This Week in Rust - <AUTHOR> http://cmr.github.io/blog/2014/02/23/this-week-in-rust/ <comment><USER2> > 89 pull requests were merged this week. This is the most pull requests > merged in a week, ever.

The activity of this community never ceases to amaze me. Contributions and improvements are coming in thick and fast, and yet still we still seem to be keeping on top of it. Only 54 PRs are currently open on Github, despite the churn.

<comment><USER3> Reinventing the first 90% of the wheel is quick. It's that last 10% that takes all the time.

<comment><USER2> Indeed. There is a ton of polish that has to be sunk into the language and the libraries to get them to a state where 1.0 can finally be declared.

<comment><USER4> But when is that sort of stability going to be achieved by Rust?

We keep hearing about how "it's happening" or it'll be there "soon". But yet we still see a language and standard libraries that are evolving significantly on an ongoing basis, breaking existing code along the way.

If Rust wants to be a viable option, at some point this indiscriminate change needs to stop. It may mean that this initial version of the language has some flaws, but at least it may also be usable for serious development at that point.

The sooner that happens the better. The longer Rust delays stability, the greater traction we see competitors like Go or even existing languages getting. Rust is starting to get a Perl 6-style reputation, where there's great promise and lots of hype, but never a version we can confidently use for software that's remotely serious.

<comment><USER5> There are already a lot of programming languages that made it to x.0 without making all the breaking changes they should have, leaving warts all over the language and the standard libraries. The fact that Rust is still making lots of breaking changes is good, IMO. They seem very cognizant of the fact that they should make all the breaking changes they can while they still can.

<comment><USER6> Absolutely. I'd hate to see Rust go through a Python 3 debacle, or deal with the .NET approach where half the framework libs are completely superseded by new libs in every major release.

<comment><USER4> Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an excellent approach. Users with large Python 2.x code bases haven't experienced any disruption. Users who needed Python 3's features were free to upgrade as soon as they wanted. Libraries and frameworks have gotten Python 3 support when it becomes feasible and worthwhile to do so. It may not be the fastest adoption possible, but it has been quite pain-free, and totally optional for those who have no need for it.

Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months.

And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now?

<comment><USER7> > Python 3 wasn't a "debacle" in any sense. In fact, it has proven to be an > excellent approach.

That's… not an opinion shared by anyone else I've heard of. Python 3 has been a disaster, mainly because it didn't offer enough of a reason for users to upgrade. In other words, Python's so entrenched that Python 2's warts are effectively staying with the language forever. That is hurting every user of the Python language, and is actually an argument for fixing Rust's flaws now, while we still have a chance to.

> Besides, Rust should be happy to get anywhere near the number of users that > Python and .NET have. That surely won't happen until there's a version of > Rust that's stable for more than a couple of months.

We explicitly _don 't_ want so many users right now that we can't break things. That's not to say we don't want users—we do, of course—but we need them to know that the language will be unstable until 1.0.

> And what makes you think that Rust still won't end up in a situation where > some desired future functionality requires backward compatibility to be > broken, regardless of how much effort they put in now?

You're arguing that we shouldn't bother fixing anything because Rust will not be perfect. Yet in many of your other comments you criticize the Web stack for its lack of forward thinking design in many areas. Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?

The time to fix things that can't be fixed later is now. Just because Rust will not be perfect at 1.0, and there will be things we wish we could have changed, doesn't mean we shouldn't do the best we can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been learning Rust lately and people like cmr and the rest of the guys over at #rust have been super helpful. While Rust is moving fast the This Week in Rust posts make it very easy to keep up.

Overall I'm loving the language and the community and can't wait to see more wide adoption.

<comment><USER9> Their IRC room is the best I've lurked / asked questions in. They frequently discuss way-over-my-head language design proposals and even more frequently answer noob questions in a friendly and patient manner. It's a great community, and I hope it stays that way!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The progress being made on Rust is amazing. I'm not sure I've ever seen a language developed in such earnest before.

The tutorial on rust-lang.org is pretty good, but I find myself confused about the exact nature of the utility of some of the features. The Linked List example is certainly better than any old Foo/Bar/Baz one, but it's still pretty limited.

Are there any suggestions for existing Rust applications that can be read to get a better handle of how the language is intended to be used "in the wild"? It'd be great if there were, say, a CRUD website, or a user-options config GUI utility, something really basic that does stupidly simple work of a non- trivial nature. I feel like the added overhead of learning how compilers in general are supposed to be designed would make reading the Rust compiler source anti-productive.

<comment><USER11> The rust compiler itself would certainly not be the best resource, but I thing servo[1] would do just fine. Also, you can just look at some rust repositories[2] on github.

[1]: [https://github.com/mozilla/servo/](https://github.com/mozilla/servo/)

[2]: [https://github.com/trending?l=rust](https://github.com/trending?l=rust)

<comment><USER9> This is a few entries down in the trending list you linked, but rust-http[1] is currently my favorite example of a very non-trivial and actively developed rust library.

1: [https://github.com/chris-morgan/rust-http](https://github.com/chris- morgan/rust-http)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That looks like quite a list of breaking changes (although I don't know how much real code is affected). I guess that's good in the sense of being willing to fix things.

Does the Rust community have a gofix-like tool to keep up with this?

<comment><USER2> Well, the language is still pre-1.0. It is better to fix things now than be stuck with supporting poor design decisions years into the future. The good thing is that the semantic changes to the language have decreased significantly over the past year, and feature flags are now provided to force users to opt-in to experimental parts of the language. Much of the churn is is now on the library front.

There is no gofix tool, but you can use [http://rust-ci.org/](http://rust- ci.org/) to get immediate feedback when things break.

<comment><USER13> I don't know about the gofix tool, but I sure believe the language needs a standard gofmt tool before it's 1.0.

It saves the Go community so much bikeshedding and BS, and I've never seen anyone (except an insignificant minority bent on "freedom of expression" on their brace style) not like it.

<comment><USER14> That's a moot point. Many languages go without any kind of formatting tools. I definitely think a format and test coverage tools are HUGE productivity boosts, but I don't think it's time to spend on them when things like DateTime are still missing from language.

<comment><USER13> > _Many languages go without any kind of formatting tools._

Well, actually that's a moot point too. Lots of languages go without any kind of closures either, but I wouldn't much like a language that doesn't have them.

I'm not saying it's necessary -- I'm saying it's very nice to have.

And I don't think it's a moot point -- if with moot you mean "open for debate". In Go, nobody debates that gofmt is very beneficial (well, the few complaints are on the level of statistical noise).

> _but I don 't think it's time to spend on them when things like DateTime are > still missing from language._

You can add DateTime at any time. Java only recently added a decent one. But if you don't come with a tool like fmt from 1.0 and force it down people's throats (like Go), nobody will adopt it later.

<comment><USER14> It's a moot point because:

A)Rust team deemed it low priority because syntax is in flux

B)Lot's of great languages go without formatting tools, so it's not THAT necessary

 _> You can add DateTime at any time. _

DateTime added after will likely be in a form of several incompatible and buggy libraries. A formatter is nice, but personally I think a good test coverage tool is way more functional than a pretty formatter. And a date time library is often way more needed to deal with the insanity of DateTimes received from databases and other sources of information.

 _> but if you don't come with a tool like fmt from 1.0 and force it down people's throats_

..they will invent an IDE that does automatic formatting, for them? Like Eclipse, IntelliJ IDEA? Or a library that does the same like JSLint/JsHint?

As long as your tools agree on common formatting, it's not that difficult to achieve similar results to gofmt.

<comment><USER13> > _..they will invent an IDE that does automatic formatting, for them? Like > Eclipse, IntelliJ IDEA? Or a library that does the same like JSLint > /JsHint?_

That's not the same. All those tools allow different styles, and people use them. You'd be hard pressed to find 2 javascript projects with the same formatting style on GitHub, whereas in Go it's like the default way or the highway...

<comment><USER14> So? As long as you have same style on your project - any style, your code will be readable and with less WS conflicts. I don't see what a built in formatter does, other than allow to minimize bikeshedding about format, which will just pop up as BS about libraries or VCS or something.

That is assuming built in formatter doesn't have configurable options. Which some formatters do.

<comment><USER13> > _I don 't see what a built in formatter does, other than allow to minimize > bikeshedding about format_

That's exactly what it does -- and it's an absolute wonderful experience to see it in Go. I'd say it again: very few people don't like, and most that tried Go were singes the praises of this idea.

<comment><USER14> That strikes me as a minor quality of life issue. Great, you've removed about 1% of all Bikesheds (which library,which framework, etc). Not, something that NEEDS to exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hmm... is the removal of std::to_bytes something that's been pending for a while?

The commit ([https://github.com/mozilla/rust/commit/efaf4db24c92e119e26dc...](https://github.com/mozilla/rust/commit/efaf4db24c92e119e26dc575ffd6bfd3b91fb87d)) is recent and it breaks a bunch of libraries (eg rust-sdl2).

Feels like it deserves a mention.

<comment><USER16> That commit is "just" clean-up after [https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/11863](https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/11863)

But yeah, probably worth an explicit mention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am not associated with nimrod in any way, just an enthusiastic new user. Before I found out about nimrod I thought Rust was the best new language.

<comment><USER2> Nimrod, like D, does great things in terms of metaprogramming and static code generation whilst providing a GC that abstracts away from memory management. Rust on the other hand thrusts memory management into the programmers face, excelling at providing safe, deterministic control over allocation and a relatively advanced type system compared to the incumbent systems programming languages. Nimrod and D seem like worthy alternatives to Go and C#, where as Rust is providing a much needed alternative to the venerable C and C++ languages that have dominated systems progamming for the last forty years.

It seems to me like a marketing failure that Nimrod and D seem to be attempting to go after the low level systems programming domains when they should really be competing at a higher level of abstraction.

<comment><USER16> To add to this: Rust puts a _lot_ of emphasis on memory safety, including in parallel code, while neither D nor Nimrod have such a strong focus on that.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. The language defaults to safety and immutability, and linear types and regions are built into the type system. With the addition of mandatory RAII and unsafe blocks, safe allocation and concurrency primitives can be built as libraries rather than being baked into the language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What kind of problems are Rust trying to address?</comment>


Show HN: Simple SaaS app to receive call requests from your website visitors. - <AUTHOR> https://www.saleztalk.com <comment><USER2> Im kind of frustrated with the title, as it's not really describing the app, or anything on the page. Honestly, seems almost begging for upvotes instead of standing on merit.

 __Edit __: If it was a blog post about the struggle, or about building the app - sure. However this seems a lot like the "I'm a 16 year old who built an app" stunt.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya. I also realized the same. I am thinking of changing it but my server is crashing with the traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> First off, congrats on launching!

Second off, some website feedback:

\- I'm part of your target audience (freelance consultant), yet struggled to figure out what this is/why I benefit from it. I'd change both the banner company and overall content hierarchy, as follows:

Banner: Replace headline with some form of the copy of the second section: "Convert website visitors into sales calls, when they are hot, not a week later." That's a bit too wordy for the headline, but tells me both the benefit, and why it's different than a demo request form.

Second section: How it works, framed as a benefit. Some headline like "5 mins to converting more leads". You lead with a benefit in the banner, now let me know how I can get that benefit.

Third section: Sell benefits listed under the "How it helps" sub-header. Convince me that I want/need this.

Fourth section: Testimonial — at this point I understand what it is and why it will help my business, now it's time to show me others trust you, so I can too.

Fifth section: some CTA to signup. You could include the letter to leads "Hi, we are SalezTalk..." if you like.

\- I would throw out the features section entirely, or bury it on another page. It confused me — what the heck does it mean by scheduler? Mini-CRM? I thought this was a simple way to setup sales calls?

\- I would also throw out the section where you say SalezTalk is for target- segment X (freelancers, solopreneurs, etc). This might be personal preference, but I find these sections condescending. Tell me the benefits, and I'll tell you if it solves a problem I have.

\- Raise your prices, significantly. Running your own business, there is little difference between $59/yr and $19/year — both are going to be some of my lowest software costs. I'd make the cheapest plan $59/yr, and the more expensive one something like $179.

Anywho, congrats again!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the detailed feedback. I am definitely going to take your inputs while launching my site's version 2.0.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I am the main developer of SalezTalk, a small project I developed during my free time ( with a full time job & a baby :-) ).

SalezTalk is one of the simplest sales tool for increasing sales call request from website visitors.

I have developed a fairly simple app and not at all a unique app but still I would appreciate all kinds of feedback ranging from design to content.

Also, if you are really interested in using it on your website, I can give you a 100% free account. Just email me the website on which you plan to use. Email: email@example.com.

<comment><USER4> you should probably at least offer a free trial on your website.

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 reasons why I am not offering a free plan:

1: I want to see if actually anyone wants to pay for the product. 2: There is hardly anything in the app which I can give for free.

<comment><USER4> I said a free "trial".

at some point whether it's time or money you'll need to invest in marketing. by offering a free "trial" people can see if it's even worth their time.

people have a big resistance to coughing up a credit card with out some kind of relationship at first.

It's like going on a date and starting it out with "would you like to have sex". it's rarely works. I spent a lot of time on conversion funnels lately and you have to ease into sales.

I agree a straight up freemium plan is a risky bet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some issues:

1- You don't have a way to show customers how this actually works, I have no idea what i'm signing up for, so I won't sign up.

2- You don't actually use the button on your own company's website, but use only a contact form, which tells the users in a way that you don't really use your own product.

3- You mention mobile app, but there's no where for it to be found.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1 - I enabled it on my site. It's late night here so I disabled it. 2 - I use it. 3 - The app is almost developed. I need to upload it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cool! I think this might be a great product idea!

I think the messaging is very clear, but would have wanted to see an example of how the button actually works/looks like on the front page.

The landing page looks great! I've seen a few similar ones recently (with the lines that move etc). How did you create it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok. I am getting huge traffic from HN so disabled it. I have enabled it for few minutes.

<comment><USER6> Ah I see! Looks good!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cool idea and great job launching. I might consider at some point in the future. For now, quick feedback: my primary curiosity is what the interface looked like. It clears up my understanding to see the "How It Works" page but that page is buried. I'd expect that if you had a simple one graphic version of that on the homepage that'd also increase conversion.

And yea the title of the post does seem like you're looking for upvotes for the backstory (as opposed to writing an article about how you did it), but hey, great job anyway! Even with the responsibility of having to walk a dog, I complain, so the fact that you launched this is impressive. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER8> The title really suggests a blog post. At least, when I see titles like these on HN, I see a blog post. Instead, I see a product offering. I would like to recommend the author to create a blog post and put that up for submission or change the link.

Just offering your product is of less value to a wide HN audience, whereas an article on software development / managing a side project is worth more. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the feat that the author did.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the kind words. This is my first post on HN so I thought of taking some liberty in the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great idea and well done with balancing it with a full time job and a child.

The only thing I can pick up on is spelling and grammar on the website, the main thing that jumped out was the word "MARKEETERS" you mean "marketers"; little details like that can bring down conversion rates as it makes you look amateurish.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I corrected it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Always feels shady when a SaaS site is asking for your money, but there is no face or team in the About page.

[https://www.saleztalk.com/about](https://www.saleztalk.com/about)

</comment><comment><USER11> Every time I think about going easy on my projects because I have kids, I remember that Euler had 13 kids and he was the most prolific mathematician of all time.

<comment><USER5> Take it easy on yourself mate ;), you are not Euler, and you don't really know what kind of father he was, you never know maybe you are doing a better job and got different priorities!, good luck and keep pushing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Title should be: SalezTalk - Check out my website. This is the Saas App I built (while holding a full-time job and a baby)

<comment><USER2> Appears to be someone who was created 2 minutes ago, I presume the author?

HN tends to enjoy content they can read or interact with for free first. Specifically, they _really_ hate click baity titles. Do another with a blog post and perhaps it'll get a better response.

Also, it appears you may have upvoted yourself (not 100% sure in this), but be careful. Finally, if you only create your account 10 days ago, you appear green to the rest of us - so we know you aren't part of the community and likely are just trying to promote your own stuff.

Without being part of the community, we know you don't know the customs and perhaps more importantly you may not continue to contribute.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, I am really new to HN. I will take care of the suggestions you posted. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Cool project, but got to ask, why aren't you using it on your site? You should focus on selling now.

Godspeed

</comment><comment><USER14> I like the design, especially with all the graphics. Did you do create those yourself ?

</comment><comment><USER15> Please hire a copy-writer the sentences read like they were written by a foreigner

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice idea!</comment>


Apple Replaces Homepage with Nelson Mandela Tribute - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/?nelsonmandela

<comment><USER2> Does anyone else think this is out of order? Cheesy.

<comment><USER3> Apple regularly pays tribute upon the passing of notable individuals by posting a memorial image to their home page. I don't see anything cheesy about it.</comment></comment>


Text to Image Synthesis with Stacked Generative Adversarial Networks - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03242 <comment><AUTHOR> 2 minute papers video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAbhypxs1qQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAbhypxs1qQ)</comment>


Show HN: Trying to bootstrap my biz with Twitter bootstrap - <AUTHOR>

http://bbsi.biz/
Trying to bootstrap my company, I made this entire site in 18 hours on Twitter's bootstrap 2 and Play! 2.0 with the Scala language.
I completed this entire web site, including marketing speak (bulk of time), layout, gfx, dynamic backend, on the fly JavaScript and LESS CSS minification, etc in that time.
I'm not a web designer but think it turned out pretty well.  Would be thrilled for some feedback! <comment><USER2> thoughts:

1) fairly clean design, but consistency between pages could be improved 2) that home and "blue box design" hot spots go the same place is extraneous 3) front page nav is strange. buttons to go to the other tabs, but when I click on the network button I don't know where it has taken me 4) where has it taken me problem - need a visual way of showing what tab you're on 5) 2 level menu on corporate is inconsistent 6) load time could be improved

There's a few thoughts anyway!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, these are are valid points. Going to crash right now but will see what I can do tomorrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice looking site. Keep up the good work. This inspires me to try Twitter's Bootstrap, too.</comment>


Secure tunnels to localhost – open source ngrok alternative - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mmatczuk/go-http-tunnel <comment><USER2> This is great.. as I really do like Ngrok but have no use for the paid version, with a 5/yr VPS on lowendbox you can have your localhost tunneling needs settled here.</comment>


Ionic Creator: rapid prototyping for Ionic - <AUTHOR> http://ionicframework.com/creator/

<comment><USER2> I've used Ionic before to build hybrid apps. The performance on iOS and Android (with crosswalk) is really impressive. For creating MVPs, Ionic was crazy fast. What would have took a month or more for native (complex UI), was prototyped in a week. I'm pretty pumped up about this tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Likewise, it's already a massive time saver, this new tool can only reduce development cost further. I'd love it if my prototyping tool naturally converted the UI into something I can actually build on - this looks really promising!</comment></comment>


Organized chaos: managing randomness - <AUTHOR> https://mirage.io/blog/mirage-entropy <comment><USER2> This is more of an attempt to give little background on RNG problems in a security context, and a description of how MirageOS' crypto stack deals with RNG, with an emphasis on entropy harvesting.</comment>


Low-Calorie Sweetener Use and Risk of Abdominal Obesity Among Older Adults - <AUTHOR> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167241 <comment><USER2> This seems incredibly weak because they haven't shown causation -- or, in particular, disproved reverse causation. (That people struggling with weight gain are more likely to use sugar substitutes.)

This is more of a "huh, someone should do additional research" paper than anything conclusive.

<comment><USER3> Came here to make exactly this point. It seems like the people already slim and petite are less likely to be drawn to such artificial additives, whereas many/most overweight people would at least be trying some "bare minimum" weight management through them.

<comment><USER4> Yes, this shows how hard science can be. Studies have shown both that people who consume artificial sweeteners tend to gain a little weight (like this study) and that people who lose a lot of weight tend to be above-average consumers of artificial sweeteners. Best hope is that chemistry can untangle the mess.

<comment><USER5> Not only all the above, but where's the head-to-head comparison with sucrose (layman's 'sugar')-sweetened beverages?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unless you can show that low calories sweeteners are directly responsible for weight gain; i.e. somehow the sweeteners affect how food is metabolized, fat is stored, etc., then these studies don't really say much other than people who are unable to control their appetites are unable to control their appetites.

Low calorie sweeteners are still a better option than sucrose with respect to flavoring.

In terms of annecdata, I've been trying to control my father's eating habits for years now (due to his numerous heart attacks and double bypass), and while I've not been completely successful, everything about my father's health has improved since he switched to diet pepsi from regular pepsi and since I got him to stop buying sugar for his coffee, convincing him to go with Stevia instead.

He still sneaks junk food, but that's not something that has changed. His blood sugar has decreased and his joint pains have improved.

To a certain extent, studies like this that make recommendations against recommendations seem irresponsible.

<comment><USER3> Yes. The failure to even mention, much less account for the selection bias that may come in to play here means the correlation may be used to recommend precisely the opposite of the healthy choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I see this as, "What we thought was true actually is, and we still have no real idea why."

The fact that this is a longitudinal study lets us say that not only is heavier use of low calorie sweeteners tied to being fat, it is correlated with getting fatter faster. That's an important point that only longitudinal studies can verify.

However without being able to control people's diet, we don't know which way causation goes. Do low calorie sweeteners cause people to gain weight faster? Or does having a tendency towards gaining weight cause people to use low calorie sweeteners? And if it is a cause, why that would be.

<comment><USER8> > However without being able to control people's diet, we don't know which way > causation goes. Do low calorie sweeteners cause people to gain weight > faster? Or does having a tendency towards gaining weight cause people to use > low calorie sweeteners? And if it is a cause, why that would be.

It seems overwhelmingly likely that the causality goes the other way, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Using artificial sweeteners" vs "not using artificial sweeteners" doesn't really tell you much. I mean it makes sense that people who use artificial sweeteners would have more excess mass since people who are dealing with that would seek artificial sweeteners in the first place. If you're feeling fine about your weight you won't bother with artificial sweeteners.

What would be interesting is if people who replaced the calories they ate that came from sugar with artificial sweeteners that are effectively no calorie and still had a greater increase in stored mass.

That said; the chance of a properly controlled food study is astronomical as you'd have to control people's diets in near totality, for a large enough sample size, across years, which no one would agree to unless you planned to cover or subsidize their food costs over that time.

</comment><comment><USER10> 2.6 cm larger waist doesn't seem very convincing. I probably go up/down 2.6cm on any given day.

</comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't fatter people naturally try to switch over to low calorie sweetener in order to lose weight? whereas non fat people might just enjoy sugar instead?

<comment><USER12> I have numerous fat friends that use the calories saved by diet foods as a green light to recover equivalent calories elsewhere.

The fatalist claim being: well, one would've just eaten that much anyway, so what's the difference?

<comment><USER6> The difference is that one choice of sweetener is inherently bad for those trying to lose weight, while the other choice of sweetener puts the burden of fault for weight gain on a lack of self control.

We're humans. Not wanting to eat bitter food all the time is natural and should not be faulted. Losing weight shouldn't have to be a strenuous ascetic chore, so choosing to consume something sweet isn't the mental failing; the mental failing is choosing to choose something calorically and macro- nutritionally incorrect for one's body recomposition goals.

<comment><USER13> When someone puts sugar in my tea or coffee it genuinely ruins it for me, but I eat sweet things faily rarely and so haven't developed the tolerance and/or addiction to that flavour.

Could it be that not eating sugar isn't so much of a strenuous ascetic chore, but rather it's the reduction in sugar intake which is particularly (albeit temporarily) awkward?

<comment><USER6> My comment wasn't against not eating / drinking sweet thing things. My comment was anti-anti-sweet things (which is not the same as pro-sweet things in certain systems of logic)

One doesn't need to have an addiction to sweet things to want to enjoy sweet things every once in a while, though I admit that "addictions" to sweet things exist (namely my father, whom I have a hard time breaking him away from that addiction).

The point was mainly that there is a certain brand of health and fitness that says one must suffer / become a stoic ascetic in order to make progress, and it's this brand of health and fitness that is counter productive. Yes, maybe it works for many people, but it doesn't work for everyone.

I'm perfectly happy living a rather Spartan life; my 70 year old father is not and it's very difficult to change his stubborn mind.

Another way of putting it is that if you say that the only way to health and fitness is to climb over this 50 ft. wall, then you're going to get far fewer people actually putting in the effort to do so. Artificial Sweeteners are the large hand holds on the climbing wall, before they're ready to switch over.

And yes, if your goal is body recomposition, then macronutrition and caloric intake is far more important than this "artificial sweeteners make you fatter" voodoo magic nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting reading:

These data suggest that low-calorie sweetener consumption may deleteriously affect visceral fat deposition, a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Mechanisms for the association between low-calorie sweetener use and progressively rising prevalence of abdominal obesity remain unknown. One potential explanation derives from the physiology of the brain food reward system.

Therefore, individuals who consume low-calorie sweeteners may compensate by over-eating in order to experience the expected satiety. Another possible mechanism may involve the gut microbiome.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, but unoriginal. I've known about both potential explanations for years, as well as the fact that switching to low calorie sweeteners does not seem to be a good way to lose weight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone tell _which_ low calorie sweeteners the study is talking about? Certain artificial sweeteners elicit a large insulin response even if they are "low-calorie". Did they use any of the sweeteners listed in [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy- drinks/...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy- drinks/artificial-sweeteners/)?

<comment><USER16> It says (aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame potassium, or sucralose).

<comment><USER17> I was looking for Erythritol in the study, as it seems to be the safest sugar replacement so far (I'm using it all the time, still trying not to overuse it of course). It's strange that the study didn't take it into account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fat people should probably try lactulose - a zero-calory (indigestible) sweet syrup (somewhat similar to maple syrup) with prebiotic and laxative properties. Besides being tasty it can actually make their guts healthier so their ghrelin (hunger hormone) secretion can decrease and their leptin (fullness hormone) secretion can increase.

<comment><USER19> Laxative artificial sweeteners have the problem that people don't dose food as carefully as medicine. I'm reminded of the famous Haribo maltitol gummy bears, which when eaten more than about 20 at a time would cause a...powerful laxative effect.

<comment><USER18> Worth (and fun) mentioning but as for me I don't feel like it's a problem as long as there is a toilet nearby. Lactulose laxative effect is faster to act but not nearly as powerful as e.g. that of bisacodyl. According to my experience (needless to say it may differ in others so be careful) it will hardly cause any serious inconvenience or discomfort any soon after you defecate (a couple of times in a row perhaps) or make you need a toilet really often, especially after you get used to it and your colon adapts and gets generally cleaner and healthier. What I find the most valuable property of lactulose is its prebiotic effect (somewhat similar to that of inulin[1]), it really feels and seems like it makes an amazing difference in the gut ecology.

[1] [https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=lactulose+inulin+...](https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=lactulose+inulin+prebiotic&cat=web&pl=opensearch&language=english)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I use a quite a bit of Stevia. I wonder where that fits in.

<comment><USER21> I use stevia and monk fruit a lot and would be curious too. I've never felt bad after using it though, unlike stuff like aspartame which seems to make me feel a bit funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought it was already established that anything sweet-tasting stimulates an insulin response, which is an energy storage (fattening) hormone.

<comment><USER23> If sweet-tasting things stimulated a significant insulin response without providing the actual sugar to justify it, we'd die from insulin shock. Not hyperbole. This is the mechanism behind Xylitol toxicity in dogs, for example.

[https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/xylitol-toxicity- in-d...](https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/xylitol-toxicity-in-dogs)

<comment><USER22> There are plenty of results if you search google for "artificial sweetener insulin", some from quite reputable sources.

It doesn't take much of a response to accumulate significant fat over the years, when you're constantly consuming the stuff.

<comment><USER21> Not all artificial sweeteners are the same though. Xylitol, stevia, and monk fruit for example all taste super sweet and do not have a significant insulin response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Totally unscientific theory: sweeteners are to sugar what methadone is to heroin. If you're using them, you're still craving/addicted to sugar and your palate remains out of whack, so you're probably also drawn to sugary foods that don't use sweeteners (eg. most commercial pasta sauce, ketchup, fruit juice, many breads).

<comment><USER25> In my lived, anecdotal experience:

I grew up eating "normal" foods and drinking non-diet soda.

I am an average-sized guy. I fell in love with a sweetheart of a woman that was around 300lbs. I married her. She's now less than half that.

I eat what she eats. Diet, sugar-free everything. After a few years of tolerating it, I prefer it. Normal soda tastes like cough syrup, to me. Cake and donuts make me nauseated. I don't crave sugar, at all.

Also, ketchup has a shit ton of sugar in it, for the record. (I know this, because we use sugar-free ketchup.)

Do with this anecdotal informaton what you will; but as someone who has fully transitioned to artificial sweeteners - I can't say that my lived experience lines up with your claims.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I pretty much live on this stuff. Huh, wonder if I should be dropping it altogether.

<comment><USER27> Mehhhhh in for a penny, in for a pound. If it turns out this stuff kills you I'm probably already done for anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> [2016]

<comment><USER6> This is an important note. Thank you for pointing this out. It seems like a lot of people here are arguing that this study reaffirms prior studies, when in reality I think they were thinking of this study as the one being re- affirmed without realizing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> `

</comment><comment><USER30> I am frustrated by the dismissal of this study in the comments. I think the burden of proof clearly lays on the claim that using artificial sweeteners is a healthier alternative to sugar. It seems fairly certain that is not the case.

<comment><USER31> That's not what this study is about. There are already plenty of studies showing weight loss or reduced weight gain when consuming low calorie sweeteners vs sugar. And there are no ill health effects such as causing cancer, which a lot of people still believe. [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy- drinks/...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy- drinks/artificial-sweeteners/)

<comment><USER30> Here's a quote from the link you sent:

> The health effects of LCS are inconclusive, with research showing mixed > findings.</comment></comment></comment>


Privilege Escalation via Docker - <AUTHOR> https://fosterelli.co/privilege-escalation-via-docker.html

<comment><USER2> "Privilege escalation" implies a vulnerability, but this behavior is by design and -- as the author notes -- already documented.

[http://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/#create-a- do...](http://docs.docker.com/installation/ubuntulinux/#create-a-docker-group)

> Warning: The docker group is equivalent to the root user; For details on how > this impacts security in your system, see Docker Daemon Attack Surface for > details.

[http://docs.docker.com/articles/security/](http://docs.docker.com/articles/security/)

> First of all, only trusted users should be allowed to control your Docker > daemon. This is a direct consequence of some powerful Docker features. > Specifically, Docker allows you to share a directory between the Docker host > and a guest container; and it allows you to do so without limiting the > access rights of the container. This means that you can start a container > where the /host directory will be the / directory on your host; and the > container will be able to alter your host filesystem without any > restriction. This is similar to how virtualization systems allow filesystem > resource sharing. Nothing prevents you from sharing your root filesystem (or > even your root block device) with a virtual machine.

There's certainly room to discuss "is it possible to delegate hypervisor access without delegating root?", and "can Docker get there from here?", but I think calling this an exploit is pretty far fetched.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not an exploit when its a documented, and warned feature that reduces your security since day 1.

"Warning: The docker group is equivalent to the root user; For details on how this impacts security in your system, see Docker Daemon Attack Surface for details."

FUD

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough, you could make that argument!

I did acknowledge that Docker has documented that behaviour, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a insecure-design worth being aware of. Many of the 'Docker tips' blog posts that discuss that behaviour _don't_ mention the insecurity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't really get all the docker hate/fear as-of-late.

If you're a developer using docker, you should be reading the dockerfiles, reading any referenced shell scripts, and know what the command line arguments you're entering do. You should pretty much always be writing your own dockerfiles based on others adding your specific tweaks and then finally your software. That's what makes docker amazing: it lets you program your environment like an application.

If you're carelessly running docker commands, dockerfiles, docker images, then you're going to expose yourself to the same security problems as if you were carelessly running shell scripts, binaries, or whatever else you don't look at the source and ensure will be safe and secure within your application's environment.

The only thing I can see as a security concern specifically for docker users is the general swiftness of building your environment means developers might rush through it instead of taking the time to understand what is going on under the hood. But this is true of any software designed to ease something once arduous.

I'm pretty new to docker myself so let me know if I am missing a gotcha somewhere.

With that in mind, if you're properly mindful of your software, is there really any (hidden/unforeseen) danger in using the docker group? Certainly makes my life easier with zsh and the docker plugin.

<comment><AUTHOR> The concern in this example isn't a malicious package, although that's something to be wary of.

If your user account is compromised, an attacker now has root on your entire machine with no additional effort. This is why people are always saying to "not run as root". When you are a member of the Docker group, you're running as root.

On your production servers, that's a significantly larger attack surface for a malicious party. To get full root, they just need to compromise a user account now. That's the unforseen danger, not the packages you download.

Also, this isn't Docker hate. I use it every day and am quite fond of it, which is all the more reason to run it securely ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps this just serves to remind Docker users that containers don't really provide much, if any, isolation. At any particular time there is going to be some sort of privilege escalation available which gives attackers the whole machine. In the face of that reality it isn't really worth much to know about a particular instance.

</comment><comment><USER6> See also: privilege escalation via wheel group.

<comment><USER7> Err... but you don't run your app server (or anything that talks to it) in the wheel group, do you?</comment></comment>


How I Feel Reading HN Lately - <AUTHOR> https://imgur.com/qWPtZ

<comment><USER2> My sentiments exactly. What's up people?</comment>


CCTV NATION – Location Based Augmented MMO Game - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/983226300/cctv-nation-augmented-mmo-open-world?ref=discovery

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone looking to build an ARG based around control of security cameras. What's interesting is that:

"The outcome of playing CCTV Nation will be a map with all security cams and mobile networks on it. All CCTV data will be available under an Open Data license agreement and will be accessible on wikidata."</comment>


Tindie Becomes a Part of the Hackaday Family - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2015/08/05/tindie-becomes-a-part-of-the-hackaday-family/

<comment><USER2> Several of our writers have been selling on Tindie for years. Leading up to this I talked to as many people with Tindie stores as I could and everyone had great thing to say. This is huge for getting more people into Open Hardware!</comment>


Show HN: Musical sound bites at Buskering.com - <AUTHOR>

I constantly record myself playing small riffs on the guitar and have collected a few hundred tracks. Instead of letting these ideas collect the electronic equivalent to dust I created a website where you can upload small (20s) portions of a start of an idea and people can vote on which one they like the best. The site is at http://www.buskering.com. The point of it is that you as a musician might not know which riff has the potential to be a song so you can upload a few riffs and see which one people like the most.
I was a busker over the summer and liked the thought that people enjoyed my music more than the fact they would give me some spare change. I'm trying to bring the idea that instead of throwing spare change you might have time as an internet pedestrian to vote/rate a 20 second music sound bite.
Let me know what you think...
PS - I made this project learning how to code Django and Python and it is a simple voting app like (Fasemash, Hot or Not, etc...)  Most of the tracks are of me playing the guitar as well. <comment><USER2> This is pretty neat, I'll try and post it about a bit. On the FAQ, put the 'what is this' and the 'theme' sections ahead of the instructions. Your target market is musicians, not programmers. 'How to use it' is unhelpful if you're still wondering 'what's it for'.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. I'll get to changing that so it is more helpful.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A quiz app using the Web Speech API - <AUTHOR> http://iambrandonn.github.com/FlashCards/

<comment><USER2> Wow this works really well! Love it.

By the way, this really demonstrates why I don't have much confidence in speech based applications. I started playing this in my living room, and my sister immediately was like "why are you doing that?" It's weird to just start talking at a computer. Felt weird, looked weird, was weird. That's why walkie- talkie functionality, which was in a lot of phones for a while, lost out to text messaging.

(not a criticism of this game, which I like a lot)

<comment><USER2> Exceptions: while driving

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is probably the coolest thing I have seen this week! Really low intensity interactions with the computer. Who needs a keyboard?

I have been using <http://talktyper.com> lately and I am amazed with the accuracy. I am not throwing out my keyboard out of the window yet, but soon.... soon.

Thx for releasing the source!

</comment><comment><USER4> Tried the multiplication quiz: recognition is a bit slow and inaccurate, which results in repeated attempts per problem (and gets in the way of the main objective: answering as many as quickly in a minute). It's an otherwise cool showcase of the speech recognition feature though. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Hope you're keeping track of how often people curse at it. You know, for science.

When I worked on a project related to voice recognition and phone menu systems, they ended up making swear words redirect to the operator.

</comment><comment><USER6> It was way off for me, after a minute of attempts I couldn't get it to understand árbol (spanish vocab)

<comment><USER6> Not sure if it's got some kind of learning algorithm, it mistook "school" for "scrubs" repeatedly for a whole minute but after that started to understand very consistently.</comment></comment>


SQLite: 67 KLOC of code, but 45678 KLOC of test cases, a ratio of 679:1  - <AUTHOR> http://www.sqlite.org/testing.html?1

<comment><AUTHOR> "Prior to each check-in to the SQLite source tree, developers typically run a subset (called "veryquick") of the Tcl tests consisting of about 98.2 thousand test cases."</comment>


About CSS corners - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/03/19/the-css-corner-about-css-corners.aspx

<comment><USER2> add css animations, gradients, multiple backgrounds, tranforms, text shadows, box shadows

then ill be impressed about improving an edge case on a feature other people implemented 5 years ago.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but still - hooray! IE has been slooooooowww to change for a long time, while other browsers have innovated rapidly.

If IE does something better than everyone else, no biggie - they'll catch up quickly. Meanwhile, IE is actually aware that they have to compete on standards. That's a wonderful thing to see.

Of course, without Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and others kicking their butts, Microsoft would never have done any of this. Competition helps the user. And now maybe it will flow the other direction a little.

<comment><USER4> You know, philosophically speaking, I'm not sure competition really _does_ help the end user. Is a constant search for something better good? Is life _now_ bad? Do we really _need_ it to be improved? Perhaps the idea that it _can_ be improved -- or even _should_ be -- is _itself_ a negativity creator.

Beyond those questions, some of the tactics and strategies used by competitive companies don't lead to better lives. For example, if VHS had never been in competition with BetaMax, our lives would be better because Betamax is better than VHS. Perhaps if there was less competition, many of the startups that are put out of business every day would survive longer and provide even _more_ better life. Sometimes competition destroys the _best_ alternative.

Little things like that make me wonder about our conviction that competition is better.

Further still, imagine if all the energy spent competing was spent _collaborating_! Imagine if we all focused on a better life, rather than two separate teams focusing on two separate paths to that better life. Mozilla team + Chrome team _could_ be a better scenario than Mozilla team vs. Chrome team.

So, my point is, It's not really that clear cut that competition makes our lives better. Another example, in many countries around the world with single payer health care systems, the people live longer, have lower infant mortality, and disease than in the U.S. where there is competition for health care provision and insurance.

So I'd like to see some evidence for the claim that competition makes lives better and products better. And, even if they do, does it matter that those products have become better? Does the fact that our lives will be better 10 years from now mean we can't be happy today? Should we not focus on being happy with what we have? If competition weren't the status quo, _maybe_ there would be something existing right now to make our lives better than our lives currently are, but we simply _don't know_ about it. It's _not_ here. It doesn't exist. If it did exist, perhaps our lives would be better, but we only _believe_ they are better because we can compare our lives with this thing existing with our lives when it didn't exist.

Would our lives be better if we could colonize mars? Would we have been able to colonize mars if we had worked _with_ the Russians during the cold war? How much more progress would have been made if we had collaborated? Instead, competition has led to nuclear proliferation -- is that a _good_ thing?

If there were only one browser, my life would be better. I wouldn't have to develop for four... wait, _five_ browsers. I'd be able to spend more time focusing on the features and requirements of the system, rather than IE showing a div a little higher or than Firefox. Or Chrome throwing an error on an Ajax call. Or adding IF statements to handle key presses.

Take it to the logical extreme. What if there were 20 browsers each with 5% market share? Would life be _even_ better _still_?

<comment><USER5> Your argument focuses on whether incremental improvements produced by competition make us happier and, with respect to those, you might be right.

But, in the larger view, competition is what made anyone invent Betamax at all. Or flat panel TVs instead of CRTs or cell phones instead of telegraphs.

<comment><USER6> Competition is why we're walking, talking, and building tools, instead of being one-celled creatures without a nucleus. The question of which state of being is better is left as an exercise for the reader.

<comment><USER4> It's also why we are creating a spaceship earth that is uninhabitable by humans, but plenty fine for single-celled organisms. The future of humanity is left as an exercise for the reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IE's implementation seems to be the best. Unfortunately, the post kinda comes off as being one big "our implementation is the best"

<comment><USER8> Yeah, in the comparisons they did, IE definitely came out on top. But I didn't really have a problem with the attitude of the post, "look at our shitty implementation" is not really worth writing home about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> IE needs to lose a lot more of marketshare.

Microsoft always produces great software when they are the runner ups.

</comment><comment><USER10> _First specified back in 2002, border-radius was already supported by Firefox 1.0 in 2004 as –moz-border-radius. Almost three years later, Safari 3.0 followed with –webkit-border-radius. In December 2009, the specification became a Candidate Recommendation. A few weeks ago, Opera's 10.50 release was the first to add support the property without a vendor prefix._

This kind of wording continues to perpetuate that vendor prefixes are bad. Opera should only have implemented the property without the vendor prefix (although, technically, there's no such thing as a "property without the vendor prefix" and "a property with the vendor prefix", they are really two different properties with, by design, potentially different implementations) if it conforms to the agreed upon standard (I don't know if it does, Opera is good about that, so I assume it does). I don't expect anyone else to provide a bare border-radius property that doesn't conform to the standard, if they can't conform to the standard, they should be using vendor prefixes.

You know what we haven't seen enough of is vendor prefixed property names that provide different implementations so that developers and designers can try out different things in the same browser as a way to move towards a standard. -moz-foobar-a and -moz-foobar-b could be two implementations of the same property, that perhaps render differently based on an ambiguity in the proposal and which one gets picked for the foobar property is based on actual in-the-wild-use based on developer needs.

</comment><comment><USER11> Unfortunately, the time when 95% of the users will have a decent browser is still years ahead of us. I wonder if by the time IE9 with rounded corners support is widespread, they'll lag behind the other browsers on css transforms...</comment>


Sign Up: KC HN Meetup (January 26th, 5:30, McCoys) - <AUTHOR> http://www.eventbrite.com/event/1207546805

<comment><USER2> Won't be able to make it. Hopefully this will lead to more meetups though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'll be there, and really looking forward to meeting everyone.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> context: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2080049>

</comment><comment><USER4> Almost missed this, but I'll be there.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'll be there.

</comment><comment><USER6> Will be there.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's cool to see a KC event here. I don't live in KC anymore but grew up there (in Olathe) and hope to go back one day. :)</comment>


United States v. Newman Clarifies the Law of Insider Trading - <AUTHOR> https://casetext.com/posts/got-a-hot-stock-tip-united-states-v-newman-clarifies-the-law-of-insider-trading <comment><USER2> It's good that the court somewhat clarified previously-fuzzier law. The underlying problem is that insider trading as a crime is so _ad hoc_ to begin with. TFA notes the hodgepodge of agencies, laws, regulation, rulings, etc. that "define" insider trading today. I doubt if _any_ legal thinker's interpretation of the current understanding were codified into a single bill, that that bill could pass in Congress. Codifying what currently exists would make obvious what a boon it is for powerful executives. A codification of what the public imagines exists, would never get past those executives' lobbyists.

Nearly all executives trade in the securities of the corporations that employ them. Very few are ever charged with insider trading. (I'm not suggesting they should be!) However, whenever company management catches wind of transactions that annoy them, they always have a friendly ear at the prosecutor's office.

Long before major stock [EDIT:] moves, many "insiders" knew what was coming. Perhaps some told themselves, like Madoff, that they could get everything turned around. Regardless, insiders know before the public knows. Insider trading prohibitions serve to prolong the public's ignorance, and so deepen the public's trading losses. No one is better placed to dance right up to the line concerning investment decisions and public disclosure, than the firm's executives are. That's why the majority of insider trading prosecutions that succeed, are against outsiders like Martha Stewart or the subjects of TFA. Insider trading is a crime because it's valuable for the executive class to punish early defectors.

<comment><USER3> _Nearly all executives trade in the securities of the corporations that employ them._

Lots of executives exercise stock options and sell shares. I think executives buying securities on the open market is far less common.

The 'insider trading' issue with the timing of when executives sell shares is why SEC rule 10b5-1(c) exists: It allows executives to establish in advance plans for selling their shares, such that their future trades cannot be deemed to be the result of inside information.

<comment><USER4> are you sure Director buying is well reported the Investors chronicle has a weekly run down of which listed company's directors have brought/sold shares.

<comment><USER5> You can read all about them at SEC EDGAR [0].

[0]: [https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html](https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There seems to be a fundamental logical error in the explanation given here:

"As the court recognized, the reasoning of Dirks compels this conclusion. The Supreme Court ruled that to be liable a tippee must know that the insider leaked the information in breach of a duty. The Court in Dirks also held that breach of a duty was established if the insider received some personal benefit in exchange for the leak. Logically, therefore, proof the tippee knew there was a breach of duty means proof the tippee knew that the insider received some personal benefit."

It would have to be the case that a breach of a duty can _only_ be established if the insider received some personal benefit in exchange for the leak, in order for the conclusion to hold.

<comment><USER7> That is an explicit conclusion of Dirks (at 662): "Absent some personal gain, there has been no breach of duty to stockholders."

<comment><USER8> That is true, but it still seems to not follow. I could "breach my duty" to shareholders simply by being negligent.

<comment><USER9> Yes, the author seems to assume that:

        proof_of_breach <-> proof_of_benefit

You are arguing that it could be the case that:

        proof_of_negligence -> proof_of_breach
        proof_of_negligence -> (proof_of_benefit v ~proof_of_benefit)

in which case there could be a contradiction.

However, there is probably an argument that:

        proof_of_negligence -> (proof_of_benefit v ~proof_of_benefit)

is wrong and that there actually is a rule:

        proof_of_breach -> proof_of_benefit

For example, if someone is negligent, we already know they received a personal benefit (eg. reduced cognitive load, received compensation for work not performed, etc.).

To show a logical incorrectness, you need to show an `x` where:

        proof_of_x -> (proof_of_breach ^ ~proof_of_benefit) v (~proof_of_breach ^ proof_of_benefit)

<comment><USER10> What are you trying to say here?

        proof_of_negligence -> (proof_of_benefit v ~proof_of_benefit)

easily simplifies to

        true

and therefore doesn't need a case to be made for it. It's always true.

<comment><USER9> I guess it should be an Exclusive OR, although I'm not sure that is allowed in propositional logic.

The argument made was that negligence could occur without benefit (ie. proof_of_negligence does not imply either proof_of_benefit or ~proof_of_benefit).

My argument is that `proof_of_benefit -> proof_of_negligence` and that `proof_of_negligence -> (proof_of_benefit v ~proof_of_benefit)` (or otherwise) is nonsense.

<comment><USER10> Surely, if there is no benefit, then ~proof_of_benefit obtains? Are you advocating against the law of the excluded middle? How could there be proof of a benefit if there was no benefit?

Exclusive or, being a logical relationship, is allowed in propositional logic. It is traditionally indicated, in mathy areas, by the symbol ⊕, but you can just compose it from the standard and, or, and not operations.

And (proof_of_benefit ⊕ ¬proof_of_benefit) still simplifies to true, unless you're a hardcore constructivist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There was obviously a reason that the tippers (Dell & Nvidia insiders) leaked confidential information to the defendants, two hedge fund managers named Newman and Chiasson.

I don't see why it's material whether this reason was friendship/status- boosting or some sort of tangible, cash benefit. The hedge fund managers benefited a great deal from the information, and thus the tippers benefited by extension as they now had stronger ties to two successful hedge fund managers.

If the tippers benefited from leaking confidential information, they breached a fiduciary contract with their shareholders by using company property (information) for their own gain.

<comment><USER12> > There was obviously a reason that the tippers ... leaked confidential > information to the defendants ...

> I don't see why it's material whether this reason was friendship/status- > boosting or some sort of tangible, cash benefit.

Mainly because they're facing prison time.

I can think of other laws that make similar distinctions. For instance, the punishment for receiving stolen goods will depend on the value of the goods in question. Why should somebody get a lighter punishment for receiving, say, an iPod compared to a car? In both cases, they knew the person giving them the item wasn't the owner.

In this case, it isn't a question of how harsh the punishment is, but whether the people will be punished at all. However, if the SEC wishes to create lesser penalties to cover this kind of thing, it has the regulatory authority to do so. If that's not enough, Congress can always reconsider the law, but I can't imagine people getting all that worked up about it.

<comment><USER11> I would imagine that it would be in the interest of any shareholder of a publicly held company to be very concerned about insider trading laws.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I took some time a while back to look into why insider trading is considered bad. The situation turned out to be messy and undecided but interesting. Here's some links I came across in that search if you're curious.

[0] [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=132529](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=132529) [1] [http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-wrong- abou...](http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-wrong-about- insider-trading) [2] [http://dealbreaker.com/2012/07/everything-bad-is- insider-tra...](http://dealbreaker.com/2012/07/everything-bad-is-insider- trading/) [3] [http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2003/0512/050.h...](http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2003/0512/050.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> This is interesting, I was under the impression that insider trading covered even things accidentally leaked from companies. Is that not the case? If someone used information hacked or found by another person would that fall under insider trading?

<comment><USER15> ""Dorozhko's alleged 'stealing and trading' or 'hacking and trading' does not amount to a violation" of securities laws, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of United States District Court ruled last month. Although he may have broken laws by stealing the information, the judge concluded, "Dorozhko did not breach any fiduciary or similar duty 'in connection with' the purchase or sale of a security." She ordered the S.E.C. to let him have his profits."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/business/15norris.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/business/15norris.html)

<comment><USER16> The Second Circuit reversed that ruling.

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/common-sense- an...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/common-sense-and-insider- trading/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "The attorney, as an outsider to the corporation, owes no fiduciary duty to the corporation's shareholders so the classical theory would not apply. Under the misappropriation theory, the trade is unlawful because the attorney violated a duty to the client by using the client's confidential information for the attorney's own benefit."

The client is the corporation's shareholders, as management simply acts as an agent for those shareholders.

<comment><USER7> The client is the corporation, a distinct legal person from any of the managers or any of the shareholders.

<comment><USER17> Ah, right. Thanks</comment></comment></comment>


NASA Mini-Balloon Mission Maps Migratory Magnetic Boundary - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-mini-balloon-mission-maps-migratory-magnetic-boundary <comment><USER2> this is a very alliterative title.

<comment> semi-extrinsic They could've replaced boundary with margin, but perhaps that would be stretching it a bit.

<comment><USER3> NASA Mini-Balloon Migration Maps Earth's Magnetic Field</comment></comment></comment>


Remastering Star Trek: Deep Space Nine with Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://captrobau.blogspot.com/2019/03/remastering-star-trek-deep-space-nine.html <comment><USER2> I wonder if this approach could be enhanced with scans of the original 35mm film. I understand that the video effects were composited down to broadcast resolutions, and that the computer effects were ever only done at 480p or whatever. But... it seems like ML could pretty easily stitch together the 35mm film footage with the post-production elements, upsampled as needed, to create something more in line with the TNG or ToS remasters.</comment>


Marco Arment: "I hope Apple wise enough to start removing themselves from China" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1182693729255219201 <comment><USER2> Me too</comment>


Fukushima photography, Keow Wee Loong, and his completely fabricated story - <AUTHOR> http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/attention-seeking-kid-keow-wee-loong/ <comment><AUTHOR> Also, Podniesinski's own photographs of Fukushima: [http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/fukushima/](http://www.podniesinski.pl/portal/fukushima/)

<comment><USER2> The HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256419)</comment></comment>


Makerbot announces new 3D printer: Replicator 2 - <AUTHOR> http://makerbot.com/ <comment><USER2> I went shopping at Makerbot, added the Replicator 2 to the cart, selected some of the only resin left and added that too, checked the shipping costs and then went to the next step - checkout. I had committed to buy.

However the site then asked me to register before I could proceed, and in an approach that seemed to want to take me out of process. I stopped right there and didn't even click. I hate registering and see no need to register for something when all I want to do is purchase.

One of the easiest ways to improve your sales is to allow check-out without register. Let people buy and only ask them to 'save your settings' at the end and sales lift 5-15% from what I have seen.

Meanwhile I came here instead and read about the upcoming Formlabs release. Sorry Makerbot - I'll wait.

<comment><USER3> I keep coming across this type of complaint on high-priced items, and it makes me wonder how you justify shelling out 2200$ (at the very least) for something that can't be much more than an impulse buy? After all, you're deterred by a minor distraction.

<comment><USER4> I'm quite sure he was saying it's the only reason that stopped him from the impulse buy.

edit: Instead of replying to d23. There are a lot of things which I buy out of impulse, like "that would be cool to have". But if I have to go to excessive lengths just to buy the thing, I don't.

<comment><USER5> I think for small things it makes sense, but for a $2,200 purchase I'm surprised he would back out over such a small barrier. Either way, I agree, but for high-information purchases I doubt it matters as much.

<comment><USER6> I think the lesson is rather that, for impulse purchases, even a very small bit of friction can interrupt the impulse and blow the sale. If he'd spent weeks agonizing over it before buying it, knowing registration was part of it, he'd have probably gritted his teeth and done it because that annoyance would have been factored into the price over which he agonized, and he'd have had time to rationalize it as a small thing. Instead, he went from "WOOHOO! Printing out real objects! Just a few more..." to "WTF? I HATE registration requirements! Why do they have to make me do this?" in a moment.

<comment><USER2> Exactly.

Our propensity to buy peaks at a certain value - say 10 points for me in this instance.

Every time an obstacle is placed in the way that propensity gets reduced by a value related to the frustration level. As the points reduce our propensity to buy becomes irrelevant in the face of the many other things going on.

They had already for me lost points for 1: not making it clear that the printer only uses PLA and not ABS (-3), 2: the fact that it doesn't accept ABS (-2) and 3: because only one color of PLA is available at the moment (-2). The unnecessary registration was enough to halt the process. (-6)

Note how relatively large the usability scores are versus the functionality scores. Being easy to deal with is absolutely paramount in commerce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What useful things are people actually using 3d printers for? Yes, I've heard all the hype about prototyping and you can print "anything". But honestly whenever I look at things people are printing its just a bunch of cheap looking plastic toys I would never want. Convince me I need one of these!

<comment><USER8> I have access to a decent-ish 3d printer and after several months I still don't haven't had any practical use for it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That may be due to a lack of imagination.

I've made $500 contracting a short 18 hour gig designing enclosures. I've made shelving. I've made chess sets. I've made heart gears that delighted others. I've made spool rollers, and desktop ornaments.

<comment><USER8> I guess as an aspiring minimalist I just don't care for chess sets or desk ornaments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Those were just examples. I'm just pointing out that it's a problem with imagination, not ability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I do not know why makerbots keep getting more expensive than the next. I thought with advances in tech, they would get cheaper and eventually I would be able to afford one.

What the heck are they thinking?

<comment><USER10> With Cupcake -> Replicator -> Replicator 2 the devices are getting physically larger and more capable. Larger machines are more expensive to manufacture and assemble, and this is still a small-volume, mostly hand-assembled (in Manhattan! _{edit: sorry, Brooklyn. I misremembered.}_ ) industry.

If you want a 3D printer and cash is an issue, look to building your own Reprap. Assuming you get it right the first time and don't need to buy tools, a total cost of under $500 for a Prusa Mendel is achievable. Obviously you have to build it, but given the target market that's often not a problem. Most people who want to build 3D printed stuff are generally happy to assemble robots too.

<comment><USER11> > If you want a 3D printer and cash is an issue, look to building your own > Reprap.

Or you can just buy a Solidoodle. I did.

[http://store.solidoodle.com/index.php?route=product/product&...](http://store.solidoodle.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=56)

<comment><USER12> Looks like the Solidoodle is .3mm resolution vs .1mm resolution of the R2, and at roughly 25% cost.

EDIT: I originally said .3 vs .2 - but it is actually .3 vs .1 - so the R2 is much more fine. Still - $500 is a good price for this at all.

Can they both use the same filament?

<comment><USER13> The "resolution" numbers you're seeing are a red herring. The quoted number is the _height_ of a layer that the settings shipped with the printer are good for, not the precision or accuracy of the print head. The X, Y, and Z resolution, as well as the extruder step size on a Solidoodle (and almost any other printer these days) is plenty good to print .1mm layers. The challenge in printing .1mm layers is that you're depositing a _very_ tiny amount of plastic onto each layer, so variation like filament quality and moisture, temperature, and speed matters a lot more.

Check out RichRap trying out different "resolutions" (layer heights) on his MendelMax printer with a Wade's extruder here to learn more about how layer heights work:

[http://richrap.blogspot.com/2012/01/slic3r-is-nicer- part-3-h...](http://richrap.blogspot.com/2012/01/slic3r-is-nicer-part-3-how- low-can-you.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If anyone is considering purchasing one, I STRONGLY recommend waiting until 9/26 when Formlabs is unveiling their system. Never been anything like it. <http://www.formlabs.com/>

<comment><USER15> That's a very unrevealing website. Do you have more information on Formlabs' device?

<comment><USER14> I have a MakerBot and love their enthusiasm. Formlabs is barely a week away, let them roll out at their own pace. Look at my profile and believe me it'll be worth the wait.

<comment><USER16> I was looking at buying a 3d printer within the week. I am price sensitive. I have budgeted 600$ (no higher).

Will this device come within my budget?

<comment><USER17> If Formlabs lives up the to hype and is only $600 I'll be _very_ impressed.

Might as well wait and see though, unless you're in a rush.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Anyone heard anything about whether the new hardware and software will be open-source? It would be a shame if MakerBot's continued success and growth come at the expense of openness.

<comment><USER19> Hackaday mentioned that it would be closed-source: [http://hackaday.com/2012/09/19/introducing-the-makerbot- repl...](http://hackaday.com/2012/09/19/introducing-the-makerbot- replicator-2/)

<comment><USER20> Hackaday mentioned that there are rumours that it will be closed source.

<comment><USER21> Guess all that VC money came with a hefty pricetag for the community.

<comment><USER22> Actually the VCs are shitting their pants as MakerBot sheds its first and second most valuable resources - good employees and the community.

Though I thought the same thing when I heard some of the most recent decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is going to change the motorcycle industry. Most of the (very expensive OEM) plastic pieces on the bike are small enough to be replicated within the scale of the Replicator 2, and those that are could easily be segmented into printable jobs. For example, right now I'm waiting for a small $70 part to be shipped from a warehouse in Bologna - why couldn't I just print it out myself? Even better, why not replace it with a more personalized design?

<comment><USER24> I've always wondered; how many pieces of much value can be made from lumpy, soft plastic with a low melting point? The results I've seen always look lumpy due to the resolution of the printer, the plastic isn't that hard, and the melting point is pretty low.

While I've seen a few neat things of novelty value, most of the actual things that I would want to make would require metal or harder plastics, and a lot more precision than these things are capable of.

<comment><USER25> I have an original replicator. With a little practice, you can have much nicer results than the 'lumpy prints' that you describe. Also, ABS is really easily sanded and is quite solid if you want professional looking parts

<comment><USER24> I'm curious what actually useful parts you've made from it. I'm not sure I have ever had a problem where the solution was a part that I could print on a 3D printer; but maybe I'm not being imaginative enough, so I'm curious what other people have done with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> PLA only, and they don't mention head speed? (how fast it builds)

Replicator 1 was 40mm/s, which was slow at the time, and glacial now. (Tuned Prusa Mendels do 250mm/s, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz56RY6OjM4> ORDbot does faster than that) If they're not talking about the head speed, then that means it'll be lower than 40mm/s.

That and they still use 1.75mm filament, which is 40% more expensive than 3mm filament, and offers only slightly better print quality, again, at the cost of print speed.

I also don't know why they're talking up the 100 micron layer height. Ultilimaker printers will do 50 micron layers pretty easily.

</comment><comment><USER27> Apt timing for a lunch directly ahead of Maker Faire NY next week.

As an owner of a Thing-o-Matic I was fairly disappointed with my Makerbot. I know people that own Replicators that were also fairly disappointed. Unless there are some significant improvements in this version of the Replicator I will not be buying my next 3D printer from Makerbot. I would much rather buy an Ultimaker or one of the several other startup printer companies that are now out there. The cost of the Replicator also runs very close to the 'home' version of many commercial 3D printers.

<comment><USER28> What were the problems you had with the Replicator I?

<comment><USER27> Quality vs expense primarily. It had many of the same problems I experienced with my ToM. Not being able to print thin enough walls, bad overhangs, and random problems where it would just stop printing. We had (has since been replaced) one at my local hacker space and the Replicator was the but of lots of jokes. The bottom line is that it was a cool toy but never a useful tool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow, I did not expect the plastic for this to be so expensive. Nearly $100 for a lb of plastic?! Is that cost really in line with their costs, or is this selling razors without giving away the handle?

<http://store.makerbot.com/filament>

<comment><USER30> Where did you get that number from? 1 kg of plastic costs around $50, and since 1 kg = 2,2 lbs, each lbs costs around $22.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can someone summarize the differences for those of us who can't watch videos?

<comment><AUTHOR> They announced 4 things:

1) Makerbot replicator 2 ($2200): <http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html>

The new makerbot replicator is in all black, and the casing seems to be made of metal. They've also moved from ABS plastic to PLA plastic, as ABS tends to shrink when cooled, and as a result, it's easier to get failed prints that curled off the platform or cracked with ABS. It's got a slightly bigger build volume, and the default resolution is now 100 microns, rather than 270 microns in the first Replicator. I'm not sure how fast it is to print at that resolution.

There's a tour here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emt8LJSXry0&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emt8LJSXry0&feature=youtu.be)

2) Makerbot replicator 2X ($2800) <http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2x.html>

Dual headed extrusion, though in my experience, there aren't too many models that take advantage of this. They've positioned this model as something for those that 'like to tinker and be on the cutting edge'.

3) Makerware software: <http://www.makerbot.com/makerware/>

This is actually pretty neat, since the slicing software you use to prepare models for printing is currently really slow (skeinforge), or fast but doesn't handle all cases well (slic3r).

4) MakerBot announces new retail store: Opens at 298 Mulberry St., New York. mbot.co/1sz

And I think this will help educate the public about what 3D printers can do.

If this model holds up to be a no fuss printing experience, I think we might begin to see consumers thinking about getting one.

<comment><USER32> It can only use PLA? No option for ABS?

That's not a good thing - that means you can't really print functional parts with this, only demos.

PLA has too low of a glass transition temperature, so parts will deform if you leave them in a car, or outdoors in the sun in the summer.

Plus it starts to degrade if exposed to temperatures of around 100F especially if in a humid environment, giving it a limited lifetime.

i.e. if you want to use this to print parts for your car or your computer you can't.

<comment><AUTHOR> The option for ABS is for the previous Replicator 1, and Replicator 2X.

ABS is a bitch to work with. Makerbot is making as many moves as they can towards something that's a consumer appliance. And if PLA can help them get there with an 80% use case coverage, so be it that you can't print parts you can leave in your car.

<comment><USER26> ABS prints fine with a heated glass build platform.

<comment><AUTHOR> Only for small prints. For larger prints, it doesn't stick very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Maybe it's just me, but I feel like it would help them to find someone else to do their product announcements. While I'm sure that Bre is a total genius and his work is incredible, he's a very awkward presenter.

That being said, this still looks amazing, and if I had lots of money and could actually use it, I'd be all over that.

<comment><USER34> Just a guess, but I bet his target market doesn't care. He's got pretty big name recognition with that market.

<comment><USER26> Well, _some_ of the target market. A lot of the Reprap guys don't like him, for various boring reasons.

Then again, they all build their own printers, so they wouldn't be buying from him anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Guess we're further away with a 3D printer being able to print itself. Thank goodness - what a stupid goal. This new version is 10x better than the last for only a small increase in the price.

Still too much for the average person but someone with some production capacity will bring this sort of device down in price.

<comment><USER36> Have Makerbot printers ever had the immediate goal of being self-hosting?

That is the RepRap project's thing as far as I know, not Makerbot's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you want me to actually read the blurb on the fancy graphics on your homepage, don't put it on a fast moving Javascript carousel. Having never even heard of the Replicator 1, I wanted to actually read something about it. :/

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if the makerbot clone will follow suit? [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/24/makerbot- clon...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/24/makerbot-clone)

</comment><comment><USER39> Anybody in San Diego interested in all chipping in to get one? I will front the cost, and we can work out some kind of time share...

<comment><USER39> I just bought one. Anybody want anything printed?? I need to justify the cost. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For the tractor and five-way circular pistons (at 2:17) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ&t=2m17s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o6pcbhylmQ&t=2m17s) are we yet at the point where they are printed as-is (i.e. pre-assembled)?

Or are their parts printed separately and then hand-assembled?

<comment><USER41> No, since the Replicator 2 can only extrude a single filament at a time, and that tractor has more than one color, it must have been assembled afterward. The Replicator 2X is the model with a dual extruder: <http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2x.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> How strong are the PLA parts that come out of these printers? I.e. how do they compare to molded ABS or PVC?

<comment><AUTHOR> It depends on what you mean by strong. A lot of times, the strength depends as much as the structure that you're printing as it is the material. Most of these objects are printed hollow.

Generally, PLA is stronger against stress, but breaks quickly, whereas ABS is less strong against stress, but bends before breaking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm not as knowledgable with 3d printing - but have heard of Makerbot before. Anyone know how this compares to Replicator #1? Is there improved fidelity? (i.e. less print lines?)

The replicator 1 was pretty kickass when they had a demo @ Disrupt SF, but had some noticeable lines.

</comment><comment><USER22> Gonna be interesting to hear Bre talk at Open Hardware Summit about 'business and sharing'.

</comment><comment><USER44> MakerBot 2 is also closed source.

</comment><comment><USER45> He looks and sounds a bit like Eric Wareheim from Tim & Eric.

</comment><comment><USER46> <http://www.makerbot.com/replicator2-press-assets/>

PDFs of the press releases for anyone who prefers to read.

</comment><comment><USER47> Looks nice, but I think I'd only buy something that expensive if I could make a good business case for using it.

<comment><USER48> Most of us here are in software. But if you're in hardware, this might be significantly cheaper and/or faster than working with a plastics fabricator for creating simple prototypes. I know of one company here in Atlanta that will probably jump on this thing right away.

<comment><USER49> What do you think the company in Atlanta will use it for? I mean, who are the users that need things printed in plastic? Architects maybe? People who want custom desktop toys? I have a 3d printer on the way and I'm trying to think of how I could make money off of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Could this print Legos? How about a flower pot? Those are the two things I'd want to print.

<comment><USER26> Legos are manufactured with surprisingly fine tolerances. You might be able to do it with the Replicator 2, I don't know.

They've also got a lot of 90 degree overhangs, which FDM machines don't like. (It's essentially a hot glue gun in a gantry. The plastic doesn't freeze instantly when it leaves the nozzle, it stays molten for quite some time. If you print over thin air, it'll droop.)

And if you could print it, the bottom layers might delaminate and break off every time you detached it from another brick.

As for a flowerpot, no way. PLA's made from corn. Keep it warm, wet and in contact with soil, and it'll turn into compost within a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Youtube is telling me the video is private.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emt8LJSXry0&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emt8LJSXry0&feature=youtu.be)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> .... smub & sand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ^~^

</comment><comment><USER52> that's wasssap tho c;

</comment><comment><USER52> that's wasssaaup c;

</comment><comment><USER52> that's wassap c;

<comment><USER52> lol</comment></comment>


Tell HN: You can also use this url to reach Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://hacker.news <comment><USER2> So it's a redirect basically

        $ curl -I hacker.news
        HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
        Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 13:17:20 GMT
        Location: https://news.ycombinator.com/
        Server: AmazonS3

</comment><comment><USER3> The HN "hug of death"?

        The connection has timed out

        The server at hacker.news is
        taking too long to respond.</comment>


Can It Be A Huge Bubble If Only A Few People Are Blowing It? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/06/bubble-2/

<comment><USER2> "Again, this "Bubble 2.0″, if it does exist, is mainly just troublesome for investors."

Riiiggggght. Just ask all the non-homeowning taxpayers how that works. As I've mentioned previously, significant amount of VC and private equity money actually comes from "institutional investors," namely pension funds, university endowments, etc. If they lose a bunch of value, you think taxpayers aren't going to be on the hook?

<comment><USER3> There isn't enough scale or leverage to make this anything like the dotcom or housing busts.

This "bubble" is mostly in early stage startups, doing $2M-$5M rounds, and there aren't enough of these deals to add up to the size of investment in public dotcoms or housing. At worst we're just going to see mediocre VC returns and a lot of busted angel funds, but talking bailouts is hyperbolic.

This quote characterizes the difference:

       "Back in the '90s, companies got funded for five times
       the amount that Tumblr raised and didn't have anything
       close to a business model," said Roger Ehrenberg,
       founder and managing partner of IA Ventures. "People
       were getting $50 to $200 million a pop and it brought
       down an entire industry."

<comment><USER4> Secondmarket valuations:

Facebook: 50 Billions

Twitter: 3 Billions

Zynga: 5 Billions

[http://vator.tv/news/2010-11-30-facebook-valued-at- highest-e...](http://vator.tv/news/2010-11-30-facebook-valued-at-highest- ever-50-billion)

<comment><USER3> Those are the extreme examples, of which there are few, and they're not easily traded by the general public. Bubbles almost without exception (please correct me if you have a counter example) are pushed to extremes by the general public (commonly called "mom and pop investors").

<comment><USER4> ojbyrne already answered that, you shouldn't put fingers in your ear so much ;)

"institutional investors, namely pension funds, university endowments, etc"....I am betting at least one invested in Facebook.

<comment><USER5> The problem with the housing bubble wasn't that pension funds, etc, invested. The problem was everyone invested huge portions of what they had because you will never lose money when investing in housing. There should be no such illusion when investing in startups. Because of this, you would probably have a hard time finding an institutional investor that has as much of their fate tied to how well Facebook is going to do as you did with housing.

There is about 14 _trillion_ in mortgage debt out there. 50 billion doesn't even register.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> is it just me, or does a lot of the "bubble" discussion seem like people sticking their fingers in the ears and saying at great length "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you and it doesn't matter even if you're right"?

</comment><comment><USER7> There is no bubble. Repeat: there is no bubble. The last time there were Chicken Littles proclaiming a bubble it was about 2005-2007, and there was no bubble that time either. Yes, there was a problem later on with the housing market and with Goldman Sachs et al -- but that had absolutely nothing to do with an internet bubble.

1- it's only a handful of investments that _seem_ excessive to outsiders

2- the investors are private and are mind-bogglingly rich

3- it's really fun to go around yelling "bubble!" to see if you can crap on someone's parade

<comment><USER8> There is no problem as long as those investing know what they are doing, spend cash they don't need and have valuable skills they can leverage after 50. Chicken Littles like me simply don't want to be quoted by "an idea guy" who wants to "make the new Facebook" in a pitch to a retired plumber.

Because anyone know of to use the web and most can sketch a couple of revenue models, a fraction feel like they can invest - that is to say, way too many people. If you say to external investors that high valuation for such or such company is reasonable, they won't be able to make the difference with another project that look very similar to them (both would be bunch of geeks in a garage). I worked for a dishonest guy, helping him pitch: fascination for the billion-dollar idea was alive and well a year ago, and thanks to Sorkin's movie and Groupon financial revelations, they are getting worst.

Quick test: if you were not shocked that, in my last sentence I mentioned an "idea" that was worth a lot because ideas are nothing, execution is everything, do _not_ invest (and think hard before working in a start-up).

The economic specifics of Silicon Valley (namely signaling, Schelling-type salience) change the assumptions that you need to have a bubble: if a company raises a lot of cash, it gets attention — and that's usually what is decisive to attract talent & revenues. Some have failed, but rarely against all predictions.

<comment><USER7> I understand your points and pretty much agree with them. My issue is with the term "bubble," because it means different things to different people.

Originally, "bubble" means stock market bubble, and when one of those things bursts, it's really bad news.

You're using it to mean a relative handful of private investors who may be over-investing. That does not have the same kind of consequences.

<comment><USER8> Never use economic terms without defining them.

OK: I cheat, it's my job to define them — actually, I should be preparing tomorrow's lecture.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Disruptive Motorcycle Classifieds - My 3 Week MVP - <AUTHOR> http://motolister.com

<comment><USER2> It looks like a nice effort, but I'd say you're playing with fire given CL's recent treatment of padmapper.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doesn't craigslist get upset with scrapers?

<comment><USER4> They recently sent a cease and desist letter to some company which was scrapping them for apartment rentals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks great. I always wanted a single place to look for my next motorcycle. What did you use for your tech stack?</comment>