How can I tell if I am failing at my entrepreneurial venture or start-up? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cenedella.com/job-search/how-can-i-tell-if-i-am-failing-at-my-entrepreneurial-venture-or-start-up/ <comment><USER3> That seemed awefully smug and discouraging to me. I've been studying up on other people's successes and failures, and it seems there's no simple pattern that fits all.

"You are asserting that, despite the presence of 7 billion other people on the planet, ... you have come up with an idea, a business, a company that none of those other wonderful human beings have thought to invent yet."

Tell that to the Chinese immigrants running the convenience store around the corner. Their unoriginal idea is putting the kids through college.

<comment><USER4> Hi Phu -- the topic is addressed to internet entrepreneurs, not hard-working small business people. I agree with you.

M

<comment><USER5> Marc, he law of the land here on Hacker News is not to sign your messages. Cheers!

<comment><USER4> Got it!

x

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're failing from the moment you start. Your whole mission is to get to a point where you're not failing anymore.

If each day you're making progress towards the things that will make you're specific venture sustainable then you're on the right track. otherwise its time to adjust.

</comment><comment><USER7> "You are asserting that, despite the presence of 7 billion other people on the planet, and a US economy that produces $14 trillion in goods and services each year, and over 100 mm white collar workers in our country, that you, little old you, have come up with an idea, a business, a company that none of those other wonderful human beings have thought to invent yet."

Not really. Most entrepreneurial ventures are not based around ideas that nobody else has done yet. They usually involve a known business model or idea done better, in a different place, or at a more opportune time.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think that in the beginning you really have to redefine success as: "Am I Making Progress?"

After lots and lots of progress and zero results, then you are probably on the verge of failure.

<comment><USER9> No, no, a hundred times no. "Am I Making Progress?" is the worst question you can ask yourself. It results in answers like:

"I've decided on which web framework to use, so yes."

"My tests now have 100% code coverage, so yes."

"I added a new feature that I think may or may not help 1% of my hypothetical customer base, so yes."

As someone who hasn't launched yet, it's easy to wrap yourself in the security blanket of "progress". But progress that doesn't involve customers paying you more money than yesterday is bullshit.

/me leaves to lock himself in his office until he launches.

<comment><USER10> I think progress means : How many users, pageviews, leads (or whatever other metrics matters to your bottom line) you are adding daily/weekly/monthly.

<comment><USER11> and $$$$....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So products which take a long time to initially build and release simply can't be successful? That just seems like an extreme and limiting economic theory to me, and one which requires a lot more data and lot less rhetoric than the current hype about launching quickly is producing.

<comment><USER5> The underlying principle is that you have to understand and control the factors affecting your startup's success. If you're not doing so in a meaningful way, you're exposing yourself to large / unknown risk factors, where "large" means "very likely to lead to your failure".

Not having launched the product (esp. in the consumer market) as early as possible is definitely one such factor.

<comment><USER12> I agree with what you're saying, but I think the original post went much further. Even with respect to what you're saying I think the paradox is that if you discover that people don't like the product you rushed out the door, it might be because you rushed it out the door. And the lessons you learn from customers saying "it doesn't look that valuable" may or may not outweigh the effort it took to launch quickly. Sort of like the way A/B testing can help you make small corrections but probably won't actually create value where there is little to begin with.

<comment><USER13> The original post went much further because that's the message the first-time internet entrepreneurs need. There's a tendency among experienced businesspeople doing their first startup to look to their experience in successful companies and try to analyze that success and bring some of those things to the new company.

The problem is that successful companies have layers upon layers of processes and refinements, all of which (in a healthy company) play some role in their ongoing success. But the marginal benefit of 99.99% of these things is irrelevant to a startup, and the assets that an (internet) startup has to protect are nil at the beginning.

This is one of the reasons very young people are often successful despite inexperience; they can focus on building a compelling product—something they've known very intimately for their whole lives growing up with the internet and mobile phones—rather than the trappings of "business".

To get back to your point:

> _if you discover that people don't like the product you rushed out the door, > it might be because you rushed it out the door._

If you built the wrong product up front, then it's better to learn that by getting real feedback, rather than laboring on a false premise in secret. I think stealth mode has pretty much been debunked by now. The bottom line is that you can launch a shitty product, and it doesn't matter because know one fucking cares. You may have all these grandiose dreams, but getting attention and traction is a huge ongoing uphill muddy slog. If you have a seed of a good idea, but it's very poorly implemented, at least you will pick up a few very early adopters, and they will be the ones providing the most valuable feedback to make the next refinement and layer on the next batch of slightly-less-early adopters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From two of my own baby ventures. Defining success is only a tool to keep you temporarily focused because the more you grow the bigger your idea of success becomes and evolves. As Entrepreneurs we are driven people who always strive to get bigger and better as we improve.

It is those people that only see 12 months or 2 years through an idea that often fail. The realization that comes with experience is that if you want anything to be HUGE is takes more than 2 years. I'm really only coming to grips with that after 5-6 years on naively planning and following dreams.

</comment><comment><USER15> I started reading the article, but midway through I got to working on my startup site.

<comment><USER4> Awesome! You are learning the lessons well... ;)

<comment><USER16> How did you get the illustration of yourself (on the right side of your blog)?

<comment><USER4> It is a Photoshop effect. Fortunately, if you focus on getting real paying customers, you can eventually afford people who are better and smarter than you and know how to create cool effects!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Once a year it often feels like your business is about to fail until it truly reaches the point of a sustainable business.

I think what separates real entrepreneurs from wantrepreneurs is how they handle the barriers and low periods that are natural with any startup.

<comment><USER4> only once a year pxl? that's better than i did! :)

marc

<comment><USER10> I agree. I think it is more like 99 times/day. Luckily the one time you feel like you are going to make it, it's give you enough high to not worry about the other 99.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you want to know if you're succeeding or failing, you should know what the metrics of success look like for your product. Is it number of users? Amount of revenue? Revenue per user?

How do you measure against those goals?

If you know what success is supposed to look like for you, then it should be easy to tell if you're failing or succeeding.

"Released a product" isn't a metric for success. If you haven't released you can't start measuring.

</comment><comment><USER19> The worst part about telling someone your new idea is "It's been done already". Anytime someone says that you know to just stop talking to them and walk away. Burger place? It's been done already! Tech blog? Been done already! I have seen more startups using existing ideas become successful than original ideas.

</comment><comment><USER20> Find the meaningful stats in your company (customer churn rate, monthly revenue, etc) and show them to your investors.

If you are doing a bad job, they will scream bloody murder. If not, they don't care, and you are doomed anyway.

</comment><comment><USER21> "free customers"? Leads or prospects perhaps.

</comment><comment><USER22> "RT @pkedrosky: Polite, patient, purposeful founders fail. <http://bit.ly/gXA282> /via @cenedella" <http://twitter.com/pkedrosky/statuses/48017595332440064>

<comment><USER23> It's a great sound bite that I think is completely wrong.

It's been my experience that purposeful founders do not fail. Patience is always reqired for success and politeness costs you nothing. If a founding team has a sense of purpose, a realistic idea of the amount of work it takes to succeed (patient), and is able to encourage others to assist them (polite) I normally see these as markers for success.

I think the behaviors he is actually highlighting are perfectionism (not patience), an unwillingess to test your vision by getting out of the BatCave and talking to prospects, and being afraid to take prudent risks.

<comment><USER22> While I agree with you mostly What I saw in this quote is "don't be shy, go for it even if you are a bit rough on the edge" #hustle - <USER2>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Gut level craving" - that is what hit home for me. Enjoyed this. thanks.

</comment><comment><USER25> you're failing until other people suddenly start to refer to you as successful</comment>


PullReview – Automated Code Review for Ruby in GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://www.pullreview.com/ <comment><USER2> I'd definitely pay for a tool like this but as a desktop application with perhaps an annual license fee, rather than as a hosted SAAS which needs access to Github repositories.

The FAQ ( [https://www.pullreview.com/site/faq](https://www.pullreview.com/site/faq) ) mentions some of the open source tools its based on, a couple of which I hadn't come across before.

<comment><USER3> Hi Sheff, I'm Martin, co-founder of PullReview. I'm interested in understanding why the SaaS is not a good solution for you. Is it because you are not using GitHub (or any other online forge)?

Thanks for your interest anyway.

Martin</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Just got a Mac, what do I need to know? - <AUTHOR>

I'm thinking this should be a fairly common theme today and tomorrow.  I'm a developer that just got a Macbook Air and I'm completely new to Mac OS.  I'm coming from GNOME and I used Windows before that.<p>I'm looking for useful keyboard shortcuts, interesting features, methods of organizing your things, apps for dev work/web design, pretty much anything that a power user/developer on other systems would need to know to start feeling at home on a Mac.  Very open-ended question so feel free to throw in anything you've picked up during your time with a Mac. <comment><USER2> I can't live without:

* QuickSilver (Launcher app), <http://www.blacktree.com/>

* TotalFinder (Tabbed finder), <http://totalfinder.binaryage.com/>

* iTerm, <http://iterm.sourceforge.net/>

* CSSEdit 2, <http://macrabbit.com/cssedit/>

* TextMate, <http://macromates.com/>

* AquaMacs, <http://aquamacs.org/>

* Tower (awesome git client), <http://www.git-tower.com/>

* Araxis Merge (crossplatform merge), <http://www.araxis.com/merge_mac/index.html>

* Aqua Data Studio (sql editor), <http://www.aquafold.com/>

* Adium (instant messenger), <http://adium.im/>

* DropBox

* VLC (Media player), <http://www.videolan.org/vlc/>

* Perian (plays xvid/divx avi's), <http://www.perian.org/>

* ExpandDrive (mount sftp, ftp, etc. as volumes), <http://www.expandrive.com/mac>

* 1Password (password manager), <http://agilewebsolutions.com/onepassword>

* VoodooPad (desktop wiki), <http://flyingmeat.com/voodoopad/>

* Unison (usenet browser/downloader), <http://www.panic.com/unison/>

* Scrivener (writing app), <http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php>

* MacPorts (package installer), <http://www.macports.org/>

It's worth installing the developer tools from Apple. Also, you'll probably want to install MacPorts, which is a package management system similar to what you are used to on Linux.

<comment><USER3> I'm also getting a macbook Pro soon (coming from Windows/Ubuntu background). Looking forward to trying TextMate and comparing that with Eclipse (or maybe it will replace Notepad++ as a quick all purpose edit tool). Most of all looking forward to Garage Band!

Note: Also switching from an Android phone to the iPhone 4. Anyway heads up/ awesome app suggestions?

<comment><USER2> Eclipse runs on osx, you just need to edit the keyboard shortcuts otherwise you will be very frustrated.

Re: iPhone 4, jailbroken? I can't live without a jailbroken iPhone fwiw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> * System Prefs -> Security -> Disable auto login (to secure your computer)

* System Prefs -> Expose -> Expose (create your "switcher" layout)

* System Prefs -> Keyboard -> Keyboard -> move "Key Repeat Rate" all the way to the right (to have your cursor move faster than a snail)

* System Prefs -> Processor -> Show in Menu bar (so that you can set to 1 CPU when on a plane)

* System Prefs -> Sharing -> Check "Remote Login" (so that you can SSH into your machine)

* System Prefs -> Network -> Show AirPort status in Menu bad (so that you can see when you're connected)

Additionally: MacOS is case-INsensitive. Therefore, "this_file.txt" and "THIS_FILE.txt" and "This_File.txt" are all the same. You _can_ set the file- system to be case-sensitive by Disk Utility, but at the chance that you break a binary (like MS Office) that assumes case-insensitive filenames on a Mac.

MacOS is also BSD-based, so you won't get some of the nice GNU options to "ls", "find", and others.

Install the XCode Developer Tools to get GCC and such. And I don't believe that these will be found by the Software Updater, so you'll have to keep them updated yourself.

</comment><comment><USER5> Go to the Apple menu, "System Preferences", Keyboard pane, and browse the "Keyboard Shortcuts" tab. There will be all kinds of useful stuff in there, and you can change anything you don't like. Remember that "^" means the Control key, the hollow up-arrow means the Shift key, the switch-symbol means the Option key, and the cloverleaf is the Command key.

If you are feeling a bit adventurous, note that many Mac apps use Cocoa and their text fields tend to share the same text entry system, and people have even written extensions for it. You can tweak config files to change the behavior. The default is a bit Emacs-like, e.g. Control-A to move to beginning of line, Control-E to move to end of line. The traditional Mac OS keys also work, so e.g. Option-left-arrow or Option-right-arrow moves between words; Command-left-arrow and Command-right-arrow move to the beginning or end of the visible boundary of the line you're on; holding down the Shift key selects text as you use cursor keys, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> During any typical day I work on my code from 3 different computers - my PC, my Macbook and my other PC. The tools that help me keep a consistant work environment across all of them are Putty, Git and Eclipse with the Remote System Explorer perspective. My codebase does not exist on any of these 3 computers - that's where the SSH-based file editing with Eclipse comes in to save the day. I use mostly Python and Javascript, so I also have the Aptana addon for syntax highlighting. These are basically the only 3 things that I immedietly install on a new machine of mine. Oh, and Google Chrome.

Specific to my Macbook ... um, not much really. I don't know many of the cool tricks with it. I just use it like any other laptop. =/

</comment><comment><USER7> OS X ships with a built-in Apache server, which you can enable by checking 'Web sharing' in the Sharing preference pane. There's a lot of other goodies like that under the hood, including Perl, Python, Ruby, and PHP. These languages may be out-of-date versions, and may require enabling. In general, OS X's popularity and uniformity make stuff like this easy to Google.

Unless you're a die-hard command-line person: For launching, file browsing, web searching, and more, try Launchbar. Quicksilver does much the same thing, but QS is poorly maintained (the original developer open-sourced it and walked away) and is now too slow and crashy to be usable on current versions of OS X. (YMMV.) Either one will move many common actions from the mouse to the keyboard in an easy-to-learn way.

For text editing, the two preeminent native-OS X editors are BBEdit and TextMate. Lots of arguments about which is better, and different language communities tend to have a favorite. Of course, if you're a Vim or Emacs user, you should have no problem getting your preferred editor up and running.

Consider also the following programs, which I haven't seen anyone else mention here:

* Hazel -- runs actions automatically when files are added to folders

* NetNewsWire -- RSS reader

* Jumpcut -- multiple clipboards

* QuicKeys -- attach sequences of actions to key combinations

* PathFinder -- powerful Finder relacement

* Acorn -- image editor

* OmniGraffle -- wireframing and flowcharts, very useful for web design

<comment><USER8> for me Quicksilver is quick and stable with the most recent version of OSX

I haven't found a viable replacement yet. Being able to append text to a document, move and delete files, check my IP address etc. from one place is wonderful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some stuff that I like: BBEdit, Alfred.app, Dropbox, Transmit.app, TinyGrab.app, 1Password, Weet.app, Reeder.app, VLC, Perian.

Oh and I switched to Postbox for mail and bought a copy of iWork :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> Besides the things already mentioned, I recommend:

Afloat, <http://infinite-labs.net/afloat/> \-- keep single windows on top, make them translucent, make them pass clicks through.

Flux, <http://www.stereopsis.com/flux/> \-- change color temperature with time of day. Cross-platform, wouldn't want to use a computer without it. Don't burn your retinas with blue bright light at 2am.

Chromatic -- keep Chromium nightlies updated.

GitX, <http://gitx.frim.nl/> \-- Git browser / gui. Good for viewing history etc., like it more than Git Tower, also it's free.

Skitch, <http://skitch.com/> \-- quickly take and annotate screenshots, easily share them.

</comment><comment><USER11> Coming from linux, I would install a package manager first. Homebrew (<http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/>) or MacPorts (<http://www.macports.org/>). Be sure to install the developer tools from Apple.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am a recent convert too (< 1yr). If you are moving over from Ubuntu,the transition will be less traumatic. First thing to figure out is the "state" of dock icons. There is a little halo under the dock icons that tells you have an active window. Then figuring out the Apple+Key convention as opposed to Ctrl+Key convention. Also figure out the ease of installation and uninstalling apps, which blew my mind.

As for the apps, get MacPorts and get meld for file compares. SmartGit client is great. TextWrangler is great too. Figuring out how to get all vim extensions. Actually figuring out the "package" architecture of an installed app is also important.

</comment><comment><USER13> Use Hide (Cmd-H) instead of Minimise (yellow button or Cmd-M) if you want a whole application out of view.

Use a utility like SizeUp or Divvy to let you quickly move/resize windows on to a grid using keyboard shortcuts.

Use 'mdfind -name foo.bar' for searching for files in Terminal.

Use Homebrew or MacPorts to install non-GUI software.

Use the handy search for menu bar items (Cmd-Shift-/ or Help > Search).

Give Safari a chance and don't immediately install Firefox/whatever.

</comment><comment><USER14> There's an app for that! No, really. This website categorizes Mac apps, and lots of folks mark apps they use, so you get an idea of which apps are most popular in a given category.

<http://osx.iusethis.com/>

If you register, you get a profile of all the apps you use. Here's mine: <http://osx.iusethis.com/user/briandoll>

</comment><comment><USER15> What languages are you developing in? We may be able to direct you to some specific tools.

Command line is essential: You can find it under /Applications/Utilities/Terminal or in Finder: Macintosh HD->Applications->Utilities->Terminal

These are my main dev tools:

GitX (Git), Colloquy (IRC), Transmit (FTP), Vim or TextMate (text editors), MySQL Pro (MySQL client), Transmission (BitTorrent client)

<comment><USER7> Console is for viewing log files. For a full command line, you want /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.

<comment><USER15> Wow, that's embarrassing. I have no idea why I put Console. I usually have my Terminal on the dock, so when I was looking up the path to it in Finder I must have thought Console. I upvoted you. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A useful keyboard shortcut that I use when I write code is CONTROL+OPTION+COMMAND+8 which inverts the colors on the screen. It makes it a lot easier on the eyes IMO.

If you want to take a full screenshot hit COMMAND+SHIFT+3 or if you want to crop where the screenshot will be taken hit COMMAND+SHIFT+4 then you can click and drag a square around the area you want.

</comment><comment><USER17> * DTerm: <http://decimus.net/DTerm/>

With DTerm, a hotkey of your choice brings up a temporary little command prompt and sets its cwd to the folder of the file you're working on (e.g. in TextMate)

</comment><comment><USER18> Just a little hack that I am using on my MBP is changing Caps Lock key to be the Control key. It helps a lot and I know I barely ever use the original Caps Lock key.

<comment><AUTHOR> Having fn instead of control at the bottom left has been throwing me off in my screen-based SSH sessions a lot so far. I'll definitely look into this.

<comment><USER10> You can easily change that in System Preferences > Keyboard, on the Keyboard tab, click the Modifier Keys... button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> MacVim, its delightful. Or Aquamacs, if you're an Emacs guy.

<comment><USER20> And open Terminal.app and you have a full UNIX subsystem.

Also, if you're used to having package manager MacPorts[1] is probably what you want. If you're familiar with the BSD ports system, it's very similar.

[1] <http://www.macports.org/>

<comment><USER19> Homebrew (<http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/>) is a Macports alternative also worth taking a look at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Colloquy for irc is another good app.</comment>


Every Developer Deserves More Memory - <AUTHOR> http://www.manyniches.com/developers/every-developer-deserves-more-memory/

<comment><USER2> Every developer would like and enjoy more memory. But if you're developing applications for normal folks, it is very important that you experience what life is like on a more limited machine.

That is why, more often than not, I've deliberately worked with hardware that was a generation or two behind the latest and greatest. Yes, it is a PITA. Yes, I'd enjoy the bright and shiny. But it keeps me honest about what is going to work in the wild.

<comment><USER3> There's definitely some truth to that, but I think you'd be better off switching to an older machine (or deliberately taking out RAM/underclocking the CPU) occasionally. The productivity gains from working with decent hardware are worth it.

<comment><USER4> You really need 2 computers: one development machine that is the latest and greatest (incl. Intel SSD), and one old slow grandmom computer that shows how slow the 1/4 slowest customer computers are.

You can't combine it into a single computer, because even if it is only 80% of the latest and greatest, it is still way faster than grandmom, thus not representative of your customer base.

<comment><USER5> The best way to find out how a normal person drives a car is to put a normal person in the drivers seat. Watching usertesting.com videos has shown me how cluttered and slow a normal person's computer can be. It also showed me the interesting ways those people interact with their clunkers.

Instead of having a second crippled computer for testing, I would rather use tools like Charles (<http://www.charlesproxy.com/>) to cripple my computer in a tweakable and consistent way.

This way I can develop, optimize for certain controlled conditions on the same machine, and verify my optimizations with real people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Best choice was to get the 16gb of ram in my Mac Pro. It's epic working with that kind of hardware behind you. I'm running a Windows VM, all my servers are up constantly, dozen programs, etc. And still have 4.25 gb free for the sweet sweet caching.

<comment><USER7> Hear, Hear! Also went to 20Gb (up from 8Gb) on the Mac Pro in the summer. Best 300$ I ever spent on hardware upgrades. Never close apps anymore, and never experience a swapstorm anymore.

Only one very, very big drawback: you'll want that much RAM in every system you use afterwards. I guarantee it: I just put back the screws on my laptop 10 minutes ago ;-)

<comment><USER8> Dang and I thought the 3GB I have on my P4 3Ghz desktop circa 2005 was awesome </sarcasm>. Although I can't complain, I can still run the latest Ubuntu, an XP VM for Outlook and the occasional Word doc, Eclipse and a memory hungry Weblogic/ATG setup. free -m reports I'm only using just over half of that 3GB so I'm doing pretty good. To be on a MacPro with 20GB of RAM...sigh...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How soon before we see this meme evolving to "Every developer deserves more SSDs"?

<comment><USER10> How soon before we see this meme evolving to "Every developer deserves more L1 Cache"?

<comment> Tuna-Fish Well, since the speed of a SRAM cache depends mostly on it's size, I predict that craze to die pretty much instantly when they grow big enough that pipelining cannot mask the increased latency anymore and performance begins to suffer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah, I'd like to upgrade my brain with more and faster memory as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> I should stop to continue to live with 2GB I guess. can I install any kind of DDR2 SDRAM in my macbook, right? I hope I don't need to get super overpriced Apple RAM.

<comment><USER13> not any RAM modules, but SO-DIMMs. they're about half as long as what you'd plug into a normal desktop PC.

<comment><USER3> Yep, and newer MacBooks actually use DDR3 rather than DDR2 memory. 'About my mac' will tell you what kind to get.

<comment><AUTHOR> And I have DDR3 here at DevDays for those with those shiny, pretty MBPs. :)

<comment><USER12> thanks to all, mine are DDR2 accordingly to about my mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Every developer who creates desktop apps should work with a rather low spec machine for a while, maybe even for a whole day per week.

Moore's law yadda yadda, but while it's great that we don't have to include inline assembly anymore, some of the waste we're seeing currently is just abysmal.

</comment><comment><USER15> So... why are you doing this? Nice gestures are nice, but this one seems really expensive. What's the payoff for Microsoft? Simply a goodwill play?

</comment><comment><USER16> Brandon, You are a great man. +infinity karma for you.</comment>


Software programmers get physical - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/articles/2009/05/18/software_programmers_get_physical/?page=full

<comment><USER2> As a programmer and avid electronics hobbyist, I have a theory which explains some of the appeal, at least to me personally.

Hardware, unlike modern software, actually behaves logically and rewards learning and the construction of consistent mental models. When a circuit malfunctions, there is always a solid physical reason for it. It is because _you_ , the builder, screwed up. An understanding of the physics involved will be rewarded by reality cooperating and the lights blinking merrily. As opposed to software, where most of your work consists of routing around other people's idiocy, and where any results you achieve might spontaneously erase themselves any day as the upgrade cycles churn onward.

<comment><USER3> Unless you deal with very basic circuitry you have to, at some point, use some else's "idiocy." Same with software, if all you do is build console Hello Worlds, well, that's pretty rock solid. As far as the reward system, that's different for everybody; each with his own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I totally agree with these guys that getting out the soldering iron and working on real hardware is satisfying as hell.

But ironically, many hardware engineers like me spend all day writing what's essentially software (Verilog code) and running it in a simulator (VCS). Eventually we send a binary file (GDSII) that represents the chip layout off to the fab, and though we do get real chips back from Taiwan, most of us never lay hands on them.

</comment><comment><USER5> _"First of all, it's very difficult to learn to do something like solder on your own, by yourself"_

... Huh? Googling 'how to solder' is how I learned to solder. It wasn't difficult to follow the directions.

</comment><comment><USER6> All software programmers should know, at some simplistic but fundamental level, how the high level code they write actually gets executed. That means familiarity with actual hardware, even if it is in an academic way (e.g., building J-K flip flops, learning a fake ISA, etc.)

<comment><USER7> I don't think it's all that useful. The simplistic view that say Java > Bytecode > ASM is approximately true but modern CPU's basically ignore the ASM and give you the correct result even if they did not do it the way you suggested. Even simple assumptions about RAM break down once you start looking at how L1 cache actually works. And let's not get into what the video card does when rendering text.

At this point I think most people are far better served understanding the abstractions that sit above the HW than what's under them. Learning how stuff works is great fun, but the average programmer and the average carpenter have little reason to care about QM even if it impacts what they do at some level. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Working on embedded systems and sensor/actuator networks should satisfy both the virtual and physical aspects of engineering/hacking.

</comment><comment><USER3> Man, that "resister" in the first sentence must have been a tough one to cut.

</comment><comment><USER9> "My normal job is way up in the clouds," he said. "This is so much more down to earth; this is really a great change."

I'd rather put it this way:

"My normal job used to be in the trenches. Now it's in the clouds. This is really a great change. I'm never going back."

The more things change so that I can concentrate on the software, the more I like it. No more serial or parallel ports, no more soldering or crimping cables, much less resetting & rebooting..." With USB, plug & play, & wireless, I almost forget how much it used to suck. Now if only I could "think" my code onto my monitor without a keyboard...

<comment><USER10> I would agree with you most of the time. However I've found that because most of the people I work with have never learned a programming language that forces you to understand the hardware, they just don't understand some problems. Passing by reference and passing by value, for instance. Unless you've used pointers before, you don't get what's going on.

However - I do fail to see why a web developer finds soldering "enlightening" - that's a little too far removed!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Electronics was my first love. At school as a kid I said I wanted to be an electrician (I knew a few) - but I had good maths skills, so Elec Eng was recommended (so since I was 10 I knew what I wanted to study at least - was a nice feeling - never understood "not knowing what to do").

Went to university, about 2 years in I realised that I had seen and understood the state of the art in _electronics_ , at least the core of it, and that all the interesting stuff was in VLSI/chips, and so on (all of which was basically done in software). I even started designing my hobby circuitry in Microcap and pspsice before I would build it, and then I realised I had almost completed the transition into software - when I realised I was "creating" things in software, it was liberating...

</comment><comment><USER12> I think this appeals to the identity crisis that programmers can sometimes have; are we really engineers? We're the most removed from the physical of all engineers with the exception of the ORIE/FE people, and nobody's quite sure what they are either. You generally do believe the argument that being an engineer is more about the thought process than having to do work on physical structures, but there's always that nagging bit of insecurity, the itch you can't scratch. Working with your hands on electronics alleviates that nagging fear.

That's my theory, at least. The most I ever bother to do though is assemble my own computer from Newegg parts.

</comment><comment><USER13> "A hacker is a hacker," he said with a shrug.

</comment><comment><USER14> As a hobbyist, there's not much you can do beyond resistor/led/transistor/motor without getting very quickly back to a programmable chip and software.

"Art project"? zzzzzzz.</comment>


Ask HN: Legalspeak - what does Amazon mean with this statement? - <AUTHOR>

Amazon updates its "Product Advertising API License Agreement", the new version being effective 21st November 2012.
https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/advertising/api/detail/agreement-changes.html?ref_=pe_173690_26827400
Refreshing the content of this agreement, I noticed the following passage:
"You further acknowledge and agree that our rights in the Product Advertising API, Data Feed, and Product Advertising Content are of a special, unique, extraordinary character, giving them peculiar value, the loss of which cannot be readily estimated or adequately compensated for in monetary damages."
What is Amazon's intent of putting this passage into the agreement? If monetary compensation isn't adequate, what then? <comment><USER2> The intent is to make it easier to get a court order to have you stop doing what they don't like.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a very common statement. It's talking about their rights over the product, not the product itself.

Plain english: "If you break our rights (patents, copy our work, etc) the amount of money we will loose cannot be predicted and probably will be a lot. We can only calculate how much you own us after the damage is actually done. Also, we will need time to do this because this is our very unique zebra- unicorn."

</comment><comment><USER4> Probably to encourage a court to look to equitable remedies if there is a breach of the agreement. Remedies such as injunctions.

<comment><USER5> I second this one. I bet its a way to avoid the situation where people break the rules but the court only gives Amazon a bit of money. Amazon doesn't want that, they want you to stop breaking the rules. So if you agree ahead of time that money alone won't cut it when you mess up, Amazon can move right on to remedies that don't involve money, like shutting you off from the API or getting an injunction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe they just want that acknowledgement of yours...? Maybe the feel-good value of this acknowledgement IS the adequate compensation for those special, unique and extraordinary rights...??</comment>


Ask HN: Do any accelerators specialize in "Remote First" or "Remote Only" teams? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Are you more interested in seed funding itself, or in specialised support organising remote teams and introductions to investors that believe in them? There are certainly "accelerators" offering funding and a relatively basic structure which themselves remote, and are thus obviously a little more comfortable with giving seed funding to distributed teams than those which want to bring the founders all together in one room.

[I worked remotely for an internationally-distributed startup funded by ODINE, the predecessor to "Data Pitch" (datapitch.eu) which gives data driven European startups equity-free (EU) funding and a basic program structure whilst assuming they'll continue working wherever they happen to be based. But the other side of not pushing everyone into the same room is there's somewhat less in the way of assistance and introductions than the traditional accelerator model boasts; not that we were particularly focused on taking advantage of what was offered at the time]

</comment><comment><USER3> Could you provide some extra context? This open ended questions are hard to address correctly.

I have perhaps a wrong impression, but most accelerators are about building "agile" workflows for inexperienced technical founders, at least the crappy ones in Europe. Remote-first approach works really well for the lifestyle/bootstrapped type of business.

</comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like exactly what YC fellowship is for.

</comment><comment><USER5> Probably not but you can always _Show HN: ..._ here.</comment>


Show HN: HumanamuH predicts which people will enrich your life - <AUTHOR> http://humanamuh.de/

<comment><AUTHOR> ... and it will let you meet them.

Hi everyone! I'd much appreciate your feedback, ideas, questions etc. regarding HumanamuH [1].

HumanamuH is all about efficiently meeting people who you find worthwhile to meet. It works like this:

1) You search for people

2) You talk to them

3) You rate them

4) HumanamuH predicts who else is worth meeting

Your predictions are based on people who like and dislike the same people as you do. It's important to note that people don't get a global rating, so there won't be good and bad people. There will only be people who are more or less likely to find meeting each other worthwhile.

There are still many issues I have to work on. The biggest challenge I am currently facing is to get users in order to find out how people feel about HumanamuH. If you have any advice on how to "go viral", I'd be happy to listen.

[1] Why this name? Its slogan is "Where humans meet." therefore "Human" meets "Human" => "HumanamuH".

<comment><USER5> I think it would be much more inviting if you could at least search for people without having made an account. As it stands I have no idea what kind of people I could talk to, so I have no idea if it would be worth giving up my email address.

Edit: Interesting idea, though. With social networks like Facebook you really need to have met in order to befriend — it doesn't encourage random meetings. When I was younger I would find likeminded people by chance on odd websites; I think that's become harder as I've grown older.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I understand your point. I didn't want to share the user profiles with non-users. I also haven't looked into how easy it would be to harvest profile pictures and profile data. Any thoughts on this?

<comment><USER6> "I didn't want to share the user profiles with non-users."

And yet, if someone wants to harvest profiles, they'll just sign up with a fake/throwaway email address, while legitimate users have to give up real information to do the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> True. I'm not sure how to effectively prevent harvesting. Limiting the rate at which profiles can be fetched only goes so far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You should provide more information on how the service works and what it does before asking for an e-mail address to sign up.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't yet decided on how much of "how does it work" I want to make public.

Regarding your second question. I thought the landing page and the tour would answer "what it does". Sorry. Obviously, I'd be very curious to know what it didn't tell you. But if you haven't registered, you probably can't answer this question.

I'm not blocking any email domains, so feel free to use some trash mail address, if you want to have a look without sharing your email address.

<comment><USER8> I almost didn't sign up because I couldn't really tell what this was. I went ahead anyway and when I finally saw the landing page I thought, "Oh it's a dating site. No thanks."

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you know what made you think it was a dating site? The wording?

I thought "meeting people" was quite neutral.

<comment><USER9> Asking for:

      - <USER2>
      - <USER3>
      - <USER4>

And then, 'what do you intend to do with people' or similar wording on the next page.

I realise it's all innocent, it just sets an odd tone.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm open for suggestions on how to improve the wording. Quite tricky that languages are so overladen with all sorts of meanings. Especially challenging if it's not one's first language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two things I really like about this social network: it's simple, and it's oriented towards connecting interesting people.

I love that people get to post their intentions. Intentions mean people are doing things -- and can meet and help each other. This site is not for photosharing narcissists who are scared to venture outside their circle of friends, it's for adventurous people who want to meet more people to "enrich their lives" as the site says.

I'm excited to see HumanamuH take off, and I'm looking forward to using the "enriching" social network.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope that knowing what people intend to talk about and intend to do makes meeting people online a better experience. Especially in combination with predictions.

After reading online profiles, I often feel that I'm still missing something to decide whether I want to meet that person. Knowing about favorite movies or brands or whether someone is bad at describing himself, doesn't tell me much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> FYI - the confirmation email ended up in my spam folder. I'm not sure if that's gmail's default behavior or whether I've encouraged it to be a little too agressive, something to watch out for though.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a pity. I cannot remember anyone else telling me that it was spam filtered. But that doesn't have to mean anything.

Do you have any suggestions what I could improve to make these emails pass?

<comment><USER12> I'd go with sendgrid. I hook up their api to every app I build.

<comment><USER13> Sendgrid and mailgun are the tops right now, IMO. They both have great services, but it seems like getting trusted SMTP at lower volumes was cheaper at mailgun. Sendgrid's API is awesome, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Are you doing any machine learning? Are you using an Amazon style recommendation system where instead of recommending people based on overall rating you're looking for poeple user's like me rated highly (based on the ratings we've given to other people so far and our declared goals for the site?)

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not doing any machine learning (yet). If the site takes off a bit and generates some data, I expect optimizing the prediction algorithm will become a top priority. Accurately predicting human relationships sounds incredibly hard.

Currently, it's looking how similar your ratings are to the ratings of others. Similar people will influence your predictions more strongly.

The declared goals or intentions are currently not affecting predictions. And I'm doubtful if they should. Any opinion on this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Don't these sort of graphs always end up with a couple nodes having the majority of connections?

I'm leery of the idea of rating people and suspect this will just make explicit existing hierarchies.

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be great if I had a big enough graph to answer your question. Hopefully this will change. It would be very interesting data.

My hope is that, given enough users, there will be many predictions across existing hierarchies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Love the name. Clever. The website is a little more mysterious than I'd initially like, but I'll give it a try. I wish you success with this!

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't expect so much love for the name as I've got mixed opinions before making HumanamuH public.

Please let me know what was mysterious to you. (If it's not too mysterious for you to know...)

<comment><USER16> I just didn't know what I was signing up for, and the name doesn't tell me anything. But I like the name a lot. I just think you need a killer tagline or something.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just curious. Did you read the current tag line, the landing page and the tour and still felt that you've got no idea what it's all about?

<comment><USER16> Right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is an amazing idea. I think it has infinite potential. Are you working in it full time ?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad you like the idea. I am working near full time on it. Who needs weekends anyways?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Small postcode bug, it won't accept "PE29 3EW" in the UK.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, thanks. I haven't yet finished testing all post codes. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think I got the point of the website finally. You should probably consider removing the sexual orientation of the profile informations, at least for a time, because it can be misleading about the goal of the website.

<comment><AUTHOR> (My reply mysteriously disappeared. Second try...)

HumanamuH is not meant to be a dating site in particular. But I assume wherever people meet, some of them will want to date. I like the idea of HumanamuH bringing love to the world, so I'm fine with it.

The possibility to state one's orientation and whether one is looking for a partner is there for at least two reasons.

If you don't want to date, you can make that clear upfront. Hopefully this will reduce unwanted requests.

If you want to date, it's easier for everyone involved if the orientation is known beforehand.

<comment><USER19> Do you aim private life meetings or not only? Btw, the website is strong, looks serious and relatively trustable. It's a bit tedious to access the content but it's not very important, some people will care anyway. Best luck with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Do you aim private life meetings or not only?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Can you elaborate what felt tedious to you?

<comment><USER19> _> Do you aim private life meetings or not only? Sorry, I don't understand the question._

HumanamuH is about _meeting people_ right? Will people meet other people like they would in private life - friends, love etc, or like they would in their _non-private/professional_ one?

There is a distinction between the two in the real world. So if I seek to meet people in a _non-private mode_ with HumanamuH, which is what I thought was the point because of its design, I don't want to see any sexual things in it. In other words, I will not want to meet, let's say a software engineer, with a profile which say: " _I'm not looking for a sexual partner right now._ ".

Concerning what's tedious to me, I think the precise thing is _the splited registration process_ : first the email, then check it, and after I have to re-enter other informations. Maybe: enter register informations and then just check the email would be ok.

[edit: change/update _professional_ by _non-private_ ]

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the clarification. HumanamuH isn't fixed to either non-private or professional contacts. Its purpose is to meet people who you find worthwhile to meet. Whether you decide to go on vacation with them or do business is up to you.

Stating that one isn't looking is meant to allow people to discourage dating requests if they aren't interested. Some people would certainly love to tell all their co-workers that they weren't looking for a partnership upfront. :-)

With the registration process I wanted to make sure to have a valid email address of every user. Otherwise people might start using the site, forget their passwords and then ask me to give them access to their accounts in order to not lose their established contacts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


NASA, Boeing ink $2.8 billion deal to develop SLS rocket for deep space mission - <AUTHOR> http://www.techtimes.com/articles/9810/20140707/nasa-boeing-2-8-billion-deal-develop-sls-rocket.htm

<comment><USER3> The comments here about SpaceX are totally off-base. The point of the SLS project is to re-purpose the Space Shuttle's technology to develop a launch vehicle. It uses the Space Shuttle's liquid hydrogen/oxygen main engines (SMEs) as well as the solid-fuel rocket boosters (SRBs). SpaceX has no experience working with this technology: its rockets use an RP-1 (kerosene) based design. Also, the target lift capability of the SLS is 2-3x as much as the Falcon Heavy.[1]

SpaceX is doing great things, but they have a defined mission and so far have focused their limited resources on a family of related designs with an eye towards that mission. The vast majority of the aerospace engineering talent in the U.S. does not work at SpaceX. They work at Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc. It will be a long time before it's reasonable to make a comment implying that NASA chose Boeing instead of SpaceX because of lobbyists.

[1] See: [http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/falcon-heavy-uncertain- ca...](http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/falcon-heavy-uncertain-case-lunar- exploration).

<comment><USER4> THE purpose of this program is to bring pork to Senator Shelby's state.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/editorial- no...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/16/editorial-no- trampoline-for-the-astronauts/)

<comment><USER5> His state is hardly the only one that will benefit, but it is indeed often called the Senate Launch System. But after Apollo NASA has been more a public works program than anything else, and for that matter one of the explicit goals of Apollo was to spend a lot of money in the South and "uplift" it.

You can tell this is propaganda when you see garbage like this:

" _' The launch abort system (LAS) is a key reason that Orion is intended to become the safest spacecraft ever built. In an emergency it could activate to pull the crew module and the astronauts it will carry away from the launch pad and the rocket in milliseconds' NASA officials wrote on their Web site._"

The crew modules that preceded the Space Shuttle, Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, all had one as well even when flying on inherently safer liquid fueled boosters; they're safer because you can turn them off. Look at the second paragraph of the link below about how the Air Force figured the Ares I SRB stack made crew survival impossible for an abort 30-60 seconds after launch; hopefully this system can vector the SRBs to the side in an abort, and their presence alone probably makes this system overall less safe than the pre- Shuttle ones.

About the only thing I can say in favor of the SLS is that they dropped the Constellation Program Ares I idea of using a primary booster with a 5 segment SRB---and note those, and perhaps the SLS SRBs, were brand new wider versions, throwing away almost all the theoretical cost savings of reusing the Space Shuttle SRBs (look for when they talk about reusing Space Shuttle _technology_ instead of _hardware_ ). That extra length version produced vibrations that could by themselves kill the crew ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Analysis_and_testing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Analysis_and_testing)), and the Orion capsule's utility was steadily decreased as they added vibration damping hardware instead of fixing the problem. I sure hope the 5 segment option in the SLS doesn't have this problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article makes it sound like this project is the only chance for the US to launch manned spaceflights again. Clearly, the Dragon capsule has a much better chance of doing this before the SLS. I wonder if Space X is simply not very well known.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not for the US, but for NASA in particular. They haven't been able to send anyone themselves since the Space Shuttle, and they sorely need more capabilities in that area. It's mostly notable for its deep-space focus, directly intending to use the rocket to go to mars.

<comment><USER7> But I don't understand what NASA gains by buying bespoke hardware instead of simply buying a Dragon launch. It seems weird - a very expensive case of "Not Invented Here".

This is particularly true given Elon Musk's publicly announced ambitions for beyond-LEO missions using the Falcon stack, and his demonstrated ability to execute on his ambitions.

<comment><AUTHOR> I assume they want to be independent of external companies. Nobody else is seriously developing capabilities to lift >100 tons in orbit at the moment, considering the only other craft ever capable of that was the Energia. If nobody else does it, better do it yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "The launch abort system (LAS) is a key reason that Orion is intended to > become the safest spacecraft ever built. In an emergency it could activate > to pull the crew module and the astronauts it will carry away from the > launch pad and the rocket in milliseconds" NASA officials wrote on their Web > site.

A very strange statement. Safety systems like that are used since Mercury flights. And what kind of milliseconds are we talking here? Thousands? Hundreds? Even with 20g acceleration - pretty harsh by today's standard even for abort systems - in 0.1 second you're only going to get 1 meter away - <USER2> quite too far.

<comment><AUTHOR> 2 Things: Firstly, the quoted sentence, if you shorten it, says "In an emergency it could activate in milliseconds". This is quite different from the speed or time to get away, just how long the engine takes to start burning and pulling away. Anything measured in milliseconds rather than seconds at that point might save lives.

Secondly, the system is very much like the one used on Apollo modules, both in philosophy and application, but they haven't been used since. The space shuttle didn't have anything similar, nor does soyuz or anything else. A return to this kind of early-stage abort system is an important development, and one that can only happen if the rocket is designed specifically with it in mind.

<comment><USER8> > Anything measured in milliseconds rather than seconds at that point might > save lives.

Yes, but if you're talking about system reaction - the start of motion - rather than result - the safety distance - then it's nothing surprising here. These systems always worked in under 1 second time frame - don't know exact timing, but it's all electronics. At this point it becomes rather misleading about what is being said - this system claims a particularly fast reaction between first sensor detection and detecting raising temperature of the charge of solid rocket pulling the capsule away? Or something else? It's mentioned without specifying necessary details, so it can be understood differently - that's why it looks strange.

> The space shuttle didn't have anything similar, nor does soyuz or anything > else.

Pad abort system is used on all Soyuz spacecrafts, which fly since 1960-s. Was even used in Soyuz-18 flight abort. Pad abort system was used for TKS flights - unmanned, but the spacecraft was built to carry people. Pad abort system is used for Shenzhen spacecraft flights. Those systems weren't used in Space Shuttle - but were used elsewhere. That means the claim "safest spacecraft ever built", considering that some relevant comparable spacecrafts are from outside the US, is lacking specification "in US". Which makes the statement look strange.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > For the maiden flight, the rocket will be matched with an Orion space > capsule, and launched past low-Earth orbit. Although this will test the > capability of the SLS to send a human crew into space, the mission will be > entirely automated. This is something that was not possible during the > Apollo or Space Shuttle programs.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmann...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions#Unmanned_Apollo- Saturn_IB_and_Saturn_V)

There were several - 4, I think - unmanned Apollo spacecraft flights in 60-s.

<comment><AUTHOR> None of those went beyond LEO, though. They were also remote controlled, rather than entirely automated.

<comment><USER8> Agree, they didn't go beyond LEO. However, at about the same time, Soviets launched several Zonds - which were stripped-down versions of Soyuz spacecrafts - to Moon fly-bys, in automatic mode. In 1988 USSR launched Buran - arguably a close technical sibling of the Space Shuttle - admittedly on LEO (would be really amusing to see a bird like that higher than on LEO), also unmanned. I wonder if that still allows to say "this is something that was not possible during Apollo/Shuttle programs".

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, the article may put this somewhat strongly. I guess we'll see with that first launch what is so special about it. A fully automated launch-to- landing sequence would have been hard to do in the sixties, but I also wouldn't go so far as saying impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm no space exploration expert, yet I find this mission to Mars and other space related news fascinating.

Is there a website that explains the details of this kind of mission? Duration of the trip, planning, payload, technology, space craft, biggest challenges, back to Earth mission, etc. I'd love to learn more about this.</comment>


James Cameron's entirely new submarine - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/science/earth/james-camerons-rocket-plunge-to-the-planets-deepest-recess.html?_r=1&hp <comment><USER2> While it's not a submarine, the FLIPresearch vessel is an interesting example of laying out a sea going vessel in a vertical manner (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP_FLIP> and [http://worldphotocollections.blogspot.com/2009/06/flipping-s...](http://worldphotocollections.blogspot.com/2009/06/flipping- ship-amazing-photos.html)). In the case of the FLIP, the idea is to provide an ultra stable platform by putting the majority of the ship underwater. It's quite the spectacle to see it look like it's capsizing and then just continue to sit there once it has gone vertical.

<comment><USER3> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YI3c_sGocc> \- 1 min video of the actual flip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > He is to cram his 6-foot-2 frame into a personnel sphere just 43 inches > wide, forcing him to keep his knees bent and his body largely immobile. The > dive plan calls for him to remain in that position for up to nine hours.

My heartfelt sympathies go out to Cameron--it sounds like riding coach on a transcontinental flight.

</comment><comment><USER5> The Nereus has already been down there unmanned: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereus_(underwater_vehicle)>

If you are wondering what it saw there are some videos here: <http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=33775>

</comment><comment><USER6> _and announced plans to ride it solo into the planet's deepest recess_

Why? What can he do _in_ the sub, that he couldn't do remotely? Nothing obviously, he wants to be in the sub, because he wants to be in the sub.

<comment><USER7> Be there.

<comment><USER8> If he digs a hole while he is down there then he can set a new world depth record.

<comment><USER9> I don't think so. The depth record for an artificial hole is held by the Kola Superdeep Borehole. It reached a depth of 12,262m (relative, presumably, to ground level).

The lowest known point in the Challenger Deep is 10,911m below sea level.

Unless they started 1350m or so above sea level, he's gonna hafta do some serious digging down there to make up the difference.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_superdeep_borehole> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Earth>

<comment><USER10> Wikipedia seems to indicate that the Kola superdeep borehole has since been surpassed in 2008 and 2011 by oil drilling operations. The current record holder is Sakhalin-I at 12,345 meters: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I>

<comment><USER9> In fact, if you read that article more carefully, you'll find you're not reading the relevant part of that article.

The Kola Superdeep Borehole set two records: deepest point reached, and longest borehole. The latter record was, as you say, surpassed twice by oil operations. But if you look at the context of the comment I was replying to, it's clear that Dr Stalker was talking about deepest point reached (surely no one thinks Cameron could dig a multiple-kilometer hole from his submarine). And so it is the deepest-point-reached record that is relevant, which was not surpassed by oil operations. This is because those oil boreholes are diagonal, with a large horizontal component.

Also, based on the information I could find, I don't actually know how deep the KSB is, relative to sea level, because I don't know what altitude its "ground level" is, and all the depth measurements I could find are relative to ground level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Regardless of what one may think of his movies; this is bad ass.

I am surprised that there is not a fleet of autonomous subs roving the ocean floor and mapping it which belong to Google.

Or any other body for that matter.

Seems like it would be a good idea to make small, unmanned subs that "roomba" the ocean floor collecting data, mapping and taking video and pics.

They should surface whenever their batteries run low, solar re-charge and upload their data.

His website is pretty cool too.

<http://deepseachallenge.com/>

<comment><USER12> Google would totally build those as soon as they find a way to sell ads to angler fish (I am betting there is a market for dating services, at least for male angler fish).

At the moment though there doesn't seem any reason to do that.

<comment><USER13> Obligatory link to The Oatmeal's angler fish comic:

 _"How the male angler fish gets completely screwed"_

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yesterday we had a love fest over Elon Musk, but I for one always thought James Cameron's sidetrack into deep sea exploration to be really, really awesome.

We know more about the moon than our own deep seas. Chilling in a Martian greenhouse is cool but meeting the Bloop is cooler.

</comment><comment><USER15> James Cameron is going to personally descend 6.8 miles under water?

I sure hope he comes back, I'd like to see Avatar 2.

They need to come up with a brilliant way to make the water pressure work against itself to keep the hull intact.

Otherwise gravity always wins.

<comment><USER16> >I sure hope he comes back, I'd like to see Avatar 2.

Why do we need more sequels? Wouldn't you rather see him make something new? And if you truly want a stupid Hollywood Sequel you probably have a better chance if he _doesn't_ come back.

<comment><USER17> You know, you're absolutely right. Terminator 2 was a terrible movie.

Not all sequels, especially when they're in the hands of James Cameron, are bad.

And yes, I'd like to see Avatar 2, as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> More info on the tech behind Cameron's submarine: [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121183-the-tech-that- will...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/121183-the-tech-that-will-help- james-cameron-win-his-race-to-the-bottom-of-the-ocean)

</comment><comment><USER19> "The Abyss"? James Cameron literally takes it to another level...

Anyone know if there is any additional risk of decompression sickness or other health issues merely from the speed of descent/ascent?

<comment><USER20> Almost certainly not since the submarine is pressurized, just like how an airplane is.

<comment><USER21> So it starts out at as high a pressure as it will end up at the bottom? Because of course the problems of pressure are reversed in deep sea submersion as compared to high altitude flight. You have to pressurize a plane, the submarine will pressurize itself.

<comment><USER22> No. Airplanes are not air tight therefore they require pressurization. Submarines are air tight therefore no pressurization is required.

If the air in a submarine starts to 'pressurize' the last thing you're worried about is the bends. In a pressurization event on board a submarine you're going to be far more worried about how to get the ocean out.

The other issue is that when the air pressurizes it heats up almost instantly, it's generally believed that a large leak in a sub would create a wall of flame.

<comment><USER23> "it's generally believed that a large leak in a sub would create a wall of flame."

What complete and utter rubbish. Please provide a single reference for this "general belief". Or better still, apologise for posting crap.

Air, and gases generally, do heat up when compressed adiabatically (without exchange of heat with surroundings). But filling half the sub with water - that's a large leak, right? - and hence doubling the pressure would only produce about a 60 degree increase in temperature - not quite enough for a wall of flame eh? - _if_ no heat was lost from the air to such things as jets of cold water entering the sub in this scenario.

<comment><USER20> <http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-122838.html>

"When the hull of a sub fails, it normally fails ni one location, and water shoots in through that spot, relieving the stress on the rest of the structure. That's why all the wrecks you see in video from actual crash sites look so intact.

Of course, the inrush of water also has the effect of rapidly pressurizing the inside of the sub 'till it matches external pressure. This rapid compression of the air inside has the effect of drastically raising the temperature, so what the victems inside probably see is an explosion (big wall of flame rushing through the inside)."

"Interesting point. Since compression is quick, it is adiabatic, PV^\gamma = K applies. So if the pressure doubles, the volume of air reduces to .6 of its original volume the temperature will increase by a factor of 1.2 (eg from 300K to 360 K) which is pretty warm but not enough to ignite anything. When the wall of water has consumed 80% of the volume, the temperature is up to 570 K (300 C). So the sailors at the end of the sub watching the oncoming wall of water get fried before they drown."

<comment><USER23> Well... I admit to being surprised that you found anything at all in support of that claim. But one post, one reply on a forum filled with misinformation does not constitute "generally believed".

<comment><USER20> "In a modern submarine, where crush depth is likely to be deeper than 1,000/2,000 feet, the hull is likely to implode, collapsing completely. In the process, the air inside the hull is compressed very rapidly, raising the internal temperature by several hundred degrees. Everything flammable inside, including the crew, is incinerated in the fraction of a second before the water rushes in to crush what's left. It is, indeed, believed to be very fast, probably faster than anyone aboard would be able to comprehend. You would simply and instantly go from being alive and wondering when it was going to happen to being dead and not knowing it had."

"With the rapid compression of the air, there would be a simultaneous step rise in both pressure and temperature. The air pressure would rapidly approach, but not exceed, the water pressure. The temperature would, of course, be proportional to the air pressure, but what the actual numbers are I am not certain. I am not sure one way or the other whether they would raise to the point of combustion, but I agree that it's possible. In any case, they would be high enough to cause severe burning of the exposed body surfaces. Of course, the body would also experience the effects of the sudden high pressurization, resulting in burst eardrums, a ruptured body, perhaps cracking of the skull (which under a pressure increase of the rapidity would be like it's own pressure-tight space, just as would the main body), the eyes would probably burst (implode), and there would probably be bursting of many blood vessels. Of course, both any burning effect, already mentioned, and the result of a rapid pressure impulse on the body would both be in a fractional second. Loss of consciousness and death would be near instantaneous, as you state. I can see perhaps enough of a window for the body and conscious to experience perhaps a very brief moment of thought and sensation, but if there is any at all, it would be exceedingly brief.

Given what we know from actual hull crushes (and I'm sure that someone knows waaaaay more than I do since I'm just going by what we learned as part of being nuclear submariners), the entire submarine would not necessarily crush all at once. One example is the Golf-class submarine that we recovered from the Pacific floor as part of our espionage operations (Howard Hughes' Glomar Explorer, etc.) Though we only recovered about the front third of that submariner, we obtained about two thirds of the interior works, since the submarine breached at some point in the rear and the pressure surge slammed the interior forward. A second example is the U.S.S. Scorpion, our nuclear SSN which was lost in the Atlantic in 1967. We believe that we captured on sound detection devices the sequential collapse of pressure-tight bulkheads as it crushed, indicating that the hull breached to sea pressure at some point (certainly the bow compartment based on the cause for sinking) and then as the boat sank and the rising sea pressure exceeded the strength of the bulkheads they collapsed in turn from forward to aft. Of course, in this case, each compartment is acting as its own pressure-tight space. In both submarine cases, of course, the indication is that the whole sub did not crush all at once, but experience hull failure at one point, and then had a pressure wave travel inside the boat. (While it's horrifying to consider, there is a good likelihood that the men in the rear-most compartment of the Scorpion heard the collapsing of the forward bulkheads before the engine room bulkhead failed.) Given the experience of the Soviet sub, we also know that the forces are strong enough to rip machinery from it's mounts and move it, so this adds the final event on the bodies inside the sub, as they are mutilated in varying ways as they are caught in both the movement and crunch of machinery and/or collapsing bulkheads or the hull."

" Theoretically, temperature rise during compression is given by:

T2/T1=(P2/P1)^((n-1)/n)) where n is about 1.3 for air.

If we start at 70F, T1= 530 R (degrees Rankine). P1 = 1 atmosphere P2 = 2000 ft water = 867 psi = 59.4 atm

We have:

T2/530 = (59.4)^(1.3-1)/1.3)

T2 = 530 _(59.4)^(0.231) T2 = 530_ 2.57 = 1362 deg R = 901 deg F

Hot indeed!"

[http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/phorum/read.php?f=5&i=20&#...
"I've heard speculation that the implosion would be similar to what happens when you set off a bomb calorimeter, in which the extreme pressure rise would heat up the internal atmosphere to the point that combustible materials would be incinerated as the water rushed in.
For illustration purposes, it can be calculated that a hole in the submarine's hull of just 1-foot diameter (at a depth of 800 feet) would fill the associated compartment in just a few seconds. Larger hull ruptures would flood the submarine essentially instantaneously."
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=553491
"The myth that I heard a number of times when I was in the Navy was that the air in the sub will actually detonate due to the sudden increase in pressure which causes it to heat rapidly, and the crew will die from the ensuing firestorm long before they get a chance to die from drowning or the pressure."
"The "long before" comment was considering that all the things that are going to happen to you in this scenario are going to happen pretty quick. But the implosion will be ship-wide since the hull is likely to give way in more than one location and, LA class subs at least, effectively have only one compartment with people inside (there are actually 2 but the door is usually open). The pressure will be felt throughout the ship at the same time and therefore the fire will happen ship-wide as well."
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very cool. I particularly like technologists which don't 'buy' the party line when it comes to how things are done. The foam story is a good one.

</comment><comment><USER25> i think it's interesting to see how the latest fad of successful public figures is it to take on pushing human exploration / travel. John Carmack has his Armadillo Aerospace...

<comment><USER26> And also has the initials J.C. hm...

<comment><USER27> Pfft, downvoted? Cruel. It wasn't just your average meme. I giggled :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What's great is how much of this tech is going to the open market. The foam that's being used for this is already on the open market. It's really an ideal model of how private research can help our society as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is good but IMHO he would be much safer in a spherical sub. I suppose the problem may be with having large enough viewports in a spherical vehicle.

<comment><USER30> The pilot does sit in a sphere. It's just like the _Trieste_ ; it's not possible to make a sphere that is strong enough to withstand the pressure and light enough to remain buoyant. To solve this they attach the sphere to a larger buoyant vessel.

The non-spherical part of the _Trieste_ was filled with gasoline for buoyancy, this submersible uses some kind of high density foam.

<comment><USER31> Hm. I would imagine the foam is high strength, but low density.

High density would kind of defeat the purpose.

<comment><USER30> The foam can be high density and still be less dense than water. They would have to use foam that wasn't easily compressed or the structure would collapse from the pressure.

edit--I just checked, the type of foam used ranges from about 20 to 45 lbs/ft³. That qualifies as high density.

<comment><USER9> Since I was curious about the relative densities, I looked it up and asked Google to convert to your archaic units. Water, at -30C, is around 60 lbs/ft³, so indeed the foam is denser.

I was _going_ to claim that water is denser still, way down deep in the ocean. But I thought I'd check it out first, and although I'm not well-educated enough to understand the important parts of phrases like "At 0 °C, at the limit of zero pressure, the compressibility is 5.1×10−10 Pa−1", I can understand this phrase: "The low compressibility of water means that even in the deep oceans at 4 km depth, where pressures are 40 MPa, there is only a 1.8% decrease in volume."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_water_and_ice)

<comment><USER32> Why -30C? I'd be really surprised if the bottom of the ocean were much below 4C, since that's the greatest density (62.4 lbs/ft^3), see [1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water> (see sidebar)

<comment><USER9> Oh, my bad. I misrecalled a detail from the featured article, thinking it had claimed that temperatures were very very low, so I picked the lowest temperature in that sidebar as a rough approximation. Actually, TFA says "near freezing", which certainly much closer to 4C than to -30C.

Silly me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The project's website - <http://deepseachallenge.com> \- truly fascinating stuff

</comment><comment><USER33> I bet he'll do some great filming down there. He might make an awesome deep sea documentary

<comment><USER34> I'd pay to see that

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "He is to cram his 6-foot-2 frame into a personnel sphere just 43 inches wide, forcing him to keep his knees bent and his body largely immobile. The dive plan calls for him to remain in that position for up to nine hours."

Thanks no.</comment>


What's next for books? - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/whats-next-for-books/ <comment><USER2> _> the ebook backlash has given independent bookstores new legs_

There was an ebook backlash?</comment>


Ask HN: Who works in (mobile) robotics on HN? - <AUTHOR> -What do you do, where (if you can say) -How's your experience been -What journals do you read (if any)
I lead research on humanoid robotics, specifically on novel exoskeletons for SCI patients. I mostly work in chassis/actuator design, and recently have been getting into some more nuanced fields of machine learning... I can't really say what i'm doing/where publicly .
I have been extremely frustrated with my field (humanoid robotics) so far. I just feel like research is trying to brute-force realistic kinematics from the entirely wrong approach/direction... My research is opposite theirs in most regards, so I have a bias. But I also believed the same assumptions and theories when I started.
I suppose to summarize my feelings concisely, I'm disappointed/upset that the field is so stagnant.
--- I'm curious to see who on HN actually works with robotics in hardware/software side, and if anyone would be interested in starting like an email group to talk about new papers or such. I think we're a pretty underrepresented group, and I'd love to see if its actually a group or just me.
If you want to dm, email: email@example.com <comment><USER2> I am still just a undergrad student, but i am hoping for a career in robotics research or R&D.

I am however one of the founders of my university aerial robotics team, we are planning the attend the IARC ([http://www.aerialroboticscompetition.org/](http://www.aerialroboticscompetition.org/)) competition this summer.

One of the big unsolved problems in aerial robotics is high-resolution localization without external sensors. Al the drone acrobatics videos out there use a external tracking system. The current IARC mission aims to push this by requiring complex interaction between flying and ground robots without any external sensors. We are currently trying to solve this by using camera and LIDAR sensors. You can read more on our progress here: [http://www.ascendntnu.no/blog/](http://www.ascendntnu.no/blog/)

I would love some sort of email group, i have been looking for something like that for some time. Pleas sign me up if you end up creating one: mattivc[at]gmail.com</comment>


Ask HN: What can we do to defend net-neutrality? - <AUTHOR> With the upcoming vote in december things are dire. What can we as a community do to defend the internet? <comment><USER2> I just found this neat little bot thanks to Reddit.

You can text "resist" to 504-09 and it'll ask you some questions about your name and where you live, show you your reps, and give you options for messaging them. All totally free. Although I do not know much about the organization holding your name and address if that is a concern to you. Seems pretty neat and is funded by donations.

The nice thing about this is it's easy enough to do in an open office layout where a phone call can be a bit more of a hassle. I do like phone calls for getting across more in depth points though. And of course since you're actually talking to someone you can learn additional information about your reps views.

Here's the bot's page [0] and the original reddit comment [1].

[Edit] - Also I receive texts from battleforthenet.com which tell me about town halls in my area. You can find events near you at [2].

[0] - [https://resistbot.io](https://resistbot.io) [1] - [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7dpvc7/comment/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/7dpvc7/comment/dpzrzps?st=JA52UPTS&sh=132f274e) [2] - [https://events.battleforthenet.com](https://events.battleforthenet.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why is net-neutrality a good thing?

I understand that public services (e.g., government, roads, electricity, mail) should be neutral since they're imposed to us. Likewise, private services that were subsidized by the government should also be neutral. Same goes for artificial monopolies (i.e., only company X is allowed to provide service Y in area Z).

That said, it seems like legitimately private companies (no artificial monopoly, no subsidy) should be free to apply any arbitrary restrictions to the services they provide. No law should prevent a philanthropist from launching a satellite providing free access to Wikipedia (and nothing else).

I don't know if people defending net-neutrality are selfish (I don't want to pay any extra), are actually seeking neutrality for all public/subsidized/monopolistic services (not just the net), or if they just do it because it's trendy.

People used to be able to buy a video game and have access to all of its content at no additional cost. Today, people buy a game but still need to pay extra to access some content. Some people believe it's absolutely scandalous (see Reddit vs Battlefront 2). They seem to be the same people that defend net-neutrality. I can't help but think that both instances are motivated by selfishness and resistance to change.

<comment><USER4> What if your phone company charged you more to call/text specific companies or people? Or offered plans where you can only call specific companies for a reduced rate?

It would be very difficult for new companies to enter the market because people would not be able to call new companies, since they aren't under specific plans. The established players could effectively block new competition or make it incredibly expensive to enter the market.

<comment><USER3> What exactly do you recommend we should do instead? Make all service providers 100% neutral?

\- All car dealerships should sell all brands of car.

\- All grocery stores should sell all foods.

\- All music streaming services should stream all songs.

\- All movie streaming services should stream all movies.

\- All movie theatres should play all movies.

\- All phone companies should let you call all numbers for free.

\- All radio stations should play all songs.

\- All TV channels should play all shows.

\- All cable providers should offer all channels.

\- All devices should support all operating systems.

\- All airlines should provide flights to all airports

\- All stores should sell the same items for the same price.

I have yet to find anyone who supports a majority of the above statements, or is able to explain how they differ from net neutrality.

<comment><USER5> The tone and manner of your argument don't make think you're interested in understanding the opposing side. Trying to debate with people who insist the structure of the issue is exactly what they see though their ideological lens is unproductive and exhausting.

Your questions don't get answered not because they're devastating to the pro- neutrality position but because they don't address _at all_ what net- neutrality proponents actually believe or why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Call your congress person. Show up at their office. R or D. Do it.

Right now, the CS students of Gonzaga Uni are building a website that lets you send a physical letter to your congressperson via Lob.

If you would like to help, our Repo's here: [https://github.com/gu-app- club/save-the-net](https://github.com/gu-app-club/save-the-net)

Or you're welcome to DM me on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/flaqueeau](https://twitter.com/flaqueeau)

</comment><comment><USER7> Find out the member of Congress who represents your district. Go to their website and find their contact information. Call them. Email them. Voice your opinion. It may not do much but as a citizen, you should do these things if you feel so strongly about it.

I just emailed my Congressman so thanks for reminding. Now everyone should go do the same if they what to defend net neutrality.</comment>


The Secret of the Fibonacci Sequence in Trees - <AUTHOR> http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/youngnaturalistawards/2011/aidan.html

<comment><USER2> > Scientists and naturalists have discovered the Fibonacci sequence appearing > in many forms in nature, such as the shape of nautilus shells, the seeds of > sunflowers, falcon flight patterns and galaxies flying through space. What's > more mysterious is that the "divine" number equals your height divided by > the height of your torso, and even weirder, the ratio of female bees to male > bees in a typical hive! (Livio)

Except that most of this is simply not true: <http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm>

It's a very tasty popular myth that people like to repeat, that there's a magical sacred golden constant producing all the complexity in nature and more.

Except that nobody actually bothers to _measure_ anything, they just keep repeating and reposting the same images of spiral galaxies and nautilus shells.

Nor is there anything "inherently beautiful" about the golden ratio, research into perceived aesthetics of ratios simply showed that people prefer fractions of small numbers. It's imprecise enough that you really can't say whether people like 1.5 (3/2) or 1.667 (5/3) or 1.618 (phi) best.

The one thing where he _is_ right, is the pattern in sunflower seeds. If you divide the 360 degrees of a circle in two parts so that their ratio is 1:1.618, and you use that angle (about 137.5 degrees) to rotate outwards as a spiral, put a big dot at every point, you'll get a pattern that looks pretty much exactly like sunflower seeds.

The thing about this particular pattern is that the seeds end up being rather uniformly spaced over the plane, while using other angular ratios creates swirly patterns and waves of filled and empty regions.

So I can imagine if you apply this to the rotation of tree branches, it'll result in a more uniformly distributed pattern, that will capture sunlight more efficiently than a pattern with holes in it.

I kind of wonder, though, if it's not the other way around--because nature uses golden ratio angles in tree branches, the fibonacci numbers pop up. Because really it's super easy for fibonacci numbers to pop up anywhere, especially the small ones, what's _significant_ , however, is when the golden ratio actually plays a meaningful role.

<comment><USER3> (repeating from other thread): <http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-410#previous> has something to say about how the golden ratio can pop out without being encoded directly in plant phylotaxis.

<comment><USER2> Looks interesting--will read later, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure how much of this the kid actually discovered on his own. The Wikipedia page on Phyllotaxis cites plenty of past research on why the Fibonacci sequence shows up (and the kid oddly hand copied the illustrations from that page).

It's an emergent pattern from the branches shoving each other around as they grow. It minimizes the overlap of the leaves _if they are being added indefinitely_. If you know in advance how many leaves/panels there will be then obviously you can just space them evenly. If you ran that experiment with one tree of evenly spaced/angled panels and one tree of golden angle spaced panels, I think the evenly spaced one would win.

<comment><USER5> Crucial difference: the tree-leaf problem is about how to arrange leaves which are shading each other; but here he compares such a "tree" with a flat array that has _no overlaps at all_. He claims that the tree generates more energy than the no-overlaps array, which is impossible. I have a longer comment about this in the other thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902684>

<comment><USER6> It's not impossible, because the sun's relative position changes, and the closer to orthogonal the light, the better the efficiency of the solar cell. By taking optimal advantage of the height, this design is closer to orthogonality more of the time, and is thus more efficient per ground area (though not per solar cell area, as you demonstrate).

Now, if your solar array were mounted such that it actively maintained orthogonality to the sun (heliotropism), I expect you'd do even better, but that kind of active system is more subject to failure.

<comment><USER6> I retract this. Reading deeper, I see that he was comparing equal solar cell areas, and thus your analysis likely correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish Aidan had been allowed to write this in his own words, rather than his parent's / someone else's words.

On the other hand, whoever's taking care of him behind the scenes has done an incredible job. I'd even say Aidan's "set for life"; that might seem over the top, but consider... this link will forever be associated with his name. It demonstrates that even at age 13, he was a very capable real-world problem solver, while also showing off his ability to perform and present his own original research in ways that other people can build on.

That's going to impress virtually everyone he ever meets, probably. Admissions boards, employers, investors, etc. Obviously that assumes he plays his cards correctly going forward. Still, though... this will always be a future de- facto "get-his-foot-in-the-door" for him, regardless of whatever it is he's trying to do. Except maybe pickup chicks.

I just hope he doesn't become a victim of his own success. Hearing "you're such a genius!" from everyone around him would not be good for his future self.

<comment><USER8> _I'd even say Aidan's "set for life"_

And I would strenuously disagree. No one is set for life at that age. As you yourself point out, sometimes marking a mark early just makes thing difficult later on. There are plenty of historical examples.

Best wishes to him. There are still plenty of mountains to climb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> wow people! slightly off topic but that's how you DELIVER information. no ads bullshit, straight, references...

now compare that to the first link we got.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is by far and away the better article. Such a shame the discussion is on the totally crap repackaging of it:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329>

</comment><comment><USER11> Brilliant. Perhaps first time I'm seeing some one using Fibonacci for other than learning programming language ;-)

<comment><USER12> Fibonacci trees, which are connected to Fibonaccy numbers, are actually useful, not just for learning a language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a question that fascinated Alan Turing, who wrote a classic paper called "The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis" and other unfinished papers about the subject (some published in a book called "Morphogenesis"). He used lots of heavy math that came so naturally to him, to model plant growth as a reaction- diffusion system running in a ring of cells (the stem of the plant). By computing the reactions by hand on paper, he studied how cells could grow into "parastichy" with spiral patterns related by Fibbonachi numbers. <http://botanydictionary.org/parastichy.html> [http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing....](http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/turing.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER14> This reminded me of the PBS NOVA episode about how the Mandelbrot set can describe nature, like the spacing of trees in a forest, the spacing of branches on a tree, the spacing of leaves on a branch, the spacing of veins in the leaf, etc. It's not just random.

Apparently, the fibonacci sequence can be found within the Mandelbrot set, which makes sense from the author's discovery.

[http://www.sunflowerblog.ch/2007/06/03/the-fibonacci- numbers...](http://www.sunflowerblog.ch/2007/06/03/the-fibonacci-numbers-and- mandelbrots-fractals/)

</comment><comment><USER15> In wolframs "A new Kind of Science" there is a long discussion of not only the fact that leaf arrangement tends to use the golden ratio and that it is optimal for the plant. But also he describes a model (using cellular automata) that explains why such a pattern might emerge naturally. Unfortunately i don't remember all the details but it was a compelling use case for why automata might be a good model for natural phenomenon.

<comment><USER13> That was just Stephen Wolfram channeling Alan Turing but not giving him credit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Here's a little something that most people don't know, that I picked up from my architecturally interested father long ago:

The French architect Le Corbusier (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier>) made use of Fibonacci sequences to create his famous "Modulor" ([http://www.apprendre-en- ligne.net/blog/images/architecture/m...](http://www.apprendre-en- ligne.net/blog/images/architecture/modulor.jpg) \- "A harmonic measure to the human scale, universally applicable to architecture and mechanics.") which represents a few fixed points in Fibonacci sequences that have been in use in architecture, interior decoration, carpentry etc. for more than 50 years, at least here in Europe - I have no idea if these scales are as rigorously followed in the Americas or in Asia.

If you look at the picture, and then look at the height of the seat of your kitchen chairs, your kitchen table, your kitchen sink, your cupboards etc., you will find that their tops, bottoms and heights almost always align around numbers in these scales. These measurements create a strange sense of harmony in the way the mind processes geometry picked up from eyesight, which is not perceivable as soon as you move away from these dimensions, in some way quite similar to how the Golden Ratio pleases the eye.

Just for fun I measured some of the interior in my home. Desk: 69cm. Kitchen chairs and kitchen table: 43cm and 70cm. Kitchen sink: 88cm. Bottom and top of wall-mounted kitchen cupboards: 138cm, 225cm (height of 87cm).

Also interesting to note is that similar scales have been found to be used in ancient times as well - seems we took notice of this particular natural pattern long ago.

<comment><USER17> If the height of your desk, chairs, tables, kitchen sink and cupboards are determined by anything other than the size of resp. your (or at least, 'an average') torso, calves, torso, legs and total body length, you live in a weird house. If you look long enough, you can find 'patterns' everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Trees also optimize for shading their competitors and avoiding being shaded, not just for efficiently gathering raw light. Understanding the shading factor would require extensive field work and Monte Carlo analysis.

</comment><comment><USER19> Just say fractals. We already knew they appear everywhere in nature.

<comment><USER20> Why stop there. Just say stuff. We already knew stuff appears everywhere in nature.

Cause exact words have exact meanings. Fib sequence != fractals</comment></comment>