Ask HN: What are the issues you think that a 'World Government' would solve? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Centralization will only further the distance between government and individual citizens. We're already too centralized.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would it solve anything? With many countries we can look to each other for ideas on how to improve things. If one government that is not possible.

<comment><USER4> You can still have a federated world-government.

<comment><USER5> Isn't that the purpose of United Nations?

<comment><USER3> Not really

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Tragedy of the commons regulation for global shared stocks/sinks - e.g. there's a single shared global atmosphere that we're collectively not managing very well.

I don't believe world government "would" necessarily solve this, but it might help.

Another question might be "what are the issues that a world government might cause".

E.g. there isn't a guarantee that world government is going to be representative, care about interests other than its own, not be repressive. At least with smaller scope governments it is in principle easier to flee.

Perhaps another question would be: why would member states / individuals voluntarily join a world government and choose to stay part of it? How would that be a good tradeoff for them?

</comment><comment><USER7> Wars. Inequality. But mostly: establish a global civilization that is sustainable enough to survive in the long run.

<comment><USER8> I note in World War I the German, Russian and British monarchs were all cousins. I probably put a world government as the close to the next world war; win-win deals have all been exhausted and only win-lose deals remain, made by people, on a world government level, who have huge influence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> None. A world government would have to devolve into smaller de-facto polities to even be able to administrate the entire planet, thereby recreating all of the problems that currently exist without a world government.</comment>


Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/03/13/inspire-yourself-58-creative-logos/ <comment><USER2> Creative? The striking thing to me is how similar they all seem. Except Jamglue of course...

<comment><USER3> Most of these are clean, but I'm curious to know what some were thinking when completely following the Web 2.0 trend look. "Let's find the quickest way to sink our brand into non-distinctive mediocrity."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is a list of almost 1000 Web 2.0 logos: http://web2logo.com

Good post though :)</comment>


Microsoft's Surface pricing dilemma - <AUTHOR> http://jhatax.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-dilemma-of-pricing-what-should.html

<comment><USER2> This is similar to the webOS pre pricing issues, and the HP webOS tablet pricing issues.

IIRC, someone from HP was quoted as "The market has determined that the price for tablets is $499". Couldn't be more wrong. It's determined that the price for iPads is $499. Effectively there wasn't any other 'tablet' market to speak of at that point (still isn't much outside the iPad even today).

What happened during the HP touchpad firesale at $149 - they _flew_ off the shelves. For various reasons, of course, but many people would love a decent 9-10" tablet for under $200 (I dare say even under $300). The HP touchpad at $299 would have been selling at a loss to start with, no doubt, but HP (or palm before them) could have figured out a way to monetize that space outside of just hardware sales - content sales, app sales, etc. Getting, say, even a few million sold in a quarter would have demonstrated it as _some_ competition to the iPad. Instead... everyone is focused on pricing to meet the iPad (or playing around with $20-$50 differences), which will doom these to failure.

Surface looks neat, but they can't sell these at $499+ and make serious inroads in to the tablet market. $299? Sure, but even there, we're going to see a smaller form-factor from Apple in the next few months (according to rumors) which will probably be at that price point.

Re: the Zune debacle - I don't understand why people didn't realize in 2007 that Apple already had 5+ years of an entire ecosystem built up around their device - cables, chargers, add-ons, etc - hotels with ipod docking stations, etc - trying to compete with something _that_ entrenched in society by matching on price? Without any other intangibles on your side? And with a history of already ditching your previous 'plays for sure' campaign leaving earlier adopters high and dry? I really really really don't understand big corporation groupthink, and this Zune fiasco was just one example in a long line of ipod-competitor-wannabes.

</comment><comment><USER3> One other problem I see is why would people spend the same money for the Surface as the iPad, when Microsoft has a history of abandoning their products?

People have already seen the demise of MSFT's Zune products, RIMM's Playbook, etc. If I'm going to choose between an iPad or a Surface, and they are the same price, will I really gamble on the Surface when I know it might not be around 1 year from now? I __know __the iPad will be around. I can't say the same about the Surface, and if it's gone quickly, then I will kick myself for not buying an iPad.

This is something that the Amazon Kindle Fire did right. They priced it low enough so that there isn't as much risk, and their Kindle brand makes me believe it will be around for a while.

<comment><USER4> So did the zunes that people bought stopped working after Microsoft said it was no longer selling any? Portable devices like these don't have a lifespan beyond 4-5 years these days and a company stopping hardware sales has nothing to do with the product already sold.

Besides in case of Surface software running is Windows OS which has been around for a few decades and the premise of Microsoft abandoning that is ridiculous.

<comment><USER5> But the possibility that a device might not be a hit and hence abandoned in a few years might deter developers from developing apps for that device, thus reducing it's value. For a product like tablet, apps are especially important part of the overall experience.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. Look at the Touchpad and Playbook for examples.

Just because a product "works" after being killed doesn't mean it'll do what you want/need it to. The iPad is a safe play, it'll have new apps for the foreseeable future. The Surface (particularly the RT model) is very much up in the air.

<comment><USER4> Both touchpad and playbook failed because the platform ecosystem failed. You are equating Surface the device to Windows the platform ecosystem. One is unproven the other has been the most vibrant platform there ever has been.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They absolutely need to price it low for their own sake.

The point of the initial surface tablet, and Windows RT itself is to force devs to develop Metro apps so that Windows 8 can have a compelling tablet experience.

The end game is not Windows running ARM, it is Windows on x86, even for tablets. Intel seems to have finally gotten it together and is releasing price/performance/power competitive mobile chips. A year from now I would expect very few Win RT devices to sell for over $400. There just won't be any reason to run an ARM Windows device with its limited app compatibility.

That said, MS can't jump out of the gates and push people to x86 now or there wouldn't be enough of a reason to develop Metro apps instead of traditional desktop ones. And if there aren't Metro Apps, the 'switch-ability' of Windows 8 is of little value.

So I guess my overall point is that the Surface RT had better be cheap or it puts Windows as a whole at risk.

<comment><USER8> It's kind of funny, because Microsoft gets derided for this behavior all the time, and now people are saying they need to step it up. Price the competition out of the market, force sales because of inertia, get developers locked in to get users locked in. Lose money now because they have money to lose, then once they're the only game in town they can jack up the prices.

It's a perfectly valid business model if done carefully and legally. I'm not sure Microsoft has the balls (or legal foothold) to repeat their mistakes from the 90s.

<comment><USER9> _I'm not sure Microsoft has the balls (or legal foothold) to repeat their mistakes from the 90s._

If I became Bill Gates in the early 90s, I would make every one of their "mistakes" all over again. A law suit is just the inconvenience their lawyers dealt with on the path to domination.

<comment><USER10> Would you really? What about the "mistake" of thinking that the web was just a passing fad?

<comment><USER11> The end result of that mistake (combined with all the other mistakes and good decisions made in that era) was having a near-monopoly on the Web browser market.

<comment><USER10>
      > having a near-monopoly on the Web browser market.

...And doing nothing with it.

There was no game plan other than, "embrace, extend, extinguish." It just happens that 1) they didn't fully scuttle it (i.e. pull IE once it was the dominant web browser) and 2) the Web is a powerful enough force that it was able to overcome this.

Microsoft _gave_ us the Web 2.0 revitalization of the web via their introduction of XmlHTTPRequest, but they didn't do anything with it, and it definitely wasn't part of any sort of strategy. Mostly a happy accident.

<comment><USER11> Oh, totally. If you're playing Microsoft Simulator, you really want to start at right about the year 2000 or so — gives you a great starting position but also tons of opportunities to improve on previous players' high scores.

 _(Somebody please make Microsoft Simulator!)_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The margins on the iPad are rather substantial. I don't see why the Surface can't give up 50% of the margin and still be OK (although they don't have the economy of scale or supply chain infrastructure as well understood).

I'd like to see the 16GB RT come in at $429 (why is +8GB so expensive on tablets and phones, but cheap when I go price it in the market?).

The Surface Pro should find some way to start at $699. That might be a no frill version.

And they should make sure that they sell the cover/keyboard separately. That way it keeps the "price" of the device down.

<comment><USER13> Microsoft is being aggressive with the design of this product. Maybe there's a chance they'll be aggressive with the price as well.

$429 is probably the very high top end of what I would consider paying for a device that can't run windows software, has no ecosystem, and has a high likelihood of being abandoned in a year or so.

$699 would be an extremely attractive price for a ultrabook replacement. So I highly doubt it will be so cheap.

<comment><USER4> Also to consider is that Surface already comes with Office and other apps built in. I'd certainly pay more to get those apps on my tablet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> He certainly brings up good points but he completely ignored the fact that the Zune was never aggressively marketed.

Is it fair to say that the Zune may have done far better if people even KNEW how it was better than an iPod? A lot of non-tech people probably hadn't even HEARD of the device!

Ultimately I think the Zune failed because few people knew it existed, and fewer still knew how it was better than an iPod. If everyone knew it (a) existed and (b) was better than an iPod then I don't think the pricing of it would have been a big deal.

<comment><USER8> And they released it in brown first. If there's one thing Microsoft should know by now, its that the tech-savvy folks will take every chance to ridicule any slight flaw in their products. They should have learned this after their driver disaster in Windows ME. The same driver/hardware compatibility issue shouldn't have happened in Vista, but it did. The same lack of benefit awareness shouldn't be happening with Windows 8, but it is.

Microsoft needs to realize that they're selling in a crowded space now. They're not the only players, so they can't rely on a lack of choice forcing people to understand their products. Before anyone is ever told that there's a new Microsoft product, Microsoft needs to get their marketing people to explain what the product is, how users will benefit from it, and why it's better than the competition (or their previous products.) And this needs to extend to their hardware/software partners. I had problems with Vista originally because Creative kept telling me that the XP drivers for my soundcard would work. They didn't.

Microsoft seemingly releases a product and hopes the market will get it. In the past, it was adapt or die because MS was the only real game in town. Today they need marketing first, _then_ engineering. If enthusiasts decide they don't like the product, that's what they're going to tell non-enthusiasts. That's the problem Microsoft doesn't seem to care about.

<comment><USER15> Kudos to that. The funny thing is that in the past Microsoft wanted phones and tablets to look like desktops, and it didn't work. Now they want desktops to look like phones and tablets. I predict it won't work.

Windows hasn't changed it's layout from 1995 for a reason, people know it and they don't want it to change. Many people still hate the Ribbon on Office just because it's different from what they were used to. Now they built Metro, which is radically different, and expect people to love it because it has Windows on the name. They just don't get it, the 90's are over and you can't do whatever you want without alienating your customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Microsoft shouldn't just look at the iPad, it's short-sighted. The reality is that Android has become the most common OS on smart-phones and both Google and Amazon are subsidizing tablets so that lots of people are able to buy their first ones with Android cheaply.

When it's time for these people to buy their second tablet, which one do you think they will choose: a Surface, an iPad or one of the many available ones with the OS they know? A classical Microsoft strategy turned against them.

It's not enough to compete with the iPad on price. If Surface is cheaper than the iPad, but the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are cheaper than both of them, people will buy the Android ones, and probably no feature will change that.

Apple is comfortable with their first-mover advantage and respected brand, they can continue selling devices with high margin profits to people with disposable income as long as they don't damage their brand with a poor product.

Companies using Android are comfortable selling in bulk and making tiny profits with each device.

Microsoft cannot be Apple, they are entering the market almost three years late. They should compete with Android subsidizing heavily their tablets or risk becoming a niche product on this segment, as Windows Phone.

</comment><comment><USER16> Couldn't agree more. If you're going after the iPad, you have to compete on price. There's no way enough people will choose Surface over the iPad for the same amount.

The bigger question, for me, is the pricing on the Pro model. While the RT model is more comparable to the iPad, the Pro model could be the real gem of the tablet space. I really want one, but it's possible they will price it higher than is reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER17> Initial price is critical because initial reviews and overall reputation will be based on that. Nexus 7 shows that pricing cheaper doesn't harm the product perception if it is clearly a good product.

The other issue if pricing is deliberately set with particular reference to the iPad is that it might need readjust everything when the next Apple product arrives.

The main thing they need to do is show that it a really great product. If it is better than the iPad at three things but there is on dodgy aspect that is what everyone will hear about.

Who is the target market for the Surface? Those who would otherwise get a Netbox/laptop? Existing iPad owners? Current Windows users with no tablets? Mainly business?

I think if they want to hit the non tablet owning consumer they need to offer better product than the Nexus 7 at pricing just a bit higher. I don't think that they can match price with the iPad for that market unless people are treating it as PC replacement (which is dangerous ground for Microsoft but may be the correct self disruption move in the innovator's dilemma.

</comment><comment><USER18> Equivalent iPad isn't 499. Surface doesn't have a 16gb model. The equivalent iPad is 599.

<comment><USER19> Yes. And Also, the 16gb iPad starts at $399.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As a technologist, I hope most people can see the real value being added by the Surface over the iPad, and I think the corporate / enterprise angle is being lost entirely in this analysis.

On the other hand, you're absolutely right about Microsoft taking a loss to gain market share. Xbox was first, and is now the most popular gaming console in the world. Then is Bing, which despite not yet turning profitable for Microsoft did prevent Google from attaining a monopoly and has made Microsoft the only other company with a legitimate index of the internet and reasonable market share in search. I can definitely see Microsoft taking some hardware losses on the Surface to plant the seeds for the Windows 8 ecosystem.

<comment><USER21> As a technologist, I'm becoming more and more convinced that implementing an interface mixing touch and mouse/keyboard input, and shipping Windows 8 as a runtime for both "Windows-8-style-UI" apps and classic Windows desktop apps are terrible mistakes.

As a developer, you need to choose between supporting Windows 7, with a huge market today, and Windows RT, with no market today, but with Microsoft's promise of a market tomorrow.

For users, the added complexity is likely unwelcome. Now when you see some software for "Windows", you'll have no idea if it happens to be the version of Windows relevant to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of the comments in the article suggest something interesting: how about pricing it at $200 and adding a $10 - $20/month subscription to Microsoft services. Perhaps Xbox Music/Video or Xbox Live Game of the month or extra SkyDrive storage or Office 365 services.

</comment><comment><USER23> And then Apple will make a 7" iPad for $300-$350 and it will be game over for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER24> Nice Analysis! Shouldn't the pricing take into account the Nexus 7 as well? Even priced at $400, the surface will still cost the price of two Nexus 7's.

It looks like a race for the bottom on the pricing of tablets these days!

</comment><comment><USER25> I disagree, if your going for the value play, you can always get the nexus 7. MS has to differentiate by showing how cool office optimized tablet version is. However, it looks like MS has dropped the ball again if the reports of office on the tablet being a half assed port are true. Using the Nexus 7 just shows how crappy the app experience is relative to iPad.

</comment><comment><USER26> Can't really disagree, priced to move Kindle Fire sure bought amazon a place in the tablet world quickly.

</comment><comment><USER27> MS just combined 2 different form factors into one. They are so unique at this point in time. People just have to realize the productivity differences and shell out the dough for an increase in computing quality.

</comment><comment><USER28> Without apps does it really matter?

</comment><comment><USER29> So the author claims that if Surface is as good a device as the iPad, _even if it has the same price point_ , that is too high a price point. But I don't agree that the dilemma is so similar to iPod vs Zune.

The iPod/Zune content environment was _music_. Yes, iTunes was (to the general public) a pretty good music service that locked you into the iPod ecosystem. But in general, people already had/could get digitial music. They just needed a great portable device. The Zune was not a better device than the iPod, but even if it were equivalent by some objective standard, people will gravitate toward the leader, all other things being equal. And unless they were locked into the iTunes music system (and if they were, then they're already an ipod owner, so not really relevant to the question), consumers could port their music to either iPod or Zune and get roughly the same listening experience.

So without a financial incentive, why go Zune?

But in the Surface vs. iPad debate...Tablets are still a relative niche market compared to the number of people who own/use a regular desktop/laptop. iPads absolutely own the tablet market, but there's still plenty of room among regular computer users who have been waiting. Moreover, there are people who are still hesitant to live Mac/PC dual lifestyles (even though that's not an issue for any experienced computer user).

And most importantly, there is software that is entirely exclusive to Windows systems, not least of which is Office.

If it were possible to only play Beatles and Lady Gaga MP3s exclusively on Zune, isn't it feasible that Zune would've gained a greater foothold? In the tablet wars, Microsoft has the power to choose which platforms its popular software will run. And considering the market penetration of Word/Excel/etc., even as Google Docs and other alternatives grow, that ecosystem is much more prevalent a feature than it was when it was Zune vs iPod

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I am the author of the post. Your opinion might differ, but the Zune v2 had a number of features that the iPod lacked: Wireless Sync, built-in radio, and Social/sharing are three that immediately come to mind. From a services standpoint, the Zune pass was a great music discovery service, and the Zune web service, circa 2008, was a cool way to share music with your friends (and way better than Ping). The public perception might not have been the same, but I am speaking on the basis of pure technical merit.

The marketing team strongly believed that these features would push customers towards the technologically better product, and did not think that providing a financial incentive was necessary. We all know how that played out - they had to eat humble pie and drop the price before finally dropping the product.

Tablets are a niche product, but the category, as it stands today, has been entirely defined by the iPad. This is not very different from how the iPod defined the music player market. AFAIK, application developers continue to target iPad first, and Android next; developing for Windows devices is not even in the rear-view mirror of developers. Microsoft is hoping that developers will re-prioritize once the Surface launches, but what if the device is a dud?

My research into user behavior does not reveal a hesitation on the part of users to live a Mac/PC dual lifestyle. In fact, Windows users that own iPads do not believe the iPad to be a part of the Mac ecosystem. iPad apps stand on their own, and most of them do not have Windows or Mac counterparts. This said, please send analysis that indicates the duopoly is confusing my way.

I wrote a post last year about Microsoft releasing Office for the iPad. If it continues to overlook the iPad in an effort to drive sales of the Surface, it will be the biggest loser, IMO. Office is Microsoft's cash cow; sales of the suite exceeded Windows last year, and show no signs of abating. In my non- scientific interviews of iPad users, I am yet to meet a user - business users and college students in particular - who will think twice before paying between 5 and 10 dollars for a la carte Office apps. Other than Office, I cannot conjure up a long enough list of applications that are Windows only. Remember that the entry-level surface is Windows RT only, and will not run traditional x86 applications.

<comment><USER30> "I am yet to meet a user - business users and college students in particular - who will think twice before paying between 5 and 10 dollars for a la carte Office apps"

Hi! Nice to meet you. I don't feel like I need office apps in my life and wouldn't pay 5-10 dollars for them. Between the web and ios apps I realized I don't need them like I did in the 90's.

<comment><USER4> You probably are in the minority, but I feel frustrated that there are no decent office like apps available on the tablets. There is a reason why, apple wants iPad to primarily be a consumption device. Office apps are not on top of their list. Microsoft looks at tablets as a productivity device so they are bundling the office apps in.

<comment><USER11> The iWork apps are well-reviewed and have been heavily pushed by Apple so I don't really understand much of your post. :)

<comment><USER4> Did you forget that they are not bundled and you actually have to pay for it? Office is built in for free with Surface.

<comment><USER11> I was referring to the statement that "there are no decent office like apps available on the tablets" and the inference that "apple wants iPad to primarily be a consumption device". When did we start talking about bundling?

EDIT: Oh, I see. When you said "no decent office like apps available on the tablets", I interpreted that as meaning that they weren't available at all, but you were saying you were frustrated with them not being bundled. Apologies for having misunderstood.

It's still impossible for me to see that Apple "wants" the iPad to primarily be a consumption device — why would they? (They want to sell iPads! They don't care too much what you do with them.) And, if they _did_ care, why would they make iWork? The iPad introduction keynote spent a _lot_ of time showing each of the iWork apps off, very much casting the device as a productivity device (among other things, of course).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can we please stop this errant speculation until pricing is announced? No one, except a few people in Microsoft have any idea what it's going to be priced.

edit: Sorry, feel free to downvote, didn't want to distract from... you know.</comment>


Judging Honesty by Words, Not Fidgets - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12lying.html

<comment><USER2> Nice article. Peter Falk was great, way back when.

As "Columbo" for those who don't get the reference.</comment>


Google, Facebook take France to court over privacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gcIROpaIgngw8P1fO7BXywMIhe5Q?docId=CNG.897aaf456d2691082257863ec5125653.311 <comment><USER2> According to this, part of the data that must be kept includes passwords. Does anyone have the detail on whether this means hashes of passwords, or the plaintext passwords themselves?

If it's the latter, then the lawmakers clearly have no idea what they are doing (which is probably true anyway, but that would be the cherry on top of the incompetence cake)

Edit: And if it's the former, what would they plan to do with them anyway?

<comment><USER3> AFAIK it is the plain text passwords. I'm really not sure how they imagine it's possible. This feels pretty strange actually: while I don't dispute the fact that the french legislature has little to no understanding of the technical issues, they are supposed to have an array of technical advisors, not to mention the lobbyists of the companies suing today.

<comment><USER4> This isn't the first time that France doesn't understand digital security. Their lawmakers seem to have a consistent blind spot for these kinds of issues.

In the 90's I remember there was a restriction on using >40 bit crypto keys in France. There was even a "You're in France now" attack to Windows (95?) that deceived the OS that you were in France, switching to a lower keysize immediately.

(also France has this crazy three strikes out law for copyright violations)

<comment><USER5> That was because crypto tools are deemed to be military goods which are restricted on export from various countries, notably the U.S.A (so this was not 'Hello from France' but 'Hello from outside the US'): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_United_States#PC_era)

<comment><USER4> I don't think that was the same issue as here in the Netherlands we could use the full-sized 128 bit keys. So I'm not sure why it was specific to France, but it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The US government is pushing for stronger data retention laws here as well: [http://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/department-of- jus...](http://www.insideprivacy.com/united-states/department-of-justice- calls-for-enhanced-data-retention-from-service-providers/)

<comment><USER7> This is just some unelected goon "inviting" Congress "to consider" stronger data retention laws. It's a long way from "inviting" to law.

<comment><USER6> That's a really uninformed statement.

<comment><USER8> In that case, please explain why it is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious as to the benefits of having an actual presence in France.

i highly doubt Google will comply. The only possible out come i see is Google setting up shop outside France's jurisdiction.

<comment><USER10> Actually, in France many Internet-related companies don't even care about complying to this. That's why they're firstly sending their lawyers. BTW Google is not alone in this case, some major french companies are also suing the state. In the meantime, if the police or justice come asking for information, many will slow down or block the process by invoking technical difficulties (it already happened with Hadopi).

Our current government (yep, I'm French) is driven by fear when it comes to the Internet, it's not the first they try to promote meaningless laws... So far, fortunately, they're not enforced as the authorities claim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm surprised that this went through with the CNIL (a french administration that takes care of user privacy and liberty), they are usually pretty tight on user information retention.

Doesn't surprise me though, France has a long story of not knowing what the F they were doing regarding new technology, this is just another example of how incompetent they are when in comes to IT...

<comment><USER12> the CNIL lacks power. All they can do is protest, but they have no real power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the title, I expected the law to be about forbidding companies to keep too much data about their users. (which would explain Google's and Facebook's uproar) Consumer rights, or so I thought, tend to be pretty good in France in that regard.

So, I'm pretty surprised to see the French government calling for _more_ tracking of user data. I'm pretty shocked that this could go through.

Full names, addresses and phone numbers is bad but is somewhat available information. Keeping passwords (and I imagine plain text, otherwise I don't see the point) is pretty indefensible. I imagine that if one were to refuse to give out their password to their computer, the police could just request the passwords from a bunch of sites and try? (good incentive to use unique passwords...)

Fucked up.

<comment><USER14> > So, I'm pretty surprised to see the French government calling for more > tracking of user data.

You clearly don't have much experience with govts.

> Consumer rights, or so I thought, tend to be pretty good in France in that > regard.

Govts don't see themselves as businesses and don't see people as consumers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is this specific to France, or a case of the EU data retention directive? (Which basically requires storing all calls you make, your position, your surfing history and email headers)

More info: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retenti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention)</comment>


Carmageddon Sinks Tesla's Bonds - <AUTHOR> https://wolfstreet.com/2019/05/20/carmageddon-sinks-teslas-bonds/ <comment><USER2> The title is unnecessarily provocative and misleading. The article is about bonds, but "Carmageddon" is not discussed or supported with evidence.</comment>


What the Seed Funding Boom Means for Raising a Series A - <AUTHOR> http://firstround.com/review/what-the-seed-funding-boom-means-for-raising-a-series-a/ <comment><USER4> Great article by a guy who truly knows what he's talking about. Josh was one of the investors in Uber's first round of outside financing, back in 2010.

The tl;dr

\- don't assume VC inbound means that you'll be able to raise a series A.

\- it's easier to raise less, and increase the amount if the round is oversubscribed (having a higher target and having to cut it is a strong -ve signal)

\- raise a larger seed. $2.5mm is a number Josh gives in the article. [note, that doesn't mean you should go and raise a $10mm seed round and expect to be evaluated the same as other series A companies when you raise one - <USER2> investors will evaluate your progress relative to how much you've raised]

\- pick seed investors who are good at helping seed stage companies. [josh and frc are a great firm, behind some great companies - obviously this is a content marketing piece, but in this case it's also totally true]

\- make sure you have enough seed money to reach the key milestones that you need to hit, where those milestones make you an attractive target for a series A

\- your seed investors can help prepare you for the A. in many cases, this is exactly how they view their role.

</comment><comment> super-serial I hate reading articles like this.

Seems like people like this live in a different world. I'm just grinding everyday at my 9-5... then I go to a coworking space for my "5-9" to code my startup. Reading stuff like this makes it seem like everyone else just puts FizzBuzz in an iPhone app and gets $100k funding.

<comment><USER5> We never sought funding, and our revenue is north of $1m. It took 3 years, and lots of sweating, and lots of risk, but we own 100% of the company and bank 100% of the profits. We're up 40% year-over-year, which means we can hire more people. Lots of people will laugh at 40% - "that's not 1000%! How will you ever get to $1B??" This is the world we live in.

It seems to me, 4-6 years ago there was a healthy dynamic between funded startups and bootstrapped businesses. Now, I rarely hear anything about bootstrapping, as if getting funding won the day, and now bootstrapping is laughed at.

You can't begrudge every business that raises $100k. That's an insanely paltry amount, and anyone giving that money away both a) expects the founders to live on ramen and Red Bull and b) makes 99 similar bets in hopes that _just one_ of them won't fail.

People should start believing in sustainable businesses again, not that their "Tinder for dogs" iOS app will become a billion dollar business. Because - <USER3> here's the truth - they almost definitely can't.

Do your 5-9 because you one day want it to be your 9-5. Build a 9-5 you want to work at for years. Build a business, not a startup.

Building > begging. Trust me, it's a wonderful feeling.

<comment><USER6> _Now, I rarely hear anything about bootstrapping, as if getting funding won the day, and now bootstrapping is laughed at._

This is a filter-bubble sort of problem. If you get your news from TechCrunch/etc, yes, that makes a lot of sense; TechCrunch long-ago decided that bootstrapped businesses do not maximize page views. If you hang out in the bootstrapping world, it is a very exciting time to be alive.

<comment><USER7> Very exciting indeed. Systems and scale that used to cost me $500 / month per unit six years ago, now cost me $50 to achieve the same thing. And the quality of the software available for free now, versus ten years ago, is beyond astounding.

Most start-ups simply no longer need large amounts of capital to get rolling. This gap will become even more dramatic in the next five years - I'm looking forward to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an excellent article - many of my mentors have guided me not to pursue funding for as long as possible, until I'm cash flow positive, etc and its great to see a discussion on HN reinforcing this sentiment. In a day and age when so much can be accomplished with just a laptop (git push heroku master), I am surprised bootstrapping is not a bigger topic of conversation.

</comment><comment><USER9> Excellent post.

I would put the key findings on the top. I'd also include there the 18-24 month run rate. That's what most people want to know, include myself who is going through that process now.

As a follow-up post, I'd love to see a simple run rate calculator with items that most of us don't think about or consider.

</comment><comment><USER10> A few great excerpts from the article:

>founders vastly underestimate the risk of busted financing

> It's vital that you have a clear picture of the traction and proof points > you'll need to show investors when you eventually do raise your A. And these > proof points have to both demonstrate a significant jump in valuation and > de-risk your concept

>Keeping your burn rate low until you have product-market fit will give you the best chance at building a big company.

</comment><comment><USER11> Really great post, definitely required reading for anyone who has raised a seed round.

I've personally seen a few startups affected by this. The bar for raising a Series A round is _a lot higher_ than a lot of seed-stage founders think it is.

If you've raised a seed round, talk to your investors / mentors ASAP and figure out what metrics you need to hit in order to raise a strong A round.</comment>


Longest Lines of Sight on Earth - <AUTHOR> https://beyondhorizons.eu/lines-of-sight/ <comment><USER2> There's a lot of incorrect or dirty data: K2 in New Zealand, locations in Corsica listed as Italy, unnamed locations, and many broken links.</comment>


The Validity of EPA's CO 2 Endangerment Finding [PDF] - <AUTHOR> https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf <comment><USER2> "The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings."

Yikes.</comment>


Ask HN: Scanning of Old Handwritten Diaries - <AUTHOR> OCR tends to work reasonably well on text, even block hand writing.
However, a relative has just scanned in an ancestor's diary from the Boer War era in South Africa.  It'd be fascinating to read.
However, it's in beautiful but (to me) barely legible cursive.
An example page: https://imgur.com/a/SJpyj94
Are there any tools out there that might actually have a chance with handwriting like this?
I tried a sample app I've worked on with OpenCV.  It recognised there was "text" but that was about it.
Google translate camera app gave me nothing.
Word Lens (Same base code) as well.
Is there one out there or a technique or suggestion anyone might have? <comment><USER2> Just transcribe it. A few pages a day and it will done before too long. That's what the Smithsonian does, so maybe it's even best practice.

[https://transcription.si.edu/](https://transcription.si.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER3> How many pages is the diary? I wonder if it isn't much simpler to brute-force it via Amazon Mechanical Turk and similar platforms.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you find anything post it here. Would also help with a bunch of deed records from 100 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER5> Going forward, you may wanna user reMarkable.</comment>


Extending Redis with Redis-Module - <AUTHOR> http://diego-pacheco.blogspot.com/2017/11/extending-redis-with-redis-modules_8.html <comment><USER2> Nice job in summing the material and a great dockerized example!</comment>


'BrainCheck' App Could Provide Guidance for Athletic Concussions - <AUTHOR> http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/01/07/133249/braincheck-app-developed-in-houston-could-provide-guidance-for-athletic-concussions/ <comment><AUTHOR> In general, regular 'brain health' checks could be useful outside of sports injury investigation. From Marketplace Tech, an interview with the CEO of BrainCheck alluded to multiple uses of the app including checking cognitive impairment perhaps for manual laborers.</comment>


Why Apple Music Is Going to Beat Spotify - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@wenqinye/why-apple-music-is-going-to-beat-spotify-745809527075

<comment><USER2> tl;dr: Spotify's user experience sucks. Given Apple's track record, they'll offer a better Ux.</comment>


Traffic Cones, Leaf Blowers, & Other Tactics US Protesters Take from Hong Kong - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5pq5j/traffic-cones-leaf-blowers-and-other-brilliant-tactics-us-protesters-are-taking-from-hong-kongs-playbook <comment><AUTHOR> > When have you most successfully hacked a non-computer system to your > advantage?</comment>


Company sells ID cards to reviewers to get them better service at restaurants - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20130122,0,2390332,full.column

<comment><USER2> I don't like the interviewer or the interviewee. _"I took out my card and asked if I could pay 200 euros," Newman said. "In return, I would write a great review on TripAdvisor. The woman at the hotel immediately said yes. It was a win-win for both of us."_ This contradicts his own statement later: _"If the hotel is close to the train station or has a comfy bed, that's why it's getting a good review."_

That said, threatening to write a bad review is hardly extortion. And anyone can do it, so it's not like the preferential treatment is limited to only a few people who can write reviews online.

</comment><comment><USER3> To me this idea seems like a double-edged blade: if you go in expecting better service via flashing your ReviewerCard, you're probably more likely to notice any minor problems or be frustrated at smaller signs of the waitstaff "neglecting" you.

"I showed her my _ReviewerCard_ and it still took her 30 seconds to refill my Coke?!"

</comment><comment><USER4> It defeats the point of a review. It's an almost sure way not to have the same service as other customers, so what's the point in reading it?</comment>


Ask HN: Does a Freelancer's Age Matter? - <AUTHOR> What are your/your company's responses if a 40-year old software freelancer applies for an opportunity?<p>- Does my age increase the likelihood of being overlooked?<p>- Do you assume you'll have to pay me a lot more than say a 27-year old freelancer?<p>- Should I call myself something more fancy like "software consultant" to improve my chances?<p>- Do you expect me to take on some people / project management tasks?<p>- Do you expect an interview to be awkward because I'm older than the average age in your company? <comment><USER2> Freelancer here, 58 years old with almost 40 years experience, 10 as a freelancer/consultant.

To succeed as a freelancer or consultant you have to build a reputation for delivering results and a network of contacts. You don't want to apply for jobs or go through interviews. You want clients to find you and not ask anyone else to bid on jobs.

I don't think what you call yourself matters. In the software business titles don't mean much.

Customers outsource because they need specialized skills. Many small and medium-sized companies don't have full-time staff, or can't attract and keep people, so what qualifies as "specialized skills" can vary. One of my most lucrative clients pays me top rate to manage Wordpress sites.

Base your price/rate on business value, not on what other people charge. Business problems have costs, risks, and time value, base your fees on those. Delivering results right away without hassling clients with lots of questions and irrelevant details has significant value to your clients. The more you understand their business and can fix things without supervision the more value you offer.

My customers pay for solutions so they expect me to solve business problems, not just write code. That means I do some project management and sometimes people management.

My age does not come up, I don't think any client has asked. I work remotely, that helps.

<comment><AUTHOR> A few years ago, I took up three on-site freelancer opportunities with different clients I met via LinkedIn.

All of them initially agreed to not giving people/project management tasks because I told them upfront that I was neither good at them nor enjoyed them.

Unfortunately, all three ended up with such tasks creeping in mid-project. Put me in a difficult spot of having to do fairly stressful unwanted work which I was not good at in addition to my actual technical work.

This time, I think I'll try teaming up with a management specialist and approach clients as a consulting team.

Working remotely is something I hadn't considered deeply, but will explore now.

Do you have any tips on how to go about building a network of contacts as an older engineer? The typical tech meetups in my area seem to attract only employed engineers and very few decision makers.

Thank you very much for your very useful and encouraging advice.

<comment><USER2> I built a network of professional contacts by working for 40 years and keeping in touch with people. Some of them still write code, some have gone into management or founder roles, some moved on to other things.

I would not tell a client I can't or won't do something (within legal and ethical boundaries, anyway). I would tell them that's not my strongest skill and then help them find someone for the task, or reframe the problem. For example I don't do design/graphics work or CSS on web sites, but I can outsource that and make sure my client gets what they want. I want my clients to think of me as someone who can solve their business problems, not as a PHP or Rails or AWS expert.

Just today a client asked me to look at a Hubspot workflow. I know next to nothing about Hubspot, but with my experience I can catch on a lot faster than a marketing agency guy can and understand the logic and see the problems in their workflow. They don't always need an expert, just someone with more expertise than they have (which may approach zero), or another set of eyes.

When clients ask me to get involved in project management or bringing someone into the team I might suggest a different approach to development, or letting me outsource to someone I can work with. When clients try to throw their solution at you try to step back and figure out the problem they intend to solve, then you can offer alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I did freelance work for a bit, and found that my age helped so long as I presented myself as a consultant. They trusted that I had experience, and it was an easy sell that I could do the jobs. They did assume they would have to pay me more, and that was correct. So it self-filtered out people who couldn't afford me. They did expect project management, as well as business analysis and research to design the solutions in the first place. None of my work was "Here, code this." I even got into helping them refine sales and marketing plans, which isn't what I do. But when you are a highly paid, older consultant, the expectations are likewise high. My clients were always clear that my job was to use tech to help their business, and that was far more varied than just doing software development.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the reply.

TBH, I was a little pessimistic of my chances and expectations because of my age. Seeing the replies here from older engineers has been encouraging. I'll work on changing my mindset to project it as an advantage to clients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find that a good number of pro freelancers are fairly old, about 10+ years of experience.

I think nobody cares. Ageism is more about potential - someone who is 40 but not a millionaire raises some flags.

But for a freelancer, it makes sense - this person has become too expensive to hire full time and/or chose to forego a higher salary in favor of free time and family. They're not a part of any 10 year venture, but will be a good deal until the team can find someone permanent.

</comment><comment><USER5> I am also above the 40 mark, but I think it is about how you present yourself more than anything. What you are interested in doing etc. There is quite a bit of agism in tech, but I find that the cultures that have it are usually the ones to avoid anyway, so it is kind of a filter for me.

I spent years consulting vs freelancing and the age helps when consulting. Consultants are experts and hired for advice and a specific task usually. Freelancers will be treated like an employee without all the benefits. One is not equal to the other.

If you are going the freelancing route age/experience can be more of a question that is hard for people to ask, so just address it early. Usually the first opportunity to address it is in your position statement part of your cover letter. e.g. I really enjoy staying on the technical implementation side of the equation... or something to that effect. This lets them know where you are comfortable and either they'll reach out if that fits or not. But everyone does the math when they see how many years you've been working, it is hard not to.

As for your questions, at least from my point of view:

1\. Age can increase the likelihood you'll be overlooked, so you need to make sure your presentation on your resume and cover letter is solid. Experiment with it too. Although I think as a freelancer it is a little less likely to cause you grief.

2\. Pay is based on experience most places so people may. The reality is unless you are crushing things at a large company you are probably stuck near the same pay you had 10 years ago anyway. This is kinda typical if you stay technical and don't move into management.

3\. Consultants are definitely different than freelancers. I built consulting agencies as my startups, and that was always how I sold myself. Freelancer is a dev for hire, a consultant is an expert. That is how I always found it, so I always avoided freelancer positions as being a consultant increased my fee by multitudes and increased how I was viewed. You have to decide who you are and what services you are providing.

4\. Only if you want to, many places you can still code and not have to worry about being in management. But mentoring junior roles will likely be expected.

5\. I love this one. When I interviewed 4 years back at the startup I am at now, I literally walked into a place where the average age of the team were within 2-3 years of my son. I think it was a little more awkward for them. They are essentially interviewing someone their parents age and were probably more nervous then I was. My personal style & opinion is to disarm everyone and have a little fun with it, there is no hiding the facts, just don't let them get in the way of the person. Age is a number, how you approach them, how you act is far more important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a useful and comprehensive reply.

While I'd very much like to project my experience and expertise as a consultant with higher rates, I'm also afraid of biting off more than I can chew.

Technical tasks or project creep don't bother me at all, but management tasks mid-project do since I'm neither good at them nor enjoy them.

I was considering projecting myself as more of a freelance programmer to avoid them, but then my age may attract such tasks anyway despite the projection.

Based on your and other replies, I'll probably try teaming up with somebody who's good at management, and approach clients as a consulting team using age to my advantage. Thanks again!

<comment><USER5> I do think you can get freelancing gigs if that's all you want without the need to team up with someone else if you don't want to. You will just have to look a little harder and network a little more, but honestly even if you team up you'll still be doing those things. Only difference would be how many opportunities you can attack.

I didn't mention one key fact that might help you. I targeted companies during my consulting time that mostly were outside of the SV bubble, although I did a fair amount of startup work too. But my bread and butter companies, the ones that paid most my bills were the 5-50 million/year revenue companies with generally < 250 people. I found that demographic to need the most expertise, have the least amount of bullshit to deal with and actually have the money to pay to solve problems. But a very large percentage of these were not what you'd find here on HN or most tech sites/boards. Many of my clients were the forgotten markets (as far as tech is concerned), such as large electricians, plumbers, construction, retail etc. I also did a lot of work for national specialty marketing companies and large supply chain management software just cause again people would pay for it. My biggest clients were 4 very large public corporations where when they blinked they lost more than my fees and so I never had fee conversations with them really, plus once you get in well with them you can do really good if you deliver.

One other point. Networking is critical, I saw in another reply you said you typically only see other engineers at networking events. So two things here. First, don't dismiss other engineers as your network, they can help you get your foot in the door at a company they are at. This is a critical way I got into ~60% of my clients was through non decision making employees. The others were because I started networking at different types of events, I started going to small business meetings, chamber of commerce gatherings, entrepreneur gatherings, startup days which are everywhere now etc. Those other events were where I met more decision makers and people looking for solution providers. Also, take every opportunity to do speaking engagements on whatever topic you can, this gives you credibility and people will seek you out. I have done a bunch around the South East and that helped me immensely, I also teamed up with a company where I was traveling the US every few months doing speeches for entrepreneurs about tech but mostly marketing. The talks are something I miss doing since I've been at the startup I am at now, something I am working to rectify.

Good luck!!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you again for all the great advice, especially on targeting and networking. This has given me many ideas I'll be working on, but more invaluably, it's made me a lot more optimistic about the situation. Deeply appreciated.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rare Earth Elements could be big business for West Virginia - <AUTHOR> https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/rare-earth-elements-could-be-big-business-for-wv/2037113435 <comment><USER2> Mandatory toe dip. I'm in the mining game and stories about metals commodity shortage like these come around all the time and it's laughable.

You here about the popular ones (rare earth, lithium etc) but there are plenty of others. (We just finished going through a vanadium shortage apparently).

It's so bad all it takes for an exploration company to get a substantial bump in share price is to mention it. During the great lithium shortage, the amount of companies who had a large bump for just mentioning that they would be investigating old core samples for lithium was ridiculous.

Argh.

<comment><USER3> Remember the big concern about cobalt in the 1970s (I think it was)? People were talking about mining the sea floor for that one.

<comment><USER4> Manganese, not cobalt. Glomar Challenger cover story.

Uni prof of mine was on the ship. Had no idea of the true mission until he read about it in the papers.

<comment><USER3> Manganese nodules were being investigated not for their manganese -- they would have totally flooded that market -- but for the less abundant but more lucrative metals like cobalt they also contain.

<comment><USER4> I conducted reasearch on the proposed enterprise in the 1980s. A goal, and the primary one evident in the literature, was manganese nodule mining. Producing manganese.

I don't have my original references handy, but some citations:

[https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0143008](https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0143008)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160932778...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0160932778900601)

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03354283](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03354283)

<comment><USER3> The market price of cobalt now is around $38/lb.

The market price of Mn ore is about $0.01/lb of contained Mn.

A good Mn nodule might contain 1% cobalt. It would be really stupid to mine these things for their manganese. Of course you'd sell what Mn you could, but that's not the value proposition here.

<comment><USER4> Show me the contemporary (1970s) references stating cobalt, not manganese, was the primary goal.

Keep in mind: this was a cover story. It needn't be rational, merely plausible.

<comment><USER3> I can show you historical price data on the price of cobalt vs. the price of manganese ore. If anything, the price ratio was even higher back then.

[https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188/sir2012-5188.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188/sir2012-5188.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Last time this happened in 2008 Goldman pumped and dumped Molycorp. I don't know how banks get away with this behavior.

From what I gather, there is a decent stock of reserves in San Benito between LA and Vegas. Before the ionic clays in China, the mine was responsible for some 90+% of global rare earths production.

For those of you looking to trade off the info, Lynas on the ASX is the play. The news is already priced in but it's inexact.

<comment><USER6> >there is a decent stock of reserves in San Benito between LA and Vegas.

Do you mean San Bernardino? San Benito is a county in central California, nowhere near "between LA and Vegas".

<comment><USER5> San Bernardino you're right. San Benito County has a different mine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Simply doing an environmental assessment for the necessary processing facilities will take years, that stuff is terrible to work with, both the tailings and the required processing to extract rare earth elements.

On the upside, doing so properly could conceivably result in an actual reduction in waste just lying around.

</comment><comment><USER8> Huh, acid mine drainage is a new one.

Others are coal ash and spent nuclear fuel rods.

</comment><comment><USER9> Weeell, there goes Virginia's craft beer industry. Having to filter this out of their water is not gonna help flavor at all.

<comment><USER10> WV and VA are separate states.

<comment><USER11> The watershed laughs at human borders.

<comment><USER10> What are you attempting to convey?

<comment><USER12> Water flows downhill, ignoring man-made political borders.

<comment><USER10> Geography and topography influence human-made political borders, particularly in the regions referenced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://outline.com/h5wwjq](https://outline.com/h5wwjq)

</comment><comment><USER14> Complete with photos of the facility, almost ready to go. This should neatly parry the recent 'press speculation' about China banning rare-earth exports.

Who said governments use the press as unofficial communication channels, to make threats etc, not to mention regional governments fishing for funding? Not me...

</comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone explain what makes the mining and processing of Rare Earth Metals so toxic.

I've read in some places that it is normally found with Thorium, is that the main problem?

<comment><USER16> From what I have read (Im no expert on this) I think they basically have to mine dirt and then put the dirt in a slew of toxic chemicals that break down everything but the rare earth minerals. It leaves the issue of having large amounts of toxic chemicals that need to be disposed of. So any country with lax environmental laws don't have this huge cost (For example CHina just dumps it in the rivers where in the US you would need to spend large amounts of money disposing of it properly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Could rare earths be mined from sea water?

<comment><USER17> Yes but it's not economically viable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws."

<comment><USER19> Fair enough, I suppose.

Since I can't read the site, I can't draw any conclusions, but:

1\. Would it really be that hard to make a profile of the average European, make a selection of advertisements on that profile and the subject, and serve those statically (perhaps mining equipment or Holiday opportunities in Virginia)?

2\. The less intrusive your behaviour is, the less you have to worry about the GDPR. Aren't non-EU readers worried about visiting sites that completely block the EU as a preventive measure?

I'm pretty happy to be blocked though. It's a lot more honest and better than the song and dance some outlets put up trying to obfuscate compliance.

<comment><USER20> West Virginia != Virginia.

<comment><USER21> only since 1863...

<comment><USER20> It was a rather important year. They were traitorous slaver-owners, we weren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Plot twist: there's no miners available because they all learned to code instead.

<comment><USER23> Please don't post unsubstantive or snarky comments here. Also: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't get it, what is the purpose of these elements? Is this jewellery or what?

<comment><USER3> They have a wide variety of uses. Big ones include some varieties of batteries, magnets (NdFeB, SmCo), phosphors, doped fiber optical amplifiers (very important for global fiber optic networks), Nd-YAG lasers, catalysts for oil processing, contrast agents for MRI (gadolinium). There's even a drug for osteoporosis containing lanthanum.

Some rare earths have extraordinarily high thermal neutron capture cross sections, in the millions of barns. Gadolinium is used as a "burnable absorber" in some nuclear reactors, particularly naval reactors: as the fuel is consumed, the absorber also burns down, reducing the reactivity change.

<comment><USER24> Thanks. I should have looked it up beforehand but the article definitely made me feel frustrated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The import tariffs on foreign goods will definitely help US business. Less competition the better after all. I remember reading US steel companies raising prices when Euro and Canadian steel was slapped with punitive taxes.

<comment><USER26> It will definitely help _some_ US businesses and will definitely hurt others. The same way import tariffs on steel are good for US steel companies, they are hurting the US companies who are using that US steel in their products. And that's without taking retaliation tariffs into account.

<comment><USER27> It hurts the US companies until they go back to using higher-quality US steel, which they should have been doing in the first place.

Chinese steel is of such low quality that, after wastage is accounted for, you essentially end up paying just as much as you would have for US steel. The companies that save on Chinese steel are just passing on the externalities to their customers.

<comment><USER26> Hmm...let's see. I know absolutely nothing about the quality of US-vs-Chinese steel but, assuming everything you say is true, that means companies buying steel are perfectly fine buying low quality steel. And they will be perfectly fine buying low quality steel, regardless of where the supplier is located. So, what will inevitably follow is that US steel manufacturers will lower the quality of their steel to match Chinese's, while keeping the price high. The result - US consumers paying more for the same shitty quality steel.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Extreme Pair Programming - Guy Steele and Richard Stallman - <AUTHOR> http://cycle-gap.blogspot.com/2007/09/extreme-pair-programming-guy-steele-and.html <comment><USER2> [from link:] "Throughout that entire time, Steele says, neither he nor Stallman took a break or made any small talk."

Well, of course not. This _was_ the 70s, and we _are_ talking about Guy Steele here; so they were probably far too busy scheming to make smalltalk.

</comment><comment><USER3> Back in 1995 or 1996, I spent a long week-end doing extreme pair programming with Philip Nelson. We set up in his dining room and took an image from his whiteboard to a 80+% done product in 3 or 4 days. No meetings, no phone calls. With very few interruptions, we were able to maintain focus for hours.

The most notable interruption: while stretching, Phil accidently hit the rocker switch on the power strip with his foot. I'll never forget the look on his face when everything shut down. We only lost a couple minutes worth of edits, 'tho. I am a habitual save guy in emacs, whenever I switch buffers or pause to think.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't emacs even save automatically (in a temporary file or so)? I know that vi does.

<comment><USER5> Of course. But when you use Emacs regularly, you start typing CTRL-X-S constantly, even when you're not in Emacs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd pay to see ESR and Zed Shaw pair-programming.

<comment><USER7> This might be a rather short session, I don't think Zed carries.

<comment><USER8> Carries?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Though not nearly as intense as the experience related in this anecdote, it is that same compulsion to maintain focus that makes pair programming so valuable for me ... and so difficult and uncomfortable. No doubt in my mind, though: I write much better code when I'm pairing with another developer.

<comment><USER7> People are wired rather differently. Yes, you don't procrastinate to HN, Facebook, OKCupid or whatever's your online crack, but on the other hand the programming itself is an order of magnitude worse (and _feels_ twice as bad). Maybe with a few programmers in the world I could "co-flow" enough to get up to speed, but that would still waste the other person's productivity. Considering that nice little XPers should swing a lot, this makes this probably the worst "agile" practice I know of, beyond even TDD.

Like I said, some people might be wired differently. Although in this case, it's hard to imagine getting a > 200% productivity increase out of two people to make it worth it in the long run.

For short code golfing sessions, sure. That's been called "could you help me with this code?" for a long time, before that nice alliteration was invented.

<comment><USER9> "it's hard to imagine getting a > 200% productivity increase"

It depends on how you measure productivity. If it's measured in LOC/hour or something, then pair programming will definitely seem like a huge productivity hit.

If you measure productivity more like "features delivered per month" (and negatively adjust for bugs that make it to production) I contend that pair programming will probably yield more favorable numbers.

<comment><USER10> >If you measure productivity more like "features delivered per month" (and negatively adjust for bugs that make it to production) I contend that pair programming will probably yield more favorable numbers.

There's no credible evidence to support that claim.

On the other hand, pair programming generates a lot of churn (discussions about details between the pair programmers, the outcome of which bears little consequence on the solution of the problem) and that alone is guaranteed to negate whatever gain you could expect from pair programming.

In my experience, asynchronous code reviews work a lot better.

<comment><USER9> "There's no credible evidence to support that claim."

My experience supports it. Can you point to credible evidence to support your claim?

<comment><USER11> And my experience contradicts it. So what? The burden of proof is on the people claiming that it's more productive to do pair programming _all the time_ , rather than just doing code reviews, collaborating when you need it, and otherwise not cutting your team in half. eXtreme claims require extreme proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How effective is pair programming when there is a skill and/or experience disparity between the two programmers? Will the worse/newer programming only hold back the better/more experienced programmer? Note: I'm not suggesting such was the case here.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure it depends, in my experience, the best way to learn is from a more experienced programmer. I would make the newer programmer drive so he doesn't end up twiddling his thumbs.

So I'd say, no, the newer programmer will not hold back the more experienced, more likely the newer programmer will just learn a lot.

(This assumes the newbie has previous experience with IDE/typing, is not actually 'worse' in the 'stupid' sense, but just less experienced).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> For some reason I can't explain... the idea of 10 hours of coding without interruption ,just cranking stuff, and loosing track of time excites me :)

<comment><USER6> Before you get too excited, it's obviously an exaggeration. Like on TV they don't show Jason Bourne taking a break from assassinating people to go to the bathroom.

<comment><USER15> Didn't he once assassinate someone in a bathroom? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 10 hours code golfing to get the code down to 100 lines ? Seems kind of extreme.

<comment><USER17> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." \-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> TIL Strong bladder is a prerequisite doing pair programming with RMS.

<comment><USER19> I've been here for more than a year, so I hope the general public will not mind me voicing a concern. In my opinion, something unwelcome is happening in the last couple of days. I think there even was a pun thread the other day... _with upvotes_.

Being a lurker by nature, I don't possess the power of the down arrow or the flag, so let me just say that now is not a good time to let these tools lay idle.

<comment><USER20> What's the problem with this comment specifically? Instead of saying "HN sux, everyone behave differently", why not just disagree with the comment?

I will argue both sides. For:

"It's a good point; at some point biology has to take over and break your concentration. Did they have bathroom breaks and not mention it? Were they so focused that they couldn't hear their body telling them to let it out? Did they just go in a bottle right there?"

Intersting point, jrockway!

Against:

"I think the point of this story was not to literally describe the exact events that took place over the 10 hours they were working together. They took breaks. They got some lunch and made some coffee. But that part isn't very interesting to talk about, and neither of them remember it because it was so meaningless in the context of what they were doing.

But yes, they used the bathroom. Glad that that's all you could think about."

See how I could argue either side and I didn't have to mention HN at all? If I disagreed, other people would see that and upmod me and realize that the OP's comment didn't have much relevance. If I agreed, other people might think, "hey, this OP guy is insightful".

You can control how comments are moderated and how the conversation flows. But you have to put more effort into it than just saying "HN is dying, OH NOES".

<comment><USER21> The point is that both of those responses, as well as the original remark, are completely inane and boring. If a person reads this anecdote and the only thing he has to say about it is a commentary on bathroom breaks, then I wish that person would resist the urge to post his thoughts.

<comment><USER20> More inane or less inane than meta-talk?

If all a person has to say about an article is about how badly HN sucks, then I wish that person would resist the urge to post his thoughts.

As GlaDOS says: "We both know that isn't going to happen."

<comment><USER21> Well, I downvoted that guy too, for feeding the troll. It went without saying that the original comment was lousy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Facebook iFrame authentication in Safari? Please help. - <AUTHOR>

This is a question for anyone who's ever made an iFrame app in facebook, or a 3rd party widget that would run in a website (I'm doing the latter).
How can I authenticate with facebook? It seems that the fbs_<app_id> cookie isn't being set when I'm on Safari, because the iframe is showing my widget which is on another domain.
I heard that submitting a form with target="_self" might cause Safari to treat my domain as "visited" and then the cookies would be set. It seems to work. However, the fbs_<app_id> cookie is STILL not being set after the whole facebook authentication popup is done. Does anyone know why? Please help me figure out how to actually auth with facebook when I'm in an iframe! <comment><USER2> response.headers['P3P'] = 'CP="IDC DSP COR ADM DEVi TAIi PSA PSD IVAi IVDi CONi HIS OUR IND CNT"'

<comment><AUTHOR> this works for IE, but what about safari?

<comment><USER2> That was taken right out of an IFrame canvas app that I just retested in Safari - both a new app install, and revisiting an app after 2+ hours for the default token to have expired.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my case, the fbs_APPID cookie isn't being set

instead I get this: <http://grab.by/8rmQ>

does anyone know why these cookies are being set? the PHP library doesn't seem to work with those.

<comment><USER2> two possibilities. Clock on the machine set correct? the appid cookie has a short 3600 second expiration, which means if your timezone is off, or you aren't taking into account Daylight Savings Time, the cookie will expire before it is set.

The other possibility is that the API you're using isn't using the Javascript SDK get_facebook_cookie which initializes the session through FB.Init and parses the data passed to it and sets the cookie locally.

Are you calling the Javascript SDK? I haven't used the PHP Library in quite some time, but, it is possible that you're using a library that is written for the older FBML rather than the IFrame canvas.

Are you able to run liveheaders to see what is actually being sent? or some other network capture tool?

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is what I am doing. I am calling FB.init and FB.login , after a click so that the popup window shows up.

You can see it live here: <http://qbix.com>

Now, if you go and put it in an iframe (try it with jsfiddle.com or something), then in every browser except Safari and IE, it works: the popup shows up, and after I click Allow, the fbs_ cookie gets placed.

In IE, I think I can easily make it work by sending a cool P3P header so IE can save cookies.

In Safari, I can make cookes be saved by first posting into that frame. In your jsfiddle or page or whatever, make a form with method="post" and target="thatframename" and then submit() that form using javascript. Now the cookies should be set for my domain, right?

Yes, but now open up the Developer console on safari, and click "Storage". Watch what gets saved. A bunch of weird cookies by facebook. On every other browser, the fbs_ cookie gets saved but here we get a bunch of weird cookies. Why? How can I get the fbs_ cookie saved so I can make calls to my server and have the user authenticated properly? See what I mean?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Putting the Chat into Snapchat - <AUTHOR> http://blog.snapchat.com/post/84407744185/putting-the-chat-into-snapchat <comment><USER2> I think this will be big, specifically the video aspect. Removes the biggest problems with video chat (Skype, hangouts etc.) feeling 'weird'. My immediate thoughts:

A) Don't feel like you're getting roped into a long conversation (you have to hold down on the screen, so of course it will be short!)

B) Doesn't feel like you are bothering people by calling them without knowing if they are free to videochat (they are clearly using snapchat at that moment so they're probably not too busy)

C) No need to have something specific to talk about; can just say hi quickly and see what your friends are up to.

D) As a bonus, if you are messaging with someone in the text interface and get to a point in the conversation where you need to communicate something complex, just use the video chat feature for 20 secs. and then go back to the more async g-chat style text messaging.

<comment><USER3> The video aspect of it seems like a fantastic feature and I think your point A is very important. At least for myself, I have friends and family that are far away and I love to talk to, and would love to have quick chats with more often, except that when we start talking it ends up taking hours, so I'm hesitant to get into it unless I know I have the time to spare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if we need an update to jwz's famous quote [0]:

"Every program attempts to expand until it implements user-to-user messaging. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones that can."

[0]: [http://www.jwz.org/hacks/](http://www.jwz.org/hacks/)

<comment><USER5> Just as a clerical point, it would be better not to put a modified quote inside quotation marks. Currently, it looks like you're quoting the cited article when you're not.

<comment><USER6> Really, the quotation marks need scare quotes, so you know they're just so- called quotation marks: "'"<modified quotation here>"'"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dragging your video bubble from the top of the screen to the bottom causing a switch to the front facing camera seems like a really clever design decision.

<comment><USER8> It sounds like it might be a little RSI-inducing though, having to press your finger down all the time.

<comment><USER9> I'm gonna make an assumption that you (and many people on here) sit all day and probably don't exercise intensely regularly, eat healthily, or sleep very well.

I don't think "RSI" by swiping on a screen is your most pressing health concern.

<comment><USER8> Okay, but at least some of your assumptions are wrong. I recommend melatonin and the flux app for great sleep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm pretty torn on this. In my main circle of Snapchat friends, we use the app to make creative messages for each other that can't be seen again. It's really special because it feels like we're all hanging out again back in college: we're funny, spontaneous, a little bit inappropriate, and outsiders just won't get the jokes.

My own want for the update was to focus more on allowing us to express ourselves: give us easier and better tools to enable us to make messages more fun for each other. The feature could have been allowing users to record drawing strokes over a video or picture (sort of how Draw Something images presented themselves to the guesser) to give us another dimension to play with, time.

Instead the app just moved toward the mainstream app features, which are all mostly the same.

<comment><USER8> I think the main thrust of the update is providing this ephemeral face-to-face 'meeting' of your friends throughout the day, as if you're seeing them in the corridor, just like college. The text chat seems to be more of a platform for facilitating that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a great. I find that half my snapchats are boring photos of my face, lunch, or coffee mug, just so I can put a caption over them. No more!

It also seems like a full on attack against Facebook messenger.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree about Facebook messenger. This is a game changer. FB messenger is going to be the I'm-on-the-subway-and-don't-know-anyone-so-I-better-not- look-silly kinda app, and that's boring.

<comment><USER12> _I 'm-on-the-subway-and-don't-know-anyone-so-I-better-not-look-silly kinda app_

Hmm, what does this mean? I really don't understand, sorry! Sounds interesting though.

<comment><AUTHOR> It means people will user Facebook messenger when they are not comfortable with the place they are in. If I'm at home, at my university or my cousins' I will chose Snapchat over Facebook messenger, because I'll feel free enough that I can talk and goof around with that app, in a way that is not possible with Facebook... yet! Also, I think there are people less boring than me who will not give a damn and will use Snapchat's Chat everyday, everywhere, and that's going to be awesome. As clichéd as it might sound, they really are changing the way we communicate.

<comment><USER13> If the newest update is anything to go by (auto sending image as soon as it is taken) FB messenger is trying to get away from that

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Really cool design, I love the dragging of the bubble to choose a camera.

This is starting to move away from the original value prop of Snapchat. If you can save chat bits, what's the difference in using any messaging service. Also, who usually is taking selfies or is using text message to talk to someone when they want to video chat? During most hours when you're on the go, you send asynchronous media since it's easier to create and digest that content from both parties. This feature won't add to the success that they've seen from their core product, just cause a nice little bump in traffic - not a game changer.

<comment><USER15> I would argue that a good portion of snapchats use happens in extended conversations (for example, flirting). Adding the ability to quickly drop into video to share something will feel pretty organic and add to the experience.

It may not add to their original value prop, but it is a value add to the way people are actually using the product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Snapchat has an advantage in adding new features like this in that their user base is one of the trendiest groups out there. They are young, hyper-social, and early adopters who have very high affinity for the service. I believe Snapchat can get them to use new features like this, where others like the bigger, slower, and less cool Facebook, would not get the same type of adoption.

</comment><comment><USER17> Doesn't this start to erode the spontaneity and key purpose of Snapchat?

To what extent do you think this is feature creep?

<comment> k-mcgrady I think it's supposed to be ephemeral (not spontaneous). The ephemerality doesn't change with this update as the conversations disappear when they're completed (with the option to save important messages). Similar to conversations IRL I guess. You speak with someone, note down/save important things such as addresses and then everything else is lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> When are they going to put proper encryption into Snapchat?

<comment><USER19> This is an interesting part — they're focussing so much on the product but the underlying protocol is still vulnerable to use outside of the app itself, leading the way to spambots, saving of snaps and general degradation of the "niceness" of the ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm not sure why, but it delights me to imagine Snapchat demolishing FB in the messaging wars, particularly after FB spent $19B on Whatsapp.

I think these are some pretty awesome new features. I just got the update via Android, but my friends don't seem to have it yet. I'm excited to try it out, but I don't think I'll ever get completely away from Hangouts, since I use Drive/Gmail to run my startup.

</comment><comment><USER21> Don't you mean taking the snap out of snapchat?

</comment><comment><USER22> This is amazing! I love the subtle swipe down to change from back camera to front facing camera.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady I like this. It'll give me a lot more reason to use Snapchat. Currently I've sent only a few snaps but I use Facebook Messenger all the time. If my friends started using this I would become more active on Snapchat.

</comment><comment><USER23> As a user I always found it annoying that I couldn't answer to a snapchat in the app itself (without taking a picture and writing something in it). I always had to go to snapchat or fb messenger to answer.

</comment><comment><USER24> There is no send button next to the chat. seriously? I type something and try hitting that button and it goes into video mode. And I also had the app crashing multiple time on iPhone 5s today.

<comment><USER25> It's in the keyboard

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What's their differentiator now?

Of course current users might say "great, another feature i want!", but, wont this just muddy their market position?

</comment><comment><USER27> I still can't believe they turned down $3bn.

<comment> k-mcgrady Look at how much Facebook paid for Whatsapp. Features like this new chat feature will probably help SnapChat grow a lot bigger - then Facebook will come back with a much bigger offer.

<comment><USER27> Maybe. I can't think of much I could do with "maybe" $30bn, that I couldn't do with "definite" $3bn though!

\- A lifestyle programmer.

<comment><USER28> Well said. Pigs get slaughtered, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is something that I was missing a lot! I like snapchat, but hate to take stupid pictures just to send message.

</comment><comment><USER30> I suppose the natural follow up question is, how will this affect my Snapchat score?

</comment><comment><USER31> clearing messages when you leave the chat window will make people not use it

<comment><USER32> Not sure why someone felt the appropriate response was to downvote you rather than voicing their disagreement. I think you're right.

With WhatsApp picking up speed in my close friend circle, Facebook messenger being used for everyone else, and the occasional Google hangouts messages when I feel like being online, I don't think even taking the "ephemeral" approach is going to make a difference in persuading me to start picking Snapchat over competing platforms. Snapchat is fun because as other users mentioned, I get to send bullshit one-off joke snaps to my friends. I don't want to maintain a conversation of any sort through another app. However, knowing the conversation is immediately cleared further dissuades me. The point of this feature is that it's good for non-committal "conversations" and very easy to engage/disengage. But I already have WhatsApp for that, and I have group conversations there, and my messages aren't deleted.

<comment><USER33> Snapchat has always been more about the one-to-one messaging. Yes you can do one-to-many, but it still gives a more personal feel than a many-to-many group message. You had to click on that person to send it to them, you actively thought about them no matter how instantaneously.

I use Snapchat for both very close friends and acquaintances too, I can send both inside jokes or just a simple hello to someone I haven't spoken to in a while. I don't feel an obligation to respond to snapchats and don't feel ignored when someone doesn't respond to mine, how I would via text, or facebook messenger.

I personally never use facebook messenger. I've had it turned off for a couple of years now and only use it on the rare occasion that a friend changed phone numbers (friends moving abroad mostly) and even that is just to get their new number so I can use whatsapp or text messaging. As for whatsapp I strictly use it for large, on going, group messages or friends in other countries. But I guess everyone has their own use-cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Is the update only available in the US? nothing here in Portugal

<comment><USER35> Neither in Australia.

<comment><USER36> I just got the update now. Check again. I'm really liking the new UI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Anyone know which video chat API they're using?

</comment><comment><USER38> Does it say when it is getting released?

</comment><comment><USER39> Really? now starts a new form of vulnerability :3 personal stuff

</comment><comment><USER40> Worst Update Ever.

<comment><USER41> I think it would add more to the discussion if you explained your reasoning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> look at all those teens without credit cards liking the tumblr post.

</comment><comment><USER43> The technology of the internet sure has come a long way!

</comment><comment><USER44> It's not a coincidence that they are coming out with new features right before CyberDust is about to become big(they are coming to Android this month). I will switch to CyberDust as soon it comes to Android not just because it's better than snapchat functionally, but because it doesn't reveal the people you talk to most to the whole world. I know a lot of people that don't have snapchat specifically for this reason.

<comment><USER45> CyberDusts leading app store reviews are so obviously shilled it hurts. They actually read like they were written to go in the description section.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Not a fan. Almost everyone I know has stopped using Snapchat. Its servers are god-awful - don't work 50% of the time here and people have got tired of seeing friends' sushi pictures & selfies 24/7.

Also, choosing not to support Windows Phone (and apparantly not even recording WP users' requests) is a really stupid move in my opinion.

Furthermore, I see no reason why Snapchat should be preferred over Facebook Messenger. If you want to share a moment with a friend, you might as well share it for more than 10 seconds. Messenger always works reliably for me. Snapchat doesn't. Case closed.

<comment><USER46> Also, Facebook itself, not taking into account its Messenger, is dying out - 90% of the newsfeed is covered with posts from sites like The Verge or any other sites that you follow. The actual amount of stuff that you care about is 2% of it all. Can't honestly remember someone posting a legitimately _interesting_ status update. Instead, I see selfies and news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> On Android the Snapchat apps keep crushing.

I know I have a fancy red phone nobody uses (I think it's called NEXUS 5 from a company named Goodle or Google, I can't remember).

So, before putting new stuff in the app, please fix it!

<comment><USER48> Snapchat has long been unstable on the Nexus 4. For almost a year now.

[https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=67113](https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=67113)</comment></comment>


Show HN:  Testing is hard - I make it easier - <AUTHOR> http://testplanmanagement.com

<comment><USER2> Offer a free tier. I don't want a trial. I want to see exactly how your service works and I want to make a purchase decision on my timeline, not yours.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a personal account that does exactly what you are asking. On the pricing page just below the other options.</comment></comment>