true that recently was part of how to deal with the evolving understanding of gender in the context of sport, a number of governing bodies have redefined the criteria for competing as a woman to be based on a combination of identity and serum testosterone levels, but that's also not about a "testosterone gene" and at best imperfectly correlates with any particular gene.

<comment><USER43> Of course I was using shorthand. The point wasn't to paint an accurate picture of the biology of sex selection, but to point out the reason for having a "women's" class: that, on the whole, men have biological advantages in physical activities, and that for most sports, not having a women's class would effectively mean excluding women from competitive versions of that sport entirely. Obviously somewhat less so in ultramarathons than say, sprints or weightlifting; and it's obviously more complicated when you're talking about the top 50 people out of 7 billion, rather than the top 50 people out of a few thousand, or even a few hundred thousand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The writing is a bit confusing so here's a TL;DR:

Usually in these races, there are two trophies, one for _the overall winner_ and one for _the female winner_. This time, since a woman finished first overall, she got both trophies.

<comment><USER46> I know it is a small thing but hopefully they change this going forward.

Having a 'special' female winner while assuming a male will be the 'real' winner is implicit/transparent sexism to me.

<comment><USER47> Well, they said no woman ever won this race so I guess it's a fair assumption that the first place will be a male.

They probably added the female winner trophy to be more inclusive towards women even.

The situation is kind of stupid but does not seem malicious to me, just happened to be like this.

<comment><USER48> Of course not _malicious_ , but not a little bit presumptuous. As you can see from other commenters here it's apparently not unexpected that a woman might win. The organizers if any, should have had a hunch this might happen, even if it didn't happen before. Well, there were good laughs to be had anyway!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This is a cool human interest story but I have no idea why it's at the top of HN. A random ultramarathon not planning for a woman winning just isn't that surprising or interesting.

<comment><USER50> _This is a cool human interest story but I have no idea why it's at the top of HN._

HN readers upvoted it. That's literally all there is to something being on the front page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> That's a terrific achievement. It's extremely rare for women to have such good endurance.

<comment><USER52> Ultra running is actually one of few sports where men and women are quite close, so I would not agree at all that it's "extremely rare for women to have such good endurance".

EDIT: Added this link for some examples: [https://www.runnersworld.com/trail- running/a20803612/why-wom...](https://www.runnersworld.com/trail- running/a20803612/why-women-rule-ultrarunning/)

<comment><USER36> What makes Ultra running different? Women are still about 10k behind men for the world record in the one hour circle track (cycling) and their records are behind men in Olympic swimming (where they should have a considerable advantage due to higher average buoyancy/fat cell density).

For most amateur sports, the numbers will be all over the place. But for pro sports or things like marathons with huge number of participants, you're getting the top of the curve. A pro-woman athlete could dominate most of us average peeps (male and female), but when going against career athletes, we're hitting the limits of how we happened to evolve.

Human males are still larger on average than women when it comes to muscle mass, which is the driving factor for a lot of sports. There are mammals where the females are larger than males on average. Somewhere in out universe, such a species could be sentient like us. It's be curious to see how their own culture of sports, societal roles and dominance evolved compared to our own.

edit: Should have read the link in the above article. Women's smaller average size helps a lot on the downhills apparently.

<comment><USER53> > A pro-woman athlete could dominate most of us average peeps (male and > female)

In most sports pro womens' performance is achievable by trained amateur males, which is why there is controversy around biological males competing as women

<comment><USER54> _> In most sports pro womens' performance is achievable by trained amateur males_

The men's time for a standard marathon is 2:01, vs 2:15 for women. While I wouldn't be surprised if most a lot of amateur men could get to ~3:00 with a lot of work, 2:15 is extremely fast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> another 50 years and the myth of the stronger male will be gone

<comment><USER56> If that's true, it'll be because the word "strong" is redefined.

I'm genuinely undecided as to whether that's a good thing or not.

<comment><USER57> Why would it be?

<comment><USER56> Why would it be a good thing to redefine "strong"?

Or why do I think that's the most plausible explanation for an unlikely event?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Entirely unsurprised. There's various reasons why it could be so, e.g., [https://www.ft.com/content/0ead55ca-1d85-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6...](https://www.ft.com/content/0ead55ca-1d85-11e9-a46f-08f9738d6b2b) or [https://time.com/5049887/women-fitter-than- men/](https://time.com/5049887/women-fitter-than-men/)

What does surprise me though is that the expectation that the winner would be a man.</comment>


YouTube: How Evernote user saved company w/$500k at last possible second  - <AUTHOR> http://jc.is/fJO43I Great story. <comment><USER2> This is exactly what Angel investors should be doing. It's a relatively small amount of money, delivered with extreme speed and a willingness to take a punt. Angels may want to step up the the VC plate, but the risk is that the documents and deals are get thicker and slower. Isn't it better to give smaller amounts and more often?

</comment><comment><USER3> I love stories like this. There are times when it seems there is no hope and the world is against you, but if you continue to push forward in the face of that adversity you just might find the help you need from an entirely unexpected source.

Is that the opposite of a "black swan" event? Maybe call it the golden swan haha.

</comment><comment><USER4> Man I know this feeling ... would have loved to have had an angel fly in last second on my second company. :) On the other hand, that was when I wrote my first novel which probably would not have happened otherwise, so ... :)

</comment><comment><USER5> What's the logic of putting 'YouTube: ' in the title yet using a URL shortener for the link?

<comment><USER6> That's the title of the page.

Jason probably used the HN bookmarklet

<comment><USER5> I don't think so, as YouTube URLs use ' - ' rather than ': '.

Either way, I think having YouTube in the HN title is a good idea, however all submissions ought to have the actual URL, not going through a shortener.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What crazy luck! Would have sucked to not have Evernote around!

<comment><USER8> But you wouldn't know it sucked. There are lots of great companies that aren't around because they lacked the stroke of luck that saved Evernote. And we don't miss them precisely because they never were.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Need ideas for a project with good domain but minimal revenue - <AUTHOR>

I have owned the domain http://happy21stbirthday.com for some years now and haven't been able to really monetize it into residual income. I think it's a good domain and the organic traffic is steady, but I haven't been able to find the right approach for this site. By nature of the domain, it relates to young people involved with 21st birthdays. Any ideas on how to revitalize this site? I'm looking for any quick suggestions to consider on how to turn this project into a potential additional revenue stream. <comment><USER2> Here's a cheery idea... A charity site where you gather donations for diseases which kill before the age of 21.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love to involve some social good, but I also would like to make it a profitable venture. I am a strong believer that the maximum value is created when creators/team members are incentivized (by profits) to continue the work even through rough times. Any ideas on how to build a social venture while still being profitable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Obviously the best market involves drinking if it is going to be US based. Being that 21 is the legal drinking age, I think I would try to do something where bars and liquor labels give discounts, coupons, incentives to birthday goes that are going out on the big night. This is a huge target market for them and offering a venue to reach that customer would be valuable if you can generate the traffic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks kls for the great advice. I will definitely consider what you mentioned. My only concern is the sales force required to reach out to large bar-chains or liquor labels to secure a deal. I'm going to think about the best approach. Thanks for the suggestion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps just have a bar/club locator for the users geo-location. If I log-in from San Francisco,CA then the site would automatically recognize my location/zip code and give me the closest bars in the area. Or better yet, you could parse information from Yelp and return searches with the best bars and clubs in the users' locale.

Then just slap some adverts on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been getting some similar suggestions like this and it appears that its a popular one. I'm definitely thinking about how to use bar/club locators and reviews. My only concern is whether or not I can attract enough users/visitors to sustain a profitable model. The customer acquisition cost may be too high for an ad model. Still considering it. Thanks md1515!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It should be a site all about 21st birthday stories. Everybody has a story about their 21st birthday. How drunk they got, where they went... user generated content ftw. Concentrate on content first, monetize after. If done correctly the site has potential for a decent revenue stream. Facebook integration/sharing is key.

</comment><comment><USER6> Turn it into a "website e-card" that people send to each other just by posting the URL on their Facebook walls, etc.

Similar to how people post "www.babynames.com" whenever there's a chance someone got pregnant. Or "www.lmgtfy.com" for easy to answer questions. Be the go-to URL for the 21st birthday crowd.

</comment><comment><USER7> License or sell the domain to a beer vendor - e.g., Budweiser - for promotions (e.g., SuperBowl, bar, restaurant, liquor store and grocery store tie-ins; coupons for a free beer or 6-pack on 21st b-day; etc.) and let them and their ad agency worry about the website! Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER8> I have a few ideas.

1) create a website similar to texts from last night where people can post funny stories and etc.

2) allow people to review bars and post their opinions on their experiences

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks aorshan! I definitely thought about the TFLN concept, but I think the idea may be overdone and not widespread enough for a niche audience of 21st birthdays. Regarding #2, I'm considering the best options to integrate it.</comment></comment>


"Cultural Agoraphobia" and Technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b506caa4-cb93-11dd-ba02-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=3bd54f56-21cb-11dd-a50a-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

<comment><AUTHOR> Despite the headline containing the word "Obama," this piece is almost entirely apolitical. Worth a read, IMHO.</comment>


Amazon: New Kindles Selling at Record Rates - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/amazon-new-kindles-selling-at-record-rates/

<comment><USER2> Ah, the psychology of price points. Let us all take note of this when we decide how to price our products and/or services. People are now perceiving that the value that this device delivers is significantly higher than it's price.

</comment><comment><USER3> Amongst my group, I'm known for my near hatred of Amazon's Kindle (not the ecosystem or apps, just the devices) due to their shoddy typography, but even I've caved and ordered one of the new ones. They're cheap enough now that, I think, anyone involved in writing/publishing needs to keep a good eye on what Amazon's up to. For writers, the Kindle (ecosystem) is rapidly looking like it could become their equivalent of the App Store.

<comment><USER4> I love my Kindle.

Not because it's the best, prettist, most elegant way to consume books, but because it's the best, prettiest, most elegant way for ME to consume books, based on the currently available options.

I find myself reading more since I've gotten my Kindle, and for the price point, if I decide in a year that I DON'T like it, it's not a major loss (plus has some decent residual value).

<comment><USER5> I completely agree with this. I'm also reading more, which in and of itself makes it worth having. I recently went on a trip to Europe, and the free 3G was invaluable, since we didn't always have a good source of internet.

It's getting to the point that, were I to have to choose between losing my iPhone and losing the Kindle, I'd rather lose the iPhone, even though it costs 3 times as much to replace. It makes me that irrationally happy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just wish flight attendants would stop making me turn it off for takeoff and landing.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but remember, your Kindle is a much bigger threat to the navigation system than the 30 or 40 cell phones in people's pockets that they forgot to turn off. Plus, reading a Kindle might distract you in an emergency, which is why they don't let anyone read books or magazines during takeoff and landing either.

<comment><USER8> I was under the impression that the cell phone shutoff was to prevent the towers from freaking out about dozens of phones coming in & out of range at 650mph+.

<comment><USER9> I was under the impression that towers had some type of signal baffle to prevent reception from devices a certain number of degrees from the horizon.

I have no merit or citation to exert with this claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm curious how well the Kindle renders tech/scientific books, with graphs, diagrams and formulae. I'd imagine the larger form factor of most printed technical books compared to fiction paperbacks to be an issue. I'd assume the 10" version does better than the smaller one.

<comment><USER7> I was just speaking to a friend of mine who is a EE/physicist who had just returned a Kindle DX two days ago. He got it specifically to read IEEE journal papers and found that it was unacceptable. His specific beef wasn't with the e-ink or the e-ink page turn speed but rather with the huge delay spent processing PDFs when you turned pages. In other words, page turn delays were no problem when reading a text only document, but when reading a PDF, they were really long, presumably because of the slow processor and an unwillingness to pre-rasterize pages.

I love my kindle, but for technical documents, I just print them out.

<comment><USER10> Interesting, thanks. As far as I can tell, it's possible to convert PDFs to the Kindle's native format, any idea if this improves the situation?

I've noticed the PDF delay on the iPad as well, although it's not sufficient to bother me. I'm reluctant to use the illuminated screen for extended periods of reading though, especially in the evening.

<comment><USER11> "Interesting, thanks. As far as I can tell, it's possible to convert PDFs to the Kindle's native format, any idea if this improves the situation?"

Yes. I use mobipocket creator [1] to convert pdf files to the mobi format. It's free and works pretty well for documents with one column. For papers with multiple columns (like those from journals) I use papercrop [2] to slice the pdf in smaller parts so I can read in my (non-dx) kindle 2.

[1] [http://www.mobipocket.com/en/downloadsoft/productdetailscrea...](http://www.mobipocket.com/en/downloadsoft/productdetailscreator.asp)

[2] <http://code.google.com/p/papercrop/>

edit: small fixes

<comment><USER7> Papercrop looks really intersting...does it store text as text within the output PDF or does it just convert chunks of the page to an image?

<comment><USER11> It just convert the chunks to an image (the final format is a PDF as well). The result is a little bit hacky, but it works. If your goal is to catch up with your reading pile, so it may work for you. On the other hand, if you need/want to go over every single detail (tables, formulas, etc), it may not work so well. As usual, YMMV.

[Actually, mobipocket creator seems to be not too bad at converting multi- column documents. The problems I had converting academic papers were tables and math, and not the fact they had more than one column]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Will someone please release an API so I can write a printer driver and we can print directly to our ebook readers already?

The APIs that have been available so far (AFAIK - someone please correct me) for any of the readers have been lackluster.

</comment><comment><USER13> Some records are easier to break than others.

Of course, if I read more I'd probably have one by now, at $190 for the free 3G model it's very tempting.

Relatedly, has anything come of the SDK?

<comment><USER4> _Relatedly, has anything come of the SDK?_

Two apps that I'm aware of, a hangman app and a "find the words you can make out of this random block of characters". Nothing too ground breaking, but it's gotten me thinking about some reader-centric style apps, including things that pull references or quotes from a users' Kindle library.

<comment><USER14> Not available worldwide, by the way. URLs:

<http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93450>

<http://www.kindlepost.com/2010/08/free-games-on-kindle.html>

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003P37FW0>

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003P38AAG>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Having ordered several weeks ago, I am anxiously awaiting it's arrival. The wifi only version was a nice move and the price point is really attractive.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder why they still don't sell to Russia and over 100 other countries. Copyright issues?

<comment><USER17> Setting up Whispernet with local cell providers would also probably be a bottleneck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Would be interesting to know whether Amazon is outselling Apple for eBooks on the iPad.

<comment><USER19> I'd probably bet that they are. I use the iPad exclusively for my eBooks and 80-90% of my non-free books are on through the Kindle app.

Exact same situation with my wife as well as a few others we know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Primary reason I haven't purchased a kindle: no way to lock the page orientation. I borrowed one from a friend and tried reading on the beach; the damn thing kept flipping around so I couldn't read it. Such a trivial thing to add, but lacking in the iphone as well.

<comment><USER21> I'm assuming you were using a Kindle DX (the others don't auto-rotate). But anyway, you can lock the orientation:

[http://thekindle.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/screenrotationd...](http://thekindle.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/screenrotationdx.jpg?w=299&h=210)</comment></comment>