Show HN: The easiest way to find gifts for friends and family - <AUTHOR> http://giftexplorer.com/ This is what we built last Startup Weekend in Stuttgart. Probably the easiest way to find gift suggestions for your friends. We use the open graph to create a personal interest profile and then aggregate Amazon products for it.<p>Still an early version, but we are interested in your opinion on it. Thanks! :) <comment><AUTHOR> Also if anyone knows how to handle the Amazon API limits - thats still a big issue for us...</comment>


Ask HN: Please trash my business plan (non-tech) - <AUTHOR> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd93s8qb_49gb92tngq This is a television show I have become involved with. My expertise is on the production & post production side - the logistics of planning, shooting editing and delivering video. Business and raising capital, not so much.
About half of this is mine; the original was much more sale-sy and less business-y. There are two of us, the host/creator has sunk a lot of equity into it, it'sa  good product but it needs recapitalizing. I've been working free on this for the last month. I suck at business; I need to be the CTO and manage the manufacture and delivery of the product, which is plenty of work for one person.
For confidentiality reasons, I've left out the financials. In brief, we're looking to raise up to $500k and thinking of a 10-15% risk premium with full recap in 3-5, plus 1-2% of net. I think YC people are honest enough that I feel safe to post it here.
Thank you for your time. Anything from 'tl;dr' to longer critiques would be welcome. If you prefer, email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. If this is inappropriate for YC, feel free to say that too. <comment><USER2> Are you sure you want us to do this?

We are in the start of the greater depression, the yuppies you want to sell to no longer have money. Wine, travel, Lifestyle/keeping up with the jones' is now considered tacky.

Business plan trashed. Sorry.

<comment><USER3> I disagree. There will always be yuppies who have money. In times of depression they are the least effected group (relatively).

<comment><USER4> Nine out of ten yuppies, or more, will make as much money in 2009 as they did in 2008. They can still afford their mortgages. Consumer confidence aside, tell me why they're going to suddenly stop shopping at Whole Foods, buying organic, drinking wine, and otherwise displaying upper middle-class tastes in food consumption.

<comment><USER2> Yuppies are being absolutely pounded. They can't spend on credit or rely on an ever increasing stock market to fund their lifestyle. Please provide proof that 9/10 yuppies will be fine. I don't buy it for a second. I've got my own analytics which suggest otherwise.

Consumer savings rate going up. [http://www.creditloan.com/blog/consumers- saving-instead-of-s...](http://www.creditloan.com/blog/consumers-saving- instead-of-spending/)

bmw sales plunge [http://silverscorpio.com/bmw-reports-plunge-in-sales-as- econ...](http://silverscorpio.com/bmw-reports-plunge-in-sales-as-economic- crisis-deepens/)

wine sales plunge <http://wineindustryinsight.com/?p=2073>

hotel occupancy off 11% [http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CalculatedRisk/~3/-j6_abqDrqc...](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CalculatedRisk/~3/-j6_abqDrqc/hotel- occupancy-off-11.html)

housing delinquencies move into prime. [http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnaly...](http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis/~3/zeXrN0JejR4/fannie- freddie-delinquencies-soar-and.html)

<comment><USER5> Those numbers are all across the entire population, while this site is only aiming at the high segment. The question is whether sales of the BMW X5, St. Emilion Grand Cru 1986 and the Bride Suite of the Ritz have also dropped.

<comment><USER2> Hamptons real estate high end enough for you? [http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/04/hamptons_real_estate_ma...](http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/04/hamptons_real_estate_market_of.html)

Same thing going on in other (supposedly) rich peoples enclaves. and yes, High end champange's have been hit. As has the bride suite.

Now, the _true_ high end market has not. But those people are not even watching your shitty cable tv show. They'll be calling quintesentially[1] and telling them to book a vacation.

I should also note that Bentley sales are down. But not across the board. Only the new-money models - continental gt/flying spur. So everything aspirational from your low end bmw 3-series, all the way up to your nouveau riche Bentley's are being slammed.

I don't have room to post my full analysis - I have actually run serious numbers on this. But the yuppie/aspirational class are really, seriously getting smashed. I would not start a business based on their greed and consumption right now.

Now would be a fantastic time to start a do-it-yourself channel or travel/luxury on the cheap.

[1] <http://www.quintessentially.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not a critisism, but a question: why are you paying a return on investment funds from before they are drawn? I'm curious - was that based on a precedent?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is no revenue to speak of at present. Also, that's what I inherited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> People like Dave McClure and VentureHacks have always said keep your business plan short: 1 page.

<comment><USER8> The point behind having a business plan isn't to have a business plan, but to think through all of the necessary aspects of your business.

Whether you write all of that down in a long document or condense it into Powerpoint slides for a pitch is irrelevant. The point is that you have thought about the big picture, as it is clear that this team has.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> SF resident, haven't heard of the show or the host. Website at entertainingpeople.com looks like incomplete brochureware (several empty/under-construction pages).

Payback formula of 1% (or is it 1.5%) of revenues and 10% interest seems complicated... not-quite-equity and not-quite-debt... offers capped upside but possibility of 100% loss.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree 100% on the website. The dead pages are due it being recently hacked/restored :-( But it's very much brochureware. I've had a lot of resistance to changing that, but your comment helps a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> summarize to one page and repost! I promise to give feedback then: mingyeow@gmail</comment>


Hacker Made Clothes That Can Confuse Automatic License Plate Readers - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgpvv/adversarial-fashion-clothes-that-confuse-automatic-license-plate-readers <comment><USER2> Recent related discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20660689](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20660689)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20721789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20721789)

</comment><comment><USER3> 1: Where can I buy these? They really look awesome.

2: Where did Rose make these? I want to print my own t-shirts that go seam-to- seam, but every custom t-shirt printer that I find only prints a picture directly on the front of the shirt.

</comment><comment><USER4> This goes well with yesterday's Hacker News [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20737023](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20737023)

</comment><comment><USER5> These should be available in Hot Topic soon.</comment>


DragonFly BSD - <AUTHOR> http://www.dragonflybsd.org/ <comment><USER2> Not to be that guy, but this doesn't line up with a release or any actual changes with the fork. What are we looking at here?

<comment><USER3> It looks like a late 10 years birthday. Your not wrong for bringing it up so don't worry for being /that guy/

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> SMP: [http://www.dragonflybsd.org/performance/](http://www.dragonflybsd.org/performance/)

FS: [http://www.dragonflybsd.org/hammer/](http://www.dragonflybsd.org/hammer/)

Some of magic you can do with it: [http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/docs/howtos/howtorecoverdat...](http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/docs/howtos/howtorecoverdataonhammerfs/)

<comment><USER4> Surely the server hosting this is running.. DragonFly BSD? Then it is quite ironic that the page called "performance" doesn't even load :-)

<comment><USER5> Well. It's near the top of HN right now, the server's probably getting hammered.

Also.... maybe not:

      Server: Apache/2.2.24 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.24 OpenSSL/1.0.1e DAV/2
      Server: Apache/2.2.25 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.25 OpenSSL/1.0.1e Phusion_Passenger/4.0.23

<comment><USER6> I don't know why apache says freeBSD, but i'm pretty sure that the server is running DragonFly

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So Dragonfly BSD is the WinNT* of UNIX world, interesting!

      "One big part of the goal set will be the creation of a
      middle 'emulation' layer which is managed by the kernel
      but runs in userland, which will take over all primary
      system call entry points (in userland) and convert them
      to syscall messages that the kernel understands. 4.x,
      5.x, SysV, Linux, and other compatibility sets will be
      moved out of the kernel and into this middle layer."

\-- Matthew Dillon (main dev): [http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2003-July...](http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2003-July/007080.html)

* think about subsystems like Win32, POSIX, OS/2 of the WinNT series operating system (XP, Vista, 7, 8, Xbox, ReactOS)

<comment><USER8> NetBSD does that as well.

<comment><USER9> Any BSD does that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I remember Matt Dillon's DICE C compiler for the Amiga. It was only a trial version so only stdlib stuff. I wrote a little HTML viewer in it which used ANSI codes to display bold text, italic, underline etc.

<comment><USER11> I was wondering where I had heard the name "Matt Dillion" before. Years ago I was a big Amiga user and a budding programer. I tried the DICE compiler a couple of times but never built anything much, mostly because it was the trial version too.

I wonder what type of computing world we would be in if OSS were more prominent back in the late 80's / early 90's. Imagine what we could have built with an open source compiler (GCC) and a bunch of example code (Github) for the Amiga. Wow! :)

<comment><USER3> FWIW you can run AmigaOS on pre-intel based macs:

[http://www.morphos-team.net/intro](http://www.morphos-team.net/intro)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't get the reason for the post, but since it's here, I've always had questions about HAMMER:

        Can one use the HAMMER FS on Linux? Is there any guide for this? Is it reliable?

<comment><USER3> Maybe with fuse. No one has ported it too FreeBSD either which is to bad because having choices is a _good thing™_

<comment><USER13> Genuinely curious... why is there a "™" at the end of "good thing"?

<comment><USER14> "Good Thing" is often capitalized, or as above italicized, for emphasis in hacker circles. The idea is that it's established jargon [1] suggesting more specific meaning than a casual goodness remark (whether that's true or not, I'll let you decide). The TM is another such intensifier, with the informal meaning of "distinctive or characteristic", rather than literally trade- marked.

[1] [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Good- Thing.html](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Good-Thing.html)

<comment><USER15> i.e. Meme-marked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Never used any BSD, but probably used in some form through various entertainment devices (playstation, maybe others).

So can anyone point what is are the most negative things about BSD, and DragonFlyBSD in compared to Linux, OSX and Windows.

I'm really curious, and I would like to try it out - possibly on my Chromebook C7100 if it allows it so, or maybe my very old MBP (6 years), it's time to get rid of the dual booted Windows XP there.

<comment><USER3> This is a classic piece we generally give hackers new to FreeBSD: [http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08](http://www.over- yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08)

Something to consider, which I should point out because your new, is that without BSD you wouldn't have OSX. There's a little BSD in everything (even windows). Another worthy article you should definitely read which explains that BSD is the _The single Greatest Piece of Software Ever, with the broadest impact on the world, was BSD_

[http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest- software-e...](http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-software- ever-written/d/d-id/1046033)?

<comment><USER17> To all intents and purposes, FreeBSD is dead. If not yet dead, FreeBSD is a carcass whipped out by Apple and friends to say they "support" open-source.

OS X and others have leeched off BSD and made billions, yet every December, this year being the same, FreeBSD has to whip out the begging bowl to raise funding.

Yes, some large corporations employ some of the FreeBSD folk, but what would happen if they stopped employing them? Would FreeBSD be able to build a strong community of developers to accelerate development? I doubt it.

Linux is in a much healthier place and I attribute much of that to licensing as well as technical excellence. The GPL has helped foster an active community around Linux, one that does not allow corporate vultures to simply scavenge off the best bits and usurp direction of the project.

<comment><USER18> This entire statement seems rather disingenuous; to claim that Linux is not molded by corporate interests is questionable if not outright wrong (e.g. [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications...](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.pdf)).

I think BSD lost momentum because of the AT&T litigation back in the early 1990s and that momentum helped and continues to help Linux achieve the success that it has.

It is possible to praise Linux without burying BSD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am a big fan of ZFS, but after looking over the pages I have to admit to wanting to give the HAMMER filesystem a try. ZFS performance under Linux is "good" but not great.

<comment><USER9> Sorry to spoil your fun, but HAMMER doesn't work on Linux, at least nowhere as well as ZFS.

<comment><USER19> Sorry, I should have mentioned I meant HAMMER under DragonFly, in the sense I can either run a virtualized storage VM or use it on a standalone server. Yes, I don't think there is a working port for Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Site is down or it's only my problem? (I can't open it)

<comment><USER21> It is not just you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone else see weird links on the "features" page?

<comment><USER23> Yes, spam links in part about kernel memory allocator.

<comment><USER22> what the hell? I wonder if they know about it?</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon CloudFront Support for Custom Origins - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/11/amazon-cloudfront-support-for-custom-origins.html

<comment><USER2> Oh wow. This is big! I've been waiting for this for a long time. It's basically Squid in the cloud, but at a scale you couldn't hope to match with your own implementation. We used CloudFront+S3 to serve all of the static resources for DotSpots and I was really impressed with it.

Some small downsides (not fatal): I'm assuming that it shares the standard Cloudfront minimum TTL of one hour right now. It also won't pass through query strings to your origin servers. You can invalidate items in your cache, but the API is a bit odd (it's designed more for DMCA violations than updating content).

This might also solve some of the issues when trying to serve gzip-compressed content from Cloudfront. You had to jump through some hoops to get this working with S3: the data in the bucket had to be gzip compressed and you had to serve different content to different browsers depending on whether they supported gzipped content or not. Hopefully it respects the Vary: header.

</comment><comment><USER3> This ups the pressure on entrenched CDNs. I love it. For static object delivery and streaming there is no longer any excuse for usurious bandwidth rates, opaque pricing, utter disinterest in smaller customers, and terrible control and monitoring interfaces.

Now AWS needs to focus on CloudFront geography and performance. These go hand- in-hand to some extent, but CloudFront does not fare well even in single node latency tests. I know Amazon has the knowledge and drive to get there, and when they do, I hope they eat the old CDNs' lunch.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds nice, though this one restriction:

      Do not rely on query string parameters. CloudFront does not
      preserve query string parameters. (For more information,
      see Query String Parameters.)

Kinda sucks :(

Makes it a not-quite-standard http reverse proxy. We have been putting cache versioning in our query strings, just because it was easier in our framework than changing the base url... but guess we should just fix that.

<comment><USER5> You should use an ETag in your HTTP request header to do versioning, and keep the URL static.

<comment><USER4> No.

The better way is to change the URL -- then you setup your ETags + Cache- Control so that the object never expires, ever.

See Also:

[http://public.yahoo.com/bfrance/radwin/talks/http-caching- ap...](http://public.yahoo.com/bfrance/radwin/talks/http-caching- apachecon2004.htm)

[http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2007/06/06/mod_never...](http://journal.paul.querna.org/articles/2007/06/06/mod_never_expire/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you contact a Tier 1 CDN directly without a decent commit, you will not even be entertained, but you can always find resellers. Akamai pay as you go pricing was just around 150$/TB pricing with resellers and we have used them for a long time. We gave up on CF after speed issues in Asia. Akamai is the strongest across the globe

<comment><USER7> What reseller are you using? We were using VPS.net, but they informed us last week that Akamai had terminated their reselling contract and they were migrating users to Level3.

<comment><USER3>
      Akamai pay as you go pricing was just around 150$/TB pricing with resellers

Who resells at this rate other than VPS.net? There's a reason Akamai terminated their contract. I haven't found another legitimate reseller that's anywhere close, and Akamai direct is 3x that rate for say a small TB/month commit.

Level3 does not appear to have an Asian CDN presence. [Edit: I'm wrong. They do have CDN nodes in Asia, but man it's hard to find a map.]

EdgeCast is an excellent alternative. ThePlanet resells them at under $0.20 per GB but I've been having trouble getting them to take our business now that the SoftLayer merger has closed. Many other resellers are out there ar less competitive rates, e.g. GoGrid and SpeedyRails.

<comment><USER6> One area CDNs seem to miss out on is India. Most of the ones I've seen including Level3 have their pops in SG/HK. Only Bitgravity and Akamai have India pops

Thanks for the lead on theplanet. The edgecast pricing is not bad :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone using CloudFront in production care to share their experience?

<comment><USER9> Now that they have the ability to invalidate files, there is only one lingering issue. On Mac (Firefox, Chrome and Safari) our image assets aren't delivered 100% of the time. According to the AWS team, it's due to an IPV6 bug.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great! The article seems to suggest that this only works from amazon origins (e.g. EC2 or load balanced EC2 instances), not arbitrary servers. Can anyone confirm or deny?

<comment><AUTHOR> You can use any origin, EC2 or otherwise. The diagram shows just one way to use it.</comment></comment>


Like vs Plus, pick your social button - <AUTHOR> http://likevsplus.com I didn't design this. Full credit: http://www.hamutzim.co.il/ <comment><USER2> I was expecting some animation upon my choosing :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I couldn't figure out what the point of this page was... and then I remembered that I have the "Facebook Disconnect" extension installed. Doh.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a flashblock extension - so the facebook part was blocked but the +1 was there. Interesting all the problems with the page though

</comment><comment><USER5> Plus button is way off the screen on 1024*768. Some people use laptops and tablets.

<comment><USER6> +1

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I didn't make this. Full credit: <http://www.hamutzim.co.il/>

</comment><comment><USER7> This would be cool if I could see the +1 button.

</comment><comment><USER8> Like is good +1 is bit geeky

<comment><USER9> Both are bad because it's hard to share something that is not good but might be important. Murder stats for where you live, for example.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What motivates founders? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in the psychological motivations that inspire and motivate people to found startups, even when they realise most startups fail, that there is no clear direction or obvious answer to most of the problems they'll encounter, and it is an awful lot of hard work, much of which not pleasant or in their skill set.<p>I know the obvious answer is "money", but I suspect a deep answer is much more complicated than that; If it were that simple, they would probably satisfy that need more effectively (by many measures) through gambling than founding. <comment><USER2> For me, at least, it is the extreme belief in oneself to accomplish something. Whether it becomes the next billion dollar startup is second. I am doing it because it is a challenge and not everyone can do it. Its much better than working for someone else and being assigned to do the same tasks over and over again.

The closest mentality to a founder I have seen are those of extreme sports. Especially sports that requires laborious hours and determination to get done. Like those that choose to climb Everest. Its tough and chances of injury is high. But you keep climbing because you believe you can make it to the top. You can't imagine going back down to the mundane life below.

</comment><comment><USER3> In my case it was initially just being extremely dissatisfied with my life and deciding to do a startup. Which is kind of like realizing your car is out of gas and deciding to push it across the desert for fun.

Eventually I found something which grew into pure unwavering passion. Unfortunately that doesn't automatically translate into being able to execute successfully.

The other reason was a desire for massive amounts of wealth. Not for the sake of it, but because I'd love to be able to spin up large projects left and right. Paraphrasing another comment: the deep desire to do things better. And of course, _make the world a better place.™_

Funny enough, I spent about an hour writing a fairly heartfelt ten paragraph reply to this question, until Firefox mobile crashed and lost it all.

Then I realized that reply was an explanation of what keeps me going, not what motivated the decision to start in the first place. What keeps founders going might be a far more interesting question, and certainly a more complex one. It's a psychological minefield: career and personal life opportunity cost, sunk cost fallacy, people depending on you. Much more messy than the simple _why_ of starting.

</comment><comment><USER4> A deep belief that the world is doing it wrong and no ability to change large organizations from the inside.

</comment><comment><USER5> Clearly, different people are motivated by different things.

I would suspect that anybody motivated by money is more likely to go to Wall Street than become a founder of a start-up.

Not to say that founders are not in some way motivated by money, but I'd be surprised if that is the primary motivation for the majority. If you look at the most successful founders, I think you'll find they love what they do, and the money, once you are successful, becomes secondary.

I've started a few times, and have ideas for other start-ups (nothing overly successful yet). I don't think about 'what would make me a ton of money', I think with respect to what I want, what is the world going to look like in 10 years in an area that I'm interested in. I have a vision, and I research if it is a good opportunity, and I pursue that vision. Even when the signs are that it is a financially bad opportunity, I find myself motivated by the vision, and continue anyway.

Last year I ran a project (not a start-up, I never saw it as a business), and paid the server cost for a year, as an experiment to see if others agreed with my vision, if I could inspire people, if I could change some lives. It was a really interesting learning experience. It was successful at first, more than I thought, and then fell to pieces, but what fun!

The reason people describe founders as 'visionary' is quite simple, if you don't have a vision, I don't think you've got anything to start.

</comment><comment><USER6> Gambling and founding a startup are two vastly different things, they are not on the same scale. While gambling is a zero-sum game and you have little control over the outcome, a startup creates value (or at least, tries to) and you do have the ability to change/improve the product based on feedback from the market. I might be too idealistic, but I believe this is what motivates hackers to found startups: create value + take control of their lives.

</comment><comment><USER7> For me, money is just the lubricant which then allows re-investment to make the product, processes better and hire better people to them improve on those further and become the market leader.

My motivation was that I was extremely dissatisfied with the status quo of my respective industry. I knew full well that to achieve my own vision so to speak, would be really complex, time consuming and hard to pull off. When I realised this, the challenge was graciously accepted.

I could so easily start a venture to become an also-ran in a crowded market. There are many competitors of differing niches in my industry that I could immediately jump into. Do know, it's perfectly fine for someone to start a company based on a niche and then try to be the best. I'm not knocking sentiment. But for me that's not sexy, not what keeps me up at night. I want to be a monopoly, one that changes how people perceive things and what they do.

But ultimately, what I crave is the satisfaction that I started something, which blew up massively and then really affected peoples lives.

</comment><comment><USER8> In my case is was circumstance - someone gave me a check and said go build it after I gave a talk about my great idea. I was so ignorant that I didn't even know I was founder.

What I find more interesting is what motivates founders to continue when things get really, really painful. I don't have a good answer.

<comment><USER9> I checked your profile expecting another damn SF company and pleasantly surprised you are in Woollahra. Go Sydney!

<comment><USER8> Yes Woollahra is a rather nice place to run a company like mine :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a tech employee your salary is 1/4 or 1/5 of your turnover for the firm and this thought is unbearable to many.

</comment><comment><USER11> For myself, it's the challenge and being able to prove to myself that I can do it. I love that there is no clear direction or obvious answer. I want to build something and make my mark on this world so that I can tell my kids one day that they can absolutely accomplish anything in this world if they set their heart to do it.

</comment><comment><USER12> The freedom to create my own job and to be my own boss. That alone brings me happiness. It makes me feel like a I have a much larger purpose in life, from the mission I assigned myself to - to the amount of people who could potentially be impacted by that mission (in a positive way). Last but not least, if it ends up being a successful journey (in bussiness terms), as a founder, I would get the ultimate recognition and satisfaction.

1\. Freedom

2\. Impact

3\. Recognition

</comment><comment><USER13> Solving a problem, building something, helping customers. Having autonomy in the workplace is a nice benefit too, but you can get that elsewhere.

Don't found a company for the money. The odds are so awful that you'd be better served getting a job.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you everyone for the fantastic answers.

</comment><comment><USER14> Belief in creating a change that they have perceived in their minds.</comment>


Why People Don't Respond to Cold Emails - <AUTHOR> http://blog.leadgenius.com/the-real-reason-why-people-never-respond-to-your-cold-emails <comment><USER2> I operate a spam trap.

If you do this: -

"Camouflage: Mimicking subject lines that the recipient is already used to seeing is an easy way to get a message opened. This is a way to catch them off-guard and force them to opening your email."

...your email will be filtered as spam and your victim will never even get a chance to think about opening it.

Spammy is as spammy does.

</comment><comment><USER3> By "cold email", does this guy mean what most of us would call "spam"? I can't tell how what he's describing isn't just spam.</comment>


The biggest secret to designing ultra-low-power systems? - <AUTHOR> https://eengenious.com/how-low-can-you-go-the-secret-to-ultra-low-power-design/ <comment><USER2> All designers of ultra-low power systems are concerned about battery life. How much time will elapse before the battery will need recharging?

<comment><AUTHOR> In the Hall sensor described in post the battery (a coin cell) can last for 20 years (in theory, of course)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This only works in certain systems, for example the Hall sensing motion detector described in this project (see [https://goo.gl/v9DODg](https://goo.gl/v9DODg))</comment>


Jack Ma Says: If You're Poor at 35, You Deserve It - <AUTHOR> http://www.cambridgeentrepreneuracademy.com/chinese-billionaire-says-if-youre-poor-at-35-you-deserve-it/ <comment><USER2> I don't know what it is that often makes successful people seem to lack basic empathy. I assume once you've succeeded following a certain path, you think the options that were available to you are available to anyone – if only they were good / smart / strong enough to make the most of them.

Such smart people seem to lack a basic understanding that the world is a complex place, and social, cultural, and economic forces can have as much a role in shaping life trajectories as one's abilities and ambition.

Or perhaps to put it another way, not all hardships are created equal.

<comment><USER3> That's true, but at least in the USA-- where I've worked with two people who were in poverty when we met-- you can turn your life around. In my experience, with hard work on their part and a little bit of guidance it took them about 2-3 years to get into well paying (e.g.: well above minimum wage) jobs.

The biggest thing inhibiting them before we worked together was growing up in a situation that seemed hopeless to the point where they couldn't see the path or the opportunity that was there for them.

<comment><USER4> I suspect that both of them where working age, sane, healthy, without major addictions, reasonably intelligent, and had an acceptably clean background. Remove some or all of the above and even low levels of success become far less likely.

That said, a friend of mine got a middle class job despite health issues, addiction, and with a somewhat shady past it's just much harder. However, he also had a fairly strong network to fall back on when things where tough which helps.

<comment><USER3> One person lacked two of those factors, the other lacked one.

In both cases they perceived those, and other factors as making the possibility of success unlikely.

I managed to convince them otherwise, because in part, I have a similar background, and because they saw results.

<comment><USER4> Congratulations. That's a tough place to be. There is a huge gap between being broke and being poor. And working yourself out of poverty takes a little luck and a lot of effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Guardian says the piece is not from Jack Ma: [http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money- blog/2014/sep/26/r...](http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money- blog/2014/sep/26/rich-work-harder-ceos-jack-ma)

<comment><USER6> It's too bad that I had to read most of the comments to get to this bit of information. Do comments rise to the top due to votes? Not obvious anymore without the point totals being displayed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I missing something? In the article it said "If you're poor at 35, no one will pity you.", not that you "deserve it". The headline seems like click- bait.

At any rate, even the statement he did say is demonstrably not true as there are certainly some people who will have pity. But so what? Someone feeling sorry for you I suppose is nice, but being broke sucks.

</comment><comment><USER8> Odd title. I don't see anywhere in this article where Jack Ma is actually quoted as saying this. The closest I found was towards the bottom of the article. And since this article covers two different people, it's not clear who this statement should be attributed to. Or maybe the statements are from the author of the article.

"When you have not accomplished anything by the time you are 35, no one will pity you."

This quote could have a much different meaning than the title.

This seems to be a fluffy article stuffed with motivational statements from the author with some short biographies thrown in. It was originally written in Chinese and translated into English. Maybe it didn't carry the message as well in English.

</comment><comment><USER9> Had Jack Ma been born a generation earlier, he might well been swept up in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and sent "Down to the Countryside".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent- down_youth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent-down_youth)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_to_the_Countryside_Movemen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_to_the_Countryside_Movement)

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

<comment><USER10> If it wasn't for Deng Xiaoping's reforms then China would not be the economic powerhouse it is today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're poor at 35, it's because you haven't curried enough favor with the government.

</comment><comment><USER6> Please read ALL of the comments here before you form a knee-jerk opinion about Jack Ma.

</comment><comment><USER12> It seems like a lot of people are confused about the wording 'deserve' in the title. The word is not mentioned in the post, but is a direct translation from the original post. (Yes, I speak Chinese.)

Just to add, the original post has been around for months, and I have not yet seen the actual reference to the speech that he was giving in either video or audio, so it seems like a fake post to me. And the wordings are made to be really strong to catch attentions.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's not "you deserve it" (which has a bad connotation, as if not being rich is derogatory). More like, if you seem to be unable to amass cash, then you are probably unable; do something else instead.

Being rich or poor is overrated, this is just another condition like being healthy, or able to read Chinese. Everything can be fixed to an extent, and depends on whichever characteristic is perceived as more valuable to have.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this depends a lot on the country and how much economic opportunity there is. In some countries- like china in the past, for instance- you couldn't start a business without favor from political elites.

If you live in the USA, made $10 an hour (just a proxy for "minimum wage"), you net about $18,000 after taxes, or $1473 a month. IF you can find a room to rent for $400 a month and spend $300 a month on food etc, that leaves you about $750 a month to save. That's $9,000 a year or $153,000 over 17 years (the time it takes to go from 18 years old to 35 years old.)

That's assuming no growth in your income or returns on your savings over that period.

What's worked well for me personally is, whatever my income, I've tried to live like I had half of that income.

This is easy in some places, harder in others. Impossible in New York City (I think.)

This is also why I think that Remote work is a huge opportunity-- people could live in cheap places while earning an income from companies in expensive places with high value businesses.

EG: Programmers moving to Butte Montana and working for Bay Area Startups.

<comment><USER14> Assuming you don't need a car (payment, insurance, gas), don't need to take a bus (costs money each time you take it or monthly). Assuming you don't have any medical problems. Assuming you don't have a cell phone (becoming a necessity) or an internet connection at home. No laptop (becoming a necessity).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The successful gravitate toward the view that each individual emerges from previous circumstance onto a basically level playing field and that the best ones win.

The unsuccessful similarly gravitate toward the view that each person is a product of factors utterly beyond their control and that success is basically down to which vagina you came out of.

I think that Jack Ma is erring to the former extreme here.

</comment><comment><USER16> Making money is not the only worthwhile goal in life. Some people have different objectives.

</comment><comment><USER17> That's an odd quote because apparently Ma himself was already over 35 when he started Alibaba:

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

<comment><USER18> It's not a quote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Fuck Jack Ma.

There. I said it.

<comment><USER20> Hold your horses. The Guardian claims that Alibaba says this is a hoax. If so, then don't fuck Jack Ma :).

<comment><USER21> Even if it is true, I wouldn't fuck Jack Ma. I'd probably end up getting affluenza or some other social disease rendering me incapable of basic empathy and understanding of situations beyond the most simplistic ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Looks like someone skipped out on the works of Flannery O'Connor and Shakespeare while at University.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wealth often causes a certain entitlement effect...</comment>


Ask HN: When Does a Startup Need Management? - <AUTHOR>

I'm part of a first-time startup working in alternative energy. We've built some technology and are in the process of filing  provisional patents, but the idea was brought up to bring on someone with management experience in order to help us shape our business.<p>What's the value of someone like this joining a team of engineers? What should their relationship be with the company? How long should we try to go without? <comment><USER2> There's a negative stigma about "managers" in the startup world because the word manager is associated with pointy-haired bosses and TPS reports. A manager can, however, be a very positive force when the technical leads on a team are spending a lot of time on management related tasks like meeting with investors, doing financial projections, and revising the business plan. A manager can do these things to free up the owner-developers' time.

In general, I like to think about hiring a manager the same way most startups think about hiring a designer. While all programmers can do some UI design, many startups realize that they're not going to do UI design as well as they write code, so they hire designers. The same principal can apply to hiring management, hiring lawyers to handle patenting, etc: You can do it all on your own, but it might make your life a lot easier if you hire somebody who loves and excels at the specific challenges you're facing.

<comment><USER3> When hiring a manager a lot of companies go wrong in thinking that that person needs to be _senior_ (hence bosses and TPS reports).

You can hire someone junior to add 'professional management' - by which I mean reporting, analysis, forecasting, planning and investment appraisal. They then feed these things into the senior decision makers in the same way as technical or design staff do.

These people are normally called 'management accountants' or 'project managers' or something similar.

For a startup hiring someone with an accounting degree and two or three years experience offers you the chance to:

\- Get hold of someone bright who is disaffected with working for a big firm and driven to do something new, and do it well.

\- Won't believe they have a god given right to tell you how to run your business, but _will_ have a solid understanding of the basic business techniques that offer a big return on investment.

\- Can be given the opportunity to grow into a senior member of staff that really understands the business you are in.

That way you can treat it like hiring a designer. Hiring a (senior) manager is more like hiring a CTO - something to do only when you _want_ a more radical direction change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I also work in alternative energy. My cofounder and I are physicists and the third principal is an electromechanical engineer.

My cofounder has management experience and technical/mathematical chops, and he's been a joy to work with. He has sort of taken a management role, ensuring that tasks are scheduled coherently, keeping the lines of communication open, and pinging sources for funds, parts, advice, etc. But we all have, to some extent.

So it can work. However, bringing in outside managers, especially at an early stage, can be hugely problematic. My advice is to nominate the best of you to take on that role, and grow into in gradually. If you're over your head for a specific reason, then bring in a manager, and measure their success by that metric.

</comment><comment><USER5> Managers are not to manage people, they are to manage problems. Most big companies simply get this wrong. Just make sure any oncoming manager understands this.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't think you are looking for managers, but rather advisor's. At your stage you need people who have "been there and done that". I imagine that you and your team are technically focused (building the tech and filing for patents), but you need advisor's to help you shape the business.

My experience is that I am too technically focused, but my advisor's help me and teach me about the business side of things. At a later date, when I have employees, then I will think about getting managers, and I will also try and keep hold of my advisor's as directors.

People who have done it before and raised funding will help you shape the business to raise funding, not managers.

</comment><comment><USER7> Since day one. _Someone_ has to manage, because there are resources and efficiency involved.

The hacker founder might not think of himself as a manager, because of the PHB stigma. But there's always management to be done.

I understand you didn't ask exactly this. You want to know when a "pure" manager should be brought on board. But if you realize that there're always things to be managed, the question becomes: Would this company run better if the engineers didn't have to manage? If they were free of worries about how much soda is left at the refrigerator, if the revenue/income ratio is sustainable, if John's productivity is better with one monitor or two, if there's money to buy these monitors, and if there isn't, when the budget will allow it, how to explain to John why the extra monitor will only come next month, actually research the monitors, price, negotiations with suppliers, the wall socket where it'll fit, etc...

IMHO, "pure" managers should join the ship when more work can be outputted with him onboard. BTW there's nothing wrong with "promoting" an engineer to management. S/he doesn't have to be a manager all day, and this person knowledge about the products will actually help with the management part.

But really, just mutate your question. It's not _when_ , it's _how_.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Manager" is such a vague term that it's hard to give any useful advice here.

I'm going to make an assumption that what you mean is not "product manager" or "project manager" or any other kind of specialised manager, but a "general manager", aka a managing director or CEO of some kind.

I read somewhere that start-ups go through 3 phases to become established companies:

1) Develop the product (build something that can be sold)

2) Sell the product (create a process of selling it that makes money)

3) Optimise the money-making process (i.e. squeeze every last drop out of that process).

You don't need a non-tech CEO before phase 2, but at that point, if your team is mostly technical, and don't want to learn a whole new field (sales), or feel that they won't get good at it quickly enough, then it might be worth bringing in a CEO with sales experience to help build your ability to sell the product. Selling is a difficult problem, as difficult as building a product, and putting an expert in the lead can make a difference.

</comment><comment><USER9> The problem is not in having managers. As many posts here point out, someone has to do all that stuff anyway.

The problem arises when managers have more _power_ than engineers. In large organizations, by default, managers have more pay, perks and power than even the seniormost engineer/hacker. Avoid this imbalance and you'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think a StartUp needs management from the beginning.

Maybe its because I'm a business student, but I think if there isn't someone with a perspective on strategy, finances, marketing and management in general the StartUp will fail because of lack of direction and the costs involved in changing direction later on (and I'm not saying it needs to be someone who has an MBA or something similar)

You ask what someone with management experience could contribute to your company. I would suggest that someone with a business perspective can help you to get a new perspective on things which might be quite different from your technical point of view. Also, as mentioned in other comments, a manager can ease the workload and help others to focus on what they are good at.

<comment><USER11> It hasn't been my experience that MBA-types, with training in "strategy", finances, marketing, and management, do a better job of running companies than engineers.

The history of business is replete with examples of engineers, lawyers, authors, and designers running successful businesses. Take Apple, for instance.

There's also plenty of examples of "business"-types coming in and fucking everything up. Start with Ars Digita.

Someone in your company needs to keep their eye on the ball. It's easy to take your eye off the ball when you're chest-deep in commit logs. But there's no reason at all that person needs to have an MBA.

<comment><USER10> Exactly my point. That's what I tried to express with: _and I'm not saying it needs to be someone who has an MBA or something similar_

I just think that someone needs to keep an eye on the business perspective and take responsibility for those things related to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As others have said, you dont need managers to do what you are doing. You probably do need executives, not managers, when you get to the point where you need serious skills outside of engineering.

HR, legal, administrative: just outsource it to an administrative firm.

Raising money: get a CEO. You will need to get one in the VC image. Make his remuneration dependent on the investment raised.

Sales: figure out your strategy first. Sales forces are expensive.

Engineering: probably needed if it's outside your area of expertise, say software for hardware guys. Then you want a doer, not a manager.

<comment><USER13> _Raising money: get a CEO. You will need to get one in the VC image. Make his remuneration dependent on the investment raised._

That one made me curious. You say that as if they came boxed off the shelf (best before 09/12, store dry). Where and how do you "get" a CEO?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A teacher for entrepreneurship sais to us, that you should not focus about organisation until you have 50 people working for you. But that does not mean that you don't need management. Actually you are doing managent when you are working on ideas. But if you feel you are not have time for your research then i would say it's time to get a partner/employee who focus on running the company and doing administrative work.

</comment><comment><USER15> Management is to general. What specifically do you want this person to do? Build plans? Make decisions? Make sure the office is clean?

If it is shape our business. I would say you need someone with a background in what you guys are working on. I think it'll be difficult to find this person out of your core group. One of you needs to do this job for the time being.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think it's not so much a question of whether you need management or not- it more about assessing the core competencies of the founders and then determining what's missing. And also whether a new hire fits in with the team - not just in terms of what knowledge they bring to the table, but also whether their values and ethics are a good fit.

</comment><comment><USER17> In every successful startup, even ones founded entirely by engineers, _someone_ wears the pointy-headed hat. Unless one of you wants to take on that role, recruit a pro. A pro will cost you more, and there's no guarantee they'd be better at it than one of you, but you get to focus on the technology that way.

<comment><USER11> Just don't let the "pro" have the final word in hiring the m-team. Hiring a VP is just as dangerous as hiring a CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Give engineers right tools to do their job. They will manage themselves.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you have a team already there is some sort of management going on. What exactly do you mean by bringing in with someone with management experience. Can you elaborate on why this idea came up? Are you looking for someone to manage the product lifecycle? Are you looking for someone who will market you product? Are you looking increase sales?

<comment><USER20> sarvesh is correct. I would consider what you need, and at this point if things are going well, you might be able to be managed by an advisor familiar with your field (and hopefully previously successful in it).

If as engineers you are progressing the business as a whole (not just the product and what you think it is), then you might be fine to continue on, but a bit of outside guidance can't hurt.

If you guys are struggling with lots of issues (related to the product or not), then you might want to bring in somebody who can manage those areas (manufacturing, partnerships, marketing, etc).</comment></comment>


Airship Tails - <AUTHOR> http://neil.fraser.name/news/2011/12/16/ <comment><USER2> Airships aren't the only aircraft to use V tails. Early Beech Bonanzas[1] and the Robin ATL[2] both have "ruddervators" - a V tail which combines the function of elevator and rudder into two control surfaces.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza> [2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_ATL>

They also both use mechanical control mixers. This is a diagram of the Robin mixer - <http://i.imgur.com/yVLQA.jpg>

The Bonanza was first flown in the late forties.

I'd imagine that the choice to use fly by wire on the Zeppelin NT was more to do with the logistics of routing control cables to the fins, rather than because of complexities in manual control. On that sort of scale, a fly by wire system is going to save you a fair amount of weight in control wiring and brackets, and makes the gondola system far more flexible.

</comment><comment><USER3> > However, unlike the four fin system, three fins cannot be controlled by a > human. To turn left, the top fin needs to be deflected, while the two angled > fins need to be deflected by an amount which can only be computed by the > sine and cosine of 2π/3 radians times the deflection of the top fin. Turning > while climbing becomes even more complicated.

This is like saying that no human could hope to catch a ball flying through the air because it would require doing ballistic calculations in one's head.

I think the author should investigate the combination of control surface manipulations needed to make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, or doing a crosswind landing.

Or if he really wants to have is mind blown: how helicopters are flown.

<comment><USER4> While the brain is able to combine a lot of sources of perception and create complicated control outputs there are limits to this process. Coordinated turns and crosswind landings are mostly about matching the quite straightforward controls with the external situation and are not comparable to the three surface control problem.

The author spent some effort to build a joystick to demonstrate to us how the problem could be solved. I would think it appropriate you spend some time researching your point of view, maybe with a quick model in X-Plane. We will all be richer for what you find.

<comment><USER3> I think we'll have to disagree that maintaining coordinated flight is "straightforward." Or especially performing a crosswind landing, which is the controlled _de-coordination_ of an aircraft so that it can hit the ground at exactly the right orientation.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvLuUJFHYk>

If someone insists that it is 'straightforward' I'm left to conclude that either they're a very experienced pilot who has been doing it for so long that it's difficult for them to remember what it was like to learn, or they don't have an understanding of what's involved.

Consider this: You're flying an airplane. The elevators are trimmed to maintain level flight. Now you turn the yolk to deflect the ailerons, and the aircraft rolls. In this rolled state--say we're rolled 20 degrees from vertical--the elevators are no longer horizontal. They're 20 degrees off the horizontal meaning their force is no longer 100% pitch. It's now a combination of pitch and yaw. Firstly this means that they're no longer trimmed properly to maintain level flight and the aircraft will begin to pitch, secondly they are now causing the plane to yaw into the turn. So now you have to bring the rudder into the equation to compensate for the elevators, but it's also no longer a 100% yaw control surface, it now affects both pitch and yaw and you are left with a situation which should look very similar to that in the Zeppelin NT.

Describing the problem of coordinated flight, you end up with calculations which would be quite difficult to do by hand, and one might conclude that "no human" could hope to pull it off while sitting in a cockpit. Yet it is something humans can not only do, but with a bit of practice can do without even having to try very hard, by learning to "feel" the aircraft.

I think the author's joystick is neat and I congratulate him for making it. My only point is that the author errs in saying that "no human" could directly handle the Zeppelin NT's control surfaces. I think is error is not in overestimating the complexity of the problem but in underestimating the human ability to handle such problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd love some background on how this is the first airship in the US since the Hindenburg, and what Google has to do with it.

<comment><USER6> I think the distinction was that it was a zeppelin, not a blimp. Google does not seem to be involved in its development, you can just pay to take a ride in it.

Relevant article: <http://www.airships.net/farmers-blimp>

edit: the currently mountain view based blimp's official site, <http://www.airshipventures.com/>

<comment><USER7> Zeppelin is just a brand (at this point, anyway). While the Zeppelin NT isn't a blimp, it's not a rigid airship either, but rather a hybrid of the two with an internal frame. Better than a blimp at high speeds and in bad weather, but I doubt the design would scale to the size of the 1930s behemoths.

<comment><USER3> Well the maker of the Zeppelin NT is the original Eckener entity that created the Zeppelins, so to the extent that a "Zeppelin" is an airship built by Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH, the Zeppelin NT is a real Zeppelin.

But I think it's not accurate to think of the Zeppelin NT as a blimp with some rigid parts. The original Zeppelins had non-rigid fabric gas chambers as well, hung from a duralumin frame which also supported the airfoils and helped the fuselage maintain shape.

The gas chambers of a Zeppelin NT support their own shape through positive pressure, as in a blimp. But they don't have to also support the airfoils, etc. For that, the vessel has a rigid composite structure.

So I think it's more accurate to describe the Zeppelin NT as "a rigid airship with self-supporting gas chambers." And I see no reason why the design could not be scaled up to Graf Zeppelin or Hindenburg size if economics permitted it.

<comment><USER7> >Well the maker of the Zeppelin NT is the original Eckener entity that created the Zeppelins, so to the extent that a "Zeppelin" is an airship built by Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH, the Zeppelin NT is a real Zeppelin.

Well, yes. He said "this is a Zeppelin, not a blimp", which is a lot like saying "this is a Chevy, not a butterfly". A blimp built by Zeppelin would still be a Zeppelin, and Zeppelin builds all sorts of things that aren't related to airships.

The reason I don't think it will scale well is, like a blimp, pressurization of the gas bag is what keeps a hybrid in the proper shape. This means as the size of the airship increases the envelop pressure must also increase to deal with greater external forces, making the lifting gas heavier and therefor less efficient.

The US navy fielded blimps larger than the Hindenburg until the early '60s, but they were never able to get more than about half the Hindenburg's lift capability for this reason.

With a hybrid you still get the benefit of placing engine pods more efficiently and you don't have to worry about the nose collapsing if you go too fast. However, if you were going to go through the trouble and expense of building an 800 ft airship there's no reason to sacrifice that much lift.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know what he used to build that--Lego technic?

<comment><AUTHOR> As well as being an uber-geek who was head-hunted by Google, Neil is a bit of a Meccano guru. Here is his blog post about building a 3G centrifuge to see if lava lamps would work on Jupiter:

<http://neil.fraser.name/news/2010/03/03/></comment></comment>


Pay Using Facebook to Become Reality  - <AUTHOR> http://techpp.com/2012/08/24/pay-using-facebook/

<comment><USER2> Final chance for them to make money? That's a sad way of doing it though

<comment><USER3> Facebook had revenue last quarter of $1.18 billion.

Pretty sure they know how to make money.</comment></comment>


New York's Water Filled With Invisible Shrimp - <AUTHOR> http://consumerist.com/2010/08/new-yorks-water-filled-with-invisible-shrimp.html

<comment><USER2> This came up a few years ago.

It resulted in an interesting debate about whether NYC water was kosher to drink. When I heard about it, the question was still being debated, and I don't know how it turned out. (Not being Jewish or religious, it wasn't particularly material to my life.)

Oddly enough it turns out that the water was unquestionably kosher to drink _before_ the local Jews were told about the arthropods. But once they had been told, there was a real question about whether they could continue to drink it. The reason for this is that there is a dispensation for breaking the dietary rules out of sheer ignorance. But once you know the rules, you are responsible for following them. The classic example being, if I recall correctly, the case of a blind man who didn't know that he had been eating pork.

</comment><comment><USER3> Funny how I read this in the morning on reddit and it travelled to Gizmodo, then to the Consumerist to finally get to HN.

I found the top comment on reddit[1] very interesting, although it's actually a wikipedia citation [2]:

 _The copepods can be added to water-storage containers where the mosquitoes breed. Copepods, primarily of the genera Mesocyclops and Macrocyclops (such as Macrocyclops albidus), can survive for periods of months in the containers, if the containers are not completely drained by their users. They will attack, kill, and eat the younger 1st and 2nd instar larvae of the mosquitoes. This biological control method is complemented by community trash removal and recycling to eliminate other possible mosquito-breeding sites._

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d7pso/look_what_i_f...](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/d7pso/look_what_i_found_in_my_tap_water_he_stained/c0y66a0)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copepods#Water_supplies>

<comment><USER4> This business about added is wrong. Maybe they could be, but they aren't. They are there naturally.

<comment><USER5> Not only could they be added, but they have been. See for example this article about a program in Vietnam where they have been used to control the mosquito responsible for Dengue fever.

<http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/full/72/1/67>

There are many more examples on Google...

<comment><USER4> I was talking about New York specifically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If I sold bottled water in NYC I know what my advertising campaign would be about:

        Feel like drinking an arthropod today?
        No? Then buy our Bottled Water(TM)"

<comment><USER7> Except that most bottled water is local tap water, so you would be doing false advertising.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but most of the brands probably don't bottle in NYC. So they probably don't share this particular problem. But what do I know? Maybe they all have arthropods.

<comment><USER8> That's why you have to insist on <http://tapdny.com> . (I know, it's filtered.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> NYT article from 2004 discussing the same exact organisms:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/nyregion/there-s- something...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/nyregion/there-s-something-in- the-water-and-it-may-not-be-strictly-kosher.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> The last thing we need is another reason for people to be buying bottled water when tap is perfectly safe, cheap and environmentally friendly.

You ingest far worse things every day. This is intellectually interesting, but I fear it will cause people to overreact.

</comment><comment><USER11> Haunting comment from Reddit thread yesterday:

"On the grand scale of things, these are about a "3" on a scale of 1-10. Start looking at everything you eat, drink or breathe in an average day under a microscope and besides being obsessive, you'll realize there are a lot of things that should best not be looked at under magnification. The only harm these will do is psychological."

<comment><USER12> If you're haunted by that, don't study microbiology.

 _The human body, consisting of about 100 trillion cells, carries about ten times as many microorganisms in the intestines._ [1]

 _The total number of bacteria on an average human has been estimated at 10^12_ [2]

ref: [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_flora>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if that's why the pizza and bagels taste better in NY

<comment><USER14> You're not the first person to have that theory [http://www.slashfood.com/2005/09/26/new-york-pizza-is-the- wa...](http://www.slashfood.com/2005/09/26/new-york-pizza-is-the-water-the- secret/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wonder how vegetarians, particularly vegans, in NY have responded to this, given that bottled water is often tap water.

Opportunity for a vegan stillsuit startup?

<comment><USER16> Of course if you did distill your water, you'd just be killing the shrimp and then _not_ eating them. A correctly-designed filter is what you'd want.

It's an interesting question, actually: how many animals do you kill every day if you're trying not to? Let's limit it to multicellular animals, but with the shrimp in your drinking water plus the insects you breathe in, and everything you step on, and whatever might be lurking in your (non-meat) food, I'd say the typical vegan has killed a _lot_ of animals today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If they're 1-2mm long, surely they should be visible with the naked eye if you look closely?

<comment><USER17> They're also transparent, the image uses stained samples.

An aside about staining, the dyes created for the textiles industry during the industrial revolution had the neat side effect of advancing biology greatly. As each dye binds to different things in a cell it allows scientists to glimpse the inner workings of the cell.

<comment><USER18> You'd still see [the effects of] a 2mm something swimming in your glass of water if it was 100% transparent. Reflection, refraction, wake ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Too bad it's not full of visible shrimp. Those are worth money!

</comment><comment><USER20> Reminds one of the invisible clams in Scientology.</comment>


How not to say the wrong thing (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-0407-silk-ring-theory-20130407 <comment><USER2> > stepped into the hall with Katie's husband, Pat. "I wasn't prepared for > this," she told him. "I don't know if I can handle it."

Be suspicious of people who you don't know that well, but all of the sudden they pop up in a moment of crisis. Sometimes they want to be part of it and go around and brag to others how their friend / relative is suffering. It's just a source of gossip for them. Then they get the sympathy-by-proxy and they get others to pity them and so on.

As a general rule I find that people who want to celebrate with you when something good happens and are happy for you are more likely to be a better friend than the ones who show up when you're in trouble.

> "Can I bring you a pot roast?"

Also don't say "what can I do to help?". People as a rule will just say, "Sure, thank you" but the understanding is you're not serious and you just said it because you're expected to say. You might have meant it, but they don't know that. Like the article mentions, say something like "Would you like a pot roast?".

<comment><USER3> Be wary of generalized advice. Most people suck, and for them that advice is probably sound. But there are diamonds in this world, and when you pass them by they are gone.

<comment><USER4> People are so different that general advice is always bad advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. The advice here reminds me of the "complaints go up" dialogue from Saving Private Ryan. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbdE5LOGNQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dKbdE5LOGNQ)

</comment><comment><USER6> I think language coaching like this is misguided. It's just appealing to stereotypes. When I was out the last thing I wanted was more 'comfort'. I value sincerity as I think everybody does. If I just wanted stereotyped sympathy and compassion, I'd read a hallmark card.

People should say what they feel they should say. So many people seem determined to instead try to create some sort of kosher and clean model of behavior and speech that can be friendly with everybody, when in reality it more often just comes off as being insincere to everybody. And to take that a step further I think that is a major contributing factor the scourge of loneliness and weak 'real' social ties today. Two people saying what they think the other person wants to hear hardly makes for engaging conversation. The internet masks this artificiality by giving us that nice dopamine rush from seeing the points by our comments go up when we say 'the right thing', which this most certainly is not - yet it's an honest opinion, which I think is infinitely more valuable.

<comment><USER7> Totally agree.

When I'm having a tough time over something non-trivial, and someone looks pained and says something like "that must be hard for you" I'm just thinking that's nice but are we friends or are you my psychologist?

If someone said damn that sucks! I went through similar situation X and approach Y worked well for me, that's incredibly useful information! Sharing experiences is a huge part of friendship.

This writer seems to be suggesting that I should see someone's honesty and helpful information as a selfish insult.

Even if it's not advice, I'd much prefer the honest reaction. It's empathy. It doesn't diminish my pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > And don't worry. You'll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on > that.

This line is jaw-dropping, and definitely true.

</comment><comment><USER9> Any tips of this kind of material for a more professional setting? I have to give advice professionally and one of the harder parts for me is giving it in the context of office politics.

<comment><USER10> Can you explain your situation a bit more? Does your job description entail giving advice, or is that something that just arises?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sure this is good and expedient in confronting difficult situations, but I'm not sure if it is helpful in building genuine connections. Of course, I don't have the definitive way to build genuine connections, but ... I wouldn't imagine this is the solution. Though, faced with a tough situation, I'll deploy this method for safety.

</comment><comment><USER12> So does that mean no one should ever dump into the very center of the circle (even if you're the husband)?

<comment><USER13> Pretty much, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry, but life is not neatly packaged and compartmentalized like that.

People will say things that can insult or hurt someone, even if that someone is sick. And nobody is going to follow some article's idea of what is proper to say if common decency is not enough for them.

<comment><USER15> I disagree. "Common decency" isn't innate, it relies on growing up in an environment that encourages it, and even then the rules are not obvious to everyone. Witness the examples in this article. Probably, those examples of misbehavior come from decent people who didn't think carefully enough about what they were saying. Such people would probably read this article and say some variant of "oh crap, I made a faux pas".

The article's advice and reasoning look useful to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If people want to get better at this sort of thing I recommend the book "The Art of Comforting" by Val Walker, it's filled with good actionable advice.

</comment><comment><USER17> _People who are suffering from trauma don 't need advice. They need comfort and support._

Comfort in, dump out is a simple rule that makes sense in many situations. Breast cancer is given as an example in the article.

I think it breaks down in many of life's situations, though.

What if the trauma is self-inflicted? At what point do those outside the ring become enablers?

For example, a friend of yours refuses to learn how to manage resources. Every week is a new crisis due to running out of money or being late.

At what point do you sit down with your friend and explain how their lack of planning is hurting them?

Back to disease, what if the person is suffering negative health effects due to being overweight? And yet they refuse to change their junk food diet.

What then? Listen, offer to do dishes and make a pot roast?

Or something more likely to help the person make the connection that their health is in their own hands?

<comment><USER18> Both of your scenarios assume that the issue is due to some fixable personal failing, and both of those assumptions are unfounded. "Lack of planning" is how you might describe "poor executive functioning" if you were to attach a moral weight to it; in reality, poor executive functioning is itself often a symptom of trauma, particularly complex or developmental trauma. It is also a feature of autism, particularly in how it manifests differently among women. Similarly, there are many people for whom no known weight loss method has worked without intolerable costs. (Suicidal ideation, dramatic hair loss, debilitating fatigue or cognitive deficits.) This seems to be one of those things that people often refuse to believe, instead gas lighting the hell out of the people who suffer from this. I have known people who's compulsive behavior absolutely contributed to their weight problems (and in those cases, trauma was also a factor), but I've also known people who have done and tried everything, and the way they suffer is not something I would wish on anyone. We don't yet fully understand how trauma, particularly long term trauma, affects the body, let alone the metabolism, nervous system, endocrine system, or even GI tract, but everything we are learning seems to point to profound effects. It seems incredible to assume that there might not be purely physiological mechanisms at work beyond the control of self-directed behavior.

In general, trauma symptoms encompass many more dysfunctional behaviors than is often understood by lay people, and while self-destructive behaviors in response to trauma or persistent C/PTSD are no less self-destructive because of their origins, describing them in moralist terms is actively harmful. It is often more accurate, and compassionate, to describe those behaviors as adaptations to stress that have become maladaptive. They are not moral failings; they are the result of bad conditioning. Put another way: if the only tools you have for internal regulation are shitty tools, you learn to depend on shitty tools to survive.

This does not make traumatized people any easier to be around or to help. You still need to draw your own boundaries, as you noted. But if you're able to approach such people within your own acceptable boundaries with an open mind, and the willingness to point them towards trauma treatment that might actually be helpful, those conversations you're not sure how to have might have better outcomes.

For further reading on trauma I'd recommend Van der Kolk, Levine, and others.

<comment><USER19> You don't have to read moral judgement into apo's comment, and if you don't one problem comes into focus: it's well good to listen support a person unconditionally in their difficulties, but some the sufferers need to change their behavior and you can't effect that through nodding and bringing in comfort food. If you want a person to change you have to tell them something they don't want to her. At what point do switch from one to another?

<comment><USER20> _If you want a person to change you have to tell them something they don 't want to [hear]._

Instead of telling, try teaching.

Show by example, ideally not in heated moments when people will reject the advice, a better way to handle resources or stress or confrontations or whatever.

<comment><USER21> Couple that with lifting people up, showing them their worth, purpose, giving them meaning. Then real change happens. I was 300lbs and no advice under the sun could have brought me to and allowed me to maintain my current healthy weight, it was only through real love did that happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of the backhanded remark "do you understand or should I draw a diagram?". If someone _needs_ a diagram on these matters, that's sad.

<comment><USER23> Your sadness about it doesn't eliminate the need for the diagram. So it's not really an argument against the diagram.

<comment><USER22> This diagram is nothing more than a psychologist's theoretical doodle.

The diagram is not needed. Pasting it to your fridge, as mentioned in the article, is not needed.

Obviously I'm not referring to "my sadness" when I use the expression "it's sad". It's pathetic that anyone would need to refer to such a diagram before interacting with other people on any level.

Just because a psychologist made the diagram and guidelines on sensitivity in communication, does not automatically disqualify arguments against such a diagram or guidelines. There's nothing to take away here except the reinforcement of common sense when it comes to social interaction in sensitive circumstances.

<comment><USER23> Both sadness and patheticism (real word?) can exist only in the eye of the beholder. If _you 're_ not the one sad about it, then who is? It sounds like you're saying "it" is just objectively and platonically sad. In my opinion, that is not a thing.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What investment insturments will correlate with AI breakthroughs? - <AUTHOR> Many of us believe that general intelligence will be solved in our lifetimes, maybe even in the next 10 years. This will very well change the world economy not to mention human history. What if anything can one start to invest in to reap the coming benefits short of picking individual companies? <comment><USER2> Optical computing such as but not limited to what Optalysys is working on [0]. Private company investor information linked below [1].

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2yQ9xFshuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2yQ9xFshuc) [1] [http://optalysys.com/about/investors/](http://optalysys.com/about/investors/)</comment>


Research on the benefits of "weak ties" – connecting with casual acquaintances - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2020/04/why-you-miss-those-casual-friends-so-much <comment><USER2> I never really did it when I was younger, but as i've gotten older i've started just talking to random people I see regularly around the neighbourhood or on my bus commute to work and honestly you end up meeting some pretty varied and interesting people. I've ended up becoming acquaintances with a ton of random people, many of which are people I would never end up associating with under other circumstances. I've had some really great conversations, heard some really cool, some really strange and some really heartbreaking stories.

Sometimes I meet these people once and never see them again, sometimes i'll see them regularly for a while but then they vanish and I never see them again or in those odd cases they end up becoming friends.

The article touched on it a bit, but it has been hard not being able to talk to random people lately with this lockdown and all. It's amazing the kind of people you can just meet randomly in your day.

<comment><USER3> I learned this behavior by reading the Luck Factor, but that book isn't magical. What was magical is that it nudged me to do this.

One small tidbit that might be fun to share was when I met a seemingly shy woman and we started a conversation and eventually I asked.

What do you do?

I program traffic lights.

What language are they programmed in?

In C

Who knew? :D

<comment><USER3> Downvote feedback welcome. I did not expect people to downvote this. At worst, I expected people to see this comment as neutral. I'm fine with losing points, I am simply curious as to what goes through people their minds when they downvote it.

My perspective:

This comment does not seem to break HN guidelines. Here is the contribution of the comment:

\- Assuming that making smalltalk to strangers is a good thing (parent's showcase), then what's more important is doing it. It doesn't matter how you're inspired to do it.

\- Perhaps read the Luck Factor

\- Traffic lights are programmed in C (in my part of the world)

If the downvote comes from that it doesn't add enough. Fair enough. If it's rather something else (tone, some form of negative emotion, civility or anything like that), I'd be curious to know how it affects people.

If no one gives feedback after me asking explicitly, I get it.

<comment><USER4> 1) sometimes comments get downvoted for no apparent reason, in which they usually get upvoted again later. 2) many HN users downvote comments that talk about being downvoted, as it is against the rules (and can come across as needy/whiny). 3\. while it can feel bad to see your comments turn grey, it's probably not healthy to let it affect your feelings (much).

I've often wondered by sometimes perfectly reasonable comments are downloaded, and I suspect it's 1) because people just don't like the commenter because of other comments, 2) mis-clicks, 3) bots that randomly vote to appear like real users.

FWIW, I upvoted your original comment and downvoted this one because of 2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems like church fits well with this, it's something very hard to replace within societies as religion falls.

Association of Religious Service Attendance With Mortality Among Women [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2521827)

</comment><comment><USER6> During Covid, I have found people have been open to getting coffee virtually and from 8:30 am - 9 am. It's been a low commitment way to get to know someone better that doesn't encroach their work day... Frankly it's less intimidating/commitment than pre covid physically meeting at a coffee shop before work. As such, in some ways I'm engaging more with some folks than before covid.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have mixed feelings about this bit: "people who were asked to 'personalize' a transaction at a coffee shop by smiling, making eye contact, and having a genuine social interaction with their barista felt about 17% happier and more socially connected."

So the customer might feel better, but what about the barista? I think that a lot of customer-service personnel want to remain as much in their own headspace as possible while they are forced to stand there dealing with strangers just to pay their bills, and so this behaviour would be imposing on them. Also, for female baristas, customers flirting with them are one of their biggest complaints, and it is all too easy for any social interaction to be misinterpreted as flirting. So, unless you have observed the barista before to see that they genuinely like interacting with customers, I think one only risks being rude by making eye contact and trying to exchange some small conversation outside of simply conveying one's order.

<comment><USER8> I think if your customer representative doesn't want to connect with the customer, you should fire them and get a new one.

Contrary to whatever business model motivated that comment, the entire point of the business is to encourage customers to return. Its not the private living room of the barrista where they share their weekend with the counter staff while ignoring the line, the tables needing bussing, the overflowing trash.

The personnel are to attend to the business 100% of the time they are being paid to do so. That includes chatting up the customers, deflecting flirting, asking about preferences and generally making the customer feel at home.

Don't like all that? Get a job hauling trash or digging ditches.

<comment><USER7> Your response is a curious one, inasmuch as my comment was attempting to show some sympathy for the workers that one interacts with during the day, while your concern apparently is the business's owners and whether they are extracting maximum value out of their business, the feelings of working-class people be damned. Also, nowhere in my comment was it suggested that customer- service staff can freely "ignore the line, the tables needing bussing, the overflowing trash". I just personally hope they would at least be free to think their own thoughts while they are doing all that. Customer-service staff are human beings, not automatons.

<comment><USER8> Just venting. The idea that the business should be set up to convenience the counter staff, is where it went off the rails. That's what I mean to criticize, perhaps with hyperbole.

But be honest, we've all been to the shop where the staff seems to think they're in their own kitchen, chatting up their mates and whoa! somebody wants me to sell them a coffee??

I grew up on a farm. We worked. It wasn't intended to be entertaining, or self-fulfilling, or respectful of the personal choices of the worker. It was pitching hay, spreading manure.

The idea that kind of work is 'wrong' and workers are supposed instead to be supported in a congenial frame of mind with their personal space respected and only kind, polite people to interact with, is a pretty hipster notion. You take the money, you better deliver the performance required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As an introvert who has spent the past couple of years actively working on this, I agree with the article. We are social mammals, we are supposed to have conversations with other people. Even before we were sheltering in place, a lot of people got in their cars, drove to an office where they might talk to other people but not really have conversations (why the proverbial water cooler is actually important), get back in their cars, come home, not really have much connection with people at home, then consume a one-way stream of content, and repeat. That's not a good way to live.

I can still remember wonderful conversations I had with strangers decades ago, and with casual acquaintances I've revived over the past couple of years. Highly recommend.

</comment><comment><USER10> In the last couple of years I've thought a lot that I'm really happy that I changed schools after ninth grade and also repeated class in high school. I'm not too outgoing person, but because of these things I have so broad connection basis with people who I know on name basis. And this helps, whenever I need to do business or just encounters, it is so much easier when you know the person ten years already by name.

I would say this repeating class was highly positive for me, and way more impactful than grades ever were in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used have a lot of friends and some 4000 people I've on Skype who I've met at various events.

After that I went MIA, the thing is when you know so many people - a lot of people try to extract value from you. I never needed help of any of these people in my life, I am usually self driven and the way I get people interested in what I want their help in is through showing them money and them analysing if is worth their time.

Beyond that I've stopped trading favours and now everything is transactional for me.

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel ambivalent about the conclusion. Small talk is nice I guess, but depending on your personality you might be more invested than the other people. I've had numerous acquaintances basically just ghost me over the past 30 years. These were people I knew for lengths of half a decade+

That's life, I can't blame them, but it really starts to hurt the more it happens. I find myself more cautious and conservative about who I invest time with now. Having everything be so transactional seems like institutionalized sociopathy sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER13> It goes to say that we all need each other.</comment>


How I Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/ff_drones/all/

<comment><USER2> "It's safe to say that drones are the first technology in history where the toy industry and hobbyists are beating the military-industrial complex at its own game."

Oh, really? Mr Limdbergh begs to differ: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh>

He got some training in the military but he then beats them later.

Technology has been historically been pushed as much by civilian industry as the military, or more. If only you let civilians spend their money and you don't steal all their money in taxes like you do in war times.

Internet and other tech are widely attributed to the military by their supporters but that is not entirely correct. Ethernet and laser all those amazing tech was created by private companies and computer networks were created by enthusiast before DARPA.

<comment><USER3> "Ethernet and laser all those amazing tech was created by private companies and computer networks were created by enthusiast before DARPA."

But would we ever have actually had the Internet before DARPA? It took over 30 years before the Internet actually became a mainstream and profitable thing. If the net had been developed by private companies then they would have done it in such a way that would have let them become profitable within a year or two, so it's unlikely that the net would be anything like what it is today. And for all it's flaws, it's hard to imagine it being better if it were developed by private industry.

<comment><USER4> I feel confident that _some_ form of interconnected global computer network was inevitable. I don't know if it would be better, but surely it would exist.

And there are many examples of private companies pioneering something new even if it takes huge upfront resources and years of planning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find how this is now all playing out to be quite interesting, and a little amusing:

A few years back when there was really only one prominent open source UAV system (Paparazzi), nearly everyone was focused on turning (fixed-wing) radio- controlled planes into hobby UAVs. Back then we didn't have gyros or accelerometers, we used thermopiles to detect the heat difference between warm ground and the cold atmosphere on four axis. This worked well until it became night time or started raining, and required a baseline calibration before most flights.

When projects like OpenPilot and Ardupilot (aka. DIYDrones/3DRobotics) first started to appear they were focused on building UAV systems for planes with this same technology, multi-rotor vehicles where only just on the radar at that stage. They were expensive and to be frank, not very good at flying stable. Then game consoles like the Wii came along and over the next few years gyros and accelerometers started to become much cheaper.

OpenPilot and DIYDrones/3DRobotics initially started out developing with these new gyros and accelerometers in planes, but it wasn't really the right platform as planes tend to me more costly and fragile in a crash, which is inevitable when developing with these new technologies. OpenPilot initially started to adapt their system to multi-rotors (aka. quadcopters) as a way of quickly testing new code and new algorithms for planes. Unlike planes we could even now test code indoors.

Quad-copters started out as a utility, to lift heavy items or as a test-bed for fixed-win UAV algorithms. From there they have now become the first class citizen in the world of open source and hobby UAV projects.

I think this is all really just starting to ramp up. The hardware we need to build these systems is pretty much all there, it can get faster, smaller and cheaper but innovation there is nearing a plateau. On the other hand, I think software is still very much in it's infancy. There is still a long way to go in making these systems reliable and repeatable, and most importantly user friendly. We have progressed from having to re-compile under linux to change one PID setting value, but the barrier to entry is still quite high on the technical side of things.

Disclaimer: Co-Founder of the OpenPilot project.

</comment><comment><USER6> The DIY copter crowd does some pretty sweet stuff (both autonomous and piloted).

Here's a fun video shot by a guy who built a first-person-view Hexacopter: <http://vimeo.com/18873955>

<comment><USER7> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU0_tGHlR7g>

All of the RCExplorer videos are awesome, and they're shot with a very low- tech drone (a tricopter with only roll/yaw rate stabilization - just piezo gyros and no attitude stabilization at all).

<comment><USER8> This one caused a _lot_ of controversy in the FPV (first person view/video) RC community a while back:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78>

if you don't have the time/patience to watch the whole 3-ish minutes, try this but:

<http://youtu.be/M9cSxEqKQ78?t=2m2s>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Drones are awesome!

I've currently got the AR Parrot Drone 1.0 and looking to pickup the 2.0 soon, and maybe a hobbyist grade quad-copter later this year or next. They're way too much geeky fun!!

Highly recommend anyone on here who hasn't played with a drone/quad-copter to have a go at it. You won't regret it.

<comment><USER10> I've been thinking about them for a while. What kind of flight time do you get out of a standard quad-copter? 15 minutes? 30 minutes? That's my biggest hesitation...how fun is 15 minutes of flight time?

<comment><USER7> 15 minutes is ridiculously fun, and about average.

My "450" sized quadcopter (4x 10" rotors) gets about 13-15 minutes with about 150g payload on top of the 3.3Ah 3S battery. I carry a GoPro Hero HD camera sans waterproof case combined with a video transmitter and 15 minutes of first-person flying can be quite rewarding and almost tiring at times, especially in exciting environments (between trees, etc.).

I'd strongly recommend picking up a MultiWii board and a cheap transmitter and parts from HobbyKing and trying it out - learning to fly isn't too difficult since they stabilize themselves, and starting out will cost less than $500.

Watch out though - it's addictive!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Indeed, some of the newest sensors combine three-axis accelerometers, gyros, > and magnetometers (nine sensors in all), plus a temperature gauge and a > processor, into one little package that costs about $17.

which model is he talking about? i got curious and went looking, and the best i could find was $50

<comment><USER5> Chris would be talking about the new MPU9150 from Invensense: <http://www.invensense.com/mems/gyro/mpu9150.html>

Pricing isn't public yet but you can get an idea by looking at the 6-axis products.

<comment><USER11> nice. if it's really going to end up that cheap, it's an exciting development, paralleling the low-cost arm chips like the raspberry pi. it's going to be a good decade for hardware hobbyists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Quadrotor band plays the James Bond theme: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sUeGC-8dyk>

</comment><comment><USER13> How loud are these hobby/open source drones? Spy-worthy?

<comment><USER14> They could land and perch silently, but when flying they are really obvious.

<comment><USER15> Not all drones have to be quadrotor helicopters; with a fixed wing drone you can glide over your target with the propeller stopped and make very little noise.</comment></comment></comment>