Show HN: Virtual egg tapping Easter game - <AUTHOR> https://eggroyale.com <comment><AUTHOR> My family usually plays a game at Easter where you tap hard boiled eggs against each other. The egg that doesn't break "wins". We do a play off and the winning egg for the day is carved. Others play it too [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_tapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_tapping).

Of course, this Easter we can't get together because of Covid19. So my partner and I decided to make a virtual version of the game that we could play online. Seeing as others might have the same need, we put it up for anyone to use.

If you just want to try it alone, you can open your area URL in two different browser windows. Happy Easter!

<comment><USER2> > My family usually plays a game at Easter where you tap hard boiled eggs > against each other. The egg that doesn't break "wins". We do a play off and > the winning egg for the day is carved.

This sounds pretty fun! We might try this next year. How is the winning egg carved? Into a shape or decorated for the following year?

<comment><AUTHOR> We dye the eggs by boiling them in onion skin. They turn out brown. Then, you can use a pin to scrape patterns or pictures or whatever into them. So usually we carved the year and then anything else we want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Unfortunately you have to fill a lobby with invited friends just to see how it even works which severely limits the appeal as people are just going to exit the browser tab when they realize nothing is going to happen as they sit in the hotseat alone.

<comment><USER4> Share a link to yourself and open it in an incognito tab, if you just want to test it locally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can you add an option to play against a random person?

(What about an AI :) after some time without any players?)

Are you playing, perhaps you can add a HN room for today. Here is mine [https://eggroyale.com/room/1cc5c5e4-ba66-468d-9b96-830d62fd0...](https://eggroyale.com/room/1cc5c5e4-ba66-468d-9b96-830d62fd05f3)

Why can´t I choose my egg? I understand that full personalization is too dificult, and open the options to abuse, but I´d like to choose the one with glases for example. Also, perhaps to choose the color.

<comment><AUTHOR> These are all great ideas, thanks! Some seem easy to add too, I'll keep updating this. We only started on this on Thursday, so it was a bit of a crunch to get to this point and I didn't get all my partner's designs in either.

<comment><USER5> If I open other browser window and I close it, the seccond peronality is there forever. Perhaps any user that doen´t play for 1 minute loose. (I don´t know if this is a good idea for a family virtual meeting, where people is probably talking throug the webcam simultaneoulsy and laughing after each match.)

Whay about draws? A random boolean is a random boolean now or later, but I think the possibility of draws will add some variation and fun.

I didn´t know about this. We don´t play this game in Argentina. So a link in the page to the wikipedia page would be useful to understand the game.

<comment><AUTHOR> I fixed the bug for people leaving. You'll have to have to reload. A link to wikipedia is a good idea, I've added one in the invite screen.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dev Rocket - The Photoshop Plugin for iOS Developers - <AUTHOR> http://devrocket.uiparade.com/ <comment><USER2> This is a great idea. Good luck :)</comment>


The cohort analysis from Eric Ries' Lean Startup using SnowPlow and Hive - <AUTHOR> http://www.keplarllp.com/blog/2012/05/performing-the-cohort-analysis-described-in-eric-riess-lean-startup-using-snowplow-and-hive

<comment><USER2> It's awesome to see more innovation in event-based analytics. It seems like most tools don't dive deep enough. Can you do cohort analysis of multi-stage funnels? So for example, can I build cohorts around a user completing a series of events instead of individual events?

I'm building a behavioral database right now called Sky (more info at <http://skylandlabs.com>). It seems like we have some overlap. I looked at using something like Hive for my query language but I felt like it didn't handle time-based relations between events. I'm rolling my own language called EQL (Event Query Language) using LLVM to JIT compile.

I'd love to hear about what kind of questions you're answering for clients using event-based analytics. It feels like a market with a lot of possibilities that no one is really exploiting yet.</comment>


CD PROJEKT RED blackmailed with Cyberpunk 2077 files - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/CDPROJEKTRED/status/872840969795899394 <comment><USER2> It's good they're standing up and saying they won't pay. It might cause a bit of pain for them, but they're spinning it the right way for publicity.</comment>


Reservella: The shadowy company behind The Pirate Bay - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/who-owns-the-pirate-bay-part-ii.ars

<comment><USER2> I can't say I've been following this case closely nor am I a lawyer but... it sounds like the Pirate Bay guys are saying "we don't own the [possibly] criminal enterprise; we just run it." If the organization's activities are deemed illegal wouldn't anyone facilitating these activities be liable? Why does it matter whether they "own" it? How are, say, mafia bookies or web designers in the employ of illegal gambling operations websites treated under the law?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it really legal/possible to have a company with secret ownership?

You can't even own a house without the owner being public record - how can you do that with a company (corporation)?

<comment><USER4> I don't know. But the ownership of some parts of Ikea are also very confusing and nobody can prove what everybody knows about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _To Kuik, it's just not enough to sign some mysterious papers, say that you no longer own the site, and then continue to operate as you have always done; if you want to avoid liability, stop doing the activity in question._

Sounds like something a judge might agree with.</comment>


The difference between undefined and null in Javascript - <AUTHOR> http://saladwithsteve.com/2008/02/javascript-undefined-vs-null.html

<comment><USER2> Nice clear up, but still wrong/bad... The author swaps one problem for another.

When people write

if (foo==null)

OR

if (!foo)

To check if something exists, they really meant to write

if ((typeof foo)=='undefined')

You can't check for a property existing by coercing into a boolean. That's horrible. What if it does exist, and holds a boolean.

<comment><USER3> I like the way Lua does it, where "null" and "undefined" are the same concept, and represented by nil. I don't know if that could be done in Javascript though due to the difference between variable access and property access.</comment></comment>


The Text Adventure Evolved? Cypher - <AUTHOR> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/03/the-text-adventure-evolved-cypher/#more-122891 Game website url: http://www.cabrerabrothers.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Trailer: <http://youtu.be/HgD0JDmr960>

Cabrerabrothers game website url: <http://www.cabrerabrothers.com/></comment>


Experiments in NES JIT Compilation - <AUTHOR> https://bheisler.github.io/post/experiments-in-nes-jit-compilation/ <comment><USER2> For anyone who hasn't written a JIT I'd recommend writing a Brainfuck runtime one day. It's a tractable and strait forward project that will teach you how to do all of this. Start with implementing a direct interpreter and think of ways to make it faster.

<comment><USER3> Studying this amazing work of art is also recommended: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8746054](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8746054)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been meaning to do something similar, except by generating C code which is compiled JIT. This way the compiler can optimize blocks of 6502 in more efficient ways than just a direct mapping between opcodes and registers. Of course there's no real purpose to doing this, but it's on my backlog of "projects to do if I'm ever really bored" \- one of my first ever C++ projects was writing a dynamic recompiler for 6502, nearly 20 years ago.

<comment><USER5> I think the common way to do something like this these days would be to generate LLVM IR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Broadly speaking, a JIT (or just-in-time) compiler is a piece of code that > translates some kind of program code into machine instructions for the host > CPU.

No, that's a compiler.

<comment><USER7> The author goes on to clarify right in the next sentence...

<comment><USER8> I love the idea that someone got this far into the article, then stopped in a furious rage to fire off a missive to the HN collective. If only they had read on just One. More. Line!</comment></comment></comment>


The real Soylent sickness - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-real-soylent-sickness <comment><USER2> Not terribly novel or interesting; the article entirely ignores that Soylent culture is driven by a disinterest in cooking and a desire to avoid the time spent during food preparation, cleanup, grocery shopping, etc.

Grocery shopping for one is frustrating; either I buy portions I know I can not eat before they spoil, wasting money and food, or I buy only a few ingredients and cycle through the same meals over and over. Last week I was annoyed to discover Kroger discontinued its half-dozen egg cartons, and I still have not found any reliable way of buying small enough quantities of bread/buns before they grow stale or mold. I'm fairly confident I am doomed to forever spoil cheese and milk. It seems that grocery chains market portions to target a household size of four, exclusively. Soylent, on the other hand, has a shelf-life of 1 year.

<comment><USER3> > disinterest in cooking and a desire to avoid the time spent during food > preparation

You say this like it's a feature not a bug.

> Grocery shopping for one is frustrating

Like other valuable skills, you can get better at it.

<comment><USER4> > You say this like it's a feature not a bug.

I think it sounds more like they are saying that it's a preference. Preferences are generally neither features nor bugs (though they can be useful in some situations and frustrating in others).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Rob Rhinehart, to compress all the nutrition the human body needs to live > into one single, easily digestible formula, like the twenty-first-century > version of manna. But that is fundamentally the opposite of the way we > increasingly want to eat in America and in much of the developed world.

Uh, speak for yourself.

I order Soylent from time-to-time. It's a nice way to simplify about 75% of my meal prep, while remaining healthy and helping me avoid constant snacking. If I was on my own I'd consider 100% Soylent.

You don't need three gourmet meals a day. Food is a convenient social activity, but it's not the _only_ one.

So many issues with this article, but this one...

> the persistent effect that progress in food processing has had on our taste > buds, as we amp up artificial flavors in an attempt regain the natural > flavor we have stripped from our food with technology

If you'd ever had Soylent, you'd realize that it's entirely the opposite of an "amped-up, artificial flavour". It's not bland - it has a light flavour that isn't offensive no matter how much you drink.

<comment><USER6> > while remaining healthy

Thats yet to be seen. This food is a processed as you can get, I have my doubts that it will be good for you in the long term.

<comment><USER7> "We do not view processed foods as inherently bad or unhealthy. We believe that the nutritional value of a foodstuff - regardless of whether it is prepared in a factory, a restaurant, or at a backyard barbecue - is a direct consequence of the variety of nutrients that it provides and their context within one's overall diet."

from- [https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/203709619-Soylent-...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/203709619-Soylent-Approach-to-Nutrition)

<comment><USER8> Well, I mean why would the Soylent FAQ say anything otherwise? Nutritionists disagree. It's not some hippie new age anti-industry opinion, it's a fact.

In fact, this is such a stupid oversimplification that any amount of critical thinking can debunk it. There is a lot more to food that the net nutrition intake you have at the end of the day. The actual, physical composition of the food determines how quickly you body digests it, which in turn affects your energy levels, appetite, and mood. Your body does not digest apple juice the same way as it does raw apples, even if both have the same exact ingredients. You won't feel the same after a smoothie as you will after the same ingredients delivered raw. One method of intake gives you a short, high burst of energy followed by steeper drop off, while the raw form provides gentler changes and is less likely to spike your blood sugar.

All of this interacts with your psychology, your metabolism, and your physical and mental energy.

This is like saying I can safely fast for 4 days once If I eat 6000 calories worth of [insert food/drink] today. You might survive for 4 days but good luck not tearing up your body and feeling like a ghost by then.

More-processed foods are not inherently "bad" or "unhealthy", but they are inherently worse and less healthy than less-processed foods (generally). They contribute to shorter periods of feeling satiated and longer low-energy periods. You will crave processed food more frequently and in greater quantities than raw food.

<comment><USER7> It's hard to compress so much information in to single page resources that people can skim in internet arguments.

Though they do address things like blood sugar in similar articles: [https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/212769503-Glycemic...](https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en- us/articles/212769503-Glycemic-Data)

Of course it's not perfect. Could you do better by meticulously cataloging your intake, painstakingly measuring everything you cook, and going the extra mile to determine the exact source of all your food? Yeah probably. My time is worth more to me than that. I would rather waste my time on things other than making sure I am _perfectly_ nourished.

How long had humans gone eating crude bread, grilled meat, and stuff they found on the ground? Now we have processing techniques more advanced than 'Make it hot' and we live longer now than ever before.

At least Soylent, as a company, is very up-front with their goals and concerns. They just sent me a message telling me not to eat the Soylent Bars I bought (Jokes on them I already threw them out because they are gross)

Also, Unless you eat the core and the seeds I think an apple and the quantity of apple juice you can make by squeezing one apple are probably going to be digested in a similar fashion. I get your point, I just don't think that is a good example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the root of these articles is that people don't understand what Soylent is. It's not meant to replace your home made salad, or "Fish pulled from a river and grilled over wood coals", but the frozen pizza you have when you come home late, or the "fuck it, I forgot to bring my lunch to work, let's just go to Arby's".

Do people complain that showers are meant to displace baths?

<comment><USER10> > Do people complain that showers are meant to displace baths?

They did when showers first started replacing baths in the 1800's.

<comment><USER7> Exactly, those people were wrong then and these people are wrong now.

<comment><USER10> Sorry, yes that was my point. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If the author's assertion is true -- that "the most significant food movement is the purposeful pushback against the postwar industrial food system" \-- then where is the demand for Soylent coming from? People clearly want it.

The real mistake here is the implication that everyone who consumes Soylent replaces 100% of their meals with it. That isn't the use case, and this has been explained many times. Soylent serves a specific purpose, just like astronaut ice cream, Tang, and TV dinners. The author says: "no one in their right mind would chose [astronaut ice cream] over the cold, creamy stuff on a hot day," but he's wrong. Many people did for the novelty, and many people prefer Soylent for its convenience.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Time spent at table doesn't age you" is one of my favorite sayings.

The real soylent sickness isn't replacing locally sourced, farm-to-table food with disgusting "food", as the author claims. The real soylent sickness is the culture of "meals are just input so I can keep working".

<comment><USER13> i feel like this comes from the idea that "time spent not working is time wasted" \-- as in, if elon musk works 90h weeks, everybody should too. and if you are not, you are wasting your life (startups in particular are full of those people).

i honestly feels like people forgot that there's more to life than working or making money or disrupting an industry. go lay down on a park and watch the sunset for goodness sake, it's good for you!

(in my case, i 1000% love cooking. it's a whole experience, even if it's just for me. cooking for myself is "me time", when i do things for myself, so i can enjoy)

<comment><USER7> Is something stopping you from going to a park _right now_ and sleeping in the grass until you wake up to watch the sunset? What, you would get hungry if you don't go home and cook dinner?

If only there was some convenient food you could pack with you that takes no time to prepare, little time to consume, and is easily transportable...

<comment><USER13> honestly? no. i work remotely for a company that has flexible hours. i did that a lot -- or even, go to the pool and enjoy a couple of hours of doing nothing by the pool.

i specifically chose a job that allows me to enjoy my life and my family.

> If only there was some convenient food you could pack with you that takes no > time to prepare, little time to consume, and is easily transportable...

like sandwich? it takes me 10min to prepare a really tasty BLT that i can take anywhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't have a lot of insight into the science behind it, but one thing that always makes my partner (PhD in Epidemiolgy) slightly angry is that while Soylent does tick all of the "amount and type" boxes for what people consider to be part of a healthy nutrition, the real long term effects are basically untested.

Even in "naturally grown regular foods", the field is still pretty young and we can barely make good recommendations for those. They just happen to be what we eat and as long as they're not crazy processed, we have a few thousand years of experience with them not necessarily killing us immediately.

Areas of research like Metabolomics or Proteomics ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omics)) are still in their infancy, so while Soylent does mix a bunch of ingredients that all fall into the right areas, the long term effects are basically unknown. And that doesn't even take personalized medicine into consideration where your gene markup might actually have a lot to do with what might or might not be good for your personally.

Again, I don't have any insight besides some armchair quarterback knowledge about nutrition, but it seems like most people that do don't think it's a particularly great idea to eat it more than 'every now and then'.

That being said, when compared to twinkies and sugary sodas it might still be better for you. Having it as part of a daily diet though might not be a good idea.

<comment><USER7> So what, are they supposed to run a 100-year multi-generational clinical trial before they can sell Soylent?

If you don't think it will work, you don't have to eat it. I'll keep eating Soylent (or whatever the current best whole-food is) every day and get back to you from my deathbed (to let you know if I blame Soylent)

<comment><USER15> Perhaps there's a difference between marketing a meal replacement and a diet replacement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The thing which Soylent gets right is trying to come at it from a nutrition standpoint first. That's definitely a much better starting place than the rest of the industrialized food world.

That said, I think the idea of a single optimal meal replacement is fundamentally flawed. Our understanding of nutrition and metabolism is still very rudimentary. My opinion is that it's dangerous to move away from whole foods _today_ , not because of some natural food fallacy, but simply because we don't know everything that's going on with digestive and nutritional health. It may very well be the case that no single food is optimal to eat all the time, and that the body needs different rhythms of food intake over time to create baseline stresses for the organism to respond to metabolically.

</comment><comment><USER17> This article is total FUD in my book. I drink soylent every day for at-work meals. I really appreciate the time savings, and having a zero effort/compromise way to go vegan (which I believe in both for ethical and environment reasons, but I haven't been able to commit to sustainably, personally).

Now here's why I disagree with this article so much: Besides programming, I'm an award winning BBQ chef that's cooking for a local food truck and soon a brick-and-mortar location. I am _very_ familiar with spending a lot of time on food. A longer cook might take 13 or 14 hours. I do this every week. And I _love_ that.

Understanding and enjoying the value of Soylent isn't an either/or thing. I love cooking at home, I spend lots of time in front of an oven or a smoker. I also appreciate Soylent as a healthy and inexpensive way to keep myself nourished when I don't want to think about food.

I wonder why the author would write this article without even making an attempt to understand how real people, not his hypothetical straw-man of a Soylent consumer, use the product.

<comment><USER18> > I wonder why the author would write this article without even making an > attempt to understand how real people, not his hypothetical straw-man of a > Soylent consumer, use the product.

That article wouldn't generate as many clicks :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > What Soylent and the latest batch of food-tech startups are aiming for takes > us back to the days of astronaut ice cream.

What?

> Remember that stuff? It was developed as part of the space program in the > nineteen-sixties, and you bought it in the sort of science stores that were > toy stores for nerds. It was sweet. It came in ice-cream flavors. But it > wasn't ice cream, it was a simulation of ice cream, and no one in their > right mind would chose it over the cold, creamy stuff on a hot day. Not even > an astronaut.

Soylent isn't a simulation of food. I'm pretty sure it explicitly chooses _not_ to simulate food. And people are choosing to eat it.

As others have said, speak for yourself.

<comment><USER20> Whats even more funny is that astronaut ice cream was never actually used by astronauts. It always has only been sold in the mentioned science stores. However I love the stuff, although I am probably not in my right mind. I have been skeptical of Soylent in the past, but if its like astronaut ice cream then sign me up! (yeah... i know... its nothing like astronaut ice cream)

<comment><USER21> I love freeze dried ice cream! Sold at camping supply stores too with all the other freeze dried stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > the quackery of Dr. Oz-approved "superfoods" and the idea that you can live > forever if you just eat enough pomegranate seeds

Have they even read the ingredients list of soylent? It just has the basic macros, vitamins and minerals. It's less new age superfood than fortified flour.

> that is fundamentally the opposite of the way we increasingly want to eat in > America

That's for the market to decide, not you, little New Yorker writer.

> When you look at the recent arc of food culture, the most significant food > movement is the purposeful pushback against the postwar industrial food > system

Funny, I thought the main trend was the death of family farms at the hands of Smithfield, Tyson et al.

The real sickness is modern animal agriculture, the rest is a rounding error in comparison.

</comment><comment><USER23> I love the New Yorker. I have a subscription and I read it regularly.

I'm also a hedonistic participant in the "recent arc of food culture" that embraces locally grown ingredients prepared lovingly by chefs with a creative vision. Gramercy Tavern, the New York restaurant that most embodies this recent arc, takes a bite out of my paycheck multiple times a month.

But what the New Yorker assumes is that this kind of food, and the time and money to consume it is equally available to everyone at all times. That is absolutely not the case.

There are three key demographics for Soylent in my mind:

1\. The efficiency obsessed engineer who will use Soylent as a primary food source.

2\. Someone who has limited access to nutritious food due to geography or income and frequently prefers Soylent to the alternatives.

3\. Someone who has the income and ability to enjoy well-prepared meals, and does so frequent,ly but occasionally finds themself unable to do so because of time or geography.

I'm in the last camp as are a number of my friends. Not enough time to get a proper breakfast - Soylent/Coffiest. Commuting to a client office for lunch and no good options nearby - Soylent. It is possible to make those choices and then enjoy a dinner where you relish the flavor and texture of the tomatillos in your salad.

<comment><USER22> I know people in a fourth category:

4\. Does not really enjoy eating food.

Spending time/money/energy on good food is completely pointless for some people (e.g. friend with anosmia).

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The author seems to miss a critical part of why Soylent is a good options for many people; it is all the benefits of a low-work food product that strives not to be one that makes you fat or otherwise unhealthy. If anything, the industrial food system let down a lot of people who liked the 'easy' but didn't like the 'loaded with sugar' part. Also, of course, if you don't like it don't buy it.

"When you look at the recent arc of food culture, the most significant food movement is the purposeful pushback against the postwar industrial food system, a system that was the food futurism of its day. This industry brought us preservatives, Wonder Bread, Tang, and microwavable frozen TV dinners. It lowered the price of food tremendously and increased convenience in innumerable ways, but it also made us fatter and sicker, and robbed our meals of their original flavors,replacing them with addictive but unhealthy substances."

</comment><comment><USER25> "You can now buy reasonably priced organic foods at many supermarkets across North America"

I think this is only true if you are upper middle class or above.

<comment><USER26> Not to mention that "organic" doesn't mean what most consumers think it does.

<comment><USER27> Probably true. Organic is 'a way of farming that is more traditional' is a good way of phrasing it.

If you're looking for higher /quality control/ Kosher might be a good term to look for.

I know that when I buy ketchup I just go for the 'simple' variants, the ones that use the more traditional recipe and thus avoid HFCS (which I get too much of from other sources).

<comment><USER28> > If you're looking for higher /quality control/ Kosher might be a good term > to look for.

Meh. Kosher slaughtering forbids the use of stunning (or otherwise incapaciting) an animal before slaughtering, so you're trading quality for animal cruelty in my opinion.

Edit: looks like at least some Islamic communities allow for stunning the animal prior to slaughter in order to qualify as "halal" meat ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah#Stunning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah#Stunning)). Depending on how many Jewish vs Muslim markets you have access to, a Muslim supermarket might be the better choice then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The various receptive components of your taste and olfactory system that have gradually figured out, over millions of years, how to not just detect spoiled or weak food sources, but to optimize for high-value sources also: by pinging your brain stem in _just the right way_ , probably initiating signals within around 100 milliseconds or so of detecting threshold quantities of whatever awesome stuff your body has decided it needs (so it, in turn can deliver a more or less immediate, perfectly proportioned neurohormone cascade throughout both your brain and your upper torso, well before you've managed to actually digest and metabolize any portion of what you're consumed; "paying it forward", as it were) -- and not only that, but to literally train your brain stem into getting more and more of that awesome stuff, on as regular a basis as possible -- are really, really, _super fiendishly clever_ at what they do.

In other words -- taste and smell (and texture, and the overall pleasure- centric aspects of the eating experience) matter _a lot_. And the primates over at companies like Soylent would have to be very cocky to think they throw all of that to the side, and replace it with a chemical formula or two.

</comment><comment><USER30> The idea behind Soylent is a logical fallacy. On the one hand, Soylent relies on nutrition experts for the nutritional makeup of their food. On the other hand, no nutrition expert thinks it's a good idea eat Soylent instead of food.

So either you want to listen to nutrition experts or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

<comment><USER31> The number of scientifically rigorous and repeatable studies on human nutrition is shockingly small. The majority of the research that is done for the purposes of dietary recommendations involves survey or diary data.

I am aware of one controlled diet study--I think it was from the 1960s--where the participants were fed a semi-liquid diet which contained all the chemical components of what was then suspected to be complete human nutrition. The results could not be used, because too many of the subjects quit, or ate foods smuggled in from outside.

Knowing of that study, I have never feared that anyone would suffer some deficiency disease from eating nothing but Soylent. Because I think no one could accomplish such a feat for a long enough duration for any symptom to appear. I guarantee that unless the person is strapped down to a table for 23 hours a day and violently kept away from edible items for the 24th, they are, in fact, eating other things besides just Soylent from time to time.

So when nutritionists recommend against eating Soylent as a replacement for food, I have to wonder why they even think that is even plausible enough to say anything about it.

I understand completely why Cypher from _The Matrix_ would sell out all of humanity for some virtual medium-rare tenderloin, instead of the nutrient slurry they have no choice about eating in the real world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The article mentions "Silicon Valley" five times.

Soylent is based in Los Angeles.

</comment><comment><USER33> The "End of Food" narrative for Soylent is artificial controversy created by the media to grab clicks. It's encouraged by the Soylent company because coverage -> sales. But, it was never the goal of the product and I don't think a large minority of the products users intend to use it as such.

Soylent is a great option to have when you want it. Slowly enjoying traditional food is still very nice. It's going to be OK.

<comment><USER34> > The "End of Food" narrative for Soylent is artificial controversy created by > the media to grab clicks.

That's how Soylent marketed it before and during the kickstarter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The article makes a very simple point: some things are not worth disrupting - as in fundamentally changing/optimizing/modernizing - and sometime the disruption can make things much worse. Food is an example of that. The 50-80s saw huge disruption of the food business and it had dramatically bad side effects (e.g., obesity in the US). Perpetuating that today doesn't sound like a great benefit to society.

I believe it's a worthwhile subject, simply illustrated by the article. The overwhelming "The author doesn't get the point of Soylent" reaction here tells me that most people actually don't get the gist of the article itself: it's not about Soylent in particular, it's about (food) disruption.

<comment><USER36> This seems like a really abusive use of the word "disruption". The only food industry suffering disruption here is delivery pizza and microwave dinners.

<comment><USER35> I am not following Soylent closely but the message/vision it marketed initially was to replace all our food needs with Soylent. If that's not disruption, what is?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why is this written as though all of Silicon valley is behind Soylent? It's mildly insulting.

</comment><comment><USER38> Naming this product Soylent and watching the market accept it never ceases to amaze me; it's a lot like hearing Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" on a Carnival Cruise commercial but getting flashbacks to Mark Renton on heroin.

<comment><USER36> The target market is full of hipsters. The naming is perfect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Predictable reactionary article. Did they claim there was something wrong with the philosophy of people who produce spinach when that caused massive outbreaks of e-coli? Or blame the modernity of beef producers when mad-cow disease broke out?

Our culture is full of manufactured food that doesn't even attempt to provide nutrition. While it would be lovely if we could all eat out of our own private gardens and vineyards, something like soylent seems like a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER40> > Or blame the modernity of beef producers when mad-cow disease broke out?

The absolutely (and rightly) did blame modern beef production methods for this. It is one of the reasons that EU beef is better quality than US beef today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I never really "got" the Soylent craze. Maybe it's because I'm outside the workforce (I'm in highschool), or maybe it's because I'm on the east coast (where we're less on the cutting edge in general), or maybe it's because I live in a house where we eat ~1 homemade meal every day (dinners, and sometimes breakfasts on the weekends), and even I can make a half-decent meal (sausage, spaghetti, and maybe a salad on the side) in about 10/20 minutes, provided we've got the ingredients. Maybe it's because I'm hesitant towards putting anything made by software engineers into my body (software failure rates in a food product are unacceptable).

Nope, it's none of those: it's because I watch movies. Lots of movies. And I live in a house with people who watch more movies than I do. So whenever I hear the name "Soylent" there's a nagging voice in the back of my head:

 _it 's people, isn't it?_

Seriously, they need to change the name.

<comment><USER42> If you're in high school, you have the privilege of a mom who would probably rather die than have you drink soylent ;) (At least if your mom is anything like mine).

<comment><USER41> ...there is that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Where to even begin on an article this bad?

0\. The author doesn't bother to try a sip of soylent, but feels empowered to judge its flavor based on the opinions of other reviewers. This itself is meaningless, but it's representative of the amount of original thought in the rest of the article.

1\. Implying the recall is due to reckless startup culture with no evidence and ignoring recalls from traditional players.

2\. Telling people their every meal must be heirloom, artisan, and slowly eaten reeks of aspirational privilege. Has the author never grabbed a burger running late to a party? Can he really afford nothing but the finest ingredients on a writer's salary?

3\. Most of the arguments are generic anti industrialized food and have nothing to do with contemporary food startups. Not only is soylent a reaction against those artificially flavored and unhealthy products from long established companies, it completely ignores startups like blue apron that promote slower food.

</comment><comment><USER44> The only value I see in these Soylent type products, is for quick meals that someone would otherwise eat trashy food for. Breakfast comes to mind, and it what I use 100% Food mix for. It's quick and nutritional before I race off to the office. For every other meal, normal food.

</comment><comment><USER45> What is the fascination with soylent? It's basically a supplement food bar / meal replacement. There are a million of these things on the market, already, right, in some kind of bar or powder form?

<comment><USER36> Supplement foods either don't have a good balance of nutrition, or are overly expensive in relation, in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> some comments yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12731059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12731059)

</comment><comment><USER47> They should just change the name to Bob and sell it to Walking Dead fans.

<comment><USER48> I'm pretty sure there's a film about this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Would be eating processed food nutritionally illiterate?</comment>


Greasemonkey script to auto-log out of Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/75097

<comment><AUTHOR> This will prevent you from getting apps auto-installed.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best MacOs clone linux or bsd distro? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Elementary OS [0]. It's an Ubuntu derived distro, with a lot of customisation. The developers have real taste and a commitment to consistency.

[0] [https://elementary.io](https://elementary.io)</comment>


Are you hiring a freelancer or an unemployed designer? - <AUTHOR> http://auadesign.com/work/hiring-professional-freelancer-or-an-unemployed-graphic-designer.html

<comment><USER2> These "freelancer" heuristics are dubious. Despite that fact that 100% of my income last year is printed on one 1099 or another, I satisfy less than half of them. A year ago, I satisfied zero of them.

I use an @gmail.com address because I don't want to worry about getting spam- foldered when I email a new client. I don't have a business license because sole proprietorships don't need them in CA or anywhere else I've worked. I've never furnished my own consulting agreement because every company I work with already has one they're comfortable with. I only gathered the other paraphernalia of freelancerhood after a long period of being too busy with freelance work to do so.

Notwithstanding false negatives like myself, these heuristics might help you identify who among your consultants cannot be persuaded to become an employee. But they're a poor proxy for judging diligence, reliability, or any of the other qualities you should be measuring by portfolio work and references.

<comment><USER3> You're not an out-lier actually. I think you're among the hundreds of freelancers who're just quietly doing their jobs. Some good, some not so good. Their rates tend to separate the chaff from the wheat pretty quickly, even if they're from a third world country(like myself).

This article is mainly to satisfy the authors whim, that what he's doing is what everyone else is doing, based on reading so many freelance/productivity blogs.

All that matter is how communicative he is, in clarifying things and what he delivers with each iteration. Even good freelancers, won't satisfy you sometimes, depending on how their workload is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just fyi, your agreement says 2011 in the url but 2010 in the document itself.

I feel like you're edging a bit into not-true-scotsman territory. A hotmail address does not make a freelancer suddenly unprofessional, and completion of the 5 items certainly doesn't necessarily make one a professional.

 _And what's wrong with hiring an unemployed designer, anyway?_ I don't see why it would be a minus and you don't really give any reasons not to. You even mention one reason why we should consider unemployed designers a plus: If we like their work, we can offer them a full-time job!

</comment><comment><USER5> I've got 'real' email addresses, but still use my gmail address with some clients, partially because it's one of the few things that I can be guaranteed to use at a client's office - I'm often blocked from anything except port 80 when I'm onsite. Yes yes, I can set up my own webmail, but I don't. And I'm not comfortable using google domains stuff, so I split. Probably 50% of my mail with some clients is over gmail, but I have multiple real domains, and much correspondance happens from there as well. I find some clients bounce around - they've got their 'work' email, but they exchange emails from 'home' accounts sometimes too. I don't consider them 'unprofessional' for doing so.

As someone else mentioned too, the 'have your own agreement' thing - well, I've got one, but have only used it a handful of times. More than half my projects have been with mid to larger orgs that already have their standard procedures in place. To use my own contracts either means I don't get the gig, or things will take a few extra weeks while "their people" review things, and they'll inevitably find something to complain about. They are _not_ going to agree to resolve legal issues in my state if they're out of state, so, do I bend, or hold firm? There's no right or wrong answer - each person has different tolerance for this, and it'll probably change over time.

I understand the frustration with people just using the term 'freelancer' without really being a fulltimer - I started indieconf.com last year to address some of these issues that we all deal with, and avoided the term 'freelance' because I think it has a bad connotation. It conjures up images of the unemployed designer between fulltime jobs. Undeservedly so, perhaps, but that's what I was finding. "Independent web professional" is a bit of a mouthful, but conveys a stronger image (and encompasses more than just designers or developers).

The big danger anyone faces in hiring a 'freelancer' is that they won't necessarily stick around for the whole project, or may not be available later to provide followup support. Yes, you face the same with employees, but it's somewhat less of a threat in most cases. That was something I was surprised that the blog post didn't address (or did I miss it?).

</comment><comment><USER6> The notion that the domain name of your email is somehow indicative of your value as a professional is pretty dumb. It's mindless tribalism at best.

Having your own consulting agreement is a good idea (it enables you to take on clients who don't have their own agreements and can give you a head start in contract negotiations), and being incorporated can be very useful for liability purposes. But those things certainly aren't required.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is the wrong question.

Ask "Are you hiring a good designer?"

</comment><comment><USER8> Neither: we bought themes off themeforest.</comment>


Mailbox Cost Dropbox Around $100 Million - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/mailbox-cost-dropbox-around-100-million/ <comment><USER2> What's with the absurd valuation?

Are they gonna bump the price to $10 and hope to sell 10 million copies?

Do they hope adding a mail client to Dropbox will bring them.. um.. how many million new customers?

Is it some sort of tax evasion scheme? Or do they plan to flip it to the next bigger idiot for $200mio? Or what, the hell, is the idea here?

I'd really like to understand the rationale behind these kind of deals. Who profits from doing that?

<comment><USER3> What's with the absurd comment?

We don't even know if the valuation is $100 million. "Well-over" $50 million could be $60 million. I'd reserve my judgement until the final number is confirmed. Maybe the final number is $100 million. Maybe not. When a reporter says "And we've heard" you can translate that to they heard a rumor.

Is it some sort of tax evasion scheme? Are you intentionally throwing out absurdities?

In a certain light, this acquisition might make sense from a strategic, rather than ROI, point of view: my guess is that Dropbox thinks Mailbox will be _the_ email app for mobile, just as Gmail became the _the_ email web service for Google. Gmail doesn't really turn any significant profit AFAIK, yet Gmail makes sense because it strategically anchors Google's entire ecosystem. In that sense, Mailbox might become part of an ecosystem of productivity/collaboration tools that Dropbox creates.

<comment><USER2> _"Well-over" $50 million could be $60 million_

You say that as if $60 million would be any less absurd?

 _Is it some sort of tax evasion scheme? Are you intentionally throwing out absurdities?_

No. Companies tend to do really weird[1] things to avoid taxes.

I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around these kind of deals (color was the textbook example, but it's not like there's a shortage on them).

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new- twist-i...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-twist-in- stricken-rig-saga-shell-was-moving-it-to-avoid-tax-8439128.html)

<comment><USER4> > _"You say that as if $60 million would be any less absurd?"_

I find neither price absurd. It is clear that Dropbox has not bought Mailbox for the purposes of selling copies of Mailbox - making $100mm back that way is, of course, insanity.

Dropbox right now is having its core feature (online storage) attacked by competitors with far-reaching and deeply integrated stacks. See: iCloud, Google, etc, where the cloud storage is deeply integrated specific content on your device. Photos, documents, email, etc.

It would seem like they're trying to develop this stack for themselves and take on Google and Apple directly. Whether or not this is the right strategy I cannot say, but a cloud email service with a best-of-breed UI will certainly help them cement the market share they need.

And having seen Mailbox, it's _very_ competitive with what is IMO the next- best mobile email client, GMail, and takes iOS's Mail.app out back and shoots it.

I expect the next moves to be either developing or acquiring media sharing (photos, videos, etc) apps. This is the sort of ecosystem they need to create to hope to sell Dropbox as the "your data, everywhere, without lock-in" value proposition.

Mailbox isn't just a half-decent email UI, it is _the best_ email UI we've seen in ages, in a field where there is no shortage of competition. Even vaunted Apple's email app pales in comparison.

<comment><USER2> _Mailbox isn't just a half-decent email UI, it is the best email UI we've seen in ages_

I acknowledge that. And I know they didn't just buy the app, but also the brand, the userbase, the marketing headstart, the team, the momentum.

But still. It boils down to a mobile app that could be cloned, bit-for-bit, for _way_ under $5 million. Dropbox has a pretty strong brand of its own already. For instance: Almost everyone I know uses Dropbox. In contrast I have never heard of mailbox.app before. And I'm a nerd, I read Hacker News, I tend to know most of the fancy things before everyone else.

Ok, let's ignore that. Let's assume mailbox.app utterly dominates the (iphone?) market. What would it help them if Dropbox went against them with their clone?

Users are not exactly loyal when there's no network effect. I can't imagine mailbox.app would fare all that well against a (near identical) dropboxmail.app that comes bundled with whatever goodies Dropbox has planned to take it up with Google.

Sorry, I understand your angle (and your proposed strategy sounds plausible to me), but I just can't get over that number. Framing it as a long-term strategy for Dropbox makes it only _more_ batshit insane to me, because even in my wildest imagination I can't see what mailbox.app brings to the table that Dropbox couldn't replicate for a fraction of the money in a very short timespan. And "fraction of money" means a difference of tens of millions of dollars here.

 _I expect the next moves to be either developing or acquiring media sharing (photos, videos, etc) apps_

By that logic their next move will be to pull another Color.app?

<comment><USER4> > _"But still. It boils down to a mobile app that could be cloned, bit-for- > bit, for way under $5 million."_

I had an argument about this yesterday with someone. I do not think this statement is true.

Mailbox is an app that, usability, design, and technology-wise is two standard deviations away from the mean iPhone app. It is anything but commodity.

If you assembled a team of pretty-decent devs and designers, you probably couldn't clone Mailbox. To be blunt, the quality of Mailbox's app is _beyond the capabilities_ of almost every mobile engineering team I've ever come across, and I write mobile apps for a living.

You could _try_ cloning Mailbox, but it's contingent on first building a truly world-class design and mobile development team - and I mean world-class literally, you need to build a mobile team two standard deviations away from what every startup has. Assembling a team at this level is _really_ friggin' hard. Mailbox has somehow done it - there's no guarantee that Dropbox could do it independently.

It might seem a bit hyperbolic, but apps like Mailbox are sort of like the mobile equivalent of Google - there's a magic sauce and team there that makes it non-trivial to clone. We're not talking about an app that bolts together standard UI components and pours some fresh paint on top, this is something that's at the very extreme end of UX quality.

> _"Dropbox has a pretty strong brand of its own already."_

I highly doubt Dropbox gives a shit about the Mailbox brand as it stands. The idea is to have the absolute best email client money can buy - and that competitors will have a hell of a time trying to clone. The whole idea is to be able to go "Sign up for Dropbox, make email _way_ easier than blech! iPhone email. And way easier than even GMail!"

> _"I can't imagine mailbox.app would fare all that well against a (near > identical) dropboxmail.app"_

This rests on the assumption that Dropbox _can_ clone Mailbox. Having used the Dropbox app extensively, this is a _really_ unsafe assumption. Dropbox's mobile app quality right now is pretty middling - not bad, but not great. For them to even start approaching the ability to clone Mailbox they'd first have to build a brand new team at a level few companies have been able to achieve.

And even if they did, an app like Mailbox is not something a few people can bang out in a couple of months. IMO Dropbox would be _easily_ at least a year behind Mailbox. All the while other cloud competitors are looking for the leg up and willing to acquire Mailbox also.

> _"By that logic their next move will be to pull another Color.app?"_

If people ever gave a shit about Color.app. Color was a flop right out of the gate. Mailbox has received rave reviews from just about everyone who's touched it, and the demand continues to be furious.

If Dropbox will acquire a photo sharing app, it will have to hit that bar - i.e., absolute best in class experience, existing buzz, and _not a pointless app no one knows what to do with_.

<comment><USER2> So, after this flaming endorsement I just had to install mailbox.app. I gave it a whirl and... well, it's nice.

But can you give an example of the parts that you deem "unclone-able"?

That seems a pretty wild claim. It's not made of pixie dust. And I'm frankly a little underwhelmed. It's certainly nice, but (to me) not nearly as earth shattering as you make it sound.

I'll give you that assembling a team to _maintain_ such a standard (and extend it) is non-trivial. But do you seriously think iOS top-talent wouldn't jump when dropbox puts, say, _one million dollars per nose_ on the table?

Get a team of five and have them dedicate their life to making the best mail- client ever. That'll be $5 million dollars, not $100MM.

This whole prospective is of course a little surreal. But so is paying a hundred million dollars for a mobile mail client...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > around $100 million in cash and stock

There was talk of Dropbox being valued in the billions, if the majority of the sale price is stock (say, $90 million?) would that be a high amount of stock for Dropbox to use on an acquisition ($4 billion valuation, $90 million = ~2%?) or does that sound reasonable for something they're expecting to be important in the future?

<comment><USER3> 2% is not at all a high amount of stock to issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Can someone please explain the economics behind this deal? Congrats to those involved...but at the end of the day, this just doesn't make much sense (to an outsider at least).

<comment><USER7> I'm a Dropbox member. I pay $100 a year for the privilege. I use it because it integrates well with my desktop OS and several apps I use on my mobile devices. I'm still on the waiting list for Mailbox, but I'll happily fork over another $100 a year to use it.

A portion of Dropbox's customers have grown accustomed to paying for the service. I believe those are Mailbox's future customers. Mailbox should be a premium add-on to Dropbox.

Even if the Mailbox add-on is priced at $50 a year, if only 1 million of Dropbox's customers subscribe and they stay with the plan for two years, Dropbox will have recouped its investment.

I believe that providing features like this add to the Dropbox brand. It's about adding infrastructure that the OSes are leaving at the wayside. In the same vein, I would like Dropbox to add RSS & and photo/video/music sharing backends that client apps could tie into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know about 100M, but I can definitely see how Mailbox is worth a lot of money to Dropbox.

Dropbox has always been a company that stood on the quality of its product. It doesn't have the most features (that's probably SkyDrive or Google Drive) and it's not the cheapest, but it works insanely well and it works everywhere you want it to. That, and the headstart they had, is what put Dropbox where it is right now.

Mailbox is a quality-first mail app that fits with Dropbox's quality standards, and it allows them to take their first step into the "feature-rich web storage" field without trying to build out an office suit like MS Office or Google Docs that they clearly can't catch up to. This was a chance to buy their way into the mail game, with what some people would consider the best mobile mail app in the business.

</comment><comment><USER9> Mailbox is the Draw Something of Email.

<comment><USER10> This seems to be a the type of comment that is catchy, but in truth mostly vacuous. How does one have a 'Draw Something' of email? There is no sticking power to most games. There are high switching costs (in terms of time, productivity, etc.) when it comes to e-mail. Hell, I used Yahoo Mail for years after Gmail came out because I wasn't used to its interface. If Mailbox has managed to get people to switch to their app, it is likely that they will continue to use the app... Not drop it in three months like people did with Draw Something.

<comment><USER11> Anecdotal evidence. 2 out of three people who initially installed Mailbox and waited in line with me have gone back to the regular Mail app. I am likely to do so as well soon. Why? While Mailbox is nice, it only adds a single feature: the ability to defer dealing with email till later date. However, its drawback is that it only does GMail. My world also includes Exchange and Yahoo mail. I don't want to have to use separate apps to access my mail.

If they add other types of accounts, great, will talk. But for now, I can see why the OP is calling it 'Draw Something' of email.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Someone commented on that article, that whomever pushed through this deal was worth their weight in gold.

Or ~4700 pounds.

$100,000,000 / ($1,500/oz * 14 oz/lb) = 4700 lbs

<comment><USER13> I hate to be that guy, but isn't 1lb 16oz?

<comment><USER14> Gold is traditionally measured in Troy Ounces. There are exactly 14.58333... troy oz./lb

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Cost? An acquisition isn't a "cost."

However, this one surely will become a cost when they write down the value of Mailbox by $99.95 million.

</comment><comment><USER16> Whoah. So much for the "acquihire" snark.

Congratulations to everyone involved.

</comment><comment><USER17> It is a very high number, but people aren't getting that they didn't buy the codebase or the team. They bought the waiting list. If Dropbox had been wanting to get into the email game, a waiting list of 1M people is a pretty good way to start. Sure they could have emailed out a blast to all their users and gotten a ton of traction that way, but they can _still_ do that.

Not to mention, the name Mailbox is a pretty perfect match for Dropbox.

<comment><USER18> That doesn't make sense. That would be $1k _per name_ on the waiting list.

<comment><USER19> I think you're off by an order of magnitude. 1M people on the waiting list = $100 / name. Still a lot.

<comment><USER18> ianstormtaylor edited his comment after I posted, and did not make a note of it. It used to say 100k.

<comment><USER17> It's true, I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I know that many here are saying that valuation/cost is too big but I'm convinced that this "cloud" is much bigger than people think. And I for one want Dropbox version of email (and cut crappy gmail) - something that is simple and just works.

<comment><USER21> Is there something difficult about gmail that I am missing? How does an email client replace gmail again?</comment></comment>


'Life of Brian,' Terry Jones's Legacy of a Surprisingly Historical Jesus - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/life-of-brian-terry-joness-legacy-of-a-surprisingly-historical-jesus-130582 <comment><USER2> I love Monthy Python, and Life of Brian in particular, but there's not really evidence that proves that Jesus even existed. It's more likely a case of a myth that was made to be historical for political reasons.</comment>


Show HN: Real estate (land) public records aggregator – Parcelix.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.parcelix.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I started searching for a piece of land for a cabin and I was surprised how many clicks does it take to find county tax data. So I built this (and companion extension for Chrome - [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/real-estate-tax- re...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/real-estate-tax- records-s/ngkjcmicenjkmhonhkgmlbingipjbknk))

It works great for WA, some other states/counties may have spotty coverage.</comment>


Ask HN: How much money do I ask for? - <AUTHOR>

I've reached the final stage of interviews for a mid-level dev job.
The interviewer asks me how much money I want to be paid. Having read patio11's essay about salary negotiation, I know not to give a number first. Unfortunately, after attempting to get past the question without answering, I realize that I am not patio11, and cannot get past the question without a lot of awkward silence. I crack and give a number.
How do I know how much money to ask for? Assuming that this is my first non-internship full-time dev gig, and that this job is not in San Francisco, and that I do not have any data about how much this company might pay mid-level devs. <comment><USER2> patio11 is correct.

You should always try to come from the frame of you being excited about the opportunity and first want to make sure it's a good fit. The onus isn't on you to give a number, and in fact it's pretty ridiculous for them to demand it.

If you've reached the final stages you should be getting an offer letter with a salary amount and then you can negotiate from there. That not happening sounds strange.

With all that said it's pretty straightforward to use a site like glassdoor to see what salaries are at similiar jobs in the area. I see you made a new account just to ask this, iss this a larger company?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is a large company that opened a new office in a different city, but there are no salaries online from positions in this new office.

I can get an idea of how much a software engineer at the same company in, say, San Francisco makes, but of course I'll be making less here because of the difference in the cost of living.

My default number would be the median salary for a software engineer in my area, but to be honest, I'm a more valuable employee than the average engineer in my area, and think that after this lengthy interview process, my prospective employer agrees.

I've been in the awkward "I need a number situation" and have missed out on a lot of money because of it. One time, I even gave $X, and my interviewer came back with $X - ($X * 0.05). After a month of working at this place, I realized that I could have asked for twice as much money.

<comment><USER3> There's no reason to assume that you will make less simply because of location. Indeed, if there are fewer qualified candidates locally than might be found in San Francisco, then perhaps you're in a position to negotiate for more money. People aren't interchangeable, if someone in SF could do the work, they wouldn't be looking for someone where you live.

The company's quick alternative is to move someone from another location. Not only is such a person unlikely to take a pay cut based on location, they may ask for more. And certainly will ask for relocation expenses.

Relocation expenses, recruiter fees, etc are all part of the company's budget, not just salary. Don't sell yourself short.

Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Did they use an outside recruiter? In that case the recruiter should know the size, and if they are (as is typical) on commission, are incentivized to suggest to you a number at the high end of the range since their commission will be higher. They are also incentivized to not suggest a number too high for _you_ but sadly most are not that clued in.

Since this is your first full time gig, you can always say so (since they know already from your resume) and simply say "I don't know what's a reasonable wage in this city; I'm excited to work for you and expect to be treated fairly". You can find from glassdoor what _other_ companies in that city are paying -- if they are in the neighborhood of those prices, go for it.

After all if you later find out they are screwing you you can use your experience to go find a better, better paying job. In the mean time you can learn stuff and do good work for them -- once you leave (for whatever reason) you can do so with your head high.

</comment><comment><USER5> Company: "What salary are you looking for?"

You: "As much as possible. How much have you got?" :-)

In my experience, places will pre-qualify candidates through the recruiter (the recruiter won't send them someone they can't afford) or HR will ask you for a range before you start interviewing (so they don't waste everyone's time).

The last time I was asked by a hiring manager what sort of range I was looking for, it went like this:

Company: "What sort of salary range are you looking for."

Me: "125-135K"

Company" "Our salary for a Senior Dev tops out at 122K"

Me: "That's not my problem." :-)

Company: (Smiling) "You're right."

</comment><comment><USER6> Have you ever had a development job? You can give them a number without putting yourself in a position of having given them a number, e.g. "Previously I was making $x" or "I know the salary range for developers in my area is $y to $z."

<comment><USER2> "I know the salary range for developers in my area is $y to $z."

This is a great suggestion. Shows you're savvy, doesn't give anything away and gets the ball rolling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So here's a related question - if you hold firm and do not give a number, get an offer, and it's substantially below where you currently are/what you feel you are worth, how do you negotiate from that position?

Can you even?

<comment><USER6> You literally can't even.

</snark>

In reality, you can negotiate from any position. A master negotiator can pull an ask for 60k followed by an ask for 100k without batting an eye. Most people are not master negotiators and tend to only negotiate their salary a few times in a decade.

The best way to negotiate is to hold all the cards, but even if you lay everything on the table, you can still hold the company over the coals if you know what to say or how to say it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If a number is what they are looking for, give them a number. It's been found that those who say "1 million dollars!" in negotiations like you're talking about end up getting more.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is it bad to just give them a number?

<comment> joe-m If your number is below theirs, you potentially just cost yourself a chunk of salary. If you aim too high to avoid this outcome, you could look delusional.

<comment><USER10> That's why it is recommended to thoroughly research and understand your market value in the location and field that you are negotiating. Talk to other developers in the area, research online, etc. - finding out reasonable salary expectations is not impossible.</comment></comment></comment>


Can We Code Without Comments? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/appsflyer/can-we-code-without-comments-maybe-2075abfc2ace <comment><USER2> Only if you never have to explain that "even though it looks like we shouldn't have to frobnicate the Foo, we do here because otherwise we'll run into a race condition with Bar due to a bug in the core Baz API"</comment>


Objects are a big pile of fail - <AUTHOR> http://winterkoninkje.livejournal.com/58607.html <comment><USER2> Let me sum this article up for you:

C++ sucks...blah blah blah...Java sucks too...blah blah...every OOP language sucks...blah blah...philosophy crap...blah blah blah.

No solutions, just bitching about how everything sucks, wrapped in enough pseudo-intellectual bullshit to drown a mule.

<comment><USER3> Except he says that languages should be designed to make it easy for big systems to heal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some of these objections seem dated. For example, accessor method overhead is optimized away now, and has been for a while.

I'm not a big fan of Java, but I do use it for work. For the kind of applications we write (large, long-running, thousands of users with lots of state) Java's memory management is one of it's strong points. That's why I'm excited about new languages based on the JVM such as Scala and Clojure.</comment>


Google Maps Pacman - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com,-79.0949707,17z/data=!1e3 <comment><USER2> That's cool, but I wish they had spent the time making Google Maps usable again.

<comment><USER3> this makes it usable again: [https://maps.google.com/maps?dg=optperm&output=classic](https://maps.google.com/maps?dg=optperm&output=classic)

until they kill it off entirely :\

there is no version of the GL-enabled maps that ever ran faster or better for me than the basic tiled original.

<comment><USER4> Hahaha. I've been using the new GMaps for ages, and always thought it was fine. So I thought, I'll check out the old one and see how different it really is.

Holy _crap_ it's fast. Wow. There's no loading or giant pixels, zooming is instant, scrolling around is instant. I can't get over how much faster this is. Woof.

<comment><USER5> Part of that might be that no one is using those servers anymore.

<comment><USER3> i can tell you, unambiguously, that it has _always_ been this fast. those tilesets are almost certainly statically cached and served at lightning speed with practically 0 overhead from some regionally located cdn server.

server load would have a statistically imperceptible impact here; never seen a google product roll out with scale-related issues, especially one as mature as their gmaps architecture was at the time of the GL switch.

EDIT: the image-based maps is a great example of the "Choose Boring Technology" thread [1]. the benefits of the GL maps, IMO, do not justify the enormous speed sacrifice, at least to the end users. i'm sure google's ultimate plan was/is to merge google earth and "3d/vr/augment all the things!", but for basic maps it is just terrible. i'm really sad about the whole situation because they really have great looking, readable tilesets, much better than OSM (even if less complete). sadly, they never did get the pixel-density-appropriate versions made for mobile devices and all the features looked tiny when implemented using their js maps api :(

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215)

<comment><USER6> I think one of the "benefits" of the new version of the maps is that they can more easily customize the output per user.

This means that they can show different businesses to you based on your searches, and possibly some day charge businesses to be "put on the map".

<comment><USER7> Sponsored listings and ads in map search are already a thing on mobile. If I search for certain common terms ("Smog Check", for example), some pinpoints are already highlighted differently because they correspond to ads in the search results list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Was hoping to find some interesting links to levels:

I'll start [https://email@example.com,-71.3158648,18z/data...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-71.3158648,18z/data=!1e3)

<comment><USER9> if you go to Mountain View...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool but I'm pretty sure someone needs to read up on the algorithms used by the ghosts...

[http://gameinternals.com/post/2072558330/understanding- pac-m...](http://gameinternals.com/post/2072558330/understanding-pac-man- ghost-behavior)

<comment><USER11> I was wondering whether they paid attention to that. There's definitely different behaviour depending on the ghosts (red always follows you)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Finally! Something good to come from the way this traffic circle was butchered!

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-74.5802579,18z/data...](https://email@example.com,-74.5802579,18z/data=!1e3)

</comment><comment><USER13> This is an awesome piece of work.

metagame: find the hardest/simplest level on earth :) (I got Manhattan vs Tokyo)

<comment><USER14> Someone pointed out to me that the Arc de Triomphe is quite fun, with a big enough window size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> pacman is a burner: [https://email@example.com,-119.2049763,18z/dat...](https://email@example.com,-119.2049763,18z/data=!1e3?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER16> Not available from every country (at the time of writing this).

I feel so left out.

EDIT: I was wrong, just that it is not available in Safari. Works with Chrome.

<comment><USER17> Thanks, I figured it was a browser issue but I was wondering what I was supposed to be seeing. All I got was the regular maps page.

Finally tried in Chromium on Debian and wow, fun!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> April Fools is the new Black Friday. It's creeping into the day before. Soon, all of March is going to be prank month.

<comment><USER19> I guess it's because in Australia it has been April 1st for 3 hours already.

<comment><USER20> Google Maps still has a lot of development work done in Australia. So it doesn't surprise me that the april fool launched 'early' in their timezone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> No fair! The people in the midwest get an easy grid system!

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

</comment><comment><USER22> This reminds of the recent Pixels movie trailer- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAHprLW48no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAHprLW48no)

</comment><comment><USER23> This reminds me of when the google doodle was a mini-pacman game, neat it still works!

[https://www.google.com/#q=pacman](https://www.google.com/#q=pacman)

</comment><comment><USER24> They should implement one-way streets, where you have to obey the direction but ghosts don't, to make Pacman even more interesting.

</comment><comment><USER25> The nearly 45 degree orientation of streets in SF Soma sure do make it difficult to play.

</comment><comment><USER26> Ingress is Pacmanified as well today--various icons are Pacmen or ghosts.

<comment><USER27> Photo evidence: [http://i.imgur.com/7xzpTas.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/7xzpTas.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is how DeepMind will train its pacman AI. Brilliant. :)

</comment><comment><USER29> NOW WE KNOW how the self-driving cars work!

</comment><comment><USER30> Good but not that useful..

<comment><USER30> Why not people who are downvoting me just provide uses of it?

<comment><USER31> Not all things created have to be useful. Some things can be fun. While we humans may not be the most efficient beings imaginable, we do excel in creativity ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> i'm too old for this ... while it's amusing, i do not intend to plunge into the abyss of time lost to the exploration of things of small importance.

<comment><USER33> Well, I'm glad you at least had the time to write us all this little note informing us of how valuable your time is.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Build Docker Webapps in Minutes - <AUTHOR> http://yazz.com <comment><AUTHOR> Yazz lets you build Docker webapps with a drag and drop builder. The main use case is when you want to create quick internal tools on your Docker/Kubernetes network. It is open source and build with NodeJS. Any questions, let us know.</comment>


Devil's 2048 - <AUTHOR> http://rudradevbasak.github.io/devils_2048/

<comment><USER2> So what exactly is the difference between 2048 and 2048 vs "the devil" ?</comment>


Hello, I'm Mr. Null. My Name Makes Me Invisible to Computers - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/11/null/ <comment><USER2> That is just shoddy programming... the string "null" should never be equal to the type null...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some shady devs may compare serialized string to know whether object was null. db value Contains null value for null able string</comment>


When Websites Won't Take No for an Answer - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/technology/personaltech/when-websites-wont-take-no-for-an-answer.html <comment><USER2> LinkedIn suffered a class-action lawsuit for their email spam! I didn't know that, good to hear. I left years ago and remember it difficult to leave (lack of close account function, and kept receiving emails after unsubscribing).

On the LinkedIn issues, this tweet surely is the funniest: [https://twitter.com/darylginn/status/590664399041519617](https://twitter.com/darylginn/status/590664399041519617)

On dark patterns, or at least it felt dark... I was booking an overnight ferry trip across Bass Strait in Australia. After selecting the fare, entering my details about my car make and model, name and address, cabin choice etc, and about to enter credit card details, the website proclaims "our real-time fare system has adjusted the price" and my fare went up $40 right there and then on the final step of the booking process. Not happy.

<comment><USER3> I hate this, because it's made me cynical. I don't even try to un-subscribe from emails like this anymore, I just mark them as spam. And that hurts the good companies that do listen and unsubscribe you easily, because now they are being looked at as spammy.

<comment><USER4> Yep. Anything sent by Constant Contact or MailChimp is auto-junked for me. I never see it.

<comment><USER5> At least from a MailChimp perspective at least those emails all come with unsubscribe links and such in them and I have found MailChimp to actually honor those. It's the ones that aren't from MailChimp, et al that I think twice before clicking unsubscribe on because it could just be a ruse to prove its a live account.

<comment><USER3> That's the problem though: The bad players are hurting the good players. I don't unsubscribe from stuff using mailchimp, because I'm just not going to take the time to learn which systems are legit and will unsubscribe you, and which ones are shady.

So in this case, mailchimp is getting marked as spam, even though they are an honest player.

<comment><USER5> That's valid, I'm sure I've done the same more times than I know. My general rule is if it's from a brand or site I know I've interacted with or generally recognize I'll spend two seconds to check the unsub options.

If the unsub requires me to log in first, I mark it spam instead. If the link looks fishy and/or I can't readily discern it's of any quality it's spam. If I have no clue why I could've gotten the message it gets flagged for sure.

Luckily for me I get very few emails per month that I don't know why I would've gotten them, so it isn't a painful exercise to give them a chance to not get flagged.

I use Unroll.me[0] to manage the messages I do want to get, but want to check on my own time and I don't want them sitting in my inbox. I'm sure there are other types of services, but I'm generally happy with what they do. They also can manage a lot of the opt-out features as well, not sure if it 'protects' me any more than doing it myself though.

[0] [https://unroll.me](https://unroll.me)

<comment><USER6> Requiring you to log in to unsubscribe is a violation of CAN-SPAM:

#6: [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/can...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two rants:

Signed up for pickydomains a while back, they send me emails every time there's a new listing. I decide I don't want to get the email anymore. Click the unsubscribe link. They want me to sign in. I sign in, and am unable to do anything without agreeing to their changed Terms of Service.

In other words, I have no way to get them to stop emailing me without agreeing to new terms.

Similarly, I once signed up for a trial of IBD newspaper. I still get emails from them occasionally (although those at least go to spam), and the unsubscribe link requires a sign in, which I don't remember. I could probably reset my password if I cared enough, though.

(These are just the two I remember, I'm sure there's been others that were similar. I had an issue with PayPal spam at one point as well but it was more complicated.)

As far as I can tell, both of those are in violation of the CANSPAM act. Companies are required to offer an opt out link with no additional requirements to opt out. But there's no consumer right of action, so the only one who can enforce it is the government, and they focus on worse spammers, so real businesses that are just aggressive mostly get off free.

<comment><USER8> Unsubscribing is a waste of time. Even when they do stop the spam, in 99% of the time it is only temporary and after a few months they start again. Deletable email aliases is the solution. If they spam you, you show them the finger and delete the alias.

<comment><USER7> That's true for actual spammers (i.e. if they buy your address from a list and so on) but not for legitimate companies. Both examples I gave are real companies that I signed up for. I'm pretty sure if I managed to unsubscribe they would honor it.

<comment><USER8> No I have many examples in my mailbox from major companies.

<comment><USER7> Can you name and shame them, like I did?

<comment><USER8> Looking at my spam folder: Air France, freelancer.com, Addison Lee, Pluralsight, etc. I gave up playing whack a mole with unsubsubribe links that never get honored. I now filter emails automatically by domain name and/or keyword (for the companies that got my email before I switched to this alias system).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Facebook is pretty guilty of this too. I "deleted my account" on Facebook years ago and the only effect this had was that I lost access make changes to my account. The account still exists and still is accessible[1], albeit with outdated information. I have no doubt they're still making money off my data.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/david.kerkeslager](https://www.facebook.com/david.kerkeslager)

<comment><USER10> It wouldn't surprise me if Facebook created profiles for people who've never used it, just by virtue of having enough of their friends having their contact details. IE if 5 people are friends and all have "fred bloggs" in their contact list then there's a good chance it's the same "fred bloggs". I'm not sure what this virtual person is worth to advertisers, though, just like I'm not sure what you're worth if you don't use it any more.

<comment><USER11> They absolutely do this and have been doing it for awhile. If you google "Facebook shadow profiles" you'll get plenty of info about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _To help companies gauge where their techniques fall along the persuasive-to- manipulative spectrum, Chris Nodder, a user-experience consultant in Seattle, has developed guidelines for ethical conduct. Systems that nudge people to act in the public interest are "charitable," he told me, while products like Fitbit, which may help people develop better habits, are "motivational. "If the company benefits more than the consumer, I would call it 'evil design,'" said Mr. Nodder, who wrote a book on the topic called "Evil by Design." If an approach benefits the company and the customer equally, he added, "you are probably in the realm of 'commercial design.'"_

I find it surprising that the researcher apparently makes the distinction whether a certain UI is "dark" or not depending on what it is used for.

As a customer, unless I signed up with the explicit goal of habit-change (e.g. for a fitness service) I would very much _not_ like to be manipulated no matter if the cause is "good" or not.

<comment><USER13> > I would very much not like to be manipulated no matter if the cause is > "good" or not.

The problem is the definition of "manipulated" is not black and white. Consider the relatively recent change in StubHub's fee model. Consumers will always tell you they hate having a service fee tacked on at the last minute when checking out. So, for a while, StubHub tried all-inclusive pricing on their search results, and consumers said they liked the change. However, it ended up tanking their conversion rates. When they A/B tested putting the fee on last, they immediately saw an increase in shoppers willing to buy.

Is this manipulation? The fee was still clearly stated on checkout, but I imagine the subconscious thought process of shoppers was "well, crap, I've already made it this far, I just want these tickets now."

I agree some of the outright "tricking" examples from the article are over the line, but most forms of marketing are manipulation in some respect. When does "persuasion" become "manipulation"?

<comment><USER12> I see that as a very clear example of manipulation, actually.

They presented a meaningless price when in situations where potential customers would compare them with competitors. Only when they can be sure that a customer would likely not check the price anymore (because they think they already know it or because of psychological reasons), they show the actual amount.

That's a very clear case of improving their own situation (better conversion rates) by worsening their customers' situation (higher likelihood of overspending, reduced ability to compare prices) and making them act against their own interests. This would be manipulation by the all of article's criteria.

Of course as a company you can decide do use that strategy - it's not your job to think for your your customers. But don't be surprised if consumer advocacy groups flag you and at some point you find people demanding a law against that practice.

More generally, I'd draw the line to "marketing" if you supply information to the customer that's either meaningless or misleads the customer, but could not possibly help them reach their own goals. (As in this case presenting an amount in the search results that has no practical relevance.)

I'd draw the line to "manipulation" even earlier, if you make a person act in a way that's against their own conscious interests in the moment. As I said, there can be rare cases in which that manipulation could even be wanted by the person, but I don't see that changing the fact that it's manipulation. It's different from "persuasion" where you make the person change their interests.

<comment><USER14> But if more people buy the product in the fee at the end situation, doesnt that mean that they really prefer a fee at the end? It is just as irrational to not buy the product as to buy it in either scenario, since the price is the same.

You're starting with the prior that buying stuff is bad and should be discouraged in general. This is quite arguable.

<comment><USER12> > _But if more people buy the product in the fee at the end situation, doesn > 't that mean that they really prefer a fee at the end?_

Nope. Otherwise people should absolutely _love_ my approach of forcing them to buy at gunpoint - perfect conversion rate!

Even if you assume that the data implies customers prefer the fee at the end, you'd also have to research _why_ they do so - and solve the mystery of why your statistic suggests they prefer the fee at the end, yet direct user feedback suggests the opposite.

> _It is just as irrational to not buy the product as to buy it in either > scenario, since the price is the same._

That kind of rationality requires perfect information. But it is likely that the price _appears_ lower in the fee-at-end-case, because that is the only effect that the change has - so perfect information is not given. As the price is in fact the same as you say, that would make fee-at-end the case with irrational behavior.

> _You 're starting with the prior that buying stuff is bad and should be > discouraged in general. This is quite arguable._

No, my premise is that buying stuff while you don't know the price is bad, which I think is a commonly accepted sentiment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The ultimate problem with such dark patterns is that they darken the prospects for all participants.

I'veb been long aware of such trends. Something as simple as a multi-step transaction process, across multiple screens. I literally _cannot see_ what the end-stage requests will be before committing. If I don't bug out immediately, I'll just throw random inputs at the page to see what the hell it does.

But it's another reason why I'll strongly prefer in-store, brick-and-morter purchases, or anything that _doesn 't_ have a service contract (the "agree to our new ToS to cancel your account" story below really puts the shine and hurt on this), etc.

Much as the whole microlawsuits thing sounds like an absolute PITA, something which reduces frictions for consumers to sue would be interesting. Respond to failed opt-out tools with a claim for damages and costs....

Sigh.

<comment><USER16> > Something as simple as a multi-step transaction process

Amazon UK has an horrid check-out process that omits any clickable bail-out links, should you want to back-up to change something you have to edit the URL bar.

They also only provide a total for all postage, on one page, with no break-out of what applies to which item ( from multiple vendors ).

I assume it's meant to be slick and non-distracting but it feels like a greased laundry chute through which you are sliding...

<comment><USER17> They rolled out a go back to browsing mode in the us a few months ago on checkout. I think they looked at the data about how often people want to add one more item especially with the hated "Add on item" and prime. Also how often carts were being abandoned anyway to add more items.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I consider myself pretty cynical by nature, and I still found this Ryanair example rather astonishing: [https://twitter.com/Jelliott08/status/430777503360491520?lan...](https://twitter.com/Jelliott08/status/430777503360491520?lang=en)

<comment><USER19> It's mentioned in the article:

> Whereas Ryanair once placed the insurance opt-out option in a drop-down menu > of passengers' home countries — between Denmark and Finland — it now simply > gives passengers the option of adding insurance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Amazon Prime.

If you use Amazon but don't want Amazon Prime, you get deceptive dialogs shoved in your face at least twice per purchase.

<comment><USER21> Did you know you can save $20 on this purchase by applying for an Amazon credit card?

If you try Amazon Prime for FREE, you also don't have to pay for shipping.

<comment><USER22> Don't worry, we'll default to Prime when you check out, as long as you don't hunt for the obscure opt-out link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The key last line from this EFF indictment of Facebook[1]: _" If a business model wouldn't work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail."_

To me the entire ad-supported "business model" is the darkest pattern of them all. __Please __read this comment before a knee-jerk rejection of my claim:[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773)

-

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies- con...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing- consumers-profit)

<comment><USER24> So far the negative effect on my life of the sum total of tracking and ad- profiling has been - to the best of my knowledge - neglible. (Largely because the ability of companies to use data to my detriment hasn't kept pace with the thirst for collecting it).

In return I've been given free access to a huge amount of free content and free functionality. Plus - very occasionally - the advertising is beneficial rather than merely irrelevant.

<comment><USER23> If you read my link then you'd realize that society is subsidizing all your free shit. There is no free lunch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> They don't care cost of doing business. Internet is an advertising and marketing platform with all the downsides of that. Part of the function of an advertising marketing platform is to gather as much information about users to sell them stuff. That's what pays for billion dollar valuations. This is not going away.

<comment><USER26> A lot of it could go away with better consumer protection laws and enforcement. I'm not sure why this country puts up with deceptive negative- option rebills. They should just show the sales funnel to 100 random citizens, and ask them how much they think they are going to be charged after going through it. If more than 50 people get the answer wrong, what you are doing is obviously deceptive (Yes this would include things like mortgages and credit card fees).

<comment><USER27> Because one person or company that is bound to lose millions of dollars, or their entire business model (deceptive advertising and marketing, for one) has more of an incentive to lobby against a regulation than a million unorganized people that might lose 25 or 30 dollars over signing up for a difficult to cancel "membership".

</comment></comment></comment><comment> semi-extrinsic " _``That's when things start to drift into manipulation," said Katie Swindler, director of user experience at FCB Chicago, an ad agency._ "

Really, her last name is Swindler? That's just funny.

</comment><comment><USER28> So I clicked on the link and, for the umpteenth time, was greeted by their pop-up saying "we can't go on like this" and asking me to whitelist them on my adblocker. I am a subscriber of their online edition. Oh, the irony.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is actually a widespread practice among German ISPs. I once fell for this myself. What they do is that when you order something they automatically add some service most customers almost certainly don't want or need (like a software package or homepage webspace) and that is free for the first months. You cannot remove that from your order, you have to later cancel it manually. As it's free at the beginning new customers checking their bill won't notice it as something odd (it's some free addon, why care?). Then after some time it starts costing a fee.

<comment><USER30> That sort of thing is now illegal in the UK and most likely in Germany too. The trouble is that there are no penalties beyond individual refunds and not enough people are aware of their rights for it to have a significant impact.

See: [http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2014/08/26/some-dark- pa...](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2014/08/26/some-dark-patterns-now- illegal-in-uk-interview-with-heather-burns/)

Note that this article is from two years ago and at least one of the sites called out is still doing the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Meetup.com forces you to log in to unsubscribe. Their emails go straight to junk.

<comment><USER32> I'd call Meetup a different case; as someone who actively uses the service, both as Organizer & Member... I need to know if someone knew signed up to my Meetup so I can send the a message and engage them. Or if a new group started up competing with me (or groups I'm a member of). My own RSVP notifications are obvious. Sorry, but the email Meetup sends is literally integral to the function of the service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> godaddy is notorious for this when you are purchasing or renewing a domain

</comment><comment><USER34> _Click_ \--> NYT Article --> _Back_ \--> Open in new incognito window

A dark pattern if I ever saw one.

<comment><USER35> My NYT savior! Thanks</comment></comment>


Scientists Create First Memory Expansion for Brain - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5813821/scientists-create-first-memory-expansion-for-brain

<comment><USER2> Also reported yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2677903></comment>


DOOM's Development: A Year of Madness - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBU34NZhW7I <comment><USER2> It is strange that after playing Doom/Quake/Heretic/Descent-games to the very end, there has not been anything much that would have kept me interested more than few minutes.</comment>


Show HN: Entrylevel.io – Job board for entry-level positions - <AUTHOR> Hey HN,
We're Kim and Donald from Entry Level (https://entrylevel.io). Entry Level, is a job board for students, recent grads, career changes, and individuals with less than 3 years of experience.
As current fullstack bootcamp students, both of us struggled to find jobs targeting beginners breaking into tech. Most jobs we would apply for require 3+ years of experience making it hard for us. We'd often go from website to website to find entry-level opportunities and I wanted to create a job board that has all the info I want from the multiple sites I visit frequently.
So we made Entry Level to help others struggling to find that first job like us. With Entry Level, you can search through all of our jobs from lots of different sources. If you'd like to apply for a job, it links you back to the source. How it works is simple, you just search and click on a job that interests you and apply.
We aggregate the data through the use of elastic search, but before that, we made multiple scripts that run on a cron job that gathers data from multiple sites. After gathering the data, the script then forwards it to our elastic search instance then we filter by a specific query that would filter all entry-level jobs. Then after the filtering process, we direct the data to our Postgres database and render it on our front end. Aside from that we also use other job boards APIs to increase the value of our content.
Goals for finishing MVP: - Categorizing job titles - A lot of jobs posted on Entry Level are from a wide variety of categories. We want to niche down and focus on tech jobs as of right now. - Pagination - Entry Level has hundreds of jobs within it's database and adding pagination will help users find more jobs within a tech category.
- Searchable tags - Site loading Async/Await - Email Mailing List - Post Jobs
We just launched our beta and would love to get your feedback!What would make your job process easier? Thanks!
Kim and Donald <comment><USER2> Good luck. When can companies log in and add and manage their listings? Is that on the roadmap?

<comment><USER3> Thank you!! Yes, that is on the roadmap. We are currently building out the "post a job" page. As of now, companies can email us at email@example.com or chat with us on our bot to post a job.</comment></comment>