Buku v2.5 – Powerful command-line bookmark manager - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jarun/Buku/releases/tag/v2.5 <comment><USER2> Perhaps more useful to link to the main page, [https://github.com/jarun/Buku](https://github.com/jarun/Buku).

From that page: "buku is a powerful bookmark management utility written in Python3 and SQLite3. When I started writing it, I couldn't find a flexible cmdline solution with a private, portable, merge-able database along with browser integration. Hence, buku (after my son's nickname)."

</comment><comment><USER3> What's the use case for an advanced bookmark manager? Managing (online) scientific references our such?

I find that even with a couple of folders of bookmarks in my browser, reading something later just doesn't happen in practice. And for reference sites that I might need later, the browser bookmark system is more than enough. Is it just me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Maintainer of `Buku` here. I agree. In the latest release we have pushed an Easter Egg to open random (and probably forgotten) bookmarks which you can revisit once in a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://pinboard.in/](https://pinboard.in/)

Is a bookmark manager I highly recommend. It has lots of extensions/apps written for it and is a barebones but powerful bookmark manager with tags. I have about 4k bookmarks on it right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Buku is open source and free. In addition, it intends to be a private solution by design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Previous discussion of the project: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11712122)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is epic and something really needed. All current bokmark managers sux IMO more or less.

However, without browser and mobile plugins I wouldnt touch it. I use digo free now and the great thing about it, is it works everywhere directly in browser. Its also exportable locally. I dont like its bulk management.

<comment><AUTHOR> It did cross our minds. But the future of browser plugins is quite uncertain (security issues, memory usage concerns...). Buku is browser compatible... you can add bookmarks from anywhere on Linux and OS X without touching the terminal or export Buku database as HTML and import it (ref: [https://github.com/jarun/Buku#gui- integration](https://github.com/jarun/Buku#gui-integration)).

We do have a ToDo list item for an Android app.

<comment><USER7> If you are referring to browser add-ons (and not Plugins), the future couldn't be brighter: Multiple vendors, including Mozilla and Microsoft, are converging on a "Web Extensions" standard that is based on the Chrome extension API (but neither a strict subset nor superset). Hence, it is far easier to write extensions for multiple browsers with a (largely) single codebase.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I meant add-ons. Thanks, I'll check it out.

<comment><USER7> If you miss any necessary APIs, contact the Mozilla folks working on the Firefox implementation of WebExtensions (e.g. via bugzilla.mozilla.org). They are usually pretty reactive to (sensible and well thought out) proposals to extend the API capabilites (and reduce the gap to their other APIs). If you need any help, drop me a message @fbender_dev on Twitter or @fbender on Github.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the info though I can't promise anything on this yet because of other stuff in plate. I am looking for consistent contributors (like I have on `googler`) but still not at that stage. If you are really interested, please feel free to contribute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wrote a 149 sloc shellscript that also solves this: [https://github.com/nuex/note](https://github.com/nuex/note).

</comment><comment><USER9> curious on the naming, because it means "book" in my language, is this intentional?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's after my son's nickname. In my language it doesn't mean anything in particular.</comment></comment>


A Bayesian Approach to A/B Testing - <AUTHOR> http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-testing/

<comment><USER2> There's a related notion of an "adaptive" statistical design, where the allocation of users to each test group varies based on prior performance of the group. For example, if after the first 100 users you notice that group A seems to be doing slightly better than group B, you will favor it by allocation more users to that group. You can compute this allocation in such a way as to maximize the number of successes. In particular it will converge to always picking the better approach eventually, assuming there is a real difference. This also means you don't really need to "stop" the experiment to make everyone use the better version (although you may want to for other reasons).

Here is one paper: <http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~qstout/pap/SciProg00.pdf>

<comment><USER3> Noel Welsh at untyped has been working on a cool implementation of this adaptive design.

Check it out [http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing- and-m...](http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing-and-make-out- like-a-bandit/)

And the HN discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867380>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _If you aim to make inferences about which ideas work best, you should pick a sample size prior to the experiment and run the experiment until the sample size is reached._

That's not a very Bayesian thing to say. It doesn't matter what sample size you decided to pick at the beginning. A Bayesian method should yield reasonable results at every step of the experiment, and allows you to keep on testing until you feel comfortable with the posterior probability distributions.

If 10 customers have converted so far, and 30 haven't, then you would expect the conversion rate to be somewhere between 10% and 40%, as evidenced by this graph of the Beta distribution(10,30):

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+BetaDistribution+1...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+BetaDistribution+10+30)

You then do the same with method B, and stop testing once the overlap between the two probability distributions looks small enough.

Anscombe's rule is interesting, but it seems rather critically dependent on the number of future customers, which is hard to estimate. The advantage of the visual approach outlined above is that it's more intuitive, and people can use their best judgment to decide whether to keep on testing or not.

 _Disclaimer_ : I am not an A/B tester.

<comment><USER5> This way of framing the problem is known as the bandit problem. You can find lots of papers about it (Bayesian and frequentist). As others have mentioned in this thread we have a startup providing bandit algorithms as SaaS: <http://mynaweb.com/>

<comment><USER4> I've looked at your website, and from what I gathered, I would make the same criticism as I made for Anscombe's rule: it's not easy at all to decide what rewards should be, and how to put a price on exploration vs. exploitation. The more I think about it, the more I feel that an engineer looking at Beta distributions could weigh the trade-offs and make a better decision than a black-box algorithm with inadequate assumptions.

Granted, this doesn't really scale to testing many combinations of feature, and I think that I can see what you're shooting for. Best of luck with Myna.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a powerful approach when you can quantify your regret. For many startups, however, it's important to understand the tradeoffs involved in moving one metric upward or downward. To take Zynga as an example, they care about virality at least as much as engagement (or perhaps moreso). Adding or removing a friendspam dialog is likely to trade some virality for user experience. What percentages make or break the decision? Sometimes this is a qualitative call.

In environments where you need to look at the impact of your experiments across multiple variables, and make a subjective call about the tradeoffs, it's really important to have statistical confidence in the movement of each variable you're evaluating. This is a key strength of the traditional A/B testing approach.

</comment><comment><USER7> May I ask how this is Bayesian in anyway? I understand that using the term Bayesian is good for directing clicks to a site, but this seems like good old fashion frequentist math. None of the hallmarks of a Bayesian approach to the problem are here: having a distribution over hypothesis, having an explicit prior, computing the posterior of the distributions.

I have some experience with the medical trial literature and specifically bandit algorithms and using cumulative regret verses other statistical measures like PAC frameworks. And regret is most certainly not a Bayesian idea. Instead you are explicitly modeling the cost of each action (providing an A or B test to a user) instead of assuming all costs are equal.

Yes, this is a better approach because it explicitly models the costs associated with the exploration/exploitation dilemma. But, it is not Bayesian.

<comment><USER3> In the clinical trial literature Anscombe's approach is considered Bayesian, and Armitage is frequentist. From Armitage's 1963 response to Anscombe's paper:

'Anscombe takes the Bayesian view that inferences should be made in terms of the likelihood function... An immediate consequence is that stopping-rules are irrelevant to the inference problem.'

Page 6 of the Anscombe paper that I cited may be helpful in your understanding of the approach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This gets into the nitty gritty of running trials (A/B, split testing). If things like this get baked into libraries it has the chance of pushing the state of the art forwards.

Very worthy of an HN post.

EDIT: Actually, check out their entire blog. It's worth your time.

<comment><USER3> What libaries are you currently using where you would like to have things like this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This description of content optimization using bandit algorithms sounds like an even better approach: [http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab- testing-and-m...](http://untyped.com/untyping/2011/02/11/stop-ab-testing-and- make-out-like-a-bandit/)

That company has already made a web app and service to optimize content using that approach, Myna, at <http://www.mynaweb.com/>. A simulated experiment showed their approach to be better than A/B testing: <http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html>. Though Myna's website doesn't say whether it is currently free or not, or what its pricing will be when it goes out of beta.

<comment><USER5> As of yesterday evening, Myna is in public beta. That is, you can sign up straight from the website. Myna is completely free for now. When we start charging, the cost will be in line with other companies in the same space. If you're earning from your site the cost of Myna should be a rounding error.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "k is the expected number of future users who will be exposed to a result"

Does this mean that this approach does not make much sense if your estimate of k is totally wrong?

How do you estimate k?

<comment><USER3> Anscombe talks about this and proposes two solutions:

One is to estimate it based on the number of daily visitors your site gets, and then estimate how long you will run the winning alternative in the campaign.

He also proposes: 'perhaps k should be assesed, not as a constante, but as an increasing function of |y|/n, since the more striking the treatment difference indicated the more likely it is that the experiment will be noticed... One way of introducing such a dependence of k on |y|/n is to assess k+2n as a constant.'

This actually simplifies the math somewhat, and you can see the full details in Anscombe's paper cited in the blog.

<comment><USER11> I don't get it. What if this is my home page? What if I intend to run the campaign "forever?"

If k is an estimate of how much traffic I will ever see, it seems like I'm going to be calculating the Phi-inverse of approximately 0.

Where can I see Anscombe's paper online? (It was published in 1963; it's not linked in the blog post, just cited.)

<comment><USER3> Just sent you a copy of the paper. If you plan to use the result 'forever' then theoretically you would be willing to sacrifice a huge (infinite) amount of suboptimal performance now, so that you get the correct answer in the for when you decide to pick the winning idea. It would be very important to have the correct winning idea, because it is going to run for eternity.

In practice, we don't actually ever run the winning idea for ever. We do website re-designs periodically, we test new ideas, business needs change. So we can pick a reasonable value for k based on these constraints.

Alternatively, you can get better performance by _not_ picking a stopping criteria, and dynamically choosing which homepage to show. As soon as one idea appears to be doing better, you start showing that to more users. By choosing the appropriate adaptive sampling strategy, you can reduce regret to be less than if you have a constant sampling strategy. However, for many people the adaptive strategy may be more trouble to implement than it is worth.

The most important takeaway is to _not_ use repeated significance tests to determine experiment termination time. Either use the Anscombe bound with an appropriate k, or fix the sample size before starting the experiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's worth noting that considering the zoomed in graph (the 4th image), while it shows correctly that it could cause problems if you use significance as a stopping rule, also clearly shows that the classical test is far more powerful for n < 2000, i.e. it states a result is significant with more sensitivity.

So while Anscombe's rule looks good for massive amounts of users, smaller tests with predefined stopping rules can be more useful if you only have a few thousand observations.

</comment><comment><USER13> How many tech companies use the Bayesian Approach rather than the traditional (confidence-testing) Approach?

</comment><comment><USER14> There is nothing wrong with studying this approach and trying it out to see whether the interpretations are more helpful. However, insufficient data and insufficient technique are common when studying extremely complex systems; this Bayesian approach makes assumptions that may not be correct.

<comment><USER15> > However, insufficient data and insufficient technique are common when > studying extremely complex systems;

A Bayesian approach is _especially_ well-suited to small sample sizes, unlike a frequentist approach, which will give a nonsensical result for a sample size of 0,1, or 2.

As for improper technique, I can't help you there. 'Garbage in, garbage out', as they always say.</comment></comment>


After Dump, What Happens To Electronic Waste? - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happens-to-electronic-waste

<comment><USER2> good overview of a sick situation. I've seen pictures on boston.com/bigpicture of those places where people cook up the PCBs.. messed up. I actually wrote a post this morning, because my college is offering a free e-waste recycling program sponsored by Apple where all the equipment is guaranteed to actually be recycled and not exported to places like these. [http://beeptc.posterous.com/indiana-university-offers- public...](http://beeptc.posterous.com/indiana-university-offers-public-e- waste-recy)</comment>


New Developer Tools in Firefox 11 Aurora - <AUTHOR> http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/12/new-developer-tools-in-firefox-11-aurora/

<comment><USER2> The "Tilt" 3D View looks so cool! But it's nice to see Firefox getting Developer Tools.</comment>


Social Capital + Facebook Photos = Advertising Nirvana? - <AUTHOR> http://www.leveragingideas.com/2008/12/31/social-capital-facebook-photos-ad-nirvana/

<comment><USER2> Why do I keep forgetting that there are in fact people on this earth who buy shit just because they see it.</comment>


Mozilla Janus is improving the mobile web experience - <AUTHOR> https://air.mozilla.org/better-faster-lighter-improving-the-mobile-web-experience-with-the-janus-proxy/

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is a comparison of Chrome Compression Proxy, Janus Proxy and Opera Turbo/Off-road: [http://browsingthenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/chrome-data- compr...](http://browsingthenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/chrome-data-compression- proxy-vs-mozilla-janus-vs-opera-turbo.html)

<comment><USER2> Were these mobile web tests done on on a mobile network?

Edit: the article uses a baseline of "5 Mb/s direct connection", without specifying if that is WiFi or 4G.

<comment><USER3> Scrooge tried holding a copy of Edward Tufte's website in front of some zombies: [http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/](http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/)

LOOK!

Not a thing. They ran neither slower nor faster on the treadmills he'd set up for them.</comment></comment></comment>


I am adding a "sexual misconduct clause" into all of my investment agreements - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sarahnadav/lena-dunham-bey-the-apology-plague-and-my-rage-against-the-machine-sorrynotsorry-eb6ce9e80f70#.nqxe85hyz <comment><USER2> > If an investor or employee of the investor/accelerator/incubator makes a > sexual advance towards me or anyone in my company, then they are stripped of > all of their shares in my company (even the ones that have vested) and there > will be a public notice to shareholders as to the reason why.

As someone unfamiliar with investment contracts, what's the typical burden of proof like for comparable "nuclear option" moral clauses? Is there typically some kind of evidence required in the contract? Or is it just assumed to be "whatever will hold up in court"?

To be clear, I think this is a very interesting idea, and am in fact a little sad it isn't common place (it seems like something that _should_ be covered by the kind of morality clauses which I understand to be common place). However, an idea like this needs to be enforceable to be practical and thus valuable.

EDIT: Since this is an often controversial subject, I want to be very clear: I'm not trying to imply that founders/employees will make these claims up. Rather, that assertion is one which is very likely to be used by the well-paid legal teams of whoever you're trying to evict from your board. Would this kind of clause actually stand up in court under that kind of assault?

<comment><AUTHOR> there are all kinds of "bad actor" and nuclear option moral clause. I personally (as a founder) once had to sign a "non-embarrassment clause" where I guaranteed not to embarrass the investor.

Since I am basically creating this with my lawyer, I am going to make it unambiguous- either a recorded conversation, a verifiable conversation on text/whatsapp/email, a photo or in extreme cases a rape kit.

In my opinion this should be a deterrent rather than something that would ever need to be enforced. But it can't be a "he said/she said" either

<comment><USER3> > either a recorded conversation, a verifiable conversation on > text/whatsapp/email, a photo or in extreme cases a rape kit.

It sounds good in theory, but the definition of sexual advance is vague.

The investor will be thinking - what if some day you feel that you just want to take back the shares, how easily could you action this clause and what protections do I have?

If we're talking a lost court case against the investor, then yeah that works and is solid. If you want to action the clause without that then who will be judging if the recording/photo etc. qualifies under the sexual advance claim?

<comment><AUTHOR> these are terms that I am working on with my lawyer- and I am sure investors will have some push back and changes of their own

<comment><USER4> Why just protect women? Feels like you could help everyone with little extra effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > If an investor or employee of the investor/accelerator/incubator makes a > sexual advance towards me or anyone in my company, then they are stripped of > all of their shares in my company (even the ones that have vested) and there > will be a public notice to shareholders as to the reason why.

Wow, yes. This is going into any investment agreement I would ever consider signing. This is powerful. It puts the emphasis where it belongs and give it teeth.

I see a parallel with the anti-smoking campaigns. I think it's pretty lame to pass a law telling, e.g. a bar owner they can't allow smoking in their own place, but I'm willing to let it slide for a few decades until many fewer people are dying of addictive poison (however voluntarily.)

In a healthy environment, people who are interested _in each other_ shouldn't feel awkward about entering into a more familiar (than professional) relationship, even in this context. However, we are not there yet, and in the meantime investors and their employees making sexual advances at the people in the companies they are funding should be considered beyond the pale.

<comment><USER6> Just to point out that the law restricting smoking in bars/restaurants is mainly there to protect employees who may else be forced to be passive smokers. Obviously they should not have to make a choice between working and protecting their health. Then, if the owner is _the sole_ staff present, yeah, why not allow it in that case.

<comment><USER5> That, in my view, is exactly the sort of bad-faith sneaky leverage that the anti-smoking hard core used to force the issue.

No one was "forced" to work in a smoke-filled environment, this part of issue was framed as discrimination against non-smokers working in places where smoking would be allowed.

It makes a kind of sense, right? OSHA violations for workplace exposure to cancerous agents is a thing for a reason. But I never _liked_ the abridgement of personal freedom. It would be possible (even now) to permit exceptions for some businesses, but that wasn't what the anti-smoking lobby was interested in, was it?

In any event, I see a weak parallel between the two situations: We accept a (temporary and excessive) restriction for a time to correct a large and otherwise-intractable social issue.

In the one case it was addictive poison, in the other inappropriate sexual advances in formal business relationships.

<comment><USER6> When you "have to" work, you do not have much choice. Sure you are not forced, eh, you can quit or even not bother to apply if you are an "anti-smoking" weakling... unless you need to feed your family I guess.

You can speak of the abridgment of personal freedom of the owner, but what about the effective freedom to work in an healthy environment? Oh yeah, regulations are there to ensure that. But I may be biased, I am from France and support such things as 35h weeks and no-work-on-Sunday laws (to ensure people can have a social life).

<comment><USER5> If you're in a situation like that, with literally no choice but to work in a smoke-filled bar or your family will starve, then for goodness' sake _THAT is the problem_!

;-)

As I said, a compromise could have been reached but the "aggressor", if you will, was not interested.

(Also, as an American working stiff, I envy you your sensible arrangement. But as a Bucky Fuller fanboy, I think we all should be working two hours a week, and retire at twenty having worked a full career for two years. C'est la vie...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > If ... or employee of the ... makes a sexual advance towards ... or anyone > in my company, then they are stripped of all of their shares in my company

Wait a sec, I don't get it. If I as employee like some girl and ask her for a date, is it a sexual harassment?

To be honest, I don't like this trend...

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you actually read the post? I think I make it pretty clear

<comment><USER8> I must admit that I think that more clarity is a good thing. Would asking someone on a date be considered an "unwanted sexual advance"?

Also, the term "unwanted" makes me wonder about the existence of a "wanted sexual advance".

I worry that this whole concept is too fraught with "gut feeling" decisions and that could cause injustice or liabilities.

It might be cleaner to say that romantic or sexual workplace relationships are forbidden and that extends to investors, contractors, suppliers, vendors, etc. if the relationship clause is violated, all the involved parties will be fired or banned from interacting with the company, with any owned shares seized.

Basically like zero-tolerance policies in public school applied to the business world. It's more harsh, but it's equally unfair to everyone.

<comment><AUTHOR> remember- this isn't for within the company, this isn't a workplace relationship.(for the most part) this is about investors and founders. And just like you have to go to HR for an office relationship, you would need to do something similiar in a case like this

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What if the misconduct happens the other way around, by someone in the company towards someone in the investor/accelerator/incubator?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it should be a mutual agreement- it's not as if one side has the right to be a "bad actor"

Although, I have literally never heard an investor complain about this as a problem. (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist)

But this is about a power dynamic and putting proper boundaries in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice post. I see sexism in tech everywhere. Its one of the points who I personal hate in tech. Even if I´m a guy.

</comment><comment><USER11> <the men who perpetrate it the most are also the ones who hold the "keys to the kingdom"... women don't want to ruin their careers by speaking out.>

I was, up to this point, unaware that all sexual harassment in workplaces was of women, by men.

<comment><AUTHOR> This isn't about the "workplace" this is about the Tech industry. And really about investors and founders. Given the small percentage of women, especially holding high level roles- I believe that it would be almost statistically impossible for women to be the main perpetrators</comment></comment>


Why Ferrari engineers don't like turbos - <AUTHOR> http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/why-ferrari-engineers-dont-like-turbos-1678575660 <comment><USER2> It's about predictable torque curve and throttle response. And this is where the current generation of hypercars come inL the Farrari LaFerrari, the Porsche 918, the McLaren P1 and at a slightly different level the BMW i8. The electric motors can be used to 'fill in the gaps' in the torque curve, by providing extra power in the right places. You can use a turbo for good power to weight ratio, but the electric motor makes up for all the deficiences. And the efficiencies you get with the hybrid system means that you don't even have to bother with the turbo necessarily (Porsche and Ferrari don't have one) Every review, but particularly for the Ferrari, talk about the massive and instant power delivery you get when you floor it so clearly it works.

You can also perform an additional trick that they use in F1 - use the electric power to spin up the turbo (and harvest energy that way too). That isn't in use in road cars yet that I'm aware, but it will be I expect.

Basically my point is that it isn't about the turbo, it's about the electric motor. It might be on its own like the Tesla Model S, or it might be in a Hybrid system like the cars above, but the torque you get from an electric motor is just too good to avoid.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, exactly — once you have an electric motor/generator and an energy store, the whole game changes because you can approach the power sync problem of lag in new ways. Also, the issue of turbo size and over/under producing boost and the need for wastegates can be better managed if there is a way to capture and store exhaust energy without routing it directly to the compressor.

Some of the more sophisticated work here is also being done by Porsche in their LeMans program, which has (as I understand it) a uniquely complex turbo/hybrid setup.

I think it's really exciting. Considering this type of usage — mostly transient stuff — it's tempting to think of a system for sports cars with a supercap energy store that's lighter weight than a battery store. Toyota use supercap stores in their LeMans car, I'll be interested to see if that trickles down anywhere.

<comment><USER4> Idk, is there something wrong with liking the simplicity and predictability of something with less computers and a big NA motor, like a Viper or a motorcycle? Enjoying driving is about much more than just speed and power-to- weight ratios, and the article makes a good point about their effective impact on air quality already being negligible. I'd rather see a bigger shift in industry standards such that e.g. power generation becomes more efficient vs the current trend of giving everyone who buys a Porsche 918[1], Tesla, or Prius a tax break for _saving the planet_.

1\. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxphevb.shtml](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxphevb.shtml) because someone buying a $845,000 car which gets 20mpg city / 24 highway and carries 2 people definitely deserves a $3,667 tax break for _reducing emissions_

<comment><USER3> So two very different thoughts here, and I basically agree with both: yes, there is still a place for simple, mostly analog, NA powered sports cars, and yes, it is a distortion of the system for a 918 to get some kind of green subsidy.

I was just speaking towards new paths in getting the most out of ICE-centered power systems, that an alternative power store and MGU can uncover better turbocharging options vs. a purely mechanically coupled turbine/compressor. These technologies are being developed at the less price-sensitive high end of the market, just as Tesla is doing with an all-electric drivetrain. They started at 100K+ roadsters, developed to an 80K luxury sedan, and are developing down market from there. I think it's totally appropriate to encourage a shift in industry standards, as you say, with incentives in this segment of the market (let alone where the Prius sits). It's a bit of an absurdity with the Porsche, but take heart that there are only 918 being made…

As far as what kind of sports cars we should be encouraging, even mid-market cars are so fast now you really can't enjoy them on the road. That's why cars that emphasize a fun driving experience at still-sane speeds are the most interesting to me now, like the FR-S, the Miata, the Elise, etc. But that's a separate conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is why I prefer taxes to regulations. If governments simply said, "pollute as much as you want but we're charging you a progressive tax based on the CO2 output of your vehicles", then the vast majority of automakers would still push for cleaner engines, because otherwise they'd have to pass the taxes on to the consumer. For commuter cars that compete on price, that would be suicide.

But exotics have never and will never compete on price. Ferrari and Lamborghini would be more than happy to pass that tax on to their customers, and the customers would pay the higher prices without blinking.

The Earth gets cleaner, governments get richer, and consumers still get to buy what they want.

<comment><USER6> I don't know if the Earth gets cleaner faster this way.

In the US, college is too expensive, so people ask for gov't loans using taxpayer dollars. This ends up rising college prices, since virtually everyone is now guaranteed to be able to pay at least $5k per year instead of $0.

I could see a similar situation here where auto manufacturers lobby for subsidies for people buying their first car or whatever, and so the extra taxes ended up getting covered by subsidies. Car companies end up getting more money without having to bother reducing emissions.

Generally thinking, I think you will find little sympathy for the poor souls who want to buy a $500k car and drive it at 200mph at 3 mpg (don't know what real numbers look like for these things). Especially not in public areas, in our public space.

In any case, pollution makes everyone's lives pretty awful (see recent pictures of cities in China), so that ends up being prioritised. Maybe with a tax, only 1% of cars will be over some limit, but with regulations, pretty much 0% will.

In an alternate universe, some NRA-like figure is arguing about how if we outlaw polluting cars, only criminals will have polluting cars.

<comment><USER5> I think the Earth gets cleaner at largely the same rate. The drive to compete on prices forces 99% of the cars sold to be optimized towards lowered emissions (accounting for the increased price of those optimizations).

I don't find your subsidy argument persuasive. There's never been (to my knowledge) a government subsidy for buying cars (outside of cash for clunkers, which was stimulus disguised as subsidy), and I don't see a carbon tax affecting that.

As for college being expensive, like many things that's an American phenomenon. The rest of the western world seems to get by just fine with affordable education and healthcare. Even here in Canada, where education is far more expensive than in Europe, our tuition is pretty reasonable (~$2500/semester). I graduated with a BSc in CS and $38k in student loans, and I took my sweet time about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated.

I understand Mercedes "solved" the lag problem with their F1 power unit from last year: they split the turbo into 2 and put an electric engine in between both sides to keep the intake side going while the engine is at low rpms. They got 80 more hp than anybody else dominating the season.

Turbos are an energy efficiency compromise: you only use them (and waste gas) when you really need the extra power.

Edit: grammar

<comment><USER4> Twincharging[1] (belt-driven supercharger + exhaust-driven turbo(s)) is also a way to reduce lag, as are variable-vane turbos (less aggressive pitch (less load) to spool up quickly before adjusting to a more aggressive pitch to increase boost).

Another more gangster option is the old rally trick of letting some air/fuel mixture into the hot turbo to cause it to ignite and spin the turbo, aka ALS[2]. This is the popping you can hear in older rally cars when they're decelerating / going around turns at lower RPMs.

1\. [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger) VW TSI engines use this, and I thought Mercedes did too on an SUV, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.

2\. [http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/bangbang.html](http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/bangbang.html)

<comment><USER8> ALS (not to be confused with backfiring) destroys your exhaust quickly though, including the catalytic converter, so that's a no-go for non-race cars. Typically a nice hack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If changing the emission test to include putting the engine under load would allow Ferrari to stay naturally aspirated then the problem isn't regulation but poorly implemented regulation. I'm all for getting regulations right.

> Despite the claims of marketers everywhere, lag can't be eliminated. The > holy grail for engineers of turbo engines....has been to manage the lag so > that it's unobtrusive in normal driving.

A bit of a nitpick but McLaren showed you can do exactly that if you include an electric generator (i.e. if you go hybrid.) In the P1 they even have _massive_ turbos and a flat torque curve because the generator fills in the torque gaps. (I look at the P1 the same way I looked at Lamborghinis when I was in the third grade, just pure awe.)

Since Ferrari has an F1 team and F1 has gone the hybrid/turbo route, not only do they know this technology exists but they're on the cutting edge of it. If they're really concerned about the turbo lag they know exactly what they can do about it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Articles like this just confirms my theory that car journalists are the biggest obstacle for the automotive industry to truly innovate. It is as if they dictate the requirements for the general public.

What the author completely seem to ignore is how turbos are key to the entire downsizing trend that is drastically changing the cars. With lower mass, less inertia and less internal friction, going back to first principles is what is making a difference these days.

<comment><USER11> This is an article for people that like to drive, and he is correct: you want a linear response in turns. He is not dictating requirements for the general public --- he is describing reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some interesting bits, but that article seemed to be mostly breathless oversimplifying.

</comment><comment><USER13> This article strikes me more of an ode to Ferrari then factually correct info on why turbos are bad. As many have mentioned technology can be used to iron out the pitfalls of the turbo boost, perhaps Ferrari engineers feel the pressure from Maclaren's new turbo fleet and need to justify their failure ;)

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm all for controlling emmissions, but do it right and fairly. In Califrnia we have pretty strict emmission standards--fine, but do it fairly. After looking at max emmissions for various cars and manufactures; there dosen't seem to be a lot of "science" going into these numbers(My emmission books are from the ninties). That said, let me pass on a story(it won't affect most of you guys, but it might help out that one guy who car is flunked on their bi- annual emmissions test). When you get your car smogged in CA, all smog shops are required to have a written copy of the Of the Emmission's manual they used to evaluate your automobile. Most smog stations take the cheapest route and spend a little over a $100 for a current Motor Emmissions manual. That publication is filled with errors. So yes, if your automobile fails the smog test(ususlly the visual) you are stuck--arguing with a smog tech. Yes, there are other emmissns manuals. Mitchell emission manuals(OnDemand5) is a great, highly accurate alternative, but cheap smog shop owners(corporations) don't want to subscribe, or sport for a current copy. The Motor Emmission manual contained errors on the two cars I own. What are the odds of that? If you own an older Volvo, or Toyota truck and were failed on the Visual, double check the info with a Michell Manual. And no, 1988 Toyota(naturally aspired) trucks are Not required to have to have a MIL light. I honestly don't know if the Editors of Motor Emission literature understand the difference between a carburator, vs FI? Anyways, I know there are thousands of consumers affected by these errors yearly. Oh yea, when I tried to point out the errors to the corporation that publishes the Motor Emmission manuals they only got back to me after three emails, and then argued with me. They finally admitted they made a mistake, but I haven't verified they corrected this particular error. If a enterprising lawyer is reading this it might make a nice Class Action Lawsuit? I looked into liability in errors in technical publications, and they look like they have blanket liabilty--hopefully I'm wrong?

</comment><comment><USER15> >>>>> Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used.

Would a turbo help in the librarian's hybrid car?

</comment><comment><USER16> This article is flawed.

1\. Assertion: Need for excess fuel due to cooling problems and consequently increased CO2 emissions.

Rebuttal: Additionally injected fuel beyond the stoichiometric ratio will most certainly _not_ increase CO2 emissions. This is because it will not even burn, due to lack of oxygen. It may, however, increase CO emissions due to partially burnt fuel.

Verdict: Lack of technical expertise.

2\. Assertion: Need for excess fuel due to cooling problems and consequently reduced efficiency.

Rebuttal: There are other ways to supply sufficient cooling for turbocharged engines. Only in extreme cases (gasoline supercars/hypercars), the last straw is to inject excess fuel, which will drive up fuel consumption (but not CO2 emissions). For diesel engines there is no pronounced cooling problem to begin with - here the excess air mass keeps the temperatures relatively low. Unfortunately you can't do the same in gasoline engines, as you would risk premature combustion.

Verdict: In these extreme cases you _want_ effectiveness over efficiency, so where's the beef?

3\. Assertion: Boost control is no more than "electronic trickery" and turbo lag will always get you!

Rebuttal: No matter what you choose to call it: Technology that works, works. Turbo lag is complicated, but if you don't need to pinch pennies you can (for all practical consideratins) eliminate it. There is a variety of technologies who will do that for you, using two turbochargers. (Caveat lector: Not all biturbo systems use techniques of that kind!) Specifically, a sequential asymetric biturbo or a register turbocharging system can do this for you.

Verdict: Turbo lag is a real thing, but never underestimate the power of clever engineering!

I won't even go into "turbo impeller muffling the screaming glory of that prancing horse"... m (_ _) m

Full disclosure: For the last dozen years, I've been working for a major automotive company, helping with the electronic trickery ;-)

</comment><comment><USER17> No mention of water injection. A company with deep pockets can fine tune water injection, reduce heat, reduce fuel consumption, etc., on turbocharged engines.

Right now it's only popular in aftermarket, high-performance applications.

<comment><USER18> One interesting option is hydrogen generation and injection -- hydrogen gas is hard to store but it reduces engine temps because it produces water.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Am I miss-understanding something, I thought the 14.7:1 Stoich ratio (really closer to 12:1 under load for N/A Engines and 11.0:1 for well tuned FI Engines) meant for every 14.7 Grams of Oxygen, it requires (Molar weight of Air) / ((Molar Weight of Gasoline) * 14.7) . Granted it's been a while since I've taken Chem, but that was the impression I was under.

</comment><comment><USER20> Turbos are attached to the exhaust. They muffle the engine sound. This is important for ferrari people, for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER21> Mazda doesn't use turbos, yet manage to be competitive in the European market. Their engines, like the 2.0 SkyActiv are well liked by motoring journalists.

</comment><comment><USER22> They could get around the lag issue with a supercharger or an electric turbo, or some combination of the two.

<comment><USER23> Or not care since evo's and STi's launch faster than all but a few ferrari's. if you aren't at a dead stop the lag doesn't happen in real driving situations; aka you would have to shift into 4th under 30mph for example in either of those turbo charged cars.

The way my Evo seems to get around the dead stop lag - you floor the car and hammer the rev limiter and then basically bring the clutch out about a 1/4 inch then dump it. I hit 3.5 second 0-60 easily with this (standard) evo lauch technique.

Lastly you lose a lot more hp in a naturally aspirated engine at altitude too which to me makes a turbo car a better option ( I live in the mile high city however so this is a personal thing )

<comment><USER24> Absolutely, except launch control software is the one dumping the clutch for you in the Ferrari, so the 1 second of spooling is irrelevant for obtaining the 0-60 time.

<comment><USER25> I think he's speaking about the traction issue a Ferrari experiences during launch vs the Evo which has AWD and does not suffer from such problems nearly as much (except very high HP AWD cars).

Also, the 1-second of spooling may not fully occur during the hammering of the throttle until the clutch is dumped due to there being no load on the engine. You might get the turbo going some but it won't be generating the power it normally would when the car is actually moving. Since both cars in the comparison would be turbocharged then it would then come down to which car can get going quicker to keep the turbo going and that would usually go to the one that has the most traction.

Source: I own 2 Evos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> But turbo spooling sounds awesome!

</comment><comment><USER27> If I had the money to buy a Ferrari I would want it 100% electric.

<comment><USER28> Then don't buy a Ferrari, that's like saying "if I had the money to buy a jet I want it to be able travel on water".

There ARE 100% electric super cars out there, but what's a Ferrari without the roar of their V8 and V12?

<comment><USER29> I second this. I had the pleasure of driving a Ferrari 348 TB once in London rush hour traffic. Needless to say, the experience of driving it was curtailed by the pottering along in a series of traffic jams, rude and obstructive behavior towards me from other driver simply because of the car, and to top it all off the engine overheated and had to be repaired afterwards.

But it looked great and sounded amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why doesn't Ferrari put a more fuel efficient engine in it, and then wih a nudge nudge, wink wink, have the owner replace it with a more powerful, but less fuel efficient, engine? The type of person that will buy a Ferrari will be able to afford to replace the engine or have aftermarket tuning done. Ferrari is allowed to tell you how to turn it into a gas guzzler, they just can't sell it to you as such. They could even release the source code for the engine computer. It's the owners problem if they blow up their engine, and the engine computer should have no control over steering and brakes.

<comment><USER31> You don't buy a Ferrari to replace the engine. You buy it because you don't need to tune it, it's already been done for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It seems like a lot of effort to solve a problem that doesn't need any solution. Nobody needs this level of acceleration.

<comment><USER33> Advances in sports and super cars often trickle down to the mainstream market eventually. Nobody needs a Mercedes Benz either, but the market as a whole does.

[http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation](http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/innovation)

<comment><USER32> If they were racing electric cars or driverless cars then I could see that. What I can't see is any point in putting any more work into investigating turbos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The phenomenon of emissions regulations pushing this trend toward turbocharged engines is ridiculous.

Look at the small commuter cars from decades ago, and you'll see them putting out efficiency numbers comparable to some of today's best hybrids.

The root problem driving this trend is ballooning vehicle weight due to misguided government regulations.

My question: which would do more for passenger safety (as measured in number of deaths per year)? Safer car design, or safer road design?

I think it's road design. Being idealistic for a minute, because this won't ever happen, but what if the government decided to focus on more efficient road design & traffic rules to increase safety instead?

From what I've read about Vision Zero in Sweden and other traffic design experiments (subtle traffic sign changes to better focus driver attention on narrow roads, roundabouts instead of 4-way intersections, etc)...these kinds of design changes would make driving MUCH safer without needing each car to be a hulking 4000lb turbocharged beast.

<comment><USER35> Can you provide some citations for

1) vehicle wait is ballooning

2) and it's because of government regulations

?

<comment><USER34> See my comment above to nl. I edited it to add numbers regarding modern vehicle weight ratios, and how they've gone up over time in part because of safety regulations.

<comment><USER36> But generally even with the weight cars are WAY more fuel efficient. There are some fords (non-hybrids) approaching 3 litres/100km. Even mini-vans that get 7-8 litres/100km. When 15-20 years ago a 3 door hatch back would be 6-7 litres/100km... So I don't really see your point. Yeah cars are getting heavier, and engines are getting smaller and more efficient.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reuters: Malaysian plane was brought down by a ground-to-air missile - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/489795394411712513 <comment><USER2> Dup. There is an earlier link to cnn</comment>