Don't Launch Your Product - <AUTHOR> http://philosophically.com/dont-launch-your-product

<comment><USER3> I've been thinking lately, don't make "products" at all.

It's like "building a city." Whenever someone tries, it's a disaster. It's artificial, it's authoritarian, it's clumsy.

What to do instead? I don't know. Solve a problem for someone. Build a place for your friends. Make a tool. Make a script. Make a meme. Start a club. Build a boat.

I'm more and more interested in the anthropological viewpoint. Looking at us as, well, a human culture. People in Papua New Guinea build boats and tools. And here we are building "products."

pg's saying this but from a more capitalist viewpoint: that successful startups start as solutions to problems, that the best ideas come from your own problems, and so on.

I think that if we bracket out the question of making money, it's still interesting to think about. What is a "product?" Is it different from other created things?

<comment><USER4> > _It's like "building a city." Whenever someone tries, it's a disaster._

Not always! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeloord>

The trick is to not aim too high.

<comment><USER5> _"The trick is to not aim too high."_

Like the "Blauwestad" which failed. <http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blauwestad_(project)> (Dutch)

<comment><USER4> Eh, was there _any_ modesty in that project at all? I think that, in startup terms, Blauwestad is an excellent example of the "if you build it, then they will come" attitude. The real estate version of Color.

EDIT: Oh wait, that's exactly what you meant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You might be surprised how difficult it is to get press for anything outside of company launch, product launch, funding and exit events. It would seem this blog post, although you might not have expected it to do this well on Hacker News, is effectively a launch of sorts and you might have scooped your own story. But HN readers might be much better customers for a tech-friendly family site than TC readers.

But then I went on TechCrunch to read your original launch post I saw you actually did announce Origami on TechCrunch about 6 months ago: <http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/20/everyme-origami/>

I'm confused, how does this fit with "what I recommend – and what we're doing at Origami - is not launching at all"?

<comment><USER7> Did you read the article? He was saying "We launched, but it wasn't worth it; we probably shouldn't have."

<comment><USER6> I think he was referring to Everyme's launch, they also launched Origami (though perhaps not on purpose, it was an announced pivot)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You guys were YC11 and nobody suggested that you read _The Four Steps to the Epiphany_??? Seriously, half the readers of HN could tell you that you don't do a big PR launch _before_ establishing product/market fit. Are you _trying_ to be Webvan 2.0?

Sorry, don't mean to sound harsh, but that just seems so weird to think that anybody would make that mistake in this day and age. This lesson has been learned and shared and reshared and written about and blogged about and discussed to death.

Nonetheless, you guys did a lot of hard work and it sucks to have things not go well. Sorry to hear, and I hope things improve down the road.

Edit: Sorry of this came off as overly harsh. I'm not _trying_ to be mean- spirited here. I'm just a little surprised by the details of the story, given the context. And I don't mean to suggest that I'm better than anybody or know better, etc. I'm just some nobody who haven't proven anything yet, so feel free to ignore me.

<comment><USER9> This is such a classic HN reply to a failed launch, I feel like it needs to be an option on the menu bar to save us all time.

link | parent | flag | you-suck-but-good-luck

<comment><USER10> Don't you think people should accept both positive and negetive feedback.

<comment><USER11> Yes, You are right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's a nice idea, ESPECIALLY for social sites that focus on community. There's a lot of knobs that need to be tweaked to communicate the message and identify the true audience. But be aware what you give up when you sacrifice the big launch - a lot of nice links, some press, and a lot of tech people giving you a sniff.

If you think about it, the "big launch" is at direct odds with the lean startup approach.

</comment><comment><USER13> > _Take the word launch out of your vocabulary – it's a sign that you are > gambling on your app and not building a long-term, sustainable company._

From Steve Blank > _Your startup is essentially an organization built to search for a repeatable and scalable business model._ [1]

I don't think taking the word launch out of your dictionary is necessary. I prefer to use the word ship anyway. Also, who cares if it's a sign you're gambling? Everyone know's you're gambling by doing a startup. What you're talking about is running a marketing/pr campaign. And yes I whole heartedly agree - do not spend money/time on marketing/pr until you have a product/market fit. What they've effectively done is increase their churn and customer acquisition costs. Marketing does not work unless there is actually a market to be served.

> _Instead, put your sign-up page up or your app out because you need more > feedback on your idea. Find an audience of passionate users, even if small, > and reach out to their community through appropriate means._

This is the only thing web startups need to know.

I launched Compete Hub about 6 weeks ago. I knew it the site isn't perfect, and even though I only have about 20-30 users I do have something possibly very little startups have - passionate users. For example:

1\. I belong to a triathlon club full of people who are testing everything out and giving me feedback.

2\. I have a follow up meeting with this person: <https://twitter.com/competehub/status/313658484245803009>

3\. After writing a blog post about my plans, I had someone provide feedback.[3] I have a call with this guy in a few days to speak with him in person.

4\. I had a sign-up page before we launched that basically said "Are you interested in a website that helps you triathlons? Put you're email here:" I got 60 email addresses from that.

I have a comprehensive marketing plan (that can hit a massive reach for fairly cheap), but I will not unleash it unless I've proven with my early evangelists that there is a market for this type of thing.

TL;DR - The purpose of the MVP is to engage discussions. The purpose of engaging discussions is finding a product-market fit. The purpose of product- market fit is to build a repeatable and scalable business model.

[1][http://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first- princ...](http://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-principles/)

[2]<https://www.competehub.com/>

[3][http://blog.competehub.com/2013/04/10/endurance-race- discove...](http://blog.competehub.com/2013/04/10/endurance-race-discovery-is- broken-heres-how-were-fixing-it/)

</comment><comment><USER14> That was a valuable story to read. While there is plenty written about establishing product market fit before chasing the press, it's definitely worth wresting the "launch" out of our playbook. There are quite a few misguided habits subtly embedded in that ritual.

There are quite a few startup 1-liners out there today and it's worth mentioning one from Marc Andreessen: _Be so good they can't ignore you_. Applied to the OP, let the press find you when once you have something interesting.

</comment><comment><USER15> tl;dr - Don't let your hopes get out of control.

> We [snip] ended up with 11,000 downloads and 6000 sign-ups for our first > day. Not exactly the day we expected.

It's hard to have sympathy for this. Admittedly they had lots of resources put behind them leading up to their big launch, but convincing 6,000 people to convert on day one of product availability isn't something to scoff at. What am I missing here?

<comment><USER16> By the sound of it, they didn't convince 6k to convert, they convinced 6k to have a look.

""Launching" screws with your metrics – and you need clean metrics to evaluate and iterate on your business. If you see 6000 signups on day one and 2000 on day two, you can be mislead about the strength of your vision. It clouds your ability to single out the passionate users and understand their usage patterns."

[...]

"You can demonstrate growth by finding one passionate user, and then ten, and then 100 instead of taking in 6000 sign-ups to find 111 passionate ones."

That was the main thing I got from it anyway. They launched and missed and then... :/

I do feel kinda bad for them.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I should've used a different word; I considered making an edit. I feel bad for them as well, but more out of sympathy for the experience of having the wind taken out of your sails.

I don't necessarily agree that it's bad data either, just that it needs to be weighted appropriately. He's right though that it would be better to have gained this knowledge slowly instead of as one big bang. That would give them more chances to course correct without so much external attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't see it making much of a difference- if you've proven out your product in a reasonable private beta, your public numbers shouldn't be surprising. You go live, you see a big spike, then after a week your metrics go back to normal. No harm, no foul.

It sounds like they're going about it in a great way with Origami, and, once they have their numbers in good shape, if they were to launch publicly there'd be no downside. That they weren't able to eclipse their launch numbers (5k-ish downloads is normal for a standard TC launch) within a month is just a way of showing that they didn't have a grip on their growth before launching to the App Store.

As a note, there's a slew of reasons not to launch a "beta" app on the App Store- not least of which is that "New and Noteworthy" is really only for "New" apps and "Noteworthy" huge updates. You totally shoot yourself in the foot by taking yourself out of the running for the former.

</comment><comment><USER18> A press mention always leads to a spike in traffic / sign-ups. This shouldn't be surprising. I was one of those people who tried EveryMe when it came out. I simply didn't see what problem it was solving. It was overhyped and not very useful imo. I'm afraid you're repeating the same mistake with Origami.

But a launch is nothing more than a free way to get some traffic. Sure it doesn't guarantee conversions, but you'd be foolish to avoid free marketing for your startup. Instagram's app reached 1 million downloads in less than 24 hours (and 5 million downloads in just six days). Apple's iPhone launch went pretty well too. Don't blame the press for lack of market fit.

Edit: you've made things harder on yourself by trying to invent a new product category. The iPhone was a better phone. Instagram was better than Facebook at photo-sharing. Are you sure the world needs a social network for families? If you ask people (especially investors) nobody will say its a crap idea because then you're viewed as the guy who doesn't want to share photos with his family. Well I don't. And neither do the girls on Instagram that have thousands of followers.

I've seen a few failed attempts at vertical social networks (soc nets for pets, families, etc) and none have been successful at establishing a new product category. Perhaps it's like "email for families" - there's no point for a completely new identity. Social networking is like email - its a set of tools (photo-sharing, commenting, posts). Instagram improved one of those tools. That's a functional approach. Trying to apply the same tools in a niche just means "messaging for families" to me. I understand families is the biggest use case of EveryMe probably, but WatsApp had the group messaging feature like forever and I've only seen anyone ever use it once. Group messaging never seemed to be a popular product category, and not one of the top things to do on Facebook (unlike photo sharing) so it seems like the market doesn't need a standalone app for that.

<comment><USER19> Note: I'm a co-founder of Everyme, but no longer with the company.

I'm not even sure where to start here, because your comment deviates wildly from the actual point of the post. It borders on trollish.

 _"Are you sure the world needs a social network for families?"_

Actually, yes. After seeing behavior from hundreds of thousands of Everyme users, and talking to tons of families the evidence seems to indicate that the world does need it. Did I mention that 30,000 people signed up to be notified when a "private social network for your family" launches? I'm not sure how much more confident we could have been in the concept. We used all of the available data to make the right call.

 _"Well I don't. And neither do the girls on Instagram that have thousands of followers."_

You're entitled to your own opinion, but I am certain you don't speak for all of these people.

 _"WatsApp had the group messaging feature like forever and I've only seen anyone ever use it once"_

Anecdotal evidence, at best. WhatsApp has hundreds of millions of users, they keep the feature around because people are using it.

 _"Group messaging never seemed to be a popular product category, and not one of the top things to do on Facebook (unlike photo sharing) so it seems like the market doesn't need a standalone app for that."_

Mark Zuckerberg recently said: "The big stuff that we're seeing now is sharing with smaller groups". When a founder who has data from 1 billion people says that, you know it's true.

<comment><USER18> Oliver, to me the post reads as "we've launched with lots of PR but failed to get the traction we were hoping for, so don't bother with PR". It borders on blaming the press for lack of market fit.

I'm not saying the world doesn't need a social network for families or a social network for pets or whatever. I'm just saying I wouldn't use one, and the people I know wouldn't use one, but I'm sure you've done your research and there very well may be people that will. I sincerely wish you best of luck with it. But if I were you I'd be listening to negative feedback just as much as to positive feedback.

Frankly I'm just trying to help. I think EveryMe is a really nicely done app, and I love the fact that you had the balls to do a big launch and get everyone hyped up about the product. Launches are supposed to be big bets with high risk and potentially high reward. I wouldn't want that to disappear. Just because a product didn't resonate with consumers as much as you hoped it would, it doesn't mean the idea of a big launch is bad. I wouldn't want Apple to just release products without "launching" them. Facebook is a counter example, but I think they would have succeeded if they had a big launch as well, their product just didn't need it.

Personally I prefer the idea of EveryMe over Origami, so a bit sad to see you change direction because the launch didn't go as planned. I think there are a lot of iterative things you could still try with EveryMe (eg automatic location based groups). Will be interesting to see what you can do in Origami that you can't already do in EveryMe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know if the author realizes it, but he just "announced" his product over his blog. He just launched it.

It's pretty common to wrap a product launch into your blog, Joel Sposky did it with Trello (and continued to do it every post) and Jeff Atwood did it with discourse.

<comment><USER21> I think what he was getting at is that you shouldn't overvalue the initial launch of the product and trying to get it "perfect". It's a lot more important to be persistent/ routine in promoting your product and then slowly fine-tuning your software to what the target audience really cares about.

I had the same sort of realization for my own project (Shodan). Early on in the project, I would try to figure out when the best times are to make announcements, how posting to social sites should be staggered, what day of the week it's best to post on Twitter etc. But it just sets you up for unnecessary disappointment, and instead it's better imo to just constantly release information. Occasionally, something will stick and you'll get the burst of traffic/ attention that you were looking for originally.

<comment><USER22> Fortunately your project, you know, terrifies people.

edit: typo

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _"Our plan was simple. Launch the app and generate enough buzz for 25-50,000 downloads ..."_

Is this ever a realistic goal?

<comment><USER24> Well, they did get between 25 and 50,000 signups, so goal achieved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The author makes good points but to me the launch is less about product validation and more about kicking the tires on the infrastructure. It's all noise and is relatively worthless (especially if you are getting feedback from techies on a non-techie product) but you can certainly tighten the screws after your system gets a real honest pounding.

<comment><USER26> Occasionally it's actually good (re: techie feedback on non technie product).

We designed Fork the Cookbook[0] to be highly accessible by the common food blogging mom. We went out to them, and they hated the idea of forking recipes (very strange thing: our target market has this concept that "what's mine is mine. nobody is allowed to steal it. forking a recipe is stealing")

On the other hand, we have had good responses from the techie people. That makes for a bloody confusing audience pivot.

I guess in our case it's more of discovering the product market fit

[0] <http://forkthecookbook.com>

<comment><USER27> I am not sure if you have since pivoted, but here are 2 thoughts from a non- technical perspective:

1) I think "fork the cookbook" is awesome for a tech target audience, maybe not so much for a non-technical target audience. Forking has instant grok- ability with tech people but outside of that vector it's not immediately apparent.

2) Because of #1 (but I do think your core idea is close), what about something wherein the concept isn't "forking" a recipe (i.e. taking an existing one and mutating it) but rather, a "this is my take on that same dish" type approach.

User 1 uploads a recipe for potato casserole. User 2 discovers this recipe and has a slight twist on it, and rather than "forking" User 1's recipe, rather directly posts their own recipe. But a linkage between the two is created (where I guess the PK could be considered "potato casserole"), such that future users looking for potato casseroles would stumble across both. Or, when a user discovers User 1's version, the linkage could be represented as "Or, try THIS variant". Incorporate rating/votings (presumably you already have this).

It's probably extremely close to what you already have, but removes the tech connotation and even though it is extremely philosophically close to your original idea, make it removes the linkage in peoples' minds that anyone is "stealing" their recipe.

<comment><USER26> We're in the middle of a pivot to chase the tech savvy crowd.

Thanks for your advice. It's a good way to frame the value proposition

<comment><USER28> There's a large subset of the tech savvy crowd who like food experimentation, too.

<comment><USER26> And we've also discovered: more willing to pay for a recipe repository that allows export of data

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The article itself certainly offers sound advice. I can imagine how distracting a full blown launch can be when there's a business to build and a product to refine.

Thing is, after clicking through to the author's new project, Origami[1], the same big launch mentality seems to still be at play. I'm met with a mysterious sign up page hinting at the product, but there's no way to be sure if I'm genuinely interested. I submitted my email just to see if I could get my hands on the product, putting my trust into the "early access now" message underneath the email field. The resulting email just kept me at arm's length and I still know nothing about the product.

I suppose that's the way it's meant to be, though, given that Origami "has a thriving community of families in the hundreds already".

[1]<https://origami.com/>

<comment><USER30> I was looking for this comment, I'm expected to sign up for something I don't even know I don't need!

I can hazard a guess that EveryMe (beyond being Yet Another Social Network) is that it wasn't communicated properly, I'll back that up by:

"Our Twitter searches were full of users that didn't get it."

I've noticed this trend in recent startups, where for some funny reason, you tell the consumer nothing about the product but expect them to pay a time and information investment. My email address isn't something I just give out to no-mark sites.

As one such consumer, you're battling with not only The Big Guys, but that other startup that has an introduction stating their mission. You've got 10 seconds to convince me I need you, or I'm out of your website.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is probably one of the best advices I've read in recent weeks. It's exactly why for Fork the Cookbook[0] we only ever soft-launched. No Show HNs, no sending out messages to Techcrunch or whatever.

We've learned from our experience with Strangers for Dinner, and agree very much with the author's sentiments that ""Launching" screws with your metrics – and you need clean metrics to evaluate and iterate on your business."

Even for Fork the Cookbook, we're not there yet with Product/Market fit, and our marketing activities have changed a lot since being set live to the public at the end of Jan/beginning of Feb.

[0] <http://forkthecookbook.com> (can't resist spruiking now, can I?)

<comment><USER22> Dude, this is the second comment in this thread plugging your non-HN-launched product. But don't worry, we all backslide from time to time. I know you can do it! I know you can keep HN free of links to forkthewhatevs!

<comment><USER26> It's actually the first. My other comment was added later. But yes, I agree with you, I do overpromote at times

<comment><USER31> Don't take pseut's comments to heart. You're obviously excited about your product, which no one should begrudge you. I think the HN audience is pretty accepting of self promotion, as long as it is not too in your face.

Mind you, you have to admit, promoting your product on HN by saying "we skipped doing a show HN" is a little ironic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My thought is, that you'll most likely grow slowly like this at first - <USER2> might speed up a lot if you're very lucky. However, I don't see the harm in 'launching' down the line (6 months/year) or re-launching when you've got product/market fit.

For example, the people that made pebble had made other smart watches before, Facebook was used for 2+ years in collages before it was 'launched' to everyone. Mozilla spent 6 years developing it's plaform before it launched Firefox (which was 99% the same code as Mozilla anyway).

I'm not saying have a closed/private-beta - just don't go out of your way to call the press, until you have product/market fit.

</comment><comment><USER33> I couldn't disagree with this more. It really depends on the product and market!

IF you know people will want your product. OR are going after a mass market with a better X OR need to get up the App Store charts (hit based apps)? THEN aim for a huge hard-launch. A big product launch in this case is pretty much mandatory.

IF you are not sure people will want it OR are searching for product/market fit THEN defer launch.

Always launch! Depending on the product/market sometimes you go big other times you fly low with a soft-launch.

</comment><comment><USER34> As many others in here I'm continuously working on start-up ideas when my day- job is over. One of these is nearing it's beta phase. Ideally I'd do a closed beta-test for invite users only. They would have to expect all their data to be lost after the closed beta period. What is the best strategy to attract such users? It's no exactly "Show HN"-material as it's far from a finished product. But I'd like to get early feedback from users that does not expect to much..

</comment><comment><USER35> I think this is the first post I've ever intentionally "kudos"'d. Launches are hard. The title is intentional link-bait for HN, but it rings at least in part true: a grand launch carries a lot of expectations, but means only the start of an effort to find your target market.

</comment><comment><USER36> UCD forces you to decide and keep focused on the target audience from the very beginning. That approach helps every corner of the business, I believe and would surely have helped you save the day. But as you said correctly, lesson learned.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is exactly what I'm doing with my own product, I'm not launching it. I'm improving it, batch after batch, till it's good enough for people to come to me, and maybe the press as well, if lucky.

</comment><comment><USER38> Good to hear this perspective. Thats exactly what I am pursuing for WannaGet.com , and its encouraging to know that I am following a route that more experienced folks agree with :-)

</comment><comment><USER39> I would suggest going even further and not raise money before having some kind of traction or a strong product/market fit based on a statistically significant user pool.

<comment><USER40> I would suggest going even further and not even build anything until you have some kind of traction or a strong product/market fit based on a statistically significant user pool.

<comment><USER40> OK, I see what the downvote is for. But let me explain why I say you "shouldn't build anything" until you have traction or a strong product/market fit.

Building ANYTHING takes money. You might not think so, but it's true: you can't build some tiny part of "anything" without raising money.

You NEED have to have some resources to spend on it.

I mean if $0 is the true cost of building a pre-raising-money product to the stage of where you can show traction or a product/market fit, then I'll take the world's supply of pre-raising-a-round product RIGHT NOW.

That's right. If you have a product that is available for $0 and that has not yet shown a product/market fit or some kind of traction, I'll TAKE IT. Right now. Or whatever fraction of it you want to sell me at that valuation. Just hit me up for a reply.

If, however, as I suspect, the world supply of that is itself 0, then you have to realize that any kind of product, even pre-"raising a round", itself costs money and resources.

You should not spend EVEN those resources until you have some kind of traction or product/market fit. Really. I'm serious.

Have product/market fit, have traction, before having product. Don't build it until it's wroth building.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you had funding already then why not pour a couple of grand into advertising? That's a pretty sure way to get into the top sellers list.

</comment><comment><USER42> Another reminder why off-brand soft launches on mobile are key to testing and understanding your potential customer and market.

</comment><comment><USER43> The first few paragraphs sum everything up that's wrong with the "start-up scene"

</comment><comment><USER44> Don't drink the kool aid.

<comment><USER45> Yes, but which kool aid should you not drink more of?

The big launch kool aid? Or the anti-big launch backlash kool aid?

<comment><USER46> Maybe don't drink any kool aid at all and focus on delivering value to customers.

<comment><USER45> Ah, the customer-value kool aid. Tasty stuff!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Your thoughts on the Proposition 12? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
Let's assume that we made it more expensive to produce the staple foods such as eggs and chicken meat. We have a certain population of people subsisting on food stamps. Given we don't want to starve them, they need to be compensated for the corollary increase in the price. Is there a financial mechanism that ensures such a compensation?
Sincerely yours, Jerry Miller <comment><USER2> Why do they have to be compensated at all? They can eat a vegan diet without starving. This will further reduce animal suffering (the very goal of the proposition).

<comment><USER3> sincerely yours, taprun _</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Post-Covid tech we need when we reopen - <AUTHOR> I was thinking what we need when we reopen post covid SIP has been lifted.
1. Robot janitors and autonomous mobile foggers for schools, offices and working spaces.
2. Ag robotics. Guaranteed. This is my domain and I can make a whole long post about what we'd need.
3. Mobile groceries
4. Mobile farmers markets
5. 3 day work week?
6. 3 day school week?
7. Wearables that detect temperatures of people around you.
8. Contactless thermometers/body temperature readers.
9. New ways to create screen entertainment...like movies etc.
10. Virtual entertainment/tourism/seminars etc.
11. Sex bots.
Anything else? <comment><USER2> There's a fundamental problem with the way public restrooms are used. A lot of restrooms still have doors that require opening by hand to get inside one. When someone needs to wash their hands because their hands are dirty, they're going to have to touch the doorknob with those dirty hands because the place to wash their dirty hands is on the inside.

Secondly, when most people need to go into a stall for a #2, they don't wash their hands _before_ they use their hands to open the stall and then do their thing inside. They wash their hands after. Another aspect is the use of toilet paper from one toilet paper roll. You grab it to get some paper to clean your ass, then you touch it again some more. Then you go up, pull your pants up and then open the stall with your hands, then you finally wash your hands. Bathroom stalls can often be cramped too so some people can't operate without possibly rubbing against the stall walls, which can be pretty gross. Another flaw is that toilets get flushed with the toilet cover open. Imagine all the shit particles that get shot all around the stall.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree.

It can be solved easily with motion triggered door locks. And bidets/Japanese style toilets. There are many models available these days.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why can't we have nasal filter plugs instead of face masks?

</comment><comment><USER3> Bluetooth microphone enabled face masks

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Litmus paper like test strips?

</comment><comment><USER4> Face masks</comment>


Stanford Driving Software (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://stanforddriving.sourceforge.net/

<comment><USER2> Their vehicle models are a little amusing: Lamborghini, Porsche, etc.

[http://sourceforge.net/p/stanforddriving/code/ci/default/tre...](http://sourceforge.net/p/stanforddriving/code/ci/default/tree/stacks/driving/vehiclemodels/src/)

<comment><USER3> They are. My guess is that they are images automatically encoded into C++ files so they can compiled and linked with the rest of the software.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Last update was from 2011, looking at the file modification time.

<comment><USER5> Yes, most people who have used this code in recent years have had to make heavy modifications and fix several bugs to get it working properly. It's mostly really great stuff, but it was written rather hastily.

<comment><USER6> Wait - was this open sourced _in_ 2011, or last edited then and open sourced only recently? The former doesn't sound right, because I was working in a similar area around that time and would've thought I'd have seen this earlier if it had been publicised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, this is just what I was looking for. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER8> Sourceforge?

Sourceforge?!

Why?

<comment><USER9> SourceForge was absolutely amazing in 2000. It certainly hasn't kept up with technology, and is a horrible ad-infested mess now, but it (and its failed competitors, like Xnot if I remember the name correctly) played a huge role in promoting and distributing open source and Free software back in the day.

<comment><USER10> Ah, I remember the days when I lived on Sourceforge and Freshmeat.net...

<comment><USER8> Me too, but this is not the SourceForge of 2000 anymore.

<comment><USER10> Oh, I completely agree. I have a project on Sourceforge that I've moved (recently) to Github.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intel CEO Resigns from Trump's Manufacturing Council - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-15/intel-ceo-resigns-from-trump-s-manufacturing-council <comment><USER2> [http://blogs.intel.com/policy/2017/08/14/intel-ceo-leaves- ma...](http://blogs.intel.com/policy/2017/08/14/intel-ceo-leaves- manufacturing-council/)

Earlier today, I tendered my resignation from the American Manufacturing Council. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing. Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base.

I have already made clear my abhorrence at the recent hate-spawned violence in Charlottesville, and earlier today I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who marched and committed violence. I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them. We should honor – not attack – those who have stood up for equality and other cherished American values. I hope this will change, and I remain willing to serve when it does.

I am not a politician. I am an engineer who has spent most of his career working in factories that manufacture the world's most advanced devices. Yet, it is clear even to me that nearly every issue is now politicized to the point where significant progress is impossible. Promoting American manufacturing should not be a political issue.

My request—my plea—to everyone involved in our political system is this: set scoring political points aside and focus on what is best for the nation as a whole. The current environment must change, or else our nation will become a shadow of what it once was and what it still can and should be.

<comment><USER3> > _I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who > marched and committed violence._

If you're implying here that President Donald Trump did not condemn the white supremacists, I don't know what to say except that you are wrong. He can condemn white supremacists, radical National Socialists, and radical Communists at the same time. If he picks sides in this debate, much like the center picked sides in the Weimar republic, then we would be one step toward either gulags or concentration camps.

I do not think it is fair to expect the President to do something patently unwise to stir up further tensions and deny the concerns of many, because of the violence of some. Political violence is picking up precisely because political speech is suppressed.

<comment><USER4> I'm going to go ahead and say it's ok to deny the concerns of white supremacists

<comment><USER3> > _I 'm going to go ahead and say it's ok to deny the concerns of white > supremacists_

All of their concerns? I'm sure you realize that people don't pick up an ideology like that unless it looks like their society isn't functioning.

White supremacy is an answer in search of a question, and the question need not (and ought not) be posed.

We shouldn't be ignoring the concerns of the radical Communists either; that doesn't mean we all should become Communists and repeat the atrocities of Stalin. Likewise, we don't need to become National Socialists in order to ease the pains that make them turn to the ideology.

<comment><USER5> This sort of sophistry is a mental virus. Say what you mean, stop with the mealy-mouthed "whataboutism" and vague questions. There are no communists involved in this discussion. Nobody calls Nazis "National Socialists" unless they're trying to blame the nebulous "left" for the evils of the Nazis.

We've been through these arguments since the 1940s. Karl Popper's view of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]

>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

If we want an open society that permits maximal freedom, we can not permit those who wish to destroy freedom to override those who wish for freedom. The white nationalist movement includes people who explicitly endorse fascism and "throwing into ovens" those who exercised their free speech. [2]

Stop defending this evil.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

[2] [http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/4311880-letter- family...](http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/4311880-letter-family- denounces-teffts-racist-rhetoric-and-actions)

<comment><USER6> Just for the record, this is in his bio:

>you can be accosted for publicly engaging a wrongthinker.

I don't think he cares about rationality, let alone having the fortitude to say what he means. "Everyone else is wrong and when I get called an asshole it's clearly because it's 1984."

<comment><USER3> > _when I get called an asshole it 's clearly because it's 1984._

Well, it seems like my concerns are well-founded; because the first thing you did was look at my profile. Clearly you were looking to investigate me in some fashion, who knows why, I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.

Now imagine somebody else who doesn't feel comfortable with the (fairly mild here, thank you folks) level of hostility that I do; that mild-mannered person is the one I want to have an outlet for their thoughts so they don't stew in their own heads.

<comment><USER6> > because the first thing you did was look at my profile. Clearly you were > looking to investigate me in some fashion, who knows why

Technically I read the thread and then looked at your profile. Because people such as yourself always have some self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual nonsense in your bio that -- to everyone else -- clearly displays your ego, irrationality, and how wholly unprepared you are to seriously discuss matters in a forthright manner without trying to weasel your way around the topic. It's almost absurdly comical at how consistently you find such silliness.

>I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.

I'm quoting this just to draw attention to it.

<comment><USER7> We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Former climate change deniers, what changed your mind? - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5zvuxx/former_climate_change_deniers_what_changed_your/ <comment><USER2> When I first heard about climate change, I knew that there were essentially three things that needed to be proven.

1) That climate change is happening, i.e. the world is getting warmer. 2) That it's not a natural phenomenon, i.e. driven by human behavior. 3) That it's a bad thing, i.e. not a positive thing for the world.

Fairly quickly I accepted 1) based on the evidence. Over time I accepted 2), again based on evidence, but mostly on CO2 levels which I knew were well correlated with warm periods historically and logically should be, given it's a green house gas.

Much later I started to accept 3). I still think the negatives are over-done, an ice age is far worse than global warming and we have no idea how close we are to the next one. But species extinction simply can't be fixed after the fact, so preventing it trumps all.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think we're being naive over most climate change 'denial'. These people are not dumb, they just want to keep the debate going while being fully aware climate change is happening.

By delaying society's mustering of will to face it, they a) confirm their notion that we can't do anything about it (because in their minds, fixing it requires the kind of kumbaya UN cooperation they loathe) and b) cash out while there are still profits to be made in dirty industries and practices. And we're enabling them by continuing to make this a debateable matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a denier by thinking no change is happening. However, I do deny the more aggressive estimates are true. This is easily fact-checked by going back 20 years and see who predicted 2017 correctly.

It just seems fishy that the most vocal proponents of global warming are always pushing models that overestimate the amount of change. That kind of constant inaccuracy needs to be questioned.

[http://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/](http://www.snopes.com/ice- caps-melt-gore-2014/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not convinced that the climate model is accurate -  climate modeling is a billion times more complex than a 3 body problem which we can't solve. Nor am I convinced that the increase in co2 is human driven. Or that we know how the atmosphere will react with such increase

<comment><USER6> Computer global climate models are not accurate. They are the best approximations we can do today given the theoretical knowledge and data we have available.

This often trips up engineers, who associate computer modeling with the concept of a known system. But climate models are scientific, not engineering. They exist to explore uncertainty.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not depend on global climate models. If they did not exist at all, we would have the same concerns about climate change.

The models are based on the theory, not the other way around.

<comment><USER7> The feedback loops that cause everyone to worry come from global climate models.

How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without studying the local effects? The world is full of positive and negative feedback loops, discussing linear effects on the earth without taking into account these loops won't get us very far.

<comment><USER6> They mostly don't. The models help us make detailed predictions, but you don't need a computer model to know that warmer air holds more water vapor, or that reducing snow cover reduces albedo.

A lot of the biggest questions about how climate change will play out can't be well-modeled yet--like cloud formation, methane deposits in deep ocean or permafrost, etc. We need to learn more, and as we do, we feed that into the models and they improve.

> How do we know that the plants won't absorb all of the excess CO2 without > studying the local effects?

We know that plants aren't absorbing all the excess CO2 because we directly measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and they are going up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> tl;dr: "I had a cultural bias that I overcame with critical thinking."</comment>


The Mind: Most polarizing card game of the year? - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/08/the-mind-most-polarizing-card-game-of-the-year/ <comment><USER2> > Players are not allowed to talk and must instead utilize non-verbal cues > (like delayed action) as their primary tools.

No, I don't believe that's the correct interpretation of the game. The rules are pretty clear about all forms of signaling being forbidden, not just verbal. The only communication the rules allow is saying "stop", after which all players place their hands on the table and remove them at the same time to resume the game.

Now, you might say that without non-verbal queues there is even less of a game here than this article describes. And you'd be right. There is literally nothing to "The Mind" except every player (explicitly or implicitly) counting time at the same speed and synchronizing up either after a card play or a "stop".

<comment><USER3> I think that's a little reductive - there is more to it in the same way that there's more to poker than hoping you get dealt a good hand (I'm sure that's opening a can of worms).

It's not a game designed purely for expert bluffers. Everyone I've played The Mind with has their own tells and quirks - even when they know the rules forbid it - they'll cringe at their hand, tentatively hold a card forward, or lower it to the table. It's just fun to pick up on these and have a laugh about them.

I'm sure there are people that will rules-lawyer the fun out of it, but with the right crowd this is one of the games I've been pulling out most frequently recently, and haven't heard a bad thing.

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's reductive, and this is definitely not rules lawyering. There is just no ambiguity here. The rules mention multiple times that there are to be no secret signals or information sharing.

In addition to that there's a spoiler section printed upside down for people to read after they've played the game, to explain how anyone could possibly succeed at the task with no communication. And that section is not about reading non-verbal queues. It's about the players perception of time getting synchronized.

It's great that you're having fun playing a game with the components of The Mind. But the game both you and the original article are describing is pretty much diametrically opposed to the game that the designer intended it to be and described in the rules.

<comment><USER4> Every game I've played is full of non intentional communication in addition to timing and that's part of the game play as far as I'm concerned. Even the way you move your hand communicates something.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, I think it's impossible to have zero information at all unless players aren't even in the same room. There's just too much meta information you can feed off of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Neat, though it sounds like this game could be trivially beaten by agreeing to sleepsort ahead of time (if your propensity to solve a game outweighs your desire to not be a killjoy, anyway). For a less trivial take on a cooperative game that limits communication (which is essential for any cooperative game, to prevent quarterbacking) I highly recommend Hanabi: [https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/98778/hanabi](https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/98778/hanabi)

<comment><USER7> Seconding this. The first thing that came to my mind when reading this article was Hanabi - which is a fantastic game.

There's also a number of fun papers out there about Hanabi:

Hanabi is NP-Complete, Even for Cheaters Who Look at Their Cards : [http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2016/5864/pdf/4.pdf](http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2016/5864/pdf/4.pdf)

Playing Hanabi Near-Optimally: [http://www.mi.parisdescartes.fr/~bouzy/publications/bouzy- ha...](http://www.mi.parisdescartes.fr/~bouzy/publications/bouzy- hanabi-2017.pdf) (Though maybe skip this one if you intend to play the game for fun with friends)

<comment><USER8> PDF warning, both links

(Sorry, mobile cuts off the second half of the URL)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can see the game in action here - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnIfCG2dga8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnIfCG2dga8) their level 4 was nice.

<comment><USER10> They're passing a lot of information through movements and facial expressions. That seems like a more fun version of the game than the game actually described by the rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find that "The Game" and its "Extreme"[1] version with event cards where one of them is actually disallowing communication until covered by another card more engaging and fun to play then "The mind". Its fun to see the emotional rollercoaster that someone goes through when you put something on the pile they said they are interested in.

[1] [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/209325/game- extreme](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/209325/game-extreme)

edit: fixed name and added link

</comment><comment><USER12> So you can beat this game by using the "sleep sort" method: starting at minute 0, every minute play the card that has the same number as the current minute

<comment><USER13> How is that beating anything? You play games to have a fun or engaging time, counting seconds is extremely boring.

I and everyone we showed this game to had a lot of fun playing this game and not by counting seconds. It's a nice, quick game to start out with …

<comment><USER12> You beat it because: thems the rules son. They decided, not me.

<comment><USER14> The more interesting question in that case, is why play it at all, if you're going to take all the life out of it only you demonstrate a hollow win.

<comment><USER15> Why is it a hollow win? Does castling or forking in chess make it a hollow win?

<comment><USER13> What's hollow or not is about context. Chess is very serious, The Minds is not very serious.

If things are less serious and also more squishy when it comes to the rules (despite the very absolute "no communication" rule I do think that some talking in The Mind doesn't immediately destroy the experience and if you find a happy medium and approach with the group you are playing with it can even enhance the experience) then I would generalize that it's in general easier for wins to be hollow, because there is more room to "cheat" in ways that ruin the experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A fun party game I've seen is similar: everyone sits in a circle, then we try to count to 100 collectively. The catch: if two people say a number at the same time, we have to start over.

This is surprisingly fun, at least with a large group. Of course it is easy to game (just count sequentially), but if people are playing for fun, it's really interesting.

<comment><USER17> This is a classic warmup for an ensemble of actors in a play. We used to do it with our eyes closed as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think a simple method would be for each player to move its next card linearily towards the stack, for a duration in seconds corresponding to the difference between the stack and their card.

That way, the one with the lowest card reaches the stack first.

<comment><USER19> Apart from making the game no fun at all, that's just establishing a language before the game to use during. It's still a language (or a form of explicit communication) and as such is as forbidden as ASL.

<comment><USER20> so as long as you don't explicitly establish that the speed with which you move is the key, then it doesn't count if each player independently assume that speed of movement is the key?

I think the game is fun, but for only a few rounds. A game needs to have competition between players imho.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hanabi is very similar. It's a card game where we have to work together to build card sets. Except the catch is that everyone else knows what cards we have, but not us.

</comment><comment><USER22> Discussion here of the rules to this game and the conflict between winning and having fun brings up a constant dilemma when playing board games. Playing with my own family, where we have similar values for what was fun and made up the extra rules ourselves, most games could be easily made better with some rule changes. The downside is when you want to play with someone else. Following the rule book then is the default as "better" has many interpretations.

</comment><comment><USER23> I haven't played The Mind (yet), but this card "game" uses non-verbal responses to make a quick and surprisingly accurate psychoanalysis of the respondent: [https://medium.com/@jasoncomely/be-honest-are-you-lying- to-y...](https://medium.com/@jasoncomely/be-honest-are-you-lying-to- yourself-727d86116e9b)

It's based on the word association experiments by Carl Jung, who later published his findings as The Association Method.

</comment><comment><USER24> Game in full [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1gmLPCK3t8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1gmLPCK3t8)

</comment><comment><USER25> Polarizing?</comment>


Minneapolis approves plan to create 'community' alternative to police department - <AUTHOR> https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/06/minneapolis-approves-plan-to-create-community-alternative-to-police-department/ <comment><USER2> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._ [1]

1\. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment)

<comment><USER3> well regulated</comment></comment>


Climate capitalists have serious money in climate-friendly investments - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/business/2019/09/19/climate-capitalists-have-serious-money-in-climate-friendly-investments <comment><USER3> Good.

Look, ultimately, beyond a certain point, this stuff is point scoring.

After you have some amount - say a few hundred grand, a million - the actual number doesn't really matter - you're waving your metaphorical dick around.

And that's fine. If we can convert that dick waving into serious change - <USER2> we can get the metric by which intelligent beings compete to be something good, like carbon captured or species saved or ICE cars avoided or _whatever_ - we are well on the way to winning.

You built an enormous solar farm? Adonis DNA.

If we hack it so that it just slots in to the Natural Way of Things - e.g. with a carbon tax or similar - such that investing and buying and doing good things is simply logical - even better.

<comment><USER4> Except that's not what happens. What happens is people line up at the trough of government directed funding and distort the market, often negatively for a long period of time.

For example, people who are against meat consumption for climate purposes are linked through various entities to companies like BYND. So they begin to work on legislation that will profit BYND.

For another example, the solar funding debacle under Obama.

Otherwise I have no qualms with what you're saying.

<comment><USER5> > solar funding debacle

Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs. What % of startups do you expect to succeed, 100%?

<comment><USER6> The issue (as I understand it) was not that any one company failed, but that people lied about or ignored warning signs that failure was imminent for specific companies (edit: and that this may have been done due to conflict of interests). The actual policy issues and implication are hidden behind the partisan wrangling and spin that surrounded this topic.

There are legitimate concerns about conflicts on interest for people who have large investments in green companies while also lobbying strongly for particular "green" public policies. The risk is that if we uncritically accept these people at their word, we may end up with policies that do less to protect the environment and climate and more to line the pockets of the advocates.

Of course, these issues are endemic to our current political/economic systems and don't just apply to investment in climate friendly companies.

I would be much more inclined to trust the motivations of environment advocates with large investments in environmental companies if those investments were purchased and administered through some sort of blind trust to alleviate conflict on interest concerns.

<comment><USER7> What about all the coal-funded coal lobbyists?

<comment><USER6> Hence why I called it "endemic".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My neighbor is convinced that climate change isn't real and has been pushed by the left to make activists feel important. As there's an economic slant to this, my cynical view is that there's a chance that climate change agenda is being pushed by AstroTurfing groups to drive government handouts to the Green industry. I'm 99.9% convinced that climate change is happening and will follow the models.... but maybe I'm being scammed.

<comment><USER9> It's very healthy of you to be skeptical of government handouts to the Green industry – not because climate change is fake (it's not), but because government rarely knows how to pick the right tech to invest in. (Note that the government also hands out lots of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, though.)

The more economically rational way of solving the problem is to implement a carbon fee and dividend [0]. You simply put a tax on fossil fuels as they come out of the ground. This makes everything downstream a bit more expensive. You then return 100% of the tax revenue back to citizens – so government doesn't grow and consumers don't suffer, but companies suddenly feel intense competitive pressure to get more fuel efficient so they can lower prices. The market takes care of the rest.

It makes so much sense, even many of the big corporations are onboard [1].

The best thing you can do today is to contact your local representative about this policy [2].

[0] [https://citizensclimatelobby.org/why-we-support-a-price- on-p...](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/why-we-support-a-price-on- pollution/)

[1] [https://www.clcouncil.org/](https://www.clcouncil.org/)

[2] [https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your- representative/#...](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your- representative/#/48/)

<comment><USER10> > You then return 100% of the tax revenue back to citizens – so government > doesn't grow and consumers don't suffer

Supposedly HRC almost ran on universal basic income based on a carbon tax, but the math didn't quite work out in 2016.

But regardless of what happens to the money, economic incentives work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope they have serious money in nuclear, because nuclear is the straightest path away from carbon-heavy energy. It works well, and it works for a very long time (like 50-60 years or more - we will have fusion by the time those power plants are decommissioned). And now we can build power plants which physically can't blow up because they are unpressurized (sodium coolant) and there's no water in the system to produce hydrogen.

<comment><USER12> 10 billion and 10 years a nuclear reactor, if that doesn't turn into 30 billion and 20 years before abandoning it. Which has already happened.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Related: Warren Buffett is investing $30B into wind farms. Not to help his conscience ;) [https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/warren-buffett-spends- bi...](https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/warren-buffett-spends-big-on-clean- energy/)

<comment><USER14> Caution: spammy website, and this was back in 2014: [https://www.utilitydive.com/news/warren-buffett-to-keep- bett...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/warren-buffett-to-keep-betting-on- energy-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/272471/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Capitalism is not going to fix climate change.

This has to be a government-driven manhattan-project/moon-shot/new deal- project where no profit motive is involved at all.

<comment><USER16> _A new book asserts that rich countries grow with lighter environmental impacts_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669465](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669465)

<comment><USER17> By relocation all the most devastating envirnmental impacts of their unsustainable consumption feeding industry to poorer countries?

<comment><USER16> I haven't read the book, but on a more microeconomic scale, businesses that produce more trash have lower profit margins.

This is a very well known phenomenon and gets used to make a business case for doing the right thing out of enlightened self interest: Don't do it for some nebulous sense of virtue. Do it to fatten your bottom line.

In restaurants and catering businesses, profit margins are so slim that upgrading to lightbulbs and appliances that use less energy can put a business in the black that has been struggling.

<comment><USER17> Reference needed. This is 100% contrary to my experiences in contacts with businesses, as most (not all, typical exceptions are those that either are semi-charities or some that have made ecology the focus of their brand identity, although the latter contain a group that strongly depends on greenwashing vs actual environmental action) will cut every corner on regulation that tries to price in some of the negative externalities and then some.

<comment><USER16> _How Your Business Can Cut Costs by Reducing Waste_

[https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-your-business-can-cut- costs...](https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/how-your-business-can-cut-costs-by- reducing-wastes)

 _Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Profits?_

[https://business-ethics.com/2015/05/05/does-corporate- social...](https://business-ethics.com/2015/05/05/does-corporate-social- responsibility-increase-profits/)

 _Good business: Why placing ethics over profits pays off_

[https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/blogs/innovat...](https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/archive/blogs/innovation- matters/good-business-why-placing-ethics-over-profits-pays-off.html)

 _5 Simple Ways to Improve Your Profit Margins_

[https://www.inc.com/david-finkel/5-simple-ways-to-improve- yo...](https://www.inc.com/david-finkel/5-simple-ways-to-improve-your-profit- margins.html)

 _Top 10 Energy Conservation Tips for Restaurants_

[https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/141/energy- conserva...](https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/141/energy-conservation- tips-for-restaurants.html)

Of all commercial buildings, restaurants use the highest amount of energy per square metre. In fact, UK Power and the Family Hospitality Group estimate that anywhere between 5 to 15% of a restaurant's total expenditure can be taken up by energy alone!

Considering that the average profit margin of a full-service restaurant is usually less than 10% of gross revenue – energy consumption suddenly becomes a BIG financial concern.

[https://www.dexma.com/energy-efficiency-in-restaurants- pubs/](https://www.dexma.com/energy-efficiency-in-restaurants-pubs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If i were feeling glib, i might say something like:

> File under: "duh"

However, I think it's important to recognize that just because this shocking headline might be true, doesn't mean that capitalism is necessarily incompatible with conservation & environmental stewardship.

<comment><USER19> I think conservation and stewardship is only very loosely coupled with economic system. No form of economics that I know has been inherently better for conservation. In all economic systems taking shortcuts is the easy way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As someone who is actively looking for things in this space to invest in and to determine whether it makes sense at all, I can only say that so far it doesn't look good.

There are a bunch of problems with the fundamental analysis of the problem, but even if we all magically agreed that climate change was the biggest threat to humanity then the real problem is in the solutions.

Energy is a physics not a technology problem.

And the reality is that we haven't had any major scientific breakthroughs in this space since fossil fuels and nuclear.

Almost all of modern society is depending on them and there is no new fundamental scientific discoveries to replace them anytime soon.

I have sat in on countless plastic alternative presentations only to discover that while it might work in a lab it won't scale and it's only for a fraction of the things you can use plastic for. Plastic gives us everything from as hard as diamond to as soft as spiderweb. No other materical does that.

When it comes to energy there are currently three potential solutions worth following with the ability to solve our energy needs and still be green.

Fusion, thorium and fuell cells.

If you want to solve fusion you have to at least try and taggle plasma which means tagging magnets or something similar. In other words you have to make discoveries in completely different fields than the field of fusion itself.

Fuell cells is equally far off and we don't really have a realistic model for how to create them and apply them to ex wind and solar which will be needed to make them even remotely competitive in the bigger game otherwise the realities of their capacity factor is just not going to cut it.

Thorium is the one that seams most feasible but still require a lot of progress to be anywhere close to ready.

In other words I think we will be stuck with fossil fuels for a very very long time and if these climate capitalists were really serious about this they would put the money towards fundamental science instead, the will have a slightly smaller chance of succeeding but if successful their investment will dwarf whatever they can do in the startup space.

<comment><USER21> Can you clarify what do you mean by "replace"? Are you talking about full replacement for all uses of plastic/fossil fuels (so that we don't have to use them ever again), or are you saying there is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel even by selecting specific alternatives for specific uses (like packaging)?

<comment><USER20> There is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel.

We underappreciate how many things fossil fuel can be used for. It's not just fuel and plastic which in itself is extremely valuable. But it's also pesticides, machinery, medicin, chewing gum, sports equipment, textiles, toothpaste, guitar strings, contact lenses, fishing lures and I could go on.

It's so ever present in our daily life that living without it would kill most of us.

Sure there are alternatives to some of this, but we are not even close to having solutions for 99.9% of the uses of plastic today.

With regards to energy then also here it's hard to see the alternatives without fuell cells, thorium or fusion being a reality anytime soon.

I've looked at a lot of different alternative energy forms and while there are some interesting concepts in between I have yet to see something that can compete properly. A lot of Rube Goldberg solutions out there or solutinos that require a complete redevelopment of the very infrastructure we spent 200 years building.

So I am very skeptical but still looking. I am not saying you can't make a good investment on some of them, but whether you can save the world by investing in some of the things I have seen at least is very unrealistic.

<comment><USER22> I doubt many, if any, of those advocating for a move to renewable energy and EVs are calling for a blanket ban on oil for non-combustive uses.

We have alternatives for far, far more than 0.1% of the world's plastic though. We could probably get rid of most of it without a change in our quality of life, or effectiveness of products. Keep the oil for the few uses that _can 't_ be easily replaced by other more sustainable sources. Which almost certainly means contact lenses, and assorted medical uses, specialised equipment, some chemicals etc.

<comment><USER20> We don't have alternatives and those we have are simply not good enough and extremely expensive.

Even if you could replace 10% it wouldn't mean anything.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: ffjson: faster json serialization in Go - <AUTHOR> https://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2014/03/31/ffjson-faster-json-in-go/ <comment><USER3> As someone who has been working on parsing/serialization for many years, I can absolutely confirm that generating schema-specific code will beat generic code almost every time.

The article discovers an important tradeoff: speed vs. convenience. Generated code is faster but less convenient, because it adds steps to your compile. And you pay this compile-time overhead for every message type you want to manipulate. The pain of this generated code was one of Kenton Varda's motivations for creating Cap'n Proto after working on Protocol Buffers for years. Unlike Protocol Buffers, Cap'n Proto doesn't need to generate parsing/serialization code because its serialization format also works as an in-memory format.

I have taken a somewhat different approach to the problem, with my Protocol Buffer / JSON / etc. serialization framework upb ([https://github.com/haberman/upb](https://github.com/haberman/upb)). Instead of using static code generation, I use a JIT approach where I generate specialized code on-the-fly. This approach is particularly important when you are wrapping the library in an interpreted language like Python/Ruby/Lua/JavaScript, because users of these languages don't have a compile cycle at all, so adding one is a large inconvenience.

My library isn't ready for prime time but I'm hoping to have something ready to use this year.

<comment><USER4> > The article discovers an important tradeoff: speed vs. convenience. > Generated code is faster but less convenient, because it adds steps to your > compile.

Rust's approach to serialization eliminates this unnecessary tradeoff, IMO: it uses the built-in macro system to parse the structure of your serializable data types and generates the specialized code at compile time. There is no special build step, you get the full speed of specialized code, and it's as simple as writing "#[deriving(Encodable)]" at the top of your data structures.

(As an added bonus, we're using the same infrastructure to generate trace hooks for precise GC in Servo, which eliminates a major pain point of integrating systems-level code with precise garbage collectors.)

<comment><USER5> Well, yeah, D does this routinely too, no macros needed.

[https://github.com/atilaneves/cerealed](https://github.com/atilaneves/cerealed)

[https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-d](https://github.com/msgpack/msgpack-d)

[https://github.com/Orvid/JSONSerialization](https://github.com/Orvid/JSONSerialization)

<comment><USER4> "static if", __traits, and mixin are the D equivalent of Rust's macros, more or less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is way more complicated that it needs to be. Use code.google.com/p/go.tools/go/types to process the AST and you'll get basically the same information that the compiler sees. With that you can generate the code pretty easily. For comparison, our JSON code generator implementation is just ~350 lines and supports having different JSON representations for the same type, which vary depending on the container type.

Also, if you want to make the serialization faster you need to understand exactly what makes encoding/json slow (hint: is not only reflect) and remove all reasonable bottlenecks. You state that megajson does not support the MarshallJSON interface like that's a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure that's deliberate because it's indeed a feature. When encoding/json encounters a type which implements MarshalJSON it does the following:

1 - Call MarshallJSON to obtain its JSON representation as []byte 2 - <USER2> the produced JSON using a slower-than-the-bad's-guy-horse function based state machine which processes each character individually 3 - Copy the []byte returned by MarshallJSON to its own buffer

Unsurprisingly (after reading encoding/json's code, of course) having a MarshalJSON method is way slower than letting encoding/json use reflection if the JSON you're generating is anything but trivial and without almost any nesting, because it avoids extra allocations, copies and the validation step.

</comment><comment><USER7> Shameless plug, but this looks like the exact inverse of gojson[0], which generates code (struct definitions) based on sample JSON.

I originally wrote it when writing a client library to interface with a third- party API; it saves a lot of effort compared to typing out struct definitions manually, and a lot of type assertions compared to using map[string]interface{} everywhere.

[0] [https://github.com/ChimeraCoder/gojson](https://github.com/ChimeraCoder/gojson)

</comment><comment><USER8> The implementation of this is pretty interesting, in that it generates code that imports your code, compiles it, and then uses reflection to generate the serialization code. And in the end, that worked out better for the author than using the AST.

<comment><USER9> If anything, that would be an indication that the tooling is nowhere near good enough. Any reflection should be doable entirely with data the compiler has anyway.

<comment><USER10> Actually there is a tool for this. I think the author was simply un-aware of it. It is called oracle* and is able to answer this typing question and many more.

*: [https://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/cmd/oracle/main.g...](https://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/cmd/oracle/main.go?repo=tools)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've made a library this weekend that doesn't need code generation to achieve 2x improvement[1] over the standard library.

While the OP only implemented the encoding part, I only implemented the decoding part =):

[https://github.com/aybabtme/fatherhood](https://github.com/aybabtme/fatherhood)

So I guess they overlap nicely in that.

[1]:[https://github.com/aybabtme/fatherhood#performance](https://github.com/aybabtme/fatherhood#performance)

</comment><comment><USER12> Looking at the name, at first I thought ffmpeg author and general programming god Fabrice Bellard had come up with it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Seems like this approach might also work for building type-specific collection implementations as well!

</comment><comment><USER14> On the .Net side, Jil is doing similar, creating a custom static serializer per type. It's able to do the code generation at runtime by emitting IL: [https://github.com/kevin-montrose/Jil](https://github.com/kevin-montrose/Jil)

</comment><comment><USER15> You can get near the same speedup by just avoiding reflection. You unmarshal into an interface{} then pull the data out manually using type assertions as necessary. In my last project I think I got about a 1.6-1.7 speedup this way.

<comment><USER16> Nice hack (in the hacker sense), but not exactly convenient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Good stuff, there.

Feature request: optionally emit canonicalized (key-sorted) JSON.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a good example of why everyone should avoid using reflect package as much as possible.

I use reflect for quick development and then remove it before production roll out.

<comment><USER19> I've had to use reflect due to missing functions in an upstream API. We could have forked the upstream package or used reflect in one function.

We decided to put in a patch and use reflect until it is accepted.</comment></comment>


Delivering Value and Reducing Risk - <AUTHOR> http://www.yoanngrange.com/blog/delivering-value-and-reducing-risk.html <comment><AUTHOR> Every journey is a compromise between value and risk. Each individual has his own evaluation grid and decides to travel or not. And pretty much any decision in life is about making tradeoffs between risk and value. Products do not escape this rule. Onboard with us on a two and a half months journey and we did to add value to a product by actually de-risking it.</comment>


Think you want to die at home? You might want to think twice about that - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-02-16/doctor-patients-send-home-to-die <comment><USER2> My mother in law died at home (in the same room in which she had been born sixty years prior in the middle of WWII) and despite the twice-daily visits from the _Diakonie_ nurse to change dressings and feed her (German home visit paid for from church tax) the burden of caring for her in her final months fell harshly on her two youngest daughters.

Compare that to my paternal grandmother who could see the writing on the wall and moved herself into care so her kids wouldn't have to deal with it. As her vision and hearing decayed, and then she started to lose her short term memory she told me she realized she was just hanging around to get a letter from the Queen which she decided was pointless so offed herself* before she became unable to do so. She told me that she couldn't have done that at home -- too hard on her (by then senior citizen) kids.

* (Unfortunately euthanasia was not legal in South Australia so she had to starve herself to death at 98).

</comment><comment><USER3> As the article states, every situation is unique.

Would I want to die a home if I had a brain tumor that was causing me to act violent and I wasn't lucid? No, I would want to be a facility.

Would I want to die at home if I had a heart issue that would leave me bedridden but lucid and I would likely just fade away? Sure.

<comment> a-dub The problem is that it deputizes your loved ones as stand-ins for professional medical staff. End of life care is hard for the professionals, don't put it on your loved ones.

<comment><USER3> Agreed! Obviously I'd take my loved ones into consideration.

If the only people around are my 80-year spouse, I'm not going to put that burden on them whatever the cause of death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We could optimize for quality of life rather than length of life. It'd sure help that be a more positive experience if we inverted that.

Give me a good life over a long one, within responsibile parameters, it was always temporary. Frankly, I'm glad for that.

<comment><USER5> Sadly we aren't given a choice. My Mom's mom went from perfectly reasonable to dying at home amazingly fast in hindsite - 3 to 6 mos. I think.

My Dad's mom lived to be 90'something but the last 20 years were in increasingly assisted living. I don't think she even knew where she was the last couple years of her life.

That said - dying at home is work for family no two ways about but.. I think it helps with grieving in some ways. I was there for a lot of that time and it dispelled any illusions I might have had about what was going on. It made me think that dying is an incredibly inwardly focused thing.

Your millage may vary though. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like more people should consider euthanasia. If caring for you is a huge physical and financial burden, and you're basically waiting to die _anyway_ , why not just get it over with?

<comment><USER7> I am.

I have decided years ago and I do not see this changing significantly that once my mortgage is paid down -- which is approximately in eight years -- I just want to die, I will be 53 by then. By then the so called "bucket list" will be empty. I am living alone and this I can't see changing any time soon. Do not think I am suicidal or depressed -- I have three international trips booked for this year already and so on. I am just utterly practical. Nothing frightens me more than living with a slowly fading mind in a much more rapidly failing body.

Canada where I live has allowed medical assistance in dying since 2016 doesn't allow for this. I do not expect to be terminally ill and so I can't just decide, not even if I make a declaration ten years beforehands, that I want to end it in dignity and without pain. You can't. You _can_ extend it far beyond where life is enjoyable, it is indeed the default expectation to do so but ending it, that's not allowed.

<comment><USER8> 53 looks young enough to be active, enjoy life and add value to society if you take care of your health.

<comment><USER7> > if you take care of your health.

Yeah. See, I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes not long ago (AFTER I made the decision on when is the show over) and I can fully maintain a non diabetic blood sugar level with just diet and for the time being , I am doing so. It however greatly limits one of the biggest enjoyment in my life, namely food. _THAT_ is the future -- as I age , more and more things I could do I won't be able to. I bought a rolling carry on for the first time today because I recognize running around with a stuffed backpack is not cutting it any more. Already I needed to limit how much I can sightsee on foot. All this. I am SO not interested in walking this path down to the bitter end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've had the privilege of seeing my parents take care of two of my grandparents in my parents' home after my grandparents couldn't take care of themselves any more. (In one case, for their final week, in the other case, for over 5 years.)

I look forward to taking care of my parents in my home whenever they get to that point.

<comment><USER10> > I've had the privilege of seeing my parents take care of two of my > grandparents in my parents' home after my grandparents couldn't take care of > themselves any more. (In one case, for their final week, in the other case, > for over 5 years.)

> I look forward to taking care of my parents in my home whenever they get to > that point.

I am living this privilege and wouldn't trade it for anything. But something in you changes the first time you have to help your parent out of clothes they pooped in and into the shower. I wasn't prepared for it when it happened, but I believe it has made me stronger (and if anything, dealing with an adult with a decaying mental state feels like good practice for dealing with a teenager). I am so thankful to work in tech where my physical presence is not a necessity and so I can be more present with my family, but sadly this is not true for too many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Had an uncle that died at home and the family suffered a lot more than if he went to the hospital. Changed my mind about this topic.

My plan if I get a terminal illness is to put the paperwork in order and disappear into the forest or sail into the sea :)

<comment><USER12> Just keep in mind that if you just disappear your family won't be able to get a death certificate for at least 7 years if they don't find a body. With out a death certificate they won't be able to collect life insurance, inheritance, or deal with the estate.

<comment><USER13> Exactly that. Your family will have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy. I am also in favour of settling your affairs, make a last round saying your farewells and end it in a "clean" manner. Disappearing in a forest will get you to the missing persons list. Then if/when someone finds you it will be a whole new ordeal for your loved ones, DNA tests, burials etc. Why upset them 1-5-10 years later?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just went through this with my dad. Fortunately he was financially able to be in an assisted living facility which gave me and my sister much needed assistance and help during the process. As mentioned in the article, hospice covers very little.

Unfortunately nursing home or assisted living costs $200-$800 per day depending on the place you live and the assistance needed. If your loved one doesn't qualify for Medicaid, they are responsible for that. Medicare does NOT cover it, contrary to what many think. The only option for many is to drain their savings until they are destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. One could argue that one reason you save is to take care of yourself in old age, but when the draining of savings actually happens it adds to the emotional toll.

Long Term Care insurance is an option if you plan ahead, but it has become VERY expensive and hard to get now that the LTC providers have realized that their actuarial tables were way off years ago.

Tough situation.

<comment><USER13> I don't support/agree with all his opinions, but I've watched the "Dave Ramsey - Financial Peace University" and one of the things he insists on (at least I picked up on that) is to make sure you slowly invest on a package that would cover you at old age. Especially if you don't have kids to be a burden on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recently had to go through the passing of my grandfather. In addition to having Parkinson's for the last 5 years of his life that progressively got worse, he also had stage for rectal cancer that was inoperable. He had a DNR and also an advance directive about prohibiting aggressive medical intervention. He ended up with pneumonia and refused to be ventilated to clear the mucus. He told me and my grandmother after an extremely bad night in the hospital that he was, "ready." I called family from all around to come say good bye, We were planning on doing in home hospice but his condition was deteriorating and I couldn't manage it on my own. We ended up taking him to a very nice hospice center, they stabilized him enough for everyone to get to say their last good byes and then he passed a few days later.

</comment><comment><USER13> Just a thought, but here it is.. humans were living for far less years. We used to die at 20-30-40, 50 at best for thousands of years. Then hygiene, healthcare, comforts kicked in and we ended up living up to 100+.

I think that "in the past" our species didn't have to worry about "senility" (and what comes with it) because people were dying while their brains were still at full capacity/capability and it was only the body that was "failing".

The jump from the lifespan of 50 to 90 to just a few decades must have made a huge difference in the appearance of this "new problem" of having 3-4 generations being alive at the same time.

I remember a Great-grandparent was a very rare thing. Now with people living up to 100 and people having kids at an earlier age, we get to see it far more, and this will most likely continue.

</comment><comment><USER16> Really the problem is that the care facilities are few and far removed, the other being that old people really prefer the familiar.

Alternatively that live in professional care is really expensive, and for good reason that it takes a big toll on people performing it in addition to special skills

</comment><comment> a-dub I'm very familiar with the concept of in-home hospice, and personally it resulted in one of the most horrifying experiences in my entire life. I would not wish it on anyone.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is there any way to read this article without enabling javascript?

<comment><USER18> It's a series of images, so if you're sporting uMatrix or similar, just allow images from brightspotcdn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Extremely biased article, bordering on propaganda. Not everyone dying is an ongoing expensive burden, and care facilities aren't miracle cures. Many people need somewhere to rest on their way out.

<comment><USER20> How can someone relating their personal experience be "biased"?

Anecdotally (in my experience as a paramedic), I agree that many people significantly underestimate how hard it is to care for someone who is dying.

<comment><USER21> > How can someone relating their personal experience be "biased"?

Aside from all stories we tell being biased there are many ways a story I tell about my experience can be especially biased. Exaggeration, omission, conflation, and then there's outright deceit. There's also the possibility that what I believe is real is not [0].

I don't like assuming the worst or accusing people, but I certainly don't think that all personal accounts are completely neutral. People usually tell stories with some motive and I think it's valuable to be politely cynical, a bit.

[0] [https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/trends/home/Monthly- Trends-A...](https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/trends/home/Monthly-Trends- Articles/2017/The-Trouble-with-Eyewitness-Identification-Testimony-in- Criminal-Cases.aspx)

<comment><USER20> > Exaggeration, omission, conflation, and then there's outright deceit.

That's not bias, that's lying.

For what it's worth, the author's experience certainly matches my own (working as a paramedic). There are a lot of people out there who have significantly underestimated how hard it is to care for a loved one who is slowly dying.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft says it had Sidekick data backup, but it was hit, too - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/microsoft_says_had_sidekick_data_backup_but_it_was_hit_too.html?ana=from_rss <comment> brown9-2 Wish this article had more details than just "the backups were impacted too".

A few months ago Google had a large multi-hour App Engine outage. Afterwards (within 24 hours?) they posted a detailed technical explanation/postmortem online for anyone interested to read, with a play-by-play that even went minute-by-minute.

Microsoft/Danger owe their customers more of a real explanation.

</comment><comment><USER2> > Will this prompt Microsoft to review its policy for data backups? "This was > an extraordinary situation [...]. We greatly apologize [...]. We have a full > team working in parallel with the restoration team to augment the redundancy > and stability of this acquired service over the long-term."

That's got to be the best non-answer answer I've read in a long time. And no - redundancy and stability _of the service_ have nothing to do with the backup policy.

<comment><USER3> You forgot "acquired."

It was _them_. Those bastards we bought. I mean, sure that was almost a year ago, and most of the original employees are gone, but do keep in mind when we're talking about this that it's not a proper MS offering.

Unless you like it. Then yay us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you have a backup that CAN be impacted by a problem in the main server then you do not have a backup at all, you have, at best, redundancy.

The very reason to have a legitimate backup is that it cannot be damaged by the same mechanisms that can damage your primary data. It should be inert, if possible, or at least to some extent immutable, and it should be offsite.

RAID is not a backup. SAN is not a backup. Mirroring to a redundant storage array is also not a true backup.

Backups are hard to get right, and expensive. But the cost of getting it wrong can be monumental.

<comment><USER5> I couldn't agree more. Real backups mean that at some level you can't delete that data, no matter how much you want to, without driving out to some secure remote location and demagnetizing some tapes.

<comment><USER6> _Real backups mean that at some level you can't delete that data_

It goes even farther than that:

Real backups mean that at some level you can _recover_ that data

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In my experience, new "policies" put in place in these situations don't really do anything. They just inject bureaucrats where there were none before, and aggravate the few people remaining who might really help. And you can bet managers will start a witch hunt, firing some mostly-competent guy as a scapegoat (which may "feel good" at the time, but ironically will only slow down their recovery and set them up for their next failure).

The smart thing would be for Microsoft to think of the employees: what management decision is likely to make working in that group _least likely to suck_ over the next few months? If it were me, I would invest in technology and hires/transfers, not in bureaucracy. I would give that group _everything it needs_ to build and rebuild that system twice. After all, doesn't Microsoft have the money for that?

<comment><USER8> Actually I think the question on many people's lips is not whether whether some "mostly competent guy" will be scapegoated, but whether VP of Mobile Experiences Roz Ho will manage to keep her job. First we had the leaked details of the dire status of Microsoft's Pink project, and now this. Sure wouldn't like to be in her shoes right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You see teacher, I have two dogs...

</comment><comment><USER10> While this is very unfortunate for SideKick users I suddenly feel pretty good about my own backup solution. Redundancy, rsync weekly to a live volume, multiple offline backups including one off-site (although it's a few months out of date right now. The important data exists on at least half a dozen sources at any given time. I am of course referring to my personal MP3 collection.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of something happend to a friend.

Friend: Sir, my hard disk partition crashed and the project files are all gone.

Lecturer: Don't you have a back up?

Friend: The backup was on the same partition.

</comment><comment><USER12> I find it almost unbelievable that there were no cyclic backups.

</comment><comment><USER13> This highlights a very reasonable fear that people and corporations have about the cloud.

It might even kill off some of the smaller cloud-based players...</comment>


Ask HN: Advice on courses for a MS student? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a Masters student at a US univ. I can only take a fixed number of courses every semester, but I'm interested in a lot of things...( for example, I am currently agonizing over a choice b/w a course on computer vision v/s computational geometry, as I kind of love math as well as coding). I'm not sure about what I want to be in the future (i.e entrepreneur or academic ) but I do know that HN folks are the more intelligent and practical people.
So what I'm asking is: what things should I keep in mind when selecting courses? Any views/comments would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> Part of the problem is that the HN community would like to see a great improvement in University classes. For the most part, what is taught in University is not practical or used in the workplace.

I am sure someone will give you a recommendation.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it feasible to start a startup while having student debt? - <AUTHOR> Currently a Senior in college and weighing the chances of ever starting a startup (successful or unsuccessful) while having a ton of student debt. <comment><USER2> If it's a ton, it's better to work a day job while developing your side business and not telling your employer (because they will try to sue you sometimes).

It's never too late to start a side project! Just find a way to pay bills first :)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not as if I have an idea of what to work on currently, its more or less that I don't know if having student debt already blocks me from making the leap into startup world.

<comment><USER2> Honestly, it does. You have to find a way to pay rent, food, and transportation. Adding several hundred dollars of student loans makes it quite a bit harder to pay monthly bills without a steady day job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It isn't a hard block, but it puts you in a very bad position. You will likely make business decisions that result in quick money rather than long term success (we're already tempted with that but debt makes it worse). It also may be a red flag to potential investors if they find out, but not sure.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you raise $200 in 3 days? - <AUTHOR>

I've been in transition for 4months with zero income,  not for lack of trying. I'm a junior Dev though and everyone wants mid to senior level.<p>i have $4 to my name,  but need just a little to tide me over for two weeks.  I'm going into a top 15 accelerator this week and should get some funds from that,  any suggestions?  i tried a teespring campaign teespring.com/geekyhusband but no sales. <comment><USER2> Sell something you own. Offer a service to a neighbor. Tutor someone. Pan Handle. Busk.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ask your mom. It's 200 dollars, not 200k.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah - no family to ask, on my own. I tried tutoring, wordpress installs, posted ads all over facebook and craigslist no bites - it sucks when you know you can code, but are missing something when it comes to getting that first job, least I have my startup, I may have to go to panhandling soon, but at the end of the summer could get 500k or more in funding, and that would go a long way towards growing the company, and my career.</comment></comment>