Pricing low-touch SaaS - <AUTHOR> https://stripe.com/atlas/guides/saas-pricing <comment><USER2> I did my MSc thesis on SaaS pricing pages. I'll share what I found, since I think many people in this thread may find it useful.

I tested how Mechanical Turkers (N=~400) chose plans on pricing pages with 4-tiered subscriptions plans, for both a file sharing service and a payroll software service. Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of 4 conditions, where the presented pricing page was slightly different. The scenario was framed as choosing a SaaS plan for a company they're employed at.

The first variable I varied was plan order. Half the respondents saw a pricing page with plans in increasing price order (cheapest first), the other half in decreasing price order (most expensive first). There was a statistically significant difference between the plan choices for these groups; respondents in the most expensive plan first condition chose a more expensive plan. This phenomenon has been seen before outside SaaS, and it's called the price order effect.

Another variable I tested was exchanging the cheapest ($5) plan for a free plan. Half the respondents saw a free plan, the other half a $5 plan. There was no statistically significant difference in the plan choice for these groups.

Getting familiar with previous literature, I would surface a couple of general thoughts:

\- The most expensive plan first approach may give the visitor a more expensive image of the product, a higher "reference price". If a prospective customer is comparing two products from two different companies, they may favor the one that seems cheaper (has a lower "reference price") even if the offerings may provide similar value.

\- The hypothesized mechanism for the price order effect is that you don't look at all the options as a whole, but you begin by assessing the first option, which is the leftmost one for us reading left-to-right, and then judge the next option by comparing it to the previous one, and so on. You compare added (more features/less cost) and lost (less features/more cost) value. Because we weigh losses heavier than benefits, there's an inertia toward the initial options. Only options with benefits that greatly outweigh losses combat that inertia. Hence respondents tended to choose plans more on the left.

<comment><USER3> Fatal flaw: the turkers weren't _invested_ , it was just a nonsense game for them.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. I think this kind of research can give ideas on what kind of experiments to run on pricing pages, but there are so many factors affecting real life plan choice that everyone should have their own A/B testing setup to see what works for them specifically.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Related advice given by Marc Andressen:

What do you recommend for pricing in SaaS before reaching product market fit?

Pricing is highly specific to the product and the market, so it is hard to give general advice.

But if I were to give general advice, I'd say that we see far more SAAS startups underpricing their product than overpricing.

The problem with overpricing seems obvious—we in our daily lives as consumers are more likely to buy products if they are cheaper, and so pricing higher is presumed to reduce sales.

But that's not how business markets tend to work—in business markets, where customers make what's called a considered purchase, the result of a reasonably objective and rigorous analysis of options, startups that underprice tend to have the problem I call "too hungry to eat"—by pricing too low, they can't generate enough revenue per deal to justify the sales and marketing investment required to get the deal at all. In contrast, by pricing higher, the startup can afford to invest in a serious sales and marketing effort that will tend to win a lot more details than a competitor selling a cut-rate product on a shoestring go-to-market budget.

TLDR: When in doubt, double prices. :-)

<comment><USER5> Totally agree. At GitLab we doubled pricing and then introduced two tiers with higher pricing. Or highest tier is 50x what we started with. Turns out it is very expensive to market and sell to the enterprise. SDR, pre sales engineers, technical account managers, and strategic account executives are all involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hey, that's me! (FormAPI: [https://formapi.io](https://formapi.io))

The screenshot in the article is actually the updated pricing, after I followed advice from @patio11. Here's a screenshot of the original pricing: [https://imgur.com/a/3JtUU](https://imgur.com/a/3JtUU)

That was definitely too many plans. I also really like the copy suggestions, and have started using that in some AdWords campaigns: "Save weeks of development work on PDF generation; fits easily in the budget for any project."

Thanks a lot for the help!

<comment><USER7> Given they are all usage tiered, why have plans at all?

You could just have one metered plan and show how usage gets cheaper the more you use it.

<comment><USER6> That's a great question. I've been trying to decide if that's the best way to go. I've built a metered plan internally that has the following tiers:

• 0 - 100 PDFs: $0.20 per PDF

• 100 - 1,000 PDFs: $0.10 per PDF

• 1,000 - 10,000 PDFs: $0.05 per PDF

• 10,000 - 100,000 PDFs: $0.02 per PDF

• 100,000+ PDFs: $0.01 per PDF

I don't like that the customer is invoiced at the end of the month, instead of paying at the beginning. I was worried that someone would generate a lot of PDFs, and then their card would be declined. I might have spent a lot of money on hosting and wouldn't be able to collect payment. For brand-new customers, I could also collect payments at certain intervals (E.g. $50, $100, $500, $1000, $5000.) After 2 months, I could trust them more and just have one charge at the end of the month.

I could continue to have monthly plans with quotas, and add the pricing tiers based on usage. If a customer knows that they will generate at least 100 PDFs per month, then they could pay a discounted rate at the beginning of the month, and save 30% on the first 100 PDFs.

I was also thinking that customers could buy "credit packages" at a discounted rate. This would useful if they are running a one-time batch job, and wanted to get a discount for the next 1,000 PDFs. The credits would also roll over to the next month, and I don't think I would set an expiry date. I paid for some credits on KeyCDN, and it was really annoying when they expired after a year.

I'll continue to think about this and A/B test different pricing over the coming months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As always, great work from Patrick.

      An excellent question! Net on net, removing the CC required upfront decreases conversions in the early life of startup,
      until you're sophisticated with regards to onboarding, in-app messaging, lifecycle email, and reachout by a customer
      success team. I would not suggest you remove the CC required from this free trial.

This was exactly our experience as a pretty unsophisticated team with Cronitor. Our 3 month experience in 2015 with no-card-up-front free trials was a total failure, dropping conversion and arpu in that cohort.

      Name pricing plans to sell them to the right users

This is something that does work well for us. For us that means Business, Teams and Solo. We do a bit of feature packaging to add value and more or less you get everything you need at your size by buying one of those 3 packages.

<comment><USER9> I was very surprised by this one. I will never, ever, under any circumstances, put my CC details in a form hosted on a domain I'm not 100% confident with (s.a apple/amazon). I can't believe I'm an outlier on this one. Maybe it's because I belong to the nowhere-dense set of developers?

<comment><USER10> But if it's not your credit card, it's your employer's, you've got a job to do, and you know there's an accounting department whose job it is to make sure the bank refunds the charges in the unlikely event there's any funny business?

Most people in that situation will not be deterred by having to enter a credit card for a free trial. And those are the customers you want.

<comment><USER11> Business don't get refunded when crazy things happen on their cards. That's one of the major difference between being a consumer and a business. You have zero protection as a business.

<comment><USER12> Sure about that? I use my business AMEX all the time and have contested at least one time and there was no problem.

You always have recourse against fraudulent activities - the credit card company will just reimburse

<comment><USER13> Consumer protection laws, such as the Credit CARD Act of 2009, don't apply to businesses.

<comment><USER14> Many small business cards are issued to the owner not the business.

Talking 3 man business, not 4000 person enterprise.

<comment><USER13> Definitely depends on the card. Make sure to read your cardholder agreement!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I actually found just two options: monthly and annual provide the best conversion.

I've done it across multiple websites, and combined with a half-decent call to action and a quick signup (just 3 fields) you can convert pretty easily.

Personally, my website conversion is ~2% which is pretty good:

[https://projectpiglet.com/](https://projectpiglet.com/)

Prior, when I had two options the conversion rate was ~1.5%. Now the sample size is only ~25k (12k for each) so take from it what you will...

<comment><USER16> FYI, on iOS/Chrome, tapping the "start trial" button without filling in the fields leads to a confusing Stripe error page.

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the heads up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great article! I have a question though: when you have a Call us tier, what do you actually talk about when they do? I guess you need to judge value they will get from your service, but how? And then what, charge them half of that? What if they don't know what they want or whether they want on premise or not? Should you travel to meet them? What if they want you to sign ndas or other stuff first? How much effort to spend on it if it's just a request for quote?

<comment><USER18> Don't think of it as a call for a quote, think of it as an initial sales contact. An unsolicited inbound phone inquiry is about the strongest possible lead you can possibly get. The potential customer typically won't expect you to provide a full quote on the spot, but will expect to have a brief conversation and either a follow-up email with pricing details or a follow-up formal sales/demo call scheduled.

In terms of pricing/value, you should already have estimates of value for different customer sizes/use-cases and put together prices based on those estimates. On the call, it's your job to learn as much as you can about their problem so that you can determine how best to solve it with the products you offer and where it falls on your pricing scale.

Don't do on-prem unless they pay you a boat-load more and SaaS isn't an option they're willing to consider. It's way more of a headache.

NDAs are usually fine, but better to pay a lawyer a couple bucks to throw together one for you and try and use that one all the time rather than having to review a bunch of different ones coming from other companies.

Travel is case-by-case. Definitely not necessary for just a quote, and not strictly necessary for sales if your video demos/sales calls are on point, especially if your customers are tech-inclined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > $X.99 pricing is not generally used in B2B or prosumer (professional > consumers) services because it communicates cheapness; I'd suggest you drop > the 0.99 accordingly here, for aesthetic reasons. (No series of A/B tests > I've ever done generated as many strong opinions as whether it was better to > price a product at $49, $49.99, or $50. Despite bikeshedding this to death > at several clients, I've yet to see it really matter, so aesthetics win the > day. If your data says differently, trust the data.)

Interesting, I would have said $X.87 is still the best strategy when talking pricing/extracting value, even for B2B.

<comment><USER20> Why $X.87 ?

I've seen $X.99 versus the $X but never $X.87

<comment><USER21> Hazard a guess: where .99 lowers the leading digit and feels "cheap", .87 feels more precise than a round number like X.00. Even if it's entirely arbitrary, it carries weight of apparent calculation behind it.

<comment><USER22> Does anyone have any science to hack this up?

<comment><USER23> > hack this up

I had to chuckle a bit. So you want some science to discredit the idea?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Providing different product packages that are usage and featured gated in order to enable SMBs to use the basic version while giving enterprises the functionality they need in the enterprise version is a core concept in going up market with SaaS. We called it "product assortment" based on a talk that Michael Dearing gave several years ago about pricing. An overview of the concept with some examples can be found here [https://www.enterpriseready.io/features/product- assortment/](https://www.enterpriseready.io/features/product-assortment/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Nice, Patrick. I love this!

Can you do an article on reaching out to SMB's and selling them a SaaS? I know most SaaS that sell to SMB's actually do a lot of sales over the phone, but I'd rather not spend my whole day on the phone. (I am thinking about creating a SMB SaaS that solves problems for the retail stores we run now.)

<comment><USER26> read zero to one by Peter theil. mostly garbage but in it he makes a good point: smbs are nearly impossible to sell to because there's no SMB marketing channel (as opposed to radio/TV/fb for consumers). you're only option is cold calling.

<comment><USER27> I'm a (fairly expensive) consultant that specializes in marketing to small business owners. You can absolutely reach them on Facebook, AdWords, or Direct Mail at huge scale. Source: Grown campaigns with OnDeck, Zenefits, Segment, many other SMB targeters. Here's a recent case study: [http://www.kevinlordbarry.com/facebookleadads1.html](http://www.kevinlordbarry.com/facebookleadads1.html)

<comment><USER26> case study would be much more useful if you at least gave a vague description of what the company does (what kinds of widgets they sell). i'm willing to believe that for some sectors this might work but for many others it won't (e.g. pizza ovens to small pizza places).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've been trying to figure out the ideal pricing structure for EnvKey[1], a saas configuration and secrets manager. I want something that is affordable for indie devs and smaller teams, but then scales up for larger companies who face this problem to a greater degree and tend to see more value in solving it.

The pricing is currently per user, since I've envisioned it as a tool that you'd invite all your developers onto. For the most part, this has been the case, but there are some companies using it heavily on the server-side and only inviting a small number of users.

To account for this, I've considered charging a small amount per access key (say $2/mo for a base plan) instead of per user. A typical app has an access key for each developer working on it, plus one per server, so for a team of 5 this would work out to ~16/app/month (assuming test, staging, and production server environments; some have more). Most teams seem to have at least a few apps; some have as many as 10.

The good thing is this would scale up with usage, starting very low and then getting pretty substantial as you get more and more use out of the product. The bad thing is... it would scale up with usage, and therefore might disincentive heavy use.

Any thoughts?

1 - [https://www.envkey.com](https://www.envkey.com)

<comment><USER29> I have checked your pricing page, and I think you are penalizing larger users without trying even to hide that.

You require large users to pay more for the same functionality, that $5/mo user gets.

I would create 2 plans: 1) Regular, $9/mo per user 2) Enterprise, $29/mo per user with some added functionality, like custom login page, branding and some user management/sub-users.

This way you will give an actual value to enterprises, that justifies paying more, while keeping smaller users happy, by removing confusing pricing.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, I was curious what people would think of that. My logic is that resource usage for end-to-end encryption scales exponentially, not linearly, and it's also a more expensive problem for a larger company to deal with (either in terms of engineering time or dealing with a breach).

I've been planning to add additional perks to the larger tiers over time though. For example, I'm now working on audit logs, and will likely limit the amount of history for the lowest plan (sort of like Slack).

On the per-user pricing, how do you think about the possibility of a company that signs up with just a few users but manages hundreds of servers through the product?

<comment><USER29> I think this is a non-problem now. As of now, you want to grow your user base as much as possible. Since all your users are paying, you are not carrying a dead weight of freemium. Build up user count by any means possible. Only once you will see a significant drop in growth of revenue try to upsell current user base by adding important features.

Keep, for example, Cloudflare in mind. They have first built their user base, and once they were used by thousands of companies, they started offering additional options, Enterprise ($2K+) accounts etc. Focus on growth first, and keep some aces in your pocket for the time your revenue will stall. This way you will be able to be innovative whenever growth is slow, and there is a possibility a competitor will show up and take your business.

<comment><USER30> Thank you for this comment. I think it's spot on with keeping some aces in your pocket for appropriate time. It's not fun to keep onto unreleased features, but the product should continue to grow with time. If one wants to increase prices, ideally this goes along with added features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >it communicates cheapness; I'd suggest you drop the 0.99 accordingly here

>I'd probably increase your pricing to $99 / $499 / $2,499

Would the argument that $X.99 implies cheapness not apply to $X99 as well? I feel like 99 anything is an old psychological trick to make the customer feel like they aren't really paying $500... they are paying $499.

<comment><USER32> >they aren't really paying $500... they are paying $499.

I think most, if not all, business customers know the x99 pricing is a psychological gimmick and since it's well known is it really a gimmick any longer? When I see $499 I immediately think $500

<comment><USER33> Because it still works. Even if a person knows the psychology hacks behind things they are still susceptible to them. In fact, people that know about them falsely believe that since they are aware of them they don't work on them.

<comment><USER34> Has that been studied? I frankly find it hard to believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> _" $50 per month is not an appropriate maximum price for this product ... the best customers of Humble Dot would spend more on coffee discussing buying it than they would on actually buying it; that seems like a poor allocation of value."_

Great quote and great article!

</comment><comment><USER36> One part I'm not sure how to read:

 _" I would probably use the fact of the call and concierge onboarding to tell everyone that of course you charge for your services, just like they charge for their services, but that as a limited time offer you'll retroactively waive one month of fees if they can commit to a 15 minute conversation about why the software didn't work for your needs."_

What is the "why the software didn't work for your needs" part? Is this meant to be a call with users who are canceling and offer to waive a month of fees if they explain why? It seems out of place under the "To demo or not to demo?" heading.

</comment><comment><USER37> Great article, I love it analyses real-world cases.

A small nitpick: there is a section called "Selling to undifferentiated SMBs", but there is no explanation what SMB is and it's pretty tough to google that.

<comment><USER38> > it's pretty tough to google that

Next time you see an unfamiliar acronym, google "define [acronym]" and you'll get the most common definition. For example, "define smb" shows the correct meaning: A small and midsize business (SMB).

<comment><USER9> Not to be confused with `define: thing`, which should result in a by- dictionary description, but in this case, gives me "server message block", a term I've never heard of.

<comment><USER39> Server Message Block is the Microsoft file sharing protocol. Implemented in a FLOSS way by the Samba project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Unrelated - Our product is a high touch SaaS that requires some handholding - is there any benefit in online advertising or marketing for this kind of product?

</comment><comment><USER4> Very interestingly on a similar topic here is Netflix's pricing strategy. [https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/netflix-pricing- stra...](https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/netflix-pricing-strategy)

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone have recommendations for SaaS sales? I have done a lot of reading of generic sales books, but they don't seem to align much with specifics of selling in tech.

<comment><USER41> Jason Lemkin has a site dedicated to this: Saastr.com

I should also add that it's a conference and a community. I've found the reading there to be pretty good for quick reference (I don't really hit the site anymore) but there are some good SaaS pricing references that come up through there, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Anyone have advice on pricing strategy on hardware/iot startup?

</comment><comment><USER43> The single best advice Patio11 has given is "charge more". Seriously. It's been one of the scariest thing to do in the beginning, but I've now 4X'd my pricing (from 3 figures to 4 figures a month!) and the customers got 10X better, complain less, I work less and earn more. Please! If you read this, double your prices today. See what happens in the next 3-4 weeks.

<comment><USER44> On the flipside of that I've seen patio11 specifically tell the tarsnap guy to charge more, while his product already costs $0.25/GB while GCP Cloud Storage Nearline and S3 Infrequent Access are $0.01/GB (and falling each year). When I was recently looking at backup solutions I immediately discounted tarsnap due to the pricing.

<comment><USER45> That doesn't mean it's the wrong pricing, just that you're maybe not the customer they want. A business loses some customers at _any_ pricing level, it's just a question of whether the incremental revenue from the remaining customers makes up for it.

When you charge a penny extra, that's all incremental margin from the customers you keep, but for the customers you lose, some of lost revenue is balanced by not having the costs associated with supporting them any more.

Pushing the most price sensitive customers out the door isn't that bad, because they're also likely to be the least loyal down the road, and maybe the highest maintenance relative to their spend.

<comment><USER44> Sure, that's a good point especially considering he's a one-man show so it probably makes sense to keep the user base as ruthlessly small as possible just for support reasons alone.

It does make me curious though who the target customer is - somebody who's comfortable setting up a Unix CLI tool for their backups (creating a cron job etc.), yet who wants to cede bucket ownership to a 3rd party and pay a 25x markup for the pleasure? I personally don't mind having to click "Create Bucket" in the AWS console if I get to pay $3/mo instead of $75/mo on my 300GB of data. _shrugs_

<comment><USER46> But Tarsnap is much more than that -- it deduplicates, it encrypts, it has settings for restricting network, memory, and CPU usage, it caches and checkpoints, etc. I'm happy to pay the premium for the robustness I get from it.

<comment><USER3> And let's not forget and Tarsnap is still dirt cheap even then, because Colin refuses to charge more. I'd happily pay something reasonable for my backing needs, like a $30 or $50 monthly minimum on tiny sets; instead, I pay I don't know, something like $10 every year or two.

<comment><USER47> What you're saying is that it's dirt cheap if you have a small amount of data. On the other hand, if for whatever reason you need to back up, say, 1TB worth of video files, it's extraordinarily expensive.

I think it's just the wrong pricing model to have a flat rate per gigabyte. A flat rate looks simple, but far from being transparent or 'honest', it's essentially arbitrary in this case. Other than backend storage, Tarsnap's main non-fixed cost is Colin's time providing support - but that scales mainly with the number of customers, barely at all with the amount of data they're using. Thus, heavy data users are effectively subsidizing light data users, who pay far less than their 'fair share' of costs.

<comment><USER48> _> it's dirt cheap X. On the other hand, for Y, it's extraordinarily expensive._

This may be intentional. Not every service tries to provide an optimal solution for every use case.

 _> it's just the wrong pricing model to have a flat rate per gigabyte._

I have no axe to grind (I'm not associated with tarsnap in any way, I'm not even a user though I have considered it) but some of the discussion here makes people sound somewhat entitled: "I want X, and I don't want to pay more then $Y for it, and any service charging more is silly/bad/ripoff".

Stating that something ins't the best choice (or even a good choice) in some (or many) circumstances is fine, but "it is wrong for me so I don't see how anyone can think that it is right" is an irritating stance.

The pricing model seems to work for plenty of users, enough that it works for the service as it has been successfully running for some time. If you think he is missing out on a huge amount of money from the users who are put off, why not start your own service priced to be attractive to that userbase, and take the profit you see that service as giving away.

 _> providing support - but that scales mainly with the number of customers, barely at all with the amount of data_

Sometimes having lots of small customers works better than having a few large ones, even if you have a few large ones _and_ lots of small ones. With large customers you are sometimes beholden to their whims at the expense of the smaller majority (or they _expect_ you to be beholden to their whims and get difficult if you refuse!).

 _> but far from being transparent or 'honest', it's essentially arbitrary_

Being arbitrary in no way precludes being transparent or honest.

 _> heavy data users are effectively subsidizing light data users_

Only if they don't go elsewhere, which they are perfectly free to do. tarsnap is not in a monopoly position such that people are effectively forced to use it.

(I'm not intending to pick on you specifically, there are other comments I could have responded similarly to, but this post just happened to be the one that tipped the balance on my rant reflex!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> We went from $100 to $1000. The first month, people were all angry. Within 3 months, we quadrupled our revenue. Some guys said, yea we looked at your product initially but we thought you guys weren't serious. Our design, sales pitch were not changed. So, how we started appearing more serious?

<comment><USER30> It's quite amazing (and I've read that before) that increasing prices usually increases perceived value of the product. If you charge too low, users may consider it as "it can't be good if it's that cheap".

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> There is no fair in a market. If you've survived in a market for over a year, you are already at the probabilistic impossibility.

You price your product by looking at the resources you consume. We did that initially too but it's a wrong way to price a product.

You are not taking into account that resources are available to everyone, you are simply not factoring the "luck". Don't devalue your luck, I attribute 99% of the prize we charge to luck.

Customers pay for the luck. We've made impossible possible, those who do not agree can choose a different supplier.</comment>


Show HN: WikiPacks - Stop sharing knowledge one link at a time - pack it - <AUTHOR> http://www.wikipacks.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> WikiPacks allows you to collect links into groups, called packs. Don't let your research go to waste after you find the answer, don't tell people to google it, collect the knowledge so others can benefit!

I'd love to get some feedback, thanks

<comment><USER2> Definitely a solid idea. Hope you continue to get traction with it.</comment></comment>


Pointing a laser at a police helicopter is a very bad idea - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/pointing-a-laser-at-a-police-helicopter-is-a-very-bad-idea-20111016/ <comment><USER2> I regularly use my ~20mw laser when teaching astronomy to my kids. It's really useful and travels so far in to the sky that it feels like you're 'touching' the stars.

There's no reason for a normal person to have a 300mw laser but banning it would be stupid. I'm sure there are civilian uses that don't involve downing aircraft or blinding people.

</comment><comment><USER3> And, most likely, this guy is now going to have his life ruined.

Hanlon's Razor: _Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity._</comment>


Ask HN: What happened to DuckDuckGo? - <AUTHOR> No results found across range of queries. DId they nuke their database? <comment><USER2> I am able to run searches currently - all queries I have tried have returned results as expected. Perhaps the network outage is over.

</comment><comment><USER3> Appears to be down as of this writing. All queries return no results, though autocomplete appears unaffected. No messaging on Twitter yet.

Is anyone aware of a status page?

Update: It's apparently a network outage: [https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1017095240581308417](https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1017095240581308417)

<comment><USER4> Looks like it's back: [https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1017101120597045249](https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1017101120597045249)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The autocomplete in general is abyssmal.

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems to have been a temporary glitch.

</comment><comment><USER7> > DId they nuke their database?

As I understand it, they don't crawl the web and manage their own database of websites. They use Yahoo! for all their searches.

<comment><USER7> Is there any reason for the downvotes on my post and the people who replied? I don't think being wrong means my post or its replies are inappropriate.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A website that calculates the % of your commutes that are in darkness - <AUTHOR> http://www.darkmornings.com

<comment><USER2> The website can't find my location. It would be nice if it would let me manually enter my location.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you're using a browser that supports geolocation (and you enable this) then it will find your location. Otherwise it uses an IP address-based lookup. The one I'm using at the moment is free though, and patchy. :( Sorry it didn't work for you. Manual location entry is a good idea though so I'll add it to the potential "to do" list. Thanks for the feedback!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is this idea outdated? - <AUTHOR>

Dear sirs! I have this project http://hello-namaste.com/ on a very early stage, but it seems to me like all those ideas are outdated and implemented by google and others, aren't they? Have nice day! <comment><USER2> i've not seen something specifically like this in the past, and i don't think the idea is outdated. i think its a good idea and i would consider using it, myself, if it were to work out well for you.

i would've definitely used something like this when i went to japan for a few weeks on vaccation last year, if something had existed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! The first reply is the most important! Have nice day!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It seems like a good idea to me. Ads for travel related services usually pay a lot, so maybe it can pay for itself. However you should be doing it mainly because you want it to be done, I don't think it will make a lot of money.

I will check back to see how the site evolves.</comment>


Ask HN: Did you delete Facebook account after the NSA fiasco? - <AUTHOR> Also, Are you doing anything about moving away from Google?<p>Note: I am mainly interested in Facebook and Google. <comment><USER2> No. I deleted it way before that when I found out private companies where doing this. At the time I was job hunting and became well aware that companies could pay money to have access to my online data. Particularly companies that do any sort of background checks.

IMHO there is nothing "new" about the NSA fiasco.

</comment><comment><USER3> No. There's no point, they're just going to keep my data indefinitely anyway and give it to whomever they want. "deleting" is meaningless when it comes to facebook.

</comment><comment><USER4> Tell me a way to delete my data on facebook, afaik there isn't one. Not even the way of going through the law and legal system. I live in europe, but even that doesn't help.

I considered using an exploit to remove some data, but that would shot in my head. And it's patched now anyway

<comment><USER5> Facebook HQ Europe is based in Ireland. They must follow the Irish data protection law. Some info about getting access or modifying / deleting your information can be found at

[http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocID=858&UserLang=...](http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocID=858&UserLang=EN)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes, but it's been on my mind for a while ( ever since my feed has become populated with advertisements ). The NSA fiasco wasn't really the reason, but it definitely helped me conclude the time was now.

</comment><comment><USER7> I deleted my Facebook account years ago. I still have a Google account, but I use it minimally. I started backing away from Google before all this began, even.

<comment><AUTHOR> How'd you move away from Gmail, Google search?

<comment><USER7> My original comment was somewhat incorrect. I log in via a browser minimally these days, but I still rely on both Google search and Gmail. I hope to find a good alternative to Gmail at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.

<comment><USER4> try [http://ecosia.org](http://ecosia.org) or [http://startpage.com](http://startpage.com) or [http://duckduckgo.com](http://duckduckgo.com) or [http://blekko.com](http://blekko.com)

I often visit ecosia and hope I could do more than that to recover & save the rain forest.

Keep in mind that bing.com is the same as google.com regarding surveillance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Forget the pointlessness of deleting your account - the real value is not continuing to feed the beast.

</comment><comment><USER9> Deleting your data on Facebook or Google doesn't change anything. They just mark it as deleted.</comment>


Hints and Principles for Computer System Design [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4cex542zznbjh7b/AADM59pqAb9YBy4eeT1uw0t8a?dl=0&preview=Hints+190+full.pdf <comment><USER3> Note that this is a _much_ expanded 2020 version of the 1983 classic.

<comment><USER4> Lampson has been expanding on it over the years. This is an expanded (20 pages) over his 2019 version.

[https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/0...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2019/09/Hints-137-short.pdf)

No complaint here. Anything written by Lampson is worth reading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used to carry a copy of the (quite a lot shorter) 1983 version with me, and re-read it every few months, each time learning something new, unlocked by my increased experience.

I have just learned that Lampson was a fierce opponent of Lynn Conway's VLSI design methods program, at Xerox PARC. Fortunately, his opposition did not carry the day, the methods took over the industry in record time, and Conway's career at Xerox was not ultimately harmed. It would still be interesting to learn the basis for his opposition.

</comment><comment><USER6> Direct PDF link: [https://uc3133356f3394d49f6cc6907502.dl.dropboxusercontent.c...](https://uc3133356f3394d49f6cc6907502.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/cd/0/get/A-oKuxG_wfHDht_rvxT_AcY4rwj__eH_Vz8FyNfFDxbEHhtNQWi7xKQ3D755QEZeAQw9qHHHydkc6RpKSi8XLf6BuwvCwMU9y0opJlMhhaM0IYmUwEqbgnATQ3JSOtEsxQg/file?_download_id=83427292797208955443435114218257121417210679788060006949014270464238&_notify_domain=www.dropbox.com&dl=1)

</comment><comment><USER7> Here are Lampson's brief descriptions of many many hardware and software systems he has worked on, starting in the 1960s and continuing into the 21st century.

[http://bwlampson.site/Systems.htm](http://bwlampson.site/Systems.htm)

</comment><comment><USER8> I learned about Lampson from reading Alan Kay, who has praised him highly. He was one of the founding members of Xerox PARC, among many other achievements.

</comment><comment><USER9> Hadn't looked at the older version for years, now skimming through this, it's Pure Gold (tm).

</comment><comment><USER10> This is required reading that everyone in CS should revisit frequently. Gold.

<comment><USER11> Anything in particular that's non-obvious & sticks out to you?

<comment><USER10> The one thing that stuck with me the first time (when we studied this in grad school) was that designing interfaces (to functions, APIs, etc) is hard - <USER2> that you'll never get it right the first time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Computers.. are becoming old hat.

What's the next big thing?</comment>


Spatial Awareness: A Curated Maps and Spatial Newsletter - <AUTHOR> https://www.getrevue.co/profile/maps/issues/spatial-awareness-6-maps-spatial-newsletter-by-robin-hawkes-189338 <comment><AUTHOR> This issue highlights some cool maps related to the 50th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, as well as the usual selection of map-related goodies.

Please leave any questions or feedback here so I can respond. Thank you.</comment>


Understanding Neural Networks Through Deep Visualization - <AUTHOR> http://yosinski.com/deepvis

<comment><USER2> Ok now I want to "hear" one of these trippy neural network things using a speech/language recognition neural network! Or perhaps if there's a music based one? I'd love to hear a computer's auditory hallucinations!!!

<comment><USER3> This isn't quite what you are looking for, but here is one trained on midi files extending _let it go_ : [https://ericye16.com/music- rnn/](https://ericye16.com/music-rnn/)

Here is one trained to predict the next byte in an wav file: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eusCZThnQ-U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eusCZThnQ-U)

<comment><USER4> That YouTube one is a good approximation to what I hear if I leave the radio turned on in the background and playing music, but am not paying attention to it and focusing on other stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A nice video tour of this "deep vizualisation toolbox": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkfIQ4IGaM&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgkfIQ4IGaM&feature=youtu.be)

<comment><USER6> Very cool! This reminds me of galaxyzoo.org

So I guess future corps, will consist of cube farms of employees staring at such screens, training/optimizing proprietary nets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So if it were possible to read a single neuron in the brain, and optimize input through its' signal would it be similarly possible to extract what triggers that neuron from such a setup?

<comment><USER8> Yes, there's a technique called single-unit recording:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single- unit_recording](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-unit_recording)

I think it's pretty rare to see an very selective response though, unless you're looking close to sensory neurons.

<comment><USER9> There's definitely selective responses in single unit recordings, even upstream of sensory neurons in "higher" areas; look for articles on the "Jennifer Aniston cell" and on so-called mirror neurons. The question is, how come you can fool a DNN into classifying noise as something with high probability (as they explain in the article), but you can't fool the brain?

<comment><USER10> > but you can't fool the brain?

How do you know you can't? No brain of any kind has been scanned and emulated to the point where you could try such a gradient-ascent method.

<comment><USER9> Have you ever mistaken "color TV static" for a king penguin? If not, then your built in DNN does a good job of discriminating between them. There are optical illusions that mess with our visual system, of course. You could I guess do something like raise a brain in one environment with statistics different from the natural world and then ask how that affects discrimination. Is that what you're getting are with "a gradient ascent method"? Because AFAIK we also don't have any proof the brain uses a gradient ascent algorithm so I'm not sure why you'd ask an in silico brain to carry one out

<comment><USER11> Gradient ascent is what you use to find the image that tricks the DNN. If you could run repeated experiments on a brain in exactly the same state over and over then you could perform gradient ascent on a brain as well. Whether the result of that hypothetical would be static that tricks the brain is unknown, but I don't see any reason to assume one way or the other. An easier experiment to help the discussion would be to calculate the probability that a random image of static can fool a DNN, rather than a special designed image that appears like noise. If the probability is not vanishingly small then there is indeed something fundamentally different at a functional level between brains and DNN. If not then we have to work harder to answer that question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wonder what happens if you use a regularization constraints in fourier space, optimizing the 2DFT of the image, with restraint increasing with frequency...

<comment><USER3> Why would the 2DFT be a good model of natural images?

<comment><USER13> Speculatively (pun intended): we see in saccades (rapid eye movements) rather than static analysis of scenery, so we're bound to understand the frequency of, say, edges over the fixed-period saccade rhythm better than we understand distances over a plain 2D-field representation. This is why we're often surprised by perspective in photography (well, also because of stereo vision): as we move our eyes the relative position of lines at different distances moves imperceptibly so we get a clue of 3D space.

When I was younger I took some drawing lessons because I hoped to be an architect, and the first thing we learned was precisely to undo this instinct and see the world as a flat thing -- this is why artists are seen stereotypically as extending their arm and looking at their brush with one eye -- they're using it to measure the distance of points in their visual field as a static field, as contrasted to the dynamic field that can't be put on paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I love the fact this is using caffe by Berkeley. Good stuff indeed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this implemented in any of the deep learning libraries? It looks very useful for debugging, but it also looks like a lot of work to implement, so it would make sense to have it directly integrated in the libraries.

</comment><comment><USER16> Looking at those generated images, I realized that many of those training photos seem to apply:

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

</comment><comment><USER17> It's like you're seeing into a machine's imagination. Look at the 8th-layer images of the pitcher, or the gorillas with improved prior, for instance. They're very close to layout sketches an artist might use to block out a painting or photograph before beginning the work.

Unreal. Strong AI is not as far off as we think. 15 years. Maybe 20.</comment>


Nokia Concept Phone RUNS ON soda? - <AUTHOR> http://techvert.com/mobile/nokia-concept-phone-runs-on-coke/

<comment><USER2> Er, an idea for a soda-powered cell does not a soda-powered cell make. Do these things actually exist, even in a laboratory, or is this some designer having a field day?

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow. This is one step closer to have a mr. fusion powered car. Next: hoverboards.

<comment><USER4> I read somewhere (IMDB, probably) that the original Back to the Future script had the car running on Coke. Life imitates art...</comment></comment>


Google can now tell you are not a robot with just one click! - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/12/google-one-click-recaptcha/

<comment><USER2> Proposed some thing like it a while ago: [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:AalekhN/GSoC_proposal_201...](http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:AalekhN/GSoC_proposal_2014)

But definitely, now it seems what other things i should have added

</comment><comment><USER3> What about false positives though? What if I just happen to move my mouse, trackpad, or whatever in a way that is similar to that of the robots that the system has learned about?

<comment> jack-r-abbit FTA: _In cases where a mere click doesn 't produce a conclusive response, a pop-up window will require users to decipher the same old distorted text._</comment></comment>


Dual Consciousness - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_consciousness <comment><USER2> Interesting article. It can probably never be proven or disproven, due to the Problem of Other Minds [1], the idea that the only consciousness that is certain to exists is the self consciousness, and that I can never be certain that consciousness exists in other minds.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Problem_of_other...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Problem_of_other_minds)</comment>


The future of computing? - <AUTHOR> http://factore.ca/on-the-floor/43-the-future-of-computing

<comment><USER2> This meme of the iPad as primarily a consumption device needs to die. On launch day you have plenty of very well designed drawing apps, some incredible music apps (including a very nice digital 8-track, <http://www.sonomawireworks.com/iphone/studiotrack/>) , and Apple's iWork suite. In the coming months I think we'll see plenty of other quality applications aimed squarely at artists, writers, designers, and musicians. The iPad is the first _serious digital sketchbook_ , one in which you can sketch out many kinds of ideas not only visual ones.

<comment><AUTHOR> > aimed squarely at artists, writers, designers, and musicians

Do you really think writers are going to get any real work done on an iPad? Because if so, I really disagree. The touch screen simply doesn't lend itself to quick typing and rapid text editing.

Ignoring artists, designers and musicians - since, after all, most people are none of those - and focusing on writing, I think the iPad has a chilling effect. Writing is perhaps the most important activity the average citizen conducts online, so that matters. People kept writing that the iPad is a computer for mothers - my mother, like many others from her generation, was taught to type, a skill that served her well as a legal secretary. She types very well now.

Given an iPad, I expect that although some tasks may be easier for her to accomplish, her lengthy email missives to her children, and her letters to the editor, are going to be much briefer. That's a loss to her family and a loss to civic society.

Of course, none of that matters if you look at the iPad as a toy, a sketchpad, or a device mainly intended to consume media than produce it. But if you believe that it is the "future of computing", as many call it, then this is a problem.

The iPad may well be - and probably is - the future of content consumption, web browsing, gaming, and perhaps television viewing. There's a difference between that though, and the future of computing.

<comment><USER2> Doesn't sound like you've spent much time with the software keyboard. It's quite good. Also there's a reason why Apple makes a keyboard dock and added bluetooth keyboard support. Not sure if your argument really holds up in the face of these facts.

One of my favorite iPad features is that Pages goes into WriteRoom mode in the landscape orientation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I find it amusing that Apple has come full circle and that their latest incarnations of computing portend a much more dystopian future than anything IBM had in mind in their 1984 Super Bowl commercial.

<comment><USER4> What's dystopian about a Hooter's waitress throwing a hammer at a big screen TV?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In short: Yes, but it's not a problem.

Consider the situation, say, 5 years ago. We all watched TV. That's consume- only; no user production involved. We all read books. Same deal. Radio, newspapers, etc. All the same. _But_ , we all also had computers, and we used to them to produce, interact, etc.

The point is that we used a number of devices, we did some producing, but mostly we consumed. Now, perhaps a few years from now, when newspapers, radio, etc., are all dead, we will do all this with just one or two devices. But we should still expect each individual to do a lot more consuming than producing.

(Note: This is not to say I'm happy with the Apple/Amazon-runs-the-show model of computing. I don't own a Kindle, or an iPhone-OS-anything. Nor do I intend to get one.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm only speculating here and what do I know, but in my opinion the consumer/creator dynamic is cyclic. Right now, we have a lot of content, hence the reddits, HNs, etc. of the world.

At some point the supply for all these aggregators will run low (not disappear, of course) and we'll see a rise in the number of people that author content. And so on and so forth.

<comment><USER7> It may have been in the past, but now that the internet allows far fewer authors to spread their work much farther, I don't see it happening. But here's to hoping!

</comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant Except, the future is already there: our bandwidth is asymmetric, running our own server is increasingly impossible, and the Internet becomes more and more centralized, like good old closed networks like AOL.

The iPad is the symbol of that trend, but otherwise is tiny, irrelevant, even.

<comment><USER8> I dunno, with services like EC2 I feel like there's far more opportunity available to me on the internet than there was a decade ago. I agree inasmuch as it _feels_ different in some ways, though.

<comment> loup-vaillant Using EC2 makes you the exception, not the rule (and by the way, I would prefer to have a server at home). Most people don't use EC2 (let alone a personal server). They use Blogger. Most people don't send mail. They ask Gmail to that for them.

The internet used to be a bunch of interconnected machines doing peer to peer communication. Now, we have a few servers and many many clients. So the future already there. I believe we could reverse the trend and go back to a sane, mostly decentralized, internet, but it will require a collective effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For some reason, I knew this would involve the iPad vs PC but I still clicked to make sure :/</comment>


Microsoft security guru: Jot down your passwords (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-security-guru-jot-down-your-passwords/ <comment><USER2> I seem to recall Bruce Schneier advocating the same strategy:

> I write my passwords down. There's this rampant myth that you shouldn't > write your passwords down. My advice is exactly the opposite. We already > know how to secure small bits of paper. Write your passwords down on a small > bit of paper, and put it with all of your other valuable small bits of > paper: in your wallet. [1]

I think this is a viable strategy. And I don't think the fact that a wallet can be lost or stolen should dissuade a person. If your wallet is stolen, you're already facing a security compromise, with or without written passwords inside. Your typical wallet is going to contain ID cards, bank and credit cards, etc. You already need to cancel those cards and get new ones issued. Fortunately, by being in the wallet, those passwords will be rather secure. IME, people seem to understand losing one's wallet is Serious Business.

The common advice against writing passwords down is not the only bit of perverse security policy I've encountered. On the AIX boxes at one my employers, it wasn't so bad that password policy required a minimum length of multiples of letters, numbers, and symbols and forbade reusing the past N passwords. No, what was BS was that the policy also forbade X repeated letters, and Y letters that were in any of the Z previously used passwords. Now, while this might have been intended to prevent users from using passwords like "aabbccdd1", "aabbccdd2", "aaaabbbb3", etc, it also in effect forbade stronger passphrases. The longer a passphrase is, the more likely you are to have multiple repeated letters, or letters that occurred in the last few passphrases. There are only 5 vowels in the roman alphabet, and many words use more than one. For example "correcthorsebatterystaple", has 6 repeated letters, and its replacement of "wargnomefinaltreetruce" not only has 4 repeated letters, but 5 letters used in the previous passhrase, thus forcing a much weaker password like "FuckA1X!". Oops.

1\. [http://freakonomics.com/2007/12/04/bruce-schneier-blazes- thr...](http://freakonomics.com/2007/12/04/bruce-schneier-blazes-through-your- questions/)

<comment><USER3> You are, of course, correct. The main issue isn't with writing them down but with people finding them if they are written down.

This means not putting passwords on a post-it on the monitor and to guard them like you guard your wallet or house "keys", wherever they are written down or otherwise recorded.

Of course, with so many passwords in one place, it's best to do a little planning in case a paper gets lost or wet. It's also a good idea to consider what might happen if ALL passwords get disclosed at once.

<comment><USER4> If they just steal your computer, they'll most likely still be logged in to many services already. If there's no password at login, they can already request a password change and a confirmation email from any other site.

Not to mention autofill - my Dad is a terror for this. He sees it as a convenience, but I'm pretty sure his autofill could file his tax return for him by now.

<comment><USER3> This is what disk encryption targets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Writing down your passwords is not about forgetting your passwords and needing the written page at all times. It's about having a backup that is behind lock and key (your front door). It's about "oh, shit, what's my login for this meaningless site I use once a quarter?" And it's about your spouse being able to get into those things if you die.

<comment><USER6> This 100%. I keep a printed QR code in my wallet encoding my password manager's master password. Just in case.

<comment><USER7> > behind lock and key

Uhhh..

<comment><USER6> I'm not in a high risk group for wallet compromise. I'm over forty and have never lost my wallet or keys even once my whole life. I have many flaws, but misplacing small valuables isn't one of them.

<comment><USER8> I don't know... My house has never been broken into in my life, but it doesn't mean I don't lock my door at night or when I go to work.

<comment><USER6> Fair point, but I consider my house being broken into a couple of orders of magnitude more likely than my wallet being compromised.

Plus, leaving my house unlocked has no utility, whereas having a scannable copy of my master password with me at all times does.

Finally, the consequences of my house getting broken into are pretty bad. But even if I _did_ lose my wallet it's virtually certain to be someone that knows nothing about password managers, and changing my master password is pretty easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bruce Schneier has said this several times too: [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_yo...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_your.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> Beware of other important considerations when writing down passwords. For example, law enforcement can demand that you hand over a sheet of paper, but they cannot force you to divulge a password from memory. But each password carries its own weight, so while you may care about this for your disk encryption, you may not for your social media account.

There's also the risk of creating weak passwords so that they're easier to type. Ideally, your password would be generated randomly by a computer, or using other methods, like dice (e.g. [https://www.eff.org/dice](https://www.eff.org/dice)).

</comment><comment><USER11> In 2005, password managers weren't very popular if there were any. Certainly the good ones didn't even exist[1].

I personally think that jotting down passwords physically is worse than saving passwords in a good password manager. Now, there are a few good ones, like 1Password[2].

So no, I disagree with this security guru's advice with the exception of 2FA recovery codes.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_password_managers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_password_managers) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Password](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Password)

<comment><USER12> My wife still needs to get in in the event of my demise. That's why the 1Password master password and the creds to my main machine are taped to the inside of the gun safe. If someone gets into _that_ , we've got bigger security issues.

<comment><USER11> I took Edward Snowden's advice of using long phrase/sentences as the super security password, no crazy signs / punctuation marks required ;)

<comment><USER13> The thing is: If you password is exposed once in one site, the rest of your passwords could be guessed eventually. Unless if you take some additional steps to make it really hard for anyone or any software to guess your password. See other comments on this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bruce Schneier does the same thing.

Quote: I write my passwords down. There's this rampant myth that you shouldn't write your passwords down. My advice is exactly the opposite. We already know how to secure small bits of paper. Write your passwords down on a small bit of paper, and put it with all of your other valuable small bits of paper: in your wallet.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm surpised at how many programmers I meet who don't use a password manager. In my work alone I have over 30 credentials to remember and they expire.

An aside, I use KeePass and strictly use it offline with a secret key and passphrase. Browser integration and mobile and desktop KeePass apps are not really polished and all have their own quirks. I've noticed a huge audience of 1Password and other password managers that store the passwords in the cloud. The apps and integration look good but I can't justify trusting somone else to handle my data. Am I being too paranoid?

</comment><comment><USER13> The only reason why this is challenging for me is because I use passwords not just when I'm home: I could use them at work, or on my phone (being anywhere - something probably not considered back in 2005?).

So having this list of passwords on a piece of paper (or whatever) becomes difficult since I'd need to consult it many times, leading to:

1\. Higher risk of someone stealing it from me.

2\. Higher risk of losing it.

So far, I've used some mental mneumonics to remember passwords (which is not safe since it can be easily discovered by a machine learning algo for example) + 2 factor auth.

I wonder if there's a better option though.

<comment><USER4> There's always these: [https://www.qwertycards.com/](https://www.qwertycards.com/)

It can take a while to encode/decode each time, but it does somewhat solve the problems you mentioned.

<comment><USER16> If you take the process they outline and memorize it, you're rid of having to carry around something physical. You can still store the formula somewhere safe in case you forget it or something happens to you.

You might be surprised how little effort it takes to memorize. Half an hour a day for a few days can do it for a lot of people, followed by putting it in to practice.

The password creation process:

[~8 characters including lowercase, uppercase, and special characters]

+

[a secret word or set of characters ~8 characters long]

+

[a simple encryption method for the alphabet which you use to write the service's name down]

eg. [qWeRtY4$] + [bananas] + [ibdlfsofxt]

Which comes out to: qWeRtY4$bananasibdlfsofxt

Decrypter for the last section ('ibdlfsofxt' is 'hackernews'):

a = b

b = c

c = d

d = e

e = f

f = h

h = i

i = j

j = k

k = l

l = m

m = n

n = o

o = p

p = q

q = r

r = s

s = t

t = u

u = v

v = w

w = x

x = y

y = z

z = a

Take those three steps and randomize them or make them something unique to you and you're good to go.

Probably the most important part of your password is the length. The longer a password is, the longer it will take for software to break it with brute force. If the service you're using has a three character name, you'll be relying on the first two parts of your passwords to reach a good length. It's good to keep those two at a combined length of around 14+ characters.

eg. [1234567]+[1234567]+[aws] = 17 characters

Some problems with this method:

A: If your password requires changing.

\- To solve this, you could choose a character in the first sequence that you can increment every time you have to change your password. You could also choose a different word for the second section. Plan ahead for this scenario.

B: The service you are using doesn't allow a password with one of your special characters.

\- You could try using special characters that are very commonly accepted when you create your password, such as the exclamation mark. Though, this _does_ take away from the security.

\- You could also have a secondary password; one that is simplified and doesn't rely on special characters. You can have this as a backup for services that have limiting password requirements.

eg. [qwerty]+[bananas]+[ibdlfsofxt]

C: The service you're using doesn't allow a password of that length.

\- As with problem B, you could have a secondary password ready ahead of time, . eg [tY4$] + [ibdlfsofxt]

<comment><USER13> I think that the problem for quick and easy memorizations is that it could also be easy for an algorithm to crack it.

For example you have:

[qWeRtY4$] + [bananas] + [ibdlfsofxt]

If your password is exposed:

[qWeRtY4$] = remains the same for all passwords

[bananas] = remains the same for all passwords

[ibdlfsofxt] = changes for all passwords

Cracking the part that "changes" is probably not going to be difficult for a machine since you are associating the place name (hackernews or aws) with the part that changes (same number of characters). Then it won't take long for a machine to guess that you are replacing with the next alphabet letter or something else that is easy for a human to remember.

In that sense, I believe QWERTY cards are a bit more secure in this sense since it's just random characters assigned to each key, and each card is unique. It takes away the "easy to remember" part since you will have to look at the card, but it will be some orders of magnitude harder for a machine to guess it.

After multiple breaches, however, your encryption table might be exposed too. At this point you will have to change your passwords and get a new card. Probably do it every 3 months?

I don't know, sounds like a lot of work and maybe too paranoid, but I'm hopeless when thinking about password creation and making it easy to remember.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's worth noting that the likelihood of someone hacking your preferred password manager is drastically higher than the likelihood of someone breaking into my house and rifling through my drawers. (My passwords aren't there either, because my memory is REALLY good at passwords, but I'd rather put them in my desk drawer than a password manager.)

<comment><USER18> What happens if you're incapacitated somehow (say - car accident and coma for a few days, or worse)?

<comment><USER17> That'd suck, and I'd imagine whether or not I remembered all my passwords would no longer be my top concern in my life. Everything eventually filters down to an account tied to my real identity that has customer service (I don't rely on Google anymore), so presumably I could prove my identity outside of the Internet.

<comment><USER19> I think the point was more if you have family that would need the password then.

<comment><USER17> The same is applicable. Even if I were to die, a death certificate and a family member can get into an account. In most cases though, it's unlikely they'd need to. Close out my credit card, and everything else is going to, by very nature, shut off (eventually).

<comment><USER19> I mean to expand. Yes, that works and is honestly what I rely on.

I will add that it is more cumbersome than it needs to be for family. I highly encourage everyone to make sure immediately family is joint owner of critical things. Makes transitions much easier. (Though, yes, there are valid reasons not to do that.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For many years, I've been using a simple scheme: a prefix/suffix that's the same for all passwords, and identifiers for the service and username.

For example, something like this

[$#__1077__#$]---!SERVICE!USERNAME!

So, for Hackernews, I would use h for hackernews and t for theduke --> [$#__1077__#$]---!h!t!

Now all I have to remember is the template and my username.

For accounts that need regular password changes I'll add an additional part that identifies the year and the quarter.

Of course, if someone where to get a hold the cleartext password for one site, they might be able to figure out the scheme and get into all my accounts.

But that's a risk I'm willing to take (except for very important accounts/passwords, which get randomly created).

<comment><USER21> I do something very similar, but sometimes you run into passwords that disallow certain special characters and it's awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Not writing down passwords made sense >20 years ago when the main threats you wanted to defend from were "local" because internet connectivity was not ubiquitous, and you would have only one password or two to manage...

In today's world with widespread internet connectivity and dozens of passwords to manage, password managers and/or writing down and (certain) dual factor identification approaches make more sense...

</comment><comment><USER23> What I do is record clues to what the actual password is. Clues that only I know the meaning of.

I was given a random password for an account years ago and came up with a sentence that I associate with the original random password.

Whenever I use that random string in a password and I want to write down the password, I record that sentence instead of the original random string.

That way anybody that finds what I've written can't really use it.

</comment><comment><USER24> There is a third option:

Write down or save most of your password in a password manager. Add a secret prefix or suffix string to this password from memory when logging in.

This effectively gives you MFA. Something you have, something you know.

Every login gets a different password (that you don't have to remember) yet nobody knows the real password even if the password manager or piece of paper is compromised.

</comment><comment><USER25> I forgot my password last year for a government taxation site. I called them and the person I was speaking to gave me a couple of clues and I was able to remember it. Clearly she was looking at it. My main feeling at the time was relief that I hadn't used an embarrassing one.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've noticed music theory is especially good for coming up with good password schemes that also encourage rotation. I've wondered if chemistry students have a similar edge.

</comment><comment><USER27> What about the fact that you can't be compelled by courts to reveal a password that you have memorised, but you can be compelled to hand over physical keys.

</comment><comment><USER26> I remember things I jot down; I forget things that I type. I'm done ignoring that insight, but most people do ignore it.</comment>


What next? - <AUTHOR>

HN,
I have spent the last 10 years or so, chasing an ideal.  I am passionate about technology.  I am discouraged everyday by the lack of innovation in my former/part time line of work.  I see great minds here and wonder what greater things could exist in the life saving world if it was approachable.  I am a self taught programmer but, I have been busy carrying bullets and writing 5 paragraph orders for the past 10 years.  I have been in the real world for 7 months now, and I am only just now getting to the point were I can prioritize my actions based on desire and not need.    I was lucky to find a company that is developing a technology that I think is worth while, but is crippled by bad leadership and bad financial practices.
My question is how do I find intelligent people that will help me help my brothers while forcing me to be smarter and more focused.  Where do you find people that challenge you and help you get to your next level on your road map of life?  Is there a community for the intelligent war fighter?  Is there a company that makes a difference that wants shakers not followers?
Semper <comment><USER2> So, there are a few options here. I would suggest as your first step to get in touch with a really good contracting firm. I personally have worked with Robert Half Technology many times, and they really try to pair folks with positions they love. Plus, in my experience, they have the best selection of positions to choose from.

Besides this, IRC, Twitter, GitHub, and LinkedIn are your friends. If you can't find a company that peaks your interest, start your own project. Pay the nominal fee to register a DBA (if in the US) and work the project through that company. In this manner you can write off losses in your taxes, and it lends more credibility to the project.

The companies that are looking for shakers want to see you shaking long before you walk in the door. Build the small version of your dream, then sell the idea to anyone who listens.</comment>


Co – Occurrence Patterns in the Voynich Manuscript - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07435 <comment><USER2> '...It shows that the distribution of words within the manuscript is not compatible with natural languages...'. So you mean that it is a non-sense random generated text?</comment>


Visit CERN Sites New to Google Street View - <AUTHOR> http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/06/visit-cern-sites-new-google-street-view

<comment><USER2> While the science geek in me is super thrilled, I'm concered about the possibility of radical groups using this knowledge to their advantage. They now know where to go and how to access certain parts of the collider, thus far only known to a selected few. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on HN.

<comment><USER3> This is completely a non-issue.

CERN can be visited by anyone for free, and you can take as many pictures as you want. During long shutdowns you can even visit underground facilities. Plans for every building are publicly available at maps.cern.ch, and there's practically no private information here other than worker's personal data. Google for a couple minutes for .cern.ch websites and see for yourself.

Source: I work at CERN</comment></comment>


Flying Cars Probably Won't Happen - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/when-cars-fly/523419/ <comment><USER2> I feel like the only person in the world who doesn't want flying cars. With cars, a crash isn't necessarily fatal. But with flying cars... any failure means cars fall out of the sky, woe be to who/whatever's in and/or under

[http://io9.gizmodo.com/5888216/the-first-flying-car-was- base...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/5888216/the-first-flying-car-was-based-on-the- ford-pinto-and-killed-its-inventor)

But unfortunately the current culture's rampant and excessive technology fetishism means that people can't stop dreaming of them :/

<comment><USER3> Are you just operating under the assumption that no one will invent the seatbelt of flying cars? That cars will just fall out of the sky with no attempt at saving a passengers life?

Eventually someone will invent a big balloon that pops out of the bottom of cars to catch them as they fall, or a parachute, or something better no one has thought of yet.

<comment><USER2> > Eventually _maybe_ someone

FTFY

Because it's going to have to be truly fool-proof to withstand the drunks, idiots, and downright malice on roads today. And that parachute system better know how to land on solid ground and not, say, someone's house.

I do NOT want anyone but professional pilots piloting big heavy flying things over my head, my stuff, or my house

<comment><USER4> You're assuming that the occupants will have control of the things. Once you leave the ground autopilot gets a lot easier as you have more space/visibility and fewer random obstacles. And a car is going to be just as dangerous to you flying off the road into the side of your house as one falling from the sky slowed slightly by a parachute.

<comment><USER2> I beg to differ. There is a mile or two of snaky two-lanes roads with unguarded hairpin curves whose edges lead down small embankments with houses (some protected by trees, others not) on my commute home. Despite the high traffic (it's a feeder road connecting an interstate with a boulevard) and the fact that it consistently backs up during rush hour, plus there will frequently be (crazy!!) pedestrians walking up its sides... and I have never, ever seen a single accident or emergency response vehicle because not just because some guy couldn't complete the turn, but at all. No smashed houses, nothing. Sure it's one example but I would argue that a busy road next door and a busy skyway overhead are entirely different things with very different risk profiles.

 _IF_ the vehicles are self-driving that perhaps it will be safer. I don't think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed scenarios that you'd see in such a world. Maybe the tech catches up, maybe not

<comment><USER4> [http://abc11.com/news/raleigh-man-fed-up-after-house-hit- by-...](http://abc11.com/news/raleigh-man-fed-up-after-house-hit-by-car- for-6th-time/1469768/)

>I don't think current autopilot technology can handle crowded, low-speed scenarios that you'd see in such a world.

Why don't you think they can?

<comment><USER2> Your link is just one example, like mine. Guard rails exist for a reason, of course, but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky than living next to a busy road.

As for autopilot tech, we're still in the very early stages for autonomous navigation. Absent a central controller or cloud (the presence of which is something I vehemently oppose) we're still learning to pilot vehicles in a mostly-2D plane. Throw in the third dimension, and all the safety stuff that that will entail, and you end up with a plurality of political, engineering, and safety risks.

All it will take is one tragic loss of life writ large to kill the industry and set back plans 50 years.

<comment><USER4> Yes, that was my point. There are plenty of windy roads with no accidents and plenty with lots of accidents.

When the accident happens though the problem is the same. A big chunk of metal moving through your house at speed.

>but I still believe that living under a skyway will be far more risky than living next to a busy road.

Part of this I'm guessing is that you're still imagining a bunch of drunk, or aggressive or just plain bad drivers flying over your head.

<comment><USER2> We am _already_ surrounded by drunk, aggressive, and just-plain-bad drivers. I am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

<comment><USER4> >I am not so sure technology will make them simply go away.

Once they aren't in control of the vehicle it won't matter if they are drunk or aggressive or bad drivers. The people will still be there but it won't matter because they don't have any control over the vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I say they will. Autopilot is so much easier in the air than in the street, especially if the system is created with that in mind.

I would hate to have flying cars with people behind the wheel. We would have cars falling from the sky by the minute. If car drivers are bad, flying cars would be so much worst.

But if it becomes a mechanized system then it works. It's coming. I'm guessing 30 years. It won't be cheap.

<comment><USER6> I also say it will happen. 30 years is a lot different than today. By a long shot.

We'll have ANI (artificial narrow intelligence) completed by then. It'll be able to drive a car and fly a drone PERFECTLY. So why not a flying car?

We'll have Graphene solved and able to create mass quantities cheaply. Which means the weight problem will be solved.

We'll have far better batteries than we do now. In addition, metallic hydrogen anyone? That alone may actually pave the way for country hopping.

Who's to say, in 30 years there will be no cars on the road or planes in the sky. Travel would have been fully democratized. Just pull out your phone and uber/lyft/other yourself wherever you want to go.

Oh and the final upside. No more TSA. That alone is priceless.

\</comment></comment><comment>-

Plus up next, build a much stronger model for planet hopping. I think that's a worthwhile goal to aim for. Fancy a weekend trip to Mars? Hmm, in 2050?

<comment><USER7> Hmm, not sure about the security implications of many medium-sized flying vehicles, just forcing one to drop out of the sky in a crowded downtown would be pretty nasty. So the TSA may be replaced with some other kind of inspection regime (or surface to air missiles).

As for weekends on Mars, we'll need your solved graphene to build a space elevator to get into orbit cheaply, but the travel time will presumably be months, any faster and you'd be a pancake inside the craft, either accelerating or decelerating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Flying is a lot more complicated than driving. "With a car, you have many > fewer axes of control," Tilleman says. "We already lose 30,000 people a year > in automotive accidents and you're only having to worry about two basic > things: Is the car going forward and does it turn left or right?"

This has been my take. We drive poorly enough as it is in two dimensions. Adding a third dimension seems like an awful idea. I don't know if it will ever come to fruition. Personally, I don't think it should.

</comment><comment><USER9> Just think, in the future everyone could feel like they live next to an airport!

</comment><comment><USER10> I think they already happened, but we just insist in calling them "helicopters".

<comment><USER11> I guess.

But I do wonder why autogyros haven't become more popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The regulatory environment of aviation is so far above what anyone who has no idea what that world is about can even imagine. Piles of regulations for aicraft and their regular inspection requirements are just the beginning of what will be a huge FU to/from any libertarian who already gets pissy at compulsory bienniel smog tests for their car.

Annual Inspection FAR 91.409

Try programming this into the virtual pilot. It's basically saying in event of power/engine failure, it still must conduct an emergency landing without undue (evaluate and decide capability indicated) hazard to people and property on the ground. It's not good enough to just go into landing mode and come what may. Land in a park and smash a couple kids? That's not merely a lawsuit. That's the end of your company. It'll get all of its flight certificates yanked, all the products will be grounded. And yes any investor worth their salt will know this in advance and won't volunteer for what amounts to nearly instant asset destruction if the system betrays this regulation.

And even before all of that? Not only does there need to be code that enables the autoflyingcar to conform, but there has to be a pile of tests to demonstrate competency. Just like a pilot has to do that when they take a practical flight test, just like they have to do in a flight review every couple of years.

Minimum safe altitudes - FAR 91.119

Expensive! Really really expensive! I think controlling the Mississippi river is easier and cheaper but whatever...

</comment><comment><USER13> I always think of this breakdown of 'Flying cars and You' whenever this comes up: [http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/qm5t6.jpg)

<comment><USER14> Make a version with helicopters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's happening with downward-pointing fan-based flight? There were a couple of interesting prototypes, a few years ago, and then relative silence in the techie headlines I scan.

Kind of like a giant drone. You can have some redundancy. You can have an emergency chute for the vehicle -- some small planes are beginning to carry these.

As with autos, I see the future of personal transportation in the U.S. as being electric. We're not at the end of onboarding power capacity into vehicles. Electric motors can provide sufficient drive. As renewable / next- generation energy grows, grid capacity is going to expand while prices hold or drop. Past a point, when the power gets cheap enough, you can sacrifice some power efficiency of the transportation for convenience and other factors. Let me cite "time efficiency" as something highly valued.

I see this extending to personal flight vehicles. Although I agree with other posters that, particularly en masse, automated flight controls are probably going to be necessary/mandatory much of the time.

Also, noise control. I don't want some dude's Harley quad-coptor roaring over my house.

P.S. If batteries can't meet all needs, there is still fuel-cell technology. Although, currently, batteries seem to be running away with the market. (Sorry for the unintended pun, there.)

</comment><comment><USER16> I think flying cars are possible, but security and regulatory issues actively prevent them from taking off.

Look at all the microlights [1] that enthusiasts are having so much fun with. There are also tons of lightweight lower cost planes available now from as low as $20K. $80k like a high end car costs would get you something with decent speed and range.

With the huge investment that the average car model development cycle receives you could develop a flying car, at least make a start. The fact that that there is no serious effort suggests its not the technology barrier.

Some commentators seem to be concerned with the risks, but technology will develop to address it. If cars were introduced today the same arguments about risk and accidents could be made. After all cars can travel at high speeds much closer to crowds and other cars. But cars have been matured over nearly 100 years. Flying cars could do the same.

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

</comment><comment><USER17> I think city zip line networks are much more feasible (energy, cost, speed, and safety-wise) than flying cars, but overlooked.

<comment><USER18> Replace zip line with gondola.

<comment><USER17> But gondolas are slow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How much more energy does it take to make something FLY vs roll around on the ground?

</comment><comment><USER20> There's a density issue with urban flying vehicles (only so many places to stop and park) but _suburban_ FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics work out). Though it's funny that this article still thinks of people buying the _vehicle_ and not the ride. Apart from all the financial reasons (capital utilization rate etc) having a corporation that manages the maintenance for AFVs will make everyone feel safer.

And what about those starship delivery robots photographed supposedly "making a delivery"? I've never seen one in the street without at least one person supervising it.

<comment><USER21> >suburban FVs make a lot of sense (assuming the physics work out).

Noise may be the ultimate physics problem.

<comment><USER20> Well, the plan (/leap of faith) is that electric will be quieter than internal combustion, including cars.

But you raise a good point and, reflecting on it, it is hard to see how these claims could be true (noise may fall off at 1/r^2 but with the vehicle in the air there's nothing to block the noise.)

Making the streets safer for kids and pets may be important too.

<comment><USER21> Unfortunately, the motor is only part of the problem - rotating blades (propellers, fans) make a lot of noise. Shrouds or ducts help, but not enough, and on top of that, noise is generated by the mixing of the output flow with the surrounding air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Disappointed this article didn't talk about maintenance.

I get the feeling most people don't take care of their cars (oil changes, tire rotations, etc) as often as they should -- I certainly don't. And with driving, it's no big deal. If your car overheats, just pull off to the shoulder.

With flying, it's another story entirely. Even a successful emergency landing would be terrifying for occupants. That means having experts go over every inch of your flying car regularly, and that means a lot of money.

<comment><USER23> > That means having experts go over every inch of your flying car regularly, > and that means a lot of money.

Automated car inspections with robotic X-ray scans every 3000 miles of flight? A JiffyInspect on every street corner?

<comment><USER14> Who is going to pay for all that infrastructure?

<comment><USER23> Who pays for all the infrastructure like mechanic shops, and oil changing facilities?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Funnily enough an electric vtol got posted to HAN. 300km range for the prototype and as fast as a formula 1 car.

Depends on how you define car I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER25> Such pessimism on here. This is why we can't have nice things ha ha.

With so many technological advances happening there will be myriads of solutions to all of our concerns about these types of craft. But there will also be stumbles and accidents in developing them, but nothing compared to the introduction of day the automobile.

</comment><comment><USER26> Personal flying cars are extremely unlikely except _maybe_ for high net worth people in rural areas.

Managed services shuttling people around with autonomous flying vehicles between designated "micro-airports" are definitely a possibility.

</comment><comment><USER27> Flying personal consumer crafts could definitely happen in our lifetime. Light wings + light engine/fuel + safety system.

</comment><comment><USER28> I hope i'm not the only one on HN that really cant take such a post seriously. "This will never happen", yeah okay, glad someone can see infinitely into the future.

</comment><comment><USER29> we already have self flying drones and cars. This OLD SCHOOL thinking of technology as stagnant directly causes us to lose sight of the potential the future holds.

humans are so dumb thinking they are so smart.</comment>


Toys (and Patient Parents) Made Me an Engineer - <AUTHOR> http://www.rachelberry.me/toys-made-me-an-engineer/

<comment><USER2> I hadn't heard about little bits before, thanks for that. I've got a few years until my little girl will be into these kinds of toys (she just turned 1), but I really enjoy checking them out and day dreaming about the future fun we'll have playing with things like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> My pleasure :) LittleBits are awesome to play around with even as an adult. A little pricey, but totally worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cool that she mentioned Snap Circuits. They are great, and so low-key that it seems hardly anyone knows about them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Matt :) I'm a huge fan. I actually use them in a hands-on tech program I run for local girls, they love them.</comment></comment>


Show HN: yarntf – easy distributed TensorFlow on Hadoop - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tobiajo/yarntf <comment><USER2> Nice job. This looks like a lot of work. Have you been able to get this to work with GPU's? Are there any additional steps involved?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author of the Python package and hops-tensorflow. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.</comment>


Social media engagement is not scalable - <AUTHOR> http://marisantons.lv/2015/09/22/social-media-engagement-is-not-scalable/?lang=en <comment><USER2> Glad someone is pointing this out...</comment>


13 Rules for Entrepreneurial Success - <AUTHOR> http://blog.newscred.com/?p=46 10 from Loic Le Meur, plus a few more from me for good measure. Inspiring stuff. <comment><USER2> This is a blatant copy of the original article, which wasn't even linked to: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/05/loic-le-meurs-ten- rules...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/05/loic-le-meurs-ten-rules-for- startup-success/)

The 'extra' three regurgitated items don't merit the purloined content.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Todd - apologies for missing the link. It was an honest mistake that was corrected. BTW, TechCrunch was not the original. The list was published in the FT, and the reason I posted the list was because most of my blog readers aren't necessarily techies, so would have missed the coverage on TC. Thanks for stopping by though! Shafqat</comment>