Lily – Drone camera - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> The submitted URL was https www . lily . camera.

We've taken it out above because it now redirects to a porn site.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is really, really cool.

That said, flying objects are inherently dangerous. I was at a bike race and a guy was following the pack with a DJI drone. One motor suddenly failed and the thing plummeted to the ground from 40ft and broke into a bunch of pieces. Luckily, it didn't hit anyone but it would have been a major incident if it had.

There's a lot of excitement about the cool, flashy features of these drones (following, waterproof, nice camera) but no assurance that it won't suddenly break and kill someone.

I want 99.9999% reliability and strong safety guarantees as a feature.

<comment><USER5> _One motor suddenly failed_

Maybe drones need to start to incorporate parachutes to slow down the fall in case of problems like these, or maybe even airbags to ease the crash. Not that it would make it 99.9999% reliable, but it should be better than nothing. And also won't completely thrash your drone when it crashes.

 _edit_ seems nine_k already commented with a similar idea

<comment><USER6> Quadcopters can also be saved if only one motor fails using only the 3 other motors and an algo: [http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/new-algorithm-can- save-a...](http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/new-algorithm-can-save-a- quadcopter-after-one-motor-prop-failure)

<comment><USER7> Recent research has had controlled landing on 2 motors in real robots (and one motor in simulation only). The main trick is to spin the whole vehicle around the z axis (up-down) very fast, and modulate the speed of the remaining rotors to apply forces at different places around the centre of gravity. IIRC the one-rotor version didn't work on a real robot due to limits on the frequency response of the real-world motor controller.

<comment><USER6> Sounds plausible but I haven't read about this before and would like to know more, do you have a reference handy?

<comment><USER8> In regards to turning on the z-axis to be able to land with engine failure, I believe User is referring to Autorotation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation)

<comment><USER9> I thought autorotation was only useful if you're moving ahead very fast (high ground speed) while also falling. Is that right? Most drones are essentially hovering much of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Video made me want to have a more active life. I thought "cool!" but then I imagined my video output would be hours of me typing, browsing HN & Reddit.

<comment><USER11> Somebody should do a spoof video of their marketing video that shows exactly that.

<comment><USER12> Same concept: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VudWv9pQNdE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VudWv9pQNdE)

<comment><USER13> Looks like an episode of Peep Show.

<comment><USER14> Season 9 coming this year [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peep_Show_episodes#Ser...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peep_Show_episodes#Series_9_.282015.29)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how this handles obstacles. The trails we ride are not wide open ski slopes, or rivers, often times they are tight/wooded trails. Would like to see how it handles "close following".

Lastly, the part in the video where the guy just tosses it into the river was definitely mind-blowing.

<comment> semi-extrinsic The biggest showstopper for me on this is the hugely disappointing top speed (40 km/h). I'm an alpine skier (ex-racer) and the only times I go that slow is on transport stages. This thing literally wouldn't be able to keep up with Usain Bolt running the 100m. It needs at least twice the top speed.

<comment><USER16> Usain Bolt does around 38 km/h

<comment> semi-extrinsic Yeah, but I bet he accelerates faster.

Edit: he accelerates from standstill at 9.5 m/s^2. I couldn't find data on what drones do.

<comment><USER17> Drones usually accelerate quite rapidly (electric motors and all).

<comment><USER18> Well electric motors can accelerate rapidly, but if they're pulling something heavy, all you'll get is rapidly spinning electric motors and a slowly rising object.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm very impressed by the capabilities. I've seen 'follow me' drones before, but I don't know if I've seen any that are waterproof or as compact as this. And the smiling face on the front is a nice touch.

It's still hard to part with my money (even at 50% off) when the ship date is next year though. I've been burned by various kickstarter projects that get delayed ad infinitum.

<comment><USER20> From the FAQ: "What is your policy on refunds? If you decide to cancel your pre-order before Lily ships, we will provide a full refund to you."

<comment><USER21> And if you believe that, read up on the drama with [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pirate3d/the- buccaneer-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pirate3d/the-buccaneer- the-3d-printer-that-everyone-can-use/comments)

TLDR; during development of the printer, a number of things have changed (including a noticeable reduction in print volume). Refunds were offered August of last year, and the vast majority of refund requests are still pending (and currently half a month behind their own deadline for the latest update.

Not that I have any knowledge on whether the people behind Lily have better or worse communication and management skills, but just because they're happy to offer refunds doesn't mean they'll offer them promptly.

<comment><USER17> Kickstarter is different than a direct purchase. Kickstarter maintains they aren't a store so when things don't happen to plan you're kind of on your own. With a direct purchase you can do a chargeback easily and get your money back one way or the other.

<comment><USER22> > With a direct purchase you can do a chargeback easily

Not after 90 days you can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's impressive, no doubt, but I wonder about the actual utility of the device.

My main concerned is the 20m battery life/record time - that is pretty limiting. If I were to use this to record myself snowboarding (like the video shows), that would be a problem. Here in Colorado a typical blue rated mountain run is easily 20m from top to bottom, esp. if you aren't gunning it the whole way. When I ride alone I can maybe go top to bottom in slightly under 20m but I'm flying and really pushing it the whole time, I wonder if the drone could even keep up in that situation (speed would be over 25mph almost the entire time).

Pretty cool but I personally think there is much bigger market for a device designed to record kids playing hockey, basketball, soccer etc... imagine a tripod that tracks your kid, that would be way way more killer and useful for most people and probably a ton cheaper as you could use a smartphone as the camera.

Technically it's impressive as hell, I just don't know about how practical is in actual use.

<comment><USER24> There is a tripod that automatically tracks you. I get ads for it on YouTube all the time. [http://www.gizmag.com/soloshot-automated- tripod/25453/](http://www.gizmag.com/soloshot-automated-tripod/25453/)

<comment><USER25> I haven't been able to figure out how these work. GPS alone wouldn't give the resolution and responsiveness required. It doesn't seem to be CV-based either, since there's often no line of sight of the tracking device. Perhaps the tripod has two directional signal strength sensors so it can tell if the beacon is to the left or right, and move in order to keep the beacon centered.

<comment><USER26> The popular theory is that it's a RTK differential GPS system: base station in the tripod transmitting correction information to the remote unit. The explains the warmup time, the accuracy, as well as the big price tag.

[http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how- doe...](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/73083/how-does- soloshot-work)

<comment><USER27> This was my question on Stack Exchange! I was so angry because I was so curious how this worked, but I was downvoted to hell.

<comment><USER26> Ha! I found your question a couple months ago after youtube hit me with the soloshot ad, and I couldn't figure out how it worked. Despite being downvoted, it still ranks fairly high on the SERP for "how the hell does the soloshot work, their site is useless".

<comment><USER27> I guess Stack Exchange isn't the place for discussion, just question and answers only

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> List of previous similar products:

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

[http://hexoplus.com](http://hexoplus.com)

[https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris](https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris)

[http://www.airmind.co](http://www.airmind.co)

<comment><USER29> Thanks for these! Prices/status for reference:

               Status       Release    Price
               </comment></comment><comment>-----  </comment><comment>---  </comment><comment></comment><comment>
      AirDog*  Pre-Order    Q3 2015    $1,295
      HEXO+*   Pre-Order    Sept 2015  $1,299
      IRIS+*   Available    Now        $750
      Mind4*   Kickstarter  Failed     $900-$1,489
      Lily     Pre-Order    Feb 2016   $519-$1,019

      *Note that all but Lily require a $300 GoPro camera.

Price ranges are for Pre-Order vs. Post-Ship pricing.

EDIT: Found Lily release date...

<comment><USER30> They dont require a gopro, you can use $75 Xiaomi that is ~equal to 3+silver. Lily stated video parameters match xiaomi perfectly.

<comment><USER31> Link?

<comment><USER30> [http://www.banggood.com/Original-XiaoYi-Ambarella-A7LS- BSI-C...](http://www.banggood.com/Original-XiaoYi-Ambarella-A7LS-BSI-CMOS- WIFI-Sports-Action-Camera-p-969228.html?p=L90908952558201412PO)

$71 free shipping

review: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tybp5I9ow3I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tybp5I9ow3I)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Awesome, but my experience with current-gen pseudo-autonomous UAVs, these questions immediately come to mind:

Can it follow you around the corner of a building without clipping it?

Can it avoid bumping into a tree?

Will it climb above the trees to follow you through a wooded area?

Can it avoid getting tangled in an overhead utility line?

<comment><USER33> [https://www.lily.camera/terms](https://www.lily.camera/terms)

 _Purchaser agrees to stay clear of anything in the range of the UAV, or anything it could possibly collide with such as power lines, buildings, other UAVs etc._

<comment><USER34> As if there is a place where it can't possibly collide with anything! Oh, your Lily divebombed into the ground? Well, you shouldn't have launched it near the ground!

<comment><USER33> Perhaps I should have been more verbose. The information being asked is nowhere to be found through the official channels. The only mention of collisions and objects is in the terms document. I believe it's safe to assume the Lily doesn't have that and they made sure to add clauses that shield them against such claims (that it failed to avoid collisions).

I just tried to contribute with relevant information and got two sarcastic replies in return. Well done, folks.

<comment><USER35> I read Zezima as being sincere, and Grue3 as being sarcastic towards the terms of service, not towards your helpful comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> That is one of the first videos I've seen in a long time where I've thought "wow we can do that now?"

<comment><USER37> Thank you! This is just a glimpse of what one can do with Lily. Check out our website www.lily.camera for more information.

<comment><USER38> The submission is literally a link to the website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> These are cool, but...

1) 20 minutes is great if your sole purpose is getting video, but not if your sole purpose is surfing (let's say). A surf session might be 2 hours. Taking a break to put your dead flying camera away in the middle of it isn't ideal.

Still there could be work around for this at some point.

2) Air space. The real problem. If you're surfing (again) or skiing you'll annoy everyone with the sound of your drone.

Still for the more adventurous who get to surf or ski alone, this does look pretty awesome, but will never be as ubiquitous as the GoPro.

<comment><USER40> This drone does not seem at all to be optimized for surf. It even says in the FAQ to be cautious when putting it in salted water.

But yes, 20 minutes is really short, it's its major default. I suppose it was a necessary sacrifice to make this kind of product at this time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> It would be cool if the remote in your pocket had a "Call 911!" button. So like, if I was out snowboarding, and saw an avalanche coming, I probably wouldn't be able to call 911. But this little drone is a good deal above me and the avalanche/murderer/shark/whatever, it could call 911 for me, and when they recovered it, it would have video of what happened to me. It could even fly towards a preset location (known ranger station), broadcasting along the way if there is no cell signal available.

<comment><USER42> In an avalanche you can't call anyone to save you. It will take them too long to reach you, and you'll suffocate before they can reach you.

The chances of survival drop severely after 15 minutes of burial.

The only people that can save you in an Avalanche are the people in your group.

Source: Canadian ski patroller.

<comment><USER43> What if the drone has a 2-3m acuracy of the position? At least in ski resorts the bystanders can immediately rescue the person. Off tracks, it often happens that 1 person is aside of the snow corridor.

<comment><USER44> That level of accuracy would be hard to achieve. Most radio signals (eg. BTLE) don't travel well through water (eg. snow).

Additionally, if you've ever dug someone out in the field (or practiced doing so) it takes a lot of effort to move snow. Being within three meters isn't good enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> One feature (or use case) that I would like a follow-me drone for is path- lighting.

That is, let's say I'm going on a walk in the dark and I don't want to use a flashlight or wear a headlamp - I've thought of a drone flying 8-10 feet up, a few feet ahead of me, shining a light to light my way.

Since the Lily people seem to be here answering HN comments, I wonder, how far off is your product from doing that ?

<comment> semi-extrinsic Sorry, what? How on earth would this be better than a headlamp, apart from the "look at my drone, my drone is amazing" part?

<comment><USER22> > "look at my drone, my drone is amazing"

This is actually a fairly compelling reason to do things.

<comment> semi-extrinsic True dat. But then the lamp part is just extra weight that also drains electricity from the batteries.

<comment><USER22> ...while keeping the user perpetually in the spotlight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's really, really nifty. Was wondering when a "point and shoot" drone would hit the market.

I really want one but I've grown wary of pre-ordering products that haven't been manufactured yet...

<comment><USER37> Thank you Nadya! We are shipping in February 2016 and will be sending out frequent updates. Stay tuned at www.lily.camera.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is some of the best marketing i've seen in a long while.

Just in case it's not obvious: I'm not complaining or being sarcastic, this is honest praise.

</comment><comment><USER48> Just a personal gripe, but I hate it when websites don't work without the pointless www. in front of their domain.

I just text a friend to visit [https://lily.camera](https://lily.camera) and he'll never see it, because it doesn't exist.

<comment><USER49> While I agree they should make www redirect, its not pointless. If you serve sub domains or plan on serving them, www as your primary helps differentiate cookies.

<comment><USER50> > its not pointless

It is entirely pointless to not redirect. There's no reason the URL posted shouldn't redirect to the www version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Nice. We were doing sailing last week and was quite hard to figure the whole activity with a GoPro, because I was focusing only on what I was doing, but my fellows trimming the sails were not that much in the video.

So I was thinking of a drone to film us from the side or above, but our skipper thought that no drone could handle the 15-20 knots with 30knts gusts winds we were sailing in.

<comment><USER52> There are definitely drones that can fly way faster than 30 knots, but they are not waterproof, and the ones I've seen are rather dumb, they don't follow you.

Here's a drone that can fly at 100 mph (87 knots):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p5uDf9i_Yc)

<comment><USER53> That's oddly scary to watch for some reason. I'm not sure why?

Maybe due to the fact drones are primarily used for war at the moment...

<comment> sean-duffy Primarily? I'd highly doubt that. Small multirotors and model aircraft like these are far more ubiquitous than the machines weighing upwards of 2,000 kgs which are used by the military.

<comment><USER53> Regardless of form-factor the military is the primary player in the drones industry. The vast majority of operations and spending are classified.

I was thinking more about the future applications of high-speed small drones when they become ubiquitous. Even if it is simply reconnaissance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Without a human operator assessing risk, what's to stop the drone from accidentally flying into someone and cutting them up with its blades?

<comment><USER10> I can't speak for the Lily blades, but I have a couple of drones a little larger and the blades are harmless - they stop as soon as they detect obstruction and they are flexible/not sharp. It won't cut anyone.

<comment><USER55> I have NEVER seen a controller that would "stop as soon as they detect obstruction" like you say. In reality the flight controller is likely to do the opposite. Once it detects that the current speed of the blade is not enough to provide the desired lift, it will INCREASE the speed.

Telling people the blades are harmless is very irresponsible.

<comment><USER56> The electronic speed controllers we use in RC have a loop time of a few milliseconds and are fully programmable. Some of them are capable of sensing the current going into the motor. You can also monitor the voltage instead of/in addition to the current. It's easy to cut the throttle when there is an unexpected power surge.

I personally haven't seen this technology in DIY multirotor parts, but I know that the AR.Drone has what they call "cut-out detection". They use it to prevent damage to the craft rather than humans, but the technology could be tuned for this as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm going to start building 'No Drones' signs and selling them to ski resorts in anticipation of how annoying these will be when every 13 year old has one.

</comment><comment><USER58> If this Guardian video is any hint, this drone needs to be worked on to make it perform like advertised [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td5fZhGNz9M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td5fZhGNz9M)

<comment><USER59> I was ready to throw my money at this until I saw this. As a developer, I know the pains of alpha and beta demonstrations but this now seems more like a kickerstarter project than finished product. Getting this off the ground (pun intended) looks like its quite aways off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Please leave the scrolling behavior alone already!

</comment><comment><USER61> I've been designing, building and flying model airplanes and later helicopters since I was ten years old. I've always flown in the context of a registered flying club and carry one million dollars insurance for my activity.

I continue to be horrified by what is happening with these multicopters. People fly them outside of controlled environments and with a total lack of consideration towards others or their property.

The vast majority of these things are cheap hobby-grade toys with laughable "safety" features. I own RC helicopters costing in excess of $3,000 and use a radio that costs well over $1,000. I still consider them dangerous toys not to be flown outside of club controlled environments.

What sucks is this morons are going to kill somebody and this will ruin the hobby for those of us who have been responsible flyers for decades.

<comment><USER62> While acknowledging the fact that drones being operated by "morons" do not amount to safe. Could you fill me in on what safety features a 3k copter offers over one of these smaller and arguably less threatening drones. Googled a couple "high dollar" copters most seemed to be in range of ~4kg range with large fixed carbon fiber blades as opposed to (in this particular case) a 3 pound object with collapsible polycarbonate blades. Honestly seeing this trend of "automated" drones the only human controlled factor of idiocy would be removed in part due to the automated nature of this drone, this would seem to favor a trend towards safer operations.

<comment><USER61> I think you missed my point. Real model flight enthusiasts will only fly their birds at RC clubs. Clubs impose structure, safety rules, etc.

In other words, even if you are flying total crap the probability of hurting anyone or causing property damage is greately reduced.

To anser the other part of your question. A $3K heli has significantly better electronics and mechanics when compared to something like a DJI quad. And, of course, there's the fact that it has excellent autorotation with full control on the way down.

Yet, again, the point is we don't fly over people, roads or buildings and we have far more experience flying than most drone buyers.

<comment><USER62> It would seem we are missing each other's. "Club's impose structure, safety rules etc" given this and other automated drones the imposition of structure and safety rules is/can be written into the software. There has been mention of providing no-fly zones that people could register and given a companies interest in brand preservation the drones would respect the no-fly zones as long as untampered with. However, I do understand the risk to life issues that need to be confronted. I just wouldn't leap to the conclusion that there is a mass of people buying drones, acting irresponsibly, and inciting a heavy regulation of all hobby level flying.

<comment><USER61> Responsible model airplane enthusiasts are members of the American Modelers Association. They, among other things, interface with the FAA and other regulatory agencies on our behalf. We get regular reports on relevant regulation, meetings and negotiations. Believe me, it doesn't take a mob of people to create problems for AMA members.

No software today can do what a reponsible human being flying at a club does. It's the equivalent of letting people take off and land full scale airplanes and helicopters from anywhere, fly at any altitude, in any manner they wish and without traffic control. In other words, unthinkable.

I do not fly over people or property. Software cannot make that decision for me. And software certainly cannot restrict people buying a $300 quadcopter from flying it above a group of kids at the park or over a crowd elsewhere. It is a simple matter of individual responsibility and consideration for the wellbeing of others. I choose to fly at a club because after 30 years of experience flying (and, yes, crashing) all kinds of model aircraft I know these things can fail anywhere, any time and for a million different reasons. It is beyond irresponsible to fly these things in uncontrolled airspace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Related drone camera projects on kickstarter [https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?term=camera+dr...](https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/advanced?term=camera+drone&sort=most_funded)

<comment><USER64> Some of these projects are crazy. They could be straight out of the South Park episode "Go Fund Yourself".

These campaigns are essentially people just asking you to buy them a drone:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1430324424/drone- scouti...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1430324424/drone-scouting-and- videography)

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1802912897/drone- build-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1802912897/drone-build-mark-1)

I wasn't aware campaigns of these sorts actually existed. Probably because I have always stuck to the front page of kickstarter.

<comment><USER65> Kickstarter has fewer projects of this kind than the other crowdfunding platforms.

I thought they are not allowing them completely, but apparently not. Yet in general, Kickstarter has higher quality content than other platforms.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Their video of "actual footage" is 100% edited after they shot it. That is NO way actual unedited footage.

Also. [https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris](https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris)

</comment><comment><USER67> This is a great step. Things I'd like to see:

\- Real obstacle avoidance so it can work in urban areas so people could do news / tour guide broadcasts like some people are doing on Periscope these days. Rather than holding your phone up in front of you (which gives you a pretty shaky video), you could just tell it to follow you while you talk to it

\- A sliding viewfinder that stays on your "face side" so you could see exactly what is being shot at all times.

\- The ability to stream the video to another device (like your phone attached to an external HDD) would make it so you could shoot longer form stuff - <USER2> even complete solo movies, like some of those Assassin's Creed-esque parkour videos.

</comment><comment><USER68> I applied to YC with a speech interface for drones, one application of which would be hands-free operation of selfie drones like this. E.g., if you're mountain biking you probably don't want to take one hand off the handlebars and try to press the button on the remote that means "Switch to leading shot". Instead, you'd just talk into your earbud: "Switch to leading shot" or "Climb to 100 feet", or more complex cinematographic instructions like "Pan from me to tracker B"

Especially in the extreme sports selfie video genre, hands-free operation would be a big advantage.

<comment><USER56> Interesting idea. I think the biggest challenge would be to filter out noise (i.e wind blowing on the microphone). But in a limited domain such as this you can do aggressive filtering and get fairly good results in very harsh environments.

Really cool idea. Now I have a strange urge to break out the ArduCopter.

<comment><USER68> I have an early test at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhBa11gdbeU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhBa11gdbeU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> This is great. Now, we're just waiting for better batteries: stretching out 20 minutes of flight time across a day or even morning of skiing, kayaking, etc. is going to be difficult. I guess you can carry batteries with you.

<comment><USER70> Battery is not removable.

<comment><USER71> That's horrible and possibly a deciding factor. I guess it had to be done in order to make it waterproof.

<comment><USER72> I concur, you really need the possibility of multiple battery loads in order to get full value out of this stuff.

Can you do non-conductive power transmission at reasonable weights and efficiencies? I mean, my toothbrush does it, but I can't speak to the charging rate.

<comment><USER71> Wireless power transmission can only be implemented using alternating current through induction. Very hard to implement this in any meaningful way for battery powered digital devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> There are a lot of drones that can do pretty much all of these things already, or you can build your own using an open source flight controller like ardupilot.

The main job here (which they have done well) is turning it into a mass consumer product, easy to use package. DJI has done a pretty good job for prosumers on it but this is another notch up.

Like the waterproofing!

Video suggests a higher level of autonomy than I think they have right now (obstacle avoidance, automatic landing on your hand) but a year might be enough to cram it in there.

I think we will see many more consumer drones like this.

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm curious how it homes in on the tracker.

<comment><USER75> Apparently based on the hand device.

<comment><USER76> i think the question is what tech does it use do accomplish this

<comment><USER74> Yes this is what I was wondering. Some brief searching on similar devices suggests it's a combination of precise sensors and algorithms to tie everything together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Thats totally the Mario 64 camera :)

</comment><comment><USER78> Serious question. Is this not a thing being sold already? The design is really nice and the video is really well done... the waterproof seems maybe a new thing.

I have seen multiple promo videos for various drones offering same "follow me" feature.

Here's one I found in few seconds [https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris](https://store.3drobotics.com/products/iris)

The 3d mapping on this one is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER79> Oh goody more vaporware for HN :-(. I get the concept, the ultimate selfie movie, but I fear for the future of youtube's fails collection :-)

</comment><comment><USER80> Does this actually exist? Looks neat, but I want to know if preorder money is being used to develop the product that I'm preordering.

<comment><USER81> This is my number 1 concern. There are so many vaporware hardware projects now-a-days that I'm hesitant to pre-order. I feel like I'd rather just wait because by the time this is eventually released, there may be 2-3 other products that do the same thing, only better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Here's a video of it being demonstrated for a Guardian journalist in Central Park: [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2015/may/12/test...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2015/may/12/testing- the-selfie-drone-in-central-park-video)

</comment><comment> sean-duffy The video looks cool and everything, but I don't really understand the mentality around these kind of hands-off 'follow me' drones. If you want high- quality aerial cinematography, you need a lot more than just an autonomous drone in your general vicinity. Does this thing really have the intelligence needed to correctly frame and compose shots?

<comment><USER83> Why does it need to be high quality? Mom and dad aren't exactly pro photographers and they still enjoy taking pictures.

Just look at the design of the thing, it's clearly more for play than work.

<comment> sean-duffy Mom and dad probably aren't into extreme sports or spending $500 on toys either, though. Which is why I think in a lot of these new drone ideas are disconnected from their target audience.

<comment><USER84> What? Parents have been buying GoPros as Christmas presents for their kids to film their skiing down a blue square run at Stratton in droves. The last time I was at a resort like that it seemed like every other 13 year old kid had a video camera to capture their day.

I don't want to see the drones flying at the mountain when I ski, but the blocker is definitely not lack of parents with money willing to blow it on stupid toys for their kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> The most exciting new products on HN is hardware in combination with software. it used to be mostly software and websites.

</comment><comment><USER86> If you live in or near Toronto, I have started a timeshare for a Lily - [https://www.tilt.com/campaigns/lily-drone- timeshare](https://www.tilt.com/campaigns/lily-drone-timeshare)

<comment><USER87> You may want to put a better description in your tilt page. You are assuming everyone visiting it know what that device is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Extremely well done on the marketing. I watched the video with my 2- and 2-year-old boys. After we watched it a few times (we all wanted to watch it again and again), the 4yo was talking about the features of the drone ("It has a camera!" "It lands on your hand!" "It's waterproof!"), while the 2yo kept repeating "Want one!" "Want one!" (which I don't think I was saying out loud myself).

I wouldn't preorder one at this stage (even if I had a spare $500 lying around), but this is one of the coolest gadgets I've seen in a while, and the marketing is top-notch.

</comment><comment><USER89> Wow! Preordered, but used my AMEX in case it turns out to be VaporWare.

<comment><USER90> Out of curiousity, what does your AMEX card offer if this is VarporWare?

<comment><USER91> Amex allows you to dispute charges very easily. Their dispute resolution process is slanted in favor of the cardholder rather than the merchant.

<comment><USER92> Is this a reason that many merchants don't accept AmEx?

<comment><USER91> Partially, yes. But Amex also charges higher transaction fees, which come out of the merchant's profits. Between the two, and the fact that only ~20% of people have an Amex, many merchants decide Amex isn't worth the trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> In the video they looked apprehensive for a moment when lily landed in the river next to the kayak. Or maybe that was just me feeling apprehensive for them.

</comment><comment><USER94> I can't help but imagine a time when, instead of smartphones or wearables, it's not uncommon to have a little drone that flies around after you.

</comment><comment><USER95> Sorry, but I'll believe it when I see it being sold in stores. This has Kickstarter syndrome written all over it. Meaning, a really cool idea and flashy video, but it's in "pre-order" and there's no guarantee when it will actually ship. And even when it does, I'd rather wait for reviews to tell me how good it works rather than trust a marketing video.

</comment><comment><USER96> Very cool. I always thought mounting a camera on a drone is the way to take photos when out but this is totally amazing the way it follows you.

</comment><comment><USER97> This is cool. I've been dreaming about something similar. In my mind though it would be smaller and could hitch a ride on your shoulder.

<comment><USER98> I imagine that one problem is that if it's too small, it will be unstable in wind... So since they need a certain amount of weight for stability anyway, might as well devote it to big batteries (rather than being small and dense).

<comment><USER97> You're right. I wait for the day when we can make the batteries smaller / motors more powerful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> I predict Silicon Valley lacrosse, soccer, baseball, football, and swimming leagues will find it necessary to include language in their 'spectator code of conduct' bylaws that restricts the use of these kind of drones at tournaments and games.

I suspect some sports will allow limited use during practice and scrimmages for training purposes.

</comment><comment><USER100> I found this in the Youtube video comments:

> Currently, Lily does not have any obstacle avoidance capabilities. We have > found that most outdoor activities do not need obstacle avoidance because > Lily can follow the user's path. But again, there are no guarantees that > Lily will not hit anything while it is following you.

"no obstacle avoidance" o_O

</comment><comment><USER101> I see someone like Gopro acquiring these guys

</comment><comment><USER102> A step along the way to the drone cameras from Bruce Sterling's "The Artificial Kid" coming to real life.

</comment><comment><USER103> Would be interesting if you could have a bunch of these shooting from different angles, positioned so that they don't shoot each other.

Basically it's like having your own cameramen, so you can have spectacular camera angles without involving huge crews. This could be cool for TV shows, documentary and indie films.

<comment><USER42> The FAQ says they're working on having multiple cameras follow one subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Finally a drone with elegance and purpose. A truly consumer oriented drone. Like it. Will wait for the v2.0 :)

</comment><comment><USER105> 20 minute flying time is pretty bad - kind of delegates this to a "We want this picture" or "We need this shot" type of thing, not "Turn it on follow mode and let's see what we get after our walk/game/session" which would be a lot more useful

<comment><USER73> That's what the current energy density of lithium polymer batteries roughly is on a drone with this size props and weight. Not much that can be done aside from hoping for better battery tech!

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> The FAA doesn't appear to have any guidance on automated flying: e.g., it doesn't say anything (at least in a 1m search) about a human pilot. (I was surprised by this.)

So long as you stay within recreational use guidelines (e.g., don't upload videos to YouTube), you should be fine.

<comment><USER107> Why would uploading to YouTube necessarily be a problem? Most people don't make profit from YouTube uploads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> What happens when you have multiple lily's up at the same time? Is there any collision prevention?

</comment><comment><USER109> I'm a bit worried about that "throwing start".

What happens when the battery is low or when I give it a tad too much spin?

"Whoops, did I just lob my $500 gadget into solid concrete?"

Well, I suppose it probably has safer take-off modes, too. Can't wait until they shrink it down to tennis ball size.

<comment><USER110> There exist plenty of tiny camera drones, except those aren't autonomous. An advantage is that crashes are less prone to damage (less mass => less momentum and kinetic energy), and if they do get damaged, repairs are [typically] far cheaper.

I don't know about battery life, though, and that might be a large disadvantage of those. Also, fitting a GPS unit into one might be tricky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> Shared on Facebook and sadly showed up as "Home page - Lily" with no meta description. If you're looking for more people to share and click, try fixing your meta tags so when people share it shows full a good teaser of the product is.

</comment><comment><USER112> I'm not a web designer: just wondering, how does someone go about designing a website with such animations as you scroll? I know there are a lot about these days; are they all custom, or is there some tool chucking all these out?

<comment><USER113> with anything there are a lot of ways to do it. This is sort of a parralax type of animation. There are many librarys that handle this, but one way is to (at a certain place on the site) decouple the scroll from actually moving further down the page, and use it as the keyframe engine for the animation.

This is a basic overview, but if you are interested google keywords like "parralax" and "parralax animation"

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> It's finally happened, the robots are here. The future we were all promised!

</comment><comment><USER115> Since this looks like a drone that automatically follows you, how does it negotiate with other drones that are around them.

What if there is another person snowboarding on that slope with Lily? And he/she slides close to you?

</comment><comment><USER116> Dawn of the personal drone/robot/servants. I'm wondering if it's able to navigate around tree branches or corners without slamming into anything as opposed to the wide open spaces they show.

</comment><comment><USER117> Brilliant video. Felt the need to watch it twice through in quick succession.

</comment><comment><USER118> When I first saw, it reminded me of the 1997 Flubber house robot. For its size, Lily takes just video. It would be good if there is some more smartness and can be used indoors. Just like the house robot.

</comment><comment><USER119> Reminds me of [http://flynixie.com/](http://flynixie.com/) \- this one seems a lot more robust, less "snap a quick shot and come back".

</comment><comment><USER120> The max speed is 40 k/h - I'm no expert cyclist, but what happens when you go 60, 70, 80 down a long hill? Can the Lily catch up to you, and up until how far? What happens if it can't?

<comment><USER73> It would get left behind. It looked like there is a little handheld GPS/wifi beacon used for follow me. My guess is RTL (return to launch) as a failsafe once you get outside wifi range

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> What if you throw it off a bridge only to realize that its out of charge.

</comment><comment><USER122> This reminded me of the Sphero Selfie bot April Fool's joke.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaR4X2iJo6M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaR4X2iJo6M)

</comment><comment><USER123> It seems like the propellers get close to each other. Usually quadcopter propellers are spaced out much more than this to reduce vibrations. Does anyone know if they do something special?

</comment><comment><USER124> This will truly revolutionize the selfie. I am joking!! Seriously this is truly going to sell like hot cakes. The film industry would probably love to use these more ... Good job guys!

</comment><comment><USER125> This seems kind of implausibly cheap for what it's offering.

<comment><USER107> $500 preorder vs $1000 later.

So either 1) they expect you to pay more later 2) they are selling the preorders at a loss (woo venture funding! do things that don't scale!) or 3) their markup will be _huge_ (>100%) when they start making regular sales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> The target market is vloggers. They would love a device that automatically videotapes what they're saying as they're walking around Boston Common or somewhere else.

</comment><comment><USER127> __Correction Lily - Quadcopter camera

It is annoying that everyone started calling Quadcopter a "drone", which is a very generic term. Flippin non-tech marketing peeps. -_-

<comment><USER128> I don't think that's a correction. You are being more specific, but Lily is definitely "an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously"...which is what a drone is[1].

[1] [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone)

<comment><USER127> Since you have referenced dictionary.com, a very authentic source for tech terminology, I would like to argue why a plane is not called "vessel" in everyday usage?! [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> Just idle speculation, what happens when 30 follow-me drones are on the slopes at the same time? Will they all be able to avoid each other?

<comment> semi-extrinsic The minute drones like these start shipping they'll be banned from all ski resort faster than you can say pow.

Also, with a top speed of 40 km/h this isn't able to keep up with anyone who's past the rookie stage skiing/snowboarding. So their marketing is very misleading, either by intention or because these guys don't know shit about skiing.

<comment><USER42> Anyone going faster than about 40km/h isn't really doing anything worth filming anyway, other than ski racers.

All the interesting stuff for filming on the slopes happens at relatively low speeds - park, moguls, jumps, butters, etc.

<comment> semi-extrinsic If you're going any slower than 40 km/h the only thing you'll be doing in a terrain park is falling on your face. This [1] cable-driven terrain park "for children and adults" pulls you at 40 km/h. If you're looking at landing anything bigger than a 360 you'll need to be going closer to 60 km/h. Ski racers are not happy until they're going (a lot) faster than 90.

[1] [http://www.al.no/en/html/aktiviteter/vinter/ski_snowboard_ca...](http://www.al.no/en/html/aktiviteter/vinter/ski_snowboard_cable_park/)

<comment><USER42> I'm a level 3 snowboard instructor in Canada, and I would say I infrequently go over 40km/h. It's only when I stand still on a groomer and "go fast", or for the run-in for the L/XL jumps.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Have you actually measured your speed though? Because the difference in speed sensation between a snowboard and a car (or bicycle) is just unbelievable if you haven't measured it.

The pull rope I linked above is for kids with small/medium jumps, and that's 40 km/h.

<comment><USER42> Yep, sometimes we race with GPS to see how fast we can go.

80 km/h on a snowboard is _fast_.

<comment> semi-extrinsic That's interesting. Way back when I was a ski racing kid (about 14) we once did a speed test where we closed off 400m of one of the children's slopes and put a photocell at the bottom, and we would hit 90+ km/h on that thing. Mind you, this was in racing gear with racing skis, but that was a flat-ass slope. The fastest we ever clocked in a race was around 120, when I was 18, in the worldcup downhill course in Åre.

<comment><USER42> Yep, having two planks and two edges on the ground is a huge advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> This looks cool but $999 is a lot of money for something I might use a couple times a year. Maybe I'll be able to rent one sometime.

</comment><comment><USER131> Nice concept, I want something like that... but it says "shipping Feb 2016"... lot of things can happen during these 9 months.

</comment><comment><USER132> I have wanted this for so long. I wish it had longer flight time but I still orderd this immediately, before the trailer even finished

</comment><comment><USER133> Tweeted Lily support about Obstacle Avoidance. Sadly no - it doesn't steer clear of electric wires, branches and buildings.

</comment><comment><USER134> Impressive. One typo in the video. It should say 120 fps at 720p. When I saw the text I wondered why anyone would film in 720p.

<comment><USER135> Good point but storage capacity is a reason to use 720p

<comment><USER25> I don't do anything particularly serious, but I always shot my drone footage at 720p. It's quicker to copy onto my PC and quicker to upload to YouTube, and YouTube doesn't give you significantly higher quality on 1080p than 720p anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> Lily looks cool - but flies where it wants ;)

Is it possible to control it manually using standard RC controller and RC modules (i.e. Frsky)?

</comment><comment><USER137> Pretty cool..! You need a british guy in your team that can pronounce Aluminum like Johny Ive and you sell like crazy.

</comment><comment><USER138> It's waterproof, but still the lens will get wet. How did they solve that?

Also, does it have built-in collision avoidance?

<comment><USER17> Solve what? The lens gets wet just like any other waterproof camera. At least this one will blow dry itself off in short order.

</comment></comment><comment><USER139> Wonder what kind of payload it can carry is :D (I imagine that was part of a trade off for battery life)

</comment><comment><USER140> If they had made this look like a Star Wars Probe Droid I believe the Internet may have actually broken.

</comment><comment><USER141> Reminds me of the Kino from Stargate.

</comment><comment><USER142> I've wanted this for ages for run filming! Excited to see if tracking works well.........

</comment><comment><USER143> Did anyone else get nervous when he threw it off the bridge?

"Come on Lily... power up, POWER UP!"

</comment><comment><USER144> At 10"x10"x3", you're going to need really big pockets!

</comment><comment><USER145> Perhaps a stupid question - but where are the collision avoidance sensors?

</comment><comment><USER146> Love the demo video, any idea what company/person did this?

</comment><comment><USER147> Awesome stuff, guys!

</comment><comment><USER148> what if you realize its out of battery after you throw it off. Starting the rotors before throwing would make the user feel more confident.

</comment><comment><USER149> what happens when 10 skiers all release their lily cameras at the same time and womp it down a slope at variable speeds ?

</comment><comment><USER150> Great, more trash in our fields and streams.

</comment><comment><USER151> Potential acquisition for gopro?

</comment><comment><USER152> Loved the video. Really nice :)

</comment><comment><USER153> I like ZANO more actually :)

</comment><comment><USER154> Hey Henry! We had calculus BC together at Westview. Congratulations, this looks great. -Eric S.

</comment><comment><USER155> Awesome website

</comment><comment><USER156> Wow. This is purely amazing! Definitely ordering one.

</comment><comment><USER157> #selfiecopter

<comment><USER158> Like a selfie stick, but way cooler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER159> "The new introspectiveness announced the demise of an established set of traditional faiths centred on work and the postponement of gratification, and the emergence of a consumption-oriented lifestyle ethic centred on lived experience and the immediacy of daily lifestyle choices."

If my generation was called the "me" generation, how would you describe this generation?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_generation)

</comment><comment><USER52> Damn, that's impressive. I want to know the top speed and what kind of wind it can handle.

</comment><comment><USER160> How fast can this go? Can I throw it out my car window and go down a street? A highway? What does it do when it's lost the homing signal -- hover? Land?

</comment><comment><USER161> Are there lightweight drones that can fly continuously with just solar power? If not how far off are we?

</comment><comment><USER162> Reminds me of [http://flynixie.com](http://flynixie.com)

</comment><comment><USER163> One more way for narcissists to annoy naturalists.

</comment><comment><USER164> the next generation of selfie

</comment><comment><USER165> Like GoPro, just 10x better?

</comment><comment><USER166> Like GoPro, just 10 times better?</comment>


Ask HN: How can I get started with programming? - <AUTHOR> I asked a question a few weeks ago about the best language to start with programming, and someone suggested to instead come up with a project and learn what I need to complete it. So I'd like to try to create a text adventure, something like Zork. What advice do you have? <comment><USER2> There are a number of good languages for this. Python is probably the most mainstream. I'll recommend it or other languages with a REPL [0]. The reason being, you can write your code in your .py (or whatever language) file, load it into the REPL and test out bits of it very quickly:

      > game.move(north)
      You can't, the door is shut.
      > game.look()
      You're standing on a path. There's a house to the
      north. A mailbox is present. The path continues south,
      into the woods.

You don't have to deal with everything from the start, in particular you don't have to get the parser working to try out the functional elements of the game. It's really nice for exploratory programming.

Also, take a look at Inform [1]. It's a language/engine designed for text adventures. It's not exactly a standard looking language, as it's _very_ domain specific, but it may give you some ideas for the things your game engine will need to track, and ideas for how to structure things.

[0] REPL: Read-eval-print-loop. This describes the process of the interactive environment that's paired with the language. It reads what you've sent it, evaluates it, prints the output, and repeats.

[1] [http://inform7.com/](http://inform7.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would start with Python ... its a great language and very powerful. Here's a great essay on Python by Paul Graham ... paulgraham.com/pypar.html</comment>


The Only Way to Restore Trust in the NSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-only-way-to-restore-trust-in-the-nsa/279314/

<comment><USER2> [Insert usual rant about Bruce Schneier vs. the real world.]

This is a political problem that needs a political answer. Special prosecutors are political and always have been, but I really have difficultly seeing how one could be imbued with enough power.

This sure sounds to me like a job for the nation's Grant Inquisitor, AKA the Congress, as we saw the last time this happened with the Church Committee: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee)

Given how the first and only vote on this issue, the House's Amash Amendment was both close and critically didn't break out on any particular set of conventional lines, like party or region, I say it's way to early to count it out. Not that we don't need to send a variety of Congresscritters back home to spend more time with their families, and as a part of that change the leadership, even if we can't necessarily remove Boehner and Pelosi from their seats. I.e. we need to make it politically impossible for our representatives to keep them and their ilk in the leadership.

<comment><USER3> What on earth makes you think Congress is less political than a special prosecutor would be? Congress is the very definition of politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While it seems unlikely that the NSA will come clean the documents being released may lead to a tipping point where meaningful oversight may be demanded and actually occur.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure the NSA can do a lot to restore trust, I think they just have to hope that most people forget about it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Restore? Since when did they ever have it?

<comment><USER2> They had it in the '80s.

Helped that we were fighting an in your face existential threat, the Evil Empire AKA the Soviet Union with their 45,000 (sic) nuclear warhead inventory peak in 1988 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_des...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)). I in fact supplied a reference for a student acquaintance applying for a job at the NSA in that year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> dream on, bruce. dream on.</comment>


How the Financial Recovery Sacrificed the Middle Class - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/business/middle-class-financial-crisis.html <comment><USER2> How is there a difference in the belief that stocks always go up and home price will always go up.

Once baby boomers start drawing down on assets won't that have an effect on asset prices? As we start having to pay for climate change won't that effect asset values.</comment>


Loving Lisp, or the Savvy Programmer's Secret Weapon [Book] - <AUTHOR> http://www.markwatson.com/opencontent/lisp_lic.htm

<comment><USER2> I wrote this - a little out of date, but hopefully a good and short introduction. What was fun about writing this book was that many Lisp heavy hitters helped out with ideas and corrections.

BTW, I am working on another Lisp book, specific to Franz AllegroGraph (RDF, SPARQL, etc.) I plan on releasing a free PDF, with a print book also available.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for writing this good book. I've dared to link it here.

<comment><USER2> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 More material for my "Stuff to Read" dropbox folder, so thank you very much

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks!</comment>


Predator Drone on Amazon - Hilarity Ensues in Reviews - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004JFMOGK/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk?tag=hydfbook0e-20&ascsubtag=US-SAGE-1357821314955-UKOPX

<comment><USER2> Why is killing people with a drone seem more creepy to people than say killing people with a manned bomber or a sniper? Are we just worried about the whole skynet thing?

<comment><USER3> maybe because it becomes like a video game. You're alienated from your targets. It desensitizes you... The funny thing is, all the reviews were made by the same guy. It's the same writing style, even the ones that look like they were written by people reacting to these comments. Hilarious!

<comment><USER4> Playing devil's advocate: What if it is the other way around?

Soldiers would be able to come back home after some conflict and not suffer from Rambo like episodes, sleeping well without nightmares and integrating themselves to society in a helpful way.

It would diminish the stigma current war veterans have.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your thoughts about primitive obsession in JavaScript? - <AUTHOR> People talk a lot about primitive obsession in other languages but I don't see anyone talking about it in JavaScript.
Basically, we have literals (Array/String/Object) that don't actually have any meaning to the domain. We have built-in methods like `.filter`, `.map`, etc. in those primitives and we see people often using it just for mutate data through functions instead of just building "mapeable" or "filterable" functions/objects.
What are your thoughts about this? Is primitive obsession a thing in JavaScript? Should we care about it? Do you have any link to similar discussions happening elsewhere? <comment><USER2> I'm unfamiliar with whatever recent chatter on "primitive obsession" there's been, but it's not a new idea ( [http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/PrimitiveObsession.html](http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/PrimitiveObsession.html) ) and has been discussed elsewhere ( [http://wiki.c2.com/?PrimitiveObsession](http://wiki.c2.com/?PrimitiveObsession) ).

Frankly, while I do see the point about fixing it with value objects and whatnot, I rather think that is a sign of wannabe architect/PL wankery.

Javascript has a basically useless type system in practice (especially with legacy code) and has a lot of really handy/flexible features that would only interact badly with attempts to fix this "primitive obsession" stuff.

I don't think it matters in the JS ecosystem.</comment>


Ask HN: Why search bar on Google doesn't have any placeholder? - <AUTHOR> e.g. "Input your search query here" e.g. "To start searching, enter a query here" e.g. "Start typing to search" <comment><USER2> Probobly because the intent is obvious</comment>


Apple Reviews NetShare; Permanent Ban Likely - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/netshares-retur.html

<comment><USER2> The problem is that they're putting a price on something that they shouldn't be able to put a price on: The way you use what you paid for. It's a strong suit in court, and luckily for them (so far) no one has sued. It doesn't matter what their TERMS are, it's what you paid for and what the court thinks is fair use. If you pay for unlimited data - that's what you should get. If they wanted to limit it, it should be 1GB data, not unlimited. (I bet this is mostly ATT's fault, but I guess it's easy to blame Apple for following through on agreements.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not familiar with the iPhone development platform, so I'm curious: if they distributed the source code for the app, could anyone sign up for a dev account and create a development copy of the application for their own phone?</comment>


Switzerland votes against strict timetable for nuclear power phase out - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38120559 <comment><USER2> It would be extremely silly to stop using nuclear power. What we need is a passive safety system and type of reactor that cannot go critical and does not produce long lasting isotopes. Surprisingly, all of these are ready from the technology point of view, the only reason not to build them is financial. There are also plans to use the waste of older reactor models in the new gen IV type reactors and produce isotopes that last only few decades instead of few millenia. This would solve the biggest issue with older reactors, having a large amount of very active products that we need to store safely for a long time.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe- nuclear-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear- power/)

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium- fu...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future- nuclear-energy/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages)

<comment><USER3> > It would be extremely silly to stop using nuclear power

That's what a minority in Germany said, before the majority voted against nuclear power. Hence the energy clusterf __k Germany is now in.

Germany, a country with almost non-existent seismic activity killed its nuclear energy future because a tsunami happened in Fukushima. [1] It's not just "silly" it is that much silly, that sooner or later the prohibition will be repealed out of necessity. And the same fate would have happened to the Swiss plebiscite's result if it were a win.

[1] "voted against because of Fukushima" is technically a crass simplification. First Germans voted for the parties that pledged to end nuclear power. Then Merkel won the next election, cancelled nuclear- prohibition. But when Fukushima happened everybody knew Merkel would be out of office within weeks if she didn't immediately repeal her repeal.

<comment><USER2> You can play the emotional cord any time to get voters to vote on anything, and you can make any multi-dimensional problem single dimensional. Increasing fossil fuel usage is not the answer and it never will be the answer. Once we have great solar panels and large capacity batteries we can use solar as the primary source, but the technology is decades away, best case.

This does not look good:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electric...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electricity_Production_in_Germany.svg)

<comment><USER4> We do have large capacity batteries for solar right now, it's called pumped hydro storage. It's a droughtful prospect here in California, but I could see it working out in Germany pretty well.

<comment><USER3> I do think too battery improvement will mean a major progress.

However, I invite you to visit my country. Pick any date in the year but two months and you'll see: "capacity batteries for solar" are not our problem with solar ;-)

<comment><USER4> Heh, I'll just extrapolate from my visits to Seattle. I will try to visit next year -- during one of the sunny months.

Actually, I think a lot of the problems facing Europe with renewables are the same in the U.S. Abundant solar and wind available in the south, and no efficient way of transferring the electric power north.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Phew, i do know that some of their reactors are pretty old but imho nuclear overall is pretty safe and one of the best ways available still for producing vast amounts of electricity. Hopefully they will build new ones to phase out the old

<comment><USER6> "pretty old" is an embellishment in this case. They run the OLDEST nuclear reactor of the world.

To repeat it, one of the richest countries of the world runs the oldest nuclear reactor in the middle of central Europe. If this one blows up Switzerland and Southern Germany is toast forever. There will be no lucky wind directions.

And it doesn't help that the Swiss don't have a independent regulating authority for nuclear energy.

<comment><USER7> It's a PWR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Tec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_specifications)

A PWR isn't going to "blow up" when it gets too old, or at all really. Chernobyl, the only large-scale plant to ever actually blow up, had a crazy dangerous design compared to any of these older reactors (and you're not kidding about them being old, they are seven years older than Chernobyl).

<comment><USER8> 11 Chernobyl type reactors are still in operation.

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

(some of the design problems have been addressed in the still operating reactors)

<comment><USER9> Looking at the chain of events during the tests that lead to the accident I'd say it was mostly human error as well as the flawed hierarchical structure of soviet organisation. The critical reactor design flaws were all accounted for in protocols that were not followed by the higher up being present against the strong advice of the engineers. Had these been followed, nothing would have happened, although there is one flaw they probably didn't account for: the power spike during control rod insertion, which has been fixed with an updated control rod design and protocols.

I'd argue that any reactor design that doesn't just allow to be shut down and walked away from, is inherently unsafe - it's just that RBMK have far worse consequences when humans screw up, which can be seen as their fundamental flaw, they basically miss a safety net in the form of an auxillary containment. Fukushima showed what could happen in reactors like the ones used in Switzerland - IMO that's way more manageable than climate change, although the question remains whether 'china syndrome' is possible and how such a true worst case would look like. I once did some rough calculations on how much radioactive material is present in typical reactors, and it's really quite staggering - dispersed in bad ways you basically get lethal doses for hundreds of millions of people.

So the only sane way forward IMO is to finally replace all these old designs with ones that have passive cooling systems in an emergency, meanwhile passing housing laws for new houses that require a certain percentage of solar roof, x amount of kWh battery per inhabitant as well as the ability to feed the grid from both roof and battery in order to create a stable renewable grid. Unfortunately no green party is pragmatic enough - their anti nuclear stances mean that we'd have to increase carbon reliance before being able to decrease it, which poses IMO greater dangers than even the worst case imaginable with nuclear. Therefore I'd rather vote for those who want to keep nuclear rather than those who promote renewables.

<comment><USER10> I can't find a source for it now, but I remember reading about an incident at Ignalia-1 in Lithuania, that foresaw the design issues that caused the Chenobyl incident a few years before. Apparently it was reported, but the Soviet leadership decided not to do anything about it and keep it secret.

Even though Ignalia-2 had the most advanced safety features of any RBMK reactor, a condition of Lithuania's EU membership was the plant be shutdown. As such the Baltic states have been very dependant on Russia for energy since the shutdown.

Belarus is in the process of building a plant on the Lithuanian border. Although it's PWR and has many safety features RBMK didn't have, thanks to politics the lack of transparency over safety issues is rather concerning:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus- under-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-fire- for-dangerous-errors-at-nuclear-plant)

<comment><USER9> Soviet administration is kind of hard to wrap my head around. You'd think that (1) no financial incentives (ideally) and (2) accountability based on 'see you in the Gulag' if something goes wrong, would lead to people being more transparent about risks - but it seems the opposite happened!

Is it because those who have to bear the risks (e.g. RBMK on-site engineers) aren't the same who'd pass on information through the administrative chain? Was the main thing missing free information flow? Could communism work if all economic/infrastructure/administration units would just be forced to publish all their data in raw form, so other people could analyse it and make better decisions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with the plan was that the government would have had to compensate the power plants for shutting down earlier than planned + pay to import (supposedly coal generated) power from neighboring countries.

The whole thing made no financial or ecological sense.

If you can read french, the official info (with both sides' opinion) is here: [https://www.admin.ch/dam/gov/fr/Dokumentation/Abstimmungen/E...](https://www.admin.ch/dam/gov/fr/Dokumentation/Abstimmungen/Erl%C3%A4uterung%20des%20Bundesrates/novembre2016/27-11-2016_FR_screen.pdf.download.pdf/27-11-2016_FR_screen.pdf)

And a german version is available here: [https://www.admin.ch/dam/gov/de/Dokumentation/Abstimmungen/N...](https://www.admin.ch/dam/gov/de/Dokumentation/Abstimmungen/Novembre2016/27-11-2016_DE_screen.pdf.download.pdf/27-11-2016_DE_screen.pdf)</comment>


IPv6 adoption passes 20% (as measured by Google) - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html <comment><AUTHOR> This being 19 months since it peaked past 10%.

Any guesses when we'll get past 50%?

How valid is this as a measure anyway?</comment>