How would you program a model of a universe? - <AUTHOR> Let's assume you have nearly infinite computation resources.
The goal is to create a computer program that creates a virtual universe with the fewest possible rules and shortest amount of code. The model doesn't have emulate our known universe.
The only requirement is that after injecting initial data the virtual universe becomes self-sustaining and ever evolving so that based on the fundamental rules and fundamental elements more complex structures and interactions can be formed.
So an advanced version of "Game of Life".
1. How would you define the core model and rules of such virtual universe?
2. What would be the minimum amount of "initial data input" required to start and keep the virtual universe running (assuming ~infinite computational and memory resources)? <comment><USER2> Google created this a while ago, was very cool.

[http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/](http://stars.chromeexperiments.com/)

And I also had played this game on Steam like 10 years ago and loved it. Very basic, very simple. You started out as a small speck of dust in space and as you flew threw space, your gravity would begin to absorb the elements and you would get bigger, becoming a planet, a bigger planet, a sun, a black hole... while it was mostly simuluation and you had no real enemies, gravity is always our biggest enemy and you could be ripped apart by another black hole or even a giant sun, which made the game so enjoyable. You could drift and float and control it.. you flew through space and moved the arrow keys to avoid objects. You could change your speed too.

Let me see if i can find it and i only bring it up since I can't answer your exact answer, but can show you an idea. Looks like it got a massive upgrade as it used to be 2D. [https://store.steampowered.com/app/230290/Universe_Sandbox/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/230290/Universe_Sandbox/)

And CodePen can at least get you started with a simulation.

[https://codepen.io/search/pens?q=universe](https://codepen.io/search/pens?q=universe)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very cool! Thanks for sharing! I'll check that out.

<comment><USER2> What you want to do reminds me of an episode of Futurama. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL7e05pClKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL7e05pClKM)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> While I appreciate your question and realize what you're asking, I hope you don't mind my going a bit off topic here:

> _Let 's assume you have nearly infinite computation resources._

I think it's more fun to assume you don't. You need not simulate every water molecule in the ocean for life to emerge.

Imagine you had a hash table of precomputed interactions between various simulation elements across all scales. In such a system, the computational cost of simulating a single protein would be similar to that of two galaxies colliding.

A planet for example would simply be a vast hierarchy containing a chain of approximated behaviors, each node in that chain containing its own hierarchy.

The really fun part is trying to envision how changes at very low levels in this chain would ripple upwards and affect the simulation at larger scales. Thus far I've only imagined it as analog to node invalidation in a typical scene graph data structure, where you flag it "dirty" and it's queued for recomputation on the next frame.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good comment, thanks! It's indeed possible to approximate highly complex systems and interactions with generated models surprisingly accurately. But I'm more interested in the lowest possible level of rules and interactions.

In our current universe we are still seeking the "theory of everything" \- a model that would explain physics at all levels. Currently it seems that everything breaks down at (sub)quantum level.

But I think that our universe is logical, exact and that all higher level observable interactions are based on some really simple fundamental rules. The problem is that we can't measure or detect those properly. For example Quantum Entanglement is one big issue but yet it is also based on a rule. If the rule is always enforced logically, it doesn't have to comply with the rudimentary model of physics by humans. Perhaps we are too fixed on the idea that light speed is the absolute limit to every interaction? :)

To me it seems unavoidable that the fundamental rules and basic elements of our universe have been purposefully designed. The measured standard model values even imply that those values have been calibrated to those exact values by simulation.

I also believe that our universe is not the only universe (energy in certain 3D area of the void governed by a set of distinct rules for that particular experiment) and that our universe is not the first or the last.

If "intelligence" can be born inside a computer simulation, it's also possible to have "nested universums" where simulated intelligence creates a new virtual universum inside the virtual universum where the intelligence was born in.

A related example would be that a human created AI creates a new better AI system independently and those AI systems can keep evolving and generating new stuff without any human interaction with the system.

<comment><USER3> In thinking about this, I concluded the subatomic/quantum levels were far beyond my ability to comprehend or model accurately (if at all) since I'm not a physicist. Furthermore, both are still on the forefront of discovery and not fully understood.

Therefore, I reasoned that these low-level rules you're talking about may manifest upward in scale. If you created layered approximations of observable behavior, you could essentially capture the output of these rules even if not directly discovering them at a low level.

If you have a protein, a plant, planet and galaxy all on equal footing in terms of how they're approximated and simulated, then perhaps one could factor out commonality from each and deduce some sort of low-level rules from that.

With respect to our reality being an ancestor simulation, I'd say it's highly likely. You might be interested in looking at Bostrom's simulation hypothesis, if you already haven't.

<comment><USER4> This would be the most fun for me. Model the lowest levels of physical laws by creating a simulation universe of a very small volume and see how to make behaviours computable. Only rule is that you can't freeze time in the simulated universe while computing. So first off there has to be propagation limits to effects (or at least observability limits) within the simulated universe.

The best way to make this scalable might be to make each observer a CPU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jerome-jh 1/ Since we have an example of a working universe at hand, I think I would start by modeling the 4 basic interactions. And there is already a quite hard issue which is: 3 interactions are short range, and the 4th (gravitation) is long range. So you will need a large enough universe and a large number of particles from the start. Second issue is that you may not see interesting behavior emerging before your patience ends.

Compared to Conway's game of life: only one interaction (short range), interesting behavior almost immediate.

Maybe there is middle ground. (game of life with a long range interaction?)

2/ Initial data to be chosen randomly. Works both for game of life and our own universe.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I was God, I would first create a very dense three dimensional grid in the void. Then in any point of the grid there is a gravity vector that points to a direction with the highest combined force of gravity calculated at that point. So gravity must be a three dimensional vector field.

Now, the direction and length of those vectors have to be continuously updated due to moving particles so that we can efficiently move particles arriving at any point.

The most logical explanation is that our universe updates its state at frequency that is directly linked to speed of light. This update frequency dictates the maximum distance any particle can travel in one cycle. Similarly gravity vectors cannot be updated faster than this frequency dictates. So gravity must propagate as spherical waves at the speed of light.

Similarly the system needs to continuously calculate electromagnetic field vectors for all points.

So when you place any fundamental particle in points X in the grid, it is immediately moved based on the direction and amplitude of the vectors in that point - but only by vectors that have been defined by rules to have an impact on this particular fundamental particle. We can e.g. define particles that are not effected by gravity at all.

So at very minimum we need some fundamental particles, forces and a way to calculate how those particles move in the grid. The system has an update frequency which defines the maximum speed in the grid.

Then you need to define rules what happens when two or more fundamental particles come close enough to each other.

When you have those rules and they produce an evolving system that stays in motion when fed with enough "input data", you have cracked this problem.

Solving this problem is the key to understanding theory of everything. So although the initial models aren't exactly correct, this exercise forces you to think like a God.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Obviously the minimum possible amount of data for a "Game of Life"-type setup would be a bunch of 'ON' voxels somewhere near the center.

As for the question itself, I think you've answered yourself: a Game of Life- type setup defined in three dimensions. I've seen a mention on HN of somebody implementing the (2D standard case) in 23 assembler instructions, so it's very minimal.

<comment><USER6> Nitpick: 23 assembly instructions and billions of transistors to run them. Custom hardware for the game of life could significantly decrease that (and the number of instructions), though.

I also think that "bunch of 'ON' pixels" would have to be rather large, if you think the universe could have evolved in many, many, different ways. A stochastic version of the game of life might be a better choice.

To prevent that from getting to chaotic, the next state of a cell could depend not only on the states of neighboring cells, but also on the past state(s) of the cell and its neighbors (in a sense making 'time' more important). Alternatively, one could slowly decrease the amount of randomness over time, allowing the universe to 'cool down' from an initial Big Bang into a less chaotic almost stable state.

Finding an interesting variant would be a challenge, though.

<comment><USER5> I think Stephen Wolfram would beg to differ with you on the topic of how difficult it is to find an 'interesting la rule – his hole oeuvre (whatever your opinion of the man) demonstrates that these things crop up surprisingly often with even the basest ingredients.

With regards to the kind of rule you speak of, a cellular automata cell in a 3D environment has at most 26 neighbours in the lattice. You could easily increment that to 27 if you wish to make its behaviour depend on its prior state (or even 53 if it you want it to depend on its 26 neighbours' current state plus 27 prior states of itself and its neighbours). I built such systems (albeit on dynamic networks and 2D automata lattices) for my thesis nigh on 18 years ago. It's quite utterly trivial.</comment></comment></comment>


Do I really need to get out the soldering-iron again? - <AUTHOR> http://www.naughtycomputer.uk/do_i_really_need_to_get_out_the_soldering_iron_again.html <comment><USER8> I have a pair of powered studio monitors (Mackie MR5), and I completely relate to this problem. Many PCs and phones will emit an audible hissing noise while plugged in. I've tested on a dozen different devices, with integrated and external DACs, five hundred dollar sound cards, massively shielded cables, practically every modern OS you can name, tweaking every audio setting exposed to me. The only devices that work perfectly are (1) my TV output, and (2) every single Apple product.

I'm wholly convinced that the computing world is, in general, regressing. Audio has been a huge loser in this fight. Today, many modern phones don't ship with 3.5mm jacks. If you want lossless audio, you literally can't find it, even though there's zero reason companies like Spotify couldn't stream it when available (even if it costs extra) (Spotify literally asks artists to upload the masters when they publish, they have that data and then throw it away). Many artists don't even publish physical CDs anymore, so its a game of luck if they have a website where I can buy the FLACs/ALACs. And if you want the actual files to, you know, live your life in a completely legal way, those are gone.

Its more than just audio. Watching movies sucks; you now pay full price to effectively indefinitely rent movies, and have them taken away at any time. eBooks are the same and always have been; the world's oldest technology has been coopted by companies like Amazon to increase revenue, and there's practically zero competition. Applications suck; we're puking web and electron everywhere, eating up every conceivable megabyte of memory available literally only because developers are lazy, and now you're consistently asked to pay a monthly fee to access this functionality literally only because companies are lazy. Modern operating systems suck; restricting filesystem access, exposing proprietary application APIs which fundamentally make applications unportable and thus contributing to the rise of Electron/RN.

Somehow we took systems and workflows that were amazing throughout the 90s-00s and, in the course of a decade, completely ruined them.

<comment><USER9> Except you're leaving out all the positives and only focusing on the negatives.

Sure, Google can revoke my access to a movie at any time but I can watch on any of my devices and I dont have to worry about finding it in stock at the local store.

I can carry literally thousands of books with me in a device smaller than a paperback.

I can't stream lossless music from Spotify but I can stream high enough quality that most people can't tell the difference. Not to mention you get access to pretty much every song you want for 10$ a month.

Electron apps and the web are replacing desktop apps but they are also making it easier than ever to make a cross platform app, meaning we will get apps that we otherwise wouldn't. This is especially good for Linux, which would be much further behind macOS and windows without popular electron/web apps available like slack, Spotify, etc.

<comment><USER10> Those aren't positives.

It does nobody any good to have 1000 books on a single device if the whole thing is subject to revocation, especially when you paid full retail price for the privilege of being _allowed_ to read it. This is regression.

Previously you paid your $10 and received a paper book. You could read it, re- read it, lend it, sell it, or burn it for warmth. You owned it for as long as you kept it dehydrated. The $15 you now pay per book gets you one of these rights, temporarily.

Whether most people can tell the difference between 320k and lossless is irrelevant-- the retail price is the same for a technically inferior product. This is a regression. And again, for your money, you own nothing.

And for apps, the cross-platform compatibility comes at the expense of consumers, who have to continuously purchase and maintain newer computer equipment to do the same damn word processing, email and shopping tasks that used to be possible on a 486. And of course, since everything is a subscription, it's a double punishment for the consumer-- they have to maintain hardware to run software they don't own.

The entire premise of modern technology has become a new vector to extract the most money from the consumer while delivering the least amount of value, power or control.

<comment><USER11> _It does nobody any good to have 1000 books on a single device if the whole thing is subject to revocation, especially when you paid full retail price for the privilege of being allowed to read it. This is regression._

What? You can still buy the paperback book, tons of my kindle books are $10 or less, and it very clearly benefits _me_ , which is why I buy tons of Kindle books.

<comment><USER12> You don't own the book itself though, you own a license to the book. The doctrine of first sale does not apply, and they can revoke your license at any time.

They have revoked licenses in the past and deleted books from people's devices. I know you have a physical file that contains the book, but that file is secured with DRM.

<comment><USER13> > You don't own the book itself though,

To be blunt: Who really cares?

I care that I can read it. After I have I don't see further use for the ownership.

Others can claim they can revoke my access before the read event occurs but the chance of that is so low that I imagine it rounds to 0%.

<comment><USER12> I mean if I'm only going to read a book once I'm not going to spend $10 on it. The only books I buy are books I'd like to own so I can read them again in the future. If I'm paying $10 to read a book once that basically makes Amazon into a really shitty library that also sells knockoff goods and forces their employees to work in sweatshop like conditions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting point buried in here: since Android is open source, you could go in and fix the bug, but then because you're not running an official Android version you'd lose access to the Play Store and other services. Something's not really free if there's a penalty for doing it. Since freedom to run a modified version of software yourself is one of the four freedoms of free software, this highlights the difference between free software and open source.

I'm not saying open source is bad and everyone should prefer free software. It's just a good example of the difference between the two in practice rather than in some debate about licenses and the abstract principles behind them.

<comment><USER15> You can run the play store just fine on lineageos, which has modifications and isn't official.

[https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/](https://www.google.com/android/uncertified/) just need to register here as of earlier this year apparently

<comment><USER14> Apparently Play Store is unaffected, but some other apps - banking, streaming, even Pokemon Go - will break. And your warranty (including hardware) is voided. So I stand corrected, and thank you, but I don't think the correction affects the main point.

<comment><USER15> Those apps are making a conscious decision to exclude phones/roms not certified by Google. That's their choice.

Generally hardware warranty will remain if it's purely a hardware issue - <USER2> can always flash back anyway.

Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute modified versions. If app vendors choose to discriminate against those versions that doesn't make it unfree any more than software supporting windows and not Linux makes Linux unfree

<comment><USER14> > Android is free software in the sense that you can make and distribute > modified versions.

I don't think that's enough to make it free software, and "free software in the sense..." is nonsensical. Free software would _guarantee the continuance_ of that freedom. Since that guarantee doesn't exist, Google could place limitations on the Play Store at any time. The fact that they haven't makes the example less clear, but it doesn't make Android free software. Even Google doesn't claim that it is.

<comment><USER15> Play store isn't part of Android. Even if it was only available to specific phones, that wouldn't make Android unfree.

Play store isn't open source at all.

Amazon was able to take Android and put it on their extremely popular devices with 0 support from Google, no play store. That's what I call freedom

<comment><USER16> Play store isn't part of AOSP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _> Right now I'm absolutely astonished at how difficult it appears to be to just listen to music with a good pair of headphones. Is it not 2018? The media is full of talk about preposterously ambitious ideas such as AI and self- driving cars and yet I can't even listen to a fuck-damn music track? O_o_

I enjoyed reading this. The whole time I thought however: that's not an issue on my Apple devices. Then I read:

 _> If anyone reads this post I'm sure loads of people will tell me that my problems are all my own making and if only I invested in an iPhone all my problems would go away. Well you know what? APPLE IS A SYMBOL OF PRETENTIOUSNESS AND IGNORANCE - YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW YOUR PHONE WORKS - <USER7> DO NOT HAVE TO PAY A TAX TO APPLE TO LISTEN TO MY MUSIC._

Well, at least it usually simply works.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, but what really gets under my skin is that every other company out there is okay with producing garbage.

Meanwhile, Apple produces things that work comparatively well, doing _what you expect_ and then, claims that reasonable functionality is _premium_. And then catches shit for being pretentious.

So, let's step through that once more:

      - garbage is normal
      - functional and interoperable is premium
      - premium is pretentious
      - also, add $1,000 for the name brand

The author simultaneously complains that nothing works, but refutes using the only thing that works because it represents training wheels that are too fashionable and ostentatious.

We can have nice things because that's for babies, and also too overtly glamorous and bougie.

I just want shit that works out of the box sometimes. I also don't need X-Files alien logos and red backlit Hunt For Red October themes everywhere. And oh yeah, let's not get started on OEM spyware masquerading as harmless adware. ( _Cough! Lenovo! [0] Cough! Intel Management Engine! [1] Cough!_ )

[0] [https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Security-Malware/Malware- preloa...](https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Security-Malware/Malware-preloaded-on- new-computers/td-p/3876408)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Securi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Security_vulnerabilities)

Will someone other than Apple please step up to the fucking plate and not just dump trash onto the shelves at Best Buy?

<comment><USER19> The Apple premium has gone so damn high though.

I got my first Mac when the Mac mini came up. It was a little more expensive than same-generation PCs but besides being OSX it was a PowerPC that never made any fan noise, and was _small_. I've subsequently had three Macbooks and two iPhones - but I can't afford this somewhat-better-somewhat-more-expensive racket anymore. Prices have risen too much; to boot, the quality gulf between Macs and garden-variety Dells and Acers has pretty much crashed. Macbooks have had multiple problematic years now; iPhones did away with headphone jacks; and OSX peaked at 10.6.8, where it indeed was five years into the future - <USER4> Windows 10 is decent now and even has the whole Unix toolkit with WSL.

<comment><USER20> Disclaimer: not trying to convince you, just sharing an anecdote like you did.

\- I agree Apple pricing has gone out of control. I should not have to shell out 1500 EUR for a 256GB phone with a bigger display no matter what (XS Max). I mean okay, it's probably the best phone out there but come on. It's a mobile computing device, not a life's insurance bill.

\- I fully agree MacBooks and desktop Macs haven't had good years in a while. IMO the MacBook Pro 2015 15" was Apple's laptop peak. They haven't produced anything worthwhile in the laptop departments ever since.

\- Desktop Macs are a horrid mess where greed trumps everything else so much that even I who spent 6 figures on tech during my life cannot justify paying 5000 EUR for an iMac 27" 5K with maxed out specs (i7 CPU, 64GB RAM and 1 or 2TB SSD). Right now your only viable choice for a future-proof machine however is either the iMac 27" or the iMac Pro, and both are expensive as hell.

\- macOS version, not sure, I started actively using it only a year or so ago so it feels quite good to me and is tons more predictable than Windows 10. You have to fight with Windows 10 to make it your own and not be barraged with popups. macOS in comparison stays out of the way.

\---

To summarize, Apple has peaked, including in the smartphone and tablet departments. Upgrades are very smallish and iterative while the price tags remain huge.

The way I see it, Apple has been coasting for a while. They need to get back on track because inevitably somebody will try and displace them.

(As a random example, Xiaomi phones are probably the best physical designs and software experience I ever had. But I still don't trust Google's binary blobs and the general baseband processor stuff so I stay away from Android.)

<comment><USER21> >But I still don't trust Google's binary blobs and the general baseband processor stuff so I stay away from Android.

Why do you trust the Apple ones then? At least on android you can get rid of most Google code with Lineage + microg

<comment><USER20> > _At least on android you can get rid of most Google code with Lineage + > microg_

...as far as we know. What about the baseband processor that has access to everything at any time?

> _Why do you trust the Apple ones then?_

Becase they took a stand and refused to introduce a security backdoor in the FBI San Bernardino case. And because iPhone hacks cost more on the net compared to Android ones. This to me indicates that iPhones are harder to crack -- so the demand is higher, suppy is lower and thus the prices are higher.

All circumstantial evidence of course, but it's what we have to go on.

<comment><USER22> Also, compare OS updates: Android has significantly more critical security fixes than iOS, every single time.

Maybe it means they are finding more bugs and fixing them, or maybe it means Android is basically security Swiss cheese. my money is on the latter.

<comment><USER23> Android has a hell of a lot more people developing it/for it. I wouldn't be so sure of that assumption.

<comment><USER20> That doesn't mean much when flashing their ROM means voiding your warranty though. Also, their efforts don't really count in the very important areas like the OS security itself; Google reigns supreme there, mostly.

I am a former flashing-ROMs fanboy but the truth is, you are either stuck on ancient kernels or sometimes part with functionality you prefer to still have (like rooting).

I gave up, eventually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > _It turns out that all music players on Android actually play music using > the Android-media-player-service._

This is inaccurate. Neutron music player bypasses Android's Media Player APIs and talks directly to your DAC and plays music without resampling (if the DAC supports it). Never had any audio popping or explosions using Neutron, and I've tried it on 6 different devices so far without any issues (LG G3, Nexus 6P, Nextbit Robin, OnePlus 3, Note 8, OnePlus 6). My headphones are a Beyerdynamic DT880.

<comment><USER25> I've never had any problems with "explosions" using standard media players, even when plugged into my HD650s - anyone else have that happen?

HN is mostly engineering types, the poster clearly has that mindset, we should be filing or looking for a proper bug report for this instead of crafting hacks or talking about alternative products altogether right off the bat.

<comment><USER26> > we should be filing or looking for a proper bug report for this instead of > crafting hacks or talking about alternative products altogether right off > the bat

As if Google even considers reading any bug reports ... :(

<comment><USER27> Googlers read HN though ;-)

(source: I work for Google)

<comment><USER28> That explains why the best way to reach the bigger tech companies is to make a complain go viral here. It's kinda fucked up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> IMHO your circuit topology looks wacky. Perhaps there's a goal to making your amplifier ground ride in the middle of the waveform, but it could just as well be unintentional. So my immediate thoughts -

You've already got a real split supply with 2x 9v batteries. If you use that instead of deriving a virtual ground, you will save 9mA of quiescent current.

How purposeful is that whole low side duplicated circuit and why? [0] It seems like since you're using batteries, hooking signal ground directly to your ground and driving the output single ended would work fine. Or if you want to work towards being able to AC-power, then a differential input op-amp topology and still drive the output single ended.

Isn't there a vibrant cottage industry of external USB DACs and headphone amplifiers and whatnot? I'm more of a receiver+speakers type of a person, but I often see newly designed stuff for headphones.

[0] Driving both sides does get you the ability to swing the output a full 36 volts. But given that your goal is to cut the signal by 11 and also that by mixing both channels you can't actually do that lest you get crosstalk in the form of clipping, I don't think this is your goal!

<comment><USER30> I think the trick here is that the resistors are much more precise than two batteries of unknown origin will be at providing a symmetric supply voltage without further stabilization. So they serve as a 50/50 voltage divider _whatever_ the input voltage is, 7+9 or 6+8 on half full (or half empty, depending on your mental make-up) batteries, it would still work just fine.

Binding the central line between the two 9V batteries to GND would give you the situation you describe, indeed you could then drop the resistors but now you have a fairly high risk of ending up with an asymmetric supply voltage, which means one side will clip earlier than the other.

<comment><USER29> Is this really a common thing? I don't really have experience with battery powered audio processing circuits. In my experience you usually create a virtual ground when you've got no other choice, like say signal conditioning with a single ended supply.

<comment><USER30> Yes, in battery powered stuff it is pretty common. When working from a single supply it is a quick and easy way to use operational amplifiers.

That the author used two batteries in series did not change much in that respect (and internally those 9V batteries are a stack of 6 cells anyway). The alternative would be to use the common rail between the two batteries as a ground and then two regulators (or simply a Zener and a follower transistor, same effect for less cost) to get say plus and minus 7 or 8 volts depending on how far you want to run the batteries down and what kind of specs that op-amp has.

Most op-amp circuitry would be +- 15V, but they usually work on much less than that. The circuit as presented here probably has a DC bias that is in the 100's of mV, there is no adjustment for it either so it is a bit of a kludge the way it is set up. There are better ways to do this, it all comes down to part variation and that should not be a factor in a good schematic.

There are single supply op-amps too, but in this case I suspect the voltage required to drive those headphones properly was the major deciding factor in using two stacked 9V cells.

<comment><USER29> > _But in this case I suspect the voltage required to drive those headphones > properly was the major deciding factor in using two stacked 9V cells_

Maybe it was the deciding factor for whomever designed the original circuit. But in this incarnation with the 11x attenuation, the input signal would have to be above 80V for this to matter! It's obviously modified from some folk audio design, I'm just trying to figure out how much of its oddity actually has some purpose.

<comment><USER30> Yes, it definitely looks like a 'stacked hack', not something that was designed with purpose by someone who really knew what they were doing. No mention of distortion, no bias adjust, DC coupled (could be good, could be really bad depending on the bias...).

There are some pretty good headphone amplifier circuits out there, most of them a little bit more complex than this but with what I would expect to be far superior specs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pro tip: There are enough PCB shops now that small designs like this can just be done in free EDA software in minutes, 10 boards in your hand with a stencil 9 real days later for less than $50 shipped. The stencil lets you paste the board all at once, you place parts and hit it with a heat gun until everything sets. For audio stuff you get the advantage of keeping everything nice and tight with lower noise. I barely bread/proto board anymore since it is so cheap and easy to get boards made now.

<comment><USER32> I used to use BatchPCB and LOVED the service. When Sparkfun shut it down I couldn't find any decent alternatives and pretty much just quit making boards.

It looks like Osh Park has a pretty decent offering these days, but I'm curious who you're using with 9 day turnaround time? That's amazing!

<comment><USER33> I ordered some from jlpcb on a Monday and by Friday they were here. Express shipping brought it to $19 shipped for 10 boards. I'm sure most places like that are similar in lead times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'll happily pay the "apple tax" so I can live my life and not have to deal with all the bullshit you did just to listen to some music. Good lord. I'd rather experience the world then mess around with the tech that's supposed to be helping me live better.

<comment><USER35> It's amusing to still hear "Apple tax" in 2018, as if there is no additional value in better hardware, software and support for many people's use cases.

<comment><USER36> If anything, the 'Apple tax' is greater in 2018 than it has ever been.

I say this as having owned 3 Macs for the last 10 years. 4-8 years ago, the gap between Apple and the rest was so stark, it seemed paying for a premium Apple product was a no-brainer.

Even Linus got a Macbook air because the hardware was such a leap ahead.

Not only has the gap closed, Apple have been left behind, with inferior build quality in key areas (keyboards). This has coincided with raising prices further.

The 'Apple tax' is now a real phenomenon, not just the price of premium.

<comment><USER37> Linus hasn't used a MacBook Air for several years now. Apple's devices are now inferior in every category.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW YOUR PHONE WORKS

I know it _does_ work.

Would I prefer to have a more open phone and computer? Sure. At the cost of having to ever tinker with it? No.

I just switched my home built raspberry + HiFiBerry with expensive speakers to a simple closed Sonos system for the exact same problem the author had with linux, audio hardware, noise. Having something that just works and I don't have to care how is a blessing and in the future that is where I'll put my money. Ignorance is bliss.

</comment><comment><USER39> Everyone seems to be seeing this as an Android vs. iOS debate, but I see it as a smartphone vs. dedicated device debate. If you're serious enough about photography, you don't complain about your smartphone camera's limitations, you get yourself a DSLR and multiple lenses. So if you're this serious about music, why not get a dedicated device? Look at what companies like HiBy and Hidizs are doing. I have, and my ears haven't been this happy since the early aughts.

<comment><USER40> _why not get a dedicated device?_

For the same reason I don't want to carry a big heavy DSLR around with me, because there's a limited number of devices I want to lug around.

I ditched the DSLR years ago (yes, it took great photos, but not enough to make it worth the hassle). Though I still bring a pocket sized camera with me when I travel because my smartphone still can't compete with a big sensor and an optical zoom.

While a dedicated MP3 player is small (to be honest, I didn't even know they were still made), it's just one more thing to keep track of and keep charged up.

<comment><USER41> It doesn't have to be a whole separate device. The Audioquest Dragonfly is the size of a USB stick, runs off your phone's power, and provides excellent DAC/amp capabilities. Fiio also makes some similar mobile DAC/amps.

Here's a nice long article on the details: [https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/an- audi...](https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/an-audiophile- switches-from-ios-to-android/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm a bit flabbergasted by all the "wow this person just wasted all his free time fixing a nonexistent problem instead of just getting an iPhone" on Hacker News of all places. Yes there's an ideological bent to the whole exercise but that's precisely the kind of passion you need to deep dive into creating your own audio device over a minor annoyance. Yes it's clunky and expensive to maintain but you have to admire the commitment and technical expertise to build a working product from scratch.. It was an entertaining read and I'm sure a good mental jog for the author.

<comment><USER43> If he had just said "I want a phone I can tinker with, so the iPhone doesn't fit the bill", no one would object. The problem is his claim that Apple is a symbol of pretentiousness and ignorance, simply because it provides convenience and out-of-the-box usability without needing to know how it works. Most people don't tinker for a living / hobby, and thus don't have the luxury of spending large amounts of their valuable time figuring out how the device works and tinkering with it.

Not understanding this actually a sign of pretentiousness and ignorance.

<comment><USER42> Thank you and others for pointing that out. I can see how a blanket insult that would unintentionally fit many Hacker News users would lead to a pile on. I've been on an iPhone forever but I've stopped considering it and Apple part of my identity. It was such an extreme statement in an otherwise interesting article that I took it as humor to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'll allow myself some generalization here.

I know several very smart and creative hardware technicians and system administrators. I admire them. I truly do. They are more independently thinking than most other programmers I know, are much more resistant to trends and fashion in technology, and rarely complain about the tech they must use. Throw Python, Perl, PHP, bash and what not at them, they can and will curse but will get the job done every time.

In that regard, they are hard-working and resourceful. And I have a lot of respect for them.

That being said, I cannot help but notice things common among all of those that I know or used to know:

\- Apple hate without any regard for the advantages it gives you.

\- They use 80-100% of their leisure time to tinker and work outside their main work hours. One of them recently got divorced by his wife. She said the guy barely spent any time with her. I don't know if their relationship wasn't sour before but still, it's partially indicative.

\- Obliviousness how Android is not the end-all-be-all of free software -- because it's not; Android is PARTIALLY open-source and comes with a lot of strings attached. Flash a ROM and your warranty is voided. But to them, if you can tinker with your tech then you absolutely, factually, practically, and for all intents and purposes, are using free tech. Details like warranties and hours-long sessions to make basic functions work again be damned in the process.

\- Complete disregard for convenience and utter lack of respect for others' time. As mentioned above, they usually spend most of their free time working, are not stressed out or burned out, are in good health shape, and find it mysterious that people might be exhausted and would just want to lie on the couch reading a favourite book -- or napping.

\---

I am somewhat saddened to say the OP's article confirms my bias towards hardware technicians. He's undoubtedly smart and good at what he does but also heavily biased and lacks perspective.

I believe such resourceful people should be more open-minded. If he's reading this, I hope he takes it as a constructive feedback from the sidelines and not bashing. All I am saying is that their attitude is not helping them being taken more seriously. If you turn a blind eye to nuances (case in point: Apple hate from his side) then you are not objective in your discussions.

<comment><USER44> Hate doesn't work, I'll give you that. I'm hopeful that OP takes your feedback :)

But you're very mistaken about the "disregard for convenience". Almost every human strives for convenience, even the folks you are talking about, they spend a lot of time writing automation scripts to make their work convenient. Just like you advice, please be open-minded to the idea that for some people convenience is just one checkbox on the list (unlike others, maybe including you, where convenience is of prime importance). For some people, real convenience comes from both functional convenience and tinkerability - <USER5> the confidence that they can make the product what _they_ want to do - <USER6> feeling limited by the manufacturer's decisions. At the end its about tradeoffs, and when it comes to personal choice, people simply have different priorities.

To give you an objective example, when I buy a router, I always first go for an Asus. Why? Their UI is super easy to use - and at the same time, if you want, you can get it do to more powerful stuff. Just like Apple (as folks claim), their support is great (I've got replacements, no questions asked) but, unlike Apple, they actually encourage you to tinker around. So in this case, hell yeah, I do pay the extra premium for convenience.

<comment><USER20> > _Just like you advice, please be open-minded to the idea that for some > people convenience is just one checkbox on the list_

Noted, agreed and upvoted. :)

From my experience with these folks, when I complained about the 1st gen Chromecast I had 3 or so years ago, one of them casually told me "Oh, just buy an RPi and install KODI on it, also make sure your TV and HDMI cable support HDMI-CEC. You should be sorted pretty quickly, probably three or four hours".

I had to laugh bitterly when he said that! Back then I was much less healthy compared to now, was constantly exhausted, was struggling with debts and crappy jobs, was trying to heal from a failed and ended marriage -- and in general I had a ton on my plate basically 24/7.

And along comes this guy and casually tells you that you might spend a half working day on a project for home streaming -- and he told it to me while full-well knowing my situation. It was pretty inconsiderate in my eyes.

\---

It's not even only about putting convenience at the top of your priorities. Sometimes you're just tired. Or have kids constantly demanding attention. Or are trying to heal from stress and burn out (like I am trying now). There are a plethora of VALID reasons why you wouldn't embark on such DIY projects.

And to me, these people easily and off-handedly dismiss them. Which I view as inconsiderate and disrespectful. They are judging things from their own life (which is easier than mine, at least regarding the people I know) and don't give the benefit of the doubt.

But I concende that I might be projecting based on my several such negative experiences. I am not stereotyping all hardware technicians and sysadmins. I also concede that I don't give benefit of the doubt every time. :)

It's just that when things repeat themselves several times, we the humans -- at least I -- tend to try and draw a conclusion.

I admit I could be wrong. Your perspective was appreciated!

<comment><USER32> You're not wrong, but just remember that there are people in this world looking at you and all of us "nerdy engineers" exactly the same way.

Not that we need to stress about that, I mean we _all_ look like douchebags to _somebody_. I just think you might be jumping the gun with character judgements such as them not respecting your free time. The guy who told you to spend 3 hours tinkering with your Chromecast would probably love working on that project himself, and assumed you might enjoy it too. He might have been trying to help you take your mind off of the stresses he know you were dealing with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Is this actually a bug in Android (confirmed by someone else on a different phone) or is it a bug in the implementation by this OEM? I haven't experienced it but I also do not use this writer's particular sound files.

I think the underlying point is very important. It does seem like quality has been sacrificed in many products to shave a few pennies off the BOM. Why should today's portable CD players be substantially worse than the ones available in 1995? I get that they are asking $25 instead of $115. But SONY and Panasonic have left the market, leaving it to the drugstore quality ones, and they don't appear to want to make a product that plays a clear sound.

As far as circuits are concerned, I can't help but notice that a TI TPA6100A2 costs $1.11 at qty 1, and outputs stereo from a 1.6-5.5V single supply drawing a max of 50mw. This would substantially reduce the weight and power draw of his mini amp. A couple rechargable AA batteries would do.

<comment><USER46> They are not shaving BOM pennies, they are shaving NRE pennies. The components to produce good audio are dirt cheap, even for a consumer product, even in quantity. Keeping digital noise out of analog circuits, however, takes effort. Getting the software to not drop step functions at inopportune moments takes even more effort. They won't do these things unless they feel they have to.

<comment><USER47> NRE == Non-recurring engineering costs, in other words, stuff like R&D. This was my first encounter with that term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> "It improves sound quality by taking away the hard work of driving the dynamic load of the headphones from the device"

Can anybody explain that please? What is this dynamic load whose driving is hard?

<comment><USER49> Converting an electric signal into mechanical movement takes energy. Thus, current needs to flow from the audio amplifier in the CD player to the headphones. In electronic terms: the headphones have a low impedance (AC resistance).

Due to a poorly designed circuit in the CD player, noise is introduced when current flows. So the more current is flowing, the more noise. Driving a dynamic load is not hard, it has been solved for a long time. The vendor just chose a poor design, probably to shave a couple tenths of a cent from the material bill.

A proper designed amplifier requires very little current (ideally none) on the input. In electronic terms: the amplifier has a high impedance. Thus the amplifier causes very little noise when connected to the cheap CD player.

The OP build a better amplifier that causes less noise when current is drawn from it, so using that results in a better quality sound.

<comment><USER48> > Due to a poorly designed circuit in the CD player, noise is introduced when > current flows.

Thanks! This was the missing part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I love how people can do this type of stuff. Whenever I get out the soldering iron to fix any problems, I face a 50% chance of success against 50% chance of fucking it beyond repair. Well, I guess it fixes it in both cases...

<comment><USER51> If it ain't broke... fix it until it is...

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> A USB DAC+amp seems like the right answer if you _don 't_ want to break out the soldering iron and don't want to buy an Apple product. I just don't think makers of commodity hardware have much incentive to spend money on good audio circuitry. But if their USB ports didn't work, well, that would be a real problem. I have an earlier model of this:

[http://www.schiit.com/products/fulla-1](http://www.schiit.com/products/fulla-1)

that delivers good audio quality (to my non-audiophile ears). The one I have is not perfect: there's some static when you turn the volume knob (maybe a good design tradeoff at the price, I don't know), and the metal edges on the enclosure were sharp enough that I took it apart and filed them down a bit (others might not have been bothered by this, but I was). But there sure isn't any background hissing like there is with the built-in headphone jack on my Dell workstation.

</comment><comment><USER53> Most modern laptops have more than decent audio output, but if more quality is needed one could buy a small external sound card for a lot less than €100. This one for example would fit easily in a notebook bag. [https://www.thomann.de/gb/miditech_audiolink_light.htm](https://www.thomann.de/gb/miditech_audiolink_light.htm)

About the article circuit, I 'm not that sure the 5532 is a good part for headphone amps, unless the phones have a high impedance and resistance: they're intended as preamplifiers (and very good ones) so they hardly can supply the current to fully drive phones, though I guess they can still be ok for listening to soft jazz in a quiet room:)

<comment><USER54> Regarding the op amp selection, he just used them because he had them lying around.

      "If you wanted best possible sound you'd use some actual audio op-amps rather than these cheap NE5532P. And buffer the output of the op-amps somehow. But of-course size and cost balloons if you start adding buffers and stuff."

What I like about his project how he simply used a couple magnets to hold the lid on. Microsoft did something similar on my keyboard, but I don't know that it is something used much on DIY projects like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Could've spent $199 on an iPod, have high quality audio, load your own music, no "apple tax".

Coincidentally I was looking for something like an ipod shuffle this week and it's become almost impossible to find, beyond some cheap thrift-store MP3 players.

<comment><USER56> > I was looking for something like an ipod shuffle this week and it's become > almost impossible to find,

What's wrong with the Sandisk products?

EG Clip Jam: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Clip-Jam- MP3-Player/dp/B00V...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Clip-Jam- MP3-Player/dp/B00VXMY262)

<comment><USER57> Ah, I miss my good ol' Sandisk Sansa Clip+. This device with rockbox firmware and a MicroSD-Card had an amazing interface, enough storage for lots of music, supporting FLAC and other lossless formats, all while being small, lightweight and providing high audio quality. For about 40 bucks.

<comment><USER56> Sadly, I think some of the newer devices can't take Rockbox. I think the Clip Jam can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Have had 8 android phones.

Literally never heard anything like this.

<comment><USER59> Me either.

My last three Android phones (two Motorola and an HTC) have excellent sound from their headphone jacks. I use my phone and two iPads on a regular basis with headphones, and I've never heard pops between tracks or noticeable hiss with any of them.I

I write audio software on embedded Linux devices for a living. I know what clicks and pops between tracks sound like, and usually why they happen. But I don't think this guy's two-op-amo buffer is doing what he thinks it's doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm super curious…

a. What in these files triggers the explosion of noise (and whether other people have run into this or the author would mind sharing a representative problem file).

b. Whether an output attenuator (or "resistor") would work to quiet the noise (edit: the hiss, not the explosion) without a powered circuit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author here, I can't send you a sample because of copyright but get "scare force one" by Lordi on CD and rip it into any format.

<comment><USER41> Hi, this isn't related to the parent comment, but I'm wondering why you went through all this effort, which you don't seem to have enjoyed, just to be able to listen to music at home but not at your desk. Isn't all the stuff you have pretty bulky to be carrying around? Not to mention the portable CD player probably skips if you're walking around with it somehow in a pocket.

It seems like all of this could be solved with some bookshelf speakers. You can hook up your portable CD player or browse Craigslist/Goodwill for an older HDCD player that'll run higher sampling rates and queue up multiple CDs, have music for cooking/cleaning/exercising. Maybe even get a Chromecast Audio and have effortless streaming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> If he's able to get that much of an improvement with 5532s, I'm curious what he could get if he used modern opamps. Granted, the 5532 has been the opamp to beat for sound quality for decades, but someone posting by the handle NwAvGuy dis a shootout of opamps comparing and measuring the specs that actually matter for quality audio use back in 2011[1]. That was 7 years ago, and the various component vendors have released some new devices since. I suspect a slight redesign using a 2068 for the gain stage and a 4556 for the buffers would do even better, and drain the batteries slower because of less quiescent current of modern devices.

The circuit design looks weird to me. Wouldn't it be better to use a inverting setup on the opamp to get get some attenuation, and then feed the gain stages into a high-current opamp like the 4556 as a buffer to drive the headphones, or perhaps a transistor that'd be good at the job? And why are there a pair of parallel gain stages on the ground line? Why not just throw your gain stages on the signal lines, ground ground and let it be ground?

1\. [https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amp- measurements.htm...](https://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amp- measurements.html)

<comment><USER62> Maybe he'd be better off just using a transformer. Don't these high end headphones have a high impedance?

<comment><USER61> Depends on the headphones. Some have higher impedances, some have lower ones. Transformers bring their own complexities into the circuit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> _I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY A TAX TO APPLE TO LISTEN TO MY MUSIC._

Is it better to pay a tax to Google and not be able to listen to your music?

(I say that as an Android user who hasn't run into this problem, though 90% of my listening is through streaming services, I still have all of my CD's sitting on a hard drive, but they are all (as far as I know) available over streaming now, so I just use that)

</comment><comment><USER63> Heh, I've had a Bluetooth set of earbuds from JBL for about 2 years and they've been providing great sound (and are really convenient as I work like an auto electrician a lot of the time and I can leave my phone in the toolbox). A good alternative perhaps besides building a portable amplifier.

<comment><USER64> I bought a Bluetooth speaker a couple of months ago. Sounds great, but if I watch a video, the sound is lagging. I thought about to get Bluetooth headphones, but after that experience I think, I just stay with cables.

<comment><USER65> Explanation of why there is lag when watching video and listening over Bluetooth and how it is taken care of:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYW4J6FyyZU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYW4J6FyyZU)

To ensure (kind of) that your BT speaker/headphones will be able to work with video, check they implement "AptX low latency".

However, as they mention in the video, there are lots of ways this could fail: application playback issue, BT transmitter issue (although anything from the last few years should be able to handle this properly) or receiver issue (the most likely cause in older or cheap speakers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Boy does this person need to look at the 'good headphone' market.

I paid (a very reasonable) $2k for a set of reference headphones and a suitable amp/DAC to drive them.

I could have spent a lot more.

It _is_ hard to drive a set of headphones with enough SQ to make them worthwhile.

You cannot plug a set of headphones into an Android phone and expect anything good to happen. And lots of DAPs suffer from software problems as well (lots of them are Android based...).

Getting good sound from a portable device, without software issues, is really only solved at the top end of the market ($700 - $4000).

It's a bit easier if you want to use a computer as a source but far from cheap.

<comment><USER15> Is it just me, or are $10 branded earbuds just fine for music?

<comment><USER67> Did you try any more expensive ones? If not, how can you compare? I don't think you know what you're missing. From my experience, you realize how bad cheap ones are is when you try something better. For example, I thought AKG Y20 sounded pretty good before getting the chinese TFZ series 2, which are just so much 'more'. I am aware that those tfz are also lower range (~45$ on aliexpress). I also own a pair of Beyer DT770 80ohm 100 eur headphones and those are something else, esp when I had a Focusrite Saffire to drive them. Of course there is a price point after which it gets harder to notice improvement. But only after trying out different types and price points do you start to understand what sounds good and what you actually like. For me, all cheaper ones just sound muddy or like the sound is trapped in some box or tin, and I also notice sounds and instruments missing in songs I know well.

<comment><USER15> If I'll enjoy my current ones less after trying more expensive ones, isn't that a reason not to try them?

I do see a difference between the branded ones I've used (mostly Panasonic and the Samsung AKG one that comes with phones) and the cheaper generic ones I've tried out here and there

<comment><USER67> For example, I couldn't tell the difference between some ~100$ and "reference" ~1000$ headphones, so I am not the person to buy high end DACs, fancy shielded cables or whatnot. But I like some thumping bass and clarity in the top end. It's therapeutic for me to have an immersive experience where the sound just floats around you, sort of 3d vs flat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Can't say I've ever had the explodey sound any of my Android phones through the audio jack. I've had it a handful of times with some bluetooth buds, but I'd just as soon chalk it up to their cheapness.

I _do_ have the hissing sound he's described when using my ATH-M50's with my phone, and even my laptop. My solution (albeit more expensive than his DIY one) was to buy a portable DAC/amp, specifically a Fiio E17[0]. It connects via USB/micro/C, and it's worked on every laptop and Android phone I've had since the Samsung GSII. It also used to be able to dock with a separate desktop amp[1], until my dock broke. There are plenty of other portable, Android-compatible DAC's that are not too expensive. It's a bit of a bummer to feel like you need to pay for yet-another-piece-of-gear just so you can enjoy your audiophile headphones with your audiphile-quality music on the go, but sometimes that's the price of fidelity.

[0][https://www.amazon.com/FiiO-Alpen-Portable-Headphone- Amplifi...](https://www.amazon.com/FiiO-Alpen-Portable-Headphone- Amplifier/dp/B0070UFMOW/) [1][https://www.amazon.com/FiiO-Desktop-Headphone- Amplifier-Dock...](https://www.amazon.com/FiiO-Desktop-Headphone-Amplifier- Dock/dp/B004M172FY/)

</comment><comment><USER69> > _Battery life is only a few hours unfortunately because the circuit draws an > enormous idle current of 23mA :o_

This is because the device is silly. Firstly, there is an unnecessary voltage divider for generating a reference voltage. It is too stiff (resistors are too low-valued at 1K + 1K). This provides a reference voltage that is conveyed to high impedance destinations. 18V into 2Kohms means this consumes 9 milliamps!

Secondly, the device contains a bizarre circuit that tries to amplify the GND- GND path, using two op-amps in parallel.

The numbers check out: 9 mA for the voltage divider, plus around 8 mA x 2 IC-s (typical value from datasheet): 25 mA.

Here is how we can fix things.

1\. We have two batteries! That is a true dual voltage supply! We can just take the center reference voltage between the two batteries. By doing that we lose the voltage divider entirely, and save 9mA of supply current.

2\. We can lose the GND-GND amplifier, and just provide a proper end-to-end galvanic ground connection. We eliminate a pair of op-amps, and thus an entire IC chip.

We're now down to the current draw for a single NE5532.

3\. Use a different op-amp. The NE5532 isn't great for driving low impedances like headphones. There are op-amps that are better suited for this, _and_ draw less quiescent current.

</comment><comment><USER70> For < $100, I got a USB device which is a DAC+PreAmp+HeadphoneAmp which works great with all Androids, iPhones and computers. I didn't have to solder or breadboard.

</comment><comment><USER71> Can anyone comment on what's going on with the ground channel in the circuit here?

Seems like you would want to tie the input ground to the virtual ground between the two 9Vs and then maybe buffer the output ground, but this circuit doesn't do that - it just replicates the L/R chains twice between grounds.

Also, what's the point of adding the two 9Vs and then splitting them again with the two 1k resistors? Why not just pull ground from in between the two 9Vs?

<comment><USER72> Doesn't make any sense to me either. He's burning 2ma for no reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> > I do not have to pay a tax to apple to listen to my music.

Well, neither do I to be fair. I seriously dislike iTunes but it can take more input than just the store..

Regardless of the official Music player app there are third party ones, some of which are super simple (presenting a http upload on the network and allowing playback of uploaded media) or, in my case, Plex (with a plex pass for local sync)

<comment><USER74> I think his point was less about the purchasing ecosystem for the music and more about the premium for the hardware/OS/brand/accessories/what-have-you required to play any music at all.

Though, seriously, if I can throw a little bit extra (shockingly not a lot, compared to similar modern Android offerings) at my phone and not have this kind of basic problem and, presumably, other basic problems of a similar nature then there is a tipping point of efficiency that isn't terribly far away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I saw similar problems _creating_ music and sounds: having "good" audio hardware means that _every sound flaw you have is now obvious and annoying_. I had to be much more careful. Frankly, good sound production and programming are both underrated, they are not trivial.

</comment><comment><USER76> I had to dish out for Audioquests Dragonfly red just so I could enjoy my headphones on pc. The audio quality _is_ really good but I can't really endorse that as the general go-to solution since the price is quite steep. Would not go back, though.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why does it use two opamps for the ground signal?

<comment><USER77> Since you have two channels that source current (L and R) it makes sense to have two parallel op-amps for the GND pin to have the same slew rate & maximum current, as both L and R channels return current through the GND line (I would assume).

<comment><USER78> I am curious as to why it needs any circuitry on the ground line - would a direct connection not work? (I guess I am assuming that L, R and ground are the only connections made to the headphones.) Do the amplifiers put a DC bias on the L and R outputs that needs to be matched on the ground, and if so, would a capacitor in series with the L and R outputs not be enough to isolate it?

<comment><USER79> You could just use the middle connection between the two batteries as a ground. I'm not sure why he didn't do it. Perhaps so that the whole thing works longer even if one of the batteries is discharged faster. That would be my guess.

<comment><USER78> As it stands, 40% of its 23mA current draw is through the 1kΩ x 2 voltage divider... Now I am wondering if a circuit with the between-battery link connected to ground would risk damaging the op amps (or phones) if only one battery was in?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> I've had this problem a lot with sensitive in-ear headphones. I guess it is a problem of dynamic range - the same amplifier has to drive insensitive and sensitive headphones, so to avoid being too quiet on the insensitive ones (definitely noticeable) they make them super-loud at the cost of easily audible noise when you're using sensitive headphones on low volume.

I actually bought Google's active USB-C audio dongle to solve this for my Mi A1. It works, but I think USB-C is not a good port for headphones. It isn't robust enough - if you wiggle it around as if it were in your pocket you easily get glitches.

</comment><comment><USER81> Odd that the author poses this question:

 _Maybe it doesn 't like the metadata in those tracks?_

and doesn't go on to discover the answer. If my ripping and encoding routine were doing something funky that causes problems I'd really want to know about it, and it wouldn't require me to debug Android as the author implies.

It's true enough that Android playback probably shouldn't be glitching, but if the track metadata is invalid or pushing the limits of what you can do, whatever he's doing to his tracks is likely to cause problems in places other than Android playback...

</comment><comment><USER82> With all "high quality" audio matters like this - and compressed music - <USER7> genuinely don't understand what the point is. I listen to a lot of different music (Pop, Jazz, Metal, Microtonal stuff etc.) through a lot of different mediums (Good preamps into really expensive amps etc., cheap headphones, overpriced headphones) an I honestly think the point of diminishing returns is at about £30.

For the price that some people spend on their audio gear, you could buy several musical instruments: A far more fulfilling (and sociable) use of too much money IMO.

<comment><USER83> I have several musical instruments and a bunch of relatively high end audio gear.

The point of dimnishing returns starts at $0, what matters is what kind of quality you want. Every once in a while, I buy some headphones in the <$100 range but I generally turn away in disgust because the sound just isn't good to my ears.

This summer, I had to buy a new phone, I went for a OnePlus 6. I figured I could use another pair of IEMs/earbuds so I bought the kit they offered with the phone. Tried them once, for about ten minutes, and threw them away. Yuck. These are obviously $2 kit of garbage sold at a massive premium..

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Just buy an iPhone.

Oh no wait. No hole that decent headphones fit in.

Have a 6s with a dicky headphone hole and some nice HD25's. Not sure where to go. I feel like my time on this planet is nearly over.

<comment><USER85> Suggestion if you haven't: take a plastic dental pick and try to get lint out of the headphone jack.

I've had to do this sooner or later to every phone I've owned, except my latest, which lacks this port entirely.

<comment><USER84> Yeah I've done that. No luck. I've used switch cleaner on swabs as well. Think it needs a new port. However I can't be bothered to take it to Apple store yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I think the author of the article just wanted to get out the soldering iron.. as otherwise a few minutes on a search engine would have revealed the existence of the CMOY headphone buffers and a plethora of similar devices for laptops and phones already out there, including ones with their own high quality DACs.. unless there is something I'm missing here?

</comment><comment><USER87> Could someone with more electronics experience than me explain the difference between the what the author made and a an off the shelf amp?

</comment><comment><USER88> I think one of the most fascinating relationships that humans have with technology is that we expect everything to just work and that's the end- goal/advertised dream. However it's never been that way and for good reason. Between competing technologies and human interests the actually reality of technology is that it's all broken.

</comment><comment><USER89> > Shame Maplin closed because now I have to order parts off the internet and > WAIT.

Local electronics shops are indispensable when you get a whim to make a curious solution to your particular problem. By the time the parts get to you, you just can't help but think how much easier it would have been to just buy something and just feel dumb.

</comment><comment><USER90> @13a note this "... (2) every single Apple product." work but not PC and phones. Consistent with the article trying both Android and Linux ... Consistent with image that Apple is in the A/V world. Just wonder there are exception e.g. would Sony (a multimedia company) would have the same problem.

</comment><comment><USER91> The tirade against Apple in the middle article is pretty silly. Android OS has a terrible bug that means you can't listen to your preferred music on your device. iOS does not have this bug. As someone who uses and develops for both OS, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

</comment><comment><USER92> One possible solution: get Bluetooth headphones instead, such as the equivalent Bluetooth Audio-Technica headphones to what's pictured in the post, the ATH-DSR9BT:

[https://www.audio- technica.com/cms/headphones/6117c014c965cd...](https://www.audio- technica.com/cms/headphones/6117c014c965cd1a/index.html)

"The ATH-DSR9BT over-ear wireless headphones employ Audio-Technica's new Pure Digital Drive system, which allows the headphones to operate without a sound- degrading D/A converter that conventional wireless headphones rely upon. Instead, the ATH-DSR9BT utilizes Trigence Semiconductor's Dnote chipset to receive the digital audio signal from a Bluetooth wireless transmission, process and transfer it to the driver where the digital pulses of the chipset move the voice coil and diaphragm forward and backward to create the sound waves heard by the listener."

</comment><comment><USER93> Former audio engineer here. Generally this is the result of high noise floor and poor power management on the amplifier side - not powering down when content isn't playing or incorrect power sequencing on the power down of the amp.

</comment><comment><USER94> There is a lot of satisfaction in understanding and building your own electronics

</comment><comment><USER95> I have the exact same headphones, and while I don't have the 'exploding' sound when listening on the phone, I do have the constant hissing and it is driving me insane!

</comment><comment><USER96> All that because the android-media-player-service has a bug.

<comment><USER97> You can't really replace android-media-player-service on your phone with your patched version without replacing the whole OS and losing (among other things) automated security updates and OEM stuff... so I can see how a hardware fix is easier. The system of <phone> \-- <headphones> is more modular.

<comment><USER98> You probably can, by rooting and making an Xposed module. But yeah, the amp is more generally useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Two 9V batteries and four op-amps for a low-current output buffer seems like overkill. does anyone know about a better way to go about it?

</comment><comment><USER100> How the last schematic works ? What is the purpose of 100 ohms resistor and diode in series for ?

<comment><USER79> To discharge the capacitor when he turns the thing off in a controlled fashion?

Otherwise the current will slowly leak through the zener diode and the 100kohm resitor and the capacitor will stay charged. So when he turns the thing on the next time it would not do the expected timed battery charge indication he wants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Earstudio bluetooth DAC by Radsone would solve all his problems. Check em out they are neat.

</comment><comment><USER102> The absolute best analog out from a portable audio device that I've seen is an iPhone 6.

</comment><comment><USER103> Are Bluetooth headsets still much behind wired ones in terms of sound quality?

<comment><USER104> As an owner of Bose QC35... yes.

The headphones themselves sound pretty good. But when playing over bluetooth sometimes compression artefacts are audible. The artefacts are caused by the bluetooth protocol for stereo audio itself, so you're going to hear them even if you play FLAC files.

Also latency is pretty horrible. 200 ms+, enough to be obvious.

<comment><USER105> I think those are what I have at work. I'm quite sure they do a bunch of stuff of DSP/EQing to make them sound better than they are. When you turn the power off and use them as normal headphones they're mediocre at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> Sounds like all this guy needs is a dragonfly.

</comment><comment><USER107> Buy a DAC

<comment><USER108> Were would that go? The author doesn't seem too keen on actually soldering on the inside of the devices, and they all give analogue out. Maybe you meant an amp?

<comment><USER109> A USB DAC connected to the old-laptop maybe? I have one on a Mini-PC that's the player for my music library - totally moved the digital-to-analogue conversion out of the noisy PC, and results in really clean audio. Obviously you get what you pay for - a £20 DAC wont do a very good job, but a £100 one will be good enough for most people.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: YouTube e-sampler for producers - <AUTHOR> https://ytsampler.com/ <comment><USER2> sampling this out now! clean!</comment>


Think you know how MySpace got started?  Think again. - <AUTHOR> http://web2.commongate.com/post/What_MySpace_Doesn_t_Want_You_To_Know <comment><USER2> Um, I published this exact story at Valleywag last year; they just rewrote a bit of the intro (like, changed "I" to "he") and linked to the original article. I don't think that's even legal under the CC license. Here's the original: <http://valleywag.com/tech/myspace/what-news-corp-doesnt-want-you- to-know-about-myspace-condensed-edition-199668.php#more>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the update. I wish I had noticed it was linkjacked.

<comment><USER3> Anyone want to fix the link jack?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1\. I followed my friend's band to Myspace, didn't create an account. Then eventually created an account to add some friends I found. It was never mass- marketed to me.

2\. MySpace is not spam. There is a concentrated level of marketing, and it is sometimes obnoxious, but you could say that about Times Square. Marketing itself is not evil. Some people love watching movie previews. Myspace does not hamper my ability to use email, nor do spammers on myspace interfere with my ability to use it. I don't mind getting friend requests and event requests from Bands, and honestly I don't even mind the "Click for Nude WebCam" spam. If MySpace spam bothers you that much, it's easy enough to simply shut down your account, create a new one, or change your email address. But again, the product as a whole isn't spam at all.

3\. I really don't care whether Tom created MySpace or not. I think it's an effective way to handle customer service.

4\. Chris DeWolfe sounds like he might be a Bad Man, but how does that relate to the product?

5\. What is bad about MySpace being a direct assult on Friendster?

While I appreciate the information, and am glad to see someone sharing it, the tone of the article is very sensational.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is why I hope that all of facebook's new apps fail. They have a large enough userbase already to crush anything new.

<comment><USER2> It's hard to want Facebook to fail, since the creators are so great, the brand is classy, and the whole thing just WORKS. (If MySpace did this sort of thing, THAT I could hate.) Zuckerberg seems to actually care about making good stuff happen; if it all has to fall under Facebook, well, I welcome our new alien overlords.

<comment><USER5> You do realize that this would be the death of so many startups, right? They're already demonstrating that they would rather lift ideas from other companies than buy anyone.

I don't care for the founders much at all. They obviously got very lucky in choosing their product. Their technology is as boring as they come (PHP et al.)

More that I don't like about facebook, the product:

They "sell" privacy. So much of their marketing revolves around the idea that what you do on facebook will only be known among those you want it to. And yet here, facebook fails _miserably_. It lets in exactly the worst people: law enforcement, employers, school officials.

Oh and the content of their photo galleries is trash because the design encourages people to upload every single picture on their harddrive. Early, early myspace even had them beat in this area.

I don't know, I just never liked it or them much at all.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Google was wrong: Did James Damore really deserve to be fired? - <AUTHOR> http://nydn.us/2vSnlfk <comment><USER2> Singer's essay might be one of the most balanced and thoughtful commentaries on this debacle (along with the open page Heterodox Academy [1]).

[1] [https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo- what...](https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does- the-research-say-about-gender-differences/)).

</comment><comment><USER3> "Google is a very selective employer, and so it is highly probable that Google's selection processes have led to Google employing women who are, in specific traits, uncharacteristic of women as a whole"

Its strange how nobody until now addressed this almost certain phenomena and what it means in relation to the memo.</comment>


A new study of the rules of spacing in English sentences - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/05/04/one-space-between-each-sentence-they-said-science-just-proved-them-wrong-2/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a66d492d6f97 <comment><USER2> _> Actually, Lifehacker's one-space purist Nick Douglas pointed out some important caveats to the study's conclusion.

> Most notably, the test subjects read paragraphs in Courier New, a fixed- > width font similar to the old typewriters, and rarely used on modern > computers.

> Johnson, one of the authors, told Douglas that the fixed-width font was > standard for eye-tracking tests, and the benefits of two-spacing should > carry over to any modern font._

I'd be annoyed at the overblown headline, the dubious methodology and the completely baseless extrapolation made by the authors, but I'm just embarrassed for everyone involved.

<comment><USER3> The fixed-width revelation was pretty shocking. It takes a lot of guts to admit, mid-article, that your entire article is nonsense; and then keep writing. How could the Washington Post print this?

<comment><USER4> > How could the Washington Post print this?

Washington Post has consistently shown their standards for journalism to be below the worst in the world. Even Al Jazeera is better. So I don't see any reason to be surprised. At least TFA was honest about the caveats.

<comment><USER3> > below the worst in the world

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this is a _most_ extraordinary claim.

Ridiculous bombast aside about an internationally recognized journalism outfit: you can't be "below the worst" thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > "You can have my double space when you pry it from my cold, dead hands," > Megan McArdle wrote

Here's another typography rule that could go away imho: the comma obviously belongs outside of the quotes, not inside of it. Megan McArdle did not write that last comma so it belongs after the quote

Apparently the weird rule has something to do with metal pieces of printing presses in the 19th century. Well, we're 2018 now and printing presses can handle it outside of the quotes just fine.

UK does it fine apparently. Sometimes it seems as if the US actually prefers to use inconsistent things like date formats where the numbers are not ordered from biggest to smallest or smallest to biggest, length units with various differing multiplication factors or those commas inside of quotes here :p

</comment><comment><USER6> The true answer, as far as i can tell:

\- monospace font: two spaces.

\- proportional font: "space" is a lie, let your typesetter figure it out.

LaTeX forces option two: white space between sentences is completely ignored in a paragraph block when the document is rendered. (and thus should be two spaces since most people edit latex in a monospace font).

<comment><USER7> I tend to use new lines between my sentences in LaTeX. It makes it easier for me to do editing.

Two new lines between paragraphs.

<comment><USER8> Another benefit of your approach is that it plays very well with revision control.

<comment><USER9> How is it better than using one or more spaces between sentences?

<comment><USER6> line diffs are easier to think about, i suppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Certainly true that more horizontal spacing between sentences is good for readability. Certainly false that hitting the spacebar twice, like a caveman, is the way to achieve this.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. A good typesetting system will leave more inter-sentence space than inter-word spacing, but this has nothing to do with the number of ASCII 0x20 symbols after the full stop (period) at the end of the sentence.

<comment><USER12> But what typesetting system has a way of marking up sentence endings? Because you can rely on the period being that as e.g. this sentence has one in the middle of the sentence.

<comment><USER13> LaTeX does. The general rule it uses is that a period followed by a space marks the end of a sentence. To mark an intra-sentence period, a backslash is used between the period and the space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Browsers naturally collapse more than one space in text, so even if the markup contains multiple spaces, only one will be displayed. Whether the conclusion is valid or not, this study and the corresponding article are going to be the cause of a lot of "bike-shedding" and time wasting between web developers and clients.

</comment><comment><USER15> English text would be slightly more machine-readable (sentence segmentation) if everyone followed the period + two spaces approach, but alas. I personally think it looks better.

</comment><comment><USER16> Article fails to distinguish between the markup and typeset output. I don't actually want to _type_ two space characters, but that has nothing to do with how I want the typeset output to look.

<comment><USER17> Except I want the text to be maximally readable to me while I'm writing it, so I will put them in and let the publishing system deal with it for final copy.

<comment><USER16> Surely, that's a job for WYSIWYG [1982].

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Douglas found more solace in the fact that the benefits of two-spacing, as > described in the study, appear to be very minor.

Speaking of which, did we ever learn how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

</comment><comment><USER19> > Note: An earlier version of this story published incorrectly because, > seriously, putting two spaces in the headline broke the web code.

<comment><USER20> Instead, the title uses a single _em quad_ Unicode character, U+2003 ( )

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I didn't even realize the act of adding single spaces after a period was a thing until a month ago, when a (younger) coworker pointed it out. But man, is it a hard habit to break. (Just looked up and noticed double spacing after periods within this text)

<comment><USER22> I knew it was a thing, but I thought it was something only taught to people who learned to type on actual typewriters.

HTML will strip the extra space out, and most mobile operating systems default to double space mapping to space+period.

<comment><USER23> I had an English teacher that made us do it in the early 2000s. I think its because she learned on the actual typewriter. It never stuck though. We all just went through and added the extra spaces at the end.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Matthew Butterick wrote a response to this study last week: [https://practicaltypography.com/are-two-spaces-better- than-o...](https://practicaltypography.com/are-two-spaces-better-than- one.html).

</comment><comment><USER25> Nice usage of fonts in the beginning of the article.

</comment><comment><USER26> Science didn't prove anything, it just shown correlation between personal preference and speed of reading.

How this association was built? Where is the cause of this correlation? Why people preferring two-spaces are worse at reading one-space after period? Do they worse than one-spacers at other visual cognition tasks? Do they better understand spoken language with increased pauses between sentences?

One can ask tenth of questions, trying to make sense of this findings. This research gives us a bit of scientific data, but the bit is too small to jump to conclusions.

<comment><USER27> > Why people preferring two-spaces are worse at reading one-space after > period?

And: are people from countries where typographic conventions say "one space" worse or better at reading?

<comment><USER28> In Italy we use a single space and all is well. I know the style guide for English is to use two spaces but I confess that I never followed the recommendation. I don't notice any difference, only the inconvenience of typing an extra character, but I'm trained to read single spaces.</comment></comment></comment>


Redshift CI/CD – How we did it and why you should do it too - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/big-data-engineering/redshift-cicd-how-we-did-it-and-why-you-should-do-it-to-e46ecf734eab <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=dvainrub](https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=dvainrub)</comment>


Ten Angels/VCs respond (anonymously) to Yuri/Conway's $150k YC offer - <AUTHOR> http://launch.is/blog/2011/1/31/l006-angels-respond-anonymously-to-yuri-rons-all-in-150k-to.html We emailed the 250 members of the Open Angel Forum and asked them for feedback on the stunning news. Nine of them are off the record, Dave McClure went on the record.<p>My thoughts are at the end (I love the news and would do the same if I was flush with Facebook shares :-). <comment><USER3> _5\. Valley Power-angel: "An important part of being a first-time entrepreneur is the struggle of getting someone great to believe in you._

I don't think that's true. Getting into YC is "getting someone great to believe in you." And with this offer, getting into YC just became more competitive, and more rewarding. The YC "stamp of approval" is now more powerful as PG & crew have to evaluate more applicants with a closer eye.

<comment><USER4> I have to disagree,the emphasis on entering these incubators is overhyped at best.I know plenty of ambitious and driven entrepreneurs with resourceful ideas and business plan that bother never to enter into these programs.Simply because the process they utilize to choose a certain party to enter into the program is flawed in many degrees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very interesting set of takes, thanks Jason.

I think "LP without the fees" is the most provocative...

<comment><AUTHOR> I liked that one as well..... maybe I can blindly offer $10,000 to each startup.

At least I've got 100k+ followers, This Week in STartups and the @LAUNCH conference to promote folks. I don't think Yuri's even on twitter. :-)

Seriously, I'm super happy for any startup to get free money from two very powerful and successful people. It's a stunning turn of events.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If $150k makes you somehow feel like you won and can ease off the gas, I don't think you were made to win anyway. For the few (maybe 1/4, more?) of the YC teams that this does make fat and happy, it's just cost of doing business for Milner to access the other teams. It's a brilliant move by Milner/Conway.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish this investment had come from an American source. The large returns generated by start-ups are one of the ways the US economy can get back on it's feet. Siphoning this value creation off to other countries is not the way to get back to the top.

<comment><USER8> you don't get it.

It is the value, ie. money, generated somewhere are coming to America as an investment. Humongous amount of money in the world is trying to find any investment worth investing. Think why a Russian investor invests in San Francisco Silicon Valley instead of, for example, Russian government promoted "Russian Silicon Valley" :)

"The large returns generated by start-ups "

Don't worry - these large returns, in the form of high paying jobs, technologies, experienced teams, and large share of profits reinvested - <USER2> things all other countries are scramble for - it will be left here, in the Silicon Valley.</comment></comment>


The weird world of YouTuber burnout [video] - cirrus-clouds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUrNbl1lNV4 <comment><AUTHOR> -do you worry this is really bad for you?

Yes I know it is bad for me. I don't think I am handling this in a good way. Everyone knows it is bad for them. No one thinks that it is not.

-why is YouTube so toxic?

It's not just YouTube. It's putting out your personality to judge on the internet is what you are doing. You are creating a fake personality that people are supposed to think is you.</comment>


Show HN: ActionStreetMap: Build a gaming environment of your own city in Unity3d - <AUTHOR> http://actionstreetmap.github.io/demo

<comment><USER2> OSM has this much detail? The buildings and such seem way more fleshed out than I'm able to see on OpenStreetMap. Were those added via some other mechanism, or is there more data in OSM than I thought? Like, even height doesn't seem to be available, much less shapes like spires and such as shown in the demo image.

<comment><USER3> There is more data than you see in the 2d map tiles but you can turn on the Map Data layer on the website or use an editor to see. Here is one of the ways that makes up the spires in the blog post [http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227682021](http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227682021)

You can read more about the properties used to make up a complex structure here [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/S3DB](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/S3DB)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a cool concept, but the real world is simply not as fun as a well designed game map.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminiscent of this:

[http://lukehalliwell.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/project- myworl...](http://lukehalliwell.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/project-myworld/)

long-since morphed into this:

[http://recce.com](http://recce.com)

</comment><comment><USER6> As a tool for public space redesign it might have a better application. For example say you wanted to show a road with a cycle lanes. However the road widths would need to be reasonably accurate.

<comment><USER7> Building a gaming environment is only one of the use cases of the engine. There can be many other application areas. In most cases road widths are satisfactory to show a road with cycle lanes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Now if one could easily export to a map format supported by games... I have been dreaming of playing Counter Strike in my hometown since ... Counter Strike was fashionable...

<comment><USER9> You could always make a map in the Source SDK/Hammer. Relatively easy to pick up. Will take you a while but a nice project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is it possible to see the city (or any map location) from a street level view? Nice project btw!

<comment><USER7> Definitely. Please check out the online demo of New York City (Requires unity web player).

[http://actionstreetmap.github.io/demo/content/demo/New_York_...](http://actionstreetmap.github.io/demo/content/demo/New_York_Manhattan.html)

You can rotate the camera angle by holding the right mouse click and have different level of views.</comment></comment>


Academ.io – Accomodation search made easy  by students for students - <AUTHOR> http://academ.io

<comment><USER2> I've just had 4 years of finding accommodation in the UK as a student, and am just going through the process of finding a flat in London as a graduate. I must admit I don't really know what this is, other than someone trying to build a mailing list of interested people.

From reading the text on the site, it appears to be a way to find permanent people for flat-shares, as well as a place for advertising/finding temporary accommodation (sofas to use overnight while interviewing), and also a place for finding flats to rent.

It says there are no agents, and students only, but I doubt many students have flats to rent out, so that confuses the 3rd point. As for the other two, it makes it sound like a social network, and indeed, this is something many people use Facebook for, either between existing friends, or in area-specific groups - I have done both myself.

Also, there is a typo in the description, which given the very short description, looks quite unprofessional.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks for your feedback! In the mean time of building a platform we would like to see how many students is interested in it.

It is a simple idea which might (or might not) become a useful tool for students. We have a plan behind it so I hope when we launch we will be able to surprise everyone in a good way!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No love for Canadian universities? I tried emails from McMaster and the University of Ottawa, and it tells me to use a university address.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's UK only for now.</comment></comment>


How the luxury industry makes a fortune through deception - <AUTHOR> https://www.waremakers.com/the-post/how-the-luxury-industry-makes-a-fortune-through-deception <comment><USER2> All the more reason to enable people to signal their wealth (sexual fitness) and raise taxes at the same time - by repurposing "Sumptuary Laws." For example: If you want a car that's white, yellow or blue, no extra tax. If you want a red car that's a significant tax. If you want a purple car, that's a really big tax. Note that, with Sumptuary Taxes, you don't have to be wasteful or conspicuously consume, or pour a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere in order to signal your wealth - the red paint and purple paint don't cost much more than blue or grey. So this is also a very green proposal.

With Sumptuary Taxes you can show people you're rich and they're not and help the commonweal at the same time: showing that you're one of the responsible, caring rich.

(Sumptuary – related to the word sumptuous, of course.)

Sumtuary Laws were tried in England in the Fourteenth Century, but for almost the reverse purpose – merely to prevent poor people from wearing clothes that resembled the clothes rich people wore. This didn't raise any revenue and was intended to save rich people money while increasing social barriers. The laws weren't very successful and they didn't last long.

<comment><USER3> "merely to prevent poor people from wearing clothes that resembled the clothes rich people wore"

Or Tyrian purple. Quoting Wikipedia: The production of Tyrian purple was tightly controlled in Byzantium and was subsidized by the imperial court, which restricted its use for the colouring of imperial silks.[7] Later (9th century)[8] a child born to a reigning emperor was said to be porphyrogenitos, "born in the purple".

How would the government convince people that a purple car is a sign of luxury, and thus worth paying the sumptuary tax?

The "Made in Italy" mark (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Italy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Italy) ) is more strict than the EU laws, which allow shoes which are only finished in France/Italy to be "made in" those countries.

If people were interested in real authenticity, as this article suggests, then why aren't they looking for such marks already? Or are they?</comment></comment>


How I vetted and dumped a startup idea in ~20 hours and for under $1000 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dweekly/clouseau-a-postmortem-ed6192f32ae3 <comment><USER2> What's interesting is that he did two things. 1) Spent about $1000 on light meters, domains, logo, upwork. and 2) Talked to a couple people, for free, that made him realize the idea can't work. (This conversation did not use any of the knowledge gained from the $1000 spend.)

There is certainly a lesson here.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the first few paragraphs, my thought was "hotels have lots of rooms with very different light characteristics, and when you reserve a room, you are not reserving any specific room." I can vet and dump this idea in 5 minutes and $0.

Lo and behold, he found out the same thing after 20 hours and $1000:

> "I called my cousin, who had worked for Hilton for a decade before moving > on. She walked me through how important it was for hotels to do room > assignments morning-of; having to hold certain rooms was a tremendous > impediment to flexibility and efficiency since it's quite difficult for them > to predict which guests are going to show up when and even which guests are > going to check out which days sometimes."

Maybe a better title is, "How I played around with light meters for 20 hours and $1000, and then vetted and dumped a startup idea in 5 minutes."

Even if they reserved specific rooms, I'm not sure the logistics of taking all these measurements would be profitable. Its a good idea to not just talk to potential customers quickly, but also do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. Although if more founders / investors did that, we wouldn't have all these wonderful SV startups subsidizing our dinners, deliveries, etc. until they go bust.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm shocked about how easy it was to convince hotel staff to let you view the room to test light. How very Veronica Mars :)

</comment><comment><USER5> This person just oozes self-obsession. It's pretty discouraging that people like this are super rich and taking expensive vacations with their entire families.

Is the only way for me to become rich like this person is just to become really conceited and stubborn?</comment>