What kind of girl do you think I am? - <AUTHOR> http://manylogue.com/what-kind-of-girl-do-you-think-i-am/ <comment><USER3>
      The million-dollar question is interesting *because it forces her to really
      decide* what kind of girl she is.

The question actually isn't very interesting at all, because the it suggests there is still a choice to be made. In reality, most people have made that choice long ago and we know that they have their consequentialist price. The price may be a million dollars, saving a hundred people's lives, getting revenge or another non-monetary reward, but there is a price. Already before the million-dollar question, we know that we may assume she definitely _is_ 'that kind of girl'. Almost every girl, and every guy, is 'that kind of girl', because they will trade their affections for what the other party offers. Be it under the guise of love or not.

Going into a business negotiation thinking either you or them are deontologists is selfdeception that will hinder you in your negotiations.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Actually the question does still hold interest IMO because it forces her to acknowledge _to herself_ that she may have a price.

You say:

 _In reality, most people have made that choice long ago and we know that they have their consequentialist price._

And I agree; however I wonder how many people consciously know what their "price" decision they have made.

I once actually conducted this experiment with a group of [volunteer] fellow students (both male and female) with interesting results. I pitched the question exactly as outlined here (a girlfriend asked the male members). The aim was to force this self-realisation of their "price" and subsequently we "bartered" for the real price they would accept.

I realised a couple of things; firstly in realistic terms 1 million pounds is generally a lot lower than the "realistic price". When I followed up with the question "would you _really_ sleep with me for a million" the answer was usually "no". The reason the girl says "maybe" in the initial instance is because she doesn't believe that I have a million pounds to offer.

When I substituted £100,000 for a million the response rate tipped much harder towards "unlikely". To further test this theory I asked one of my more well of friends (who looked stereotypically rich) to conduct a similar survey - <USER2> this time to show them a cheque made of for £1 Million at the same time. Again the responses tended towards "unlikely" (and there was, actually, a larger amount of disgust at the idea).

Once I got past this stage we bartered on what the "price" might be; invariably money was quickly removed from the table. Favours were preferred; for example attending as a date to a wedding was one price. When I forced conversations back to money the price went a _lot_ higher. £10 Million was the minimum (this is possibly because 1 Million is not considered so much any more, I don't know). My well off friend had even more dramatic rises; one girl requested £5 Million a year for the next three years.

More sex was generally offered in return for more complex rewards; for example in the above example (£5,000,0000/yr for 3 yrs) it was hashed out that a number of sexual encounters and "weekend breaks" were on the cards.

For the men things were a lot simpler; they balked at any ides of being paid full stop. Almost to the man they refused payment and offered to sleep with the girl anyway. Out of interest I got a much plainer girl to ask the same question; there was still a general refusal to take money (although one or two "accepted" £100, preferring it to 1 Million) but also several outright refusals. With the plainer girl men offered to sleep with her (for no money), for my more attractive friend they offered to sleep with her _and_ take her out to dinner.

In fact dinner featured a lot in negotiations; there was actually a general aversion amongst the men (particularly, for some interesting reason, among the "jock" types) to simply having sex, a big majority preferred to offer a more complete "package". I have a partial theory that some were sidestepping the issue of money by proposing that the girl paid for dinner (or whatever date was agreed).

This was conducted on a group of about 100 people I randomly grabbed outside our student union over a couple of afternoons :) there isn't a lot of structure to what we did, we just followed our noses. But I think there was some interesting stuff we discovered.

<comment><USER5> _Actually the question does still hold interest IMO because it forces her to acknowledge to herself that she may have a price._

This is ridiculous. The question does make her uncomfortable, but not because of the question itself. _She_ knows she'll sleep with a guy for a million dollars. She's thought about it. She may have even thought about her "price" for letting a man fuck her. The problem is she knows the limits on what she's supposed to say and how she's supposed to present herself, and here's this clueless jerk trying to force her beyond them. She's playing the game, navigating social rules, and he isn't even acknowledging the tight spot he's put her in. In fact, he's simultaneously relishing her discomfort and resenting her for feeling that way. What does she do? To get through the situation as easily and harmlessly as possible, she either denies the legitimacy of the argument or names absurdly large amounts of money.

To really get a woman's price, she'd have to be assured of discretion. And her price would, ultimately, be affected by her confidence in the assurances of discretion offered. Her price for prostituting herself openly would be much higher, though not as high as the price she's willing to admit to in the original joke or the experiment you describe. After all, in the experiment, she pays the price of advertising her willingness to have sex for money without actually getting the money. A million pounds buys a lot of honesty -- what were _you_ offering? Even with the check, you haven't established a credible offer. The woman would have a lot of doubts that would be difficult to overcome. Is it a scam? Why me? Does this guy want to hurt me or humiliate me? Is this a mean-spirited prank organized by one of my exes? From her point of view, it's vanishingly unlikely to be a genuine offer. She's thinking, "If I even give this guy a chance to prove his bona fides, I'll probably be putting myself at risk." After all, even if he actually has a million pounds in his checking account, he's still more likely to be a killer than a guy who pays a million pounds for sex. Just sayin'. She's not stupid. And if the guy is serious, the onus is on him to prove that he understands her reservations and to think of some way to reassure her. Her initial response shouldn't deter him.

Anyway, to depart from your experiment and get back to the conversation in the joke as it's usually told -- no longer talking about your experiment -- it's a typical conversation for socially incompetent young geeks who are frustrated by all the social taboos, who suspect (partly correctly) that everyone around them is screwing like rabbits, and who are so painfully frustrated about not being able to talk about it that they make fools of themselves beating their heads against the wall of taboo with rational arguments instead doing something that might actually clear the way to frank conversation, such as cultivating trust and intimacy. (Gosh, I just _might_ be speaking from experience here.)

So the whole thing resolves to a guy making a girl uncomfortable and taking her refusal to be outré for stupidity. That's pretty dickish. Especially when the point is to make yourself look smart in comparison. I have NO idea why Feynman liked this joke, except that maybe he used it as a racy line-crossing move when chatting up women, in which case the logic itself is kind of beside the point. I supposed he knew the right moment to push it. Or maybe he just knew his audience. But that would make him a bit of a misogynist, since he would know -- admit it -- that the chief delight of this story for most people is not whipping it out Feynman-style at just the right moment when a woman is ready to let down her barriers. The chief appeal for most is getting the last laugh on a woman who wouldn't let you past her facade of propriety. Why would he stoop to that kind of pandering?

Anyway, the original word game breaks down if you examine it _just_ a little. If I'd bake a loaf of bread for a million dollars, am I a baker?

If I'd do your taxes for a million dollars, am I a tax accountant?

If I'd write a book for a million dollars, am I a writer?

If I'd change your oil for a million dollars, am I an auto mechanic?

If I'd teach a yoga class for a million dollars, am I a yoga instructor?

So is she a prostitute? Clearly not. Is she a whore? Well, yeah, quite often she is, in the sense that the word "whore" in any language usually means a woman whose sexual activity makes the speaker feel bad in some way.

But don't worry about this line of reasoning, or any other, being used against you when you whip this gem out at a party, because the response will divide between a couple of straight-up misogynists enthusiastically backing you up and a majority who just distance themselves from you, possibly by scoring points off you in some irrational way that is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the point you're trying to make, because people are STUPID and more interested in playing STUPID SOCIAL GAMES than actually THINKING. So your point is unchallenged! Unrefuted! Whoohoo! (Sarcasm aimed at the original joke and at my teenage self, not personally at you.)

<comment><USER4> _She knows she'll sleep with a guy for a million dollars. She's thought about it._

A reasonable point; except you've asserted that and I'm not sure it's true. _Do you have any data to back up the theory?_ Because one of the things that became clear to me was people hadn't really and truly considered it; there was a lot of thinking going on.

I realise the experiment was flawed; and we tested too few people to really make any definite observations.

However the aim was not to present it as a serious offer; but as a thought exercise. Once over the "wtf is this guy asking me" moment at the start we spent quite a while with each person (in private) discussing his/her thoughts. This made it a little more solid.

I agree with the idea that the joke is idiotic; clearly it is just misogynist crap (or, very occasionally just a racy joke - I've pulled it out maybe once to rescue a date :)).

<comment><USER5> It doesn't matter how many people you test, because you can't establish a credible offer of that much money. Can you describe a situation that you could actually set up in which a woman would think she was more likely to get a million pounds than to get dragged into a basement, tortured, raped, and murdered? Of course both of those scenarios would be far outside chances compared to the chances that somebody was just trying to play a humiliating joke on her or steal her identity.

The question a woman's brain is really engaged with in these scenarios is, "What's the safest way to deal with this situation?" That applies even if she actually knows you and is a modern liberal woman, because she's got to walk a line between seeming prudish or dishonest and triggering the insecurity thats lurk in every male breast.

[Edit: sorry for all the unacknowledged edits; since HN has no "preview" button I just post and edit.]

<comment><USER4> _because you can't establish a credible offer of that much money_

Of course you can; that is pretty easy to do. (also you might note we tried a lot more credible monetary amounts as well).

 _Can you describe a situation that you could actually set up in which a woman would think she was more likely to get a million pounds than to get dragged into a basement, tortured, raped, and murdered?_

This is something of a strawman... because clearly it all depends on the individual and how they perceive a situation. But it seems reasonable to suppose you can ask the person (as I did) to visualise a situation where they were receiving a serious offer (a lot of phsyc testing uses this premise).

 _"What's the safest way to deal with this situation?"_

When I said bartering I should point out it wasn't actively bartering over the idea of sex; it was a discussion about the ideas and this concept of a "price". Or in opther words it was explained what the point was. Most said it was an interesting thought experiment.

So where your seeing this as the individuals thinking "oh crap, this crazy person is saying really weird/scary things" that was not the situation. We used the opening line as a gambit to provoke this idea of a "price".

I'm actually most interested in your currently undefended assertion that people _have_ thought about their "price". It's the most interesting part of this for me.

EDIT: it's worth pointing out this is less about establishing what cash amount people want for having sex with you than about getting people to discuss a social idea that is almost certainly frowned upon, but which could make them rich via minimum effort/skill. We could have tried something like.. would you kill for £1 Million - but there were strong reasons against that (sex itself is not frowned on (just paid-for), where murder is. Sex is more interesting because there is a divide between how men and women react to it).

<comment><USER5> If you say that the whole point was to provoke people to think, and not to glean any information about what they would actually do, I'm fine with that. However, I'm skeptical that women would devote much thought to the imaginary situation that will never happen when they were in a real situation where they were being asked to discuss their sexuality. It's kind of like you've never seen or heard a goat before, so you walk up to someone with your pet tiger on a leash and ask them to do an impression of a goat. You're going to get an impression calculated not to excite the tiger, without much thought to what a goat looks and sounds like.

 _I'm actually most interested in your currently undefended assertion that people have thought about their "price". It's the most interesting part of this for me._

As a kid I had multiple conversations in different groups of guys where the question of having sex with another guy for money came up, so I think I can vouch for guys. Even in groups of guys who weren't particularly intimate and didn't trust each other, you'd get exchanges like, "Dude, you are so in love with that guy you would suck his duck." "Fuck you, I'm not sucking anybody's dick." "So you wouldn't even for a million dollars?" "You saying you wouldn't? What are you trying to hide?"

As for girls, girlfriends have told me about giggly conversations they had with their friends when they were thirteen. The question naturally arises from the question of whether you would marry a gross old guy who had billions of dollars -- and that's something that all young girls talk about. It's an irresistible mixture of horror and fantasy. Start altering that story and you're only two or three steps from outright prostitution. (Amusingly, in the one story I remember pretty well, the question posed was, "Would you have sex with a guy for a million dollars, _even if you didn't love him?_ " I guess to thirteen-year-old girls, love is the factor that makes everything okay or not okay, even prostitution.)

Another reason is how people reacted to the movie _Indecent Proposal_ with Robert Redford, Demi Moore, and Woody Harrelson. It wasn't an alien idea for most people. Anytime people talked about it, they seemed to be picking up the threads of conversations from a long time ago. Of course, people are a lot less likely to talk about it with people they don't trust, especially when the intent seems to be hostile or transgressive.

<comment><USER4> I suspect what you're talking about is something entirely different... because they are just jokey/giggly conversations with no real meaning (there are all sorts of social pressures that set your price, for example).

Have you, as an adult, considered your price? My suggestion is few people have.

<comment><USER5> I've thought about it enough to know that I don't have a single price. The price depends on attraction, how much I like and trust a person, assurances of discretion and safety, etc. My "ideal" price is zero; I sleep with people for free all the time. Above that, it gets complicated. For example, I can think of a certain girl who's extremely unattractive, abrasive, not very bright, always hard up, and likes me a lot. I definitely wouldn't do her for free; I've been tested on that extensively. $500 would be enough. However, she's in debt, she's a friend of some friends, and she can't keep her mouth shut. Everybody would despise me for taking that much money from this girl who's struggling personally and financially. There's no good price for that example, but it's the most likely example I could come up with in real life. If I imagined she was better-off, $500 would be plenty for ninety minutes of work (including drive time, chit-chat, etc.)

<comment><USER4> This is an interesting, and IMO uncommon, response. Thanks for the honesty! :)

You're right social constraints are going to modify each condition; many people sleep with others in sympathy, for example.

 _If I imagined she was better-off, $500 would be plenty for ninety minutes of work (including drive time, chit-chat, etc.)_

That's an interesting figure; because it is roughly how much a prostitute would be paid (I use that example only because it is the most readily available price for sex we have). So, possibly, there is an inherent social value for non-free sex we subscribe too.

 _My "ideal" price is zero; I sleep with people for free all the time_

This syncs almost exactly with the response most men gave in our survey

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> (it's not worth noting but i'm going to do so anyway: we know what kind of guy he is before we know what kind of girl she is, but no one even points that out. we focus on her because she's indecisive?)

<comment><USER7> I have a problem voting for a comment that is entirely in brackets. Feels it could cause a divide by zero problem if the bracketed part doesn't count thus rending the comment to be of infinite value per character.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In business you are rarely forced to murder or whore yourself out. You are, however, constantly faced with changing your direction, compromising your vision or similar, all for some potential upside and downside. That's the nature of business, and trying to tie it to moral questions doesn't do justice to the line of reasoning one should employ.

Of course you should be moral, but most business questions aren't a question of morality, but of direction and the most appropriate path to achieve your objectives.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure the managers at BP that choose to forego certain safety measures completely recognize themselves in this line of reasoning. Which immediately illustrates how dangerously false it is.

 _Companies_ are amoral (not to be confused with immoral) entities that will not necessarily act in the people's best behavior. If companies act in a morally acceptable way, it is because of the individual employees that together make morally acceptable choices. Every business question is a question of morality, because you can always choose to commit fraud, cheat someone or act in an otherwise immoral fashion. Sometimes you won't do that for fear of customer or supplier retribution. Often you won't do that for fear of the law. But sometimes, you just shouldn't do it, because it has possible consequences you should never risk.

No one at BP is individually responsible for the current calamity. The more responsibility is spread over multiple layers of decision making, the less responsible individuals feel and the less moral their behavior will be. Not because they are immoral, but because the pressure to act as is best _for the company_ is strong enough to suppress moral qualms. No 'evil' individual made _the_ immoral decision that lead to the accident. It was a large number of people that each made slightly immoral decisions, the cumulative result of which is now the largest ecological disaster in US history.

This is the essence of the problem of libertarianism and complete free market capitalism. This is why we need a government to regulate capitalism.

<comment><USER9> I think it is unlikely it is the "largest ecological disaster in US history". We could compare it to the Dust Bowl <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl> , or the logging of old growth forest <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_growth_forest#Logging> or the draining of the Everglades [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draining_and_development_of_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draining_and_development_of_the_Everglades) and it might not be as large. Consider also the introduction of invasive species such as Chestnut blight <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_blight> or red fire ants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_imported_fire_ant#Ecologica...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_imported_fire_ant#Ecological_impact) to put it into perspective. It seems too convenient, a collective self- deception, to point at a non-US company and say they have caused the worst ecological destruction in the US.

<comment><USER10> None of those happened within the last 2 years, so they don't count.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is the characterisation of moral systems as _either_ 'deontological' _or_ 'teleological' which I find invalid, thus undermining the usefulness of this here debate.

In the articles terms, you could be moral according to the category of your actions, or according to the consequences of your actions. The first one ignores reality ('whatever happens, don't lie'), and the second one negates judgement ('the right action depends on the consequences, and the consequences of the consequences, and the consequences of... _ad infinitum_ ' an endless, useless subjectivism). They can be sidestepped by applying judgement according to reality _and_ a measurable standard of value, eg. self-interest. You could call this contextual or objective morality.

<comment><USER12> Consequentialism encompasses all value systems that incorporate consequences to any degree at all. So your "applying judgement according to reality and a measurable standard of value" system is actually consequentialist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A thought: if someone offered me a trillion dollars to kill a person, I would get trillion-dollar loan, invent brain-uploading and emulation technology with it, copy the person into the machine, and then kill them.

To put that more simply: past a certain point, the idea of marginal value in a cost/benefit analysis breaks down, because the benefit "changes the game." (That is, creates a discontinuity in the valuation curve.) A million dollars "changes the game" of your life. $100 doesn't.

<comment><USER14> It's never clear to me why people answer thought experiments like this in this manner. The point of the question "would you kill someone for a trillion dollars" is to tease out an answer to an underlying philosophical question, such as, "is the act of killing as we know it a moral absolute wrong, or is it merely an act with great negative utility that can be compensated by sufficient positive utility?"

Yes, there are always creative ways to avoid really answering the question (such as doing a brain upload, as suggested), but these answers do nothing to answer the underlying question, which is what the thought experiment is really trying to get at.

<comment><USER13> And I've always ignored that sort of question—there's no such thing as morals or utility, really, only what animals are programmed to think in their animal brains. Robotic arms don't care when other robotic arms die—and neither do we. Paperclips don't care about increasing in number, even if someone is trying to make it so. What we have to ask is not "what does the universe say about right and wrong?" (because the answer is "nothing") but rather "what do _our minds_ say about right and wrong?"—that is, "what is the human utility function?"

The problem with that, of course, is that even within our species, we have many different (and mutually-exclusive!) utility functions; sociopaths, for example, calculate theirs noticeably differently. So, it still ends up turned into a problem of cultural meta-ethics. That is, it's no longer a matter of "who do we shun and revile?" but "how do we get along?" or perhaps "do we _want_ to get along?" (Which brings me to this: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/>)

<comment><USER14> That's not really a reason to avoid answering the question either. Regardless of the mechanism by which your mind arrives at the answer (be it animal instincts, brain chemistry, whatever), you are indeed capable of coming up with an answer, and even if you believe the answer says nothing about the universe in general, it still says something about you and your own mind. And I'm fairly interested in knowing what your mind--and the minds of other people --have to say about these sorts of questions.

To be a little more clear, your answer (yes or no) is of little value to me. What I really want to know is _why_ you answer yes or no--is it because of some general principle you're applying, because of a gut instinct, because someone told you to say that, or something else?

EDIT: Based on the reply below, I'm not being clear. There are lots of reasons I'd like to know your reasoning process, beyond trying to generalize it to people in general. Among other things, I'd like to know whether I should be worried about going to dinner with you (particularly if your answer is "Sure, I'd kill for even just a dollar").

<comment><USER13> But that's a question for neuropsychology, isn't it? The question of _what is good_ for an individual person won't be solved by conversation and introspection, because people are, on average, very bad at understanding themselves and the reasons for doing the things they do (they indeed have reasons to give, but these reasons rarely stand up as falsifiable hypotheses for predicting _future_ actions, so they're mere rationalizations and should be discarded.)

Instead, the question of what an individual cares about will be solved by coming up with a technique to look at a person's brain and _tell them_ , definitively, what values they care about at that moment in time. Anything said about individual ethical belief until then is just sophistry.

<comment><USER15> The answer may come from other places than neuropsychology. We as carriers of values live and evolve in an ecosystem where the values of those around us and how they fit with ours matters. Maybe we can derive some evolutionary stable strategies representing moral laws from a swarm of agents constantly playing Prisoner's dillema and games with other rewards against each other.

<comment><USER13> But the mechanisms by which we play those games will be evident in the brain, and the games themselves will be evident in our expectation-program memory. (I'm assuming here that sufficiently-advanced neuropsychology will be able to analyze the "software" running on each brain, not just the firmware, but even if that field ends up with a different name, that's what I'm talking about here.)

We may be able to model some sort of "objectively-good" cooperative- evolutionary game-players using mathematics, but those models would not necessarily represent _us_ ; there's nothing that says we're even evolutionarily stable as a species over the long term ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think that what's wrong is the idea that a single decision, specially one involving sex and money, can determine 'the kind of person' you are. Extremely simplistic and unrealistic point of view.

</comment><comment><USER17> Here is a collection of supposed attributions for that quotation:

[http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what...](http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/)

It seems rather hard to pin down the original source!

</comment><comment><USER18> I feel like the problem with this is that sleeping with someone for money is not inherently unethical, i.e. it hurts no one. Certainly, if you were to replace it with "kill a person", the spread of answers would change significantly.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is it just me or is there someone going on a downvoting spree here? I've seen at least 8 comments at 0, and I only checked the thread twice. It's kind of weird, since there's quite a high karma threshold for downvoting.

<comment><USER20> You guys really don't see how misogynistic these articles are, do you?

<comment><USER21> Is that a good reason for downvoting all comments?

The example may be misogynistic, but the idea that the example is an example of is not.

Also, suppose that the genders were removed:

        X: "If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?"
        Y: "A million dollars is a lot of money, and you don't look that bad, so I guess I would consider it"
        X: "Ok, since I don't have a million dollars, would you sleep with me for $100?"
        Y: (outraged) "What kind of person do you think I am?"
        X: "We've already established the answer to that question. Now we're just negotiating the price"

Now who is shown in a less negative light, X or Y? I'd say Y. Of course Y is also shown in a negative light.

<comment><USER20> > _Is that a good reason for downvoting all comments?_

If you think karma is the least bit important, I suggest you close your browser for a few weeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The guy's main point is that you should decide which girl you are: the "Consequentialist" (relativist), or the "Categoricalist" (absolutist).

He said: "... I find it helpful, before I consider a dilemma, to at least debate whether I'm in that girl's situation, and what kind of girl I'm going to be for this particular question..."

This shows that he is the "Consequentialist" girl.</comment>


Tell HN: A private library in SF that could double as a hackerspace - <AUTHOR>

If you think coffee shops are too loud and coworking spaces are too expensive, you might appreciate this hack. I discovered it by accident while search for "wood paneling" on Yelp. :-)
The Mechanic's Institute, near the corner of Post and Market, is a non-profit private library and chess club, and membership only costs $100 per year. That's considerably better than the $300 a month charged by the least expensive coworking spaces! It's also, in my humble opinion, a much more beautiful workspace. The building has tall ceilings and windows, large columns, wood-paneled study rooms, plush leather chairs, and large desks with power outlets. The wifi is also fast and reliable.
The reviews on the library's Yelp page will give you a good sense of what it's like:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/mechanics-institute-library-and-chess-room-san-francisco
I hope to see you here! It would be great to make this a well-known hacker outpost in downtown SF. Perhaps we could even organize a daily lunch or afternoon tea. Here's a chat room where we can coordinate:
http://www.tlk2me.com/chat/#mecha
You can also find my email in my HN profile. If you're visiting SF or want to spend a day here before committing to a membership, I can get you in as a guest. <comment><USER2> I came across this when I searched for libraries in SF. I stopped by for a visit some months ago and almost pulled the trigger, but ended up not needing it. I'll most likely join later this year or early next. May be a good place to play chess too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is that what that place is? Was always curious, but never enough so to walk + google it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I live near the Marina district of SF...while there are many coffee shops in the district, none provide a decent atmosphere for coding. I'd love to try out the Mechanics institute.</comment>


Should I Become an Expert in a Single Technology/Platform? - <AUTHOR>

I'm at the beginning of my career, working as a web developer for a small company. I would really like to advance my skills, but I was wondering, in what direction: horizontally or vertically?
In other words, should I learn a lot about a small number of technologies, or should I expand my knowledge to a lot of fields, taking the risk of knowing stuff only superficially.
Both approaches are fun. While learning a lot of stuff superficially is easy and not too frustrating, becoming an expert in a specific technology can also be fun, since I get to choose that technology...
But what I would really like to know is which path to take in order to become a great programmer? And which is the path to a more lucrative job? Are they the same? <comment><USER2> Programming isn't just about writing code, it's about solving problems.

In my opinion, once you've achieved competence in your domain, you're probably better served by branching out to new areas. You can always go deeper in your area if you later discover that you need to, but different domains lead to different perspectives, and different perspectives can give you ideas or solutions that you would never see otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER3> To steal from James Altucher, you're an expert at the intersection of all the things you know.

Vertical knowledge in several domains is the best way to develop unique expertise.

If the intersection of those domains is unique, you're knowledge is more likely to have value.</comment>


XKCD now. Animated - <AUTHOR> http://www.codepills.net/blog/2014/02/26/xkcd-now-animated/

<comment><USER2> The original is a marginally useful view of the clock. This is a gif file that breaks whatever usefulness was in the original. Why is it posted? And why is it on the frontpage?

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't this less useful than the original?

<comment><USER4> It's for in case you couldn't have guessed that it would move in a circle I suppose...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like Randall generated images for every quarter hour of the day:

[http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/now/13h15m.png](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/now/13h15m.png)

I hope he didn't have to do it by hand…

</comment><comment><USER6> Randall, are you stalking me? I posted about this a few days ago: [http://ferkeltongs.livejournal.com/36976.html](http://ferkeltongs.livejournal.com/36976.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Gfycat version. I think it looks better and you can pause, change size and so on. [http://gfycat.com/VastPopularIberianchiffchaff](http://gfycat.com/VastPopularIberianchiffchaff)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks, I embedded the gfycat version

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Adding a start and stop button would make this much more useful.

<comment><AUTHOR> agreed. Thanks to gfycat this is done now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My OCD is flickering. XKCD, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes. right.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Speculative Advertisements in Heathcare - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmayyCbRcMKU7o-paAAZm_OxxFe_CJvBC <comment><AUTHOR> Sharing and conveying some thought and worries about future, made few videos to explain the concepts and progress of current society in a context of Healthcare. Let me know if people here are working on Speculative projects, interested to be in touch with them as well as collaborate.</comment>


The Real Threat of Artificial Intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligence-economic-inequality.html <comment><USER2> > Who will pay for these jobs? Here is where the enormous wealth concentrated > in relatively few hands comes in. It strikes me as unavoidable that large > chunks of the money created by A.I. will have to be transferred to those > whose jobs have been displaced. This seems feasible only through Keynesian > policies of increased government spending, presumably raised through > taxation on wealthy companies.

This proposed solution seems okay in the short term (a social safety net) but over the long term it makes it sound like humans supported in this means are pets.

> The government will not only have to subsidize most people's lives and work; > it will also have to compensate for the loss of individual tax revenue > previously collected from employed individuals.

The above does not sound like a sustainable situation. How can a small part of the population support the rest of the population completely? I can not imagine that lasting for that long until something changes in some unforeseen way.</comment>


Kepler-11 Has Six Small Planets - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2011/02/kepler-11-has-s.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Small indeed <http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Kepler-11></comment>


Ask HN: When bootstrapping a startup, what are some ways to keep the lights on? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Plain and Simple. Charge from Day 1 and don't give stuff for free unless it absolutely makes sense. Also, keep costs low as much as possible. Don't get AWS if you can get a $5/Month DigitalOcean droplet. Don't spend money on ads etc. unless you know exactly HOW it works. Focus on building inbound marketing i.e. people finding you organically.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! What if people say they want to try it for free? Do you say no?

<comment><USER2> Just to add to what @hawkice said already, you can offer them a money back period or offer a short free trial like for 7-10 days BUT take credit card upfront. Always take credit card upfront, period. If not, then you will get tons of tire kickers and time wasters. For bootstrapped, it will not be of too much use to you and may add unnecessary support time.

It is simple. I offer a 30 day money back guarantee. But if you cannot commit to credit card on day 1 knowing that you have nothing to lose, then you are not the customer I want.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great insights. Why do some businesses have a free tier then? Does that only make sense if you're venture backed?

<comment><USER2> I would think so. Having a completely Free tier will surely get a lot more signups but how many of them convert. venture backed or well funded companies have the time and resource to handle free clients a lot more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I just tripped across this and I thought it would interest you:

[https://www.moonlightwork.com](https://www.moonlightwork.com)

I also run a google group called Business Bootstrappers and you are welcome to join:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/business- bootstrap...](https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/business- bootstrappers)

</comment><comment><USER4> Keeping your day job until the opportunity cost outweighs the monetary value of your day job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, too late for that :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The easiest way would be to do most everything yourself and keep your overhead as low as possible besides the cost of hosting. Get a cheap server from [https://www.digitalocean.com](https://www.digitalocean.com) for example but keep in mind its not cheap to manage it especially if you do it yourself and it ends up getting hacked. Go for management bundled into the server from [https://www.iozoom.com](https://www.iozoom.com) to keep your costs down.

Start an affiliate type website selling other peoples products and earn commission. Get logo and site designed from [https://www.fiverr.com](https://www.fiverr.com), learn about seo and online marketing at forums like [https://www.warriorforum.com](https://www.warriorforum.com). Once you get a better understanding of online marketing you can promote your site for little to no money at all.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've seen a lot of smaller outstaffing companies like moonlightwork.com offering remote employees and it's a good way to keep your costs low. The lights will go out quickly if you get developers at $50-$100 an hour and upwork is hit or miss and you can waste a lot of time. Toptal seems good but not cheap. Check out intellabridge.com they have good mid-level remote developers you can hire for $18-$20 an hour and they specialize in designing and building MVPs.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hire slowly... don't hire until it's a real pain point and the runway for 6+ months is there.

</comment><comment><USER8> Alot of startups will do consulting work while they bootstrap their product.

<comment><AUTHOR> How do you get consulting work?

<comment><USER3> That tends to be a brew your own situation comparable in difficulty to creating a business from scratch. If you have to ask that, you will probably be better off getting a part time job or signing up for some service to do piece work through them (like UpWork, but preferably not actually UpWork).</comment></comment></comment>


Brazillian government threatening to sue google out of the country - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.adnews.com.br/internet/106389.html&sl=pt&tl=en

<comment><USER2> Title is completely wrong.

The article says _Orkut_ could be forced to close and Google faces fines because it lacks content control features to prevent cyber crime (e.g. child porn etc) in that network.</comment>


From Node.js To Go, Why One Startup Made The Switch - <AUTHOR> http://thenewstack.io/from-node-js-to-go-why-one-startup-made-the-switch/ <comment><USER2> > Falter said she knew how to write JavaScript and thought she could use that > background to learn Node.

Knowing some Javascript, I would run away as fast as possible from the prospect of using it on a server (especially if it comes to using the callback pattern to represent concurrency).

> It was also free [...]

Aren't most development languages for general back-end work? Maybe .net isn't...? I haven't checked. But it seems a bit like they just wanted to add another item to the list.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most of these "we switched from X to Y" stories seem to boil down to Brooks' "plan to throw one away" dictum. In year zero, the technical team of a startup is never going to really understand the requirements and constraints they'll be facing in year three (or even year one). The best you can hope for is to be flexible enough to tear out and replace pieces as you go, and to not have an ego about your original design.

It seems to rarely be the case that it would have been a better idea to build with Y in the first place. In any case, even if you had a crystal ball and could predict your year-four, millions-of-users design in year zero, it'd probably be a mistake to try to build it from the start. The needs of a product (and team) in its infancy are a lot different from those of a mature one.

</comment><comment><USER4> Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://thenewstack.io/from- node-js-to-go-why-one-startup-made-the-switch/)

Edit: I was having trouble reaching the page.

</comment><comment><USER5> The article was really short and light on details, but the TL;DR of the team's reasoning for switching away from Node.js were:

1\. Multiple application layers could not be brought up in tandem.

2\. The infrastructure had a single point of failure if the instances went down.

3\. All functions of the service ran on a single process.

4\. Latency became an issue due to high CPU and network load during peak usage.

5\. There was an inability to scale horizontally.

The TL;DR for why they shouldn't have used Node.js (IMO, not from the article): lack of experience.

Node.js (or even Javascript) is not for beginners. It takes time to write good, solid, maintainable Node apps. Time that a startup doesn't have. It sounds like they just made a poor technology choice for their team. According to the article:

> Falter said she knew how to write JavaScript and thought she could use that > background to learn Node.

I couldn't help but laugh at this part. There's a lot more to being effective with Node.js than knowing Javascript, just like there's a lot more to being effective with Rails than knowing Ruby.

One thing (or rather, 5 things) that bothered me about this article were the team's cited reasons for leaving Node. I'd like to address those, in order:

1\. I'm not even entirely sure what they mean by this, but if they're talking about operating a service-oriented architecture, then they're flat-out wrong. There's nothing inherent to Node that keeps you from deploying multiple instances doing different things. I've done this several times, in fact, with little hassle.

2\. and 3. sound reasonable (ish), but are also problems with any Go architecture I've seen. Hell, most modern server-side tech has this issue, unless you architect around it specifically. Go doesn't appear to have any better answer for this than [Node|Ruby|Python|your_favorite_stack].

4\. Yes, Node is somewhat memory-hungry. However, unless you have a single, monolithic server, this is really a non-issue.

5\. This cannot be attributed to anything but the team's effectiveness (or in this case, the lack thereof). Node scales as horizontally as any other technology. You can deploy it to Heroku, AWS, etc all day long. Run as many instances as you want: if they all have the same config, they're all the same app.

> As the company scaled, the task of administration became increasingly > complex, due to "call-back soup", a common complaint with Node.js.

I've said it a million times: "Promises, 'nuff said". That being said, promises can be difficult to grok on your own, and because they had 0 experience to draw from, this probably wasn't an option for them. No fault on that point, but there are libraries that make managing callbacks fairly easy (not promise easy, but easy).

Overall, sounds like the founder made a poor technical choice, and the company suffered. Still, I really hope they have as much fun and success writing Go as I have over the past few weeks (that is to say, quite a bit).

EDIT: One tidbit I missed the first time reading the article:

> Text processing increased 64 percent just by moving from Node to Go.

They could have easily gone with a hybrid structure here. Nothing was stopping them from hosting the text processing part in Go (as a service in their possibly-SOA) and then using Node for the rest. Or, better yet, have a C module that handles the text processing, and call out to that with Node.

<comment><USER6> Rather then _" the founder made a poor technical choice"_, I think she made the best possible decision at the time (fastest to market). The change over to Go gave the company an excuse to rewrite their codebase which always gives great improvements relative to hacked together code.

<comment><USER5> There usually is something to be gained from rewriting something from scratch (wouldn't say _always_ ): better understanding of the problem domain, what works and what doesn't, etc. I can't help but think though, that if they had made a better choice in the beginning, they wouldn't have had to resort to that.

Beyond that, "fastest to market" doesn't appear to be the case for this particular company. They do surveys and social media analytics. Both of which have been done (many, many times) before. I don't mean to disparage the team or the product when I say this by the way, nothing wrong with trying to build a better mousetrap. It just doesn't appear (on the surface) to be particularly disruptive or groundbreaking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you are looking for an alternative to Node check out Nimrod. If you just don't like nested callbacks in Node then check out ToffeeScript.

FYI Node is actually compiled so it might perform better than you think. Also it has threads with the module webworker-threads. Node is kind of memory hungry.

Nimrod lets you write clean Pythonish code that is as fast as C and even can interface extremely easily with C libraries if necessary.

<comment><USER8> Nimrod looks quite interesting but the tutorial has a disturbing penchant for ugly variable names and dune horrific use of Hungarian notation.

If it's hoping to lure in Pythonistas then there are a few strange aesthetic choices in there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder what the outcome would have been, if their engineer had spent the weekend rewriting the backend in Node, instead of Go. We all know that the codebase tends to grow ugly when multiple developers keep adding in code and hacks. A complete rewrite might have surprising results, just like it had with their Go rewrite experience.

</comment><comment><USER10> While I'm a little unclear on some of her reasoning, Go does excel at these kinds of web backends. I'm using it for my startup and have found it very productive to code in, efficient in computing resources and ridiculously easy to deploy and manage.

</comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR we switched from one buzzword to another.</comment>


Pawn for the soul: Use your bling as collateral - <AUTHOR> https://www.pawncho.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> trying to make online pawn sexy... jeez</comment>


Minimize frustration and maximize tuning effort with Amdahl's Law. - <AUTHOR> http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2012/04/05/minimize-frustration-and-maximize-tuning-effort-with-amdahls-law/ <comment><USER2> jensun, if you could put your contact info in the "about" field of your HN profile (the "email" field in profiles is only visible to the user), I'd like to contact you about one of your old posts (heavy bookmarks/tags usage).

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155304>

Or if you prefer to contact me, my contact info is in my profile.</comment>


Ask HN:  Offer for talent acquisition.  Need advice. - <AUTHOR>

Hello Hackers,
I'm a relative newbie to programming and the startup world.  In early 2010 I launched my first product which also happens to be my first large scale programming project (I dont have a CS background). The product is a niche tool within the larger enterprise data management space. Recently a prospect has been in talks with me to basically acquire me for talent.  They are actually not very interested in the IP, rather they like my experience around bigData.
This is essentially a solo operation with 0 investors.  I have developed some partnerships to help me sell the product and I have a few customers (small deals) and a couple more in the pipeline.
My main motivation to even consider this opportunity is because the position they are offering me will allow me to experiment with bigger ideas in the same space (bigData) and work with more seasoned programmers.  It also allows me to gracefully exit the niche category I was toiling in..
I'm torn between working within a larger organisation to try out my ideas or simply pivoting my startup into developing the larger ideas I have.  I know that I may be a bit thin on information and thats because we are in the early phase of negotiating a deal.  I'll try to answer your questions as much as I can.
So what do you guys think?  Considering my background etc which way would you go? <comment><USER2> If the acquisition offer is enough money to matter, then take it. You wont be at the acquirer for the rest of your life, you will get a lump of money plus a steady salary while you are there, and you will learn a lot about other potential problems to solve in your space. In 2-3 years, go after your other idea with a financial cushion in the bank, a successful acquisition under your belt, and some industry tenure to make your next move better.

</comment><comment><USER3> These are the questions I always ask myself when we get acquisition offers:

Do I want to take over the world? If yes, is my company the right one to do so?

Not wanting to take over the world is perfectly fine; you just need to answer these questions with absolute honesty. The worst thing you could do is hang on to a company that has little or no future.

Hope this helps; good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> Large organization can provide you with resource (developers, capital, etc.), so if you can still do what you like to do, I'd take it. On the other hand, if it's just a "job", no amount of money could justify giving up the little idea that will take over the world one day. That's my personal take. Good luck!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks for the great advice guys... I knew the hackers would come through with thoughtful advice..</comment>


Ask HN: How big is HN Community? - <AUTHOR> Is there anything official / speculative that states the size of the community? <comment><AUTHOR> Here is one from 2015. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581)

will be good to know as of 2018

</comment><comment><USER2> Would be interesting to know. dang, care to comment if you see this?</comment>


60W equivalent LED bulb uses 9.5W and costs $13 - <AUTHOR> http://www.designingwithleds.com/cree-60w-led-replacement-bulb-review-and-tear-down/?ModPagespeed=noscript <comment><USER2> We talked about this a month or two ago here.

The amazing part of this bulb is not it's watts or it's cost.

It's that a manufacturer finally put it's warranty where it's mouth is.

With a 10 year warranty I will actually buy it compared to the Phillips.

BTW I've yet to have a cheap chinese led 110v bulb last more than 3 years.

<comment><USER3> We talked about it here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5329732>

And the biggest problem with this bulb is the CRI of 80. That's much worse than CFL's which are typically around 90.

<comment><USER4> Is that really the typical CFL number? I ask because I've got one of the new Cree bulbs and I find the quality of light really a lot better than that of the (admittedly cheap) CFLs I've bought at Costco.

So I guess I'm struggling with the significance of CRI.

<comment><USER3> It depends on which CFL you buy of course. But 90 CRI CFLs are easy to find.

In general "warmer" CFLs have a better CRI.

You can trade off energy efficiency for CRI. This is true for LEDs as well. So if you don't need great color then go for a lower CRI since you'll save energy on the light output.

But because of that, when comparing energy efficiency of LEDs vs CFLs you MUST use a comparable CRI, otherwise it's not a fair comparison.

But I'll save you time: There are no commercially available LEDs that beat CFLs in energy efficiency for the equivalent CRI.

<comment><USER5> I've found the exact opposite. I've found that there are many more "cooler" (~5600K color) CFLs with a high CRI than warmer (~2700K color) CFLs with a high CRI. The cooler 5600K lights are daylight balanced and used a lot with digital filmmaking and as indoor grow lights, whereas the warmer lights are used in home light fixtures to approximate the color temps of incandescents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is excellent. However, please do not say "this is enough for me" after you replace all your incandescent light bulbs with these. Household energy consumption is a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket compared to industrical energy consumption and shipping.

<comment><USER7> I'm not quite sure what you're saying... that the LED bulbs have a much higher energy and environmental "cost" in manufacturing, compared to a standard incandescent? That's quite likely true and has to be considered in the big picture (similar issues with electric vehicles, that their proponents like to ignore).

For me the answer is simple: $13 is way too much to pay for a light bulb, I don't care how efficient it is.

<comment><USER8> OTOH, my entire house is fluorescent and LED. My monthly electricity bill is $65. For a house! I never have to replace burnt out bulbs. At $13 I'd guess the LED is actually about at break-even over the life of the bulb vs incandescent unless you're buying incandescent in the big packs of 30 bulbs for $10.

The only gas in my house is my central heating, and my old water heater. I plan to replace that with point-of-use electric tankless units. No more waiting 2 minutes for hot water at the kitchen sink! With a $3,000 grid- connected solar kit I'm pretty sure I can get to near $0/month on electricity, even with the electric water heaters and the Nissan Leaf I just bought last night. ;-)

It's the future brother. Stuff lasts longer, provides a better experience and is cheaper. It's win/win/win. The environmental wins might not be all that dramatic with the impact of production factored in, but if you're in it for the long haul I figure you can still feel OK about it if you were up to replace a bulb/water-heater/car/etc anyways when you make the switch.

PS: Have you seen the price on POU tankless water heaters? Once you have the panel/breaker/wiring in place, they're dirt cheap compared to traditional water heaters.

<comment><USER9> Lighting is a small fraction of your overall electricity usage. HVAC alone uses many times as much. While using efficient lighting is a good idea far too many people get hung up on it when there are better places to conserve.

<comment><USER10> It depends on how many people are in your family and how frequently they forget to turn off the lights. Plus, having 400W of incandescent bulbs on is 400 more watts that the A/C system has to cool.

<comment><USER3> A good rule of thumb is it takes and extra 1/3 as much electricity to cool.

So your 400 watts of bulbs will consume 133 watts in the cooling process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am unimpressed by 60 watt equivalent bulbs. A 60 watt equivalent is about enough to be a desk lamp, if I need to provide light for even a small room it is a useless amount unless I get a large number of bulbs together.

Unfortunately 60 watt equivalent has become some sort of benchmark for new light bulb technology. If you really want to replace lighting in some meaningful way, start quoting 100 watt equivalent numbers to me.

<comment><USER12> If only someone made a "fixture" for lighting with multiple bulb sockets in a convenient, attractive mounting that could be attached to the ceiling of a room.

The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since before most of us were born. Honestly I don't understand this criticism at all. Certainly LED lighting is available in many form factors other than a 60W bulb...

<comment><USER11> > If only someone made a "fixture" for lighting with multiple bulb sockets in > a convenient, attractive mounting that could be attached to the ceiling of a > room.

My condo's living room doesn't have a ceiling mounted light fixture, or a place to install one at. I'm sure the job could be done, but it'd be a major pain.

> The 60W incandescent light bulb has been the "standard lightbulb" since > before most of us were born. Honestly I don't understand this criticism at > all. Certainly LED lighting is available in many form factors other than a > 60W bulb...

Thus I'm stuck using a stupid stand lamp, which right now is only 1 bulb. (My previous 3 bulb stand started smoking when I put in a 150W equivalent CFL, heh)

Sure 60W has been standard, but for what purpose? Just one of them is useless, and heck 3 of them isn't much better. 3 75s is actually useful, and a couple of 100s is preferred.

<comment><USER12> Without getting into the minutiae of lumens and efficiency metrics for different lighting technologies...

It never occurred to you just to buy a second lamp?

<comment><USER11> > It never occurred to you just to buy a second lamp?

I'd love to. 750sqft Condo, I have one outlet that is hooked to a switch, other outlets are either in some horrid location or already used up with a power strip attached.

Not everyone has large open areas that they can just throw stuff in.

What I need to do is get a better quality standing lamp that can take a slew of light bulbs! But even then, I am not going to be going for 60W, why should I when I can go farther with fewer bulbs of a slightly higher wattage? (Or wattage equivalent in the case of LED and CFLs)

<comment><USER13> I feel your pain. I'm also unable to go the ceiling light route (solid concrete floors and ceilings). The best solution I've found is sticking a wireless switch on the wall next to the regular light switches. There are ones that look like a regular modern style wall switch, just thick because there are AAAs in it. The one I have is just some cheap thing that was on Amazon, but for larger-scale applications Lutron has a whole line of wireless lighting control products (Maestro).

I was surprised how bright the 100W-equivalent LED unit from Philips is. It is rated at 1780 lumens vs 1600 for an incandescent 100W.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is Spam. There are a few dozen of these with better economics on Amazon. And if you want to light a house on the cheap, the LED "ropes" are more efficient, and will last longer.

Also a CFT would be 12W and cost $2 ($1.25 if you look around). Over 10 years in most markets that would be cheaper.

PS: My Home is almost 100% LED's. I love them. But that doesn't mean they are always the cheapest, the most efficient, or the best for the planet. I just prefer the dimmable nature and the consistent color across the dimming.

<comment><USER15> I dislike the consistent color across dimming. The whole point of dimming lights is to lower the color temperature. It is impossible to get a candle like ambiance with LEDs. If you want less total light, it is easy to just turn fewer lights on.

<comment><USER16> What an amazing insight! Turn on less lights! ;-)

<comment><USER17> My bedroom has exactly one lamp - aside from dimming (which I use) what do you recommend?

To "turn on less lights" I'd have to install "more (varied) lights".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Prices keep coming down. I was at IKEA last week and they were having a sale on their E26 LED bulb for only 6 bucks. Hadn't tried their LEDs before (have others from Home Depot/Lowes) but it has great light/color. Of course it being IKEA who knows what the actual mileage will be, but they're worth checking out.

[http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/categories/departments/liv...](http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/categories/departments/living_room/20514/)

<comment><USER19> _"it being IKEA who knows what the actual mileage will be"_

When I moved into my home 6,5 years a go, I bought compact fluorescent lamps at IKEA (the kind that looks like a regular incandescent light bulb). I have yet to replace one.

<comment><USER20> On the flip-side, I bought those same ones and haven't had them last a year. Same for the CF from Costco. I'm looking forward to long lasting LEDs. $13 is still a bit too high to replace all my lights, but I'll pick up a couple for the most used ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'd be pretty happy to get away from compact fluorescencts. They're filled with mercury gas (I think). It's bad news if you break one and inhale it. And I'm not sure what happens to the mercury when you dispose of them either.

Edit:

For you downvoters out there, it is considered a serious risk. Here's another article about the problems: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198>

<comment><USER22> It's no big deal.

www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

If you make a habit of breaking them open near your face and inhaling the gas, you probably have bigger problems. I've read that the actual average mercury exposure from a broken CFL is less than 10% of the mercury exposure from a serving of tuna.

<comment><USER21> Yeah they say that, but then in that same article look at the advice for cleaning up a broken CFL. If it's no big deal, why do I need to open the windows, wear gloves, etc?

What is the proper way to handle a broken CFL? Open the windows and let the room air out for 15 to 30 minutes, then remove as much material as possible without a vacuum cleaner. Using disposable gloves, scoop the glass onto a piece of cardboard and wipe the area with a wet paper towel. For smaller pieces of glass and powder, use duct tape to pull up the fragments and wash your hands after cleaning up the debris.

<comment><USER23> Overly paranoid article.

<comment><USER24> More like CYA article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I like the color temperature of incandescent bulbs. That alone is worth the extra electricity expense.

It's a bit funny how many of us obsess about the calibration of our monitors and tablets, even installing utilities that change the color temperature at different times of day to be easier on our eyes. But we don't seem to care as much about the ambient light that we see everywhere.

Also, many of my fixtures expose the bulbs and look ridiculous without a clear glass incandescent bulb.

<comment><USER26> Try Switch LEDs: [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/11/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/11/switch_led_bulb_the_long_awaited_light_bulb_is_finally_here_is_it_worth.single.html) . They're actually available, and I have a couple, which are pretty good, though the upfront cost is high.

<comment><USER25> Looks worth a shot for some rooms/fixtures, but not the chandeliers.

Also: I forgot about my can lights. They don't seem to have that form factor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Rant: when are we going to stop using watts as a unit for lightbulb "brightness?" The actual unit we care about is only implied by saying "60 watt equivalent." :(

<comment><USER28> Yep. 60W incandescent bulbs do not all have the same lumen output, which leads to LED makers claiming "60W equivalent" when they really mean "equivalent to a lousy 60W bulb".

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It seems like we're near the tipping point where LED lights will start to make an impact:

[http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3)

In addition, all those places on earth where it's dark at night should be able to use lower power lights, when the price comes down a little more.

</comment><comment><USER30> I just bought a 5k and 2.7k versions from Home Depot here in Canada for $15.97 CAD each.

My only gripe is the ~22% markup over the US pricing when the Canadian Dollar is worth ~2% more than the American (and has been for some time now).

I found it funny the way they had their lights laid out in my local store. There has always only ever been one aisle dedicated to twist-in bulbs.

When I entered the store today, and walked straight to that aisle. All I could find were phillips LED bulbs. Rashes of them. Almost every shelf in the aisle featured a Phillips LED bulb of some sort, for twice the price of the Crees. There were even Phillips LED comparison kisosks where consumers could turn on and off all of Phillips' LED bulbs. It was really quite a spectacle.

I broke down and finally asked a sales rep, only to be told the Cree bulbs were in the "fancy/expensive" lighting section of the store. The one where they sell all of the chandeliers and lamps, and you have never been able to find twist-ins for sale.

My gut feeling is that Phillips is scared they're going to lose market share over this, and are using their massive Home Depot contracts to negotiate poor placement for the Crees (and possibly poor pricing?). FYI 90%+ of the bulbs sold in Home Depots are Phillips.

<comment><USER4> > My gut feeling is that Phillips is scared they're going to lose market share > over this, and are using their massive Home Depot contracts to negotiate > poor placement for the Crees (and possibly poor pricing?). FYI 90%+ of the > bulbs sold in Home Depots are Phillips.

It'd be interesting to know what kind of maneuvering the companies are doing. Here in the US Cree is paying for a single "end cap" (end of the aisle placement in the front of the store) and the bulbs are selling out fast. Home depot is also their main distributor. But the store is littered with other brands, not just Philips.

<comment><USER30> I should take a picture of my Local home depot's light bulb "selection", it truly is humorous.

I picked up my two cree bulbs in an "end cap"-esque box today, however it was not at the end of any aisle, rather hidden away in the lamp section.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So I'm wondering how well this bulb would do in the L-Prize competition[1]. It looks like they have a number of testing requirements, but their primary goal is to have a good lumen output and lumen/watt ratio. It's run by the US Department Of Energy. Consumer Reports[2] started testing the previous winner[3] of the L-Prize competition.

[1] <http://www.lightingprize.org/>

[2] [http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/08/first-look- at-t...](http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2012/08/first-look-at-the- philips-l-prize-led.html)

[3] [http://www.usa.philips.com/c/energy-saving-light- bulbs/ambie...](http://www.usa.philips.com/c/energy-saving-light- bulbs/ambientled-12.5w-a19-soft-white-dimmable-046677409906/prd/en/)

<comment><USER3> It doesn't meet the requirements, so it can't enter.

The competition requires a CRI of at least 90, but this bulb only rates 80.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > These are white LEDs, that is, blue LEDs covered with a white-light-emitting > phosphor

Could someone explain that a bit more please?

<comment><USER33> I'm not an expert (just a physics prof), but my understanding is that LEDs always emit one specific color (wavelength) of light rather than white light (which is a mixture of many wavelengths). So if you want to use an LED to produce white light, you set up a material that absorbs light at one wavelength and then re-emits it in a wide variety of wavelengths (that is, the phosphor).

(This is also the way that fluorescent bulbs work: the hot mercury vapor inside produces invisible ultraviolet light, but the phosphorescent coating absorbs that UV and re-emits it in a range of visible wavelengths. And it's no coincidence that they're using a blue LED with a short wavelength: in general, a phosphor can only re-emit at longer wavelengths than it absorbed. That may imply that these bulbs emit little or no violet in their "white" light, since violet has a shorter wavelength than blue.)

<comment><USER34> If it uses a phosphor coating, isn't it also prone to the same issue of diminishing lumens over time as the CFLs? These bulbs lose up to 30% luminosity in 6 months (the tri-phospor ones, more expensive, can a last a year begore losing 10%/20%).

If they lose power like CFLs, even though the warranty is 10 years, you may be forced to replace it way before that.

<comment><USER33> I don't think I can comment on that with any authority at all. Is it possible that using a blue light as the source rather than UV reduces the degradation of the phosphorescent coating?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The real benefit comes from not having to break out the ladder every time your ceiling light goes out.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. I have a friend who never turns on his (high) ceiling lights to avoid replacing the bulbs. I suggested LEDs. Funny, for he'd rather the bulbs be functional and never on than non-functional and never on, which is kind of OCD when you think about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Something not qualified numerically about LED or CFL lamps, but a moderate consideration for me is analog FM radio interference ("RFI").

In one of the smallest rooms of my house, there are two of the Philips LED bulbs of the "yellow when off" variety. In an adjoining area there is another bulb of the same type.

There is audible RFI with the room's lights on when the battery-powered FM radio (with a rod antenna, about 3 feet from one of the bulbs) is accurately tuned in to a favorite but moderately distant (perhaps 30 miles), moderately powered (6 KW, not a lot) FM station. Moving the rod antenna away can stop the RFI, but then the antenna happens to block a doorway.

Turning off the lighting stops the RFI. The lamp in the adjoining room is apparently distant enough not to interfere with the FM radio.

I wonder if the CREE bulbs are any better in this regard, but not seeing anything in the teardown pictures that looks like shielding or ferrite chokes makes means I'll probably keep the existing bulbs; the RFI isn't bad enough.

</comment><comment><USER37> Note: author did a followup article with questions for Cree (manufacturer) a week later: [http://www.designingwithleds.com/qa-with-cree- about-60w-repl...](http://www.designingwithleds.com/qa-with-cree- about-60w-replacement-led-bulb/)

</comment><comment><USER38> As a side note, there is an fxguidetv[1] episode[2] where they talk to Dedo Weigert about LEDs. It is a very interesting interview that talks about some LED myths and color temperature.

1) <http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv>

2) [http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-170-dedo-on- dedol...](http://www.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-170-dedo-on-dedolight/)

</comment><comment><USER39> Surprised that site has not done a teardown of the (more expensive) Phillips bulbs that have similar specs. They've been around longer and are the ugly oddly shaped yellow plastic ones. Mine have a bit of a buzzing sound when dimmed, even though the packaging claims this won't happen... am thinking of moving to Crees but it would be nice to see a comparison of the innards.

<comment><USER40> > They've been around longer and are the ugly oddly shaped yellow plastic > ones.

They're certainly ugly, but for the record, they aren't yellow when powered. I also learned today that they have a little fan inside -- supposedly silent in most circumstances.

I suspect that ten or twenty years from now we'll look back on these early designs and laugh our heads off. Just as with computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Its amazing how small changes like these can cause a seachange in power consumption real difference in our collective future. This change alone could be a serious bear market for power companies! This, mixed with generally growing renewable means a greener planet may be closer than we think... most data assume constant consumption/or growth with population.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm not sure how revolutionary this is mainly because I live in a state the subsidizes the cost of energy efficient light bulbs and the IKEAs sell $10 60W equivalents.

<comment><USER3> $10 for a CFL?? Or led? Because CFL's cost about $1, not $10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> 10 year warranty. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER44> Here's a video teardown of one of these: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyYjcXgz1s>

</comment><comment><USER45> Anyone else having trouble actually buying these? I ordered two on March 7th and am still waiting for delivery to my local Home Depot.

<comment><USER40> The good news is that Home Depot's price for this item is lower than anyone else's. (Amazon.com has the same item for $17.44.) The bad news is they can't actually deliver it.

This is a common practice -- attract shoppers with a killer low price on an item that, for one reason or another, isn't actually available. I'm not saying Home Depot intentionally did this -- maybe they innocently underestimated public interest.

<comment><USER46> Actually I saw a bunch of these in-store today. The Cree "60W replacement" was ~$10.

FWIW, I picked up 'Philips 9.5-Watt BR30 Indoor Flood Soft White (2700K) LED Light Bulb (4-Pack)' for $60 online from Home Depot, thought it was a pretty decent deal at the time.

<comment><USER40> > Actually I saw a bunch of these in-store today. The Cree "60W replacement" > was ~$10.

Why not say where? I don't think anyone will object that you're flogging a particular source. Your quoted price is lower than anywhere else by a substantial margin.

<comment><USER46> Oops, thought Home Depot was implied by replies/context, guess not

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Not that anyone would care, but I have one of these illuminating my room right now. I think I am done with CFLs.

</comment><comment><USER38> So, what LED bulb is available to replace 100W incandescent?

<comment><USER42> It already came out last year: [http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/128669-philips- new-10...](http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/128669-philips- new-100w-equivalent-led-bulb-runs-on-just-23w)

<comment><USER38> Is it any good?

<comment><USER48> Yes - the Phillips bulbs are excellent. The yellow "lobes" on the side look a little weird when it's off, but the bulb puts out an BRIGHT warm-white light when turned on. They dim very well, too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Location History - <AUTHOR> https://maps.google.com/locationhistory

<comment><USER2> Wow! I did not realize they were storing my location history.

It's impressive data and could be useful to track...but given my concerns and trust keeping the data truly private, I deleted it and disabled the feature.

<comment><USER3> Alas, deleting it probably means you are the only one not having access to the data! This is the kind of stuff NSA keeps. Surely your telco also keeps it. It's probable some ad networks also know where you were.

Like you, I agree it's invasive, but I think you're addressing the problem in the wrong way. I wish I knew what the right was was!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find this really useful – one for Google Now and two for remembering where I was on certain days for invoicing/just personal interest.</comment>


Full moon will cause tides to be higher - chris-at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3412849/Could-MOON-make-weekend-s-storms-destructive-moon-tides-higher.html?ITO=applenews <comment><AUTHOR> Wait. The moon affects the tides?

Great to see the Daily Fail at the forefront of scientific research like this. Huzzah!</comment>


Bitcoin blow as fund drops U.S. exchange application - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-etp/bitcoin-blow-as-fund-drops-u-s-exchange-application-idUSKCN1C30CK <comment><USER2> It says this fund is still traded at unofficial exchanges at prices a number of times higher than the value of the bitcoin it holds. The multiple layers of speculative mania involved in that boggles the mind.

<comment><USER3> Different prices at different trading venues speaks to the difficulty of moving funds quickly between them. When those hurdles are overcome, such a glaring arbitrage opportunity will disappear.

Would you consider it "speculative mania" if GBTC traded at a steep discount to all other exchanges?

<comment><USER4> You're probably correct, but...

>Would you consider it "speculative mania" if GBTC traded at a steep discount to all other exchanges?

This is as shallow an argument as "If Jimmy broke his leg getting hit by a car, would you say I got hit by a car if I broke my leg?"

If you were also playing in traffic, then yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To get live data from ICE--the exchange that withdrew the request--I'm currently paying a broker $120/month.

By comparison, just about every crypto exchange currently offers push feeds and historical data for free. In most cases you don't even need to sign in.

In some sense this is a measure of the immaturity of crypto markets.

But it's also a reminder that with main institutional players moving in, the barriers to entry will go way up.

We'll probably start to see more brokers and vendors and more consolidation/buyouts of the crypto exchanges.

<comment><USER6> As a fund manager, I wish there was a data warehousing service I could pay for with a queryable by the minute (or better granularity) API that captured multiple exchanges across multiple countries for the top 50 coins.

I would pay a lot monthly for that product. Such a pro-level service doesn't exist at all yet.

Also there aren't any derivatives or futures to speak of yet (don't point out the existing futures markets, they have no volume).

Source: I run CryptoLotus, a crypto hedge fund.

<comment><USER7> Reading what you describe, I think Coinigy does this currently. I have a premium account and use it as an 'exchange aggregator' for my trade portfolio, to trade on and trade between many different exchanges with many trade pairs, and I believe it offers an API so that I could essentially abstract their frontend from the process. I pay about 20 dollars a month.

<comment><USER8> Yes, Good source for BTC historical data

[https://www.coinigy.com/bitcoin-data/](https://www.coinigy.com/bitcoin-data/)

<comment><USER6> BTC is easy. There are a million sources for it. The altcoins are the hard ones.

<comment><USER7> Which trade pairs are you looking for that Coinigy doesn't track and service already?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Its been priced in that nobody expects the SEC to approve that application.

But pay attention to this space, the guy who worked on the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF - which got rejected too - has taken the job at the SEC of approving ETFs. The last guy finally quit because of some red herring about supporting the trump administration or something (the Chairwoman Commissioner quit too)

I love when a power vacuum gets people I like in government, especially when nobody is noticing.

<comment><USER10> Whoa. So the likelihood of an SEC-backed coin exchange is... nonzero??

<comment><USER11> well if crowdfunding can get OK'd ..... why not crypto?

[https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-249.html](https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-249.html)

<comment><USER9> Crowdfunding was OK'd by Congress in the financial reform bill of 2010 and the JOBS act of 2012, it took the SEC 3 additional years of dragging their feet to be forced to be "okay" with it, and the SEC introduced many compromises which makes crowdfunding under those regulations to be dead-on-arrival with the 1 million usd limit and similar costs as other kinds of fund raising.

Despite that, understand that crypto enjoys no such luxury from Congress, and what we are talking about here has nothing to do with crowdfunding via crypto like the ICOs, but instead digital commodity trust ETFs

<comment><USER10> Establishing giants in the bitcoinosphere, effectively?

<comment><USER9> yes, they've brought this on themselves. there is a vast conscience of ideas and an even vaster risk taking public, that has been shut out of the markets for reasons such as lacking pedigree or preexisting wealth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> GBTC is a regulatory dodge that does not reliably track the price of bitcoin. As someone who wants a bitcoin ETF, I'm certain the SEC would not have approved the listing of GBTC and very confused as to why ICE (who should know better) ever thought they would.

</comment><comment><USER13> Huge blow to bitcoin. It's down a whopping 3%.

I think it'd be great to be able to trade BTC on a regular stock exchange, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen. Also, I think the big players who have an interest in speculating are already holding and not sitting around thinking "aww rats, it went up another 50% this week, if only we could buy it on the stock market!" Or maybe they are and once it hits the market it'll shoot to 20k. Who knows.

<comment><USER14> Mark Cuban's bubble tweet gave it a bigger slide. I'm not sure where it's headed but it sure is a wild ride.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That's overstated. I can already exchange Bitcoin easily and it's the best return I have of all my funds.

<comment><USER16> It would generally be appropriate to say things like "was the best return" or "has been the best return" when describing past price appreciation. "Is the best return" could be reserved for something like a stable source of income.

<comment><USER9> Many people earn income in bitcoin or cryptocurrency and would consider the US dollar the poor investment or purchase.

It is all a matter of perspective which simple wasn't apparent because there weren't options a decade ago.

<comment><USER17> ...for some definitions of "many"

<comment><USER18> Literally dozens.

<comment><USER9> thats probably true, the philosophy has been there since at least 2012 though

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Dramatic title

</comment><comment><USER20> RIP bitcoin. Current valuation is $4142.99 higher than it should be.. Im thinking we will get there within a couple of years. $1-2 seems about right per 1 BTC.

<comment><USER21> As someone involved in this stuff since 2011, the constant "death of Bitcoin" predictions are sooooo tedious.

<comment><USER20> getting the timing right is pretty much next to impossible. this does not change the fact that it will ultimately end that way.

<comment><USER22> Things that enable previously impossible use-cases don't just go away.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, it's a pity that more technocrats don't actually understand how bitcoin works, why it is innovative, and how supply and demand control prices.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Problem Solving Monday - <AUTHOR>

Any kinds of problems allowed. Maybe there is someone out there who can think of a solution! :) <comment><USER2> A wireless data plan that works. Affordable, and insanely high cap or unlimited if possible.

We have broadband internet at home for a flat rate (say something like $50/month). But it sucks. You're limited by wired or wireless via router to your house.

There are mobile hotspots and data plans you can buy but they're kind of crappy (sort of like tethering from your smartphone) and the data caps are insanely low.

Would love to have wireless internet built-in inside my laptop the way it is on my smartphone and have internet on the go anywhere anytime. I find myself in many places where free wifi isn't always available and this would be awesome to have solved.</comment>


I wrote a program that emails me when one of my friends orders Domino's - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/5wec78/i_wrote_a_program_that_emails_me_when_one_of_my/ <comment><USER2> This is hilarious. Apparently Dominos exposes active order tracking information with only a phone number needed. The code in the OP just requests

[https://order.dominos.com/orderstorage/GetTrackerData?Phone=...](https://order.dominos.com/orderstorage/GetTrackerData?Phone=5555555555)

for each phone number of input.

(Also, this is the original post, may want to edit the link: [http://www.technologyversus.com/pizza/](http://www.technologyversus.com/pizza/) )

</comment><comment><USER3> Probably an extreme case of paranoia on my part, but Domino's should probably close this as a vulnerability, right?

If I knew someone's phone number I could potentially use this to impersonate a delivery driver to gain access to someone (at a residential address or business)...

I mean sure, I could just knock on a door or walk in impersonating someone else... but expecting a pizza delivery is different than ignoring/alerting someone to an unknown solicitor.

OR you could also potentially use it to locate someone based on phone number by following a delivery driver from the local Domino's?

You could also just use it to steal pizza. Just find the contact information of a bunch of people in a nearby condo building and wait at the door and say "Oh is that for John Doe? That's me, I'll take it"

<comment><USER4> Depending on the location, you could just stand outside of the person's house and end up with an almost free pizza.

Almost free because you shouldn't forget to tip the driver you're stealing the pizza from!

<comment><USER5> Tipping is not customary in many countries outside the US. Here in The Netherlands it would be free :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Funny related story. When I was at GaTech my dorm room (actually a 4 room suite) phone number was 4046.

Now GaTechs area code happens to be 404 and there are few biz that share that area code. One notable one was a Papa Johns 404-6xx and some more numbers you can google.

The key thing is if you have a dorm phone you have to dial 9 to dial out... you see where I'm going with this...

My junior and senior and +.5 super senior year (alas that is another GT thing) I took hundreds of orders with credit card numbers.

Now I never did anything bad with those credit cards but there sure were a lot of angry people that didn't get their pizza (some I would call back and tell them but it got pretty annoying so....).

The really funny thing was there were even faculty and staff that made this mistake. You could say they got shafted (another GT thing).

I strangely miss that Papa Johns. Their garlic sauce was so glorious and yet so disgusting. It was like liquid cocaine transfat.

<comment><USER7> If you were going to take the credit card info, why couldn't you just MitM the whole order and ask the restaurant to spell out "9 to dial out" with some anchovies?

<comment><USER6> We did do stuff like that. There was Chinese restaurant that we forwarded an order too but pretended to be the Chinese restaurant. We actually tried to talk them out of the order yet they kept ordering. We said things like "oh that tastes like dog and smells like skunk... you still want?" (apologies if I offend anyone with terrible stereotypes). They preceded to still order though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Better use a burner phone if you don't want your friends to find out you like terrible pizza.

</comment><comment><USER9> Funny this comes up! Dominoes used to use a single integer ID per order, and I wrote a tool to find out how many orders they process each day[1]. After contacting them (and receiving no reply!) they switched to a proper implementation involving GUID's.

Good work though, I had no idea the dominoes USA website lets you just enter a phone number to get order details. That's pretty poor

1\. [http://tomforb.es/counting-pizza-with-python](http://tomforb.es/counting- pizza-with-python)

<comment><USER10> I'm actually surprised that they can fit their daily order number into a standard integer.

<comment><USER11> > _I 'm actually surprised that they can fit their daily order number into a > standard integer._

What's a 'standard integer'?

The ID in the URL is just a string of digits, and you don't have to be that careful (in simple scripts like this at least) for Python not to care how high you go.

<comment><USER10> Commonly 65535 (for uint) :) A string of digits doth not an integer make.

<comment><USER11> My point is - where do you think the problem is?

> _A string of digits doth not an integer make._

The URL contains a string of digits as the order ID, if that's not where you think the problem is, where?

> _Commonly 65535 (for uint)_

Not in Python, as I said:

> ... you don't have to be that careful (in simple scripts like this at least) > for Python not to care how high you go.

<comment><USER10> >The URL contains a string of digits as the order ID, if that's not where you think the problem is, where?

A string of numbers != an integer, saying an integer in an ambiguous settings where for many people it's +-32K or 65K for unsigned often creates some confusion.

Not in Python, as I said: > ... you don't have to be that careful (in simple scripts like this at least) for Python not to care how high you go.

Python cares very much how high you go, Python sets a limit to integers also which is 2^31-1 for 32 bit and 2^63-1 for 64 bit runtimes. So even with Python if once you commonly go above 2147483647 you'll get into problems ;)

<comment><USER11> > _A string of numbers != an integer_

I'm well aware. I'm just trying to understand where you think the problem is.

> _Python cares very much how high you go, Python sets a limit to integers > also which is 2^31-1 for 32 bit and 2^63-1 for 64 bit runtimes._

Try this:

        >>> print(f'Are you sure dogma? {2**128}')
        Are you sure dogma? 340282366920938463463374607431768211456

> _So even with Python if once you commonly go above 2147483647 you 'll get > into problems ;)_

I didn't claim it never goes wrong. I said 'in simple scripts like this', I had a quick look after you expressed surprise that their orders fit into 'standard integers', and I didn't see anything that would impose such a restriction.

<comment><USER10> The fact that you can print a multiplication doesn't mean it's an integer :P

Use sys.maxint / sys.maxsize =) 2147483647 is the limit for 32bit systems as I said, 2^63-1 is for a 64bit run time.

<comment><USER11> > _The fact that you can print a multiplication doesn 't mean it's an integer > :P_

I mean, we're circling back on it on 'what do you mean by...' \- and my basic point which is a lot of the time, especially for simple stuff like this, it's completely arbitrary.

        >>> print(int(2**128))
        340282366920938463463374607431768211456

You can tell me it "doesn't mean it's an integer" all you like, it's integer enough.

Perhaps this whole thread would have been better summarised if I'd initially asked Where is it being stored as what you're terming a 'standard integer'?

Edit - actually, I did ask that, in my second reply:

> My point is - where do you think the problem is?

<comment><USER10> At this point I think it's a generational thing. When I hear Int i see -+32,767 even tho 4 Byte Ints were much more common for me :)

And yes I know that the definition of an integer is any whole number including zero, but still some of us still think in datatypes. And since many (or most) languages still limit Int (at least by default) to 4 or 2 bytes that was what brought it up.

And to some extent I see this problem every day that people define datatypes too casually like defining an interoperable interface with a datatype of Int and then pushing 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 through it without thinking about datatypes in different languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That seems a rather big privacy issue on Domino's part.

I wonder if it also opens the doors to some kind of social engineering attack, with someone pretending to be Domino's asking for money over the phone.

As an aside I thought this is rather cool - Pizza Party a CLI for Domino's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J691aLfkWP0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J691aLfkWP0)

(One day I'd like to be able to afford to cron job something like that ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> Dominos Australia uses a UUID instead:

[https://internetorder.dominos.com.au/eStore/en/Tracker?order...](https://internetorder.dominos.com.au/eStore/en/Tracker?order=bcceddc4-58a9-4398-8ce2-dc983dfdb678)

(That's a random UUID so it doesn't work. I've got some working UUIDs in my browser history, but not sharing them since they tell you my home address..)

</comment><comment><USER14> What an idiotic url scheme. Learn a few people's phone numbers and steal their pizza orders. I bet you can learn all sorts of things about people from their pizza orders.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've struggled with Domino's design in the past when attempting to order after disabling a VPN connection in the same browser session- last I checked Dominos offered no way to not redirect to the country they detect for the IP address. Incredibly frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER16> Job well done. In the spirit of "Friends don't let friends", I suppose.

Seriously, against my better instincts I had more than a few slices of their "product" at a meetup the other night. My innards are still cursing me for it.

</comment><comment><USER17> How did you know? I mean, is it a habit of the author to sniff for unprotected/useful APIs, or was the word on the street about Domino's crap privacy?

<comment><USER18> Probably got an email with a link to his own order status and saw the phone number in the URL...

<comment><USER19> It's somewhat obvious when all you need to do is submit your phone number to track: [https://www.dominos.com/en/pages/tracker/#/track/order/](https://www.dominos.com/en/pages/tracker/#/track/order/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Next step: Make a Telegram bot that you invite in a group and that posts a message whenever a group member ordered something.

The magic will be real.

</comment><comment><USER21> It looks like HN and Reddit combined just DDOS'd Dominos.

Wow.</comment>