How a 16-yo Kid Made His First Million Dollars - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5612145/

<comment><USER2> Makes all of us look a little silly trying so hard, doesn't it

</comment><comment><USER3> When I hear "made his first million dollars" in my mind that implies profit rather than revenue - is that just me?

</comment><comment><USER4> Did he code Branchr, too? Or hire others to do it for him?

<comment><USER5> Could be a directtrack skin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dear Andrew Warner, please interview this guy. Thanks!

<comment><USER7> Looks like he did: <http://twitter.com/AndrewWarner/status/21084757625></comment></comment>


Ask HN: We should do something about Python, but what exactly? - <AUTHOR>

Following my tweet: https://twitter.com/vince_prignano/status/436022056967479296
I love Python. I love the Python Community, but there is a problem and you know its name: 3.
I was on a train the other day directed to my University, I was reading a book about Algorithms and Data Structure. I met this guy that was in his first year and asked me what programming language he should learn next: Python. I introduced Python to him, how to get started etc.
One thing I did not say: use Python 2.7.
It really didn't came up in my mind, it's natural to me when talking of Python referring to 2.7; it's like Python 3 does not exists.
This problem is not newm Alex Gaynor posted about it in December (http://alexgaynor.net/2013/dec/30/about-python-3/) and nothing was done.
It's going to be a mess.
So I am asking, what can we REALLY do to save Python? <comment><USER2> I tried Python 3 recently. I honestly can't see that much difference. I had to alter print statements to print functions, and change "Exception , e" to "Exception as e". To be honest I couldn't see what the fuss was about.

Now, the real problem was libraries. 90% of the libraries I wanted to use had been ported to Python3 , but there were two or three that hadn't. That basically put me back to Python 2.7. (From a comment on here apparently one of the said libraries now has been converted).

So I guess if you wanted to be proactive you could look at some popular libraries that haven't been ported to Python 3 and start writing.

<comment><USER3> I look at it this way, too. The brutal approach has been chosen, we can argue about it's effectiveness or individual choices, but the only way we could make it worse would be to start all over again, this long in the game.

There is nothing special about legacy software not functional under the most recent version. Ask the java folks in big enterprises. I highly prefer this approach with a strong focus on a clean API than the other way around.

We should stop arguing about wrong choices and start start losing graciously [0] and fix the missing pieces.

[0] [http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316](http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316)

<comment><USER4> Absolutely this - lose gracefully and start helping fix the remaining problems

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't really get what your on about here. You are talking about loving python and that python 3 is a problem without actually listing what your problems are with it (have you used python 3.3 (its good)).

Is it that adoption is slow? Lets take PHP for example they have exactly the same problem PHP 5.3 is still massively used though 5.5 is out.

I am a python developer (currently using 2.7 but we are in the process of refactoring ready to port to python3). I have started porting personal projects as well.

The main reason python3 uptake has been slow is two main reasons. Existing projects are python 2 and until recently the default versions on operating systems have been python 2.7.

A large number of open source projects are more than happy to run on python 3 and 2.7.

So my question to you is what is really the issue you have with python 3?

So to answer you last question what can be done to save python?

Nothing it doesn't need saving it needs education and a community who don't go around python 3 == bad; because its really not.

People need to take a look at there projects and simply port them so they are python3 compatible.

</comment><comment><USER6> Add back the features that were removed with Python 3 (mostly the print statement, maybe some library features?). Then let the user choose what str and unicode mean. Either via command-line flag, modeline for the file (similar to "#coding: utf8"), or via something like:

        bytes = strings.bytestr
        str = strings.unicode

Why? Not because I miss the print statement much. The goal is that 95% of 2.x legacy code will now work with the new Python 3.x+. (I'd call it Python 5 because 2+3=5.)

<comment><USER7> We don't need another bridge between Python 2 and Python 3. That's Python 2.7's raison d'etre.

<comment><USER6> No, not a bridge. Add back the removed features to mainline python.

I want to just install the latest interpreter from python.com or my OS repositories like I used to, and run all the scripts I created at work over the years. Right now I have to switch between multiple python versions for different programs, and I can't combine their code, because some of it requires a certain version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's preventing me moving to python 3 is that I'm using Flask, and it makes it pretty clear that you probably shouldn't be running Python 3 unless you have some special reason.

</comment><comment><USER9> your post actually made me think about it. I have been ignoring python 3 for years now, doing like it doesn't even exist.

So yesterday I finally installed it, and ran my latest pet project with it. Turns out, I still feel like home, the change is not THAT different.

And I will keep going with Python 3 whenever I can.

The really annoying part is for already existing stuff. I will have to know which script to run with which version of Python . . .</comment>


How Liquidation Preferences Work - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-liquidation-preferences-work-2014-3

<comment><USER2> A few comments:

1\. The scenarios illustrated in the piece seem horrible but are biased. Consider this: a VC invests $20 million in a business and acquires 50% of it, valuing it at $40 million post-money. Assume the remaining 50% is owned by founders/key employees. Five years down the line, the company hasn't done so well and is sold for $10 million. Without a liquidation preference, the founders and key employees get $5 million: a decent payout for losing $15 million of investor money.

2\. Fred Wilson repeatedly makes the point that when VCs invest in a company at a valuation of $X million, they are not valuing the outstanding stock of the company at $X million the same way a public market would. Instead, what they are doing is buying a bond + an option. The liquidation preference is the bond part of the equation: the investors are betting that the company is worth at least its liquidation preference (which, at 1X, is the amount they invested). The upside that the company might have if it succeeds is the (deeply out of the money) option.

3\. Today, 1X liquidation preferences are standard and widespread, and entrepreneurs have it good. If you want your eyes to water, go read/ask about liquidation preferences in term sheets after the dot-com crash ;)

<comment><USER3> I find your points unconvincing. If a VC is uncomfortable with betting on a startup, maybe he should find another line of work. About your second point: I'm not sure what argument you are making. Yes, of course the VC would like a guarantee. Maybe he would find it easier to sleep at night if he were a loan officer at a bank instead.

VCs are betting money. The founders and early employees are betting their time and foregoing other opportunities. If the thing blows up, the VC gets his investment back. The founders/employees can't recover any part of their investment. I still don't get why a liquidation preference is fair. The VCs are imposing it because they can. Any justification based on fairness is laughable to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3>
      Imagine a VC that buys 50% of a company for $50 million,
      for a $100 million post-money valuation. If that company
      then sells for $75 million, the VC gets more than 50% of
      the $75 million. The VC gets his or her $50 million out
      first, and then half of the remaining $25 million ($12.5
      million) for a total return of $62.5 million. The common
      stock holders split the remaining $12.5 million.

      That's a 1X liquidation preference. ...

      A 1X liquidation preference isn't unfair. The people who
      bring the capital should have some protection.

I was at a startup in the late 90s and discovered liquidation preferences. I agitated to get them dropped from the B round, succeeded, and the VCs then scrapped them. Which saved me from exactly this fate.

I don't agree that even a 1X liquidation preference is "fair". VCs are taking a risk, that is supposedly their business model. Reducing risk on the backs of the people sacrificing their personal lives doesn't strike me as fair at all.</comment>


John Carmack: iPhone development - <AUTHOR> http://www.idsoftware.com/wolfenstein3dclassic/wolfdevelopment.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> thank @stephth for this link ~ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2975013></comment>


Go/types, the Go type checker: a tutorial - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/golang/example/tree/master/gotypes <comment><USER2> if you want to see the type checker in action see this short tutorial on go analyze:

[https://golang.org/lib/godoc/analysis/help.html](https://golang.org/lib/godoc/analysis/help.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Really great package, I depend on it heavily for my codegen package. [https://github.com/clipperhouse/gen](https://github.com/clipperhouse/gen)

</comment><comment><USER4> A great introduction for the go/* subpackages.</comment>


Ask HN: What business domain needs SMS/USSD based UI the most? - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN,
Last few years I have been developing SMS (binary SMS)-as-a-Service applications, in python and java eco stack, where I've learned the internals of SMS (3GPP TS 23.040) and SIM cards security(3GPP TS 23.048).
Now I've allocated 30% of my work week to work on something new, something challenging on my own by mixing this hard earned knowledge with other different domain. According to technology radar 2013 (http://www.thoughtworks.com/radar), there is a need for SMS/USSD UI for applications. Problem is that its very hard to choose a domain where I can apply SMS/SIM knowledge.
I need a different perspective from you guys. Please do share your different views of applying it. Maybe I could find a business co-founder here. (Currently I live and work in Norway/Trondheim) <comment><USER2> -banking is probably the best shot. (check balance/transfer/pay/etc) -business applications (booking leave/expenses in a consulting environment where the USSD message ends up in an SAP backend.) -business applications (project management. dynamic task for the day & then quality control) -consulting (find these guys [http://www.groupsystems.com/](http://www.groupsystems.com/) and integrate into them so you can increase remote usage of the vote systems) -it operations (remote triggers for starting/ending jobs on servers)

when you build the app on the SIM, are you able to store more data on the SIM so that when USSD messages are sent, they are send encoded & then decrypted on the device rather then sent plain over the air? - tons of banking/payment applications here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bank sector and USSD are good combination, but banking sector doesn't interest me. Thanks for the input.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Two-factor authentication using USSD. I've integrated a system like that with OpenLDAP. When you attempt to authenticate, a code gets displayed on your cellphone screen. You could also prompt the user to enter a code, etc. From what I gather it is cheaper to use than SMS, and there's no trace on the phone after the modal dialog is dismissed. Also - works with every handset.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this looks interesting. thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two key points, IMHO, for a service to be fit for a SMS UI:

* Interaction sparsely needed.

* Usage where Internet access is either way too unreliable, and/or expensive (roaming? maybe offering different international numbers?)

Offtopic: Wait, Trondheim? Heihei, nabo :). Gløshaugen is killing me with exams, but let's have a beer some time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello nabo :), definitely we should have some beer. My contact email is in profile.</comment></comment>


Scientists unveil a giant leap for anti-aging - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170323141340.htm <comment><USER2> Hope this time the encouraging development does not end like Sirtris Pharmaceuticals story. Wishing Dr Sinclair in the ground breaking research he is doing. Question - will big pharma be really interested in anti-aging?</comment>


If you could give a book to your younger self, what would it be? - <AUTHOR> If you could travel back in time and give a book to your younger self, what book (and what age) would you choose? <comment><USER3> Probably How to Win Friends and influence people. I could have done with being nicer to people much earlier in my life, probably around 12 or so.

I'm surprised by the number of tech books on this list, I found I had an appetite for finding them myself pretty much when I was ready for each of them.

<comment><USER4> When I was about 17 I was told, in no uncertain terms and by someone I respected: "You _really_ need to learn how to get along with people."

I took that at face value, and tried to find a manual for how to interact positively with others, and I found H2WF&IP.

I treated it like a text book, and it changed my life completely. I was happier, more able to be sociable, and I _could_ get along with people.

Now, after a further 30 or more years, I can still see the book's influence as I negotiate deals, manage employees, broker agreements, and generally "do stuff."

It's now out-of-date, but if you can make the effort to read it in the context it was written, and to ignore the obvious anachronisms, it's still valuable. The more recent versions try to be more up-to-date, but they lose something as far as I can tell, and I return to the original.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> An obvious technical one: _The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_. That might have saved me a lot of time to read in early adolescence. (Or maybe it was better to have to figure things out in my own half-assed way. Time travel is tricky.)

But something like Francis Bacon's _Essays_ might be more important. Seeing that lively and methodical a mind right at the horizon of easy readability would have been a powerful clue about how people think and how far afield it's useful to look for interesting things.

</comment><comment><USER6> Any math books would have been nice. Shame to discover math now, when I'm in college. I overestimated the complexity of college math; there was a lot of handwaving in highschool about how demanding college will be, turns out it was all bull, all it served to do was discourage me from learning something. My own fault for listening, even half-heartedly, to high school people.

</comment><comment><USER7> I know it's a lame choice, given that we're on HN, but it's true: I'd give Paul Graham's startup essays to myself 10 years ago (5 years early).

I had already started small businesses and knew I wanted to do a web software company, but I just didn't have a mental framework to work from.

Paul Graham's startup essays (and later many other sources) gave me an idea of how to go about making a startup work.

</comment><comment><USER8> \+ Hacker Ethic by Steven Levy

\+ Masters of Doom by David Kushner

\+ The Millionaire Mind by Dr. Thomas Stanley

\+ The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham

\+ The Essays of Warren Buffet by Lawrence Cunningham

\+ Buffet by Roger Lowenstein

\+ The Knack by Norm Brodsky

\+ Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar by Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein

\+ The Return of the Great Depression by Vox Day

\+ Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

\+ Road to Serfdom by Hayek

\+ Iacocca:An Autobiography by Lee Iacocca

</comment><comment><USER9> There is no single book which adequately describes my thinking. Rather, I would encourage him to read more in general, whatever he was curious about. Only through understanding a wide variety of classics and perspectives does one become educated. There were quite a few years where I did not read much at all, and I regret that, because I'm stupider for it.

I would also give him the practical limitations of only trying to read one book at a time, to take his time with it, and to start a new one not long after finishing. Then again, I'm not sure I should mess with the space-time continuum.

</comment><comment><USER10> K&R. I discovered the book at age 17 by myself but that was the book I really wanted when I was 12. Not just because it teaches C -- it teaches the core of the systems programming and design experience. If you're interested in systems development I can't recommend K&R enough. You haven't really been taught C until you've been forced to implement malloc in C.

</comment><comment><USER11> "A Transition to Advanced Mathematics" (0-534-38214-2) at the end of my 6th grade school year, just as summer was starting.

I would give this book to myself because it's a bridge between finishing the final class in high school math and learning how to read proofs on arXiv. The world would be a better place today if I'd known how to manipulate mathematical proofs a decade ago.

During fourth grade and fifth grade, i walked across the street to the other school for my math classes. To this day, people i never knew recognize me on sight as "that kid from math class". When sixth grade ended at age 12, the school ran out of math to teach me (at pre-calculus). I was offered a choice: bus to the high school miles away for math classes, or take music instead. I worried that the bus would ostracize me further from my peers. I would be someone else today if i had chosen the bus. Fluent in math, certainly!

In the years since, I've harbored a desire for a textbook that will teach advanced mathematics to someone with my experience. I've had this dream of understanding how to consider and construct equations with Hilbert spaces. I know it sounds arcane and weird, but it's just a few steps away from cosines and bitwise operators. You can reach into an equation and "flip" things over into this weird space with dimensionality that is not constant, enabling solutions that cannot be had simply from high school algebra alone.

Two months ago, while surfing a used bookstore's Math section, I came across a textbook with the singularly direct title "A Transition To Advanced Mathematics". It is amazing. I am reading sections, doing the exercises, checking against the teacher's guide, redoing until I get a right answer or at least "get it". So far, I can handle one section a week, which means I will complete the book in 39 weeks. (Coincidentally, 39 weeks is precisely 75% of a year, just like American school years.)

</comment><comment><USER12> Probably "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl... Although I'm not sure that the book will have the same impact without the accompanying life events.

So short of that, i'd give my 16 year old self the missing pages from the Dabs C book which I spent far too long trying to figure out!

</comment><comment><USER7> Stock Trader's Almanac 2010

</comment><comment><USER13> I think I read Paul Graham's essays when I was 18. I can't imagine diving into startup world any earlier than that. After all, had to enjoy my teen life!

Any way, if I really must, I would have given back 'Founders at Work' to my 18 self. I only got to read it once I was 21.

</comment><comment><USER14> If I could travel back in time (and felt justified in changing the past/future) I would give myself The Hacker Ethic ( [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Hacker_Et...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Hacker_Ethic) ), Python by Chris Fehily ( <http://www.amazon.com/Python-Chris- Fehily/dp/0201748843> ), and Free Software Free Society ( <http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/> ). If I could only give one book, I'd choose FSFS

Age doesn't matter. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Looking behind me at the two huge overflowing bookcases, I would have sent myself a blank journal with the following note on the first page:

1) Read less, code more.

2) Major in math, minor in comp sci.

3) Every time you learn something, write it in this book.

</comment><comment><USER16> My younger self wouldn't have been interested in the books that interest me now. Instead I'd have to settle for some good fiction.

Going back in time to around 12-16, I'd send one of:

* Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

* 1984 - George Orwell

* To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

* Catch 22 - Joe Heller

* Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut

* Of Mice and Men - <USER2>

* Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury

* The Call of Ctulhu - H.P. Lovecraft

* Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card

Some of those I actually read in school and loved (but wish I read earlier), others I didn't. I think any of those books would've interested me at the time. There's plenty of time for Rich Dad, Poor Dad, SPIN Selling and all the business books later in life.

</comment><comment><USER17> "If I knew then what I know now?", but that would have spoiled the fun.

You are a product of what you did and read at the time, different influences would have produced a different person.

</comment><comment><USER18> Atlas Shrugged. I'm not a Rand groupie but seeing some of the core ideas of what I always felt but never could quite articulate literally changed me as a person.

<comment><USER19> I think my father tried this exact experiment with me. He gave me a copy of Atlas Shrugged when I was twelve and asked me to read it and tell him what I thought.

Neither of us were (or are) objectivists, but it's one of those books that poke your buttons. Either you agree[1], you disagree[2], or you think it's insipid[3]. :-)

[1] Yeah, screw those looters who aren't as smart as I am! I mean, he is!

[2] Jeez, I hope someone drops a rock on these anti-social bastards. And what a floozy!

[3] You needed 80 pages for that speech? Weren't you reading this book while you wrote it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Gray's Sports Almanac.

<comment><USER21> Biff?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan. At 17 I thought there was nothing that couldn't be achieved by shear will and concentrated effort. The Black Swan introduced me to the notion of Mediocristan and Extremistan, two very different domains with entirely different sets of risk. I don't think I'd have done anything differently, but had I read it earlier, I'd probably not have beat myself up so much when things didn't go well.

</comment><comment><USER23> Truth and Beauty (Aesthetics and Motivations in Science) by S. Chandrasekhar I got to know of this book much later than I would have preferred !

</comment><comment><USER24> The Book of Numbers - John Conway. I wish I had read this somewhere around 12-15. I think this book would have quite an impact on a young mind.

</comment><comment><USER25> Michael Shermer's _Why People Believe Weird Things_ ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things:_Pseudoscience,_Superstition,_and_Other_Confusions_of_Our_Time))

Or just about anything by Martin Gardner, along with a note to write him sometime before 2010.

</comment><comment><USER26> The hungry, hungry caterpillar. Best book ever!

<comment><USER14> Don't forget "If You Give Pig a Pancake"!

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I had a whole lot of ideas when I was younger. I made a lot of mental plans for world domination.

I think something by someone like Brian Tracy, on getting started, would have been good. Start something. Start today. Fail. Fail often. Much better than the 'wait till you have planned yourself to death' advice I got when I was a kid.

</comment><comment><USER28> 'The Fountainhead'. It would have assured me that there were many other people with the hacker mindset (which ultimately is what the book is about), it would have helped me prepare for a world where that mindset was not the norm, and hence would probably have avoided years of agony and depression later.

</comment><comment><USER29> Eiger Dreams, when I was about 16. I'd have gone a whole different direction with my life, for better or worse.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm imaging myself around 20 and missing out of a couple of decades of great reading:

the Aubrey/Maturin canon - Patrick O'Brian

any book in the Discworld series - Terry Pratchett

anything by Iain M. Banks (although, strangely, I don't find his non-SF as compelling; perhaps it is too dark for my tastes).

and something to stimulate me to learn Lisp then instead of now.

</comment><comment><USER31> The Humane Interface. An amazing book.

</comment><comment><USER32> Gödel, Escher, Bach

<comment><USER33> This book changed my entire outlook on the world. Added to this list are: Singularity is Near and The Selfish Gene

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. I read this book during college, but I wish I had read it earlier in my life, like when I was in junior high. This book set my priorities straight.

<comment><USER35> I completly agree with you. It's a great book and i wish i had read it earlier and i would have done things better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The Tao of Pooh

the timeless lessons of the Toa Te Ching in a very accessible presentation

</comment><comment><USER37> The Gay Science - Nietzsche - Age 16

I and Thou - Martin Buber - Age 18

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand - Age 17

<comment><USER10> I agree completely with The Gay Science, although I may have wished for an accompaniment. But really, Atlas Shrugged? Nietzsche and Ayn Rand just aren't even playing the same game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Getting Things Done - since reading it in the spring, it's changed the way I approach projects. I would have been SO much more productive when I actually had time to kill in my 20s.

</comment><comment><USER39> My younger self had the right books. But I'd take away his Asimov. That was about fifty novels worth of time that could have been better spent.

<comment><USER40> Reading Asimov _is_ time well spent.

<comment><USER41> Indeed. Though I prefer his nonfiction to his fiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The magic furnace by Mark Chown - this wouldve given my college years a purpose, which I only found after the fact

</comment><comment><USER21> "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.

</comment><comment><USER43> Prometheus Rising - Robert Anton Wilson

</comment><comment><USER44> Naked Economics - A great book on understanding how the world works in simple economic terms

</comment><comment><USER45> "Labyrinths" by Borges.

</comment><comment><USER46> Atlas Shrugged. It would have fired me up to start something.

</comment><comment><USER47> I would give myself every newspaper from now until back then so I couldve known every lottery ticket number and sports score so I could gamble and be a billionaire. =)

</comment><comment><USER48> Anything from Dave Ramsey.

</comment><comment><USER49> Ender's Game by OSC

</comment><comment><USER50> The Little Prince

</comment><comment><USER51> the holy bible i mean all de answers are there in black and white for questions like how 2 run a sucessfully enterprise to personal stuff

</comment><comment><USER52> "The Big Short", wait until 2008 and pocket a pretty penny.

Real answer, I can't think of better books to have read than what I did then, unless I could force myself to memorize a language book or something.</comment>


Emscripten (LLVM-to-JavaScript compiler) 1.0 - <AUTHOR> http://syntensity.blogspot.com/2011/04/emscripten-10.html <comment><USER2> Emscripten, given the recent advancements in Javascript interpreters, holds immense promise. There is a problem however: the size of the Javascript "executables".

As the size of their executables are already competitive with their C/C++ counterparts this is not easily fixed. CPython's "Javscript" runtime is 2.8 megabytes whilst CPython's C runtime is 2.2 megabytes, less than a 30% increase. With compression the JS size decreases, but not by enough.

A 2 megabyte JS file is likely prohibitively large. Even if common JS "executables" were hosted by Google, as is currently done for jQuery and other libraries, the problem is only mildly alleviated.

Emscripten is an amazing technical feat but I fear due to this it will see little usage. Their main focus currently is improving performance, but is anyone looking into decreasing the size or improving the handling of these "executables"?

<comment><USER3> _"A 2 megabyte JS file is likely prohibitively large."_

Tell that to Gmail. They load at least 2MB of code. New Twitter loads 1MB. Facebook used to load that much, but it appears they've cut it down a lot recently.

It's certainly prohibitive for webpages and lightweight page-oriented web applications, but not single-page web apps. I would expect this to be used more for the latter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my opinion this is probably the most exciting thing being done with Javascript currently; I can't wait to see where this goes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Quote Brendan Eich (if I'm not mistaken): "JavaScript is x86 for the web"

</comment><comment><USER6> This looks very useful for now, but shouldn't we be trying to get LLVM-based native client standardized for the long term?

<comment><USER7> If we wanted to have LLVM-based native clients, Emscripten would definitely be needed.

Distributing binaries isn't feasible as they aren't portable. Chrome would like to address this by distributing LLVM bitcode[1] and then compile this to native binary using LLVM. Portable Native Clients were introduced as an idea one year ago, but AFAIK there hasn't been much development, mostly because LLVM itself isn't very portable.

If native clients would be the path for future web apps, we can't reasonably expect the whole world to switch to LLVM in one night. There would have to be some fallback. As both Portable Native Clients and Emscripten work on LLVM bitcode, Emscripten would be the natural choice.

[1] LLVM's name for their intermediate language, low-level bytecode

<comment><USER8> How are they not portable when translated to javascript ? Granted, this will probably never run Quake in the browser, but if you want a SHA256 hash translated to javascript ... I seriously doubt there's a better tool.

All the difficult C stuff instantly useable from javascript, from GWT, from ...

That's got to be a boon, right ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Amazing. Tried to run the current CPython port on iPad and the browser crashes. :-(

</comment><comment><USER10> Can someone give an example of what this would be used for?

<comment><USER11> imagine a hugely useful c library being compiled into javascript for use in a browser env and even nodejs.

<comment><USER12> on the latter example: you could also just compile that hugely useful c library as a nodejs plugin directly.</comment></comment></comment>


Learning in a Creative, Experience-Building Way - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> [https://mystudentvoices.com/learning-in-a-creative- experienc...](https://mystudentvoices.com/learning-in-a-creative-experience- building-way-c6b6bc688c21?gi=3020ca4f0ba6)

There it is.

</comment><comment><USER2> Did you forget the link?

<comment><AUTHOR> seems so</comment></comment>


Would You Buy A .blog Domain Name? - <AUTHOR> http://www.disruptiveconversations.com/2012/04/would-you-buy-a-blog-domain-name.html

<comment><USER2> If they cost $2, then sure. The more people who try to snatch their own, the more spammers and squatters will be vying to get their place. Maybe it'll fare better than .info. If however they end up being the same cost as a .com/net/org, I don't see it going anywhere except for people who really want such-and-such a namespace that is already taken everywhere else. But if that market is enough to turn .blog into a hit is another story.</comment>


Show HN: Startup: The Card Came - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a new card game based on my experience running and creating startups. The goal is to raise $1,000,000, build a great team, hang on to your equity and avoid common problems like server crashes, bugs and unhappy customers. I've just ordered the prototype and have already discovered a few things I want to do to make it better. Any suggestions from HN?<p>http://i.imgur.com/AOqIOk3.jpg <comment><USER2> You ordered the prototype of the game you are working on?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes</comment></comment>


Discovering Two Screens Aren't Better Than One - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/technology/personaltech/surviving-and-thriving-in-a-one-monitor-world.html

<comment><USER2> I agree. Two is not ideal. I'm very happy with my three 27" setup (though I wish they were 30" and Retina-quality). I never liked two monitors because I like (1) symmetry (2) no borders in the center; and you can't get that with two (unless you stack them on top of each other).

Oh, and the distraction point mentioned in the article has nothing to do with the number of displays, per se, so the article is BS in my book.

</comment><comment><USER3> tl;dr version:

The author lacks sufficient self discipline to not set himself up for distraction by running "Twitter, email, chatting" on the second monitor, and finds that by having only one monitor, with no room for windows for "Twitter, email, chatting" along with work, that he can focus better.

I.e.: Removing distractions enhances focus. (really short tl;dr)

Nothing at all revolutionary here.

<comment><USER4> If he thinks his problem is desktop area, he should try working on an eeePC, or a 800x600 CRT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The only distraction I have is HN which is efficiently managed with the maxvist and minaway options. I don't read my work email constantly since it's not that busy of a communication medium.

At work I have two 30" monitors and they are awesome. I spend almost no time managing windows or having to switch between 'virtual desktops'. There's always a comfortable amount of space to keep a browser and it's dev tools open without comprising on what I need to see.

</comment><comment><USER6> What a crap article. Just because this guy can't focus on his work, doesn't mean multiple monitors are bad.

When I work, I don't like getting distracted. And I certainly don't fill my other screens with Twitter and whatever the author is implying, unless it's work related. End of discussion.

<comment><USER7> Please don't feed the Manjoo troll. It only encourages him.

<comment><USER7> Ha! I just noticed he actually wrote a column for Slate entitled "Stop calling me a troll". I guess that's how you get to be a tech columnist for the NYT. Well, that and writing songs about your iPhone, like Pogue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Classic iconoclastic column--take a known good, perhaps even supported by research, assert the exact opposite, and then write about it.

No actual substance required; just the act of contradicting known wisdom will get plenty of pageviews from people clicking through to see if it's true.</comment>


Introduction to Microcontrollers (2007) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ti.tuwien.ac.at/ecs/teaching/courses/mclu/theory-material/Microcontroller.pdf <comment><USER2> I have read the first ten pages and found them well-written, friendly, and very understandable. The example, a heat control system using an ATMega16, is appropriate for explaining the microcontroller components listed in chapter 2 and I'm looking forward to going through each one.

Thank you for posting this. Appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER3> I skimmed through the book it looks quite comprehensive and well-written. Usually books/guides about microcontrollers get lost in the details of interfacing myriad sensors and actuators without going sufficiently deep in how they actually work.

Although I personally favor Atmel's MCUs, perhaps no one can deny Microchip's (the maker of the PIC line of MCUs) wealth of documentation and application notes [1] which could serve as additional material to refer to for some pretty handy tips and guides.

[1] www.microchip.com/applicationnotes/

</comment><comment><USER4> I found the "getting started with Launchpad" material from TI also very helpful: [http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/Getting_Started_with...](http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/Getting_Started_with_the_MSP430_LaunchPad_Workshop) \- it is a bit of PR for TI products, but yet much is valid for other platforms too.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you want to run the AVR examples and don't have a physical target checkout simavr:

[https://github.com/buserror/simavr](https://github.com/buserror/simavr)

<comment><USER4> nice!</comment></comment>


Where's All the Free Wi-Fi We Were Promised? - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25819/?p1=A4 <comment><USER2> This reminds me of the Open Spectrum movement:

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_spectrum>

<http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/OpenSpectrumFAQ.html></comment>


ResinOS, run Docker containers on embedded devices - <AUTHOR> https://resinos.io/ <comment><USER4> I always have trouble calling platforms that can run a system of this magnitude "embedded." For some reason I always had the term "single-purpose" linked with the idea of an embedded system. Once you add tons of RAM, a relatively powerful processor, and can only last a couple of hours on a battery--I feel like then it's just a small general purpose computer.

<comment><USER5> I think there are simply 2 views for the systems: One is the developers view, the other the end users view.

From the developers view these Linux based systems are pretty much general purpose computers.

However what mostly counts for the definition of "embedded system" is the end users view. The end user (customer) gets a complete system for a specific purpose, he can't install any own applications and partly can't even update the system.

<comment><USER4> This is the most useful argument I've ever heard on this. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome!

I always loved Arduino as it promoted a few core ideas (apps are highly portable, the environment is standardized over boards and devices) - <USER2> allows the hobbyist / stack overflow reader to make some awesome hacks in a few hours and really reduces the barrier to entry for maker projects. However, in the last few years, I've wanted a similar type of environment for all the Linux boards that now clutter my desk - the ability to run different apps on multiple boards without having to understand the depths of GPIO alternative function mapping and quirks of various distros.

Having a docker container approach where the app is sandboxed away is the right approach I think for this, but there should be a "standard API" as well put in place that the apps that be written against (and bindings to python, rust etc...) that is also emulated in a desktop or webpage environment. This container doesn't support any HDMI output or full Debian environment - just a basic API to start with. Add PIP/Cargo etc.. for advanced use cases. A movement away from Arduino might be around the corner if there is something as accessible but much more powerful available. The block is no doubt "power management" \- suspending/hibernating Linux boards for battery operation etc...

I hacked up a version of resinOS last year (using Android as the base Linux port) and running docker on a root FS but never took it anywhere as the day job (a different kind of startup) takes most cycles still. Can't wait to install this later on a few Pi's :)

<comment><USER7> > A movement away from Arduino might be around the corner if there is > something as accessible but much more powerful available. The block is no > doubt "power management" \- suspending/hibernating Linux boards for battery > operation etc...

What are RasPi and similar boards lacking? Power management? Not enough GPIO pins?

<comment><USER8> >What are RasPi and similar boards lacking? Power management? Not enough GPIO pins?

For me its the ability to "blink" (sleep a designated time and then re-awaken for a brief burst of activity) and so perform some task for 6 months straight on a pair of alkaline AA batteries.

<comment><USER9> If you're looking for a sensor platform that will let you quickly deploy a sensor that will run for a few __years __on a pair of AAs, check out what we 're putting together at Helium [1]. We just rolled out the presale of our Helium Atom Development Board [2] which uses the Atom - our drop in connectivity and compute module - as the basis for a sensor development board that is actually fit for production. The OS that runs on the module - <USER3> named Helium OS [3] - is the basis for our edge programmability and abstracts the annoying, hard things like battery/power management, wireless, and security. Also OTA upgrades are built in. :)

firstname.lastname@example.com

[1] helium.com [2] [https://store.helium.com/](https://store.helium.com/) [3] [https://www.helium.com/helium-os/](https://www.helium.com/helium-os/)

<comment><USER8> Don't know if you'll still see this. Cool. But one thing. It would be easier for me to get a sign-off from management on a one time purchase of $10k than a $4/month recurring. Corporate sales is funny like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm using Docker more and I do like it (after a fashion), but I don't want to move my embedded software to this model. I've got one OSS project written in Python and it can run on python-mini (used on OpenWRT) on tiny configurations (<8MB rootfs).

It has minimal dependencies and doesn't even need a virtual-env. It's prepackaged in rpms, debs and apks. It needs raw access to GPIO and USB. ResinOS, which technically interesting, seems like way too much and another layer I just don't need.

I don't want to sound like a dick, because I'm sure the authors put a lot of work into this, but I really don't think this is a good pattern at all.

If I had to write my client again today, I'd probably write it in RUST/LLVM, giving me even less of a reason to stick it in a docker container on my device with <8MB storage space.

<comment><USER11> Our model is not a commandment for everyone. There will always be cases where containers don't make sense. However, every new level of abstraction meets this instinctive reaction at first. People didn't want VMs in the data centre messing with their bare metal either, I'll bet.

The point of containers is to make updateability easy. To bring embedded software closer in line with what's going on in the cloud. To enable the kinds of workflows we have had in every other part of the development world for decades. It may or may not be right for your project. So long as you understand the intention and make informed choices about the tradeoffs, there will always be cases that fall in the one or the other side of the fence. I don't perceive this as being a dick, you're stating a reasonable case for a model that does indeed work for a lot of cases.

We will continue working to reduce overhead, hopefully power requirements and cost will go down, and somewhere along the curve, we may even meet your needs at some point. Whatever the case, we're pretty sure we'll never cover everything so if we gave the impression that resinOS will end all embedded OSes, then it was the wrong impression to give. :)

<comment><USER12> _" To bring embedded software closer in line with what's going on in the cloud."_

Can you give some examples of types of software that would benefit from this?

<comment><USER11> anything that would benefit from a consistent build pipeline, fast deployments, isolated failures, etc etc.

<comment><USER12> Sorry, I'm a long-time embedded developer and that's gibberish to me.

We don't deploy fast. We deploy once.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure your customers will appreciate that when it turns out you have some massive security vulnerability and you won't be updating anything.

<comment><USER12> The embedded systems I work on are never internet connected and updated manually by trained service technicians when necessary.

Like the discussion at the top of this thread, we've really muddied up the waters when it comes to defining "embedded devices".

There are devices like mine, which are the early definition of the term (single purpose, low cost, tightly defined I/O) and then we have low cost highly compact computers, literally _servers_ , that can be multi-purpose and are internet connected 100% of the time by design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hi everyone, resin.io founder here, happy to answer any and all questions. We just released resinOS at ELCE a few hours ago (Embedded Linux Coference, Europe), happy to see it made HN!

<comment><USER14> I think I see where you fit in - deeply embedded systems with real-time constraints tend to use a certified hypervisor solution to separate runtimes. Traditional IT solutions can use Linux KVM or a full Docker implementation. ResinOS fits in the middle.

Familiarity with Docker will allow makers to get multiple runtimes up and running on higher-end (but small) SoCs...but for what type of applications?

<comment><USER11> There are a _lot_ of companies looking at the intersection of containers and embedded. Some call it "Fog Computing" others "Edge Computing", others still "Industrial Internet" and so forth. We have a number of use cases on the resin.io website of people using this technology in production today, but some of the larger ones we're not allowed to talk about :(. ResinOS does include a full Docker engine however. It's just that a lot more is needed to do containers right on embedded Linux devices.

<comment><USER15> Would that include high integrity like support? Just curious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Congrats on launching! Testing & deployment of stable configs is arguably even more of an issue in embedded development than in web, so I'm sure this will make a lot of people very giddy! Are y'all 100% happy with the technical design assumptions & requirements of Docker, or did you mainly pick it so you could bridge with the existing community (or a bit of both?)

<comment><USER11> Very good question. We find that we have to add functionality for the embedded world in quite a few cases, and part of the resinOS roadmap is to package that up for the OS. But the base Docker, other than its recently growing size, is a very strong foundation, and one that keeps improving. We're particularly excited about the new security features and in general our approach is that we can move a lot faster by filling the gap between Docker and embedded devices, rather than starting from scratch and building Yet Another Container Engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think nerves[1] needs a mention here... it'll pack your elixir application with a minimal linux kernel onto a read only sd card for use with a raspberry pi or BeagleBone.

[1] [http://nerves-project.org](http://nerves-project.org)

</comment><comment><USER18> Very cool stuff! Some boards, like the beaglebone, have specialized hw like PRUs or I2C pins. Is it possible to access these with Docker containers? Also, what is the minimum memory footprint? i.e. how many containers can I fit within say 1 GB.

<comment><USER11> The version of Docker on the OS right now is 1.10 so the ram footprint of the OS is fairly small. The team is all asleep (being in Berlin and whatnot), but I'd estimate about 50mb is a decent approximation. We're working on getting a newer Docker but its RAM footprint is one of our concerns, though we do have ways forward.

The number of containers is kinda a red herring for a couple reasons. For one, you can make a trivial container and launch as many containers as you like, it really depends on what's in them. For another, embedded devices don't usually need hundreds of containers, they run payloads that are either single- container, or look a lot more like a docker-compose file with a few microservices.

<comment><USER19> quick question...would the images have to be specifically built for arm? (we were looking to build a cluster of RPis that we could orchestrate containers on.)

<comment><USER11> Yes. We build _many_ container base images for all architectures. have a browse and pick what works for you -- [https://hub.docker.com/r/resin/](https://hub.docker.com/r/resin/) and also [http://docs.resin.io/runtime/resin-base- images/](http://docs.resin.io/runtime/resin-base-images/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _After about 30 seconds or so your device should be up and connected to your local network, you should see it broadcasting itself as resin.local._

Why does it take so long to boot? Is it limited by the speed of the SD card? I wonder how it would do on a Zynq platform with QSPI flash.

</comment><comment><USER21> Some more notes and details from the blog: [https://resin.io/blog/introducing- resinos/](https://resin.io/blog/introducing-resinos/)</comment>


Crystal: Ruby syntax, close to C speed - <AUTHOR> https://crystal-lang.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Also described here: [https://techbeacon.com/5-emerging-programming-languages- brig...](https://techbeacon.com/5-emerging-programming-languages-bright- future)</comment>


Interview with Scott Aaronson - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scott-aaronson-answers-every-ridiculously-big-question-i-throw-at-him/ <comment><USER2> _In social sciences, there's an absolutely massive bias in favor of publishing results that confirm current educated opinion, or that deviate from the consensus in ways that will be seen as quirky or interesting rather than cold or cruel or politically tone-deaf._

Isn't that a massive problem for meta-analyses? If there are 15 studies supporting the consensus/politically-correct position and 5 against it, that might be evidence against the consensus, if less than a third of researchers with against-consensus results have dared to publish their results.

<comment><USER3> With all due respect to Aaronson (with whom I find myself agreeing on many things), I wouldn't take his evaluation on the state of social science and his analysis of its core problems as correct. He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing research.

<comment><USER4> > He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an > anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing > research.

But, from things I have read elsewhere, there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there are systematic biases in social sciences. Some of this perhaps stems from discrimination (e.g., in hiring practices) based on political allegiance. Jonathan Haidt (a social scientist) has spoken out on this topic[0], including specifically on sociology[1]. While that issue likely affects academics in general, political leaning likely has a much smaller influence on one's research in physics and chemistry, compared to one's research in sociology. It's true that Aaronson is not a social scientist, but I don't think that means he is wrong.

[0] [http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html)

[1] [http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation- with-...](http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation-with- jonathan-haidt/)

<comment><USER5> There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

<comment><USER6> Physics can collect so much data that the generally accepted standard for results is five sigma. There are biases in physics, but it's much harder to delude yourself into a five sigma result than a two sigma one--in the end the right answer becomes obvious.

<comment><USER4> > Physics can collect so much data that the generally accepted standard for > results is five sigma. There are biases in physics, but it's much harder to > delude yourself into a five sigma result than a two sigma one--in the end > the right answer becomes obvious.

That's in the case of clear-cut predictions from theory or empirical relations. But bias generally arises in a more subtle fashion than statistics on measurements, though. Even if you have a "5-sigma result", it still needs to be interpreted, and that's where biases can rear their heads. On possible manifestation (though not the only), is if one ascribes to a particular theory, one is generally biased into interpreting those results within the framework of that theory. And if one isn't careful, that can lead to diminishing the weight of evidence that conflicts with the theory (e.g., "it's 5-sigma, but those data aren't actually relevant to this issue").

As an example, one area I'm actively researching is the emission from molecules in galaxies. We see that some galaxies show enhancements in emission from a specific molecule (HCN). Everyone agrees that the enhancements exist but there's wide disagreement on what causes it. And much of the discussion around it parallels people's opinions/biases about which is more important for a galaxy: how many new stars it is forming versus how active the supermassive black hole is at the galaxy's center. The preferred interpretations for the extra HCN emission seems to correlate very well with people's prior notions* (which is not surprising). Of course, more data will eventually provide a concrete solution to this question, though what new data are collected is often chosen within an existing framework.

* - I'm sure it's true for me, even though I try to mitigate it as much as possible. But we often have trouble recognizing our own biases.

<comment><USER6> >That's in the case of clear-cut predictions from theory or empirical relations. But bias generally arises in a more subtle fashion than statistics on measurements, though. Even if you have a "5-sigma result", it still needs to be interpreted, and that's where biases can rear their heads.

I agree, interpretation is the tricky thing. The difference is that in social sciences, both the result and the interpretation are suspect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> News to me that he is moving to UTexas in Austin to build a center for quantum computing and theory. Terribly exciting! With the impetus being a state funded allocation of $4B+ for basic research. It really begs the question: are our governments spending way too little on moon shots? And what could have been accomplished in the last two generations if the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?

<comment><USER8> > the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?

I find your question a little funny in that Aaronson has said the DOD is where much of the funding for his research will come from for the next 5 years[1].

So, the $4 billion in Texas likely funded his recruitment package, but it is the military that is funding his research.

[1] [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2687](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2687)

<comment><USER7> What constitutes a "good return" on research dollars spent? Is it mere value created? Or a breakthrough in fundamental human understanding? I'm actually quite intrigued now to mine some real data!

<comment><USER9> I don't know that's really measurable except over very long periods of time. A discovery may be "interesting but useless" for many decades until engineering catches up, whether through improvements in engineering technology or subsequent discoveries that make the first discovery more actionable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I want to congratulate the person who invited Scott Aaronson to speak (New York university, about integrated information theory) and didn't record and publish it on youtube. /sarcasm

Seriously guys, we only have that many people like Scott. Please don't take their smarts, wisdom and time for granted.

<comment> T-A [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799)

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823)

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1893](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1893)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The discussion of whether or not we have free will strikes me as confused. Aaronson suggests that we would clearly not have free will in a scenario where "Everything [we] did could be fully traced to causal antecedents external to [us], plus pure randomness—not in some philosophical imagination, but for real, and on a routine basis". The caveat "external to [us]" is doing a lot of work here, but it really has no discernible meaning. (Is a cause "external to us" if it's not within our brains? Why would that matter? What is the status of chains of causation that lead from the outside world to goings on in our brains?) Without that essentially meaningless caveat, the statement is simply a trivially true disjunction of the logical possibilities given physicalism. _Of course_ , if physicalism is true, then everything that we do is either determined by the laws of physics or not determined by anything. If that entails that we don't have free will, then Aaronson should just say that he thinks physicalism is true and that he thinks that physicalism entails the absence of free will. On the other hand, if we don't simply assume physicalism, then the fact that our behavior is determined by the laws of physics really does nothing to argue against free will. Everything would hang on how minds interact with physical reality, and we simply know nothing about how that might work. For example, it might be that God ensures that the physical world operates so as to respect the free decisions made by our minds. Or it might be that phenomena which are random from the point of view of physics are (sometimes) linked to free decisions made by minds. Nothing is known, so nothing can be concluded.

I'd also have to say that Aaronson lacks imagination in a crucial respect. He claims that in any "imaginable" universe it will hold that "if you knew the complete state of the universe, you could use it to calculate [either deterministically or probabilistically] everything I'd do in the future." But of course it's very easy to imagine a universe where this is not the case. E.g., any universe where minds make free decisions that lack physical causes. We know that people have in fact imagined this sort of universe.

<comment><USER12> I think you're missing the point somewhat. Yes, Aaronson assumes that something like physicalism is true, which I think is fairly defensible as a 21st-century scientist. But the argument isn't as simple as "physicalism entails the absence of free will". His point is that even if our actions are (probabilistically) _determined_ by a set of underlying physical laws, it may still be that the character of those laws is such that it is fundamentally impossible to _predict_ future actions, in which case we would still have meaningful free will.

The main form of prediction-impossibility he mentions is that our minds might depend meaningfully on quantum states, which are governed by the no-cloning theorem and therefore impossible even in principle to extract. Whether or not this is true is an open question, but the characterization of free will in terms of the concrete question "is it possible to build a prediction machine?" seems like a useful and novel contribution that doesn't just reduce to the old question of "is physicalism true".

<comment><USER12> To follow up: I personally see some extra subtlety here, in that even if a prediction machine did exist, we could _still_ have a meaningful form of free will, because that machine would be governed by Rice's theorem ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice's_theorem)), which says that in general the only way to predict the outcome of a computation is to run the computation. (this is closely related to the halting problem).

That is, even if I could capture the relevant aspects of your mind state on a computer, i.e., the no-cloning theorem is not a barrier, it's still the case that the only way for me to predict what you will do in two minutes' time is to actually run your mind inside the computer for two minutes of subjective time. This would constitute a prediction machine in Aaronson's sense, assuming the computer could run faster than realtime. But since the computation that occurs is literally following your thought process step by step (Rice's theorem says there are no shortcuts), there's a real sense in which the decision was not determined until you -- the version inside the computer -- actually made it.

Of course this account depends on a functionalist/computational theory of mind, which can be quibbled with in all sorts of ways. But it does seem important for the philosophical discussion on free will to at least take into account the things we now know about the nature of computation, the character of physical law, and other scientific/mathematical questions, that were not known decades or centuries ago when the philosophical battle lines were being drawn. Yes, scientists can be arrogant and are often just wrong or deeply misinformed on philosophical questions. But that doesn't remove the responsibility of philosophers to engage with the frontiers of knowledge on these issues, which means engaging with people like Scott rather than just dismissing them as "confused". (as if anyone thinking about free will has ever not been confused!)

<comment><USER11> I don't exactly disagree with you (although let me point out that I said the discussion was confused, not Scott), but I'm not sure where people get the impression that philosophers aren't engaging with physicists on these questions. The ramifications of quantum physics for free will have been discussed endlessly by philosophers, and often by philosophers who have a significant amount of training in physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > [I]f you want me to rush to the Singularity community's defense, the way to > do it is to tell me that they're a weirdo nerd cult that worships a high- > school dropout and his Harry Potter fanfiction, so how could anyone possibly > take their ideas seriously?

Ha, good one! I really love his long rambling answers, very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER14> For those reading comments before the article: the title is rather silly, but it contains lots of interesting stuff. For example the answers to questions 14 and 15 sound very sane to me, compared to most people's views on it.

<comment><USER15> I agree:

"I think that, if civilization lasts long enough, then sure: eventually we might need to worry about the creation of an AI that is to us as we are to garden slugs, and about how to increase the chance that such an AI will be "friendly" to human values (rather than, say, converting the entire observable universe into paperclips, because that's what it was mistakenly programmed to want)."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd recommend Scott Aaronson's book Quantum Computing Since Democritus to anyone interested in quantum computing, mathematics, and computer science in general. It covers a vast array of material, from the basics of set theory to Godel and Turing, cryptography, quantum computing, free will and time travel. It doesn't go very in depth into any specific topic, but for an engineer who's been out of college for a few years, it was at a perfect level to rekindle a love of learning and interest in a variety of topics.

</comment><comment><USER17> > I'm friendly with many of the people who spend their lives that way > [thinking about how to transfer consciousness into a computer]; I enjoy > talking to them when they pass through town (or when I pass through the Bay > Area, where they congregate).

^ I think that's my favorite quote from his interview. The Bay Area certainly has a reputation.

</comment><comment><USER18> >6\. What hype about quantum computers really drives you nuts?

Was good for me. I've usually found articles about quantum computing not really seeming to make sense and his reply is good for explaining why that often is.

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know why he's leaving MIT for UT Austin?

<comment><USER20> He has a blog post about it - [http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2620](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2620)

<comment><USER19> Maybe I should've just asked the question I really wanted to ask: did MIT deny him tenure? If so, why? From what I've heard, Scott Aaronson is one of the rising stars of theoretical CS, so him moving on from MIT was very surprising to hear.

<comment><USER21> No: [http://www.csail.mit.edu/node/2041](http://www.csail.mit.edu/node/2041)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nice interview: Nice clarity on quantum computing and P versus NP.

<comment><USER23> But be careful, his interpretation of P versus NP is rather light-hearted (but OK, given that it's not his speciality). He says:

 _For example, breaking almost any cryptographic code can be phrased as an NP problem. So if P=NP—and if, moreover, the algorithm that proved it was "practical" (meaning, not n1000 time or anything silly like that)—then all cryptographic codes that depend on the adversary having limited computing power would be broken._

But the parenthetical remark is not a negligible detail. The class P contains those O(n^1000) algorithms, and also much, much slower ones. Being in P does not mean at all "efficient". This is one of the reasons why many people (e.g. Knuth) say that P=NP is not crazy. The class P is so huge, that it must certainly contain extremely clever algorithms that reduce NP to P. Yet, there are may be no practical implications of this equality.

<comment><USER22> Yes. So far nearly all our famous algorithms run in ln(n), n, ln(n)n, or n^2. So, we don't have much experience with algorithms that run in n^1000 or insight into what such algorithms might do.

On the other hand, too commonly when we can't find an algorithm that runs in, say, n^2 or faster, we do have algorithms that run in 2^n. So, we suspect that there is something fundamental about exponential and fundamentally weak about polynomial. But as you point out, that is just something we detect sniffing with our nose.

The point where I critique the P versus NP issue is the claim, implicit or explicit, that if we have a practical instance of a problem in NP-complete, then that instance has to be too hard to solve in practice. Not necessarily so: Many particular instances of an NP-complete problem, even with what appear for practice to be quite large values of n, might be fairly easy to solve. E.g., for an instance of the knapsack problem (IIRC in NP-complete), attack with a cute version of dynamic programming. For 0-1 a practical instance of integer linear programming (in NP-complete), attack with the simplex algorithm, maybe branch and bound, maybe Lagrangian relaxation, etc.

And, a related issue for practice, in some optimization problems, the goal is to save money. So, in practice it can be fairly easy to save the first 15% of everything that is being spent and save all but that last $0.01 that can be saved even in theory (that is, come within a penny of optimality) and a total pain to save that last penny and know that we have done so.

The OP said that if we have an algorithm that shows P = NP, then for each of the other Clay Math problems, say, problem X, and for positive integer n, we can ask: Is there a string of n or fewer characters that, in the sense of Whitehead and Russell, is a proof of problem X and let our P = NP algorithm answer that. Well, we'd be super happy for just anything that would give us such an answer for just one case of problem X and just a realistic value of n and to heck with the general case.

More generally that is, the theory of NP-complete concentrates on worst case instances of problems, and not all real instances are worst case or nearly so.

So, for the practical instances of problems in NP-complete that we can solve, exactly or close enough to save nearly all the money, just do so, take the money to the bank, and be happy. Then, sadly, we have to notice that currently in practice there is surprisingly little interest in such problems and solutions. Heck, someone could take a collection of the current, routine software for solving instances of problems in NP-complete, advertise (falsely) that they have an algorithm that shows that P = NP and also have corresponding software, run their software in the cloud, invite people to submit problems, and charge big bucks for solutions. Then, get paid for the practical instances their old, routine algorithms do solve and make some excuse for the rest -- money back guarantee. Problem is, I doubt that very many people much care.

Why do I suspect that people don't care? Because I've see several important practical cases, and there people didn't much care.

But, I confess, there is a lot of misunderstanding out there. E.g., once I was talking with some people who needed to solve, exactly, although approximately would be good, too, a lot of instances of some 0-1 integer linear programming problems (definitely in NP-complete). So I explained that I had recently solved an instance of a 0-1 integer linear programming that had 40,000 constraints and 600,000 variables. My solution was in 905 seconds on a 90 MHz PC, and the feasible solution found was within 0.025% of optimality and might have been optimal.

The people I was talking to were happy? Nope: They had been told about the difficulty of the NP-complete problems, heard the big numbers 40,000 and 600,000, and concluded that I had to be lying. I wasn't lying. It's just that, while 0-1 integer linear programming is in NP-complete, not all instances of large 0-1 integer linear programming problems are difficult to solve; instead, in practice, a lot of instances are quite reasonable to solve exactly or plenty close enough for essentially everything of interest in practice. Right, 0-1 with 600,000 variables, so for total enumeration we're looking at 2^600,000. Gotta be impossible, right? Nope. Instead it was fairly easy.

So, it boils down that the question of P versus NP is, say, except for the $1 million Clay prize, a _pure math_ question heavily of long term philosophical interest instead of an engineering problem of current practical interest. For current practical interest, we should be attacking practical instances of problems which with current algorithms, software, and computing we can often do quite well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow he seems very smart but not very succinct.

<comment><USER15> It is an incredibly long interview, but I assume it was e-mail. And full of short gems like:

"QM isn't even "physics" in the usual sense: it's more like an operating system that the rest of physics runs on as application software"

<comment><USER25> that's a line straight out of his book 'quantum computing since Democritus'. highly recommended if you want to get a bird's eye view of the foundation of quantum logic without all that pesky physics (and physical history) getting in the way.

<comment><USER15> I've actually read it, I just didn't remember this line. Thanks. And I agree, great read.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How flashing lights and pink noise might banish Alzheimer's and improve memory - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02391-6 <comment><USER2> Must say the prospects of fixing my grandmother with some flashing lights is appealing. At this point she mostly talks to her doll - as if people around are all strangers.

Don't worry I'm not quite crazy enough to run human trials on unsuspecting relatives. Particularly, not when they are long past the ability to give consent.

But I won't say it's not tempting to buy and EEG and start cooking...

<comment><USER3> Does she sleep a lot during the day? My father sleeps a lot and doesn't like to talk, but he remembers everything, even drives the car. We still don't know if it's depression or early dementia (could be frontotemporal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Radiolab had a fascinating episode about this:

[https://www.radiolab.org/story/bringing-gamma- back/](https://www.radiolab.org/story/bringing-gamma-back/)

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oD3hofS5NM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oD3hofS5NM) and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oD3hofS5NM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oD3hofS5NM) for gamma tube

<comment><USER6> You posted the same link twice

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems strange it was flashing light compared to mice in a dark box? Maybe visual stimulation of any kind is better than sitting in darkness. I'd imagine more brain activity is probably helpful in preventing dimentia?

<comment><USER8> Interestingly, Alzheimer's is more prevalent in areas further from the equator. But, I've seen an interview with a researcher who runs trials with LLLT (near infrared) helmets on Alzheimer's patients, and he said that pulsing at 40Hz gives an additional effect. At the time I thought this is BS, but now that frequency is mentioned in Nature..

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Could this be related to electronic music shows, especially techno? Flashing lights and regular repetitive beats that act as a base to dance off of.

</comment><comment><USER10> Might be something in to this. My mind always feels refreshed by a good thunderstorm.

<comment><USER11> Pink noise is also used to treat tinnitus. People say it sounds like listening to waves at the beach. So perhaps a distant thunderstorm at the beach would be even better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does this suggest epilepsy is on the same neural circuit?

<comment><USER13> Epilepsy is triggered by strobe lights in that frequency range, I think it is a coincidence.

This is a really great writeup of this project, by the way. I've been paying attention and didn't know half of what they had done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There are a lot of technologies like this that are simply too cheap to be developed. The alternative health world will probably produce an implementation, but mainstream healthcare couldn't care less about something like this.

<comment><USER15> A recent counterexample in my life: I recently was diagnosed with sleep apnea. It's a mechanical problem where my respiratory tract relaxes in such a way as to close off airflow while I'm sleeping. It's actually a big problem because either it wakes you up or the oxygen levels on your blood drop (or one and then the other.) and those things, aside from making you feel groggy the next day, cause all sorts of long term health issues. Weight gain, too... which is sad because being overweight is a huge contributing factor to apnea. (In fact, I've been working out a _lot_ more since I started treatment. I just feel physically better and more physically able to push myself to work out.)

The treatment my doctor recommended? Rig a glorified air compressor to blow air down my throat.

It's really a beautifully simple and effective solution to what's fundamentally a mechanical problem with my body.

I mean, I wanted something quiet and auto-adjusting with a lot of data logging, so I went out and got one of the more expensive glorified air compressors made by ResMed (which really is near silent- I'm not saying that the top-end ResMed machines are a good value for the dollar compared to the cheaper machines, but they really are quite nice, and totally worth it if your marginal dollars are cheap.) but the mechanism is super simple and I'm pretty sure I could rig one up (minus the auto-adjust) for like $30 of parts; it's just an air compressor lubricated with something that doesn't stink with a regulator. As far as I can tell, if you want a CPAP machine and are paying full freight, you can pay anywhere from $300 to $3000, which seems pretty cheap for the difference it makes.

But, my point is that your doctor will totally prescribe simple mechanical solutions when they work.

<comment><USER16> Join the club! If you're interested in the data aspect of this, I highly recommend the software package sleepyhead. It let's you see all the data from the machine in a great format. If you're able to convince your insurance to cover, I would also recommend getting a mandibular advancement device. I find that switching between the two every few weeks helps my AHI scores. Probably because each works in a different way and muscle memory seems to come into effect for each differently. The MAD works for me because I have epiglotis- derived SA, so you're milage may differ. I would also highly recommend getting an ENT consult. Knowing why I have SA was great because it helps me position my pillows to get the best results.

This is also a really cool recent advancement but I'm not sold on it yet: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/01/fda- ap...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/01/fda-approves- first-of-a-kind-sleep-apnea-implant/8563821/)

If you want even more data, I use this: [https://www.amazon.com/Contec-Wrist- worn-Oximeter-Software-D...](https://www.amazon.com/Contec-Wrist-worn- Oximeter-Software-Download/dp/B00LN4LCMC) You can overlay the pulse-ox data in sleepyhead with your CPAP data to get a fuller picture.

I've also been looking into making my own EEG hairnet and computer logger but it's not trivial. Good luck!

<comment><USER15> I was looking at that oximeter you mention, but according to reviews, they updated the firmware, which made it much more difficult to get the data out of the thing. I actually spent a fair amount of time looking for a pulse oximeter I could get data out of when I was getting diagnosed; I never found anything that looked like it would work without significant reverse engineering.

I haven't even setup sleepyhead, so I haven't really been looking at the data. I should do that.

Shocking my throat sounds... like a hilarious way to improve sleep? I have a few friends who got various kinds of surgery; they all speak really highly of it, but my doctor said that it's super common for the problem to reoccur after a few years. seems like maybe electrically stimulating my throat might be more resistant to "growing back".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Please upvote good questions in comments - <AUTHOR>

It's so sad to see a question to sit on 1 point of karma when it has sparked a good discussion with 4-5 replies, or just one reply that got 10+ points. Sure, karma doesn't matter, and yet it shapes what we do on a subconscious level. Upvote good questions, it will make HN a better site! <comment><USER2> Sometimes, a bad question provokes good answers. I won't upvote bad questions, no matter the result. I will, however, upvote the answers.

Good questions get upvoted on their own.

<comment><USER3> If a bad question provokes good answers, then I don't see how it could have been bad to begin with.

The contrast I think of is in a classroom. If a student asks an ignorant question (is there another instance of "bad"?), isn't that a good thing? For them and for the other students?

<comment><USER4> I've seen plenty of very informative posts which were essentially slapping down a troll.

<comment><USER3> That's an online phenomenon, right? How does that work in real life?

<comment><USER5> It can happen in a classroom setting, where a class clown asks or makes a comment intended for a laugh. Good teachers can flip them around and use them as segues into meaningful discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What about a separate "question" thread?

e.g., ntoshev 10 minutes ago | discuss | question

I have a lot of trouble understanding the role of comments online where I don't see them in real life. Questions, by contrast, are perhaps the earliest form of social cognition. The two seem to represent entirely separate information channels. Why not embrace the distinction?

<comment><USER6> Seems like unnecessary complexity to me.

<comment><USER3> My worry too, but comments are completely unbounded. Which complexity is worse?

It's really no surprise that trolls run rampant in comment threads. Commenting requires no social mores. By contrast, questions require consideration of another. Sure, trolls can be silly in questions but there's almost no power in dumb questions. A question is not only inherently social but brings humility along for the discourse.

<comment><USER5> I think "comments" is a misnomer. I think of it as "discussion," and questions are a part of any discussion.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure I see the distinction. You and I could have a discussion for an hour and I can walk away not sure of what transpired. It feels like something has happened but the outcome is unbounded, sort of like comment threads.

By contrast, I could ask you a series of questions, even open-ended ones, and it will be pretty clear what the takeaways are. I'll know clearly what you think. And if not, I can always ask another question.

Are questions though really a part of any discussion? How often do we see the "?" in threads here. It doesn't feel all that often and this is one of the best places online for discussions.

Two helpful concepts here are "debate" and "interview". They're two very different forms of communication, right?

<comment><USER5> It's a soft distinction, one of implication. I think we have discussions here. I think of "comments" as shouting in the ether, and that's usually not what we do.

I disagree that the series of questions will necessarily result in a better understanding. Any meaningful set of questions will involve two-way communication for clarification, which quickly becomes what I call a discussion. Debate and interview are different, but I think HN comment threads are neither.

I frequently see questions in HN threads. I sometimes ask them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I disgree.

If someone replied to a post with, "You're wrong and an idiot," but the original poster replies with a reasoned defense, then I would certainly vote down the first reply and vote up the second.

If someone is trolling with a dumb comment like, "Capitalism never works," but then receives well-thought out replies as to why capitalism does in fact work in this situation, then I would leave the original comment alone and vote up the replies.

</comment><comment><USER8> I do agree with you, but shouldn't it be "unconscious"?

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Subconscious>

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unconscious_m...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unconscious_mind)

</comment><comment><USER9> I agree, with the disclaimer (as you pointed out) that it also has some good discussion. I'm all for making sure the question is answered, but asking a question in and of itself doesn't contribute much if the answer is simple.

</comment><comment><USER10> similarly, on a side note here... but if you post an AskHN post wanting feedback on your product and idea it would be great if you could also take time to respond to those who bother to feed back for you. often I'm left wondering if they've ever returned to pick up the fb that I and others have taken time to write.

</comment><comment><USER11> Karma (to me) is about making a contribution.

A question doesn't make a contribution, but the answers may.

<comment><USER12> _"Karma (to me) is about making a contribution."_

\- absolutely true

 _"A question doesn't make a contribution, but the answers may._ "

\- absolutely false

Good questions are the root of many great conversations.

<comment><USER11> As can a bad hypothesis, or a bad question.

The "great conversation" is the part that creates the value. Not the parent. My own point here has no value on its own other than the fact that it started further discussion. It doesn't make my comment any more valuable in its own right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If all the trains at Clapham Junction were suddenly to cease to function, would the people at the station ever reach their destination?</comment>


Show HN: I created an app to sync any folder with Dropbox - <AUTHOR> http://www.boxifier.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there,

Razvan (author) here. I created an app to sync any folder with Dropbox. It currently works on Windows. Haven't finished the website yet, just the app.

A little background on the app: I wanted to backup my external drives to Dropbox for a while and tried using symlinks but those don't work for that. If you remove the external drive, all your files will get deleted from Dropbox. Also, you need to restart Dropbox if you make changes to the folders on the external drive. Otherwise, they won't be synced.

I talked to my twin brother about this and he suggested building an app for that. Having a background in Windows internals we decided to go ahead and build it. We wanted to solve that in an elegant and effortless way, something even our parents (who are not tech savvy) could use.

So here is Boxifier, a Windows app which installs on top of Dropbox and lets you right click any folder and sync it to Dropbox.

I would really appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks, Razvan

<comment><USER2> Great! already, subscribed.. also, two things that you can think about for the future:

1) I have the impression that a lot of people want to share, say, git folders, so there may actually be a huge demand for file exclusions (I think there is a mac app for that, but nothing in windows). 2) Can I pick where in dropbox will this be synced to? When you have 100s of GBs (or dropbox for business accounts), your root DB folder can get very polluted, so linking to subfolders can be useful.

Thanks again!

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) Yes, file exclusions are definitely on our roadmap.

2) For now folders sync as subfolders of the Dropbox\Boxifier folder, but we've been receiving this feature request so that you can pick where your outside folders will be synced in Dropbox. This is also on our roadmap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3>
      Boxifier is a third party application.
      Some people are not comfortable giving third party applications access to their Dropbox account.
      That's why when building Boxifier we made an effort to make it work without needing access to your Dropbox account.
      This way you can try Boxifier with no worries.
      We also sleep better at night because of that.

Thank you! I'll give it a shot just for that reason alone.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure I understand how not giving access to your Dropbox account to Boxifier makes you that more comfortable -- Boxifier will be able to read/write your Dropbox files anyways, what's the big difference?

<comment><AUTHOR> The big difference here is the principle of least privilege[1].

We could have built Boxifier so that it requires you to login into Dropbox and get back an access token to be used by Boxifier with the Dropbox API.

If someone wanted to get access to the data in your Dropbox account, they could do that with an access token (that they received when you authorized their app to access your Dropbox). Then they could use that token from any computer to download data from your Dropbox, without you ever finding out about it.

Boxifier works completely offline so it doesn't need any network access (which could be misused). If you want to be 101% sure you can setup a firewall rule and block all network access for Boxifier. This way you can make sure it cannot get data from your Dropbox folder and upload it to a remote location.

On the other hand, with an access token you have no control on how it is used outside of your computer. You may argue that you can always revoke it, but the reality of today's attacks is that they go stealth for a long time before you find out about them.

We used to work in the antivirus industry so that's why we care so much about security and privacy. Boxifier has been designed with security in mind from its early days.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This ia good effort might even force the hand of Dropbox to add a similar feature to the official client.

I need a solution to use all the 1TB of Dropbox space available without having to have 1TB of space on my laptop and without having to resort to use the web interface.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you please try Boxifier and let me know how it works for you? I would appreciate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Something that has always annoyed me about Dropbox. But honestly I'm not going to bother given that I have to pay in order to sync more than 3 folders. Specially when I can accomplish this with a bit of hackery and symlinks.

Nice product though.

</comment><comment><USER7> In before acquired by Dropbox :)

Great job! This is a much feature in Dropbox. Would be awesome if it worked on Macs.

<comment><USER8> Dropbox could have added this feature years ago but didn't, and I think the reason they don't is for simplicity and usability for the end user, not because they didn't think of it.

<comment><USER9> Selecting folders to sync seems a lot easier than copying files into a folder whose only purpose is to sync, but I guess I don't have my finger on the pulse of the geriatric segment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just curious, why only 30 minutes to try out the premium features?

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the reasons is that I've seen it as a common practice with other software I used. For instance, the demo version of Traktor Pro 2 DJ-ing software closes itself after 30 minutes.

We've also set a high quality bar for us with 30 minutes. If the product doesn't deliver on its promise in 30 minutes then it means we need to do better.

We chose the 30 minutes instead of making the product a 7-day or 14-day or 30-day trial because we prefer freemium to software trials. With a number of days for you to try the software you can for instance install on day 1, go to a business trip on day 2 and when you return on day 7 realize that the software expired and you didn't even get the chance to try it out. With the attention economy of today, we believe day-based software trials are broken.

With Boxifier, if you don't find the time today you can try out the premium features again tomorrow, next week or whenever you find some free time because the product never expires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this different from creating symlinks?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) With symlinks Dropbox doesn't sync the changes you make to those folders until you restart it. With Boxifier, changes are synced in real-time.

2) If the target of the symlink is not available/not found then Dropbox will delete the contents of that folder from your account. This is the case for instance with removable drives. With Boxifier, ejecting the USB drive doesn't cause the contents to be deleted from your Dropbox account.

3) If you use selective sync with a symlink, the contents of the target folder willl be deleted you uncheck the folder from the selective sync settings dialog. With Boxifier, this doesn't happen because it has built-in support for this scenario. The folder just gets marked internally as inactive.

4) Symlinked folders lack the Dropbox overlay icons (green checkmarks, blue circles) so you can't get an idea of what the sync progress on those folders is. With Boxifier you have full Explorer integration so that you get the same experience as with the Dropbox folder.

5) Symlinked folders lack the Dropbox context menu functionality. With Boxifier you get the full Dropbox context menu functionality so you can easily share files, get public links, see previous versions or see them on Dropbox.com

6) A person who is not tech savvy will probably have a hard time understanding how to use symlinks and all their shortcomings. With Boxifier you simply right-click a folder to sync it with Dropbox. No need to be a computer wizard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is there something like this for OneDrive?

</comment><comment><USER13> It already exists on OS X[1], and it also works with Google Drive and a bunch of other cloud storage providers.

[1][http://www.zibity.com/macdropany.html](http://www.zibity.com/macdropany.html)

<comment><USER14> Which basically is a limited grafical interface for `ln -s`.

<comment><USER13> True, but it works exactly as you'd expect it to.</comment></comment></comment>