A battle of the web frameworks - <AUTHOR> http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/sweet-sweet-vindication/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand where he gets this idea that Django uses an ActionController kind of object. Django _provides the facility_ for you to write a class-based view if you want, but it does not _require_ one.

In fact, the only promise Django makes (known as "The Django Contract") is that, given a callable as the endpoint to one of the routes in the urls.py file, it'll execute that callable with the request information and forward whatever you return from that callable as the response to the client.

Just based on that I have to take the article with a rather chunky grain of salt; let alone the grandiose statement at the end saying that their framework is the only one that "gets it right".

I don't mind the link-baiting to sell your own fish every now and then, but attitudes like the one displayed by the author are definitely not selling me into trying their software.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure why Django was brought into the mix. The view and callback function concepts in Django allow a workflow that is a lot less restrictive than say Rails or ASP.NET MVC.

Granted, I submitted the article because I'm one of the principal devs on the framework. However, see my comment above for clarity on what I think the message should be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm really confused. I'm not a computer science major, but I've worked with a lot of really talented developers who use Rails to great effect, so I'm struggling to parse this message without dismissing it out of hand. It's difficult to listen and take seriously authors who throw around jargon like punches. As a layman, it strikes me as pedantry.

So, can anyone answer the question: Are these concerns objective, or are they just opinion written in a way to make the author sound authoritative on the matter?

<comment><AUTHOR> Take it all with a grain of salt. His point is more on a basis of principles and approaches to software design that builds on the quote: "It is practically impossible to teach OO design to students that have had a prior exposure to Rails".

Too many variables come into play when devs choose their framework of choice so it's quite the broad sweep to say "Let's put our framework against yours". I think the bigger point is: ".NET finally has some innovative approaches to the web"

We've learned from Rails, Django, etc and now we bring something new to the table. Regardless of the tone of the article, that's the message I would like to see be relayed

<comment><USER4> The qualifier for most of the recent influx of anti-Rails posts is the same debate we've seen over and over again - Is OO design the end all and be all of design?

<comment><USER5> And the answer to that is, probably not. But it's one of the best we know currently and until a compelling replacement comes along, it'll be used. ^_^</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scroll to Text Fragment – Chrome Platform Status - <AUTHOR> https://chromestatus.com/feature/4733392803332096 <comment><AUTHOR> This feature now seems to have been enabled in featured search results on Google searches (i.e. the excerpt shown in a box at the top of the results). I've just seen it with a Wikipedia link.</comment>


Show HN: First ever MQTT and XMPP dual-protocol server - <AUTHOR> https://blog.process-one.net/first-ever-mqtt-and-xmpp-dual-protocol-server-ejabberd-business-edition/ <comment><USER2> There has been an MQTT module for Prosody for ~5 years: [https://modules.prosody.im/mod_pubsub_mqtt.html](https://modules.prosody.im/mod_pubsub_mqtt.html)

I'm not aware of anyone using it in production, or asking to - so it's not received a lot of attention. For my own projects I've tended to prefer bridging to XMPP in other ways, but it was fun to work on.

I found a number of things surprising in MQTT, for example the lack of errors in response to commands (such as publishing), with the only solution to be just closing the connection entirely.

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know about the Prosody module. However, MQTT in ejabberd is at the core level, not module, so it is able to access all the performance and scalability features used by XMPP - and in that sense, ejabberd MQTT is production-ready.

I think the surprising behaviours of MQTT are its strength - it's minimal and perfect for low-energy devices. For heavy lifting, there's XMPP.

<comment><USER2> Not sure what you mean by "at the core level", exactly. Prosody is quite modular, and everything is implemented as a module with access to the same APIs. Modules do not have performance limitations. I know ejabberd's architecture less well though.

Our internal XMPP pubsub (XEP-0060) support has a native code API designed for use by internal modules, so there is no need to marshal everything from MQTT into the appropriate XMPP stanzas for example, it's a direct mapping from MQTT to our internal API.

<comment><USER3> When you talk about MQTT and IoT, scalability and clustering is the deciding factor. When you deploy an IoT stack, it is common to have to manage hundreds of thousands or millions of devices. The stack is leveraging ejabberd clustering and scalability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this the holy grail of IoT infrastructure or is everyone just using WebRTC nowadays?

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm the CEO of ProcessOne and lead on ejabberd, ask me anything :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, at mqtt.fluux.io you can test one of the few first public brokers that supports MQTT 5.0 spec - there are instructions using Mosquitto in the announcement.</comment>


Infogram launches beautiful infographics webapp - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/05/22/infogr-am-launches-so-you-can-create-your-own-beautiful-and-interactive-infographics/

<comment><USER2> I really liked the design and example graphics. But I don't know how it actually works because I am blocked by a request to sign-in using Twitter or Facebook.

I also think the site itself is beautiful, but I feel that I need to provide some constructive criticism.

* On the main page, there are links to for Twitter and Facebook, each link to their respective PHP page in the under beta/. The Facebook link works exactly as I would have expected (redirects me to a page at facebook.com). The Twitter link (infogr.am/beta/twitter.php) redirects me to "infogr.am/beta". I was expecting it to redirect me to a page on Twitter that allows me to authorize your application to access my data. I have to click a second link for that. All in all, I think this is just a small bug.

* With text like "it's super simple, just try it!" I really was expecting to "just be able to try it", but when I clicked the "Start Now!" button I was greeted with the need to sign in using either Facebook or Twitter. Having to log in is not the same as "starting now". Definitely not what I was expecting.

My recommendation is to change the wording so that it is completely understood that to even try the service I need to log in with my Twitter or Facebook account, or allow me to just use the service, and when I wish to save something, prompt me to login. Personally, I recommend the later.

* Concerning the use of social media sites as login providers. There was no mention in the "Making infographics is very simple!" section that I can use my Twitter or Facebook data to create these infographics so why does Infogr.am need access to who I follow and my tweets?

Now if you are using Twitter and Facebook as login provides because its easy, I completely understand. Then do the user a favor, on the "/beta" page, let me know right up front what you are going to access, what you are not going to access, and why you need anything you are accessing. I say this because clicking on Facebook login button redirects me to a Facebook login page that doesn't even tell me what you want to access.

If you want access to my data, be completely up front and honest with me. Twitter does, but do I really need to click through two pages to find this information out?

All in all, I really like the idea, and look forward to trying it, but I am going to wait till I don't have to use my Twitter or Facebook account to log in.</comment>


Intel buys Rivet Networks (Killer Networking), intends to scale brand in gaming+ - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/15809/intel-acquires-rivet-networks-killer-networking-is-all-in-for-team-blue <comment><AUTHOR> Original title was low info. It was:

Intel Acquires Rivet Networks: Killer Networking is all in for Team Blue

Context for headline:

'Rivet's CEO Mike Cubbage will now be Intel's Senior Director of Connectivity Innovations.'

'I did ask a question about the integration, given how when Rivet/Bigfoot Networks was acquired by Qualcomm and then had to spin out again in order to drive the product, I was worried Intel might do the same. Mike told me that Rivet's Killer brand strengths back then, and even today, are in the PC and Gaming space, which perfectly aligns with what Intel is focused on. This is different to the previous acquisition, where is was more of a business portfolio play, but this time around Intel looks set on developing the Killer technology into a wide variety of products at scale, something which Rivet wasn't able to do previously.'</comment>


Google raises YouTube TV subscription to $64.99 per month for all members - blinding-streak https://9to5google.com/2020/06/30/youtube-tv-raise/ <comment><AUTHOR> $35 -> $65 in ~2 years?

I originally got this because it was a great way to watch baseball games without being blacked out (at the time I was subbed to mlb.tv and forced to use an out-of-area VPN to get around the local blackout to watch my team).

I only watch "regular" TV through it occasionally. So now I'm forced to pay $65 a month for mostly one channel (local NBC Sports).

Crazy.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is driven by Viacom which likely leveraged removal of its local CBS channels unless YTTV 'took' included this package of 14 channels (8 now). Until retransmission consent is fixed, this is how all over the top providers will go (start cheap until the large content providers take notice).

</comment><comment><USER3> Is Google strapped for cash? They have upped the number of visible ads across all their platforms to the point where some apps like YouTube and Google on mobile are showing full page ads before search results even appear. I have also heard of cuts to some internal benefits from Googlers.

<comment><USER4> Similar to how people were all about supporting Firefox in another thread, there is also a need to support entities other than the dreaded cable monopoly and support those companies that bring about innovation. Even if they happen to be companies that have money to burn. I would happily pay Google twice what I would pay Comcast.

Having money to burn doesn't mean they should burn it. We need responsible companies making sane decisions

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know it was Google's goal to be able to deliver advertising to viewers at a zip code or even personal level. Are they actually achieving that with Google TV? I imagine the CPM on those ads are far, far higher than typical local TV ads... why the higher fees?

<comment> blinding-streak It's stated in the article that the cost of the content has gone up. The fees that Google has to pay the networks.

</comment></comment><comment> blinding-streak From the article: "to soften the blow, YouTube TV is adding ViacomCBS's family of channels today: BET, CMT, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Network, TV Land, and VH1."

<comment><USER2> Not a blow softener, this is the root cause of the increase. 8 new channels today, 6 more coming, all that provide very little new or compelling content. Geesh for just over 15 bucks (the increase) you can get Netflix (one stream) and Disney +.</comment></comment>


Thunderbird Starts Working on Improving Its Interface - <AUTHOR> https://www.monterail.com/blog/thunderbird-new-interface-redesign-survey <comment><USER3> A redesign is a great symbolic move to fight "Thunderbird's key problem is being perceived as either dead or stagnant".

Still, Thunderbird needs a bigger vision. What does Thunderbird want to be? The cross-platform Outlook? Then merge Lightning into core. The native Gmail? Then get a conversations view. The backwards-compatible, easy, and secure mailer? Then merge Enigmail into core or make SMIME easy to use or get some Rust code in. The ultra-portable mailer? Then port it to Android and iOS. The super-flexible mailer? Then somehow help plugin devs.

<comment><USER4> Thunderbird's problem, i think, is that their userbase contains a large portion of people who value thunderbird for it's stagnancy, but at the same time get angry if you suggest that thunderbird might be stagnant.

Thunderbird is the email client for people who want email to work exactly like it did ten years ago. that's their value-add, and it really should be their vision.

<comment><USER5> There was Eudora for that.

I think one thing that maybe kept ThB from innovating was that people took webmail to heart. It's few people who want a thick client or even want to go thru the config. What port, what server, etc.

On a mobile device, the UI walks them through the scenarios (Google, Microsoft, etc) so they usually don't have to guess or have "IT" set it up for them.

Plus, what ships with MAC and Windows is good enough for most people who do want some kind of thick client.

Regardless, ThB was the ugly child at Mozilla since ever. They should have taken the Opp when Eudora was finally killed, but I don't think Moz had the energy.

<comment><USER6> > Plus, what ships with MAC and Windows is good enough for most people who do > want some kind of thick client.

Airmail and Spark, among others, would like to have a word with you. Airmail in particular started out as a Mac client before being ported to iOS. There exists quite a market for good email clients, I would think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hm. Surveys are really dangerous tools, especially for UI questions:

[https://medium.com/research-things/on- surveys-5a73dda5e9a0](https://medium.com/research-things/on- surveys-5a73dda5e9a0)

I'm not sure how they'll get much use out of this one. They show (not very representative) screen shots and then ask broad questions, like "Would you say this design is rather confusing or clear?" and "Would you say this design is rather boring or inspiring?"

Setting aside that I don't understand why "rather" is in all of the questions, they're still not great. Is the design of a screwdriver inspiring? I guess not. Is that bad? Definitely not. I don't need my tools to be fonts of warm fuzzy feelings. I need them to be useful.

Even if the questions were material, asking it about a whole screenshot composed of many different design changes inevitably muddles things. And asking it only of 1 old and 1 new screenshot invites people to judge on novelty, not utility.

So my suspicion is that the survey isn't really testing any useful hypotheses. We know that some people like new shiny and some people like old familiar. I don't think much is gained here.

<comment><USER8> I've been through the survey and it is quite bad, the questions are purely marketing centered, trying to figure out the perceived image people have of the software based of a single screenshot.

Where are the question about usability and practicality ?

Said screenshots are from much different screen resolution so one is cluttered[1] and the other is illegible[2].

The whole survey gives the idea that the current design is bad and the new is better. I mean when you get asked to rate an old thing vs a new one on a scale between outdated and modern.

[1]: [https://images.typeform.com/images/7E2EfHaFjYdy/image/defaul...](https://images.typeform.com/images/7E2EfHaFjYdy/image/default#.png) [2]: [https://images.typeform.com/images/7QpVmjRyBAU4/image/defaul...](https://images.typeform.com/images/7QpVmjRyBAU4/image/default#.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> They're cheating on the screenshots in the survey. The "current thunderbird" screenshot is taken at half the resolution (or twice the font size) of the "thunderbird redesign" screenshot, giving their redesign twice as much space with which to display the same information. Obviously it's going to look better with that advantage. I'm not sure exactly what it'd mean to "trust" a user interface, but I'm _definitely_ sure I wouldn't trust any of that survey's data.

<comment><USER10> That's not the only trick they use. Note the choice of plaintext vs. HTML mail (even though current TB supports HTML just fine), interesting looking mail vs. mock-ups of bad spam, different screen aspect ratio, and of course the leading survey questions.

I've created a "fairer" mockup (same resolution/size): [https://i.imgur.com/wTLYTV6.png](https://i.imgur.com/wTLYTV6.png)

Note how the "tasks" list is cut off because it simply no longer fits the screen (where the current version has enough space to show it), missing UI elements in the new design (the entire quick filter bar, which would reduce the available space to 3 (!) e-mail headers), the harshly truncated and thus useless subject lines in the new design, the lack of the "this is a draft" toolbar in the new design, that was added to make the old one look more crowded.

Thunderbird is forgetting their target audience. I suspect that people who like shiny over features have long switched to web interfaces. The new design would take away what used to appeal to their remaining users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Former Thunderbird user here.

Much more important than shiny new UI, what I'd like to see is _seamless out- of-the-box syncing with online calendars and contacts_. (At one point, I tried all the available add-ons for syncing with Google's apps; none of those add- ons worked well for me.)

<comment><USER12> Importantly, since this is a Mozilla project, that service should be self- hostable [1] to disintermediate the multi-device synchronization platform. It should not be necessary to have a third-party observe all my contacts and calendars.

[1] [https://github.com/mozilla-services/](https://github.com/mozilla- services/)

<comment><USER13> No need for Mozilla to make server software for this; Thunderbird/Lightning do CalDav and CardDav just fine, right? Seems that cs702's problem isn't with Thunderbird, it's with Google supporting CalDav and CardDav for sync.

If you want to self host, just host any CalDav or CardDav server software.

<comment><USER14> Thunderbird does not support carddav. Contacts + Thunderbird is generally a terrible experience. I switched to Zoho's webmail because of this (at least I can get bidirectional sync to my iPhone).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How about fixing 6 year old bugs, which mean you can't search for the word "wedding"? This kind of thing is why I left thunderbird.

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752844](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752844)

At the least do a pass over old bugs and let us know if they will ever be fixed, or close them.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. How about not losing scroll position when switching tabs? Better spam filtering? How come threaded view doesn't work for mails sent by Outlook? (I know we have Microsoft to blame for that, but a workaround should not be impossible to conceive since Outlook somehow manages that already.)

I suspect the people getting excited about a face-lift don't really use Thunderbird very often.

<comment><USER17> Can't one fork Thunderbird and make it what they want? Or at the very least fix bugs for them? I'm not current on its development workflow.

<comment><USER8> One has to be a coder, able to deal with the current state of code and the many changes to come, while having a load of free time to maintain the fork.

I mean my 90 years old grandma is a decade long thunderbird user and she absolutely unable to make thunderbird the way she wants. She is 100% dependent on mozilla's good will.

<comment><USER17> yup. I can code but I don't know how conducive TB is for people to get started helping out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This redesign is just playing around with colors, background images and minor visual adjustments to the message view. Nobody needs this.

I was hoping for a redesign of the UI, the ways you interact with your mails.

This is one of those "look, I played around in Illustrator" things, not "I thought about the problem".

<comment><USER19> > This redesign is just playing around with colors, background images and > minor visual adjustments to the message view. Nobody needs this.

Some UI components do need rework. Redundant search fields, password dialogs that fail to track the login state, etc.

It also strikes me as very odd that someone states that nobody needs UI work on a GUI app, particularly when GUI components make between 50% and 75% of thjs sort of app's code base

<comment><USER8> I have yet to recover from last time they reworked the UI, so it's not that obvious that a rework is needed or good.

I don't remember how long ago this UI rework happened that added opening email in a tab, but to this day I still get called because "something's wrong with the computer, I can't read my emails " and I just close the gajillions opened tabs in thunderbird to fix the issue.

It improved through time as a significant portion of my users' email moved from desktop to tablets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does anyone else feel that most UI redesigns are just change for the sake of change that don't actually make anything better?

<comment><USER21> Generally not, but in this case I do. The proposed redesign[1] is essentially the same layout, but with a fancy theming. It's good practice not to break the familiar interface, but there's __a lot __to improve in terms of UI /UX in Thunderbird. For example:

a) presented vertical layout is the same as it is today—you need to have a really high resolution (1080p+) widescreen to fit the entire window. Messages section could have rows with multi-line inlined metadata, thus be significantly narrowed[2];

b) threaded messages feed (or so called conversations) on the same screenshot is presented too vaguely for such an important feature, I bet I'll still have to jump between Sent/Inbox folders in 2018+...;

c) replying to/composing a message is impossible to do in tabs[3] (10 years old), you have to manage separate windows. And there's nothing on this matter in current redesign proposal;

d) not a single word/screenshot on calendar/todo-lists management; etc.

Simply put, this is not the way to redesign such an important large application. Has there been any work done on analyzing user/task scenarios [4]? Any research was conducted on modern best practices? Instead of presenting a list with UI/UX features breakdown and several well-thought solutions, we're supposed to vote on "does it look exciting/professional?" beneath a single 800×500px screenshot. Answering the question: no, it doesn't. It's the very same application, hence stagnant. Do not take offense at the words about "stagnating product", this is what it is.

[1] [https://twitter.com/omgubuntu/status/855035593289609216](https://twitter.com/omgubuntu/status/855035593289609216)

[2] [https://errorfixer.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/slow- mail-a...](https://errorfixer.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/slow-mail-app-mac- os-x.png)

[3] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449299](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449299)

[4] [https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and- tools/methods/scenarios...](https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and- tools/methods/scenarios.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I get it that Thunderbird looks unhip but I feel like the heavily padded lines waste too much space. The gmail "compact" setting is a much better compromise between space and legibility.

But unless they move Thunderbird to WebExtensions (which would be a total productivity disaster) it can always be modded.

Although an UI update is always welcome there are more important issues to address in Thunderbird, like better calendar synchronisation and an overhaul to its search capabilities.

<comment><USER23> I disagree that UI updates are _always_ welcome. I subscribe to the "interfaces are not intuitive they are familiar" school of design. It may look dated and maybe it does need an update but I hope the motivation is to improve productivity and not just to be hip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This survey is clearly manipulative and designed to get the results they want ("please give us the new shiny design").

The designs are shown at different resolutions: Note how the text on the old one is clearly readable, while the new one is completely unreadable. Additionally, the new design is given a much higher screen. This makes the old design look much more crowded, and obfuscates the fact that you can't fit more than 10 e-mail headers (with truncated subject lines!) onto a 27" screen with the new design. Additionally, they chose a plaintext e-mail with a boring text for the old design screenshot, while using a designed HTML mail for the new design.

Here's a slightly fairer mockup: [https://i.imgur.com/wTLYTV6.png](https://i.imgur.com/wTLYTV6.png) for direct comparison with [https://images.typeform.com/images/7E2EfHaFjYdy/image/defaul...](https://images.typeform.com/images/7E2EfHaFjYdy/image/default#.png) \- I've redone the text on the subject of the selected entry to show how it would look like without the blur resulting from scaling the available mockup.

The survey itself has one question that is half about usability ("confusing or clear"), with the 4 remaining questions being about bullshitty feel- good/marketing attributes ("boring or inspiring", "unprofessional or professional", "outdated or modern", "untrustworthy or trustworthy") carefully picked to only care about visual appearance.

A much more attractive redesign idea would be showing full threads with sent and received messages in context like Gmail does, while maintaining the standard three-pane view (just allow to scroll _up_ in the bottom pane to see older messages, including sent ones).

Edit to add some things I noticed while writing another response: Note how the "tasks" list is cut off because it simply no longer fits the screen (where the current version has enough space to show it), missing UI elements in the new design (the entire quick filter bar, which would reduce the available space to 3 (!) e-mail headers), the harshly truncated and thus useless subject lines in the new design, the lack of the "this is a draft" toolbar in the new design, that was added to make the old one look more crowded.

Thunderbird is forgetting their target audience. I suspect that people who like shiny over features have long switched to web interfaces. The new design would take away what used to appeal to their remaining users.

<comment><USER8> It's quite obvious that it's marketing and that the survey is biased towards the new UI design.

Though I'm not sure it has been intently designed like this. Hanlon's razor tells us this probably happened because of incompetence and being clueless. IMHO it reflects the survey authors bias more than a malicious intent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The two interfaces are the same. The new one has more colors and smaller buttons. I'll trade larger buttons for the colors.

I'll trade everything for being able to see as many messages as I'll always did. Not another Skype like redesign with lots of useless white space around messages, thanks.

<comment><USER25> On my laptop the default whitespace is too much, as well. The white space is adjustable in userChrome.css, which, to my understanding from the instructions, you need to edit anyway.

Compact spacing:

      --folder-tree-row-height: 20px;

      --message-list-row-height: 20px;

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If any Thunderbird devs see this, I don't mind a visual refresh, but here's my real wishlist:

* Sync accounts and settings between multiple computers. (Using syncthing only works so well...) Over my local LAN. I am not going to send my information out into the cloud if I can help it.

* Thunderbird on my Android devices, also synced with my desktop and laptop.

* Groupwise integration so I don't have to log into webmail every time I have an appointment to accept or reject.

* Integrated calendar. Why is it an addon? Seriously. I have never understood that.

Anyway... I'd also love to see an easier to understand community platform. I have no idea where I really should post this comment in the official Thunderbird ecosystem.

<comment><USER27> As to your first point, I managed this with the user settings on a home server via sshfs (Linux desktop and server). This could also work with shares for Windows (although I didn't try). sshfs is mounted via a script on logon.

Has some warts, but works generally well.

<comment><USER26> I'm able to sync some of it using SyncThing. But I ran into enough sync conflicts, than I've ignored a lot of files in my profile. So not much actually syncs anymore.

sshfs would work if you are on the same network all the time. I have yet to get dynamic dns working for my home connection, so when I'm at work I doubt I'd be able to access my home sshfs share.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's pretty meh. It looks like a simple reskin of Thunderbird which doesn't solve any of its problems if you ask me. Thunderbird could certainly use some design love (a conversation view like Gmail could be neat), but I like TB beta's theme better than this.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sounds awesome! I'm pretty happy with Thunderbird as is, but a modern interface potentially means more users... and hopefully as a result, a longer life.

Here's a quick link to the survey: [https://thunderbird- design.typeform.com/to/f7wiiq?utm_referr...](https://thunderbird- design.typeform.com/to/f7wiiq?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.monterail.com%2Fblog%2Fthunderbird- new-interface-redesign-survey)

<comment><USER20> Those survey questions are completely irrelevant to interface design. I use TB every day as my main private mail client and the picture they show me doesn't even look like what I use. Then they ask a bunch of marketing BS questions that have absolutely nothing to do with usability.

I hope these people stay the hell away from my favorite mail client.

<comment><USER30> I installed Thunderbird on a new machine last week and that screenshot is pretty close to the default setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My main problem with Thunderbird is that it's a poor citizen in email, particularly with regard to its handling of plaintext. It's far from alone in that respect, but I would really appeciate Thunderbird being a leader in taking the problem seriously.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's great to see continued maintenance of this important project, and it'll be interesting to see the results of a visual refresh.

thunderbird has over 20 years lineage, and I've screenshots of the major stages at:

[http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/netscape_email/](http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/netscape_email/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I have the feeling that the Open Source community left the email world a while ago. There is almost nothing happening there.

You may argue that it's because email is a solved problem by now, but I don't think so:

Setting your own personal email server? Still a hassle to do correctly. Full text search a la Gmail? You can forget it. Threaded conversations across folders? Not for you. Hosting a webmail? Good luck finding a maintained one. Want a desktop client? The flagship Thunderbird is not the healthiest project right now.

I would really like to see the Redis or the Golang of emails.

<comment><USER8> There are work in progress right now, e.g. trojita[1], caliopen[2], kube[3], ...

Setting up your personal email server correctly hassle free: mail-in-a-box[4]

Most gmail features requires losing all expectations of privacy and as such are not desirable or feasible. That said IINM full text search already exists in kde's kmail.

I have no use for threaded conversations across folder, so I have no suggestions for this, sorry.

Maintained opensource webmails do exist, e.g. roundcube[5], mailpile[6], rainloop[7], zimbra[8], ...

Non thunderbird desktop clients do exist too: claws[9], sylpheed[10], kmail[11], mail[12], geary[13], ...

[1]: [https://trojita.flaska.net/](https://trojita.flaska.net/)

[2]: [https://www.caliopen.org/en/](https://www.caliopen.org/en/)

[3]: [https://kube.kde.org/](https://kube.kde.org/)

[4]: [https://mailinabox.email/](https://mailinabox.email/) and [https://github.com/mail-in-a-box/mailinabox](https://github.com/mail-in-a- box/mailinabox)

[5]: [https://roundcube.net/](https://roundcube.net/)

[6]: [https://www.mailpile.is/](https://www.mailpile.is/)

[7]: [https://www.rainloop.net/](https://www.rainloop.net/)

[8]: [https://www.zimbra.com/](https://www.zimbra.com/)

[9]: [http://www.claws-mail.org/](http://www.claws-mail.org/)

[10]: [http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/](http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/)

[11]: [https://userbase.kde.org/KMail](https://userbase.kde.org/KMail)

[12]: [https://github.com/elementary/mail](https://github.com/elementary/mail)

[13]: [https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Geary](https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Geary)

<comment><USER8> I should also mention modoboa[1] which is an opensource mail hosting solution with a web interface.

[1]: [https://modoboa.org/en/](https://modoboa.org/en/)

[1]: [https://github.com/modoboa/modoboa](https://github.com/modoboa/modoboa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why does the survey ask "does it look trustworthy"? I voted the middle "4", because I don't understand the question.

<comment><USER34> I think it means "does it look like an app that you would trust with your email workflow".

If the design looks broken or amateurish, maybe that would lead you to not trust the application because you feel it is poorly made and will lose your data one day.

Or maybe the new design is so focused on stickers & gifs* that you don't trust the application to reliably handle your professional business communications with clients anymore.

* (I'm looking at you, Skype, with this comment...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> As a heavy Thunderbird user, my biggest complaint is offline support. An IMAP sync will download new emails' subject lines, but not the actual message bodies. Clicking on an email subject line then requires freezes Thunderbird for multiple seconds while it downloads the message body for that single email.

<comment><USER36> Right click the account and go to Synchronization and Storage. Double check on individual folders. I know this works because my ImapMail folder (in the profile folder) is much bigger than it would be if it only had subjects, and a quick sampling shows full messages.

If you have this on and it's still taking seconds, the problem is probably coming from something else.

<comment><USER35> Thanks. I double-checked and all my folders are checked in my Synchronization & Storage settings. Something else must be wrong with my settings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't really care either way about the colors and the fonts. I care more about functionality, and the current version still has a very annoying bug, where there's a type of spam email that Thunderbird will choke on when trying to download it using POP. I have to use webmail to go manually delete the offending email so that Thunderbird can download the rest of the emails. Last time I investigated this, it seems that others have reported this problem, but nothing's been done about it. I'm very close to moving to Outlook now (which would also help with calendaring, but that's a whole other can of worms), and a simple re-design isn't what's going to keep me as a Thunderbird user.

</comment><comment><USER38> Do we really need new design for Thunderbird? How about reusing Photon design system ([https://design.firefox.com/photon/](https://design.firefox.com/photon/)) from Firefox?

</comment><comment><USER39> I see fair number of comments on here suggesting how to fix Thunderbird, or what additional features and services it needs. Well, Thunderbird is open source. Time to contribute more than just a some good ideas.

Or is the Mozilla development and contribution process broken?

It looks like it is realitively straight forward to compile from source: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Build_Instructions/Simple_Firefox_build/Linux_and_MacOS_build_preparation)

<comment><USER40> Contributing to one of the largest open source projects is not a simple task at all, but you are right. However, they are asking for opinions and putting up a survey, so this may not be the place and time to start this argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Great. Can we have multiple lines per mail in the mail column or is that still not possible ? /rant

<comment><USER42> What does that even mean? What mail column?

<comment><USER34> Presumably the column with the list of emails in the currently selected inbox. (2nd column from left.)

Some email clients have multiple rows of information in that column - <USER2> first row might have name & subject, the next row might show the first two sentences of the email. Or it might have the subject on a separate line, so the column can be kept narrow but still show the full subject line.

Think of the iOS Mail or Android GMail interfaces, for example.

<comment><USER43> I hope they don't go in that direction, I like my emails compact on 1 line.

<comment><USER21> There's a sane responsive interface solution to that: you get single-line layout on wide screen, and a compact multi-line layout on narrow screen. Answering a nearby comment, it's doable in CSS-only[1].

This entire discussion is not about complex interface design and the lack of technical solutions, but the stagnating product. And about questionable actions to give it a peppy appearance.

[1] [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queri...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Using_media_queries)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> A sign of me being officially old: I like Thunderbird the way it is. Really. For what I want to do with it, it's just fine, so I'm rather scared of that potentially getting screwed up with a UI redesign.

(obligatory xkcd link: [https://xkcd.com/1172/](https://xkcd.com/1172/))

<comment><USER45> I couldn't agree more.

There are some enhancements to functionality and some bug fixes that would be helpful in Thunderbird, and security fixes are always welcome. However, this is essential software that I rely on for serious work. It doesn't need to be flashy. It doesn't need a UI overhaul that shifts things around for no particular reason and almost certainly breaks things that matter. It just needs to work, reliably and unobtrusively, and not mess anything up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> No need to change UI. Proper maildir support please.

</comment><comment><USER47> As I entered into the survey, on the 'ooo nice' and 'getting shit done' spectrum, the proposed redesign sits too close to the 'ooo nice' end.

So far I'm really happy with Postbox, basically a fork of Thunderbird with loads of modern features. I absolutely hate Outlook.

<comment><USER8> Postbox is commercial, proprietary and has no linux support. Not exactly a fork of Thunderbird.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Behind all the blog blithering, here's the interface mockup:

[http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/thunde...](http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/thunderbird-redesign.jpg)

It has all the stuff people expect today - dim grey text on a light grey background, large decorative graphics to fill space, little round icons for people, images in your face for every email, and integration with calendar and contacts. The people who send out "newsletters" (i.e. email spam) will love it.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think everyone needs to take a look at Evolution[^1] - it's native looking, with a clean interface, with working contacts and calendar sync.

If that was combined with the surprisingly comfortable keyboard shortcuts of Rainloop[^2], that would be brilliant, but the world doesn't need yet another electron-looking app.

[^1]: [https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/](https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/) [^2]: [https://www.rainloop.net/](https://www.rainloop.net/)

</comment><comment><USER49> I've just started using Thunderbird again this last year, comforted by it. It's definitely better than it used to be. The survey is a joke, I don't trust product management/design if they're asking people to donate their time to this survey. Is this grainy screenshot of downloading a ton of email rather confusing or "clear"... I can't help but laugh at the confirmation that is being begged for and stop taking the survey.

I guess a fork will come out if it goes the way of Ubuntu.

I love Mozilla's products and mission.

</comment><comment><USER50> Well that's the exact opposite of what I'd personally like in terms of Thunderbird dev time spent. The UI is already perfect. It doesn't need to be re-made to fit smartphone aesthetics.

</comment><comment><USER51> I don't need radical UI redesigns of Thunderbird, but I do see how a redesign does make it look nicer and "modern", even when the underlying functionality is the same. On that basis, my vote is for a UI redesign as long as it doesn't offer too many opportunities for criticism (especially those that cannot be addressed easily by customization efforts of the community). Thunderbird, like Firefox, has had support for Themes to change the entire UI/chrome. Some themes may have introduced issues, but I have tried a few in the past and found them to provide the flexibility that some users like.

As for Thunderbird itself, I have only two wishes:

1\. Support Exchange calendaring natively and reliably. I've used different extensions (like Lightning along with DavMail or Exchange Provider), and have always had to revert back to OWA (Outlook Web Access) just to have a usable calendar. Without this, I cannot even recommend Thunderbird within my organization (where almost everybody else is stuck with Outlook; this is not the only factor that makes Outlook attractive to users in the recent years — Outlook also has good integration with Skype and Skype Meetings in the calendar, where people start chats on Skype based on calendar events).

2\. Make it perform better. Most people who are Thunderbird users surely have been using it for several years and use multiple mailboxes, with each being at least a few GBs in size. Very few users adopt regular archival, folders, inbox zero and other approaches. I have multiple mailboxes, with a couple of them where the Inbox is about 1GB or 2GB. Thunderbird takes several minutes to startup and show its screen. I know it uses MSF files for the indexes, but it doesn't seem like it does an optimized load of the mail data (mbox) file or takes a lazy approach to loading information that may not be recent. Downloading mail content from IMAP also seems to be slow, though that could be a combination of the servers (across providers) being slower, the protocol and Thunderbird's design/implementation.

P.S.: I donate regularly to the Thunderbird project to show my support. Here's the link for the English version of the donation page (the donation goes only to the Thunderbird project and not to Mozilla/other projects) — [https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/](https://donate.mozilla.org/en- US/thunderbird/)

</comment><comment><USER52> I have recently been using Seamonkey as my day to day browser (Seamonkey is good on OpenBSD). I am really enjoying the fresh take on the user interface … but of course it actually has a very old take on a user interface … I've just forgotten.

I think that much of what passes for user interface design is mere fashion. While a bad user interface is eternal, it doesn't seem possible to have a good one over any length of time.

</comment><comment><USER42> I get that it's the modern style, but would it be so terrible to add some colour? The left hand pane has colours, so why can't the buttons?

The menu buttons is really what make Thunderbird weird to me. The "write" button has a drop-down that say Message, Event, and Task... So write an event? They also never seems to line up, nor do they actually look like button. Sadly non of this is addressed in the presented design.

</comment><comment><USER53> I would be very happy with Thunderbird if it continued functioning as it already does, but without opening up a desktop notification listing emails I received 2 weeks ago... emails it notified me were new every time I clicked on the application and then off of it for the past 2 weeks. I have yet to figure out the logic behind what messages it chooses to show there.

</comment><comment><USER54> I dumped Thunderbird some years ago because I had accumulated 10 gb of email and it had slowed to a crawl. That, and the search wasn't very good.

My gmail interface has neither of those problems.

I would consider going back to Thunderbird because it pulls together multiple email account better than gmail does. But they've got to get a better underlying storage engine.

<comment><USER55> Vacuuming might help. And deleting old mail with attachments.

<comment><USER56> I don't want to delete old emails or old attachments, I just want them indexed for faster search.

<comment><USER55> The point is to have the archives rewritten, they may be fragmented.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I tried installing it on Windows 10 yesterday,the buttons on the ad to setup a new account with one of their partners were unresponsive, including the Skip button. I eventually figured out how to setup an existing account without hitting that window but after I added the account, it wouldnt pull in any mail. I went with Claws Mail.

</comment><comment><USER58> They should make it multi threaded, I am seeing so many places in which UI is blocked and unresponsive while waiting for I/O or other logic.

</comment><comment><USER59> Why do they want it to look Slack-ish?

<comment><USER60> Because "modern"

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> 2-3 row header in the list of all inbox messages is all Thunderbird needs UI- wise to be accepted.

</comment><comment><USER62> Do yourself (and to other e-mail users in the hacker community) some good and use something like Mutt or Gnus. Sth. like Thunderbird is not worth the hassle if you can edit a configuration file and read a man page (most folk here, I'd guess), and who can't is using Gmail and/or the app on their phones anyways.

<comment><USER63> can you read HTML emails with Mutt? with pictures?

<comment><USER64> Feature, not bug.

<comment><USER65> Why do so many geeks insist that markup is good for web documents but not for e-mail?

E-mails can benefit from headings, bulleted lists and tables just as much as a web page. It's all about communicating information in human-digestable format.

OR PERHAPS ALL EMAIL SHOULD BE SENT TELEGRAM STYLE WITHOUT PUNCTUATION SINCE THAT IS JUST A DISTRACTION STOP ALSO ONLY IN ASCII CAPS STOP

<comment><USER64> Am also a ham, so not completely opposed to increased take-up of CW. Particularly in a global HF mesh network.

I'm not actually opposed to markup at all, but you know exactly the kind of over-designed barf I'm talking about being happy not receiving. I can always open an email from a tmp file in the browser (by hitting <v> then <enter> in mutt) but in more than 9/10 cases that just isn't necessary. W3m renders an approximation of the html layout just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I noticed it's an extension rather than just a theme.

Has someone audited this for malware?

<comment><USER67> Everything submitted to addons.mozilla.org gets audited.</comment></comment>


Twitter has a fundamental problem Facebook solved years ago - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/statistics-on-twitter-abuse-rape-death-threats-and-trolls-2015-4

<comment><USER2> Another round of this crap.

You know who loses when a "real" names policy is enforced? Native Americans, domestic abuse survivors, anyone who wants to express a political opinion without risking their job (or in some countries, their life), people asking intimate questions about sex, and many more.

You know who wins? Data brokers who want to buy your data from Facebook.

Provide me with evidence that using a "fake" name makes you more likely to cause abuse, and I'll eat these words.

<comment><USER3> Have you ever played an online game or seen a 40 minute old throwaway account used to attack someone? Fake email addresses to send hate mail. Twilio numbers used to call and harass people. If someone feels like they can deliver abuse anonymously then they're certainly more likely to do so. What I bet you haven't seen is a verified Twitter account used to torture poor souls.

<comment><USER2> >Have you ever played an online game or seen a 40 minute old throwaway account used to attack someone? Fake email addresses to send hate mail.

Not sure how forcing a legal name is involved with online games, but the others can be solved by simply ignoring the troll.

> Twilio numbers used to call and harass people.

And if this creeps into legal harassment, I'm sure the person receiving the calls can work with Twilio and law enforcement.

> If someone feels like they can deliver abuse anonymously then they're > certainly more likely to do so.

This is a conclusion provided without evidence. I can easily send someone a bunch of anonymous hate mail using a number of services, but I don't.

> What I bet you haven't seen is a verified Twitter account used to torture > poor souls.

I beg your pardon. Ted Cruz has a verified Twitter account, and I find every word he says to be torture.

<comment><USER3> Okay, simply ignore the troll. But that isn't what you asked. You wanted to know if "using a "fake" name makes you more likely to cause abuse" so are you ignoring the obvious cases where it's true or are you actually asking for someone to post links to PDFs where people did studies on it?

I'm not saying that any ol' individual will be abusive given anonymity. I'm asserting that more abuse happens when people feel they are anonymous. This isn't a novel concept that I just came up with.

>I beg your pardon. Ted Cruz has a verified Twitter account, and I find every word he says to be torture.

Can you at least cite some examples?

<comment><USER4> When Google Plus was pushing real name rules, a lot of people said "where's the evidence? where's the data driving this decision?" They didn't have any. Google claimed that real names encouraged better social behaviour. This is something people commonly assume about real-name policies — but no-one, including Google, has ever supplied actual evidence of this, rather than personal feeling and assertion.

In fact, what evidence there is points the opposite way: South Korea required commenters on sites with over 100,000 users to supply their Resident Registration Number (national identity number), and this reduced malicious comments by ... 0.9%. [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011...](http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011123001526.html)

So the evidence is against the claim. If you have good evidence _for_ the claim, you'll be the first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can't win on this.

Facebook recently came under fire explicitly for their real name policy. Actually, they come under fire a lot for this, we just kinda forget about it until someone new decides to make an issue of it.

Anonymity is very useful to a certain kind of person, those whom individuals, call them criminals, are motivated to attack. But bullies themselves will use the tools of anonymity to ply their trade with impunity.

You can't have it both ways. If you need anonymity, your only recourse is to stay off of Facebook. Plenty of people have tried to keep their anonymity on Facebook, only to get outed by their huge data engine.

I would love to be able to find a happy medium, but at present it doesn't look like there is one. There's some hope that pseudonymity can give people the best of both worlds, but unfortunately does not protect against bullies.

The difference I can see is that bullies are unmotivated negative users, that simply need dissuasion from doing what they would otherwise do naturally, whereas the people that truly need anonymity need protection against motivated negative users, criminals, who will find a way to attack the person they want to attack regardless of policy. I can't imagine a policy that can usefully protect against both types of bad actors. Maybe there is one, I dunno. But vilifying the social networks themselves is definitely not the solution. We don't have any idea what they should be doing, so it's unhelpful to lump more hatred onto them.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that Facebook asks for real names to prevent bullying. It's a policy to help advertising metrics and create a community rooted in the real world. Bullying happens regardless of those rules anyways.

The biggest issue with Twitter is that their system doesn't encourage positive behavior. On HN, Reddit and other forum software value is added to an anonymous identity over time and with the involvement of it's user. Mechanisms like votes are in place to provide a feedback to the user. Account ranking and age gives you credence. It's still possible for users to commit social suicide but it becomes less likely once the account has been padded with history. Twitter on the other hand has two metrics: following and followers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Twitter can fix this with an existing feature that has perceived value to the user base: Open up being a "Verified User" to anyone who uses a real name (or otherwise proves a real identity). Then, allow all users to filter notifications/replies/viewable tweets by whether or not someone is verified. It doesn't remove the option to be anonymous, but others can limit their interaction with anons if they choose. (They could even charge for verification I suppose.)

I'm sure plenty of "regular" people (i.e. non-celebrities) would verify themselves for the blue check mark. To date it's been reserved for select users and gained a value on Twitter. They could capitalize on that here very easily.

E: typo.

<comment><USER8> I imagine they would want separate tiers to deal with collisions. "Yes this is my name" is different from "yes I am that well known person." In short, you'd still want to distinguish between a famous no-talent ass-clown and a random office worker of the same name.

(And I'll admit it, I mainly posted this comment so I could make the _Office Space_ joke.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does that 88% statistic normalize for amount of traffic? There may be more mean things said on Twitter, but doesn't a tweet also generate more comments than a Facebook post?

From the cited Kick It Out study:

        As Facebook has the highest number of gated profiles, the amount of authors
        tracked from that network is significantly lower than Twitter.

So they're comparing oranges with apple pie.

I almost wonder if there's some stealth advertising here in that "Twitter is 88% better than Facebook at giving your product social media exposure."

Also, when did "troll" come to mean saying something negative? It used to be for people intentionally starting arguments for the sake of being argumentative. But now it's become a generic way to nullify an opinion you don't like by saying "you're a troll" to anyone who disagrees with you.

<comment><USER10> I would be highly surprised if Twitter posts got more comments. I have had tweets of mine "trending" in the past, and I would estimate (based on how quickly and how often on those days I'd burn through the 800 recent mention window; I have more exact stats, but I just want an estimate here) I was getting mere thousands of responses. I routinely see Facebook posts with thousands of comments. Essentially every single post to the Stargate Universe has thousands of comments. On Facebook, comments matter: you aren't just mumbling into the void. Facebook surfaces comments of high value so that people viewing the post see them, and makes certain that people you are sort of connected with see your comments. On Twitter, your responses are only seen by people who follow _both_ you _and_ the account to which you are responding, making it so effectively no one ever sees what you said. This means that Facebook comments are first off more interesting to post as a commenter, and secondly more "viral" and can lead more people to your brand. You also, and this to me is the killer issue with this statistic, are able to moderate comments on Facebook: the only place where a person is able to say things is a post on their own timeline; comments that are horrible are under the control of someone who is unlikely to be, at least in that moment, equally horrible, and who are incentivized to make their content not look horrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think one of the basic optimizations that Twitter could implement would be to implement opt-in real identity and filtering.

I use my real name on twitter. I also use my real face. If I could check a box that basically said 'filter out anyone not doing the same', Twitter would be a much kinder place from my perspective.

If not that, I would even take a filter that cut out all accounts less than a certain age (not user age, I'm talking about account creation date). Most of the trolls are on brand new accounts that are a few hours/days old, and have few followers.

"Don't feed the trolls" puts the onus on the victim to constrain their reactions after being trolled. But "don't give the trolls any attention" is very workable. If I don't hear/see the trolls, then they may as well not exist. I think knowing that you are not actually trolling anyone will reduce a lot of the trolling.

<comment><USER6> Real name is a simplification. It assumes that users are less likely to misbehave because they can't change their identity. This is also true for other systems where users can invest value into their accounts but still have the option of anonymity. HN is an example of those.

Also, bullies tend to be bullies regardless of the rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >The answer is "real identity."

Oh boy here we go. Anybody who's ever followed a Drudge link to a news site that uses Facebook comments knows that isn't true.

The Internet is inherently toxic. Right now we're all like Marie Curie fascinated by this glowing thing we found but eventually we'll figure out that although you can do amazing things with it prolonged exposure will kill you.

<comment><USER13> Some people have enough influence that they can often pressure employers into sacking people who say offensive things. For them, real names are a huge benefit because they know who to try and get sacked. It's not so much of a win for anyone who doesn't have that kind of power, but fortunately no-one listens to their views anyway. Basically, there's a kind of structural problem where the "solutions" that get the most press are the ones that benefit the powerful, because they're the people driving the discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the reason why this "fundamental problem" is existing on one social network and white not on other lies on how these two apps are structured.

On facebook, there are two modes of creating your presence - personal page and business page. You have choice to approve or reject new friend request or kick an existing friend if s\he is causing any trouble. I don't have official data about trolls on business pages but I am sure it exists there.

Contrary to this, on twitter anyone can start following you and wage a war against you. You can unfollow your followers but how many you will do?

To avoid any harassment on twitter either users can share their tweets only with their particular lists or have a moderation on who is following them.

</comment><comment><USER15> As someone with a common name, I don't really see how real names help. Is it me, or the guy who lives about 15 houses away with the same name (seriously, although I don't know him, he shows up on the people sites), or the famous author.

I could be an asshole online with my real name and have no problems. I learned early however that if you cause the right amount of trouble, the internet connection is turned off.

</comment><comment><USER16> They attribute the stagnant user growth to an anymore users, yet how much would their user base outright shrink if they went real ID only a la Google+?

As a correlary, now that they are public, which is more important to Twitter: user growth metrics or growth in meaningful engagement on the platform?

</comment><comment><USER17> The title is misleading because Facebook hasn't solved anything, unless you felt the world was missing a self-surveillance system.

</comment><comment><USER18> there is a big problem with harassment on Twitter, but this is capitulation to only one aggrieved group. At least twice Rickey Gervais has tweeted pictures of young women hunters next to their game that has resulted in widespread death threats and harassment of the women. During the Suey Park #CancelColbert thing, I watched as one of her friends systematically told everybody replying to her to "die in a fire", "drink bleach", "kill yourself", and then when someone said the same thing to Park, Park declared she was getting death threats.

This is just going to be another system abused to shut one group of people up while another group does the same shit with impunity. The evidence is all there. Just recently I saw an argument about this on "The Mary Sue" where one person demanded proof that the other side of an Internet flame war was also getting death threats. When it was proven, the person declared that because the death threats against these people were not the result of oppression, they mattered less, and talking about them was "derailing the discussion." This is about ideology, not about a general concern for human safety. Some people being harassed don't count.

</comment><comment><USER19> "[...]88% of trolls are on Twitter."

And this is the reason of stalled growing of the platform. Anom users is a recipe for disaster.

<comment><USER20> "Anom users is a recipe for disaster", says someone known only as "marvel_boy".

I've always been pretty skeptical of the "anonymity causes bad behavior, non- anonymity causes good behavior" theory, especially since the supporting argument usually consists only of a link to a Penny Arcade comic. Certainly some of the best and most humane communities I've been part of have been largely anonymous or pseudonymous, and some of the most vitriolically toxic have been tied to peoples' other (persistent and supposedly "realer") identities.

<comment><USER21> anonymous communities tend towards being a cesspool after they reach a certain size. small anonymous communities are often great

<comment><USER22> depends on moderation algo, see HN

<comment><USER21> true enough. *unmoderated communities of a certain size

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> mostly anon user base + limited space to communicate = flaming</comment>


Ask HN: Which banks do large companies use? - <AUTHOR> Do companies with large revenues diversify among the top banks?
How do they decide how much to allocate to their account(s)?
Is money easily moved around? Are there multiple signatories? <comment><USER2> I am sure others know more than I do on details, but I have seen into the belly of the beast a few times during consulting projects for Fortune 500 firms, a few Top 10 even. I've consulted in everything from the startup down to their last $100 in the bank to GE, Fidelity, Phillips, Ford, Toyota etc.

Yes, they generally spread across many banks, many accounts and even nations. Generally after $50M in revenue and for sure after $100M they cease having "standard" accounts like SMB's have. Honestly, most banks once you cross even the 10-20M annually will customize accounts for you almost anyway you want. Smaller the bank you use the smaller the revenue before they customize. Also insurance gets interesting insuring large sums of money too.

Allocations are handled via discussions with the banks, outside advisor groups and electronic systems. Usually the CFO of large organizations will employ a staff that literally manages investments and they will differ from the people managing daily/monthly/quarterly cash flow. There are literally teams of people that work internally and with banks, accounting firms, attorneys and other consultants to figure out the right allocation and distribution. It also gets super complex because of tax laws, international transactions, international revenue etc. So there are teams of people usually managing this not just one or two people. In one of the largest public firms I was at they had about 100 people that did nothing but manage investments and allocation, that team worked with the cash flow team on a quarterly basis and with the M&A team as necessary.

Signatory is not handled the same way as you would see in a SMB either, where you can say two people have to sign every check etc. In most large organizations everything is managed via the back office finance systems which will digitally sign everything, handle ACH/wire transfers etc. And those systems have built in purchase limits for different levels of approvals etc. I have seen where an ESVP could spend $5M in one transaction basically unquestioned, but the reality is they'd never really do that without discussions. But it is there so they could make emergency purchases of equipment, supplies etc without need to have delays in the system. I even saw where the Admin Assistant for one of the CEOs I worked for had purchase approval of up to $50k a month, just to handle incidentals, travel, meetings, food etc without having unnecessary headaches put in her way.

</comment><comment><USER3> A growing national business with $12M + annual cash flows (still technically a small business, so probably not relevant). We worked through small local midwestern banks, but found the larger banks (e.g. Wells Fargo) and American Express were necessary to get required US services (credit lines, commercial paper, credit card expense reporting etc). American Express has been a pleasant surprise as much of our cost of doing business is paid that way, for which we get (valuable) points/perks. Something I think not enough businesses use.

Larger banks also seem to make it easier to remove personal guarantees on credit facilities as tbe company grows. As for how much to allocate to each account, most banks provide a sweep service if balances are large enough where the balance of each account is sweeped nightly into a money market account, and then restored the next day, Otherwise you just need to maintain balances in each bank account in support of your cash flow projections.

As for international finance, I have found that foreign banks (e.g. ANZ Banking Group, Royal Bank of Canada) are much better with transfers and moving money around than US banks (as they are not stymied by the Federal Reserve and the Fed Payments System). Do not overlook Bitcoin either.

Where small local banks shine for us is through their trust departments. Larger banks tend to have trust products and packages for "wealth management" into which funds are dubiously recruited, while with small trust companies, you can engineer boutique situations (e.g. where fiscal instruments such as securities and time deposits can be held as collateral but still traded on the open market under a trust account). Befriend a small bank trust officer!

Transfer of large amounts of money between banks in the US is still very much a credit transaction - availability of funds are determined by the credit of the parties to the transaction. New companies with large transfers even between large banks will get restricted funds availability, until credit develops. Working with larger banks, it is much easier to establish funds availability in conjunction with a more holistic credit picture.

I'm sure for legitimately large corporations, there is a need to diversify among the top 13 banks, especially for national businesses (e.g. not even Wells Fargo is in Missouri or Oklahoma). We have found there effectively are NO national banks in the USA present in all states (we have personnel in all the lower 48). As in politics - when you're small you are either Democratic or Republican. When your large it is necessary to contribute equally to both. I think the same is true of banks - a business of $100M or more would want to diversify even if just for risk management.

I agree with @davismwfl that you need to construct a banking relationship around your systems.</comment>


Consensus as Religion - <AUTHOR> https://glenn.thedixons.net/science/6-consensus-as-religion/ <comment><USER2> I fundamentally agree with chaos theory. When I come across predictions based on non-linear, highly dynamic, multivariate systems, I know that uncertainty is an exponential function of time in those systems, even if we have a perfect understanding of how that system works (often not true). This is why I'm a skeptic of most studies affirming the ideal diet or ones that seek to flatten psychological profiles to predict behavior or ones that have simple answers for economic problems or studies attributing all climate change to anthropogenic CO2 and ones that argue that catastrophic warming will occur in the 21st century.

When it comes to predicting chaos, there can be no consensus. The only rational position to take is to prepare for the maximum range of outcomes with given economic constraints. For example, if we over-corrected for global warming, investing all of our limited resources into that, and we instead find ourselves plunged into a 100K-year glacial period by the end of the 21st century (perhaps caused by supervolcano), will we have saved humanity or nature from decline or mass extinctions?

<comment><USER3> Seems like you gotta pick something and commit to it though, otherwise it seems like you'll suffer from decision paralysis and possibly nihilism :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is so true that the internal mental/ideological structure of most "skepticism" is very similar to religious fundamentalism.

This short article got linked here a few days ago and it's been at the forefront of my mind since then: [http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html](http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html)

<comment><USER5> I feel like you can say this about pretty much anything. When the system being thought about gets to a certain size, most people default to 'I think how the people who I trust think.' And most people do not vet this chain of trust because they don't want to or are simply unable to. After a while, they end up with convictions they cannot defend rationally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I definitely agree with that. If you can't tolerate other ideas, then you aren't doing science.

</comment><comment><USER7> Any other argument other than "The data shows x", or "inferring from the data" is probably not science. The author makes solid points, and gives good reasons to doubt the the climate change consensus, even if those reasons are primarily sociological.

EDIT: Seeing a lot of comments going grey in this thread, but not a lot of arguments.</comment>


HackMIT 2018 Admissions Puzzle - <AUTHOR> http://hackmirror.icu <comment><USER2> Ok, but how do you find out the puzzle url, getting from hackmit.org ?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This years HackMIT Puzzle (Black Mirror themed) covers everything from gerrymandering to cryptocurrencies!

Enjoy!</comment>


Feedback on my new site Chipped.In - <AUTHOR>

Hello Everyone,
I've soft launched a new site for groups to keep track of shared expenses.  Initial target is 'casual' expense tracking for things like road trips, weddings and other largish events, but it's also useful for families and roommates to keep track of their normal month to month expenses as well.
I am in planning mode to figure out what to add next and that plan will be so much better with some feedback.
The url is: http://chipped.in/
Vince Hodges <comment><USER2> I already have friends using some of the apps mentioned [http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/15-cool-tools-for-easy- expense-...](http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/15-cool-tools-for-easy-expense- tracking-and-budgeting/). Why should we switch to yours?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good question and I don't have a nice pat answer for you.

It probably comes down to personal preference. It may work in a way that is better for you or you may like the way it looks or it may offer features that the others don't.

The world seems to like choices, we have many text editors, web browsers, languages and operating systems, restaurants, etc.

Note, I am also the founder of pennyminder.com so I think there is lots of room for both full featured PFM's as well as simple and unobtrusive ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Its a cool premise, but for me to want to join it'd need a better design and tour of features. ie. before I sign up and give you my e-mail address, I'd want to know exactly how the site works and what I'm getting into.

<comment><AUTHOR> What exactly about the design needs to be better?

Fair enough on the feature tour. The feature set is being kept minimal at this point, so there's not a lot of features to tour ;).

As for how it works:

\- you create a 'project' or category that you want to track expenses for \- invite anyone who is 'chipping in' \- When you pay for something, add an entry for it \- or if you give someone money (ie for your share of something) add an entry for the amount, Chipped.In keeps track of both.

On the people page, is a summary of exactly how much each person has contributed (either in expenses or money given to others).

I just added weekly (last 4 weeks worth) and monthly (last 3) summaries to do week over week and month over month comparisons.

I struggle to find the balance between to much and too little information on the landing page, so everyone's input is much welcomed.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Sentinel – my second side project - <AUTHOR> Hey everyone
I'd like to show you the new version of one of my side project: Sentinel. It's aimed at product managers or marketing people (or even founders) and let them monitor a page and watch for visual changes.
Why? As a product manager I'd love to be warned when one of my competitors changes its homepage or pricing page.
The big question: are there people with the same need? The second big question: I have no idea on how much I should charge for this.
Please check it out and give me your opinion. Have a great afternoon.
https://sentinelapp.com <comment><USER2> There are a number of page monitoring options available (I use the Distill add-on for Firefox), but I'm unaware of any that check for visual changes at the pixel level via screenshot, so this is an interesting idea.

On the other hand, some might prefer to check only a specific portion of a page for changes in a piece of text, for example, and whole-page change alerts might be too general. Additionally, checking twice daily _might_ not be frequent enough for some. I guess you'll get feedback about this and considering making changes if they're suggested often enough.

There are a few errors in your copy that need fixing:

* We monitor the pages multiples times per day. If anyone [any one] of them changes, we'll know. And so will you.

* You will be instantly notified when a page change [changes].

* Product managers can use Sentinel to check their competitor [competitors'] product and marketing sites, such as the homepage and pricing pages.

* Marketers can be instantly warned when competiting [competing] products update their marketing message, allowing them to react and take appropriate action.

* I was super pissed, I cried for a couple of weeks and I decided to create a [tool?] that did the same things, hopefully better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot. The copy has been updated.

You might be right about checking more than twice per day. It's not a problem per se - but making screenshots is a ressource heavy process and I'll have to see how I can scale that.</comment></comment>


Autocracy: Rules for Survival (NY Review of Books) - <AUTHOR> http://www2.nybooks.com/daily/s3/nov/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival.html <comment><AUTHOR> Companies that classify people as contractors unnecessarily – when they control every aspect of the delivery and experience as if they were using real W-2 employees – demean people. They really do. It's like being called horrible names, but just in a different way. The end result is the same. They feel social rejection and hurt. People remember how they think you made them feel. Being given a surprise self-employment tax bill for the privilege of driving strangers around in your own car to make ends meet feels demeaning. We need to recognize that.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We need to have a civilized, polite, reasonable, factual discussion about the future of our country, one that both recognizes the damage caused by social bigotry _and_ recognizes the damage caused by economic insecurity and the offshoring of the proceeds of Americans' work.

</comment><comment><USER2> Exactly what book is being reviewed here?

</comment><comment><USER3> Americans used to believe in freedom.

<comment><AUTHOR> God, what's happened to us?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Please do not downvote. Come and discuss. Drive-by comments and rapid-fire memes in response to Macedonian blogspam on Facebook is what got America into this mess.

<comment><USER4> Your comment is not very clear. Stories can´t be downvoted. I guess that you are asking that the story not to be flagged.

The problem is that this story is 100% political, so it's off-topic according to the guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

> _What to Submit_

> _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they > 're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on > TV news, it's probably off-topic._

And there has been a few big stories in HN about the current(last?) presidential race in USA. Usually in this kind of cases the mods allow a few exceptions, but only a few.

\--

Also, you posted 4 of the 6 top level comments in this thread. It's bad netiquette. And the comments are not about the article, but about related political topics.

<comment><AUTHOR> You have a duty to oppose blatant electoral manipulation, blatant DNC corruption, the failure of the DNC to present any kind of credible economic plan, and the insane obstructionism of the RNC that has caused our institutions to rot. You need to feel that. This is unamerican. If you don't elect someone based upon what they say they will do – kill the families of suspected terrorists (a form of collective punishment), destroy the fourth estate through repeated insane conspiratorial claims of a professional media conspiracy to discredit him – then reason is lost. The country is lost. People judge others by their words for a reason: they are a leading indicator of their actions. God help us.

The country cannot have the FBI interfering during early voting – a period during which 40% of votes were cast – with fact-free partisan allegations. It is unamerican. It is tragic. It must stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Y Combinator and Peter Thiel have a moral duty to denounce Trumpism before it's too late.</comment>


Oracle DeWitt Clause - <AUTHOR> http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/article/9828 <comment><USER2> Is it possible for the benchmark providers to use "Database O" instead of the Oracle name?

Second question: if Oracle bans showing its product(s) in benchmarks does this mean that it is slow?

<comment><USER3> _if Oracle bans showing its product(s) in benchmarks does this mean that it is slow?_

No necessarily. It's _really_ easy to do bad benchmarking in good faith, especially for a serious database. Now imagine Company I doing benchmarks of Databases O and D, and they subtly cripple O, perhaps by failing to change one or two defaults....</comment></comment>


Coronavirus has an Achilles heel, and we can exploit it - <AUTHOR> https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/120368742/coronavirus-has-an-achilles-heel-and-we-can-exploit-it <comment><AUTHOR> _Its Achilles heel appears to be an exquisite sensitivity to rapid case contact management, even after it has established large outbreaks ..._

 _Influenza pandemic plans use rapid case contact management early, and move to case diagnosis and management only (abandoning contact tracing and isolation) soon after community transmission of the virus has been established. Evidence from Asia, and the particular properties of Covid-19 suggest that this would be disastrous for New Zealand ..._

 _What is required ... is an urgent large expansion of our case contact management workforce._</comment>


USPTO employs 14 examiners f/t to examine applications filed by single inventor - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/avtrask/status/1044307768646217728 <comment><USER2> To be fair he is a patent troll who somehow managed to engineer "invention" of integrated microcontroller patent grant in 1990 for his 1969 application thru multiple patent application amendments/extensions. He kept massaging his 1969 patent application until someone at USPTO got suckered into rubber stamping it.

[http://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments- tmx-1795...](http://www.righto.com/2015/05/the-texas-instruments- tmx-1795-first.html)</comment>


19 year old inventor finds way to clean oceans - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2415889/Boyan-Slat-19-claims-invention-clean-worlds-oceans-just-years.html

<comment><USER2> There was discussed [0] on reddit's front page yesterday.

Key comment from arimaspi quoting from the Foundation's website [1]:

"The last couple of days several (spontaneous) articles have been published, claiming The Ocean Cleanup Array is a 'feasible method' of extracting plastic from the gyres. This is an incorrect statement; we are currently only at about 1/4th of completing our feasibility study. Only after finishing that study, we believe such statements should be made. Although the preliminary results look promising, and our team of about 50 engineers, modellers, external experts and students is making good progress, we had and have no intention of presenting a concept as a feasible solution while still being in investigative phase.

Please stay tuned for this study, which will be published online in several months' time.

We kindly request the press to refrain from any further publication, until all assumptions of this concept have been confirmed.

Thank you."

[0] [http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1lzrxc/19_year_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1lzrxc/19_year_old_invents_way_to_clean_up_the_worlds/) [1] [http://www.boyanslat.com/plastic4/](http://www.boyanslat.com/plastic4/)</comment>


Farmers Are Using Food Waste to Make Electricity - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/11/30/783001327/chew-on-this-farmers-are-using-food-waste-to-make-electricity <comment><USER2> This is fun cause I've got a side project going on that does this, but without decomposition, and with direct electrochemical conversion. It uses solid oxide fuel cells, which can not only consume hydrogen, but can also generate electricity from the CO->CO2 oxidation. My current work is on developing a gliding arc plasma reactor that can take solid waste and convert it to syngas, which is then desulferized and fed directly into the SOFC. I'm hoping to build a 5-10kw system partnering with an SOFC manufacturer.

I'm a sailor and I'm targeting the sailing cruiser community with it, although I recognize potential markets elsewhere. The idea is that when you are remote, in locations where supply chains and infrastructure are undeveloped, it is incredibly risky to rely on ICEs for auxiliary propulsion and electricity. You may not have access to gasoline or diesel in the quantities or narrow quality specification that ICEs require. And you certainly don't have access to fuel when you are at sea on a long passage. This system would allow you to use pretty much any conventional fuel, but it would also allow you to use biowaste, garbage paper and plastic (including ocean plastics), wood pellets, and even wet biomass like seaweed (the moisture content reduces efficiency, but is still net positive for energy generation). And it can produce energy on demand, instead of waiting around for it to decompose and produce methane.

<comment><USER3> That is fascinating and could be a real game-changer. Would you care to share more about this?

<comment><USER2> I'm using some of the research done by Drexel's Plasma Lab [0] as inspiration for the reactor design. There are lots of plasma reactors out there, in research as well as commercially available, but most of them are focused on breaking down gaseous or liquid matter. The research I've seen at Drexel was the first I've come across that focused on solid fuels. I have a friend who was an atomization engineer for a rocket fuel company who has some pretty good ideas for handling solid fuels that we're going to experiment with. But at least we know it is already possible.

As far as the desulfurization and SOFC is concerned, we're not even close to that stage yet. Desulfurizers are pretty common, but most SOFC designs tend to be extremely large and heavy, more suitable for stationary generation. I'd like to work with NASA's Bi-Electrode Supported Cell concept, which has power densities suitable for transport applications [1], even better than most diesel engines. They are actively licensing the technology non-exclusively, so maybe we could get a license and produce it ourselves, but this is all bootstrapped so that is probably out of reach in the short term.

[0] [https://drexel.edu/nyheiminstitute/researchlabs/plasma- energ...](https://drexel.edu/nyheiminstitute/researchlabs/plasma-energy-lab/)

[1] [https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/LEW- TOPS-120](https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/LEW-TOPS-120)

<comment><USER4> Have you considered working with S4 Energy/InEnTec to commercialize (they previously were a JV with Waste Management)? They've done some work in large scale gasification.

<comment><USER2> InEnTec looks interesting, looks like they're already working on plasma gasification. One of the problems I have run into with a lot of companies that I've contacted is that most of them are only interested in industrial scale systems, and have no interest in small scale production. Definitely worth getting in touch though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a very common technique that has been in use for decades at farms all over the world. You can see these dome-shaped containers when you drive through the countryside in western Europe. The first Wikipedia entry (2002) mentions that it's a popular process in the Netherlands and Denmark. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biogas&oldid=2064...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biogas&oldid=206443).

<comment><USER6> My memory is fuzy on the details, but I think this is something to do with Mad Cow Disese (BSE) being caused indirectly by the old practice of feeding food waste (containing meat) back to animals as pigswill.

When this was banned suddenly there was a lot more food waste, and also animal feed became more expesnive, and anaerobic digestion emerged as a solution to both problems.

<comment><USER7> In Australia some farms installed these as a response to the carbon tax. I believe they got taxed on escaping methane if they let it decompose in the air, so it was a double win, turning a tax liability into a profit centre.

<comment><USER8> Australia doesn't have a carbon tax though!

It's been a running theme over the past decade's various changes in Prime Ministers. A bit of a rundown [https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/how-the- coalition-becam...](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/how-the-coalition- became-a-lightning-rod-for-climate-rage-20191113-p53aco)

Edit: oh oops. I'd forgotten it had actually existed for a while

<comment><USER7> Not sure if you know this and are joking, but for the benefit of others, it got introduced and revoked by a following government:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Semi-related, one comparison I'd like to see is pre-sliced fruit in plastic containers versus the whole fruit.

These regularly get attacked as signs of how wasteful we are (which I generally agree with) and people defend them because people with various kinds of physical impairments might find it hard to peel a fruit.

But I think if you recycle the skins/seeds/waste properly in a factory, wrap it in lightweight plastic and account for the reduced shipping weight, then you might come out ahead even if you ignore the benefits of eating more fruit.

One of the many complex decisions that a carbon fee might simplify by guiding people towards doing the right thing at every step in the process.

<comment><USER9> Puuh i think you overestimate the usable energy from pulp. Honestly anaerobic digestion works best with simple sugars. More complex carbohydrates and proteins and their turnover to methane depends on the digestability by the used bacteria. This is also why corn is a major feed for digesters in central Europe.

<comment><USER2> Cellulosic biomass may not have the hydrogen necessary to break down into methane reliably, but that doesn't mean it can't be used. It can be burned directly or turned into pellet fuel quite easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Also in use since the 80's in various African countries... [http://www.songhai.org/index.php/en/home- en/16-songhai/190-b...](http://www.songhai.org/index.php/en/home- en/16-songhai/190-bioenergie-en)

The Songhai Center does a full carbon cycle re-use. An interesting place to visit too!

</comment><comment><USER11> A previous comment on HN went something along the lines of "what is going to happen in the summer when we've built solar/wind/etc to fulfill this winter months needs?"

I started researching energy storage. Creating liquid fuels from electricity would be handy for storage. There are processes, but getting CO2 and H2 to create hydrocarbons is currently very energy intensive. On the CO2 side, I think biogas can help this out. biogas is 25-50% CO2. In biogas upgrading, CO2 is considered a waste product (with purer methane the desired output). CO2 from this source looks noticeably less energy intensive than direct air capture.

I know biogas can be done on the small scale (e.g. homebiogas.com). My research focused especially on liquid fuel creation that could work in someone's backyard. I haven't found it. "High‐Selectivity Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to Ethanol using a Copper Nanoparticle/N‐Doped Graphene Electrode" [0] was an exciting find, dampened after reading how well ethanol stores.

I mostly became convinced that existing oil, gas, and chemical companies will maintain dominance producing many of the same outputs, from a different (renewable) set of inputs.

[0]: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/slct.201601...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/slct.201601169)

<comment><USER2> Looks like you've been going down a similar path as me. Unfortunately, liquid fuels from pure electricity is extremely energy inefficient. For example, the fischer tropsch process will consume the hydrogen that you've split with precious electricity, and only half of that will make its way into the fuel, the other half of ends up converting back into water. And that is before you figure out how to get CO2 in concentrations high enough to be cost effective.

You might want to check out plasma reforming. It's the path I'm currently on, although targeted for a different end product.

[https://drexel.edu/nyheiminstitute/researchlabs/plasma- energ...](https://drexel.edu/nyheiminstitute/researchlabs/plasma-energy-lab/)

<comment><USER11> Yeah, FT looked insane, which is one of the reasons the linked paper was so attractive. Ethanol from CO2, electricity, and water at ambient temperature and pressure.

I mostly think I have to be doing some chemistry/math wrong, based on how not terrible the energy efficiency is. I'd love corrections or reading material, as this is not a knowledgeable area for me. \- 2 CO2 + 9 H20 + 12e- -> C2H5OH + 12 OH- = 0.084 V \- over voltage of 1.2 V is best \- 1kWh @ 1.2V yields 30 moles electrons \- 30 moles electrons has theoretical yield 2.5 moles ethanol = 0.146 L ethanol \- reduced to appx 116ml ethanol due to selectivity \- 116ml ethanol has raw energy of 778 Wh, probably 550 Wh recoverable with Combined Heat and Power

I think 55% round trip efficiency for energy-dense long term storage would be big. Of course, this isn't that (math is partially based on theoretical bests, ethanol isn't long term, CO2 capture and material movement not accounted for).

Thanks for the plasma reforming tip!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Biogas you can also use it to run vehicles it has cleaner exhaust emissions compared to other fuels Gasoline/Diesel. Farmer could and probably will run their tractors off Biogas. Because farmers like to experiment, its available and decision paths to get it into action are short.

<comment><USER13> No need to experiment, this is already done commercially on a massive scale.

"Stockholm Vatten's sewage treatment works produce 4.1 million m³ of biogas annually, but have the capacity to double this amount." [1]

[1] [http://www.stockholmvattenochavfall.se/en/water-and- wastewat...](http://www.stockholmvattenochavfall.se/en/water-and- wastewater/wastewater/waste-products/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not too unrelated, composting can generate heat around 60°C. Could save some heating

<comment><USER15> I used to work in AD/Composting and the issue I've read about with compost heat recovery was the cost of the recovery system (compost piles are very large) and short equipment life span due to damage by loaders/environmental degradation.

The most consistent use of compost heat has been to ensure proper pathogen reduction in certain waste materials such as wastewater byproducts. A popular example of this is called a 'dutch tunnel' (add 'composting' to that if you google it) where you have a pretty robust, loader accessible composting container which largely self-heats for pathogen reduction. I use the term 'largely self-heats' because there are aeration/mixture characteristics that are required for proper temperature development.

Searching EPA 40 CFR 503 is a good introduction to the process, because there is been a lot written about it and you can easily find guides/introductions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Unanswered question, where does the remaining waste from the plant go? Surely not all of the mass is converted into gas. And with 1000 tons per day, there should be a lot of waste to dispose off somewhere.

<comment><USER17> Anaerobic biodigesters are very common here in Germany. The residue is a really good fertilizer that can be applied to the fields. At least here in G the nitrogen application from this has to be documented and subtracts from the N fertilizer budget farmers are allowed to apply.

<comment><USER18> The only downside is that to the best of my knowledge, those installations tend to be designed without storage in mind, running the generator at whatever time is convenient thanks to flat feed-in rates. Making them dispatchible would be by far the single lowest-hanging fruit in the whole field of grid storage.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to be)

<comment><USER19> They provide such a minuscule amount of power that I'm not sure whether making them dispatchable is worth the effort.

<comment><USER18> Take a look at [https://energy-charts.de/power.htm](https://energy- charts.de/power.htm) : pumped storage peak discharge hardly ever reaches a level of contribution as high has biomass and that is basically all the non- fossil dispatchability that we have. Meanwhile, biomass is running as baseload more stubbornly than even nuclear.

Making the biomass contribution dispatchible would be huge.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Learn Javascript by interactive coding - <AUTHOR> http://learnjs.info/

<comment><USER2> Cool stuff. I was a bit confused by why the "if (worth < 1000000)" condition line wasn't highlighted for each iteration (though it clearly was executed). Is that a little bug or am I misunderstanding the presentation?

Did you watch Bret Victor's talk "Inventing on Principle"? The step-through feedback and stack/heap display of your app reminds me of the javascript tools he shows in that video.

I'm going to be going through your examples now. Thanks!</comment>