PopBooth: A Real Photo Booth powered by your iPhone/iPad - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/15/popbooth/

<comment><USER2> Not directly related to this iPhone/iPad app, but I had a lot of fun setting up a simple party photo booth with pretty pedestrian camera gear a few years ago.

[http://martincron.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/relatively- simple...](http://martincron.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/relatively-simple-party- photo-booth-project/)

Since then, I've upgraded to a DSLR with live preview, HDMI out, and an eye-fi card. So I'm thinking of trying an upgraded photo booth for my next party.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was picturing an actual booth at a mall where instead of the camera you place your iphone into the camera slot, go into the booth, take 4 pics, get the print and keep the digital on your phone.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is not a "photo booth", just another photo sharing app. If one were to make a real photo booth (ie, testing / dealing with on-site printing to an ink yet, dye sub, or Polaroid printer), real photo booths are popular at weddings this year. Vendors are currently providing this service for > $600 per wedding.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know what company they use to print, perforate and deliver the postcards?</comment>


Alternative to Gmail without tons of other baggage attached? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for a minimalist but solid email client. Is there one available? I'm trying to find one now before my account is forcibly integrated into a social-networking scheme. <comment><USER2> What makes you think that would happen, and that you won't have a choice to turn it off, which would be worse than the Buzz fiasco?

</comment><comment><USER3> here you go. google'd this for you.

<http://savedelete.com/10-alternatives-to-gmail.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm going to try out lavabit.com. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Gmail, Google Drive down in apparent outage - <AUTHOR> https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2019/03/gmail-google-drive-down-in-apparent-outage.html <comment><USER2> I noticed their virus scanner stopped working (virustotal?) about an hour ago...</comment>


Anyone else seeing errors in AWS? - <AUTHOR> We're seeing stuff across the board <comment><AUTHOR> Looks like there's some twitter chatter:

[https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=aws&s...](https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=aws&src=typd)

</comment><comment><USER2> Check [https://phd.aws.amazon.com/](https://phd.aws.amazon.com/)

\---

Opened at: October 18, 2017 at 4:10:19 PM UTC-5

DirectConnect operational issue

02:10 PM PDT We are investigating network connectivity issues affecting Direct Connect customers using the US-WEST-2 Region.

\---

Opened at: October 18, 2017 at 3:59:42 PM UTC-5

Network Connectivity

01:59 PM PDT We are investigating Network Connectivity issues in the US-WEST-2 Region.

\---

Opened at: October 18, 2017 at 3:59:00 PM UTC-5

EC2 VPC network health internet issue

Beginning at Wed, 18 Oct 2017 20:59:00 GMT, some instances are experiencing elevated packet loss between the us-west-2a Availability Zone and the Internet. We are now investigating this issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> AWS's status page is (unbelievably) reporting it now: [https://status.aws.amazon.com/](https://status.aws.amazon.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Apparently resolved now? Saw this on RSS:

\---

Service is operating normally: [RESOLVED] Network Connectivity

Between 1:46 PM and 2:15 PM PDT we experienced network connectivity issues in the US-WEST-2 Region. The issue has been resolved and the service is operating normally.

</comment><comment><USER5> Can you elaborate in more depth? Not seeing anything too fishy here, what does their status page have to say?

[https://status.aws.amazon.com/](https://status.aws.amazon.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Their status page is notorious for being wrong

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Same here, mostly HTTP connection errors at various points in our infrastructure (us-west-2).</comment>


Welcome to the CHIP Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://docs.getchip.com/ <comment><USER2> At first I thought it was a completely new twist on an Operating System - maybe something like DexOS: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DexOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DexOS) or MikeOS: [http://mikeos.sourceforge.net/](http://mikeos.sourceforge.net/) but it's "just" Debian...

The hardware is nice, in love with the low-power requirements and connection options. Personally not a fan of these single board systems as they tend to be less portable than handhelds or UMPCs.

The site's documentation is absolutely awesome. Not too many distros spend time putting together useful documentation - most are vague offerings unless you've been following the distro for years. The passion here is evident, the author's regard for indoctrinating new users is much appreciated (like I said, too many sites simply don't communicate well, if at all). Wish him the best for the niche crowd that's surely interested in SBCs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Misleading title. The 'Operating System' is just Linux. (which is okay, just don't pretend it is a new or other OS)

<comment><USER4> Misleading? So new Linux distros aren't operating systems to you?

<comment><USER5> They're not _new_ operating systems.

<comment><USER4> The title doesn't say "new"? It just says "Welcome to the CHIP Operating System" at this time, which to me just says this is going to examine what CHIP uses for its OS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vive-la-liberte >CHIP can also be battery powered. Specifically, any single cell (1S) 3.7V Lithium Polymer (LiPo) battery with a 2-pin JST-PH 2.0mm end can be connected to the JST-PH socket.

I like that they've given the CHIP the option of battery power.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm CHIP backer and I'ce already received 2 perfectly working boards. I'm looking at discussion for long time: Why there is so many negativity about CHIP but Raspberry PI receive only positive feedback?

<comment><USER7> Because RPi is way more mature? Look at the CHIP forums and how many people have problems having the device work correctly. And don't even start on the flashing procedure...

Also, RPi is way older. In '12 when it arrived, there were many problems, but it also was nearly alone on the market. When today you have many alternatives that are maybe pricier, but a lot more reliable (Arduino, BeagleBone, Pi..).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> so, basically it looks like debian running on a cortex-a8 sbc...other than the $9 price point, _i_ don't see anything new. am I missing something fundamental here ?

<comment><AUTHOR> _" am I missing something fundamental here ?"_

It's just another toy, right? When I hear this about some technology someone has created, I always keep in mind this quote, _" Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy. In fact, that's a good sign."_ [0]

It (CHIP) might take off, it may not. One thing I'm certain of is the trend of computers are getting smaller and cheaper, and I think about this every time I see computers that sell for hundreds and thousands of dollars.

[0] Organic startup ideas ~ [http://paulgraham.com/organic.html](http://paulgraham.com/organic.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is the CHIP CE-marked? Is it available in Europe?

</comment><comment><USER10> Still did not receive mine, honestly I already lost my interests in it, there are so many competitors and this took too long.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks like it is either Debian or Debian based?

<comment><USER12> It says it's based on Debian in the "Welcome to The CHIP Operating System" section

"And because it's based on the popular Linux Debian, if there's something you need, you can probably install it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd just like for mine to finally ship :(

(I'm a december backer)

<comment><USER6> I've already have mine on desk. Check the website, they update it with shipping info.

<comment><USER13> I already put my information on backerkit, but it still says "ready to ship".</comment></comment></comment>


Compiler devnotes: Machine specs - <AUTHOR> https://drewdevault.com/2017/02/22/cozy-devnotes-machine-specs.html <comment><USER2> Since adding new targets architectures and ports should be straightforward, are you going to support the not yet existing but very promising Mill CPU ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll be writing a few specs to validate my design, but spending most of my time on other parts of the toolchain. Adding new targets is straightforward to make it easier for anyone to write an architecture, so I don't feel the need to personally write a whole bunch of them unless I'm bored some weekend.

Edit:

>Mill uses two program counters, and every wide instruction is split into two parts. One of the program counters counts backward. So, the code of every linear instruction block is executed from its middle to outside by two almost independent decoders.

Oh dear lord.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a 3D GPS app for outdoor sports - <AUTHOR> https://reliefmaps.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys !

It is by doing a lot of mountain sports in the French Alps like hiking, skiing, trail running or paragliding that the idea of Relief Maps came to me.

I was always looking for an easy to use GPS app with appealing features for outdoor sports, but I was not happy with what existed and was not seeing much evolutions comming. So I started developing my own App and that's how the Relief Maps project was born.

There is still a lot of work to do on the app but I'll be happy to know what you think about it !

Batiste</comment>


Nearly all Covid-19 patients put on ventilators die in New York clinic - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/health/coronavirus-ventilator-patients-die/index.html <comment><USER2> I'm wondering if this is because of the ventilators or these patients were so far gone, they had very small chance of living with anything done and a ventilator was something that had a small chance of success.

<comment><USER3> I don't see where the article says or implies at all that ventilators could be harmful.</comment></comment>


Reflections of a Lifelong Metalhead - <AUTHOR> https://longreads.com/2017/10/11/reflections-of-a-lifelong-metalhead/ <comment><USER2> Despite being one of the senior engineers at a Fortune 100 company, I wear an Iron Maiden shirt to work almost every Friday. Screw em..

Despite the 90's sucking for metal, at least it filtered out all the hair band, and some really good bands like Dream Theater gained traction.

Maiden is back to selling out arenas. Unfortunately never heard Ghost until they opened for Maiden this summer; reminds me of old Mercyful Fate, with some late 80's Voivod.

<comment><USER3> > _Despite the 90's sucking for metal_

Not a death metal fan eh? 1990-1994 is generally considered a creative high point for death metal and starting about 10 years ago there was a huge trend toward reviving that 'old-school' sound, which involved a lot of blatant aping in particular of early 90s Swedish bands.

<comment><USER2> Probably not, but one of the first albums (records) I bought was the first Celtic Frost album. Never really liked all the grunting. I really like Kreator, Slayer, King D. & MF, but that's not death metal.

<comment><USER3> I never liked the vocals all that much either actually, but I was singularly obsessed with death metal from about age 12 onward into my 20s. I don't keep up with it as rigorously anymore, but for anyone curious I would recommend bands like Infester, Disembowelment, Wormed, Demilich, Pyrrhon, Orchidectomy, Gorguts, Flourishing, Sect of Execration, Diskord, Immortal Fate, Pustulated, Stargazer, Incantation, Wicked Innocence, Miasma, Imprecation, Corpsevomit, Atheist, Fallen Christ, The Chasm, and more to get a picture of how musically varied and interesting death metal can be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the few times in my life when I felt the most relaxed was when I fronted a local noise core band. The crowd thought I was demented based on my act, but really, the screaming and acting out felt like a release valve for all of the anger and anxiety. All of it. At the end of the night, I would just feel super happy and mellow.

<comment><USER5> I love when I can yell and scream for a little. It's half the reason I go to concerts I think, cause no one cares if you just holler your heart out. It can be tough to find times to just viscerally yell at the top of your lungs in NYC.

I'm not even really particularly angry or anxious, I just feel great after letting go of literally everything and letting my heart and soul and voice and mind rip for a few minutes.

Sometimes you just want to yell, I understand why it's weird to do so in NYC and it'd be terrible if people felt more comfortable doing so, but god damn does it feel good to let the chest soar, the voice yell, and the entire body become one with that very ephemeral energy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's refreshing to read comments from engineers who aren't afraid to be who they are and that there are large companies with minimal dress code policies.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's Gojira for me

The irony of loving a band that's name seems to proudly encourage the use of our issue tracker is not lost on anyone

<comment><USER8> Gojira is Godzilla in the original Japanese.

The issue tracker was named for Gojira, because it was going up against Bugzilla at the time.

<comment><USER9> Also, Bugzilla was built for Mozilla, called such because it was codename for Netscape, an upstart against the incumbent Mosaic browser - so Mosaic-killer.

Rabbit hole goes deep!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The actual article: [http://marchshredness.com/indefenseofhairmetal](http://marchshredness.com/indefenseofhairmetal)

</comment><comment><USER11> What is the long term plan for my ears and being able to hear well? Any thoughts on this from fans of loud music/concerts are appreciated!

<comment><USER12> Buy some custom earplugs. Foam plugs ruin the sound, heroes don't fit well enough for most, go custom. I'm a drummer of 30 years and have been to hundreds of live shows. Here is an example: [https://www.64audio.com/product/EP-Custom- EarPlugs](https://www.64audio.com/product/EP-Custom-EarPlugs)

<comment><USER11> I've read good things about these (Etymotic ETY-Plugs High Fidelity Earplugs) at a $15 entry-level:

[https://amzn.com/dp/B0015WJQ7A](https://amzn.com/dp/B0015WJQ7A)

Is there anything recommendable between the $15 and $200 ends?

<comment><USER12> The Etymotic earplugs are the same thing as Heroes. For me they don't fit well and thus don't reduce the sound levels as much as designed. For some people they probably work well enough, depends on the shape of your ear canal, where it bends and to what extent. You can get custom in ear plugs for $200 including the molding process (though a bit tough - you have to wait for sales).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> OK, can I deviate from the main subject a bit? What is it with women's fashion today that everyone's dressing like '90s metal bands?

Faux-leather jackets, or fliers; trainers; skinny jeans, torn at the knees; and even band t-s. I was in H&M's (UK) the other day and they had Metallica, AC/DC and _Iron Maiden_ tees. _Maiden_ tees. With _The Number of the Beast_. What the hell!?

I used to dress like that when I was a teen (and, er, later) and I enjoyed how it marked me out as a mosher and so on. "Yep, I'm not a fashion victim like you, ha". Now everyone's at it. It's giving me a huge sense of cognitive dissonance, you know?

Also, seriously. Metal tees with gucci handbags? Come _on_!

<comment><USER14> > _I enjoyed how it marked me out as a mosher and so on. "Yep, I'm not a > fashion victim like you, ha". Now everyone's at it._

This slap in the face of nostalgia is part of growing up I guess. Don't get me started on all the coders nowadays and dudes sitting with laptops in cafes, why & how the heck did my beloved edgy late-90s youth-hood "non- mainstream"/decidedly-perceived-as-freakish-by-society-back-then identity become hijacked and something seemingly every jock and Chad adopts! Guess it all started with Zuck..

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it is weird. Coding got reappropriated as hip once it became clear th adults had ruined lots of other jobs. What I wonder is whether the people who decried it as nerdy in the past have any sense of cognitive dissonance about holding it in esteem now.

My guess is no, because pop culture is ahistorical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I grew out of metal. And so should you.

<comment><USER17> "I have a highly refined musical palate and I believe it makes me better than you."

<comment><USER18> Put that on a t-shirt and I'll buy it. :-)</comment></comment></comment>


I'm a researcher. Appreciate if you took my survey about GitHub and StackOverflow - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/Giggybyte/845d1aaaba4e2281b42b45acb6f0fc6b#file-githubstackoverflowsurvey-md <comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the butchered title, but HN limits it to 80 characters. The survey is about your perceptions of GitHub and Stack Overflow. I'm trying to build as big of a sample size as possible, so any help is appreciated!

More survey info is available in the link I submitted.</comment>


How to Build a Markdown Previewer with React.js - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-build-a-markdown-previewer-with-react-js/ <comment><USER2> Really nice Article</comment>


Open Source: The Capitalists' Choice - <AUTHOR> http://siriusit.co.uk/blogs/16-jun-2010/open-source-capitalists-choice

<comment><USER2> This doesn't seem to advocate for _open source_ , so much as for _open standards_. The problem he observes with MegaCorp Office 2010, as he transparently terms it, is not that it's difficult for the general public to add features or fix bugs. The problem is that it's nearly impossible to compete with due to network effects, and that problem would be alleviated by an open standard.

<comment><USER3> "Open Source promotes a more efficient market because competition is not shut out so easily".

The problem the article describes is more in the open-standards direction, however. It also confuses communism with dictatorship, an idea I thought we left behind around the 80s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It also tends to remove the inefficiencies of duplicated work as over the long haul, open source projects tend to merge and dominate, after a phase of intense competition between rival projects. This means software developers spend more time creating unique software, which is significantly more productive over re-implementing the same commodity software over again. This is REAL economic value. Just look at what the very mature GCC project has done for so many platform companies and developers in general. It's also much cheaper to procure open source software, because there's no purchase justification, budgeting, or sales process.

</comment><comment><USER5> As there is no other implementation of what I'm working on in the open that works, this piece, save for the comment on generating competition (which I think would validate the service), would actually argue more for keeping my service's code closed.

<comment><USER6> He's explicitly not arguing from your perspective. If you had the choice of running a railway monopoly then you'd be crazy to throw that opportunity to price gouge customers away too.

He's saying we shouldn't celebrate such acts as free-market capitalism since they don't provide the benefits to society that free-market capitalism does.

<comment><USER5> _He's explicitly not arguing from your perspective._

Ah, but he needs to:

 _If you had the choice of running a railway monopoly then you'd be crazy to throw that opportunity to price gouge customers away too._

Regular folks know this too, and no one wants to do business with a company that is perceived as making naive decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very shallow analysis. In a free-market system nothing stops you from competing with closed source software (for every meaningful definition of the word "competing"). The comparison with railways is just silly.

</comment><comment><USER8> Of course it helps companies - we'll give away the fruits of our labor for nothing! It's beautiful, but really, I think no other profession is as naive as we are.

<comment><USER3> You give away a part of what you do in exchange (or optional retribution) to using what others gave you.

I am using a very powerful Unix-like OS under a very nice GUI and typing it on a browser and none of them would exist if lots of people and companies hadn't donated code, time and resources to these projects. I am happy they did and I am willing to share some of what I do to make this whole ecosystem better.

I also share because if I didn't, I would have to maintain my code independently and a great part of it does not give me any product or competitive advantage - it's my cost. When I give them back, I can count they will be part of the whole and they will be maintained by others in case I fail to do it. When I do it, others share the cost of maintaining it, reducing mine.

It's actually pretty dumb to keep everything to yourself.</comment></comment>


OpenID Sucks. - <AUTHOR> http://irei.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/openid-sucks/

<comment><USER2> I wish people could articulate valid points without writing like 14 year olds.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll own up to it :)

It was a 5 minute rant to be honest, not a well thought out exposition on OpenID's various shortcomings.

So, apologies if it was inarticulate/verbose. I really should clean it up and edit before I submit to YC.

I modded you up BTW :D

<comment><USER2> oh haha i had no idea you actually wrote it. i mean, you make really valid points, there's a reason nobody likes openid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, no worries dude. Your criticism was spot on and appreciated.

I don't usually submit my own writings to YC (first time I believe).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I agree, but I liked flow|state's concrete critiques by example better: [http://miksovsky.blogs.com/flowstate/2007/08/openid-great- id...](http://miksovsky.blogs.com/flowstate/2007/08/openid-great-id.html)</comment>


1-1 virtual coffees with top tech talent sourced from Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://www.getcuppa.io/ <comment><USER2> A Show HN can't be a landing page with a wait list. Please see the rules: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html).

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that. I didn't know that rule before I posted it. But it makes sense to limit mass email captures by scammers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm skeptical about the sourced from twitter part.

I used to be very impressed by industry celebrities. The kind of people with a zillion SO or HN karma, blogs, books, podcasts, conferences speaking spots—-real name recognition at least in some corner of the tech universe.

But then over time I've found myself in workplaces with some of these folks and it turns out that if you do all of that, well that's what you do. Building your own personal brand is a job and it doesn't leave much time to build either software or engineering organizations.

Personally I'm not much interested in building a personal brand (different strokes though) and so I don't think it would be all that exciting to talk to a bunch of people that are experts in doing so.

<comment><USER4> This! I've worked with several 30 under 30 folks, and the majority were so busy building their personal brands that they didn't get much work done. There are some exceptions, but I've generally become suspicious of people too into brand building. (This is separate from being helpful or part of a community, and separate from using social media to advertise a company)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Who is this for? I can't imagine "top tech talent" is going to want to subject themselves to endlessly being pitched to by VC's who thinks that writing their entire app for them means you get just 5% of the company. And I can't imagine without coders, it would be useful to VC's trying to recruit...

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! Founder of Cuppa here.

I hear you, it was one of my concerns at the start. But we highly curate the beta invites and through the onboarding we consistently mention it is NOT for self-promotion or pitching because that leaves a sour taste in most cases. And we take the membership seriously, 3 strikes of such incidents reported and you'll be suspended!

We are attracting folks who love talking shop in a friendly environment on video. Most of our users are makers/founders (70%) and they love showing their projects and getting feedback or jamming with other peers.

Check out this page with lots of such good examples: [https://www.getcuppa.io/love](https://www.getcuppa.io/love)

<comment><USER5> Three strikes is a HUGGEE number, if I sign up for this thing and get pitched, I'm just gonna bail, not report it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I totally fail to see the appeal of this from the angle of anyone involved besides maybe recruiters and whoever is trying to charge for it.

I love how it has to mention their creep prevention system in the first couple of lines as if that has been a big problem for them.

Also almost all of the positive comments in this thread are either the CEO or someone with less than 20 karma (new accounts created to pump this)

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally understand, it may not be for everyone. We have 500+ beta users from 26 countries who are finding value in meeting with peers to talk shop and brainstorm.. in times like this.

Had to laugh at the "creep prevention system" comment, it was not BECAUSE we had such a problem at Cuppa but because we all have used "Chatroulette" in the 90s and remember how quickly it can turn into a perv magnet. Early checks and balances are good for the community in the long run :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think a lot of people in the tech community would be open to a few 1:1 conversations with people out of their normal network now and then. This approach chimes with how (I think) community can be sustainably built and expanded in tech, both parties benefiting from possible out-of-band experiences. There's no guarantee of that, of course, but that's a risk people can assess when spending their time. People love talking about what they do, both for personal brand and personal enjoyment (Meet-ups and less corporate conferences are clear examples of this).

Wish the expectations of these conversations were more outlined, though. "Get on the waitlist" is a bit of a black box.

Also, maybe this is personal bias, but allowing for non-Twitter handles (I think my HN handle better resonates with my technical leanings than my Twitter, which is mostly just me posting more or less random thoughts). Looks like they're using Twitter authentication, though, as well the "We met up" tweets have some virality, so I understand that design choice at the current moment.

After seeing a former teacher of mine ask about people who'd be willing to talk with his high school students, I think there's also an extension of this platform to help match speakers with educators trying to help students understand what it means to work in technology (Or other fields). When I was an undergraduate we'd run part of a summer program teaching high school students how to differentiate stem cells into beating heart cells, hard to say that example wouldn't be formative for students trying to figure out what to pursue in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Alex, thanks for the thoughtful comment. We're very early in the journey so had to stick with only 1 use case to calibrate acquisition well.

I love the idea of connecting speakers with educators trying to help students get into tech. A lot of communities have reached out to us as well to run "Cuppa for X" programs to build engagement within their network. It's on the roadmap!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi, early cuppa user. I've had some very interesting conversations with a VC scout, several makers from EU, US and India. Only one meeting was a bit weird. But that happens in real life as well. I enjoyed the serendipity a lot especially during corona lockdown and it made me understand the value of twitter more as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for giving it a spin, Chris! We try our best to make sure our users have the best experience by curating the invites. But again, there's always one or two misses. Just like in life. So glad you were part of the beta anyway!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been using Cuppa since June and I've met really interesting people on it. That list includes therapists, no-code makers, entrepreneurs.

No agenda and no hard selling on anything. I've personally had a better experience on it than Lunchclub, which I felt like a substitute for a sales channel.

I was building an app and I received a lot of good feedback and encouragement on it. In a time, when I was completely socially isolated, these conversations really helped.

Ways to reduce abuse of this platform is to restrict the number of coffee chats you can have in a week.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you Kavir, so glad to have you in our early beta club :) And congrats on your recent project launch! We're considering limiting the number of Cuppas to 5-7 per week soon!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, this looks great! I've seen different takes on this but I love the approach you're taking with marketing, starting the community off slowly, and using a calendly and x.ai style calendar. Hoping this takes off.

I have a suggestion that I wonder whether it has been tried - how about having a checkbox of whether someone will be having coffee or tea. That really helps create the atmosphere. It can still be pretty inclusive. On Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee someone has herbal tea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, Ben! Our go-to-market since March has been attract interesting builders/makers from both code and no-code community via Twitter. It's been going great...had over 1100+ Cuppas (30 min virtual coffee dates) so far!

The onboarding has a set of questions like "Whats your fav coffee shop in your city?" but totally agree the "coffee/tea" would add a bit more personality to the questions!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I started using Cuppa in July and have met around 30 people from various backgrounds. I love that you don't know who you are going to meet till you select their table. Cuppa has been a major value-add to me. The "no sales pitches" rule is awesome and has resulted in meetings where both of us have walked away with something useful from the call.

</comment><comment><USER12> Totally love using Cuppa cos its more consistent than a random encounter IRL (built amounts twitter) and very close to the rich, life-changing encounters you have at an awesome conference (everyone there is probably interested in what you do). Would love to see this used for meetups and topical convos on a rolling basis.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you Edmund, so glad to have you in the early beta club!

Still remember those video summaries you shared on Twitter abt your experience on Cuppa.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I discovered Cuppa few months ago. I started using it frequently. It's a great opportunity meet people with different expertises from around the world. I have learned a lot and connected with many experienced people on Twitter.

Also, We have got first customer for our startup thorough Cuppa (totally unexpected).

<comment><AUTHOR> Cuppa's core idea is simple enough but the early community with people like you is what makes is extra special. Thank you Mizan and so great to see your recent success!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So basically just influencer marketing?

<comment><AUTHOR> hey, not sure what that means.

Think of like a virtual cafe where you can serendipitously run into folks you know from Twitter.

One day it could be some one big (let's say an influencer!) or another day it could a peer maker/developer with just 100 followers but who has a cool portfolio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've had around virtual 10 cuppas and all were pretty great! Super enjoyed the ability to introduce myself and talk about what I'm working on. That's a muscle I haven't had to use often while in Covid.

</comment><comment><USER16> I had quite a few cuppas during lockdown. Not so much since then but I need to get back to it.

Made some awesome connections and had a ton of interesting chats around many different topics. Big up to KP and Michael for building Cupa

</comment><comment><USER17> Cuppa is an amazing experience. The double opt-in and the cache of the community makes for an actual valuable USP. So much better than lunchclub or any other competitors. Most importantly, it gives you a reason to come back.

<comment><AUTHOR> appreciate that. We love Lunchclub too who are working hard in the same market but we like to think we're way more community-driven and a simpler UX (no AI just one big community calendar with people's open time slots):)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seven comments from accounts that are either new, or have never commented before except in praise of this product (complete with replies from the poster) - this all seems rather shady, like a voting ring.

<comment><USER19> If it was new accounts then its like a job interview. What is your work experience answer if you dont give me job then how can i have experience. + if they never commented then at least you cant say anymore that they never commented. There is a chance that they are shady but there is a chance that they are genuine and they follow or respect only few people. Those people who shows them real path.

Some people are good front of camera & some are behind the camera.

I hope you got my point.

Enjoy your days!

I am enjoying cuppa & my suggustion to you just give it a try!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I found cuppa around march / April & enjoying it since then. I learned a lot from makers & founders even i learn a lot in automation afyrr joining cuppa.

I am glad to be in early usrrs.

Gurvinder

</comment><comment><USER20> Love this!! Takes all the hassle of the whole "Twitter Dm" -> "Let's Zoom sometime" -> "Scheduling a time" routine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you Garrett, that was the best explanation of our value prop haha :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wondering who "top tech talent" is.... probably just start-up founders, not like elon musk.</comment>


Hero programmers do exist, do all the work, do chat a lot - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/24/developer_heroes_exist/ <comment><USER2> > The researchers define a "hero" project as one where 80 per cent or more of > the contributions come from 20 per cent of the developers.

Unfortunately, I'm not paid by the line, and I'm not sure how this metric represents contributions which aren't necessarily represented this way. I mean, if I pair with someone, or offer a thorough and helpful code review, that's valuable time that isn't measured.

Also, it's easy to contribute more when you know less. I know lots of devs who can pump out code, but it doesn't mean it's all going to be good. How do you measure the time it takes to figure out how hastily committed code works?

</comment><comment><USER3> Meh. An analysis of Github projects. Concluding that people more experienced with the codebase make less bugs. Full of caveats (that the authors mention in their paper). Fake news about fake research by people getting their fake PhD.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Even so, it's worth noting that "hero" comes with baggage and that other > terms like "rockstar," "champion," "leader," "grunt," "maniac," > "dominatrix," or "martyr," might have been used instead and might have > conveyed different implications. But for the sake of simplicity, let's stick > with "hero."

For the sake of simplicity they could have left out these two sentences.</comment>


Phil Schiller Says iPad Pro Can Both Supplement and Replace the Mac - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/12/philler-schiller-on-ipad-pro-vs-mac/ <comment><USER2> It might seem trivial but, until selecting text is easier, I'll struggle to use any iPad as a Mac replacement.

<comment><USER3> I agree sooooo much. This is a key point which makes me grab a laptop every time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given how they've dumbed-down the whole experience it's not surprising to hear they think this. What they're really saying is they've treated MacOS and it's developers like red-headed stepchildren and just want them to go away. Customers be damned, as is the Apple Way.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just licence it already. macOS has evidently became too hard to maintain - just keep making hardware and make sure some good *nix distros support it.

Opposite is with iOOS tho - I wouldn't trade it for Android, but the hardware is not top anymore.

</comment><comment><USER6> of course the average HN user won't relate to that. But anecdotally my mom gets by fine (somehow) with an old ipad. She can pay bills, check email, watch videos, browse sites - that's enough. So I can believe Phil here.

<comment><USER7> Agreed, the selection here on HN isn't the market. Even Schiller addresses the fact that it isn't for everyone, but it can (and does) work for many. I'm pretty confident my folks could get by with just an iPad, and my wife could almost entirely do it with an iPad Pro (she's in the creative space).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sure, iPads fit the maximize one-task-at-a-time workflow that people did for many years on Windows, and Windows 8 was trying to push.

However, if you like to have all sorts of stuff serendipitously scattered about a very large (or multiple very large) monitors, an iPad isn't going to work so well!

</comment><comment><USER9> I agree with Phil .. I've actually fallen into a pattern where i use a Mac Pro for work, but use the iPad Pro as my personal computer .. for tasks such as reading, surfing, reserving tickets, listening to music and writing

</comment><comment><USER10> I think we're all biased here, a lot of us are developers I'm pretty sure and developing on iOS is not practical as of now so it doesn't really make sense for us to be full time iPad pro users. Anyone do dev on iPads?

<comment><USER11> Yes.

Use Working Copy for Git and Textastic for code, they support round-trip. I prefer the enterprise versions. (Also consider Koder, Coda, and Prompt.)

Screens for Remote Desktop.

Ulysses for Markdown that syncs to all devices and publishes to many formats. Visit the website to understand all the things this software can do with Markdown and more.

iThoughtsX for mind-maps that can be graphs (most only do trees) and export to markdown, PowerPoint, Word outlines, etc.

Goodnotes or Nebo for hand notes and diagrams depending on your style.

Liquid Paper, PDF Expert, and/or Papers 3 for turning white papers into new thoughts. Especially pleasant with Apple Pencil.

Kindle for your books library. MS Office for ... office docs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> How surprising.</comment>


Ask HN: Might Apple be botching their UI design lately, or is it just me? - <AUTHOR> I'm just a bit frustrated with the elimination of slide to unlock iOS after years of developing the behavior.  Also on the desktop, no more does the swipe to multiple screen gesture reveal the contents of the other desktops... now it requires the additional mouseover. I switched to Apple a few years ago, and up until very recently had been very satisfied because they didn't seem to do this kind of thing. Maybe I am just missing some settings? Please advise... <comment><USER2> Don't worry, you'll get used to it. I think they're probably optimizing the UX for TouchID.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is part of the premium you pay for using Apple products. While the design is aesthetically nice, you are limited in your flexibility. This is why I prefer other operating systems that I find easier to customize.</comment>


Sean Parker as Jim Clark 2.0, and the return of the dotcom boom (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://public.numair.com/2006_parker.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this paper in 2006. I don't really write anything publicly anymore, and I even took this one offline after noticing a bunch of annoying blogger- journalists passing off bits of it as their own insights; that being said, I felt that this paper needed to be brought back to the surface.

I'm very interested to read what the HN community thinks of this paper, as most of you probably never saw it when it was published.</comment>


U.S and India rank lowest on Facebook transparency report - <AUTHOR> http://gizmorati.com/2014/04/12/u-s-india-rank-lowest-facebook-transparency-report/

<comment><USER2> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)</comment>


Senator Biden On NSA Database (2006) [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1613914n <comment><AUTHOR> Transcript: [http://votesmart.org/public-statement/295064/cbs-early- show-...](http://votesmart.org/public-statement/295064/cbs-early-show- transcript)

MR. SMITH: _Well, the president, though, said yesterday, we 're not listening to the phone calls; we're just looking for patterns._

SEN. BIDEN: _Harry, I don 't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talked to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive._

      ---

Mind blown. I think history just went into an infinite loop because it EXACTLY repeated itself in just seven years.

<comment><USER3> Transcript: [http://votesmart.org/public-statement/295064/cbs-early- show-...](http://votesmart.org/public-statement/295064/cbs-early-show- transcript#.Ubd9zfZ3hJw)

SEN. BIDEN: _But this idea that no court will review, no Congress will know, and we 've got to trust the president and the vice president of the United States that they're doing the right thing, don't count me in on that._

\---

Mind blown x 2

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To put it bluntly, if you change your opinion on fundamental issues like civil liberties based on who is currently in office, you are an idiot and are part of the problem in this country.

Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot of idiots: [http://www.people- press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png](http://www.people- press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png)

<comment><USER5> I saw some meta-analysis of those numbers. I think it's useful to extract the "people actually changing their minds" number: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732349560457853...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495604578539593532047574.html)

"The Republican response went from 75% to 23% under George W. Bush to 52% to 47% under Barack Obama. If we assume the swing was entirely partisan--that is, if we exclude the possibility that some Republicans opposed the policy under Bush and favor it now--that means 52% of Republicans are consistent in support and 23% consistent in opposition.

The Democratic response went from 37% to 61% under Bush to 64% to 34% under Obama. Making the same assumption as above, that means 37% of Democrats are consistent in support and 34% consistent in opposition.

Add the figures together and you come up with 75% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats consistent in their positions, which would mean that well under one- third of partisans switched for partisan reasons."

<comment><USER6> Its also worth noting, in addition to the point gojomo makes that party identification is self-reported and volatile (and the further, related, point that people both enter and exit the sampled population over time), so that the populations of "Democrats" and "Republicans" in the 2013 poll aren't the same as the population in the 2006 poll, that the questions in the two Pew polls that are the basis of that "metaanalysis" aren't about _the same thing_.

The 2006 poll question asked about warrantless wiretapping by the NSA (it specified both "listening in on telephone calls" and "without a warrant".)

The 2013 poll questioned asked about asked tracking call information under "secret court orders", which is neither listening in on calls or done without a warrant. They are two different things; it is a mistake to treat them as the same thing and consider different reactions to them as inconsistent.

(Though, given the specific differences, shifting from supporting the former to opposing the latter is something I find odd, but I suppose it could be consistent and not based on pure partisanship if it was grounded, for example, in a strong ideological opposition to the idea of judges overseeing executive national security actions.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Biden is one of the most dangerous men in politics. Very convincing when speaks (as in this video) and has a great sense for politics but not known for his intelligence (barely graduated lower tier law school) or honesty (caught cheating at law school and plagiarizing speeches, regularly called out for inaccurate statements). Everything is just a means to an end - in this video hurting his political opponents. I would be extremely surprised if he were to repeat these statements while Vice President or perhaps someday President. This makes me sad.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits- plagiarism...](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism- in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact- checker/post/bidens...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact- checker/post/bidens-absurd-claims-about-rising-rape-and-murder- rates/2011/10/20/gIQAkq0y1L_blog.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Regardless of political party, people that seek to rule over others tend to be overbearing and hypocritical. Obama and Biden are clearly no exception to this. Here is a very similar video of Obama -

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aznaD8yzVjM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aznaD8yzVjM)

I simply cannot understand how his base, including most of the media, is sticking with him through all of this, but they are. This will likely lead to additional brazen constitutional violations by this and the next administration, regardless of political party, because there are no consequences for any of them regardless of what they do. I weep for the future.

</comment><comment><USER9> Best part from the very end:

MR. SMITH: All right, Senator Joe Biden, thank you for joining us this morning; do appreciate it.

SEN. BIDEN: Thank you very much, Charlie.

MR. SMITH: Harry.

SEN. BIDEN: Appreciate it.

MR. SMITH: That's all right.

<comment><USER10> Joe Biden is like an amazing "character actor" of politics.

He has an almost Clinton-like ability to remain likable ... but whatever you think Clinton was actually like, he came off as sharper conversationally than Biden.

Still, the ability to remain likable in spite of gaffes seems to be vital in Presidential politics -- look at Bush/Kerry.

<comment><USER11> Never underestimate the impact of the entertainment media in shaping public opinion.

If SNL did a recurring imitation of Biden in an unflattering light, making up things he didn't really say or just repeating the really dumb ones over and over - Biden would be perceived a lot more like Sarah Palin or at best Dan Quayle.

<comment><USER12> SNL does portray Biden as a caricature. Jason Sudekis played him as a quick talking ex-fraternity asshole who takes upskirt pictures of Hillary Clinton and then proclaims "You've been Biden'd!". SNL isn't doing him any favors - <USER2> them he's a lovable buffoon.

<comment><USER11> What they did with Biden was to do a good physical imitation, but to have him act uncharacteristically as a spoof. What they did with Palin was to go after her in as cutting a manner as possible in order to take her down as a credible candidate.

Here are a couple of examples off of Youtube. The first one, they went out of their way to make Biden look large and in charge.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8LcbtQ75A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8LcbtQ75A)

This second one, Biden is commiserating with George W. on being second in command. So even when imitating Biden, they make sure to really make Bush the butt of the joke.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyZrtd83Mk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyZrtd83Mk)

The SNL folks have long admitted that they used their skits to push a political agenda:

[http://www.worldtribune.com/tv/videos/as-stupid-as-he- acts-c...](http://www.worldtribune.com/tv/videos/as-stupid-as-he-acts-chevy- chase-admits-he-wanted-carter/)

<comment><USER12> I guess if that's how you see it, I just have to disagree. To me, someone who voted for Obama/Biden twice, in both of those skits they do a fairly good job of making him seem incompetent, simple, and short-sighted. In the second, they equate him with their version of incompetent W - that doesn't seem all that flattering.

EDIT: Adding the 'Biden Bash'[1]

[1] [http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/biden- bash/n320...](http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/biden-bash/n32032)

<comment><USER11> _I guess if that 's how you see it_

So despite a very well known SNL actor's ADMITTING that what they did was focused and political. Despite his extraordinarily relevant insight stating that they still do it that way... that's just how I see it?

At some point you have to wonder if your theories are falsifiable or if they're just dogma.

<comment><USER12> First, Chevy Chase hardly represents the current cast of SNL. He hasn't been on the show for decades.

Second, I was talking about how you think SNL is building up Biden with positive sketches. I don't agree that they are very positive. Sorry if that's my opinion.

Third, no shit they push a political agenda but its probably less biased than Fox News. They do attack those who are insanely inferior politically (Palin, Perry, Bachmann) because they can and should. I'm just saying that dumb Democrat decisions don't get the kid gloves you seem to be just so sure they do. After the election there hadn't been a lot of noteworthy political sketches this season, they didn't seem to be able to make light of the gun control debate, the sequester, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Isn't partisan politics a wondrous thing?

<comment><USER14> Do we know that the VP is supportive of this program? Admittedly it's hard to tell what parts of a politician's speech are principles and which are just to build their party or tear down the other one's party.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course he is supportive now - they purposely made it "legal".

See we fell for the promise that they would end _illegal surveillance of Ameicans_

We thought that meant no more surveillance on Americans.

Instead they just made it "legal".

I really cannot believe they did that word game and we fell for it.

<comment><USER14> Surveillance on Americans _by the NSA_ is still illegal. What we're upset about is that NSA has made it easier to abuse the law to perform surveillance of Americans by pre-caching Verizon phone record metadata and automating FISA compliance in a fashion that may actually be usable on arbitrary user IDs.

In other words they've made it easier to do all that surveillance if they choose to, but as far as I'm aware even Snowden has not claimed to see the NSA actually track an American down using the system, only that the NSA _could_ do it easily.

While that is certainly a serious matter that warrants public debate, it's not the same as what you're referring to (which makes me wonder why... it's not like this issue requires any exaggeration).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This makes me think there is a shitload we don't know about. (like this program has stopped a nuclear bomb going off in San Diego or something).

To have so many people switch their minds about privacy and to have this so secret for so long means there has got to be something BIG that they heard of day one of their jobs that drastically changed their value-system/world-view.

My guess is Snowden didn't have the whole picture (b/c he worked for a contractor)

<comment><USER16> false logic.. your justifying an actual erosion of freedom based on massive speculation. And you could bring anything into that argument, because it will always be secret and non verifiable.

Another theory is that Stuxnet stopped Iran nuking San Diego.. but that didn't require recording the private communications of everyone on the planet.

<comment><USER15> ... I wasn't justifying anything.

I was just speculating.

I think this is a rather unique situation where a lot of pro-privacy people seemed to have switched sides.

That raises questions. What everyone seems to be concluding is that these people were insincere before and now their true colors are coming out. That sounds highly improbably and very conspiracy-theory-ish.

It's more likely that there is a lot going on than we know about. It doesn't necessarily make it okay.

It's just something to think about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." George Orwell, Animal Farm

</comment><comment><USER18> "It's not fascism when we do it!"</comment>


Simulating Angel Investment: Kevin Dick Remixes Jeff Miller - <AUTHOR> http://emergentfool.com/2010/05/11/simulating-angel-investment-kevins-remix/

<comment><AUTHOR> This simulation concludes that you need a portfolio of 100-150 startups to achieve a good return because there are a few home runs that contain much of the gain. Miller calculated the number was 20-30. These results were apparently used by <http://www.rightsidecapital.com/> to develop their new approach.</comment>


Advice on partnership issues..... - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
A few months ago, 2 of my friends and I came up with an idea to create a website that would allow people to create and share polls, and analyze the results in various interesting ways. We did not know anything about web programming or databases but spent time trying to learn about it. Our aim was to build a quick "proof-of-concept" prototype without intially caring much about the UI/Design.
I knew someone from college who was a good hacker and asked him to join us. I felt he could help us with the technical issues, teach us how to architect the website and point us to the right tools we could use. He also needed housing for a few months and we thought he could stay and work with us. We pitched him about the idea and he seemed enthusiastic. To prevent disagreements in future, all 4 of us signed an agreement which clearly stated how much equity each person would get.
Things seemed to go well for a few months. We even managed to get a really basic prototype up and running. Then one night after dinner, the good hacker told us he would gradually step away from helping out. He wanted to focus on his day job and he told us that he had been helping us all along only because we provided him with free housing. Furthermore, he wasn't yet ready to make a major commitment to what we were working on. We were pretty upset but there was nothing we could do to get him to stay. He found housing soon afterwards and moved out.
We haven't been in touch with him for a while. Since he moved out, we have been persisting with our idea on weekends (all of us have 14-15 hour work-days at our day jobs). We are more experienced and have learnt a lot, particularly through places like HN.
One of our team-members just quit his job to work on this full-time. We are hoping to release a new version of our site (with a good UI and a more fully developed concept) by the end of September and apply to programs like YC in the fall.
Our only concern is, how can we draft a new agreement that voids the previous paternership agreement that we signed with the good hacker? We think it is only right that we compensate the good hacker for working with us and teaching us about things like good program design etc. However, given how he chose to drop out of the project in a sudden manner, we feel that he certainly doesn't deserve 10% of the initial equity. What do you suggest we do?
I was thinking of arranging a meeting with him over dinner and welcoming back, telling him that we would love to have him as a "technical" advisor". He wouldn't have to devote a significant amount of time to the project and we would still get the benefit of having someone experienced look at our code, suggest better ways of designing the application, and recommend new tools that might be useful for our development process. Is this a good idea?
Apologies if this is a long post. Just wanted to get the whole story out there so I could hear some good suggestions.
Thanks, <comment><USER2> An open, frank conversation sounds like the best approach. He might be entirely reasonable and helpful to have as a stakeholder in the future.

But if you are at an impass, and you really feel strongly about it, press the 'delete' key and start over from scratch, except this time have vesting over multiple years for the founders stock. This way if anyone bails before the company is up and running, they will get a percentage based on their time invested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion.

Is it possible to come up with another agreement that voids the previous one already signed? What happens to the 10% we initially gave him?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Many partnership agreements have time-based equity. In the case of YC-related companies, full equity doesn't come into fruition for 4 years. The equity grows over time and usually requires a minimum 1-year commitment for any equity stake.

In your case, you guys didn't think this part completely through (oh well, move on).

I suggest you talk with the previous programmer. It's more than likely he doesn't see any value in his equity and may be willing to give it up completely or for a small return.

If he wants a return for his effort, you guys could come to some sort of arrangement of payment. This could be an immediate payout or a payout dependent on funding (seed/series A). If the value is too high for an immediate payout and the programmer has no faith in you getting funded, you could arrange to make monthly payment installments ($300/mo * x months).

As for his rate, I would suggest that he not expect his "corporate rate" for his work. As he was doing this in good faith as part of a team, it's stronger to expect a discount, similar to what you'd charge a friend or partner for work (i.e. $25/hr vs. $100/hr). It's unreasonable for him to expect to be paid as a contractor considering the circumstances.

</comment><comment><USER4> Equity:

If he had not helped you, would you have _started_? Or got as far as you have? Does he _want_ equity? If he is happy with a lump sum settlement, then pay him what you both think is acceptable for what was achieved/developed up to the point he left.

Advisor Role:

Good idea to save you money in the short term and get external and experienced eyes looking at the code/work.

But, if he is not interested in the long-term will he provide valuable and considered advice? Are you making things worse for yourself trying to keep him onboard? Personally, I'd say it is probably wise to part ways and employ him on a consultancy basis to help you as and when needed. It keeps things cleaner and less complex.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, The consultancy idea might be a good idea when we get money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Are you actually incorporated? Did you actually distribute shares? What does the agreement say exactly?

<comment><AUTHOR> The agreement is really basic, spelling out what share of the profits each person will get. Of course, at that time, all of us understood that our ownership will be diluted based on any future investment that we might receive.

Looking back, we were incredibly naive and unsure about how these agreements are typically drafted although I have a much better understanding now.</comment></comment>


Samsung SmartTV: Why "Host Name: Localhost"? - <AUTHOR> https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/TV-Audio-Video/Why-quot-Host-Name-localhost-quot/td-p/425332 <comment><AUTHOR> Post is from February 2018, issue still exists as for today.</comment>


North Korean solider who defected found to have anthrax antibodies - <AUTHOR> https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/12/26/Report-North-Korea-soldier-found-to-have-anthrax-antibodies/7791514299323/ <comment><USER2> He may have been immunized against anthrax which tells me North Korea has plans to use anthrax in war, so South Korea must also immunize. Exposure in research = same response. There is a small risk he caught it from dead animals. A molecular analysis of his antibodies MIGHT indicate something about the way they were induced, above my pay grade, but you can bet the USA and SK are going to sniff into this.</comment>


Use Python to Manage Enterprise Deployments with Fabric - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2011/02/use-python-to-manage-enterpris.php <comment><USER2> This is just a shitty fluff summary of another post that's currently on the front page.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2250001>

Edit: and the readwriteweb post doesn't even link back to the post by Tav it quotes from. What garbage.</comment>


Why you should or should not get a co-founder - <AUTHOR> http://skinnyandbald.tumblr.com/post/1291582876/why-you-should-or-should-not-get-a-co-founder

<comment><USER2> i think all the points are good food for thought, but the pros of having a cofounder FAR outweigh the cons.

as long as you do a good job recruiting the right sidekick(s) and maintain a transparent work relationship, you should be able to avoid many of the disadvantages.

more than anything, you're bound to have highs & lows, and a cofounder will be there to pick you up & get you back to speed when things are not going your way.

plus, the journey is much more fun when you have others to experience it with!</comment>


C++1y Automatic Type Deduction - <AUTHOR> http://bulldozer00.com/2013/12/11/c1y-automatic-type-deduction/

<comment><USER2> Seriously. a bunch of snow that follows my mouse around. why?

coming from haskell. i'm glad auto seems to be working better.

</comment><comment><USER3> So, is the author wanting people to read the article or watch the snow?

This might be a good article. Dunno. It's full of distracting snow.</comment>


The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421 <comment><USER2> While an interesting argument, the article is very muddled due to a confused philosophical foundation. Kant already made it clear that our experience of the world by definition is something different from the world in itself. For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us to experience colors. So strictly speaking colors do not exist in "the world in itself", they are a function of the human mind.

But this does _not_ mean "reality does not exist" \- how would that statement even make sense? Or that our experience is an "illusion" or "wrong". This supposes there is some "correct" way to experience the world which might be different from how the human mind experiences it. The human mind process input and generates a model of the world which helps us survive. Other models are possible (eg. different animal species experience the world in different ways), but who is to say which model is _correct_?

<comment><USER3> > Kant already made it clear that our experience of the world by definition is > something different from the world in itself.

He didn't make it "clear" if by "clear" you mean he demonstrated this to be true. Why posit noumena at all if all that is knowable are phenomena?

> For example, EM radiation of certain wavelengths hit the eyes which cause us > to experience colors. So strictly speaking colors do not exist in "the world > in itself", they are a function of the human mind.

That's not really Kantian. But in any case, appealing to EM radiation and minds as the true causes of color is appealing to unknowable noumena. You're dismissing color as mere phenomena, but how could you even come to know that to be the case? After all, as you say, all you really know are phenomena.

<comment><USER4> Colors do exist as named segments of the visual spectrum. The internal experience of each color in our minds, is something separate and different from that external stimulus.

What did I get wrong?

<comment><USER2> It is more complicated. For example, the color magenta does not correspond to a single segment of the EM spectrum. Due to how the eyes work, magenta is caused by light of two different wavelength. This is the reason magenta is not in the rainbow even though it is one of the primary colors (e.g. one of the colors used in printer ink). So the experience of color is very much determined by the design of the sensory organs.

<comment><USER4> Okay. However the main point is there is something objective, and external to the observer, that is being perceived. That phenomena no matter how complex or disjointed, can reasonably be labelled color.

The experience of color, even with all the intricacies and deficiencies of human perception, is another matter. When I ask you to think of the color blue, you can recall the experience with no need for the visual stimuli.

The word can refer to parts of the EM spectrum or to the experience, or both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's very difficult to be charitable toward this kind of philosophical dabbling. The most glaring absurdity is the performative contradiction of appealing to evolution and quantum mechanics to prove that the world is an illusion. If "the world" is an illusion, then we have evidence for neither evolution nor quantum mechanics. If evolution and quantum mechanics rob us of the possibility of knowing the world as it is, then we can't possibly appeal to evolution and quantum mechanics since, after all, we can't know them to be true. If evolution and/or quantum mechanics do indeed lead us toward these absurd conclusions, then clearly evolution and/or quantum mechanics are demonstrably false, and Hoffman would have deployed a successful reductio ad absurdum to show that at least one of them is. Instead, Hoffman destroys the very reality that made possible both the evidence and these theories in the first place. It's somewhat analogous to beginning with the premise that root 2 is rational, deducing a contradiction and then claiming that what you've shown is that numbers don't really exist.

Apart from that, neuroscience itself seems to suffer from a certain myopia about what it takes for granted, metaphysically speaking. The source of many of the problems in the philosophy of mind today have their origin in a lingering legacy of Descartes' mechanistic metaphysics in modern and contemporary thought. This legacy equally afflicts materialists who still cling to a Cartesian view of matter (in fact they're in even worse shape than dualists, having jettisoned what dualists use to account for things like color). If you want to make headway, this Cartesian legacy needs to be exorcised from our thinking. Otherwise, you'll keep collapsing back into Cartesian dualism, panpsychism or, worse, eliminativism.

<comment><USER5> > The most glaring absurdity is the performative contradiction of appealing to > evolution and quantum mechanics to prove that the world is an illusion.

I think you misunderstood what the OP (the physicist) means by that. He trying to convey that "reality" is not "physical".

Physicality is conveyed by the brain but it is not the "reality". So it is an illusion. It doesn't mean our existence is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> >> You could not form a true description of the innards of the computer if your entire view of reality was confined to the desktop. And yet the desktop is useful. That blue rectangular icon guides my behavior, and it hides a complex reality that I don't need to know. That's the key idea. Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. They guide adaptive behaviors. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don't need to know. And that's pretty much all of reality, whatever reality might be. If you had to spend all that time figuring it out, the tiger would eat you.

What he's overlooking in that desktop metaphor is that there are people who understand ALL of the inner workings down to atoms. No single person has it all in their head, but the software was written by human minds to run on hardware created by human minds that understand the device physics down to a very low level. A user of the software doesn't have to have a full model of the reality - in fact that was the entire point of the desktop metaphor, to make it simple for people so they don't NEED to understand it all in order to use it. For most users that is sufficient level of understanding, and if everyone took the full deep dive we would indeed all be eaten by tigers. But that only says none of us has a full model of reality, it does not say our model of reality is wrong in any way.

I find it amusing that he chose a metaphor designed to hide the complexity of reality from people while ignoring the fact that it was done that way deliberately by people.

<comment><USER7> It seems that he chose it exactly for that reason though. The desktop is an abstraction built upon successive abstractions to hide reality from us so that we can do what we need to do. Computers have 'evolved' to what they are today to essentially improve their fitness to their environment, even if that means that it is impossible for any one person to fully understand how they work.

In this case it kind of supports his idea that evolution would lead to a similar kind of model of reality in our heads. But the most interesting thing seemed to be the fact that if you remove objective reality from his models you can just build on successive layers of abstraction and the model still works. I know this metaphor doesn't hold up in all cases, but it seems like it's a pretty good introduction to this idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let's pretend a thought or experience is in fact just memories, or rather recombinations and interactions of memories.

The word "remember" [as in 'recall to mind'] is etymologically composed of "re-" [as in again, over time] and "memorari" ['being mindfull of'].

Instead of focussing on consciousness, let's focus on the "first-person"-ness.

Everyone else is an "I" too...

Imagine [part of] your memory is dysfunctional in a similar way to amnesia. You are playing chess, and write down the moves on a piece of paper with some "private" notes like "beware of the horse on E5". After every move, your nurse turns the chess board and notes around, and "reminds" you with "it is your turn". You forgot you were black a few minutes ago, and then you forgot you were playing white after and so on. You would insist you don't have amnesia: indeed by looking at your paper you can "recall" every move, and how you felt about the moves.

In physics forces and fields fall as 1/r^2 or faster (say dipoles). So as _I_ (your "I" or my "I" alike) evaluate how _I_ the universe could move say this electron, or fire that neuron, we predominantly take into account the 'local' information. So we all are under the impression that we are merely part of the universe, instead of an amnesiac decision process on the total universe.

Even though we don't, suppose we all agreed with the statement "I am the universe", are we in agreement, or total conflict? Or is it only a paradox: a linguistic illusion of contradiction?

Edit: I lost the cadence of my comment: intead of re-member to indicate carrying information over time, we could call the subjective "first- person"-ness here-member, carying information across space [but falling offf quickly]...

<comment><USER8> A similar question/conundrum is this:

From a reductionist perspective a civilization is a collection of humans, a human is a collection of cells.

Why is my _I_ or first-person perception that of me the human [and I am convinced that others perceive it this way as well, even though I can't prove it off course] as opposed to a first-person civilization (scale above) or a first-person cell like a neuron (a scale below).

Allthough once I did have a weird and exhilerating experience of fright and victorious excitement at the same time. I was lucky to always have been interested in cryptography and programming, so when I first read Satoshi Nakamoto's paper, I already knew the prerequisites or building blocks used, so merely seeing how they were combined to achieve the decentralization I immediately understood how it worked (except for a boatload of corner cases and pitfalls, which the paper did not explain, and only the source code was a guide). This high of a new insight, kept lasting and lasting, and implications and rammifications kept popping up in my head... The excitement part was a revolutionary feeling, originally just as in "humans against the system" but it was like suddenly millions of little voices (probably not individual neurons, but perhaps neuronal circuits) in my head were celebrating, and yelling that _their supersystem_ i.e. my human-level I not only understood the plight for decentralization, but as if they somehow thought it would liberate and decentralize my brain as well. This lasted for a few hours, and I had a hard time thinking straight, I was just hearing barely comprehensible _thoughts_ which felt like some old ancient message (not in english, but thoughts). I was elated for what decentralization meant on the human level, but at the same time many different parts of my brain were celebrating on the lower level. It's hard to describe the experience, but it was like how humans would celebrate if somehow our human civilizational top-down structures (nations/goverments/leaders/security services) would positively welcome crypto/decentralization etc. i.e. suppose congress openly starts talking about sponsoring and setting up decentralized provably secure social media, voting systems, ... and suddenly appear to actually think in the best interests of the people. That was what I was experiencing: small parts of my brain celebrating the incredulous. This was a very scary experience, during those couple of hours simple and mundane tasks like taking a sip because I was thirsty would get repeatedly postponed, but at the same time I would start cooking dinner. Luckily for me this revolt subdued afterwards and _order was restored_ (I can only assume the normal order in my brain is some form of top- down approach society of neurons), which allowed me to function properly. Although the whole experience was scary, it was only scary in hindsight. While it was happening "I" felt elated, excited, and only after recovering did I notice something had gone horribly wrong in my brain.

I am not eppileptic, and I have never experienced anything like it before or after (its many years ago now). The timing and similarity in subject makes me think it was in fact caused by reading the Satoshi paper. I am not a religious person, but I do consider this to be an experience which religious people would call a religious experience if it happened to them. Since I am not religious, I can only conclude that attention is some sort of top-down approach in how the brain functions [apparently not a democracy!].

<comment><USER9> Have you read the works of Carl Jung? Your experience reminds me of his theories.

"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order. Every civilized human being, whatever his conscious development, is still an archaic man at the deeper levels of his psyche. Just as the human body connects us with the mammals and displays numerous relics of earlier evolutionary stages going back to even the reptilian age, so the human psyche is likewise a product of evolution which, when followed up to its origins, show countless archaic traits."

[https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-following-quote-by- Carl-...](https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-following-quote-by-Carl-Jung- mean-In-all-chaos-there-is-a-cosmos-in-all-disorder-a-secret-order)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the examples where Hoffman claims there is always an optimal survival function that is better than a reality-based survival function, it is not at all clear to me that the optimal function is not actually a more realistic function than the allegedly realistic one. At best, the author's case seems to be that a) all mental representations are inaccurate to some extent (they are all approximations, at least), and b) a representation that is good for survival need not be accurate in aspects that do not matter for survival. To go from there to say that there is no correspondence between mental representations and reality seems to be a huge and unjustified leap, and to go from there to there being no reality seems to be a second and even larger stretch.

</comment><comment><USER11> "But it's a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally."

This is a perspective I like to take on the world's various flavors of spirituality. I really liked the "desktop" analogy, in particular. Spirituality is a very useful abstraction on top of reality, which our minds have evolved because of its usefulness. The fact that elements of it don't exist doesn't make them meaningless or reduce them to a simple opiate; just because we shouldn't take them literally doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously.

</comment><comment><USER12> This argument reminds me of the saying that "the map is not the territory". Yes, it's true that evolution will select for organisms that are able to model/understand reality only to the extent that it is practically useful to them. But that still implies that their mental model has some basis in reality.

Consider a map of NYC vs the actual territory of NYC. Yes, the map is only a crude approximation of the territory. Map makers (similar to evolution) are only incentivized to produce maps that are a practically useful approximation of reality, and not a fully accurate depiction of reality. But that doesn't change the fact that the map is still rooted in reality. When the map shows me that Time Square is only a short walk from Port Authority, and that the WTC is much further away, those are all facts that represent reality.

Yes, it can be disconcerting to realize that what we're looking at is a map, and not the territory itself. Yes, there are limitations on how much we can learn about the territory purely from looking at a map. But that doesn't change the fact that the map is correlated with its underlying reality.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation#"The_ma...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation#"The_map_is_not_the_territory")

</comment><comment><USER13> This is pretty weird, deep stuff to think about. To me, the two main points of the article were:

> While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing > as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the > mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, > all roads lead back to the observer.

and

> Nevertheless, for now I don't think we are machines — in part because I > distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being > represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences > as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I'm > claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of > everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — > that really is the ultimate nature of reality.

<comment><USER14> > While neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing > as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the > mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality. In short, > all roads lead back to the observer.

You won't find many quantum physicists agreeing with this statement.

The notion of an 'observer' is an artificial one, coming from the Copenhagen interpretation, which is well known to be false -- it's still used only because it simplifies the calculations, so long as you know when to apply it. The reality is far more nuanced.

That being said, even Copenhagen doesn't equate observers to humans. Anything can be an observer, and to make good use of the interpretation, it's usually equated with the measuring apparatus used in the experiment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought.

In reality, the 'observer effect' is an approximation to decoherence that only applies when the experiment is perfectly shielded, and the measuring instrument is not. That is only _usually_ the case.

<comment><USER15> > The notion of an 'observer' is an artificial one, coming from the Copenhagen > interpretation, which is well known to be false

I think you're overstating this a great deal. I don't think it's well-known, or even agreed on, that it's false. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

And in what sense is it "false"? If it's true to the equations, and not experimentally disproved, isn't it as valid as any other interpretation?

<comment><USER14> The equations don't describe anything like collapse, and Copenhagen doesn't really explain what's supposed to be triggering it. No, I don't think it's a match.

There are plenty of interpretations that do match the math, though. You're not stuck with MWI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I couldn't find anything new in this article. Sure the version of reality that gave us maximum advantage sustained. Organism who had color vision had an advantage over organism s that only had monochrome vision...Sure. We understand that. But what is new here?

<comment><USER17> The question is why having color vision was an advantage, and the evolutionary answer has to be because there's something about reality which makes it an advantage. The evolutionary argument for total skepticism/illusion can't work, because organisms wouldn't survive if their entire perceptual system produced only illusions.

An organism does have to be able to distinguish between food, mates, shelter, danger, etc. or it won't pass it's genes on. And that's where reality comes in. Even invoking evolution is to assume that evolution has some basis in reality, otherwise why invoke it as an explanation for illusion?

If our perceptions and cognition have no basis in reality, then neither does evolution.

<comment><USER16> >because organisms wouldn't survive if their entire perceptual system produced only illusions.

Small correction. You should say "organisms wouldn't survive if their entire perceptual system produced only _useless_ illusions."

The illusions here can also be replaced by an "abstraction". Color is an abstraction of wavelength. Sound is an abstraction of pressure differences.

So organisms who's senses produced useful abstractions for their minds prevailed, while others perished.

So again, obviously, I see nothing new but the premise that useless abstractions evolved but didn't sustain...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has been posted around, and I always feel I should point out: this is a ludicrous headline and generally misleading framing of an idea that's actually pretty interesting and plausible. (It doesn't have much to do with quantum mechanics, for one.)

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't really find this argument convincing. When considering a small number of circumstances, indeed the fitness function won't necessarily converge on truth because short cuts are probably more efficient in cognitive resources.

But once you start enlarging the possible set of circumstances, a lot of them will overlap in ways that seem random unless you discern the actual causal relationships between them. Without this process, then you're devoting resources to recording a never-ending list of correlations, but this list is strictly bounded if you instead infer causality.

In some cases, list of correlations will still be more efficient, but not in general when considering a large and complex world.

</comment><comment><USER20> This brings me full circle to a thought that used to distract me from my trigonometry class in high-school: how do I know the color "blue" that I see is the same one my friend sees?

This interview was a good read - the computer "desktop" metaphor made the central idea click for me.

Half-baked Monday association but I'll throw it out there anyway. Seems to be describing reality in a way that I've heard some zen Buddhists describe reality — instead of separate objects, you have one connected consciousness and individuals are just points on a plane (wave?).

<comment><USER9> Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image."

–Alan Watts

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net)

<comment><USER21> Indra's Net. Older than dirt or Buddhism. It is shown in the few surviving Sanskrit tracts too. The problem with the concept is that it is not constructive not prescriptive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you like science fiction interpretation of ideas then evolutionary part of it is covered in Peter Watts Blindsight.

Unified mind part is covered in Ramez Naam Nexus trilogy.

There is probably something about quantum minds too. If somebody knows then please be kind to fill in.

</comment><comment><USER10> The author's arguments abut the optimal form of perception for survival remind me of Cuvier's faulty argument against evolution: change is impossible because every species is optimally designed for its niche in life, and would become extinct if it changed in any way. This is both factually incorrect, and irrelevant under the reality of environmental change.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's not how quantum physics or evolution work. Saying that there is no brain sounds very deep and astounding but as most stuff said when you are high (on drugs or religion or ego) it all falls apart when you start connecting dots to make picture.</comment>


Why Apple Will Enter the Home Automation Market - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/249374/why-apple-will-enter-the-home-automation-market/

<comment><USER2> I am sure they will. Google, MS and Apple will all do that. Why would they spend money on building Siri and Siri clones in the first place? Why invest so much into tablet?

People have always imagined themselves able to talk to Jarvis (from IronMan) one day over speech with Jarvis just being a computer somewhere in the house - could jsut be your phone, your watch, something, a small but highly intelligent AI sits at home.

So one day your home automation market will be full of AI commands (well, conversation actually). The truth is how soon. Which market to take on first?</comment>


Show HN: British hack insults non English speaking world - <AUTHOR> This writer for The Register: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/13/i_love_disruptive_c... seems to insist that English is the only language that is expressive enough (via American self abuse) to "make up new jargon" on the fly.
What do you think? <comment><USER2> I think you've misread the tone of the article. It seems to be mostly tongue- in-cheek

<comment><AUTHOR> _sigh_ That's why I posted it, I enjoyed it and decided to share here. Perhaps I went a bit dead pan with my title.

<comment><USER2> Tone doesn't translate well in text, and HN is culturally pretty against joking/sarcasm

<comment><AUTHOR> "Tone doesn't translate well in text,"

Very true.

" and HN is culturally pretty against joking/sarcasm"

You speak for all subscribers?

I merely tried to post a link to an article that I found amusing with a title that follows a similar irreverent style that characterises The Register article titles.

Silly me.

<comment><USER2> I don't speak for all subscribers. It's an observation I've made of HN culture, which others have also observed and mentioned. You're free to believe me or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Consider deprecating Bower. (#2298) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bower/bower/issues/2298 <comment><AUTHOR> IMO, there is no reason to deprecate bower. It's fine for many use cases, probably more friendly to younger programmers (despite being a clear step up from manually downloading vendor files into a project), and one of the biggest benefits of open source is that we can have multiple distinct solutions to a given problem. People can vote with their feet; there's no reason to deprecate a perfectly functional project just because an alternative is presently more popular. It's also very useful for asset systems that need prebuilt source files but want to handle concatenation and minification themselves, such as Rails. I've encountered a not-insignificant number of npm packages that don't even include built + babel-ified assets because they assume that if you're using npm you'll do it yourself.

That said, I was interested to see that sheerun (one of bower's top contributors) reopened the issue because he partially agrees. I'm curious to see if he returns and posts more of his thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER2> Npm 3 has a bug installing dependencies, when one dep is from devDependencies and dependencies (lodash). This forced me to move all dependencies into one "dependencies" section.

This is a long living bug since first release of npm 3, and it's not fixed today.

No, thanks, npm, I will continue to use bower in 2016.

<comment><USER3> Can you explain a little more? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Is it the same dep in both sections?</comment></comment>


Wikileaks Publishes Secret CIA Tools That Attacked Computers Inside Offices - <AUTHOR> https://sputniknews.com/world/201705051053304895-wikileaks-cia-archimedes/ <comment><USER2> Don't try to make it sound like they wrote and maintained the exploits, don't be silly grow up</comment>