Fly.js, an interesting, easy-to-use and lightweight jQuery alternative - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Extaze/fly.js

<comment> grey-area Doesn't the gpl v3 license preclude this from use on most websites?

<comment><USER2> Is it really acceptable to include other peoples work that have a different license into the main file without any mention the original mention (only a link)?

As if it was licensed with GPL v3 to the author of Fly.js...

<comment><USER3> I just noticed that. Currently, if you use Fly.js in a project, as you give the source file to the custommer, you must use GNU/GPL license too, as explained here : [http://stuck-in-windows.blogspot.fr/2009/02/fud-over- javascr...](http://stuck-in-windows.blogspot.fr/2009/02/fud-over-javascript- and-gpl.html) I think I'm going to change the license. Thank you for noticing it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some examples would be great

<comment><USER3> Hi; here is some examples : Ajax : <http://jsfiddle.net/Extaze/45yWV/> Slider : <http://jsfiddle.net/Extaze/wVLFd/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does domain registration work? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to understand what it takes to register a domain.
Domain registrars vary in their prices. There has to be some baseline cost to a registrar, on top of which they add their markup.
What is that baseline price? Is there a way to register a domain on your own without going through a registrar? <comment><USER2> First off, you need to understand what DNS does.

There is a non-profit in Los Angeles called ICANN with a department called IANA, and this non-profit gives several companies special monopolies on selling "top-level domains" -- those companies are, in principle, "domain name registrars". So, for example, I have the domain drostie.org; this is in the .org top-level domain, which is maintained by the Public Interest Registry.

When you want to look up "drostie.org", your computer first looks up the ICANN servers and asks, "who's responsible for .org?" and it gives a server at PIR. It then asks the PIR server, "who's responsible for drostie.org?" and it gives my web host's IP address.

So ICANN does not need to know directly, but PIR's computers needs to know. Here is where the registry steps in: PIR does not deal with you directly, but through a middleman. The middleman allows you to manage your .org domains through the same interface as your .com domains even though these are managed by different companies with different back-ends; it also in some sense reduces the sheer number of clients and transactions which PIR needs to engage in.

Thus in a strict philosophical sense you cannot avoid "going through a registrar" because in some sense PIR is a registrar -- "registry" is right in the title, even. You could try, if you were enough of a company, to do direct business with PIR, but that might set you up for numerous headaches if all you want is a working domain.

Typical prices are generally less than $15/year for a domain purchased through normal channels; Gandi and NameCheap are two popular registrars which people are usually happy with; GoDaddy is popular but has a bad reputation generally. A couple of those dollars go to ICANN, a couple go to PIR, and the rest goes to the middleman.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the detailed explanation.

$10-$15 per year is a bit expensive. I doubt a domain that gets no more than 10 hits a day should pay that much. A 1000 or even as little as 100 of them owned by a single person certainly would be expensive. I wish there were a way to pay per use.

In a strict philosophical sense, the platform with the most users sets the rules. It wouldn't be surprising if an emerging platform with a lot of users established their own naming service. To some extent, the App Store is a naming service.

The people running such a platform would probably not even realize themselves the importance of having their own naming service amidst trying to get up and running. And what would have them stick with custom naming would be the same force of inertia that keeps current domain prices so high.

There's probably unseen innovation around naming waiting to be discovered.

<comment><USER2> Well, "a bit expensive" in relation to what? A virtual private server costs $10/month for example, so it's an order of magnitude more expensive. My domain doesn't even get 10 hits per day but I pay for the service anyway and maybe someday I'll use it more thoroughly.

If you needed thousands of domains you could get them for the same $15/year as subdomains, of course -- if you look up "tmp.drostie.org" the process is the same; you ask ICANN about "org", they say "PIR!"; you ask PIR about "drostie.org", they say "drostie's server"; you ask my server about "tmp.drostie.org", and it says "that's this server too!" -- I don't have to pay anyone else for that service.</comment></comment></comment>


PyvaScript - Python inspired syntax for your JavaScript browser code - <AUTHOR> http://www.allbuttonspressed.com/blog/django/2010/07/PyvaScript-Pythonic-syntax-for-your-browser

<comment><USER2> So how is this better than CoffeeScript (<http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee- script/>)?

<comment><USER3> I don't think if it is better, but is a bit more suited to Python-programmers.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. The less mode/context switching you have to do the less stupid syntax mistakes you can make. We made this because we use Python for server-side code and we also want the same language for browser-side code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> \-- Ti znaesh kak amerikantsi nazivaut pyva script? \-- Kak \-- piiiiiva \-- Povbivav bi</comment>


Memphis Meats to Bring Cell-Based Meat to Consumers - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2020/01/22/798515259/ready-for-meat-grown-from-animal-cells-a-startup-plans-a-pilot-plant <comment><USER2> Ha ha! Animal 57: [http://kibo.com/exegesis/animal_57.shtml](http://kibo.com/exegesis/animal_57.shtml)</comment>


Need a plain-English NDA for your startup? Just $3 for the one we put together. - <AUTHOR> http://micropledge.com/projects/plain-english-nda

<comment><USER2> If you are in a position where you need to sue someone for breaking confidentiality, having a three dollar document backing you up is probably not a good idea... legalese is legalese for a reason-- because it's concise and reduces possible alternate interpretations.

</comment><comment><USER3> Spam. And not the good type either. Edit: Solved, title now accurate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Does it really look like spam? Why? Several "startup types" have already found it useful, and at $3, you can hardly lose. To get a lawyer to write you something similar might cost you $300.

I posted it because I honestly thought it might be of interest, and useful, to startup founders.

<comment><USER3> It wouldn't be spam if it was properly advertised. A title that said "Plain English legal NDA for just $3" would have been fine. However, when an article is linked to, unless noted otherwise in the title, I expect to see content.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough -- I've changed it to make that clear. No hard feelings :-), but perhaps a bit harsh to bam it as spam?

<comment><USER3> Probably, but I couldn't think of a succinct way to say so when commenting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know about you guys but I'm always reluctant to sign a NDA. I usually flat out refuse, and most people don't seem to mind if I don't.</comment>


Cab Drivers, Uber, and the Costs of Racism - <AUTHOR> http://www.racialicious.com/2012/11/28/cab-drivers-uber-and-the-costs-of-racism/

<comment><USER2> Uber drivers aren't afraid to pick you up because you have a lot of money and a smartphone. It's a signal that you're a young black hipster and not a gang banger.

It's still racist. It just shifts the outcome in your favor.

<comment> jack-r-abbit uh... gang bangers have money and smart phones too. They used to rob people for $200 Air Jordans. Now it is for iPhones. Maybe you were confusing "gang banger" with "poor".

<comment><USER3> To use Uber I think you have to give a credit card. I think this is be biggest deterrent to breaking any laws: they already know who you are and if you commit a crime they can find you. I suppose a gang banger could use a fake credit card to set up an account just to then get a cab and rob them, but that creates a big hurdle that I think will eliminate lots of crime.

<comment> jack-r-abbit That is different then. The parent comment was about money and a smart phone being enough to remove the possibility of picking up a gang banger. Having a credit card on file is a whole different thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Disclaimer: I work for Uber.

Thought it might be worth mentioning that you can actually use Uber to hail a regular taxi in a bunch of cities, including SF, Boston, Chicago, and Toronto. You do have to pay a guaranteed tip (which incentivizes the taxi drivers to take Uber dispatches), but in return you get the same race-blind properties of Uber at regular cab rates. Plus no dealing with "broken" credit card terminals...

And yes, obviously there is still inherent socioeconomic filtering that happens when you ask someone to use an expensive smartphone to hail a cab, but the phones will get cheaper, the apps will get better, and hopefully the level of accountability in the transportation ecosystem will continue to increase over time.

</comment><comment><USER5> There's still racial inequality if you have to pay extra (to use Uber) to get a similar service that other races can get cheaper (normal cab).

<comment><USER6> The article didn't say that Uber is making normal cabs unracist, just that Uber itself can't be racist, and that this gives Uber yet another market edge over normal cabs.

<comment><USER7> I can buy that to _some_ extent, but it seems fairly common among luxury businesses: wealthy black businessmen are in many situations treated as just a "wealthy person" regardless of their race, so are insulated from many of the problems faced by the majority of non-wealthy blacks. I.e. their wealth is the most salient demographic lens people view them through. Hence why Herman Cain can claim (and might honestly believe) that racism is no longer holding anyone back.

<comment><USER6> I don't know anything about cabs, but the article makes it sound to me like we're talking about a $5 difference here. If you can afford $20 on a cab ride you can probably afford $25. We're not talking about the difference between millionaires and people living below the poverty line.

Class discrimination isn't great, but it's certainly better than race discrimination, insofar as it is possible to change your class (however difficult that may be) and not your race. It's a step.

<comment> jack-r-abbit And on that note, is it even class discrimination to sell a product/service that not _everyone_ can afford? It sounds to me that Uber offers some extra value/convenience (for every customer) that traditional cabs don't and that will cost you a little extra.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> LOVED this. Markets FTW.</comment>


The Invention of the AeroPress (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://priceonomics.com/the-invention-of-the-aeropress/ <comment><USER2> I'm the only coffee drinker in the house and I love my AeroPress:

* It's fast

* It's foolproof

* It makes good quality coffee

* It's camping friendly

All of the tedium and unforced errors of pour over coffee disappears: "blooming", meticulous pouring technique, realtime measuring of water/coffee ratio. The hardest part is I use a hand grinder but even that isn't so bad.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand the Aeropress love. I have a good full espresso machine for home. For the office I've tried: electric "mocha express" style Italian espresso maker (great coffee but colleagues complained about the strong smell) and a kettle with both a decent French press or Aeropress.

While I don't mind the Aeropress I have a much better experience with a good old French press - much less chance of mess (stands well, no need to stir with the paddle/a spoon, no risk of putting too much pressure and something falls over).

Tastewise I've tried it with both metal and paper filters and regular and reverse method, as well as different types and grains of coffee - there's no tangible difference to a decent French press. And of course both are far far far away from a proper espresso as you'd expect in a proper Italian or Portuguese café.

The only upside I see is that it's light, so if you do carry something else to boil water it might be a good choice for campaign - but a small french press also is not heavy either. And of course if you go camping with a group a good mocha express to put on the fire makes you the hero of any journey (at the cost of an extra kg).

<comment><USER4> Depends on who you speak to. My French colleagues look at Italian "fast" coffee in horror - they think it's tantamount to abuse of the grounds.

> much less chance of mess

French presses are much more annoying to clean afterwards though. It's nigh impossible to get all of them out of the press without eventually getting some in the sink. I really like that you can just pop the puck of grounds out of the aeropress straight into the compost bin, and what's left on the plunger is almost a paste that can be rinsed off.

<comment><USER5> The key French press cleaning trick is a _fine_ kitchen sieve, not too small, at least 3" wide:

Pull out the French press plunger, add water and drain the resulting mud through the sieve.

A normal small 2" coffee sieve is too small in diameter, it will clog.

The 3" (4" is better, especially for the larger 1L press) allows the water to pass in a fast pour. And make sure it's a fine sieve, so the grinds stay in.

The grinds mud then goes from the sieve straight to trash.

In store the sieve at the sink with the other cleaning utensils. In direct access storage, so to speak, a local cache even.

<comment><USER4> Well if there's one thing I hate cleaning more than a French press it's a sieve! Or do you have a sieve specifically for the press? That seems like a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Different brewing methods taste different. French press tastes different than a pourover. An Aeropress tastes different than a moka pot. I couldn't help but groan at the idea that a tool 'brews the best cup of coffee in the world' . The coffee the various tools produce simply taste different and they have different usecases. Not better or worse, just different.

<comment><USER7> To brew "the best" which means really to get the best extraction out of the bean for which the flavor profile the drinker enjoys the most (too much extraction results in a acidic, heavy taste, too little extraction results in the dreaded "mud water" light taste)

I've tried them all. The aeropress simply enables you to brew the most consistent cup to your liking, plus all the other benefits Steltek pointed out.

<comment><USER3> A mocha express style Italian coffee maker is super consistent in quality and (for my taste) gives much better flavour. The steam method takes out much of the bitterness compared to a poured coffee like Aeropress.

<comment><USER8> I think that depends more on the beans. Good light roast beans don't need to worry so much about masking bitterness. If modern craft light roast is not your preference, you will need to care more about bitterness. (NB: Not all coffee labeled light roast is)

<comment><USER9> And if you really want the flavor of a naturally bitter roast without the bitterness, there's always Chemex. Never my first choice for brewing coffee I actually like, but I have gotten a decent cup out of roasts I usually find unpalatable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used to swear by my French Press. Some two years ago I casually said to my sibling that I wanted to try AeroPress to see what the fuss is all about. One day it showed up as a present in my mailbox.

I opened it, ridiculing it, thinking I'll give it a single try, toss it in the closet and get back to my French Press.

Fast forward two years: Almost _every_ weekday morning I start with a full AeroPress. And each morning I used to shake my head with the same surprise as I ground the beans[+]: "I still can't believe this plastic thing can produce such good coffee." It's the French Press now that's gathering dust in the closet.

To my brain, AeroPress == French Press minus the "fine sludge".

[+] FWIW, I use "Mano Mano" by the Belgian coffee roaster, Café Liégeois (not associated with them, just a happy user)—[https://cafe- liegeois.com/en/cafes/mano-mano-puissant](https://cafe- liegeois.com/en/cafes/mano-mano-puissant)

<comment><USER11> AeroPress doesn't really scale for company, though. I remember trying to make several cups in a row for family and by the time cup #3 was finished, cup #1 was cold.

I _do_ still whip out my AeroPress from time to time if I'm making a really fruity coffee, because I feel like the AP method is better at extracting those flavors. But for my usual morning cup for myself and my significant other, French Press is king.

> To my brain, AeroPress == French Press minus the "fine sludge".

I haven't really noticed "the sludge" in my FP since I invested in a Barata Encore canonical burr grinder. It's able to grind the beans coarsely and evenly enough that you don't get the sludge (which is usually the unevenly- ground fines that slip past the mesh filter). Additionally, paper filters trap the coffee bean fines, but they also trap the oil, which is desirable in your coffee.

But I will concede that the AP is probably the most affordable option for a good cup of coffee. You can pair it with a cheap blade grinder and still get a decent cup out of it, while poorly-ground coffee in a FP can make for a "sludgy" cup.

<comment><USER10> I hear you, on not scaling it for a family. I make it for one or two people at most (a full AeroPress can be shared for two, unless you're a Real Guzzler).

I mulled about the burr grinder in the past, but then I already _had_ the Bosch blade grinder[+]. It does the job spectacularly well for most use cases. I live in a small apartment; and minimize 'nice-to-have' devices. (And given the predicament we're immersed in, I feel even more disinclined to buy more 'things' that I don't really need. One day, I might get the burr grinder as a 'reward' for all the discipline I show in most aspects, or some other justification that I can coax myself with. :-))

As for coarseness, I'm living with a "workaround": 12 pulses (manual on-and- off; yeah, annoying) with the blade grinder to get the right coarseness for French Press, which is now a "weekend delight".

[+] [https://www.bosch-home.com/ne/product-list/coffee- machines/c...](https://www.bosch-home.com/ne/product-list/coffee- machines/coffee-grinders/TSM6A013B)

<comment><USER11> If you're gonna go for the pulse method with a blade grinder, the recommendation is that you should also shake the grinder between pulses. See below:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS8igZyhNFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS8igZyhNFw)

<comment><USER10> Oh, thanks for bothering to give that pointer; didn't know that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Related from a few weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22493376](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22493376)

OP discussed in 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18474815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18474815)

OP discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7615399)

Related from 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9381315](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9381315)

Also 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9214571](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9214571)

I think that covers the major AeroPress bases.

</comment><comment><USER13> Plastic + hot liquids still make me nervous

<comment><USER10> I was worried about that initially, but the plastic is sufficiently robust (I have to say, my AeroPress got a bit chipped at the top when it fell from my hand as I was cleaning).

I'm still wondering if a glass-based, non-plastic variant of AeroPress will show up any time soon.

<comment><USER3> Using a metal filter i quickly got visible fissures in the plastic. No actual leakage yet.

<comment><USER14> Years ago now, there were reports of visible fracturing like you describe, and Alan said to call in to Aeropress and they will replace these versions. Worth a try, even today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you're an espresso drinker and are looking for something that makes a frankly excellent little shot of coffee and is comparably (with the AeroPress) low-fuss and low-maintenance, I bought a handpresso ([https://www.handpresso.com/en/](https://www.handpresso.com/en/)) a couple months back for an overseas trip but was so happy with it that it's now my daily driver.

<comment><USER16> That looks cool.

I have two nanopressos which are also very good. One for home and one for work.

[https://www.wacaco.com/pages/nanopresso](https://www.wacaco.com/pages/nanopresso)

<comment><USER15> Yeah I cross-shopped that - it looks good too. The wacaco and the handpresso seem to dominate the travel espresso segment.

A friend of mine - a fellow Melburnian - has the Rok espresso maker ([https://www.rok.coffee/](https://www.rok.coffee/)), which is a large-ish countertop manual espresso device. He reckons he's pulled over 10,000 shots with it and swears by it. Also low-fuss, low-maintenance and just a couple hundred bucks.

<comment><USER16> Oh that's cool. Thanks for posting that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have an AeroPress, a french press, and a Clever Dripper.

While I like the AeroPress, I don't find it makes enough coffee in one go. The Clever Dripper is basically a french press with a #4 filter, so you still get a filtered cup - no sludge (you do miss out on the oils though). It's a foolproof method to a great cup of coffee.

</comment><comment><USER18> Were you inspired to post this after watching the Bon Appétit test kitchen work-from-home coffee video?

</comment><comment><USER19> When my last espresso machine died I switched to the AeroPress as a temporary replacement. It didn't take long before I realized I didn't need to buy another espresso machine.

<comment><USER20> Curious what kind of espresso machine you had?

Aeropress is great but doesn't come anywhere near a good pulled espresso shot for me - in any capacity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hey, I just made a 3d model / animation of an AeroPress in Blender! I put it on GitHub under a Creative Commons License (obviously I didn't use the brand name), so feel free to use it if you have a need for a model of an AeroPress for some reason.

[https://github.com/bxbrenden/Blender- CoffeePress](https://github.com/bxbrenden/Blender-CoffeePress)

</comment><comment><USER22> I recently watched the AeroPress Movie ([https://aeropressmovie.com/](https://aeropressmovie.com/)), which was a fun look into the history and culture around the AeroPress. Something I enjoyed about it was seeing the inventors workshop in his garage, as well as his opinions on what constitutes a "good cup" of coffee.

<comment><USER23> Interesting. I've not watched the movie but I disagree with the inventor on the type of coffee he tries to make with the Aeropress.

From what I recall he tries to make a more "espresso" style coffee and then dilute it. I prefer to just go 15g coffee to 250g of water for a single normal cup. No dilution.

<comment><USER24> yeah, he also doesn't steep, but I find that you need to steep for a few minutes unless you want to under extract your beans.

I also greatly prefer a metal filter over paper as it lets more flavor through, but people who don't like flavor call that "acidity" or "bitterness".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What happened to Priceonomics? They used to regularly publish great content that I'd often see on the front page here. Is their business dying or are they just no longer prioritizing content marketing (or maybe targeting different people)?

<comment><USER26> Did you notice that this article is from 2014?

<comment><USER26> Maybe I misunderstood whether the OP was referring to this particular article as 'content marketing'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I use my AeroPress for Yerba Mate exclusively. Two spoons of Yerba Mate for one cup, add 90C° water, put in plunger on top and let it steep for 5 minutes. It stretches the Yerba Mate and it is easy to clean.

<comment><USER28> Apparently Mate might cause cancer: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate#Cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mate#Cancer)

<comment><USER29> Drinking alcohol increases the risk of mouth cancer, pharyngeal (upper throat) cancer, oesophageal (food pipe) cancer, laryngeal (voice box) cancer, breast cancer, bowel cancer and liver cancer.

But that doesn't really seem to slow anyone down.

<comment><USER28> Sure, but assuming the mate drinkers are also drinking alcohol, it may have a synergistic effect and increase risk much beyond either alone, like tobacco and alcohol do with each other. Pure speculation though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have an AeroPress. I have a few different french-press mugs. I have a disc you place over a much, with a little fabric pouch in the middle for the grounds, and then pour in the hot water. (They're all convenient in different scenarios.)

I can honestly say that I never notice any taste difference (assuming I'm using the same beans). I don't doubt many people can taste the difference, and it's a big deal for them. But I also think there are many people who, like me, honestly don't taste much of a difference.

</comment><comment><USER30> > _"What do you guys do when you just want one cup of coffee?" Adler had > wondered this many times himself. He'd grown increasingly frustrated with > his coffee maker, which yielded 6-8 cups per brew._

Why can't you put just enough water and coffee in a standard coffee maker to make only one cup? My coffee maker came with a manual that said, "Always make a full pot", but I never understood the reasoning behind that. (And admittedly never tried making just one cup to see what happens.)

</comment><comment><USER31> I love my aeropress but it is not even close to the best cup of coffee in the world

<comment><USER32> What would you rank above it? I'm far from a coffee snob, however moving in with someone who is one I've come to like our aeropress even though imo it's a lot of work for a cup of joe.

<comment><USER3> In Europe most will bet on a proper espresso machine or else a mocha express style espresso maker. Espresso has more flavour, less bitterness and a tiny bit less caffeine; for me it brings out the pure coffee flavour in a small punch. Served in good cafes with a glass of water.

<comment><USER33> It's fascinating how much this has to do with personal preferences and cultural fashion. When I lived in Europe I would always make an effort to find the third wave coffeehouses that focused on aeropress and pour over preparations so I could enjoy the light-roasted subtleties and terroir of the different beans. It made coffee more like wine or microbrews. These places usually had a younger more international crowd and were frequently run by Australians or Kiwis.

I find the dark espresso roasts produce a more consistent product but only because a whole range of flavours is missing. But different strokes for different folks.

<comment><USER20> The best cup of coffee is the coffee you like!

There is a lot of "third wave" espresso out there now which you may like more, not quite as traditional as what you may have found in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I am terribly lazy and have completely given up on quality coffee. I drink medaglia d'oro instant espresso and find it does the job without consuming too much time or counter space.

<comment><USER35> Why not just take caffeine pills at this point?

<comment><USER9> As someone who enjoys good coffee, I still think cheap shitty coffee is better than bad (here meaning anything I don't like) craft coffee. It tends toward muted flavors rather than anything actively unenjoyable. If I don't like the roast in a quality cup of coffee, all of those flavors I don't like will be front and center.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> My wife has a super expensive espresso machine.

It makes her a great cup of coffee.

I use my aeropress, exclusively.

</comment><comment><USER37> Can anyone recommend an electric grinder for this thing? Tempted to try it.

<comment><AUTHOR> A bit late but I use the OXO brew conical burr on its "fine" setting. It looks nice, works reliably, has good ergonomics, and doesn't get messy. Also runs the full gamut of grind sizes so we can use it with our french press and chemex too.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CSKGLMM](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CSKGLMM)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I used one for a while years ago. Ultimately it's too fiddly to brew with, and it doesn't make enough coffee for me (I like 12-16 oz). I settled on a french press, even though the AeroPress does makes nicer coffee, and is easier to clean. But the french press is much simpler, an important consideration in the part of the morning when you pretty much by definition have not yet had any coffee.

I don't own a Chemex or other pour-over brewer, but I would put them above the AeroPress. They're less fiddly to brew with, can produce more coffee, the quality is very similar (imo), and cleanup is not much worse.

<comment><USER2> There's no way pour over is less fiddly than an AeroPress. Timing blooms, gooseneck kettle only so you can gently apply water evenly, and having to sit the whole thing on a scale so you can measure how much water you've really added.

<comment><USER39> I make pour over the very first thing early in the morning, usually while an 8 month old baby is crawling around chaotically. I just put the ceramic dripper on my mug, pour a bit of water for the bloom without "timing" it, then pour some more like three times until the mug is full. Yeah I use a gooseneck kettle (which btw also comes in handy for watering flowers and filling up the clothes iron) but I'm not fussy about technique. Occasionally I just dump a bunch of water in the filter at once and the coffee turns out fine if a bit weak.

<comment><USER40> I have a Chemex three cup and I can make one or two cups with it without any timer or scale. It tastes great to me and is really consistent. The need for scientific exactness is overblown here (although using a scale and timer only helps the result). Even a bad brew from my chemex with freshly roasted single origin beans is far better than the terrible black coffee I drank at the office for years (and still will drink if it's all that's available)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> hot water + plastic = bad

<comment><USER42> Based on what? If the plastic has no BPA in it, what's the issue?

<comment><USER43> There's a lot more in our products, our packaging, in our food and water supply that's potentially harmful but "technically unproven to cause harm." Do some research into BPA and you'll find there are several other BPx's in use now, each with their own problematic potential for endocrine disruption, that still allow the manufacturers to say "BPA Free!!"

Also every thermal paper receipt you touch is covered in BPA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> IMO we shouldn't allow inventions such as AeroPress to have exclusive rights to produce it by enforcing Patent laws. The idea of Patents was to encourage entrepreneurs to invent, but the consumers get shafted by increased price and no competition. AeroPress is an extremely simple invention, patented to the brim and they spend a ton of money defending their patents. This expenditure gets passed to the consumer with a $40 price tag for something that costs $2 to make.

Inventions are not special. Providing value to the user by out competing others either by price, quality, customer service, etc. is a win for the customer.

Products such as AeroPress, Frisbee, Rubik's cube, etc. leave a bad after taste as a consumer. AeroPress has no incentive to improve their product because of the lack of competition.

AeroPress should get a 2 year headstart. After the 2 years, their patent expires and they gotta actually compete with others. What if the Chinese start making these for $1.50? We should have a labor quotient - if country X imports from country Y, country X should charge import duty that is proportional to the labor quotient exactly to counter balance the higher labor cost in country X.

I am interested in counter arguments, what are the benefits to the society as a whole when we have exclusive production rights to inventions?

<comment><USER45> Just look at what already happens to people on Kickstarter, they spend years and all this money, their own and others, designing, testing, figuring out the market and ultimately manufacturing just to have the Chinese manufacturer or another one steal the idea and sell it for cheaper, often before the actual product is released. Now imagine this happening to every inventor in your country.

But what about this import idea? How are you going to enforce it, figure it out, and actually handle or stop people trying to go around it? You'd need like 100k new government workers dealing with this.

<comment><USER46> There's also an imbalance here in that China is not an open marker to firms in the West.

Chinese copiers have the ability to sell into their own massive market and then cross subsidise to dump cheaper products into the rest of the world.

No company in for example the West using, say, robots to reduce labour costs could dump cheap imitations into the Chinese market to destroy their manufacturing base.

Same goes for service companies.

<comment><USER44> This asymmetric aspect of Chinese trade has to stop.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's Smartphone Marketshare Down 0.4% Since January  - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/07/02/microsoft-windows-phone-market-share/

<comment><USER2> I personally just don't see why I'd ever want to buy one. As a developer, I'm not interested in the MS ecosystem (been there). As a consumer, WP7 isn't the cheapest option either (I'd rather use VirginMobile or StraightTalk), nor does it have the most active and exciting app store. A lot of the apps I care about aren't ported (yet at least) to the OS. Most likely won't be as long as its market share is around 4%. Don't really care about XboxLive integration, I don't even have a TV to plug a 360 into. Zune integration is nice, simply because the Zune pass is a great offering and they killed the music player that used to support it. However, now that Spotify is almost completely caught up to Zune pass's catalog, there's not much of a reason to use a Windows-only service either. Skydrive/Office online integration? Google's services do the job well enough that I don't see a particularly compelling reason to switch over to MS's counterparts.

Can someone give me a reason why I should care?

<comment><USER3> I can't but I can think of another reason not to buy one. Windows Phone 7 is not upgradeable to Windows Phone 8. There will be a Windows 7.8 update but it's end of the road for that particular ecosystem as well. So with that announced to be available "sometime towards the end of the year" they've probably hurt the few potential Windows Phone 7 candidates interested in a device. What was Nokia thinking?

<comment><USER4> > What was Nokia thinking?

"Microsoft needs our patents to extort more money from Android makers, but buying Nokia would irk their few OEMs. We need to make Nokia fail while it remains closely aligned to Microsoft so they will be in a privileged position to acquire our portfolio"

:-) I'm no telepath, but you assume Elop's best interest is a thriving Nokia. I am quite sure he'll make up for his lost performance bonuses in other, maybe less direct, ways.

<comment><USER5> It's sad to see how clueless people are about how companies are actually run.

Do you even know what a board of directors is and what it can do and does? Do you know much power over the company the chairman of the board has? Look at the profile of the chairman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila>

Insinuating that Elop is taking a bribe to drive down Nokia is just conspiracy mongering with no basis in reality.

<comment><USER6> He's not insinuating he took a bribe. He's insinuating he's been on some sort of covert assignment since 2010 and he never betrayed his mission. It's an impossibly crazy thought, yet it gets harder to dismiss for every day going by...

<comment><USER7> Can you explain the process by which Microsoft can _assign_ someone to be the CEO of Nokia?

<comment><USER4> Replacing a CEO is not something that happens overnight. Headhunters are contacted, candidates are approached. It may be luck, it may be knowing the right headhunters, but once the "right" candidate is approached, you can pad his/her resume so that they become irresistible hires for the target company.

<comment><USER5> So you think MS padded Elop's resume to make him desirable to Nokia over other candidates? Like being the CEO of Macromedia?

What about the decisions after he became CEO? You think they were not done with the support of the board? Look what happened to Leo Apothekar, the board _found a replacement_ for him within a month of him taking questionable decisions.

It seems very likely that Nokia wanted a partnership with Microsoft even before Elop was hired. Why else would they hire someone from outside Finland?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article is not clear if this is Windows Phone, or also including the old, sucky Windows Mobile. If the latter, I would expect to see their share continue to fall as people get off those old devices...

<comment><USER9> I don't know if they updated it since you read it, but, the following excerpt made it clear that this includes all windows phones. " it should be noted that comScore doesn't break out figures for Windows Phone 7, which means that much of the activity may have been driven by Windows Mobile users dumping their old phones for Android-based phones and iPhones. "

<comment><USER10> Which really does two things:

1) makes this drop completely meaningless as it could be 100% Windows mobile

2) makes you wonder just how low the WP7 numbers would be without Windows Mobile

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since they don't break out the figures it is hard to tell if WP7 is going down or up. However in some ways that is not the point - if WP7 was doing anything like what Nokia needs it to do it would be busting out of that figure. Static sales mean a disaster for them, and perhaps ironically a windfall for Microsoft: now that they have decided to screw their existing WP7 users the last thing they need is for sales to pick up at this point, and if they do have an eye on purchasing Nokia (or its assets) the price for that is going rapidly down.

</comment><comment><USER12> The data was collected with these methods

> MobiLens data is derived from an intelligent online survey of a nationally > representative sample of mobile subscribers age 13 and older. Data on mobile > phone usage refers to a respondent's primary mobile phone and does not > include data related to a respondent's secondary device.

I don't think that the 0.4% figure is statistically significant considering the much larger margin of error likely to be in the results.

</comment><comment><USER13> I am starting to wonder if Microsoft's problem is something quite other than the quality of the product they produce. From everything I have read, WP is a well made platform: smooth, stable, and a pleasure to look at. While I have not personally done anything other than casually play with a demo model, none of the reviews I have seen have said anything seriously negative about it. MS has put a lot of time and effort into this, and it seems that they are doing everything (or at least most things) right from a technical perspective.

And yet... Success is not following.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a Windows phone simply because I have been so badly burned by Microsoft in the past. It has nothing to do with the quality of WP per se, but rather lingering negativity I built up from using some of their less than stellar products over the course of 20+ years.

I'm starting to wonder if this isn't more widespread than is generally acknowledged.

<comment><USER4> > none of the reviews I have seen have said anything seriously negative about > it.

So, basically what they built is a phone that doesn't suck. Had they done it 6 years ago, they'd be on to something. Now others have successfully done that.

> I wouldn't consider a Windows phone simply because I have been so badly > burned by Microsoft in the past

And now they managed to burn WP7 owners with the no upgrade option thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Metro UI is great and the phone is OK, but now Microsoft get's to taste how it is to be the minority platform.

</comment><comment><USER15> There just haven't been many notable Windows Phones lately. The most notable one to have come out recently is the Nokia Lumia 900. Meanwhile, Android has the HTC One X, Samsung Galaxy S3, Galaxy Nexus, pretty much any Samsung phone really, and Apple is, well, Apple. The OS might be great, but the devices are forgettable.</comment>


Was Python your first programming language, and now you're a paid programmer? - <AUTHOR>

I've heard and read from many sources that say Python is an excellent first programming language.
I'm curious to know the following:
1. Was Python your first programming language? 2. Are you a professional (paid) programmer now, as a result? 3. How did you get your job? 4. Have you stuck with Python, or did it help you learn another language you're using now? <comment><USER2> I'll answer your questions in order:

1) Python was my first programming language. I started teaching myself python during my freshman year of college.

2) I am currently employed in a job that is mostly programming. Technically my job title is Data Analyst.

3) I got my job primarily because I had experience with Economics/Econometrics (my major in college), and applied for an internship based on that experience. Because I knew Python, I was able to create a number of predictive models during my internship, and was hired on full time after graduation.

4a) I haven't "stuck with" python so much as I continue to use it as part of my ever expanding tool belt. For my programming work I use ~70% Python, ~20% R, ~5% SQL, ~5% other (C#, VB, C). For fun I dabble in Haskell, Javascript, C, ASM, Forth, and others.

4b) I don't think I would say that Python itself has helped me to learn any other language above and beyond the fact that learning one programming language makes the next one easier. Instead, I think Python, by virtue of being a language that is not particularly extreme in any way, has given me a solid basis of comparison for any other languages that I have picked up. It's a good reference point for what makes other languages unique.

I'm glad I started with Python. The simplicity of getting started with Python was definitely a plus, and it continues to be a useful tool that keeps me employed doing interesting work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Python is a good language. But there are many languages and each one has different perks and has different uses. If you want to know if it's a good language to start just go for it and stop asking question. Programming is really a profession where to learn you need to make many mistakes and only write a lot of code. Start with python or any other language, if then you don't like it you can change. It's not the language that gives you the job but your abilities.

</comment><comment><USER4> My progression went something like this: some form of basic, Visual Basic, Python, C++. I then stuck with C++ for personal projects for about five years. In this time I tinkered with a ton of other languages too (assembly, ML, prolog, pascal, ...)

Sometime during my C++ years I studied computer science, where I learned Java, some more x86 assembly, some mips assembly, some haskell, some more prolog and rediscovered Python. I then used Python as my main language for a few years. After university, I worked with Java and a little C++ for a few years and then left to do contract work, where I used Python for web work and assembly (PIC24), C and C++ for embedded systems work.

And now I run a startup, where we use Clojure, Python and a tiny bit of C++.

So to answer your questions, Python played an important role in my programming history (indeed, still does), but I think the most important thing is to learn many (different!) languages. Python is a good language and will serve you well, but you don't want to get stuck with a single way of thinking. For example, there's more to the world of programming than Object Oriented programming.

</comment><comment><USER5> Personal opinion but you're asking all the wrong questions. Python is fine as a first language but the focus should not be on the language but rather good software engineering principles and a solid understanding of how programming works. Make it so you understand things that you are able to quickly pick up any language or framework and utilize them.

To answer your question directly, Python was not my first or second or even third language, but I have heard of stories (plenty) of people who have landed jobs with only python knowledge (and its not difficult to understand why). I assume you ask for yourself so please refer to my first paragraph.

</comment><comment><USER6> Your first programming language should be an assembly language. Pick the brand — any brand. It will teach you how machines work.

Your second programming language should be Lisp. You will see that it is a general purpose solution to the issues assembly languages raise. Assembly language lets you command the machine. Lisp helps you organize how you command the machine. That is fundamentally important.

Your third language could be Python. It would be an excellent choice. Especially, if it helps you get a job! Or solve whatever business problem you face at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER7> I usually suggest python to people who do not have a primary role as a programmer. Most recently it's been some GIS folks who just need some basic programming now and then.

That being said, I'll probably get my kids going on Python or JavaScript first, even though I started with Basic, Pascal, Fortran and C (can't really remember which came first, probably basic).

</comment><comment><USER8> Lua (very similar to Python in many ways) was my first language.

I am a professional python programmer now.

I learned Haskell in between, and the experience I gained with respect to functional programming was invaluable, allowing me to write very clean, concise code in many programming languages.</comment>


DEA will ban chemicals contained in kratom, a popular herbal supplement - <AUTHOR> https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/30/kratom-ban-dea-schedule-1/ <comment><USER2> I'm going to share my comment from a few days ago, it's relevant:

kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. you can't smoke it, you can't snort it. you can make a tea out of it if you're diligent. a spoonful is usually swallowed as a powder with a thick juice.

it is habit-forming. to an addict it can stop withdrawals in it's tracks, to an opiate naive person it can provide a buzz, nothing extreme and the subsequent withdrawals are also nothing too terrible.

to an opiate addict it is, frankly, a life saver. this is something with the potential to free a person of an opiate addiction, provided they want to be free badly enough.

it's quite easy to use kratom to replace your drug of choice, not for getting high, it'd be pointless. you simply use the kratom to keep the withdrawals at bay. then, simply get off the kratom after a few weeks of use. you do this because kratom withdrawal is more forgiving than something like heroin.

this is impossible with methadone and suboxone. once you go on methadone, you better plan on never getting off. the withdrawals can quite literally last months.

people have successfully transitioned from methadone/suboxone to kratom and then quit use of opiates altogether, being free from the prison of withdrawal in a week instead of months.

this ban will only serve to worsen the structure fire that is the opiate epidemic.

<comment><USER3> What you're saying sounds amazing but ultimately anecdotal. Do you know if there are any studies that back this up? I'd love to read them.

The article states that the DEA can put any substance into schedule 1 category. This is unfortunate because that schedule makes things much more difficult to study.

<comment><USER4> I've seen a couple of case studies about single users using kratom to get off of stronger opioids, but no at-scale studies. But there is a reasonable amount of other literature relating to kratom and its primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

Of particular interest is that these alkaloids are G-protein-biased agonists of the mu-opioid receptor - which also do not recruit β-arrestin[1] following receptor activation. It is β-arrestin recruitment that is responsible for the main side effects of opiates - respiratory depression, constipation, histamine release and build up of tolerance (which is what leads to withdrawals upon cessation). This is a _very_ big deal.

I am a kratom user myself, using it to treat bad neuropathic pain. I am prescribed opiates, but kratom doesn't space me out like they do, there is no respiratory depression, no apparent histamine release, the constipation is _much_ less, and I've been at the same dose for over a year. Honestly, for me it's a wonderdrug.

[1] [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat)

<comment><USER5> > no apparent histamine release

a lot of people, including myself, get very itchy from kratom, and i've always attributed that to histamine release. could it be something else?

<comment><USER6> That's fascinating, I've never heard of that before. Is it your throat that gets itchy?

<comment><USER7> Skin. It's where the cliche of the junky scratching his arms comes from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an abomination. Schedule I, for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids, and is used in treatment for opioids, while the country is in the midst of a full blown opioid addiction crisis? Sounds about right. Let's put some more people in jail. That'll solve the problem. If additional proof was needed that the DEA is at a complete disconnect from reality, this would be it.

<comment><USER9> > for a plant that is far less addictive and harmful that traditional opioids

Interestingly enough, the related links at the bottom of the article point to another article from the same site: " _Poison control centers are getting a surge of calls about 'natural' painkiller kratom_ "

[https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid- overdoses?...](https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/28/kratom-opioid- overdoses?trendmd_shared=0)

<comment><USER10> 260 calls in one year for kratom while 48k people call poison contol every year for overdoses of over the counter vitamins. i want to see the dea explian this decision to a judge. the aburdly low number of medical issues caused by the substance that they site is a great argument against scheduling it at all.

<comment><USER8> The pattern I've sensed is that for most drugs, one death or injury is too much. However for alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, motorcycles, even peanuts for those who are allergic - hey, that's life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What makes me angry about all this is the way the DEA can interfere with the scientific method. The DEA can strangle research because of a lack of research; cannabis has been stuck in this idiot cycle now for upwards of half a century. It is supremely unproductive, wasteful in both a financial and human sense, and ultimately fails because plants dont care if they're illegal; they'll continue to grow somewhere (with Kratom, this is SE Asia where it's use is as common as coffee, even when countries like Thailand attempted to ban and destroy it) If Kratom becomes inaccessible in the US, the current opiod epidemic will become worse. And not only that, but people will go to prison and have their lives ruined by possessing Kratom. I wonder what the minimum sentencing will be for possessing the plant. Can growing it be considered a felony? What if I think the plant makes a nice hedge?

I've heard too many anecdotes from well-adjusted ex-opiate users regarding the value of Kratom. Also, I fundamentally do not trust any research the DEA produces, since their continued existence is owed to their ability to pervert the scientific method using political power and vestigial "tough on drugs" thinking.

<comment><USER12> it's my opinion that nothing will change at the federal level until the baby boomers die. the propaganda is just too strong.

<comment><USER13> This is already the first election in which millenials and gen-Xers (terrible name, btw) outnumber them as far as eligible voters. The problem is eligibility isn't enough - old people vote far, far more reliably than young people, so the (often idiotic) preferences of their demographic still win out.

Automatic national voter registration when turning 18 would be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure it would convince people to actually go to the polls. In certain states just registering to vote in the first place can be a real hassle, and having to do it every time you move punishes the more mobile generations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kratom is the safest way to withdrawal from opiates. It can ease the symptoms to a very manageable level. It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach discomfort.

Kratom is much better than Methadone as you are then addicted to Methadone and withdrawal from Methadone is MUCH worse. I have seen someone who was mildly dependant on Opiates given a much higher dosage of Methadone that actually increased their tolerance to opiates and pushed them further into opiate dependence.

Kratom has almost no physical withdrawal symptoms and is a heroin addicts best option to try to kick the habit. This is the absolute worst thing that can be done given the amount of heroin addicts that were created by the DEA's crackdown on legal opiate prescription pain relief.

<comment><USER15> Apropos of anything else and comments on the relative merits, this needs a citation:

"It also cannot be abused and if a dose larger than about 20 grams is consumed, it will not provide any additional relief and only cause stomach discomfort."

<comment><USER16> Once it's rushed into Schedule I, good luck getting it.

<comment><USER11> I guess you could always take a trip to Thailand...

<comment><USER17> ...where it literally grows on trees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> His language and the temporary nature of the ban sound like code to me for: "Kratom is illegal until Pfizer can buy up, control and monetize the supply chain or patent analogs."

Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients which is fucking apeshit means that when it returns it will be 1000x more concentrated and lead to lucrative abuse.

Americans pay so much more for drugs and transparently that money does not go to research. The FDA is responsible for the opioid epidemic and several other horrible murderous crimes. Reform the FDA.

Source: Im PhD prof of chemistry

<comment><USER4> > Of course the fda requirement that drugs be single ingredients

Is that true?

I thought there was an ADHC drug that was combined with some kind of enzyme inhibitor or inducer? (sorry, forget the name!)

Also Sativex is undergoing Phase III trials in the USA, and it contains both THC and CBD (and I _think_ terpenes and possibly CBN and CBG).

<comment><USER19> I believe he means that they don't let approved drugs be natural plant matters or organic stuff, for example. They will extract the mitragynine, develop an analogue, patent it, and sell it.

Which is unfortunate not least because some people prefer the fact that kratom (that is, mitragynine with all the other stuff that naturally comes with it) has been more safety-tested by thousands of years of use..

<comment><USER4> It might actually be the case that 7-OH-mitragynine is the most potent form of mitragynine - failed attempts have been made at finding a more potent analogue[1]. This could be a hindrance to a pharmaceutical product being produced.

[1] [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat&)

<comment><USER18> I think this is a clear case where a pharmaceutical shouldn't be produced at all. Rehabs should be able to distribute the botanical which is already helping thousands of addicts. It will never happen because there is no profit in marketing vegetables.

I strongly suspect this move to ban kratom is related to growing profitability in the US market of subutex as a dependence treatment. Unlike a botanical subutex is readily abused, often intravenously.

Manufacturers and the FDA know from basic epidemiology that prescriptions of all opiates far outpace the diseases they are indicated to treat. I have to believe somewhere on someone's email there is hard evidence pharma knowingly promotes abuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Another reason to vote Johnson/Weld for US President this November.

"Would the world be better off if all drugs were legal? Yes. The world would be better off, that 90 percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use related," he said. "But what I've said is, look, let's legalize marijuana first and when we do that, I think the whole country takes a quantum leap toward understanding substance abuse."

[http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate- thin...](http://observer.com/2016/02/this-presidential-candidate-thinks-all- drugs-should-probably-be-legalized/)

<comment><USER13> Green Party is also an option if you want to protest vote. A problem, for some, with supporting libertarian candidates is that they (voters) may not be as fond of the low-hanging fruit policies most likely to get implemented (e.g. defunding many agencies, removing environmental protections) as the moonshot policies they also promote (e.g. ending the war on drugs and reducing the military-industrial-natsec complex). Even though neither 3rd party will ever win, the votes do send a message about which way policy adjustments should be made, so it's still worth some thought about what message you really want to send.

<comment><USER21> Most people live in uncontested states (for the presidential election). Voting for a major party only makes sense if you actually like the candidate, or you live in a swing state.

The Libertarian party is much bigger than the Green party, and there are many people who sympathize with libertarians on a lot of issues even if they don't call themselves libertarian.

Johnson/Weld are real candidates -- both two-term governors from moderate states! I'm surprised they don't have more support considering how bad the major candidates are.

<comment><USER13> Regarding size, the official memberships from 2014 were ~411,000 (Libs) vs ~248,000 (Greens). You could look at that as either the Libertarians being 66% larger, or them being practically the same as far as order of magnitude and portion of the total electorate. Johnson/Weld are more experienced candidates than Stein, but on the other hand, Ron and Rand Paul never came as close to winning a nomination as Sanders did, either (him being about 98% in line with Stein's positions - I remember his local campaign staff even defecting to her around the time of the DNC endorsement).

Regarding policies, Greens and Libertarians are also 99% in alignment on this particular issue (war on drugs), as well as some others. I know people have their preferences, just pointing out that there are multiple similarly-sized third parties of yet complete opposite ideological natures that would still be optionable for those wanting to vote on this kind of thing. It's even easier to not support this kind of behavior by the DEA.

<comment><USER22> Party membership numbers are wholly irrelevant -- the number that matters is electoral support, of which Johnson/Weld has 4x that of Stein _and_ drawn in substantial numbers from both major parties.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily- chart)

<comment><USER13> If what matters to you is actual electoral support, there's no reason to be voting third party anyway. Both Stein and Johnson got less than 1% of the vote in 2012, and even combined only about 1.2%. The most successful third- party/independent Presidential candidate in decades was Ross Perot in 1992, and even winning just under 19% of the popular vote he failed to win _any_ of the electoral college. It's a self-serving double standard to tell people to pass up the major party candidates but then vote based on electoral support for the third parties, ignoring how well their ideological and policy positions actually align with your own.

<comment><USER23> There's something to be said for simply polling high enough to get into the debates. Debates where a candidate could, for example, offer an alternative view on drug policy.

If a third party gets 15%, they get a third podium on that stage, which I think would be worthwhile and healthy for American democracy especially in the face of the two most hated candidates in history.

I don't particularly care if it's Johnson or Stein but I'd like it to be someone. Ideally we'd have both. Johnson is pretty close to breaking 15% in a lot of polls.

Of course this line of reasoning simply suggests that pre-debates, if anyone asks you should /claim/ to be voting Johnson (or Stein), not anything about where you should actually vote.

<comment><USER21> It does matter that it's Johnson over Stein. Johnson and his running mate were both two-term governors. If they make it to the debate stage, they are real candidates and nobody can dismiss them.

<comment><USER13> You (along with the immediate parent) actually do have a good point here. If any pollsters ask, I'd probably say I support Johnson for this reason, though overall I'd personally prefer Green policies over Libertarian ones. There's something to be said for Greens/Libs banding together just to help wedge third parties into the process at all. This kind of strategizing is still pretty unfortunate though, and only makes sense for the polling/debate process, not necessarily the electoral one.

Not to mention the CPD would almost certainly change the debate qualifiers immediately to still keep Johnson out, same as the DNC did with Lawrence Lessig.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yet another drug banned for no good reason, basicallly because it could be "psychoactive". Doesn't need to be proven harmful. However the addictive, harmful, indeed deadly tobacco and alcohol are protected by government.

<comment><USER25> The very premise of banning something because it is psychoactive is a blatant assault on every person's intellect, regardless of whether they see personal utility in using drugs or not. A government has no business dictating how people must think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> 37K signers already: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not- make...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom- schedule-i-substance)

</comment><comment><USER27> I'll just take the ban as proof positive of 2 things.

1) The stuff works.

2) There's already a refined clinical version of it in the works.

The cynical part of me also assumes that the clinical version will take the harmless natural version and refine it into a super addictive monster that will reliably kill elephants when slightly mis-dosed. Everyone will then abuse this as usual.

<comment><USER28> The US placed cathinone on Schedule I in the 1990s. This effectively banned khat, a relatively harmless stimulant plant, chewed as a recreational by northern African / Arabia cultures for centuries with little harm.

Fast forward 20 years and shady chemists learn that it's possible to take the structure of cathinone (as a basis), tweak it here and there, and come up with purified "substituted cathinones". AKA: "bath salts" (MDPV), mephedrone, methylone, and countless others. Some of these were frankly nasty.

Today, the US decides to ban kratom, which has been naturally used for recreational purposes in Thailand and elsewhere in Southeast Asia for centuries.

I wonder if substituted mitragynines are in the future. Very possibly. If not from the pharmaceutical companies then from future sellers of "bath salt" type substances.

Either way, there's something very culturally insensitive about _these_ type of bans, in my opinion -- these laws carry a whiff of "these are drugs that these _other_ people do". In today's drug enforcement culture, apparently the khat cafe is horrible, but the pub and the coffee shop are a-okay. Personally it's hard for me to see what the difference is between the two, except the pub / coffee shop are accepted by well-off Western Europeans, and the khat cafe is mainly populated by poor Somali / Yemen / etc. immigrants.

<comment><USER29> Khat is schedule I? There are Khat plants at the US botanical gardens in DC. I saw them when I was there a couple years ago.

<comment><USER28> Yep! See [http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm](http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm) under (f) stimulants, cathinone is there.

Technically, barring any sort of breeding modification I doubt was done, those _Catha Edulis_ plants in the US botanical gardens are quite illegal, being a "material" that contains cathinone.

Now, in practice, of course, no one is going arrest the Architect of the Capitol for growing Schedule I plants on their property for ornamental reasons. Heck, San Pedro cactii already set a murky, not-quite-defined precedent for this ([https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml](https://erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law1.shtml)).

Then again, despite the relative obscurity of khat, there _have_ been a few cases where people have been arrested for cultivating the plants. Such as this case here in 1998 -- [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man- Charged-in-...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Prunedale-Man-Charged-in- Seizure-of-1-076-Khat-2977547.php)

Of course, in that case, the arrestee's name was Musa Ahmed Gelan, not Stephen T. Ayers. So it goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Does anyone think the drug companies control the gov, and not the other way around? According to the Forbes article 660 calls from 2010 to 2015 vs. 6,843 calls in the first seven months of this year for children eating laundry pods?

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea- argues...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2016/08/31/dea-argues-that- public-comment-is-unnecessary-before-kratom-ban/#6ab29870388b)

</comment><comment><USER31> I've read the entire DEA report and their case against kratom seems extremely vague and weak. It almost feels like their concerns (as presented in the report) about kratom can be easily addressed by making it a prescription based medication. They absolutely do not have to make it Schedule I.

</comment><comment><USER32> Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you're a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question God's creation?

If you are an atheist you probably rest the bulk of your belief system upon science. These policies prevent science from studying the plants and even fly in the face of existing scientific evidence.

One has to conclude that these policies are in the service of money and interests other than the public's.

<comment><USER33> > _Frankly, I have never understood the desire to make a plant illegal. If you > 're a religious person this is something God made. Who are we to question > God's creation?_

This is kind of a silly argument, though. Malaria, anthrax, and the black death are also natural, and you won't find many theists arguing that we should welcome those.

(I am absolutely in favor of legalization, I just don't like silly arguments.)

<comment><USER34> This is true but they're not really banned, nor are they plants :)

<comment><USER35> So it's only plants that God made that are automatically safe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a clear attempt at job security by DEA. What, aren't they having enough trouble as it is dealing with cocaine and heroin?

Or do they have an ulterior motive?

Why ban when they could just make FDA do their job? And maybe later make it Schedule II or probably even III where it belongs.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is an outrage. I personally know several people who have used Kratom to overcome prescription opiate addictions. Their lives today might be totally fucked without it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Find your representative and shoot them a quick note. It only takes a minute, and it may make a difference.

[http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/](http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)

</comment><comment><USER39> If it is being scheduled, it must work! Why would the DEA spend time and money to legislate kratom unless a party with a vested interest, like a large pharmaceutical company, could profit from its controlled sale?

Can anyone point out evidence of harm from the use of kratom?

<comment><USER4> There is actually a reasonable amount of literature on kratom, so it is possible a pharmaceutical product will be derived from it.

Probably the biggest issue with most (at present, _all_?) pharmaceutical opioids is the side effect of respiratory depression - this kills _a lot_ of people. Because kratom's active alkaloids don't recruit β-arrestin interactions, side effects like respiratory depression, constipation and tolerance are absent or greatly reduced, which should make mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine perfect candidates for a new, safe opioid drug[1].

But patents are probably a huge barrier to this ever happening - you can't patent a plant. No new, patentable extraction methods seem to be required, and a patentable, stronger synthetic or semi-synthetic analogue may not exist[2].

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926195/)

[2] [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode...](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.6b00360?journalCode=jacsat&)

<comment><USER39> Thank you, @GordonS! I will go read up about β-arrestin.

If it is scheduled, does that increase the chance of a safe(r) opioid replacement being developed?

And can you kindly point me to some text books/journals or introductory chemistry in order to understand these interactions at a fundamental level?

<comment><USER4> Here are a few DOIs to look up on sci-hub:

\- 10.1093/bja/aer29

\- 10.1007/978-3-642-41199-1_22

\- 10.1213/01.ANE.0000160588.32007.AD

\- 10.1124/mol.106.028258

\- 10.1124/jpet.105.087254

\- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5999-10.2011

I should add that I'm not a chemist, I just have a keen, self-vested interest in analgesic substances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> "They also worry that it may be adulterated, given how little the substance is regulated" \- so they ban it to make sure it will be adulterated? WTF

<comment><USER41> Then they'll catch an illegal shipment of adulterated kratom, and declare they were right all along - people are adulterating it after all!

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Methodone clinics are big business.

<comment><USER43> Methadone itself also sounds like a huge racket. I'm not sure that once you've spiraled into addiction enough to need methadone, that you can eliminate that, rather than replace one substance with another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> To be clear, I'm very supportive of legalizing most recreational drugs... Even the ones I wouldn't do and somewhat disagree with. I'm also very supportive of folks being able to deal with addiction if it should happen to occur.

But I do think some substances should be somewhat controlled. Antibiotics, for example, should be used only when necessary. Another category of control is to have things only available after talking to a pharmacist. Birth control and the morning after pill probably fit this category. And I think some supplements fit in this category as well, as some have safety concerns and some interact with medications. St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things. Melatonin can have unwanted side effects. You can overdose on some vitamins. And some things, I just think there should be much greater control so that folks are getting what they are paying for and the packaging is honest. Most supplements are in this category.

And the just of this plant, it seems, is that there are a few downsides and a few good things as well. It seems to be addictive and cause physical discomfort if not overdose. On the other hand, folks say it does quite a bit to help with heroin/opiate and alcohol addiction withdrawals, which can be deadly. Plus it helps folks with severe pain. These things are really positive benefits, somewhat safer than alternatives.

I don't know what the reasoning behind the ban is, but if it can be one of those things you simply need to get from a pharmacist, I think that'd be grand. No doctor needed and hopefully increased safety while still keeping the substance available for widespread use.

But if it means that it can't be studied in a meaningful way, I think they are doing a grand disservice to society.

<comment><USER4> > St Johns Wort, for example, interacts with some things

Lots of everyday foodstuffs can also mess with metabolising enzymes, such as grapefruit, pepper and turmeric. Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance.

<comment><USER44> Not necessarily to the same extent. My father took a medicine that reacted badly with grapefruit, for instance. St Johns Wort interacts with things like birth control, other anti-depressants, allergy medicine, and so on ([http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb- interaction/possib...](http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/herb- interaction/possible-interactions-with-st-johns-wort)). This one in particular interacts with a wide number of things.

Some of the difference here is with warnings. Get a medicine that interacts with grapefruit, and you'll be warned with the medication. Warnings aren't as likely with supplements on either end. Since they are on the counter, folks see them as safe, and often don't tell their doctor or pharmacist.

By itself, however, many of these aren't harmful substances. St Johns Wort is fairly safe by itself, for instance. I don't think folks should have to get a prescription for it, honestly, but speaking to a pharmacist seems like the best way to overcome the public education bit of it.

>Without real evidence of large scale risk or harm, I don't think we should be banning any substance. I'd generally agree, but I also think we should require the research into the substances to verify basic safety, especially if we are selling them as health aids plus have oversight for some time after they are on the market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I've used Kratom and it truly does stop opiate and alcohol withdrawals in it's tracks.

There is a problem though; These addicts with little knowledge of Kratom will attempt to get high and overdose. This is definitely a problem and Kratom should require some license or warning, but to ban the chemicals is crazy counter-productive when we have a real epidemic

<comment><USER46> Overdose is impossible

<comment><USER17> I ate 100 grams in a day once and all I got was precipitated withdrawal. It's not impossible (I suspect overdose would be easier with concentrates or lab- produced chemical), but with raw plant matter you're gonna need a bigger stomach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Government overreach.

<comment><USER47> Government protecting the interests of big business? Seems like there's a lot of profitable legal drug related business to be lost if kratom use was to become widespread. It smells a bit like the history of kratom in the country where it used to originate, Thailand. There it became a threat to the government sponsored opium trade and was made illegal many years ago [1]

[1] [http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned- in...](http://entheology.com/news-articles/why-kratom-was-banned-in-thailand/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I once ordered a kratom extract powder from some website many years ago, while on a quest for novel ways for my friends and I to get high. After calculating the suggested dosage, and swallowing an uncomfortably large number of gel caps filled with the stuff one Friday evening, we each experienced a sedated, euphoric effect.

The shocking part for us was during the next day and a bit of the day after, we found ourselves unable to perform basic math, and reasoning in general felt fuzzy. Thankfully, by Monday, we were able to function normally. We came to the common conclusion that this is a truly stupefying substance in the proper sense of the word, and that usage should be avoided if you have anything important to think about in the next several days.

<comment><USER49> That's quite funny considering some friends and I occasionally took a few grams of kratom in college to help us study the day before important exams. For us, it was almost exactly the same effects as drinking a few cups of coffee, minus the jittery-ness and with a horrible taste.

<comment><USER50> There are stimulating (green, I think) and sedating (red, I think) varieties, so both experiences are likely. I bought a sampler pack from one of the better sellers recommended from /r/kratom a year or so ago. Was enjoyable enough to mellow out with, but I couldn't stomach the bitterness no matter what I mixed it with so I tossed most of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> So the drug interacts badly with other drugs and causes seizures. It's not clear that this is sufficient. Some people die eating peanuts.

<comment><USER52> They should let the FDA do their job so the labeling is all up to snuff and leave it at that

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> The US government will ban kratom but can't even bring itself to ban asbestos.

<comment><USER54> I think asbestos is actually banned already?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I've used kratom and honestly it's no more potent than a good cup of coffee on an empty stomach. I really enjoy it. It made me more talkative like when I drink tea or coffee, but also feel more relaxed like beer. I would describe it as having the good qualities of being drunk while not being intoxicated or cognitively impaired.

Really though, you can't get high off kratom. There are three levels: you take too little, you don't feel any different. You take the right amount, you feel kinda good for a little bit (like having a beer and a coffee). You take too much, you throw up. There is no high. There is no outsize health risk. Why make it schedule I?

<comment><USER56> Also, it tastes like ass. Bigfoot's ass.

<comment><USER4> No, it just tastes like bitter vegetation. Not pleasant, but there is worse (like Bigfoot's ass, for example :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Land of the free.

Whatever the US can do, the UK can do better! We've got a the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016[0].

The act is so broad it can be applied to many things. And it's so broad it's functionally unenforceable.

A quote from Wikipedia:

'The law has been criticised as an infringement on civil liberties. Barrister Matthew Scott described the act as an attempt to "ban pleasure", saying it could drastically overreach by banning areca nuts, additives used in vapourisers and electronic cigarettes, hop pillows, and the sale of toads and salamanders that naturally produce psychoactive substances. Scott went further and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce an emotional response'[1].

You know...

* Think of the children.

* It's good for society.

* The social contract.

* And all the other BS people like to come up with to trample on individuals.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016) [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_2016#Criticism)

<comment><USER58> > and suggested it may also ban flowers and perfumes as the scents can produce > an emotional response

I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).

This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.

<comment><USER57> > I look forward to someone trying to get things like that tested in court. > Tough it'd be tricky, given that the Crown Prosecution Service would > presumably not want to push a case like that and end up looking like idiots, > and while the UK allows for private prosecutions I'm not sure if there'd be > a viable avenue to use this act for that (trying to find a way of giving you > standing to e.g. sue a florist sounds like inviting contempt of court).

Of course, he's pointing out the absurdity of the law.

> This is a big problem - the law is so broad that it'll be incredibly easy to > abuse if government wants to charge someone, or add additional charges.

This highlights a more sinister side to government—rather than incompetence. One could deny this until it happens. I'm sure state apologists will (& continue once it does happen).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> The main points the DEA brought up in the notice are

A.) Foreigners don't label their kratom correctly when they export it to the US.

B.) Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of 10 in the past few years.

C.) Foreigners are exporting medical products that make claims not validated by the FDA.

It's being placed in Schedule I rather than more permissive classification because (according to the notice) "A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I". It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.

Drug use can be a matter of national security, so the DEA should have the power to act in these cases. I'm thinking of the Opium Wars, where the British got the Chinese hooked on opium and then went to war to force them to legalize it when they banned it. Widespread drug use being imposed by foreigners can harm a country.

I'm not sure this kratom qualifies. It doesn't seem that bad. I can see banning imports and production for foreigners, but I can't see a good reason to ban US citizens conducting research on the drug. It seems like it's only like this because of the restrictive law.

And if the manufacture, sale, and consumption happens entirely in a single state by US citizens who are residents of that state, I don't even think the DEA should be constitutionally allowed to regulate it on a permanent basis.

On the whole, I guess I support this ban, though they should amend the law to allow a milder response.

<comment><USER60> > Calls to a poison control center involving kratom have spiked by a factor of > 10 in the past few years.

660 calls to poison control over a 6+ year span does not sound like an "imminent public health risk" to me.

> It seems unlikely it'd be classified as Schedule I permanently.

Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.

<comment><USER59> > Worked well for Marijuana's temporary scheduling.

Are you saying that this same process has been used to permanently classify Marijuana as schedule I? That means you're implicitly claiming a few things:

* That the DEA issued a temporary classification on Marijuana that would've expired after 2 years.

* That the DEA has the power to - by itself - schedule a drug permanently. (If it went through Congress, that's a different process)

* That the DEA has the power to schedule Marijuana freely. In particular, there are no treaties forcing it to be classified a certain way.

* That the DEA used its power to freely classify Marijuana, and chose to label it as schedule I. (As a consequence, they could relabel it at any time.)

I don't know the history of marijuana or which of these is true or not. If all true, I'd like to see a different government agency do the classification(maybe the FDA? or some Congressional committee?) and the DEA do the enforcement.</comment></comment></comment>


Index Ventures launches new €350m seed fund with European focus - <AUTHOR> http://blog.indexventures.com/our-new-e350m-fund-to-invest-in-early-stage-innovation/

<comment><USER2> Index is one of the very top firms globally & it's super exciting that more founders here (in Europe) will have access to Index-level support at the earliest stages. Congrats to all involved!

</comment><comment><USER3> Will be really interesting to see how they compare to other European/Global seed/incubators like Wayra

<comment><USER4> You got it backwards. Wayra has everything to prove, while Index has an stellar track record. The question is what can Wayra bring to the table compared to Index?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> dublin or ireland not mentioned once

<comment><AUTHOR> Europe has over 50 countries. Would be a pretty long list to name everyone.</comment></comment>


Ask PG: Are friends upvoting friends looked down upon on HN? - <AUTHOR>

I'll occasionally post something and have a few friends take a look at it and then upvote it if they like it, just to get over the initial hump of upvotes.
Recently, some of those friends have been upvoting some of my articles but their votes don't seem to be counting.
Is there some sort of rule against friends upvoting their friends? <comment><USER2> Even if there wasn't, how are friends distinguishable from an automatic voting ring?

Even if they were distinguishable from a voting ring, it still makes sense for their upvotes to be ignored (since they're artificial votes, and a poor measure of a submission's value).

There could very well be some other logic at work, too, like being more likely to ignore votes by people who visited the submission directly, or ignoring votes that happen too soon for the voter to really have read the article. It is fun to speculate.

Do your friends ever upvote other submissions? It would be useful to consider this.

<comment><AUTHOR>
      Do your friends ever upvote other submissions? It would be useful to consider this.

Yes.

Just to be clear, I'm not offended or trying to subvert the system; I'm just trying to understand what the process is. I imagine fighting spam on HN is a pretty difficult job, and catching voting rings is useful.

These aren't necessarily artificial votes, since I'm not forcing anybody to upvote an article; they get to make their own decisions, haha. All I do is bring it to their attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are measures to detect voting rings, and it's plausible that you've triggered the detection mechanism. Think about the problem. Anyone can create a dozen accounts and upvote their own stories - of course there has to be some protection against it.

If you and your friends participate regularly and upvote other stories as well then you're less likely to have a problem, but the exact algorithm isn't public, so I can't say with certainty.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, I grok that, which was why I asked. Both of the people whose votes aren't counting in this case also participate regularly...

And, on top of that, when I upvote their stories, it works just fine.

Hence the confusion, and question re: clarification from PG.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Given your other answers all I can suggest is that you email PG direct and ask, including names. His email can be found in or deduced from the various FAQ files. I don't have it to hand.</comment>


Open source color copy paste from your phone camera to web, sketch, figma plugin - <AUTHOR> https://colorcopypaste.app/ <comment><USER2> How do they account for the differences between what the sensor sees, what our eyes see, and what our screens show? I like the idea, but I want something that can calibrate to my eyes, so that the color that I capture matches exactly what I saw.

<comment><USER3> > How do they account for the differences between what the sensor sees, what > our eyes see, and what our screens show?

I mean, obviously they don't; that would be next to impossible, particularly with a phone camera. It's an approximation, but that doesn't make it useless.

<comment><USER2> Why is it next to impossible?

<comment><USER3> Well just for starters, even Rec2020 can display only a fraction of the colors visible to your eye.

<comment><USER4> Why can't they show multiple options similar to the clear type calibration tool in windows? Approximate 6 different colors, user selects the one that matches their eyes best.

You could even offer a pro account and send out a camera to monitor to eye calibration postcard that starts with a known input.

For sure not impossible given that was 2 minutes of thought, someone closer to the product already has better ideas I'm sure.

<comment><USER3> So, the real problem here is the "calibrate to your eyes" part. It's true that with a good camera and a professionally calibrated display, you could "copy" anything in the rec2020 color space accurately enough (but not everything!)

But our eyes, on the other hand, are really bad at "seeing" color. The same color will look wildly different depending on the colors around it. This isn't something you can calibrate per-person, it'll differ every time. You'd need to read your brainwaves to figure out what you're mind's eye is seeing.

<comment><USER4> But your eyes would perceive the color IRL and on the monitor with equivalence so presumably regardless of how other eyes see it, it would be 1:1 copy paste from the camera after calibration.

I refuse to believe we have to measure brainwaves to get something close to or indistinguishable from perfect.

<comment><USER3> > But your eyes would perceive the color IRL and on the monitor with > equivalence

So, consider this image: [https://hips.hearstapps.com/cos.h-cdn.co/assets/15/09/480x37...](https://hips.hearstapps.com/cos.h-cdn.co/assets/15/09/480x372/gallery_1425045941-kq2pcqd8jgz7mr0hnz63.png)

Squares A and B are actually the exact same color. I know, it's actually hard to believe—feel free to download the image and sample the colors. :)

What "color" does the app copy?

<comment><USER4> So the source color is the truth, let's pretend we know it's the paper equivalent of #333.

The app captures a color and renders it as #444.

The user then says, no wait that's wrong, and the app then provides alternatives that are close, let's say #111, #222, #333, #555, #666.

In a perfect world, the user will pic #333 and the app will then know the system introduces saturation error of all three colors by 1 so the next time it will compensate for that. Those errors could come from image processing, light sensor calibration, monitor calibration, backlight color temp, ambient color temp, etc.

If the user doesn't pick #333 but instead picks a "wrong" color, that's OK, because the value in the app is rendering the color the user wants and perceives as correct, not what happens to be the truth. The difference between a strict functional requirement "app must render the true color" vs a user req of "I want to take a picture of a color and have the color I see render on my screen."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's pretty cool, I remember taking a picture of the sky/using an online inspector/color picker to get the hex value from it...</comment>


No Copyright Law: The Real Reason for Germany's Industrial Expansion? (2010) - <AUTHOR> https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html <comment><USER2> This episode of history should be part of every discussion about "intellectual property", since it's an obvious counterexample to the prevailing "nobody will create anything new without a life+75 years monopoly" narrative. But it's not. Why not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, "intellectual property" really isn't about getting creation of new ideas paid for. It's about gatekeeping and control, part of freezing or fixin society as it stands today, with current winners continuing to win, and current losers continuing to lose. That's consistent with low social mobility, low real wage increases, low physical mobility, dragnet surveillance. Second, "intellectual property" isn't about increasing the public domain (eventually) it's a method for making it illegal to not pay certain influential corporations money.</comment>