So you want to be a games programmer? - <AUTHOR> http://gamasutra.com/view/news/34392/Opinion_So_You_Want_To_Be_A_Graphics_Programmer.php

<comment><USER2> The title is pretty inaccurate, the article is quite specifically about Graphics programming, not games programming.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that kind of threw me off when I saw it. Title should be changed.

<comment><AUTHOR> I apologize - working late on drop-dead client deliverable until wee hours, messed the title

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Build a graphics demo? I say take it a step further and build an actual game. It doesn't have to be original or fun, it just has to work correctly. The idea is to learn the technical aspect of games. Most companies that will hire you already know how the rules of the game are going to go. You just have to implement them.

And if you do end up with an original game, or at a company that lets you help decide the rules, more's the better.

<comment><USER5> _Most companies that will hire you already know how the rules of the game are going to go. You just have to implement them._

You are not going to be hired out of the gate as a "game designer". You will be a "game programmer". The designer is going to tell you want needs to happen and you just make sure it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the title I was really expecting a thesis on long hours, crunch times, and no overtime pay. The title is way too snarky, even besides the games/graphics switcharoo.

I used to want to be a games programmer, and even got my name in the thanks section of a well-received published game programming book. Now I think it looks like an awful career.

</comment><comment><USER7> Wow that is great! I've always wanted to make a FPS but never really tried. I've made flash games before and got stuck into PHP for 10years+

Now that I wanted to dig into a "real" language and make a videogame (minecraft effect). I've found by myself I should learn directX and install visual studio. And this article just reassure me in my choices.

Is there people here familiar with that type of programming? Is there great resource to learn how to directX and use visual studio in that direction?

I barely know C++ (I've studied C 1year in school and have notions in OOP). What should I do first? (I'm actually reading this : <http://www.directxtutorial.com/> for directX 11)

<comment><USER8> If you're not specifically interested in learning the bowels of DirectX, you might be better off starting with C# and the Xna framework from Microsoft. It gives you a much simpler API to work against, and the use of managed code means you can really worry about designing and implementing a _game_ instead of developing the details of rendering, audio, input handling, and asset pipelines.

You still get all of the great DirectX abilities without all the headaches of C++ and the DX API. It's a hell of a lot less verbose to boot.

Edit: with a small fee, you can then also use Xna to develop and release titles for the Xbox 360 without having to rewrite everything in C++ and DX9.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's surprisingly few pointers here related to actual graphics programming, that is, the math that's involved, physics you need to know, color programming fundamentals (gamma, colorspaces, etc.), hardware support and GPU programming, etc.

<comment><USER10> Indeed. Meh. It's akin to a "how to become a doctor" article that says "get into a good school, get an internship, learn something about biology, diseases, office management, and tort law, and make a portfolio of dissections you've done; might want to glance at a couple websites too."

In the same space he could have provided a comprehensive checklist of topics to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've always wanted to be a games programmer. Even wrote a few game engines and one or two completed poc games. The point that I find the most intriguing is that It's one of a precious few fields where a programmer could get widespread exposure for something creative.

Everyone can relate to a game compared to "a clever implementation of x doing y with z".

</comment><comment><USER12> So wait, I don't just go to one of those community colleges and tighten up the graphics on level 3?

</comment><comment><USER13> Does being a graphics programmer and a game programmer always go hand in hand? Would there be a role at a game studio for a smart programmer with solid experience (say in web dev) but little graphics knowledge? Perhaps ai or higher level gameplay scripting?</comment>


Giving Great Talks: Tufte vs. Pool - <AUTHOR> http://boltpeters.com/blog/talks/

<comment><USER2> It depends a lot on the context and purpose of the talk, but I disagree with one of the suggested points.

I think it's valuable to create a roadmap for your listeners, and saying "I'll come to that in a minute" and otherwise foreshadowing things is a great way to give them a reason to be listening.

This seems to have been dismissed as "editorializing," and that's wrong. Creating and maintaining a sense of structure and purpose is important. Talking about where you're going is part of that.</comment>


His Mood Changed and Our Marriage Imploded. Then He Took a Blood Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-relationships/a27608740/his-mood-changed-and-our-marriage-imploded-then-he-took-a-blood-test/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is sad reminder of how fragile we are and how things can change all of a sudden for any of us.

Every moment a dice with infinite faces rolls and decides who we will be the next moment.</comment>


Navdy: HUD for your car - <AUTHOR> https://www.navdy.com <comment><USER2> Using a HUD to read/write texts/tweets? It seems like the creators missed all the studies about the dangers of distracted driving.

And pilots use HUD's so this must be safe? That would potentially hold water, if the pilots were using huds to tweet, text, and select music while landing... instead they're using huds to display important information...

I like the technology, I just don't like the suggested use cases for it...

<comment><USER3> Precisely. I've long wanted to build a HUD that could project on all the glass surfaces of my car. If I were building a HUD, it should be giving me a "heads up."

The windshield would have navigational aids, but any surface in the car could be used to display hazards!

I want my car to identify if a pedestrian is present (highlighted in yellow) or if they appear to be crossing my heading (highlighted in red.)

I want my car to tell me if there is cross-traffic that is about to run a red light. I'd like to see speed and distance indicators for other vehicles on the road.

I'd love to see the speed of traffic I'm merging into. When I glance over my shoulder to check traffic I can see: !! 64MPH | 72MPH !! in yellow, indicating I should merge faster if I'm able.

If my car detects emergency vehicles or construction vehicles the HUD could draw attention to it in my windows or mirrors.

\---

Perhaps my HUD could identify vehicles occupied by "Tweeters" so I can be sure to avoid them?

We're making self-driving cars... there are countless ways to apply that same technology to human-driven cars that would make the roads safer for everyone. If the best they can come up with is song selection and social media: I think their priorities are a bit misaligned.

<comment><USER4> But I already have all that information. And I dont have any HUD or other displays anywhere.

I can see the speed of traffic Im merging into, pedestrians, change of speed/flow of traffic ahead of me, and if a pedestrian appears to be willing to cross infront of me.

Without even having to think about it, I can just notice when there is emergency vehicles around or construction vehicles or any other danger-sign on the road. I can be talking to my passangers, listening to music or day- dreaming but would not miss any signs - its in the automated system already.

For me, having those kind of HUD stuff would just be even more redundant information to learn to automatically filter out/make judgements on.

In fact, I think such a heads-up-displays everywhere with color information, would just confuse drivers more and lead to more accidents - now you not only have to keep eyes on the road/let brain handle the information and do its thing - but also interpret and learn the various displays and what they mean, but also to confirm what they display to the sorrounding. More info to process - more error prone decisions.

<comment><USER5> Where are you residing? I am sure the rest of the world could learn from crash-free place you live in.

In my 18's I though the same, why all those precautions? I can write SMS and not kill anyone! Truth is, I was lucky not to run into emergency situation while being distracted by mobile.

There is very little risk in regular circumstances, but when unlikely events overlap bad things happen. Blown tire on a motorway, cyclist falling to the middle of a road, uncontrolled vehicle approaching you, and other infinitely many rare possibilities.

P.S. highlighting pedestrians might be life-saving during minimal vision weather.

<comment><USER6> I would like the following from a HUD:

Outline a car that a standing still or rapidly decreasing speed. This would reduce mundane traffic accidents due to perception errors.

Show road lanes, especially in poor visibility.

Help nightblind users to drive at night

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> HUD navigation could be cool, but anything that takes attention from driving like showing text messages is a terrible idea and should be banned. Distracted driving is incredibly dangerous. Even hands free phone calls are distracting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device)

<comment><USER8> Well, if hand free phone calls are distracting because you're holding a conversation, we should ban talking to your passengers on a car too, right? Even driving with passengers should be banned just in case, and all vehicles be single-seaters or have soundproof glass between the driver and passengers.

Music is pretty distracting to some people. Car stereos should definitely be banned too.

To be fair, both having a conversation and listening to music keep me _alert_ when driving. Yes, it might also produce cognitive overload, but in my case it's definitely better than cognitive underload (boredom).

You know what's by far the most distracting thing to me while driving? Constantly checking my speedometer. In some areas I do it constantly, out of fear of getting a speeding ticket. I don't even want to speed!

<comment><USER9> This argument fails repeated testing. It turns out that human-human conversation involves both parties paying attention to the environment and co- operating to insert pauses and situational awareness. In essence, h-h communication in a car requires much less cognitive load on the driver because a large part of it becomes shared.

We've all seen this fail at times too. That's when the driver has to tell the passenger to stop talking so they can concentrate on directions or signage, etc.

<comment><USER8> In fact it's addressed right below the linked section, but it contradicts your stance.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Comparisons_with_passenger_conversation)

Quoting:

> In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that > passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell > phone ones.

> AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related > accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.

> A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board > concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be > influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical > evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the > traffic.

<comment><USER10> both of the studies referenced there were from a decade ago - 2004 and 2006. I wonder what the numbers would be today, given that there's so many more cellphones on the road.

The AAA reference is from 2001, and the document it links to is gone. Archive.org link: [https://web.archive.org/web/20061020134705/http://www.aaapub...](https://web.archive.org/web/20061020134705/http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=3&SubCategoryID=35&ContentID=42)

Haven't seen any actual numbers yet, but the 'human conversation' thing - 11% - how many of those involved children in the back seats distracting the driver?

<comment><USER11> not only are there more phones on the road. they're almost all touch screen (no tactile response = more likely to look at it to use it) and they're almost all smart phones, so morons like the one in the video can "compose tweets" while driving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure that showing off how your new product can make texting while driving easier is the best idea. The whole hands free debate isn't about literally keeping your hands free of objects, it's the psychological distraction of texting/talking/browsing that causes the safety issues. If it were just about keeping your hands free to stay on the steering wheel, people with one arm wouldn't be allowed to drive.

<comment><USER13> If that were absolutely true, eating while driving would be debated as heavily or more.

<comment><USER14> Depends where you are, but it is debated. See for example this case: [http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- oxfordshire-23944993](http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23944993)

[http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- suffolk-19597446](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-19597446)

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4788910.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4788910.stm)

[http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- humber-22290619](http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-22290619)

Etc etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just need to share my first reaction...

Your hero image with an example of a HUD should probably _not_ be a prompt to watch a video. That's just about the most dangerous thing that a HUD could ask you to do.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. After seeing this I assumed that this was a farce site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm a pilot and was surprised that the Navdy video invoked the "pilots use it -- it's safe" language.

Um, when I'm flying a plane, I don't:

\- have other 4,000-lb planes 3' away that I could collide with after a moment's distraction

\- compose tweets by speaking aloud while staring at a screen, and then when the voice recognition system doesn't work properly, have to retry multiple times while staring at the screen

\- talk on the phone to my mother

\- play music while navigating through crowded airspace (some pilots do on longer cross-country trips, of course)

\- need to have my airspeed projected in front of me (maybe on takeoff it would be useful)

\- have apps pop up notifications directly in my field of vision when I'm trying to focus on one of those 4,000-lb objects that's about to collide with me

\- have some of those other 4,000-lb objects near me controlled by people who are composing tweets, etc. rather than focusing on the task of flying

What I _do_ want to be doing is scanning the airspace around me for other planes, scanning my instruments to make sure all is well, etc...

Navdy seems like a good HUD implementation from a technological standpoint, and unlike other folks here I don't think it should be banned. But assuring everyone it's safe because "pilots use it" seems like a statement made without, well, talking to pilots first.

<comment><USER18> I see a lot of folks holding their iPhone while driving on congested freeways.

They hold the phones down low, to avoid tickets.

I feel Navdy is an improvement on those situations, but I still don't like where things are headed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I read "HUD for your car" I imagined a super cool HUD like the ones in nearly-sci-fi jets showing actually useful info about my crazy driving skills, other objects in sight, about routes and parking stuff, and about the car itself. I really didn't see it coming when it showed people using social media apps. But it's alright as long as it makes HUD displays more popular anyway... I guess!

<comment><USER3> >showing actually useful info about my crazy driving skills,...

Thanks for the laugh :-)!

This was my first thought as well. I saw a Mercedes the other day with the "lane change assist."

Rather hilariously: I was behind the Mercedes at a right turn, and you could see the "danger" light in her mirror indicating that my little sedan was in the blindspot of her enormous GLK.

(Ironically the tech itself was a distraction _to me_ because I was trying to figure out where the sensor package was, and how sensitive the instrumentation was. I had never seen it that closely before -- perhaps I should go to a Mercedes dealership.)

I want that sort of tech on every glass surface of the car. Anywhere I can see a vehicle: I should be able to see "potential hazard information."

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Glad I'm not the only one that thinks driving should be a full time activity. If you don't have a personal chauffeur, you are not important enough to need your phone while driving. If you do have a personal chauffeur, text away Mr./Mrs./Ms. Important.

</comment><comment><USER21> My 2010 Prius has little monochrome HUD showing speed, navigation info, and power consumption (configurable). Although less fancy than Navdy, it's really useful because you will always see the road in background. Should become a standard in every car.

</comment><comment><USER22> having felt prey to the "ok google now" scam i will pass this one.

i know i will only be able to control minimal navigation and calls options.

no other app will ever play along. e.g. you skype calls will either block everything or only show up on your phone screen... to the point integration is so bad you still have your phone on the holder next to that screen and in the end you are using your phone directly more than that projector.

<comment><USER3> Why does it have to be that way, though?

Why can't I just have a list of "high priority apps" and "low priority apps", or even just "highest priority" and "everything else."

It's not something an app can solve; but I personally spend a long time trying to ensure that my phone is safe to use as a navigational aid. Currently this usually includes voiding my warranty (to root, jailbreak, etc.) so that I can bypass the stock dialer. -- That just feels _wrong_ to me. I should not be voiding my warranty to make a device safer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> As soon as I saw that it combines OBD II information from the car with turn- by-turn information from Google Maps... and they offer a 30-day money-back guarantee upon receiving it... sold.

</comment><comment><USER24> States have laws regarding this stuff. So let's look at California, where this company is based:

California

Video Screen Restriction Hands-free Cell Phone Use Only Ban on Texting While Driving Restrictions on Cell Phone Use for Novice Drivers and School Bus Drivers

Law: Prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or a video screen or any other similar device that displays a video signal is operating and is located forward of the driver's seat or is visible to the driver. Provides exceptions for emergency equipment. Statute: California Vehicle Code §2890 (West 2004) Penalties: No Penalty Specified.

Law: Prohibits the use of handheld cell phones while driving. Allows exceptions in emergency situations. Statute: California Vehicle Code §12810.3 and §23123 Penalties: $20 for first offense, $50 for each subsequent offense.

Law: A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send or read a text-based communication Statute: California Vehicle Code 23123 (2009) Penalties: Infraction - $20 first offense, $50 for subsequent.

Law: School and transit bus drivers and drivers younger than 18 will be banned for all cell phone use while driving (regardless of hands-freeheadset). Statute: 2007 California Statutes, Chap. 214 Penalties: $20 for first offense, $50 for each subsequent offense.

[http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Info/Car-Electronics/Got- It/State...](http://www.ce.org/Consumer-Info/Car-Electronics/Got-It/State- Laws-for-Electronics-Use-in-the-Car.aspx#6)

<comment><USER25> > Law: Prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, > or a video screen or any other similar device that displays a video signal > is operating and is located forward of the driver's seat or is visible to > the driver. Provides exceptions for emergency equipment. Statute: California > Vehicle Code §2890 (West 2004) Penalties: No Penalty Specified.

Really? So are Sat Navs banned in California?

<comment><USER24> There's more information here:

[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm)

Excerpt:

27602\. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display.

(2) A global positioning display.

(3) A mapping display.

(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.

So a GPS display .... even heads-up ... should be fine. But if you start showing video messages of your friend from Instagram, then you're probably going to violate the existing laws.

<comment><USER25> That makes a lot of sense!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I recently drove a Citroen rental car with a HUD display. It only displayed critical info: gear, speed, cruise control mode, and next gps turn.

This is just a gimmick. I would never, ever want it to display tweets or whatever distracting content, just because you can still see the road doesn't mean it won't take away your attention. Until we have self-driving cars there is no technology that will magically make it possible to multitask while driving...

</comment><comment><USER27> Yes I definitely think there is a real need for HUD for our car. Kudos for the Navdy team for such a brave attempt.

Few challenging tasks ahead for Navdy team like:

1\. I get tonnes of marketing SMS, It should recognize which SMS should be delivered to HUD might depend the ratio of conversation I make with the sender and decide based on that? (Yeah I live in other side of the planet)

2\. I might not need integration with Twitter and other social media accounts they are definitely not meant to get my focus while driving

3\. As per other HN commenter, it would be awesome if it can recognize the signals or detect objects ahead of some 10m and warn me and get me a path way to ride? determine the pathway depending on the car dimensions ? (Yes, I live in India and commuting here in city is really makes you very skillful in driving :), something like in Captain America 2 film wind sheild? Yeah I know easier said than done )

4\. May be get them the HUD view of rear and help me to drive reverse without need to turn around ? (Asking for too much?)

But definitely worth an attempt.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm surprised the OBD II port is capable of powering something like this. I hope they aren't cheating by running off the onboard battery while running and charging while the car is off.

<comment><USER29> There are pins for battery ground and battery power (12V). Depending on the car, it might be tied to the ignition, or it might not.

<comment><USER28> yea, I'm just surprised they have enough current to power a projector + arm cpu + fan.

<comment><USER30> My car's 12V system warns me to limit use to 120W. That's for the "cigarette lighter" ports, but the OBDII power pin is probably similar if not on the same circuit. That'll run a lot of crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Interesting idea, but certainly the demonstrated applications seem to be _awful_. Now, a HUD with map and information about upcoming traffic & road conditions would be useful.

</comment><comment><USER32> As an optics guy, I was seriously considering building one of these myself. Awesome stuff. I'll be ordering...

<comment><USER8> I'm not an optics guy, but I'm an electronics hacker. How hard would it be to learn the basics to do it?

<comment><USER33> as a general hacker with an interest in learning whatever I can, I am also interested in how one would go about making one. it could be doable just onto a plain windshield, right?

<comment><USER8> > it could be doable just onto a plain windshield, right?

My gut tells me you'd need some kind of reflecting sheet stuck in the windshield or the light would just go through. My guess is the screen in Navdy is actually reflecting light polarized in a specific angle, but I could be completely wrong.

Also, it would be harder because windshields are not planar nor perpendicular to the light source, which distorts the projected image. You'd have to calibrate it constantly, I guess that's why Navdy has a screen.

There's also the law. I believe you can't stick things to the windshield for safety reasons, specially if they occlude light.

It seems the optics might not be that hard: a mini-projector, a mirror (though I don't know why you wouldn't just project the light directly) and somewhere to reflect the light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I would feel a lot safer if this product did not have an emphasis on something like texting.

If it detected you were at a red light, _maybe_ it might be appropriate to display such, but please, not while a kid might be running in front of you, ignorant of your presence.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why does this look like a very bad idea? I think the last thing we need is some gadget thats right infront of their view and distracting.

<comment><USER36> You might change your mind if you ever have the opportunity to rent a car that has a HUD - having just the navigation directions on the windshield is great, your eyes never leave the road.

<comment><USER37> Where did you see that, I didn't notice they are offering anything like that?

<comment><USER38> Their 2nd big picture on the site shows it (with some artistic license): [https://www.navdy.com/assets/bg_2-6d1e2edf72162edc92d6955512...](https://www.navdy.com/assets/bg_2-6d1e2edf72162edc92d69555127a2db9.jpg)

Another one here: [https://www.navdy.com/assets/directions-491e1e1af7ef47c676ab...](https://www.navdy.com/assets/directions-491e1e1af7ef47c676abd2bbe7611dbf.jpg)

<comment><USER37> I meant, where can you rent a car with hud display like this, or I didn't understand what you were trying to say :)

<comment><USER38> Oh, I see. I thought you meant you didn't see Navdy offering navigation on their hud. Never mind! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Video @ 0:33: Am I the only person who noticed the Bentley badge on the Ford Fusion? Director Easter egg?

<comment><USER40> I noticed that too. I can't imagine either company would be happy about that.

It would have been funnier had they used the Aston Martin logo, since the Fusion grill design is a rip off of the iconic Aston Martin shape. In Ford's defense, they did own Aston Martin until 2007.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Why are people comparing Navdy with not using a cellphone at all. That isn't the point of this device. People use their cellphones while driving, and are going to continue unless the government can physically prevent it all the time. This device isn't trying to prevent all types of distracted driving that cellphones create, but to minimize it. As a whole, the public is going to not only use cellphones to the level they are now, but are going to increase their usage. If the usage is going to increase and people will not stop using their phones while driving, isn't it better if they use Navdy? This is a good idea, but I think it's too pricy to convince people to stop. The tech costs too much in order for most users to decide to get it. Ultimately car manufactures will create their own in-car tech through partnerships with the big tech companies that will do it better for cheaper. Or it will be packaged in with your car and you won't notice the 1.5k charge when you are paying 30k for the car.

<comment><USER42> "People use their cellphones while driving"

No, __some __people do. It 's illegal and I'm all for increasing policing and penalties to stop them.

<comment><USER38> > No, some people do.

He did not say _all people_. He said "people". You are saying the same thing he did, except you said "no" in front of it. My own anecdotal evidence is that I don't know a single person that _won 't_ use their cellphone while driving.

> It's illegal and I'm all for increasing policing and penalties to stop them.

That's a blanket statement that isn't true. Certain activities on the cell may be illegal in certain states, but hands-free talking generally isn't—as far as I know isn't illegal in mine.

I use my cell phone for maps and music while I drive, and will continue to do so even if people like you get laws passed to make it illegal. As far as I'm concerned, the cat is out of that particular bag (and it's undeniably safer than maps and music in the days before cell phones).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "compose new tweet". for fucks sake, pull over and use your phone.

</comment><comment><USER43> Woah. So my Maxima can become as cool as my buddy's Z06 for the low, low price of $300? Interesting. Having a tach thrown onto the windshield is much preferable to squinting down through the steering wheel into Nissan's lovely (not), isolated pods. Keeping both eyes on the road while shifting into 2nd a hair past the redline? Nice.

</comment><comment><USER44> Although you could see this sort of product coming years ago, the creators are ignoring the fundamental lesson that more mature US industries learned the hard way: Regulate yourselves, or raise red flags and force the government to step in and do it for you (and most likely gut your business model). Or at the very least, show some tact.

</comment><comment><USER45> The guy in the video is the same guy from the Coin concept videos...

<comment><USER46> Adam Lisagor, he runs a company that produces these concept videos: [http://sandwichvideo.com/](http://sandwichvideo.com/)

<comment><USER29> I'm surprised that he also stars in them. That seems like it would make things more complicated to shoot (but maybe cheaper and easier to produce.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> While part of me is fascinated by the idea, part of me is slightly appalled. For one, they seem to be mixing internet UX with aviation UX and hoping for the best on America's roadways. I've flown extensively with both a HUD and an HMCS. Even a missile alert is a small flashing icon, not a giant picture. And this is in a plane where other objects are not usually in your immediate vicinity. All I can think looking at that picture with mom calling, is wow, "I just drove off the cliff because mom called, this sucks, well at least the scenery's beautiful, and this HUD's pretty cool."

</comment><comment><USER48> Maybe it's just me, but I just don't understand why drivers feel like they need to receive/respond to their call/text while they are driving.

More often than not, someone other side won't realize I'm driving and see I can work out some magic until I tell them I'm driving.

Because of this annoyance I've started ignoring any attempts to reach me while I'm driving.

What would be cool service, actually would be the service that can cause call to go through only when it's really urgent, but caller only gets a certain number of "urgency" calls to be saved for REAL emergency.

<comment><USER49> It annoys me as well but what I can I do?

Example: I'm supposed to pick up my friend from the airport. I've got my wireless headphones on so he can call but he never does. He always texts. "Just landed", "Waiting for Luggage", "Coming out of the terminal". Of course he never tells me where :P I'd prefer he'd call since he knows I'm driving but since texting is the default for most people nowadays it's what they do first.

As a driver myself it does occur to me I shouldn't text either if I'm being picked up but I don't know what calling is any better because a call requires them to pick up where as they can ignore a text if they want.

<comment><USER48> Ah, I didn't realize that possibility. (What I have been doing in such case was just PTT through my headset that I am approaching so they can find me as I approach...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I wish it had more about the legality of this beyond: "Some states may also have legal restrictions regarding where accessories may be mounted on the dashboard"

</comment><comment><USER51> Were they purposefully going for the "stoned" vibe with that video? Just seemed like an odd choice for something they are trying to say is both safe and cool.

</comment><comment><USER52> "Shipping early 2015. We will charge your credit card immediately upon pre- order."

When it did become legal (or even advisable) to charge a credit card more than 30 days in advance of shipment?

Given all the kickstarter hardware startup fiascos, there is NO way I'm paying for a piece of technology this complex 4+ months in advance of estimated delivery times. I'm fully expecting to see "Where is my Navdy!!!?!?!" threads around about this time next year.

<comment><USER53> It's always been legal (in the US) as long as they tell you when they WILL ship (or within 30 days, if no timeframe is promised). It's against the merchant contract with most (all?) major credit card providers though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This is the same guy from the Coin video ([https://onlycoin.com/](https://onlycoin.com/))! Who is this guy?

<comment><USER55> Adam Lisagor: [http://sandwichvideo.com/](http://sandwichvideo.com/)

<comment><USER54> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Great. Now hackers will have a connection to my car.

If they are using the CAN connection on ODB-II then I'm connecting my car to the internet. Sure, most cars only put non-critical stuff on that particular bus but I don't want script kiddies turning on my radio or flashing my lights while I'm driving.

Hopefully its not required and I can just make a power only cable.

</comment><comment><USER57> HUD is a reasonable tool _to augment driving information_. It makes sense for maps, directions, vehicle alerts.

Using it to make texting and other non-driving related functions more accessible is a slippery slope towards driver distraction and pretty directly linkable liability for this company.

</comment><comment><USER58> Side note: I'm always annoyed that Siri insists I read a preview of what it thinks I want a text message to say. Otherwise texting could be completely voice based.

Why can't it read the message back to me? That would give me a rough idea of whether Siri got it right?

<comment><USER59> Siri does read it back to you... at least she does to me when I'm using my handsfree setup in the car.

"Your message to PERSON says SIRI-MANGLED-MESSAGE. Would you like to send it?"

You can send or change it by voice.

<comment><USER58> Hmm, so you're saying bluetooth triggers that?

<comment><USER59> I'm not sure what triggers it... but when I'm in my car, Siri reads things back to me. So I don't know if it applies equally to bluetooth headsets or hands-free mode in my car. I don't know enough about Bluetooth profiles to say without some extra Googling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Hmm... seems to lack a gps. Given that it's running android, it would be nice if it used it's position and size to have a better gps antenna then your phone. Also it could totally store offline maps for when you can't access the network.

</comment><comment><USER61> I think the point they want to make is that no matter how dangerous it is to operate your mobile phone while driving, a lot of people do it. So, I think replacing that with a HUD like this might just be safer than using your mobile while driving.

<comment><USER24> Why build a business around facilitating bad behavior? Seems short-sighted ... literally, in this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> My senior project in college was very similar: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axDyhF1N7hY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axDyhF1N7hY)

Navdy's interface looks quite a bit nicer though, for sure.

<comment><USER63> Awesome project! Did you create an actual HUD (projector) or just use the reflection off the windshield at night? (I emailed you as well)

<comment><USER64> In the video they say that they used 40/60 beamsplitter glass. It reflects the tablet directly.

<comment><USER65> He was asking the commenter a question about his project not Navdy.

<comment><USER64> The Navdy video has no explanation of what they use. The commenter linked to a YouTube video about his project, in which they say they used 60/40 beam splitter glass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> It would be even better if combined with a backup camera and parking sensors.

</comment><comment><USER67> WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST DRIVE?!?!! Why do they think they need to be reading and replying to SMS messages and emails and calls.

Just focus on the 1-3 tons of vehicle you're bimbling around in.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's the same actor from the Coin video [1]. How strange.

1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0)

<comment><USER69> Yup! He's the guy behind Sandwich Video, which makes a ton of ads for startups: [http://sandwichvideo.com/](http://sandwichvideo.com/)

<comment><USER70> Mmm.. his terrible facial hair made me think it was an amature video. Hilarious that people are paying the guy money to put himself in their product videos and he doesn't even tidy his beard up.

<comment><USER69> I think that's kind of the point. He doesn't look like an actor -- he's an everyman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Really cool, I plan to get something like this as soon as it becomes available, my money is here, please post when you have product I can order and is reviewed by Ars or Engadget.

</comment><comment><USER71> Powered by Tilt no less ;)

[https://www.tilt.com](https://www.tilt.com) | [https://open.tilt.com](https://open.tilt.com)

</comment><comment><USER72> "But you can't use your phone in your car. When you do, bad things happen."

 _gets pulled over by a cop_

Yes a ticket is the worst that can happen when you're distracted while driving.

</comment><comment><USER73> In the future I'd like to be able to look down at my phone/tablet/book/food/etc while my car drives me to my destination. This is not the future.

<comment><USER74> This seems very similar to things like Coin[1] where it's a solution for now, rather than the future.

[1]: [https://onlycoin.com](https://onlycoin.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I would use this _solely_ for navigational purposes with Google Maps turn-by- turn. This is exactly why I would not pay $300.

Why does my car need Twitter?

</comment><comment><USER76> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlxjng8h3Tc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlxjng8h3Tc)

</comment><comment><USER77> Great product video! Actually quite funny. This technology can be a nice little stop gap before the driverless car revolution.

</comment><comment><USER78> If you have an Automatic and want to use both, this will be a no go since each will need to use the OBD II port in your car.

</comment><comment><USER79> I think this is a really good alternative. While I do believe that anything that takes away from your attention (texting) while driving, should be banned. It's always going to be a problem whether there is a law against it or not.

It comes down to.. would I rather someone be sending a text while looking down at their phone. Or would I feel better about someone sending a text, a message that's being sent regardless, while looking ahead in front of them.

<comment><USER80> Wouldn't it be the same as using a Google Glass while driving?

<comment><USER81> Other than for navigation, Glass while driving is insanely distracting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Linear-b This is a terrible idea. If it were up to me I'd ban phones in cars entirely until self driving cars are a thing.

</comment><comment><USER82> I really like what these guys have done -- I've been jealous of the vehicles that ship with this built-in.

<comment><USER83> What have they done? All I see is renderings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Am I the only one who initial read HURD?

</comment><comment><USER29> Very optimistic with the ship date. Early 2015? Do they realize it's August 2014 already?

</comment><comment><USER85> Looked interesting. Lets watch the video! "Missing Plug-in." Duh! (Homer style)

</comment><comment><USER86> Navdy seems gimmicky, (Husband) I'm worried about Adam trying to hit on my wife...

</comment><comment><USER87> You can get a HUD in a Corvette, but it simply displays info from the gauge cluster.

</comment><comment><USER88> I would like to see a working prototype first before I'd consider buying one.

</comment><comment><USER89> This seems really cool, I'd definitely want to try it out first though.

</comment><comment><USER90> Great product. Surely a matter of time before buyout from a big car company.

</comment><comment><USER91> any ideas where the map data comes from? OpenStreetMap?

</comment><comment><USER92> 40% off at $319? Wow.

</comment><comment><USER93> Just bought one :)

</comment><comment><USER94> Howdy, Mr. Sandwich Video

</comment><comment><USER95> Jesus, this is a terrible idea.

</comment><comment><USER96> I stopped watching when the HUD was actually a tiny piece of screen glass limited to the device. I thought it would project light into the dashboard somehow.</comment>


Azure services in South Central region down - <AUTHOR> https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/status/ <comment><USER2> I'm quite surprised of how little noise this issue is generating. Not sure does that mean that the issues are actually very localized (although I'm not sure they are, it is not entirely correct that only one region is offline), or that Azure is not used so much so people don't care.

<comment><USER3> Azure is the #2 cloud platform on Earth, so your last statement is bunk. The outage is very localized, none of my instances in South Central were ever "down," there was a brief 5-10 time frame when I noticed CPU spikes, I assume from a rebooting process from mitigation...which effected some availability but it was never truly down.

The problem was caused by a power surge to their cooling system, which eventually led to systems shutting down to prevent overheating.

The main thing is the spill over from authentication, which is effecting other regions. This isn't an AWS/GCS type even where every service suddenly cascaded. My portal is still not 100% functioning, but all of my services are operating normally and are up. So it's probably at this point only effecting AD and provisioning rather than service SLA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Loading the Azure status page doesn't work in Florida. Apparently you can VPN (assuming you do not choose a location that maps to South Central) into Azure and migrate your infrastructure if needed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately, also AzureAD and Azure Resource Manager show impacts.. This is pretty substantial impact. South Central Us might have been the specific location, but the impact is causing headache for just about everyone.

</comment><comment><USER6> South Central has been down since early morning; around 4/5 AM Central. I am really surprised and disappointed that they haven't been able to get it back yet.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is not isolated only to South Central. We have issues accessing to resources in all US/European data centers, we can't authenticate.

<comment><USER7> I can confirm. We are having authentication issues as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Status page is intermittent and when loading may not be correct. It's showing the VSTS issues but not VM issues in US West

</comment><comment><USER9> According to Microsoft Service Page (in case people can't access it)

Starting at 09:29 UTC on 04 Sep 2018, customers in South Central US may experience difficulties connecting to resources hosted in this region. Engineers have isolated an issue with cooling in one part of the data center, which caused a localized spike in temperature, as the preliminary root-cause, which has now been mitigated. Automated data center procedures to ensure data and hardware integrity went into effect when temperatures hit a specified threshold and critical hardware entered a structured power down process. Engineers are now in the process of restoring power to affected devices as part of the ongoing mitigation process.

Some services may also be experiencing intermittent authentication issues due to downstream Azure Active Directory impact, and engineers are separately working on mitigation options for this also.

The next update will be provided at 15:00 UTC or as events warrant.</comment>


Founder of #startup accelerator Amplify.LA on vision & funding for entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestartupangel.com/2012/03/27/interview-of-paul-bricault-foundermanaging-director-of-amplify-la/

<comment><USER2> It's nice to have an inside perspective on what makes an accelerator tick.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great interview!</comment>


Kawasaki on Why Your Startup is Dead if You Can't Enchant - <AUTHOR> http://firstround.com/article/Kawasaki-on-Why-Your-Startup-is-Dead-if-You-Cant-Enchant <comment><USER2> Your startup is more likely dead because you're comparing yourself to Facebook, not because it's not enchanting. There are a gazillion and a half CMS operations out there, and they all seem to make enough money to keep going. CMS is not enchanting. Not even Medium. If you want to be successful, look to be sustainable, not play the business lottery like Twitter and SnapChat.

And the rest of the advise in here is just pat. People will be more likely to buy from you if they like you? You don't say! You should anticipate problems ahead of time? Well I'll be!

Why is your business failing? It's probably because you don't understand your customers. It's probably because you never talked to them in the first place. Here is an exercise that actually works: go outside. Go to the nearest local business you can find. Talk to a person who works there, bonus if it's the owner. Browse the store. Introduce yourself. Make up a story about being new to the neighborhood and needing a shower head or something if you have to. Get them talking about themselves. Ask them how long they have been there. _Establish a repoir_. Pay attention. People will tell you the problems they have. They are always looking for a solution. Just listen, and you will discover it. No, you can't do it from your desk. Get on your feet and go outside. In half an hour of talking to a real, potential customer, you'll have more good business ideas than from 6 months of sitting around with your partners brainstorming ideas.

Then do it again. Make this your Saturday morning habit. Go to every coffee shop or dog grooming business or what have you in your area and talk to anyone you can. Be "that" guy who talks to strangers in public places. It works.

I'll even save you a little time and tell you what people don't want: They don't want computers. Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.

<comment><USER3> Agree on whole comment and about the need to connect with customers, but there is a subtlety with this line I would ask you caveat:

> Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" > and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often > distracted by "computing" to do it.

You're right, but unfortunately there are a lot of instances where the data _initially_ shows otherwise. One naive way of looking at Google glass, for example, is that the early adopters did want wearable computing... and from that conclusion other electronics manufactures should make more types of wearables: watches, pedometers, shoes, etc. Surprise, surprise... many of the wearables have failed (looking at you Samsung) despite based heavily on the initial market research because they didn't actually do anything useful.

<comment><USER4> Isn't that just failing to listen to the customers you talked to? As in, they got half of it right - they talked to customers. They just didn't get the listening part right.

In the case of wearable computing, customers didn't say they wanted to wear their phone on their arm or strap a phone to their heads. They wanted hands free, no fuss, error free access to information. Same market as stuff like Siri or Kinect. The problem is simply the implementation. Trying to tap on the little watch screen is god awful. Trying to get Siri to understand what you want as soon as you try to ask for something useful is almost impossible. The implementation falls down hard - hard enough to be unusable.

Same thing for mobile browsers. I remember really wanting a pocket version of internet explorer because of how useful it would be. Actually using it on the old Windows Mobile devices was basically impossible though because the implementation was terrible and unusable. Today however, I use my mobile phone's browser all the time because the implementation is good. There was nothing wrong with what I was asking for - quick pocket access to the web - but there was a lot wrong in what Microsoft thought I wanted - a handicapped version of their web browser that didn't work.

Talking is not listening or understanding. Wearable computing will definitely be a major hit once someone works out a good implementation.

<comment><USER3> I would upvote you, but alas new to posting here.

Yeah, agree that listening was the culprit. I guess what I'm saying is that many of the young people hear "I want a mobile version of my browser" and go off to build the windows CE version based on your literal desires. The fix to that doomed behavior isn't better listening, per se, because that connotes if you hear every word you understand what the customer really wants.

Most great products address an _unarticulated_ need. In many ways, these unarticulated needs are NP Complete: They are hard to find solutions in polynomial time but are extremely easy to verify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not directly related to this particular article, but these First Round Review posts are fantastic. No affiliation with First Round here, but I highly recommend subscribing to their newsletters if you're at a tech company. Whether you're a junior engineer or a senior business exec, there's something for everyone:

From board meetings ([http://firstround.com/article/The-Secret-to-Making- Board-Mee...](http://firstround.com/article/The-Secret-to-Making-Board- Meetings-Suck-Less))

...to equity grants ([http://firstround.com/article/The-Right-Way-to-Grant- Equity-...](http://firstround.com/article/The-Right-Way-to-Grant-Equity-to- Your-Employees))

...to product thoughts ([http://firstround.com/article/42-Rules-to-Lead-by- from-the-M...](http://firstround.com/article/42-Rules-to-Lead-by-from-the-Man- Who-Defined-Googles-Product-Strategy))

They're really nailing it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I was kinda iffy going into this article: I like Guy Kawasaki's stuff a lot, but it can tend to be a bit on the fluffy side, and "enchant" is one of those words that sends shivers down my back. Still, the actual meat and bones of his definition of 'enchanting' is solid and goes into a level of granularity significantly more actionable than "figure out a way to get your users to spend ridiculous amounts of time on your app, just like Twitter and Facebook did."

<comment><USER7> I think we've moved into the post-enchantment era, where non-enchanting, ping- anxiety is king. People are addicted to the social feedback.

<comment><USER8> Those are not the kind of customers you want, long term.

<comment><USER9> You only need them long enough milk a few billion dollars out of some other sucker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found it interesting that I agree a lot with the title and disagree a lot with all the rest of the article.

First: "There are studies funded to measure hand firmness and eye contact because they're indicators of authenticity and enthusiasm."

Really?? I understand the importance for the CEO to be likable, even if he is an asshole. Steve Jobs had that precisely because of his authenticity and enthusiasm. But why make such an effort on faking it if you can _be_ it?? What a sad life to fake evey handshake. Authenticity must need a bit of practice, because we are kind of trained to "lie to please". But with some diligence, one can start to be a little more self-confident and authentic, caring less about others might think (see that this the exact opposite of faking handshakes?). And enthusiasm should be natural too. If you are not enthusiastic with the product you are creating, you shouldn't be creating it. Or at least you should expect and accept that it will no "enchant" anyone and work hard to be just profitable.

If I understood it correctly, the first part of the text tell to "dress to match your audience" and practice your handshakes in order to be more authentic. In other words, go through a great length of faking to be authentic. That was just a weird advice.

I will try to enchant, be authentic and enthusiastic by rejecting every advice Kawasaki gave here. I think it is the logical thing to do.

<comment><USER11> I agree. I'd say the real lesson to learn here is to be _observant_ of your handshakes and other social acclimates. All of those things will appear confident if you practice awareness and true fulfillment and backing of what you are doing. Deception and deceit, ulterior motives, are what _kill_ genuineness. So put your mind in the positive zone when meeting potential partners. They may want to take you for a ride but probably less so if they like you. And thus, perception without deflection, is a true rule of executive sportsmanship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As head of SW Engineering for that video company offering the rev split, I just wanted to point out that the Eepybird video linked earlier in the article (Diet Coke and Mentos fountain), actually launched exclusively on Revver and financial reward was one of the big motivations for their decision to release it on Revver instead of Youtube. In fact, they filed numerous DMCA takedowns for all the unauthorized uploads to Youtube. There are numerous other examples of the same occurring with other creators.

While I do agree that financial motivations are usually less compelling than social and ego-driven motivators, there are times in an industry's evolution where they do matter, especially in trying to establish a new professional class. Would Lyft, Sidecar, and UberX drivers exist for fame and glory alone?

Revver was about a lot more than the just the rev-split - we were building an open network that rewarded video creators for their efforts and sought to let them to make a living performing the craft they loved.

</comment><comment><USER13> I liked his practical comments on how to manage upwards. Execute for your boss, do quicker prototypes, and give bad news fast.

<comment><USER7> Yes, you don't often find articles directed at underlings on HN. That's old school Napoleon Hill.

<comment><USER13> Some of the best client service advice I was given was along this vein. "If you want the client to trust you, do everything they give you a little better and a little faster than they expect. They will trust you with more work, and eventually will trust your advice."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you liked this article, you should also check out his hour-long talk at Stanford (March 2011) which touches on many of the same topics while going into a bit more depth:

[http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2669](http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2669)

</comment><comment><USER15> People still listen to Kawasaki after he became a human spam-bot on every social media outlet?

</comment><comment><USER16> Much of this is great advice and I really like the idea of the pre-mortem.

The only issue I have with this article is the point about not going to the C suite. I think that can be true of many services, especially ones that are free or low cost so that the users are actually building the momentum and can adopt the product at their level.

Where it falls short is when you need a strategic partner or if you are looking for a big enterprise sale. The middle and lower levels provide the execs with the validation and market fit but don't have the authority to make those kinds of purchases, so you are largely wasting your time if the executives are not in the room.

</comment><comment><USER17> Kind of interesting, considering that PageMaker got killed by QuarkXPress, and Aldus is no longer with us.</comment>


Remind HN: Get something nice for your significant other today - <AUTHOR>

I say this only because I didn't actually know this when I was dating this girl in high school and it cost me. It should be obvious to most people, but if it's not obvious, it's possible that no one ever told you. If you don't know what to get, flowers or framed photos are nice, or dinner, if it's a more serious relationship. <comment><USER2> Sometimes people let obvious duties slide when they are busy, overwhelmed with work, or enthralled with something new and exciting. Thank you for the reminder.</comment>


Ask HN: Where to seek funding for agri-tech beehive monitoring startup? - <AUTHOR> I co-founded an agri-tech beehive monitoring startup in New Zealand several years ago with my brothers (they mostly run it now): https://hivemind.nz<p>It's a hardware+software product, a small business with real sales and income, and they're looking for around US$300k in funding to expand and take their R&D to the next level. The problem is it's hard to get friends&family angel investors to invest that much, but for VC firms it's too little to worry about (or they say the market is too small). Suggestions on where to look for funding for this kind of operation? <comment><USER2> [https://news.crunchbase.com/news/startups-swarm-to-build- bee...](https://news.crunchbase.com/news/startups-swarm-to-build-bee-based- businesses/)

You could see what this group did / talk to them?</comment>


Are You Ready To Launch? - <AUTHOR> http://liamkaufman.com/blog/2013/01/30/are-you-ready-to-launch/ <comment><USER2> Thanks. This was to-the-point and useful.</comment>


What to do if your primary data source thinks of you as a competitor? - <AUTHOR>

I am building a product that uses an API from a fairly large site.
The problem is, that my product is considered a 'direct competitor' (I was told this by one of the co-founders of said service/site) to the API provider.
They also told me that the site's API is available on a non-commercial basis.
What should I do?
I am inclined to go ahead and build the non-commercial version, launch an MVP and see if we can negotiate a fair licensing agreement.
The obvious risk is, what if they say no and close the pipes on me?
Would love to hear some thoughts.
P.S. I am not VC-funded, so don't have any restrictions like risking investor's money or anything like that. It's just a lone guy in a garage wanting to build something he thinks would be cool - especially for this crowd :)
P.P.S. They weren't a jerk about it, they were totally cool - not surprising though, because their public persona leads you to expect the 'cool response' they gave. So this isn't a "F^&% the man, trying to keep me down" type of a situation. <comment><USER2> The obvious answer is to see if you can get the data from somewhere else. If its proprietary information to their app, then you may be stuck there. If that's the case, I'd ask yourself whether its something you should really build. Let's assume you do, since it would be cool, and you're happy making it a non-commercial product to be able to keep using the API—if you can add other features/connections/data sources that make a commercial offering compelling and less dependent on a single source of information that in all likelihood will want to cut you off, then you may be able to make it work, and might be an attractive acquisition for the company whose data you want to use.

But i'd make sure you don't invest too terribly much in the effort. As Fred Wilson has pointed out, never fill holes in someone else's product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough.

I do plan on adding additional data sources, but the data that this source provides is pretty unique.

Not so much filling holes in someone else's product, but rather using the same data to build a competing product.

Fun times ahead!</comment></comment>


Behavioral Effect of Metrics - <AUTHOR> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BehavioralEffectOfMetrics <comment><USER2> It is important to measure what you treasure.

However the concept of pairing metrics is equally important. Otherwise the power of what is being measured will become the entire focus.

Pairing metrics combine quantity with quality. Like speed of improvement with safety, or quantity of burgers processed with quality of the assembly process.

<comment><USER3> I've not heard of pairing metrics before, thanks for mentioning this. It seems like a simple (and obvious in hindsight) way to mitigate the problems that come with focusing on single metrics.

Some brief Googling revealed the following from Marc Andreeson:

Andy Grove had the answer: For every metric, there should another "paired" metric that addresses adverse consequences of the first metric. [0]

Next question for me is, how does one robustly select and pair metrics?

There's a little more here: [http://mattyford.com/blog/2014/6/11/paired- metrics](http://mattyford.com/blog/2014/6/11/paired-metrics)

[0] [http://pmarcatweetsasblogposts.tumblr.com/post/73631082205/m...](http://pmarcatweetsasblogposts.tumblr.com/post/73631082205/measure- performance-with-paired-metrics-for-best)</comment></comment>


Re-Ask HN: When was J2ME apps Golden Rush? Success stories? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> This should be 2006-13. Java and Symbian phones were really popular then, especially in developing countries. I had a relatively successful J2ME Twitter app called Twhii. It launched just months before Snaptu closed. It was totally free so I wasn't making money from it but it was widely used in many countries.</comment>


Burnout, stress lead more companies to try a four-day work week - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-world-work-fourdayweek/burnout-stress-lead-more-companies-to-try-a-four-day-work-week-idUSKBN1OG0GY <comment><USER2> When talking about this, I usually mention the utility cost vs straight cost. Not all hours are created equal! How many employees are as productive on friday as they are on tuesday? The employer may be losing 20% of the hours, but maybe only 10% of the productivity. I could see this actually breaking even, as employees rested from their three-day weekends become ever more productive.

And it's a _tremendous_ hiring and retention perk, at least as long as it's not standard practice. "Work for us, and you get three day weekends every week!" And that turns into "So, recruiter, does this new gig you're trying to hire me for offer a four day workweek? No? Well okay then, bye."

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not the number of days but the constant fire drills, everything is always top priority, notifications coming at all hours... and at least with software dev very rarely is it a priority to fix poor quality things thereby making even more fire drills.

<comment><USER4> If fire drills are the norm rather than the exception, you should find another job because you are working at a poorly run company.

There is always a tension between delivering features and delivering quality, but that's no excuse for constant fire drills and notifications. It's possible to handle the tradeoff better than that.

<comment><USER5> Agree with you, but it's physically impossible for all developers to merely find a better job. Some can, but not all can, because of the limited number of companies out there.

As a result, we really should force employers to treat us better rather than viewing us as replaceable. They also need to learn that their way shouldn't be the only way.

<comment><USER6> How do you force employers to treat you better, some sort of artificial regulation?

We've never had greater labor mobility, remote options or demand for software developers; I question your premise of limited number of companies.

<comment><USER5> I definitely see where you are coming from, and I personally wouldn't recommend "formal" actions like regulation or unionization.

I've been considering my options lately and the more I think about it, the more I hear "contracting" as one of the better ways to make liveable money without losing control over your working conditions + dialogue with client(s).

When you have constant, daily interaction with middle managers who are trying to become VPs or whatever, it can be extremely grating. Workplace politics, policies, and appearances are all created by these people so that they can protect their jobs and future bonuses.

So, perhaps consulting + contracting will create a barrier between you and the middle managers. They're forced to work with you more collaboratively because the CEO signs the checks on this one (hopefully), not the individual department you work for.

But yeah, out of the thousands of corporations and startups of all ages, industries, and sizes, I bet only 10% or less have an efficient, enjoyable, and equitable experience between low-ranking employees and their layers of management.

That's what is causing all the job-hopping and attempts to "trade-up" ;)

<comment><USER7> For contractors in large companies, it's exactly those middle managers who sign the check. What's worse, the contracts are usually 6-12 months, and these guys decide if they'll be extended for another period. They also decide what the rate on the contract will be. So in reality, you need to pay at least as much attention to these guys (and internal politics, power struggles and all other bs) as a regular employee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're thinking "but my employer will never do this", there's another alternative: you can negotiate.

As an existing employee you are hugely valuable, you know how things work, the tech stack, the business, who to talk to... Replacing that is hard. So you have a good negotiating position.

It's also possible to negotiate for a shorter workweek at new jobs, though it's more difficult.

I've done this at 3 different companies, and you'll see in the comments here that others have as well. E.g. I interviewed one programmer who has been working 4 days a week for 15 years: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/01/08/part-time- programmer...](https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/01/08/part-time-programmer/)

And if you want to learn how to do this but aren't sure where to begin, I've condensed my experience and research into a book: [https://codewithoutrules.com/3dayweekend/](https://codewithoutrules.com/3dayweekend/)

</comment><comment><USER9> For decades, I almost always worked four days a week, 32 hours/week total. Since I was working for mostly large companies, I didn't make any sort of special deal to do this, I simply took a 20% pay cut. Well worth it. Looking back over the last 35 years, I don't regret working less at all, with the extra time off spent with friends and family, and giving me time to write several books.

<comment><USER10> I could never negotiate that, so I quit the industry after 10-ish years and went into "leaner life-style, honest day's work" type of deal. Best thing I did with my life.

Oh, and Wim Hof breathing. Just the breathing, for now.

<comment><USER11> I'm curious what kind of job you got after quitting the tech industry. Maybe I'll try it some day. :)

<comment><USER10> I go up a rope or down a rope to trim/take down a tree, sometimes to do some construction work. Industrial alpinism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have worked at a company where we had a mandatory 35 hours week and I definitely feel that less working hours leads to a more disciplined workplace where less time is being wasted. At that company we actually worked during work hours whereas in my current company we spend a lot of time in meetings and other interruptions so I think I actually work less time than 35 hours.

<comment><USER13> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law)

"Parkinson's law is the adage that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". It is sometimes applied to the growth of bureaucracy in an organization. This law is likely derived from ideal gas law, whereby a gas expands to fit the volume allotted."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've thought about this idea quite a lot and shared it with a bunch of people. I've found that having that third day off (taking it as a vacation day to experiment) definitely helps me personally when it is adjacent to the weekend (e.g. Friday or Monday). However, I can totally see the need for having this third day be in the middle of the week to break up the week (e.g. Wednesday) or help with things like doing chores and getting to appointments when other people are working, but you're not. As a result, I think the third day off is most useful when you get to pick which day it is according to your particular circumstances.

I know having the day be flexible adds additional complexity, and even the risk of it not being taken / pressured into not taking, but I think it adds the most utility for everyone.

<comment><USER15> True but there is no reason you can't do Wednesday > Friday > Wednesday every other week to give people a mix of three days off and a day during the week to do errands that are harder to do on the weekends.

<comment><USER14> I guess you could have a default day or default rotation (e.g. your Wednesday > Friday > Wednesday every other week) and then negotiate for one of the other days in lieu of the default when it makes things more convenient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It'd help to avoid lumping all jobs into a single pile and proceeding to suggest a planet-wide remedy.

A software developer has different needs from a convenience store employee. I hope that's obvious.

I don't understand why this is even on HackerNews, because this article contains no news at all. It's just pandering to those who feel that working fewer hours is a good idea for them, nothing more.

ps. if you're in a job that involves using your brain, you're not working more than 3-4 hours/day max. Maybe when there's basic income, we can start having honest conversations about how people actually work in software.

<comment><USER17> > ps. if you're in a job that involves using your brain, you're not working > more than 3-4 hours/day max

This (not necessarily the quoted part, more so the article concept in general) is non-sense. People don't work _enough_. The problem is not the long hours, it's that people no longer have the stamina (mental, physical and emotional) to sustain a long work cycle so they think they "burn out".

<comment><USER18> > so they think they "burn out".

Do you not believe burnout is real? If so, I hope you never find out, because it is very real and sucks a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I have a feeling that if you can _work_ 5-6 hours a day you've more than earned your salary. So, if a company can figure it out and let thew workers stay at home instead of browsing the internet at "work" more power to them.

<comment><USER20> So then I have confirmed it. I read about browsing the internet and generally no one working 8 hours a day it they work in software. Some days I literally don't have work to do, so I browse the internet. Sometimes it's nice to work on tasks around the home if I am working from home that day.

Management must know this. I consider it an unwritten/not talked about fact of working as a software developer.

<comment><USER21> Why would you bother staying at work if you have nothing to do. Take your laptop home and VPN for OC issues if that's why.

But I can't unders how you can have nothing to do. If you feel like doing nothing, that I understand. Some days just don't work. But having nothing to do is quite surprising.

<comment><USER20> I like to work from home when there isn't much work to do, so then I can have my laptop.

It's common for us to have a code freeze, where we do not have any items in our backlog.

<comment><USER21> Perhaps have release branches and hotfix there, merging into master? May be a more enjoyable development cycle.

<comment><USER20> Unfortunately we only branch on release. We don't have separate branches. Consider it as everyone working on master, and no merges m, just code reviews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the article: "companies around the world that have cut their work week have found that it leads to higher productivity".

I'm disappointed that the article does not even explore the question, at what point does productivity decrease? It says that going from 5 to 4 days brought about an increase. The natural question is, what would happen if you went to 3? To 2? 1?

Certainly at 0 days per week, productivity will decrease. And I know it will be a long time before even a 4-day week is the norm. But at least as an academic exercise, why is no one asking the question? What is the fewest number of hours per week that yields the same amount of productivity as 40? (Such a study would have use averages, of course.)

</comment><comment><USER22> Another thing a lot of companies could try is a five-day work week.

</comment><comment><USER23> I only get stressed when I'm forced to attend stupid meetings. Without meetings a 4 days week would be doable for everybody.

<comment><USER6> Well it may seem obvious, but work to eliminate "stupid" meetings. Hold people to scheduled start times and time limits. Push hard for agendas and stick to them. Question the need for meetings you think are redundant or unnecessary.

Or do you mean meetings in general?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Many people seem to believe it's hard/impossible to negotiate 4 day work week. Your negotiation position might be stronger than you think. Give it a try. Get creative. Approach it as you would a coding problem. Read a book about negotiations.

I have worked 4 days or less for about a decade now. Well worth it.

</comment><comment><USER25> Monday morning off sounds like an awful idea.

First off, even when I lack sleep, I'll function better in the morning if I force myself out of bed, and I'll have a big slump in the afternoon.

If I sleep in instead to supposedly catch up sleep, I'll do OK.. but I won't feel any better in the afternoon.. I'll be a little off because of getting up late.

Secondly, afternoons are more depressing. I'd rather get out of bed, do a monday morning and then go home. It's really depressing in the winter, to leave work when it's already night outside. :/

But really screw "monday mornings" off, give me a monday off or nothing.

edit: not to mention the most obvious... people with long commutes coming to work for a few hours... really dumb.

<comment><USER26> I function by trying to work 7 days a week, without taking time off for vacation. What I've found is that I'm in general much happier having to wake up at a specific time every day with specific work goals.

I feel like I'm in a sweet equilibrium with fewer disruptions from going on and off vacation. I make more money, I'm happier at home and work, and I feel better all around.

<comment><USER27> Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have like doing other things apart from programming? I couldn't imagine going in to work 7 days a week for the entire year which would mean i won't be able to go ski, travel, play soccer league, go camping, hiking etc..

<comment><USER26> I'm not a programmer. My job has different hour requirements than a typical salaried position.. Sometimes I work 4 hours one day, sometimes 20+ hours. The variability is exciting, almost like a slot machine, some days I get lucky and have a lot of work all day which means more money to spend, other days the work isn't there and I go home by noon (which I consider also being lucky) to play with the kids, work on home projects, go shopping, hang out with wife, watch Netflix/YouTube.

I have gotten so much enjoyment from work and the income it generates that I have decided to put my major hobbies/travel on hold. Maybe if tax law changes in the future punish me for high productivity, then I might cut back and do more non job activities.

I would imagine it is hard for a programmer to maintain this schedule because the pay isn't on the same basis as mine (eat what you kill versus salary). However, certain other aspects of a 7 day workweek apply to being a programmer: if you get tired and don't want to continue working, you can just go home and work on it the next day. No Friday crunch time. No pre vacation crunch time. Every day is more relaxed because you just took two major deadlines off your schedule: Fridays and vacations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If people are burning out and stressed, then 4 vs 5 days is not issue, but rather total number of hours and overall conditions.

<comment><USER29> Like me having 20 days worth of vacation but being looked at sideways when I actually try to use them. Giving me more days won't solve the issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't think this would help a ton in tech. The people that get burned out the hardest can't stop thinking about work if they're on the clock or not. They'll just have another day to stress about not getting stuff done or how much more they'll have to do when they get back.

</comment><comment><USER31> Less work would not solve the problem for me. I enjoy solving problems and creating tools. I like it so much I do it outside of work and possibly inside when I have nothing else to do.

What I find stressful is stupid people. This really burns me out. I can understand a lack of experience and mistakes in code. We are always learning and in need of mentorship.

What I can't stand are cowardly people who aren't learning. These are people who refuse to write original code to save their lives, or their careers. It seems common to avoid code by hoping some Maven or NPM package will easily do your job for you. These are the people who need multiple frameworks and 10mb of dependency code for what could be accomplished in about 12 lines of original code. It's a hatred of craftsmanship. These people make me hate coding and life in general.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is going in the right direction :)

Funnily enough, decades ago when France introduced the 35h workweek the world (and in particular the US and UK) ridiculed France for it and berated the (supposed) laziness of French people.

<comment><USER33> Brit by birth, and I've never visited France, so take this with a grain of salt, but:

I've worked with many Japanese, German and British engineers who have worked with French engineers (in France, often as "ex pats"), and these guys never complained about France's 35 hour work week. They did, however, complain about the (this is my summary, from memory) excessive smoking breaks, longer lunches, casual attitude towards work, and (yes, sorry for the stereotype) a good amount of lost time talking about women in the office they'd like to bang.

I don't know. The 2 French engineers I've worked with have been fine, but that was on U.K. soil... maybe on the home field it's different?

My wife, who's American but both parents are French, says that the French generally have an inferiority complex but over-compensate by shit-talking other European countries and the U.S. I don't think I've experienced this personally, although I'm in tech and she's not, so maybe in her world that is more common (or maybe she's wrong? dunno)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> As long as you're productive and meeting deadlines, I couldn't care less about the "hours" you're in the office.

Also, the market well balance itself. If someone is more productive they'll be rewarded more.

I just don't want the "equal outcome" crowd to start enforcing equal pay when most of them are clocking in minimum hours and others are over-delivering.

This is for merit based companies, which personally I can't fathom non-merit based ones.

<comment><USER12> "Also, the market well balance itself. If someone is more productive they'll be rewarded more."

I don't think that's true at all. If you don't spend significant amounts of time on self promotion you will not get rewarded but taken for granted.

<comment><USER35> In one of my early jobs out of college I had a manager who really got this. He knew I was getting my work done, so our 1:1's turned more into career coaching, and his focus was almost always around improving my "visibility" within the org. Looking back, it's hard to say whether he was genuinely interested in helping me get promoted, or if he just wanted to improve his own visibility by proxy, but either way it worked, and the lesson stuck with me.

<comment><USER6> That's how good managers should be measured though, by the success of their charges</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Uppy 1.0 – Your best friend in file uploading - <AUTHOR> https://uppy.io <comment><AUTHOR> I have a confession to make: When my original post did not get traction, a few days later I thought maybe this could be interesting for Show HN and self- promoted once more! But now the original post hit the front page, and this one is getting some traction, too.

While I'm happy to discuss Uppy 1.0 anywhere, maybe to keep things focused we should have one canonical place for that conversation: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19756159](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19756159)

Just a proposal, I'll read and reply here anyway if needed :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One of the developers here. We worked three years to make Uppy the best open source file uploader the world has seen.

Uppy has been on HN before, but we now launched 1.0 and pack some new features like:

      - support for react, basic support for react native
      - direct uploads to s3
      - resume uploads after browser crash or accidental navigate-away
      - locale packs (i18n)
      - optional support to keep state in your own store, enabling time traveling
      - stabilized & fully documented API
      - drag & drop images from the web (Urls)
      - new example apps (like a github-comment-like app, drop media in textarea to generate a preview and inline the html that displays it)
      - accessibility improvements
      - robodog, for easy file encoding (optional like all features. robodog requires a paid subscription)

Looking forward to your brutally honest feedback! Happy to answer questions too.</comment>


Protesters who demanded Huawei CFO's release revealed to be paid actors - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/22/huawei-protests-cfo-canada-trial-actors <comment><USER2> The fact that Huawei is doing all these kinds of things makes me think that they are rightly accused!</comment>


Patent for idea of online user communities may bite Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447370383

<comment><USER2> If Facebook actually gets shut down because of this, I could see that being a good way to get some meaningful patent reform in the U.S.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, especially since it's something normal people can easily relate to. But, barring a public relations stunt by Facebook, I suppose this is going to be quietly settled like the RIM patent suit mentioned in the article (another promising, highly visible suit, since an injunction against RIM had the potential to kill all the Blackberries on Capitol Hill).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope these insane patents continue to surface, patent trolls seem to be shooting themselves in the foot.

<comment><USER5> When the government decides Facebook is "Too Big to be Patent Trolled" I think some of the little guys who got eaten alive by business process patents might just fly their airplanes into the patent office or court building!

<comment><USER6> If anything, shouldn't they fly their airplane into the ones who sued them? Getting angry at the patent office by the time they got their head on straight seems the wrong target at the wrong time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does their patent actually include an implementation of their idea? Prior art notwithstanding, it strikes me that if you want to profit from your idea but don't want to be bothered with pesky things like implementation and marketing, all you need to do is to patent it. Its almost certain that sometime in the future someone else will have the same idea.

<comment><USER8> That's precisely the way U.S. patent law works -- to be entitled to a patent for a new and non-obvious invention, you're not required even to have actually made the invention ("reduced it to practice"), let alone commercialized it.

If you actually conceived the new invention yourself (i.e., you didn't copy it), and you were the first to do so, then basically all you have to do is provide a written description of the invention that would enable a hypothetical "person of ordinary skill" in the relevant art(s) to make and use the invention.

(There are other requirements too, of course - for example, you have to disclose the "best mode," as then subjectively contemplated by you, for practicing the invention; you have to provide at least one written claim, which in essence is an infringement checklist; you have to disclose to the patent examiner all "information material to patentability" that you know about; you can't wait more than one year after the first offer for sale, public use, publication, etc.)

Here's the underlying assumption: The first inventor should be allowed to set up a toll booth for 20 years (originally 17 years) as a reward for "merely" documenting how to practice the invention in a centralized national database, that is, in the Patent Office collection.

That might have made sense 200 years ago. But I've long wondered whether that part of the patent law has outlived its usefulness -- arguably we don't need the same incentives to help build up a national library of engineering knowledge as we did in 1790.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My guess is that this is the patent:

[http://www.google.com/patents?id=ff4OAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=ff4OAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

It looks like the patent covers a process for inviting to connect with users or "friending".

I can't believe that anyone hadn't done that before 2001. But I can't quite recall any in particular.

<comment><USER8> It'll be interesting to see what claim language emerges from reexamination.

You can think of each individual claim in a patent as being a separate "infringement checklist." For a given claim to be infringed, all the elements of the claim must be present in the accused product or method, either literally or in the form of an "equivalent."

A claim is like an AND statement: If any element in a given claim is missing from the accused product or method (and a substantial "equivalent" of the missing element isn't there either), then that claim isn't infringed.

Note, however, that the several claims of a patent are OR'd together -- you might not infringe claim 1, but you still might infringe claim 15. All the patent owner needs to prove is infringement of a single claim.

(This assumes that the accused infringer doesn't prove that the infringed claims are invalid. In over-simplified terms, if the AND statement of a claim returns TRUE when applied to the prior art, then THAT claim is invalid. [Proving obviousness is a more-complicated analysis.])

<comment><USER10> I like the nice succinct description of claims. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article follows nicely on the heels of Clay Shirky's post that touches on why complex societies fail. The current system of patents desperately needs simplification, but bureaucratic and legal complexity hinder this.

</comment><comment><USER12> Patents maybe were effective at encouraging innovation before the information age. Now that innovation happens so rapidly, patents slow things down.

Currently, Patents are all about making certain techniques (business processes, algorithms, etc.) illegal unless licensed.

Who honestly reads patents to learn about technology anymore?</comment>