Google removes plus one button from organic search - <AUTHOR> http://alexwebmaster.com/google-removes-plus-one-button-bye-bye-plus-one/

<comment><USER2> Wow. Maybe they're actually realizing that people lately don't care about +1 (because it was both ambitious and horribly implemented in G+.)

</comment><comment><USER3> At last some sanity sets in. That button really made no sense at all. In a typical scenario, I will decide whether I like or not only after visiting the page. And to visit the page, I have to leave the Google search results page.

<comment><USER4> Lots of people use Google as the gateway to their favorite sites.

<comment><USER5> Fair point.

I still find it awkward and counterintuitive for most people as a pre- clickthrough button though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Somehow I lost the ability to remove sites completely from my searches. Now that would be useful.

<comment><USER7> Click the result, then click back to the search results.

You can also manage sites manually from the settings. flower in the top right -> search settings -> block unwanted sites

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is now a link that says "Share" next to my search results, so I can still post things to my G+ wall. Is that a lot different than +1?

<comment><USER9> Yes, you can +1 a link without sharing it, similar to clicking 'like' for Facebook. Your +1s are minimally visible or only visible to you, just like a Facebook 'like' is minimally visible in a timeline.

Sharing on Google+ creates a more prominent but soft broadcast/recommendation/endorsement to the public or to your friends (via circles).

Out of curiosity, I tried two scenarios:

+1 button on a website/link = I shared with a circle and it counted as a +1 automatically. This is NOT what Google is doing when you share a search result, so you are not +1'ing that shared-from-the-search-results url.

Sharing a link directly through the Google+ UI at plus.google.com = NOT automatically +1'd. This is what Google is doing with the 'share' link in search results. Sharing a search result does not +1 it while it does broadcast it to the circles you choose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Praise the Lord!</comment>


A RISC-V CPU for $8 - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/02/14/new-part-day-a-risc-v-cpu-for-eight-dollars/ <comment><USER2> There's a port of MicroPython to these chips, which is nice: [https://github.com/sipeed/MaixPy](https://github.com/sipeed/MaixPy)

<comment><USER3> It's also attracting a lot of attention in the MicroPython community; seems like this port will improve rapidly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the RISC-V Privileged ISA Specification [[https://riscv.org/specifications/privileged- isa/](https://riscv.org/specifications/privileged-isa/)]:

 _We briefly note that the entire privileged-level design described in this document could be replaced with an entirely different privileged-level design without changing the user-level ISA, and possibly without even changing the ABI. In particular, this privileged specification was designed to run existing popular operating systems, and so embodies the conventional level-based protection model. Alternate privileged specifications could embody other more flexible protection-domain models._

Do many/most other architectures have this attribute? The idea of replacing only one "side" of an architecture has never crossed my mind before and seems pretty cool.

<comment><USER5> To my knowledge, no other _widely deployed_ ISA has had this level of flexibility and foresight. In fact it's usually the opposite; the ISA is usually tightly coupled to the processor implementation that introduced it and the survival (= market success) of the immediate product is all that matters. However _if_ it's successful, the successor(s) are now locked into support all the legacy of its predecessors.

I can only think of two other examples that successfully planned for the future: the IBM 360 (extremely CISC, but still alive today) and the DEC Alpha (beautiful design, but now mostly dead).

<comment><USER6> The Alpha disappeared because DEC went under and HP buried the CPU in favor of the Itanium, which is now also dead (mostly because of its technical shortcomings).

<comment><USER7> Itaninum is dead thanks to cross licensing between Intel and AMD.

If the choice had been Itanium or bust, it would have turned out much different outcome.

<comment><USER8> Not really, the Itanium VLIW architecture bet heavily on instruction-level parallellism as opposed to thread-level parallellism. In theory, the Itanium could issue and retire 3 instructions per cycle thereby making it competitive with x86 even on modest clock speeds.

The main problem was that not many programs could sustain 3 parallel instructions in their critical path, which meant that the compiler would often generate NOPs to fill the empty instruction slots. IIRC the Itanium typically achieved around 40% of its theoretical performance on conventional workloads. The term "NOP density" was coined specifically to research this problem.

There is another interesting observation in [1] that I haven't realized before: even if the compiler were to succesfully generate 3 instructions per cycle, the processor then had to possibly fetch 3 memory locations in that instruction cycle. If two of those were already in cache, the instruction would still stall on the third memory fetch. Contrast this with the implicit parallellism of hyperthreading, where the processor can continue executing a different thread when the current thread encounters a memory stall.

[1] [https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2793...](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/279334/why- was-the-itanium-processor-difficult-to-write-a-compiler-for/279395#279395)

<comment><USER7> If Intel decided they would only produce Itaniums, without an AMD around to come up with the idea to create AMD64, we wouldn't have any option than to live with those shortcommings and eventually get improved designs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This has come up so many times. It has far too little memory for Linux, but ignoring that, the MMU is broken and can't support virtual memory (not that they claim to support supervisor mode anywhere).

<comment><USER9> Kendryte K210 is designed for FreeRTOS[0] and other embedded OSes.

Complaining that it doesn't support Linux is like complaining that a Honda Civic can't compete in Formula One.

[0] [https://github.com/kendryte/kendryte-freertos- sdk](https://github.com/kendryte/kendryte-freertos-sdk)

<comment><USER10> in 1995 the Linux (Slackware) was flying on 25MHz 386SX with 4M RAM :)

<comment><USER11> ...in part because the 80386 supported virtual memory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's the Aliexpress link to buy the package with wifi, LCD and camera, it's about 40% more expensive than "taobao.com" if you're not a Chinese citizen with ID but still cheap as: [https://www.aliexpress.com/item/LEORY- Sipeed-M1-Dock-Develop...](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/LEORY- Sipeed-M1-Dock-Development-Board-2-4-inch-320-240-LCD-Screen-OV2640-Camera- Kit/32968590089.html)

<comment><USER13> Careful - that's just the dev board without the M1 MCU itself. Taobao is pretty easy to access through the use of reshippers, I've used superbuy.com with much success but there are loads of options out there to pick up deals from Taobao and have them sent out of mainland China.

<comment><USER14> > _I 've used superbuy.com with much success but there are loads of options > out there to pick up deals from Taobao and have them sent out of mainland > China._

Please do tell more! I just made a Superbuy account but can't for the life of me figure out how to use it.

I'm somewhat fluent in Mandarin (my reading's a little rusty), so if that opens up additional options I'd love to know of them.

<comment><USER15> I had zero problems with Superbuy, copy the taobao or jd.com url to the top search bar and from there it should be trivial. Now, I do not have the taobao URL to show you but here's an interesting device (takes wide range DC via 5.5mm x 2.5mm plug and spits up two USB C and one USB A connection) [https://item.jd.com/36832086035.html](https://item.jd.com/36832086035.html) and via superbuy [https://www.superbuy.com/en/page/buy?nTag=Home- search&from=s...](https://www.superbuy.com/en/page/buy?nTag=Home- search&from=search-input&url=https%3A%2F%2Fitem.jd.com%2F36832086035.html) add a cheap old 170W laptop charger from Lenovo with the right plug converter [https://www.ebay.com/itm/282597814816](https://www.ebay.com/itm/282597814816) and presto, you have a super high wattage desktop USB charging station.

<comment><USER12> This is really good to know - thanks for the tip!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Off-topic: I'm so freaking excited for RISC-V.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sold out already. :- )

I want to see what Espressif, SiPeed, or some other vendor manages to do with RISC-V. I'm currently prototyping an A2DP vendor codec extension for Opus using an ESP32 board, and it is pretty painless. Bluetooth is the high value bit in my opinion.

<comment><USER2> The module without WiFi is in Stock (and is the $8 model, the WiFi is $9).

[https://www.seeedstudio.com/Sipeed-MAIX-I-module-w-o- WiFi-1s...](https://www.seeedstudio.com/Sipeed-MAIX-I-module-w-o-WiFi-1st- RISC-V-64-AI-Module-K210-insid-p-3210.html)

There's also a dev board, which is probably much more useful than these bare modules. Unfortunately also out of stock: [https://www.seeedstudio.com/Sipeed- MAix-BiT-for-RISC-V-AI-Io...](https://www.seeedstudio.com/Sipeed-MAix-BiT-for- RISC-V-AI-IoT-p-2872.html)

<comment><USER18> 13$ for a rpi zero w like thing.. not bad

<comment><USER19> I think "esp32 like thing" is probably a closer comparison.

<comment><USER18> That thing clocks a 400MHz out of the box and has coprocessors .. I'd also guess that risc-v isa is more performant than esp32's one (super wild guess). Let's say it sits in the middle :)

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h The distinction to me is software; if it runs Linux or such, it's a computer. If I have to provide "firmware" then it is a microcontroller.

<comment><USER20> There are Fedora and FreeBSD builds for RISC-V. This particular item seems to have only 8MB though, so not really in (most people's) "computer" realm. ;)

<comment><USER7> Oh man I was so happy when I migrated from a PC 386SX with 2MB to a Pentium 75 with 8MB!

<comment><USER21> A joke about a memory-hungry program use to be that EMACS stands for Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping.

<comment><USER18> ELeven Exabytes and Constant TRashing Of Nodes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The runner-up: [https://www.analoglamb.com/product/dual-core- risc-v-64bit-k2...](https://www.analoglamb.com/product/dual-core- risc-v-64bit-k210-ai-board-kendryte-kd233/)

<comment><USER23> Same chip, different board.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Anyone know what "neural network processor" means, with regard to this chip?

<comment><USER25> Sometimes it's a DSP or FPGA with blocks/instructions designed to implement common matrix transformations.

In this particular case a vendor on that site claims:

> 3\. There are 5.9MB SRAM can be used for convolutional neural network > acceleration, so, it is possible to run small model like tiny-yolo > v2,MobileNet, as you see in face detection routine video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is super exciting. I hope the demand for these stimulates the copycat manufacturers into making even more RISC-V chips at lower and lower prices with better availability and options (aka, Arduino style).

</comment><comment><USER27> What is the big difference between ARM RISC chips and RISC-V?

<comment><USER28> RISC-V is an open ISA created by these guys: [https://riscv.org/](https://riscv.org/). ARM RISC chips are ARM IP and not open. There's a lot more to unpack there, but that's the gist of it.

<comment><USER29> Will we see general purpose risc v's? I mean, as a substitute for ARM for example

<comment><USER30> That's the idea yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is there any chance this will supplant AVR for hobbyist uses?

<comment><USER32> I think AVR had already been supplanted by ARM and ESP

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a dark pattern, the chip seems purpose-built for spying. It is interesting as we're witnessing the birth of a new category of embedded chips. 1\. I wonder if a chip with these features will be standard in a couple of years, and somewhat shake up the embedded world. 2\. ARM was said to be bet heavily on AI, but this chip seems to be ahead. Correct?

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure I follow... What specifically about this chip makes it purpose- built for spying?

<comment><USER33> It is a chip that puts face-recognition (and sound-recognition) in a webcam almost for free, and it lowers the price of this capability dramatically. This lends itself to tracking people in public and commercial places, on a scale not yet seen. Maybe it even is the initial market? Regardless it represents an interesting new kind of device (which ARM was aiming for)!</comment></comment></comment>


What is a good tool to block cookies and JavaScript on specific non-GDPR sites? - <AUTHOR> I generally do concent to adverts etc on sites that allow me to opt in. However there is a worrying number of sites which have wording like the following:

    To use [sitename] you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.
 I basically want to block cookies and Javascript on only those sites that make it mandatory - and only on those sites (it's a stupid principled thing I know). <comment><USER2> Best tool is the browser, just disallow cookies and JavaScript by default and enable them on what you want. You can even use addons to fine tune this. Since there is no GDPR compliant lists and no way to insure a site is 100% compliant or stays compliant this may need to be manually managed.

I block all 3rd party cookies by default and force block certain cookies and JavaScript code from running, especially on sites that look really bad or I need to modify to my liking. I would recommend looking into GreaseMonkey and TamperMonkey for full customization.

<comment><AUTHOR> Obviously it needs to be browser plug in. :P But what I'm after is the opposite to what you've described as I want to allow JS and cookies by default and only block it on the sites I choose.

I wasn't after a GDPR compliance list either. I just want to add sites to the "naughty list" as and when they p __* me off :D</comment></comment>


Inclusion and Tolerance in the Workplace - <AUTHOR> http://media.grubhub.com/media/press-releases/press-release-details/2016/Inclusion-and-Tolerance-in-the-Workplace/default.aspx <comment><USER2> So, sorry not sorry?

If he can't see what he did wrong in the first email, I really don't have any hope for that company.

This is just a cya, and a lazy one at that.</comment>


Lubuntu Linux 20.04 LTS (Focal Fossa) - <AUTHOR> https://lubuntu.me/focal-released/ <comment><USER2> I have maybe dumb questions...

I have been using Linux for for almost 15 years now. Mint, RHEL, CentOS and most recently Ubuntu. For some reason, though, I can't understand all these variations in Ubuntu flavors. For example, other than the Desktop Environment, what else does Lubuntu offer that vanilla Ubuntu doesn't? Can't one just install the desktop environment on Ubuntu? Isn't this stuff modular, take in what you want take out what you don't?

So what exactly is Lubuntu's value proposition over Ubuntu?

<comment><USER3> I think you have a wrong view of things here.

Lubuntu isn't really a "different distribution". The different "flavors" of Ubuntu are all the same distribution, they just differ in their default install and settings.

If you remove lxqt from lubuntu, install kde you can morph it into kubuntu.

<comment><USER2> Where did i call it a "different distribution"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Note, due to the extensive changes required for the shift in desktop environments, the Lubuntu team does not support upgrading from 18.04 or below to any greater release. Doing so will result in a broken system. If you are on 18.04 or below and would like to upgrade, please do a fresh install."

Is quite a surprising note for an official Ubuntu flavor.

<comment><USER5> Honestly the only Linux distros worth trying are Gentoo, Arch, Fedora and RHEL/Oracle/CentOS. With anything else you are just wasting your time with amateur hour attempts to cobble together a Windows/Mac OS competitor without a good understanding of how all the components fit together.

<comment><USER6> Under no circumstance should anyone listen to this user nor should they run Gentoo or Arch on a production machine. I use Arch on my personal computer but for work I find Debian testing to be the perfect distro. Stability is a trait which matters.

<comment><USER7> (Many) years ago I knew someone who was very happy running their business off Gentoo. "It took two weeks to "make world" with the ultimate optimization settings. "But it runs great!"

I never could bring myself to ask if they were ok with being down for 2 weeks if they needed to re-install. Say, in a case where they had an intrusion and didn't trust their backups...

<comment><USER8> There's no reason they'd have to be down for two weeks in that case. They could use a binary distribution to immediately get back into shape, and then switch over after compilation's finished, or they could compile without -OX and it'd take almost nothing, and then they'd be good to go.

Really, though, nowadays compiling everything, even compiling things for optimal performance, doesn't take that long. Your production machines shouldn't have web browsers, and without the C++ garbage behemoths on it, compilation takes like half an hour on most machines.

I'm not a Gentoo user, but it's kind of silly to act like it makes recovering substantially harder than any other distribution.

<comment><USER7> This was at a time when compiling just the kernel took 30 minutes, so YMMV. But obviously, I don't know. Just didn't seem to me like the choice is want to make for running a business. Again, ymmv...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> non-entity I dont know how LXDE was, but I've been running "new" Lubutbu with LXQt for a bit now and I find the various components that make up the desktop a bit odd.

I accidentally deleted my desktop background once while I don't remember exactly which component failed, I remember my desktop wouldnt properly start. I think it was something about pcmanfm-qt (which would no longer start) being so coupled the desktop environment.

<comment><USER9> I used LXDE in a lot of older machines. It is not very glamorous because the selection of themes icons is not that vast but it uses GTK unlike LXQt.

I have never experienced any odd behaviour or faults. It certainly is not the most beautiful desktop environment but it is stable and very very performant.

(This was using Debian + LXDE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm looking forward to Xubuntu 20.04

<comment><USER11> Same here. XFCE seems nice and reasonable especially after GNOME went all crazy-pants user hostile.

<comment><USER12> What happened to gnome?

<comment><USER11> They started removing features for the sake of branding and their "desktop vision". They cut down on customization options that a lot of people were used to when they moved from gnome2 to gnome3.

To me, it felt like they started believing themselves to be great innovators in an Apple model of "we know what's best for you, this is revolutionary. You'll take it and you'll like it. Witness our works and tremble." [1]

I may be slightly hyperbolic there, but I worked on minor bits of the gtk code base and the way some of lead devs were talking I found frankly alienating.

To be fair there were also practical reasons to limit customization for greater testing coverage and I think some of the changes were driven by RedHat's move towards being an enterprise vendor. But those changes in addition to the change in tone I was hearing was jarring.

In any case several efforts attempted to move forward with the earlier code base or at least with the earlier philosophy. And I found one that was near enough to ok.

[1] and eventually stuff like [https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/05/open- letter-stop-gtk-the...](https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/05/open-letter-stop- gtk-theming-distros)

<comment><USER10> No hyperbola, you are spot on.

Whereas apple stuff generally just works on the desktop, is super polished and generally fast, gnome3 is cumulatively an amass of crap.

Which is very bad because gnome2 used to be very functional.

They tried to become Apple, but they are not.

They literally dumbed down the whole thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Questions. (1) What Lubuntu's stance on snap? (2) Is Lubuntu currently less focused on older hardware than it used to be?

<comment><USER14> Please, Canonical, just for once use the default and stick with Flatpak like everyone else. We don't need another Mir, Upstart, Unity, ...

<comment><USER15> > stick with Flatpak like everyone else

Can you please write who "everyone else" is?

<comment><USER16> "Everyone Else" sounds like some Ubuntu release :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If only LXQt had built-in (not a 3-rd party dock) support for modern Win7/Unity-style taskbar that lets you pin taskbar buttons and use the same to launch and to switch I would certainly give it a try.

</comment><comment><USER18> I recently tried reinstalling Lubuntu on a netbook with a very small EMMC (4GB if I'm not mistaken) and couldn't find a way to slim down the install to the bare essentials.

(It was running 14.04, and that, I think, had a CLI installer with package selection)

Anyone know if 20.04 lets you install without LibreOffice and the like or have some tips on how to get to the old installer?

<comment><USER19> Try the "mini.iso" netboot install, then install the desktop you want: [http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/focal/main/installer-...](http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/focal/main/installer- amd64/current/legacy-images/netboot/)

This is an old Xubuntu article, but describes the general approach for a minimal install: [https://xubuntu.org/news/introducing-xubuntu- core/](https://xubuntu.org/news/introducing-xubuntu-core/)

<comment><USER18> Thanks, I forgot about the netboot ISO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I gave up on Linux desktop when Lubuntu file manager removed its tree view. A few months ago I read somewhere that it was restored. These news sound promising so I've taken a look and... it turns out that lxde is gone. Out of luck.

<comment><USER21> It's gone, but has been replaced by lxqt, perfectly usable (unless you specifically prefer gtk)

<comment><USER20> The thing I liked was the file manager tree view. PCMan had Windows 95 style tree. That's my favourite file manager arrangement, the one that suits my workflow.

Even in Windows 10 it's possible to more or less have the original behaviour after some tweaking.

In Linux, tree support comes and go in file managers. For me that's really infuriating. Programmers in charge of desktop environments wake up some day and decide that I shouldn't be working the way I've been working last 25 years and _deprecate_ it. Not cool.

Edit: it seems PCMan got a qt version. It seems I'll take a look after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Swapped Lubuntu 18.10 on an old dell book w xp and was really impressed by everything. Well, everything except the boot time ( and bootloader ) for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER23> How soon do these new Ubuntu server releases come of AWS?

<comment><USER24> already out [https://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/locator/ec2/](https://cloud- images.ubuntu.com/locator/ec2/)

<comment><USER23> These don't seem to be available for Lightsail. Do they?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> An I the only one that thinks it's a bit ridiculous to not have an upgrade path from 18.04 to 20.04?

<comment> Anthony-G It's quite understandable given that they're completely changing the distribution from one with software built from GTK libraries (LXDE) to one based on Qt libraries (LXQt). Such a dramatic change is pretty much a once-off event.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I sincerely use it as my mini server, lightest and friendly DE so far

</comment><comment><USER27> Already installing/upgrading to Ubuntu Budgie 20.04 on my notebooks after a surprisingly nice experience with Ubuntu Budgie 18.04.

And I did give Xubuntu, Lubuntu and Unity an sincere chance.

For hardcore work sessions nothing beats i3wm productivity tho.

<comment><USER28> Agreed on i3. Are there any Ubuntu distributions that have i3 OOTB with reasonable integrations?

<comment><USER29> Not official Ubuntu, but there is Regolith-linux[0], which is a i3 based system built on Ubuntu. I use it regularly. It is good, but I'm not a power user.

[0] [https://regolith-linux.org/](https://regolith-linux.org/)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find info about numbers of worldwide NLP market share? - <AUTHOR> I'm trying to find this information but I haven't succeed it yet. I only have found partial information with censored analytics. <comment><USER2> I don't think the data is all public.

3-letter government agencies in the United States have a considerable spend w/ companies like BBN and Booz Allen Hamilton.

I'm not aware at all of NLP tools that are useful "out of the box" without extensive training and customization; I don't think that's going to change ever, although the training and customization may get a lot easier.</comment>


Autoscaling in Kubernetes 1.3 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/07/autoscaling-in-kubernetes.html <comment><AUTHOR> This extends the autoscaling of Pods (already available in Kubernetes 1.2). With this, your pods can autoscale AND your cluster can autoscale - both up and down.

Disclosure: I work at Google on Kubernetes.

<comment><USER2> Do you have any information on the timeline for making this feature available for AWS?

<comment><AUTHOR> No definitive timeline, I'm afraid.

Here's the issue with lots of on-going discussion: [https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11935](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/11935)</comment></comment></comment>


2 New Calendar Layouts, Which would you rather buy? - <AUTHOR> https://s3.amazonaws.com/TEMPImageHosting/ABtest.png I'm currently using the first one on my KickStarter campaign but it's not doing too well. I'm thinking maybe the format is too different? <comment><USER2> Hi Chris, it's fun and all that but is HN the best place for your marketing efforts? I'm not sure that, as a group, this is a paper based calendar audience - even when the sheets are quite large.

good luck with it though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Weak vote for B. It's clearer at a glance to me what day I'm looking at. The space doesn't feel wasted.

But I'd prefer some grid layout, with huge numbers, and lots of space for writing.

Someone needs to setup an OKCupid "MyBestFace" style website where you can upload things for testing. But please use many more votes than OKC's MBF uses - 20 is paltry.</comment>


Facebook's News Feed - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebooks-news-feed-often-changed-never-great <comment><USER2> Before I deleted my Facebook account the first time I had ~> 2,000 friends. These were all people who knew me or of me, mainly from my community. My wife has topped out well above that. She still uses it.

You might think going from 2000 friends to zero Facebook would be a big social change. It wasn't really. Beyond about 10 friends (well below whatshisnames number) Facebook didn't increase its social value to me. At 2,000 it was just a time waste.

I don't really need to know what is happening in the lives of so many people. My real tribe isn't that big. Facebook didn't deepen my relationships either. It didn't enrich my life.

I got back on about two years ago and added plenty of people. By then Facebook had become this kind of Twitter for idiots/drudge report/unmoderated Reddit/MySpace so I deleted it.

I recently created an account (my third) and I think I have about 5 friends on there. I added them mainly because a real friend died. It's not a great experience. My feed is full of stuff friends liked and stuff I don't understand why Facebook thinks is relevant to me.

Facebook's land grab worked. They're huge but their product makes me feel like I walked into a dirty gas station bathroom.

Maybe I'm naive but couldn't a product that deepens relationships (quality not quantity) be a more stable long term business?

<comment><USER3> IMO the best way to deal with Facebook is to have lots of friends, mark them all as casual friends and check infrequently. That way you mostly get just important stuff like birth announcements.

By marking friends as casual you tell Facebook that you only care about important stuff. Having lots of friends and checking infrequently ensures that the algorithm always has important stuff to show you.

<comment><USER2> And that's where they lose me. It's my job to curate this thing? Meh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see the optimization problem they face. Promote non-personal content to generate short term revenue versus promote personal content to minimize long- term churn. It looks like their data scientists and business analysts have identified significant risk to pursuing the former and advocate the latter, for now.

In other words this has nothing to do with a return to claimed core values, but a shift in strategy to remain afloat for as long as possible.

<comment><USER5> The real problem is a post IPO Facebook and its obligation to make money. Intimacy isn't profitable and there is no money in sharing personal photos. Publisher content has money but FB risks becoming a feed of useless updates and viral fluff. Within this space, text is a poor revenue generator but video has the highest CPM so we are seeing a major shift to video. FB's $50mn payouts to BuzzFeed and the like shows their commitment to viral junk. The watermelon live video gimmick isn't long term sustainable. FB is losing the plot it seems. There was a time when people used to post pics of things they ate and do FB checkins everywhere they went. It got people on board but other than on-boarding it proved to be just a fad.

I imagine the long term strategy will be to selectively optimize feeds based on user prefs. Not everyone values intimacy and some people prefer BuzzFeed cruft on a daily basis.

Unfortunately intimacy is hard to measure while sharing and content generation makes for easy KPIs for exec to focus on. Focusing on these will treat the symptoms but not the cause. In fact if sharing and recirculation is a KPI then FB will increasingly gravitate toward Twitter.

However this is all backwards. Monetizing the users is a piss poor business model. It fucks up the UX and alienates the users. FB should move to other avenues. Personalized search or ecommerce or premium SMB accounts should be the bigger focus.

Aside, their move into messaging reminds me of Microsoft's play when they leveraged Hotmail users into MSN and virtually overnight, uprooted ICQ/AOL.

<comment><USER6> > Intimacy isn't profitable and there is no money in sharing personal photos.

Facebook makes money as long as users continue using its services. It doesn't matter much what they are doing as long as they keep coming back.

<comment><USER7> Exactly, sharing personal photos is insanely profitable if it keeps people on your website. You need to have a core value prop and just like TV it needs to be the primary user experience. Facebook is just readjusting for that after initially ramping up the money firehose.

It shows Facebook has a long term focus which you would expect from a public company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This might be just me but,

On facebook 'friend' mostly means someone you met once, your colleagues or those people you went to high school with and lost connection etc. Also, even at the age of 35, I feel I have some "uncool" family connections there. I can't image what it's like for teenagers. Facebook friendships don't mean anything for most of the people.

Therefore, I don't want to see their babies taking their first steps. I just don't care. Those who I care, I follow on other platforms actually.

Not sure how this will play out.

<comment><USER9> I hate to say, so why don't you remove them from your friend list if you don't care? Why have a stranger on your list? The "met once and I add you to FB" is kind of weird.

I keep my FB to people I have good relationship now and in the past but may be not actively talking to each other. That's okay, because occasionally we would comment on each other's latest update. Have a positive attitude toward using FB.

<comment><USER8> Because mostly, I don't care that much at this point. Facebook is "that thing" now.

I'm not sure but I guess this was what they encouraged? I remember going to places and meeting people, they'd pull up their phone and add you as facebook friends. And you'd accept. Not anymore though.

Also, on the UX front; "unfriend" is a pretty strong word. Just leaves a bad taste when you want to click on it :). And unfollow stuff came out so late that the train had already passed.

<comment><USER10> This era of massive commoditization of everything is detrimental. Nature put pressure on things, expressing value you cared about. I can't say Fb is useless, some people were able to reconnect, maintain long distance relations ..

<comment><USER11> Let's not glorify "nature's pressure." I kind of prefer having 3 kids that I expect to live to adulthood instead of having 8 as nature intended and playing the odds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The way I see it, Facebook's newsfeed has already penalized organic reach so severely it doesn't really doesn't provide a strong growth channel for small businesses any more. Nowadays, Pages are better used to communicate with existing customers by distributing content to a highly engaged, much smaller audience (which would still see your posts in their newsfeed).

[0] [https://blog.yalabot.com/facebooks-changing-the-newsfeed- alg...](https://blog.yalabot.com/facebooks-changing-the-newsfeed-algorithm- and-it-really-doesn-t-matter-2c2461df8a30#.7ybp6dgnq)

<comment><USER13> > Pages are better used to communicate with existing customers by distributing > content ...

I don't like this trend, more and more service oriented companies moving their support to facebook platform. As a customer who is not on facebok I get less attention from their support staff, this makes me reevaluate such companies and for the most part abandon their services. I'm talking about smaller telcos and such, but I'm noticing that even bigger companies starting to do this thing: "contact us on facebook to get help". Don't they realize that they alienate a proportion of their customers? It seems that they don't care and that's really is the issue here.

<comment><USER14> "If your company's web presence is MySpace, your company doesn't have a web presence," said someone smart 10 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One thing I've noticed (and I don't have any hard data for this, just anecdotal evidence) is that the rate of my friends sharing memories on Facebook has dropped a lot. It seems like more and more people are going to other networks/sites to share, and Facebook not so much. Messaging and communication is still going strong, but posting photos and stuff not so much.

These changes, plus the features I've noticed lately that push up "your past memories" or "friendship anniversaries" certainly seem to be an attempt to get people posting more again, and remind them that what Facebook wants them to do is make this their 'social database'.

<comment><USER16> Maybe it's a cultural thing. While I don't have a Facebook account, but a close friend has an account where a bunch of her friends are from the Philippines. Her friends in the U.S. don't seem to share much, other than an occasional funny picture; while those from the Philippines share what they are doing all the time. (She's from the U.S. and has never been to the Philippines.)

<comment><USER17> Maybe it is because of workplace and hiring culture. Perhaps the states weights social media higher in their hiring decisions and hence people are more reluctant to express themselves in fear that this might cost them a future job

<comment><USER18> I've always held the mindset, "If a company doesn't want to hire me for me being me, I don't want to work at that company," which obviously only works well when you have ample opportunities to select from during job searches.

If there is a correlation between people posting less and fear of being rejected from future jobs, I wonder if Facebook will see more posting as the job market continues to improve (and vice versa). Would be interesting to plot out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm always annoyed at Facebook's definition of "news" being about babies, marriages, etc. Just like listening to someone talk about their kids in real life, I just don't really care.

On the other hand, I do like the articles and commentary people post for the most part. It's more interesting to know my friends opinions than some Reddit stranger's. Those article discussions are more like what I talk about when I'm out with friends than the babies and vacations the Facebook news feed wants to focus on.

In psychology, memory is divided into autobiographical and semantic. I think Facebook "news" needs to be split into the same categories as well.

As in having a 'news feed' that updates you on everyone's life, and an 'issues feed' where you can talk with your friends about what's going on in the world.

<comment><USER20> Facebook really wants to display that kind of content because it triggers positivity on most people,getting you to comment and like said post,thus making your comment get likes and so on.. feeding you positive engagement in the process, so you don't stop using Facebook.

<comment><USER21> Funny, because I saw the exact opposite happening when the majority of people came to FB in my country around 2009. It's like almost like YouTube and those people don't even mind they're writing those rants under their name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if the author (Om Malik) has revised his thinking on a related matter:

[http://om.co/2016/04/25/should-you-publish-on-facebook- first...](http://om.co/2016/04/25/should-you-publish-on-facebook-first/)

> _My parting comment (which he included in the final piece) was that if I > were to start a publication, it would be on Facebook (perhaps as a Facebook > page). Today I learned that Vox Media is going to launch Circuit Breaker, a > gadget blog, as a Facebook-only publication. (It will also have it as a > section of The Verge on the web. I call this a web-based backup /archive.)_

> _Despite hand-wringing by traditonalists, I believe Vox's decision is bold > and the right one: In the post-browser-only world, it makes perfect sense to > go where the audience lives. I am not clear how well it will monetize this > effort. After all, Facebook is a selfish partner when it comes to > monetization._

At least The Verge/Vox is savvy enough to manage a workflow that pushes to both Facebook and the Web...but I imagine prioritizing FB means doing much less A/B testing and other optimizations that are needed to create a refined Web product.

</comment><comment><USER23> A lot of us are thinking Facebook made this decision without any research and AB testing. I belive a change this big had to prove it's usefulness I pilot runs before going public. Maybe we will share more I'm Facebook after this change is in effect. By we I mean Facebook uses. Hacker news crowd of course is a very small and unusual niche of Facebook users.

</comment><comment><USER24> Facebook weighs'share' more than anything else which I don't think is cool. I personally might not want to share a post or anything but it shouldn't mean I don't like it. Yes, interaction is crucial but narrowing it down to just sharing isn't a good measure. The official explanation by facebook seems to hint at providing monetary benefit to the company by playing on business' money. It seems facebook is running out of funds and is coining out ways to weed out more money from businesses. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER25> I imagine the best solution is to stop using the Facebook news feed. There are better way to get information . I had no idea people still regularly check their Facebook

<comment><USER26> I keep hearing this sentiment and it reminds me of the Yogi Bera quote "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded."

People keep talking about how "over" FB is yet every time I'm in line somewhere and I glance at people's phones in front of me I see they are scrolling through FB.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I started seeing an unreasonable amount of friend's page likes as little page ads. A lot of those, in close succession. Not sure that is what they had in mind.

</comment><comment><USER28> _> ... in deciding to prioritize one kind of post over another for reasons that seem to have little to do with what individuals are asking for, Facebook is once again confusing its users._

Has Facebook (or media or academia) publicly asked users how they want posts to be prioritized? This data would inform investors, management and algorithms.

<comment><USER29> Do you remember the backlash when they added the newsfeed in the first place? The public has a very bad track record when it comes to knowing what they want from Facebook.

<comment><USER28> _> ... the public has a bad track record of knowing what they want .._

For products that don't yet exist, this is often true.

For products that are used daily, this is less clear.

Facebook is now backtracking because user behavior has changed, possibly because user needs/wants have changed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's only so much you can innovate with a reverse chronological list of content. After a while one starts revisiting old territory. Perhaps Facebook needs to start thinking about alternative presentation formats?

<comment><USER31> There are ways to do it, but I can't say more...

<comment><USER32> C'mon, tell us the secret. We won't tell anybody.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I go on Facebook for the sole purpose of posting anti-Facebook news articles and related items. I do sometimes engage with other crap when I'm there, but the majority of the occasions it's a waste of time.</comment>


Grace Hopper Dies - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/search?q=Grace+Hopper&oi=ddle&ct=grace-hoppers-107th-birthday-5447077240766464&hl=en&biw=1517&bih=713&dpr=0.9

<comment><USER2> uh... in 1992.. Today is her birthday, not her death or anniversary of her death</comment>


Collection of news coverage of police brutality - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/news-politics/when-people-ask-why-i-have-a-problem-with-american-law-enforcement-its-hard-to-come-up-with-a-61c9e423b003

<comment><AUTHOR> We've had discussion (since flagged off the front page) of abuse of civil forfeiture.

We've similarly had, in a number of threads, people either shilling for the state security apparatus or talking about the evil jackbooted thugs who are going to kill us and eat our babies. In neither case do we do better than some half-assed anecdotal evidence.

So, I figured it might be worthwhile to actually link to some aggregated reports. Note that the time period spanned by this collection goes back to the 90s in some cases.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you follow blogs / curate a content stream for yourself? - <AUTHOR> Twitter and HN have become my go to's for content. But HN has high number of off topic posts for my interests (which has the upside of exposure and cross pollination). Twitter is good, but has a lot of rambling, non-technical tweets etc. I use it mostly for developers posting links to their blog posts or GitHub projects.<p>Is there a better way to curate content for topics of interest? <comment><USER2> I use QuiteRSS and group feeds into folder by their relative signal-to-noise ratio (as determined by me). It works well enough: when I only want to see content from sources related to iOS/Android development I only look at that folder; when I have more time I look at the other ones. Mark everything as read when I am done scanning news.

Later, rinse, repeat.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use Feedly to curate blogs and websites. Some content come through email newsletters, then there are Twitter lists and Facebook groups to follow.

</comment><comment><USER4> For HN, I use HN Mail to get stories that I'm interested in delivered to my inbox every week.

[https://hnmail.io](https://hnmail.io)

</comment><comment><USER5> RSS feeds for all the blogs I care about

</comment><comment><USER6> I use an RSS feed reader: newsblur.com.

</comment><comment><USER7> Feedly</comment>


CastAR: the most versatile AR & VR system  - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/technicalillusions/castar-the-most-versatile-ar-and-vr-system <comment><USER2> This looks pretty incredible! I was initially slightly sceptical (3D printed glasses, slightly conceptual looking design), but reading what they've accomplished so far pretty much eliminates that scepticism. The project founders (Jerri Ellsworth in particular is a huge name in electronics) bring a lot of credibility as well. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes! Hopefully they can raise enough money.

</comment><comment><USER3> Jeri has a more detailed and technical video on her channel that goes more in- depth than the Kickstarter video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc2NQVQK69A](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc2NQVQK69A)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad they have a separate package just for the tracking system. I listened to a podcast with Jerri that was posted here, that I can't find at the moment, where she discusses the details of the work that went into building the ASIC that performs the positional tracking, and I see tons of potential for this in other projects as well.

</comment><comment><USER5> What I like best about this is that it lends itself to 3rd-person vantage views, and static fields (overlooking a map, looking into a box, etc) which tend to be more comfortable AR & VR than trying to track/render a first person view (oculus rift) at 60 fps == less "VR sickness".

</comment><comment><USER6> Walk me through how multiple users are looking at the same screen. Isn't everyone projecting 2 images of their own? Are the polarized glasses really narrow band, or something?

<comment><USER7> The retro-reflective surface makes sure the projector light only bounces back in your direction (well most of it). Someone standing a few feet away won't see what you're seeing.

<comment><USER5> Without a multi-user frame sync, this prohibits users from being near-angles from each other to the retro-reflector, which basically prevents someone from "pointing" in AR into the others' field of view. Not necessarily a big limitation, but say you want to point out e.g. a terrain feature. If the software lets you select it, awesome! but if it's unselectable, you just have to try to describe it "the tree three trees over from the west wall... no not that one". Having good 'pointer drop' support mitigates this I suppose.

<comment><USER8> You can see the person's finger (or the CastAR wand's tip). I imagine the rendering engine will show the same thing in the same place relative to the real world for both users. It doesn't have to, in the case of a game where you each have your own point of view, but it could if the game works well that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does this compare to Oculus Rift in terms of cost, quality, and potential to be a "game changer" as everyone calls both? Especially since CastAR can be both AR and VR, could one hook up a CastAR to the games and demos we already have for Oculus Rift?

<comment><USER9> Between CastAR and Oculus Rift, it just seems an embarassment of riches, speaking as someone who spent a brief time working in VR in the early 90s.

It seems to me that the Oculus is for immersive environments; CastAR for shared and/or augmented reality.

Adapting Oculus Demos would be awkward because CastAR has the reflective surfaces as limited "portals" into the 3d environment. Although I'd guess the 3d engine work would be easily adaptable.

<comment><USER8> They have a clip-on to the glasses that convert from AR to VR mode. So you wouldn't need a reflective surface portal as you say. I believe switching between the two headsets would just be a matter of software. I'm wondering if that support exists or is easy to make, or whether there would be difficult challenges to it.

Basically, I'd prefer to buy one system that could be both AR and VR than two separate systems, one for VR and one for AR. So that would make CastAR beat out Oculus Rift unless the Oculus Rift was just so much better or the software was incompatible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love it, I'm in!</comment>


On The Plains, The Rush For Oil Has Changed Everything - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2014/01/29/264912750/on-the-plains-an-oil-boom-is-transforming-nearly-everything

<comment><USER2> Heh it's exactly like the rural towns that get turned into mining towns here in Australia. I've worked as a labourer out there with my dad (he's a civil engineer, works on the roads out in these towns). They start as a tiny rural area, developed into a boom-bust town that caters to the fly-in-fly-out workers who come in to work for 6 figures. Then the mine closes, and the town is left as a shadow of its former self, but with so much extra real estate, empty shops, and closed bars (apart from one or two). It's curious to watch.

<comment><USER3> Seems like there is a design project waiting to be done for dynamic infrastructure.

<comment> eric-hu You mean burning man?

<comment><USER3> Excellent point, Burning Man does share a lot of the properties of a booming mining town :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That animated GIF near the bottom of the article is super creepy.

<comment><USER5> I have to say, I really dig 'em both (there's another in the article headline). A very unique effect.

<comment><USER6> They're called cinemagraphs, here's a link: [http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/cinemagraph/](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/cinemagraph/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The salaries in the oil sands in Canada are even more ridiculous. > 100k for truck drivers. Entry level engineers at 150k + 30% bonuses. > 200 + 40% on site bonuses for a manager.

<comment><USER8> I don't suppose you mean software engineers? :-)

<comment><USER9> Nope, software dev salaries around Calgary are stuck at $65-70k starting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Grew up in ND, live in SD now)

At one time starting wages were $100k/year, but I don't know anyone starting that high nowadays, except maybe strippers.

The "man camps" are pretty horrible and most people blow their pay on booze and girls before they leave. It's really depressing.

<comment><USER11> Sounds a lot like the Paradox of Plenty [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)]. ND is fixated on the oil industry to the detriment of absolutely everything else.

Hell, aren't they just burning all the extracted natural gas because it's basically a distraction from the liquid crude? There was an terribly sad update of the "Earth at Night" satellite image showing ND lit up like a Christmas Tree.

<comment><USER8> > There was an terribly sad update of the "Earth at Night" satellite image > showing ND lit up like a Christmas Tree

Why is it sad? The light is from lights in towns, etc, not gas fires.

<comment><USER12> Parent is presumably rooting for North Korea over South Korea based on the famous nighttime photos. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The NYT had an interesting video-based article [1] looking at the life of a female truck driver who moved to North Dakota due to the oil boom.

tldr: steady work but lower-than-expected wages, poor conditions, male dominated environment, housing problems.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/opinion/running-on- fumes-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/opinion/running-on-fumes-in- north-dakota.html)

</comment><comment><USER14> Even NASA has seen the difference in ND from space.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10463494/Fr...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10463494/Fracking- lights-up-the-North-Dakota-sky.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> I gather this is the result of the increasing price of crude oil, making small oil fields that weren't previously considered viable now viable. The output of these wells is enough to essentially stop oil prices from going through the roof for the time being.

<comment><USER16> It's not just that the cost of crude is up, advances in horizontal drilling and fracking have made these wells economical despite lower crude prices.

Fracking has been tried on and off for decades but it was only recently that wildcatters struck upon the right formula and techniques to unlock the Bakken.

Horizontal drilling is key in this region because the Bakken is like an oreo cookie: a thin layer of crude sandwiched between two huge layers of rock. Fracking breaks up the small inner layer while horizontal drilling lets a single well drill down into that layer and then _within_ that layer, unlocking far more crude than with regular vertical drilling.

<comment><USER17> Fracking and horizontal drilling are 20-30 years old technologies. The only reason they're practical now are high oil prices. Technological improvements have been rather incremental in last 20 years in those.

What was needed was not technology, but oil prices over $80 per barrel.

At least that's what someone who does this for living said.

<comment><USER16> You're ignoring improvements in fracking that have only happened in the last 15 years. Certainly fracking itself isn't new at all, the first attempts date back under a century, but the cost has come down. Most fracking was done using vastly more expensive chemical concoctions which were largely unsuccessful in a lot of shale formations—until someone tried with a solution that was mostly water. Not only was it more effective, it was half the price!

Moreover, fracking came in to vogue due to drilling for natural gas, not crude.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tesla Semi - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesla.com/semi <comment><USER3> I'm legitimately surprised this product hasn't ended up with interchangeable battery packs. Super charging is "fast" compared to regular electrical charging, but when time is money, it seems like that would be "the" limit that costs sales.

Keep in mind a lot of trucks don't sit idle while cargo is unloaded by hand, in many locations they'll just de-couple, pick up outgoing, and be back out of the gate within 10~15 minutes. With recharge downtime of e.g. 20 minutes, they've managed to place themselves into an even smaller niche than they would be already.

By the way, Semis are a massive source of pollution and have proportionately terrible Mpg while idle or towing light loads. So this is an area ripe for improvement, and this is an asperational product. I appreciate a big name trying if for no other reason than it might spur innovation from traditional trucking companies.

Just because I worry that it isn't viable in the market, doesn't mean I'm not a fan.

<comment><USER4> I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in electric vehicles, or trucking, but it seems that with a 500 mile range, you're getting pretty much to the limit of what a trucker is legally allowed to drive in the United States each day. So maybe recharge time isn't that big a deal, since the drivers aren't supposed to be on the road anyway.

<comment><USER3> How much weight is in the trailer for that 500 miles range? If the answer is zero tons then it is completely meaninless.

The Tesla site doesn't qualify what 500 miles means. For trucks load-range matters, not empty range.

<comment><USER5> The video says "500-mile range at GVW [gross vehicle weight, I assume] & highway speed", and Musk explicitly says "that's 500-mile range at maximum weight at highway speed, 60 miles an hour". Roughly 06:36 into the video.

And on the subject of charging, it claims "400 miles of charge in 30 minutes" around 13:15.

<comment><USER6> Over 4 years or so, batteries that have never been supercharged are at about 90% capacity rather than 80% for frequently fast charged vehicles. Given the rapid decline of batteries in their final months, that could be equaling an extra couple years of usable life.

That's an issue in a car, but a massive deal in a semi where they need much, much larger batteries with much, much larger replacement costs.

The real solution here should have been battery exchange contracts. They make facilities to slow-charge batteries and semi's pay per mile or kw he put on the battery. The would be much better for the environment. It would also enable Tesla decreasing the up front cost by moving some of that cost into charging fees to encourage adoption.

[https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery- health/](https://www.geotab.com/blog/ev-battery-health/)

<comment><USER7> There are a ton of factors that go into battery degradation, not just speed of charging. Also, it varies dramatically depending on the manufacturer - <USER2> 4yr/80-90% doesn't line up with real world data from Tesla: [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1270784295733301249?s=19](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1270784295733301249?s=19)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note, the real "killer app" for electric trucks is not long haul, not yet. Diesel is really, really good at long haul. And arguably, since the engines are running at a pretty constant speed for a long time, they're pretty efficient at it.

Electric trucks are first aiming at local and drayage routes, which actually make up a significant fraction of the trucking industry. You don't have to capture 100% of the market to make a huge impact.

Drayage trucks are typically back at their home base every night, and spend their days running containers to and from ports, intermodal yards, and other shipping depots. These routes aren't actually well-suited to the way diesel trucks and conventional transmissions work, with lots of local roads, starting and stopping, idling, etc. They're ideally suited to electrification, even with fairly small batteries. A typical drayage truck may only put on 200 miles in a day, with many even less. And they're usually parked overnight, so recharging isn't that big a deal. (Yes the chargers are still enormous, but they have hours to spend, it's not like you need to charge the thing in 15 minutes.)

Note that pretty much every "traditional" truck maker has an electric program in progress with test vehicles on the road, some more serious than others. Tesla's entry is interesting, but brand loyalty and history may mean it's not a slam-dunk, if the others can deliver something that works well and still "feels like" the trucks their owners know and love. Others may fly the "futuristic" flag with pride. Time will tell!

</comment><comment><USER9> I know folks have complained about the term Autopilot. It looks like they're pretty explicit about the driver remaining alert.

 _Enhanced Autopilot helps avoid collisions, a centered driver position provides maximum visibility and control, and a low center of gravity offers rollover protection. Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time._

<comment><USER10> Complaints are by people who have inaccurate assumptions of the term autopilot. Autopilot originated in aviation, and has always been an assistant to the pilot, never a replacement. The term is used accurately, and complainers are just ill informed. Autopilot has never been what a layman assumed.

<comment><USER11> > Autopilot has never been what a layman assumed.

This is actually my biggest gripe; it's an awful misnomer that most laymen don't understand.

I really hope they'll rename it, people have died because of the attitudes towards Autopilot and it would help address that.

Edit: they did adjust the wording on the Autopilot page to be a lot more clear.

In February 2019 [https://tesla.com/autopilot](https://tesla.com/autopilot) opened with:

 _Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver_

[http://web.archive.org/web/20190219105618/https://www.tesla....](http://web.archive.org/web/20190219105618/https://www.tesla.com/autopilot)

Since then it has opened with:

 _Future of Driving

All new Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features today, and full self-driving capabilities in the future—through software updates designed to improve functionality over time._

Which helps make the distinction between Autopilot and FSD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this isn't a true Highway truck (Long Haul). It would make a great day truck and could be recharged every night. It could still be a regional truck. A company like Walmart that has regional distribution will be the most interested, since they tend to stick around in <500 mile radius. If you're long haul it is likely you will be running diesel.

There is also the fact to consider that truck stops aren't setup for charging. It would require a massive investment. Still very exciting and I can only imagine the range will increase over time.

<comment><USER7> I know a lot of national gas chains in Canada (petro-can, Irving) have put in electric chargers along the Trans Canada. They'll be a lagging source, but I expect they'll add charging infrastructure for the long haul truckers (while regional eg Walmart, grocery stores, are more likely to charge at the destinations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I still want to see a system with batteries in the trailer and chargers at the loading docks. Why stop to charge the cab when your next payload could have all the energy needed for the trip? Imagine a company that constantly needs to exchange goods between two locations. With three trailers, one rig, and two chargers, you could have the rig moving almost constantly. Both endpoints would have the duration of the round trip to load/unload and charge.

<comment><USER14> Those would be very expensive trailers and the current shipping container ecosystem (and semi trailer ecosystem) could not cope with $100,000 unloaded trailers just sitting in unsecured areas like normal trailers do today.

You're right that it would be convenient for the driver, but I don't think it would be convenient for anyone else.

Actual trucking professionals please correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm sorry but to me it seems to me that a lot of freight miles could be done with rail, of course you can't replace road freight (yet?), but in terms of ton-distances, rail should still be a viable alternative to reduce carbon emissions on large distances, in many cases. The logistics of course are a little hairy, but the carbon situation makes it necessary anyways.

<comment><USER16> Did some consulting for a railroad ages ago. They way it was explained to me, two of the (many) challenges are:

\- the logistics of coupling long trains reduces their flexibility, so favors bulk goods

\- trucking gets all sorts of direct and indirect subsidies that the railroads no longer get

I've since wondered if different engines (perhaps EV), different couplings, or some combo could change the logistics calculus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I remember when the specs were initially announced two years ago. All these automotive researchers published estimates on what they thought the possible range of performance and range could be. Those estimates got absolutely blown out of the water.

</comment><comment><USER18> Interesting that the disclaimer is quite explicit here:

> Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using > Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time.

<comment><USER19> So don't call it 'Autopilot'.

It's like calling something'food' with the disclaimer: not to be eaten.

<comment><USER20> Tesla wasn't even the first one who picked Autopilot name. Chrysler did in 1958. [0]

I'm not so sure why so many people are hung up on Autopilot name. After all Apple's MagicMouse can't do any tricks, and there is nothing intelligent about Microsoft's IntelliSense. It's also already mentioned below that autopilot is prominent on airplanes despite requiring not only one, but two pilots.

[0] - [https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive- hist...](https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/automotive-history- capsule-chryslers-1958-auto-pilot-56-years-before-teslas-autopilot/)

<comment><USER21> Yes but I don't think anyone expected autopilot to fully drive the car for you in 1958. Now lots of people think fully driverless cars are already possible, and Tesla still markets their cars as having "full self driving" (distinct from "autopilot", but how many people are going to understand that nuance?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everyone worried about the charge time/cruise range, I'm just excited for the improvement to urban environments when electric trucks with regenerative braking are the only ones allowed in cities. Diesel trucks (and buses) are too loud for dense urban environments.

</comment><comment><USER22> Telemetry in trucks is its own cottage industry due to regulatory reasons. With the amount of tech in a Tesla Semi they largely eliminate the need for a separate telemetry vendor. This is an additional revenue stream for Tesla.

</comment><comment><USER23> Some people are complaining the range is not nearly what is needed for long- range. But it is fine for local and regional trucking, which is a huge source of carbon and air pollution.

Beyond that, batteries are getting better every year, so the range is going to keep increasing until it is long-range.

You know, I think a lot of the people who are critical of the Tesla semi are really members of the fossil fuels forever club who think diesel trucks are just great.

</comment><comment><USER24> Whats the charge time? And what is the range of a typical semi these days? Is 500mi average?

<comment><USER25> "Range for a diesel semi truck is limited more by the allowable driving hours for the driver than by the truck itself. It's not unusual for a truck to have dual 150 gallon tanks. 300 gallons at an average of 7 MPG gives a non-stop range of more than 2000 miles."

[https://www.quora.com/What%E2%80%99s-the-average-range- for-a...](https://www.quora.com/What%E2%80%99s-the-average-range-for-a-diesel- semi- truck#:~:text=Range%20for%20a%20diesel%20semi%20truck%20is%20limited%20more%20by,of%20more%20than%202000%20miles).

<comment><USER26> Wonder if the legal hour limit will be extended if you're using autopilot

<comment><USER27> I don't think so since the driver still needs to be alert.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is there any more detail on the weight of the battery? I skimmed through and couldn't find anything. If the battery weighs 10,000 pounds, that's a significant chunk of the 80k lb weight they use as a reference

</comment><comment><USER29> Originally slated for release in 2019, now hyped out of fear of Nikola. Just a few days ago the Model Y was the top priority, now it's the semi.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can anyone share details on what the two-year payback period looks like, from the real world perspective of a freight operator? How much money is spent on diesel for a long haul truck freight operation? Obviously it depends on distance. But I have heard that a figure of 8 miles per gallon would not be wildly off the mark.

</comment><comment><USER31> [2017]

</comment><comment><USER32> How does it make turns?

</comment><comment><USER33> Looks absolutely awesome!

We love you, Elon!!!</comment>


Show HN: Medical marijuana product search - <AUTHOR> http://harvestigation.com/ No revenue model yet, but I am trying to figure out how to get referral fees. <comment><USER2> How is this better than Leaf.ly, Stickyguide or Weedmaps ?

[http://www.leafly.com/](http://www.leafly.com/)

[http://www.stickyguide.com/](http://www.stickyguide.com/)

[http://www.weedmaps.com/](http://www.weedmaps.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's designed for quick cross-store comparison shopping and finding suitable replacements. All sites above are designed for browsing stores.

<comment><USER3> The presentation is pretty good (fairly minimal, which I like), but I think that some autocompletion in those search forms would go a _long_ way. Things like showing autocompletes for town names or strains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How are you getting the data? As far as I know, the dispensaries don't have APIs, so are you just going in and scanning their menus every day? This is actually pretty useful in that you can then comparison shop different dispensaries.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what the federal legal response will be to the various medical cannabis related startups i've seen popping up. In general, it looks like the road to legalization is pretty open (well, if stoners voted and orange county didn't...), but production and distribution still need to be addressed if you're really going to remove the criminal element (which you should).

Anyone know anything about the current legal climate around cannabis in California? Specifically, increase/decrease in raids/legitimacy/rules of/around medical dispensaries and current situation wrt supplying them? Still seems to me to be totally fubar thanks to otherwise unemployable crazy old people...

<comment><USER5> >Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see what the federal legal response will be to the various medical cannabis related startups i've seen popping up. In general, it looks like the road to legalization is pretty open (well, if stoners voted and orange county didn't...), but production and distribution still need to be addressed if you're really going to remove the criminal element (which you should).

>Anyone know anything about the current legal climate around cannabis in California? Specifically, increase/decrease in raids/legitimacy/rules of/around medical dispensaries and current situation wrt supplying them?

In 2006-2008, Obama said that he would not prosecute medical marijuana operations that were operating under state law.

However, over the last five years, the administration has been responsible for a number of raids (most famously Haborside and Oaksterdam). These raids were conducted on the grounds that the dispensaries were in violation of tax policies. However, this was an underhanded trick: the dispensaries had no legal way of complying with the policies in question - they were in a catch-22.

By doing it this way, they were able to continue raids, while still paying lip service to the letter of Obama's campaign promises, while completely disregarding the spirit of them.

The last time I saw a comparison was sometime in early 2012. At the time. Obama was rated as the least marijuana-friendly president since Clinton[0].

Suppliers (growers) are even more vilified than dispensaries. The further away you get from the patients, the easier it becomes to distract people from the actual patients who suffer and instead beat the "drugs are evil" drum.

[0] The first medical marijuana laws as we know them today were passed (at the state level) during Clinton's administration

<comment><USER6> There was another hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee just 2 months ago because of these raids and the "recreational use" measures in Washington & Colorado. Canna-businesses' ability to get bank accounts to avoid the diversion and robbery issues around cash was discussed.

[http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=094c...](http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=094c28995d1f5bc4fe11d832f90218f9) [there's a video of the hearing at the "Webcast" link. It's just a title card until 30:11, but you can seek ahead]

The DOJ Cole memo from Aug 2013 is at [http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html)

Witness list:

The Honorable James Cole, Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

The Honorable John Urquhart, Sheriff King County Sheriff's Office, Seattle, WA

Jack Finlaw, Chief Legal Counsel Office of Governor John W. Hickenlooper, Denver, CO

Kevin A. Sabet, Ph.D., Co-founder and Director, Project SAM Director, Drug Policy Institute, University of Florida, Cambridge, MA

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Absolutely HORRIBLE usability dude! What the hell were you thinking including a search box with no guide on what to search for?

Here's a simple tip: Get rid of the search, just ask for the zip code. Then afterwards, allow some sort of filters.

<comment><AUTHOR> I an going to try that, that's a second comment today that it's not clear what to do on homepage...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd like to see that filter menu on the front page. I don't know my flowers, so having that be the only initial filter/search method left me in the dark.

</comment><comment><USER9> How do I find "normal" weed? Is it only medical?

<comment><USER3> Nowhere in Washington or Colorado is selling recreational weed legally yet (although many businesses are partially through the licensing/application process).

fwiw, Leafly seems a bit easier to use than this site.

<comment><USER10> I believe there is now one business in CO that has their permits :)

<comment><USER3> Hmm, it looks like you are right, but I think they can't start actually selling until January 1st. I'm not quite sure there.

In Washington it will still be a few more months, since anything sold recreationaly needs to be grown explicitly for recreational use, and that process cannot start until the permits are issued (I believe they have until the end of this year before they are required by law to start issuing permits to grow (or sell)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm very curious how you are getting the data.

scrapping the competitors sites? some APIs?

</comment><comment><USER12> Is it legal?

<comment><USER3> Barring the possibility that you are in a jurisdiction with unusually draconian drug laws, sure it's legal. This site is just telling you how much different strains cost at different businesses where you can legally buy them _(currently, if you have a prescription)_. The site itself isn't selling weed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love it. justbaker</comment>


GRV – Git Repository Viewer - rwx<comment> https://github.com/rgburke/grv </comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's slightly funny how alternative git user interfaces are their own cottage industry. It's been like this pretty much since day one:

[https://public- email@example.com...](https://public- email@example.com/)

In a way, the default git CLI is just the one alternative git interface that "won".

My favourite one is still hg-git, despite its warts.

<comment><USER2> Git is the precursor to "block chain" in utility. I was unaware of this cottage industry before now :)

<comment><USER3> Please explain the relationship between Git and Blockchain technology.

<comment><USER4> Not the person that posted this, but they both use merkle trees as their underlying data structure. In both cases you can't rewrite the past without rewriting every successive change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks really similar to tig (of which I'm a big fan and user). What are the main difference between these two tools?

<comment><USER6> GRV is heavily based on tig, and takes a lot of inspiration from it. tig is still far more feature rich than GRV and will be for a while. However there are a couple of features GRV currently has that are nice:

\- A simple query language that can be used to filter commits. For example: authordate >= "2017-09-01" AND authordate < "2017-10-01" AND authorname = "John Smith" AND parentcount < 2.

\- View layout is more flexible. Each tab in GRV can have any view added to it as a vplit or hsplit. Users can create their own tabs and populate them with any combination of views they want. The long term idea is that when GRV supports more views (tree view, file view, etc) it will be possible to create quite a custom experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> > A simple query language

Oh, nice, finally someone implemented something like Mercurial revsets for git:

[https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/help/revsets](https://www.mercurial- scm.org/repo/hg/help/revsets)

I've been hoping that even if nobody ever uses Mercurial, I was hoping at least they would manage to implement some of its better ideas for git.

<comment><USER7> Now they just need filesets and templates and I'll mostly accept things.

<comment><USER8> I'd also like anonymous branches, phases and obsolescence markers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Magit (Emacs) deserves a mention here: [https://magit.vc/](https://magit.vc/). It's the epitome of text based "gui" for _any_ git operation. It's so good that any real Git GUI also doesn't come close.

<comment><USER10> Does anybody have a comment on the similar vimagit?

<comment><USER11> (I assume you're talking about this one: [https://github.com/jreybert/vimagit](https://github.com/jreybert/vimagit))

Yeah it's probably the best way to interactively stage only changes you want to commit (`add --patch`)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is just as good a place to write this as any:

There is a use case which seems to be missed by all git-related tools: Reading Code on Github.

I would really like to have a tool that would allow me to easily browse my starred repos on GitHub, on my iPad, in offline mode (one-click update of all repos please). And by "browse" I mean read code, so the main focus is not on tags/branches, but viewing files and changesets.

There are plenty of tools that try to let you edit code, access repos, browse tags/branches, but they all assume that you are willing to spend time manually cloning/syncing/resyncing/downloading/uploading repos. This quickly gets tedious (Textastic on iPad is a good example).

Reading code is important, and it seems to have been forgotten.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking, and as an Android user I don't have any direct experience of this on iOS, but I presume you're just looking for a good Git client for iPad?

> _spend time manually cloning /syncing/resyncing/downloading/uploading repos. > This quickly gets tedious_

These should all take little-or-no-time and be far from tedious in any half- decent Git client. Have you tried Working Copy? (I haven't but it seems competent from reviews)

<comment><USER12> Ideally, I'm looking for a github client for ipad (or whatever, at this point I'd be willing to buy an Android tablet just for that) that is designed for reading code that is on GitHub.

Yes, I have Working Copy. I also have several other applications that are in various ways related to git and github, but do not solve the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> ncurses seems powerful. Any good suggestions on a tutorial or introduction to ncurses (which it appears is what was used for the ui here)? Ideally for python, or generalized... Or is there a better tool to learn for generic command line UIs?

<comment><USER15> Kilo is a great way to learn how to manipulate the terminal directly (rather than using a wrapper library like ncurses): [https://github.com/antirez/kilo](https://github.com/antirez/kilo) (A text editor in less than 1000 LOC with syntax highlight and search.)

<comment><USER16> There are many forks of this, which I think is a testament to how simple, clean, and easy to modify this code was.

The initial blog-post which announced the editor is worth a read, as is the discussion here:

[http://antirez.com/news/108](http://antirez.com/news/108)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12065217](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12065217)

My own version adds Lua support, multiple buffers, and similar features. It is by no means the best of the editors but I had fun playing with it - to the extent I was almost tempted to write an editor. (But then I realized I already have vim for writing email, and emacs for everything else. The world really doesn't need another editor!)

[https://github.com/skx/kilua/](https://github.com/skx/kilua/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would be nice if we could install this using brew

<comment><USER18> Writing a formula is pretty straight forward [1]. Just submit a PR to homebrew.

1\. [https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Formula- Co...](https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/blob/master/docs/Formula-Cookbook.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Looks like a text version of gitx, my favorite tool for that purpose. Will check it out.

</comment><comment><USER20> sadly no mac build, but that lead me to find tig, so thanks for that!

</comment><comment><USER21> This looks pretty cool! Could we please get better package manager support on macOS though? I'd love to see this available in either MacPorts or Nix.

</comment><comment><USER18> That looks powerful, nice work!</comment>