IBM's Technology Powered the Holocaust - <AUTHOR> https://kottke.org/19/10/how-ibms-technology-powered-the-holocaust <comment><USER2> IBM was the biggest seller of computers to the Apartheid regime in South Africa which helped them to implement the system ... the infamous "dompas" being one of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ok you had me up until this part.

> It's not difficult to see the relevance of this episode today. Should > Microsoft-owned GitHub provide software to ICE for possible use in the > agency's state-sanctioned persecution of immigrants and asylum seekers?

Comparing the mechanised murder of 6 million people to the processing of criminals is a bit of a stretch.

<comment><USER4> You realize that the victims of the holocaust _were_ criminals, as defined by German law.

At the end of WW2 lgbt people "liberated" from the concentration camps were immediately jailed for being LGBT, using evidence from the gestapo.

Aiding Jews, Romani, jehovahs witnesses, lgbt, communists, dissidents, etc also made you a criminal.

Also, I'm fairly sure immigration law doesn't carry the death penalty, yet there are kids dying and being abused in the ICE concentration camps.

Here's a simple counterpoint to ICE: what would the outcry be if Mexico starts imprisoning and separating American overstayers in Mexico? What would happen if Mexico then "lost track of" the children from those families? Would you still be arguing it was not criminal?

<comment><USER5> The Jews did not willingly pile into the camps. They didn't send their children across dangerous terrain with coyotes and birth-control pills. They didn't have the option to go back at any time they wanted.

The grotesque analogies just polarize everyone more.

<comment><USER4> The detained immigrants didn't choose to be piled into camps.

The hyperbole of all the immigrants arrested dashing through dangerous coyotes is nonsense.

Many of the "illegal" immigrants were born in the US. Many don't speak Spanish. But sure, concentrating them in prisons and separating children from their parents isn't about punishing them for being Mexican.

Don't come out claiming I'm advancing a polarizing description of what happens with a claim that the victims of a deliberately racist camp system have chosen this.

<comment><USER6> I'm sorry, what? Anyone born in the US is a citizen, not an immigrant. Their parents may be citizens or immigrants (legal or otherwise).

Section 1 of the 14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you're saying law enforcement agencies are depriving US citizens of liberty without due process I'm sure every news agency in the country would love to run stories with your evidence.

<comment><USER7> [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=us+citizen+detained+ice](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=us+citizen+detained+ice)

Cases such as you allege occur on a semi-frequent basis. People fall through the cracks, and the mechanisms by which the news ultimately reports on the truth is rather unfamiliar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The favored light rapid-fire cannon of WW II were manufactured to designs by neutrals, Sweden and Switzerland, licensed to manufacturers of both Allied and Axis powers. Did Oerlikon power the Holocaust, the liberation of Europe, the Greater Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity sphere, some or none of the above?

<comment><USER9> Did Oerlikon CEO receive Merit Cross of the German Eagle with Star? [https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=26634](https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=26634)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Holocaust wasn't IBM's fault. It was the fault of the rubber-stamp ink manufacturers, the fault of the railway wagon manufacturers, the barbed-wire manufacturers, and so on.

The title is as misleading as the slogan 'Guns kill People.'

In truth, the Nazis did the Holocaust. Whatever those things the Nazis may have used, the makers of those things were irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER11> Generally the true winners in the war are the ones that supply both sides. Numerous companies did this - some I surmise, with the blessing of the US government!

<comment><USER11> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow, what a ludicrous jump at the end there. Whatever complaints you may have about ICE, there is no analogy between the mass extermination of 6M people by the Nazis and what is happening at the border.

<comment><USER13> > Whatever complaints you may have about ICE, there is no analogy

I disagree.

The analogy may or may not be very good, but there _is_ an analogy that deserves to be treated on its merits.

The Holocaust was evil and horrible, but the lesson we sought to take from it wasn't that it was a singular evil that could never happen again. Instead, it was about the banality of evil ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)), that great evils are often the product of thousands of small steps that individually seem innocuous or trivial compared to what came before.

One point being made by the article is that providers of technology -- then IBM, but here github and the like -- carry a moral responsibility for the likely uses of that technology. If that point is correct and IBM is stained by its initial provision of card sorting machines to the Reich (well before the regime began mass killings), then Microsoft et al might carry the stain of crimes that haven't happened yet.

<comment><USER12> I agree with the idea that "great evils are often the product of thousands of small steps that individually seem innocuous or trivial".

What I take issue with is these sort of insidious analogies (which, no surprise, tend to be analogies to Hitler or the Holocaust) where none exists except in the most circuitous of ways. Of course we need to be vigilant and, yes, the Holocaust stands out in our collective memory as the best proof of that. However, there is a vast difference between people going to the border of their own volition (put aside the question whether they are doing so under tremendous duress and exigent circumstances) vs the Jews during the Holocaust who could do basically _nothing_ to escape persecution. Immigrants could avoid whatever treatment they are receiving at the border by not going to the border altogether or going by other means. What exactly could the Jews during the Holocaust do? Nothing.

None of this is to say there aren't legitimate criticisms related to what's happening at the border. But drawing an analogy, however loose it is, just weakens the argument and serves to seriously understate what happened during the Holocaust.

<comment><USER14> Jews could leave Germany until 1941. In fact, they were encouraged to do so. Finding a country that would take them was the problem.

<comment><USER15> > _Finding a country that would take them was the problem._

... was those Jews' immediate problem, just then. The problem was rather larger.

We will be seeing huge waves of refugees as Global Climate Disruption renders large areas of the globe newly uninhabitable. There are already Nazi-like movements to "keep them out". Plenty of people will be found who would rather they were killed or starved to death than allowed in.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why are people afraid to answer a Stack Overflow question? - <AUTHOR> I've been seeing this as of late. The answer to my question will be spot on but the author posts it as a comment.<p>Is SO doing something to discourage answering questions outright? <comment><USER2> Because the SO community is so toxic I try to avoid posting answers OR questions as much as possible.

Comments are safer, since you won't wind up with -3 and a bunch of comments about some irrelevant detail (like coding style). Comments cannot even be downvoted and most people won't flag them unless they're legitimately abusive/trolling.

<comment><USER3> same experience here, but some communities don't even allow comments from users with less than 50 reps, so newer users like myself are basically in the read-only phase

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is from what I've heard. I use SO all the time but don't really post, so don't quote me on this.

The community can be fairly tough on people who are wrong or missing part of the answer. People who aren't extremely experienced sometimes feel scared that their answer may not be the best for whatever reason and feel a lot of heat. This is also true for "stupid" questions. If you ask a bad question on SO you can feel the heat as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess the kicker is that there is no answer to my question yet!

Here's an example. I posted this question: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32051503/upgrader- process...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32051503/upgrader-process- complete-not-sending-data-array-in-wordpress) .

Got the comment and it's solves my problem. Days later I got write a detailed response and answer my own question.

<comment><USER5> That is why. Putting a 1-line answer isn't really kosher there. Maybe the commenter didn't have time to provide the extra resources in a full answer. So instead offered their solution as a comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> SO doesn't do anything to make this a better option really. I mean, you can always delete your answer if it goes negative. You can even get a badge for it. ([http://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/38/peer- pressure](http://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/38/peer-pressure))

This is annoying for people answering the questions too: what should I do when I know the answer but it's already in the comments? Duplicate and rake the points for it? Leave it be and leave the question as unanswered?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was about to flag a comment (hoping that I could choose to pick "this is an answer") but didn't know if that was an option once you flag something. The tooltip on the flag icon says "Flag this comment for serious problems..."

<comment><USER6> You get options to choose from, but there's no "this is an answer" option. It's not something mods can fix anyway. (you can't force someone to post an answer)

<comment><USER7> I ask people to turn their comments into answers. They usually do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I answer questions almost everyday on SO. The only time I leave an answer as a comment is if I'm not really sure if it'll work and it's a shot in the dark. I'll also do it if I'm not sure of the experience level of the OP or what they have tried.

For example I would leave the comment "Have you tried some_method()?" if I think that might solve the problem if it hasn't been tried and it's not immediately clear if it has been tried or not. If it works I'll post it as answer if it doesn't I'll use that info to further debug.

There are also times I leave the answer as a comment when I shouldn't. If it's a dupe or I'm going to close it based on it being a typo or missing closing bracket or some other on sense typo. I'll point out their mistake and vote to close.

</comment><comment><USER9> You can't down vote a comment, that might be a reason.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are upvotes in a comment worth the same as upvotes of an answer?!

<comment><USER6> Upvotes show up on the side of the comment, but you don't get any rep for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, ok. There is very little incentive to commenting. Are people that afraid of criticism on SO when there is no upside to commenting?!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If there's an answer to your question in the comments, type it up, make it better, and answer your own question if it will make the internet better. That's the point. The gamification is just a good way of encouraging the desired behaviors.

The goal is to help people, and nobody is going to beat Jon Skeet anyway.

<comment><USER11> Jon Skeet answering my first SO question in a few minutes left me with a lasting impression that SO is awesome. That must have been 7 years ago or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> SO used to be useful and good for reference, but its full of assholes now.</comment>


Human-sized cities: Cutting cars from our urban fabric - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?pagewanted=print

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because I've lived without a car for seven years, and I never would have realized how relaxing it is not to have to worry about it (though I do use the ZipCar service).

And ultimately, as we reach peak oil and energy costs rise, I would like to think that we will re-evaluate how we build cities and make them more "human- sized", which could counteract many of the negative trends we face today (obesity, lack of social community, etc.). Of course, the alternative is that we find a sufficiently cheap source of energy for our cars beyond petroleum, and we continue on building our merry suburbs -- but maybe, just maybe, it doesn't have to be that way.

<comment><USER9> Out of curiosity, what city are you currently in?

I'm currently in NYC, although I used to live in Seattle carless as well. Honestly, one of the big reasons it's easier in NYC is due to social norms.

Seattle wasn't bad, but NYC is definitely a lot easier to live without a car. One of the main reasons: You're not expected to have a car.

In Seattle, people just assume you have a car and are surprised when you don't -- i.e. you have to explain why you can't just make it out to some random place to pick something up, etc.

In NYC no one expects you to have a car (at least not in Manhattan and most parts of BK, etc) -- so people don't make assumptions that you can get somewhere if it's not near public transit, or that you can haul something somewhere.

Obviously, there are other things that make NYC quite nice for carless life (delivery services, density, flat topography to name a few).

<comment><AUTHOR> I live in Chicago currently, which has a decent public transit system (although there's no shortage of complaints about it).

I'd be interested in your experience being carless in Seattle. I might move out there at some point and it would be nice if I could maintain a similar lifestyle there.

<comment><USER9> There are only a few neighborhoods where you can do it without really inconveniencing yourself: Belltown, Capitol Hill, and Downtown (Pioneer Square / Pike's Place market area). Other neighborhoods don't have as much density or public transit coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When you think about it in isolation, our culture of commuting seems crazy. Imagine designing a system in which people live far from their workplaces, wake up every morning and drive en masse to their destinations, and then do the reverse in the evening, devouring huge amounts of natural resources in the form of energy and time in the process. You'd be laughed out of the room. And yet, here we are...

Austin is currently developing a number of mixed use communities roughly of the New Urbanist school, usually a mix of 3-4 story condos/apartments and restaurants/shops. I'm hoping the trend continues.

Here's more info on New Urbanism: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism>

<comment><USER11> Where are they? I'm aware of developments like the Triangle and the Domain, but they feel like a love affair between plasticky high-end retailers and a captive audience of consumers. The yuppie d-bag quotient at the Flying Saucer was ridiculous last time I was there. I think the problem is that the Domain and the Triangle seem to be planned by the same MBA types who plan malls, so they feel like malls with housing attached for people who really, really like the mall. By contrast, I like the pedestrian culture on South Congress and even South 1st, even though those areas were designed for cars. I'm more optimistic about old neighborhoods evolving in dense, pedestrian-friendly ways than I am about synthetic neighborhoods having any significant effect. (Maybe it's just because I don't trust real estate developers.)

On another note, living far from workplaces is a given if you want people to have reasonable job mobility and reasonable home stability. You need a public transit system so people can live ten years in the same place without being tied to a single, possibly crappy job for that long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this is an Amwrican thing. I live in Copenhagen, and have never owned a car. Neither have many of my friends, and it isn't a problem. There are probably a few reasons for this

\- Many European cities don't have the American version of suburbs that basically require you yo have a car. Homes and businesses are generallly more intertwined and have sprung up over the ages around a town center.

\- Public transportation is a lot better. In the rush hour it's often quicker to use public transportation than a car. A bike is the fastest.

\- It's socially accepted. As mentioned many people don't even have cars, and it's not because of a lack of money.

<comment><USER13> _"Many European cities don't have the American version of suburbs"_

That's because most European cities don't have remotely this kind of population growth, let alone the space to accommodate it on the fly.

<comment><USER14> I don't think it has much to do with population growth. I think it has more to do with planning in advance where you want your growth to be. In the US we just let developers put new houses pretty much wherever they want, which turns out to be where land is cheap, which is usually far from existing developments. In Europe the govt has more direct involvement and only allows development to happen where they want it to happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> First of all, I should disclaim that I love cars, own 5 of them (only 3 are registered/insured at the moment), so feel free to view my comments through that lens.

I believe that the car allows workers a significant freedom to choose employers not based on which ones are within a few miles bike ride or a few line changes of subway, but rather within an acceptable driving radius. And for many people, myself included, acceptable commuting time in my own car, with my own radio and peace/quiet is far longer than what I'd accept on the green line subway in Boston, or waiting in the rain/snow/slush for a bus.

This freedom radius is particularly important when you consider that most (American anyway) families have at least two incomes, so I must choose to live where I can get to my employment and my wife to hers. With cars, at least in America, that opens up a much wider range of options than if we could only look at jobs on the subway. As it stands, we chose to live in Cambridge (a "city suburb" of Boston); I drive; she takes the T. Either one of us could easily change jobs to literally dozens of different employers without having to move houses or change fields. There's significant value there.

Naturally, had American cities evolved differently, that might also be true just by us living on a better-than-current-reality subway system, as most desirable employers would also have located near subway stops, because that would be a competitive advantage. As it stands now, companies needing white collar talent intentionally locate where there is parking and good access to ring highways, for that is a competitive advantage.

The network effects to overcome to make car-free living are daunting, and just because you can find a few thousand people with lifestyles perhaps overly suited to car-free living in planned communities does not mean that those communities are scalable.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm 37 and I never learned to drive a car. I do own a car I inherited, which my wife drives about once a week. We use bicycles, not because we're nuts but because we live 5 minutes from work or work at home, and everything's close by in the city we live in - restaurants, entertainment, shops, parks, etc. I've always lived close to where I work, in cities where it's nice to live.

</comment><comment><USER13> Cars are unbelievably important unless you're either very wealthy or willing to accept squalid conditions. Is there an invention more egalitarian than the automobile?

<comment><USER17> I believe the "human-sized city" proposition is meant to remove the requirement for wealth or squalid conditions from a car-free lifestyle. Let's not forget that the car itself still requires more wealth than most people in the world have access to. My pick for egalitarian invention would lean more toward municipal public utility systems. If restricted to transportation-based inventions only, the bicycle.

<comment><USER13> Yes, you could go wherever you pleased in such a place, _within the city_. A car allows its operator to travel great distances cheaply and quickly, seeking only the road's permission.

<comment><USER17> I can't see how needing to hop on a bus, train, airplane, or rented car to leave one's city requires extreme wealth or constitutes squalid conditions. Anectdotally, I lived in Korea for a year without a car, and had no problem getting around, both within and between cities as large as Seoul or as small as Kanseung.

<comment><USER13> Korea is a relatively small country.

<comment><USER18> The Korean peninsula is about the size of California. (Which is about the size of France and Alabama together.)

<comment><USER13> Yes. It's a small country. France is a small country too.

<comment><USER18> Hmm, out of all the countries in the world, how many are "non-small?"

        - <USER2>
        - <USER3>
        - <USER4>
        - <USER5>
        - <USER6>
        - <USER7>
        - <USER8>

But that's a pretty dumb way to look at things. Population density and frequency of travel to population centers is a much better way.

If California is like a "Small Country" then by your logic, European style rail should work just fine there. The same goes even more for many eastern states. They have higher population densities and much smaller land areas.

<comment><USER13> No, land mass means a lot. A dense population is well-suited for mass transpo as the primary option. A relatively sparse country cannot pull this off. Pull out your globe...here are other actual, large countries:

      * Ukraine
      * Congo (DRC)
      * Argentina
      * Mexico
      * Chile
      * Turkey
      * Iran
      * Colombia

As you can see, in addition to those you listed, there many. Korea's freaking tiny. It's not an insult, it's a geographical fact. Also, by their very nature, there can only be so many large countries, so I don't know what you were getting at in the first place.

<comment><USER18> Poor reading comprehension. The significant part is at the end. As for my straw man, thanks for completing the list. Seems the majority of countries out there are "tiny."

<comment><USER13> Well, yes. there's only so much land to go around, and the majority is taken up by these countries (left out desert countries like Sudan, Algeria, etc. because they have little risk of over-expansion). North America is only three countries but is the third-largest and the fourth most populous continent. Three countries alone make up nearly all of Asia, the largest and by far the most populous.

<comment><USER18> So? This is the _second_ notice: that the most salient part of my post, is that it's more relevant to consider relative distances and population densities. The US taken as a whole seems forbidding to rail. Specific regions of the US can appear quite hospitable. Gerrymandering left as an exercise and opportunity to display academic integrity.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Standards: why? - <AUTHOR> http://clipperhouse.com/blog/post/Standards-why.aspx

<comment><USER2> 1\. a benefit of web standards is to developers/content producers. You can deliver 1 piece of content, warm and fuzzy in the knowledge that anyone can view it and get a reasonably similar representation (eg, lynx vs iphone vs firefox vs ie)

2\. a benefit to consumers that you can view content from the command line, a GUI, a desktop, a laptop, a mobile device. It's not about a given consumer switching, although it's nice that they can, it's about entire segments of the interweb using public having different platforms.

3\. there is plenty of room for innovation and differentiation in areas other than how the html is rendered.

I'm not surprised to see fragmentation occurring in the market though -- there's been a period of consolidation and now it looks like a period of diversification.</comment>


Top startup success stories from Stockholm 2014 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfI5bKM2AhA&feature=youtu.be

<comment><USER2> That's just a slideshow converted into a 40 second video. Full text:

* Klarna: $114m funding

* King: $7b IPO

* Stockholm has the largest no. of billion dollar startups in Europe

* Mojang: $2.5b exit to Microsoft

* VC investments: 338% growth in dollars invested

* iZettle: $55.5m in funding

* Shortcut labs reach [crowdfunding] goal in 48h

* Stockholms premier co-working space for startups turns 1 year

* Truecaller: $79m funding, 100m users

* STHLM Tech Fest: Biggest startup event in Stockholm</comment>


NASA will give you $30,000 if you can solve their 'space poop' problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/weird/article/NASA-will-give-you-30-000-if-you-can-solve-their-10647796.php <comment><USER2> The space poop problem is that they are only willing to spend $30,000 on a very serious problem that can have severe medical consequences.

</comment><comment><USER3> what a crappy link. are you taking the piss?</comment>


Investigating Nvidia's Jetson AGX: A Look at Xavier and Its Carmel Cores - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/13584/nvidia-xavier-agx-hands-on-carmel-and-more <comment><USER2> I've just added an Xavier to my open source four wheel drive robot. For developers, the first Xavier is $1300. I'm really interested in pure camera based navigation and the Xavier is perfect for developing something like that. I'm going to start with using a stereo camera to follow hiking trails and go from there. The latest on the robot is here if anyone is curious:

[https://imgur.com/a/GqXD2Zj](https://imgur.com/a/GqXD2Zj)

<comment><USER3> Are you having any trouble with USB and that ps4 stereo camera? I got a Xavier to process video from intel realsense 415 stereo cameras and am having a lot of USB problems with dropped frames and frames missing data. The cameras work fine on x86. The entire Xavier software stack feels very early beta quality.Not sure if I should abandon the Xavier, or try a PCIe USB card or what.

<comment><USER4> I highly highly recommend using a PCIe USB card, especially if you are using multiple cameras.

<comment><USER3> Thank you so much, I got a PCIe USB card and it fixed all my problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. I had a lot of fun with the JTKs when they first came out. I set up a small render farm, and had a blast with them. But at a $2500 price point, I can't see broke, indebted, just-out-of-college me getting the opportunity to do that with this new dev kit, and I think that's kind of a shame. With that said, this is pretty cool, and I totally want one

</comment><comment><USER6> My team managed to do pretty cool realtime deep neural net computer vision demos on Jetson TX2, but this beast is an order of magnitude faster and energy efficient, which seems almost unbelievable! We're definitely getting a bunch of those and sticking them to our robot.

</comment><comment><USER7> This fills a need for a general development platform for Nvidia's ARM modules. You could get dev boards for these modules, but the dev boards were (mostly) not suitable for prototyping or products. I think a lot of companies would just default to x86 platforms because of the ease of sourcing small form factor boards that have plenty of connectivity. However, for the right application the performance per watt and form factor is a winner. I guess something that needs low power and a lot of AI/Image processing in a small brick. Autonomous vehicles?

<comment><USER8> Bingo. NVIDIA made a fairly big stink about ASIL qualification efforts for Xavier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there a big market for this?

<comment><USER2> In five years, this style of device will be huge in robotics. NVIDIA is getting the industry hooked now.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I'm bootstrapping my company and this is my first product. Thoughts? - <AUTHOR> http://www.myminutesapp.com <comment><USER2> On an aesthetics note: pick a cleaner, more serious font than the script. It shows that you mean business with your app and it's meant to be used seriously rather than as a fun one-off.

On a consistency note: the examples in your copy should match those in your example image. You have 30 min for exercise and 1 hour for emails in the image but they're the opposite in your copy.

The app looks good though and quite useful. Might I also suggest, instead of listing all the features to have them displayed around the image with arrows pointing to what they're referring to. Context can make all the difference, especially with a long page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Changing the font to something more professional is at the top of my list. I made a conscious decision to give the app an informal feel but I agree that that was mistake.

I'll also fix up the examples and look into a more efficient page layout.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like how you have the 'at least' and 'at most'. There are things with no end in sight but need an hour a day.

It might be fun to play the background music of your video while the clock is running in the app, it reminded me of a Sega Outrun feeling for some reason and might help in gamifying speed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Quick pitch: It's a time tracker with a robust goal-setting system that allows you to set up 'at most' and 'at least' goals. Spending too much time in your inbox? Set up a 'Do at most 1 hour going through email' goal. Want to work more on your side-project? 'Do at least 2 hours of side-project development'

I found this method of goal-setting to be pretty helpful for me both in maximizing time spent on things I want to do, and minimizing time spent on things I do that I'd rather not. What do you think?

Here are some free promo codes for those hesitant to take a closer look:

      6TKWP4KAH37H
      JJM7MA4HK7RL
      94YR7XMJPNTW
      77XMHW96TPNJ
      RHHXLR7LFYXN

Please comment if you take one so I can take it off the list.

I'd love feedback on just about anything: design, execution, features, etc.

Thanks so much for taking a look!

-Kamil

<comment><USER4> Personally I find it weird looking at my phone each time to mark off a task done and starting a new one. Its like a stopwatch on my phone.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's sort of the idea. The main selling point is to find out where your time is actually going. If that's not interesting to you then yeah, the app doesn't make much sense.

For myself, that's something I wanted to know so I built this. When I first started working on my company I was spending a lot of time doing random research and reading, and not enough development. Of course, I didn't find that out until I actually quantified where my time was going.

I then added the goals feature to wean myself off of the time sinks and towards the more valuable stuff. I found it helped me achieve a more balanced time allocation for productive vs. unproductive tasks.

Also, the simple procedure of setting up the goals made me way more conscious of where my time was going, which I thought was valuable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The web page could be much more reader friendly (and less about you).

Specifically, the reader shouldn't have to search around the page to get a clear picture of what the app does. The top section of text (The Mission) does very little to explain the app. It says that you built this app to scratch your own itch (which is nice for you, but which we don't care about)... and it asks your readers for favors before we even know what the app is.

I'd dramatically shorten this. At the very least, the features section should go ahead of the request that we tell our friends about it.

I know this page is just something temporary to get the word out, but it will be more engaging and effective with small changes to make it more reader- oriented.

<comment><USER6> I'm curious why you didn't use the stock iTunes app store badge. That might convert slightly better if you get some site traffic.

You should make sure to go through AppCod.es preso on app store SEO. I am regularly amazed at how bad my competitors are on their app keywords. <http://www.appcod.es/>

You should go sign up with LinkShare and whatever the other iTunes affiliates are and work out your affiliate link from your site. 5% of the sales through your site might not be much now, but it's free money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well, I can see that this app is going to be useful for me (assuming I don't forget to use it). Thanks for making it! A few comments:

\- I'd like to start multiple tasks at the same time (like running, and listening to music--done at the same time, but have different limits)

\- Make the granularity of time equal in 'Today' (curr min: seconds) and 'Goal' (curr. min: minutes)

\- 'Goal tracking' on/off was a bit confusing, I think because it's on the screen that manages the goal and not on the one that creates it.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'd like to start multiple tasks at the same time (like running, and > listening to music--done at the same time, but have different limits)

I had support for multiple tasks at once in an early build, but I decided to nix it to reduce confusion. I couldn't think of any compelling use cases that were hindered, and lots where running multiple tasks would cause confusion. Hope that makes some sense.

> Make the granularity of time equal in 'Today' (curr min: seconds) and 'Goal' > (curr. min: minutes)

You're probably right here. Time input methods should be uniform.

> 'Goal tracking' on/off was a bit confusing, I think because it's on the > screen that manages the goal and not on the one that creates it.

Good call. I'll be rework the UI a bit to make that clearer.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have an Android but would love an app like this. Are you working on an Android version?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not currently but if there is interest I definitely will. I've had a number of requests for now so you're not alone.

<comment><USER6> My experience: There's always interest in an Android version, but rarely enough sales to justify porting the average paid iOS app. The only likely benefit to you would be having those Android apps in your portfolio if you need to do consulting work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You could allow for a pomodoro time metric perhaps? (Instead of 45 minutes for X, I can spend 2 pomodoros) that way you can piggy back into that particular community.

Would also be handy to store info on a web interface so I can work on it from my computer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Web interface is definitely something I'll get to if the app gets enough traction.

I considered adding Pomodoro time, but opted not to for the launch to keep things simple. I may make it an extra down the road.

Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love productivity apps that truly help you manage what you do. I have not tried this yet, but I will and let you know what I think. On the surface it looks to be a winner.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind comment. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been looking for an app like this I downloaded it, I'll let you know if it works.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thank you :)

<comment><USER11> It would be cool to set hours per a week dedicated to a specific task (job).

I'm a freelancer with 3 clients, each having set hours per a week (based on my estimation) that need tracking.

It would be cool if it could suggest different schedules that work for the set hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Will it track how much time you spend setting up/managing the data in the app?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've tried to make that process as minimal and streamlined as possible. I tried to make getting started with the app as painless as I could!

<comment><USER12> Since the primary intent of the app is to help manage where your minutes go and make the process of managing the app as minimal and streamlined as possible - have you considered optionally enabling automated time keeping. Things like how much time you spend on phone calls, using your phone in general. GPS insights like driving time, time spent at home/office/bar. Anything that you could reasonably guess given the different features of the phone?

<comment><AUTHOR> Very interesting idea, I hadn't thought about that too much! Would definitely be fun to build. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I just bought this. An awesome idea, I could really use this everyday.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, hope the app helps you out. Let me know if you have anything you'd like to see in the app!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I could see myself or friends using this but why brush script?

<comment><AUTHOR> This was actually a conscious decision. I did it to give the app an informal feel. Basically to distinguish it from the super-serious professional time tracking apps that are overloaded with features. I could have been wrong though because I've gotten a few complaints about the font now. I may change it in the next update. :)

<comment><USER15> Using a font to give it that feel is the wrong way to go. It makes it seem like your development approach was informal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I think that has a lot of merit. I'll work on changing the font. For some reason it has a special place in my heart, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


AWS Lambda is the best way to host websites for free – isn't it? - <AUTHOR> https://ottofeller.com/blog/aws-lambdas-free-tier-is-the-best-way-to-host-your-websites-for-free-isnt-it <comment><USER2> 1\. A static site hosted by Netlify probably doesn't have a 3MB payload.

2\. Asset caching should ensure the 3MB payload is less than 3MB on subsequent loads.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree for subsequent loads, but I think it's not enough — all new visitors will not use the cache.</comment></comment>


Google's Plan to Disrupt the College Degree Is Absolute Genius - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/google-career-certificates-plan-disrupt-college-degree-university-genius.html <comment><USER3> Really? Is Google going to hire somebody with one of these certificates as quickly as someone with the degree from Stanford, CMU, etc.?

<comment><USER4> I have worked at both Google and Facebook without any degree or certification. In my experience, these companies care a lot more about interview performance than formal credentials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looking at the certificates homepage [1], this seems like a great entry point into the tech industry for people that might otherwise be excluded - <USER2> skills to perform a job, not a replacement for the theory and rigour of an expensive 4 year Computer Science or Computer Engineering education (but how many entry level tech jobs REALLY require that background anyway?).

My name-brand-school Master's degree makes me want to resist this sort of thing to justify my own ego. But I've worked with great people who were self- taught, so if this credential helps motivated self-starters get thier foot in the door and launch a fulfilling career, I'm all for it!

[1] [https://grow.google/certificates/](https://grow.google/certificates/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Because people are nothing more than cogs in Google's wheel. Who needs a well rounded education when you can learn just enough to join the long line of drones.

<comment><USER7> You could use the certificates to get in the door and use tuition assistance from the company to round yourself out. Google pays 2/3 for job-related coursework, 1/3 for personal improvement classes.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you make desktop software? - <AUTHOR> Why do you chose desktop over cloud implementation? Can you share your experience; expectations, pitfalls, wins and advice? <comment><USER2> It is not a case of one or the other. I often implement programs to run on a local server and the GUI is a WebApp. Personally I find QT, GTK wxWidgets to offer minimal advantages over a HTML/JS WebApp. And I can always move from local hosted server to cloud hosted server or back again.

</comment><comment><USER3> I chose desktop because:

I live in the country (limited bandwidth) I control the source (nobody tells me I violate their 'who knows what') My information is secure (my desktop app is hosted on non-internet accessible computers) I have yet to see browser based apps as powerful / native as true desktop apps.

Downsides:

You have to do more of your own grunt work. You have to do your own backups.

</comment><comment><USER4> Depends on your customers needs really. I work on stuff that goes on ships and factory automation. No cloud required.</comment>


Just launched FR2.0, Daily Journal of the US; open, on rails and cloud hosted - <AUTHOR> http://www.federalregister.gov

<comment><USER2> This is a huge step forward for using open source software in the government. Utilizing the open source community for governmental change and taking advantage of the cloud based architectures that we love for their efficiency and low costs.

Exciting to see our tax dollars being used effectively and efficiently!</comment>


Zappos gets rid of all managers - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-managers/#!

<comment><USER2> Pretty sure this is all going to amount to BS. Humans like hierarchies and power. When someone realizes they can make themselves more important than others and as such curry favor with "lead links" they won't hesitate to do so.

Of course, I used to have a former Zappos manager as a boss and found him wanting, so maybe I am just bitter.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems like a great pr story. Could someone with relevant experience explain how a story like this is planted in a reputable newspaper like WSJ or NYT? I don't quite understand the m.o.

<comment><USER4> I don't do PR, but I've managed our relationships with PR firms. Rule #1 about dealing with the media: do their work for them.

The practice of getting PR pieces presented as news can be quite simplistic. One way to go: A company hires its own press agent or uses a PR firm (typically the latter for smaller companies). PR firms' specialty is in cultivating relationships with reporters, editors, and the like. It's no big trick; mostly just human relationships and the ability to provide the newspeople with stuff they can use to get their job done. In other words, they understand the "domain" of news.

Then the original company funnels information about stuff its doing to their PR firm on a regular basis. The PR firm takes the stuff it thinks might be interesting to the outside world, helps put some spin on it, and shops it around to the contacts they think might be interested in the stories.

If the newspeople bite, what happens next can depend on a variety of factors. But the hard work's been done at this point.

It should be noted that this isn't the only path things can take. This story has been making the rounds for a week or so now. It's quite possible that the WaPo was never contacted by any PR folks; instead they just saw it on other news outlets and wanted to follow up for themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This may work for some aspects of their company, but there are still traditional roles at a company like Zappos that are going to require structure.

I can't imagine that their order fulfillment chain is going to just let the pickers and packers decide what circle they want to be in today.

</comment><comment><USER6> No people actually fired => demagogy.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a worker at a telcom company with a lot of useless (and worse) managers, I hope this is part of a growing trend...

</comment><comment><USER8> Kudos!!

</comment><comment><USER9> What no mention of Valve? from whom they borrowed this concept.

<comment><USER10> There are quite a few companies that run with an 'unconventional' management structure. A recent link on HN was to a HBR study about Morning Star, a mature company that has run with a 'no managers' strategy for years.

Link to HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6913879](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6913879) Link to HBR PDF: [https://archive.harvardbusiness.org/cla/web/pl/product.seam?...](https://archive.harvardbusiness.org/cla/web/pl/product.seam?c=573&i=15715&cs=7c855bfce2fd1c3860846954978b1181)

I enjoyed the PDF.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many karma points are needed to downvote? - <AUTHOR>

How many karma points do I need to earn to downvote? <comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for responding. That will be really helpful for me.

</comment><comment><USER2> Last I heard: 500</comment>


Pairing vs. Code Review: Comparing Developer Cultures - <AUTHOR> http://phinze.github.io/2013/12/08/pairing-vs-code-review.html <comment><USER2> Great post!

In the pairing paradigm (say that 5 times fast), how much of a typical day is spent actually pairing? How do you manage email or other company wide communication? What happens when a server crashes or another emergency comes up? Or when another pair has a question that you can answer? Or when one member of the pair is also responsible for a deploying something? Or one member has a meeting?

Disclaimer: I've mostly been exposed to the code review paradigm (I work with Paul at `current_job`)

<comment><USER3> Usually pairing seems to work great to get you through things that seem like they're a slog. So you don't have to pair through everything, just the hard and boring bits. It helps to timebox it, and say it's going to be (e.g.) an hour long session to prevent it from taking forever and help focus. Even if you're not done, chances are you'll have made good progress. So, schedulingwise, it's a bit like a meeting.

The largest benefit I see is that having someone with you is like having more than double the focus and vigilance, since you're both there to help each other out _and_ you'll both tell each other when you're leading yourselves astray, which doesn't happen when programming individually.

Pair-design also works great.

I think it's harder to be as productive in code review (and I think they aren't mutually exclusive anyway) because people tend to focus more on nitpick changes like style issues, and miss the larger design stuff.

<comment><USER2> Sure, but my question was in the context of the OP definition of "pair programming culture" as "a team that does nearly 100% pairing ... The day-to- day experience of programming is that of a day-long conversation with your pair"

I'm curious how other things that are intrinsically non-pair activities fit in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great read! Upon finishing, the two sides seem to be opposite solutions of a good problem (that is getting a non singular path to guarantee code quality). It seems that the best solution is a mixed approach. Using pairs to gain the benefits of knowledge sharing and sort of check ups (that is having a second pair of eyes to achieve the intermediate commit/review issue). But also using a large amount of solo coding with code reviews to ensure overall quality without missing out on the non-pairing types.

Has anyone ever tried a balanced approach like this? Such as spending 2-3 days each week pairing on a part of a project to help with knowledge sharing, best practices, or possible bad paths, and then the rest solo coding with some final code reviews?

Also, what is the best form of code review? Is it having a single developer be assigned to perform a code review for each pull request or for it to have some gestation period for crowd comments to come in, or even some voting quota/discussion until a simple consensus is reached? There seems to be some room for a variety of time/quality trade offs (in theory, more eyes == higher quality, more time).

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't see the two practices as antithetical: complex features with a lot of potential pitfalls take advantage from pair programming; code reviews are perfect for BAU tasks.

I am a bit suspicious of the ecstatic tone that the author has while writing about pair programming: I am not sure I ever met someone who deeply enjoys it; at best it's seen as good practice, or a necessary evil.

<comment><USER6> I'm confused, you're questioning the author's sincerity in expressing his own enjoyment of pair programming?

I deeply enjoy pairing. I know quite a few folks that do as well.

<comment><USER5> Ok, fine then :) I admit I've never met anyone so genuinely enthusiastic about pair programming, so it sounds unusual to me.

<comment><USER7> Give it a go sometime. It's the most fun I've had at a job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great post.

We use Gerrit code review, with side-by-side reviews. I.e. the developer pushes to Gerrit, then sits down with the reviewer and walks him through the code. 99% of the bugs are found by the original developer -- after he is forced to explain what he did (and why) to a colleague. I think that this gets you at least some of the benefits of both approaches.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an interesting practice, thanks for sharing. I'm really curious about different sorts of hybrid approaches being used in the wild.

I'd be curious to hear how the day-to-day schedule ends up working out between developers, since the review process is synchronous in this case.

<comment><USER8> The synchronous aspect is a problem, although not a huge one. The issue is mitigated to a certain extent by excluding non-customer facing research & testing components from the review requirement. Also, the architecture of the system is such that people tend to work very independently, with little-to-no overlap, so reviews can be postponed with little impact on velocity. As our team grows in size, we could also think about instituting a rotating code reviewer responsibility, with team members taking it in turns to act as the designated reviewer for the day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A problem with code review is that people treat is as proofreading a final project, so it isn't effective for collaboration before a solution is obvious and quick to code up.

We need more informal/preliminary ways to code-review work in progress

<comment><USER10> I work on Openstack, which uses gerrit for review. We use blueprints in launchpad to do preliminary design, then reference the blueprint in the commit message, and frequently people working on patches with hacky implementations will mark it as WIP, which is basically a signal not to approve but to provide feedback.

One thing the article didn't mention is that code review works across companies and is ideal for open source work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A lot of the time pair programming and code reviews could be simply automated, which I find infinitely more efficient. If it can't be automated that may be a sign of a bad architecture/tooling.

</comment><comment><USER12> Well written and informative. Starting the read, I was somewhat skeptical of the pairing approach but now I see how it can work and work well.

</comment><comment><USER7> An unrelated note to the author: Please contemplate adding an RSS/Atom feed so that your blog may be easily followed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done! [http://phinze.github.io/rss.xml](http://phinze.github.io/rss.xml)

<comment><USER7> Thank you!</comment></comment></comment>


why I cancelled my ETech presentations - <AUTHOR> http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html <comment><AUTHOR> And here's another post by Ronnie Bennet taking a slightly different view.

_'... As far as can be determined from the few facts she relates, the attacks on Kathy were made anonymously. However, she has tried and convicted Chris Locke, Jeneane Sessum, Allen Herrel, Frank Paynter and, to a lesser extent, Doc Searls without a shred of proof that they were involved. As Chris notes in his rebuttal post, ...'_ [0]

Reference

[0] Ronnie Bennet, Blogher.org, 'The Matter of Kathy Sierra'

<http://blogher.org/node/17339>

<comment><USER2> One thing we can't tell since the original websites are down: Were these attacks made in the comments or were they first-class posts?

Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid Identity:

_'... Were these attacks made in the comments or were they first-class posts? ...'_

Good point. Would a solution be only having comments if you supply an openId? [0] The idea being you have to ID yourself to comment. Would validation of identity be one way to help solve this?

_'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'_

I wonder how the legals would view that? How much due care do you have to take? The thing with comments is, if you allow anyone to comment without limits, it's your reputation that will be smeared. If you have control or ownership of a system you are responsible. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made. This is one of the key points _allegedly_ made ... why do reputable sites allow such posts to persist?

Post Restriction:

I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of no comments. They work to some degree but do not scale well. My personal idea is to have a blog that has no comments that points to a system requiring login (overhead, time and effort & identity) to comment.

_'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'_

I wonder how the legals would view that? Was enough due care taken? The thing with comments is if you allow anyone to comment without limits it's your reputation that will be smeared. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made.

I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of _no comments_.

Reference

[0] No because OpenID is not a trust system. Maybe I should have read more about it before I posted ~ <http://openid.net/about.bml>

<comment><USER2> I want to separate what a website owner should do from what he is socially held accountable for. Consider the goatse trolls on slashdot. Slashdot introduced moderation to improve the experience of its users; people don't go around accusing slashdot's creators of writing offensive comments. There is a difference.[1]

That is just what reasonable people think, IMO. I can't comment on legal implications. I am not aware of a legal precedent online, whereas in the old media there was stringent enough control of the medium to be able to hold the proprietors responsible for what goes on it.

Presuming guilt by association is irrational and often unfair, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

[1] If anything, accusing a website owner of writing anonymous comments in his own website would be a little bizarre (I'm not saying anybody made such an accusation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hello, I am Aur Saraf.

Early French Gendarmes earned their bread capturing criminals and charging the populace for the service (as freelancer professionals, not employees of the government).

That model worked for them.

Could it work for Web2.0? Could an online "gendarme" find a way to police all social networks?

This is definitely something users would want, as far as we only filter for really bad spam/trolls/bullies that are hated by everyone (otherwise flames will rise over net neutrality and free speech).

The problem is that the net doesn't have jails. I can think up a few solutions.

This is an idea for the taking, offered as a public service since it doesn't match my taste and criteria.

If you DO take it, please track down my email and tell me so that I could smile over it.

Aur Saraf

</comment><comment><USER4> The craigslist community is pretty good at dealing w/ inflammatory and abusive behavior. Too many flags, your post gets pulled. Easy enough.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Included this for a discussion on _social software_ , large user groups & their implications: read _bullies_ , _abusive users_ etc. In any place where you get large numbers of people your going to get undesirables. The question is how do you deal with them as developers?.

The link is a post by Kathy Sierra.

</comment><comment><USER5> What's amazing to me is how many "reputable" and people "who should know better" and people who "appear smart" were part of this lunacy.... I guess their true colors finally came out.

<comment><AUTHOR> part of the problem is we really don't know yet. The lack of information is the problem. My point was not to pre-judge the _named persons_ but to think how developers write software system deals with these situations.

For example flickr. At the bottom of each page you have a flickr abuse flag. Flickr has extensive reporting and if enough of these flags get tripped they investigate. This example seems to be an external blog which I doubt would have these measures.</comment></comment>


Yatter – gif-only chat room - <AUTHOR> https://radiant-heat-5853.firebaseapp.com/

<comment><USER2> Someone call Kenny Loggins, 'cause you're in the DANGER ZONE.

[http://media.giphy.com/media/Kz420G0aGw5mU/giphy.gif](http://media.giphy.com/media/Kz420G0aGw5mU/giphy.gif)</comment>


Bitcoin is Eating Itself - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dgenr8/bitcoin-is-eating-itself-bda69493c938 <comment><USER2> Just a couple of years ago Bitcoin users were mocking Western Union for their $5 fee:

[https://i.imgur.com/bjRILt4.png](https://i.imgur.com/bjRILt4.png)

Now, a mere mention of this will get you banned from /r/bitcoin. It's amazing how quickly the anti-authoritarian spirit of Bitcoin turned on its head.

<comment><USER3> Really? I've been pretty critical of Bitcoin on /r/bitcoin and haven't been banned.

<comment><USER4> I am bullish on Bitcoin's long term potential but it's true that /r/bitcoin is heavily censored, I got banned myself for being mildly supportive of Segwit2x. Luckily, it does not represent the entirety, or even a majority of the community (I'm not sure we can even talk of a "community" these days).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bitcoin is an early stage technology that still hasn't solved its scaling problem.

Bitcoin is also not governed as a product, so incremental scaling improvements are left for the user to use, and not to forced by protocol.

Bitcoin is currently not usable as currency, and is of course, not store of wealth - thing is not a liquid asset at all.

Proposed scaling solutions were scientific research years ago, and research is still being done. The implementation obviously takes years to finetune and the scaling solution might not work as well as research predicted.

All other coins are early stage tech and research too.

People were enjoying the tech when it was less popular and seemed like magic, now when big numbers come into play it is obvious things where blown out of proportion way too early.

<comment><USER6>
      Bitcoin is an early stage technology that still hasn't
      solved its scaling problem.

It's almost 10 years old, and they knew about blocksize bandwidth limitations early on. Bitcoin used to have a variable blocksize that would accommodate increased usage, but at a certain point they set a hard limit at 1MB. Petty bickering and control of the main discussion forums by a very small group of people (owners of bitcointalk, moderators of /r/bitcoin and blockstream investors and marketing team) shifted the goal posts and gave talking points to divert the concerns over technical limitations and possible solutions with no real implementations for years.

The proposed lightening network is based on an unsolved problem in computer science (routing optimization, LN thus maintains a map of all nodes be broadcast to all nodes), not to mention the LN design would rely heavily on centralized hubs of "liquidity providers" i.e. paypal style KYC payment processors - completely antithetical to the concept of "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash allowing online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution". LN conveniently favors large centralized liquidity provider payment hubs as the siphon for fees, which only becomes palatable when the alternative is excessive fees to miners on the underlying network.

[https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof- that-...](https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the- lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling- solution-1b8147650800)

and they've been claiming it's just around the corner since 2015: [https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712](https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712)

      Bitcoin is also not governed as a product, so incremental
      scaling improvements are left for the user to use, and not
      to forced by protocol.

This is false.

Users are subject to the developers, the moderated discussion forums, and the selfish incentive of miners/devs to extract financial value from users.

Bitcoin is suffering from a toxic cult like community, and questionable developer team.

Other crypto-currencies are working on solving the issues while BTC is being sold off to fund LN investors.

<comment><USER7> Lets say a bitcoin transaction takes 250 bytes on average. Visa processes 24,000 transactions per second. To scale to this level, the bitcoin blockchain would need to grow at a rate of about 5.7mb/s. This is a blocksize of about 3.3 gigabytes.

Growing the blocksize is not a sustainable way to scale bitcoin. This is why people are saying that Bitcoin is still not a mature technology; the problems associated with scaling it are still unsolved problems of computer science.

<comment><USER8> First, the 24,000 /s is the maximum throughput. The real number from visa themselves is about 2,000.

Second, the Bitcoin unlimited team has already tested and demonstrated gigabyte blocks. That would be about 1.6MB per second. This is already achievable with a $12 per month VPS, far less than a single btc transaction.

<comment><USER7> Cool project. I found this [0] talk on the matter.

I am still working through it, but it seems that with (somewhat optimized) current software they hit 10 minute propagation time at 1GB blocksize, with about 500tx/s (t=4549).

EDIT: This experient is also still young. As of the November 2017 talk I linked, they were using 4-6 miner nodes, and a UTXO pool simmilar to the current network (to the point where the presented would not even give numbers for memory and disk IO because he viewed them as not relevent to what would really be seen).

I submitted the linked talk to HN. Comments at [1]

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&feature=youtu.be&t=4079)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012746](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16012746)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How useful is a currency where the transaction fee is $6 at the current price? This is much cheaper than last week when it was $25/transactions? Gone are the days of gambling on Satoshi Dice and buying things on Silk Road. Now we are to believe that Bitcoin is an inherent store of wealth?!?

Edit: The fees are above $20 now.

<comment><USER10> Tried to send bitcoin yesterday ($120) to an online retailer, the fee was $31.50 which I did not have. So I went to buy more bitcoin and realized it would cost additional $31.50 to transfer the new bitcoins just to cover the other network fees. Had to do it, then for whatever reason my account was put on 72 hour hold. So I just gave up, literally out $200 with nothing to show. Bitcoin is a complete joke if you can't actually use it.

<comment><USER11> You can set your own fees. I paid $3 for a transaction today (but it obviously still hasn't verified, and I don't know when it will). That's kind of the tradeoff, unfortunately.

These days, I find Bitcoin completely unsuitable for sending money. I use Bitcoin Cash, which verifies in ten minutes for something like one cent of fees (first block), but I guess that's because nobody uses it. Still, Bitcoin itself is out of the question for me personally, I'm not paying $30 for a transaction for anything.

<comment><USER12> Bitcoin cash doesn't have artificially low constraints on capacity. 10 years ago, it was 1MB.

Despite all the advancements of storage and networking, it's still essentially 1MB to a maximum of 1.8MB if everyone implements a complicated and costly to develop system called SegWit, and to fully use SegWit you have to use backwards incompatible addresses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ok, every time they refer to "coins" in this article they really mean wallet addresses right? Is this a common way to refer to them now? It really took away from the point of the article for me.

<comment><USER4> Technically, they're (or should be) referring to "txouts" or "outputs". An address with a large balance could still be unspendable if it is composed of many small outputs.

A single address can be the recipient of multiple payments (outputs) and a transaction spends those outputs. Since each output must be referenced in a transaction, each output takes up some space and fees are calculated based on the size of the transaction in bytes, not its value in BTC. This diagram I made a few years ago might help visualise: [https://github.com/olalonde/bitcoin- notes/blob/master/svg/tr...](https://github.com/olalonde/bitcoin- notes/blob/master/svg/transaction.svg)

<comment><USER14> So we're going to run into some sort of fragmentation problem? Ever-growing transaction size coupled with already-to-small block size.

I knew the scaling problem was bad, but I didn't realize it gets worse as Bitcoin ages!

<comment><USER15> It doesn't really get worse over time. The amount of fragmentation is generally going to be proportional to the average transaction size.

In general, expect transactions to have two outputs. The payment, and the extra. And since outputs become inputs, transactions will average about two inputs too.

A few shavings might get orphaned here or there, but that doesn't have a huge effect on the operation of the rest of the coins.

<comment><USER14> Ah, okay, I somehow thought that a transaction with multiple inputs creates at least the same number of outputs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Over 3000 BTC, worth over $4M

3000 BTC is worth over $40M, not $4M.

edit: oops, article dates from April.

<comment><USER16> This article was written in April. Besides which, making up-to-date corrections on such volatile prices is a pedant's joy: you might be corrected next week, but you wouldn't have been wrong today.

There's a joke going around at the moment: "Dad, can I borrow a Bitcoin?" "$15000? Why should I give you $14000? What do you need $16000 for?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I personally think that Bitcoin will eventually be taken out by Ethereum, which will then give way to the likes of Cardano or something similar that will figure out issues with scaling, sustainability, governance (ie civil resolution of conflicts and end of hard-forks) and interoperability with legacy financial systems (ie Banks). It's really quite amazing to follow the innovation in this space, once you get through all the shit coins and ICO scams that is.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14241065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14241065)

</comment><comment><USER18> I bought into cloud mining a few years ago and my micro deposits are worthless because of the cost to consolidate the wallet.

Really glad I didn't sink too much into it, but I'm still pissed when it's several grand worth of coin that I can't ever withdraw.

</comment><comment><USER19> Isn't layer two supposed to solve the fee problem? Anybody knows if thats right and when we can expect to see layer two in the wild?

<comment><USER20> It is, yes, but we aren't sure exactly how it will go implementation wise. layer two is a little more complicated to use compared to bitcoin which is somewhat user friendly in comparison.

<comment><USER21> Even with wallets using Bitcoin is not user friendly in any sense of the word. If you already use PGP, sure. If not, good luck securing those keys. Oh and hope you made backups.

<comment><USER19> Well, Bitcoin doesn't have to be so complicated to use.

In fact, once you set up an account, sending and receiving money with coinbase is pretty simple. But yes, setting up an account with all the verification stuff isn't neat in the first place and storing your keys at an online provider is unacceptable for any sane person.

On the other hand, there are some very easy to use desktop wallets like Exodus and making offline backups of your keys by writing down a few words (BIP-39) is pretty simple too. Sadly, not all wallets support BIP-39 (for various reasons), and e.g. Exodus complicates the matter by asking you for a password before telling you the words which is completely unrelated to BIP-39.

So Bitcoin itself could be very easy to use. In my eyes the only real problem is obtaining them. I mean for everything else you just need to download some software and off you go. But to buy bitcoins you still need to register yourself with some institution which takes a few hours at least. It would be so much simpler if you could just buy some bitcoins at ebay/amazon/steam/...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Exchange fees go up:

\- when the prices shoot up, attracting speculators

\- when the prices crash down, spooking speculators

\- when bigger players move in and pay for quicker transaction clearance

\- when time passes

Exchange fees go down:

\- when it's calm and quiet, and there is no frenzy

So a bit like a fishhook, then?

</comment><comment><USER12> This article is fairly outdated. According to bitcoinfees.earn.com, the fastest and cheapest fee is 690 Satoshi per byte. 3.5x what it was in May.

</comment><comment><USER23> Bitcoin is a ponzy scheme at the moment, but the block chain and the eCurrencies is the perfect platform for a Universal Income experiment.

All we need is a way so that the "coins" do not go to the one with the most computing power, or the one who got in first, but distributed equally among the population.

<comment><USER7> Ponzy scheme has a technical meaning, and Bitcoin is not it. Bubble is the word you are looking for.

>but distributed equally among the population.

I am aware of no blockchain based technology that offers a solution to this problem. Central to the problem that blockchains are intended to solve is that there is no good way of identifying individuals. That is to say, there is nothing to stop me from opening a million accounts in the system and acting as if I was a million different people. The insight behind POW style blockchains is that it does not matter if I claim to be a million people, because that would not give me any more compute power, and so will not allow for an attack on the system.

If we could come up with a way of providing some sort of proof of individuality we would solve alot of problems.

<comment><USER14> > If we could come up with a way of providing some sort of proof of > individuality we would solve alot of problems.

I've been thinking about this in the past weeks because I find the energy consumption hard to justify.

Proof of individuality still would allow people of power to use an army of identity soldiers... but the same people can buy hash rate today, so that would not be a regression.

<comment><USER24> It could also provide people in power with a reason to control or enslave other individuals to acquire control of the network.

<comment><USER14> At the risk of sounding like a teenager:

How different is that from powerful people controlling or enslaving individuals to make money which they can then use to acquire control over the network?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Officially Launches "Sponsored Results" Search Ads - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/facebook-search-ads/

<comment><USER2> Facebook should just setup a deal with Google. Have a Google search box somewhere prominent in FB and get a cut of all ad revenues from searches.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see that happening. With Google+ around and Google still pressing on it, I don't see facebook allowing google searches from within their app.</comment></comment>


Why Beijing's Air Pollution Crisis Is Complicated (2014) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.consiliencejournal.org/index.php/consilience/article/viewFile/360/204 <comment><USER2> Something I don't understand, when people start dying because of the pollution, or rain storms decimate plants down wind with acid rain, what happens then? One of the tremendous challenges of China's rapid growth is that the problems scale up way faster than the will to solve them does, and when other countries had multiple decades to get their head around pollution vs production it is happening so quickly will it surpass the ability of the government to react? I also don't know why people insist on re-experiencing the crises of the western worlds 60's (phospates, smog, Etc) for themselves, why not just skip the pain by regulating early and often?</comment>


My Complicated Relationship with No Longer Being CEO - <AUTHOR> https://moz.com/rand/my-complicated-relationship-with-no-longer-being-ceo/ <comment><USER2> Huh, while interesting and well written and all the other happy happy/joy joy stuff everyone else posted...I can't help but wonder about folks who start out in life as founders/CEOs/top 'o the food chain...how do (can) they relate to folks who spend years working for others? This made me realize that many folks might in fact be so isolated/insulated from the folks that work for them that they are quite literally "out of touch" with the reality that vast majority experiences... interesting read.

<comment><USER3> It's a different experience, for sure, but not necessarily an easier one. Common perception is that founder CEO's call all the shots like some third world dictator whose word is law and cannot even be questioned. Well, appearances can be deceiving. I went from undergrad to CEO of a startup that my best friend and I founded. I very much had a boss: our lead investor who settled in as Chairman of the Board and unleashed his domineering personality to run rampant on our weekly management calls. I had an extreme amount of pressure from him to hit deadlines and hold ourselves accountable to our excel projections (which, like most early startup projections, were pretty useless to begin with). Over time, as success bought some freedom from the board and investors, a few of our most important anchor clients filled their role instead. I would spend months feeling like a certain VP or SVP at a make-or- break client for us was basically calling the shots in large areas of my life. In hindsight what we were lacking was real mentorship, management guidance, and similar help, (unfortunately) none of which were included with capital from our investors. We figured it out as we went along while taking flack from all sides. Only later when we were acquired and I had a ''normal'' boss with a ''normal'' p&l, career oriented direct reports, etc, did I realize how different it is, in some ways worse but in some ways much better. It was a heck of a lot more predictable and less stressful. I didn't have to pull any rabbits out of hats I just had to wander over to the rabbit cage and feed them. But, without a doubt, experiencing the whole cycle made me a better founder down the road.

<comment><USER4> That was - I'm trying hard here not to be harsh on you - because you let him. If you're inexperienced I can easily see how this situation could come into play but you as a majority shareholder, co-founder _and_ CEO have no boss, certainly not your chairman-of-the-board investor.

That's a relationship that you will have to manage, that's for sure but if you see him as your boss you imply that he has the right to throw you out or sanction you and that isn't the case, as majority share holders you and your co-founder should be in control of the company and the board should have an advisory role. If the company goes public, hires an outsider CEO who is not a part of the founding team or if the founder-CEO is not seeing eye-to-eye with the other founders then the board can become more dominant.

<comment><USER5> If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat things etc) your next round, then you have little choice but to say "how high" when such a board member says jump.

<comment><USER4> I really disagree with that. Board members (and other shareholders for that matter) can hold you accountable for mis-steps but if they get in the way of you doing your job then you owe it to yourself _and_ your company to manage the relationship in such a way that they do not have the ability to impose on you in such a way.

That's _also_ in the best interest of that investor. Structuring and managing relationships is one of the things a CEO should be good at if the company is to become successful. This goes for the relationships with the rest of the company management, it goes for outsiders and it goes for the board.

If a CEO is hired by the board then that changes but if you found it you should be in charge and you should make it clear - in a respectful way and if necessary by educating your board members - why that is the case.

> If you depend on that outside investor to support (take pro-rata, say upbeat > things etc) your next round

He or she will say upbeat things regardless (because they're already in it is in their own interest), whether or not they will take pro-rata shares with a next emission will depend on the price and their ability to purchase as much as anything else so I would not count on it regardless and take it as a nice- to-have but not a must.

If you behave like someone else is in control they _are_ in control. Don't do that.

<comment><USER6> Interesting comments... At the level of CEO and the Board there is no 'boss', there are only checks and balances.

<comment><USER4> Indeed.

Even a hired CEO has a mandate and the board can fire him/her but they can't unduly influence that person beyond supplying (possibly unsolicited) advice. Otherwise no CEO would ever be able to do their job. Ultimately, whatever happens is the responsibility of the CEO and the board is a source of advise and makes sure the CEO does a good job. If the board is backed by the shareholders they can fire the CEO, but if the shareholders (and in this case that meant the original founders) don't agree by simple majority to get rid of a CEO then he/she can continue to do their job. Whether you still want to is another issue entirely.

Anybody in a CEO position would do well to make sure they understand their rights, obligations and their relationships with the various other entities they are dealing with. If you don't understand those then it is a recipe for frustration and potentially disaster.

This is the reason why you'll see board members leak to the press (see for instance Yahoo! recently). They can't win the argument in the boardroom and they can't/won't fire the CEO (maybe because they only have a minority share and the rest of the board and/or shareholders do not see their way).

This is also why founder disputes are extremely risky for a company. Founders typically hold large blocks of shares and if some those suddenly align with of non-founders then it can really break your stride or cause serious trouble.

Say a company has two founder that still hold 60% of the shares, 5% is in an option pool and 35% is held by an outside investor. If the founders no longer see eye-to-eye the board suddenly holds the tie breaking vote and this could lead to the departure of either one of the founders depending on with who the board sides. In such a case I hope your shares are vested if you're the founder that is forced to leave (and if not I hope you have a vesting acceleration clause in your contract).

<comment><USER3> Absolutely, in hindsight there would have been different ways we could have managed the board more effectively from the start, and saved ourselves grief (and likely created even more value). At 22 y/o we lacked the experience to do this. (And don't worry, you couldn't possibly be harsher on us than we were on ourselves once the dust settled and we reflected on the whole rodeo ride.) Part of what I think incubators do well is they remove some of the crazy early stage investor dynamics that used to plague very young early stage founders who raised money from close personal networks of doctors and dentists. The experience I wrote about is from a decade ago in the early 00s. Before Y Combinator came along there was very little written about pre A angel investing.

<comment><USER4> I should write about this. I never realized that it might be useful to someone. Thank you for opening my eyes to this. I'm hip deep in contract work right now (3 due diligences back-to-back, totally crazy, working over Christmas on one of the reports) but I promise that as soon as I have my hands free I'll try to expand on these comments in a blog post.

Y combinator is a real game changer in many ways, and one of those ways is that founders now find themselves with a support group of others who have been in similar situations and who have a lot of knowledge about subjects like these. But there is a large group of founders currently not in YC and for those especially it might be advantageous. As a small time investor I'm sometimes in the role of the procedural jerk who makes sure that from the founders perspective all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Usually this is not without friction but I've yet to hear a founder not express (sometimes many years later) that they're happy we went that route. Experience - even a little bit - can be worth gold if there is a power asymmetry and such asymmetries are more the rule than the exception where founders meet capital.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow! That was incredible. Must read for anyone and everyone at any level. If only we could get honest AND self aware posts like that from everyone.

Critical quote: "I think, to be frank, I was also deeply selfish. I wanted Moz to be the kind of place I wanted to work, not the kind of place most likely to succeed with the team we had or were hiring, not the kind that fit best with what Sarah wanted, but my own little creation where things were weird and different and Rand-like."

I really really appreciate this. I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture.

Do you have be born that way for "b"? I don't think so, though it probably helps.

<comment><USER8> _I think if you want to become a CEO you have to first (critically!) a) figure out what makes a successful culture and then b) become a person who enjoys and thrives in that kind of culture._

I don't know if I see this as much value add. Finding out what makes a successful culture doesn't seem trivial, much less easily repeatable. Different cultures can succeed in different circumstances and many different types of cultures can succeed. I also believe cultures evolve more than they are created. To me your argument sounds like saying "to succeed in starting a business you need to figure out what it takes to make a successful business and become a person who thrives doing that." Working at Google is no more likely to teach you how to start a business than to create a culture. Sure you can learn things that worked there, but only some will work for you and some will likely work against you. The best I'd say you can do is recognize culture is important, try to learn what decisions leadership can make that affect culture, and understand how those decisions impact the business both short and long term. There's no magic formula for business or for culture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's a pretty incredible read. Anybody in a start-up either as a founder or a current CEO should read this and take it to heart. That took real guts to write, much more so than your average start-up post mortem or 'I messed up' post.

<comment><USER9> So if he's stepped down from and away from (almost) all his responsibilities as CEO...

I'm left wondering - "Why do you still need your own Executive Admin"?

<comment><USER10> There are a lot of folks who don't understand how important it is for a leader to have a personal secretary, executive admin, executive assistant, deputy or whatever you want to call the role.

The sad truth is that, as hard as he might work, a man can't add a single hour to the day: every hour he spends dealing with one matter is an hour he _doesn 't_ spend attending to another. Leaders, despite being in many cases quite remarkable, aren't so remarkable that they can perform 15 minutes of manual labour in 15 seconds. That's where a good secretary can add so much value: he's a leader's right hand man, his second self. He can cut through or deal with the paperwork, the waits, the scheduling &c. and free the executive up to _lead_. An EA is an enabler in the best sense of the word.

I've never had a secretary, but I've had the opportunity to work in that role. It's exhilarating to see someone one respects able to do his job that much better because of what one has been able to do.

Obviously, in an ideal world almost anyone would have a deputy. Sadly, that's not numerically possible (and what about the assistants: surely they would benefit from having their own?). But I think it's close to vital that anyone whose value consists of meeting, connecting, travelling and so forth have a lieutenant to help smooth the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This message is so clearly directed at the internal audience of Moz to try and frame his failures to rise as the CEO from a founder and garner internal support. If I'm Sahah, I'm clearly annoyed at this and see it as part of the reason he lost the job in the first place. All the drama he presents you don't see coming from any other CEO or corner office in tech. The real 'honesty' is clearly read between the lines that he doesn't want Sarah to be the CEO and wishes he were still in the position despite his former and current failings. Companies reach a tipping point at which time they need an operator instead of a perpetrator of drama following bad results.

<comment><USER12> His whole blog reads as: Ineffective Hipster CEO Ousted, Has Sour Grapes

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > _Spent hours doing work […] whose purpose I can't understand (that has been > entirely new)._

I don't think it is related to the employee condition, but more with sub- optimal top-down communication.

I never worked without knowing the purpose of what I was doing, in my professional life. And I think that I will quit my job if this happens — I didn't choose to work in a startup to work blindly on tasks without context and being able to participate.

</comment><comment><USER14> This was a fascinating read, but I couldn't help but wonder:

Why was this posted on moz.com?

Who is the target audience for this story?

What's the tl;dr?

I empathized with Rand's struggle to square his selfish/quirky desires with what was good for the company, but those questions above made me wonder: how does this blog post help Moz?

<comment><USER15> He's always posted stuff like this on Moz, from the very beginning.

<comment><USER6> I think thats kind of the point though... Posting whatever you want on Moz when your the founder and CEO is one thing. Posting such indepth material that casts a not necessarily positive light when you have been removed from control (perhaps by your own hand) is another...

I am imagining that these kind of heartfelt posts draw more attention to the marketing firm with such impact that the current CEO thinks its worth dealing with the negatives...

<comment><USER15> Maybe, I don't know enough to say. But radical transparency has always been part of their brand. Here's one he wrote a few years ago about their Series B. It was so comprehensive that TechCrunch just linked to the post instead of trying to dig up more info behind the scenes.

[https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing- our-s...](https://moz.com/blog/mozs-18-million-venture-financing-our-story- metrics-and-future)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I founded a software company about 10 years ago, and moved on from my CEO position 6 months ago. A lot of what Rand says really resonated with me. I too had started to make mistakes, mis-managing the company by making decisions that were far too emotional and not strategic enough.

The high pressure, make quick decisions, life or death mindset that is necessary for a startup is not compatible with a company that has matured. In fact, in my experience CEOs/founders of companies that are growing successfully will throw bombs in to the building. I'm sure many of you have read about VCs removing founders from growing businesses. Founders simply aren't compatible anymore.

I'll leave the psychology of why they do this to somebody else, but in my personal experience I decided to move on from the CEO position because I found myself having to do work, make decisions and partake in meetings that were no longer a reflection of the business I wanted to create 10 years ago. In fact, I can recall the exact moment when I realised it was my time to get out of the way. I was sat in a disciplinary meeting with a member of staff who was under performing. At the end of the meeting I said to the woman running the meeting with me who is now the CEO "This isn't why I started a business, what am I doing here?". A few long chats later and I had made the decision to handover to her and the business is already performing better under her command.

Like people, businesses evolve and mature as they grow, and good founders need to know when to get out of the way. Rand clearly feels he did unnecessary damage to Moz; I wonder if he could go back in time if he would have given up his CEO position a few years earlier?

</comment><comment><USER17> This was interesting to read.

Apparently one of the things precipitating Rand leaving the ceo job was mismanaging a major project with an initial budget of 6-9 months and targeted release date of July '12 that slid to Oct '13 -- not only a slip of 15 months, but a very buggy release even after major feature triage. Though Rand doesn't say it, I'm guessing this was pretty hard on their engineering staff.

As an engineer who's worked on a similar death march with a major schedule slip that turns out to have been totally unnecessary, it was nice to see some accountability passed upwards for a change.

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting... ultimately although I don't think he clearly states it... being CEO is not for most people... you can have the brains, the willpower and even be successful in the role, all while feeling horrible about it...

I somewhat to a degree found the posting to be a bit in bad taste... a bit too 'honest' in his feelings that the company is being run 'wrong'...

<comment><USER18> I didn't get that. If anything, he is admitting that the way he would prefer to run the company is "wrong" or at least, sub-optimal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good read but it also seems like a humblebrag.

<comment><USER20> rand humblebrag? nooo waayyy

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What is moz? Mozilla? Please don't post stuff like this if nobody knows the company.

<comment><USER22> I don't think it's too much to expect readers to do a little googling about a company they aren't familiar with.

This was an excellent article whether or not you know anything about moz.com, and finding out is easily remedied.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Build and run iOS apps with the Docker client - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jkingyens/dockerthon

<comment><USER2> Wat.

Would you explain in more detail? What does this software really allow to do? What are the limitations?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, its a partial implementation of the Docker remote API and translates those API calls into XCode build/run commands.

Its just hackathon-grade software so the limitations are huge. Just enough of the remote API implemented such that the Docker command line tool works with it.

Here is a video of it running:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGHOH9Ocl1k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGHOH9Ocl1k)</comment></comment>


Plague – The Network - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.plague

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't work for plague nor I am affiliated with it any way whatsoever but give it a try guys. It's so refreshing, before it sucks you in like a drug :) Just write something interesting and see what happens!</comment>


Introducing Shift+Click Chrome Extension - <AUTHOR> http://SHFT.CL/

<comment><AUTHOR> Extracting + sharing images: now easy as Shift!</comment>