Ask HN: Does Hacker News Employ Anti-Manipulation Measures? - <AUTHOR> This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjLsFnQejP8&feature=youtu.be) (reddit comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/5une6u/reddit_is_being_manipulated_by_professional/) clearly shows that Reddit can be and is being manipulated to get stories promoted, sometimes to the front page.
This got me thinking as to whether the votes on Hacker News are being manipulated.
As an example, thinking about the front page in the past months, there seem to be some articles about cloud platforms that don't seem particularly newsworthy to me. News of the sort:
Company A's $Billions/Year Cloud Platform: Now with a new blog!
Company B's $Billions/Year Cloud Platform: Now with niche-use-case feature X.
Company C's $Billions/Year Cloud Platform: A Yearly Review.
Are there anti-manipulation measures in place? Are these types of cloud stories more newsworthy than I thought? Do you worry that vote totals of certain stories on HN are being manipulated? <comment><USER2> YC has a team of people watching HN in addition to programatic solutions. Turn on "Show Dead" in your account and look at /new and you'll see plenty of people and companies trying to exploit HN.

A site was on the front page last week selling upvotes on HN:

[https://upvotes.club/](https://upvotes.club/) \+ [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676362)

I suspect-without-enough-proof that that is the third 'exploit HN repeatedly' business plan I've seen this year, I made a thread yesterday to surface ideas that might be working - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718417](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718417)

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried searching for the thread you referenced and couldn't find it, but found this one from today on the low 2nd page ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724990](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724990)).

It's good that people are becoming aware of the reddit manipulation; if Reddit is being manipulated and HN uses such a similar design, I have to imagine people are trying to manipulate HN.

<comment><USER2> HN has ~a decade of history of manipulation in the past and more traffic than ever so naturally it will be targeted more too. If you see anything you think is manipulated this is the person to contact -

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang)

He's got all the data to confirm suspicions and can be reached via firstname.lastname@example.com, doesn't matter how many times you're wrong either lol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are reportedly algorithms to detect voting rings and such.

If we consider the prototypical HN reader to be working at a startup building a cloud-hosted mobile-first location-based social app then these stories are indeed relevant.</comment>


Arctic fox dispersal from Svalbard to Canada: one's long run across sea ice - <AUTHOR> https://polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/3512 <comment><USER2> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20329699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20329699)

</comment><comment><USER3> Much better title. At least is not focused in the feelings of "scientists say, scientists did".</comment>


Why I regret going to TechCrunch Disrupt - <AUTHOR> http://openera.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/why-i-regret-going-to-techcrunch-disrupt/

<comment><USER3> Were you a battlefield company (presenting on stage) or just a "startup alley" company (presenting from a small table in the lobby)?

There's a huge difference. The battlefield companies DO get a lot of attention and, imho, it's a great way to launch (but I'm repeating myself - <USER2> <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2011/09/15.html>).

The startup alley companies have a lot of things going AGAINST them. Most importantly, they're not battlefield companies. That means that in most cases they were NOT chosen by the TechCrunch editors to present on stage. Now, I'm not saying that the TechCrunch editors are 100% great at picking interesting startups, but the bottom line is that it may be that you didn't get value out of Disrupt because your startup isn't the kind of startup that VCs and the press are interested in hearing about.

The one thing about these conferences that kind of sucks is that there will always be a bunch of startups that are desperate enough to get some attention that they'll go to the conference and pay for a table even if they can't present on stage, and these companies collectively form a kind of low-rent district with a faint whiff of despair, so that even if you have the greatest startup in the world, you'll almost be tainted by association with them.

There are some redeeming features:

* Buying a table is a cheap way to get into the conference... much cheaper than attending as normal full-priced attendee.

* If you have a great idea there's still some chance of getting noticed. At Disrupt ONE of the Startup Alley companies is chosen to be a finalist in the competition.

* Some of the VCs who are at the conference looking for investment ideas WILL at least stop by your booth for a minute to see what you have to offer, so if you are really convinced that you have a great startup IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT IT, this is your chance.

That said if you keep showing up at conferences and finding that nobody actually wants to hear about your startup, it may be time for a different idea.

Most people didn't let the Arringtongate crap distract them too much. Yes, it is incredibly obnoxious when the press decides that their petty dramas ARE the news, but for the most part the staff of TechCrunch up to and including Arrington did a good job of keeping the conference 95% focused on startups. They seemed to suck in a lot of attention with their soap opera bullshit, and then take all the negative part of that attention for themselves, leaving the startups with some positive attention. I certainly can say that none of the political stupidity in any way harmed us as a startup. (It may have helped... the fact that the winners of the show were all Arrington investments made it much easier to swallow the fact that we didn't win!)

FINALLY - it sounds like you went to the conference to "absorb insight, meet visionaries and explore the highs and lows of startup culture, funding and innovation." That's not a good reason to go to ANY conference, least of all Disrupt. As a startup, you can't afford the time or the money to hang around absorbing culture. Don't do ANYTHING without a GOAL. The goal of a conference like Disrupt (for startups) is to meet VCs and press. Nothing else. If that is not why you're there you are at the wrong place.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree with your analysis. That said, this comment and your blog post seem to have avoided (probably unintentionally!) the two questions that seem to me to be most salient.

1\. If you ranked the startups in attendance, do you think a 50th percentile startup would have gotten something useful out of Disrupt? A 90th percentile startup? (If so, in softer benefits like pulling together as a team or in something measurable?)

2\. Do you think your traffic numbers for Trello would have looked substantially different on launch day without Disrupt? In 6 months?

In the first case, I wonder if there really are unfunded, 90th percentile tech startups that represent some sort of Cinderella story that just need the spotlight to get funding and attention. In your case, I wonder if 6 minutes on stage compares to a decade of organic SEO and trust (via your blog), running the most popular programming Q&A site, and cross-promotion opportunities from FogBugz, Kiln, Copilot, and others.

<comment><USER5> Can you imagine Larry and Sergei taking PageRank to something like TC Disrupt? They would just get rolled eyes. 6 minutes on stage would have done nothing. So, not only do I think it's possible; I think it's the rule for strongly disruptive technologies.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. Larry and Sergei wouldn't have been on stage demonstrating PageRank. They would've been on stage demonstrating a brand new search engine that returns much more relevant results faster than anything out there. That would've been exciting and held people's attention. PageRank was simply the technology that helped power it. Therefore, I think the moral is, know your audience. If Larry and Sergei were to demo to others in Computer Science they may focus on PageRank and the technology around it. If presenting to news outlets and VC's you'd better find a way to show the power of your technology in a way that they can comprehend the value of that piece of tech.

<comment><USER7> For a case in point, consider CloudFlare. They made it to the final round in SF last year. Who is to say it is similar to PageRank, but when I heard what they did I instantly thought ... wow ... a company that does deep tech and has already implemented their infrastructure ... this is going to kick everyone's behind. I was shocked that the panel of judges didn't get it. What makes it worse is that cloudflare lost to Qwiki!

After I thought about this for a while, I concluded that perhaps that panel of judges wasn't equipped to evaluate a deep technology company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I didn't attend, but I did watch some webcasts. The moderator (Paul Carr?) was terribly unprepared and appeared unprofessional. He mis-pronounced company names, derided sponsors and, on a couple of occasions, introduced presenting startups with "I have no idea what their product is, but here is XYZ". As a viewer, it appeared disrespectful so I can only imagine how it would be if I was presenting or was a sponsor - not because I cannot condone unprofessionalism, but because there are other more effective ways I could use my time and money.

From far away, and I might be wrong, TC Disrupt feels like an old-boys-club gathering where startups are the entertainment.

<comment><USER9> > TC Disrupt feels like an old-boys-club gathering where startups are the > entertainment.

Very good description. It is a fun event, but we got __0 __leads out of it. - Our startup IS successful and we are close to break even, so the idea itself is ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is the goal of startups attending these sorts of conferences (e.g., Disrupt, Demo, Launch)?

It seems like the answers could be publicity, funding, sales, networking, or hype. _Publicity_ doesn't make much sense because articles only usually discuss a few of the (hundreds of?) startups. _Funding_ doesn't make sense because if you're unfunded, why spend money to go to an expensive conference? _Sales_ doesn't make much sense because it's not a specific conference for the specific industry of the startup. (Unless the startup sells services or software to other startups.) For similar reasons, it's not clear to me why it is useful to _network_ with other startups from arbitrary other areas. (Incubators and advisors seem like they would give much better advice than other startups, for example.) Is the goal just to get the startup's name in a list so that investors think things are going well ( _hype_ )?

Whenever one of these things happens, it feels like I'm missing out on something by not being part of it. But on the other hand, I really don't understand what the purpose is supposed to be. What are the supposed benefits, and are there actual benefits?

<comment><USER10> Some startups in my country attended conferences overseas and returned as local celebrity (i.e. covered in local "TechCrunch" and/or newspapers). Publicity _does_ make sense in this case. I can't think of other reasons though other than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I saw an ad somewhere saying entry fee was about 2 grand. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The only types of public conferences worth that type of money are high value supplier/vendor conferences, where you've already got a product line and can leave the weekend with actual and prospective customers. Informational conferences, where there is a high signal-noise ratio on the state of the art in your industry may also be worth attending, but usually for a couple hundred bucks at most, not 2 grand.

At that price point, probably the only people who should be at a PR launch type conferences like Disrupt or Launch.is are VC's press, and already successful founders looking for something to do on a Thursday. VC's and the press are there to do their job -- get leads and invest or write. And when they leave, that entry fee is going into a company expense report. The startups in the audience are just there to get inspired and rub shoulders, which isn't a good enough justification for the cost.

If you haven't made it yet, get back to the lab and go build.

<comment><USER12> I think that's kind of the point, the high price ensures it's mostly VC and Press there, that's what most of these startups are looking for.

<comment><USER13> Not only that, but basically think of the $2,000 as a marketing expense. There aren't many $2,000 marketing campaigns you can ever hope to run that will get you the kind of publicity Disrupt will get you (if you're successful there). It's the kind of money you will fork over when you're serious, your product is solid, you're confident in your team, and you're prepared to make a potentially big debut.

Companies that aren't ready will see the $2k as exhorbitant. Companies that _are_ ready will probably see it as cheap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> TC Disrupt is as much or more about TC than it is about tech and startups.

Techcrunch is spending an awful lot of editorial space, time and energy as well as reader attention on meta issues (ie TC itself).

It's not surprising that TC Disrupt follows the same pattern. TC itself is now more than ripe for disruption, and TC Disrupt with it.

Maybe you should apply for a refund?

</comment><comment><USER15> I like TC, but for the past few years it seems to have lost focus. Ever since Arrington made a giant stink about the CrunchPad in 2009 the site has really introverted, wasting time talking about themselves rather than focusing on new startups and what's on the horizon. It's more like a forum with overbearing moderators rather than a "blog about technology start-ups".

I still read TechCrunch a few times a week but you have to wade through a lot of garbage to get to the good stuff. Slashdot I visit several times a day.

<comment><USER16> I used to be an avid reader of TC but lately even all things digital sounds like a better read(when swisher is not picking fights with TC, of course)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have come to the conclusion that nearly every conference provides little to no value to you if you pay. Having done the SXSW floor and demoed at DEMO.. if you pay.. it's not worth it (if you're B2C... B2B works if you target startups)

</comment><comment><USER18> I think you make some good points that apply to conferences in general--at the very least, they can become a real distraction. They can be helpful for "getting your name out there" and it's possible to make some great contacts, but I suspect you can get similar results cheaper through other means.

My own experience, I've found conferences to be really draining when prospecting for sales leads--there's tons of people there but it's impossible to meet them all. From 8am to 11pm for several days, I'm running around in a suit, sweating and uncomfortable, trying to meet total strangers in order to sell them things they may or may not want. Good times :-)

</comment><comment><USER8> Out of curiosity, and only if you're willing to share, how much did it cost your startup to attend/exhibit at TC?

<comment><USER19> From what I heard around at the conference was $2K/day for a table. Not sure if that's what the author paid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >My advice to other entrepreneurs? Save your cash, Disrupt is dead. ... Don't get me wrong, Disrupt is a great platform

Huh?

</comment><comment><USER21> I was there! Traded a week in my house's spare room for an extra badge someone had and got there on the second day at 1PM. I was expecting a trainwreck and instead I got a mediocre conference. I did enjoy the after-after party on Wednesday. You should just go to Startup School instead.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have not been to this TC Disrupt, but watched most of it live. Our company was present in the Startup Alley and is competing with a startup which was there in Battlefield.

But I did notice that presenting in Battlefield gave startups a lot of press if their product was good. But visibility in Startup Alley was far less.

I am from India, far from all the on ground activity in the valley and in US in general. That said I firmly believe that TC Disrupt itself needs much more competition (beyond Demo, Launch...). The event, in some parts seemed to be a little under-prepared for. The startup ecosystem needs more such events, each competing to get a small number of curated startups a leg up.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's another take on it (we also exhibited in Startup Alley)... Yes, there was a lot of drama, but I think that's what focused MORE attention on this Disrupt then others. Normally the only press really covering Disrupt is TechCrunch itself (as the other tech publications see it as competition). This time, because of the drama, I suspect a LOT more people were checking TechCrunch.com and TechCrunch did feature quite a few Startup Alley companies during this time. Yes, someone is going to be a loser, and it sounds like your startup missed out on press and leads, but these are the risks we take as entrepreneurs.

</comment><comment><USER23> Here's where I lost respect for Michael Arrington:

<http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/back-i-am/>

<snip> When my time was up to leave, I asked Potts if I could stay another week. He said something about being fully booked, but I offered to pay more than his usual rate and said I'd plug Surfboard House on TechCrunch (consider that a disclosure). He had (and still has) no idea what TechCrunch is, but the dollars did the trick. Schedules were juggled, I stayed. </snip>

Apparently he thinks it's OK to use his blog to push other peoples' travel plans around. Not just OK, but something to brag about. What a douche move.

<comment><USER24> You've managed to stay vitriolic for a year just because this man might have bumped people from their stay in a Bed & Breakfast?

Seriously?

Secondly, as he said "the dollars did the trick". It's not bragging at all to say "this great guy had no idea of and still doesn't know of my blog".

<comment><USER23> Ok, so he's not explicitly bragging about his blog; he's merely bragging about being able to throw money around and dick up other peoples' travel plans. That makes it so much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Did I just read "Paul Carr" and "moderate" in the same sentence?</comment>


Ask HN: Scalable framework for web apps? - <AUTHOR>

I'm planning to build on my new idea and would like to know which web framework is scalable to build a web app on. My choices of languages are PHP, Python and Ruby. I wouldn't mind a long learning curve.<p>I have worked on CakePHP for a couple of projects and tried Django on my localhost. But would like to know if you guys find anything else that's interesting and better. How about RoR? <comment><USER6> I'll give my top recommendation for each language you named. I have used all 3 of these with great success. I have also used competitors for each of them.

* PHP - <USER2>

* Python - <USER3>

* Ruby - <USER4>

I used many PHP frameworks a while back and eventually settled on CodeIgniter (which is very good). After Kohana spun off from CI, it began to gain advantages and has continued to.

I've used Pylons and TurboGears before settling on Django. It's quite fast, and can be made faster when paired with psyco.

I used Rails for a long time before approaching Merb. I have followed its development since shortly after _the pastie_ that Ezra made of the initial code. Merb is making a lot of great choices and is and will be my framework of choice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know why but I just like using variety of languages. I enjoy the learning different stuff. After 3 years with PHP, I developed an app for a contest a while ago on Google App Engine using web.py. That was my first shot with developing a python web app. I'll give Django a try later. But since my web app deals with developing for plugins go blog engines, I guess I have to deal with some Python blog engines too.

Now since you mentioned Merb, I'm going with Merb. Just tried Ruby online on <http://tryruby.hobix.com> Seemed cool, so I'm sticking with Ruby this time.

Merb seems to have some problem with Windows XP. I get an error while installing it. But it's just the docs that generate the error. The main package installed. merb 1.0.3

P.S: Does trying out too many languages often make me a bad programmer? Should I stick to one stack of technology and learn new stuff as the trend changes or do I continue to do what I love to do?

<comment><USER7> IMHO, knowledge of multiple languages is usually a sign of a _good_ programmer. Keep at it.

<comment><USER8> make sure to learn the canonical style of the languages, not just the syntax and grammar. it is the difference in attitudes and approaches that yields insights that will carry with you from one situation to the next.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Scalability is the last thing you need to be worried about. Worry about the business model. If you get the business model right, and you have scalability problems (i.e. "Oh shucks there are too many people trying to pay me money!"), then you can just pay to get them resolved.

<comment><USER10> Lack of scalability will nag at you and may prevent from making some choices. My current product is paid, and I have contemplated making it free while trying to catch the revenue off the ads, but given that scaling the web site will take work _now_ whereas the ad payback may or may not come _later_ I chose not to do this.

<comment><USER11> _"... Lack of scalability will nag at you and may prevent from making some choices ..."_

To the point where you have trouble getting more users. MySpace is the classic study here. How do they scale all those windows servers? ~ [http://www.baselinemag.com/index2.php?option=content&tas...](http://www.baselinemag.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=3636&pop=1&hide_ads=1&page=0&hide_js=1)

<comment><USER9> This is only a problem if your business model is based around selling poorly performing lower-than-remnant-inventory CPM advertising to users who are largely a) poor and b) disdainful of spending money except on iPods, which famously do not need CPM advertising to reach your users.

Not to toot my own horn here, but my (very, very boring) website makes about ~$80 for 1,000 pageviews. It is built on Rails. Supposing I totally screwed the pooch and it was structurally incapable of doing more than 100k page views a day without a top-to-bottom rewrite.

Suppose I got to that $8,000 revenues a day and figured "You know what? This is too darn constraining. I WANT MORE, BWAHAHAHA". I'd be able to hire whomever I pleased to do the rewrite (pay $5k a day for my own ops team, who cares, I can afford it). And it would be vastly easier scaling my site than Myspace/Twitter can scale theirs, because I would not have to set world engineering records to do so.

The first response any engineer is going to make is "Erm, you should probably think of putting multiple web servers in front of a beefy database rather than running both web server and database out of a machine with 256 MB of RAM." This is a pretty easy engineering problem compared with "OK, innovate technologically to be able to handle data on a scale that 5 years ago would have required a major multi-national corporation or minor nation state to generate."

Then I'd be back to the boring-as-dust business of, you know, providing features to convince my customers to continue paying me money.

<comment><USER12> I modded you up because I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I think you're being a bit unfair.

Assuming your $80 CPM site is the one in your profile (if it is, what does it use Rails for? edit: nevermind, just read your blog post about your cron bug :p), then it's not very surprising, since it offers a product for download. What would happen if your product made more sense as an online service? If you charged the same price and got the same number of sales, how much would it make per 1,000 pageviews? It would still be a lot more than advertising revenue, but nowhere near $80 CPM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> +1 for Pylons. We're currently serving around 20 million dynamic requests a day via pylons from a handful of servers; pylons probably won't be your bottleneck.

What I like about it: python, promotes good code organization, relatively small code base (you can just read the source code if you're not sure how something works), and for the most part it stays out of your way.

</comment><comment><USER14> If you're looking for flexibility, give Pylons a shot. It's often paired with SQLAlchemy, which is an amazing ORM that can be configured to do a lot of things which will make scaling easier in the long run. (Whereas Django doesn't have multiple database support, for instance; SQLAlchemy can even handle sharded data transparently.)

</comment><comment><USER15> Scalability isn't a magic pixie dust you find in some boxes of cereals and not others.

Scalability is extremely application specific. As your application grows, what will be the bottleneck? Maybe it's page-serving performance. Maybe it's the database. Maybe it's disk storage. Maybe it's synchronization of data. Maybe it's raw bandwidth. With no specific knowledge of your constraints, any specific advice is worthless and potentially harmful.

The question you need to ask yourself is not "which framework should I use?" but "how should I architect my application to ensure that the most likely bottlenecks can be resolved simply when I get there?"

If your likely bottleneck is bandwidth, for example, building your application with eventual use of a CDN in mind is probably very smart. If your likely bottleneck is disk storage, make sure you choose a host/infrastructure that allows you to scale that up practically indefinitely. If your likely bottleneck is page rendering performance, make sure you write very clean, unoptimised code, so that when the bottlenecks show up it's a simple matter to boost them without impacting the rest of the application.

<comment><USER16> "Scalability isn't a magic pixie dust you find in some boxes of cereals and not others. Scalability is extremely application specific."

Absolutely correct. I have an app that is not scalable in most of the traditional ways because one live memory based database needs to be fast, have very large capacity, and be instantly accessible to all users concurrently. This appears to require a custom coded C program whereas the front-end web servers are a minuscule issue in comparison.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you really want to play... you could use erlang

Nitrogen - <http://github.com/rklophaus/nitrogen/wikis> <\- quite new

Erlang web - <http://www.erlang-web.org/> <\- serious enterprisey guys.

Erlyweb - <http://erlyweb.org/> <\- ROR for Erlang

And one more for the scalability fetish - [http://www.metabrew.com/article/a-million-user-comet- applica...](http://www.metabrew.com/article/a-million-user-comet-application- with-mochiweb-part-1/)

</comment><comment><USER18> You are focussing too much on the language and scalability rather than focusing on just building something.

Every major language/framework out there has been used and scaled for large websites. Pick one that you would like to learn, provides you with the flexibility you are looking for, and run with it.

Worrying about how you will scale an app that you have not built yet will be a major drawback. Also keep in mind performance and scalability as you're building the site, but do not spend much time worrying about it before hand. Just take an idea and run with it, tweak the app to scale as you go.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hi,

I just blogged about the issue of choosing the right software stack to build your web app a few days ago. You can read it here : [http://thibauld.com/2008/11/web-application- implementation-s...](http://thibauld.com/2008/11/web-application- implementation-step-1-choose-your-weapons/)

And I'm currently writing the next post about code architecture... I'll probably post it today. Cheers,

Thibauld

</comment><comment><USER20> As much as I like to push the envelope, I'm going to go out on a leg here and suggest Ruby on Rails. I love it, a lot of people love it, that makes it easy to learn and deploy.

Also with Passenger, it scales out just as easily as any framework or language out there. And if you need to jump to multiple servers, you ought to be making enough money to support Engine Yard which solves your scaling problems for you.

</comment><comment><USER21> You might want to revise your choice of languages. Common Lisp is as expressive as Python or Ruby, but many times faster. Haskell and OCaml are even better.

Clojure is another option; theoretically you have all of Java's web frameworks, and Java is also faster than Python or Ruby. I can't recommend it, since I haven't used it yet, though. (I don't want to be a Clojure fanboi ;)

</comment><comment><USER22> If you want a framework with scalability "baked in", so to speak, you should take a look at GigaSpaces XAP (<http://www.gigaspaces.com/>). Its not the same model as the others mentioned on this thread but will prevent that "big rewrite" in the event that you do indeed become successful enough to need it.

</comment><comment><USER23> Scalability has nothing to do with your choice of framework or language. In terms of scalability, Cake, Django, and RoR are more or less equivalent (the first two are RoR clones after all).

<comment><USER24> I disagree that scalability has nothing to do with choice of framework. It happens that none of these frameworks address common scaling issues to a great extent, but that doesn't mean a framework could not do so.

Regarding the "RoR clones" claim, citation, please. Django was publicly released very shortly after RoR, having been developed privately for a couple years. I don't know about CakePHP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> PHP - <USER5>

</comment><comment><USER26> If you absolutely need scalability and don't mind a Google lock-in, check out Google App Engine. It can run Django, app-engine-patch makes this extremely easy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! I've tried it. But they don't yet have a payment system. Their product roadmap says that the pay-as-you-go system will kick-in sometime in March 09.

EDIT: AppEngine product roadmap: <http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/roadmap.html>

Due to this I'll have to stick with some host like Slicehost or Linode for now and then maybe switch later when the requirements increase.

<comment><USER26> Google reps hinted on the appengine user group that they are very likely to introduce some kind of payment system this year.

In the mean time, you can ask them for a quota increase if your app reaches the limit.</comment></comment></comment>


How and why Bitcoin will plummet in price - <AUTHOR> http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/how-and-why-bitcoin-will-plummet-in-price.html

<comment><USER2> Wow, this is probably the most ignorant thing I've read in a while:

" _Let's say it costs the QuitCoin company $50 in per unit marketing costs for each arbitrage of this nature. (Alternatively you can think of that sum as representing the natural monopoly reserve currency advantage of BitCoin.) In that case both the company and the buyers of QuitCoin are better off at the initial transfer price of $400 and people will prefer that new medium. Over time the price of BitCoin will have to fall to about $450 in response to competition._ "

First, BitCoin (and pretty much any other crypto currency) is not a company. It doesn't have to market anything and there is no bank-like entity necessary to drive it. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand, but it seems to be an issue.

However, the biggest WTF here is the idea that the "cheaper" currency will win out. That's the reason behind someone arguing you should, say, only buy Rubles and never Dollars: because they're so much cheaper!

Now don't get me wrong, BTC may well (and did) go down and up again dramatically during its time, but the argument here is ridiculous to the point of being indistinguishable from satire.

<comment><USER3> I initially thought his arguments were more sophisticated and he was describing a scenario where an alternative currency would win because it had better incentives for the holders due to competing deflationary pressures, but it seems that he really just fails to realize that Bitcoin is divisible.

Very surprising to see this coming for Cowen, something about Bitcoin triggers a shutdown in the brain of economists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He's predicted the crash before and got it wrong.... How many times does he have to predict it before you realize he doesn't get it ?

<comment><USER5> I guess he's following the logic of "throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > There is thus a new theorem: the value of WitCoin should, in equilibrium, be > equal to the marketing costs of its potential competitors.

Apply that to anything else and it easily breaks down. E.g. the value of iPhones should be equal to the marketing costs of its potential competitors? Luxury cars? Brand name clothing?

<comment><USER7> Those goods are all highly unique with no easy substitutes. One currency can buy something as easily as another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems to become another Hacker News cliché

>Why bitcoin will [..] in price.

I'm full.</comment>


Why don't I execute my ideas? - <AUTHOR> I consider myself reasonably creative, I test high in openness, in high-school I started my own web development company, followed by an IT reselling business, I'm now 23 and I'm at a loss, I no longer start things or execute on my ideas, I have some things that I could start doing right now that will provide some fulfillment and possibly reward me financially, instead I procrastinate, and put them off, and off, and off. I have ideas, I start a folder and write the general idea out in a textile but then it just sits there.
I spend most of my time researching things I'm interested about, reading blogs or online articles on various topics, and I never do the work that could actually improve my life, let me give you some examples:
1. After getting diagnosed I found out I had an interest in maths, I want to re-learn as much as I can from scratch and go from there, instead of going home and setting out some time to learn it, I go home and procrastinate.
I have my suspicinons on why this occurs, one being that I think I am scared, scared of failure, I was diagnosed with ADHD recently and after long weeks of research and talks with my psych I've realized just how much of a negative impact it had on my life, it gave me some opportunities because I think outside the box and had personal interests that were valuable in the Job Market, but it also took those opportunities away from me in a very cruel way. I'm now on meds and I'm getting better, but I think those early childhood setbacks that could've been avoided affected me quite a lot, I want to explore this more with my psych.
But this occurs to people without ADHD to, the low unconsciousness idealist is a common trope, so I'm wondering, if you had to guess or make an informed decision, what would the main causes of this be? I'm leaning towards fear, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I realize this is a talk to have with a psychologist btw. <comment><USER2> hello, just wanted to comment this feels really relatable. i come out of a period of a lot of stress which in the end put me in a state like which you describe. full of ideas but no mojo to execute any of them, just scrolling through feeds, reading stuff, learning ,but not applying.

For me, trying to focus to get peace in my life and stress myself out less is helping after a long time, a psychologist can definitely help here, and looking back on this period of my life i wish sooner i would have spoken to one..

For me the fear of failure in the end, which i did suspect ,was not the cause but a symptom of another issue i had which was causing a lot of stress. this stress n turn caused fears and other things to creep into my mind.

All the best to u man, hope you find yourself again. Know it's perfectly normal for any human to go through such periods in their life. it's normal :) don't worry, and if you feel it will help don't hesitate to seek professional opinions / advice / help, generally it will help a lot in getting things straightened up in your life faster than on your own energy.</comment>


Amazon to deliver in 30 mins - BBC trials for delivering goods by drones - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36887325 <comment><USER2> Given that Amazon seldom seem able to even _dispatch_ my orders within two days, I think they'll have to implement some serious upstream process improvements before "30 minutes" becomes anyway imaginable.

In my recent experience the actual physical delivery process is only about one-third of the overall waiting time. But I suppose warehouse processes are less PR-friendly than sexy drone stories.

In contrast vendors selling through ebay consistently have the item inserted into the delivery system on the same day.

<comment><USER3> In London, Amazon is consistently able to deliver many items within one hour via courier. It's called Prime Now.

Two-hour delivery is free if you have Prime. One hour is about £5.

On the normal Amazon.co.uk Prime, they dispatch same-day and always deliver next day, usually by ~1pm.

<comment><USER2> Interesting, thanks for the info. Living in 'the regions' in the UK I wasn't aware of those London services.

It does illustrate why in my experience non-Prime customers are drifting away from Amazon, though. They're sharpening their localised and top-tier delivery experience whilst seemingly letting 'ordinary' orders languish. Whereas I can go to another retailer, or straight to the manufacturer, and have my order on my carpet before Amazon even put it in a delivery lorry.

<comment><USER4> Depends entirely on what the item is and who the seller is. If it's on the Marketplace, Amazon has almost no involvement is dispatch and delivery. If it's Amazon Fulfilled, they pick up and handle delivery once the seller is ready for dispatch. I think the Prime and Prime Now items are stocked in Amazon's warehouses and allow for full control.

<comment><USER5> Items which are 'Fulfilled By Amazon' are actually stored in Amazon's warehouses. The seller just ships a bulk order of the item to the warehouse any time stock gets low. Very useful for small or white label manufacturers who get their stock made in China, and don't have any facilities to store it in the US/EU.

[https://services.amazon.co.uk/services/fulfilment-by- amazon/...](https://services.amazon.co.uk/services/fulfilment-by- amazon/features-benefits.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a nightmare: thousands of little drones flying around our heads, causing privacy issues, unwanted noise and danger, for what? To deliver non-critical stuff in a short time? Who needs the newest Kindle or those cool tennis socks in 30 min?

Let's keep our priorities straight, if needed through drone taxes.

<comment><USER7> If there's a 1kg box at a shop within 5-10 miles of me, why should the delivery of that require a real human to take a one ton box of metal all the way here through the middle of a busy town?

> unwanted noise and danger

I'd be interested in knowing the noise, danger and pollution that comes from regular (or rush) deliveries.

<comment><USER8> But that truck can deliver hundreds of those boxes at a time. So it's one truck versus _a huge swarm_ of drones. (Some of which may drop that 1kg box on someone's head.)

Difficult to imagine a case for this delivery method other than pure instant gratification.

<comment><USER9> As you say, trucks are dangerous, they are burning fossil fuels, they are contributing to traffic. Those are all valid reasons to move to drones beyond instant gratification.

Trucks can't deliver hundreds of boxes at a time, they can deliver hundreds of boxes during a day of driving. The quora post linked below suggests between 200-500 a day. Depending on length of flight, you might be able to replace a truck that delivers 200 packages with 5 drones delivering 4 packages an hour, while limiting flights to 10 hours a day. A huge swarm isn't necessarily needed.

[https://www.quora.com/How-many-packages-does-a-UPS- delivery-...](https://www.quora.com/How-many-packages-does-a-UPS-delivery- driver-deliver-per-day-on-average)

<comment><USER8> Well, trucks don't have to burn fossil fuels either. There's no reason we can't switch to electric trucks, which will be quiet and won't pollute (at least in their location).

As for danger and traffic, I'd be surprised if low-altitude air traffic, air collisions and falling objects didn't become an issue in a world where delivery drones were commonplace.

It stands to reason that rolling boxes in bulk around on wheels should be a lot more energy efficient and reliable than flying individual boxes around in the air. I'm sure drones have a place, but they can't replace bulk delivery.

<comment><USER7> > It stands to reason that rolling boxes in bulk around on wheels should be a > lot more energy efficient and reliable than flying individual boxes around > in the air.

Not necessarily. It would stand to reason if you were comparing identical routes, but we're not. Rolling around the boxes in bulk requires travelling in quite restricted ways, through often congested areas, and because it's in bulk needs to travel to every location on the route. So the final box has been carried _far_ further than the distance it needed to.

How much more efficient could you make your route in a normal truck if you were able to remove, say, 5 boxes from your load. That's 5 locations you can take away from your overall plan. How many truck miles can you remove from your journey? How many drone miles must you add?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The best thing is if you keep a butterfly net handy, you get a free drone with every delivery.

</comment><comment><USER10> To be honest the mobile version looks better, but if anyone wants the desktop version, it's here:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36887325](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36887325)

</comment><comment><USER11> According to the FAA's latest regulations published in June, every commercial drone needs its own remote operator, the operator needs to maintain a visual line of sight with the drone at all times, and the drone cannot fly over people who are not involved in its operation. These rules seem to make Amazon's drone delivery project a non-starter in the U.S. for now. Perhaps the UK has more lenient regulations.

The complete summary of rules is here:

[http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf](http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> I can imagine pirate drones attacking these and knoking the contents to the ground.

</comment><comment><USER13> Aside from the delivery in 30 minutes, for me the coolest part is delivery to the back of your garden. You can get secure deliveries, even while not at home. That's great.

<comment><USER6> Secure? If a drone comes to drop it, a drone comes to pick it up.

<comment><USER14> It's easier to make a drone that can drop off packages (which are loaded by some special process at the warehouse) than it is to make a drone that can pick up arbitrary-sized packages from a garden.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but the incentive is there once you start dropping valuable goods. And drone technology is improving.

I guess you'll have a 2-3 year secure-delivery-to-your-garden window.

Build a drone that tracks other drones going out of the Amazon warehouse, wait until parcel is dropped, and pick it up.

You could of course build a drone-police which shuts down all dark-drones. I hope the costs of such an infrastructure will be paid by taxes on drone delivery (or by increased price in drone delivery), and that society at large is not left covering the cost of such nonsense.

<comment><USER15> In U.S. vast majority of items delivered to me were left at the front door in plain sight. They were never stolen.

I imagine the packages dropped off at the backyard will be even more secure than that.

<comment><USER6> Whether it is worth stealing depends on several factors:

\- is it worth it?

\- will I get caught?

\- am I a robber?

Stealing from the front of your house does not happen because most people are not robbers, and it is easy to get caught. Besides, you don't know what's inside, so you don't know if it's worth it.

A criminal operation with a dark-drone infrastructure is a different issue altogether:

\- difficult to get caught, at least until we create structures to fight such operations

\- it is organized by thieves - by definition

\- it does not matter what you are stealing: once you have the dark-drones working, operating them is very cheap, so you can steal as much as you can, making the operations profitable.

<comment><USER16> It won't be cheap when your thief drones start to be shot down and it won't be safe when the police start to follow your drones back to your hiding place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A "pilot"? What?

I am 99.999999% certain Amazon intends for them to be completely autonomous.

<comment><USER18> > How can you build a system where one pilot is responsible for many drones?

They might be imagining the pilot being some form of "air controller" person.

<comment><USER19> I imagine it will be semi-automatic. Drone will go to it's destination and on arival human pilot will take control over drone to deliver package. To make it fully autonomus Amazon would have to install standarized landing spaces in all customers houses. Not all people have garden/safe spot where packege can be just drop off. Also those spots tends to look and be in different places. For some people it will be back garden for other some kind of terrace with roof and no walls thats why final stage of delivery will have to be operated by human.

<comment><USER18> They mention in the article that a costumer would put a "landing mat" on their property. I imagine to get one of these, they'd have to agree to something that makes them liable in case they put it somewhere where the drone breaks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Redis cluster, no longer vaporware - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/news/79 <comment><USER2> Can't wait to see it get the Jepsen treatment.

<comment><USER3> It won't do well, but at least Antirez is up front about the shortcomings.

The article itself states that Redis Cluster will lose acknowledged writes during partitions (no P), will be eventually consistent (no C), and won't be available during partitions (no A).

<comment><USER4> Seems like given the above problems you would only want to use this with non- critical data of which you didn't care a great deal about its integrity. This doesn't describe a lot of use cases.

It's not too hard to get memcached running for cluster of machines, nor is it really all that difficult to get started with cassandra for basic applications, although I haven't done it. I've heard ReThinkDB wants to be a serious contender and that they've tried to solve these problems, but I haven't read about how great it is nor have I heard anyone use it in production so I don't know where it stands.

<comment><USER5> _This doesn 't describe a lot of use cases._

Do you have any idea how many people run master/slave mysql? That's async and will _definitely_ give you data drift over time. There's an entire suite of Percona tools to detect and repair broken mysql datasets because mysql breaks data so often due to replication problems.

The world is much more async and much less consistent than anybody realizes (cash machines are even async), but everything still works pretty much okay. The last line of defense for solving irreconcilable consistency problems is customer service.

<comment><USER3> async != an incorrect system. Cash machines _are_ a good example of an asynchronous, eventually consistent system that works. As is any well built eventually consistent data store.

Redis/Mysql has it's problems, as does all databases. However, as a practitioner it's important I know the shortcomings of each, so that I can know exactly what a certain database is offering in terms of safety and whether it's a good fit for my use-case. Antirez being open about them is a huge +1 in my book.

Data drift or loss of acknowledged writes isn't correct for a wide range of use-cases. If you know the limits, you can choose the incorrect system, and deal with the fallout when that "rare" event does happen.

<comment><USER5> _async != an incorrect system._

Very correct! Most of the mysql problems derive from it being statement replication and not log shipping. A proper postgres replication setup will be less prone to having data inconstancies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> @antirez, what would you say is the most useful lesson you've learned throughout this process?

<comment><USER7> Argument with people just with technical arguments, don't get into Twitter fights, and at the end of the day, use the feedbacks as a learning process, but do what you believe makes sense. So a social lesson, more than technological.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for this lesson! As much as I love using Redis, this learning will help me way more than Redis has done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone know how AWS clusters Redis?

I had alwas just assumed Redis released this a while ago and that is why AWS started to support Redis along with Memcache in their clustered ElastiCache product

[http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats- new/2013/09/04/amazon-...](http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats- new/2013/09/04/amazon-elasticache-for-redis/)

<comment><USER10> I have very little evidence to support this, but they probably use twemproxy. twemproxy is a proxy for redis that automatically manages routing commands to multiple redis servers efficiently.

They definitely don't use redis cluster, because redis cluster requires explicit client-side support. That support is only available in a limited number of clients today.

<comment><USER5> Nope, they don't (and neither should anybody else... twemproxy is weird).

<comment><USER10> Oh, weird in what way? I was considering using it for horizontal redis scaling recently, under the impression that redis cluster was further away from release than it seems to be.

<comment><USER5> The code is just strange. To support Redis, it has a 2,500 line Redis adapter. It has special cases for each Redis command because it doesn't extract key position information from Redis directly.

Plus, despite the name and where it's hosted, Twitter never used it in production for Redis. Redis support was just added "because we can."

It probably works for very direct use cases, but it's one of those things that could probably bite you very severely under edge cases, and you'd be left on your own to figure out what happened.

<comment><USER11> pinterest, snapshot, vine, wanelo use the twemproxy in prod for redis

<comment><USER5> Well, companies also use ejabberd, but that doesn't make ejabberd a valid piece of software either.

Then there's the massive problem of "everyone" using MongoDB and we know how much pain _that_ sucker causes. Playing popularity contests with software isn't useful. People install software either because of social reasons ("I don't know how anything works, but I hear everybody is using X, so I'm going to use X too!") or because they need the functionality ("redis is AMAZING at 30 different things!").

If install base at well known companies were a valid measure, we'd all be using Windows laptops while talking into our Kin and squirting our Zunes all over each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > From the point of view of distributed databases, Redis Cluster provides a > limited amount of availability during partitions, and a weak form of > consistency. Basically it is neither a CP nor an AP system. In other words, > Redis Cluster does not achieve the theoretical limits of what is possible > with distributed systems, in order to gain certain real world properties.

@antirez Could you elaborate on what these properties are and your thinking behind why they're more important than AP?

</comment><comment><USER13> Congratulations @antirez and the Redis community - this is a key step forward for this amazingly useful database!

</comment><comment> thorway-redis Your communication with your users is wonderful. I'm grateful for it, and appreciate how much effort goes into it.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER14> Single-master Redis and replication overhead of current Redis architecture not ideal for getting Redis beyond the "it's a great cache" use case, so I'm been looking forward to this.

</comment><comment><USER15> I created a Fig environment in case anyone is interested in giving it a spin.

[https://github.com/merlin83/rediscluster- docker](https://github.com/merlin83/rediscluster-docker)

</comment><comment><USER16> Wonder is Antirez is considering starting a commercial Redis alternative providing commercial support a la Nginx.

<comment><USER7> The world if full of possibilities... for now to be honest I focused _a lot_ in the technical / community side, and the sponsorship model helped a lot with that. However for 10 years before starting this project I was self-employed and started two companies. So yes, doing companies is generally tempting for me, just in the case of Redis so far it was more an evolution of an hacking session, lasting 6 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am going to be honest, I am somewhat disappointed.

I was hoping for a CP system with sharding + replication.

Without which we can't have things like multi-key atomic operations etc...

Will wait and see though, maybe things are better than they seem.

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure that if you are a Redis user, whatever you hate or like the current Redis Cluster design, what you _never_ wanted, is a CP system. CP systems need agreement at every query so the latency and OPS/sec figures are not suitable for Redis-alike use cases. Actually with an existing CP system you can easily build the same Redis data structures since CP systems are linearizable so you can have a CP shell that internally runs a Redis kernel. Imagine the CP system is Raft, you just consider Redis your internal state machine, and every operation that is committed is applied to Redis just sending it the command.

<comment><USER17> That is actually exactly what I wanted. :)

I have done something similar with Zookeeper recently (through I wrote it in Ruby so it's terribly slow).

You would be surprised how little CP stores are actually available. There is an abundancy of AP stores but very very few useful CP stores, especially ones with shared-nothing architecture.

You don't need for every query to traverse the consensus algorithm. It's sufficient to use the consensus algorithm to agree on the master shards for each chunk of data and have sync replication.

Considering Redis is designed for 100% in-memory workloads if you are operating on a low latency network this is more than fine. Especially because this behavior would only be required for writes, reads could be served from either the master or a sync replica (and in theory if you had configurable read consistency a possibly out of date async replica).

I guess what I am sad about is just the lack of CP stores that are useful right now, I probably just need to suck it up and start writing my own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >stopped and stopped</comment>


Media Freedom? Show Me the MSM Journalist Opposing the Torture of Assange - <AUTHOR> https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/media-freedom-show-me-the-msm-journalist-opposing-the-torture-of-assange/ <comment><USER2> The fact is that our democracies are not equipped to repel torturers and tyrants. The mainstream media, oriented as it is around broadcasting without nuance, has no way to reflectively consider itself.

And the consequences are stark. We put people on trial for any attempt to reform the system. Murray's blog covers the attempted railroading of Alex Salmond, and Murry himself was investigated and legally attacked by the state simply for not taking the state's side.</comment>


UPS Has Been Delivering Cargo in Self-Driving Trucks for Months - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/ups-has-been-delivering-cargo-in-self-driving-trucks-fo-1837272680 <comment><USER2> > _At this point, the TuSimple trucks carrying packages for UPS still have an > engineer and a safety driver riding along. When UPS reaches Level 4, it > won't need anyone behind the wheel._

Yeah, when that happens, that'll be news...

</comment><comment><USER3> No where does the article say they are delivering packages, but it appears rather they are shipping trailers between distribution centers on interstate highways.

<comment><USER4> With a "safety driver" at the wheel, like everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My Subaru (not Tesla) can manage itself on the highway pretty well with me, a safety driver, behind the wheel checking in on it periodically.

</comment><comment><USER6> "At this point, the TuSimple trucks carrying packages for UPS still have an engineer and a safety driver riding along"

Seems like they're as far along in the process as all the other companies

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Of course no one noticed - the trucks still have a driver in them.</comment></comment>


Hidden messages in NES games' code - <AUTHOR> http://magweasel.com/2009/08/29/hidden-messagin/

<comment><USER2> If you have a copy of the original Prince of Persia (the DOS game), open up prince.exe in a hex editor :)

<comment><USER3> Whats in there??

<comment><USER2> Quotes from early reviews of the game. Here's a few:

"A tremendous achievement. . . Mechner has crafted the smoothest animation ever seen in a game of this type."

"PRINCE OF PERSIA is the STAR WARS of its field."

They aren't accessible inside the game, you have to be reading through the executable to find them. I discovered this by chance back in the early 90s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My favourite was in Trolls, which I have seen it myself somewhere 1992-1993, later it was put in mobygames:

<http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/trolls>

"This game was written on a very slow schneider 10mhz 286 with lots of wait states. If for some reason on your very fast xxxx 25mh 486 this game seems to be fast or unplayable, do no blame us for it was a penny pinching boss who would not buy us reasonable pc's to work on. signed THE PROGRAMMERS OF FLAIR SOFTWARE"

<comment><USER5> lol reminds me of the original Mech Warrior. A faster processor made it look like the game was in fast forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reminds me of a neat trick I saw in an old 4k demo: adding text (e.g. the creator's name) at the very beginning of the binary. They'd figured out what the text meant in machine language, then added a few opcodes after to undo the effects of executing the text directly.

<comment><USER7> Did they tack a ^Z after the text so that when you TYPE the executable, you get just the "hi mom from bitphr33k / n3cr0ph1li4" or whatever?

<comment><USER6> IIRC, they did not, but that would have been a great idea.</comment></comment></comment>


How money corrupts Congress. Lessig speaks at Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ik1AK56FtVc

<comment><USER2> If you can't watch videos, or if you like being able to skim, Lessig makes his case in text: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3353324>

<comment><AUTHOR> thx for the link

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A really good lecture. My recommendation.

\+ favorite</comment>


Angie, a module-based Node.js webapp framework in ES6, enters its 0.4.0 release - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/benderTheCrime/angie

<comment><AUTHOR> Angie is also looking for collaborators, contact the owner on the Github link above</comment>


Ask HN: Which organization stores all flight ticket prices? - <AUTHOR>

I am in need of finding affordable flight ticket API, seems like most of the sources do not provide this data as a public API, orbitz, kayak and etc,.<p>Is there any authoritative organization which stores all of the ticket prices, maybe airlines are submitting their ticket prices there (like flights) or do above companies crawl all of the airline web-sites in order to create prices? <comment><USER2> I worked at GetThere/Sabre for a few years. There is no public, free API for this information. There is no "all in one" Computer Reservation System out there. You have to go through any number of CRSs depending on which airlines you want to search.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_reservations_system#M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_reservations_system#Major_systems)

For example, orbitz seems to still use the Galileo CRS. That CRS gets its data from a number of airlines, but not all. I'm also certain that no access to these CRSs would considered "affordable".

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like no "affordable" API at all? Should I just put widget or link to big players? If so can I get any payment per sold ticket, if user bought ticket after our link?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You're probably looking for ITA Software (by Google): [https://www.itasoftware.com/solutions/](https://www.itasoftware.com/solutions/)

However, it's not cheap. I think you have to ask for a price quote for the full QPX product, though Google offers a public "QPX Express" API, which costs 3.5¢ per query after the first 50 queries per day, just to give you an idea.

<comment><USER4> Is there a difference between QPX Express and Google Flights results?

I can't see that there is (i.e. no Southwest results etc.).</comment></comment>


In-N-Out Burger's six secrets for out-and-out success - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/24/in-n-out-burgers-six-secrets-for-out-and-out-success/print/

<comment><USER2> Before saying my piece let me point out that I'm someone who grew up around In-N-Out and who couldn't live without it. I know the secret menu and know how to find the Bible verses on the packaging. I've even ordered a Flying Dutchmann on occasion so I'm a huge fan.

But I don't think their success is of the type that most people here would be looking for. They are essentially a very large small business. They've expanded very slowly and to this day are only in 4 states (after 61 years in business)

Basically if you want to know how to build a successful niche look at In-N- Out. But anyone who wants a big success is better off looking at Mcdonalds (sad as that fact is)

<comment><USER3> Why is a big success "better" than a niche success? Why do more people here want it? (Not asking you in particular, just the room in general.)

<comment><USER4> I think a lot of us have seen successes like Bill Gates, pg, Larry & Sergey, Zuckerberg etc. We know we're smart and capable and that big success is a genuine possibility.

But we can also benefit from understanding the difference between Profit, Growth, and Profile - In-and-Out has taken profitability at the expense of Growth and Profile (I've never heard of them); McDonalds has Profile and Growth, but not so much profit.

The three aren't mutually exclusive, and we can have it all. I don't want it all myself; I look at examples like patio11 and go - 'That's pretty cool'. Niche success over Zuckerberg success works for me.

<comment><USER5> Why does one have to be above the other at all? Zuckerberg made something really cool. I'm of the stance that we should excuse the guy for his failings since he still ended up with a neat product. It's hardly his fault that Facebook became so popular.

Also: I don't think PG is quite on the same level of Gates, Zuck, and the Google guys. All three made a product that became an enormous success on their own. PG made an online store that another company bought. I'm not trying to insult him; in fact, that's a better person to run a company like YCombinator in the first place. PG is proof that you can succeed several times in your life without becoming a superstar.

<comment><USER4> I don't think one _has_ to be above the others, but it's useful to think of them as three different options. Having all three is possible, but probably harder, so if you don't have a big vision pick the one that works best for you.

Zuckerberg, from accounts I've read, had a big vision, was clear on it early, and made it happen. I don't want that, and to be honest I probably couldn't make it happen even if I did. That's OK.

Re: pg, you're probably right. In this forum it was worth throwing his name out there, but I wouldn't use him as an example in other places where that list would be appropriate. Multiple successes - he's a good example to use, as you point out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An interesting contrast to In-N-Out is Five Guys (<http://www.fiveguys.com>), originally a DC-area regional chain. They're only 20-something years old, but they're opening new locations on seemingly a near-weekly basis.

It's arguable how much of a bond they've built with their customers, considering their rapid expansion, but when I ate at a recently opened one near Seattle, it was packed.

The common link, in my opinion, is that both chains go all out for quality (Five Guys, for instance, posts the city of origin of the potatoes used for their fries on a daily basis). And the food truly is on a different level versus your average fast food place. In the end, success for both seems to come down to the old maxim: make [burgers] people want.

<comment><USER7> I heard a lot about In and Out and went there when I was in Reno visiting friends. Unfortunately, In and Out's burger fell flat, as I was expecting it to taste better then Five Guys.

It made me wonder what all the In and Out buzz was about? Five Guys for me is the best burger joint!

<comment><USER8> Five guys is somewhere between gourmet and fast food. Five guys is definitely better, but In-N-Out gives you a good cheeseburger plus fries for 3.74. Ask for a cup of water.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "... starting store managers make $100,000, plus bonuses tied to store performance."

Did anybody else notice this and pause? That extra comma at the end was in the original article and made me think the whole number might be a typo, but wow. I hope the number is true.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wish you'd posted the damn permalink.:)

</comment><comment><USER11> 7\. Maintain constant buzz with bumper stickers on which people routinely erase the "B" and the "r".

<comment><USER12> the second "r", right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, that was a nice ad.</comment>


Ask HN: How to piss off a programmer? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER3> Easy. Tell them you have a sure idea for the next FB/google/iThing.

Ask them to develop the MVP and app for free as they're bound to become a multi billionaire.

No paperwork of course, you're friends.

</comment><comment><USER4> "How hard can this change be? It's just a couple of lines of code."

<comment><AUTHOR> You cracked me up :) I was chatting to another programmer about this - <USER2> broke it down like this...

It's like making a car 10cm longer. To change the paint we'll spray paint it and you can pick it up tomorrow. If you want to change to leather seats then it's going to be a few days work come back at the end of the week.

But if you want the car 10cm longer then that'll cost millions – and, likely take a year to complete."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Java/Python/etc is too slow." Then don't use it when speed is an issue!

"C/C++ are unsafe." Only if you don't know how to manage memory & don't leverage tools.

"javascript doesn't need classes." It's the native language of the web, it better damn well cater to the preferences of the significant propertion of programmers who HAVE to use it.

Generally: "Language X is bad because reason Y." No it isn't. You're using it wrong!

</comment><comment><USER6> "I don't understand what this legacy system does, who uses it, why we need it or why it has to be so complicated. Can I just scrap the lot and take a day out to write something new?"

</comment><comment><USER6> #define float int

#define while if

#define else

#define free(x) ;

#define assert(x) (x && rand())

<comment><USER4> Might want to check this out:

[https://gist.github.com/aras-p/6224951](https://gist.github.com/aras-p/6224951)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Emacs is so much better than Vi"

</comment><comment><USER8> make me take headphones off</comment>


Show HN: Ever wonder when the last time a particular date fell on a certain day? - <AUTHOR> http://whendidthat.date/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking about this one day for too long and decided to turn it into a quick tool.</comment>


Show HN: Teambit – create a culture of feedback in your team - <AUTHOR> https://teambit.io/# <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN!

We've built Teambit out of frustration of how worklife is. The goal is to make a product, focused on teammates, that helps them feel engaged, recognised and clear about their career.

We are currently going through YC's Startup School and wanted to start sharing it publicly, even if it's still a bit rough on edges.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER2> Awesome work Alex & Teambit! Also, love the animal illustrations, genuinely charming!</comment>


Cops Pose as Road Workers to Catch Drivers Checking Their Phones - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/cops-pose-as-road-workers-to-catch-drivers-checking-the-1721148554

<comment><USER2> The author of the article seems pretty clueless as to the need to pay attention at all times while driving - even when stopped at a light.

Besides being impolite and rude to other drivers by screwing around with their phones when the light turns green, they're engaged in a dangerous activity by not having situational awareness as to what's going on. I've seen several drivers look up from their phones and, startled to see a green light, gun the engine to get into the intersection. All this without looking to see if someone is coming through late or if an emergency vehicle is approaching or anything.

I'm glad these officers are handing out tickets.</comment>


Revenue Snobs  - <AUTHOR> http://www.thisisgoingtobebig.com/2008/11/revenue-snobs.html <comment><USER2> Sometimes it's just surprising what people will pay for.

I remember talking to a guy ~10 years ago who had bought a bunch of public- access (but hard to find) government databases and set up a service doing people searches. Long-lost friends, loves, etc.

At first he thought he was extortionate charging $10/search. But every time he raised the price he got significantly more business. I think he settled out at ~$80/search.

Today that very same business could very well start as a VC-funded free service, when in fact people are more than willing to pay for it.

<comment><USER3> Whats the business? Can you name it?

<comment><USER2> I honestly don't remember the exact name. I do know they guy I met had done his thing live on a number of day-time talk shows (Oprah-type), and had gotten quite a bit of publicity out of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "So perhaps before you try to be better than your competitor as a startup, you might try being just as good--because just as good can mean revenues and next gen can sometimes mean too early. What you'll likely find is that a focused startup's attempt to be just as good actually results in a much better product that people might even be willing to pay for."

I took this advice and it worked for me. Do things that people will pay for today. Choose something that makes money and try to scale it. The challenge and excitement is in scaling a proven business idea better than the competition. Google did not invent AdWords, but they did execute better than Overture. There will be plenty of time to be original in retirement.

<comment><USER3> We're doing exactly that with our biz model for NewsCred. And no, it has nothing to do with advertizing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Instead of "Make something people want", how about "Make something people with money want".

Think twice about building something for someone that is either cheap or just flat out broke. It sounds like Meetup dropped a lot of users that were broke.</comment>


Birth of Democracy: The Ekklesia - <AUTHOR> http://www.agathe.gr/democracy/the_ekklesia.html <comment><USER2> I have this [uninformed/idealistic] view that Ancient Greece was generally a very peaceful place, where people discussed ideas and freedom of thought was paramount. I'm aware that there was of course still war within and around Greece, per the likes of Homer's Iliad, but it punctuated an otherwise highly enlightened society. (Beyond external influences, my reasoning is based on asking, "How could things like democracy, philosophy, mathematics, etc. flourish in an unstable environment?")

Moreover, I also have the view that afterwards -- whatever that may mean -- things kind of went to pot! The Romans were obviously great engineers, etc. but my impression of them is more that they were the start of Europe's descent into imperialism and warmongering. Something that the West is still clinging on to thousands of years later.

Is my view of Ancient Greece wrong and it actually was a politically unstable and bloodthirsty place to be, where all the good stuff was fostered out of luck? If not, what went wrong? Could we be a thousand-or-so years more advanced if we'd stayed on the right track?

<comment><USER3> "How could things like democracy, philosophy, mathematics, etc. flourish in an unstable environment?"

Greeks had a developed (and wide available) writing system, Greeks had a not- so-restrictive religion, and (perhaps most importantly) - Greeks had a great economical advantage over a lot of other people around them. Yes, Greeks were good warriors, but they liked very much to just use others (mostly as mercenaries) in order to solve things, and trowed themselves in battles only as a last resort (like when the Greek cities fought among themselves and persuading others to join them was somewhat difficult). Greeks had a very large network of economic centers and all that value of connecting cheap worlds was primarily theirs. The flourishing of the arts and science was just a result of the general wealth flowing all around - life was cheaper and easier compared to other places, so what the average ἀνήρ was supposed to do with their spare energy? (Hint: connecting the dots here and there, just the way Greeks as a people used to do all the time.)

<comment><USER4> I disagree. The Persian empire was just as (if not more) wealthy than the Greeks although not as technologically advanced.

I think what distinguished Athens (and Greece) was "tolerance" towards foreigners. Although they called them 'Barbarians' (meaning Not Greek - with a strong negative flavor), at the same time foreigners were welcome to study and teach in Athens. Most sophists (e.g. Protagoras and Gorgias) were not Athenians. Aristotle was not an Athenian citizen.

Socrates was poor. But he was craved by the young because of his spirit. At the same time you have political Satire openly mocking Socrates and other major political (some extremely powerful) figures of the Athenian life. Euripedi's 'Trojan Women' play, was essentially a commentary on the capture of the Aegean island of Melos and the subsequent slaughter and subjugation of its populace by the Athenians earlier that year! It's incredible the fact that he dared to do so! Of course that's the reason we still watch his plays (2.500 years later...).

IMHO it was tolerance that made Athens great.

<comment><USER3> The Persian Empire had a lot of subjugated populace. The worry of rebellion and other problems plagued them all the time. Greeks on the other hand were very laid back in comparison. The conditions for investment of available effort was very different between those two. The tolerance vs. discriminating attitude are in fact derived from the political relation which a group of people is with another group of people in such instance.

<comment><USER5> > The Persian Empire had a lot of subjugated populace. The worry of rebellion > and other problems plagued them all the time. Greeks on the other hand were > very laid back in comparison.

Maybe not all the Greeks. The Spartans were a small group ruling over a much larger subjugated population (the Helots), who they would try to keep in check through things like an annual murder spree, at least according to Aristotle: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#Treatment_by_Spartans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#Treatment_by_Spartans)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Arguably, the problem with the Assembly was that they'd vote for whoever spoke the most convincingly, as opposed to who had the best argument. This wasn't much of an issue when Pericles was around, as he tended to be quite intelligent, but after his death the Sophists made their money by teaching people how to speak well (but not how to think well, as some of their contempories lamented), leading to a lot of persuasive idiots in the assembly.

Memorably, late in the Peloponnesian War, Sparta (who were winning) offered Athens an opportunity to end the war with no reparations. A pretty good offer, you'd have thought, but some people were making good money off the war and they spoke convincingly in the Assembly to persuade the people to keep fighting.

<comment><USER7> Greek democracy had problems, but I wonder how much of our picture of them derives from source bias. Thucydides, Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon: none a fan of democracy (and Plato to me seems actively dishonest). Writings in its favor would face obviously greater trouble making it to us through Roman and medieval times -- and most of what was written did not make it, on any topic. What do we still have from democrats of the time? I'd like to know.

(Am not a historian.)

<comment><USER6> IANAH(istorian)

The above was what I remembered from my Classical Civilisations lessons back in Secondary School (some 25 years ago). I'm very good at remembering stories but not so good at remembering dates, which meant that my prowess in Modern World History and Classical Civilisations was a bit...mixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In case the word Ekklesia rang a bell for you too: [http://www.hisholychurch.net/ekklesia.php](http://www.hisholychurch.net/ekklesia.php)

<comment><USER9> If only it was the birthplace of paying due taxes, not letting everyone retire too early, and paying back loans!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "In theory every assembly represented the collective will of all the male citizens of Athens"

That doesn't sound like democracy to me. An oligarchy, perhaps?

The true birth of democracy (at national level) was in New Zealand in 1893 when women were given the vote and, for the first time in history, virtually all adults were enfranchised.

<comment><USER11> Indeed.

This is also the case with Iceland, where the althing is also commonly cited as the "oldest continuously functioning democratic parliament in the world".

This sounds great, and does wonders for national pride. Especially since most Icelanders have an extremely rose-tinted view of their own past (thanks to propaganda during the independence campaign in the last century), and most are not aware that the only people who had voting rights were landowners, and everyone else was basically a slave. That's not really a democracy by any definition.

<comment><USER12> Actually it's the opposite. Today's western parliamentary regimes are oligarchies and in absolutely no way democracies. Electing a bunch of assholes who then get to do whatever they wish is not and has never been democracy, it's elected oligarchy. Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in ancient athens and iceland. Today the only country which comes anywhere close to this is Switzerland. Western parliamentary regimes call themselves 'democracies' to look good just like soviet countries did.

<comment><USER11> > Actually it's the opposite

What is? I'm not really sure which part of my post you are replying to here. Can you quote a specific bit?

> Democracy is when all the people vote the laws. Which was the case in > ancient athens and iceland

No, at least in the case of Iceland, the entire point of my post was that only a very, very tiny group of people got to vote on the laws. Kind of like representative democracy without the democracy part (because the representatives are not elected). Also known as a plutocracy.

<comment><USER12> I'm not completely sure about iceland. I think I read it was one vote per family. But as far as ancient athens goes, every male regardless of wealth or status got to vote the laws and decrees. And were in fact very much encouraged to do so. The word 'idiot' actually comes from 'idiotes' which is what people who didn't debate/vote were called in ancient athens. It originally meant people who only care about their private affairs as opposed to public affairs. This made it impossible for the rich to rule, because the rich are always far fewer than the poor. So while one might be right to point out that it wasn't fair that women were left out (but women were second class citizens also in cities which weren't democracies at all like for instance Sparta), it still is very different and far more egalitarian system than what we have today.

<comment><USER11> Well, I was only talking about Iceland in my comment. My knowledge of Greek history is insufficient to comment; you might want to take that discussion up with the commenter that was talking about Greece.

As for Iceland, I really recommend you read up on the history if you are going to start correcting people about it, because you seem to be completely misinformed. And no, it was most certainly not "one vote per family"; I have explained how these things worked at least twice in this discussion. I know this because I am from Iceland, and I have read up on our history from primary sources instead of the ridiculous whitewash that gets taught in elementary school and on tourist buses.

<comment><USER12> But you mentioned Iceland because you were agreeing with the parent poster who was talking about ancient Athens. So I was replying to both of you. I probably need to research Iceland, but I did the work for Athens :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogens_Herman_Hansen)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Misleading title, something that always bugged me with questions. An anthropologist explains in "The Democracy Project":

 _" Democracy was not invented in ancient Greece. Granted, the word "democracy" was invented in ancient Greece—but largely by people who didn't like the thing itself very much. Democracy was never really "invented" at all. Neither does it emerge from any particular intellectual tradition. It's not even really a mode of government. In its essence it is just the belief that humans are fundamentally equal and ought to be allowed to manage their collective affairs in an egalitarian fashion, using whatever means appear most conducive. That, and the hard work of bringing arrangements based on those principles into being._

 _" In this sense democracy is as old as history, as human intelligence itself. No one could possibly own it. I suppose, if one were so inclined, one could argue it emerged the moment hominids ceased merely trying to bully one another and developed the communication skills to work out a common problem collectively. But such speculation is idle; the point is that democratic assemblies can be attested in all times and places, from Balinese seka to Bolivian ayllu, employing an endless variety of formal procedures, and will always crop up wherever a large group of people sat down together to make a collective decision on the principle that all taking part should have equal say."_

(He goes onto explain why political scientists ignore such assemblies... a confusion of voting — which has many problems — with democratic decisionmaking.)

<comment><USER12> I think he's right except you don't have to believe that humans are fundamentally equal at all to want democracy. Humans are in no way equal. If humans were in fact equal, they wouldn't be able to evolve as evolution requires variability which is just another word for inequality. So when you want to promote cooperation over competition and you know that humans as any other DNA based life forms are fundamentally unequal, what you do is you give them equal deciding power so that noone can rise above the others.</comment></comment>


In re Bilski - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski

<comment><USER2> Has something new happened with this case? Was this link posted in response to some other thread I'm missing?

<comment><AUTHOR> I submitted it because i had just finished reading the comments on this: <http://www.unionsquareventures.com/index.php>

<comment><USER2> Ah, okay. I was frantically re-reading the page, and searching the news, thinking some freak accident had happened and the Supreme Court had ruled early.</comment></comment></comment>