Is The Guitar Market Really Dying? - <AUTHOR> https://www.vintageguitarprice.com/blog/2017/is-the-guitar-market-really-dying/ <comment><USER2> As a life-long guitarist, and skeptic of capitalism, I have an anecdote: I own a few high-quality guitars. They have served me well for many a decade, and they are still in perfect condition. Why buy any more guitars?

Perhaps the total number of guitars in circulation is enough? Businesses seem to think that there should be infinite growth forever, but that seems ridiculous to me. I don't think capitalism has a good answer to this problem. Obviously the manufacturers wish for people to buy more and more guitars every year or they go out of business. How can we reward them for a job well done now that more aren't needed?

<comment><USER3> Capitalism and the unrealistic idea of infinite sales growth is what gives rise to "services" and "subscriptions", no?

<comment><USER4> Hush! Don't speak of such things, or before you know it there will be DRM enforced IoT dongles with 4G cellular radios, requiring a subscription plan and annual fee before the guitar pick-ups will serialize their signal to a 1/4 inch patch cable.

<comment><USER5> We regret to inform you that we will be discontinuing server support for your myFender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some interesting and related Google Trends:

\- "Learn Guitar": [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=learn%20...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=learn%20guitar)

\- "Play Guitar": [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=play%20g...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=play%20guitar)

\- "Guitar vs Piano": [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=guitar,p...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=guitar,piano)

</comment><comment><USER7> As a lifetime guitar player and owner of way too many, I think what I've seen (and keep in mind this is only anecdotal) is that boutique guitar makers are making a big comeback while traditional mass producers are seeing less interest. If I'm going to spend $2500-7500 on a top of the line guitar (that is often an art piece as well) I'd rather work with a craft builder and get something unique to my specs versus a mass produced Fender strat or Gibson Les Paul.

<comment><USER8> I can't speak to Gibson, but I know that if you have enough money, you can certainly get Fender to work with you on a custom spec guitar.

<comment><USER7> Yeah all of the builders have custom shops, but usually when I see "custom shop" come from big companies like Gibson, it's basically "modified les paul" with cooler wood and different pickups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe, but isolating particular trends from overall changes in search interests is challenging.

Here's the trend for "music": [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=music](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=music)

which is also decreasing. Is music dying?

<comment><USER10> Software changed the industry. There are more efficient places to search for music than Google. They are more efficient because from search to playing or playlist is one click.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reverb.com was #18 on the Inc. 5000 this year, so there is definitely still potential in selling musical instruments. Guitar is more niche than it used to be, though. The rock stars these days are rappers and DJs and they don't play guitar. You have to diversify your offerings (which I think the success of Reverb.com shows)

<comment><USER12> > The rock stars these days are rappers and DJs and they don't play guitar.

And nearly every kid can afford a shitty chinese USB->MIDI controller and a cracked version of Live/Logic/FL Studio. The DAW and a controller is the weapon of choice for today's pop music industry. The fact that guitar is dying as "mainstream" shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

<comment><USER13> We just need to wait a generation. Then digitally generated pop will be seen as"mom and dad's music" and real instruments will be novel and interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe guitar makers are not innovating? Other stringed instruments have basically remained the same for centuries, but electric guitars were born out of modifications to standard guitars. Hendrix was a guitar hacker. Most of the electric guitars on the market today are no different than those sold 30 years ago. There are a few new ideas (midi accessories, built in effects, the Moog guitar, more than 6 strings, Steinberger's, cryogenically treated strings, better tremolo's, guitar synths) but few people are into hacking guitars any more. Your mom and dad may play electric guitar, it isn't radical or rebellious. And few are trying to invent new styles of playing either. So the sound and use of guitars has remained fairly static for a long time (except for Fred Frith!). Perhaps this explains the recent interest in Eurorack synthesizers? A return to creating fundamentally new sounds by tinkering with the basic elements of sound.

It's kind of like the smartphone market, the manufacturers have tried all the easy improvements (bigger screens, faster CPU's, better GPU's, thin bodies) but haven't tried the more difficult things (unusual sensors, regional peer-2-peer communication, serious FDA approved medical sensing/apps, light based communication, UWB links into IoT networks, etc.) Though AI chips may result in some significant new ideas. Maybe deep learning AI chips for guitars would rev the market? You teach your guitar some notes/chords and then it can generate different arrangements/timings/bends for you that actually sound interesting? Maybe not since deep learning can only mimic what it learns.

</comment><comment><USER15> Music tastes run in cycles. If vinyl can make a comeback so might guitars.

That said, anecdotally, kids today don't do adversity; they want instant gratification. Learning to play guitar takes time, lots of it. In the current climate a comeback seems pretty unlikely.

<comment><USER16> Eh, get off my lawn with your generalizations about "kids today" =/

Maybe at least provide one of your anecdotes?

<comment><USER15> How about I get off your cloud? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's a surprising amount of cork-sniffing that goes on in the guitar world, and I think that plays a role in slowing down the decline of the guitar market.

Just try searching for advice on what guitar to buy, and you'll be inundated with people claiming that tiny little differences (e.g. rosewood vs maple fretboards or lacquer vs poly finishes on an electric) have huge effects on the overall sounds, which is clearly not true. The idea that there's always something better to buy drives some people to keep purchasing. I'm sure there's some degree of this with other instruments, but guitar seems to be particularly bad.

</comment><comment><USER18> I suspect that this should really be thought of as, "The biggest buying opportunity, ever!" in the guitar market.

<comment><USER19> A lot of people are predicting an "ebay guitar apocalypse" as the mass effect of guitar owners start passing away. Because "nobody plays them anymore", the inheritors of dad's property will just put the guitar collection on ebay or donate them.

Your dad's fancy Paul Reed Smith guitar that cost $3000 will only be worth a fraction of that when a million other used PRS guitars flood the market.

It's an interesting prediction.

<comment><USER18> _Because "nobody plays them anymore", the inheritors of dad's property will just put the guitar collection on ebay or donate them._

You already have this in instrument markets for traditional music. Trad musicians are minorities in the general culture, but their market demand for once-mainstream mass produced instruments of yesteryear can still support prices. (Paolo Soprani B,C button accordion, anyone?) Sure, you still have the occasional find, where someone sells something for 1/10th the price they could have gotten out of ignorance.

I wonder if everyone is going to be satisfied with making music on a laptop? I also wonder if playing a guitar is ever going to stop getting people laid? If you have both of these conditions, then guitars might go the way of the Flageolett. Historically, "outdated" instruments flooding markets at bargain prices have tended to give rise to new musical opportunities in underprivileged communities. Occasionally, they give rise to new genres.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Did you know you can buy a $350 "Gibson Les Paul" that says "made in the USA" on AliExpress? The guitar in question is CNC cut and then hand assembled. I may speak from experience when I say the item is very high quality and is a pretty danged good guitar.

The point here being that it's an industry what are the American players have not modernized their manufacturing process... We live in an amazing age where you can own an extraordinary instrument for very little money.

<comment><USER21> Link? [1] gives me no results for that price range and search keywords.

[1] [https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?minPrice=300&maxPrice=4...](https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?minPrice=300&maxPrice=400&isBigSale=n&isFreeShip=n&isNew=n&isFavorite=n&isMobileExclusive=n&isLocalReturn=n&shipCountry=HR&shipFromCountry=&shipCompanies=&SearchText=gibson+les+paul&CatId=0&g=y&initiative_id=SB_20171117145736&needQuery=y)

<comment><USER7> Didn't see any marketing themselves as Gibsons, but here's a "Gretsch" White Falcon in that range: [https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hot-selling-white- Gretsch-fa...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hot-selling-white-Gretsch- falcon-jazz-guitar-semi-hollow-boby-electric-guitar-with- bigsby/32790108832.html?spm=2114.search0104.3.136.01pKbC&ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_2_10152_10065_10151_10344_10068_10130_10345_10324_10342_10547_10325_10343_10546_10340_10341_10548_10545_10541_10562_10084_10083_10307_5680011_10178_10060_10155_10154_10539_10312_10059_10313_10314_10534_10533_100031_10103_10073_10594_10557_10558_10596_10595_10142_10107,searchweb201603_25,ppcSwitch_2&btsid=f3b80840-5bbc-4506-9b4a-ae0ab1dd7406&algo_expid=8d9d3bf4-8c33-4f11-8496-edd81b8b3334-17&algo_pvid=8d9d3bf4-8c33-4f11-8496-edd81b8b3334&rmStoreLevelAB=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everything old is new again. I wasn't even a teenager when everybody was convinced the guitar bands were gone for good. As mentioned somewhere else in the thread, back in the sixties the same history.

I'm been playing for almost 30 years, and what I've seen in the last few ones is, I can buy a guitar for 300 bucks that beats anything that I owned as a teenager for that same price. And I'm not even touching the amp market, it's crazy what the same money can buy in terms of quality and flexibility.

I'm hesitant about this, but I'm half sure this deflactionaty process is going to actually popularize playing the guitar in the middle term.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would love to buy a new guitar. I had a PRS in the 90's and loved it. I never should have sold it.

A lot of guitars (PRS included) are now made cheaply overseas. They're decent, but to me they're still not good enough. I think they're crap.

It's a shame the industry has fallen, but the industry did this to itself. But rest assured, guitar rock will eventually make a comeback. Music trends in waves.

Will the guitar industry be ready when it does?

</comment><comment><USER24> at Bandhub ([http://bandhub.com](http://bandhub.com)) we try to solve a fundamental problem most recreational musicians have... we give them a community of like-minded people who care about their music, and the tools to make music together online. Musicians who get engaged in Bandhub obtain meaningful social experiences. We believe this market needs to be disrupted in a similar way to what happened with online social gaming

</comment><comment><USER25> Relevant discussion -- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627673](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14627673)

</comment><comment><USER26> Brings to mind the quote "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

This was a music exec telling The Beatles' manager why he wouldn't sign them.

</comment><comment><USER27> Electronic samples are the new guitars.

<comment><USER28> That is ridiculous. Electronic music production is a completely separate market.

<comment><USER29> A separate market that is taking market share from guitars...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Are we sure people aren't just shifting to buying more used guitars on Craigslist or something?

<comment><USER19> On just about every observable measure ... including cruise ships[1], guitar is dying in popularity. You might get a few minor bumps of new interest because of recent artists like Taylor Swift but _overall_ , guitar is way down.

I learned guitar and never imagined that the instrument would fade but that's exactly what has happened. Electronic music and laptops are this generation's instrument of choice.

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2013/10/08/the- de...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2013/10/08/the-demise-of- the-electric-guitar-in-music/#7c61b27a2295)

<comment><USER31> I think there are 3 reasons why the guitar is "dying" as the instrument of choice:

1\. The explosion in popularity of EDM in the mid 00's to early 10's, and the prevalence of EDM elements now dominating pop music rather than the notion of a backing band; most pop bands now feature a guitarist, but the guitar is secondary to synths and samples if it is heard at all.

2\. The rise of hip-hop, mixtape culture online, and hip-hop focused rock music in the 90's and early 00's, shifted popular rock music and the cultural zeitgeist away from a focus on guitar-driven rock music. Once again samples and synths became the focus, even in punk music. This lead to a new focus: "indie" rock and the internet could make anyone with a laptop famous.

3\. The general decline in rock music quality. I might be alone in this opinion, but popular rock music in the early 00's to today remains bland and the guitar equally so. This era also saw the rebirth of hardcore and more extreme forms of metal where the guitar remains the focus, and creativity abounds, but out of the public eye.</comment></comment></comment>


I wrote a Instagram Reverse Proxy API which supports CORS, pagination and limits - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/whizzzkid/instagram-reverse-proxy <comment><AUTHOR> Accessing Data

1\. The following will give you access to the same data instagram provides. [https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/](https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/)

2\. Limiting the amount of images to be sent. [https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/?count=10](https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/?count=10)

3\. Using jsonp [https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/?callback=fo...](https://instareproxy.herokuapp.com/<user>/media/?callback=foo)

4\. Using pagination: Each response has url links to the next and previous page, you can use that to traverse through the results.</comment>


RE:DOM – Tiny DOM library - <AUTHOR> https://redom.js.org <comment><USER2> Honest question, how is:

      el.email = input(props({ type: 'email' }))

better or easier than:

      <input type="email">

I think the example needs to be more compelling.

<comment><USER3> I assume you mean to compare it to:

        el.email = (function(){
            var input = document.createElement('input');
            input.type = "email";
            return input;
        })();

...or something similar. Your could also use createContextualFragement or a little function that uses innerHTML, both of which parse a string into HTML (which is problematic). Or you could use a templating library, of which there are many and this is one.

<comment><USER4> Why compare it to that? There is no reason to avoid innerHTML anymore - it's not slow at all.

There is rarely a reason to build HTML using createElement, it's only sometimes needed. The majority of the time just write HTML - it's much easier.

> Or you could use a templating library

Or just use the built in <template> tag.

<comment><USER5> Not slow compared to what? Creating elements with the DOM API is faster than innerHTML roughly by a factor of 4 on Chrome Canary last I benchmarked it, DOM mutations with bindings are even faster. There is a reason why React switched from innerHTML to generating DOM.

<comment><USER6> >Creating elements with the DOM API is faster than innerHTML roughly by a factor of 4 on Chrome Canary last I benchmarked it

yes, almost by a factor of 4 :D

check out "render" test cases:

[https://cdn.rawgit.com/localvoid/dd96890b82f1d1268df34330b14...](https://cdn.rawgit.com/localvoid/dd96890b82f1d1268df34330b14c82a3/raw/aa03b789315a84dba047c642e7ab63fc04017692/uibench_chrome.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let's see: website consists in its entirety of two not-very-illuminating code samples. The documentation on github consists of the phrase "Documentation is a bit lacking yet, please check out the source for now."

I feel like at this point, when there are so many, so so many, javascript frameworks to choose from, if you're going to build yet another one you need to take the time to explain why it exists. What are the advantages of this approach over the many existing alternatives? What problem does it solve? What does it do that others don't? What motivated its creation? Why should someone use this instead of riot or vue or knockout or transparency or $dom or snack or xui or or domtastic or crel or DOMinate or shaven or scriber or zepto or react or jquery or good old vanilla?

Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky (ok definitely I am that) but if someone can't be bothered to document their own code and expects others to dig through the source to figure out what it's for and how to use it, my default assumption is that the code itself is going to be similarly slipshod.

<comment><AUTHOR> To be honest, I just wanted feedback about the experimental approach.. It's only version 0.0.x

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've never seen this before:

        children(el => [
          el.email = input(props({ type: 'email' })),
          el.pass = input(props({ type: 'pass' })),
          el.submit = button(text('Sign in'))
        ])

Can someone explains what this does and why it is used here? As i understand it this function both modifies the `el` object (whatever that is) and returns an array containing the input elements, but why would you want to do both those things at the same time?

<comment><USER9> That is an arrow function.

children() is supposed to take a function as argument and that function is supposed to return the list of children.

So basically:

children( function(el) {

      return [

        el.email = input(props({ type: 'email' })),

        el.pass = input(props({ type: 'pass' })),

        el.submit = button(text('Sign in'))

      ]

} )

Also,

[

       el.email = input(props({ type: 'email' }))

       ,

       ...

]

is a neat idea. In one (expressive) line he is assigning the value to the array and also giving the child (in this case, email) a name and reference in its parent, so later he can just call el.email (in the onsubmit function).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'm using similar technique with FRZR as well ([https://frzr.js.org](https://frzr.js.org)), but with RE:DOM I wanted to experiment with ES2015 and also break the API to smaller parts, which you can replace with your own if you like..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why are we creating HTML from within Javascript?

It would be much better to use HTML for that and simply toggle the display/visibility of DOM elements via CSS or JS.

<comment><USER11> We are creating HTML from within Javascript because:

\- We want to generate HTML from our data (eg. database) \- We want an interactive experience (eg. with toggling visibility)

You could argue that we should generate the HTML on the backend, but then you are still generating HTML, and now you have two systems that interact with the HTML instead of one.

<comment><USER12> Why not use one of the dozens of templating libraries?

<comment><USER13> Because templating languages are without exception bug-breeding grounds that no human being can actually use without producing errors, which the browser then sometimes proceeds to auto-correct (html being html), which leads to a kind of "approximate" programming style, aka nirvana for security holes and other bugs. Oh, and composition is terrible pain too, encouraging over-complex UI components that do it all. And learning whatever flavor cleverly- insufficient control-flow and looping constructs this templating library uses is a pointless waste of time (and source of bugs) too.

Why in the heavens would you _ever_ choose to use a templating library and blur the lines between content (user input) and UI structure? Why reinvent the control-flow wheel?

Templating represents programmers realizing that this newfangled browser thing can already parse HTML, and hey, can't we do something clever with that - sure, if we unnecessarily serialize to a string first, yes! No thank you.

<comment><USER14> I straight up prefer templating for ergonomic reasons, especially when I see someone inlining higher order functions & JS control flow structures in a HTML DSL.

But I can sympathise with where you're coming from, as I have not so fond memories of backbone + [insert templating library]. A lot the problems can be addressed through better tools & a pre compilation stage where the templates are transformed into JS & data input are escaped for security reasons. One example of this is Ember.js's HTMLbars which address basically all of what you just listed there.

edit: That said if for whatever reason I couldn't use Ember, I'd probably choose some flavour of JSX over most other templating libraries, lol

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me little bit like Mithril...

Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted, but if you look at the Mithril API (sample code on [http://mithril.js.org/](http://mithril.js.org/)), it's very similar to this RE:DOM library with the major difference being that there is a controller function in the Mithril example and that Mithril is more of a functional language.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm torn.

On the one hand this seems far too clever for it's own good and in the same vein as coffeescript where it's really easy for you to write efficient & compact code which somehow turns into complete garbage when you try to read it two weeks later.

On the other hand it looks super neat, has 0 dependencies and looks like React but without requiring any kind of build system.

I think I might need to try it in a side project.

<comment><USER17> If you're looking for a very small (~10K), dependency-free alternative to react, check out [http://mithril.js.org/](http://mithril.js.org/), which is far more powerful and from which it seems this project has taken some inspiration (mount, props, and the general syntax are a few of the similarities I see).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> RiotJS lets you keep the "normal" HTML and just add easily-called functions. Looks much more simple and "normal" to me than all this react stuff and HTML generation from javascript.

<comment><AUTHOR> Riot is great, I'm one of the contributors also. Just like to experiment with things and created FRZR, RZR and now this. The main issue with Riot is, that it's still rather slow. And complex, if you want to understand 100% how it works under the hood.

<comment><USER19> >The main issue with Riot is, that it's still rather slow..

Riot is fantastic, especially in anticipation of web components, but personally I don't see performance as the main issue; I'm willing to trade performance for syntax I like, and the areas where Riot tends to choke are generally on tasks I typically wouldn't ask of client-side JS, no matter how fast it was.

It's the lack of certain critical features that kills it for me. The biggest one is that is has no Vue-style transition system for "if" and "show" \-- there are plugins that do it strictly for mount and unmount. It's an outstanding question in #1858, though it might be outside the scope of Riot core, TBH.

In any case, I moved to Vue for that reason, and like it a lot, though I'd still prefer a Riot-with-easy-transitions :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Vue is great as well! I like to know how things work also under the hood, so debugging/profiling on every level is much easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is hyperscript which is a bit more "mature": [https://github.com/dominictarr/hyperscript#example](https://github.com/dominictarr/hyperscript#example)

There is virtual-hyperscript which ports the above to virtual-dom: [https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual- dom/tree/master/virtual...](https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual- dom/tree/master/virtual-hyperscript)

I made a similar-ish "library" about an year ago: [https://gist.github.com/awalGarg/8a0e18c6fe87456d885f](https://gist.github.com/awalGarg/8a0e18c6fe87456d885f)

And there are all sorts of similar DSLs you can find on npm/github for JS. In a bit less time, you can write your own. In even lesser time, you can just do what you used to do prior to all this. This does however seem like a pretty popular idea in the JS community which keeps getting "discovered" every now and then.

</comment><comment><USER21> There is a trend in javascript community to use es2015 for everything and sometimes developers forget to keep a very fragile balance between expressiveness and simplicity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Check out FRZR: [https://frzr.js.org](https://frzr.js.org) – RE:DOM is all about experimenting with ES2015. And actually the whole core of both projects are ES5 – you don't have to use the new syntax.. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've made a similar sort of DOM DSL: [https://github.com/TazeTSchnitzel/jInsert](https://github.com/TazeTSchnitzel/jInsert)

e.g.

      document.body.appendChild($('form', {action: '/submit', method: 'POST'}, [
          $('input', {type: 'text', name: 'username'}),
          $('br'),
          $('input', {type: 'password', name: 'password'}),
          $('br'),
          $('input', {type: 'submit'})
      ]));

RE:DOM looks cool too.

Since using Haskell's Blaze, I've wanted something close in other languages.

</comment><comment><USER23> Good try. Although jQuery chaining api seems better for me.

</comment><comment><USER24> is there any compile-to-javascript languages which would be termed as "disgusting" and "impure"?

[https://github.com/dropbox/pyxl](https://github.com/dropbox/pyxl) for python comes to mind as something more enjoyable than manually doing tree-shaped OOP

        login = : //"read variable from indented block" symbol of magicness
            <form>
                <input type=email>
                <input type=pass>
                <button>{_("Sign in")}<button> //gotta have an excuse to inline code!
            </form>
        login.events({
            onsubmit (whatever, i dunno) {
                blap
            }
        });

seems a lot more fun!

</comment><comment><USER25> the website's UI looks great. simple and to the point.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why the indirection creating types using el()? Why not create the nodes directly with el()?

<comment><AUTHOR> check out frzr.js.org - I'm using that aproach there..

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Still i don't understand why people writing simple HTML in complex way!

<comment><AUTHOR> When you're writing a large application, things can get quite complicated with just HTML..

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Shameless plug: [https://www.npmjs.com/package/crel](https://www.npmjs.com/package/crel)

<comment><USER27> From the page >Writing HTML is stupid. It's slow, messy, and should not be done in JavaScript.

What a bold statement !

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I had a similar attempt.

[http://m1el.github.io/jsonht.htm](http://m1el.github.io/jsonht.htm)

</comment><comment><USER30> Why is this better than working with d3 selections?

</comment><comment><USER31> Nice! reminds me of hyperscript-helpers

</comment><comment><USER32> Unreadable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Try my other project, FRZR: [https://frzr.js.org](https://frzr.js.org) – RE:DOM is more of an experiment in this point..</comment></comment>


Cert Manager and DataDog Logging - <AUTHOR> https://happyvalley.dev/cert-manager-and-datadog-logging/ <comment><AUTHOR> I ran into an issue a little while ago with DataDog treating all cert-manager logs as error logs. I've written up how we solved it in case anyone else runs into the same issue.</comment>


Thoughts on Meteor for rapid prototyping of an MVP - <AUTHOR> I have been considering Meteor as the framework of choice for a web startup I'm involved with. The product involves some realtime features (video chat etc) and it seems Meteor has some advantages to other platforms (Django, Rials etc). At this stage, we need to add and change features at a rapid pace and words on the street is that you can deliver faster with Meteor (even if it's not the most scalable, which is not a concern at this stage).<p>Is Meteor a mature enough framework (cf. Django, Rails, Express, ...) to build our MVP on, and to find good talents to help us with it, since I am considering outsourcing big chunks of the job? <comment><USER2> You could check out Vulcan: [http://vulcanjs.org](http://vulcanjs.org)</comment>


Demography Is Rewriting Our Economic Destiny - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-04/demography-is-rewriting-our-economic-destiny <comment><AUTHOR> This could be effectively read in tandem with Bryan Caplan's book _Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids_ : [http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More- Kids/dp/0465...](http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More- Kids/dp/046501867X)</comment>


Ten Steps To Ten Thousand Sign Ups Before We Even Launch Our Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.sachinagarwal.com/ten-steps-to-ten-thousand-sign-ups-before-we <comment><USER2> At time of writing:

Twitter followers: 77 Facebook followers: 75

Their tactic of making it really difficult to join the beta doesn't seem to be working so far, but he didn't say how long they've been doing this.

Be interesting to see if they get to a good number in beta. This feels a little like meaningless link bait till then.

Please post again in a few months time with how this worked out!

<comment><USER3> "This feels a little like meaningless link bait till then". Spot on.

When I saw the title of the article I assumed that they already got the 10,000 sign ups and were explaining how did they manage to do it.

As I was reading through their list I was getting more and more skeptical. Some of their points make sense, others, simply don't ring true.

I then checked their Twitter account and saw that they had (at the time of writing) 93 followers. Really? 93? Not that I think that Twitter followers is the most useful metric as a measure of interest in a web-app (or that Twitter is really useful as a marketing tool for that matter) but for people that claim to be riding the waves of the viral marketing and that seem to put a lot of value and effort into increasing their Twitter and FB numbers, 93 followers sure looks a little low.

I had to come back to the comments in HN and to read carefully the title of the submission again to realize that they don't actually claim to have the 10,000 followers _yet_. Only that they want to reach that number. And they hope that the steps outlined in the article will help them to get there.

This misunderstanding may well be because English is not my first language, but even so, it still smells like link bait to me. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone around here will have his own opinion on how to get 10,000 sign ups. Until that opinion has been proven to work in real life, it's still a hunch, not all that useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a huge, huge fan of #3 (treating content as something more than blog posts). Calling something a blog post is a lot like calling something a newspaper article: it gives you an instantaneous framing for the value of it. That framing is _not the one you desire_ in most cases.

You'd be freaking amazed how much the presentation of something influences how much people trust it, how long it's shelf life lasts, and whether it spreads. This includes transparently superficial bits like whether it has a decent logo or illustration accompanying it or whether you date the content. ( _Don't date evergreen content!_ It only compromises perceived value to know that your article about elementary school arithmetic was first published in 1993. Addition hasn't freaking changed!)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm actually going to disagree with the "don't date evergreen content", at least for us. Because we're writing about financial information, we're going to datestamp revisions because we want someone who comes to us via Google/Bing/DDG to know that we're on top of changes to the law/investment environment/etc.

The only reason we haven't yet is because I haven't figured out a way to have it appended automagically to Pages in WordPress.

<comment><USER4> Edit your theme's page.php to include something similar to:

Last modified <?php the_modified_time('F d, y') ?>

So your understanding of evergreen content and my understanding are a little different. I agree, if I covered topics where my advice would get stale, I would prefer to let people know that I have updated the advice recently so that it was not stale. I just disagree that writing pieces which are capable of getting stale is a good use of my time, since I am time- and resource- constrained.

Writing anything which could go stale is time debt for the future, since I will have to rewrite later, which is extra work for rather little marginal benefit. Worse, it means I'll have to periodically review and rethink everything I've ever published to see whether it needs updating, which is extra work with _no_ benefit that gets _progressively more expensive over time_ as I grow my little content forest.

I think there are virtually infinite topics in investing which are truly evergreen, where you could let the article sit for a hundred years and never need to touch it again. "What is a preferred stock?" is one. "Should I invest in mutual funds managed by a human being?" is another, though that is more controversial. ( _cough_ No. _cough_ )

So anyhow, plant evergreens.

<comment><USER5> The US was unusually stable, as countries in history go, over the previous 100 years. Even so, the nature of the stock market, the kinds of things traded in it, and the regulations pertaining to them, have changed fairly significantly since 1910. I believe a preferred share is still more or less the same thing now that it was then, but that they're used for fairly different things.

In any case, you should leave the judgment of whether your writing is still worth reading when it's ten, thirty, or a hundred years old to your readers, rather than trying to make the judgment yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting and undeniably clever. However given you're looking for so many people you sure make it sound like you're doing _me_ a favour whereas I see it as doing _you_ a favour.

Given I know nothing about your product, or how good it is, why on earth would I want to shout about it from the rooftops before I've even used it for any length of time? You're effectively asking me to lend my trust network to you to promote your product, without letting me use it first.

It seems to me you're more likely to get the techcrunch-refreshing, ohh-shiny, sign-up-to-anything crowd than the kind of people that might be really interested in your product.

<comment><USER7> There's an air of arrogance about this technique that rubs me up the wrong way.

I'm sure it will be successful for them, but I won't clamouring to be one of the chosen few.

<comment><USER8> I agree completely. In addition, they seem to have achieved "meta-arrogance" by blogging about it as if it's the right way to do things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I signed up and got an email back that basically said "thanks for signing up, now dance monkey".

I'm the guy whose money you want and the way your blog and the sign up was worded, I feel like I'm dealing with a company who has forgotten this. Usually a company will forget AFTER they are successful, not before.

I'm not sure if I hope this works or not. I will keep tabs on it to see just how far a beta system can be pushed. I'm glad this test is on your dime and not mine! :)

<comment><USER10> It really said "dance monkey"? Because you know sarcasm is lost in text.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, but we really should. :)

Here's the part of the e-mail the parent is referring to:

"In the meantime, if you'd like to follow our story as we progress, you can:

1) Subscribe to our blog: <http://www.blueleaf.com/blog>

2) Follow @blueleafcom on Twitter: <http://twitter.com/blueleafcom>

3) Like us on Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/blueleafcom>

4) Join our LinkedIn Blueleaf A-team at <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2631858> and follow the company: <http://www.linkedin.com/companies/blueleaf.com> "

It's a lot of links, but I don't think it's worded in a way that says we expect a user to do any of these things.

<comment><USER9> @chegra: Heh, it was surely sarcasm.

The email is not rude, but its not the traditional "we are so thankful you've signed up, here's what you asked for" either.

I figured out what bugs me about this approach. I took the time to punch my email in and instead of getting my reward, I am told of a bunch of other things I can do to get involved with BlueLeaf. Why would I? I don't know how good your reward is and I have no prospect of sampling it.

I'm as simple as a lab mouse hitting the button for a pellet. I received no pellet and am now uninterested as a result.

I am however interested in how other people react. I acknowledge that I'm a crotchety old man at 28. :)

<comment><USER11> They seem to think they're more interesting than they are. That approach might work for getting access to a beta for the next Valve game, or a preview of the PlayStation 4 or whatever. But for this site? Bah. I've lost interest already.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm confused about if the things outlined in the blog have actually been executed, or if this is just a theoretical plan.

You don't have many twitter users, don't have many facebook 'likes', and there is just one note written so far on the linked facebook notes page.

And what's with the customer acquisition cost - I thought you have not launched yet, who are your 'customers' then?

Twitter does not allow searches for old tweets, so I cannot say how effective the twittter thingy is.

So now, is this a tried and proven way, or is this just someones idea on what could work?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's what we're doing right now. Time will tell if it works or not, but our e-mail capture numbers indicate that it is working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> #1 and #2 sound like dickhead moves to me. I don't think of _any_ webapp I've ever wanted a part of badly enough to "beg for an invite", nor do I think I'd ever want to trust my financial information to a company that has so much raw contempt for their users that they would even _consider_ making potential users "beg publicly" for an invite.

</comment><comment><USER13> You think it is a good idea to brag about belittling users?

Oh please, please, let me in, let me use your awesome product!

It doesn't seem like the guy on twitter was pleading. You might have some good ideas about marketing, so please, go ahead with them, but get over your self. You are not that great and you're product is not that great.

Have some respect for the potential consumers who can make or break you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pleading is a crappy verb, agreed and point well taken.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for listening, I hope my criticism is helpful. Best of luck in your endeavor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I rather enjoyed the article, but the fact that:

      * The site isn't https by default
      * Going to https://www.blueleaf.com (or non-www) shows an untrusted warning in Firefox

made me weary of signing up. It looks like a beautiful service, but any website handling real money or financial information should be secure by default.

<comment><AUTHOR> HTTPS for the marketing site increases page load times; there's no real reason to force people just browsing by to a secured server. The app itself, of course, is secure; it's just on a different subdomain: <https://secure.blueleaf.com/signin>

My todo for today (assuming my cold doesn't lay me low) is to write about our approach to security.

<comment><USER15> Is the page load time that significant in bounce rates? (Your list includes A/B testing; how about figuring out if you get more emails when the marketing page is secure or insecure?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _We run every single e-mail we get through Flowtown so we know a bit about who's coming in through the open door._

For some reason, and I'm not 100% sure why, this makes me do a 180. I understand it's a beta and closed and the information is freely available anyway but it does not sit well with me.

The rest of these ideas are great though.

<comment><USER17> My thought as well. People talk a lot about how social networking services tend to leak information and violate privacy. Scraping those services for your own business purposes just seems shady, especially when done through a third party.

If being an influencer and having a lot of Twitter followers is what gets a potential user beyond the velvet rope before everyone else, then why not be overt about it and let them volunteer that info?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Make that Ten Thousand and One. This post worked on me -- awesome ideas.

I especially like that you just don't default to the blog for all content and announcements. Diversifying your news and updates across multiple channels is a great way to make it more accessible in some cases and always reaching out to new audiences.

As someone who is working on getting a product ready for launch (<http://gethifi.com>), this post was extremely helpful.

</comment><comment><USER19> "We run every single e-mail we get through Flowtown so we know a bit about who's coming in through the open door."

So... as a financial site, the very first thing you do with your user's info is hand it over to another company you have no control over? Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER20> #1 & #2 (faux scarcity) seem to be at odds with #9 (using Adwords and other paid acquisition channels).

Are you paying for people to arrive at your site and then getting them to beg (or be well connected) to be able to use the service?

</comment><comment><USER21> For a company that tests the crap out of everything, finding obvious rendering issues makes me wince.

[http://skitch.com/coderpath/dxkmu/investment-planning- perfor...](http://skitch.com/coderpath/dxkmu/investment-planning-performance- consolidation-and-collaboration-blueleaf.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Turns out that fixing it doesn't reduce signup rates. The vast majority of people use the top form above the fold. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a new approach, but you forget to answer a very useful question: what do I get out of signing up?

</comment><comment><USER23> Great ideas, many detailed that I have not seen laid out openly before. Being very selective about "who really wants in on the closed beta" is a great point.

<comment><USER24> I really like this selective sign-in too. Making the pre-launch a scarce comodity and allowing people to invite their friends at a specific hour builds up pressure, nice! I should remember this when I do my product launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> [meta] this comment is about the company, not the blog post. I liked the blog post[/meta]

Mint is the clear front-runner here, with significant brand recognition and momentum. I think it's a mistake to _not_ position yourself w.r.t. Mint.

. . . unless you're hoping people get the two confused.

</comment><comment><USER26> seems like you're spending a lot of time and effort that could be better spent on product development. the biggest risk for your company is that you will build something that no one wants. and the best way to mitigate that risk is to have as many people look at your app and give you feedback as early on as possible. you can play games to make invites scarce and drive buzz, but you're optimizing for the wrong problem. that scarcity is depriving you of what you need most right now -- honest and early feedback! don't pull a cuil -- you need more than expectation and buzz to be successful.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 What is it that you are A/B testing with such a low level (I assume, the blog post doesn't seem to state an actual number) of current users?

Are these really accurate experiments of the signup process if your only visitors are ones who actively asked for an invite or were referred?

</comment><comment><USER27> How is this different from Mint?

<comment><USER28> I'd like to see this answered clearly, myself.

Mint has established itself as _the_ top personal finance management app out there. I love Mint, and think it'll be very difficult to move to yet another PF tool out there. So what exactly is it about BlueLeaf that is so compelling that (1) users have to beg to be invited, and (2) it stands head and shoulders above competitors?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > _Soon, you're going to be in total control of your financial future_

As any Warren Buffet would tell you this ^ is possible iff your balance is zero :)</comment>


Shaper Origin: Hand-Held CNC Machine - <AUTHOR> https://shapertools.com <comment><USER2> I was part of the preorder and just finished my first project with it, an MFT style workbench (3x5). My prior woodworking experience was a single class in high school. I would likely not have attempted this project without access this tool.

The software works off of SVG files, which was appealing as this is a format I'm already accustomed to. They have made a plugin for exporting SVG from Fusion360 models. The workflow to go from idea to a finished prototype is pretty quick.

Price for me was competitive, I had been looking at laser cutters which start at 2x-3x the price of this. Obviously not a direct comparison in capabilities.

Overall, I'm quite happy with it

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks cool, and I guess I'm old and illogical - but I miss the 'old days' when you could just buy things without teasers, pre-announcements, order windows, etc.

I doesn't build excitement in my case, more that I forget about it and move on.

<comment><USER4> I feel you, but also having been on the other side of things (worked for a hardware startup in the AR space), whoo boy is hardware hard.

From the side of the manufacturer, all the things you mentioned are a form of risk mitigation and demand forecasting. It's likely a fatal, company ending mistake to build 5x too many in your initial run.

So, while I'm not a huge fan of such activities, I am a HUGE fan of the devices and creativity they enable as otherwise we just wouldn't see this kind of stuff.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree, more just commenting the large number of products I probably would've bought on sight had they been available, but instead are forgotten or in some old bookmark somewhere due to being unavailable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I tried one of these 2-3 years ago and briefly talked to one of the founders. It's a really cool tool, and surprisingly fun to use. I was immediately smitten and asked "how much?" The price he told me then was half the price they're advertising now, and I still balked. Admittedly I don't know the market for carpentry, but it seems like a niche product for professionals or rich hobbyists. That said though, I'd still love to have one.

<comment><USER6> What price are they advertising now? I can't find it on the linked page.

<comment><USER5> $2400 is the expected retail price.

[https://www.popularwoodworking.com/cnc/hands-shaper- origin-e...](https://www.popularwoodworking.com/cnc/hands-shaper-origin- exclusive-review)

<comment><USER6> Thanks! Considering what it does, I'm not surprised, but it's a bit rich for my blood.

<comment><USER7> Seems about on par with Festool options, and looks like they are partners.

<comment><USER8> At that price they are competing with options that you don't have to babysit, which is a big advantage if you are commercial operator.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, but they're also operating in the "maker space", where ten people all pitch in $250 and buy a tool for everyone else to use. That $2400 buys you a tool that everyone, including kids, can use, as opposed to a real CnC machine that requires someone to become an expert operator needing to babysit anyone else who has an idea that requires CnC work.

This tool has zero appeal to commercial operators. But it's _INCREDIBLE_ for people who just want to make shit at their community center/hacker space/woodworking group/etc.

<comment><USER10> Is this really kid safe ?

<comment><USER11> I used a band saw as a kid; this is probably at least as safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My favorite youtube engineer (Ben Krasnow) did a video on this product a few years ago: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8GFpSCK6Jk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8GFpSCK6Jk)

</comment><comment><USER13> I own one. It comes with autodesk 360 for a year. Truth be told, this thing is solid as a tank and incredibly well built. Makes inlays a breeze and does a faultless job at basic tasks.

The best part is that all the capabilities are in a small box so you don't need a room to store it and it's portable.

It can take a long time to do larger projects and you can't fire it up and forget it, but it's an exceptionally good product.

</comment><comment><USER14> Brilliant idea, outsource to the human the low-precision positioning task and get rid of the workpiece fixtures for massive price reduction.

Now someone needs to build the equivalent for 3-5 axis, maybe with a free movable support arm since it might be too heavy to hold just with hands.

<comment><USER15> Honestly,I wonder if this concept isn't better suited for welding robots and plasma cutters. It seems ideally suited for those tools. You need precise control of a tool position, and the reason,they're not done by hand more right now is that access to the workpiece and clamping it in place are a huge pain.

A big problem with handheld CNC is that cutting many materials you'd want to cut requires precise control of your speed, and also requires rather large amounts of force and rigidity. CNC in wood or plastic is pretty easy, but steel is hugely more difficult. There's a reason traditional mills are made with thousands of pounds of cast steel, and it's not to make it hard for hobbyists to enter,

I wonder if a 3-5 axis might be better done by using servo-actuated brakes to constrain your motion to a desired direction and speed. Though I remain skeptical that the problem with CNC is the expense of long axes. You pay for the power, not length - a 30" ballscrew actuator costs maybe 2x as much as a 3".

<comment><USER14> You seem to know way more about the fields so I defer, but I think there is a market for just cutting wood, plastic or soft metals like aluminum. A low cost machine obviously will have a bunch of limitations.

<comment><USER16> 2400$ isn't exactly low-cost.

<comment><USER17> It's definitely not cheap, but its in the ball park for CNC wood routers (obviously you can find cheaper stuff, especially if second hand).

There's value to some hobby users in that it looks like you get to save on bench space. For some users that might be the difference between having and not having a CNC wood router.

<comment><USER18> Why wouldn't a $1400 dollar shapeoko or x-carve be better than this?

<comment><USER19> This doesn't take up an enormous amount of shop space, can be used on arbitrarily large workpieces, and probably requires far less calibration and maintenance work. I have a 2' x 2' CNC router and can easily think of usecases this would be better for. A 4' x 8' CNC router is sure as hell not going to be cheaper than this thing.

<comment><USER20> I wonder how accurately it would work on a 4' x 8' piece. If I cut some curvy shape near the edge of the piece and followed the dashed line perfectly, would I end up exactly back where I started or would I miss by half an inch?

<comment><USER21> It uses strips of QR codes to position itself on the workpiece. It's an absolute measurement not a relative one, so there's no drift.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Got to play with one of these for a few hours 2-3 years ago, back then it was pretty easy to make a shape and upload it to the device. The cuts it made on plywood were extremely clean and it was quite fun to use! Hooked up a vacuum to it and it sucked up a lot of the wood dust, so that wasn't too much of a problem.

Only problem was I had to concentrate when moving the device around on the wood since otherwise it would move outside the allowable range and I'd have to reset it.

I'd imagine that this would be for one-off products since otherwise a true CNC machine would save more time.

</comment><comment><USER23> CNC is a misnomer. This is more like GPS for a router. Computer assisted machining would be more appropriate though that acronym would collide with CAM, computer aided manufacturing.

<comment><USER24> It doesn't just show you the tool's position relative to the workpiece, it also has motors that correct the position of the cutting bit.

Sounds pretty CNC to me.

<comment><USER25> And IIRC (saw this thing years ago), it quickly retracts the bit and tells you that you're an idiot if you move out of range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> We got one for our makerspace and it is a very solid tool. Amazing for parquet.

</comment><comment><USER27> I bought an $8000 4'x8' router table back in 2003 and built a a bunch of stich-and-glue kayaks with it. I could cut a table of parts while eating lunch from one sheet of marine plywood. With this I may save space, but I have to be present to cut all of those parts without tiring. I doubt hand control of the shaper can beat the accuracy. It's a neat, high-priced toy for makers (I'm one), but if you are going to make more than a few things regularly, go with a router table. I also made 3D carvings or portraits by writing a python script in Blender3D for the geometry, and there's no way you could do that by hand. I really like the Shaper, and I think it will sell, but it is a niche product. It also reminded me of the time I used a projector to, project cut-out templates on ply because I didn't need accuracy, and when I did we would plot out templates to transfer to the plywood, and then cut with a hand router by eye.

</comment><comment><USER28> I've been looking at products in this space myself lately, and stumbled upon the Maslow, which has similar, though not identical functionality, but is a DIY product an order of magnitude cheap than this (though obviously far less polished and producty): [http://www.maslowcnc.com/](http://www.maslowcnc.com/)

<comment><USER29> I really want to like the Maslow, but I admit I'm losing patience with it. After a multi-month waiting period to get it I found that they hadn't shipped me all the parts. After a chat with their co-founder (who was very nice) I assumed all was taken care of, but it's been something like two weeks since then and still no parts. In the time it's taken just to get the Maslow kit I could easily have designed and built my own.

Very disappointing. Like I say, I want to like and support what seems to be a really nice company. I just don't have a product yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> would be really cool if someone tried to DIY this using some lighthouse/vive tracking instead of the camera and markers.

</comment><comment><USER31> It's confusing to call this a "shaper," when it is not the machine tool. (A shaper is a kind of linear lathe.)

<comment><USER32> this battle was lost generations ago. Shapers were "mechanical apprentices" wielding chisels replaced by low speed specialized cutter horizontal milling machines (borrowed from circular saws from timber mills) replaced with high speed vertical milling machines with fewer smaller diameter cutters and fancy fixtures, replaced by CNC mills.

Somewhere in there, probably along with vertical mills, beefy router tables adopted the name "Shaper" as it was not being used enough by the mechanical apprentices to say so any more.

But I love watching the hypnotic motions of a metal shaper more than I will ever like even hearing a wood shaper, in another room ... while wearing earmuffs

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> My biggest problem is not being able to get sharp corners. Thats not a problem with Shaper Origin per se, but more with CNC based routers (note the chess board on their homepage, it doesn't have squares with 90 deg corners). If something like Shaper Origin supported being able to do this, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

<comment><USER34> Sharp internal corners are hard period. CNC milling machines have the same issue -- the usual way to to just use a smaller end mill.

You either need some type of punch or an (actual) shaper.

<comment><USER35> That's what square hole drill bits are for.

<comment><USER36> Those round the corners too I'm afraid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> At first glance it looked like the motion control was gamified with a driving game. Part of me wishes that was the case, the other part of is horrified of the thought of carpenters messing around with cloud enabled gameboys on their tools.

</comment><comment><USER38> > Shaper Origin: Hand-Held CNC Machine

As it hand-held machine, then it's NOT a CNC[0] by design...

> Computer numerical control (CNC) is the automation of machine tools by means > of computers executing pre-programmed sequences of machine control commands. > This is in contrast to machines that are manually controlled by hand wheels > or levers, or mechanically automated by cams alone.

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

<comment><USER39> It's still numerically controlled. 'Hand-held' just refers to its size, not how it's operated.

<comment><USER40> All the pictures I'm seeing are showing it being controlled by hand.

<comment><USER41> Yeah I was confused by this also. It is cutting a precise vector shape by making small adjustments to compensate for hand shake and such. The "circle" you can see it drawing on screen is the amount of error it can tolerate before it will start cutting in the wrong place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Similar packaging and probably marketing to fein gear.... Fancy case and some pretty looking tools but tbh I don't see that piece of equipment ever making it into the workshop and it barely looks like it would survive a week on-site too. 2500 dollary doos is pretty damned expensive for what looks to be a damned fragile bit of gear with very little use.

Like the biggest problem to making cuts with a router is that it grabs and pulls and goes off direction. Having a little map of where your "supposed to go" isn't going to prevent this.. So I see this thing doing nothing to make your job's/cuts more accurate. Yes it maps it for you...but so does a projector and a pencil and then your not limited to the size or shape of the router...just the skill of the operator.

If it was priced say...450 or maaaaaaaaaaaaybe 750 aud? It would possibly get a look in? I get a makita for like 200 bucks that will take a thrashing on site and a dewalt for like 600 if you want a few extra ponies under the bonnet. But christ...2500 dollary doos. I can buy half a chippies work truck for that! In the famed words of the castle "tell em' he's dreamin!"

<comment><USER43> I'm not sure you understand what this is. It's not a router, it's a handheld 4'x8' CNC. If Makita has a 4x8 CNC for 200 bucks, it's news to me. :-)

It doesn't have "a little map of where you're supposed to go", it has a display showing _where it is going to go_. Now, I don't drive my router every day (a Bosch, FYI), so I'll admit I'm not a skilled operator. But my ability to follow a pencil line with a router is iffy at best.

You are right that the biggest problem to making cuts with a router is it grabbing and going off path. That isn't so much a problem with a CNC. I don't know how the Shaper, being hand-held rather than a mounted chassis, prevents kicking out like that. I don't know if it stops cutting when you move the body, or is fast enough to move the tool when you are repositioning the body and the tool grabs.

The Shaper's goal is that an unskilled operator can do accurate and repeatable cuts.

That said, I haven't used the Shaper. I've watched some folks over the years use them on YouTube, and I've half wished I'd bought the older model when they had it for pre-order for $1,500.

But the downside of these tools is that you can't just whip them out and start making chips, you've got to have CAD and CAM experience and generate the gcode. I've done a little with 3D printers, and SketchUp, and custom gcode. But I'm far from being able to bang out a set of shapes for a one-off project. I'd have to be making a few or more of something before I even considered it.

The Shaper looks insanely cool, and I wish our Maker Space had one, but I also don't have an immediate need for one either. I _CAN_ tell you that I've recently been wishing our 4x8 CNC took up a lot less floor space, it's bigger than either of our workbenches but can't be used as a work surface (policy decision).

<comment><USER44> Actually it's a little of both. You do have to guide it by hand according to the map it shows, however it will correct small deviations from the path allowing relatively accurate cuts.

It has two huge downsides over a regular router: you have to place marker tape (quite expensive) all over the workpiece, and it will stop working once the marker tape is cut. Also, you have to keep guiding it throughout the process so you don't get the time benefit (multitasking) of a regular CNC router.

I don't think it's a really good choice for a makerspace actually compared to a regular router table, unless there is a serious lack of space.

<comment><USER45> It does not stop working when the tape is cut, only when there isn't enough visible tape. Also, you can put tape on a place outside where you are cutting and reuse it. The camera isn't pointing down where it is cutting. Also, it'll correct for fairly large deviations. It is more for one-off things as opposed to madd producing something like standard CNC router. Limitless size is nice, I am unlikely to buy a 4'x8' CNC router for my garage.

<comment><USER44> Indeed, it makes more sense at home rather than in a makerspace. But you'd be very unlikely to make the money back compared to sending it out to a professional shop. It could be perfect for interior designers and similar jobs where one-off pieces have to be cut on the spot and cost isn't a big issue.

The issue about the cut tape was brought up in the "Tested" review, and you may not always be able to put tape outside your work area if you are trying to use your whole workpiece.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Starting a Programming School for Kids - <AUTHOR> I work as a programmer but feeling a bit burned out.
I have noticed ads for Robotics and Programming schools for kids. I really like the idea of teaching kids especially robotics. Many of these schools use Lego Mindstorm which I have been playing with anyways. A lot of these "schools" work with after-school programs and teach kids onsite on real schools.
So I am looking for a best way to test waters. Anyone got experience here. <comment><USER2> I am working on some tutorials to teach younger kids programming. I started out with a robot mouse you program to navigate a maze. There are other great projects that can be used with varying degrees of difficulty.

My daughter has been my first student, and she has a lot of fun learning.

There is a lot that can be done in area, you just have to pick some aspect of it and focus on a particular age group.

If you want to do this in an in-person setting, I would suggest finding a local maker space that hosts events for kids. That is a great way to get started and test the waters.</comment>


Here's the Email Zuckerberg Sent to Cut His Cofounder Out of Facebook (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://businessinsider.com/exclusive-heres-the-email-zuckerberg-sent-to-cut-his-cofounder-out-of-facebook-2012-5

<comment><USER2> One of the many differences between Google and Facebook besides Google's revenue that's an order of magnitude larger than facebook.</comment>


Google shuts YouTube channel implicated in Kremlin political propaganda ops - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/11/google-shuts-youtube-channel-implicated-in-kremlin-political-propaganda-ops/ <comment><USER2> "..although the videos did not gain significant traction .. only garnered "hundreds" of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair's Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up "thousands" of views)."

really hundreds of likes and thousands of views are going to have any impact on the election? Come on! Show us the money, i want to see proof of some real money (millions of dollars channeled in) before i buy this whole "Russia backed" story. Not some pocket change lunch money and a couple of guys (are they even real?).

They are basically saying i can sell an average home and use that money to influence the results of the American elections. Complete BS.

<comment><USER3> > thousands of views are going to have any impact on the election?

We're not talking about Prime Time TV grabs, this is microtargeting, death by a thousand cuts. This one just one of dozens of campaigns that we are just now learning about. Here are some more examples:

* Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Stein, Sanders[1]

* Shuttered Facebook group that organized anti-Clinton, anti-immigrant rallies across Texas was linked to Russia[2]

* Russians Impersonated Real American Muslims to Stir Chaos on Facebook and Instagram[3]

Just over a month ago FB was denying any Russian influence. And now we know of 4 different demographics, with 4 different campaigns. These "thousands of views" that you pooh-pooh start to add up and you can see how the cumulative influence could have a real effect.

[1] [http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia- tru...](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump- sanders-stein-243172)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-group-russia- texas-a...](http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-group-russia-texas-anti- immigrant-rallies-2017-9)

[3] [https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-russians- impersonate...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-russians-impersonated- real-american-muslims-to-stir-chaos-on-facebook-and-instagram)

<comment><USER4> >this is microtargeting, death by a thousand cuts

Nah this isn't. This is a failed propaganda campaign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will Google shut down all the USA [1] propaganda channels as well?

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

<comment><USER6> That's the American equivalent to RT, neither of which is in dispute. The channel mentioned in TFA features black actors pretending to be american aimed at discrediting political opponents of Russia and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans. That's not censorship of an alternative viewpoint: this is unambiguously hateful propaganda.

<comment><USER7> >discrediting political opponents [...] and inciting racial conflict to sow instability among Americans

Your mass media/ruling class does that too (especially on the political right). And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel allegedly backed by Russia.

<comment><USER8> > And they have much more influence than some largely unknown YT channel > allegedly backed by Russia.

How about RT? They play in the same conspiracy league though RT reaches far more people since they air the same agenda in different western countries and languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Which shows why China (corrupt/autocratic ruling elite or not) feels a need to control its own internet/web -- and would still would be justified to feel that need even if it was a perfect democracy.

Because when country X runs the most/biggest internet properties, then X country's propaganda ops can run uninterrupted on all of its-owned/run web players and services spanning the globe, but other countries' political propaganda can be stopped at any time.

Now, if you're in the side which owns the most/biggest internet properties, then you'll probably feel there's no problem with this imbalance -- nor would you find any reason to control your own internet.

That's because, since all the big players are yours, the global internet is "your own internet" anyway. Plus it's not like your citizens are ever going to venture that far of your national services for alternative news sources. Heck, it's not even like your domestic alternative news sources are much popular, the vast majority is fed 2 partisan shades of the same BS.

And because facts are facts, it gets worse when one side get to unilaterally control and mark as "political propaganda ops" not just actual political propaganda ops, but facts too for everybody concerned.

Especially since, whether you're in country X or another, if you never venture outside of mainstream media (of whatever political persuasion), you'll also tend to find your country's propaganda ops as just neutral reporting. After all, that's what your own media tells you 24/7, what your "neutral" official history books say, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> So, Russia influenced the election by having two black men run a YouTube channel?

<comment><USER11> Among other things, yes.

<comment><USER12> Yup. This was just one channel among many, following the Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" approach to propaganda. It used the same DDoS-like approach during it's incursion into Georgia and annexation of Crimea.

[https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html)

> The Russian propaganda model is high-volume and multichannel, and it > disseminates messages without regard for the truth. It is also rapid, > continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although > these techniques would seem to run counter to the received wisdom for > successful information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of > the most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors that > make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult to counter.

<comment><USER10> If the US was doing the same thing on a global scale, how would we know? We'd probably be entirely under its influence. We would see certain falsehoods as self-evident facts, because every source we try to read or research, more or less confirms the propaganda.

<comment><USER12> The distinguishing feature is that the claims are provably false, but the sheer quantity and repetition of claims overwhelms the ability to debunk them. The current US administration actually has quite a few examples of this, but it's arguable whether it's due to incompetence or malice. [http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald- trump/stateme...](http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald- trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/)

<comment><USER10> How about the whole "Russia made Trump win the election" narrative itself? Sounds like propaganda to me.

<comment><USER12> Did you even read the OP's original link about the channel which was shut down? I highly recommend educating yourself on the issue.

<comment><USER10> The channel run by two black guys? Because that totally validates the propaganda? Did you read the top comment in this thread?

<comment><USER12> Wow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I saw this on Rachel Maddow this morning. [http://www.msnbc.com/rachel- maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddl...](http://www.msnbc.com/rachel- maddow/watch/us-tech-giants-oddly-unhelpful-on-russia-1067167299819)

Near as she can tell, they live in Nigeria (though I don't think she's actually been able to back that up).

She also digs into a number of the other accounts that did this. The "I love Texas" twitter account was another one that seemed pretty egregious. For example encouraging armed revolt if hillary wins. Switching their account-name and branding to "Secede if Hilary Win" days before the election to make it _LOOK_ like their followers were _ALWAYS_ in favor of extreme political action.

This stuff is pretty dark.

</comment><comment><USER14> If they would shutdown all news channels that sometime distribute "propaganda", there would not be many left...

<comment><USER8> Sure, but only if your definition of "propaganda" is completely useless.

<comment><USER10> So you think that there are a _lot_ of honest media channels that never ran propaganda pieces, not even once!

<comment><USER8> No, I just think you have no idea what propaganda is since you've probably never witnessed it. Otherwise you would be careful with those superlatives you throw around here.

<comment><USER10> I know exactly what it looks like, as I've lived under two different third world dictatorships for several years.

It looks like this: everyone repeating the exact same narrative, broadcast everywhere, to the point where it's taken for granted, and anyone who dares point out other possibilities is immediately ostracized and shamed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >The content appeared intended for an African-American audience, although the videos did not gain significant traction on YouTube, according to The Daily Beast, which said they had only garnered "hundreds" of views prior to the channel being closed (vs the pair's Facebook page having ~48,000 fans before it was closed, and videos uploaded there racking up "thousands" of views).

Hundreds of views? For the whole channel, huh? Not sure what their distribution targets were but they sure failed to meet them.

And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful.

>And their content was pulled from Facebook back in August after being identified as Russian-backed propaganda, according to the Daily Beast's sources.

I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed propaganda.

<comment><USER8> > And they (presumably) shared these videos on their 48k fan facebook page, > yet the videos only managed to get "thousands" of views? Hope they didn't > have that Kremlin ad spend behind them because those numbers are pitiful.

Wasn't the main aim for the facbook network to host Ads? I've read somewhere that they reached millions with that.

> I think it would be helpful for community moderators everywhere, including > Hacker News, to understand how they were identified as Russian-backed > propaganda.

The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content.

<comment><USER9> > _The most obvious would be the content. You can just turn on the still > existing propaganda channels like Russia Today to compare the content._

So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things?

<comment><USER16> _" So, like, anything not agreeing with the mainstream US opinion on things?"_

I live in a country (Lithuania) RT constantly pours BS on, so no, I can assure you it isn't just alternative news -- it is a pure propaganda machine. The latest major story was that German NATO soldiers (stationed in Lithuania as a part to deter Russia from trying something like in Ukraine) raped a local teenage girl[0]. Of course, neither a "victim", nor a single witness was found by police and more reputable journalists.

0\. [http://www.dw.com/en/why-the-fake-rape-story-against- german-...](http://www.dw.com/en/why-the-fake-rape-story-against-german-nato- forces-fell-flat-in-lithuania/a-37694870)

<comment><USER9> > _The latest major story was that German NATO soldiers (stationed in > Lithuania as a part to deter Russia from trying something like in Ukraine) > raped a local teenage girl_

That might been a BS report, but it's not like that never happens and is never covered up. Soldiers out of duty, especially drunk, do all kinds of similar shit (assaults, rape, drunken fights, etc) around such bases. We had a few around our here parts -- but here are some more from more reputable sources if you prefer:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_rape_and_killings) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the- forgotten...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-forgotten- story-of-rape-and-murder-in-kosovo-american-style-622977.html) [http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82993](http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82993) [http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/soldiers.court/](http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/18/soldiers.court/)

Many, of course, such incidents never see the light of day. I don't know whether this one is one such (and it's suppression is touted as it being false to begin with) or the other side, eager to publish some anti-NATO stuff didn't fact-check or even fabricated it. So, I'll give you that. But as "fake news" goes, this is quite on the mark of what often goes on -- not some Pizzagate level BS.

Speaking of fake news, it's not like the other side would never stoop so low either: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony)

(among tons of other such BS)

Also "as a part to deter Russia from trying something like in Ukraine" \-- so, to deter them from intervening when the elected government is coup-ed by a ragtag coalition (including bona fide neo-nazis) with support from outside (who wanted to pressure Russia)? In a country which is in their borders and has parts with majority Russian ethnicity that felt threatened?

How good of this good-will organization to protect Lithuania. It's not a full threatening army machine itself, promoting any particular national interests in the region at all, nor is it used for pushing increasingly towards Russia's borders and keeping the pressure of them, decades after the cold war ended. And it's never known to invade sovereign countries which have nothing to do with it, itself, for BS or no pretexts and making hell-holes of civil war and "reconstruction" out of them.

Lithuania's story with USSR and/or current relations with Russia have never been that great, to put it mildly, and Lithuania had suffered a lot under Stalinism etc. It's also good to be paranoid about a powerful neighbor. But I think it finds solace in false friends, who, if the need arose, they wouldn't think twice to sacrifice it themselves. Well, not that differently from false friends in WWII...

<comment><USER16> I'm not going into Internet political discussion, because it never leads to anything constructive, so I'll just ignore a good portion of your comment. My described incident was different because it was pushed heavily by Russian press and letter was sent to the member(s) of Lithuania parliament trying to cause a stir, so it wasn't just some random BS, it clearly had political motivation to deteriorate relations between locals and NATO soldiers. Also, it was heavily investigated both by police and by media, so if it had had any factual base, I'm sure something would have been found (and here are also some people, who would _love_ if it was true, so there was plenty of motivation, not just formalities). A town this rape supposedly has taken place is very small, population of ~30k, so I'm sure somebody (relatives, neighbors, random people etc.) would have noticed at least _something_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Will they shut down the Russian YouTube offices, which are overrun by the same Kremlin propagandists, wrecking havoc on Russian Youtube (shutting down opposition videos etc)?

<comment><USER18> What are you talking about? Do you have credible links?

<comment><USER17> Of course I have no proof, but there are links, and this is one of them: [http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508](http://www.bbc.com/russian/news-40674508), which you can use as a point of reference.

The Russian net is talking about it (on youtube, on twitter, on VK etc), but no one has proof — if there was proof, it would be scandalous. Thus it's just common knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So Google is censoring again. It's not extremist. It's not violent. Why does it need censorship? What will they label and censor as "propaganda" next?

</comment><comment><USER20> Many companies play up the pretense that they are 'global' corporations. There are only nations. Google is a US corporation.

A global corporation would not pay this much attention to the influence of a single nation or it would pay more attention to all of them.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is only suprising (or outrageous) under the assumption that we live in a global civil rights society. Only commerce is more or less global because it directly serves the interests of states around the world.

Is normal.

</comment><comment><USER22> when will they shut down Russia Today?

<comment><USER23> I would note there is a bit of a difference between something called "Russia Today" (or Voice of America) and something purporting to be grassroots activism. If you want to trust clearly labeled foreign news, whether it's Russia Today or Voice of America or the BBC, you're at least making a semi- informed decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Hey, Alexei, activate account number two"!

<comment><USER22> "Hey Sasha, niet problema I'll ask Kaspersky Lab to help us with this one"</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is Microsoft pushing Edge so hard? - <AUTHOR> I just got a new Windows Update that revolved around pushing me to use the new Edge Browser. The update also removed my default setting for browser and when a new URL opens, there's small text under Edge that tries to persuade you to use it over the other choices.
This level of insidious marketing is a pain, but more than that I'm struggling to understand why Microsoft wants me to use their browser so badly.
What's the motivation? <comment><USER2> Power. A huge amount of work is done in the browser. If you control what browser people use then you control how they use it and how developers program for it.

In the late 90's and early 2000's Internet Explore basically defined web standards. Once Microsoft decided on a new feature it became a strong candidate to be a new standard. It didn't always become a standard but developers were force to adapt their web pages to make sure they worked properly on IE. They want that power back.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was annoyed that it presents as just part of installing the new patches. If you don't cancel out of it, you'll end up with Edge instead of Chrome/Chromium. And of course, the procedure neglects to tell you that. I can imagine a lot of people falling for it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think the motivation is rather mundane: Software gets updated regularly (even if only for security fixes), so Microsoft prefers that people move to the "current" version as much as possible. Still, they also supported Windows 7 for over ten years...

</comment><comment><USER5> The motivation is money.

If you don't use Edge they won't be able to track the web sites you visit so they can sell your data to advertisers.

Google does it too with Chrome. That's why if you visit Google sites with a non-Chrome browser they will push you to use Chrome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apologies if these are naive questions, but why does Microsoft require use of Edge to track user data? Can't they obtain data from the DNS requests any browser makes to access websites?

And are there any ways to mitigate the amount of data they obtain when using Edge (e.g. Ublock)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> And Microsoft Edge gets rid of Internet Explorer. IE sucks except for one thing: built-in browser-based RSS support. THat alone is worth keeping it.

<comment><USER7> Edge is IE. It is mostly just a different name with exact same issues.

<comment><USER8> Is it? I thought it was based on Chromium now?

<comment><USER9> It is based on Chromium. From the support article: [https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4501095/download- th...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4501095/download-the-new- microsoft-edge-based-on-chromium)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They are tired of losing the browser wars? They are looking for more anti- trust charges? Using their browser gives them the data to sell?</comment>