Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://thecoffeelicious.com/the-315-billion-waste-why-classroom-technology-is-costing-more-than-its-worth-bdebfcf36026 <comment><USER2> Computer tech in education is a con. It is completely unnecessary.

There's a reason Steve Jobs limited his kids access to technology: [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/steve-jobs-apple-ipad-children-technology-birthday-a6893216.html)

In fact, it has opposite effect to what is intended. It gives the child an avalanche of distraction, when what they need is simplicity. I would say the same about mobile phones.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't it rather depend on what you're trying to teach? To push an over simplistic alternative, maybe it hinders the syllabus but necessarily learning in the broadest sense.

I'm not sure I've thought this through very deeply at this stage but I do have a deep distrust of formal education. I learned by playing with stuff until it broke and skim reading chunks of books I didn't have the patience to finish.

Also - the classroom is full of distractions of other kinds. Move here, do this, listen to this, copy that. There's a huge amount of busy-work at school that is only tangentially related to learning. Technology might not be a magic bullet but it's no worse than some of the nonsense kids are put through.

<comment><USER4> A huge amount of early schooling is little more than basic socialization, literacy, numeracy, some vocabulary, and most of all daycare. Later it ostensibly becomes more focused on learning, but really it mostly just teaches people _how_ to learn (in theory); that pretty much continues through high school, and sometimes much of university.

It's a pretty ancient edifice that exists in the current form due to societal, intellectual, bureaucratic, political and corporate inertia. All of that is backed by the terror parents feel that if they "get this wrong" the child will be unable to get ahead in the world (at best) or intellectually/socially ruined (at worst). This is further exacerbated by parents who, far from appreciating just how long it takes for real learning to begin (and how much of it is _always_ self-guided), think the key to raising bright children is Mandarin in infancy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The cookware analogy is a really good one.

A similar one can be seen in the arts:

"That's an amazing photo. You must have a really good camera!"

which you see here and there. As opposed to:

"That's an amazing painting. You must have really good brushes!"

(Disclaimer: I'm a photographer and I do know that the quality of the lens and sensor is going to play some role in the output, leaving aside things like Photoshop. But my point still stands.)

<comment><USER6> Right, but bad cookware isn't usually so bad it prevents you from cooking.

Bad educational technology can get in the way of teaching and learning. Errors/bugs and confusing UX can cause lengthy delays in the classroom.

Teachers can easily spend 15 minutes running around playing IT support when students are using a new technology – out of a 50 minute class which was scheduled in 5-minute increments.

That doesn't mean it needs to be "beautiful, seamless" software like we tend to idolize. Or the most featureful or innovative. It _can_ be, but getting bog-standard basics working without confusion or errors is far more important. I certainly agree with the author on that.

(Source: previously cofounded an edtech startup, spent time in many classrooms observing these things).

<comment><USER7> My mother is coordinator of edtech at a small catholic middle and elementary school that fully invested in iPad education when it first released. It works as well as the commenters in this thread can tell you.

The one thing you missed is that plenty of teachers won't spend the 15 minutes. The first time an edtech feature doesn't work in their classroom - usually because the teacher is using it completely incompetently - they just stop using it altogether. It took the school almost a semester just to get an english teacher to stop making the students use paper notebooks because she resented the tech so badly.

And you can see where the resentment comes from - lots of teachers do NOT tend towards technical literacy. A lot of them are older and underpaid, and they aren't going home and plugging away familiarizing themselves with contemporary tech to "skill up." The reason "kids can't use computers" is no doubt because plenty of their teachers can't either.

<comment><USER8> To be fair, most classroom software that I've seen is _terrible_. Couldn't her hesitation to learning tech be more because we've spent a long time giving them bad tech, so she stopped trying?

<comment><USER7> You're assuming their technical illiteracy is limited to software. My mother routinely must explain to teachers over and over that files saved to "their desktop" are accessible from any computer on the AD, or that Google Drive is different from email.

<comment><USER8> I'm _well_ aware that there are plenty of teachers who flat out suck at technology, software, hardware, or any layer in between. But it's not binary, more of a spectrum.

I'm just offering up a possible reason that someone wouldn't want to learn. I _strongly_ believe that most of the current "hate on learning new computer systems" is due to programmers and designers more than cranky users

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a high school teacher. I've worked in rural/urban/suburban districts with wildly varied student demographics and school resources. The largest tech- related improvements to my teaching have not come from the availability of "edtech" \- but from run of the mill productivity software (Email/Google Docs/etc) and students having reliable access to a computer/internet.

I wasn't familiar with K2 Audiovisual before reading the article, so the "free unlimited training" angle doesn't resonate; however, the base argument being made is sound. Our tools need to support the work we do; if they are a distraction or impediment then they will be ignored. I freely admit that there are some interesting edtech tools being developed, but too many of these tools introduce significant redundant labor, user friction, and/or force me to change my goals/processes to fit their vision of what school is supposed to be.

I have strong feelings on where I think things should go, but I'll just say that there is a lot of low hanging fruit in just helping teachers accomplish the things they already know how to do.

There are a lot of teachers out _right now_ saying, "I know [Kid A] would benefit from [extension/scaffold/resource Y] - but there isn't time to make that from scratch". Teachers know they should be personalizing their curriculum, assessment, and instructional performance for what each kid needs. They will typically even know how to accomplish it.

They are logistically constrained from doing so and most edtech tools aren't offering solutions to the kinds of workflow problems that teachers face everyday.

Edit: I have been drilling down on some ideas with another HN member (andrewwhartion). Principally, focused on teacher workflow tools. Email is in profile.

<comment><USER10> Heck, I'd be happy if edtech companies could figure out Sunday evening is not the best time to do maintenance of their gradebook/lesson plan applications. Then I might even be able to convince my wife to get rid of her paper gradebook...

<comment><USER9> I remember getting locked out of our grade book one evening around 5:30-6. When I chatted with the IT guy the following day he said the edtech company didn't think teachers worked after 3 p.m. so some unannounced maintenance should be A-OK!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I work at an EdTech company right now and we've found huge success simply because we've tried to get out of the way and let teachers do what they do. Teachers today have a hard enough time without tech companies, policy makers, administrators, etc. barging into their classrooms and dictating the best way to instruct their kids.

Like germinalphrase mentioned, I think the best place for tech in education is to "[offer] solutions to the kinds of... problems that teachers face everyday" and to make the existing successes even more impactful (e.g. when a student does well, provide ways for teachers, parents, and students to celebrate together).

Teachers know their kids and their struggles best, the tech just has to help them do what they do.

<comment><USER8> Doesn't that heavily depend on the teacher though? I don't disagree with you in principle, but couldn't the reason so many people try to dictate the best way to teach is because there are a lot of bad teachers?

<comment><USER11> I'm not going to argue that there aren't bad teachers or there aren't a LOT of bad teachers. But IMHO a lot of what I have seen at my company is the following:

If a kid brings home a bad report card - Parents often blame the teacher. Obviously, their kid is great, the only reason they are struggling is because of negligent or poor instruction.

If a kid brings home a behavior citation (i.e. teacher/administration called home and said their kid was poorly behaved) - Parents may or may not recognize themselves as a contributor to that poor behavior.

But for the teacher, it doesn't really matter. If there is one poorly behaved kid in the class, it's going to make it harder for that teacher to instruct every single kid.

It often seems that the problem isn't a glut of "bad teachers", it's that the structures placed around the teachers all too often seem to be set up for them to fail. It's no surprise then that 40%-50% of teachers quit the profession entirely within five years [http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/16/kappan_ingersol...](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/16/kappan_ingersoll.h31.html)

<comment><USER8> Interesting. Yeah, I _definitely_ think that generally parent's are much more at fault than they want to admit. Blaming the teacher is an easy way out.

I'm not knowledgeable in the industry, which is why I'm asking. I know that for most industries, standards and structures are in place to protect damage from the _worst_ people, but can definitely inhibit the _best_ people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While interesting, and anecdotally seems correct to me, does anyone here with a background in education and/or education technology have any pointers on actionable ways to use technology more effectively? This piece never seems to get to that point, other than strongly encouraging training for teachers (that they provide if you go with their solutions).

<comment><USER13> My partner worked at a school that handed out iPads to the middle school students for use in class.

Hearing what they use them for just makes me think that Apple needed someone to dump last year's leftover iPads on. It's really dumb stuff. They don't get access to the internet. They get a handful of stupid "learning" apps to use and a social network type thing that can be summed up as "instagram where mommy and teacher watch and control everything".

The devices are so locked up that inquisitive kids ignore them, dumb kids never figure them out, and everyone in between just kinda lugs them around because they have to.

I am beginning to think that tech capitalists have milked the general market and are now turning to the next juicy targets of education and healthcare.

<comment><USER14> Totally agree here. I'm in the UK and my daughter's primary school has bought dozens of iPads (which are not exactly the most economical tablet), and they are used for things that could otherwise be done (and likely with better results too) in the real world, such as moving objects around for basic maths. Crazy waste of funds.

<comment><USER15> I disagree. A school without basic technology like computers and tablets? Blimey, you want us to go back to slates and chalk?

Most schools have 3D printers, VR headsets, iPads. We need to teach kids about technology they will be using in 10 - 15 years time when they hit the job market.

We can't send kids out into a career without having used an iPad. Some kids don't have access to tech or the internet at home, now you want to take it away at school? Shame on you.

<comment><USER14> > We can't send kids out into a career without having used an iPad

Other than 'app developer', what actual careers involve using specifically an iPad, let alone a generic tablet?

> Most schools have 3D printers, VR headsets, iPads _Tablets_ sure, not > necessarily iPads. 3D printers and VR headsets?! I'm talking about _primary > school_ , kids aged 5-11 - it would be rare for even secondary schools in > the UK to have 3D printers or VR headsets. You used the word 'blimey', so I > assume you are either English or taking the piss?!

Most kids get enough of tablets at home nowadays. Christ, all too many parents plonk their kid in front of a tablet and leave them to it for hours at a time.

I'm not saying tech doesn't have a place, it absolutely does, but _sometimes_ the real, tactile world is the best place to learn - like for 5 year-olds learning basic maths, reading and writing.

<comment><USER16> I've seen many non-technical professionals using iPad's. In many cases they are replacing laptops in meetings. They are used in manufacturing environments. They are used in hospitals, airports etc etc. That said, my 80 year old grandmother learned to be pretty proficient on an iPad in a matter of a few hours, so I'm not really that concerned about people being able to pick up general tablet usage outside of school.

<comment><USER17> This is exactly the point - no one needs to be taught how to use an iPad. It's some MBA trying to push "educational strategy". No one who invented any part of an iPad grew up with one.

The further into my tech career I go, the more I like a bog standard whiteboard and a notebook and pen. They let me focus on thinking about hard stuff, instead of thinking about how to use some oversold software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Many schools do not make proper use of computer labs.

While you could teach practical skills such as

\- how to process images, audio, video

\- how to code

\- math beyond silly games featuring anthropomorphic neotenized animals

\- workshops for chess and go

\- use one of the awesome open source software for chemistry, geometry, astronomy, etc...

Only use for computers is for people to write documents, search online, print and... waste a lot of time on games, social networks.

<comment><USER19> >While you could teach practical skills such as

Those aren't practical skills that need to be taught to secondary school students. They need to learn mathematics, writing, reading, literature, science, etc. They don't need to learn how to code, they don't need to learn how to make memes in Paint or youtube videos of themselves playing minecraft, nor how to play irrelevant (if fun) games like Chess.

>Only use for computers is for people to write documents, search online, print and... waste a lot of time on games, social networks.

We certainly were not allowed to be on social networks or games during computer lab time whe{re,n} I went to high school.

>Then, test taking could use more automation. Lots of teachers do their test taking by hand... Grading tests without an written answer is very easy to implement.

That's simply not true. Test taking is done in written form for good reason. It's possible to draw diagrammes, to write emphasis, use italics, etc. without learning some arcane editor or (worse) syntax when you're meant to be doing a test.

Marking tests without a written answer might be easy to implement, but that just encourages more __fucking shit __tests like they have in the US, where there are few written answers. __EVERY __test should be __ENTIRELY __written answers.

<comment><USER18> Those skills that you called unpractical are actually valuable in today's service economy, and helped me put food on the table for years as well as pay for higher education.

Then no matter what activity you pick in life, being self-sufficient with regards to presenting and illustrating your ideas or doing some basic marketing is always valuable.

Same with code. Even if you do not plan to be a programmer, having a basic understanding what programming is can help you in interdisciplinary settings.

Written questions and diagrams are a good idea. But tests can be constructed in many ways. For alternative based questions grading with computer can be more productive and less error-prone, freeing the teacher to focus in more important tasks such as preparing lessons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Chromebooks, quizlets, etc. ARE working in my kids schools. There is a lot of time and money spent teaching the teachers, and there is a high % of teachers with specialized training to start with. The tech is hard on the parents who complain about not being able to assist, monitor and support easily, if at all.

</comment><comment><USER21> What a great way to build empathy and connection in a sales conversation. These are the type of people I love to meet in EdTech!

I couldn't agree more with the author's assessment. A bit of an extension beyond just training in new tools: we need to help adults in schools understand the value technology can provide in their daily lives before we can expect to see the true potential out of the complex technologies schools are spending billions of dollars on - looking at you blended learning and [fill in other buzzword technologies].

If an adult in a school doesn't appreciate the value that basic everyday tools provide (I'm talking things like calendars and organized email), it's a huge mountain to climb to get them to trust what technology can do to assist their work with kids. It's quite shocking how many great educators fall in this bucket. Then add the labels of 'laggard' and 'luddite' to these people instead of truly understanding them and forget creating any trust and change.

It's a Maslow's thing, honestly, and so much is being spent on things way too far up the pyramid. There's so many low hanging problems to go after first to save great educators time and simultaneously build trust in the power and magic of technology. Right now we're burning all our political (and real) capital on the promises of 'edtech' without truly solving the needs of the people in the seats using them. I fear where it will end up, and the missed opportunity it represents.

Source: I've been working with all types of schools throughout the US, with heavy exposure in NYC.

</comment><comment><USER22> I taught English in Japan for 2 years. I realized that the they spend less on education than America and have better results.

The solution to education problems isn't throwing money at it. Or at least spend it on teacher salaries, right?

<comment><USER23> You need to compare the %GDP on teacher salary's vs overhead to see where America falls down. Remember, the US system is focused on getting as much government funding into corporate hands. So, paying teachers provide little value, but textbooks, technology, and testing goes directly to company's that know how to keep the pork flowing. [http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per- pupi...](http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-how-per-pupil- spending-compares-across-us.html)

At a ballpark a 30 student class might be ~12,000$ per student, but a starting teacher salary is on average ~45,000. Pay the teacher 120k (including benefits) and that's still only 1/3 of the total cost. (NYC pays over 20k per student and pays teachers $54,000 - $119,000 annually.) [http://www.teachingdegree.org/new- york/salary/](http://www.teachingdegree.org/new-york/salary/)

<comment><USER14> This is a very interesting proposition - imagine what could happen if you paid teachers 120k!

Are there any countries that _do_ pay teachers very highly?

<comment><USER23> Tenured teachers can become very expensive in the US, and they have significant retirement benefits. But, high pay is also in high cost of living areas.

Luxembourg teacher salaries begin at 73,700 euros (79,920 USD), [http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembourg/starting-salaries- of-73-700...](http://www.wort.lu/en/luxembourg/starting-salaries- of-73-700-euros-secondary-teachers-in-luxembourg-earn-highest-in- oecd-56979c560da165c55dc5132d) Germany hits second place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The author needs a good editor. There's something consistently "off" in both the style and the personality of this article. It made it very hard for me to assess whether what they are actually saying is worthwhile. Also the calculation mentioned in the title (and which he strangely calls 'archaic') is totally spurious.

<comment><USER25> This is a marketing piece badly masquerading as an informative article, after the pattern of awful "long copy" email/website marketing pieces. That's why it's "off".

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> A family member of mine needed a quick way to grade student work. After a few dozen hours I had a wiki-like format loading for them to try. With a few more features tailored to language learning it ended up saving a few hundred hours per year.

Probably cost me $5000 since I could have been consulting. Still, it was worth it for love.

Now certain students hate using it, though they do appreciate getting their grades back sooner.

</comment><comment><USER27> The cooking analogy is tempting, but it overlooks the hardware/software distinction.

In the classroom, you have (1) the teacher's skills, (2) the computer hardware purchased, (3) and the computer software purchased.

In the kitchen, you have (1) the chef's skills and (2) the hardware purchased.

If it's true that "software is eating the world", then a good analogy wouldn't skip over it. Software could be like the recipe, which of course makes a big difference in cooking outcomes.

</comment><comment><USER28> "it's worth" not "its worth": it's means "it is". At least try to get the title of an article correct.

</comment><comment><USER29> Back in my day, when I had to walk to school up hill both ways through 10' snow drifts (and that was summer school), a chalkboard was good enough.

Get off my lawn!</comment>


Feinstein's defense of the NSA costs her support among key constituencies - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-adv-feinstein-profile-20140119,0,5878798.story#axzz2r3Sjo9qO

<comment><AUTHOR> If you are offended by Feinstein's defense of the NSA at the cost of her constituents rights, please sign our letter. [https://shameonfeinstein.org](https://shameonfeinstein.org)</comment>


ORWL PC: The most secure home computer ever - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/article/3118264/security/orwl-pc-the-most-secure-home-computer-ever.html <comment><AUTHOR> When you really, really don't want your data to end up in the wrong hands.</comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Do IE, Edge, and Safari Tests for CI? - <AUTHOR> Currently, I have dockerized Chrome and Firefox tests. Run locally, run in CI...easy.
But now I'm looking at the default browsers of the most popular desktop OS's. And it looks bleak.
How do people run IE, Edge, and Safari tests? As far as I can determine it's absolutely impossible to even run Safari in AWS (the current location of my CI infrastructure). There's other services but I hesitate because they look rather expensive when I compare them to my current setup.
Any suggestions? Third-party services, open source tools...whatever. It seems crazy it's so hard to test in web dev 2019. <comment><USER2> I also use BrowserStack for web browser (desktop) and mobile apps device front-end based testing and have generally had good experience technically, with 'Browserstack Local' I found getting both web and mobile apps access to internal staging environments was straightforward. Unfortunately I have found their billing system quite inflexible. We had a minimal annual plan and wanted to create a new plan on the same account but this time on monthly billing but we could do not do that because we already had another subscription on annual. Even after speaking with support and explaining we were looking to increase our spending by 10X multiplier we could not do this and were told to create another account, not ideal because then there are multiple api keys.

As for the test executioner/runner I have a custom Node.js application using Mocha test framework, and for reporting I use Tesults ([https://www.tesults.com](https://www.tesults.com)) which I recommend to everyone of course because because I think it's the best way to consolidate and report test results and I'm the founder :) Send me a message for anything reporting related and I'll do my best to help.

</comment><comment><USER3> BroswerStack. There are a few competitors to this, but sorry can't remember their names. Also Selenium. You could run Windows VMs on Azure for testing IE/Edge if you wanted and run Selenium on them.

Another route might be Jasmine tests, run them on Karma. Run them on a physical machine with the target browser. Not so great for CI but OK if you are doing things on a shoestring and want a quick check before you deploy. You could even run them on a public URL, go to a mates house with a Mac / Windows PC, and just visit that URL and wait for the green light to appear.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use Firefox, the other dev uses Internet Explorer, and the last dev uses Chrome. All kidding (but not kidding) aside. We've had luck with Selenium. As for the platforms, we actually have a Mac Mini, 2012 MBP, and two iPads that we use for testing Safari and Safari Mobile. Unfortunately that part is mostly manual since few of our customers use Safari.

</comment><comment><USER5> A quick search for "Cross browser testing CI" brought up quite a few options. Sauce Labs seems to have an automated plan ([https://saucelabs.com/pricing](https://saucelabs.com/pricing))

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you had good experience...flakiness, coverage, availability, etc?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We use webdriver.io ([https://webdriver.io/](https://webdriver.io/)) to test FF, Chrome, and IE. We don't test Safari.

</comment><comment><USER7> BrowserStack- It's expensive but it does it all.

</comment><comment><USER8> SauceLabs, it ain't cheap, but easier than dealing with the licenses</comment>


Getting Into Games -- A Follow-up - <AUTHOR> http://www.entertainingcode.com/archives/getting-into-games-a-follow-up/

<comment><USER2> Not necessarily the case.

This may be true for building console and hardcore PC games.

I've spent the past year working on a kids MMOG, which means it's browser- based. Flash/Flex front-end, Java back-end. Flash is no walk in the park, but it's more accessible than C/C++.

We're an indie shop, so we work startup hours, but not the abusive game industry crap you hear about. Pay is on par with any other startup I've seen. Crunch time happens, again, similar to any startup.

Casual and kids gaming are growing segments of the games industry, and mean you don't have to sentence yourself to a routine of 80 hour weeks, horrible pay, and fighting with low-level languages.

<comment><USER3> That's good to hear. As an aspiring indie game developer, the article is depressing but your comment inspired a little hope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So working on weekends, getting smaller salaries, having to code in C++ instead of some high-level language... I don't know, as cool as it would be to do games, I think I rather do lame business software (which can have challenges too!) and do something fun in my spare time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Hunh. The emphasis on C++ over Lua surprises me. Maybe the indie guys I tend to talk to are a bit more Lua than the industry as a whole. I'd love to hear some thoughts from people inside.

<comment><USER6> While there are many language choices for writing gameplay code, C++ is still the dominant implementation language for game engines themselves.

(I was a lead engineer on The Sims 3.)</comment></comment>


Concise list of upcoming Coursera courses by month - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/b/107809899089663019971/107809899089663019971/posts/763w1GE2qNe

<comment><USER2> This really makes me wish they would leave content up rather than following the cohort model -- there are a handful of classes I'd like to take, but their current model forces users to basically adhere to the university schedule (they have 4x more courses starting in september than any other month). Udacity made the switch after a couple months of trying the cohort model -- hope Coursera considers the same.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Over the Summer I wanted to do the Python course with my son (9 years old) but it doesn't start until October, when he'll be back at school. Shame. Doing the Learn Python the Hard Way with him instead

<comment><USER4> Udacity has a CS101 in Python that you can start at any time and can be mastered by a 9 yr old with parental guidance. Check it out. I am sure you will be happy with it and your son will have a good time.

Their interface is a lot better and their teachers are great, they've really created a new pedagogy around the new medium rather than adapt existing brick and mortar courses like Coursera and edX is doing. Mind you Coursera and MITx is a great way to get real college classes over the web, but Udacity is rebuilding the whole paradigm and is intensely analyzing data and tweaking to improve things.

[http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs101/CourseRev/apr20...](http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs101/CourseRev/apr2012)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Personally, I'm rooting for the open software/open content model of edX, or the very high quality pedagogy of Khan Academy and Udacity.

The Coursera courses I've taken were, by and large, fairly mediocre, and the company is hyper-secretive and hyper-aggressive. I'm worried it might turn into the Microsoft (of the eighties) of education -- grab the market, flood it with mediocrity, and outmaneuver everyone from a business standpoint. I'm also worried that they might burn a lot of people out on on-line courses; they can be very well done (as with edX, Khan, and Udacity), but because of their landgrab model/quantity over quality, most people will probably have their first exposure through Coursera.

<comment><USER6> So I've only been tangentially involved with these online education companies, what makes Coursera classes so much worse than Udacity?

<comment><USER5> A few things:

* Udacity really tries to learn how to exploit the on-line medium well. Coursera tosses courses not that different from a capture of the normal university course on-line. Coursera instructors have minimal support in how to put together a good on-line course. This comes across in a huge number of ways (as with Khan, you're being tutored, not lectured at, with tight integration of questions/videos, etc.).

* Udacity courses have massive post-production. There's a big difference between a professional recording followed by editing, and a professor with a webcam and a tablet on which to capture PPT slides.

* Udacity courses target a narrower range of subjects, and so have appropriate technologies to teach those subjects. Coursera is one-size-fits-all. It really doesn't work well in many contexts.

The major downside of Udacity is related -- they mostly target intro CS classes. Coursera has a much broader selection of richer classes.

<comment><USER7> It's a little like the Apple approach versus the Microsoft approach. Udacity has so many amazing details like the camera fixed above the teacher's hand as s/he draws.

Coursera's algorithm course felt like every mediocre YouTube video. It has little to do with Salman Khan's idea of an online university. They seem to employ a quantitative approach compared to Udacity. You also hear a lot of announcements from Udacity about courses that didn't make the cut, because it fell below their own high standards.

At one point, Coursera will have to remove some of their courses from their website, because they are so poor, and it's going to be a mess. I like that Udacity are already very careful about what they put up. That way, they don't waste people's precious time either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a shame the offerings for music are so small (limited just to "Listening to World Music"). I bet I'm not the only person who would leap at the chance to take a top notch music theory class.

<comment><USER9> A music theory course would be particularly awesome with some nice online tools. (Something like mitx's interactive lab, but for music).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Don't see this mentioned anywhere else yet:

I was just going to bookmark this list itself, thinking it some random post by some random google plus person, but it looks like the mother website (class- central.com) is dedicated to just providing a constantly updated list of online offerings from Udacity, Coursera, and edX. Essentially, a MOOC aggregator.

I was thinking to myself just a few weeks ago how nice something like this would be. I <3 the internets.

</comment><comment><USER11> Just signed up for Algorithms, Part I. I probably won't be able to take that at my college for several more semesters, and this is information I'd actually like to know, but something that I've struggled to learn in isolation. Very exciting :)

</comment><comment><USER12> Google wants me to sign in before I can even read them. Am I doing something wrong?

<comment><USER13> It's googleplus page so it probably needs your google ID.

<comment><USER14> I'd understand if it wanted my login credentials to post a reply but why do I need to log in to _read_ a post. This is ridiculous.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, my sentiments exactly! And I kept hearing about how google plus is a great blogging platform, it really doesn't seem like it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wix and WordPress Explainer - <AUTHOR> https://meshedinsights.com/2016/10/30/wix-and-wordpress-explainer/ <comment><USER2> This entire argument is ridiculous. All of the changes to the editor are released, the Wix team should not be forced to release their entire source code base.

Wordpress is such a pile of garbage, I don't know why anyone would use it anyway. I ran a few of my sites on it and I had to update plugins 3 or 4 times a week to keep up with the latest security flaws.

It does make me realize that most people that believe piracy is not theft (which, I am now going to start calling it theft and stealing in all contexts after the comments I have seen on HN regarding the GNU) only say that because they want free things. It has nothing to do with 'freedom' or principals.

It's the same principal now: you don't want to have to pay for the Wix code base and think they should release it for free.

But, it's not the first time that the tech community continues to be on the wrong side of history. I've done my part though. I warn people about many of these things and get ignored...and then use them to my advantage and make a fortune.

:-)

<comment><AUTHOR> The changes to the editor are released, but the license says that if you incorporate the editor into another peice of software (as Wix has done), the combined work must be released as GPL-licensed source code as well.

There are some narrow exceptions, but Wix's use of the editor component doesn't fall under them.

There is a license that says that you only have to release the changes you make to the component itself, it is called the LGPL, and the Wordpress developers could have used it if that was what they wanted. But they released under the GPL, and Wix should abide by the terms of the GPL, or simply not use the code.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TL/DR: Wix need to release source for the _entire_ Wix app, not just the WordPress editor component they modified, to comply with the terms of the GPL.</comment>


Spaghetti stacks - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_stack

<comment><USER2> Followed by Closures are Weird The Third Installment Episode One: the Golden Era of LISP AI Research: the Rambling Usenet Post

<comment><USER2> Followed by Closures are Weird The Third Installment Episode Two: Everyday I am sitting on the shoulders of Scheme giants: the Steve Yegge wall of text

<comment><USER2> Followed by The Closure Chronicles: jesus christ the Chicken Scheme garbage collector is mind-blowing: the blogpost

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Closures are weird: the Wikipedia article

<comment><USER2> Followed by Closures are weird part deux: what the hell are downward funargs?: the Stackoverflow thread

<comment><USER2> Followed by Closures are weird The Third Installment: continuations are life, continuations are love: the c2 entry</comment></comment></comment>


PCSX2 – The Playstation 2 emulator – Q2 2020 Progress Report - <AUTHOR> https://pcsx2.net/295-q2-2020-progress-report.html <comment><USER2> What's the motivation for the folks developing PCSX2 these days? Is it a purely intellectual endeavour, or do they play PS2 games for fun, and take advantage of things that aren't available on a real PS2 (4k support, cheats etc.)?

<comment><USER3> There's an article around from byuu/near (who has sadly now completely retired from emulator development due to harassment) that went through the process of fixing a bug that was in a Harry Potter PS2 game - just recently. PS2 emulation is "close enough" for most things but there are still bugs and fixes to be made.

<comment><USER4> > (who has sadly now completely retired from emulator development due to > harassment)

TIL[1]

[1]: [http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1srbcc1](http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1srbcc1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These progress reports are good idea, I remember watching prison architect dev updates and I liked them more than the actual game.

</comment><comment><USER6> Preliminary Mac support. Woo!</comment>


The Call to Action That Reduces Friction in Account Creation - <AUTHOR> http://www.getelastic.com/account-creation-friction/ <comment><USER2> If you want to reduce friction, just require an email and permission to contact up front, save it, then gather further information in a subsequent screen or follow up.</comment>


Father of Cryonics Dies at 92, Frozen in Cryonics Institute  - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailytech.com/Father+of+Cryonics+Dies+at+92+Frozen+in+Cryonics+Institute+/article22273.htm <comment><USER2> The scientist's open letter on cryonics, signed by people such as Gregory Stock, Stanley Shostak, Ralph Merkle, Eric Drexler, Aubrey de Grey, Gregory Benford, and a range of researchers in the life sciences you're probably less familiar with, but who are household names in their fields.

[http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter- on-c...](http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/)

A layman's introduction to cryonics:

<http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2001/11/cryonics.php>

Lots of deeper technical details can be found at Alcor (which maintains a better web presence than the Cryonics Institute):

<http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm>

The basic process is pretty similar between all modern cryonics organizations. Important to note is that freezing is out, vitrification is in. That makes a large difference to cellular structural integrity. See:

<http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/vitrify.html>

<comment> barry-cotter I was kind of horrified how bad the arguments against cryonics are[0]. As far as I can tell noone has _ever_ gone to the trouble to seriously and in good faith argue against it, they just apply the absurdity heuristic and say its advocates are freaks/frauds etc. (And yet I have not made my contract of immortality with the cult of the severed head.)

[0]lesswrong.com/lw/1r0/a_survey_of_anticryonics_writing/

<comment><USER3> What stops you signing up? If it's "cryocrastination", read this:

"I know more people who are planning to sign up for cryonics Real Soon Now than people who have actually signed up. I expect that more people have died while cryocrastinating than have actually been cryopreserved. If you've already decided this is a good idea, but you "haven't gotten around to it", sign up for cryonics NOW. I mean RIGHT NOW." - <http://lesswrong.com/lw/wq/you_only_live_twice/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd like to quote one of my favorite songs:

 _"You could not feel sadness if you've never tasted joy; that's the curse of humans - born in passion you destroy"_

While I find the concept of cryonics fascinating, and feel the science should be researched more, I also feel death is important. Not only is it a natural part of life, but it's also the catalyst that enables enjoyment. I'd be extremely apathetic towards everything if I knew I'd live forever. And then, there comes the sociological problems associated with resurrecting the dead.

Edit: Some people seem to have misunderstood: My comments about living forever is in direct reference to what's stated in the article, not what's realistic.

<comment><USER5> There is no such thing as living forever. We may be able to extend our lives to thousands of years, but it will not be forever. Notice that even species that have lived for millions of years die off. Eventually something will kill you, either an accident, a malfunction on whatever is keeping you healthy, or another person with a hammer. Thrust me, death will always be with us.

As a side note, people cite overpopulation as one of the problems of people not dying. I don't think this will ever be a problem. We will naturally adjust. If you are going to live for hundreds or even thousands of years would you really have kids when you are only 25-30 years old? I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush.

<comment><USER6> >I imagine people will wait until they've reached 30 or 50% of their life span simply because there is just no rush.

The biggest problem here is that we would need a change in human sex characteristics. We would have to change the way a female matures so that she would be able to (healthfully) breed at that age, otherwise should she desire children, she would have to have them at a (relative to long lifespan) very young age.

One other proposition would be the secure storage of her eggs.

<comment> barry-cotter Stem cells dude, they're totipotent[0]. Work is ongoing into infertility treatments based on them too[1].

[0]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_potency#Totipotency>

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertilit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments#Infertility)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As absurd as cryonics sounds, without fanatics (as some might call them) pushing for it, it will never exist.

"If you don't ask, then the answer is always no."

Hopefully we'll see you again some day, Ettinger.

<comment><USER8> If you believe that your personality is encoded in the patterns of your physical brain, cyronics doesn't sound absurd at all.

<comment><USER7> IMO, the absurd part is, how do you bring a 93 year old dead person back to life? How long until we get this technology? Who's to say that there will be a consistent flow of money to keep this person frozen until that time? (it's not cheap)

I think that eventually we'll probably figure this stuff out, but that now is far too early to start freezing people.

<comment><USER9> _IMO, the absurd part is, how do you bring a 93 year old dead person back to life?_

Or to put in another way, what is more likely: That the future can bring back a dead old and then frozen brain, or that they can reconstruct an individual just by brute force computer simulation, no need for anyone to be frozen?

If the later is as likely as the first, what exactly is the point of freezing?

Perhaps you might be better of trying to create interesting things which will make the distant future more likely to want to simulate you in high precision?

Or perhaps Aubrey DeGray would be much better off applying his impressive brains to getting an MD and going into basic research, instead of being a cheerleader for his ideas with only a Gerontology PhD.

<comment><USER8> Aubrey's foundation funds tons of lab research that wouldn't be otherwise done, as well as editing a very well regarded journal about human aging (Rejuvenation Research). The fact that he isn't in a lab doesn't make him any less of a scientist; sometimes having the ideas and doing the high-level synthesis work is more valuable than doing lab work that any number of people can do.

I suggest you read his book (amazon: Ending Aging) and then make up your mind about his ideas, rather than after having only heard the soundbites.

<comment><USER9> I have red his book, it's like nails on a chalkboard to my brain. My problem with it? I know too much. I am not an MD but I work with them, I write medical R&D software.

If you are passionate about the subject, step out of the Aubrey lake and dive into the huge ocean that is next to it. It's not nearly as optimistic, but is much more relevant.

<comment><USER8> You've basically said nothing. Could you add some specifics to your criticism of Aubrey's thesis? And please don't assume that I don't know any biology.

<comment><USER9> I can't get specific because De Gray's theories are either too general or so wrong as to not even be wrong.

So lets stick to fundamentals. His basic argument: _... the fundamental knowledge needed to develop effective anti-aging medicine mostly already exists, and that the science is ahead of the funding._

In other words, big pharma with all its money and all those huge profits coming form treating age related diseases, is just not interested in spending more to develop more such drugs? I mean the cure for agings is just sitting there, and all they have to do is put a few people to work on it, but nope, not interested.

All those scientists can't see the forest for the trees, but Aubrey does see it!

Does this give you any kind of a pause? I mean, sure he might be _the_ visionary of our age, but how likely is that?

Imagine this was about algorithms. And someone claimed the basic theory to solve NP-hard problems in polynomial time already exits, someone just needs to implement the algorithms. Would that person be taken seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that so many in the tech community are a buzz with his theories, but the life sciences community not so much? What's keeping Craig Venter from curing aging in a couple of weeks? Pro-aging and pro-death bias?

That is another one of Aubrey's claims, that a lot of his opponents are just _hypnotized_ by our pro-aging and pro-death Stockholm syndrome culture.

Let me ask you this, can you provide me with specific evidence that Aubrey's main theories are NOT pure charlatanry?

Because the generic "We can like totally to do this, if we just try guys!" is not even wrong.

<comment><USER8> I don't believe you've read his book. This isn't his argument at all, not even close. I'm not sure who you're attacking here, but it's not Aubrey or SENS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> From <http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html#myth3>

The purpose of cryonics is to save the lives of living people, not inter the bodies of dead people. Death is a neurological process that begins after the heart stops. A stopped heart only causes death if nothing is done when the heart stops. Cryonics proposes to do something. In the words of a mainstream critical care expert writing for the American College of Surgeons, "In this era of critical care, death is more a process than an event.... A prognosis of death...cannot serve as a diagnosis."

I don't feel that I understand this fully. Is there a point in this "process" from which we've already brought people back, or is this all just conjecture?

<comment><USER11> CPR brings people back from the dead; before the 60s, they generally stayed dead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've always felt, in a very non-disparaging way, that cryonics filled the need for secular humanists to believe in an afterlife.

An interesting point was brought up in the comments too, which is if we had a bunch of frozen folks from the 1600's and we could unfreeze them and bring them back to life, would that be the _right_ choice?

That is the moral 'nub' which I find fascinating about this stuff (and yes it has been chewed fruitfully by writers before).

So imagine you could bring someone back from the 60's. What would they do today? The most brilliant computer designer would probably de-thaw believing that the IBM 360 with its channel architecture was the coolest thing. Show them the multi-issue pipeline of a modern microprocessor with register coloring, branch prediction, and early instruction retirement and their brain would explode.

When you are young the wonder of a new thing gives you the energy to read about how it works, when you're older (or just in a hurry) having to spend time reading the manual or 'fiddling with' a tool to understand it enough to use it is bothersome. Can you imagine waking up and everything you know is expected to be known by teens ? All your hard earned wisdom is worthless?

Since we're speculating there are things we can't really know but we can wonder about.

So what will be the economic status of these people once thawed? It could be 'good' in a post singularity world where anything can be made for 'free', or it could be 'bad' where thawed people are treated like the property of the person who paid to thaw them.

I would hate to find myself waking up, fuzzily, and have an insistent voice saying, "you've been reanimated by xyzcorp, click 'yes' to agree to their terms for paying off your debt to them, or 'no thankyou' to be re-frozen."

<comment><USER11> Well, as long as we're considering all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, consider this one:

1\. You die in a year or two from terminal illness or an accident.

2\. You purchased a life insurance policy when you were healthy, so cryonics is very cheap.

3\. Unforeseen advances in AI/nanotech/medicine allow you to be revived in just 15-20 years.

4\. You are back from the dead and find subsistence (let alone wealth) in the near future superior to your old life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here, let me fix that headline:

 _Father of Cryonics_ "Dies" _at 92_

</comment><comment><USER14> Apparently he also froze his two wives... that might be awkward if they all get reanimated.

<comment><USER15> Let's hope they all get to deal with that awkwardness at some point in the future, because it beats the alternative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I forsee a terrible dispute when Ettinger _and his two wives_ are brought back to life. Poor man.

<comment><USER17> When the alternative is eternal death, I'm sure he'd love to have the dispute.

<comment><USER12> Objection, asserting facts that are not in evidence :-)

Some folks will tell you that death is merely a transition to an alternate form of living. Some folks will tell you that if your cells are cryogenically frozen can get defrosted later. Both ideas are taken on faith, they may both be true, they may neither be true.

If someone reading this is pursuing a writing career in fiction I would be love to read a story about a bunch of souls, who have died, have had their mortal remains frozen, and now as dead people been able to see that there is an afterlife, but they can't go there because their mortal remains might be reanimated and they would go back, how they deal with it and what they do. Do they figure out a way to 'break' the cryonics system, allowing them to decay and move on? Do they go insane stuck between heaven and earth? Do they wander the planet vicariously living through other people's experiences. Maybe a TV series in there somewhere.

<comment><USER18> _Some folks will tell you that death is merely a transition to an alternate form of living. Some folks will tell you that if your cells are cryogenically frozen can get defrosted later. Both ideas are taken on faith, they may both be true, they may neither be true._

I live in an apartment building, but I haven't seen behind my neighbor's door. It could actually be a portal to Mars. It could lead to a few rooms consistent with the geometry of the rest of the building.

Not every pair of unknowns are equiprobable.

<comment><USER12> _Not every pair of unknowns are equiprobable._

True enough, but the unknowns 'is there an afterlife' and 'can I be reanimated from frozen tissue' are sufficiently unknowable _at this time_ to appear equiprobable to this reader.

<comment><USER19> The cryonics question (specifically, cryopreserved brain tissue -- the rest is more or less irrelevant) should be answered within a few centuries.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How a 19-Year-Old Raised $5 Million to Revolutionize Search - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/articles/2011/03/how-19-year-old-daniel-gross-is-taking-on-google-with-greplin.html <comment><USER2> I thought this was a cool article until I read this line:

"But regardless of how successful Greplin is, say, even if we go public someday, my parents won't be satisfied unless I get a degree. They won't speak to me."

That's pretty sad, actually :(

<comment><USER3> I came here to say the same thing (even worded the same way in my head).

Why are people so fixated on college degrees -- even if they've already built a profitable company from scratch? Is it to prove something? If so, what?

<comment><USER4> They're nice in that they force you to learn some subjects you wouldn't normally ... that and the college chicks.

Agree that the idea in that you have little worth without one is a bit absurd.

<comment><USER5> > college chicks?

Is every founder either a man or a lesbian?

<comment><USER4> The answer is leaning heavily toward yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It looks like he's using APIs, which means that he can only index as much data as the services are willing to provide. They can squeeze him out of business by shutting down or reducing access to the data whenever they please. Or just add to their API TOS that keeping a cached copy of the data is a no go.

The service would lose a lot of relevance if suddenly one of the main players like Facebook decided that they don't want to be indexed by Greplin anymore. Without long-term partnerships or contracts with all the stakeholders, I wouldn't bet on that horse.

<comment><USER7> Why would they do that? That's what the APIs are for.

<comment><USER6> Facebook already updates their API and policies very regularly, nothing they give an application access to can be given for granted in the long term. Especially when it deals with private content.

When your service is dependent on another, you're always at the mercy of an update that can shut down the API feature you were using, whether the intention is to kill your service or not.

In this case it seems like the goal of the website is to become a starting point for a person's browsing/searching experience, facebook and google want the same thing. If they feel threatened they could cut just stop Greplin in particular from accessing their API. It's not hard for them to update their API terms of service to make that kind of use forbidden, for instance. That kind of tactic has been used in the past.

That's why I see a lot of uncertainty in the future of that service. I'm not worried about the founder and the company, though, their most likely exit is a talent acquisition by Facebook or Google.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but you haven't really address 'why' they would do it.

> In this case it seems like the goal of the website is to become a starting > point for a person's browsing/searching experience, facebook and google want > the same thing.

This is your only 'why', but it's very weak. Every company wants to be the 'starting point for a persons browsing experience', but Facebook doesn't provide that, and neither does Greplin. Google does of course, but Greplin doesn't.

Your point reduces to "companies which consume APIs might compete with the companies which create them, and so might be shut down". Of course, your statement is true, but it's valueless.

<comment><USER6> The companies providing the APIs don't have to justify the "why". When I was working on Facebook applications a few years ago they would change the API calls and rules almost monthly, app developers had to adapt or die. The changes were often due to apps abusing the system in one way or another, but Facebook defined what was abuse or not. Sometimes the changes just looked completely arbitrary and sometimes meant that some applications were just not possible anymore due to vanishing API calls.

Exporting the private data from Facebook is considered a big no-no, from what I remember the TOS might only allow you to do so for a short period. Maybe that search service gets away with it because it stores an index based on the private data and not the private data itself. If Facebook gets uneasy with how close the index is to the original data or what private information leak might happen if Greplin is compromised, that could be a good enough reason to put a stop to it. Facebook not getting into a private information leakage scandal is probably more important than allowing a startup to live on Facebook data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Did Andrew Warner write that headline?

<comment><USER9> probably not, but this will save him the effort when he inevitably interviews him :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Traditional media and established blogs have sympathy for small startups that take on giants like Google, etc. especially if they are founded by someone under 20. btw, where is cuil now?

<comment><USER6> My thoughts exactly, also that of story reminds me of many articles published in the bubble era, as do many valuation and funding stories lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice piece. I have a question that comes up every time I read a "we came up with our Y-Combinator demo in the last weekend and got funded" story--is this rare? It seems like I hear it all the time, but maybe most of the "last 24 hour" demos don't get mentioned.

It's surprising to me to think it might be common, because my gut reaction is that this means the founders don't actually have a viable product, but because they got funded before they could figure that out, it will now take months or years for the founders to move on (or pivot significantly). I'd love to hear why that's not what's going on, though.

</comment><comment><USER12> From the article, on going to college: "The way it works in Israel, you have to go to the army first"

I wonder how much this impacts the entrepreneurial mindset in male youth. I grew up mostly in Singapore, and they too have conscription upon reaching the age of 18 (with some exceptions, eg: for medicine and for national scholarship holders). From what I see from my friends' facebook channels, it's definitely a draining experience indeed, one that takes months to recover from once its done.

But Kudos to this guy! Greplin is pretty awesome and I've already put it to use.

<comment><USER13> I'm Israeli, so I thought I'd share on how the Army has a huge positive impact on entrepreneurship.

For a lot of Israelis who are smart, the army is a _great_ experience that really helps them. For example, there is a very respected Programming Course in the Israeli army, which trains programmers for half a year. These programmers then go on to work on all the Armies' systems for the next 5 1/2 years. This course is called Mamram (I was in it).

This means that programmers in Israel are not only trained in a very intensive course for half a year, but they then go on to work on real-world (and often critical) systems, for 5 1/2 years. Which means there are many Israeli programmers who, at age 24, have 6 years of professional experience working on big, important systems.

Add to this that the Mamram course is very famous (most Israeli companies require programmers to _either_ have a degree _or_ be a graduate of Mamra). Also, serving 6 years in the army (and being in a course with 100 peers) means you get an incredible network of connections. I'm a good example - I'm working on my own startup with two people I served with in the army, and I know many people who either work at or run a lot of Israeli startups, just because I served with them at some point. I'm probably 2 hops from most startups in Israel, just because almost all of them hire programmers from the Mamram course.

OK that came out long. I only focused on the Mamram course since that's what I know best, but there are a lot of other fields the army is great for that have nothing to do with programming.

<comment><USER12> That sounds great! It seems like the Israeli military system brings with it an integrated approach to pathways in life.

That's far better than the picture that has been painted in front of my eyes (South-East Asian context) with places like Singapore and Vietnam. With the former, it's 2 years of physical grunt work. With the latter, one of my friend's cousins had to serve in the Army for 2 years as a Private after having graduated with an Engineering degree from the University of Melbourne, Australia. =(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Raising money is not hard, what is hard is make money :/

<comment><USER15> Your comment is flawed

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Met this guy sitting outside of Facebook a few months ago. Nice kid, smart, savvy. We chatted about Greplin and it sounded like he was making good progress... Let's hope he keeps it going...

</comment><comment><USER17> Daniel, if you're on HN, I'd love to know how the visa/immigration situation worked out for you in this case (if you can publicly talk about it, I know that this is not always the case).

<comment><USER18> I actually emailed him for this about a year ago and he told me that he was an American citizen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's troubling how little of this article is about the actual service. I'm left wondering why this is worth $5m? Isn't this basically HotBot for signup services?

</comment><comment><USER20> I just linked my Twitter account and have to say Greplin is scary fast on searches. I am not sure I would like another 3rd party indexing my emails, but will keep an eye on Greplin because of the twitter searches. I always wanted to search just my twitter stream, but I have never found, until now, such an easy and fast way to do it.

</comment><comment><USER21> easy to click Greplin Programming Challenge: <http://challenge.greplin.com/>

Anyone managed to pass level 1? I am stuck at level 1. Please share the logic.

<comment><USER22> What a crock - the second challenge requires calling a USA phone number.

Color me unimpressed.

<comment><USER23> There's an alternative, just click the provided link: <http://challenge.greplin.com/static/nophone.html>

<comment><USER22> Thanks - I might get back to it in a few hours. Currently busy now - I did have 20 minutes to spare earlier and thought a small challenge could be fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _But my mistake...was not listening to my own intuition enough_

</comment><comment><USER25> Do startup founders in Israel tend to be relatively younger than US-born founders, and if so, why do you think that is?

<comment><USER26> Jewish men and women are a precocious bunch :) I'm sure you'd find that US- born Jewish founders are relatively younger too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> didnt anybody notice that you cannot use greplin without signing up. #fail</comment>


Loads of video lectures on engineering topics by IIT professors - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nptelhrd&view=playlists

<comment><AUTHOR> Somebody please download all the videos and create a torrent for the same. :-)

</comment><comment><USER2> nice ! long and varied list of courses and topics ...</comment>


Did You Get Any Contract Work? - <AUTHOR>

A while back (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1262467) scottru posted a Google speadsheet for HN contractors. I was curious, did anyone who posted there get a contracting gig out of it? <comment><USER2> I passed on about 4 gigs that came my way from the site that was built around the spread sheet hnhackers.com and am in talks with another member who has an interesting idea that found me on that site.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had an offer to be a co-founder, but passed on it.</comment>