Ask HN: what are your best (relatively) passive, non-stock-market investments? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER3> I bought myself a "lifestyle business". Its a cleaning business that already had a number of long term clients and revenue as well as staff. I've rearranged the staff, automated the administration side of it and while i did the cleaning myself (with the existing staff) for the first 2 weeks of takeover, that now goes on without my involvement too.

I've only had it a month, i spent about £6k to buy it, i spent a further £2k buying a van and other one off supplies and my monthly profit after staff wages and other recourring expenses is around £800 a month. So if i left it at that i'd see a 100% ROI in 10 months.

However I intend to spend around £10k on advertising and marketing in the next 3-4 months to expand the business, i expect a conservative £25k a year revenue for that £10k.

Of course being a geek has helped immensely, especially with automating things like invoicing, payments, accounting and building the website, phone system, business cards, designs etc.

I urge all geeks here to think about applying your high tech skills to low tech businesses, you'll often find massive opportunity, especially if the space is typically occupied by non-tech literate people.

Also, as a side note, this is now my new strategy for my consulting too, instead of being a PHP Developer doing boring but well paid jobs like facebook apps and wordpress sites, i'm now positioning myself to be a business consultant that makes businesses money by applying technology where its severely lacking, and i already have my first client, a taxi company.

If anyone wants to ask me questions, feel free to reply here if you dont mind if being public or email me: contact@[myHNusername].com

<comment><AUTHOR> this is great. how did you identify and qualify this opportunity?

<comment><USER3> This sounds a bit crazy, but I saw the opportunity on Gumtree, a guy wanted to sell this part of his business. I went over his historical figures, did as much due diligence as i could and considered the figures to see if it was worth it. I have kind of a rule, if i can get a 100% ROI in 1 year, its worth doing, I initially thought i'd get a 100% RIO in 8 months, i figured i'd miss something (which i did) but i thought there was enough room for a little bit of error and decided to go for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my opinion, passive investing rarely has the capacity to earn someone a substantial amount of money. Large, stable returns occur in only two situations: 1) You invested a huge amount of initial money, so even a low yield returns a lot of money. (This is, from my understanding, how a lot of super-wealthy people do it. Stored wealth perpetually generates income. If one has a massive amount of stored wealth, they earn a massive amount of passive income.) or 2) You invest over long periods of time.

Making large amount of money in short periods of time through investing necessitates either making a very active, labor-intensive investment (like buying a small company or flipping houses), or resorting to speculation. Obviously, this is not passive.

The market is self-correcting. It's absurd to believe that one can earn prodigious amounts of money quickly, predictably, and effortlessly.

However, you should take this with a huge grain of salt. I am not an experienced investor. (In fact, I'm fairly sure that the law prohibits someone my age from investing. Even if it didn't, I wouldn't be in a financial position to invest anyway.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes but there's such a thing as leverage on labor. E.g., you could start a coffee cart & hire someone to manage it; be primarily a financial partner in purchasing a small business or house-flip; etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've had pretty good results with peer-to-peer lending. Prosper is the platform I use (Lending Club is the other big player in the U.S. but not available to investors where I live). It can be a bit high maintenance as an investor as you'll need to invest in 100+ loans to be diversified (and you'll have to reinvest proceeds over time), but I find it to be manageable. If you really want to get into it, both platforms allow you to download all past loan data so you can analyze past performance and come up with your own approach.

<comment><USER6> I like those platforms in principle, but I don't think investors reallly understand what's in it. The truth is, you're creating your own asset-backed security based on loans originated to refinance credit card loans or finance personal projects for what is (I assume) a pretty narrow slice of the population.

Just like banks and other players ( _ahem_ rating agencies) before the financial crisis assumed ABS were safe because they were diversified ("the housing market cannot collapse uniformly accros the country"), they can actually become _very_ correlated in a very short amount of time.

So even though peer-to-peer lending is an interesting proposition, it is important to understand that it can potentially become ugly and sticky...

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. After a quick look at this (very interesting) suggestion, my intuitive reaction is that a lot of the borrowers are likely to repay based on their credit histories and the desire to protect them.

My #1 question, however, is what makes people turn to a source like this?

<comment><USER6> Well, a credit history tells you whether a borrower paid his credit card bill last month, not if he is going to have a job next month. My point is not that people will try to run away with your money, but that holding 100+ notes from Lending Club might not be the diversified investment it appears to be, especially when some macro event happens.

Peer to peer lending being somewhat new, I would say some of the borrowers think it's cool. Some of them might also be making a principled choice ("banks are evil"). But ultimately, if you have a reasonnably good credit profile it should be noticeably cheaper than the average traditional lender with its branch network etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Real estate. My wife and I own five homes (live in one of them). One is in South Carolina near Hilton Head (I bought it when I was single) and the other four are condos around San Diego, CA.

We bought in when the housing market was at its low. The credit markets were crap so we had to buy all of them cash except the one we live in now which was a bit more expensive. After expenses (HOA and property management) our average returns are about $900/mo. ($10,800/yr.) for every $100,000 invested. That's not too bad considering housing prices and rental rates will continue to climb over time (or that's the plan at least). We're fortunate enough to live frugally and just happened to have the money lying around when the housing market sucked so we bought a couple homes a year over the past few years.

For the house in South Carolina we're losing about $200/mo., but it's a 15yr mortgage. We'd be making a bit if it were a 30yr. I bought that one when I saw 21 so I didn't know anything about anything. Some would say I still don't.

The real estate is nice because the extent of my involvement is manually paying real estate taxes on the homes without mortgages, answering a couple emails a year about high dollar ($200+) repairs or signing new lease agreements.

As one of the other posters mentioned, we also invest in Lending Club. Our investment was more just play money to see how things worked, but returns so far have been surprisingly good, around 14% annually. I like it because it's so diversified with only $25/loan. You can maximize returns by picking better loans.

The passive income is nice because it'll allow me to quit my job next year and work on my startup full-time. I want to apply to Y Combinator and even if I don't get accepted I'd be able to bootstrap my startup indefinitely with our passive income. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if it does maybe I'll pivot around year 25 (year 50 at the latest).

</comment><comment><USER8> I swing trade, which is just stock speculation (aka gambling with equities). I think I made about 30 trades all year. I've been averaging over 40% annual returns over the last four years.

As much as I hate to admit this, I am a much better trader than an entrepreneur.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's an interesting number of trades -- less than one a week. Can you elaborate on your methods for identifying, holding/monitoring, and exiting trades? How many hours a week are you spending on this?

<comment><USER8> This year was low (number of trades) because I was patient on a trade that went south. It eventually turned around, but locked up all my capital until it did.

Basically, I refuse all conventional stock investing advice. I never diversify; at most my portfolio has two positions at a time. And I invest upwards of 90% of my cash on most trades. I do not trade on margin (well, technically I do because I don't wait for trades to clear before taking my next position)--but I don't buy stock than cash I have in the account. I only buy heavily traded equities; trading volume over a million shares and over a billion dollar market cap. And I focus on stocks with more or less sound fundamentals that are showing recent swings in price. Apple is a good example.

But as for a being highly methodical and data driven--I'm not. I have a few simple rules and am patient. I generally exit positions after 1-3%. And then I have a few that I let ride. It doesn't take much to hit 40% that way.

I spend less than an hour a week doing research and monitoring my position. I don't have any magic edge. But I'm making money, so continue chug along. A bull market definitely helps, but I've also done ok in a bear.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you trade long only, or short too? Ie, are you trading pure volatility, or more looking for situations where there's a temporary dip in pricing relative to fundamentals?

Do you monitor daily, > daily, and/or use any automated tools to stop out of or otherwise monitor your trades?

It seems like you could make consistent small wins here but would also be subject to occasional big losses.

<comment><USER8> 90% of my trades are long. I should be shorting more often, but I seem to have an irrational apprehension towards it, which is just plain dumb.

It depends on the trade. If I have time to get a better feel of the way the stock has been moving, I'll trade volatility. That's when I'm setting lots of limit orders in a short period of time, which is uncommon for me. If I knew how to trade programmatically, I'd be doing a lot more of this. It's something I should learn this year. But most of my trading is based on what I feel are fundamental flaws I pricing.

I make it a point not to actively monitor. I have Google Finance up all day, but I'm not glued to it. I just set a limit order to close my position as soon as I get into it. No real automated trading tools and don't stop out (which is really bad practice I should change). I've looked at autotrading via subscriptions, but since I'm booming gains as high as these pros, I see no point to encumber myself with complexity. For now, I'm a profitable simpleton. Of course, I fully understand my days are numbered. I'd much rather I didn't trade, but I can't any other activity with this kind if return in time invested.

You're right--I should be coming against a big loss. Actually, I have seen big losses, but I just never realized them. That's what I mean by being patient. I just wait it out until the company turns around.

The sites I use for insight are: Google Finance and Trefis. And I see what is going on in the order book--I use Interactive Brokers, which offers access to almost tick by tick trading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you purchase farmland, at least in the upper Midwest, you'll earn a 5-8% yearly dividend by renting it out, and there is little to no maintenance that you need to do yourself (depending on your rental contract).

<comment><AUTHOR> This is an unlikely avenue for me given my geography, but out of curiosity and for the purposes of the discussion, are you basing the return on equity invested or on total value of the land?

<comment><USER9> Total value. Rental price per acre per year in my area of Minnesota is about 7% of the sale price per acre.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Precious Metals. Gold and Silver Specifically.

edit: If you're in Canada, you can use ScotiaMocatta (division of ScotiaBank) as your broker Buy. online and they will deliver the metal right to your doorstep, or keep it with them in a safety box.

[https://www.scotiamocatta- estore.scotiabank.com/stores/scoti...](https://www.scotiamocatta- estore.scotiabank.com/stores/scotiamocatta/catalog/FeaturedProducts.aspx)

<comment><USER11> That's a speculation. Investments are returns on real value. Speculations are bets on unrealized value. The OP asked about investments.

<comment><USER12> Does this make angel "investing" more like angel "speculation"? Or even more so, Venture Capital primarily speculation versus investment? A legitimate question.

<comment><USER11> A little of both. Buying index funds is investing and buying gold is speculation, but there's not an excluded middle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I invested in a CrossFit gym three years ago with 2 partners and we've done about 40x our original investment in dividends over the last three years. It was a lot of work the first 18 months, but now it's a solid business with good recurring revenue and a staff that runs it very well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you opening additional locations? Was it a full-time job for the first 18 months?

<comment><USER13> No, for a variety of reasons. Mainly we always wanted it as a lifestyle business, but also due to location factors and not wanting to put in that much time again.

I'd say about 15 to 20 hours a week for the first 9 months, then declining to about half that after 18 months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My personal blog <http://www.russellheimlich.com/blog/>

I run 2 Google Adsense ads on individual post pages and it more than pays for the cost of my shared hosting account. I haven't blogged in over a year after a pretty good run.

I also run <http://dummyimage.com> with a single ad which covers the increased monthly VPS cost to keep it running.

<comment><USER15> Shared hosting is $50/yr, tops. I made more than that while reading your comment. That doesn't sound like much of an investment :P

<comment><USER14> I invested the time getting it set-up, writing content, yadda yadda... In the past 12 months it has earned me ~$300. It's enough to fund other side projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I expect bitcoins to become significantly more valuable in the coming years, so I own about 100BTC.

<comment><USER17> IMHO that's speculating and not investing, if you subscribe to the Benjamin Graham school of thought. If we classify investing as betting on anything that could go up in value in the future, my best investment ever was at the roulette table, made 36x my money in under 30 seconds :)

Maybe the original poster should clarify more what they're after, - i.e. something that returns dividends/returns of some sort other, or just a capital gain at the end of the tunnel, or both, etc... would enable the community to provide more focused answers.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here: I don't have a hard time horizon or criteria on outcomes, just some idle assets that I don't want to put all into the stock market.

I believe there are lots of ways to generate returns on assets in compounding ways, and I'm interested in ways people in the HN community are using their skills, knowledge, and analytical brains to do this.

I'm not so interested in pure speculation per se -- in fact, one of my reasons for looking for alternatives to the stock market is that many stocks themselves meet the characteristics of speculation to me. (Just because you wrap it in quantitative comparisons to related-industry multiples and so on doesn't mean the whole market isn't overvalued.)

Thus precious metals, bitcoins, etc. aren't very interesting to me either, though they're interesting enough suggestions (as alternatives to leaving assets in dollars, if nothing else) for the purposes of this discussion.

That all said, I'm willing to take lots of risk in small doses, if the return dynamics are there.

Angel investing meets a lot of the criteria for me (and I've done some), but I don't have enough capital to make many bets of typical angel investment size, ie to have a sufficiently diversified portfolio to get EV returns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Domains - have my portfolio at hackernames.com. It's a good way to exercise your hacker knowledge and you can always use them yourself if you aren't able to find a buyer.

<comment><USER19> Forgive my bluntness, but my impression of domain sitting is essentially the same as patent trolling. It's not contributing anything to the economy or society, it just seems like legalized extortion of companies who just want to do business.

Is there something I'm missing about this?

<comment><USER20> This couldn't be further from the truth. Have you read Edward Bernay's book called "Propaganda"? Do check it out. Your impression of things is no doubt a result of a good spin job.

Domain investments are a proper alternative asset class and many people (some of whom have gone to the best schools in the world) are active players.

<comment><USER19> It seems like a bit of deflection to point me to a book written in 1928. My impression of domain sitting might be the result of spin, but domains didn't exist in 1928, so that book is not going to explain why what I said "couldn't be further from the truth."

I didn't say that domains aren't an asset; that has little to do with what I was talking about. I'm not saying they're not a good investment, I'm just saying my impression is that they're a kind of investment which does nothing to further society, like other sorts of investments do.

<comment><USER20> My comment was about the source of your "impression". I'm sure you'd agree that you weren't just say strolling along the banks of the Danube contemplating m-theory, when out of the blue - BAM! A thought came upon you - quite randomly - giving you the impression that you now contend you own.

So rather than post an emotional response, why not engage that no doubt massive neocortex of yours and investigate. I give it to you to decide. And of course I'm being snarky here, it's a shortcoming of mine ;)

On a different note, this firm has good research on the matter <http://www.fairwindspartners.com/Why-It-Matters/FAQs/> (NB: I'm not affiliated in any way)

<comment><USER19> I'm a bit flabbergasted by your comments, but a quick look at your comment history doesn't indicate that you're trollish, so I'll try to answer under the assumption you comment in good faith.

I started by stating that my opinion was an "impression". Obviously by using the word "impression," which by definition means "an opinion (esp.) formed on the basis of little evidence," I was allowing that my opinion was influenced by external and implicit sources. I then asked for more informed input on the possibility that I was lacking an understanding of the issue.

Your response started with "this couldn't be further from the truth," from which I assumed you would go on to challenge the content of what I had said. Instead of countering what I said, or even providing input (which I would value, since you present that you know about this subject) you resorted to challenging the source of my opinion...the very opinion I'm _trying_ to become more informed about. This is a red herring, and I tried to say as much. If you considered my response "emotional" then I'm sorry, but you misread my tone.

But all that said, I _have_ given this independent thought and have come to the same conclusion: that by all I've come to understand about domain sitting, the act of buying domains that you don't wish to develop in order to sell them at outrageous markup later _does not_ provide value to society, and in fact has negative value as it raises the cost of doing business without compensating by contributing value elsewhere.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by domain-name sitting, which would seem to be true given the completely irrelevant link you provided above. The Fairwinds Partners' FAQ talks about having a cohesive domain-name strategy as part of a greater branding and trademark initiative. I fail to see its relevance to domain-name sitting.

<comment><USER20> " _the act of buying domains that you don't wish to develop in order to sell them at outrageous markup later does not provide value to society_ ".

First of all friend (may I call you that?), please chilax. No need to be flabbergasted.

A couple of points I'd like to make. To begin with, in my belief system, as the owner of an asset, you (me or WHOMEVER), has the right to do with that asset whatever you wish.

If you buy something - for whatever intention - I have no right to project my beliefs about what is or isn't appropriate use for YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

As an example, if you were to buy a plot of land (whatever your intention), does someone have the right to say, "you're not adding value to society" because you don't develop it?

I'm a firm believer that if a person doesn't know or appreciate the value of something, they are not the best owner of it.

But that's another issue.

Imagine this. You and I both have an equal amount of free time per week - <USER2> 20 extra hours to do what we so desire.

I decide to play online scrabble, write random HN posts and yell at the screen when people get answers wrong on Jeopardy.

You on the other hand, decide to use your time doing other things. You spend hours: -reading through scientific journals (a good source of emerging technologies and future generic domain names that will be popular) -analyzing data from keyword research tools -charting data you found on DNSalesPrice.com

etc etc After putting in the work, you find and invest in a small portfolio of domain names.

Now, one day I read The Lean Startup and decide I want to have a go at this thing called a "start up".

Doing whatever research I so decide, I think up a domain name.

Now, it turns out that the domain name has been registered.

By whom?

By none other than you.

So, I send an email and ask you to quote me a price.

When I get an email from you quoting a price that's in my mind at an "outrageous markup" - I start blasting you on forums.

Forget the fact that: a) neither of us had some kind of unfair advantage. You decided to put in the work it takes to find and acquire these assets - I on the other hand decided to enjoy my leisure time

b) Another party comes along who sees the value in your "outrageous markup" and happily pays you. Not only that, they turn the investment they made into the asset they bought from you into a 25+% ROI (or more....far better than the stock market, wouldn't you agree?)

c) They also substantially lower their customer acquisition costs via their media buys with the right strategic domain investment (content on this relationship here - [http://www.ozdomainer.com/domain-names-podcast- episode-19-wi...](http://www.ozdomainer.com/domain-names-podcast- episode-19-with-perry-marshall-google-adwords-guru/) 15:30 difference between good domain and a bad one is [approx] 4 to 1)

One could go on, but I'll stop here.

I find it shocking when people blame other people for "extortion" for making smart business decisions that, had they had either the foresight or the work ethic, they could also have done.

It's one thing if one fraudulently stole someone's domain then demanded they pay you for its return. Bu when one party takes on the inherent risk involved in ANY kind of investment - then have others lambast them for doing so?

That I can't understand. Having said that, I'll end with a favorite quote of mine (paraphrased Emerson) - "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Poker. A good player has a pretty huge advantage over average players given a decent sample size.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you have a way to make money from poker that isn't a linear function of the hours you spend at a poker table?

<comment><USER22> Open a casino?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Buy a house and live in it.

<comment><USER3> Personally i think a house you live in is a liability rather than an asset, it costs money, ties up a hell of a lot of capital and these days is a gamble on whether you'll get your initial investment back again.

<comment><USER6> I would tend to agree with that.

This being said, investing in real estate is the only way for a regular person to achieve a high leverage ratio, which is probably why people see it as such a good investment.

<comment><USER8> Joe Sixpack can also have high leverage through options contracts.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How I killed Mailcloud's 21,000 users today - <AUTHOR> http://malcolmbell.net/2014/04/29/how-i-killed-mailclouds-21000-users-today/

<comment><USER2> I dont want to take away from the good thoughts in this article but it annoys me when people create terms for something that already exists. A "pre-mortem" as described here is just a "Risk Assessment", outside the startup world its typically a must have part of any project.

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

<comment><USER3> I disagree, Risk Assessment is the process of assessing what could go wrong. In the Pre-Mortem, you take a different approach, and take, as a _given_ that the project has failed, so now you are not discussing what _could_ go wrong, but what _did_ go wrong.

It's a subtle, but important distinction. As the article notes, that once you have an image in your mind of a failed project, you come up with a somewhat different analysis than if you are trying to picture what could wrong.

I frequently see attitudes in risk-assessment, particularly in those that have planning responsibilities, where people actually get quite defensive when people are pointing out the risks in the project, to the point at which others in the room no longer wish to participate. On the flip side, if we are presupposing things went really wrong, and everything failed - it almost becomes a game to figure out what went wrong.

I'll take it one step further - at a tactical level, when my engineers/technicians are preparing for a complex change in our IT environments, and they do their walkthrough, and demonstrate the change is guaranteed to work - that is just the first, almost minor step. The second, much more important one, is to then find at least three ways in which the change will fail. Getting something to work might only take a few hours. Finding out how the change will fail may take several days, or even weeks - but it's much more informative and useful to the change control procedure than demonstrating something will work, and I find the mindset of "accepting and looking for failure, rather than resisting it" is the key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Donning my pre-mortem cap: perhaps they pre-died because it's impossible to figure out what mailcloud actually _does_.

<comment><USER5> Yeah... maybe the new homepage increased conversions when they removed any semblance of information from the page? The only two options now are, "I have no idea what this is, but I'm curious"; and "I don't give my email address to randoms"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _So, we imagined we have shipped our closed BETA version of Mailcloud, and nobody wants it. Worse than that, it doesn't even work, reviews are terrible and generally the whole world hates us – signified in a homepage Techcrunch piece because our product was so bad._

Problem is, your failure is not likely going to be that dramatic. The product will likely work, have some users who like it and some positive or at least not terrible reviews, but will just never take off. Might not be a clear reason why, you just didn't "hit it."

</comment><comment><USER7> good thoughts but I think a much better version of this is the Dangers Strengths Opportunities exercise (e.g. [http://robdkelly.com/blog/getting- things-done/dos-exercise/](http://robdkelly.com/blog/getting-things-done/dos- exercise/))

The danger part is effectively the same with the added bonus of being able to convert all Dangers into Opportunities. Once you do that, you've gotten the entire team to agree that, to achieve success, all they need to do is accomplish the Opportunities.

</comment><comment><USER8> What exactly is 'mailcloud'? I am assuming it's a email hosting company plus they added 'cloud' to the mix.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was featured on product hunt -> www.mailcloud.com/story

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It would have been good to see some examples, not just the concept.</comment>


Drinking at work: the boredom of boozeless business - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21560265 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if this has anything to do with alcohol specifically.

As a European, I've always gotten the feeling that corporate America has been trying to ban almost any kind of potentially disruptive but generally perfectly normal social activity from the workplace. Take for example how uptight many American companies seem to be about people forming intimate relationships in the workplace.

Maybe this has more to do with American fear of legal liability. Whatever the case, the strict separation of social and professional settings seems to go well beyond just booze.

<comment><USER3> At a previous company there was an office-romance happening between a manager and one of their employees. While everything seemed fine, once they broke up, all hell broke loose. The employee threatened to sue the company claiming that the manager had forced him in to a relationship to keep his job. It's ridiculous, but a sad fact of life that you have people who will react that way - so this is why a lot of companies will have policies where dating is prohibited or you must divulge your relationship to HR. This isn't enforceable but is more to prevent legal liability if something like the story above were to happen.

<comment><USER4> So the office romance per se wasn't the problem but the system that allowed concretely bad things to emanate from it. If the courts take such lawsuits seriously, then that allows people to _shift responsibility away from_ themselves and that's generally when bad things start happening.

In another culture the two would've just broken up, caused a stir in the office, and in the worst case one of them might have left the company if they wouldn't have been able to recover and speak to each other again.

<comment><USER5> What if the claims were real? Employee coersion and sexual harassment DO exist, you know...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I drink on the job from time to time. The programming I am required to do is rarely challenging, its maintaining and expanding a system I know inside and out.

Sometimes it reaches lunch time, I have some dull task to finish, motivation is leaving the body. The cure. A whisky. Definitely not to get to drunk, just to get the juices flowing.

I find my productivity greatly improves when I get a small buzz. I find the quality of my work stay's the same as I never drink enough to truly impair judgement. It would be win / win but I feel the negative connotations of drinking of the job means this isn't really something I should be talking about.

<comment><USER7> I have always worked places with strict alcohol rules (my current place doesn't even allow having drinks in the office during a social event after work), so I don't now about during the day, but I have found sipping some whisky while working on personal projects to always be very motivating, enjoyable, and the code generally doesn't turnout any worse.

<comment><USER8> The bonuses of occasionally working from home.

There is nothing like a glass of wine to make a two hour conference call more bearable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell At a previous programming job I had, we used to regularly have a beer at lunch (in the UK) and it didn't feel like it affected my productivity at the time. This was in my early 20's. I'm now in my early 30's and I find that a beer at lunch just makes me feel tired in the afternoon, so I avoid it.

The point is, it probably affects people in completely different ways depending on physiology, age and health.

<comment><USER9> if your in london, going back to work after a pub lunch of 3 or 4 pints seems to be the norm

<comment><USER8> It used to be in my industry (banking), but in the last few years nobody seems to drink at lunchtime any more.

15 years ago Friday afternoons used to be pretty much a write-off in terms of getting anything done. We had one project sponsor that would agree to something, then go down the pub, get lashed, and reverse his previous decisions. That was... fun.

I also knew one guy that used to get wasted at lunchtime, and then lay down in the data centre to sleep it off. Different times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Another recent paper from the journal Consciousness and Cognition by > psychologists at the University of Illinois confirms what many have long > suspected: a couple of drinks makes workers more creative.

Wow, never thought I'd see scientific evidence for the Ballmer peak.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reminds me of the Ballmer Peak: <http://xkcd.com/323/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet more and more start-ups (and not so start-ups) have kegerators in their office. We have one at Lot18 (we're hiring!) and some other companies that I am aware of include Yelp, Google, Name.com, BirchBox, MapQuest, Yammer - and I am sure there are plenty more out there.

Alcohol is often seen as a social thing to do - and with companies trying to get a more solid culture going, alcohol seems to tie in well to aide in creating the social ambiance. Obviously there should still be limits on when you should be drinking, and how you conduct your self - but that should be considered in any social setting.

Here is a related article regarding drinking on the job and tech companies: [http://www.brewcitybeerbuffs.com/2012/05/20/drinking-on- the-...](http://www.brewcitybeerbuffs.com/2012/05/20/drinking-on-the-job- would-you/)

<comment><USER12> Could this feature of technology companies be related to younger median age -> less commute radius or commute by bicycle/public transport?

Bankers and corporate types seem to be concentrated in compounds miles from anywhere, so drink/drive limits (preferably zero) come into play.

<comment><USER3> That's a fair question, and while tech companies are surely employing younger people in general, I don't think that is purely the motivating factor. I think people are trying to get away from the previously stuffy office environments - trying to make everyone genuinely enjoy their work and co-workers even during off hours.

As far as commute goes - this could certainly be true for NYC which is where I am as I don't think a single person drives in to the office unless it is a special occasion - though I am not sure how much of a factor it might be for other localities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> At one of my previous jobs, our office was right across the street from a fantastic microbrewery. I'd loved going over in the afternoon with my coworkers for a couple of pints.

My current office is right across the street from a different microbrewery. I can't get anybody in my office to go over with me.

<comment><USER14> According to the article they would look down on you if you went, so maybe they think of not going as a favor. Or maybe they are worried about how you might see them if they drank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Another recent paper from the journal Consciousness and Cognition by psychologists at the University of Illinois confirms what many have long suspected: a couple of drinks makes workers more creative."

That's definitely what we need more of, investment bankers being "creative".

<comment><USER16> As long as they aren't being creative with their clients money and no consent, go right ahead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've tried various experiments and have found that a beer around 3pm often leads to the best productivity gains for technical work. More than a beer and the productivity starts to tail off, but it's much the same for me as with coffee.

I don't drink so much beer these days, but an Aperol or Campari and Soda around 4pm seems to be quite a nice and not very alcoholic way to round off the work day now and again.

In the UK, sales lunches tend to be fairly boozy affairs - this is an exception to the 1 pint rule, although I generally wouldn't go past a third pint of beer on a sales lunch unless we'd agreed we'd take the afternoon off for some time out.

<comment><USER18> In my youth I had a reasonable capacity in the evenings but not at lunchtime: half a pint would be noticeably incapacitating, a pint would send me to sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If we'd treat alcohol medically equivalently with other similar substances, a suitable recommended dose would be about a teaspoon of wine per day (digging up reference). So no need to keep the workplace boozeless.

<comment><USER18> First time I've heard of alcohol having benefits in near-homeopathic doses. I am strongly sceptical.

<comment><USER20> There are studies showing one glass of (red I believe) wine per day is beneficial (e.g. [http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/15321801/Moderate_...](http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/15321801/Moderate_wine_drinkers_have_lower_hypertension- related_mortality_a_prospective_cohort_study_in_French_men) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My attitude toward alcohol consumption during working hours soured a bit roughly 20 years ago, when a computer operator went back to work after drinking a lot, and put a server out of action for several days.

</comment><comment><USER22> Now the Economist is normally great, but this line

"This may help to explain the success of Silicon Valley, one of the last workplaces in America where hard and soft drinks still jostle for space in the company fridge."

Is a little stupid.

</comment><comment><USER23> ...at least the movie industry helps you Americans a bit: remember Zuckerberg's character coding Facebook's ancestor fueled by a couple beers in The Social Network?

<comment><USER24> haha came to my mind as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> My workplace is actually right above a microbrewery. We have beer o'clock every Friday at around 3:30pm :) We're in Australia FWIW.

</comment><comment><USER26> A little tipsy does help in creativity.

<comment><USER18> No it doesn't, not for the overwhelming majority of people. It helps in the illusion of creativity, most commonly the effect is dulled critical faculties and the acceptance of sub-par work which has to be redone when more clear headed.

Alcohol is a recreational drug, its association with industries such as journalism has to do with working wierd hours and drugging contacts to get leads, not with productivity, and certainly not with creativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "In one experiment, they found that job candidates who ordered a glass of wine during an interview over dinner were viewed as less intelligent than those who ordered a soft drink."

People that order wine instead of a soft drink at a job interview probably _are_ less intelligent. Not because they like wine but because that's just not a very intelligent thing to do at a job interview in the USA in 2012.

A SV note: Asana has a stocked bar in their office and IIRC encourages people to drink while working.

<comment><USER7> This seems circular to me.

Observation: The culture has changed to the point where people think you are dumber if order a wine during an interview.

You: You are dumber!!!!!

<comment><USER28> It is _circular_ but still correct!

There are many situations where there are feedback loops like this: For example: Male peacocks grow large tails because this is attractive to peahen mates. It's attractive to peahen mates because their male offspring are also likely to have big tails, which will lead to better reproductive success because they are attractive to peahen mates.... and so on. So a gene that favours big tails will make more copies of itself in the peacock population than some allele that favours smaller tails, even though from a "design" point of view the smaller tail makes more sense (not as heavy to carry around, means you can run fast to avoid getting eaten etc.)

There are many equilibria like this:

\- the bank is going to go bust because everyone wants to take their money out because it looks like the bank is going to go bust...

\- the credit card company declines your application because you were declined from getting a credit card by another credit card company.

\- The company doesn't take you in for interview because you've been out of work for 6 months. They'd rather go after someone that already has a job.

In all of these cases, although the outcome is often not optimal (e.g. nobody wants the bank to go bust), and often not fair, the individuals making the decisions are behaving perfectly rationally.

<comment><USER29> The criteria there is "better mate". Wilfra could have said "better candidate" and been correct in that way, but they didn't. They said "less intelligent" which seems like a complete non-sequitur to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> At our company we have beer and whisky stocked. "Project Friday" is a fun day.

We're in Germany and this is not usual here :)</comment>


Amazon Fire TV Gaming Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00XNQECFM/ref=ods_fs_ftvge <comment><USER2> I thought for a moment they were giving away a 4K display for $140 ... (knowing Amazon they could have probably done it using some nasty proprietary connectors and software so that you couldn't use it with anything but their services)

<comment><USER3> considering that a 55" 4K television is the same price as an iPhone 6+, it would make sense for content providers to create financing bundles in the same way mobile carriers do...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have a Fire TV Stick and it's fine except the wifi reception is awful (laptops and smartphones and tablets work just fine in the same room, while the Fire TV Stick buffers like crazy half the time). Which means it isn't really all that fine.

</comment><comment><USER5> When the first Amazon Fire TV was launched one of the big features was the voice search. It was originally stated that Netflix voice search would be coming by the end of 2014:

"We expect to support [Fire TV] voice search later this year." -Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO

That time came and went and the Fire TV never had its voice search expanded to include Netflix. I wonder if this was due to Amazon and Netflix not being able to come to terms over this feature? It seems that the new Apple TV allows you to voice search Netflix. I'd really like to be able to voice search Amazon and Netflix's catalog at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER6> Good on Amazon for continuing to improve! FireTV launched April 2014 New FireTV to ship October 2015

versus Google Chromecast which was amazing when launched in July 2013. But absolutely ZERO improvements in OVER 2 years. :(

<comment><USER7> > Good on Amazon for continuing to improve! FireTV launched April 2014 New > FireTV to ship October 2015 Sure, a year and a half later they release a > more featureful, more expensive, variant on the product they initially > released. Good for them, but...

> versus Google Chromecast which was amazing when launched in July 2013. But > absolutely ZERO improvements in OVER 2 years. :(

Chromecast launched July 2013, true; it was (and is) a ~$35 media stick. And November 2014 -- a little under a year and a half later -- Google released a more featureful product that subsumed the basic functions of the Chromecast, had more onboard capability for apps, etc., and included a game controller, the $99 (now $79), Android TV based Nexus Player.

So, I don't think its really fair to say Google hasn't done anything here. Amazon's path isn't all that different from Google's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds great. Exactly what I hoped the new Apple TV would be... Does anyone know whether Fire TV has a VPN client build in?

Edit:

Found this with a quick search [https://vpntips.com/fire-tv-vpn- install](https://vpntips.com/fire-tv-vpn-install). To bad it's so complicated given that Fire TV runs Android. But this little device looks very promising. I enjoy 4K TV a lot through the Netflix app on my Sony TV.

<comment><USER9> Serious question: What does this have that the new Apple TV doesn't? Other than coming with a games controller by default, rather than having to buy one separately.

Also, assuming that amazon will make an app for the new Apple TV (which they seem to have done for all iOS so far) the new apple tv will play EVERYTHING - Plex, Amazon, Netflix etc, and iTunes content.

I know it's apples fault for not making iTunes-playing apps for other devices, but that doesn't change the fact that with AppleTV I only need one device, versus every other solution. It's just plain more convenient. Of course, this only applies if you are in the apple ecosystem to begin with, which is maybe not who these are aimed at...

<comment><USER8> I'm all in the Apple ecosystem. But:

\- No 4K

\- No VPN

\- No default game controller (so you never know whether games support it or not)

No thanks for me and my requirements.

<comment><USER10> I believe that Apple also _requires_ tvOS games to be operable with the remote in order to be published. In other words, one can't make a tvOS game that requires an actual game controller to play. Most likely this will severely hinder the platform in terms of gaming support because that remote is way too simple to support games of any real complexity.

<comment><USER9> Operable. Nowhere have I seen that it requires it to be pleasant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 4K TV without the 4K TV

<comment><USER12> I was also expecting a display from the headline, but not the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why can't I get Amazon and Netflix in 4k on my more than capable laptop? Until that situation changes, investing in such boxes just supports the idea that customers cannot be trusted with high-definition streams or any content, an idea the MPAA (and RIAA etc.) has been pushing now for many decades despite it continuously being proven wrong. No, I don't want to support the MPAA by bowing down to their demands that I use a stupid, crippled box to view movies. Once again, they've failed to provide an alternative to things like Popcorn time and they deserve to suffer for it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Keep in mind, this is the Gaming Bundle. It does not come with the standard remote, just the game controller.

They also sell the Fire TV, with the normal voice remote for $99.

<comment><USER15> Does the Game Controller support [http://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/InputDev...](http://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/InputDevice.html) ?

Could be cool as a dev platform for games. I take it all you do is compile to Android and it should work out of the box? Granted, resolution issues are dealt with.

<comment><USER7> If you want a TV-connected console for testing in-development Android games, Google's Nexus Player is already available, cheaper, and probably a more typical Android experience.

<comment><USER15> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The tech specs say that it's compatible with TVs "capable of 2160p at 24/25/30/50/60 Hz." I hope that means it can output a native 24p signal for movies filmed at 24 fps. That would make it a serious contender for being the media center in my living room, because 24p seems to be neglected by all the major manufacturers.

<comment><USER17> It certainly can't output a quality signal 2160p@60Hz as that's out of specification for HDMI1.

<comment><USER16> I would actually prefer 1080p@24Hz over 2160p@60Hz. 4K (2160p) is beyond human visual acuity at regular viewing distances, and 60Hz requires 3:2 pullup on the video signal that I find distracting at times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Dear Google: catch up. No, Android TV doesn't count - just put a thin layer on stock Android and throw it onto a stick.

Also, give up on the voice-control thing, everybody's accepted that all your apps are touch-based so make a pointing-device that can simulate swipes for scrolling like everybody else.

</comment><comment><USER19> Title is misleading, please fix it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Curious, i have an echo which is in my kitchen... but i can control it from my living room, which is also where my tv is. When there are two of these devices close together how well does it handle responding to the instruction?

</comment><comment><USER21> Does the gaming version really have much of a market, considering that the PlayStation 4, XBox One and PC have far better hardware and game library, and that one can already run Android games on their tables/smartphone?

<comment><USER22> The original Wii shows that yes, they do. The Wii was SD when HD was the hot thing and yet still sold like hotcakes (at the time) because it was casual (non gamer) friendly.

<comment><USER21> The Wii had an innovative controller and an exclusive game library, though.

The Fire TV instead copies the controller from the XBox and the game library from Android devices.

It seems far more similar to the Ouya console that recently got discontinued.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You just got to love this sentence: "Watch high-definition 1080p streams on Amazon Video, Netflix, Hulu and more, even without a 4K TV."

OMG, this is so great!

</comment><comment><USER17> If only they had included HDMI2 or Displayport...

</comment><comment><USER24> Looks like competition for the Nvidia Shield TV.

</comment><comment><USER25> Cell phone class hardware. Probably an ARM SOC with very little I/O bandwidth. The SD card as a main store . . .

Ugh.

</comment><comment><USER26> "More Games than Apple TV."

That claim will probably need to be removed in 2 months.

</comment><comment><USER27> So Android TV...</comment>


Google kills apps that have nothing to do w Covid without answer for 12 days - <AUTHOR> https://monvillage.app/n9 <comment><AUTHOR> Google designed a marvelous Artificial Dumbness bot that booted my app off the Play Store (seemingly along with thousands of others) because they suspected a COVID-related content.

Spoiler : my app has nothing to do with COVID. Spoiler 2 : 12 days after filling an appeal, nobody answered. Spoiler 3 : I was sending 55.000 invitations to all French officials to activate their space on this app. You can imagine my reputation now. Thanks Google, continue not being evil. Médéric</comment>


IOS Jailbreaker Turned Apple Intern Loses Job - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411183,00.asp

<comment><USER2> I can't decide whether I should be happy or embarrassed from the attention. It was just an internship, and I couldn't exactly have a proper job in the middle of the semester in the first place...

</comment><comment><USER3> It was very smart of Apple to have picked up Comex; an even slightly less savvy firm might have made an enemy out of him instead. But just because it was smart for Apple doesn't mean it was the right role for Comex, who probably has his pick of any security, software protection, or low-level infrastructural kernel-hackey type job the industry.

It's hard to keep anyone in our field for longer than a year or two, and with the reputation that Comex has built, it's probably _much_ harder to hold on to him.

So this seems like the closest thing to a happy ending there was going to be from his direct employment at Apple, at least this time around.

(I know nothing of the particulars here!)

</comment><comment><USER4> I would be surprised if he went back to iOS jailbreaking— I feel that he may have signed some papers when accepting to work for Apple that guarantees he would be sued like crazy (and lose) if he did.

(Heck, why anyone somewhat active on open-source/community projects would go work at Apple is beyond me, as it is basically a forfeiture of your hacker rights. When I interviewed there, they made it clear to me that I would not be able to work on anything (or talk publicly for that matter) that didn't have an Apple-approved stamp on it, and then it would just belong to the company. Also see: Bret Victor's take on it: <http://worrydream.com/#!/Apple> )

<comment><USER5> Any contract he may have had with apple terminated the day he left.

<comment><USER6> That's not true, or trade secret theft would be unprosecutable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apple trying to get kids to leave college early?

"Loses job"? Do they mean "job opportunity"? He's a student.

And I'm sure he could get another offer if he set his mind to it. Though I'm not sure it's worth his time. Looking to the future, his talents might be better applied elsewhere.

Apple, at the rate they're going, is soon enough a lost cause. They might seem great today. But just wait.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, that has to be one of the _worst_ user interfaces I have ever seen for a mobile device since the old extremetech.com site.

If you visit the site from an iPhone and have it in landscape orientation, a black overlay is shown with a message that the site is only designed for portrait mode. Tilt to that mode, overlay goes away but then none of the content is usable because they've overridden native scrolling with some mixture of CSS and javascript. And it's broken.

To top it off, they've disabled copying so there's no easy way to even share the ridiculous message

To all designers: STOP. Quit being clever with mobile versions of your site. Just display your normal site with your normal content.

<comment><USER9> Nothing can be worse than the new extremetech/onswipe combo

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't be surprised if the next non-apple modification he works on is adding homebrew to the WiiU, seeing he helped with "jailbreaking" the Wii to add the homebrew channel.</comment>


Grammarly doesn't do all it claims to do - <AUTHOR> http://grammarist.com/articles/grammarly-review/ <comment><USER2> Heck, in the quote box from Grammarly's site (the one with five sentences), the middle three are run-on sentences!

<comment><USER3> No, they aren't. They are grammatically correct sentences, all of the basic form "Grammarly's _foo_ checker not only _performs one function_ , but also _performs another function_."

They are pretty much textbook examples of correct "not only / but also" structure.

<comment><USER2> Not when both clausea have _their own verb._

Here's the distinction.

"The Grammarly spelling checker not only helps you locate misspelled words in your writing, but also helps you to identify the correctly-spelled words that you have used incorrectly." \- RUN-ON SENTENCE

"The Grammarly spelling checker not only helps you locate misspelled words in your writing, but also to identify the correctly-spelled words that you have used incorrectly." \- Acceptable, but unnecessarily awkward

<comment><USER3> Actually, your first example is also grammatically correct (not a run-on). "Not only / but also" is a correlative conjunction set; when it splits items that are complete verb phrases -- as in your first example and the Grammarly quotes -- there is a comma before the "but also", which is correctly present in the examples. There is no run on.

For a basic discussion with examples, see [http://www.theyuniversity.net/blog/2015/4/29/parallelism- wit...](http://www.theyuniversity.net/blog/2015/4/29/parallelism-with- correlative-conjunctions)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoins Are Digital Collectibles, Not Real Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/04/11/bitcoins-are-digital-collectibles-not-real-money/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to submit yet another Bitcoin article, but this one turned out to be somewhat of a revelation for me. Thinking of bitcoins as digital collectibles seems a much better metaphor than thinking of them as money. Collectibles have a fixed supply, and their value depends on some concept that people are interested in. Consider e.g. Nazi memorabilia from WW2: fewer and fewer are discovered each year, the total supply is fixed, their value depends a lot on hobbyists' varying interest in WW2. Bitcoin is also unusual for a digital good in that it has a fixed supply, and its value depends a lot on enthusiasts who are interested in cryptocurrencies, fixed money supply etc.

<comment><USER2> Memorabilia market prices vary by the quality and history of the piece; pieces with "richer" history fetch higher prices. BitCoin behaves more like a commodity. I expect derivative instruments based on BitCoin mining rates any day now.

<comment><AUTHOR> The comparison is obviously to a single type of item. Say "Mauser HSc, excellent condition, provenience unknown". But there's no reason why individual bitcoins can't acquire additional value once history accrues to them. Let's say celebrity X publicly buys a bitcoin and spends it in a well- publicized event. People will probably bid extra to acquire this "famous" bitcoin afterwards.

<comment><USER3> Bitcoin doesn't work like that. There isn't some sort of serial number assigned, or anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> Each bitcoin has an attached chain of transactions. If it's a matter of public record that a certain address belonged to say, Stephen Colbert, then you can definitely brag that you own Colbert's bitcoin. (That he donated to the Libertarian Party or something.)

<comment><USER2> While it may be possible to value BitCoins that way, that's not the driving force behind current price tracking, any more than a 1933 double eagle or 1804 silver dollar affects the price of gold or silver.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not saying BitCoins are currently used this way. It was just a thought experiment to prove they can acquire extra value from association with particular people or events. Just like other collectibles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How many articles have been posted to HN now saying this exact same thing? We get it. Bitcoin is being treated as a commodity instead of a currency. However, the problem is not with the currency system but rather the people buying and selling BTC. Bitcoin itself has everything it needs to become a legitimate currency. The author also may not have realized that the coins are divisible (to 10^-8) and that all Bitcoins will be mined by 2140 (not 2040 as he claims).

<comment><AUTHOR> >We get it. Bitcoin is being treated as a commodity instead of a currency.

Collectibles are a very specific kind of commodity. The price of potatoes doesn't vary because there are potato enthusiasts out there extolling their virtues.

<comment><USER5> > The price of potatoes doesn't vary because there are potato enthusiasts out > there extolling their virtues.

Sure it does. Which is why industry associations (whether for potato farmers or any other goods) send lots of money promoting the virtues of their products.

The only difference between potatoes and collectibles (and investment assets more generally) in this regard is that with potatoes (etc.) the promotion mostly centers around the _use-value_ of the product, and with collectibles (and other investment assets) it centers around _the future resale value_.

Though lots of things in the real-world are hybrids, really, as commodity markets in potato (etc.) futures demonstrate them being both promoted and traded as investment assets, and real estate is often promoted directly for hybrid use-value/investment-value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hope it's not considered ad hominem to point out that the man who wrote this piece considers fiat currency in general a mistake:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/06/the- fia...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/06/the-fiat-dollar- as-unreliable-as-my-1971-fiat-124-sedan/)

Dude is just really into gold, which apparently has intrinsic value?

<comment><USER7> "Without integrity, nothing works." That's not a law of the universe, and what does it even mean besides? Like, formally, what does it mean to economics? Sounds like nonsense to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Many comparisons have been made between fiat currency and Bitcoins, but to my mind that's wholly missing the point.

The Bitcoin protocol represents a way of digitally transferring a scarce resource without the need for a central authority. I suspect this is going to be a big deal eventually, because when we created a protocol for digitally transferring _information_ without the need for a central authority, we wound up with the Internet.

Comparing Bitcoin to a fiat currency like the dollar is a little like comparing TCP/IP to the English language.

<comment><USER9> I'm not a network engineer but I believe Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks are needed for the Internet to exist. They do not act as a central authority, but the Internet itself needs them to work like it do now.

I simply do not understood what you wanted to say by your last paragraph.

EDIT: To clarify my point is that I believe the internet is poorly decentralized, it simply means some guys has too much power to shutdown traffic from entire networks to even reach the Internet if they wish or when it's convenient to them, if we ever have another large scale global war I believe this will happen.

<comment><USER8> My understanding is that's more an artefact of how the Internet is physically laid out, rather than as something inherent to the TCP protocol itself. If we took all the machines on the net and put them in one huge building, we could construct a far more decentralised network architecture.

Regarding my last paragraph, both the English language and TCP/IP could be broadly said to be protocols for distributing information, but are also obviously so completely different it makes little sense to draw any parallels between them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Of course bitcoins value is volatile, it's relatively new and being adopted and accepted. I blame the people speculating on it like crazy without any idea what the fundamental value actually is (and to be fair it's impossible to know until it stabilizes and the bitcoin economy becomes established.)

But this is only temporary, a necessary evil when a currency is starting out.

However it is arguably a good thing though, because all the attention and people buying it hoping it will increase in value, is exposing a lot of people to it that otherwise wouldn't have been. It's helping it grow much faster.

>To replace our entire dollar base money with Bitcoins would require that each Bitcoin be valued at more than $370,000.

I'm confused by what he means by this. Bitcoin is infinitely divisible. Even if there was only one bitcoin in the economy it could still be used perfectly fine as a currency.

>In contrast, a good monetary control system would fix the value of the currency unit (in terms of gold or something else real) and then adjust the size of the monetary base on a moment-by-moment basis in order to maintain this value in the markets.

This doesn't really make too much sense either. It takes a long time for arbitrary changes in the currency supply to have any effect. And all they can do is print more money, which makes everyone else's money worth less and therefore makes them worse off.

One interesting thing I've been thinking about is that since it's digital currency inflation and deflation can be corrected for a little. People could have their sites change prices based on the current inflation or deflation rate (if they really care about it so much.) This was harder to do with real world price tags. It's not a solution of course but it might help a lot. Usually the criticism of changes in a currencies value is that prices don't adjust fast enough to deal with it. But with the internet information is transmitted and changes can be made instantly.

>No modern economy could survive the constant, grinding deflation that having a fixed monetary base would eventually produce.

So this is more controversial, but I don't see why not. A currency that actually increases in value rather than decreases would have a huge advantage over everything else. Because if you had a choice what would you store your money in? It also insures that bitcoins can never artificially be devalued by any central organization. Sure new bitcoins can be mined, but that's heavily limited and a necessary evil to distribute the first bitcoins fairly.

As for them being collectibles that may be true for some people, but they have a few very good advantages to them that can't be beat by other currencies and that insures they will always have a use as a currency with some people. Mainly that they are anonymous and don't have transaction fees. I have seen a lot of interesting uses for them that would be unfeasible in real world currencies. Like people giving each other small tips over the internet.

<comment><USER11> > Because if you had a choice what would you store your money in?

That's actually noted as one of the problems with a deflationary economy. People tend to store their capital instead of spending it or investing it, which puts a hamper on economic growth (or even maintaining the economic status quo). If your job depends on receiving income then you can appreciate why it also depends on other people _spending_ money.

> It also insures that bitcoins can never artificially be devalued by any > central organization.

Countries have actually sometimes arranged to devalue their own currency to help with the local economy by boosting exports, so in that sense it is beneficial to have a central organization in your country's control to do that. Given the ongoing economic crises in Europe I'm just not sure how good an idea it is to have economic policy so completely decoupled from currency policy.

But on the other hand that feature of Bitcoin does make it very useful as a collectible or commodity. You can "invest" in it without worrying that the Central Bank of Satoshi will make your dilute your investment tenfold or worse.

<comment><USER10> >If your job depends on receiving income then you can appreciate why it also depends on other people spending money.

Well the point is prices adjust. If people aren't spending money, then prices just fall until the people that are spending money can afford it. Sure you make less income, but everything is cheaper too so it's not a loss. Actually it's a gain. The same amount of goods are in the economy, but since some people aren't buying things, everyone else can afford more things. The pie is the same size but the people saving money haven't taken any slices of it, leaving more for us.

Besides when people save money, they generally invest it or put it in a bank which loans 90% of it back out.

>Countries have actually sometimes arranged to devalue their own currency to help with the local economy by boosting exports, so in that sense it is beneficial to have a central organization in your country's control to do that.

Exporting more things isn't necessarily a good thing. Ideally we could import everything we need and not have to actually work to produce things to export.

<comment><USER11> > > If your job depends on receiving income then you can appreciate why it > also depends on other people spending money.

> Well the point is prices adjust. If people aren't spending money, then > prices just fall until the people that are spending money can afford it.

But remember that the reason the prices are dropping is because no one is spending money. This is a _positive_ feedback loop: the only reason that sellers are dropping prices is because they are under extreme pressure to make _some_ income somehow. So they drop prices and receive a bit of income. So these businesses are then unable to pay _their_ suppliers, who are forced to either drop their prices or suffer default, and so on straight up the chain.

So it's not that deflation itself is hazardous per se, but that it tends to amplify its own effect. If you reach the "flashover" point the whole economy goes to crap, much as what happened when the mortgage failure rate finally got high enough with the sub-prime mortgage derivatives.

> Exporting more things isn't necessarily a good thing. Ideally we could > import everything we need and not have to actually work to produce things to > export.

That would perhaps be ideal, but it can't possibly occur that every country only imports and doesn't export. Someone has to lose in that transaction. Is that ethos really what we want to base a global financial system on?

<comment><USER10> >So it's not that deflation itself is hazardous per se, but that it tends to amplify its own effect.

It will stabilize eventually though as no new people start saving instead of spending, or as the people who were saving eventually need to buy things or decide to finally cash out and spend their money.

>That would perhaps be ideal, but it can't possibly occur that every country only imports and doesn't export. Someone has to lose in that transaction. Is that ethos really what we want to base a global financial system on?

The point was that we shouldn't strive to export more things as if that was a good thing in and of itself. The benefit of exports is the foreign money you get in return, and the benefit of that is the imports you can get in exchange for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If Bitcoins are valued at around $100 dollars a piece is it possible for me to make a $10 dollar purchase using bitcoins?

<comment><USER13> Yes, they can be subdivided by up to eight decimal places.

<comment><USER14> And I believe that they could be changed to divide even further if necessary in the future.

<comment><USER15> That bitcoins are infinitely divisible is one of the ways in which problems associated with deflation are mitigated once the 21M bitcoin cap is reached.

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Won.27t_loss_of_wallets_and_t...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Won.27t_loss_of_wallets_and_the_finite_amount_of_Bitcoins_create_excessive_deflation.2C_destroying_Bitcoin.3F)

<comment><USER11> Divisibility doesn't really help with the _overall_ money supply however. There's also the loss of currency that occurs from loss of Bitcoin wallets.

Even without deflation I think there would still be problems with high variance of BTC just from the psychological aspects of the currency. With central banks you can at least say that there are persons whose job it is to watch currency exchange rates and take one or more of many available actions to curb both inflation and deflation. As far as I can see you just don't have that with BTC (and by design). You can't increase the money supply, any action to decrease the money supply is permanent, and how can you change interest rates for loans when all of the money is already issued?

I just can't imagine BTC being useful for transactions in general (especially important stuff like payroll) when the inherent variance in value seems to require systems akin to what a high-frequency trader would use. It might be useful as a commodity for similar reasons that gold is (but with the improvements that come from its high divisibility).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Bitcoin isn't a great form of money right now, but that doesn't mean it can't be in the future.

I predict a lot more of these bubbles, but over the long term, unless it's displaced by a better system (which is certainly possible) or regulated out of existence, the trend will be upwards and greater stability.

</comment><comment><USER17> 21st century Beanie Babies

</comment><comment><USER18> And another article on the farcial financial train choo choo! Btw, we need more perpetual motion, cold fusion, and red mercury investor stories posted too.</comment>


A week with the Retina iMac: Closing thoughts on Apple's newest desktop - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/a-week-with-the-retina-imac-closing-thoughts-on-apples-newest-desktop/ <comment><USER2> Hope they don't retina the air like the article assumes. I don't need the pixels to code, and I prefer the battery life, performance, and weight savings of not having it.</comment>


GCC 8 Link Time and Interprocedural Optimization - <AUTHOR> https://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/06/gcc-8-link-time-and-interprocedural.html <comment><USER2> >so you can rebuild binary with debug info after your program core dumped and use it to debug the core dump

I've never thought it's possible. Rebuild after the core dump ? Rather than build with debug info and strip it away.

<comment><USER3> If your build system is reproducible there is no reason this would not work.

<comment><USER4> Maybe that's the case now, with GCC 8, but historically that hasn't been true.

In the past the effects of using both -g and -O* flags could interact each other because they can both affect how registers are allocated, how call stacks are setup, how functions are inlined, etc. In other words, adding -g by itself made the build non-reproducible.

If that's no longer true in GCC 8 it's great news.

<comment><USER5> AFAIR GCC bootstrap builds by default with "-g -O2". There are 3 stages: 1) use system compiler to compile GCC's source code, 2) use resulting binary to build same source, 3) use binary from 2) to build source one more time. After all stages the binaries from stage 2 and 3 are compared byte for byte if they are identical.

Bootstrap failures are taken very seriously by the GCC developers. So I really doubt that -g and -O* lead to non-deterministic builds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> when i was a full-time hobbyist webdev i was surprised when i learned c compilers don't do whole-program optimization by default but limit themselves by optimizing each translation unit separately (i guess it makes things simpler)

you can get "LTO" in javascript by using a minifier together with something like webpack which can inline modules when it's safe to do so (instead of putting them in functions that are called by the module loader and can't be minified away), so i assumed "real" compilers must do that stuff a lot better with the language being less dynamic

<comment><USER7> In addition to simplicity it cuts down on compilation time. You can checkout MLTon or Felix to get a feel for whole program optimizing compilers, they can do optimizations that are impossible without LTO and hard to do with.

[https://github.com/felix-lang/felix](https://github.com/felix-lang/felix)

[http://felix-documentation- master.readthedocs.io/en/latest/m...](http://felix-documentation- master.readthedocs.io/en/latest/masterdirectory.html#specific-documents)

[http://mlton.org](http://mlton.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Static cold detection sounds really useful.

How many __builtin_expects can it remove?</comment>


Easily Adding WireGuard to Android ROMs - <AUTHOR> https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2017-November/002050.html <comment><USER2> Oh, wow, I didn't expect anybody to post this to a high volume site. The Android work is in some intense alpha-development state right now, but things are coming along nicely. If anybody wants to contribute to the efforts, please don't hesitate to get in touch -- firstname.lastname@example.com.

If you don't know what WireGuard is, it's a next generation secure network tunnel: [https://www.wireguard.com](https://www.wireguard.com) . The protocol has been formally verified in the symbolic model and the original whitepaper was published at NDSS this year: [https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf](https://www.wireguard.com/papers/wireguard.pdf)

I'm mailing out stickers to everybody who asks: [https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2017-May/001338....](https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2017-May/001338.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wireguard gets mentioned a lot in various threads around here, anytime topic of VPNs comes up, and people are mostly looking forward to it. Hence I thought it appropriate to submit this, as it is an interesting development.

Thanks for your great work on Wireguard so far, by the way. :)</comment></comment>


Chicken of the Woods: This mushroom tastes just like chicken - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/chicken-of-the-woods-mushroom <comment><USER2> I'm an amateur mushroom hunter. I've eaten a lot of chicken of the woods on both coasts of the US.

The mushroom peels easily apart just like a chicken breast does. (Younger mushroom fruits are the juiciest and most tender, and older ones are too tough to eat.)

In contrast to what the article says, I've never had a COTW that _tasted_ like chicken. But you can remedy that by cooking it in chicken broth, or seasoning it like you would season a chicken, with something like lemon and pepper. In that sense the article title is misleading.

There are, however, mushrooms which taste to me just like roast beef (parasol) or steak (chanterelle.) They are truly delightful mushrooms.

I've never had an upset stomach from eating any COTW, even ones that grew on eucalyptus. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER3> A mushroom which tastes like chicken and causes random gastrointestinal problems. What could possibly go wrong?

<comment><USER4> The article is about Laetiporus sulphureus. The article clearly states that amateur foragers mistakenly eat Laetiporus gilbertsonii and Laetiporus conifericola and experience gastrointestinal problems.

<comment><USER3> Any mushroom guide which encourages people to forage and acknowledges it has two alternate species which look similar but have unfortunate outcomes is skirting a disaster.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a nice video from a British Youtuber who often forages for mushrooms when he found some: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYBruVj9jt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYBruVj9jt8)

</comment><comment><USER6> In my experience it does not taste like chicken at all. But it nevertheless is quite good. Maybe has a chicken-breadt like structure. Make sure to pick the young ones, as older ones are too tough to eat -- closer to wood, rather than meat.

</comment><comment><USER7> It does not taste like chicken, but does resemble and have a texture similar to boneless skinless chicken breast.

</comment><comment><USER8> If it tastes too good and you eat too much you vomit the whole meal. Don't become greedy ;)</comment>


Show HN: Android app for wifi calling with your own cell number - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.onePhone

<comment><USER2> Sweet. Is it available for the iPhone?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. You can download it here: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youroam-free- calls-texts-usi...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youroam-free-calls-texts- using/id896835381?ls=1&mt=8) Thanks!</comment></comment>


When the Government Shuts, Even Web Sites Go Down - <AUTHOR> http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/when-the-goverment-shuts-even-web-sites-go-down

<comment><AUTHOR> _In further keeping with the truly bizarre nature of government shutdowns, the O.M.B. also reminded government officials that they should pay no attention to whether it will cost more to shut down their Web site than it does to keep it going_</comment>


Why we're all-in on virtual reality - <AUTHOR> https://www.campfireunion.com/blog/post/26/why-were-all-virtual-reality <comment><USER2> > "Imagine a phone call with a family member halfway across the country, and > seeing them right there in the room with you. Not on a screen, but sitting > right across from you."

I feel like an often overlooked part of VR videochat is that everyone has a giant box attached to their face so how do you do it well? I guess you could have an avatar and some clever ability to detect facial expressions of the person wearing the box, but that's hardly better than actually seeing them.

That said I have a DK2 and the presence you get is impressive. Especially the ability to lean into the environment because of head tracking.

This game really impressed me: [https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to- die](https://share.oculus.com/app/i-expect-you-to-die)

[Edit] For those looking towards AR, hard AR is pretty hard. Notably the ability to draw black. Michael Abrash has a really good blog post about this problem and others: [http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see- hard-...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-ar- anytime-soon/)

<comment><USER3> Oculus, Sony's Morpheus, Microsoft's Hololens- these are all just the next step in the VR/AR movement. Currently it's at a stage where the tech requires a box with cell phone screens on your face (or in the case of my favorite AR-- Innovega's iOptik--sunglasses and a projector). This isn't the final stage of VR though. The next big leap might be bionic eye implants that directly stimulate your optical nerves (Second Sight's Argus II could be the start of this).

The hardware will continue to get better as these companies put more time and money into them. Entirely new companies will be made just to create algorithms and applications to improve the VR experience (how do you make an avatar of a person feel like the real thing? I don't know but I bet Oculus would pay a lot of money for the rights to that algorithm).

In the meantime, you are correct about black in AR being a challenge. I'm be curious how that one will be solved

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me it's funny to see this pop up now. Just this week I've been getting heavily into VR and loving what I'm seeing. Finally corners are being turned. I feel a sense of something approaching a vital "tipping point" as I felt with blogging in the early 00s and Twitter in the late 00s.

For anyone who's not yet convinced, see if you can get a go on the Samsung Gear VR. It's actually better than the Rift 2 in many ways (I've got the Gear plus both Rift kits) in that it's quicker to get going and the headset and visuals are better. Play a game called "Dreadhalls" and be prepared to be _absolutely terrified_ and, if you have earphones in, be 99% to believing you're in the environment getting attacked by all manner of creatures. (And I should stress, playing this game in VR has been the most extreme experience I've had in a while - it's that good and has won me over on VR.)

My employees have been enjoying all the equipment in the past week or two and I've found that people's tolerance for it still varies. One person can't experience any VR without feeling sick afterwards, whereas others have no issues at all. I think increased realism, resolution and immersion will help, as well as increased exposure. But whatever the case, we live in exciting times and VR is only going to become a bigger deal over the next few years.

<comment><USER5> As someone who went from zero to puking in < 5 minutes playing Mirror's Edge, I am super worried about VR.

I have been dreaming of true VR and AR for ages, and as current tech begins to be consumer ready (and affordable) I long for the day I can fully immerse myself. But my motion sickness makes me worry that it will be a new frontier I am entirely locked out of :(

Do you happen to know of any places in the Bay Area where one can go to try these various devices and experiences for free to get a sense of this? I simply can't justify spending the money unless I know with great confidence I won't puke after short usage.

<comment><USER6> The question is, would you also puke if you were doing the Mirrors Edge jumps, rolls, swings across large vertical drops in real life?

<comment><USER7> I doubt it. Motion sickness mostly comes from a discontinuity between what you are seeing and what you are feeling. Though extreme motion even without a visual disconnect, especially wavy or circular motion, can do it to people who are sensitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think VR is overselled, never underestimate the effect of intrusiveness on the user. This is the same reason we have less 3D movies than a few years ago, the novelty factor fade and the gains from the medium have to be sufficient to beat the intrusiveness. VR is cumbersome, a large part of the population will probably never be able to use them and users now prefer low engagement medium due to the constant distraction life we are in now.

<comment><USER2> Maybe - though the presence you get from VR is really something new.

3D was intrusive for minimal gains (even in the best case of Avatar it wasn't that different of an experience). If you've been able to play with a DK2 and some of the better experiences it really is different.

Even with the huge improvements made recently there are still really big changes that would make things even better. (100x higher resolution on the small displays, 90hz and 90fps on mobile, graphics hardware way beyond where it is now).

VR puts a strain on modern hardware, but it really gives you something new and maybe that sense of presence will be enough that even with the intrusiveness users will want it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's hard to tell where VR is overstated and where it's understated. The possibilities seem endless, but I wonder if the vast majority of them exist for tech-savvy people. It's a safe bet that there can be mainstream adoption for games, but outside of games, I'm not convinced your average consumer will desire to use VR for other things.

<comment><USER10> When knowledge workers head to the office, it won't be by driving to a building. It'll be by putting on a VR headset and working in a virtual world that is superior to the physical office in many ways. You can work with anyone in the world. There are infinite meeting rooms that can be accessed effortlessly. Everyone gets a private office when they want it.

Communicating with loved ones changes too. Why catch up on the phone when you can sit in a living room with them?

Virtual reality is not a niche pursuit.

<comment><USER11> There are a lot of unanswered questions in there, though. If I'm sat in a living room with my loved ones, what am I looking at? A live 3D video of them? What is capturing that video? Will I see them wearing a headset? Because that's going to look pretty bad.

Something I think people often forget about VR - it's going to be really weird to be totally disconnected from the environment around you. If you're plugged into a meeting and your kid runs into the room to get your attention, how will they do it? Probably by poking you, scaring the bejesus out of you.

I just don't buy the idea that VR will make our lives more "real". It'll lead to living in weird bubbles.

<comment><USER12> That's because you treat VR vs AR vs reality as three different extremes.

They're not.

Think of them as a spectrum. VR + stereoscopic image passthrough gets you an AR-like view of the real world around you. These overlays allow you to pick up coffee cups, see when your kid is poking you, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A lot of questions about how much interest there could be outside of video games, and that's okay! To be honest, video games could be a great proving ground for the technology. Gamers are used to being early adopters and tend not to be afraid to try new things, and after VR developers have sufficiently experimented in arena they can branch out in earnest.

Even if it winds up being a primarily gaming-related accessory, I think it can still achieve success.

<comment><USER14> I think there will be some eventual movement in remote working, virtual offices, etc. The hard part of telepresence is contact, but physical contact isn't something that is an issue in a typical office environment - it's facial expressions, screen sharing, etc. Once the resolution can handle virtual screens and facial tracking can handle some level of expressive avatars, we'll see some movement.

Bosses will be more comfortable with remote workers when they can keep track of them like other workers in what feels like a real office.

Businesses will start to reconsider leasing an expensive physical office and instead leave their workers in home offices, while having them interact in a virtual space. Virtual desktops, virtual screens, look sideways or behind you in the room to see virtual colleagues.

In a small web business, I can spend $xk on goggles, have everyone work from home, and save $x0k on rent. Then imagine game chat from consoles applied to an office. A whisper goes to your team, a shout to everyone. Employees could set their status to leave-me-alone to be left off everything but the most crucial announcement - that's an improvement on current open plan offices where you only option is headphones. A toggled HUD could show what the rest of the team is working on, etc.

Before avatars have expressions, I can imagine people working in a virtual office full of helmeted Daft Punk colleagues.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My company, The Soap Collective, recently entered the space as well. It's a ton of fun, I wish you the best of luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, you too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Winnipeg of all places! How did that happen?

<comment><AUTHOR> We were so cold last winter that we had to create our own virtual escape plan ;)

Just happens to be where we're from, and it's actually a great city to live in with a very vibrant arts and indie dev community.

<comment><USER17> One day, one day I will see a Canadian talk about Canada without whining about the cold or the winter straight off the bat.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a joke man :)

<comment><USER17> And such a good one!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To give a little context on how old VR is, see this picture of Ivan Sutherland from 1967:

[http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input- output/14/35...](http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input- output/14/356/1888)

</comment><comment><USER19> For me, there's only one question: will it make me motion sick?

Only if they can fix that issue will it become something even worth thinking about for those of us who suffer from motion sickness. I hope it can be addressed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think you can solve that 100% with current mobile VR headsets, and any game that separates your in-game movement from your actual physical movement will cause some people to feel sick.

I think developers are learning how to work with the hardware though, and things are getting much better. Plus the hardware itself is improving on that front too, for ex:

[http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/5/8153101/valve-boss-gabe- new...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/5/8153101/valve-boss-gabe-newell-says- noone-gets-sick-using-vive-vr)

The Vive is quite a step up from the Oculus Rift DK2, and having played with it myself, that claim actually holds up pretty well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Haha, Montreal isn't _only_ known for it's gaming sector. (it's also where much of the online porn industry is engineered)

</comment><comment><USER21> Because it's the new hotness again. What is this, 1993?

VR, AR, whatever kind of reality besides actual reality, they all have a long way to go before they can approach not being eyehurty. None of the manufacturers have addressed a major cause of eyehurt: the mismatch between perceived distance and actual distance throwing off the eye's focusing mechanism. And that's just one of many hurdles to overcome before we can jack into the Metaverse or otherwise enjoy VR as anything but a nifty five-minute demo.

<comment><USER22> Haters gonna hate, hate, hate. Have you tried it out? People use it for much longer than 5 minutes without any pain. I don't think anyone is expecting to wear a VR headset for 24 hours straight. It's not all extremes.

<comment><USER23> > I don't think anyone is expecting to wear a VR headset for 24 hours > straight.

I'm pretty sure some people expect to do just that, especially in the gaming community. Although, I'm not sure it's going to be worse than spending 24h+ gaming on a regular screen while heavily imbibing energy drinks...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> VR is around the corner ... for past 30 years. For now I would just love to have 3d display which actually works (no headaches etc).

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

<comment><USER25> Have you had a chance to try the Oculus developer kit at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> And if so, I can assure the consumer version is far and away better than the DK2, as is the HTC Vive. I haven't tried Oculus's motion controllers yet, but the Vive dev kit controllers are amazing already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think VR is going to end up being an intellectual holocaust if it keeps going the direction it is going, people designing the technologies seem to view it as a way to keep the "inferior" contained in a world that caters to their every emotional desire.

Just look at all the porn and gaming comments..

Augmented Reality is the real way to go, VR simulations have their time and place - but this technology is nothing more than an overinflated dream from 80's sci fi.

<comment><USER27> Have you ever tried VR porn? It's very compelling to be someone else.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Samsung becoming the new Apple? - <AUTHOR> Apple has been losing its mojo. Yeah, they still make a ton of money, but I feel like they're no longer cool.
I'm seeing a lot more cool stuff coming from Samsung - they seem to be more hip and in-the-know.
Case in point, Youtuber of the year Casey Neistat is putting together a party at Vidcon with Samsung.  A bunch of top youtubers are going to be vlogging using VR from vidcon.
The new generation is seeing more cool stuff being done from Samsung right now.  Apple isn't even doing anything in VR at the moment.  It really seems to me that Samsung is taking over the hearts and minds right now. <comment><USER2> Samsung is nothing like Apple - my brother worked for Samsung for almost 2 years at their headquarters in South Korea after graduate school & a post-doc (Chemistry) and he wonders how they get anything done. They underpay drastically, overwork people, and treat their employees like garbage because there's an effectively endless supply of Koreans willing to subject themselves to the awful conditions for the pride of working for Korea's biggest company. Every foreigner in R&D there bails after their contract is up for greener pastures. (basically anywhere but renewing).

I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means, but I'd bet on them to be more innovative & successful in the long run over Samsung.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like Samsung's hardware.

But they seem to have some serious organizational issues when it comes to software. Probably more at the top than at the bottom. Their software requirements and design process must be crap. Perhaps there are too few people in their leadership that understand software.

I don't think they're any danger for Apple/Google/Microsoft until they fix their leadership issues.

Maybe Samsung will end up being another Nokia.

<comment><USER4> Samsung is much more diversified than Nokia. They are a different beast than Apple Google msft. They are more like GE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Samsung is the opposite of hip.</comment>


Google Hires Key Apple Chip Architect to Build Custom Chips for Pixel Phones - <AUTHOR> https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-manu-gulati-pixel-chips-1202464014/ <comment><USER2> It's about time, Apple SOCs are a huge reason for why iPhones and IPads have such great performance.</comment>