Ask HN: Is it wrong to not have a Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on your site? - <AUTHOR>

Our website doesn't have a privacy policy or terms of use pages.
Don't get me wrong, we won't ever share emails, ip addresses of our users or anything. We don't even send newsletters, though it seems like everyone else does, since we consider it cheap spam.
But we don't have it written out on our site anywhere, for a couple reasons.
1. How does one prove the terms that they agreed on in the event of a conflict. Say you have a policy page that randomly changes versions on every visit. It could say either 'We (will|won't) share your email' each time it is loaded. What then? Which version of the document did you agree with.
2. Following the extra comma fiasco, where one company lost millions of dollars because a comma was added in the contract where it shouldn't have been. Why put something on the web which in essence...can only hurt you?
With no terms of service, you are free to do whatever you like (within reason/confines of the law) - adding an extra contract just makes you vulnerable since you are agreeing to things that maybe a great lawyer could find a hole in.
We don't have a ToS or Privacy Policy for those reasons, is that wrong? <comment><USER2> We wrote our own, and in 'plain' language, not in legalese. So far it has not _ever_ come up other than when users violate the 'terms' and are banned.

Feel free to copy bits and pieces:

<http://ww.com/policy.php3>

And keep in mind that a privacy policy only starts to carry real weight when your community feels that a policy is too restrictive or gives you rights that it should not have. A 'reasonable' level of protection of privacy and rights is the sweet spot to aim for.

Too lax and you won't be able to ban users for terms-of-service violations, too restricted and your users will (rightfully) complain.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not directly replying to your question, but maybe you can find something on the link below (if no one will reply with some insight):

<http://searchyc.com/terms+of+use>

Edit: If you have a big community website, a startup/company operating trough the website, you may need a ToS and privacy policy. You can at least "assemble" one like I did back in 2008 with my company, enterprise market. So I got relevant pieces from Google (especially the privacy policy), Yahoo, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk too, etc, and adapted it to my business.

</comment><comment><USER4> " _Don't get me wrong, we won't ever share emails, ip addresses of our users or anything._ "

And I believe you. But if your assets go into a Chapter 7 liquidation, any such intent or formal privacy policy promise goes out the door (or so is my understanding, although we may see some change here someday).

(Or your angel investors might turn out out to be devils, etc., but Chapter 7 is the one risk that nearly impossible to avoid.)

Is there any sign you are losing people due to the lack of a formal privacy policy?

Is there any sign that many people care about the usual impenetrable privacy policies? And how they can be changed without notice?

How many people care that Facebook's motto/MO seems to be the opposite of Googles? Yes, they are big enough there's sometimes a lot of fuss when they do evil, but has it really hurt them?

Personally, I'm looking for a (very possibly implicit) "we won't be jerks and we expect you not to be" social contract. A one liner "we will not share ..." can't hurt, though (I do like to see those), but I'd drop the "never" due to the above control problem that might make it impossible to keep.

</comment><comment><USER5> Automattic has licensed their TOS and Privacy Policy under creative commons. So anyone are free to copy and modify it.

<http://en.wordpress.com/tos/></comment>


Supporting a free language study application? - <AUTHOR>

Wow, all it seems that I do is ask Hacker News for advice.  And this is long, so I apologize in advance.
Anyhow, I've written a web-based language study application that will be in beta for the next month or so.  The application is a vocabulary-list manager that uses adaptive psychological modeling (similar to SuperMemo) to provide for rapid assimilation of new vocabulary, as well as a bunch of built-in dictionary data and NLP magic to manage individual user's study lists, all with a dead-simple workflow.
I use it to retain vocabulary from books that I read in Japanese, as I just need to throw the words I've had to look up, as well as the occasional example sentence, into a big text box, hit 'submit', and the system handles everything for me. I don't need to look up words in a dictionary, or manage a big pile of flashcards.  I don't even need to add examples if I don't want to, because there's a quarter-million of them pre-loaded into the database.
My application also automatically adds new words that appear on language proficiency exams, based on vocabulary that I've already added, and the system is smart enough to provide alternate drill methods for things like kanji, grammar, and so on.  The system is modular, so it can be used for languages other than Japanese; a friend of mine is writing a Chinese language module, and I'm going to write an English module after I finish with the Japanese-specific bits.
I've been studying with this application for just a few weeks now, after taking nearly a year off from studying Japanese, and the results have been fantastic.  A handful of other people have also started using it with similarly positive results, and I can honestly say this is the best study tool I've ever used.
So, here's the problem: I don't want to monetize this application and turn this into a 'product'.  Most of the magic, including all the NLP tools and language data, have been produced by other researchers, and I think it would be a bit hypocritical to make use of their freely-available work, and not be willing to give back to the community.
Having just graduated from school, however, I am far from wealthy, and so it would be nice if the application paid for its own hosting costs.  A lot of data-munching happens on the back-end, so the system will require a dedicated EC2 instance.
I don't want to use ads, because they would just distract people when they're trying to study, and relying on donations from college students doesn't seem like a solid game-plan, either.
So, I was thinking of offering the application on a low-cost subscription basis.  People can try the system out for free for a month or so, and if they feel that it is a useful study aid, pay a small fee (around $20) for a yearly subscription.
Does this sound like a sensible plan, or can anybody offer some other good ideas for covering the hosting costs for an otherwise free application? <comment><USER2> As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with your plan. So, in the absence of anything to say but "go for it!", let me work on your philosophy a little.

When you say:

 _I don't want to monetize this application and turn this into a 'product'._

You're wrong. That's exactly what you want to do. That's exactly what you're planning to do.

There's nothing wrong with that. There's certainly nothing _hypocritical_ about that. Yes, "most of the magic" was built by other people, but that's true of everything we do in life. Most of my professional tools were built by other people. A lot of them are products, but some are open-source projects. Linus Torvalds is a much smarter programmer than I, and he works a lot harder, and (thank god) I get to use his freely-available work without paying him, and then _I get to charge money for doing so_. Because Linus _gave_ it to me for that very purpose! (And I'm very grateful.)

I'm saying this because you sound like someone who is used to thinking of his time as cheap -- and like you can't quite believe that this thing you've built is a "real" product. (Which it is; it sounds more real than 50% of the products on the web.) And I wouldn't want to see you do something silly, like price your product without considering the cost of (e.g.) your time. [1] You need to be paid for the development time you've put in, and for the maintenance time you're going to put in, and for the _opportunity cost_ of keeping this thing alive instead of devoting all of your time to some other project. Otherwise, you will ultimately abandon this project and go do something else -- something that _will_ make a profit for you, and pay you a living wage, and let you go to conferences and take people out on dates.

What I'm trying to say is: Embrace the fact that you're going into business, and take it seriously. [2] Don't undersell yourself or your product, and for god's sake don't price it at cost without paying the system administrator and the management team (i.e. yourself). Remember that it's really easy to lower an asking price and really hard to raise it afterwards. Test the market a little, see what competing products are charging, and go for it!

[1] For all I know $20 a year is _overpriced_ for an app like yours. I don't know what your market is like, or your competition. But consider charging by the month instead and asking $9.99. -- or, at the very least, sell 6 month subscriptions at $29 per. (Think: _semesters_.) Don't make the free trial more than 30 days. Remember the possibility that many of your customers won't be repeat customers: Only a certain number of language students remain language students for years at a time, so it's not as if the cost of acquiring a customer can be amortized over ten years. Speaking of the cost of acquiring customers, don't forget to budget for the Google ads!

[2] If all this going-into-business stuff just sounds like too much trouble for you... don't go into business. Upload the code to Sourceforge or github and get on with your life. There's no shame in that, either. It happens all the time.

<comment><USER3> I was going to say much of what mechanical_fish said. Your project is a real product.

I'll definitely give you $20 if you can effectively teach me Icelandic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You might want to consider lifetime pricing too. The prospect of having to dig out a credit card and make an online payment every month or year is annoying to many, and they'll be much more willing to pay if it's a one-off thing. As mechanical_fish points out, language students often don't study the language for too long - a year or two - so it may even turn out beneficial for you too. Of course this may not work for your specific application, but it's worth a thought.

On a separate note, your app sounds really interesting, especially since I'm learning Japanese too (currently using Anki for vocabulary learning). Also I've been thinking recently about how to apply SuperMemo-style learning to more complex language learning than vocabulary, such as grammatical structures, and it sounds like you're working towards that sort of thing. I'd like to take a look at your app if you're opening it up for more general testing. If you're interested in discussing further, please email me: callosum at gmail etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was thinking of something like yours for a while. But mine is more close to accent training for several different languages. I think you don't need to avoid monetizing the service. Instead, if the stuff is good and easy to use, your contribution by removing heavy flash cards gives users more convenience.

In real life, people help each other as friends. But since we can not help each others as strangers, so we exchange money. When you have money and you really like your service and users, you will put the money into making your service better because now you have resources to hire more people to deal with something that volunteers, users community won't/can't. And you still can have money for yourself to live a good life, and I think they won't mind that and are happy that because you deserve it!

Also, you somewhat underestimate the chance that your learning tool is really better than flashcards and help students learn better. Think about this: there are probably around order of 100 millions kids in the world that need to learn English in schools. Maybe 5 millions of them really want to learn English well for their future careers and they will invest their time and money to learn it well. While your contribution to make 5 millions people have a better time in life. They may just buy a set of flash card for $10 for a semesters and throw them away, meanwhile your service is fun and they learn much faster and better. So in order that your server can handle the traffic, you can just price it as the flash cards and see how people take it.

Begin of edit:

Your product is not Microsoft Windows. You don't force people to use it. You don't bully your competitors. So you should not feel guilty of taking money for your achievement. If you really want someone else to take care of it. Make it open source and see how the world react to it.

End of edit.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the responses. I'll need to talk things over with the other person that has become involved in the project, because even though it's more-or-less my baby, I don't want him to feel that his work is just going to go towards making money for me.

I think mechanical_fish may be right, in that I've been thinking of my time as cheap, which is strikingly uncharacteristic for me. It is true that I've put a shocking amount of time into this, when I could have been doing something to earn an income, so perhaps it isn't so unreasonable to try and get a bit of cash out of the process.

Thanks!

Also, I like the 'semester' and 'lifetime' pricing models. The lifetime subscription model appeals most to me, as most language students seem to fade out after two years. So, if I base my pricing on that assumption, the application should be able to cover its costs, and for those who stick around longer, it'll just be a little reward for their hard work.

callosum: An email is on its way.

queensnake: Unfortunately, while I could write the application itself in Python, the supporting libraries are not readily portable, and neither are the bits of C glue that I've had to write to link everything together. So, AppEngine is out.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, could you write it in Python and host it on Google's AppEngine?</comment>


Naming and shaming the AGW fraudsters - <AUTHOR> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1631#more-1631

<comment><USER2> Worth reading just for the great neologisms and descriptive phrasing (e.g. "green shirts", "The hockey team", "Gaianists")

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a great summing up of how the AGW nonsense went so off-the-rails.</comment>


Cryptocurrency trading site Cryptsy in disarray - <AUTHOR> http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/cryptsy-in-disarray/2014/04/17

<comment><USER2> I used to call Cryptsy the MtGox of dogecoin and I'm not surprised that they are still as bad as they've been since I first used them (early December). As far as I know, none of the issues here are new but perhaps there are even more such cases right now.</comment>


Collective awareness, or the models that we use to understand the world - <AUTHOR> https://www.edge.org/conversation/j_doyne_farmer-collective-awareness <comment><USER2> Summary: "Economic failures cause us serious problems. We need to build simulations of the economy at a much more fine-grained level that take advantage of all the data that computer technologies and the Internet provide us with. "

I would whole heartily agree with this vision however the reason I think this doesnt happen is political. Currently there is always debate about the economic result of policy change (eg. change in minimum wage). If economic outcomes were "known" it would remove the political power of economists.

<comment><USER3> It would also remove a lot of political power of politicians. A large part of of politics is making sure everyone thinks you act in their best interest. But if the outcome of your policies would be known beforehand instead of only appearing years later it would be immedietly obvious who profits and who looses. Of course most politicians have no interest in this.

<comment><USER4> In the end, I expect politicians to try and sabotage public trust in such systems. It'll be easy, as 99% of people woulndn't have enough knowledge to verify the results, or even distinguish them from a clever RNG.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For anyone like me who was interested in how he beat roulette [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Doyne_Farmer#Beating_roul...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Doyne_Farmer#Beating_roulette)

</comment><comment><USER6> OT: Why has this post been near the top with almost no engagement?</comment>


Was that material or fluent design - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/tesla-fatal-crash-lawsuit-florida-door-handle-14556744.php <comment><USER2> Actual title: "Tesla's unique door handles caused man's death in fiery crash, lawsuit says".

"His family is seeking $15,000 in damages."

That's all?</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg AMA on Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102028100357421

<comment><USER2> Why not on reddit?

<comment><USER3> The facebook comments ui is not easy for the reader. wish zack went to reddit too.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which cryptocurrencies are you invested in? (Jan 2018) - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> REQ</comment>


Y Combinator, Should You? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.xobni.com/asmith/archives/15 <comment><USER2> Y Combinator would be the ideal place to meet other people like yourself who is passionate,have energy, and will provide you with feedback, which is a really difficult thing to find. It's like having a constant adrenaline rush.

The chance, the opportunity to work on your passion and project FULL TIME, how cool is that?

Great article adam

</comment><comment><USER3> "On average, Y Combinator will increase your expected outcome by at least 5x. They usually take 2-10% of your stock in exchange. That's a great deal!"

That seems like an optimistic way to phrase the proposition. Sure, they increase the outcome by 5x(+) for the 20%(+) of companies that eventually get sold...as all VC funding hopes to do. Or, I suppose they can increase your outcome by 5x compared to sitting at home...

YC sounds like it can be a fantastic deal, but it can't really be 5-20x better than your other options.

<comment><USER4> Why can't it really be 5-20x better than your other options?

<comment><USER3> If you have an idea and a management team that's good enough to make it with the help of YC, it's hard to believe you couldn't get the funding and make the connections that you need to succeed in another way.

I don't know a whole lot about the success of YC companies, but it looks like Reddit is their big success so far. Reddit sold for a reported 65 million (according to The Google), and they needed relatively little additional funding after the seed money. So let's say YC retained 3% of the company, they make 2 million which is a 100x return on their investment. Wow, I just did the math now...that's pretty impressive.

Update: A new search on The Google (link) suggests that the purchase price may have been much lower. Proponents of the "50-million my ass" school of thought are suggesting 5 million is closer to the mark. At 5 million, YC gets a 10x return on investment which is what all VC money is shooting for among successful (non-broke) companies.

<http://reddit.com/user/bmatkin/>

Larger point, if you're in it to win it you should be able to pull it off with or without YC. Sure YC connections and advice are tremendously valueable...but 5x to 20x better than the other smart VC/angel/seed money out there? No way!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The reasons we are applying are simple:

1) Great people and minds to be around 2) Advice for the crucial first steps 3) Being able to work on our startup full-time without the worry of immediate expenses

Sometimes people's extraneous reasons for being hesitant are unjustified for their means. Good post. Thanks Adam.</comment>


The genetics of politics (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21564191

<comment><USER2> "Now, however, the pendulum is swinging back."

Yes, "now". It's not like books such as the the bell curve were published during the whole period from 1940 to today.

The problem is that when you go back and read those books they are sexist, racist, misogynistic, paternalistic and borderline fascist. So every decade or so you need to pretend academia has unfairly tarred modern research into these topic with the gilt by association from the past.

The unfortunate fact that they just reproduce the least disgusting "findings" of the past with the same methods is just glossed over.

Reading the Bell Curve today you already see all of the above inside it only after 20 years. But I'm sure _this time_ it will be different.

"In 2010 a study published by Dr Fowler and his colleagues implicated a gene known as DRD4 in the development of political affiliation."

Yes, totally different.

<comment><USER3> Which specific claims from The Bell Curve do you disagree with? The most contentious point, regarding racial differences in IQ, has been confirmed many times.

<comment><USER2> It is a 1000+ page book. Many have said more than should have been said about it. My problem with it starts from the premise that IQ measures anything other than the ability to think like the middle class designers of the tests want you to think.

<comment><USER3> The premise is supported by mountains of evidence that IQ (despite being a crude, one-dimensional measure of intelligence) is predictive of intellectual achievements and economic success, in individuals and populations.

<comment><USER2> So long as you don't look too close at the data. From the Flinn effect to the fact that IQ tests predict parenatal incomes mich better than future earnings the best thing you can say about the test is that it measures willingness to to arbitrary meaningless tasks for long periods of time. A very good predictor for success in most office jobs.

<comment><USER4> The Flinn effect has run out of steam. We're starting to creep the other way, as one would predict.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: doing a startup out of your 3rd year bsc project? - <AUTHOR>

im currently on my last year of bsc computer science in the uk, and i was thinking of solving a critical problem for my project, and hopefully making a startup out of it, i thought this would be better because at least its a win:win situation, so even if it deosnt get traction etc, its still my project, so i still pass my degree. what do you guys think <comment><USER2> Are there any legal issues associated with course material being eventually used in a business?

If not, go for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm doing similarly. Find out what IP university has rights to.

<comment><AUTHOR> are you based in america or the uk, what deos IP mean :)) im a bit stupid lol

<comment><USER3> Intellectual property. I'm in Ireland.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Abandon my new corporate job to build my startup? - <AUTHOR>

Over the last few months, a friend and I have been growing a startup. We just graduated college. He's moving back home to continue programming at a company he's been with for years. I chose to move to a neighboring city to take a stable job at a growing, somewhat large (~200 people) internet company.
I just started yesterday and I already feel like this wasn't the right decision. Our plan was to continue working in our free time to grow the site, but I want to dedicate 100% of my time to it, something that my partner is unwilling to do due to overbearing student loan payments and the allure of a near-six figure salary at his job. I fear that we'll both become too busy and worn out from our jobs and lose momentum with our venture.
Are there any people here who have successfully grown a company in their free time, ultimately making their venture full-time? I wonder how many people here are working on their startups part time? <comment><USER2> Your first question is really two questions:

1\. Can you successfully grow a company that you start part-time?

2\. Can you successfully grow a company _while_ you're still part time?

The answer to the first appears to be yes: among others, this describes Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, EBay, Facebook, PlentyOfFish, Bloglines, and Del.icio.us. It almost seems like companies that do this tend to do _better_ than the ons that jump in all the way immediately. The extra time gives you a chance to do the riskiest parts of your startup - market research and prototyping - while still under your employer's umbrella, and it's a test of your commitment. If you're passionate enough to put 4 hrs/day into your startup while still employed, you'll be in much better shape when you're not employed.

The answer to the second question appears to be no: of the list above, EBay is the only one that made enough money to support the founder at his previous salary before he quit his day job. There's just too much that needs to get done at a startup to do it all in your free time.

As for my own story - I spent 9 months working part-time on my startup before going full-time. The immediate effects seem to be that it set us back 9 months, and I have about $30k more startup capital. There're likely 2nd-order effects as well; for example, because of the 9 month delay, my cofounder got accepted to HBS before we launched and quit. OTOH, if this recession turns out to be long and deep, the delay and extra capital may mean the difference between falling down dead in the middle and making it through to the other side. And in the 9 months extra I spent at my job, I got to see my project go from "death march" to "almost done", which is good practice for when your startup starts looking an awful lot like your last employer's product.

I also shared your fear about becoming too busy and worn out from the job to pursue my entrepreneurial dreams, but this fear turned out to be overblown. You don't magically become a different person when you take a corporate job. If your startup is compelling enough to sustain you through the inevitable low points, it'll be your job that suffers (and then you just need to realize that and back out before you get fired).

</comment><comment><USER3> No one can really answer this for you. Can you live without a paycheck? Can your family help pay for your necessities? e.g. you could go dependent under your parents for insurance till you are 25 and unemployed.

Then after that is answered, ask yourself will your idea if delayed by 6-12 months will be executed by someone else?

My Personal experience: I graduated college 7 years ago, I have had a steady job for the past 7 years and was able to save some money. When the startup bug bit me last year, I continued to work a full-time consulting gig while working on my idea. This was a bad move on my part, because I always found myself some how busy, tired, not motivated enough to work the "night-shift". The passion was there but execution was tough to maintain at times. So I finally quit 3 weeks ago and went full-time, while dedicating 100% of my savings to my startup (I don't have that much saved up due to college loans, CC bills, and other obligations). I have enough to run me for 4 - 6 months of not needing a job..after that who knows.

BUT...the past 3 weeks have been AMAZING, working 14 hour days on just my idea is rewarding, less-tiring, fun, exciting, and it NEVER feels like 14 hours!!

So my suggestion, make sure your necessities are covered..quit..and get your idea out the door..the big corporate jobs will always be there in the future...but at least if you find yourself back there you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you tried.

<comment><USER4> do you have a link to what you are working on?

<comment><USER3> We are still building the product, and so I don't want to put the link here - not yet, anyways :) Once we have an alpha or private beta I'll ask for people to help out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sure, people definitely do it even though a lot of folks think it's easier to take the plunge 100%.

I built CrowdVine in the first half of 07 while doing contract jobs on the side. It was definitely hard to manage both at once, but not harder than everything else that came after it. Starting a company is hard, period.

I had slightly different options than you do since I spent six years after college working for other people, paying off debt, and building contacts that I could go to for contract work.

I'm happy I did it this way, because now the company is 100% privately owned and profitable. My major disappointment with working for other people was how much of my work went nowhere, either canceled mid-project, launched and then canceled, launched with to no traction, or launched with great traction and then abandoned. After that I couldn't stomach the idea of someone else in my business.

One thing I think is important if you bootstrap by doing side work is to have a plan for moving completely from one revenue stream to the other with no ramp-up. I did it by building a product that I could build a consulting service around. We launched with break-even revenue for two people. A lot of other people want funding, so your goal would be to build a product that can get you funded. I don't think you want to spend a lot of time with a live product and a full time job (although del.icio.us did it that way).

</comment><comment><USER6> I sold my first product startup that way. It was a part-time effort the whole time-- never made it to FT before we sold.

Part-time is a great way to run an experiment-- if it's a simple one. There are lots of great startups that start as weekend projects-- but obviously if you bite off a HUGE project, part time just won't play.

If you can set aside 1-2 nights a week (and 1 weekend day per week) to crank away for 6 weeks and release something decent, I say stick part-time and give it a whirl. If the project is more complex than that or you can't set aside that time (for you and your partner), then momentum will probably get to be a problem.

But, generally-- fulltime wins.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm one of the people working on my startup part-time. Since my day job has nothing to do with web development, it's a joy for me to spend several hours in the evening doing web dev/design. However, I _am_ painfully aware of the (lack of) speed in my progress; as such, I am looking for a co-founder to make faster progress. If a funding opportunity came up, I'd definitely go full time at it.

<comment><USER8> I'm in a very similar situation. I'm working part-time on a startup that is close to prototype. I'm going alone also, and pondered how I'd ever find a co- founder. I've already found out the hard way a bad co-founder can slow things down, and when you're pulling all the weight, it just kills the whole spirit of the startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some great and inspirational comments here. I hope the original poster realizes that there is simply no wrong/right answer to this question. Everyone is different.

My personal experience, which I would not curse upon my own worst enemy: I am in my late 30's and have a family, mortgage, a mountain of bills, and zero savings. What I did have was the passion, drive, and a incredible knack for shifting debt around via a variety of 0% interest credit card offers.

So in a nutshell I kept my day job, did as much of the grunt work myself (overall architecture, protoypes, server config and setup, performance tuning, etc) and shifted the rest offshore to some developers in Eastern Europe. My typical work week is 70 hours which sounds brutal, but a combination of a 3 hour train commute + a 3G Data Card means I can get a lot of work done instead of watching movies on my ipod. Also, while I can't quite figure out why I haven't flatlined, I still somehow find the time to be a good father and husband, though I barely remember what it was like when I had time to catch up on TV or twitter.

Would I have preferred to go full time? Hell yes. Would it have been easier if I was not bootstrapped and was spending other people's money? Of course. However, all that matters is my service is somewhat established, and while tiny is growing strong. If I can do what I have done in the last 12 months, than anyone can.

</comment><comment><USER10> Whatever you do, start saving money now. I would suggest you continue your full-time job until you have at least 6 months of living expense, more if you don't have a sound revenue model. If you haven't done so already, try to start simplifying your life and your expenses.

</comment><comment><USER11> We built NewsCred part-time for the first six months, but it ended up taking just as much time as my day job so I was effectively working 20 hour days! A couple months ago I took the leap of faith and am now 100% on NewsCred, with absolutely no regrets. Things are taking off and now I'm here to give it my all.

I would say grow it for a bit, but take the jump sooner rather than later. Life is too short to miss out on good opportunities and the fun of starting up.

Good luck - plus you have everyone here to support you. It helps!

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel your pain. Recently, I also graduated from college with a startup side project that just acquired its first customer. The last twelve months I've spent alot of time asking entrepreneurs (including a Silicon Valley VC) about what they thought, and the consensus I've gathered is make your mistakes in the first year or two with a large company rather than sink your own ship. Not sure what your internship experiences have been, but there are many non- technical skills that are valuable to have and can only be acquired through experience.

Of course, alot of this depends on your window of opportunity with this startup venture. Is speed to market and large funding critical to your success? If so, it'll be difficult to get $$$ with a full-time job on the side. On the other hand, if you're pursuing niche customers (([http://www.omnisio.com/startupschool08/david-heinemeier- hans...](http://www.omnisio.com/startupschool08/david-heinemeier-hansson-at- startup-school-08))) and bootstrapping your way to success , having supplemental income can be very handy.

I personally have decided to keep the dayjob for at least a year to build up some cash and learn some of the soft skills needed to be a well-rounded founder. Having less time to work doesn't mean you can't build something meaningful and useful; it just means you need to be more efficient with the time you have.

Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER13> 1\. If your partner is unwilling to do the same, then why should you effectively work for him, for free?

2\. If you can keep up both job and startup, you can afford to be much more picky about how, when, and from whom you take funding, if you choose to do so at all.

3\. Your startup could fail either way. Are you prepared to have no job, no viable startup, and an empty bank account? If you keep your job, you can start working on a new startup idea the very next night or weekend.

</comment><comment><USER14> Just a note, you can defer student loans almost indefinitely by calling the government and explaining why you want to defer - almost any reason is good enough, so I am assuming "I am starting a company" will work.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm starting my business part-time. But then, I work 12 night shifts for 3 days a week as an ER nurse. I have 4 days a weeks to chip away at my business.

I'm also focusing on building a business and not a startup. So, if things go well this fall, I should have some revenue coming in.

My goal is to spend 2-4 solid productive hours a night when I'm not working. And, I can usually achieve it. I figure little by little I'll get it built.

I'm also taking the long view on being an entrepreneur. I'm planning on this being a life-style for me. I'm going to be starting businesses or startups for the next 10-15 years. So, I don't have to get it all done in the next 6 months until my savings runs out.

As to whether you should quit your job or not... How long can you sponge off your parents? :) No, really. How long can you go without having an income before you have to get a job? I'd run with it for as long as I could. But, that's me.

</comment><comment><USER16> Facebook is one example where it was coded in undergrad, took off, and finally the founder switched to full time over the summer.

<comment><USER17> I suppose coming up with something as successful as Facebook would be a nice problem to have, but isn't Facebook's origin a little questionable? Zuckerberg's partners were obviously unable to protect their idea but if kynikos is already working for an internet company there's a potential problem pursuing an area they could be interested in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would first do it part time to hammer out the ideas and to build a prototype. Once you have the vision, run with it and go full time. It's really hard to be successful when you're doing it half-a$$. Really?! What do you have to lose? If you think you are burden with responsibilities now, the future will hold even more responsibilities and constraints. It's better to take risks when you're young and unadulterated. If not now, when?

</comment><comment><USER19> I grew my company while I did IT / Network consulting part time. I found that working part time did not work out, so the next best solution for me was to work 2 weeks and take 2 weeks off - that worked ok.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's no question in my mind that it _very significantly_ increases your chances of succeeding. To me, that means you should do it unless you _can't_ for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yep, get ready to become good friends with coffee.

<comment><USER22> Tea.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks to all for the insights and advice--it's definitely comforting to know I'm not alone!

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm currently in the same situation as the OP.

Here is the point: Working FOR a company will give you money to live by, health insurance, FUNDING... Once you get the company started and start to need to put more and more time into it, then you can quit your main job (or have a spouse/relative support you). In either case you need to eat, and you don't want to end up in a situation where your startup failed (hey it happens) and you are in heavy debt unable to pay it off.

If you like your job, stick with it, if they can teach you something. Really good specially fresh out of school.

Regarding money, from people I know who started businesses, they all say the same thing: It takes time for it to actually start EARNING money, at first you keep investing and investing and investing. Then again they started stores :)</comment>


Hash lookup in Ruby, why is it so fast? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.engineyard.com/2013/hash-lookup-in-ruby-why-is-it-so-fast

<comment><USER2> This isn't unique to Ruby - this is a property of hash tables in general. Hash tables are Data Structures 101 kind of stuff.</comment>


Super-hard metal 'four times tougher than titanium' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36855705 <comment><USER2> The BBC article heavily confuses hardness and toughness. The researchers seem to care about hardness here.

The actual paper ([http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1600319.full](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1600319.full)) is much better and is free.

<comment><USER3> Toughness is a new term for me. From [1]:

 _Hardness is a characteristic of a solid material expressing its resistance to permanent deformation. The Rockwell or Vickers hardness scales are most commonly used in the industrial blade industry.

Toughness on the other hand is the maximum amount of energy a material can absorb before fracturing, which is different than the amount of force that can be applied. Toughness tends to be small for brittle materials, because it is elastic and plastic deformations that allow materials to absorb large amounts of energy._

[1] [http://americancuttingedge.com/hardness-vs- toughness/](http://americancuttingedge.com/hardness-vs-toughness/)

<comment><USER4> Does this mean that plastic is very tough and hard?

Edit: Sorry, not plastic. I meant rubber.

<comment><USER5> No, plastic can be very tough, but is not generally very hard (although there are exceptions to both).

Since plastic can stretch a large amount before breaking it absorbs more energy than a (inverse of tough) object, so it is tough.

Since it is easy to stretch inelastically, it is not hard.

<comment><USER6> Plastics are... plastic. Uggghhhhh.... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_(physics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_\(physics\))

Usually anyway. IIRC, Acrylic is a plastic that shatters instead of deforming. But most plastics (ABS (aka Legos), polypropylene (PP, #5 Plastic), Pete (most bottles), HDPE (aka cutting boards)) all are "plastic", as in having high plasticity.

IIRC, metals are actually more "plastic" (deform more before breaking) than erm... plastics. See iPhone aluminum bending issue for details.

<comment><USER7> I recall that "plastic" was so named because of the material's formability. Thermoplastics soften or liquefy when heated, becoming malleable and can be molded or extruded, retaining shape when cooled. Thermosetting types are products that are cured by heat, UV or chemical reaction, having high plasticity before curing but irreversible rigidity after.

"Plastics" are mostly petrochemical derived organic polymers. Properties of some, like acrylic glazing are relatively hard and brittle, others quite elastic and soft, e.g., foam rubber. Obviously modern life is utterly dependent on these materials which are employed in virtually everything we use from food to space probes.

There are good reasons to believe that production of "plastics" is among the highest and best use of petroleum resources, it's a shame we continue burning it up at a prodigious rate. Trends to find alternative energy sources would have benefit in this respect too.

<comment><USER8> The history of plastics discovery is pretty interesting too.

The first were based on coal tar, starting around 1870-1880 IIRC. Then came bakelite, still used in cookware handles -- it has exceptionally good thermal resistance properties.

Discovery accelerated through the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s, and exploded in the 1930s, with the number of materials about doubling IIRC.

Names started changing too -- from chemical (polypropelene, polyester, polystyrene) to brand (nylon, teflon, orlon).

I've also noted that with both coal and oil, there seems to have been an adoption and technological development cycle in which the first use was to burn the materials, and only later, by some decades, did the chemistry develop for _materials_ based on the substrates. There's probably a lesson here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Link to paper [http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1600319](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/7/e1600319)

Link to PDF of paper [http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/2/7/e1600319...](http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/2/7/e1600319.full.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> "Conventional knee and hip implants have to be replaced after about 10 years due to wear and tear."

this is really amazing to me! you put metallic, designed-to-last object inside an organic blend of tissue and bone and human activity and in 10 years its worn out. So much opportunity in the area!

Along the same lines, interesting how delicate our bodies are in the short term but rather durable in the long term.

<comment><USER11> Your own body basically goes through a skeleton every 7 years, although it's a gradual procedure of course. Your bones are constantly being eaten away, and replaced as part of their maintenance. It's truly amazing, but the secret is definitely, "We can rebuild it" not "Unbreakable".

<comment><USER12> We should adjust our justice systems to this cycle. You can sit in jail for max 7years. After that you are considered a different person. The justice apparatus needs to use that 7 years to form this new person in a way that it can behave according to the outside system.

<comment><USER10> There's something to what you're saying here! - the justice system, and the people involved with it need a real change in mindset.

It isn't that you might be a different physical person after 7 years, but a different person based on the current context!

There was a great invisibilia podcast on the subject : [http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/482836315/the- person...](http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/482836315/the-personality- myth?showDate=2016-06-24)

See also (referenced in podcast) : [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/indiv_pages/mischel/Wa...](http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/indiv_pages/mischel/Walter_Mischel.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Since it's 58% gold by weight, just the raw materials cost is going to be high. I expect for most applications it will be used as a thin coating over titanium or some other material. I wonder if it's a good choice for jewelry. Phase diagram: [http://www.himikatus.ru/art/phase-diagr1/Au- Ti.gif](http://www.himikatus.ru/art/phase-diagr1/Au-Ti.gif)

</comment><comment><USER14> > Titanium is one of the few metals that human bone is able to grow around > firmly, allowing it to be used widely in medicine and dentistry.

How good are we at concentration gradients in alloys? For a replacement joint, say, could the part that the bone bonds to be mostly titanium, and then the bearing portion be this new alloy?

<comment><USER15> Although I've only spent a few weeks in an ortho rotation in med school, I think pretty good. Many implants are coated with silver to help prevent infections. I've never heard of such silver layers ever "peeling off" or somesuch, so it seems the silver/titanium mix is effective.

<comment><USER16> The silver oxidizes and disappears after a while (few weeks?) though, right? (probably by design)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How does one recycle the gold once the patient has deceased?

This has just raised what you can afford when you're paying with an arm and a leg.

<comment><USER17> Thinking about this perhaps the Titanium gold would be a surface layer or coating over Titanium.

No doubt there would be metallurgical issues with this.

Funnily I had a pre-student job in a coatings company using detonation guns to fire tungsten carbide into metals in order to make them tougher. Could a similar treatment be used for Titanium hip replacements?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I bet we'll see this coating golf clubs and tennis rackets (for absolutely no reason) quite soon!

<comment><USER19> Now 30% stronger. Same material as used in aeronautic and surgical field. Military grade!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> After the long discussion in the 'alcohol causes cancer' thread I will admit to being a bit suspicious of science journalism.

<comment><USER21> Just now? :-)

Seriously, science journalism is almost uniformly horrible (as is just about every other type of journalism -- google "Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect").

<comment><USER20> I would disagree with the 'almost uniformly' but I understand your point. I would tend to exempt arstechnica for example.

I feel like most of the issue comes when journalists comment or repurpose journal articles. What seems to get dropped is the background, the context, and the limitations that are often expressed in a nuanced language. In the end, as a scientist, I blame scientists...you created the knowledge, try and take some ownership of it (having been in the situation myself).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> An alloy of gold and titanium? Iron Man anyone?

<comment><USER23> With the bio-compatibility, it'd work better for Wolverine.

<comment><USER16> Well, titanium has a a lot of strength relative to its weight, but I think you might need some kind of tungsten alloy for your budding weapon X program :-)

I have no idea how toxic tungsten is, buy hey, it's Wolverine, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Surely this can't be the firs time someone thinks of making a gold titanium alloy. What did the previous attempts miss?

<comment><USER25> Other mixes of Au/Ti have been made and used. There is plenty of prior research which the paper also cites.

The phase diagram posted in another comment shows that the region in which this particular phase exist is fairly small. Additionally the paper mentions that they had to add a few trace alloying components to stabilize it in that phase. I.e. it takes some effort to get to the point.

And even if you can spot a trend by lining up properties of various alloys on the right diagram, investigating that trend may be out of scope for the research you're currently doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This should eventually be cheaper then gold for jewelry and castable an also it might be weldable or at least be able to braze ?

</comment><comment><USER27> Reardon metal!

</comment><comment><USER28> Finally, someone has found a good use for gold other than ridiculously overpriced a/v cables.

<comment><USER29> And corrosion-resistant contacts of all kinds, and soft and biocompatible and corrosion-resistant tooth fillings, and low-resistance conductors (e.g. for bond wires), and coating glass to get ultra-low-loss mirrors well into the infrared, and measuring electrical charge in electroscopes, and coloring glass deep red, and conductive sheets so thin they are transparent, and in anti- inflammatories for arthritis, and in immunogold labeling, and in making random things conductive and emit lots of secondary electrons so you can easily look at them in an electron microscope...

This is why you're being downvoted. Check Wikipedia before commenting next time.

<comment><USER28> It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Gold has some nice useful properties, but it seems the properties that have mattered most to people throughout the millenia are 1) it has a pleasing color, and 2) it's hard to come by.

<comment><USER29> Probably more important, it's chemically inert (so it doesn't rust away to nothing) and it's easy to assay, at least once you can make _aqua regia_ , an ability which was mastered by the 13th century CE, and possibly by the 14th century BCE. Harappan touchstones have been recovered, and although cupellation can't separate gold from silver, it can certainly separate it from iron, lead, tin, and copper, and we've found cupels with litharge deposits from the 4th millennium BCE.

Cupellation plus touchstones are adequate both to refine electrum and to destructively measure the quantity of gold in the electrum. By Roman times, we were smelting electrum with salt to separate out the gold by chloriding the silver, and the Lydians may have been doing that already by the fifth century BCE, when they started debasing their electrum coins with extra silver.

This sounds kind of stupid, since at this point we're used to being able to purify and quantify all kinds of materials, but in fact these attributes made gold and silver unique among rare elements for centuries.

<comment><USER28> That's cool! I don't know much about chemistry or metallurgy. I can see a connection from making gold for real to alchemy to chemistry. So perhaps gold is partially responsible for creating science? If for no other reason than its a really good motivator.

<comment><USER29> Absolutely! Although it might also be responsible for the pathetic and obsessive secrecy that slowed the progress of alchemy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was a bit frustrated by this title.

<comment><USER31> I'm always interested in feedback about titles because I feel I do them poorly (I'm not OP). What do you find frustrating about the title?

<comment><USER32> Probably that it uses the common definition of toughness an article about metallurgy while metallurgy has a special definition of that word.

<comment><USER33> Even worse, using real metallurgy words, titanium is really strong per volume and doesn't care about high heat and is practically corrosion proof and a couple other weird properties... ironically what its NOT known for is its rather pedestrian hardness and toughness specs. There's a lot of reasons to talk up titanium and they carefully sidestepped around each of them LOL in favor of talking up two things titanium is fairly worthless at (at least worthless at per dollar or whatever).

If you want something tough that can absorb surprising amounts of energy without breaking there are exotic nickel steels that require exotic heat treatment, or maybe some of the military armor plates from the old days (before HEAT rounds forced other criteria as a figure of merit). Maybe a chunk of battleship armor plate or maybe the crankshaft from an old diesel ship engine.

If you want something hard there are some oxidized titanium coatings that are somewhat hard and industrially useful but nothing unusual or worth writing home about. Besides that's cheating because its a titanium containing compound, kinda like saying coal cures scurvy because vit C is merely a peculiar arrangement of carbon atoms much like coal. Industrial diamonds are not going to be replaced by titanium rod anytime soon...

<comment><USER34> It sort of plays to a very simplified layman's understanding of structural metals as following some sort of uni-dimensional good/better/best scale with titanium being on the best end of the spectrum. (And, hence, "titanium" being used in all sorts of product names, such as clothing, which have absolutely to do with metal except insofar as the production equipment has metal parts-- though probably not many titanium ones.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: How to make a blog successful? - <AUTHOR>

I just started a new blog and am wondering what is required to make a blog successful? <comment><USER2> Write blog posts and post them here.</comment>


Finding the genre of a song with Deep Learning - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@juliendespois/finding-the-genre-of-a-song-with-deep-learning-da8f59a61194#.r28dkpg2e <comment><USER2> To the author: Have you tried to use a logarithmic frequency scale in the spectrogram? [1] That representation is closer to the way humans perceive sound, and gives you finer resolution in the lower frequencies. [2] If you want to make your representation even closer to the human's perception, take a look at Google's CARFAC research. [3] Basically, they model the ear. I've prepared a Python utility for converting sound to Neural Activity Pattern (resembles a spectrogram when you plot it) here: [https://github.com/iver56/carfac/tree/master/util](https://github.com/iver56/carfac/tree/master/util)

[1] [https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/feature- requests/176/](https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/feature-requests/176/)

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

[3] [http://research.google.com/pubs/pub37215.html](http://research.google.com/pubs/pub37215.html)

<comment><USER3> I don't think this problem is bound by absolute frequency resolution, the tightest distance between two notes on a typical piano is ~2hz and if you assume a doubling between octaves you're at <90 notes. The temporal changes and relative chord progressions probably give more info.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your insights! I agree that log/mel spectrograms could be even more detailed and effective, and could be used with the SoX patch discussed here [https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/feature- requests/176/](https://sourceforge.net/p/sox/feature-requests/176/).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, I find it incredible that this works. As I understand it, the approach is to do a Fourier transform on a couple seconds of the song to create a 128x128 pixel spectrogram. Each horizontal pixel represents a 20 ms slice in time, and each vertical pixel represents 1/128 of the frequency domain.

Then treating these spectrograms as images, train a neural net to classify them using pre-labelled samples. Then take samples from the unknown songs, and let it classify them. I find it incredible that 2.5 seconds of sound represented as a tiny picture captures information enough for reliable classification, but apparently it does!

<comment><USER5> One reason might be that the mentioned genres are highly formulaic to begin with. The standard rap song contains about 2 bars of unique music stretched out over 3 minutes with slight variations. Same with dubstep and techno. All highly repetitive. Classical music got no drums, so you can detect that. Metal got guitar distortion all over the spectrum. So with these examples the spectral images should have enough distinctive features that can be learned. Why should it be different than with 'normal' pictures? Also it looks like they take four 128x128 guesses per song.

<comment><USER6> If they can write some code that can classify metal into one of its 72 sub- genres then I'll be truly impressed :)

Although I wonder what that would do to the metal scene if their main topic of discussion and contention got completely solved.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha that would be awesome ! I guess we'd need a lot of data, and probably use much more detailed spectrogram (time-wise and frequency-wise).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1\. I wonder how the continuous wavelet transform would compare to the windowed Fourier transform used here. See [1] an python implementation, for example.

2\. The size of frequency analysis blocks seems arbitrary. I wonder if there is a "natural" block size based on a song's tempo, say 1 bar. This would of course require a priori tempo knowledge or a run-time estimate.

[1]: [https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.15.1/reference/generated/...](https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.15.1/reference/generated/scipy.signal.cwt.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> The slice size is indeed quite arbitrary, and knowing the BPM would help, but isn't reliable either (various tempos, rubato for classical etc.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> See also [http://everynoise.com/](http://everynoise.com/) which is a view into how Spotify classifies music.

The creator wrote about it here:

[http://blog.echonest.com/post/52385283599/how-we- understand-...](http://blog.echonest.com/post/52385283599/how-we-understand- music-genres)

and writes a lot about it on their blog:

[http://www.furia.com/page.cgi?terms=noise&type=search](http://www.furia.com/page.cgi?terms=noise&type=search)

Of course those are going in the other direction, not generating the classification from the data, but it's probably one of the best data sets as far as classifying existing music.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the awesome ressources ! :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unless I'm misunderstanding the validation set, I'm skeptical of the ability of this classifier to tag unlabeled tracks, given that it is only being trained and tested on tracks which are already known to belong to one of the few trained genres. I'd be curious to see the performance if you were to additionally test on tracks which are not any of (Hardcore, Dubstep, Electro, Classical, Soundtrack and Rap), with a correct prediction being no tag.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's true that the validation set only contains genres I used for the training. I'll try this out this evening ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Nice approach, and well explained! By the way, Niland is a startup that also does music labeling with the help of deep learning.

Demo available here: [http://demo.niland.io/](http://demo.niland.io/)

For example, it can output Drum Machine: 87%, House: 88%, Female Voice: 55%, Groovy: 93%

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the kind words, I'll take a look !

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> See also Bob Sturm's work on genre classification: [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10844-013-0250-y](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10844-013-0250-y)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's an in-depth analysis of the task ! Thanks for sharing

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's pretty cool, I'd like to use something like this to tell me what genre my own songs are. It's annoying to write a song and then upload it to some service or another and have no idea what genre to pick. :-) My stuff is somewhere in the jazz-influenced singer-songwriter american piano pop realm which is a combination that works for me but it generally feels like I'm selling the song short if I have to pick only one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's a problem I know - I used to make some Electro/Dubstep/Trap music - and I feel people will always disagree with the genre you pick anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good luck convincing musicians that "THAT's your genre"

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, I should have titled the article "How to build an internet music-genre- troll-bot"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hmm, convolution is perfectly good operation to run on wave forms as well. In fact the wikipedia article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution)) shows the operation on functions which would correspond to time-domain wave forms. What is the point of converting everything to pictures and then using 2D convolutions when that step could have been skipped entirely?

Converting to pictures is unnecessary. It makes the processing harder. The pooling should just happen on segments of the wave form instead of the fourier transform (frequency-domain) picture spectrograms.

<comment><USER14> The idea is that the vertical axis of the spectrogram is basically already an hierarchical set of features (in scale/frequency). Then convolutions on that is a lot like how DenseNets combine hierarchical features.

I agree it seems a little jank, but the features are pretty good - and a lot of network architectures / training techniques are most practiced in an image processing context.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your inputs, it's true that we can use convolutions on raw waveform, however the main reason I've used a spectrogram was to work on precomputed relevant features as highd pointed out, instead of running the convolution on lots of data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> i'm not super familiar with deep learning so forgive me if i'm missing some nuance, but what's the purpose of writing/reading to/from images? seems like it would add a ton of processing time. could the CNN not just read from a 50 item array of tuples representing the data from the 20ms slice?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what you mean, but I have chosen to store slices on the disk so that I could still take a look at them, and not store the data only in numpy arrays. That could be optimize for a better processing time!</comment></comment>


What Color Is Your Function? - <AUTHOR> http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your-function/

<comment><USER2> Seems like there are couple things going on here. Accusation that asynchronous implementations in all languages are problematic, with which I don't think anyone would disagree. Suggestion that threads are way better than other asynchronous implementations. I don't agree that makes things better or somehow different. You still have disjointed code. I would add this as a third to Fowler's famous quote about two hard things (cache invalidation and naming things).

<comment><AUTHOR> > Suggestion that threads are way better than other asynchronous > implementations.

I don't think that's true. The author mentions several languages that use different solutions:

* Java uses threads

* Lua and Ruby use cooperative multitasking with coroutines and fibers, respectively

* Go uses goroutines, which are coroutines multiplexed onto threads

There are definitely similarities, but not all are threads. The common element is that each solution involves keeping separate call stacks. (The author mentions this too.)

> You still have disjointed code.

I disagree. In Go, I can write an HTTP server that never uses the "go" keyword, yet it's still concurrent. This is because the net/http package handles the goroutines for me. With Node, I have to use callbacks no matter what.

<comment><USER2> > Java, Lua, Ruby

These are all under the general term threading. You still have to pass messages or set up semaphores to use them. The code is still separated between main and sub/worker/thread.

> Go HTTP server

Every HTTP server lib handles requests in this way.

You cannot write an HTTP client, however, without explicit asynchronous code like callbacks, threads, or what have you.</comment></comment></comment>


Atari Launches Linux Gaming Box Starting at $199 - <AUTHOR> https://www.linux.com/blog/2018/5/atari-launches-linux-gaming-box-starting-199 <comment><USER2> So its a small computer that runs Linux, for $199. Seems like a good deal TBH but low spec for gaming, right?

<comment><USER3> They're intending it as an "atari home console" more than a PC alternative. It happens to work with steam games but it's clear from their marketing that they want the Virtual Console Service to shine.

<comment><USER4> I'm happy with that. There are a ton of classic games that need a consumer audience to ensure companies are invested in preserving them and porting them to future/modern systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ouya take two.

<comment><USER6> I bought an Ouya, from memory it was pretty cheap and I still have the 2 Bluetooth controllers it came with.

It pretty quickly became my media box (XBMC) and did a good job of it too.

Considering how well it sold, I'd consider it a moderate success story.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I think it sold well... and frankly, except the controllers felt a little cheap, and I had to have it on it's side for the controllers to work well. I do wish they'd have setup for a hardware refresh, as the platform used was still seeing some significant gains year over year.

I used it with XBMC/Kodi, and it worked well... Frankly the most transparent emulators for Atari/(S)NES/Sega I've ever used, which was very nice. The media playback at 1080p just wasn't very good, I went back to an HTPC. Currently using an NVidia Shield TV (first in a box experience I've liked enough to keep).

Of course it looks like Android TV platform is being abandoned and the ecosystem isn't great at all. Which is very disappointing to say the least. The Shield has/had a lot of potential and is the first device to work great, have good interoperability with the popular services, and decent options for small scale and personal applications on.

Who knows though, this Atari box could work well, but I'm not ordering now, if they start shipping and last a bit, will buy then. I've paid the early adopter price one too many times now.</comment></comment></comment>


Most Powerful GPU Ever Is Out Now - <AUTHOR> http://polygonsandgadgets.com/powerful-gpu-ever-now-costs-3000 <comment><USER2> With the 5120 CUDA cores is this going to be the go to card for mining cryptocurrncies? I wonder how much it would increase performance and in turn how long it would take to recoup such a hefty pricetag.

Thanks for the link.

</comment><comment><USER3> Silly title!

</comment><comment><USER4> Good update! Suppose Tesla will use this one.</comment>


Official Google Enterprise Blog: Disaster Recovery by Google - <AUTHOR> http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/03/disaster-recovery-by-google.html# <comment><USER2> There's still not a way to recover from user errors like accidental deletion, which is a much more regular recovery activity where I work. And I don't know what he's talking about with "everything after that point is lost" -- if our mail stores went kaput, we'd still be able to queue mail for delivery when the stores come back online.

<comment><USER3> My grandma deleted all of the emails from her gmail account because she thought that they were kept on the hard drive and she was getting a new computer. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > To backup 25GB of data with synchronous replication a business may easily > pay from $150 to $500+ in storage and maintenance costs- and that's per > employee.

Per year? Per month? Dollar numbers for maintenance, without a time period, have no meaning.

<comment><USER5> Um. No, that's likely per month. I work for an online backup provider; the industry price is up to about $5 per gigabyte month. I don't know our price list, but I'm also comfortable saying that rate based on looking for an online backup provider myself.</comment></comment>


The Satoshi Nakamoto Email Hacker Says He's Negotiating with the Bitcoin Founder - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-satoshi-nakamoto-email-hacker-says-hes-negotiating-with-the-bitcoin-founder <comment><USER2> I had a GMX account years ago that was hacked and my password was pretty hard. (I generate my passwords with Keypass)

I suspect that this is not Satoshis fault, but that GMX security is really bad.

<comment><USER3> Just checked out their recover password page. Just date or birth and one security question are needed. So if you already know a person, pretty easy to hack their accounts.

<comment><USER4> And this is another perfect example to fill in random bits of information upon signup and keep that in your password manager along your real password.

Inclusive a fake birthday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there any proof that any of this is real?

Since we don't know who Satoshi Nakamoto is, there is no way to prove whether identity theft occurred to this person.

Whoever has control of certain accounts _is_ , for all intents and purposes, Satoshi Nakamoto.

Someone who jumps up and down claiming that _he_ is the real Satoshi who has been locked out from those accounts and subject to extortion could be the real one, or could be a liar.

There is no way to know whether the incident took place at all, or if it did take place, which of the two people are the real one.

It could be a complete hoax perpetrated by a single person, or two people, any of whom may or may not be Satoshi Nakamoto. The real Satoshi Nakamoto could also be a group of people to begin with. Or a very clever dog.

<comment><USER6> The sourceforge "vandalism" was widely reported enough that while it was "reverted" prior to me seeing it live, it seems to have happened... but everything else I've seen since (which could very well not be everything... I haven't been following super closely) requires me to believe in either easily faked screenshots (the article this discussion links to mentions possible photoshopping, but it is even easier than that to just use developer tools to modify the number of total emails a site is displaying prior to screen- capturing) or 3rd party reports with no details (eg. the Peter Todd tweet where he says he got a forwarded 2011 email but doesn't really go into specifics).

So my belief is there was some kind of incident here, but it is impossible to determine exactly what the scope of it was compared to the high likelihood of a lot of follow-up trolling.

<comment><USER7> I saw the sourceforge vandalism right after it happened.

Gregory Maxwell confirmed in irc he received multiple emails from satoshi's address. You can see that in #bitcoin-dev IRC logs online. [0]

As for the rest of it... That is a whole bunch of hearsay.

Edit: [0]: [http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin- dev/logs/2014/09/09](http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2014/09/09)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I gain access to such an account, I change the password to something that no one will ever break. Maybe besides the rightful owner by some account recovery mechanism I am unable to disable. But multiple people having access seems a very unlikely scenario to me. Why would you share the credentials (and risk getting locked out yourself)?

<comment><USER9> This suggests that they gained access by some mechanism other than having the legit password.

<comment><USER8> In this case GMX would have to have a huge security hole that is not widely known, otherwise mass exploitation would probably quickly trigger alarms. Not impossible but seems also unlikely to me because it must be known to at least a couple of people and I would imagine that the knowledge about such a security hole would spread quite quickly once more than a handful of people know about it. And an inside job by several different people at more or less the same point in time seems unlikely, too. So the most likely scenario to me is still that only a single person broke the password and the multiple-people- have-access-story is just FUD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think we've passed the point where even if the original Satoshi steps forward with a PGP signed autobiography nobody will believe it's really him. We like our legends I guess.

<comment><USER11> > _even if the original Satoshi steps forward ... nobody will believe it 's > really him_

I beg to differ. If the real Satoshi actually _wanted_ to identify himself, he'd have no trouble convincing us beyond a reasonable doubt even without his original keys.

This situation is not like trying to decide if you believe a person who says he bought the winning lottery ticket for cash but then lost it.

This situation is more like trying to decide if you believe a person who says he's a thoracic surgeon who's an expert in US Constitutional law, speaks Finnish, and can do somersaults while skiing. Ask him to explain in Finnish how to do laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.

Just look at all the things that Satoshi has to answer correctly:

\- expert level C++ programmer

\- fluent English, excellent grammar

\- deep knowledge of cryptography

\- extensive knowledge of mathematics (maybe not a PhD, but he's no slouch)

\- totally intimate with the original Bitcoin code

\- familiar with all the history of Bitcoin (at least the history pre-2010)

\- plausible explanations for all his actions

\- etc.

We're talking about about a miniscule fraction of the world's population that could convincingly fake all of this knowledge and ability -- maybe a few hundred people at most on the entire Earth.

Suppose Bruce Schneier claimed to be Satoshi, then you could look at other things in Bruce background to rebuff it. (Example: Bruce was on a commercial airplane flying over the Atlantic when one of the Satoshi emails was sent.)

<comment><USER12> Suppose Bruce Schneier kicked off an email with a cron-job in order to throw you off his trail?

<comment><USER13> Why would Bruce Schneier do that? He can just change the headers for each recipient _after_delivery_.

<comment><USER14> Schneier actually wrote bitcoin by piping /dev/random to a file of appropriate length, then decrypting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> GMX has pretty bad security policies, so it's not that surprising to me that someone got access. Last I checked they didn't even require HTTPS.

<comment><USER16> To be fair, very few email providers required SSL before Snowden.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What a degenerate display of "hacking." Some man (or a group, whatever) gives the Internet something remarkable and a bit historic, but wishes to remain anonymous.

So instead of respecting that wish we have people like this, also wishing to remain anonymous, attempting to hunt this man to shake him down for payment using that man's own creation!

That's closer to repugnance than to irony in my book.

<comment><USER18> The repugnant thing is that there are a lot of things that are best kept secret, but there is a "hacker ethos" (yeah, not followed by all hackers) to disclose everything. Or at least everything about the other guy. Often enough, privacy really is the main consideration in deciding what to disclose and what not to disclose. Sometimes keeping secrets is beneficial for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've always thought that most people "in the know" know that Nick Szabo (well the guy going under that name) had something to do with bitcoin in it's early days. If you read his blog from 1999 onward, I think you will come to the same conclusion. I think the whole "who is Satoshi Nakamoto" legend really masks a lot of the facts

</comment><comment><USER20> Assuming what's in the article is true, I suppose it's only a matter of time before a torrent of the mailbox shows up. I have to admit that if I had access to that account, I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to clone it via POP3/IMAP – it seems strange that if "multiple people" have access to it none of them have done this.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you really found the identity of Satoshi, wouldn't it make far more sense to contact him privately and blackmail him? He's got, what, one and a half million bitcoins?

<comment><USER22> When you are dealing with someone who potentially has access to hundreds of millions of dollars. Blackmailing then in public might be a way of protecting yourself from having an "accident".

<comment><USER21> There are ways to anonymously contact someone. Buy a prepaid cell phone. Hire a lawyer under an assumed name. Send a letter, but put a fake return address.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It no longer really matters who Satoshi is. He doesn't participate in Bitcoin development. He isn't that wealthy, yet at least.

Nor his character assassination can affect Bitcoin much, while it could a few years ago. He was pretty smart staying anonymous, he realized he would be targeted and smeared.

<comment><USER24> He's potentially worth a _lot_ of money and could have a heavy hand in swaying the bitcoin market for the worse if he wanted to.... or if someone else was somehow able to force his hand

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> As the article states, if this person had really wanted to profit, a far easier method would have been to use Satoshi's identity to manipulate the price of Bitcoin. Either he didn't, in fact, realize that opportunity (despite his claims), or he has other motives besides simply profiting from the hack. (Or something more complicated is going on.)

<comment><USER26> To "use Satoshi's identity" would require his pgp key (at a minimum).

<comment><USER7> Except when people want to believe something or have fear (of losing mass amounts of money) of something, they tend to act irrationally.

He wouldn't be able to convince myself of his identity without one of his private keys, but there are thousands of people who would have latched on, and then once those people start confirming the story it only convinces more people and so on, in a snowball effect.

<comment><USER25> And even if _you_ don't believe it, you still might sell your BTC, fearing that others will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Skype? Sounds strange to me.

<comment><USER28> Emails started bouncing to the account around 05:00 GMT last night, it's likely that was one of the only ways the attacker could maintain communication.

<comment><USER29> _05:00 GMT last night_

:-?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So it's the same guy who tried to extort Roger Ver?

</comment><comment><USER31> why does that story matter ?

what is that "hitman" threat ?

</comment><comment><USER32> dude could make way more money sending fake emails from the account as satoshi, creating a scandal and profiting.

</comment><comment><USER33> if you work in the cardreaderfactory.com you can search for old receipts of 420$ and check the contact info ...

<comment><USER34> The bill is a hoax. It took me 5 seconds in Photoshop to find the name is Anthony Geary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> if this comes out would it prove that no government agency was behind the creation of bitcoin?

<comment><USER36> How could a hypothetical revealed Satoshi Nakamoto prove he wasn't working on behalf of some government agency or other?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why do I get the feeling that even if this guy gets what he wants, in the long run he'll end up getting what he deserves?

</comment><comment><USER38> Do we know for sure that Satoshi actually had a GMX account?

<comment> UVB-76 The email address in question is the one mentioned in the original Bitcoin paper [1]

[1] [https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The thing is do you really want to play with fire??? Before the end of next week its very likely this story is going to have a tragic ending.</comment>


My 5-minute quantum computing talk at the White House - <AUTHOR> http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2943 <comment><USER2> > I like to say that a fast classical factoring algorithm might collapse the > world's electronic commerce, but as far as we know, it wouldn't collapse the > polynomial hierarchy!

This is my favourite quote because it sums up pretty nicely the most common misconceptions people have about factorization, crypto and quantum computing. Of course the first part is hyperbole, but still put very nicely.

</comment><comment><USER3> I liked the '10 second' explanation on what quantum computing is that Scott gave some time ago, a propos the Justin Trudeau incident [0]. And here's other experts' '35 seconds' versions besides Trudeau's [1].

[0] [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2694](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2694)

"I say something about how a QC is a proposed device that would solve certain specific problems much faster than we know how to solve them today, by taking advantage of quantum mechanics, which generalizes the laws of classical probability.

Then I talk about how you'd never talk about a -20% chance of rain tomorrow, but quantum mechanics is based on numbers called amplitudes, which can be positive or negative or even complex numbers.

And how, if an event can happen one way with a positive amplitude and another way with a negative amplitude, the two possibilities can "interfere destructively" and cancel each other out, so that the event never happens at all. And how the state of a QC with (say) 1000 bits would have one amplitude for each of 21000 possible settings of the bits—an astronomical amount of information, if one wanted to write it down classically, for example in order to simulate what the QC was doing classically.

But about how, when you measure the QC's state, you just see a single random output (with its probability determined by its amplitude), not the gargantuan list of possibilities. And about how the goal, in QC, is always to choreograph things so that the possible paths leading to each wrong answer interfere destructively and cancel each other out, (say) some having positive amplitudes and others negative, whereas the paths leading to right answer reinforce.

And how this is a very weird and specialized capability—it's not nearly as simple as "trying all the answers in parallel" (if you did that, you'd simply observe a random answer), nor is it just a smaller or faster version of ordinary computing (a QC might even be "bigger" or "slower" than an ordinary one; all the hoped-for advantage comes from the QC's ability to create interference patterns).

Finally I talk about how a QC is known to give huge advantages over any known classical algorithm for a few tasks of practical importance (quantum simulation, breaking almost all the crypto used today…), and it might also give some advantages for broader goals like optimization and machine learning, but that's an active research topic, and if the advantages exist they'll probably be more modest and/or specialized."

[1] [http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/trudeau-versus-the- ex...](http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/trudeau-versus-the-experts- quantum-computing-in-35-seconds/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Possibly the best place to see massive spin in action.

<comment><USER5> I see what you did there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have Idea. But... who cares :)

</comment><comment><USER7> "I like to say that for me, the #1 application of quantum computing—more than codebreaking, machine learning, or even quantum simulation—is just disproving the people who say quantum computing is impossible! So, quantum supremacy targets that application."

\facepalm

<comment><USER8> Could you elaborate on why you dislike this quote? Maybe there is some context missing: for a lot of researchers quantum computing is interesting because of how its existence informs fundamental questions in physics and math like the Church-Turing thesis. For those people the code breaking application are indeed pretty boring, just like internal combustion engines can be boring for people working on statistical physics and thermodynamics.

<comment><USER9> Well, it's not really an application, is it? It seems like a fancy way of saying, "the stuff I'm working on isn't good for anything - it's just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity". Which is fine as far as it goes, but not exactly inspiring.

<comment><USER8> I would say for me it is the applications that are boring, not the fundamentals behind them.

For a lot of people fundamental laws of nature are deeply inspiring, tangentially because of a belief that those fundamental laws and their deeper understanding bear fruit beyond our wildest imagination. Compared to this it is easy to see how today's applications are just boring.

Sure, today's technology was yesterday's research project, but you can not fault people for being excited more about current research than about applications of yesterday's research.

PS: However I agree that the quoted statement was poorly phrased to convey this sentiment. From what I know about the speaker I am fairly confident that this is what he was trying to say.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Social Networking an app for self-motivation (through shame)? - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/06/26/internet-connected-scale-shares-your-shame-with-the-world/ <comment><USER2> I don't find negative emotions to be a good source of motivation. They can work in the (very) short term. But they do not build a positive momentum.

To remain motivated over the long term, I need the reinforcement of positive emotions. Each step becomes a victory of sorts that encourages me to go further. Setbacks become problems to be solved, instead of internalized self- judgment and low self-worth.

If something produces negative emotions, I will begin to avoid it wherever and whenever I can. If something produces positive emotions, I'll seek out more of it.

I can feel awful about myself but complete a paper at the last minute in order to avoid failing a class (i.e. a very negative outcome). A string of such events does not add up to an academic career.

I can do this shit assignment to avoid losing my job, associated health care benefits, etc. It's not going to turn me into the "go getter" who advances at this company. If I do shit work all the time, with a big grin on my face in order to suck up to management, well, past a certain point I think that starts to become pathological.</comment>