Hövding – Airbag for cyclists - <AUTHOR> http://www.hovding.com <comment><USER2> Here are a few other submissions of this story:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977212](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3977212)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4382338](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4382338)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4392310](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4392310)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4467171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4467171)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271073](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271073)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6442570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6442570)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691432](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6691432)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6700690](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6700690)

Oddly, none has any discussion of significance.

<comment><USER3> The submissions with discussions were:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828134) (3 years ago)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4388056) (1 year ago)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6685798](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6685798) (2 days ago)

I remember seeing this a while ago, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were more threads lost to history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The "Two Swedish Girls" are two women, who studied Industrial Design at University before moving into product development. If two males in their mid twenties were launching a product no one would refer to them as "boys".

"Hövding started out in 2005 as a master's thesis by the two founders Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin, who, at the time, were studying Industrial Design at the University of Lund."

The title of this post is condescending and clichéd. Yawn.

<comment><USER5> Oh, give it a rest. The topic of the submission is "Hövding – Airbag for cyclists," and if the title attribute on the linked site says "girls," then who cares. Using 'girls' instead of 'women' is similar to using 'guys' instead of 'men.' Stop feigning offense to feed into your fictional-worldview of social-righteous superiority.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ah. So nice when science fiction actually _happens_.

"She lets go of the handle and goes into free fall.

At the same time, she jerks the manual release on her cervical collar and goes into full Michelin Man mode as tiny gas cartridges detonate in several strategic locations around her bod. The biggest one goes off like an M-80 at the nape of her neck, unfurling the coverall's collar into a cylindrical gasbag that shoots straight up and encases her entire head. Other airbags go off around her torso and pelvis, paying lots of attention to that spinal column."

\-- Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_

<comment><USER7> That sounds a lot more similar to the airbag vests used in motorbike racing than the Hovding. Of course, in both the ones that actually exist, activation is automatic and not manual!

<comment><USER8> Manual activation doesn't imply no automatic activation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mirror: [http://vimeo.com/43038579](http://vimeo.com/43038579)

Took me a second to figure out what this actually was. At first it looked like some kind of startup parody video where they're not actually selling a product.

Very cool idea! An airbag makes a lot more sense than a hard incompressible piece of styrofoam. As long as they get the deployment timings right, I see this taking off.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, I don't understand why they didn't actually show the product until the very end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is very little acceleration by the head when the bag senses an eminent collision and deploys as the car hits the rear wheel and the person starts to go back.

I do not think or trust they can design a sensor that would deploy when it needs to without misfiring all the time. And if it fires, you have to buy a whole other one.

<comment><USER7> > I do not think or trust they can design a sensor that would deploy when it > needs to without misfiring all the time. And if it fires, you have to buy a > whole other one.

Rather than merely speculating, one could look into it, given that this product is released and thus well studied and reviewed. If anything it seems to lean towards not deploying, as in minor accidents it won't go off.

A decent insurance policy should cover much of the cost of replacement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why doesn't it deploy over one's back?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why doesn't it cover the eyes?

<comment><USER14> I think for right now, people would be too scared to wear something that could potentially explode and cover their eyes.

If they prove that these systems never accidentally go off, I think they should have a full head version that protects the full face too; or at least cover a much higher percentage of the face, maybe leaving only the eyes uncovered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> 400 EUR per single pop...

</comment><comment><USER16> €399 can get you a really really really nice helmet, like carbon fiber.

And I wouldn't need to worry whether my helmet actually works, and whether I forgot to charge it (their battery only lasts 18 hours).

And I wouldn't need to worry whether their patterns cover every single case when I get hit by a car or hit a curb at some weird angle.

<comment><USER17> Sadly I've known cyclists to die while wearing helmets. My concern would be in those countries such as Australia and New Zealand, spending an hour explaining that yes, this is a helmet please don't give me a ticket. However I'm sure you could combine it with some kind of slim-shell helmet if you were worried more about cracking your skull than dislocating your neck.

<comment><USER16> Cyclists will die no matter what. No helmet will save you if you get hit hard enough.

The difference with this airbag is, your airbag is not aware of anything that's flying towards your head, like a truck hitting you on the side. It only inflates _after_ you hit something and start flying.

<comment><USER18> Its for urban cycling. I've never seen someone being hit as if he was one the highway in a city. Only car breaks, distance is too short, boom, backflip for the cyclist.

<comment><USER16> "I've never seen" is a bad metric.

I've never seen a deadly car accident, but there are like 30 thousand car accident deaths per year in the US alone.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


ServerCyde is building peoples apps for them - <AUTHOR> http://servercyde.com

<comment><USER2> Please don't sign up, I want to have a life. -Amir (co-starter of ServerCyde)

<comment><AUTHOR> don't worry, only 3 upvotes you'll be fine</comment></comment>


NSA Report on Russia Spearphishing [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3767071/NSA-Report-on-Russia-Spearphishing.pdf <comment><USER2> putin's response about individual hackers, like artists, waking up one day and specifically targetting election officials with malicious word documents and powershell scripts is hilarious. glad this report was released. it clearly shows russian nationals registering these gmail accounts.

<comment><USER3> Because indie US hackers don't target other nations? Doesn't sound strange at all that indie Russian hackers might also target the US.

Besides, what exactly does Russia stand to win from hacking into the US? To influence the elections to get Trump elected? Because that can happen without repercussions? And because the US doesn't have 10 times the resources and counter-measures?

It's only a constantly BS-fed public that watches a show like 24 or Homeland like it's some kind of documentary that will buy into that.

Russia is not USSR, and there's not much antagonism (since Russia is not exactly a world player), except one sided (the US treating Eastern Europe like it's the 60s and using Eastern European allies to suffocate the non-existant communist threat).

If Putin was actually full blown autocratic and despotic but friendly lackey, they'll be singing his praises like they did for Yeltsin back in the day. But as it stands, the problem is more than he's not selling Russia wholesale to foreign companies, than any BS "autocracy" (because the much beloved Saudi royalty are not?).

It's just that there are guns to be sold, proxy wars to be fought, and sanctions to be imposed, etc., until that country (Russia) is finally allowed to be plundered like everybody else. How dare they have their own interests in mind?

<comment><USER4> > It's just that there are guns to be sold, proxy wars to be fought, and > sanctions to be imposed, etc., until that country (Russia) is finally > allowed to be plundered like everybody else. How dare they have their own > interests in mind?

There is the world of difference between the interests of Russian people and the interests of Russian government.

The rest of comment is also sadly completely misinforming.

<comment><USER3> > _There is the world of difference between the interests of Russian people > and the interests of Russian government._

Sure. But not much larger than with the interests of the people of most other countries and their government, and not that much as most western media present it.

They blow any opposition parties, activists etc., out of all proportion, and favor western-educated and pro-western spokepersons as if they represent the country at large. Of course they have their own interests in mind when doing that -- plus the usual racist "the western way is the only way, and we know better".

From what I can gather (my country is a neutral third zone with historically good ties with both EU and Russia), the majority of the people in Russia very much like Putin, and if one checks the numbers (economy) from when we was first elected and afterwards, one can easily see why. If an American president did a similar change in the economy he would have been worshipped as a god.

The majority are also conservative and quite devout than the western media darlings, so they are with him on such issues too (just like lots of us citizens liked conservative politicians like Reagan or Bush Jr. -- or Trump for that matter).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hillary Clinton, the first 'E.T. candidate,' has U.F.O. fans in thrall - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-aliens.html <comment><USER2> Unbelievers still wont be convinced all has been revealed. We've had decades of doubters (not me) about Kennedy's death and 9-11 despite volumous government studies.

</comment><comment><USER2> Has she taken some money from the Independence Day II producers? :-) Seven more weeks.</comment>


Tesla Faces New Jersey Challenge as Rule Change Looms - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/tesla-says-new-jersey-may-force-its-stores-to-close-correct-.html <comment> brown9-2 There was an article two weeks ago about a similar effort in NY state which I thought had an unusually revealing quote:

 _Deborah Dorman, president of the Eastern New York Coalition of Auto Dealers, was at that meeting and said Tuesday Cuomo aides told the group the governor would sign the bill if it passes.

She said the bill was designed to protect consumers because it required companies to create a storefront in the state and was not directed at Tesla because it sold electric vehicles. Some environmentalists have claimed the bill unfairly targets electric car manufacturers.

"Everyone is selling electric cars, it has nothing to do with that," she said. "If you allow someone to come into the market with no overhead, that's an unfair advantage," she said._

[http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/02/8540876...](http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/02/8540876/proposal- restrain-tesla-new-york)

<comment><USER2> > "Everyone is selling electric cars, it has nothing to do with that," she > said. "If you allow someone to come into the market with no overhead, that's > an unfair advantage," she said.

Being more efficient than your competitors in NY state is apparently an unfair advantage.

<comment><USER3> An inefficient business model that continues to thrive due to outdated laws. And that most consumers hate.

The government should seek consumer input on this.

I'm completely unsurprised that Arizona and Texas, supposed bastions of capitalism, oppose a better form of business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's pretty sad when you're not allowed to sell your product to your customer. If car dealerships provide such a valuable service then they should survive on their own merits and not have to exist parasitically through legislation.

<comment> atom-morgan Thank you! I'm surprised more people aren't able to pick up on how suspicious it is for the government to make it _illegal_ to avoid a 3rd party.

<comment><USER5> Go read the Supreme Court's ruling in _Raich_. Upshot: they ruled a violent raid on a terminally ill old lady's home was legal because her home-grown state-legal doctor-monitored half-dozen pot plants _decreased_ demand for _illegal_ interstate commerce.

If they want something illegal, they'll torture the law until it agrees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can understand things like the Three Tier System for alcohol because that is an addictive substance that can cause serious harm if improperly used. But why is this same logic in any way applicable to automobiles? They want to impose a required distribution layer between the manufacturers and the consumer. Enforced middlemen.

Imagine if that applied to the startup world: "Oh hey, you want to buy this SaaS product I built? Well, you can't sign up on my site, you'll have to buy from one of my SaaS distributors."

Madness.

<comment><USER7> Have you ever shopped for high-end routers, like Juniper or Fortigate? For some reason they absolutely refuse to sell directly, and force you to go through one of those stupid resellers that don't even understand the product they're reselling. Ask the resellers any non-trivial questions, and they forward it back to their contact at the main company.

Never understood that.

<comment><USER8> > Have you ever shopped for high-end routers, like Juniper or Fortigate?

A lot of people don't understand that this isn't just high-end routers. It's actually all electronics.

Try to buy a motherboard directly from the manufacturer, or a monitor, or really, anything else.

The manufacturer will direct you to their sales wing, at which point, you will be instructed to buy from their approved distributors. Those distributors are large companies that work as middle men.

And then even those distributors will not sell their goods to you unless you have a reseller license and go through their application process.

<comment><USER9> What that does it vastly simplify the logistics for the manufacturers. If you could order directly from them they'd have to hire sales people or people to run their web store, shippers to pack and ship individual components instead of just palletizing everything, and then have to deal with the laws of each customer's country about taxes. It's much simpler for them and more efficient on their end to just sell to a middleman.

<comment><USER8> > It's much simpler for them and more efficient on their end to just sell to a > middleman.

In that case, Dell, Apple, Sony, and Microsoft must be morons. Because they sell directly to consumers.

It's not about simplicity or efficiency. It's much more efficient to sell directly to the consumer. It just takes an immense amount of resources that smaller manufacturers simply do not have. That's why medium/small sized manufacturers rely on larger middle men and retailers. Not because it's more efficient, but because they simply don't have a choice in the matter. They don't have the resources to go directly to the consumer.

<comment><USER9> Your example companies are working at huge scales compared to most companies that go through distributors. The big difference there is that those companies are selling consumer goods. Many companies that deal exclusively through distributors are selling to businesses, it's a much different environment. When you're working at a huge volume the difference in price makes a much larger impact than if you're selling to a smaller number of companies and the cost of setting up the handlers is dwarfed.

> It just takes an immense amount of resources that smaller manufacturers > simply do not have.

Requiring less resources is a form of efficiency for the manufacturer. Being able to simply ship to a single distributor vs shipping to many individuals and having the infrastructure to process those packages, is more efficient to the small manufacturers. It may not be on the wider economic scale but for small companies it saves a lot of work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Big surprise, in a state where you're not even allowed to pump your own gas. If they did allow Tesla sales, you'd have to hire someone to plug it in for you. Electricity is dangerous, dontchaknow.

<comment><USER11> Having lived in Oregon (where motorists are put on a pedestal and actually served by gas station attendants) and then California, I don't understand the masses clamoring to pump their own gas. Is this supposed to be a privilege, getting out of the car in potentially inclement weather and messing around with flammable liquids?

<comment><USER10> It's nothing but the broken-window fallacy in action. If I didn't want to pump my own gas, I'd pull into a full-service lane instead of a self-service one... but the market has pretty much spoken on that issue. I don't know where I'd even _find_ a full-service lane anymore. There is almost no demand for it in the absence of coercion.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, I should STFU and move to Somalia...)

<comment><USER12> Another example, along with cigarette-free establishments, that the free market is not capable of delivering.

<comment><USER10> Smoke-free businesses are a gray area, because we're talking about an addictive substance. Businesses that refuse to serve tobacco addicts are at a disadvantage that apparently can't be overcome by additional patronage from customers seeking a smoke-free environment. So the government steps in, in the name of public health. I don't agree with these laws 100%, but I can see the argument behind them.

Full-service gas stations, on the other hand, are neither prohibited nor mandated in most states. They would exist if there was a market. There's not. End of story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is just an of desperation. Plain and simple.

I don't understand what is so unfair about it. Tesla is the one going into these states as a newcomer, they have an expensive product, they have to pay rent and hire workers. If these franchises want to complain, complain to the manufacturer they are representing.

The thing is these franchises don't offer enough value-added services needed justify the extra costs (or their existence). That is why they are afraid. They know this (this is why they have such a bad reputation from customers).

Also, cars are increasingly becoming more complicated. These hybrids being built now are so complicated that they require automated tests to be done to detect issues. As technology progresses, these franchises will increasingly rely on the manufacturer for assistance in solving problems that are not simple.

I think the real advantage to Tesla is that the feedback loop is faster. They can listen to customers and improve their products faster. Improving the products can further reduce the costs and increase it's competitiveness.

<comment><USER14> Car dealers exist because they isolate the risk of local car sales from the manufacturer. This includes not just inventory management but credit risk management and other business considerations. Business-wise, this is a very good thing. Car manufacturers are in the business of _making_ cars, not selling them. (This is an important, if subtle, distinction.)

From a customer standpoint, they also provide a guaranteed location at which the car can be serviced. If you buy a common car like a Ford or a Toyota, you'll have your choice of mechanics. If you buy an import or a Fiat, your only option locally may be the dealer you purchased the car from.

 _As technology progresses, these franchises will increasingly rely on the manufacturer for assistance in solving problems that are not simple._

Yes, but if any such problem is severe enough that only the manufacturer can deal with it, they've got a mandatory recall issue, and the manufacturer would be _forced_ to handle the problem. Car dealers usually have the best-trained (and first trained) mechanics for any model of car, pursuant to franchise licensing agreements.

 _real advantage to Tesla is that the feedback loop is faster._

In the real world, fast iteration for physical products is not a good thing. You end up turning any particular iteration of the car into a commodity, which lowers demand because buyers will want to just wait for the next iteration.

<comment><USER15> > Car dealers exist because

If it were really the slam-dunk win you claim it is, Tesla would probably have used dealers too.

<comment><USER16> I thought he offered a very fair counterpoint to all the anti-dealer arguments presented so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Planet Money did a piece on the difficulty in selling cars directly to consumers.

Short version: the auto dealers are a powerful lobby group that prevent this from happening.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why- buyi...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car- never-changes)

<comment><USER18> True, but I think that the genie is out of the bottle on this one. Tesla is way too popular and residents of states that can't get them because of lobbiests are probably going to make it uncomfortable for politicians who don't eventually give in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm prepared to entertain a defense of a ban on direct-to-consumer auto sales but have not yet seen a compelling one. Did such a ban make sense in the past?

<comment><USER19> Here are two interesting papers: [http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.pdf](http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/246374.pdf) [http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/State...](http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/StateFranchiseLawsDealerTerminationsandtheAutoCrisis.pdf)

My only comment is that if Tesla gets to do direct selling then Ford should also be allowed.

<comment><USER12> I could sorta see that at car price points there could be some structural advantages for the manufacturers over the dealers that might benefit from some protection. But it does seem like little more than local political power here in 2014 USA.

<comment><USER19> If the law were changed overnight so the manufactures could sell direct, then I would expect the number of surviving dealerships to be very low. I would imagine it would be dealers in used and exotic cars that survive or rural areas that do multiple manufactures.

It is a local power thing, and I don't agree with it, but I also don't think anyone should get an unfair advantage just because they are new. That doesn't promote competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Direct sales should be opened up to all car manufacturers not just Tesla. Tesla is no exception, if GM isn't allowed to do direct sale Tesla shouldn't be able to as well.

<comment><USER21> If GM wants to do direct sales, they should buy out the franchisee. Tesla never sold away its franchise rights, so should be allowed to sell direct.

<comment><USER5> Allowed? Question is: by what delegated power does the government have any say in the matter?

<comment><USER14> The power to regulate commerce at the appropriate level (in a federal system; in non-federal systems this distinction is meaningless), which has been a traditional power of government since the dawn of history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's a good thing the Republicans are around to fight for free enterprise and a friction-free market!

... Oh wait.

<comment><USER19> Both parties take money from auto-dealers, and sadly "small government" doesn't seem to mean the same thing to everyone.

<comment><USER23> It's an evergreen attempt to cloak plain-ole self-interest-and-politics in more-noble-sounding attire. (Not unlike "States' Rights")

<comment><USER19> I don't disagree with the first part, I do disagree strongly with the "State's Rights" part. The Constitution is a balance and should not be Federal heavy like it has become in the 1900's to today.

<comment><USER23> I have no problem with States Rights. I have a problem with people trying to dress up naked self-interest and practical politics by saying "States Rights".

Mostly, transparent attempts to restrict services and rights from subsets of the citizenry. In either real attempts at discrimination, or cynical efforts that are doomed to fail at anything but driving up voter turn-out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> While they're at it, why don't they also block Google fiber since it disrupts a duopoly...

</comment><comment><USER25> Misaligned incentives in action.</comment>


Show HN: ExerciseMix, Create customized workout videos using videos from YouTube - <AUTHOR> https://www.exercisemix.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, creator here. This was a weekend project that I created for myself in about 1 day. Hope you guys like it.

If there is any feedback please let me know. Also if any iPhone user can tell me if it is working on iOS that would be great! Only have Android at the moment. Thanks.

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice!</comment>


Ask HN: Review my simple Craigslist ad tracking - first web app - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN,<p>I'm an Electrical Eng. with an interest in web stuff. I built my first web app, www.ClassyTracker.com, to scratch my own itch - I wanted an easy way to track my Craigslist ads. Please let me know what you think, and any suggestions for improvement. Is it a tool you'd use? Would you pay a fee to get detailed stats, see longer stats, or other features? My goal was to make something so simple that even my mother could use with no problem. Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> Clicky link: <http://www.classytracker.com>

Here is a live ad with the tracker on it: <http://raleigh.craigslist.org/fuo/2361192207.html>

Here's the admin page for the link above: <http://www.classytracker.com/index.php?name=ej4756w5vgw.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER2> Nice landing page. Really nice.

Your hit counter should distinguish for unique hits though - the sample tacker below doesn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't take too much credit for the landing page. I'm not a designer, so I got it off of ThemeForest.

Hits vs. Uniques would be nice. I'll have to think about how to do that.

<comment><USER2> Not just the design, but the copy too. Concise and to the point. Effective.</comment></comment></comment>


Boost VC Is Now Investing in Products Built Using Ethereum - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/boost-vc/boost-vc-is-now-investing-in-products-built-using-ethereum-79cd72b7bd71#.7kdrcofil <comment><USER2> And excited about it :)</comment>


Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/read/ad-industry-is-to-blame-for-ad-blockers-outgoing-ftc-commissioner-says-julie-brill <comment><USER2> For a very long time, I did not want to use ad blockers. I have used ads in the past to monetize some of my own projects, and I really did not want to stab the creators of quality content.

However, last week I finally reversed my decision and started using ad blockers. Why? Frankly, many sites are just greedy. Banners were ugly enough (and I tolerated them) but many sites these days show ads that cover the content, and going as far as to hide the [x] button for a few seconds. And, I am not even talking about privacy and security issues.

Businesses have to come up with better monetization strategies. Shoving ads on my face and making me accidentally click them is a net loss for everyone.

<comment><USER3> I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're essentially pirating content now. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. It's that simple. To take it a step farther, send an email to customer service explaining WHY you're no longer using the site. This sends a much stronger message to them about what makes you unhappy with the service they provide.

<comment><USER4> > You're essentially pirating content now.

Earlier, the websites were "pirating" his/her device & browser.

<comment><USER5> How did they do that, put a rootkit on his machine forcing all hits to them?

<comment><USER6> Well they didn't exactly say "do we have your permission to run your CPU up to 100%, hog all of your memory, and install trackers on your computer? And occasionally, can we install malware on your machine?"

<comment><USER5> Reminds me of the arguments about not letting in any refugees as some of them may commit a crime.

<comment><USER6> Once advertisements become sentient creatures and can be considered human, then they should be granted human rights. As it stands though, what you're doing is saying that refugees (who, I remind you, _are_ humans) are basically worth as much as a banner ad on a website. It shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: blocking ads is not comparable to genocide. In any way. At all.

Fucking disgusting.

<comment><USER7> The singularity is approaching! What a time to be alive :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> People question how we'll support content without ads, but I have to take a step back and wonder - is content that needs to be supported really that valuable? Might the world be a better place without it?

People who are passionate about the subject they are writing on are going to publish regardless of ad revenue, assuming they get hits (writing stuff nobody reads is a fast track to burnout). Right now, in many cases these people are being crowded out by well SEO'd content mills. If the advertising dollars dry up, the content mills will die off, and that ecological niche will be freed up to be filled by people with passion.

I for one welcome the idea of a return to a genuine internet, where everything isn't about monetization. The amount of content may go down, but the quality will almost certainly go way up, and there will be that much less garbage to wade through.

<comment><USER9> No. You are basically saying that people should work for free if they are passionate about it. Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion. Same with artists, musicians etc, and every other underpaid profession. Just because they (hopefully) like what they do, does not mean it is not work or does not have value.

<comment><USER10> > Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion

Professional writers aren't ad-financed.

Look at Panama Papers.

Not a single of the involved newspapers and broadcasters is ad financed: All are either tax or subscription financed.

Btw, for just 19.99€ you can get full access to all articles about Panama Papers in the Süddeutsche if you don't want to enter a 12-month subscription for the whole newspaper.

<comment><USER9> >Professional writers aren't ad-financed.

Wrong.

While some outlets enjoy full state support or sufficient subscription revenue to not need advertisements, the VAST majority of publications get a significant portion of their revenue (which is the used to pay their staff writers and freelance contributors) from ads. Better known examples of such publications include: The New York Times, Wired, The Atlantic.

In Norway, where I live, Aftenposten was given access to the Panama Papers for analysis and publication. Aftenposten is partially subsidized by the Norwegian government, but also dependent on ad revenue to survive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Online ads are pure garbage.

It's amazing to me that I still actively seek out some legacy ads (flyers in the Sunday paper, Thursday car ads, Wednesday butcher ads) in the local paper. But except for the occasional Google organic result, I never, ever get any utility from online advertising.

The closest thing is the ads in podcasts, which tend to be built around a story and are more compelling. I've looked at several of those advertisers and bought a couple.

<comment><USER4> > It's amazing to me that I still actively seek out some legacy ads (flyers in > the Sunday paper, Thursday car ads, Wednesday butcher ads) in the local > paper

Those are not ads. It's legitimate information that helps you, so you seek it out. The vast majority of ads are not informative, but rather use emotional manipulation to get you to buy stuff you don't need, or that you wouldn't buy otherwise.

<comment><USER12> Why do you think those aren't ads?

> Advertising (or advertizing) is a form of marketing communication used to > promote or sell something, usually a business's product or service.

It sounds like it fits the bill to me.

<comment><USER4> The biggest difference, in my view, is that ads are forced upon you, whereas you seek out information yourself. E.g. if you browse a clothing magazine and you see a H&M or Zara branded page, that's an ad. But if you're looking through a catalogue of clothes, and there's a section with H&M clothing and a section with Zara clothing, that's information that you explicitly sought out.

Another example are billboards and information boards. If it's in large print, so that you see it passing by, it's an ad. But if it's in small print, so you only see it if you intentionally approach the board to see what's new locally, that's information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I use adblocker. Now, the news sites I like say "sorry pal, adblocker means no news". I'm perfectly fine with that. It's just arms race. My freedom to remove the ads, their to put them. Everybody's free and I love it. Now I'll have to pay and that's fine : good content comes from work and work deserve money. But all of a sudden, as I'll pay, I'll become much more demanding. And so competition can work again...

<comment><USER8> Just get a browser plugin like quick javascript switcher and disable javascript for sites that try to disallow adblocker users. It has worked for me every time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Trackers are horrible. I don't want anyone to know what I am doing what sites I am visiting etc...

What gives them the right to track? Besides of imposing banners to my face?

They got what was coming to them. I am glad that the EFF is giving us tools to fight back.

Consider donating to them!

<comment><USER15> Please remember to include a link whenever you mention the EFF! [https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

<comment><USER16> Why is that? I think there's nothing wrong with mentioning the EFF without linking to their donations page.

<comment><USER17> If you support their message and cause, it's a reminder that they exist on donations from people like you. If you're thankful, it's a reminder to show thanks if you can/want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Malware is the #1 reason for me to use ad-blocking...

<comment><USER18> For me, #1 is tracking, #2 is malware.

<comment><AUTHOR> It comes close as a #2 for me (I care more for an uncompromised system than for tracking but YMMV). However, the article states that the state of affairs might be better for publishers if they didn't ignore DNT. I doubt that very much for these two reasons:

1\. Malware 2\. Intrusive ads, even the article site serves animated ads which distract from the content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> DNT was never going to work and the failure of the Do Not Call list should have made it obvious. No one ever thought people would willingly accept being tracked in the first place. I'm sure everyone who ever worked on an ad network felt a little yucky with what they were doing at some point and got over it real quick or quit, leaving an industry full of people who already rationalized that what they were doing was OK. Seeing the DNT options in browsers bugs me almost as much as seeing those cookie warnings. Government is making this stuff even more annoying, just let the people figure it out.

Side note, I'd love to see ad blockers add something to block those cookie warnings. Since literally no one on either side wants them, I'm sure website authors would be willing to agree on a de facto standard css class or something that would make them real easy to hide. Maybe it should be opt-in in case someone tries to go after the ad blockers for interfering with the cookie law.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps DNT can be repurposed to bypass those EU cookie warnings by sending `DNT: 0` (Do Not Not Track).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I started blocking ads when adblock plus was not even a thing. Not sure when that was exactly, 10 years ago or more? However, I did it when they started to add moving ads. There was a site that I regularly consumed (multiple times a day) and that I wanted to support. But, I was not able to focus on the content, everytime that blinking ad just distracted me. So I had the choice, stop using that site or blocking the ads. I started using adblock back then and everytime I have to use a computer without a blocker I thank myself for the wise decision back then.

That said I would rather not consume anything anymore than allowing ads again. The things that I was and am really interested in, will be saturated by buying books and the people that put up stuff for free, like I do for certain things.

Also I would pay for services I like. Byte.fm did it the right way I think. It's online radio, from the beginning on they never streamed ads and still do not do so today. Not long after I started to consume them I paid them and still do so today because I support services that explicitly do not use ads.

<comment><USER22> I am of the same mind. I make payments/donations to sites I enjoy regularly and block ads wholesale. If Forbes will not let me read their content w/ an AdBlocker, then I will just not read, nor cite, their content. Simple as that. I have weened myself off of much infotainment over the years and as sites bork/discontinue their RSS feeds I will read even less web content. My life is more enjoyable with less noise on the ine, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It would be interesting to see if someone could endow an independent publication with enough money to keep it going, then put quality ad-free journalism behind a paywall.

I'm thinking it would be something like "B Corporation". Not exactly a charity, but not necessarily trying to maximize profit either. Charge a high monthly price, maybe $50/month for immediate access to new articles, but after 1 month everything becomes freely available.

Information will undoubtedly be copied and posted elsewhere anyway, the only thing you can realistically control is who gets access to it first. People who value up-to-date news that's guaranteed to be impartial would pay for early access to it, I think. Everyone else would still get to benefit from it as well, just slightly delayed.

<comment><USER24> The Intercept, edited by Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald of the Snowden Disclosure group, is exactly that.

[https://theintercept.com/](https://theintercept.com/)

Their website is clean and I have yet to see intrusive ads anywhere.

<comment><USER25> While I love The Intercept, and First Look Media, its parent company, it is important to understand that this is not a typical scenario. The Intercept runs at a loss, which it is allowed to do because First Look Media's founder and president is Pierre Omidyar (eBay). He cuts checks for The Intercept when they need funding. They don't have an economically-sustainable journalism operation, which is why they are currently working on new for-profit initiatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Even legit sites serve malware. It's beyond their control. Ghostery makes money by telling sites what shit they're serving. Because they don't know. It's too many layers of dependency.

There I block all ads all the time. No exceptions. Not even for "good" sites.

The sooner everyone blocks ads the better. If sites go out of business then so be it. They'll evolve once forced; but not a moment sooner.

[http://www.csoonline.com/article/3044588/security/malvertisi...](http://www.csoonline.com/article/3044588/security/malvertising- campaign-hits-new-york-times-bbc-others.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> What do you guys use as ad blockers on mobile? I use chrome on an android and it seems that I would need to switch to FF in order to have adblocking?

(Which I might, as there are ads on Chrome that even make the cellphone vibrate and redirect to the store, amongst other things)

<comment><USER28> Take a look at Netguard on Github. It emulates the hostfile via local loopback vpn and is able to fully adblock your android device without rooting it. It's also available on the playstore, but that functionality is disabled.

Their releases: [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases](https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases)

To enable adblocking: [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md](https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The content that accompanies the worst kind of advertising tends to be the worst kind of content. If adblocking kills that kind of content I'm all for it. For example the number of sites that scrap stackoverflow and cram 30 different ads onto the page.

</comment><comment><USER30> Interestingly enough, the page itself is an example of the very thing it criticizes: [http://imgur.com/aQJvlG3](http://imgur.com/aQJvlG3). Almost half the screen is an ad when you load the page.

<comment><USER31> I have been using ad blockers for a long time I guess... I had no idea ads had gotten so big. That's gross.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> While the discussion here on HN is good about this topic, I think the actual article missed the point completely.

Sure, tracking is an important issue with ads but I really don't think Do Not Track made any sense nor would have made any difference. It's the continued, forceful intrusion into our minds that these ads make.

Without ad blockers: I go to a page and, the first thing I see, is an overlay with a Ford Truck on it. Then I click the x that appeared after 25 seconds on that and I continue down the page. I manage to read half of the article in spite of the "Social Bar" that is blocking some of the text and then I see a "article continued after the jump" and an ad served right below it. I scroll past that to the rest of the content. I continue to lose track of the article that I'm reading because there's a giant flashy banner to the right side of my screen replaying some video with crazy motion and is following me as I scroll. THEN, I finally get to the bottom and I'm like "I liked that article. I should read more by these people!" and, instead of their content, there's a bunch of click bait bullcrap that leads to poorly written articles about topics that I don't care about at the bottom. I then proceed to leave the page in anger.

With ad blockers: I go to a page and read an article. I get it done quickly and efficiently and am able to concentrate and take in all of the information. I get to the bottom and want to read more but I don't see any more from that site because it's all served through some scammy ad network and is blocked. I leave the site but I will return when I see another link from said site, for sure!

None of that would have been changed by Do Not Track and THAT is the problem with ads today. (IMO at least..)

</comment><comment><USER33> Black and white thinking. Content creators still need to get paid. I'd be quite upset if my favorite sites had to shut down due to the rise of ad blocking and non-viable alternatives to ads (like "subscriptions", etc...)

<comment><USER17> Black and white thinking. Content creators can still get paid. They just need to figure out a business model that doesn't hijack my browsing session, use the limited mobile data I'm allotted and pay for each month to serve unwanted content, drain my battery, eat my CPU, track my reading/surfing/porn habits and potentially run malicious code on my machines.

<comment><USER34> You seem to think content creators sit in some evil dungeon, plotting out ways to screw their readers with ads.

That's not really it at all. There are a limited number of ad networks out there and publishers attach themselves to one or more of them. At that point, the publisher is largely clear of the process, unless they're negotiating custom deals of some sort, which happens with larger sites but is far less common than small sites.

The people doing the tracking aren't the content sites -- it's the ad networks. As a publisher, I'm not privy to your personal details.

<comment><USER17> I'm under no such impression. Thanks for the image, though.

I am under the impression that they are okay with or ambivalent towards tactics used by the ad-networks, because they'll block you for using an adblocker.

<comment><USER34> What's the reasonable alternative?

<comment><USER35> Not my problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "You get what you pay for," is probably what my grandfather would have said about this problem.

</comment><comment><USER37> Besides profiling I also use ad blocking because I hate the usability of most pages which are cramped with ads. It didn't use to be like that a few years ago. From the moment advertisers decided that their ads should mainly appear above the fold, web page usability went downwards very fast. There are quite a few sites where you can't see a single thing without scrolling down. I don't ever recall advertising being so annoying online.

</comment><comment><USER38> The producers of content that I view not being financially secure is a problem. I've read a lot of useful stuff over the years, and I really want the people who made that possible to thrive.

I don't particularly care about whether they can buy flash cars, but I do care about them being able to live without stress and continue to do the things they love and are best at.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem looks like this:

1\. Society isn't providing them with a way to live, so it's down to me (and others like me) to help out.

Which leads to:

2\. I'm not wealthy enough to feel like I can give back to them, or there's no reasonable interface to do so

Which leads to:

3\. Out of desperation, they try to force my hand by employing advertising (so that indirectly there's a cashflow).

I'd rather work on #1 and #2 directly than look at #3. I'm not that interested in short term solutions, and advertising is a particularly ugly one.

<comment><USER38> To put it another way:

I'm not sure that the creation and dissemination of knowledge works well as a capitalistic business. I'm not sure that it leads to optimal outcomes WRT the dissemination of said material.

I don't know how we deal with the edge case of trading scarce resources like food and land for unlimited resources like data, but I don't think advertising is it.

When you think about it, it's really quite odd. The deal is that you can view this web page, if in the abstract you commit to buying some portion of a physical item or service from someone else later on.

To me, it feels a lot like an inefficient form of tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> How fitting. A sidebar filled with animated gifs on a page lamenting the ad- industry's failed self-regulation.

And it's not even a third-party ad...

</comment><comment><USER40> Please do not serve content if you detect adblocker. I will decide if its worth it for me and may unblock advt. No obligations!

</comment><comment><USER41> OT:

> _"...advertisers use to convince us to buy shit."_

Am I just an old fuddy duddy, or does the use of the word "shit" here jar with anyone else?

I understand that many people talk this way, but feel that the written word should hold itself to a higher standard of grammar and vocabulary.

<comment><USER42> You are just an old fuddy duddy. If I was reading this as prose, maybe I'd agree that an author could have been more creative with word choice. But in this kind of post, the message is vastly more important than the medium, and the use of the word 'shit' doesn't obscure the message.

<comment><USER41> I kind of suspected I am :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I recently ran into a cooking site that wouldn't serve up any actual recipes if the javascript of their ad generator wasn't found. Pretty clever... I'm surprised more sites don't do it.

</comment><comment><USER44> I feel awful for using an ad blocker sometimes, but I sometimes have no choice.

On my Windows 10 tablet, a feeble device with 1GB of RAM, the web is unusable without one.

</comment><comment><USER45> Is there a public whitelist (except the one from ABP) for ad networks which have non invasive, non tracking ads?

</comment><comment><USER46> Start fixing mobile first, you're _killing_ precious battery life.

</comment><comment><USER47> If third party cookies were allowed, then sites like Business Insider would not be tempted to fire 50 (or more) resource hogging tracking pixels and scripts.

The law of unintended consequences in full effect here.

<comment><USER20> Besides Safari, which browsers block third-party cookies (when not using an ad blocker that would also block those 50 tracking pixels)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Firefox, there is a setting for it. It's the first thing I do on a fresh install.</comment></comment></comment>


How Apple Can Make Their FBI Problems Go Away - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6033 <comment><USER2> I think there is almost no chance Apple will offer an optional bootloader password. It's not a great Ux for one thing. Another is how does the user do a reset? In case they forget the usual unlock code, the consequence is they lose everything on the encrypted volume, including their data, but not the OS itself which just reverts to a "first boot" requiring setup from scratch. What does this look like when the bootloader chain is encrypted, presumably including all or critical parts of the OS itself? That's non-trivial.

</comment><comment><USER3> Broken site: never-ending reload "checking your browser ..."

<comment><USER2> Works for me.</comment></comment>


Cyclomatic complexity of software - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting if there is any research showing that reducing the cyclomatic complexity of one's code leads to speed-ups in development, better code readability etc.? I know it's kind of obvious, but still would be great to see the numbers and statistics.</comment>


Convert boring text to 1337 text (npm package) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mathiasnovas/leet.js <comment><USER2> For the purpose of feedback, this might make a good "Show HN".</comment>


Ask HN: Recent Grad, What should I know before applying to a job - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> * A hell of a lot of work in ICT is not following the design goals you were taught. its ok to call it out, but you have to be prepared for some initial shocks on this. If you want to do it by the book, be prepared to say so up front and find your employment choices narrow. Equally, don't settle for bad.

* A hell of a lot of work in ICT is about people. Your people skills are going to count for a lot. If you skipped the group work, be prepared for a shock: you need to know how to work in a group.

* People want to know you have outside interests so the "I was lead scout in my school" thing is not un-important but it when it comes down to it, it got you looked at, it didn't make the job.

* Whiteboard coding is a traaap. Run away. "do this at home and then report back" is better. 3 days coding with the group is maybe best.

* If you haven't been applying yet, you are (to some extent) late. You need to be applying NOW. You should have been applying months ago.

* As a former manager, I routinely expected new hires from uni to move on inside 18 months. It sucks. but its normal. Don't feel trapped. Lovely if you stay and fit, but many don't. The mistakes you make in a first job from uni can be left behind by moving on. Your first year is learning how to work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey just curious what's ICT sorry not familiar with the term but thank you for providing the advice</comment></comment>


Cassini's Saturn Mission Goes Out in a Blaze of Glory - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/15/550709214/cassinis-saturn-mission-goes-out-in-a-blaze-of-glory <comment><USER2> "It's 13-year mission to explore the strange world of Saturn went on nearly a decade longer than planned."

Another testament to NASA's approach of relying on extremely well tested, older technology.

When I was younger I didn't entirely agree with that approach (imagining what could be done with the latest & greatest camera tech etc etc). Having lived long enough to see a few of these very extended duration missions, has entirely put me in the corner of agreeing with their approach.

This is also why it's ok, more often than not, that NASA missions cost so much (a more frequent criticism these days). 20 years in space; 13 engaged in a highly functional, active mission; truly incredible.

<comment><USER3> Don't they use the latest and greatest tech that has been made spaceworthy? It's not just a matter of whether it's been tested a lot. Off-the-shelf electronics just won't work for these things, because they're not sufficiently hardened against radiation. From what I can dig up, it looks like Cassini uses 20-30MHz 16-bit CPUs, which is really not bad at all for a probe whose design started around the early 1990s.

<comment><USER4> NASA does things this way but SpaceX explicitly does not. Rather than using 1 space hardened part, SpaceX usually uses 3 non-space hardened parts (processor, memory, bus, etc) that all do exactly the same calculations simultaneously and then compare every single answer and ignore it when one out of 3 parts disagree. This allows them to be both cheaper and much less power hungry because they operate at least 2 process nodes smaller than NASA hardware. I've seen data that says that while each individual processor will experience space related errors quite often, the whole 3 part voting system is at least as accurate as the way NASA does it.

<comment><USER5> It's not a SpaceX-only scheme, nor is it novel technology. It's got a long history in fighter jets, as well as modern passenger planes for example (Boeing 777).

Triple Mode Redundancy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy)

Also, the longest life span SpaceX has ever really needed is maybe the Dragon, which is a month-long mission. Cassini has been in space for 20 years. Very different design requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Linking my comment to a sister submission [1]:

Final Images ( choose Grand Finale )

[https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images/](https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images/)

I wonder if it got destroyed or just lost the signal due to the atmosphere. Amazing times to live.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15256753](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15256753)

<comment><USER7> Considering the final speed of the probe I don't think there's any likelihood of not breaking and burning up. The whole end of its mission was designed to do exactly that.

<comment><USER8> >75,000 MPH at atmosphere contact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Watching final coverage, I didn't notice anyone mention that the crash actually happened an hour earlier - speed of light being what it is, the signal being watched taking around an hour to arrive. Spent some time trying to grok the dichotomy while waiting for "signal lost".

[https://10middletonp.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/watchmen-20...](https://10middletonp.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/watchmen-20090223034855816.jpg?w=700)

<comment><USER9> They definitely did, at least in the JPL 360deg stream (can't say if the commentary was identical across all locations, but probably not).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pictures from these kind of NASA events always show rows and rows of people sitting at computer screens. I have always wondered why there are so many of them, and what they are doing. Obviously there is a lot of work to be done to process the data that is received, but why so many real-time people? Is it just organizational bloat?

<comment><USER11> They were ahead of the curve with the open office plan. I always assumed each person was responsible for paying attention to or watching some specific system or stream of data to alert any possible issue.

I'd also be fine with everyone just showing up because they worked hard and long on the project.

Look at the CERN control room shots too [http://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/image/update-f...](http://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/image/update- for_the_public/2015/06/control-room-lhc-physics-restart-2015.jpg) [http://today.slac.stanford.edu/images/2008/lhc-control- room3...](http://today.slac.stanford.edu/images/2008/lhc-control-room3-lg.jpg)

There are a lot of moving parts

<comment><USER12> A nitpick would be that open office is probably pretty great for mission control/control rooms where some complex event is being coordinated as it unfolds in real time. But I don't think NASA engineers necessarily develop in such settings.

<comment><USER11> You're absolutely right I was flippant with the open office remark.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It was rewarding to have made a contribution, however small, to Cassini. I can't believe that beautiful object I last saw in the clean bay all those years ago (decked out with a jack-o-lantern face for Halloween) is gone. Good bye Cassini!

</comment><comment><USER14> Don't miss NASA's incredible CG video of what this was like: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrGAQCq9BMU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrGAQCq9BMU)

<comment><USER15> That was incredible. Really moving :'(

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm truly sad that Cassini's gone; more than I thought I'd be.

I didn't fully realize until today that I'd been keeping an eye on it for roughly 1/4 of my life.

<comment><USER17> It isn't "gone", by any stretch.

Its images and the research directions it spawned will live on far longer than anything most of us will hope to every be able to bring into the world, or otherwise accomplish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Scientists [were] worried that when [Cassini] loses power, it could crash > into a pristine moon, contaminating a place where we might someday search > for life

Why is this so bad? Moons are pretty big compared to spacecraft, why are they so worried about the environmental damage of a single spacecraft weighing a few tons?

<comment><USER19> Think fifty years in the future. The Herschel probe lands on Enceladus, armed with instruments that can sample the water and test it for presence of biological life. A hit! A world-changing discovery, we've detected DNA!

...but wait, hang on a second, check the records. Isn't this really close to where we predict that Cassini crash-landed after it ran out of fuel and contact was lost in 2023? Shit. Shit shit shit. We have no idea whether this DNA is actually from the oceans of Enceladus, or if it's from a hardy bacteria that hitched a ride on Cassini all the way from Earth, and thrived in the oceans of Enceladus.

If it's thriving in Enceladus, it might be out-competing the life that's already there. We may never know, we _can 't_ know what native Enceladus life was like, or if it even existed!

They're not worried about knocking down some space-trees; they're worried about it being impossible to assess scientific results with accuracy.

<comment><USER20> Why not worrying about the same thing about Saturn though? The best thing would be to slingshot Cassini in outer space like Voyagers but I guess they wouldn't have this option here.

<comment><USER21> The moons of Saturn are small even compared to the earth. One could expect far more "wreckage" to survive the entry to a moon.

Getting into Saturn, however, is vastly different. Casssini has broken up into many smallish, white-hot pieces only to eventually merge into clouds of ammonia at -200C that are blowing at extreme velocities. Further down, there are clouds of water at 0C and then metallic liquid hydrogen. Perhaps pieces could end up there or on the rocky core? Saturn is a weird place.

How much worse than an autoclave is entry to Saturn?

<comment><USER22> Titan is actually larger than Mercury. Just something I learned yesterday while reading Cassini posts. It really puts the size of Saturn into perspective.

<comment><USER23> Titan is larger, but also significantly less dense. Mercury is more massive than Titan.

<comment><USER24> Mercury is pretty much just a leftover iron core

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > "We don't have a gas gauge. It would be really nice if we did," Molly > Bittner, a systems engineer at JPL who has worked on Cassini for the past > four years, tells NPR. Instead, mission controllers had to estimate the > amount of fuel used by each maneuver. And there had been lots of maneuvers > since 2004.

Does anyone know why they couldn't have a way to measure the amount of fuel left? This seems like a relatively easy engineering problem from a non-expert perspective.

<comment><USER26> The conventional method is a float valve, which obviously doesn't work in space. Putting a sensor in the tank also involves drilling a hole, which compromises its strength. I think the simple answer is that they didn't _need_ it, so they left it out and relied on highly accurate predictions of fuel usage.

<comment><USER27> There's not actually gas, or a tank. Most space probes like this are powered by radioactive decay of a plutonium core.

<comment><USER28> That's used to generate electricity. The spacecraft still use propellant when they need to generate thrust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What is the time latency between taking a photo and transmitting the complete data for it?

</comment><comment><USER30> > _" Congratulations to you all," Maize announced to applause. "It's been an > incredible mission, incredible spacecraft, and you're all an incredible > team."_

And one final note: we have just about run out of budget on this, so back at your desks you'll each find a security guard and an empty, commemorative JPL cardboard box and if you can just fill that by 4 pm and ...

<comment><USER31> JPL actually does a pretty good job of taking care of their employees, with many projects in action at once.

I went to grad school with a JPL employee who was getting her master's degree in astronomy during the cruise part of Voyager 2's flight between Uranus and Neptune.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do the pitch for a hardware company differ from a software company? - <AUTHOR> Am hoping to tap into some minds who have done it or seen it before. If I am pitching a hardware startup and asking for funding, what do investors look for and how does it differ from a similar pitch for a software company? <comment><USER2> As someone who's raised for a hardware firm, but not gone big, a few ideas to consider:

•Investors invest in the team first, product second. If you're bright and clever, you'll have a lot harder time raising money than if you're connected and pedigreed (What, no Ph.D. from Stanford? Don't tell me that doesn't make a difference. Pass!) Theranos didn't get funded by being bright and clever. If you don't have the pedigree, acquire it with stock options (really hard to do right) or be satisfied with having it be 10X harder to raise money.

•A solid core of investors like software to the point of irrationality. They got rich in software, they feel comfortable with software, and they think software scales far better than hardware (often true). Expect more doors slammed in your face for this reason.

•Hardware doesn't have much use without a software component, so without looking like you're reaching, try casting your hardware product as a software product first and foremost, with some hardware IP added on which you will label as "open source hardware" for somebody else to mass-manufacture for you at their own risk.

•Nothing succeeds like success. You need to have traction in the market, which is way harder to "fake it until you make it" with hardware than with software (you can get "users" by giving software away, but I can't think of a hardware startup that did the same since CueCat, and that failed miserably). Investors will give you a kidney if you don't need them. If you're at the idea stage, you'll be as welcomed as a methhead at the Oscars.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. That is very helpful.

Do I need to have contacts or connections in china for manufacturing or is it ok to not have them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have a related question. YC has a rule of thumb of $15K per engineer times 18 months [1]. Any "rule of thumb" for how much to add for manufacturing?

Say, in their example, a software startup asks for $1.35M for a team of 5. What would be an equivalent ask for a hardware startup that includes manufacturing?

[1] [https://blog.ycombinator.com/how-to-raise-a-seed- round/](https://blog.ycombinator.com/how-to-raise-a-seed-round/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Margin (the difference between what you sell a good or service for and the cost to you to provide that good or service) is a much more important concept for hardware.

With software, most of the costs go into building it. Getting more customers brings in more money but doesn't cost you more (ignoring marketing and customer service etc costs). Even if you have hosting costs, those are typically vanishingly small compared to developer salaries invested in building it. So as your customer base grows, the cost of what you're selling to each new customer tends towards zero.

Hardware has a fixed cost for every unit sold, which is usually a large percentage of the price at which you sell to the customer. Every new unit you sell costs you additional money to produce. Yes, there can be economies of scale; but ultimately every unit costs something. And marketing/customer service costs are on top of that.

That means margins are lower, so it takes more money invested to make the same amount of profit.

What's more, risk is higher with hardware compared to software (at least the way most software is distributed these days).

If the first version of your software is something nobody will buy, you can iterate, and it still might get customers with some changes, so that the initial investment in it isn't a waste.

If the first version of your hardware won't sell at all, you typically can't convert those units you've already paid for into the second version that people will pay for. You've sunk not just R&D costs like you do with both hardware and software but also production costs.

Finally, a lot of software lends itself better to a subscription model than hardware does. And consumers are more familiar and comfortable with that model for software than hardware (though it's conceivable that that could change, subscription models for hardware are a really raw deal for customers.) When you buy a dishwasher, you expect to have to pay for water and electricity to operate it on an ongoing basis; but not to also have to keep paying the manufacturer.

The subscription model magnified the scalability of a product because it allows you to keep making money off the product without spending more on it. For physical products purchased frequently, that means higher costs/lower margins on an ongoing basis. For physical products purchased infrequently, that means no recurring income from the initial investment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! That helps a lot and is along the lines of my thought as well. Do I need to have manufacturing contacts also lined up?</comment></comment>


Hollywood's dangerous obsession with China - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daly-hollywood-20161007-snap-story.html <comment><USER2> Well well, the pinkos are back in Hollywood, only this time around they're actually unscrupulous capitalists.

If you like watching 150 million dollar effects extravaganzas, you can count on them to be watered down drivel tailored to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the global audience, because that's what they have to do to turn a buck, and they wouldn't exist otherwise. It's been that way for a while.

There's nothing stopping Hollywood from making 30 mollion dollar films that need only see a return at the domestic box office, it happens often enough, and television is in a golden age. Everything is fine, America isn't on the verge of squandering it's capacity to tell it's own stories.

Watching patriots squirm at the prospect of newfound Chinese middle class consumer spending clout is all it takes to entertain me personally, I guess I'm easy to please.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you organize and share information within your company? - <AUTHOR> We are looking for a place to put all the knowledge we share into one place.  The idea would be that when someone asks you a questions you answer in this place and send them a link to your answer.  With a culture of always checking this resource first we could save a lot of time on repeat answers.
We tried google sites (mostly because it was a simple proof of concept) but want something more robust.  We are looking at using a wiki right now.
What tools are you currently using and what do you like or dislike about them? <comment><USER2> We installed WordPress on a server and then installed a plugin for knowledgebase. Everyone can add an article under various categories.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you gotten feedback good or bad from users of this? My concern is people won't start to use it if there is friction or annoyance with the setup.

Thanks!

<comment><USER2> This is the one we used. [https://en-gb.wordpress.org/plugins/wp- knowledgebase/](https://en-gb.wordpress.org/plugins/wp-knowledgebase/) As you can see, you can organize articles in categories and there is even a search box. Initial feedback is good so far. A knowledgebase system is essential in all companies regardless of the feedback some users might give (usually those who are bored to search for answers), since all knowledge should be stored centrally. If a key person leaves, all his/her knowledge will be there!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What about internal wiki. We use doku wiki lot of knowledgebase there for anyone to read...

<comment><AUTHOR> It is used all the time or a backup for when you don't have someone to ask? I am specifically trying to find something with a barrier so low it is the first thing people turn to when they have a question.</comment></comment>


Reach Robotics is closing - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/03/reach-robotics-is-closing-up-shop/ <comment><USER2> They didn't have a lot of money; 6.5M $ isn't much to do robotics development. As someone else pointed out, consumer robotics is hard because shitty robots are still expensive for everyday users and are mostly useless toys.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can't build a business if you need 10-15 half baked assumptions/bets all to be true for it to succeed. Robotics startups need to internalize an attitude that consumer robotics will never be a thing. Of course they will, but the comparative ease of targeting industrial applications makes consumer robotics such a challenging path forward for a startup to take.

<comment><USER4> People _are_ buying consumer robots. We just call them drones.

<comment><USER5> I would think that vacuum cleaners are the prime example for household robots at this time? As an IT guy who nevertheless has zero desire to buy anything "geeky" for myself, still prefers analog dials and controls, still doesn't own a smartphone, those also are the only ones I could find a use for in my own home (but at this time I still vacuum manually). People with a lawn might be interested in robot lawn mowers, I don't know if they work as well as the vacuum robots (I imagine there might be a power issue) but if they do that too sounds like a good use. Same for swimming pool cleaners.

What I would really pay a lot for: Small _hunter-killer robots_ to hunt insects in my home!

A bunch of small robots equipped with night-vision and some tiny weapon(s), mechanical and/or laser, crawling around catching bugs. Sure, spiders do that too - but I really, really don't want to live with (actual) spiders. It's psychological. A few well-armed mechanical spiders for bug hunting would be nice. I had bed bugs once, if I had had small insect hunter-killer robots well-equipped with sensors to see them crawl to me at night it would have been a godsend. Anyone producing something like that that actually works, you'll make billions! And it really doesn't have to be all that intelligent: Think about it, mosquitoes, bed bugs, they really don't have much of a brain, and how well they work. It should be doable to build robots that can compete with that low level of intelligence.

<comment><USER6> I can confirm that my robot vacuum cleaner at least is excellent - runs every day without a problem and leaves the house noticeably cleaner. For under £200, I have almost entirely eliminated a weekly chore.

I suspect future attitudes to manual vacuum cleaning will be similar to manual clothes or dish washing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm definitely an outsider but I get the distinct impression that starting a successful consumer robotics company is like 1000X harder than the baseline for other kinds of tech ventures.

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately the reason it's hard is because nobody wants these products. They don't do very much, they cost hundreds of dollars - where is the value?

<comment><USER9> Agree, I feel like aside from the roomba maybe there hasn't really been a consumer bot useful for anything

<comment><USER10> I wonder if the tech is mature enough to make an indoor flying-pest control robot. There is the salt pellet shooter to annihilate some indoor pests. There were attempts to make laser armed pest killers.

Obviously even the salt pellet solution would be problematic if automated (say pest lands or is near your face or eyes).

However, a robot which could attack a pest niche where pests are endemic could have a chance at success.

Summer mosquitoes, Florida roaches, ants, stink bugs, etc.

<comment><USER11> How many dollars did you spend this year on these problems?

<comment><USER10> The annual cost of a pest control contract is about $200. Now that's for vermin as well, so it's apples and oranges. But, something which will rid your house of flies and mosquitoes as they appear, I'd buy something in the few hundred dollars range because it's more than a toy. It takes care of an annoyance just as a roomba does.

<comment><USER12> It probably varies from where you live, a single visit alone would be around $200 where I live, you get a big price break for multiple visits, $50 a pop if you buy a years worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think the lowest hanging fruit in robotic household automation right now is folding laundry. An interface like, put your clothes in the in-basket and this device folds them. I could imagine a world where instead of washer and dryer, a nicely equipped house will have a washer, dryer, and folder. This is especially useful once you have kids.

Anyway, email me if you'd be interested in building this :P

<comment><USER11> If the the lowest hanging fruit is a loosely structured hi-DOF dextrous manipulation task we gonna lose our shirts before we fold 'em.

Laundry is the domestic equivalent of de-mining: the perfect robot task if it weren't for the technical and financial challenges. You have a laundry robot at home already and it does everything except folding for a reason.

Here's a video of the state of the art not too long ago, using a $500K robot. Video is 50X speed.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hardware is hard.

And robotics is 10X as hard.

Then make it a consumer product that no one needs. And snap, you're dead.

<comment><USER15> I want a robot, owned by my apartment complex, that I can schedule to pick up my trash.

Getting it to come up the stairs shouldn't bee too hard, right?

<comment><USER16> That's not hard. The hard bit is adding capabilities for when people leave obstacles in the hallway, or little kids are running around and playing with it, or some arsehole decides to tip it over, or the bin is damaged, or is over filled, or isn't positioned correctly, or the dumping spot is full, or the stairs just got new carpet.

The problems with consumer robotics rarely are to do with the actual mechanics. Most electrical undergrad degrees have a module where you program a robot to follow a line or course, and it's quite simple to do. The problems occur when you take it out of it's test environment and 'leave it to the elements' as it were.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Robots have to beat domestic servants in cost / ease of use first.

I'd say when that is achieved, the killer feature would be privacy.

<comment><USER13> In the US, every domestic robot is far, far cheaper than a domestic servant. The main problem is that domestic robots don't handle any of the main chores, besides Roomba doing vacuuming.

<comment><USER18> How about before robots doing chores maybe a whole house volume (TV's, Doorbell, Phones, Microwave) level control to keep kids asleep. There is a lot of simple improvements that could go a long way toward making everyday life better that could happen before domestic robots.</comment></comment></comment>


Volex TTX2000 S: Teletext Adapter for the ZX Spectrum - <AUTHOR> https://zxnet.co.uk/spectrum/ttx2000s/ <comment><USER2> Teletext was big in the UK in the 80s and into the 90s. The BBC Micro (6502 based) had an adaptor, and the BBC would broadcast downloadable software on some of their pages for that computer

I don't recall if that ever happened for the Spectrum (Z80 based) - but being able to view the pages in the mid 80s was like living in the future!

Here's more about the system [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext)

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like it wasn't offered:

> "The RTF downloader is not available as CEEFAX do not have any plans to > broadcast software for the Spectrum".

I do recall late at night the BBC transmitted audio for spectrums, and at one point a couple of the Spectrum magazines came with a free record with software on it - even at the time I thought that was weird, because everybody else used tapes.

<comment><USER3> The clincher is, a cassette tape is fairly chunky and can be ripped off the front of the magazine and lost.

Records are comparatively thin (though quite large) and could be made as flexible sheets which can be stapled into the magazine as a tear-out or pull- out insert, removing the issue of them going missing.

Catch is the paper-thin ones don't last for many plays, and you need a fairly well-adjusted record player to use them. Some recording formats are more tolerant of speed variation than others. FSK-based ones like CUTS/Kansas City should be fairly tolerant, pulse-timing based ones possibly less so.

<comment><USER4> I had a flexidisc record glued to the back of a pack of frosties once, I had to carefully poke a hole in the centre.

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