An Elementary Proof of Wallis' Product Formula for Pi (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://fermatslibrary.com/s/an-elementary-proof-of-wallis-product-formula-for-pi <comment><USER2> In order to appreciate how phenomenally basic this derivation is: here is a derivation using Euler's infinite product expansion of the sin(x) function.

[http://www.jstor.org.sci- hub.cc/stable/10.4169/amer.math.mon...](http://www.jstor.org.sci- hub.cc/stable/10.4169/amer.math.monthly.119.06.518)

Then if you want your answer plug in x = π/2 inevitably Wallis formula leads to either Stirling formula or the derivation of ζ(2)=π^2/6.

So for someone to solve it just by drawing some rectangles and finding the area is pretty amazing.

<comment><USER3> One can actually derive the Euler product for sine perfectly rigorously quite quickly, in just the manner Euler did!

(Euler is often said to have glibly moved from "sin(x)/x has roots at nonzero integer multiples of π" to "sin(x)/x = the product of (1 - x/(kπ)) for each nonzero integer k" in solving the Basel problem, simply ignoring the problem of the fact that many other functions have precisely the same zeros.

But Euler was not, in fact, always so glib in presenting this argument! For example, in Volume 1, Chapter 9 of his Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum (translation by Ian Bruce available at [http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/introductiontoanalysi...](http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/introductiontoanalysisvol1.htm)), we see that Euler argues for the product formula by noting (what would in modern notation be) that sin(x) = the imaginary part of e^(ix) = the imaginary part of (1 + ix/N)^N for infinitely large N, so that a factorization of sin(x) can be extracted from a factorization of the polynomial Im[(1 + ix/N)^N] for large N.

I'll write out in modern style the extraction of that factorization, but all the ideas are already present in the Euler:)

Let us denote Im[(1 + ix/N)^N] by f_N(x). Note that f_N is a polynomial of degree either N - 1 (if N is even) or N (if N is odd), whose degree 1 term is 1. Furthermore, its roots occur where x/N is the tangent of a multiple of π/N. Putting these together, we get that f_N(x)/x = the product of 1 - x/(N tan(kπ/N)) over the nonzero integers k in (-N/2, N/2).

As N approaches infinity, N tan(kπ/N) approaches kπ. Thus, we have that sin(x)/x = the product of 1 - x/(kπ) over the nonzero integers k.

[This last step is slightly glib, in that we've commuted limits without justification. We can rectify that by bundling together the factors where k differs only in sign, saying f_N(x)/x = the product of 1 - (x/(N tan(kπ/N)))^2 over k in (0, N/2). Now we note that the movement of the factors toward their limit is monotonic in N (considering the k-th factor to be 1 when N/2 <= k), which is sufficient justification for commuting the limits.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had never heard of this product formula before, so I whipped up a quick python program: [http://pastebin.com/FBR8rWxv](http://pastebin.com/FBR8rWxv)

All I can say is wow, that formula slow to converge on pi. The product after 100 million terms is: 3.141592637878503

You can see that 100M terms only gets you 8 decimals of precision.

<comment><USER5> maybe I'm missing something (haven't tried to debug it), but that just results in 0.

edit: Oh that's interesting. Python 2 gave me 0, Python 3 worked fine.

<comment><USER6> Probably missing that python 2 defaults to integer division.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I appreciate that this is likely trivial for mathematicians. For me, I was quite lost. Something I found a bit more obvious was constantly dividing a squares sides into two. When done infinite amount of times, getting the perimeter of the shape would equal 2xpixr

<comment><USER8> I don't think anyone would call it trivial; it might be that the submitter erroneously translates elementary as trivial. Here elementary means that it doesn't use higher math (calculus, analysis, etc), it doesn't say anything about ease or complication, and indeed the elementary proof of the prime number theorem is hella complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A classic, and clear, example of "elementary" meaning something different than "trivial" in math, is Atle Selberg's Annals proof of the Prime Number Theorem. A link to notes on this proof, and some (!?) controversy relating to it, here: [https://people.math.osu.edu/nevai.1/AT/ERDOS/ErdosSelbergDis...](https://people.math.osu.edu/nevai.1/AT/ERDOS/ErdosSelbergDispute.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> I would like to see an attempt at an 'elementary' proof of the Ramanujan pi formulas

</comment><comment><USER11> As others are pointing out: the paper's title is "elementary" (not "trivial" a in the current link title). Both of these have different and accepted meanings in mathematics.

"Elementary" roughly means doesn't bring in results from different fields (such as using calculus to prove a theorem about a sum or product). "Elementary" proofs can be quite difficult, and it can be quite a feat (well worth a publication) to find one for a standard result.

"Trivial" usually means something closer to easy, or means there is some linkage already implying the result (just in disguise).

<comment><USER12> In fact, there is a negative correlation between a proof being elementary and a proof being trivial. The reason people like abstraction is that it makes difficult proofs trivial. The reason people don't like abstraction is that it makes elementary proofs non-elementary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Please fix the title change. 'Trivial' and 'elementary' have specific meaning in mathematics and are not interchangeable. Roughly speaking, 'trivial' means easy or obvious, while 'elementary' means a proof that does not use complex analysis or higher techniques. This proof is elementary but definitely not trivial.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't like the title change. The proof is elementary but non-trivial.</comment>


Reinfection could not occur in SARS-CoV-2 infected rhesus macaques [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.13.990226v1.full.pdf <comment><USER2> Wonderful news</comment>


How George Lucas Lost His Integrity…and Why It's So Important - <AUTHOR> https://betterhumans.coach.me/how-george-lucas-lost-his-integrity-and-why-its-so-important-240c74991931#.k7jdtat47 <comment><USER3> In case you haven't watched Mr Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, they're the best in the business, and go down hard on George Lucas.

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

<comment><USER4> They're awesome.

Worth pointing out that they're reviews of the prequels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Lucas: So they became obsessed by the latest special-effects tools and no > longer cared about the story.

Funny coming from the guy who directed the I,II and III which notoriously did not care about making any kind of sense, story-wise, and instead focused on special effects (look at the making-of movies, Lucas was in awe of all the CGI he could do then) with paper-thin characters on screen.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, replacing story-telling with CGI effects has become far too common since then. Star Wars is a particularly prominent example, but far from being the only one...

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but the first Star Wars was way different and had an actual story and credible characters. Luca has basically forgot what makes the success of its movie in the first place.

<comment><USER7> I generalize to the whole movie industry. Lots of the genes of 70s- era is gone. Framing, pacing, music, acting. Nothing clicks to me these days.

I don't blame Lucas too much. SW worked a lot because of the effects so Lucas tried to push the envelope has he did before. But yeah, drowned in the technical side of making pictures while making the rest utterly bland. But look, fully CGI grass fields.

<comment><USER6> There are exceptions. I recently watched District 9 and was very pleasantly surprised. The CGI effects were beyond reproach, but the movie did not use them as a substitute for plot or character.

Sunshine was very good, too - the script had logical holes in it that could swallow an entire galaxy, but the actors were so good, and the atmosphere so dense it was still a really, really good SciFi movie. Again, the special effects were good, but used sparingly.

So not all hope is lost.

<comment><USER5> However after District 9, Neil Blomkamp is on a downward trend. His recent movies are much less engaging, and Chappie was really, really bad: it tried to copy the frame of District 9 but every story aspect was much worse and smelled fake kilometers away. Really disappointing after the excellent experience District 9 was.

I found Sunshine quite poor, too. First the whole story makes no sense (even the largest spaceship you could build would anyway be way too small to do anything meaningful, it's so obvious it's preposterous), and the last scene is a deal breaker: after they succeed, you see a woman and a child playing on the snow. Oh, I thought people were starving on Earth, but no they are actually enjoying the snow and winter sports? So what was the big emergency all about? That was stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, Lucas has fallen, and the vultures are out to pick the bones. Pointing out what went wrong is a good way to make yourself look smart and it gives publicity. After all, Star Wars still sells. Just don't forget to say how much you love SW and George Lucas while you rip.

This piece is garbage and it shows in the very first section. I've now watched the interview for a second time. The quote about white slavers was an obvious attempt at a joke, but it keeps getting repeated and abused. Why? Because shock-effect at clickbait. It even gets stuff like this on hackernews!

But don't get me wrong. I also don't think Mr. Robertson is trying to deceive us. I truly believe that he believes in every word he says.

It certainly isn't just link-material for his principles and www.willpowered.co website...

<comment><USER9> > Just don't forget to say how much you love SW and George Lucas while you > rip.

What's the implication? If you really love SW you shouldn't complain when the brand is ruined?

</comment></comment><comment> pi-err tldr: a "willpower and success coach" takes down Georges Lucas because he didn't live up to his dream or artistic ambition. On Medium.

As a willpower coach he could have found the force to not publish this clickbait story.

Probably the worst type of junk if this stuff hiding behind fair criticism to advertise fake talent.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'll admit that I don't know too much about Lucas as a person, but this assessment strikes me as a pattern I see amongst artists and their followings. Long time fans who feel a special attachment to the works of an artist always like to say how the artist "sells out" rather than choose to say they succeeded.

Artist makes something awesome -> people get attached -> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial success -> -original- fans get mad at their success.

This happens in the music industry. An artist will sign to a label where they lose control over their lyrics or thematics and their original following will feel betrayed. But that sense of betrayal can make fans overlook how it was for the betterment of the artist. They attained the success that every artist dreams of! Maybe they made sacrifices to the 'integrity' (however you define it) of their craft, but they reached an extent of financial security and wealth that they always wanted for doing what they love.

"Artists deserve to make good money!!" "Wait no.. artists should feel ashamed of reaching success because it hurts my feelings!!"

I understand where the fans are coming from, but I think it's just as reasonable to view "selling out" as "reaching success"\- which makes me happy for the artist.

<comment><USER9> > artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the > sake of larger financial success

Much like hollywood white-washing. Why not complain about this kind of thing? Framing it as "original- fans get mad at their success" is not correct - <USER2> are mad that the product changed; They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product, and just took the money straight away.

You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

<comment><USER10> As I said, I understand where the fans are coming from in this type of situation. So, they of course have a right to complain. But the answer of why they did it is right in front of them- they wanted quick financial success.

> They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product, > and just took the money straight away.

That product's time is over because the artist says so. No consumer of art is promised a qualitatively consistent stream of content. Don't like it? Then don't buy into it. Just because fans have an emotional attachment to an expired product does not mean it should continue to be created if the artist doesn't want it to be. Why should it? If their new product is not worth the price it goes for, then it will fail.

> You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be > that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

And I'm sure plenty have fought and failed as well. If the artist wants to pick the quickest route to financial success, however they define that wealth, then it does have to be that way.

Not every artist wants to go through the "fight" that you mention. And that's fine- they reached the success they wanted because of their hard work that led up to that point.

<comment><USER9> I don't know what you are arguing here. You say you understand the fans viewpoint, but then why frame it differently?

Sure, artists have the right to sell out. And fans have the right to criticise them for it, and their reputation with the original fan base damaged. What else are you arguing?

<comment><USER10> Understanding something does not mean agreeing with something.

I disagree with the idea that artists should be shamed for selling out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> An important person missing from the article is Marcia Lucas, George's first wife. She was hugely influential in the development of the background for eps IV & V, and many people think her departure was where the mythos lost its integrity. E.G.: [http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret- wea...](http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret-weapon- behind-star-wars/news-story/75eb078a8b14d93fce23b06e98805ffb)

<comment><USER7> Giving credit to Lucas. But it's pretty obvious that SW was a recipe of pretty staggering ingredients. From pictures to music, design, even the sound engineering. Everything was pretty unique and succeeded when there were thousands of way they could have failed. That makes SW even more special in my mind, a really serendipity gem of these times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article is a combination of hyperbole and speculation. Take the first paragraph in the section entitled "The CEO":

"After the massive success of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas realized that he was making 3 times as much revenue in toy sales than he was for the actual films. Thus, if he could sell more toys, it would mean more projects for Lucasfilm, and even less need for studio financing."

Three paragraphs down it becomes clear that this idea originates in a quote from Gary Kurtz, whose context for these statements is left completely unexplained, leaving the reader to dig further. No evidence is provided to support the conclusion the author has come to and instead the author has inferred Lucas' motivations from the Kurtz quote almost verbatim.

This is but one example of this type of writing in the article. Every point the author makes is supported by similarly spurious reasoning. I suggest future readers to just give this one a pass and not make the mistake of reading something whose opinion you might already agree with and looking past its bad writing.</comment>


Testing a Greenfield Microservice - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/smartly-io/testing-a-greenfield-microservice-9e8cbd5d459 <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote this blog post about my learnings on how the test pyramid is not always the best fit for a system's testing approach. Maturity of the system actually has a big affect on how it should be tested.

While the test pyramid might be a good fit for more stable systems, our development team decided to avoid writing unit tests and rely on more black- box API tests for our new microservice. We chose this approach to optimize for easy and safe rewrites which we expect to happen at the early stages of the microservice.</comment>


Ask HN: How did you find your company & job? - <AUTHOR>

So this may seem like a simple question, but how did you find the company you are working at now?  I've been using: crunchbase, linkedin, reading techcrunch, etc as well as a ton of coffees, beers, 'career advice' meetings.  Every time I find a company I go through an extensive search of who works there, what they do, what the demand is for their product, etc.  This helps for discovery, but of course will inevitably help during the interview.<p>I know there are many companies that I am still missing.  Is there a service out there (not recruiters) that can play matchmaker with the characteristics that I am looking for in a company? <comment><USER2> I was waiting in line for an iPhone 3G when someone called out "I need a web developer, who's interested?". We talked for a few minutes in line, then I did an interview the next day.

I'm still working with them now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, best story yet!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I got my job at Apple from the 37signals job board. Today is my last day, but it was a great experience. (Wish me luck with my new startup!)

The employment inquiries and offers I've received from startups in the past have mostly come through meetups and events I've attended or organized. Figure out where the smart people are congregating and go have some beers with them.

<comment><USER4> As another former Apple employee that left for a startup, I feel compelled to say congratulations and good luck.

Hope you enjoy your new life!

(on topic) Meetups and events are perfect ways to find job opportunities, as long as you're willing to put in some effort. Any time you can show off your skills, some app you wrote, or provide advice for someone else, you are impressing people and proving your worth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Researched the top companies all over the US and then researched how the top people in the industry present themselves and what their portfolios look like. There's a lot of random browsing involved in that, but also just knowing who's good by having followed the industry over time. Job boards are also a good starting point.

Then I built the best portfolio site possible based on the research. It was slightly customized per company, for examples with a simple "Welcome Company X" which (I think) made a good impression.

Then, sent out the links via email to around 20 companies and tried to follow up as much as possible without seeming pushy. Some people responded after two weeks, some didn't. My current company responded within a day. Within 3 days, they had sent me a test, I finished it and sent it back, we had negotiations and I had accepted their offer. Two weeks later I moved from San Diego to NYC. Their responsiveness and professionalism was a big plus.

I've been reviewing portfolios for years, but have had terrible experiences with recruiters. They do a great job at hyping people up, only to let you down when you look at the actual work done. So we're posting a lot on industry forums, Twitter, etc and also asking for recommendations through employees and friends to find new people.

</comment><comment><USER6> HN "Who's hiring", linkedin jobs, even craigslist.

My personal experience with recruiters has not been as good as I would have liked. The recruiters I dealt with mostly did keyword searches on technologies and experience (e.g C++ dev with 3 yrs of experience) ignoring the other skills (teamwork, passion, how excited the person is about the company, etc.) Most recruiters use means that the companies themselves could use(LinkedIn, job boards, etc.) If the founders of the startup are not willing to invest time to find the talent and rather pay hefty fees to the recruiters, not sure if I would want to work for that startup anyway.

The ideal company would be one that you just "come across" than go out looking. For example, a product you heard about somewhere that got you really excited, or an idea that you had and while searching for who is working in that space, you find a company that was doing something very similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you on the recruiters point, heck most searching through resumes today is keyword based. Wouldn't it make sense to have something similar to match.com for employers and employees?

<comment><USER6> I agree that it's all keyword based. I think it's because machines can only capture the objective factors of a job search. Things like : "will you get along with the team", do you like the people you'd be working with, etc are very subjective and not easily captured by computers.

Meeting people at events, getting recommendations from other people you trust allow one to evaluate the position at a much more subjective level and make an estimation of the human-elements of working at the startup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Shortly after moving to the bay area – knowing exactly zero people for a hundred miles – someone linked to freebase on reddit. I found what they were doing so compelling that I volunteered on their message board[1]. They saw that I was local and invited me down for lunch.

One of the best things that's ever happened to me.

1] [http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/developers/2007-Septembe...](http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/developers/2007-September/000628.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> One time, I decided I wanted a software job in a specific remote area. I connected with numerous recruiters to maximize my interviews per plane trip to the area. The ultimate win came from watching for jobs in the area through craigslist that did not obviously come from some generic recruiting farm. It took me two plane trips' worth of interviews in five months, and I landed that craigslist job.

If I were to do it all again, I realize now that the most powerful tool for all this is to make use of connections. I do not mean the feel-good stuff you get from LinkedIn. I mean actual communication with people via phone, email, whatever. User groups, conferences, whatever... Network well, and the job hunt becomes a lot easier.

The other thing about networking is that you can get an idea of WHO you want to work with. Usually that is more important than the actual kinds of work in our field.

Lacking the network, I would look for ways to bypass having to communicate with HR... or just venture forth on my own.

</comment><comment><USER9> Technical mailing lists. Almost all have an accompanying job list and often the most interesting jobs get filled from there.

</comment><comment><USER10> Craigslist is a good place to start, but you need to be discerning. Find one that has realistic expectations for the job they are asking, and generally it's a good thing when they don't give you a price tag right up front because that means they will pay you based on what you're worth and not some arbitrary number.

My job asked a simple question, what was the title of the book written by 37signals, which reveals a lot about their perspectives. They also included enough information in the Craigslist ad that convinced me they were a technically strong company.

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually haven't used craigslist as much. Will check it out some more.

But this still goes back to my point that craigslist, like monster and all others is a basic listing service of available opportunities. Is there anything out there, like a match.com for employers and employees?

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure but I think what you are looking for is a network of reliable professionals who you can work for and rely on for support. Something like this, I suspect, you could try to get rolling through a service geared towards professionals, like LinkedIn, but the real answer I think would be to find your own network, or find someone who has a network and tap into them, you know, IRL :)

I met a guy through RAC last year who has projects come up every few months and knows a lot of people and it's been a great professional relationship for both of us. He's the only person in my network, and I definitely couldn't make a living from it, but it's a good start.

I guess the key to what I'm trying to say is meet people and when you find good ones hold on to them!

<comment><AUTHOR> It wouldn't necessarily have to be geared for individuals. I think there are a ton of companies out there in the 20-50 employees that are doing well, not getting a lot of publicity, but have a tough time finding great people. As I do finding them. This is where a service like this makes sense to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From an ad on Craig's List. My wife showed it to me on a Sunday morning. I said "yeah, I know who these guys are, but I don't know them". They had originally written the software where I worked at the time, but had quit and moved on to form a start-up. I had never met them.

So I sent my resume and a cover letter on a Sunday morning. 27 minutes later I got a phone call. 2 hours later I was interviewing. Longer story short: I became employee #8 including the founders, we were purchased by a Fortune 200 company a year later. Still there after 5 years.

</comment><comment><USER12> I got my 2nd job on IRC, and hired for the current job (4th) by a former colleague from the 2nd one. Got an offer in a channel as well.

All those hours on IRC did pay off!

</comment><comment><USER13> Through a friend / former co-worker. We've worked together at university and at two companies and almost two other companies.

At the first company, I just happened to let him know I was looking for a job at the right moment. His group needed someone right away and I was a great fit. Unfortunately that company started to come apart 2 years later.

He moved on first, to what became my current company. He pitched hiring me and I went to lunch with his new boss and some other guys a couple times. When they finally needed another person, I was an easy sell. I've been there for a number of years now, through some rough times and an acquisition.

I tried to follow the same guy to two other companies when times were tough where I was. The new companies were ready to hire me, but the first one ran out of money and the second one just couldn't afford me.

I don't think we'll try again unless we finally start our own thing. We've tried twice in the past, but at this point in our careers we can't really tolerate a "ramen" profitability period.

</comment><comment><USER14> tl;dr version: I've always found jobs through my personal network: friends or friends of friends. I've never really used a recruiter or searched a job board.

Microsoft 2003-2007: I was attending WWDC on a student scholarship and ran into a Lead Program Manager I'd known during my internship the previous summer. He was working on Visual Studio and needed a UI-focused person.

Skytap 2007-2009: My girlfriend at the time had an old boss who was looking for Program Managers at his new company (amusingly, he's working on recruiting me for his current employer).

Dibspace 2009-May 2010: Started it with a friend.

Contracting work May 2010-Now: I have two in-flight contracts for Rails and iPhone work. The iPhone project came about because I knew a guy whose company might need one and I cold-called him about it. The Rails project was a friend- of-a-friend thing. I'm putting together a proposal for another iPhone app contract right now (to start later this summer). I heard about that one through another FOAF.

</comment><comment><USER15> Found my position at CollegeHumor through techcrunch (crunchboard) about 4 years ago. We are hiring... <http://www.crunchboard.com/opening/detailjob.php?jid=8209>

My personal experience has been primarily through introduction in my network. The majority of my network I met at meetups and events. I have tried getting work through recruiters, but never actually excepted a job they set me up with. Most of the companies they sent me to were uninteresting and very generic.

I think the best way to find a job is the reverse approach. Don't wait for listings that 2000 other people are applying to. Put together a list of the companies you like/want to work for and start contacting the right people there. Take apart company directories, break email codes and get your resume to the right people. Even if its the wrong person they will often forward it to the right person (or ask them to).

(Edited)

<comment><AUTHOR> So do you think a service that helps you narrow down the list of companies for you to work would be helpful?

<comment><USER15> Possibly. As a developer who wants to make a difference and work on interesting projects. I have to go to a number of different sites to get all the current job posts. That doesn't bother me, plus you have companies like indeed that aggregate it all together for you. My problem is lack of good companies/positions and information being posted to begin with. "Hot" startups usually don't need to blast their job post all over the boards, I bet they get plenty of traffic to their /jobs page or people who send in their resume at random. My second issue is that most job postings are by recruiters on tech boards. That means all these "great" sounding listings have no company name to go with it and you have to then deal with a recruiter who doesn't care where you work as long as he places you quickly and takes their cut. So I'm not positive what a service that narrows down the listings would do? I'm unhappy because job boards are fundamentally broken to begin with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My first job as a programmer came as a suggestion from a friend who convinced me to apply and interview for a startup where he was working (Cayen Systems, <http://www.cayen.net>). At the time, they were doing MS Access applications. (They've since grown much - I was employee number 4 or 5, now they've got 20 or 30, and they deal much more extensively with Web Apps than with Access).

I left after a few years to start my own startup, even though that original idea never materialized, and I contracted for 4 years (including to my former employer) before starting a different startup (and the one I currently work on).

And while I only had one official job as a programmer employee, it was awesome working there, and a great experience. Best boss I could have hoped to have had. He wasn't a programmer, and he trusted his programmers to make technical decisions.

tl;dr: Friend worked there.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm probably an outlier here, but I work for a major defense contractor. I found my job by applying, having the right (albeit obscure) skill set, and being willing to learn. That said, I take it you're not looking for the typical cubical desk job. :)

I'd start with your personal network. I moved to a new position within the company recently; one that I shouldn't have been able to apply for. The only reason I was even considered was because my new manager (read: single meeting, first impressions) saw that I wanted to do the job, and was passionate about it.

She called the hiring manager and a week later I was in an interview. The following day I had an offer.

Your network is the fastest way in. If you don't have one, grow one. Contribute to open source, attend user groups, get out in the world -- and always have a business card.

</comment><comment><USER18> I was contacted by a contingent staffing company (I think they found me on Monster) about contract work at Microsoft. This intrigued me at the time, so I took a 6-month contract, during which I earned respect and made friends. They extended the contract a couple of times, and then I was encouraged to apply for a full time position. I still had to do a regular interview loop, but I think their perception was colored by the fact that they had already seen a lot of my production code, and thought it was good.

This was perfect for me, because due to the way my mind works, I would much, much rather "interview" by doing a few months of real software development, than by floundering around on the spot with clever questions about manhole covers, weighing billiard balls, egg drops, etc.

</comment><comment><USER19> I worked for him out of high school; building the add-on to his house... Then in his factory building the product we sell for 2 years (very hard work, bending metal around a bender 3-4k times a day) ~ then he helped me land my first computer gig (ebay lister). I did that for 2 years then came back to the company as the only IT person.

Have since basically doubled internet revenue.

 __My answer; networking... one of my old friends worked in the factory and knew the guy needed some odd end help building a add-on to his house. Currently he is building me a new office onto our new building... I still feel the need to go independent though; cause of stupid office politics.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are correct, networking is most always the best course of action. Nothing beats sitting face-to-face with someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I work at my own consulting company. 5 colleagues were tired of "working for the man", we rented an office and started calling other colleagues. Now (3 years later) we're down to 3, have full-time work and are fairly happy.

</comment><comment><USER21> They found me listed at the "DevelopersForHire" wiki page:

<http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DevelopersForHire>

</comment><comment><USER22> I was contacted via LinkedIn by the CTO at my current job. I'm friends with one of the other developers here who is well thought of. I wouldn't have ever come across this job otherwise. I'm horrible about doing research about companies I want to work for.

I did a few things before starting though like checking page load efficiency and seeing if implementing css spriting would help load time. I mostly did that so I'd have more information about how the site worked before I started.

<comment><USER23> I was also recruited via LinkedIn for my current job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm working for the family business currently - it was a good opportunity for me the learn the ropes of running a business right out of college and it gave me a chance to help my father out with some issues he was having in my area of expertise. I'm working on starting my own startup as an extra-curricular project, but the lessons I've learned from working here have been fantastic and I keep learning new ones every day.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've been in students club of computer science, meet many people from older and younger years that were interested in programming. We were doing hobby projects and starting in team programming competitions.

At the last year of studying I've mailed one of friends from that club (he was working in one of a few big software companies in my city) asking if they would want me. I've been interviewed and got a job.

</comment><comment><USER26> I was recommended to my job by a former co-worker. We were both miserable at a previous company. He started here and brought me on.

I've actually helped friends lately look for jobs. As a tech person in NYC, I'm constantly meeting people in startups who are looking for great people. It's an easy intro e-mail and then my work is done!

Do your friends know you're looking for work?

</comment><comment><USER27> I found my current job on the Stackoverflow job board. That same week, I received an offer from another great company that I found via HN.

</comment><comment><USER28> I got my job by using Facebook. I first went to job sites, found a job I wanted and then searched the company on facebook to see employees who listed they worked there. Then I looked through all listed employees for a mutual connection between our networks to get referral, interview & job. Took me two weeks to land my current gig doing this.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER29> When I decided I was ready to move on from my last job, I went over to the library (2 blocks away) to update my resume during my lunch hour. I saw that the library had an opening for a programmer, so I applied. I was called for an interview two days later, and they hired me the day after that. I didn't even have time to send out any other resumes.

</comment><comment><USER30> I got my first job after college through a posting on efinancialcareers.com that turned out to be a recruiter. I got my current (and second job) at a startup through a posting on LinkedIn.

I recommend going to meetups through meetup.com and checking the message boards and email lists for those meetups. Plenty of quality leads through Meetup.

</comment><comment><USER31> Became friendly with the organizer of the Silicon Valley New Tech meetup, mentioned to him I was looking for a Python job, he put me in touch with the director of engineering at my current company. Networking _works_ -- but I should point out that I didn't get to know the organizer to try to get something out of him.

</comment><comment><USER32> I was discussing doing some contracting work with someone, which I mentioned to a friend of mine, who told me not to sign anything before talking to him. A few days later I asked if that meant he was looking for contractors, I was working with them within a week.

tl;dr: I knew someone who had his own company.

</comment><comment><USER33> I work at Red Hat. I heard about the company ever since I heard about linux, but I didn't realize they have an office in my city before a colleague from my previous employer went there.

When I started looking for a different job, I knew a bit more about them and they were the first company I looked at.

</comment><comment><USER34> 37 signals job board, desperately seeking a Ruby job in NYC after building and selling a small Rails app created with a friend in our spare time. The specialized job boards seem to have worked pretty well for me, the interviews (the good ones at least) are all about what you have done passionately.

</comment><comment><USER35> I got my current job through Twitter.

I can't exactly remember how we ended up following each other but I know it's because we are both Django guys.

I met up with him for coffee once and when there was a job opening where he works, he tweeted about it. I replied to him and sent my resume.

</comment><comment><USER36> I got my current job via Dice, and the last two via Monster. I wish it weren't the case, but it is true.

I first always look through friends and on smaller job boards, but haven't had much success getting full-time work this way (although it has been very successful for contract work).

</comment><comment><USER37> I did research to find tech companies in my area, picked a dozen that looked like a reasonably good fit, and sent them a cover letter. Marketable skills should get you a few bites -- some people may call/meet you even if they aren't hiring, which can help you gather information.

</comment><comment><USER38> My best job options have always come from investors and ceos of startups. The best thing you can do is do your own startup and even if it doesn't work out, impress vcs and mentors along the way. You'll have your pick of options waiting for you on the other end.

</comment><comment><USER39> My current manager visited my school for a brown bag lunch talk. I asked her questions during and after the lunch. I continued the discussion over email and eventually that turned into an internship. After the Bar, it turned into a job and the rest is history!

</comment><comment><USER40> 2x Through former co-workers and clients who had moved on to new companies.

2x From cold calls - "Hi, I noticed some issues with your website/app, here are some specific recommendations..."

1x Started my own company, carried over all my connections.

</comment><comment><USER41> I've only had two jobs in the industry. The first was found in a local paper. I was hired entry level and moved up from there and the experience was invaluable.

Current job was found through monster.com and is also proving to be well worth my time.

</comment><comment><USER42> Through a local python user group. I introduced myself at the beginning and said I was looking for a job. Over pizza and a beer afterwards, somebody mentioned an open position. I applied, interviewed, and that's where I am now.

</comment><comment><USER43> I found my last two jobs in the same way: a recruiter placed an ad in comp.arch.embedded and I followed up on it.

Dunno if this still works: I've been here for over 10 years and haven't looked at Usenet in about that long.

</comment><comment><USER44> I always got jobs through tips from friends, I don't like recruiters and such to be honest.

I always feel they don't care for my jobhappyness, while friends won't advice a bad job (or at least not on purpose).

</comment><comment><USER45> My girlfriends boss introduced me to a former colleague of hers. Later I called him up and asked if he was hiring. He said no, but to keep in touch. So I did and one day he called and offered me a job.

</comment><comment><USER46> I got my first job through a family connection, but in general you should not shy away from recruiters. A good recruiter can get your foot in the door and have opportunities that you might not know about.

</comment><comment><USER47> First job out of college (2005) I was contacted when I posted my resume on Monster.com. Second job was at a startup which I got through a headhunter. Last one I made for myself! It's the best way =)

</comment><comment><USER48> I got my job because I did a speaking engagement with my old employer, and my current employer (then competitor) was also speaking. Several months later, I got offered a job there.

</comment><comment><USER49> I was at an open house at TechShop. We were going around the room introducing ourselves, and on person described where he worked. I immediately asked "are you hiring?" He was.

</comment><comment><USER50> I founded my company with two former co-workers and zero money. Hey, isn't this the expected answer here on HN?

<comment><AUTHOR> +1, haha

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Found them on the local Ruby meetup mailing lists. It's a pretty good place to look, at least for Rails jobs.

</comment><comment><USER52> I got my job through facebook, a friend from university was looking for developers for his startup.

</comment><comment><USER53> Craigs List.

<comment><USER4> If you're willing to sift through the noise you'll find something worthwhile and people that will respect you for the work you do. Craigslist isn't my first choice, but it is reliable; lots of people use it everyday.

<comment><USER54> I also landed my current job via Craigslist. Some companies post there directly, and it's pretty easy to spot and weed out recruiters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> craigslist. It's easy to search and narrow down results. Also really like indeed.com.

Current position was looking for someone way more senior. But I was nearly an exact match for what they needed and it's worked out great.

</comment><comment><USER56> Following a Twitter feed that posts tech jobs in the Dallas area.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see activity in Dallas :) I lived there for 3 years and left this past January. Good people down there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Met the founders of the company at a local entrepreneurs event.

</comment><comment><USER58> Craigslist every time.

</comment><comment><USER59> I got my current job through my school career services.

</comment><comment><USER60> Oddly enough, responding to a newspaper ad.

<comment><USER61> I got all the jobs I've ever held responding to newspaper ads. (using job boards is not that common yet over here in Uruguay)

I can tell you, though, that it's not the way to high-paying jobs.

I've gotten decent enough to get job offers from friends recently :) (though I declined as it wasn't a good fit)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Hacker News

<comment><USER63> My girlfriend set up an informational interview for me in December 2007 with my future boss. I was not shy about saying I was willing to take a job, but wasn't pushing too hard or selling. We just had a straight conversation and by February 2008 I met some others within the company and started in March 2008.</comment></comment>


Periscope is Apple's App of the year - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/12/09/apples-app-year---periscope/76993102/ <comment><USER2> Congrats to the Periscope team, well deserved!</comment>


What do you think about looking for a co-founder on Craigslist? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> This touches on an interesting problem. Those of us with limited social networks (aka not in grad school) who would like to collaborate with others simply don't have a way to meet other entrepreneurs. Err, sounds like a startup idea in the making ...

<comment><USER3> that is true. Did you code pindax.com? good stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I cant believe someone actually posted this - google and you will find an article by someone who saw such an advt. and says why it is such a bad idea

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't say it's one of the best places. But hey -- people have found some odder things on Craigslist.

<comment><USER5> Agreed. I've actually gone ahead and tried. Contacted a developer who had a "team" in India and wanted to start a project. Well... lets just say I lost touch with him when I asked his entire team to sign an NDA. If you're going to look on Craigslist, have an NDA ready.</comment></comment>


Usability Study Shows Kids Don't Search - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/09/13/usability-study-shows-kids-dont-search/

<comment><USER2> This part of the actual article contradicts the implication of the title:

 _I asked Nielsen if he thought children's tendency towards an app mentality was a broader trend, and that everyone would be less dependent on search in the future — both because these habituated children will age into adulthood and because alternatives to search like apps and the social web are growing in usefulness. He said he didn't think that was necessarily the case, because kids in the upper age range of the study — 11 and 12 years old — were observed to be avid searchers._

Further, the study itself (<http://www.nngroup.com/reports/kids/>) was on how children used _websites_. Not on how children used the _the internet_. As far as I can tell, he means that children did not use the search features on a particular website. Which I rarely do, too. If I need to search a website, I usually do a search on Google. I've learned that most websites have terrible search results.

But even if the study had demonstrated that young children don't use search engines to navigate the internet, it wouldn't necessarily mean that future generations will use the internet differently. I think people tend to underestimate how subtle searching the internet can be. We see a single text box on Google's homepage, so it has to be simple, right? But that implies that the work to figure out what to put in that text box must happen in our heads. Being able to synthesize what you want to find into a few keywords that you think are likely to be associated with what you're looking for requires sophisticated cognition.

That, to me, would be an interesting psychology topic to study: how early can we effectively search the internet? Is there any connection to the existing models of cognitive development?

<comment><USER3> You raise an interesting question. But ultimately the wrong kind of question. We shouldn't be asking ourselves how early can humans effectively search the internet. We should be researching how soon can humans make a search engine that is natural enough a small kid can use.

Now I don't have any kids or access to anything of the sorts, but isn't 6 exactly the age kids start asking questions? Questions that are sometimes hard to answer. This indicates that kids are in fact avid users of search, they just aren't very good at translating their query into something google can usefully understand.

Have you ever tried searching for something you didn't know how to exactly specify? My recent example is seeing a cool car in London. Now that I know what it's called I can just search for "morgan three wheeler". But the first time 'round I started from "three wheel oldtimer" and probably a few others like that, then looking through a lot of wikipedia etc.

Until we can make search engines behave like asking a human "Hey, that car looked cool, what is it?" kids won't be avid searchers.

<comment><USER4> _isn't 6 exactly the age kids start asking questions?_

Yes but a 6 year old still believes their parents :-)

Seriously, the issue is that the questions young kids ask need a lot of context to interpret - they are not the kind of thing you can type at a search engine. For a (real) example a kindergartener watching a cartoon might ask "why are they walking normal"? So the parent has to figure out that (a) the cartoon characters are supposedly on Mars (b) the kid thinks Mars is like the moon (c) the kid has seen footage of real astronauts on the moon (d) ergo the kid had an expectation for the characters to walk "funny" on Mars.

The kid _is_ asking a good question, but is not able to form the googlable question "What is the gravity on Mars"? It needs an adult (and frequently specifically a familiar caregiver) to mediate the question it is asking to the question that can be answered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Did anyone really expect 6–9 year-olds to be giant searchers? 6-year-olds have only been reading for a couple of years, and are still mostly on picture books, many reading aloud. Are they supposed to be typing complex text-based queries into google to turn up mostly more text content?

<comment><USER2> Two points. One, as I pointed out elsewhere, the study was not on searching the internet, but on searching websites.

Two - and I'm sorry to pick on you because others are doing it - you're in real danger of hindsight bias here: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/im/hindsight_devalues_science/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _"kids navigate the web using bookmarks, remembering their favorite sites, and accessing paid subscription content and games."_

My parents use the web like this. This isn't limited to children.

They navigate by clicking the address bar and clicking the URI they want. I introduced them to "proper" navigation means, like RSS, bookmarks, and tabbed browsing; they dismissed each as a gimmick. Their method has some big advantages - they only need two clicks to navigate anywhere on the web, and they're not beholden to any notifications. If they find a new webpage they like, its already in their address bar. No management needed.

My way is much more complicated: I jump around the web using quick typing and memorized keyboard shortcuts. I also use pages requiring management: Twitter, Gmail, Google Reader, Facebook, etc. If I ignore the web for a week, I spend days catching up or declare bankruptcy and start over. They don't need to do this, since they have no notification debt to begin with.

</comment><comment><USER7> How much of this is parents' doing? When I showed my kids sites, I made it clear that 'this is how you get to the fun stuff', and anything not that way results in removal of computer privileges. Are kids discovering new content through some medium other than parents or previous experience?

<comment><USER8> Check the comments there--some parents are discussing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well, kids tend to access a few sites only. I did when I was younger. I mean: What they need to do on a browser?

Facebook? Wikipedia for school? Hulu? I guess kids needs are more easily found, they need to remember a few sites that cover a big percent of their total usage.

I mean, it's not like they have to make some _hard_ research on topics they are interested due to work or hobbies.

<comment><USER10> I think you nailed it. The sites they tend to visit are VERY important to them. Do you remember being a kid? The video game you were playing or movie you watched last night had the higher priority in your life. You don't have to think about too much.

As an adult, you have an amazing branching tree of knowledge and interests. You have to track so much information that everything has to become less important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Kids map everything by landmarks. Its a sign of maturity to leave this behind and begin to organize a space by a metric.

</comment><comment><USER12> In my experience as a father, I'd tend to agree. There is less reason to search if you're primarily using the web for the games and interactive flash that is typically geared towards kids, but there's no reason we can't create more opportunities for kids to search. I'll give an example.

My younger son recently got into pokemon, and he's now doing more self- directed searches on Bulbapedia to learn about stats & strategies. Since this is something I can't help him with, he's learning how to search on his own.

Searching for pokemon stats, game cheats and walkthroughs sounds trivial but learning how to play with search, sort through the false positives, invalid file sizes, fake sites, etc., these skills carry over.

</comment><comment><USER13> Which is why, for kids under 12, a simple portal of white-listed sites, such as Kongoroo(<http://kongoroo.com>), is more important than Google.

</comment><comment><USER14> Some very interesting observations there. I don't expect that search would ever go away completely. Society has always had a need to locate new, unfamiliar information. That being said, what might such a stark change in the way a new generation uses technology mean for the current corporate technology giants? Could this be trouble for a company like Google that is nearly completely leveraged on their search functionality?

<comment><USER15> I don't think this is true. Search will always be important in my view. I don't see the rate of new information being created going down and this makes good search even more important.

Let's not forget that searching the web requires literacy and an idea of what you want to look for. Formulating queries is something that might require a certain maturity to do. Kids learn to search at an older age naturally in my view.

A lot of us are in a generation that started using the web pre-google during the Yahoo years (;p) . Using Yahoo was more like clicking around on a portal website that the kids under 12 (at least in this article) are using today. Once google came around most of us started using it almost as if it was natural. (well I migrated to altavista before that and I was 12 when google showed up. but that's my experience).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What should they search for? Behavior is partly shaped by need, we need to research a lot of topics for our daily live (work,living ...) kids don't have to do that, so they don't get used to it. They will change when they grow older.</comment>


Wireless Charging, at a Distance, Moves Forward for uBeam - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/ubeam-technology-will-enable-people-to-charge-devices-through-the-air/

<comment><USER2> I have a hard time expressing how unbearably stupid "wireless charging" of all kinds is, especially when it is touted as "green." The only viable use case I've been able to come up with is charging my electric toothbrush by induction, so we don't have to worry about corrosion on electrodes due to my drooling on them. Otherwise; "golly, let's radiate lots of energy into the ambient atmosphere so consumers can have a science fiction experience like they're in the Jetsons."

<comment><USER3> I charge my phone wirelessly in the car, with a magnetic wireless charger which doubles as a docking station (which automatically turns on waze/navigation). Super convenient for getting in/out of the car without needing to attach wires.

Also imagine embedded medical devices.

<comment><USER4> When I had a nexus 4 I used the QI charging all the time. It's not really a must have feature but it certainly is nice to you be able to throw my phone down with out having to plug in wires.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't know a lot about specific engineering details, but a jet engine (turbofan) produces about 1 kw of sound energy [1]. A cell phone has about 75 sq. cm of area on one side. Thus, with perfect efficiency and spherical propagation, the available power to the phone for a user about 3m away would be about 0.2 watt.

However, I'm skeptical that they can actually create a kilowatt of sound energy, and while you can focus the power (certainly you could do something more efficient than fully-spherical propagation), you're also going to have significant losses.

All this for a charging rate that's about 1/5 of what you get from a 1 amp USB charger.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_power#Table_of_select...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_power#Table_of_selected_sound_sources)

<comment><USER6> Unless they are beamforming, which is highly unprobable, I think you're right.

<comment><USER5> Beamforming would be cool and might actually allow this to work, although I don't know with what efficiency.

That said, the tech just to locate the phones in space to allow the beamforming would be a significant accomplishment itself. But forming the beam or multiple beams to charge multiple devices is probably quite feasible.

<comment><USER7> A possibly effective option would be sweeping the beam around and having the phone report when it hits. That should be easier than trying to accurately locate the phone first so that you can aim a beam at it.

If you can also make a reasonable initial guess of it's location (to within a few degrees) you could narrow down the guess and check search area considerably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The safety question does need to be addressed. While there isn't any solid evidence that ultrasounds are harmful to fetuses, there are some studies that into question their safety[1]. I am curious as to how much power is really being transmitted with these things.

1-[http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp](http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp)

<comment><USER9> Focused ultrasound ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_focused_ultraso...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_focused_ultrasound)) can be used to destroy tissue, too. If it's _not_ focused, the vast majority of its output is wasted energy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No mention of safety at all.

A system like this is going to have at least the energy density of sunlight and that transfers enough heat into your body you can feel it.

I'd be particularly concerned if the thing somehow shot a beam right at your eyes, which are the thing most vulnerable to damage from internally generated heat (i.e. microwaves)

<comment><USER11> Ultrasound is widely considered safe.

<comment><USER9> For diagnostics, yes.

High energy focused ultrasound like you'd probably need to charge, less so. It's used to destroy tissue. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_focused_ultraso...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- intensity_focused_ultrasound)

<comment><USER10> I've seen demos where people use an ultrasound beam to light paper on fire, so I think the dose makes the poison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> nothing about the actual efficiency of the system? aren't wireless chargers pretty inefficient to start with? I for one would love this to hit mainstream and be a norm for gadgets... also, how would this affect bats or dogs?

</comment><comment><USER13> Yeah so ignoring the obvious absorption and occlusion issues, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse- square_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) would make such a system exetremly inefficient at any distance right?

<comment><USER14> "Any distance" is a little much. I'd love this just to clear up wires on my desk, and at that distance I can't imagine the inverse square law would be too much of an issue.

Across the house? Yea, that'd be a huge problem, I think.

<comment><USER13> No, I mean _any distance_ , if it put out 10 watts at 1 inch, it would be 2.5 watts at 2 inches and .625 watts at 3 inches. You would be wasting huge amounts of power just to not have a few inches of wire. At 15ft you would need like 5000W to to get .001W at your device.

This is not even thinking about the efficiency of converting electricity into sound and back again.

You could focus the sound beam to improve things but then you lose the convenience of putting the device anywhere.

<comment><USER15> Your math is a little off. Inverse square law means that every doubling in distance quarters the power, so it'd be .625W at 4 inches (or 1.111W at 3 inches).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> " the ability to charge portable electronics, like cellphones and laptops, wirelessly using ultrasound." is more exciting than finding life on other planets?

<comment><USER17> The life on other planets route has less stock options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Anyone know why induction can't go longer distances?

Could homes be built with a giant coil in the whole attic that could then power things in the house?

<comment><USER19> I'll try to explain, forgive my peasant understanding (Single course on induction motors and actuators in Uni years ago)

The limiting factor for distance of induction charging is the strength of the magnetic field per unit area or flux. Technically you could create a magnetic field large enough to pass through an entire house, I can think of two big problems with that off the bat however. First, the Magnetic field strength drops as the cube of the distance from the source. The further you are, the less effective the charging at the same power rate. As well the magnetic permeability of air is so small (µ_0 = 4π×10−7 V·s/(A·m)), this is the reason why iron cores are used in transformers as you would lose a lot of flux to the surrounding area unless it is channeled through a permeable material. The second reason is that there would be unintended effects on other conductive materials located within the magnetic field, eg computers, copper piping. The energy losses by induction charging are usually very very high when compared to charging by traditional means (Cable).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope this stays a powering technology and it doesn't attempt to become a data-channel company as well.

<comment><USER17> Why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> uBeam's "Press Kit" is a 404. [http://ubeam.com/wp- content/themes/ubeam/files/presskit.zip](http://ubeam.com/wp- content/themes/ubeam/files/presskit.zip)</comment>


OpenAPI Generator now supports OCaml client generator - <AUTHOR> We've added the OCaml client generator to the OpenAPI Generator project (https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator). To generate an OCaml client given an OpenAPI/Swagger specification file, please follow 3 simple steps below:
1. Download the Java JAR (https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/openapitools/openapi-generator-cli/4.1.0-SNAPSHOT/openapi-generator-cli-4.1.0-20190729.024538-72.jar)
2. Rename the JAR as "openapi-generator-cli.jar"
3. Run the following command to generate a Java API client for the Petstore API (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/master/modules/openapi-generator/src/test/resources/2_0/petstore.yaml):
Mac/Linux:
> java -jar openapi-generator-cli.jar generate -g ocaml -i https://raw.githubusercontent.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/master/modules/openapi-generator/src/test/resources/2_0/petstore.yaml -o /var/tmp/ocaml/
Windows:
> java -jar openapi-generator-cli.jar generate -g ocaml -i https://raw.githubusercontent.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/master/modules/openapi-generator/src/test/resources/2_0/petstore.yaml -o C:\tmp\ocaml
If you've any feedback or question, please let us know via https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/issues/new.
Thanks Christophe Gensoul (https://twitter.com/cgensoul) for contributing the new generator (https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/pull/3446). <comment><AUTHOR> Correction for Step 3: I mean "generate an OCaml API client for the Petstore API"</comment>


Facebook Defends Its Turf, Sues Power.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/02/facebook-defends-its-turf-sues-powercom/ <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=417610>

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like Zuckerberg and co. aren't waiting to become profitable before embarking on legal excursions. Do they not understand that services like this one can only help them in the long term by doing work for Facebook to satisfy users, thus keeping more people on the social network?

<comment><USER4> If they don't control how people view their data, they can't serve ads. That makes any potential upside to this service totally irrelevant.

<comment><USER3> That is, if their business model depends entirely on ads. I think that the net gain of allowing services to complement their web app will more than make up for the loss of a small portion of ad views by making their application as a whole more compelling. By deliberately and aggressively excluding themselves from these services, Facebook only stands to lose users.</comment></comment></comment>


Are influencers overrated? New Study questions effectiveness of targeting "hubs" - <AUTHOR> https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/are-influencers-overrated <comment><USER2> > "Find people who hold the most influence, typically those who sit at the > center of a social network"

This is an assumption - and I'd be interested to see what gets found when it is tested. Influencers are critical, but are they detectable in the degree of a social network graph?

I know a couple of people whos opinions would cause me to change my actions. I don't know if I'm friends with them on a social network, which I mainly use to keep in contact with close friends. The highly connected nodes in a social network could very easily be people who are the social equivalent of town criers rather than the social equivalent of the town mayor, or local matriarch/patriarch, who wield actual social power and validate or invalidate "what everyone knows". In that case, seeding them preferentially isn't all that different from seeding random people.

Societies can do an exceptional job of hiding who actually has final say on what are and are not the valid opinions. They are not the people who talk the loudest, or most frequently.

<comment><USER3> Twitch.tv streamers who get live audiences in the 10k+ range are most definitely detectable in the degree of a social network graph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When we _know_ that these so-called "influencers" are bought and paid for? It really reduces their effectiveness.

Now that we know it happens, having plausible deniability will only spread a culture of distrust on social media sites.

Then again, is that really a bad thing? Humans using their electronic presence as billboards really is some dystopian cyberpunk fodder.

<comment><USER5> Social media is really wild right now. Twitter verified symbols are almost exactly Dr. Seuss's star belly sneetches. [1]

I'm sure with a bit more effort one could compile a long list of social behaviors warned against by literature that social media sites directly implement.

[1]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stor...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#Stories)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think targeting a single influencer is really that valuable, but targeting a platform seems to work really well.

DXracer chairs have heavily targeted twitch streamers and I think that's the main reason behind their success, because they are really expensive and uncomfortable, yet every teenage room of every colleague of mine houses one.

Of course that's completely anecdotal, I just couldn't help laughing at my own daughter when she bought hers. Because it's a really horrible product with an insane price tag that only sells because everyone has one.

<comment><USER7> For a different anecdote on the same topic, I had no idea where they came from until seemingly in a matter of < 6 months they were in stores everywhere. I tried one and found it quite comfortable - feels like a much more reasonably priced Aeron (and I'm not so happy about Aeron's nontransferrable warranty games).

Later on I saw one in a Twitch video and I just figured they also found it a nice chair. Funny that the directionality may have been reversed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Simply seeding a few more people at random avoids the challenge of mapping a network's contours and can spread information in a way that is essentially indistinguishable from cases involving careful analysis; seeding seven people randomly may result in roughly the same reach as seeding five people optimally._

Interesting and I like it, though it conflicts some with previous studies I have seen where introducing new concepts through someone low in pecking order results in dramatically slower spread than if it starts with someone high in pecking order.

Also, there is a lot more to the article than that one point.

<comment><USER9> Would you happen to have any links/author names to check out these studies? They sound interesting.

<comment><USER8> No, sorry. Stuff I read long ago and a quick Google is not turning it up.

One study I recall seeing introduced something like gum drops to primate groups. If the alpha male was given them first and liked them, this became the hot new trend for the entire group in just two hours. When introduced via the lowest ranking member, after two years it had only gotten to about half the group.

I've read a bunch of stuff over the years and enjoyed the writings of Frans de Waal, among others.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool study. Ant hills don't have influencers. They are still able to run billion individual colonies. The more connected we get the more we resemble an ant hill imho in terms of info dispersion.

Feels like its also why news/journalist hubs aren't required as they once were. Other than for attention mining which seems like a unsustainable temporary glitch in the system.

<comment><USER11> Don't they have a queen?

<comment><USER12> Usually more than one. They do not control the colony in any way. That name is misleading on this context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice piece of work. The role of influencers in this study is akin to that of hubs in scale-free network. Diffusion on scale-free and small-world network have been studied extensively in physics community. It will be interesting to compare the results from this paper with work on scale-free networks.

<comment><USER14> > Nice piece of work. The role of influencers in this study is akin to that of > hubs in scale-free network. Diffusion on scale-free and small-world network > have been studied extensively in physics community. It will be interesting > to compare the results from this paper with work on scale-free networks.

Also, context is everything. A social graph is not a flat structure. This work, for instance, [https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03826](https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03826), shows that how consensus is formed and spreads across an agent population depends heavily on how different network types overlap.

I also remembered this work on how rare scale-free networks are rare in the wild: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03400)

</comment></comment><comment> luka-birsa Interesting study, but this totally falls under Betteridge's law of headlines. No, influencers aren't overrated.

There is no way in hell I will get the message across as effectively as if I have an influencer spread it. This should not even be a question. If I have a story and I tell it to 7 people at random and convince them to spread it vs. convince Paul Graham to spread it - no contest.

We just did a test with one influencer (6M followers on Twitter) to promote our products - bang for buck way better than advertising.

The connection asymmetry (good influencer has magnitudes more connection) and trust/influence (I trust/believe information coming from PG) are important. It is however hard work finding good influencers, and just having a lot of followers does not mean a thing if they are not engaged etc... But worth it.

<comment><USER15> Mind sharing some details? Did you do it through a middleman as part of an ongoing relationship or just was it a direct one-off? What's the approximate price range? How elaborate was the advertising itself (as in product placement, sponsored tweet, a combination of these etc)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yes.

<comment><USER17> Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

<comment><USER16> Yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good coffee shop near CMU? - <AUTHOR>

I'm staying at a hotel near CMU for a week - my business partner likes to go to sleep early and I need to work late. Where's a good coffee shop around here to bring a computer, that's open late? <comment><USER2> There's Kiva Han on Craig Street, and another place I can't remember (I'm not there all that much). That's easy walking distance from CMU.

Then there's the Walnut St. complex in Shadyside, a little further away (harder to walk), including the usual upscale stores (Apple, etc.) and some decent coffee shops with Wifi.

Much further east on Forbes from CMU (probably easy bus access), there's the Squirrel Hill complex, with a lot of options on Forbes and on Murray.

Hope that helps a bit--I'm not really a local, but I do get in there fairly often.

<comment><AUTHOR> awesome - many thanks both lists are great

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Kiva Han is my favorite and it's at the corner of Forbes and Craig. I like it for the friendly leftist atmosphere more so than the coffee, which is only ok. And sometimes the Wifi cuts out and you have to ask them to reset the router. Coffee Tree Roasters probably has the best coffee but the one on Walnut St. is almost always packed, don't plan on getting a plug. The wifi is limited to two hours per drink. Also consider Crazy Mocha but it's about the edge of what is a comfortable walk.

Your Inner Vagabond in Lawrenceville is absolutely sublime but it's a little too far to walk. It's worth the short drive/bus though. I have never seen a better drink menu in a coffeeshop. <http://www.yourinnervagabond.com/>

If you are a l337 hacker you can probably get yourself on the CMU wifi.

And if you'd like to meet for coffee or food one evening, maybe we could throw together a mini HN meetup. We have one tentatively planned for the 28th.

</comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.gathergo.com/list/20>

</comment><comment><USER5> Kiva Han was our place to hack at. So much so we even named our then startup inkiva.com!!!</comment>


Bridgy: a cloud inventory and ssh and tmux and sshfs tool written in python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wagoodman/bridgy <comment><USER2> Weird and interesting</comment>


Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/throwing-hollywood-under-the-bus-could-pay-dividends-for-gop.ars

<comment><USER3> Wow. I did not realize Al Franken was a PIPA co-sponsor.

<http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/F000457-sen-al-franken>

</comment><comment><USER4> The big takeaway from this isn't that the GOP is a knee-jerk anti-hollywood, anti-SOPA party. Indeed, there are plenty of people in the conservative establishment who were either supportive of or mute on SOPA and SOPA-like legislation prior to blackout day, and who changed not out of principle, but practicality.

But this does highlight the fact that our overly-simplified view of political parties in the United States as monolithic entities of zombie-politicians who take marching orders from the party establishment is quite out of step with the reality, particularly where conservatives are concerned. The GOP is a surprisingly diverse political entity, accepting the likes of Ron Paul on one extreme and George W. Bush on the other. Indeed, in the "center", it can often be difficult to tell the difference between "moderates" of either party.

All of which is to say, it is often unwise to make sweeping statements about large political entities simply because prominent politicians within that movement are vocal about a particular issue. Often the fight within a large political party is as heated as the battles with other political parties. Savvy voters would do well to recognize that fact.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would hate to see this become a partisan issue. There are plenty of people on every side who hate this crap.

<comment><USER6> Obviously, the best situation would be for majorities in both parties to be against this stuff. But a world where Republicans are against it and Dems are for it is much better than the world we've had for the last few years, in which both parties were on Hollywood's side.

<comment><USER7> Hopefully the Democrats will fail to promote their restrictions to the younger/more liberal crowd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't it about time for people in our industry to admit they're libertarian and vote (and donate) that way?

Both parties are against our interests. Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo which is the opposite of what we do. Both parties cater to special interests, in this case placing democrats against us.

If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party that let us do what we do best and left us alone (aka Libertarians) we'd be much better off.

<comment><USER9> > Isn't it about time for people in our industry to admit they're libertarian > and vote (and donate) that way?

Yes!

> If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party

No!

For you to win in the general election with 3 parties, you'd need to muster at least a third of the vote.

That's a lot of people!

For you to win a primary of a major party, you would need to muster the vote of a fourth of the voting populace. Actually, it's even lower than that, since many don't affiliate themselves with a party and out of those, many don't vote in primaries. On top of that, you can end the primary early as long as you kill off your opponents in a few early states.

So it's _much_ easier to take over an existing party (like the GOP) than to create a third. On top of that, all those conservatives you don't like ... well, they'll vote for your guy now. Because they have a choice of two and they like your guy more.

Ron Paul is doing it right. That's the only way a libertarian _leaning_ pol will ever get close to the presidency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So is the way of politics.

But arguably now that most of the people who usually vote dems for other reasons take SOPA/PIPA seriously, the only dem candidates that will stand a chance will be people taking their money outside MPAA/RIAA

</comment><comment><USER7> While this may work in the short term, this is exactly what I was worried about - for Internet freedom to become a partisan issue - with some standing to defend Internet freedom, and others wanted to restrict it. Because that means that eventually a party or a candidate will be elected to implement those restrictions. That would be an awful outcome, and I hope we can maintain Internet freedom as bi-partisan, or better yet, non-partisan.

<comment><USER11> Don't worry. Take a look at abortion -- there is a lot of talk about it in DC, but even those who are against it don't pass legislation, because if they did they wouldn't have that to yell about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There are other parties. If you don't want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, then _don't_.

<comment> muuh-gnu Instead of spending time and effort to persuade people to throw their votes away, spend time and effort changing the voting system so that voting for third parties isnt as futile as FPTP. In the European parliament, the members belong to approx 160 different parties. In the US, you have 2. It has been known for a long time that FPTP converges to 2 (Duverger's law). It makes no sense to keep FPTP but then make voters responsible for the unhealthy situation that emerges from it and persuade them to change their voting behaviour knowing that it makes no sense for them to change it.

<comment><USER13> But please don't use the European structure as an example for a democratic system. The European Commission (who are the core authority for proposing legislation) is not a democratically elected body but an "appointed" entity by the Council - a Council that up until the Lisbon Treaty wasn't even required to hold their meetings in public.

<comment> muuh-gnu I was comparing the US and the EU because of a similar size. When you have 160 parties representing the views of 500 Million Europeans, it is very unlikely that having merely 2 parties representing the views of 300 million Americans is a natural, healthy state of affairs. The EU is of course not a role model for democracy, but it shows that the lack of diversity in US politics can not be a natural outcome of US voting habits. The lack of diversity (and thus lack of democracy) is fully intentional.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great! Now if the Republicans also cut their ties to religion and stopped wasting so much money on war zones, they could become a party worth voting for.

<comment><USER7> Seeing how all candidates besides Ron Paul, and I would think a big part of the Republican party right now wants more laws like the Patriot Act, defending the Internet seems completely incompatible with the current Republican party. Sure, they used to be about limited Government and all that, but I don't think that's really their core anymore. If they do this, it will be purely a political play. But who knows, maybe this will give the opportunity to some people who actually believe in this to rise up in the party. But ultimately, I'd still hate for this to become a partisan issue. Both - or all - <USER2> should want Internet freedom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Republicans found out that the computing hardware and software industry is economically significant, whereas the so-called premium content industry is not.

I quote from <http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/sssca3.html>

"According to the RIAA, the value of all CD's, live presentations, music videos, dvds in 1998 (from <http://www.riaa.com/pdf/md_riaa10yr.pdf>) was 13.72 billion US$.

According to the SOI, in 1998 the business receipts of the computer and electronic product manufacturing including both hardware and software (they do not divide it further) was 560.27 billion US$. This of course excludes the value of all the data stored on computers."

Also, Silicon Valley's business model depends on public trust of the cloud. As David K. Levine points out, SOPA/PIPA undermines public trust in the cloud, so Silicon Valley was right to oppose it. The choice is between supporting an industry in decline that turns to government for protection from competition, versus supporting a dynamic industry where the incentive is to grow businesses.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm a political junkie, but I'm also a long-time HNer; I urge caution with stories like this.

As an systems architect and somebody who consults with large technology organizations, I am extremely interested in how systems of people interact -- hence the political junkie thing. But as part of watching that interaction, I've noted that we all we have a tendency to become very tribal, especially when the topic of our favorite "teams" come up.

So yes, I think it's very important to learn facts like the number of Republicans that jumped ship and the fact that Al Franken was a sponsor of the bill. Just like it's important to know that many members of the Democrat party hang on to the idea of the bill and that the administration was in support of it before they jumped ship as well. These are facts -- if you care about PIPA/SOPA you should know this.

But once we move into political analysis, which side is doing what for which reasons, I think the article becomes much more shaky as a topic for HN. Whether or not one party may benefit or not touches directly on what you already think of each party, so the comment thread could end up with just so much posturing.

As a libertarian, to me the interesting things are 1) that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't have been reported out of committee) until they got caught and 2) many years ago there was some general bipartisan agreement to freaking leave the internet alone. I'd like to know what happened to that. But because that's going to be a "team story" that's probably a topic for a different board besides HN.

<comment><USER9> > many years ago there was some general bipartisan agreement to freaking leave > the internet alone. I'd like to know what happened to that.

It wasn't a threat at that point. It was a novelty. It's easy to agree to leave a novelty alone. It's difficult when it's threatening the revenue stream of the guys lining your pockets.

> that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't > have been reported out of committee) until they got caught

Look, as much as we want to believe that our representatives actually _read_ the stuff they're pushing, the truth is, they don't. I would be shocked if a singe member of the _committee_ responsible for the bill actually read the damn thing. Each of them is on quite a few other committees, responsible for quite a few other bills, have speaking engagements, businesses, books they're writing, etc etc.

They decide on what to vote for and push based on who's supporting it. Some members of the GOP saw the Chamber of Commerce as a supporter and jumped on board. Commerce = Business = Good. Seriously, that was the thought process.

Once they saw the push-back, they realized things were more complicated than that, and dropped support.

Can the GOP be a strong ally for leaving the Internet alone? Absolutely. As long as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc. line their pockets right before re-election time. If that happens, I promise you, they'll vote for whatever bill the "Internet" endorses. Without reading it. It's a promise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article crosses the line for me. I'm tired of largely redundant SOPA articles in any event, and one that gets into broader political trends is one step too far.

<https://twitter.com/#!/patio11/status/161131025097961475>

</comment><comment><USER18> This is idiotic. Silicon Valley and all the surrounding areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic. One stupid piece of legistation doesn't overcome the fact that the GOP are science-hating religious zealots. Republicans have a LOT of work to do before many people in this region would even consider a vote for them.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure I agree that it is idiotic. Certainly the GOP's track record on neutrality is abhorrent, but if the Republicans successfully turn this into a partisan issue where they are against and the dems are for, those who typically vote democrat and also support the internet will be faced with a decision in regard to what issue(s) take priority and who will be rewarded with the vote.

Keep in mind that a republican does't necessarily have to get a democrat's vote to come out ahead in this case. All it takes is for the democratic voter to be so disgusted with his party's position that he either votes third party or doesn't vote at all.

I despise the idea of it becoming a for & against partisan issue because of the swell of support that would ultimately result in, but it could be politically effective in an evil-ish way.

<comment><USER20> I'm against net neutrality because I don't want to give the FCC any additional powers over content transmission on the internet. I may change my mind if the ISPs start flagrantly abusing their market position. But right now the net neutrality advocates are touting a solution in search of a problem.</comment></comment></comment>


What time is it?  - <AUTHOR> http://iprl.wz.cz/ The funny way to know what time it is!! <comment><USER2> This is an art project called 'Standard Time' by Mark Formanek. In late 2007 he filmed a team of 70 workers constructing this clock through 1611 iterations (every minute) for a 24-hour period in Berlin's Sculpture Park. So when originally filmed it was done in real-time.

The flash video here is based on a screensaver that Formanek has made available which synchronises that video to your system clock, making it appear that you're watching the clock as it's being built. It's a clever idea with great execution and the effect is interesting enough that a number of galleries have put screens with the time-synced video on display.

Formanek has since staged a few live re-enactments of this clock being built, though I'm not sure if any others have gone for the full 24 hours.

There's more info, including videos demonstrating how it was done, at the official site: <http://www.standard-time.com/>

<comment><USER3> >Formanek has since staged a few live re-enactments of this clock being built

I will never understand people that appreciate this kind of art. Call me classical, but I really don't see watching a clock interesting.

Someone at the Boston MFA made a 24 hr movie where they compile different bits of film that includes a clock into a real time clock (so if it was 10:23 it would show 10:23 in a bit of the clip). It was interesting until you realize that besides being a neat art project, it's really difficult to understand.

<comment><USER2> I think I understand what Formanek was aiming for with this.

Unlike pre-compiled footage that can just be made 24 hours long, this was done in real-time with the workers forced to match the demands of the clock without the opportunity to pause during their shifts.

Because of its real-time nature when you view the video synced to your local time you can't help but become somewhat invested in the success of the workers as they struggle to keep up with time and come very close to failing during some transitions. There's tension generated by the fact that you never know whether they'll make the next minute.

Then there's the realisation you get after having watched this for a while that it's really all pointless, that you have become personally invested in the actions of a bunch of workers struggling to keep up with re-creating one of the most basic solved problems of the modern world: A clock. It takes 70 workers working all out to do what a cheap watch can do effortlessly.

I suppose that if it succeeds in getting most viewers to think a bit about the nature of work, time and labour then it achieved its intended purpose.

<comment> excuse-me Every saturday millions of people invest $100s each and colleges invest $100millions in finding out which team of people can carry a leather oval from one end of a field to another.

This is at least novel and at the end of it you have a clock.

<comment><USER4> Everything can be simplified to the point of absurdity.

<comment><USER5> Or to the point that its absurdity becomes apparent.

<comment><USER6> How meta; a post that exemplifies itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it insanely laggy because it's being Slashdotted/Reddited/Hackernewsed, or is it just the godawful Tasmanian internet again?

<comment><USER8> I suspect the former - it's laggy here too, and the network here is normally pretty fast.

<comment><USER9> If that's the case, it's been true since 1am this morning. I wonder if it's on the site's side. I have a feeling it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Argh! I tuned in at 10:52 and wanted to stick around to see the :00 transition, and the player crapped out _just_ at :59, and when I reloaded the 00 had already been switched, and they were just pulling off the pieces to switch 10 to 11. The next such transition is an hour away!

...wait, how did I get so invested in this?

<comment><USER11> You could always change your system time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The location seems to be Berlin, but the domain is Czech.

It would be cool to have this in different timezones with corresponding backgrounds!

</comment><comment><USER13> And cue the commercials cloned off this.

Absolutely brilliant. I couldn't find any background on it though - looks like a Czech project?

<comment><USER14> With the Fernsehturm at Alexanderplatz in the background, I'd rather wager Berlin?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Didnt have flash can't see on mobile. I am still curious if "creatives" still got stuck between Adobe and Apple, the two top "creative" tool producers.

</comment><comment><USER16> Flash version 9,0 or greater is required You have no flash plugin installed

Download latest version from here

I do _not_ have a flash player on my machine for more than 6 months. This is the first website I encountered that I cannot use _at all_.

<comment><USER17> Ditto. Flash is dead.

<comment><USER18> If Flash was really dead you wouldn't have bothered posting about how dead it is.

<comment><USER18> As an example: ActiveX is dead. If this was done in ActiveX, it wouldn't have gotten any upvotes at all if it was even submitted in the first place, and most wouldn't have seen it or bothered to point out ActiveX is dead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So is this a clever split frame trick or did they actually spend an entire day doing that?

EDIT: Actually, the lighting would be really difficult if it was a trick so I'm going to say it's real.

<comment><USER10> I thought it was a split frame thing too, but then noticed that they veer into the tens place pretty frequently and cast shadows. :) (And the other comments give more details about the original art installation.)

That's not to say that you _couldn't_ do a split-frame thing like this, with a little bit of cleverness and planning. Even if it were only split around the middle, that's only 72 transitions to film, which isn't too bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> they stole this video from (as well as code for playing it)

<http://esquire.ru/clock>

<comment><USER21> <http://iprl.wz.cz/> is now apparently displaying some obscene video.

The original(?) on <http://esquire.ru/clock> is working though.

<comment><USER22> Yes, <http://iprl.wz.cz/> was working yesterday, but now is showing some random crap. <http://iprl.wz.cz/> is really slow and framed. Please fix the first one!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well it appears that it's time for flash to load forever and then make my fan go crazy.

<comment><USER9> Same here. Is this a WebGL thing or something? Three people have sent this to me today so far, and the site simply doesn't seem to work at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Considering how much work was put into this, the novelty is lost very quickly, for me at least.

<comment><USER25> Things you only look at for a short time can still have a pervasive impact. I find art mostly works that way for me at least, and I think that will be the case here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Pretty sweet how it freezes every two seconds, showing an hourglass. How do they do that?

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell I'd be more impressed if it displayed seconds.

</comment><comment><USER27> Awesome. Closest affordable equivalent is the Stonehenge clock <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH0HLXnXljY>

</comment><comment><USER28> Looking at this from my office in Berlin, I thought "wow, they're even using GeoIP and some clever compositing to adjust the background to wherever I am."

<comment><USER29> Same here :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It was awkward when I realized this wasn't linking to the clock anymore and it had been on my facebook timeline the last three days..

</comment><comment><USER31> WOW That's awesome!

I highly appreciate the vivid art and message behind this creative construction. We need more crazy people :)

</comment><comment><USER32> Time to get a new server

</comment><comment><USER33> Peanut butter jelly time?

</comment><comment><USER34> flash.. yawn

</comment><comment><USER35> Aaaadventure Time!!!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Really nice work!! and free time to do that ;)

Ya the location seems Czech Republic!! cuz the domain and the builds..i guess

<comment><USER36> it's Berlin

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> cool project. Website feels a bit slow. I did something similar recently to learn coffeescript. <http://currenti.me></comment>


SA pigeon 'faster than broadband' - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8248056.stm <comment><USER2> A pigeon could beat my internet with a 1gb memory stick and I am in America...just in a more rural area, I still have dsl though... 100kb/s down 20kb/s up

IF the company brings speeds greater than dialup I don't see the problem

Fiber is expensive and I doubt Africa is going to get it first.

</comment><comment><USER3> This reminds me of _Never underestimate the throughput of a car filled with HD's racing down the freeway at 120 kph_

I don't remember where I first read it though..</comment>