Ceramicspeed chainless bike can nows shift gears and carry load - <AUTHOR> https://mashable.com/video/ceramicspeed-chainless-bike-can-now-shift-gears-carry-load/ <comment><USER2> Shafties come around about as often as airless tires — and stay just as long, too:

Saint Sheldon says "just use a chain case", and as usual, he's spot on:

 _Shaft drive was briefly popular around 1900, and occasional attempts are made to revive the design. Unfortunately, shaft drive turns out to have more problems than advantages.

A shaft drive requires heavier frame construction around the bevel gears to maintain their precise alignment under load. The drive system is heavier and less efficient than a good chain drive.

For reasons of clearance, the bevel gears of a shaft drive bicycle must be considerably smaller than the typical sprockets used with a chain drive. The smaller size of the gears causes an increase in the stresses on the whole support system for the shaft. This problem is exacerbated because the stresses from the shaft drive are not perpendicular the triangulated structure of a bicycle frame, and so are not well-resisted. .

Most of the advantages touted by proponents of shaft drive are only advantages compared with open-chain, derailer gear systems. Many proponents of shaft drive use specious (if not dishonest) arguments "comparing" shaft drive systems with derailer gear systems. Any such comparisons are meaningless, it's like comparing apples and locomotives.

...

Shaft drive proponents also often compare sealed, enclosed shaft drive systems with open, exposed chain drive systems. This is also a misleading comparison. All of the advantages claimed for shaft drive can be realized by the use of a chain case._

[https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sa-o.html](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_sa-o.html)

Shaft-driven motorcycles are a whole other story.

<comment><USER3> Are you talking about an enclosed derailleur system? I've never seen that.

Or are you suggesting we use hub gears? Because those are significantly lower efficiency. Only Rohloff is really competitive but it's still around a 5% efficiency loss compared to derailleurs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So this new system saves about 2% of effort, which is large savings for competitive cyclists.

For 99% of cyclists, though, it doesn't matter. The overwhelming part of your work goes into air resistance, then rolling resistance at lower speeds, and probably the chain in last place.

In the last few seconds of video the mechanism can be heard -- oh boy, it is loud. The pawl in bikes can range from nearly silent to annoying, but this one seems to be even worse.

<comment><USER5> And also most people's bikes aren't perfectly maintained.

<comment><USER6> Probably this system also loses efficiency if not perfectly maintained.

<comment><USER7> Looks like it has less exposed moving parts that a classic bike. Could be easier to maintain / clean / lube.

<comment><USER6> Not the naked variant — it's about the same as a chain derailleur. Maybe with the cover. It doesn't exactly look easier to clean that giant sharp dinner plate. Idk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I got one dollar for every time someone says the bike chain will be replaced...

<comment><USER9> Ya, the chain isnt leaving until something that can compete with it in a combination of weight, modularity, maintenance, cost, and performance.

Carbon belt drives are an alternative, but are not shiftable without internal gears like a Rohloff hub or Pinion gearbox/bottom bracket which are expensive and heavy, and regarding the Pinion, needs a proprietary bottom bracket built into the bicycle's frame. Belt drives are more much more expensive than chains, and also require a special frame, but they last much longer, and require virtually no maintenance. They are not nearly as efficient though which is why they aren't found on track bikes. Belt drives are great for riders that enjoy just riding along and want to invest in a nice maintenance- free alternative.

When Driven reaches production I would bet that it will go the way of the belt drive. It will have incredible improvements over a chain, but will be very expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if the total cost of the crankset, driveshaft, cog, and shifters are north of $3000 or more, not including the price of the wheel or frame. Pricing out almost everyone, except for the select few that find the improvements worth it. It won't be released until it is able to be raced professionally and I definitely think it will be seen in races where seconds matter.

It won't replace the chain as we know it, but this alternative will be on certain bikes owned by people that care about its benefits.

<comment><USER10> At scale production numbers, the cost should be much lower than 3000. And for bikes that aren't as sensitive to weight, cheaper heavier materials can be used.

I believe it can replace the chain in all but the lowest bikes. It will start expensive, but so did many other technologies we now see on common priced bikes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Motorcycles have had shaft drive, belt drive, and chain drive off the lot for decades. Many Harleys are belt-driven. Many BMWs are shaft-driven. Nearly all offroad and racing bikes are chain-driven.

It's not just friction efficiency, but weight and other factors, too.

The split pinion reminds me a bit of a DCT. Especially when they put the cover on.

<comment><USER12> Here's an off the shelf bike from 111 years ago with a shaft drive:

[https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/1908-columbia-shaft- drive-...](https://thecabe.com/forum/threads/1908-columbia-shaft-drive- model-804-reduced-again.95571/)

For some reason there's a tendency to assume that unusual things in the bike world are crazy new inventions.

<comment><USER13> Interesting, but this bike with a shaft drive doesn't seem to have gears.

<comment><USER14> Columbia did make a two-speed version. It's been so long that I forget exactly how it works, but it's not an internal hub.

<comment><USER14> Here, this page has a picture of the two-speed. Third down, on the left: [https://www.prices4antiques.com/Bicycle-Pope-Mfg-Columbia- Sh...](https://www.prices4antiques.com/Bicycle-Pope-Mfg-Columbia-Shaft-Drive- Male-Frame-2-Speed-1904-E8926673.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Shaft driven bikes are not uncommon [1] [2]. This variant on the theme seems to be more about the novel gearing system than the lack of a chain.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaft- driven_bicycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaft-driven_bicycle)

[2] [https://beixo.com/categorie/city- bikes/](https://beixo.com/categorie/city-bikes/)

<comment><USER14> I've been a cyclist all my life, including hanging out with antique bicycle clubs (I have an 1886 Columbia highwheeler) where one might, _might_ , see an 1890s Columbia shaft drive. I might have seen a half dozen of the Columbias over the years. I have never seen a shaft-driven bicycle made in the last 100 years in anything but pictures.

So though shaft-driven bicycles most certainly exist, I would argue that they are the dictionary definition of "uncommon".

<comment><USER15> It depends where you live. I imagine they're pretty uncommon in the USA. I've seen one or two in Australia. Most companies making shaft driven bikes seem to be in countries where bikes are used more commonly for commuting like Germany, The Netherlands and Scandanavia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looking at the design, I can't see how it would stand up to high torque or sudden accelerations. It would skip like crazy, and the flex on the frame would also disrupt the power.

I would guess this maintains its efficiency advantages only in very limited torque ranges and have overall power limitations that normal drivetrains don't.

For general transportation, electric bikes are the real revolution.

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be great if they could get this into production. I like the idea of having the rear mech covered up form the elements.

<comment><USER18> Probably not for a race bicycle but this problem of 'covering from the elements' is kind of solved. a lot of tour bikes or city bikes 'stadsfiets' have internal shimano nexus gear hubs and internal hub brakes with an additional rain cover for the chain.

These bikes stay chained outside overnight for years with minimal maintenance.

<comment><USER19> Ugh, I had a 3-speed shimano IGH and while I loved the idea, in practice I could not shake the feeling that I was always pedaling uphill. That is to say, it felt like the IGH had considerable drag. Fun-killer.

<comment><USER6> There are probably nicer IGHs? 3-speeds are fairly low end. I don't know if the best IGH feel as good as chain drive bikes, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If this drivetrain achieves its claims I will be very impressed. Shaft drive designs have been around for as long as chain drives; and they have never been as efficient. Much is lost in the torsion of the shaft. A 2% increase in efficiency is an absolutely massive gain. The cycling industry is littered with flashy looking innovations that don't live up to the hype. The basic design of a diamond frame and chain drive has not been improved upon for over 100 years.

But every now and then there are innovations that actually take hold. For example, the slant parallelogram dérailleur, hydraulic disk brakes, suspension (for mountain bikes), and recently single narrow-wide front chain rings. We shall see how well this drivetrain goes.

<comment><USER21> > The basic design of a diamond frame and chain drive has not been improved > upon for over 100 years.

Except we have in the form of recumbent bicycles which have a huge aerodynamic advantage but they were banned in the 30s by making rules to enforce the frame dimensions.

Recumbent bikes hold the world land speed record on a bicycle if the definition of a bicycle is "2 wheeled muscle powered vehicle". For example the flying 200m speed record is 133km/h (flying start, flat ground, 1.66m/s tail wind max). 1h distance record is 90km while for normal bikes it is 55km etc.

Basically rules stifle a lot of innovation in the cycling world. Most pro bikes are too light to race legally so they have to add led weights. Strict rules about handlebars so you cannot get into a good aero position easily etc.

<comment><USER22> These rules apply to racing bikes, not to bikes that are used everyday for commuting or recreation. If recumbents were so much superior to the classic diamond frame, they would dominate the non-racing-bike market. I rode enough recumbents to prefer my uprights when commuting in a city, also for mountain biking and rides through hilly areas. If a was commuting in a flat area outside of a city I would maybe consider a recumbent.

<comment><USER9> A recumbent isn't "superior" to a traditional frame. It has select improvements, but for the general consumer the ride quality of a traditional frame is much better.

<comment><USER23> The general consumer has never experienced a recumbent ride. If they had, they would find the recumbent more comfortable on longer rides.

<comment><USER24> For bumpy roads, you can always stand on the pedals on an upright bicycle and use your legs as shock absorbers. You can't really do that on a recumbent.

But the general consumer most likely doesn't want to spend too much money on a bicycle and recumbents tend to be a bit more expensive compared to uprights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When someone wins an olympic event or whatever biking competition with this, we'll know if it's the real deal or not.

For the normal consumer, probably more about price than anything else, unless it enables better electric/motors, etc.

<comment><USER26> >For the normal consumer, probably more about price than anything else

This way just be the bubble that I live in, but I think the average cyclist that I know cares more about tech and marginal performance rather than price. New (performance) bikes commonly sell for thousands of dollars. It's not a world that seems especially price sensitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> How does the rider trigger the shifting? The interviewee refers to the system as "wireless", and I assumed that meant "no shifter cable" (as opposed to "using electromagnetic energy for communication" or something). I can't quite see in the video what they're doing to cause the shift up or down to happen.

<comment><USER28> In bikes these days, they do indeed mean "using EM energy for communication," AND also "no shifter cable." There's a comm link similar to Bluetooth (or maybe straight-up consisting of Bluetooth, I don't actually know) between the shifter controls and an actuated derailleur (or whatever the shifting mechanism is called in this case).

<comment><USER6> Probably something lower power than BT. These things try to have days of battery life with tiny batteries (e.g., Di2, eTap).

<comment><USER29> Modern Bluetooth can have years of battery life on a cr2032 button cell if all it does is signal some inputs.

<comment><USER6> What kind of IC do you have in mind for that kind of lifetime? While signaling, say, twice a minute on average, 2 hours a day?

<comment><USER29> I have no idea how it's built but I've seen it work in practice.

This kind of device works for years on a small battery, signaling every rotation of your wheel to your phone as you cycle:

[https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/Mv9PcDu8](https://s.click.aliexpress.com/e/Mv9PcDu8)

<comment><USER6> The spec page says 500 hours of battery, which is about 20 days. At 2 hrs/day that's 240 days -- still quite a bit, but yeah.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sounds like it might be pretty loud

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm really looking forward to more belt driven bicycles with internal gearing like the Priority 600 and Continuum Onyx. I'm tired of delicate bicycles that I have to fiddle with CONSTANTLY to keep them running.

<comment><USER32> Buy a better bike. You should effectively never need to fiddle with anything if you spend $300+ and aren't riding lots of hours or through intense terrain.

<comment><USER31> Yeah I don't see much smooth roads and ride about 500+ miles a month. Some of it is on roads, but also a lot of gravel/dirt. I have to constantly clean chains and group sets otherwise shifting gets super crunchy.

I used to ride a cheap bike (Liv Alight 3), but after replacing 3 wheels it was cheaper to buy a nicer bike. Tourney has become a swear word in our house. Lately I've been riding my Catrike Expedition which is a blast, but chain and gear maintenance is still a problem.

<comment><USER19> Sounds like you might be well served by a fat tire gravel bike, 1x up front with a limited number of rear gears? The less gears, the less fiddly, and they are built for rougher road.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 2% less effort to ride is fine and all, but how easy is it to maintain? I'd pay extra for a bike that never needs maintenance – does not need to be oiled regularly, does not need replacement gears or chains etc.

</comment><comment><USER34> When I hear "novel" and "patentable" mentioned in a video, I'm quite sure it's made solely to impress investors and immediately assume most of it is BS.

<comment><USER35> How is it that you're sure?

I am not a fan of Patents, especially software patents and ones that are deliberately filed for malicious, anti-competitive measures.

When a company _truly_ innovates, they deserve the prize of a patent. It appears that they've done so, investors lurking around or not.

<comment><USER36> I think the point of GP is more that their marketing content seems to be geared to wow investors, not consumers. Mentioning that they have a patent is of no positive value to consumers, it in fact might suggest that the design will be a niche commanding a high price.

<comment><USER37> They specifically called out one particular aspect of their design as being novel and patentable, about halfway through the video. Shaft drives for bicycles in general are not new. Calling out that one particular feature this way tells the consumer watching what sets theirs apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Who wants to have an open source cycle gear system. I'm in.

<comment><USER38> But here is what I think it looks. Whole concept of patent world is flawed and here is how it is.

This piece of gear system is a mix of central shaft(that we see in trucks + gear + that cut-in-half gear tooth)

If we split it into three individual item, then it is a three different patented item. Put together you get a new patent? Come on!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Reminds me of those old hand crank egg beaters.

</comment><comment><USER40> Motorcycles have had belt drives for decades. I wonder if they'd help bicycles also. (Lighter, cleaner, etc.)

<comment><USER41> They are available.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt- driven_bicycle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt-driven_bicycle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Previously, sharing bicycles company (Mobike) in China used similar chainless bikes in their businesses for ease of maintenance. But they were later replaced by traditional ones because chainless bicycles were usually much heavier and consumed more energy from riders. Very curious about how people in the article solved this problem.

</comment><comment><USER43> The article on CT gets into much more detail about this system: [https://cyclingtips.com/2019/09/ceramicspeed-driven-can- shif...](https://cyclingtips.com/2019/09/ceramicspeed-driven-can-shift/)

tl;dr: interesting and shows promise, still more work to do.

edit: don't be scared by the not-a-paywall greyed out text and box.

<comment><USER44> Interesting idea for shifting. One thing I'm concerned about (and this is probably only me in the entire wide world) is the tactile feel when shifting (and, indeed, pedaling in general.)

On single-speed bikes and common derailleur type multi-speed bikes (yes, even with freewheeling, but I assume even more without it) there's a very direct linkage between pedaling and movement. You start moving pretty much the instant you put pressure on the pedals.

I've noticed on some hub-gear bicycles there's a significant amount of slack where you have to pedal without resistance for at least 1/8 of a revolution until the drive mechanism kicks in. This is very frustrating to me (again, I'm sure it's only me...) and completely disrupts the suspense of disbelief I otherwise can conjure, which seems to be what allows me to get that freedom feeling almost like I'm flying. The lack of feedback for that fraction of a second yanks me straight out of the flow of navigating traffic with the bike as an extension of my body and reminds me sternly that I am sitting on a very- separate-from-my-body mechanical horse, some aspects of which are very much not in my control.

That sense of freedom is definitely one of the major reasons I use the bicycle as my primary means of transportation.

Sorry, very long rant about something very unspecific but vaguely related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> A 2% bump in efficiency hardly seems like a revolution. This is still cool though, I look forward to bikes that need lower maintenance because of the lack of chains

<comment><USER46> On the one hand, it's a 2% gain in efficiency. On the other, it's a 60% reduction in losses. From that viewpoint, it's pretty significant.

<comment><USER6> Drivechain losses only, and only if you take their numbers at face value. And if you ignore losses due to shifting. There are plenty of other losses (aero drag ...).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm interested in the idea of going not just chainless, but not having any rigid or semi-rigid drive connection at all.

I ride a recumbent tricycle, and an interesting complaint from my dad when we were discussing why recumbent trikes and velomobiles aren't more widespread is that the _design_ is unweildy, that the end result doesn't look polished; so we discussed ways that you could make it neater. The chain on recumbent trikes goes from the very front to the back of the vehicle, so it's a long, subjectively unsightly thing. Something like the this Driven shaft drive would be quite unsuitable for a trike due to the length of the shafts that would be required, and the resulting torsion.

So then, we wondered, what would it be like if you replaced the entire drivetrain with an electric drivetrain? Pedals at the front would drive a generator, which would pass power through slim wires hidden inside the frame or similar, to a motor at the back. Much neater, visually if in no other way. This would fit in very nicely with making it an e-bike, too: precise legislation wording could be problematic, but your 200W or 250W or whatever would be added to whatever power you generated by pedalling. And by being a fully-electric drivetrain, efficiency would be improved on the electric assist. (Probably similar to the benefits that I understand going full- electric on hybrid car drivetrains can offer.)

I'm not deeply familiar with the efficiencies involved, but my impression from light research is that regular chain drives start out at up to 97% but often operate at figures closer to 80–85% due to wear and lack of maintenance; and a full electric drivetrain could be over 90% efficient, though it'd be more likely to be around 80%. (Remember, we're not getting a battery involved at this point, so no losses on that.) Perhaps such a drive would be on par with a _typical_ chain drive for efficiency, though less than a well-maintained one; but it could provide improvements in efficiency in other areas (electric assist and foot-to-bike power transference).

I believe that less maintenance would be required, and it'd the complaint of the dirtiness of bike chains too. Heavier parts and more expensive, unless you were going e-bike already in which case it may be lighter and cheaper, which would become a much more obvious thing to do for such a bike.

It's interesting to think about. But I doubt I'll ever do any practical experimentation on the idea, because my list of projects I'd love to work on is already more than thirty years long (and getting longer each year), and this sits a fair way back on it.

Hydraulics would also be interesting to experiment with. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainless_bicycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainless_bicycle) is a good page to start on for learning about all these things.

<comment><USER41> The efficiency of electric assist doesn't really matter. They get decent range with a small battery, so you can just use a modestly larger battery to get more range.

I'm not saying more range from the same battery would be worthless, just that the ranges they already offer are plenty marketable.

I also wonder about the efficiency of a small (tiny!), slow generator.

<comment><USER47> You're generally correct, especially with how people mostly use bicycles and e-bikes. But it depends a bit on how you're positioning it; two interesting cases that I'm thinking of: using a "trickle power assist" to cheat your way to effectively 100% efficiency, so it needs to be efficient with small augmentations from a battery (which I _think_ is the sort of case that would commonly be particularly inefficient, but when combined with your pedalling in the same drivetrain I imagine it might not be); and velomobiles for longer- distance travel (very much more being a car replacement), perhaps even touring, where larger range figures start to matter more. If you can get it to go 20% further at a given speed, that becomes a bigger deal.

A substantial art of this thought experiment is about designing a _delightful_ product. As my dad said to me: if Apple were designing a bicycle or tricycle or velomobile or similar, what would it be like? We both agreed that there wouldn't be an exposed chain, for starters, and I suspect that they'd at least try to do away with the chain altogether, and they'd care about efficiencies if they went down this path.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I thought it went against HN policies to post about startups that actually follow through on their pie-in-the-sky ideas?</comment>


Hertz SEC Filing: Up to $500M Common Stock - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1657853/000110465920073132/tm2022223-1_424b5.htm <comment><USER2> "Although we cannot predict how our common stock will be treated under a plan, we expect that common stock holders would not receive a recovery through any plan unless the holders of more senior claims and interests, such as secured and unsecured indebtedness (which is currently trading at a significant discount), are paid in full, which would require a significant and rapid and currently unanticipated improvement in business conditions to pre-COVID-19 or close to pre-COVID-19 levels."

You will lose all your money unless there is an unanticipated improvement in business condition! I love how you just can't bullshit in your SEC-filings.

<comment><USER3> They know very well that the kind of people who read these filings are not the same kind of people eagerly buying their stock at this point.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, they're nothing like the sophisticated, mature investors that are buying 30-year government bonds that probably won't even keep up with inflation.

To phrase less trollishly: there aren't a lot of good investments now, and even government bonds seem overvalued.

<comment><USER5> That's called "financial repression". Sorry that it causes you to take excessive risks, there are many like you.

Walter Bagehot, the de facto founder of The Economist, was of the opinion that people will never stand 2% rates (and he meant plus :) ). They would rather fund anything, any project, the weirdest thing that offers any hope of yield; no matter how stupid.

And here we are, 143 years after Bagehot passed away. Sir, you are still absolutely correct!

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it "financial entitlement", to believe that your capital would always have positive value?

While we'll likely never run out of need for human labor, it's very possible we're running out of capital investment opportunities that realize a risk adjusted return above 0. "Too much money chasing too few deals" and all that jazz.

<comment><USER7> >> While we'll likely never run out of need for human labor, it's very possible we're running out of capital investment opportunities

Is this true? automation is essentially a emphasis from human to physical capital. It seems like we're continuing to reduce and specialize human capital while growing other forms.

Now I definitely see an end to passive capital gains in traditional financial markets; there's a lot of money sloshing around with not enough good places to put it. Anything near-passive (i.e. real estate) is also feeling similar pressures. It seems like a great time to build big projects that take a huge amount of money, I'm just not on board with pure public funding and all the issues that go with that.

<comment><USER8> I'm becoming less and less bullish on automation. It may be stupid, but I think that a lot of commmon tasks are functionally un-automatable, or at least not at an acceptable level of error.

Think about something as simple as phone support for pretty much any product or service. There's a ton of automation being employed there to relatively little effect - just try to do anything meaningful at any company yourself and you'll find you need to be shunted to a representative.

I recently needed to switch my phone plan ownership from a personal account to a company account. There were a couple of wrinkles that made my case more complicated than normal which I can't share. Despite 4 or 5 calls, I couldn't get it done. It just didn't seem like the process for doing this type of transfer didn't exist in any codified way. I could explain what I wanted to do in plain language, but it wasn't a valid transition. Not only was it invalid, it seems like nobody at this major phone provider had ever planned for this scenario to happen.

Now imagine this scenario under full phone support automation. The system wouldn't even understand what I was trying to do. You could definitely argue that you could design some sort of scenario router that might handle a situation like this, but it seems unlikely that if they couldn't come up with a human process, I doubt they could swing an automated one.

Something like AGI could handle a problem like this, but it feels like we're dozens or maybe hundreds of years away from that.

<comment><USER9> > I couldn't get it done.

It's quite easy to automate that outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What a crazy story.

Matt Levine's post about this is great as usual: [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if- you...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if-you-want- hertz-have-some-hertz%0A)

<comment><USER11> Agreed, I think this is the craziest investing story in my lifetime. Trying to find the HN link from last week about an article that said this was the 3rd type of bubble: type 1 is you expect the future to continue on with more of the present indefinitely, type 2 is you expect the future to be substantially different from the present, and this type 3 is _the future just doesn 't matter_.

While the world is in a betting mood, I'm just going to bet my 2 cents on "I don't think this will end well."

<comment><USER12>
      Agreed, I think this is the craziest investing story in my lifetime.

I remember people buying off-the-market IOUs for bitcoins from people who had accounts on Mt. Gox at a significant discount _after_ they had announced they were illiquid and couldn't find them lol.

Link to the company: [https://bitcoinbuilder.com/](https://bitcoinbuilder.com/)

Looks like they're still in pending status! Wow

<comment><USER13> The price of Bitcoin went up so much after the bankruptcy of Mt. Gox that the few bitcoins that were recovered were enough to pay off all their creditors (debts in bankruptcy are denominated in yen or dollars, not Bitcoin) and have a profit left over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Inconceivable!"

Few things could symbolize "the YOLO Stock Market" better than the successful issuance of worthless stock by a company that is already in bankruptcy after it has explicitly warned in the prospectus that its stock is worthless unless there is an "unanticipated improvement in business conditions."

Boring details such as "how much is this worth?" or "does it have any value?" or "who gets what in this bankruptcy?" are evidently _irrelevant_ to the buyers of the stock, who must be trying to "beat the gun," as J. M. Keynes described it nine decades ago[a] -- or maybe they just want to burn money with reckless courage and abandon as a novel form of conceptual performance art?

[a] See also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23517657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23517657) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23515797](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23515797) .

<comment><USER15> yeah but the successful insurance of new stock to cover debt means it may no longer be worthless

<comment><USER16> Reflexivity in motion! George Soros would be delighted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Am I the only person who actually liked Hertz?

Never had a bad experience with them.

Tried a cheaper car rental place ONE time, and the brakes failed on the car...

<comment><USER18> I am a Hertz Gold member, which is a free program like flight miles. However, being a gold member, you can skip the counter and pick up your car (sometimes you have to go to the 'gold counter' if your flight is delayed, etc). It's always a quick and painless experience. Definitely saves a ton of time if you travel frequently. I'll often pay a little bit more because I like their service (crazy, right?)

I'm really disappointed in Hertz going bankrupt. Hopefully their operation can continue, I really enjoyed using them.

<comment><USER19> > I am a Hertz Gold member

What's the program they ran that had an annual fee?

They really catered to the business traveler market and if your membership was paid for by a corporate account then their unstated, unofficial policy was that if you could return a car under its own power you'd never be charged for damage.

My wife was a consultant for a construction company many many years ago and had at least 3 cars totaled from being parked near construction sites. She once drove a car with a flat tire for nearly 20 miles to avoid missing a flight. Hertz never batted an eye.

<comment><USER20> There used to be a program called #1 Club Gold that nominally had an annual fee. A company I worked at in the 90s got free lifetime memberships for all employees as a perk for making Hertz their preferred agency so even after I left that company I remained a member. The main benefit was the shuttle buses dropped you off in that part of the lot first and you could just get in your car and drive off without waiting in line. At some point in the 2010s that got merged into the current Gold Plus program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't get the hate on this offering. It's a huge gamble for sure, but the upside is there if they pull it off.

Do I think they will? No, I don't.

However, as long as someone isn't betting their life savings on this I don't see or take any issue with it.

<comment> tuna-piano _However, as long as someone isn't betting their life savings on this I don't see or take any issue with it._

...

Thai Gaon, a 23-year-old salesman in San Francisco, bought 35,000 Hertz shares on June 4 at $1.43, spending a little over $50,000, according to documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

"It was my entire life savings," he said. "I decided, you know, if I'm gonna do it, I should do it big, and I'll make a play and see what comes out of it."

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if- you...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-12/if-you-want- hertz-have-some-hertz%0A)

<comment><USER22> That's an impressive savings for a 23yo. Imagine all the work and discipline going into it. I wonder how much work and discipline he put into betting on Hertz.

<comment><USER23> And Hertz of all companies. My experiences with them have been uniformly awful; they always try to charge me for insurance or services which I explicitly decline, and their customer support is openly hostile. I'm sure they were a competent company at one point in time, but betting your life savings on a company that is apparently surviving on fraud is bold.

<comment><USER24> But all of that shitty behavior is actually good for the shareholders (in the short term) they were essentially seeing how much you could abuse captive and or ignorant customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I for one, will not miss hertz. They charged me 100$ for a baby seat, without even listing the price. Then, when I confronted them about it, they tried to deny responsibility by saying it was the billing vendor's fault even though they're the ones who received the money.

<comment><USER26> Came to say this. In 2019 I opted for Hertz instead of a cheaper local company because I wanted to be sure to get a proper infant car seat. They charged me something similar and when I went to pick up the car they had a toddler seat. I said that my baby is only six months old hello... the Hertz rep asked her friend from another company next door, who gave us an infant seat, albeit one that was like a weird reclined plastic shell (with the price tag still on it, worth $50!). I was super bitter at Hertz after that. We ended up going and buying a proper car seat for about $150 for our ten-day trip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Has it actually filled the offering? The title says it has, but the link is to the prospectus, which merely must be available before they begin at the market offerings.

There is no indication I see that this title is correct and that Hertz has sold all $500 million of the ATM stock offering.

<comment><USER28> It appears to be a typo for "files".

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> OP perhaps saw this comment?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23517270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23517270)

</comment><comment><USER30> I see a virtually 0% chance that Hertz emerges from this as the same legal entity as when they went in.

That said, I have witnessed several corporate miracles within the last decade, and I am hesitant to dismiss these sorts of herculean efforts. Perhaps they are grasping at straws, but maybe someone knows something I don't. I usually default to the latter assumption when dealing with matters this complex. Keep in mind that when people are up against the ropes and running out of options, the amount of innovation that occurs can start to skyrocket. Nothing is out of bounds anymore. Everything becomes an option.

As a result, I have bought an incredibly small # of shares in the extremely unlikely event that Hertz does emerge from this a viable company. If those shares evaporate into nothing tomorrow, I won't lose any sleep over it.

</comment><comment><USER31> This highlights something that I've always found confusing about the stock market. The traditional CAPM assumes stocks are priced based upon discounted future cash flows. But yet, we have many stocks which have an extremely high liklihood of _never_ returning capital to investors: stocks which are likely to never buy back shares nor issue dividends. And yet, investors price them as if that capital will be returned to investors. There does seem to be something fairly unexplainable about stock valuation by the market. Perhaps this finally reveals something more to it.

<comment><USER32> That's because CAPM isn't the only way to price stocks. Some stocks can be priced like options, if they have contingent cashflows. Consider a biotech startup with a product coming to market. If they get FDA approval, that company is probably worth a lot! But if they don't, it might be worthless. Similar for an oil & gas company drilling for resources in a new area.

You might like checking out Aswath Damadoran's videos on valuation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmQ7oMiQrM#t=9m23s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znmQ7oMiQrM#t=9m23s).

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Weren't the airlines insolvent just a month or two ago, before they were bailed out? Can we confidently say that there is a 0% chance for a deus ex machina intervention that will bring the equity back into play?

I'm not suggesting that buying into this offering is a good idea or that bailouts are a good idea. However, given recent experience, assigning a > 0 price to Hertz equity is not irrational.

</comment><comment><USER34> @dang the title has a typo, I think it should be "Hertz files the ..."

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here, it is a typo. Too late to edit :(. Sorry!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I still think this is a smart move for Hertz. A loan comes with an interest rate and repayments. A new offering is just cash minus the fees. It's "free" in terms of future obligations.

If this "IBO" gives Hertz the breathing room to restructure, clean up, and come out the other side, then well done. If not, no one will be surprised. It's a "no lose" scenario for them.

As an investor, nope. If it drops down to penny stocks, I'll go "all in" with the $6 I can't transfer out of my Etrade account but not willing to consider anything real.

</comment><comment><USER36> In other words, this is the stock market equivalent of "hot potato". The retail investors buying on robinhood are doing so because they're betting they wont be the last one holding the chips.

</comment><comment><USER37> If anyone is looking for a used car, they have a lot of their fleet up for sale here: [https://www.hertzcarsales.com/](https://www.hertzcarsales.com/)

</comment><comment><USER38> Is there a typo in the title? Right now it says "Intial Bankruptcy Offering", but should it say "Initial Bankruptcy Offering"?

</comment><comment><USER39> Fed Chair: no risk of asset bubbles.

...that is nice.

</comment><comment><USER40> Was "fills" in the title supposed to read "files"?

</comment><comment><USER41> If you think this is crazy check out Bigfoot Project Investments.

</comment><comment><USER42> A new financial instrument, how familiar!

<comment><USER43> It is actually just more of the stock that's already out there though. People want to buy it, Hertz wants to sell it to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Is anyone buying puts?

<comment><USER45> A $2 put for Jan 22 is currently trading with a 1.60-1.75 spread, meaning the break-even point is $0.25-0.40. Not much reward to have there. No shares available to short either.

<comment><USER46> Yes, but you would also sell the call for 0.80.

<comment><USER45> Good point. Are you making that trade?

<comment><USER46> No. I've considered it but it would not make for a fun time if the crazies bid Hertz up significantly.

<comment><USER45> That's the thing - tough to know how long a bubble lasts for. And choosing a time horizon based on the court system is difficult because bankruptcy proceedings can drag on for a long long long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> PSA: Hertz stock is already worthless. The only thing keeping it afloat are retail investors that keep piling in. They are pretty much guaranteed to lose money holding it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Good to know we can count on the SEC to bust small-time dentists who make $70K on options trades off insider info, and also rubber stamp financial maneuvers which are guaranteed to harm numerous retail investors like this.

If the ruling principle of our financial markets is going to be "caveat emptor" why don't we just disband those portions of the SEC which are supposed to vet securities offerings?

<comment><USER27> The filing clearly states investors will lose their money.

If you're intent on losing money, there are many worse ways to do it, and nobody can claim this registration is deceitful.

<comment><USER48> > The filing clearly states investors will lose their money.

So if I want to sell stock with a registration statement which says, "this is a Ponzi scheme and investors who buy in too late will lose all their money," that should be permissible?

<comment><USER49> >So if I want to sell stock with a registration statement which says, "this is a Ponzi scheme and investors who buy in too late will lose all their money," that should be permissible?

If you make sure that investors are actually aware (e.g., you don't try to bury it in fine print), then I don't see why not, as long it complies with the gambling laws of the relevant jurisdiction.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Pulse – Empathize with your users via real-time heartbeats - <AUTHOR> https://pulse.crevalle.io <comment><USER2> Really needs a demo, the images are tiny.

I tried to sign up but got this error after authenticating with github:

Uh oh, the heart stopped!

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this mainly for novelty/fun or is there a serious use for this?

<comment><USER4> "Pulse is for team leaders and individuals who believe software is created by and for humans."

I feel like you can glean your answer from that statement.

<comment><USER3> I do agree with that statement (in quotes) and if the purpose of Pulse is to be reminded of this then I think that's a novel idea and perhaps lightens the mood alongside Mixpanel/Google Analytics etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah exactly. I've sat in so many engineering rooms with graphs that, while colorful, end up obscuring the human users behind them. Pulse isn't trying to replace New Relic, Datadog, etc but complement them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you share the pulse URL for the onload on the page itself?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, that would be helpful. Some kind of live demo/video would be more engaging than the static images on your current landing page. Looks like it could be cool!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! I agree that plain images aren't that compelling. I'll work on a more dynamic demonstration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Site needs work on iPhone.</comment>


GitLab Moves from Azure to Google Cloud Platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/gitlab-moves-from-azure-to-google-cloud-platform/ <comment><USER2> Good. I want them to be as far away from Microsoft as possible. It seems a lot of young developers are buying into the PR of Microsoft (that now they have changed!) which is unfortunate but not surprising. I've found a lot of young devs having a different view of Microsoft since they didn't experience Microsofts embrace and extinguish tactics themselves.

But buying Github is exactly this behavior. They will use it to steer people into Azure and increase the illusion that they think open source is awesome. Young devs will fall for it.

..

<comment><USER3> I think Google had better PR team. There are too many people trust them.</comment></comment>


Patterns on goods designed to trigger Automated License Plate Readers - <AUTHOR> https://adversarialfashion.com/ <comment><USER2> A week ago I was sitting at work and a civilian car drove by the office window with a plate reader system and went up and down every row of cars in our parking lot.

The car was obviously trespassing, you can't be on the property unless you're a tenant or guest. But due to the spongy ethics of tech companies, I'm sure my license plate is uploaded to some database and people know exactly where I work and what time I'm away from my house.

<comment><USER3> Does your office or property management company hire someone to do parking enforcement or security? It would not surprise me to learn that they're subcontracting the task of identifying cars which aren't on a list somewhere.

<comment><USER2> Definitely not. This is a pretty cheap rental.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> With a digital license plate it should be possible to display a random number or no number while in those locations(work or mall parking lots, your driveway, etc.,) where there is no legal requirement to show the plate number. Alternatively the digital plate could be configured to flash the plate number at an interval longer than the typical plate reader vehicle takes to pass your parked vehicle. That would at least cut down on the capture rate of government and auto loan companies that cruise parking lots which is a good portion of all scanning activity. Unless the digital plate is reporting it's location via cell network.

<comment><USER5> I was just thinking the other day that we need to have e-ink based license plates. The plate number could be generated and changed every n minutes. There would have to be a government run system that would be able to link the generated number to the owner of the car, but hopefully there'd be some checks, balances and logging on the use of it (ie: a warrant would be required, etc). It wouldn't prevent a government from abusing it, but at least private companies scanning activities would be rendered null.

<comment><USER6> Interesting, something like TOTP for license plates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ha:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15606675](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15606675) (2017)

<comment><USER8> Check out Dazzle, it might interest you.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another similar project: [https://cvdazzle.com/](https://cvdazzle.com/)

<comment><USER10> That site claims that OpenCV is a facial detection algorithm...

<comment><USER11> It's simply claiming that it implements one...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Always been a dicey business. I'd worked on one back in the 80's(!) and the issue then was, bumper stickers that had the same aspect ration as a license plate. Plus license plate frames (which must by law not cover any part of the plate with info on them, but often do anyway).

</comment><comment><USER13> Someone tested this shirt out on EasyALPR Parking Enforcer a recently and it did scan. (I'm putting EasyALPR through Startup School right now)

I was wondering about it—-though it was only tested against the image of the shirt, I suspect it would be picked up at close enough range.

Most of my work is creating great workflow for handling incorrect or unwanted data gathered using alpr on iOS.

If you were waltzing through a the parking lot of one of my commercial property customers and a patroller somehow scanned you—-some admin later that day might frown for a few moments before marking the "vehicle sighting" invalid.

</comment><comment><USER14> was thinking about some sort of product line of eyewear or mask that would mess with facial recognition.

wonder if people would purchase it if it wasn't too obnoxious.

<comment><USER15> It's called "sunglasses".

<comment><USER16> Typical sunglasses do not hide your face from facial recognition!

<comment><USER17> These do: [https://www.reflectacles.com/](https://www.reflectacles.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> These t-shirts will look nice when they make versions addressing Automated Face Readers.

<comment><USER19> i dont have a link to the paper but there's patterns already on sale [https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.310496356.4049/gptr%2Cx900%2...](https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.310496356.4049/gptr%2Cx900%2Cfront%2Cblack-c%2C200%2C205%2C210%2C230-bg%2Cf8f8f8.lite-1u2.jpg)

<comment><USER20> That particular pattern looks like it came out of the Hyperface project.[1]

Also here's an actual purchaseable link at RedBubble [2]. No affiliation with the seller (nor does it look like they're connected to the original project).

[1] [https://ahprojects.com/hyperface/](https://ahprojects.com/hyperface/)

[2] [https://www.redbubble.com/people/naamiko/works/24714049-anti...](https://www.redbubble.com/people/naamiko/works/24714049-anti- surveillance-clothing?p=mens-graphic-t-shirt&ref=available_products_swiper)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Echoes of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition book.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you're gonna put a target on your back, this seems like a solid way to go about it.

<comment><USER23> If we think like this, we are either paranoid or already live in a totalitarian society.

<comment><USER24> There are plenty of paranoid people. We have a ways to go before we reach authoritarian.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Get a shirt with Washington DC license plate 800 002 (Presidential limo)

</comment><comment><USER2> I need an lcd bumper sticker that displays these randomly very quickly.

</comment><comment><USER26> how does this help unless the license plates are valid? And multiple people have your plate on their shirt and are walking in front of readers all across the country?

</comment><comment><USER27> Yeah I doubt it, unless they're retroreflective and you're in the habit or running down roads.

<comment><USER28> Well in plain sunlight it should work OK.

The problem is the plate numbers are limited, you are not injecting random data, just repetitive data.

<comment><USER29> If you got two different shirts displaying two different plates, you could flip a coin each morning to decide which one to wear before starting your daily jog down the freeway.

Guaranteed randomly sampled data

<comment><USER30> I think the parent wanted to point out that it's fairly trivial to blacklist the plates on these shirts and thus remove the injected data. The number of available plates on the shirts is limited, likely they're not valid plates either.

<comment><USER31> It would likely be more expensive, but it seems plausible that it would be possible to manufacture shirts that each have a random license plate number. That would at least make it so that they would have to make the blacklisting local to the area where a given shirt owner regularly travels.

<comment><USER32> individually would be prohibitive, but specifying a different set of plates on each order from the supplier shouldn't be too hard. The printing is done digitally anyway, as long as the cuts don't change it should be trivial to specify a new pattern.

disclaimer: I have very little idea about the details, I've just advised startups that got clothing manufactured offshore.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Polaris: Faster Page Loads Using Fine-grained Dependency Tracking [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/polaris.pdf <comment><USER3> This press release is rather light on details. The actual paper can be found here:

[http://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/polaris....](http://mickens.seas.harvard.edu/files/mickens/files/polaris.pdf)

I haven't completely digested it, but it looks like it works by a combination of pre-calculating a dependency graph for each page, which it then tweaks during the real page load depending on current network conditions.

<comment><USER4> Ok, we changed the URL to that from [http://news.mit.edu/2016/system-loads- web%20pages-34-percent...](http://news.mit.edu/2016/system-loads- web%20pages-34-percent-faster-0309).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Based on the related paper[1], this appears to be more of a proof of concept than something you might introduce into production.

For example:

 _" To evaluate a JavaScript file, the scheduler uses the built-in eval() function that is provided by the JavaScript engine. To evaluate HTML, CSS, and images, Polaris leverages DOM interfaces like document.innerHTML to dynamically update the page's state"_

So, it relies on eval(), which will slow down javascript significantly, and document.innerHTML, which will slow down rendering. It's trading asset download improvements for rendering slowdown.

The high level advice of streamlining the dependency chain of page assets is laudable, but this doesn't sound like the right approach.

[1][http://web.mit.edu/ravinet/www/polaris_nsdi16.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/ravinet/www/polaris_nsdi16.pdf)

<comment><USER3> I'm not 100% certain, but it looks like that parsing is meant to be done ahead of time, rather than on the fly?

> _" To use Polaris with a specific page, a web developer runs Scout on that > page to generate a dependency graph and a Polaris scheduler stub. The > developer then configures her web server to respond to requests for that > page with the scheduler stub's HTML instead of the page's regular HTML._"

(But even if I've misunderstood that and it is realtime, the network is still a tighter bottleneck than the page renderer in most cases, so it seems like a generally reasonable tradeoff to me.)

I'm curious how well this compares to e.g. a plain old webpack solution though -- ideally you'd have organized your assets well enough in the first place that something like Polaris would be unnecessary. "Ideal" is often a long way from reality, of course.

<comment><USER5> The calls to eval() and manipulation of innerHTML are runtime...they describe it as what the "scheduler stub" does, which is the runtime code that parses the "processed page" and recreates it.

eval() is a significant concern for performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems very similar to the system I came up with to reduce load times for JavaScript and CSS assets in Gate One a few years ago:

[https://github.com/liftoff/GateOne/blob/master/gateone/core/...](https://github.com/liftoff/GateOne/blob/master/gateone/core/server.py#L2743)

Instead of letting the browser figure out which assets to load--using multiple GET requests--it delivers assets over the existing WebSocket connection and _also_ caches those assets at the client in IndexedDB. So the client only ever has to download JavaScript/CSS assets _once_ unless they change on the server (in which case they'll get re-synchronized automatically).

The mechanism loads _much_ faster than allowing the client browser to perform all those (latency-unfriendly) GET requests. It is also superior to file concatenation since you can change any individual asset without having to worry about the impact of all clients having to re-download that one huge concatenated file.

</comment><comment><USER7> Doesn't HTTP2 solves this by using Stream dependencies? It seems to be a lot clean than using JS eval()

<comment><USER6> Yes, it does. By keeping the connection persistent while assets are loaded you completely do away with the latency introduced by using multiple separate GET requests.

HTTP2 is basically like loading all your assets over an existing WebSocket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm curious to know how much this improves page loads when resource hints are used properly. I may be failing to understand the paper, but it seems to me that strong usage of resource hints plus HTTP/2 dependency-based prioritization makes a lot of this technique obsolete.

<comment><USER9> There's quite a gap and a lot of head scratching between the theory of H2 dependence based prioritization and the reality of implementation - <USER2> example Chrome haven't even implemented it yet.

Even with resource hints, H2 etc. the browser is still discovering the dependencies at run time and relying to the developer to hint them correctly for some performance speed up.

<comment><USER10> Except with resources where it's trivial for the server to determine the dependency graph, like ES2015 modules and HTML imports. In these cases the server can send push dependencies before the client even receives the initial document.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've seen significant script delays from loading files on the server, before ever getting to the web browser. I.e. apparently the file server was on the network, but not the same machine as the web server. I was using Smarty as a templating engine, and I had a template for a table row that loaded many times during the rendering of a particularly long table. It literally was loading the file once for every time a table row had to be generated, and it came with a lot more overhead than I would ever expect.

I switched the include directive to inline for the table row, but I was using template directives that were not supported inline by the template compiler. In the end I had to add some code to the compiler in order to get a reasonable performance time (thank you open source).

</comment><comment><USER12> How does it compare with HTTP/2 or even SPDY?

</comment><comment><USER13> Or websites could just optimize themselves for fast "first render". It's not rocket science. Start by making sure your non-critical assets don't block rendering. (E.g. many large news sites still have FOIT-inducing web fonts, which should be considered an amateur's mistake at this point.)

<comment><USER14> It's not an either/or. If this helps people who want content from slow websites without requiring the slow website to do very much, and it has no impact on existing websites, then what's the problem?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Couldn't you get close to optimization by just observing the load order in a real page load? Why go to the trouble to construct the dependency graph?

</comment><comment><USER16> What I've found helps, if you really need to squeeze that performance out of a server, is setting up a ram disk for your /var/ directory, or one small ramdisk for every small web page you are running.

That running with lighttpd will probably be the fastest you can easily pull from a web-server.

Also I try to never directly edit the ramdisk. I write changes to a git repo and write a small script to pull from the repo and directly write to the disk immediately.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is the software available to download?

<comment><USER16> I don't see any place to get it. That's what I've always found funny about academic CS work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> tl;dr anyone? For me - what is seems it tries to automagically optimize poorly written webpages.

<comment><USER5> It changes the page fairly dramatically. Before rolling out a page, you run it through their parser, which creates skeletal html and a javascript stub which you serve in place of the original html.

Then, when this substituted page is loaded, their javascript rebuilds the original web page with calls to eval() and whatever.innerHTML, in a way that the dependencies are supposedly streamlined.

<comment><USER19> Ug, just what we need - more pages that don't work without javascript :(. You know what really speeds up the web? Turning off javascript...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Wait, is that _the_ James Mickens?

[https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1309_14-17_mickens.pdf](https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1309_14-17_mickens.pdf)

<comment><USER3> The Mickens of fame and fortune.

I aspire to someday be the kind of guy who gets the definite article prepended to his name

<comment><USER21> > I aspire to someday be the kind of guy who gets the definite article > prepended to his name

Some comedian (Demetri Martin, maybe?) called this "the American version of royalty."

<comment><USER22> At least it's not hereditary.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


4chan User Attempts Suicide on Live Cam as Hundreds Watch and Do Nothing - <AUTHOR> http://aattp.org/4chan-user-attempts-suicide-on-live-cam-as-hundreds-watch-and-do-nothing-video/ <comment><USER2> And when you stare into 4chan long enough, the 4chan also stares into you...

</comment><comment><USER3> Anybody remember Gulf I?

The live streams from the bombings, almost like a video game.

Those were people too.

<comment><USER4> I was a bit young for Gulf I, but I definitely remember the very uneasy feeling of watching 'Shock and Awe' in 2003.

The world had a live-feed to the destruction of a city;

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

1,700 air sorties and over 500 cruise missiles impacting and broadcast live to your living room. I wonder what the death toll from that night was.. 10,000? More?

<comment><USER5> Significantly less -- even the highest estimates on the invasion phase (not just the shock and awe portion) where at 5600, and of course, the US government claims an order of magnitude less than the 5600 number.

Shock and Awe was about display of power and infrastructure destruction... now how many died due to lack of power, water, and various types of infrastructure is an open question, and those deaths probably went on long after the "invasion phrase"

<comment><USER4>
        Significantly less -- even the highest estimates on
        the invasion phase (not just the shock and awe portion)
        where at 5600

Not according to anything I've read.

 _Franks reportedly estimated soon after the invasion that there had been 30,000 Iraqi casualties as of April 9, 2003._

 _" Our analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants – that is: civilians who did not take up arms."_

 _The study author Carl Conetta reported: "All told, more than 40,000 Iraqis were killed or injured,"_

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_invasion_casualties)

<comment><USER5> You seem to not understand the context I was replying too, nor what I said.

> 1,700 air sorties and over 500 cruise missiles impacting and broadcast live > to your living room. I wonder what the death toll from that night was.. > 10,000? More?

This was the initial comment I was replying to, about the shock and awe campaign (read: Rapid Dominance). Since finding numbers for JUST the shock and awe is virtually impossible (since it was only about 48 hours), I expanded the time period to the entire "invasion phase", which was the initial military incursion period, not the entirety of the war. The "invasion phase" ends when you got your troops in country and footholds established.

This was all to correct that idea that 10,000 or more people died in two days (March 19th - March 21st, 2003). Even according the IBC (the most inflated numbers I could find) the end of shock and awe period numbers where at a maximum 1,174

April 2003 Min: 996 Max: 1,174 \- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >John is an unfortunate Liberal soul who lives uncomfortably in the middle of a Conservative hellscape. While he is not a fan of politicians, period, he has developed a deep-seated hatred for the bigotry, fear mongering, and lies of the Right Wing. He also rather enjoys steak.

Uh-huh. Also posting a Youtube link of it for all the heathens to take a look at.

</comment><comment><USER7> I mean what could they really do?

</comment><comment><USER8> This isn't the first time it has happened. I don't have the link, but a teen streamed a completed a suicide a while back while hundreds watched. There was a question if some of the onlookers knew he was serious/it was real.

</comment><comment><USER9> This isn't new. It's been happening for years now on 4Chan. Moderators (called Janitors) _should_ have deleted the thread and alerted authorities as they usually do. I wonder how the thread managed to stay alive for so long.

<comment><USER10> Because the janitors are absolute garbage. I see more illegal shit on the "worksafe" boards stick around for hours and days on end without going answered by any 4chan staff or volunteers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hasn't this happened in the past? I recall viewing a successful attempt sometime back in 2006.

</comment><comment><USER12> What can someone actually do in this type of situation?

I do I agree that it's disgusting that people were watching tho.

/b/ is literally the worst board on 4chan, I don't know why moot hasn't deleted that board.

<comment><USER13> It's a containment board, it keeps the shitposters from spilling into other better boards. Same reason /s4s/ is still there - it's the board where people go to shitpost so that the other boards don't have to be filled with it.

<comment><USER14> >Same reason /s4s/ is still there - it's the board where people go to shitpost so that the other boards don't have to be filled with it.

No, no, no. 4chan is still full of shitposting, and /s4s/'s own shitposting has steadily been leaking into other boards. Moot has no idea how to manage and build a community. His answer to troublemakers (spammers, shitposters, idiots) is to give them their own place, hoping they'll just stay there and leave everyone else alone. The racists, the misogynists, the ponyfuckers, you name it. Then when they have established a presence (thanks in no small part to his retarded policy) and people still complain about them, he says now he can't get rid of their board, or they'd spill out into the others. This kind of approach is, at best, horribly naive, and at worst, downright stupid. The site has been hemorrhaging quality posters for years and creating abominations like /s4s/ won't help to reverse the trend.</comment></comment></comment>


The Private Magic of Treehouses - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/favorite-treehouse-designs <comment><USER2> I got one image into this article and tried to block the "Like us on Facebook" element. While I was doing that, a full-screen nag popped up and, upon being blocked, I discovered that scrolling was now permanently broken.

Refreshing the page works, but scrolling breaks again when, presumably, this popup tries to come back.

 _sigh_

This is normal now, isn't it? Does this kind of crap really generate quality leads? I don't understand why it's so pervasive.

<comment><USER3> The simple solution on Firefox was to simply click on the 'like' popup "X" button which resulted in no popups for the rest of the session. Also, most of the images were not of what would be called 'tree houses' since they were not in trees but just in the context of trees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A tree house, a free house,

A secret you and me house,

A high up in the leafy branches

Cozy as can be house.

A street house, a neat house,

Be sure and wipe your feet house

Is not my kind of house at all--

Let's go live in a tree house.

<comment><USER5> Sorry for my low quality comment, but reading this in Snoop Dogg's voice is wonderful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some of these look like cottages/cabins. Shouldn't they be solely supported by trees to be considered a proper treehouse?

<comment> Joe-Z Not solely maybe, but I agree with you. Some of them are more in-between-tree- houses.

Still nice to see what people come up with!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Some of those look incredibly unsafe.

<comment><USER8> Haha you should have seen the treehouse my friends and I built when we were in about fifth grade. It was probably 15 feet off the ground and put together with as much carpentry skill as a group of 11 year old boys had, using boards and plywood scavenged from our garages or vacant lots. Fun times. Pre internet era, nobody had a phone and video games meant pac man at the arcade if you had money to play, or maybe Pong on a TV set.

<comment><USER9> yeah I built one of these out of pallets when I was 10 and it had to be torn down when a neighbor kid stepped on a rusty nail. Fortunately they didn't sue my family. I understood the concept of a hammer and nails, but that was the limit of my knowledge.</comment></comment></comment>


Wonderful Exercise Body map - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/InternetIsBeautiful/comments/68jiox/a_clean_simple_exercise_body_map/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here is the non Reddit url - [https://musclewiki.org/](https://musclewiki.org/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the url [https://musclewiki.org/](https://musclewiki.org/)</comment>


YouTube: An open letter to our community - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/youtube/status/950847377816113153 <comment><USER2> Context: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/02/outcry-as- yout...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/02/outcry-as-youtube-star- posts-video-of-dead-body-in-japan)

Apparently a YouTube 'celebrity' released a video showing the body of a man in Japan who had committed suicide. YouTube is apologising for not having dealt better with the issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Context?

Its a bit ironic to open with "You deserve to know what's going on.", and not explain the background prompting the message.</comment>


A Layman's Intro to Western Classical Music - <AUTHOR> https://quariety.com/2018/04/28/a-laymans-intro-to-western-classical-music/ <comment><USER2> I'm working on an IDE for music. IDE: Windows notepad = my thing : normal DAWs. Sign up here if you want to be notified when it's ready

[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-aQzVbkbGwv2BMQsvuoneOUPgyr...](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-aQzVbkbGwv2BMQsvuoneOUPgyrc6HRl- DjVwHZxKvo)

It uses novel models of tonality that will make you productive. Write 10 albums in the time of 1. It doesn't dumb anything down, it actually let's you explore the entirety of the musical space. (Goes beyond tonality).

Right now writing music in a DAW is surprisingly time consuming. Too much clicking, not enought exploring. I'm trying to change that.

<comment><USER3> That definitely sounds interesting, but I'm also a little blazé at this kind of announcement. I have vague recollection of seeing this kind of ambition multiple times, and zero recollection of seeing any of them concertize. I guess there is a lot of hidden difficulty in the task.

I'm also not sure about that IDE analogy. IDEs and advanced code editors are basically notepad with lots of extra features that increase productivity, at the cost of added complexity and some extra learning effort. Meanwhile, current DAWs can already be _very_ complex and hard to learn fully, because they already have a million features to boost productivity in various ways. So if current DAWs are "notepad", I'm not sure I want to know what an "IDE" even looks like.

Because of that, I wouldn't belittle the existing tools so much. Several DAWs are deeply scriptable and extensible, on top of the plethora of rapid-workflow features they possess. This can get you pretty far in terms of creative productivity.

That being said, I'm sure there is a world of unexplored workflows and musical frameworks, and I want to see more people digging into that. But when you casually say you're going to pull a revolution out of nowhere, you can expect grumpy replies like this.

<comment><USER2> > That definitely sounds interesting, but I'm also a little blazé at this kind > of announcement.

I can't blame you and if I were you I would be a bit skeptical too.

> I have vague recollection of seeing this kind of ambition multiple times, > and zero recollection of seeing any of them concertize.

Which ones for example? You are right, it's problem that people have been trying to solve however most of the proposed solutions were either very academical or very specific. They weren't trying to help you with composition.

> I guess there is a lot of hidden difficulty in the task.

There is however I like to think I've managed to remove quite a bit of it.

> I'm also not sure about that IDE analogy. IDEs and advanced code editors are > basically notepad with lots of extra features that increase productivity, at > the cost of added complexity and some extra learning effort.

Don't strain the analogy. It's a music composition software that tries to help you.

> Meanwhile, current DAWs can already be very complex and hard to learn fully, > because they already have a million features to boost productivity in > various ways. So if current DAWs are "notepad", I'm not sure I want to know > what an "IDE" even looks like.

Here's the thing, most of current DAWs are for editing of sound. Cutting, mixing etc, they have surprisingly few features that are related to tonality and composition. And Sibelius and all that sucks a stiff one too. How many DAWs actually understand the concept of a scale and how many understand this concept "productively". Ive tried all of them and they are all terrible for this. E.g. if you have 10 tracks playing a chord, and you want to change said chord, you have to go through all the tracks and change the notes manually. That's very annoying.

Not to mention that all current DAWs have terrible, terrible interfaces. I can go for hours on each of them and why it sucks, so pick one, I'll try to tell you why I hate that particular one.

> In any case, I wouldn't belittle the existing tools so much. Several DAWs > are deeply scriptable and extensible, on top of the plethora of rapid- > workflow features they possess.

I don't want to script things. I want a tool, not a toolkit. And not all things are scriptable. And I also want really good visualization and fast workflows. And you can't really build new UIs.

If you want to talk about this more, send me an email (it's in my profile), I can talk about this for hours.

<comment><USER4> Have you seen Orb Composer?

[https://www.orb-composer.com](https://www.orb-composer.com)

I don't think it's outstandingly great, but it suggests a lot of people are going to be moving into this space.

The problem is automated composition is incredibly unpopular with pop writers - they'd rather use samples anyway - and academic composers would rather do their own thing the hard way.

Most people are very concrete thinkers. IMO the number of people who can handle the kind of musical abstractions you're talking about is tiny.

<comment><USER2> I haven't no. It's somewhat similar but very different actually.

I wouldn't call it automated composition either. My thing isn't too abstract I think.

Edit: I've looked at the sw now and I also hate it. Terrible UI, seems to be stuck in the 18th century as far as music theory goes, etc etc. and they want 700 eur for this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In case this interests you, then this is also neat:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2zubHcER4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2zubHcER4)

Bernstein, The greatest 5 min. in music education

</comment><comment><USER6> An excellent introduction to this topic is a lecture series called "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music" by Robert Greenberg.

It's very rich in detail but Greenberg also makes it accessible and fun.

It's available for cheap on audible and from "the great courses".

<comment><USER7> thanks a lot, I was going to ask about suggestions on this vein. The audible at 14$ with membership looks like a very good deal too.

I have effectively no knowledge or understanding of classical music, and it seems there is no obvious way of learning other than "just listen to a lot of it".

Ok obviously that works, but I'd rather have an equivalent of SICP or CTM :)

<comment><USER8> Maybe one of the books that might be an SICP type book could be The Classical Style by Charles Rosen but I'm not sure how accessible it is to a nonmusician...

I found biographies helped build my appreciation of the music. A good one will cover both the personal life of the composer and their musical development (which are often intertwined), with some light commentary on specific works.

Something I love doing these days is witnessing the evolution of the composer by listening to their works across their life. At least for Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven and Chopin I can say that I personally detect this maturity in their late music that experiments more with chromaticism and harmony. The late music also tends to have a slightly more conservative sense of emotion which I feel must be some reflection of how people's emotional range develops as they get older. (early Chopin is this sentimental romantic adolescent, while late Chopin has this refinement and grace about it)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tried getting into western classical music several times, but always aborted. I find it really difficult, as it is so diverse and complex, yet beautiful and satisfying at the same time.

Its vastness is astonishing and is the main reason why I always stopped. Where to start? Why? How does it all connect? There are so many more angles to western classical music than one would think.

So thank you for this! I will try again.

<comment><USER8> There are a couple of ways to cut it up, for instance you could segment by: Mood

Form

Period

Instrument

For me, I started with solo piano mainly, and some light chamber music and worked through periods (at a natural rate rather than any rigorous scheme). I found solo piano somewhat easier to analyze by ear and deliberately stayed away from things like symphonies as they were way too complex to appreciate to a depth that I am personally inclined.

Once I developed an ear for periodic styles and musicianship, it became natural to branch out into orchestration and more composers.

In terms of solo piano works that are famous:

Bach Goldberg variations/preludes and fugues/english and French suites

Mozart piano sonatas k310-333 are decent.

Beethoven piano sonatas pathetique, moonlight, les adieux, appassionata, waldstein (maybe also hammerklavier)

Chopin nocturnes, waltzes, preludes and sonata 2

Debussy - arabesques, suite bergamasque, piano pieces, preludes

That would be a starter :)

<comment><USER9> Thanks! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Start with Mozart, move to Beethoven. Wrapping your head around classical styles is easier when you directly compare the Classical and Romantic styles since they are quite different. That gives you a foundation to understand other forms.

<comment><USER11> Close. Start with Palestrina, then Bach, then Mozart.

<comment><USER12> Palestrina is an interesting suggestion. That makes sense from a perspective of chronology and the development of the form, but Bach and Mozart have a big advantage of familiarity. I've heard Palestrina's music in university classes, but I can't recall any of it at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I discovered this website [https://classicalmusiconly.com/](https://classicalmusiconly.com/) on a SHOW HN post several months ago. Really nice for anybody who's interested in classical music

</comment><comment><USER14> The podcast Meet The Composer is also excellent. [https://www.npr.org/podcasts/528124256/meet-the- composer](https://www.npr.org/podcasts/528124256/meet-the-composer)

</comment><comment><USER15> One thing I never quite understood was - are today's rock / pop music in any way related to the development of classical music or branched off from it? It seems like classical music keeps developing into the post modern era and is still being experimented and toyed with but without many new instruments added, while the other type of music can be lumped into "non-classical" and has their own separate branches of development. It's surprising to me that some form of music similar to art rock or pop was not developed in the 1400s, was it because the technologies to create some of the instruments weren't available?

<comment><USER16> Today's rock/pop music is a direct descendant of classical music. The similarity to baroque sonatas and concertos is the clearest - that is why Bach Handel Teleman etc. make the easiest path into classical music to someone familiar with modern rock/pop. Baroque music has the same structure as modern rock/pop - a tune on top of a chord progression. It's a running joke in music circles that Pachelbel's Canon in D sounds familiar the first time you hear it because its chord progression appears in countless modern pop tunes. The basic baroque ensemble is like an unamplified rock band without drums. There is a rhythm section called the "continuo" constisting of a bass instrument like a cello or viola da gamba or bassoon - that's like the bass guitar - and a chordal instrument like a harpsichord or organ or lute or theorbo or ... that's like the rhythm guitar or piano or organ. Then there is a violin and/or flute or other melody instruments - that's like the lead guitar and/or saxophone or singer. The continuo part was usually written in a notation called 'figured bass' that was analogous to modern chord charts. Besides that, the soulful singer songwriter goes back at least to the medieval troubadours, but appears in essentially modern form with the lute song composers of the 16th and 17th century - the model here is John Dowland, who in addition to composing a lot of melancholy songs, also composed some guitar-god-like solo instrumentals. And, this lute music was typically published in a tabular notation a lot like modern guitar tab.

<comment><USER17> Not to downplay the influence that the classical music tradition has had on popular music, I think it's incorrect to say that rock and pop are direct descendants of classical music. Rock music, for example, is very clearly directly descended from folk music traditions.

<comment><USER16> Sure, rock is also directly descended from folk, and other genres too. Musical genres can have several different direct ancestors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most interesting thing so far about this for me is the bizarre twitter and Facebook sharing buttons that dance around the page, following some strange beat. Wtf.

</comment><comment><USER19> See also: Joining the dots (Steve Hobson) and Inside Music (Karl Haas).

The latter also has/had a great radio program "Adventures in good music" introducing different aspect of classical music. You can find some of the episodes at the internet archives:

[https://archive.org/search.php?query=Adventures%20in%20good%...](https://archive.org/search.php?query=Adventures%20in%20good%20music)

</comment><comment><USER20> This intro seems to be very close to the Yale coursera course on Western Classical Music, which is the most amazing Coursera course I ever took. For anyone without musical culture, this is the place to start: [https://www.coursera.org/learn/introclassicalmusic](https://www.coursera.org/learn/introclassicalmusic)

</comment><comment><USER17> It's a bit silly to say that people only started moving on to new chords /after/ Wagner.

</comment><comment><USER21> music from the middleages is a pretty hardcore way to start.

I grew up on tallis, byrd et al, with a huge amount of baroque (Purcel), but it wouldn't be my place to start.

Bach, Beethoven, holst, bernstein, Vaughan Williams are much better places to start

</comment><comment><USER22> Schönberg was Austrian.

</comment><comment><USER23> Can anyone recommend a good classical playlist on Spotify?

<comment><USER24> [https://open.spotify.com/user/mluby/playlist/2N8jJpqY5hf9hqp...](https://open.spotify.com/user/mluby/playlist/2N8jJpqY5hf9hqp5BBBemz?si=PEmOJMeaTbifsCNE8dkNMQ)

I'd suggest finding one that shows the name of the composer as artist rather than the performing orchestra.</comment></comment>


Canadian Digs Out Basement Using Only Radio Controlled Scale Tractors and Trucks - <AUTHOR> http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2012/02/canadian-digs-out-basement-using-only.html

<comment><USER2> Sometimes I come across grand hobbies/challenges like this that inspire me to challenge myself in similar ways..

1/4 scale grave digger: [http://www.youtube.com/user/rcWizzard/videos?sort=da&vie...](http://www.youtube.com/user/rcWizzard/videos?sort=da&view=u)

Matthias Wandel's various projects: <http://woodgears.ca>

Giant robot project: <http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL13A11662BDE6EB83>

But at some point, I end up convincing myself that it's a bad investment of my time. Some examples:

\- The above referenced 1/4 grave digger project would be an awesome test of my fabrication skills. But when it's done, I won't enjoy playing with it. 1000's of hours for "push stick forward, vehicle goes foreword". Kind of like lego's, the fun's all in the build.

\- I'd love to get into woodworking, but I already have all the furniture I need. Why would I invest in a 1k wood shop (that's CL prices)? What would I create with all the tools and experience? I'm not going to quit my job as a programmer to become an entry-level woodworker.

\- I'd love to build my own sawmill (kind of like Jaimie), and build from nature in general. But where would I get wood? Can I make it cheaper than store bought? Do I have the time to invest so that I don't wind up having to go to the store anyway?

\- I'm really fascinated by CNC, 3d printers, and metal casting. I want to be able to make my own stuff, and excuse myself from a consumer culture. But those things all involve pretty significant money/time investments. And who are we kidding? After that huge investment, what am I going to print/cast/machine.. that would be worth that investment?

And that's the motivation for my side project.

<comment><USER3> You don't really do a hobby like this because it will save you money, or because you need the end result, you do it because it's fun. I've just started building a reprap (3d printer) not because I need low-rez cheap plastic thingies, but because it's fun and challenging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm sure some people think its pointless, but I say it beats the hell out of watching TV.

<comment><USER5> Don't be ridiculous. Mad Men, Justified, Breaking Bad, 30 Rock, Community, Boardwalk Empire, Treme, etc. etc. there's tons of really good stuff on TV these days.

<comment><USER6> I agree, but there still is a qualitative difference between an active an a passive activity.

<comment><USER5> Sitting on your butt and controlling a toy truck just _barely_ qualifies as active.

I'd say if you're watching something on DVR and fast forwarding the commercials you're 50% there.

<comment><USER7> I can't tell if you're being serious or not...

He designed and built the system. It's not a question of how many calories he burned, but the difference between creation and consumption.

<comment><USER8> OTOH, he's mostly doing consumption now, after the initial creation.

<comment><USER7> Now he's creating a hole. He has to plan and make decisions at every step of the way, his will guides the progress of the activity, in contrast to TV which is a passive. I'm not making a value judgement based on the relative merits of the two activities, but the distinction still exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd have preferred it if the trucks/tractors were fully autonomous, now that would have been awesome :)

<comment><USER10> That is what I imagined in the first place. How cool it would be to have your garden or diy proyect being taken care by small autonomous machines like that. No danger of being smashed if something goes wrong, cheaper parts, if one has a mechanical problems not everything is stoped, just a fraction of the work force...

<comment><USER9> And it can be running 24/7 while you're sleeping/playing skyrim/etc./etc. which would be indescribably awesome :)

<comment><USER11> >playing sky rim Screw that, I'd be sitting in my lawn chair watching the trucks all day!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Oh wow. I don't know about anyone else, but I got impatient just watching the second video. I cannot imagine doing that for six whole years! Haha, unreal! If it's what he has a passion for, however, more power to him.

(I'm still in awe over how long that would have taken and the fact he didn't give in and start shoveling!)

</comment><comment><USER13> Wow, talk about cognitive surplus. It's also amusing that the article title starts with "Canadian", as if that explains it all. (Insert comment about American parochialism here)

</comment><comment><USER14> quite an expensive hobby

[http://www.gardentrucking.com/products.tpl?action=Search&...](http://www.gardentrucking.com/products.tpl?action=Search&cart=132949004952&max=10&eqMAJORCATEGORYdatarq=products&Titlesumm=t&Titlesort=1&eqSKUdatarq=3110)

the dump truck is 5000$

<comment><USER15> You can buy a used Bobcat or 3/4-ton pickup for that much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Makes me wonder whether there's a future business for a Mechanical, Mechanical Turk.

If we've got machines capable of labour but lacking the intelligence and internet connected workers who can provide the intelligence you could use a gig like this to get real-world work done while offshoring the human cost.

Could all get a bit Toy Soliders if you mistreat your workforce but would be pretty epic to watch.

</comment><comment><USER17> From a land of people that are obsessed by skiing, this is not the most pointless hobby one can have, and it's probably pretty safe.

</comment><comment><USER18> I noticed that a few people see little value in this. Some people feel that the time spent would have been just as good watching TV. However, beyond the simple inspiration, consider that even small endeavours are useful because they provide a "set of shoulders" on which the next person can stand.

</comment><comment><USER19> How is this different from Minecraft?

</comment><comment><USER20> I know almost nothing about RC gadgets. But those are some badass toys.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder what the battery capacity is on those things. How often does he need to charge? I'd love to see a record of the electricity cost to excavate a basement with small motors.

</comment><comment><USER22> He seems to have loads of videos on YouTube: <http://www.youtube.com/user/LilGiantsConstrCo>

</comment><comment><USER23> 7 years playing with RC tractors and trucks? I admire him for simulating a whole digging site, but I hope also that he was doing his hobby just 2-3 hours per day.

<comment><USER24> Why do you say that? What's wrong with doing a hobby for more that 2-3 hours a day?

<comment><USER25> Because that's his basement, where his hot water heater is surrounded by dirt where one could also assume the washing machine and clothes dryer is.

One the one hand, the scale of this dirt playground and expensive radio controlled cars would make any grown man weep for a chance to be 10 years old again. On the other hand, you have to hope that this much obsession for 100% perfectly-scaled realism isn't as creepy as it looks.

In any event, this is impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was most impressed by his skill in controlling the vehicles. In one video he loads debris into a dump truck using a front loader with great fineness. I've rarely seen operators of 1:1 scale equipment work with such grace. You may not know it but it's very difficult to load a dump truck efficiently and safely.

</comment><comment><USER14> Here is the relevant thread <http://www.scale4x4rc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25724>

</comment><comment><USER27> Hmm, with a miniature cement sprayer, he might be able to install the foundation at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER28> Just think it is a great idea, kudos to him.

</comment><comment><USER29> was all this automated or he do it by hand?</comment>