A very simple desktop app that can send raw http requests - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/S2-/http-client <comment><AUTHOR> I was not happy with the current REST clients, that are all either to complicated (soap-ui), integrated inside some other tool (HttpRequester, vscode-restclient, ...) or are to basic (can not save/recall previous requests) so I made my own.

Wanted to share this, maybe someone else finds it useful. And it's really easy to hack: just one html file and one js file.

</comment><comment><USER2> Why no using telnet ?

<comment><AUTHOR> because it's nice to have requests remembered so that you don't have to write all the json by hand every time.</comment></comment>


1Password 4 for Mac is here - <AUTHOR> http://blog.agilebits.com/2013/10/03/1password-4-for-mac-is-here/ <comment><USER2> I'm okay with paying for the Mac update. What I'm not okay with is them disabling Dropbox support in the old iOS program and then making the new version a $18 app. That means I'll need to spend $51.58 ($33.59 for Mac + Windows upgrade plus $17.99 for iOS app) to regain functionality the worked perfectly fine until they crippled the iOS app.

I'm doubting that I'll actually do this because I'm so steamed about the disabling of perfectly working features.

<comment><USER3> AgileBits has relatively few options here- Their writeup is available at

[http://blog.agilebits.com/2013/08/08/1password-3-dropbox- syn...](http://blog.agilebits.com/2013/08/08/1password-3-dropbox-sync-faq/)

They claim that Dropbox deprecated their existing API, so the software broke on it's own. AgileBits did not disable the integration, upsteam changed.

In the same way that Netscape 4 can't talk to SPDY-only websites, 1Password 3 can't talk to the new dropbox API.

I haven't found the doc from Dropbox that describes an API change on Sept 1 - They did do a V0-V1 change this year, however, and AgileBits' story is plausible.

<comment><USER4> But the only reason they couldn't update 1Password 3 to the new API is because they pulled it from the store -- in order to force all users to upgrade for $18.

<comment><USER3> I don't think they pulled it to force people to upgrade.. I suspect they pulled it because selling multiple versions would be confusing.

It's clearer if there is one app per platform. Getting my wife to use a password manager is tough enough - Having to explain why there are 14 variations in the store would just add to the burden.

But as to why it was a new version in the first place.. This is Apple's supported answer for paid upgrades. They did the same for Logic Pro X.

<comment><USER4> I don't have a problem paying for an upgrade. There's features I am definitely excited about, like multiple Vaults which I mentioned above.

But as an end-user who only owns an iPhone, the only "feature" I notice in 1Password 4 for iOS is "Dropbox syncing still works". Not very compelling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use 1Password so extensively that the money I paid for it always seemed well spent, if not cheap.

1Password 4 is a big leap for me in terms of usability (vs. v.3): the mini application can be quickly accessed via a key chord, similarly to what you can do within a browser. Very helpful for things like VPN access, encrypted HDs, and other non-web softwares.

The security audit is a great feature too: it can tell you where you are using weak passwords, or even repeated passwords. If you have used the same password on many sites, and one of those sites is compromised, you might want to change that password elsewhere, or better, make sure you use a unique strong password everywhere; so knowing what sites could be compromised is a huge help.

If you want to feel safe in the web, 1Password's high usability and new features will help you get there.

<comment><USER6> Are you happy with the browser support?

In my browsers, 1Password 4 still works less reliably than 1Password 3. Manual completion (I don't use auto competition) sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. In the former case, the user credentials get listed but not inserted. The issues occurs more often in Chrome than in Firefox. It might be just me of course.

In any case, I am already in contact with the great AgileBits support team. AgileBits is one of the companies where your support mails are taken seriously.

<comment><USER7> If you email me, my name (see sig at bottom) at company url with the email address you used to send your support ticket in I'll personally take a look.

Kyle

AgileBits Support

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally, I see no compelling reason to upgrade. V3 works fine for me, and 99% of the time I'm just using the browser plug-in anyways, not the main app.

It's also a bit disappointing that I had to buy direct to get cross-platform support, which is the reason I chose 1Password, but then that means I have to pay for this upgrade. If I had paid them half the price via the Mac App Store, minus Apple's 30% no less, I would get the upgrade for free. Not sure what they are trying to tell me there.

<comment><USER7> AgileBits Support here.

Sorry to hear you feel it isn't worth the upgrade. I'd suggest trying the demo at least to see if there's anything there worth using. Personally, the new browser extension is amazing and I have a hard time going back to help users in support :)

You didn't have to buy direct to get cross platform support. We offer coupons to users who purchase on the Mac App Store and want to buy our Windows application as well. We match the price at the time of purchase. So, normally the Mac app is $50, we offer the Mac + Win bundle for $70. If you bought at $50 on the Mac App Store, we give a coupon to get the Windows app for the same price as our website bundle. We just need proof of purchase from the Mac App Store.

If you have concerns though, email us, support at company url. Mention me here and someone will add me to the ticket and we can discuss directly. I'll be happy to help however I can.

Kyle

AgileBits Support

<comment><USER8> >You didn't have to buy direct to get cross platform support.

My only suggestion is that you might want to document this somewhere, because I had no idea this was an option at the time I purchased in July 2012, and still don't see it on the store web pages.

<comment><USER7> You're right, we don't have it anywhere anymore. We did have it when we were using another support system that had a built in KB. Sadly that didn't work out for us and I think that article disappeared along with the tool.

I'll put this on my todo list to see if we can get it handled soon.

That said, if you email us support at company url, maybe I can make it up to you in some way or another. Just mention my name and remind me of this discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I found out about the "CMD + \" just now. I guess it wasn't there before or is that because I never used the browser plugin.

Btw, my upgrade was free at the App Store.

Quick observations;

* Snappy and Fast.

* iCloud Sync will make it easier to sync between Devices - iOS and Mac OS X. Dropbox sync wasn't that great if I don't open the app often. (I hope I don't regret saying this.)

* Finally, "CMD + SHIFT + c" copies password to clipboard. Been asking that for ages.

* Security Audit is cool.

Hmmmmm;

* I wish I could choose the backup location.

* Allow me to create custom categories.

Overall, nice upgrade.

<comment><USER6> Is CMD + \ an easily reachable shortcut on American keyboards?

On my Non-American keyboard, CMD + \ equals CMD + Alt + Shift + / …

I have never used the setting so far. The current setting in 1Password on the Mac I am using right now is CMD + S, that does not work of course. I guess I changed it years ago since AgileBits is very unlikely to have chosen CMD + S as shortcut for Non-American keyboards. I changed the shortcut now to CMD + ALT + 7 …

<comment><USER7> Yup, it's been there for a long time. For at least as long as I've been a user.

We had trouble with 1Password 3 and non-US keyboards, but the new app should be MUCH better at handling non-US keyboard layouts. So change that shortcut however you see fit :)

I just can't promise a t-shirt for your chosen replacement of the shortcut (see our blog.agilebits.com header for this one).

Kyle

AgileBits Support

<comment><USER6> Your t-shirts look great!

I don't expect a t-shirt from you but maybe you could provide a template?

<comment><USER7> We do sell the command+\ shirts :)

[https://www.merchline.com/agilebits/category.6106.c.php](https://www.merchline.com/agilebits/category.6106.c.php)

They're "at cost" so we're not making money on the shirts but our users really loved them so we found a way to at least make them available at a reasonable price.

Kyle

AgileBits Support

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Supported this company with the first version of 1Password. Then paid again for a family version of v3 last year, as well as the paid version for the iPhone which has been somewhat of a let down... now they want more money. All so I can store/use passwords.

I've spent less money on other apps that I actually spend more time using daily. Guess I'll start searching for some alternatives before they start dropping support for v3.

<comment><USER11> "— All Mac App Store customers get 1Password 4 for free. Yes, all of them

— All website customers who purchased 1Password for Mac in 2013 get v4 for free. Yes, that's a nine-month free upgrade window

— Launch sale price for new customers: $39.99 – that's 20% off the regular price of $49.99

— Launch upgrade sale price for website customers who bought before 2013: $24.99 – that's $10 off our regular upgrade price of $34.99".

<comment><USER10> Not sure why you're quoting this. I read this when I visited the page... I just find it ridiculous that if I pay the $24.99 to upgrade, I will have put close to $100 into an app that basically stores passwords for me conveniently.

<comment><USER2> They can do what they want with their pricing, but I agree. I just don't see the value at the current price points, especially the $18 iOS app. I'd be more inclined to upgrade at around $20 and $10. At $18 and $7 I'd already have pulled the trigger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been using 1Password for years, and until I saw the picture of everyone in their t-shirts, I had no idea that CMD-\ was the hotkey for the password menu.

Still waiting for seamless Linux integration though. It's one of my killer apps that keeps me on OS X, connecting via ssh to headless Linux machines or VMs, as opposed to using the Linux desktop. And yes, I realize that there are other password managers out there for Linux. The point is that I already have my passwords and many notes in 1Password, and anything I switch to would have to sync with OS X and iOS.

<comment><USER13> Same here; I had to get a Windows license when I was tired of read-only from the dropbox utility, and then run 1Password for Windows using Wine (and 1Password for windows is a _massively inferior_ experience.) I'm surprised they don't put more effort into improving the Windows app instead of releasing v4 on top of an already pretty good v3, even if they don't feel it's the right time to release a Linux version.

<comment><USER7> AgileBits Support here.

Noted. We can't promise Linux support. It's hard to provide paid software on Linux and be able to pay for the development and technical support. The user base is tricky, many are used to free software via their favorite package manager. Serious professionals are likely to pay I think, but how many of those are there?

We'd love to support Linux in some way, and we just hired a guy who primarily works in Linux. We never say never, but we certainly can't promise Linux support. All that said, I'll pass your feedback along :)

I'd agree, I want our Windows application to get a make over and try to gain feature parity with our Mac app. We're a very small team though so focus tends to be on Mac and iOS since that's where a vast majority of our user base is. That's not to say we don't want the other platforms to be better. Example: We're working on a brand new Android application that should blend both our look and feel with Android's look and feel.

We'll get the Windows application there, just give it some time. :)

Kyle

AgileBits Support

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hmm, 1Password always seemed like an overly-complicated (though polished) solution to a basic problem to me.

Personally, I just use a variant of:

one-way-hash(master-password + site-domain)

Seems to work really well, doesn't require special software, allows me to replicate all my passwords on any computer, and passwords are unique to each website and seemingly-random. Use a strong master password and it seems like an ideal solution to me and you only have to remember one master password and use no special software.* For extra security, perhaps base85-encode the output and truncate it if you want a password with special characters in, and use a slower function (e.g. bcrypt with a high work factor?) to prevent brute force attacks if you're using a simple password.

[* Note, SuperGenPass basically does just this, but has security issues since it runs as JavaScript in the browser as a bookmarklet. My personal solution is a script which does something similar, run using a quick hot-key, that grabs the domain from my front-most web browser window and grabs my master password from the system keychain and then puts the generated password on my clipboard.]

Would be very grateful if someone could point out any security flaws in this method that haven't occurred to me!

<comment><USER15> One domain flaw: dropbox.com used to be getdropbox.com and probably others. Unless you remember and/or changed your password when that happened, it might now be unrecoverable.

One password flaw: some sites have weird restrictions (probably your bank, for instance). A hashing solution is unlikely to meet those requirements, meaning you have to store the value securely somewhere, so why not store them all? On the other hand, if the output _can_ meet the requirements, it's probably partly _based_ on the requirements. If the requirements ever change, your password now doesn't match.

I know I've thought of others previously, but the short version of it all is that at _some_ point you'll probably have to have secure storage for something that doesn't work with the hashing system you have. Once you have that secure storage, why not just use it instead, since it can resolve nearly _all_ of the problems?

<comment><USER14> Anecdotally, the "one domain flaw" has only ever happened for me for two websites over long time I've been using this system: getdropbox.com and amazon.com (using international amazon sites). Worst case scenario, you can request a password reset if the domain changes, because it's not the sort of thing that happens often.

The "one password flaw" has never been an issue, but my bank uses proper two- factor authentication with a physical card-reading device, so maybe that's why... I've never actually encountered a website that places problematic restrictions on passwords except (weirdly) Microsoft.

But they're just personal anecdotes that those flaws haven't been an issue for me, but I agree they exist and could be show-stoppers for others. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone non-tech-literate. If I did need secure storage outside of that system (which, you're right, does happen–mostly for wifi passwords and the like) then I just use the system keychain as intended.

But I do still have concerns about the overall security of the system simply because I don't understand it well enough...

> Once you have that secure storage, why not just use it instead, since it can > resolve nearly all of the problems?

Because I don't want to pay for 1Password licenses, or be caught out if I'm using someone else's computer, or if all my backups catastrophically fail :)

<comment><USER15> Use any Google properties? Google.com and youtube.com (can) use the same password across two domains. I think there are others within google too. Or do they redirect to google.com for all logins? Meh. Like you said, it's a rare problem.

Thought of another problem: when you're forced to change your password. How do you encode that? Just add a version-N marker to the site name (which you have to remember)?

I'm not trying to sell you on 1Password, just point out problems with hash- only approaches :) And the storage-less nature is certainly a (big) plus when it works out, you're right.

\--

And one possibly-significant danger you should be aware of: assuming you do something simple (which has the advantage of being buildable from scratch on any system, and easy to remember how), if your password is not _globally_ unique then your security partly relies on the security of whoever else uses your password. If they lose it, anyone who knows that and guesses your username _anywhere_ gets _proof_ that you use the same password, so they can go test a bajillion sites immediately and with perfect success rates.

The standard technique for mitigating this is to salt the hash... but this is just another secret you have to store somewhere or memorize, so we're back where we started.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Maybe they can make a decent Android version one of these days. If they had a good Android version, I'd update to v4 for OSX in a heartbeat. I own an OSX license for v3, a Windows license for v3 (or whatever its at right now), and iOS licenses for iPad and iPhone - even though I don't have an iPhone or iPad anymore. I have a big investment in this program, but their slipshod Android version has me re-evaluating this investment.

Are there any good alternatives to 1Password? I _need_ OSX, Windows, and Android versions, and it needs to work in Chrome and Safari. I'd also need synchronization between multiple machines/browsers. I'm not sure what I think of a web version like LastPass - my 1Password keychain is in my dropbox, so it's not like I have it locked-away and protected. But it still feels a bit odd to have my passwords in a single service like LastPass - for some reason I have more confidence in Dropbox's security than LastPass's.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, they claim it's in the works, but I think that's been true for over a year now. Maybe soon? An app like this shouldn't take a year to make, especially since the current version is so incredibly bad. Some improvement sooner would be preferable, I think.

I have yet to find any alternative that is even remotely as user-friendly. LastPass does legitimately seem to be well run and secure, but the browser- extension UI is horrible at omg levels. KeePass(X/etc) also looks decent, but it's .NET (for what appear to be good reasons, but still), has slightly scary code (lots of reimplementing builtin classes), and again, omg-horrible UI.

I'd love a reasonable alternative, 1Password is unfortunately getting too pricy as time goes on, though it has been hands-down the best.

<comment><USER7> We are indeed working on a full Android application. We'll admit, it has taken longer than we wanted. We're getting closer so hang in there and if you're really interested in testing it, ping us at support at company url and mention me. I'll see if I can add you to the list of testers when we get to that point.

Kyle

AgileBits Support

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Isn't Apple about to release comparable native functionality into 10.9 in a few weeks?

<comment><USER18> Yes, but Apple's functionality only supports Safari on Apple devices. 1Password supports other browsers and Windows.

<comment><USER19> Haven't tried Mavericks beta. Is there a management interface for saved passwords or is it just the plain old Keychain Access utility?

All this "iCloud Keychain" hype looks like just a sync functionality on top of current implementation.

<comment><USER20> > Is there a management interface for saved passwords or is it just the plain > old Keychain Access utility?

> All this "iCloud Keychain" hype looks like just a sync functionality on top > of current implementation.

There's Keychain Access and a preference pane in Safari for web passwords. It is exactly a sync feature added to the keychain implementation that exists in Mountain Lion and earlier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ooh, the beautiful, lovely, shiny new "Security Audit" tab! It shows all of my re-used passwords, which passwords are weak (even "Terrible", as it not-so- subtly puts it), and which ones I haven't changed in years.

I've already added "perform 1Password security audit" to my monthly to-do list.

</comment><comment><USER22> Well, almost here.

Early adopters of 1Password 3 must wait a few more days in order to purchase a v4 upgrade from the web store.

<comment><USER23> v4 is available on their web store now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's kinda lame that website customers have to pay for the upgrade while appstore users get it for free.

Yes, I know appstore doesn't support paid upgrades, but at least they could have made it a little cheaper for us.

<comment><USER25> The website upgrade is free if you bought it this year, and it's only $24.99 if you bought it before 2013. Isn't that a little cheaper?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Watch out, the browser plugin upgrade instructions at [http://learn.agilebits.com/1Password4/Mac/en/KB/v3-extension...](http://learn.agilebits.com/1Password4/Mac/en/KB/v3-extensions.html) require you to launch 1Password 3 to sync your browser, something I can't do after upgrading to 4 via the App Store.

I guess I'll go dig it out of Time Machine ....

<comment><USER27> That's only if your browser widget hadn't sync'd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can someone please list the advantages of using 1Password instead of Keychain Access? I can't find a simple difference list anywhere.

<comment><USER29> Here are just a few. (Disclaimer: I use and love LastPass, but am familiar with 1Password).

Sync- it's possible with Keychain Access + Dropbox, but not seamless

Easy password generation- no switching to Keychain Access, copying, etc.

iOS access- up until iCloud sync, passwords were not easily transferred to devices

Support for Windows browsers

Form filling- Keychain will do addresses, but not credit cards

<comment><USER30> Everything except windows support is solved in mavericks.

<comment><USER28> But all that stuff will only work with safari in Mavericks right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Wow, just YESTERDAY I was thinking... its disappointing I hardly get any updates for 1Password 3 :( I checked the changelog and everything. I havent even thought about this in MONTHS/years and suddenly the very next day 1Password 4 is announced. Amazing

</comment><comment><USER32> Multiple shared vaults each with their own sync and location sounds like a godsend. I've been considering switching to LastPass Enterprise for work, but the sharing there is awfully convoluted.

</comment><comment><USER33> I've been using 1Password for a couple of years.

I will probably switch soon given the current state of their Android app, but maybe this OSX update is a hint at a visual refresh for all of their products?

<comment><USER34> I _hear_ that there will be more than a visual refresh of the Android app (it will fully participate in the 1Password ecosystem for update and read, less iCloud support)—but it will be released when it's ready.

<comment><USER16> In other words, Real Soon Now [http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/RealSoonNow.html](http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/RealSoonNow.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Does anyone have suggestions for what I can use, as a linux desktop user? The best thing anyone has told me, so far, is Keepass, which has an interface I don't like very much.

<comment><USER36> Well, I use LastPass, which is a browser plugin that works well between browsers.

For a price you can use it on mobile, too.

[https://lastpass.com/misc_download.php](https://lastpass.com/misc_download.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I don't really see the point of having 1Password on anything but your phone (unless you don't have a smart phone).

It seems like the most secure way to use it, assuming you've enabled back ups in 1Password to iCloud or DropBox.

Whenever I need a password I just grab my phone and look it up, then type it in. Sure, I have to manually type passwords, and my randomized passwords all have a minimum 18 character length, so it takes a bit longer. It's a plus though, because over time I memorize my passwords through repetition. If you have the program on a desktop and it just copies/pastes your password, you'll never memorize it.

<comment><USER38> Serious? All my passwords are randomized with their generator. There's an extension for every browser. So any time I need to login to a site I hit Cmd + \ and it auto fills and logs me in. Fuck typing and remembering passwords.

<comment><USER37> I guess I just don't want to install plug-ins on every browser/computer I use, since I have a lot. Plus work, library, friends' computers, etc. Memorization comes in handy at that point. As for typing, it's not like typing in even a 18+ character password is that slow.

<comment><USER39> With iCloud sync now, all you need to memorize is your Apple ID password (to install 1Password from the App Store and have it sync from iCloud) and your 1Password password and you can bootstrap your whole password database onto every computer you own. Typing 20-30 character randomized strings is something I try to avoid. What a pain in the ass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm confused. "All Mac App Store customers get 1Password 4 for free. Yes, all of them."

But when I go to the Mac App Store it says $39.99. What gives?

<comment><USER41> They are referring to AgileBits customers on the Mac App Store. So anyone who previously purchased 1Password on the Mac App Store. Apple doesn't offer upgrade pricing, so it would make sense that the upgrade is free. Most likely AgileBits calls that fact out due to past issues with the iOS App Store where they took down the old app and created a new one so they could charge an upgrade fee.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Recent positive experience with OVH? - <AUTHOR> And what do you think about their DDOS protection? Can it really handle Layer7 attacks like CloudFlare? <comment><USER3> Have a dev server with them and considering moving production. Network and hardware seem solid so far. Heard terrible things about their support, but I expect a lot of these are from people who don't know what they're getting into when buying unmanaged servers.

DDoS protection is mostly against volumetric attacks. It won't protect you from an L7 flood that crashes your infrastructure by targeting some expensive service. It will clean up SYN floods, UDP floods, reflected NTP / DNS, etc just fine.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a powerful dedicated box with them, pay very little, but also do fairly little with the box. But the speed for $$$ is great, and for the development box with Xen virtualisation it's great. Basically didn't have much issues. I had a $3.50/month VPS with them -- also worked great for the similar characteristic of usage.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very bad, we were hosted on OVH for a year and it was troublesome - <USER2> documentations do not match with the feature set. DDoS protection is weak and they do not provide interface to configure firewall rules or anything like that.

We shifted to Google cloud and feel satisfied with Google.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have a small VPS with them, running a personal website and a blog (behind CloudFlare).

I pay very little and I have no complaints.</comment>


Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading - <AUTHOR> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/06/msg01010.html <comment><USER2> "If your processor model (listed in /proc/cpuinfo) is 78 or 94, and the stepping is 3, install the non-free "intel-microcode" package"

Why in the world isnt this free?</comment>


LinkedIn Q1 Beats on Sales of $638M, Shares Fall 25% on Weak Outlook - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/30/linkedin-q1/ <comment><USER3> I can't say I'm entirely disappointed to see LinkedIn doing poorly. They do shady things with their data[1], and I'm not okay with that.

I like the idea, but it feels like they are a company that could have done well and been fine privately, but market pressure forces them into some questionable practices (but I have no idea how representative of reality that is).

1: Such as determining a second email address of mine through data mining or some other method and sending emails to it asking if I know a person, even through I'm already linked with them, and _that email address does not have a LinkedIn account_. That's either an invasion of privacy, or spam, or both.

<comment><USER4> If we're trading stories about shady linkedin things, I want to participate!

While I have never synced any of my email addresses with linkedin, and I have always used the hidden craigslist email address when buying/selling things, linkedin currently wants me to connect with two different people that I have sold things to on craigslist.

I'm not even sure how that happens, especially since I use the craiglist- internal email for handling the transaction.

<comment><USER5> You probably replied to a craigslist email which used your real email address via reply-to field and they were using gmail which stored this information.

<comment><USER4> My current theory is that I gave him my phone number in one of the emails, but every email transaction was through the pseudo-anonymous craigslist email that is generated per listing.

He probably has a contact with that (now bad) email and my (still current) phone number. Which is my phone number on linkedin.

That kind of makes sense, but it still doesn't make me very happy about their methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The word I'm hearing is that this is going to start being the new normal for tech companies.

The market is starting to demand that companies that have huge multiples start to earn their multiples.

FB, GOOG, MSFT, APPL and CSCO are proabably all ok as they can hit their targets with relative ease and don't carry a burdensome multipel, but hype based companies like TWTR, LNKD and others are about to be in a world of hurt, I wouldn't want to be a shareholder in any of those companies:(

This is probably going to be especially painful for the SAAS companies that just IPO'd, I don't think they'll get much time to prove they are worth their multiples and they have the double whammy of coming out of employee lock up periods pretty soon.

AMZN is the one wild card, I would have thought their free pass expired long ago but they are the sole exception that I can think of.

 __EDIT __to respond to the question about FB 's multiple, Most people still believe that FB has the ability to turn on a switch and make more money, ie they are artificially making less than they could fro the sake of growth, just like AMZN.

<comment><USER3> Isn't this exactly what the last week of HBO's series Silicon Valley was about? Not getting valued too high because it may force your hand later?

<comment><USER7> The last episode is the opposite, don't make revenues, this way expectations are limitless as opposed to making small revenues

<comment><USER8> Yes, but the character who gives that advice is very blatantly portrayed as a moron (by the way, does anyone know who are the inspirations for the character?)

<comment><USER9> It's a thinly veiled Mark Cuban, who sold his radio on the internet startup to Yahoo and has since managed to increase his net worth from 2.5 billion dollars to a whopping 2.7 billion dollars.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, he also owns a basketball team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if there will be any sort of impact longer term as a result of them basically cutting off developer access to their current API. Login, Sharing, and some other stuff remains - but you can't access someone's network graph. Very similar to Facebook's move.

I know everyone always says "don't build your business on another platform" which I agree with. And several businesses have recently closed because they did just that.

LinkedIn claims this change is because they want to have the best end-user experience. Well - I think the main reason I have a professional graph is because I want to leverage my connections. And frankly, LinkedIn's use of that graph info is primarily focused on Finding Jobs and building Social Capital for your career.

By cutting off developers from the graph and community - I think Linkedin is actually NOT providing a better end-user experience... for other apps - LinkedIn is now a glorified Professional Resume served up via an API. BUT as a LinkedIn user I want to leverage my graph in different ways - <USER2> with old connections, keeping track of people's careers, connecting with vendors, and other use cases I can't imagine - but other app developers can.

As usual, I know nothing will change LinkedIn's mind. Except they have changed my mind, about using LinkedIn on a regular basis except for finding jobs. Over time I find Glassdooor is becoming better for that anyhow.

I personally have some feeling of Schadenfreude when I see them miss and only hope that cutting off developers hampers them in the long-term. But I also recognize developers are a small part of their users and can effectively be ignored.

Fuck you, Linkedin - I wish I knew how to quit you.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yelp, Twitter, Grubhub, and now LinkedIn.

Social media companies are getting crushed this earnings season. Maybe it's FB sucking all the ad dollars in this space.

<comment><USER13> This holds a lot of weight to me. Everyone I talk to raves about the effectiveness of FB app install ads, even though CPI is becoming tremendously expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Twitter, LinkedIn, GrubHub, and Yelp all had decent quarters, and yet they all reported tepid outlooks. When they're in such disparate industries, how did they reach this consensus? Shouldn't this be reflected in the broader economy somehow?

<comment><USER15> Q2 is generally a slow quarter for a lot of businesses, so many of them have lower outlooks.

<comment><USER14> But shouldn't that have been priced into expectations or previous outlooks?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Like FB for Work,LinkedIn in for work is an 'easier' sell and a solid secondary revenue stream. They must be looking into that. If not, they should be.

</comment><comment><USER17> Beats? Sales were estimated at $718.3M, so they missed.

<comment><USER18> No they earned more than expectation which was good. But because in the second quarter they have lower revenue expectation. The shareholders don't like this given their history and that's why the share is down by 25%

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Off-topic: I'm interviewing for a Site Reliability Engineer position at LinkedIn (Mountain View). Anybody has any comments (even second-hand) on how is it to work for LinkedIn? thanks!

<comment><USER20> Study your linux internals, seriously they drill you at the on-site.

<comment><USER19> thanks, that actually helps although first I have a Python remote test and then another one before the on-site.</comment></comment></comment>


Citroen's Survolt a challenge to Tesla and Fisker Karma - <AUTHOR> http://www.trendslate.com/2011/06/11/citroen-challenges-tesla-and-fisker-karma/ Citroen has developed a very stylish and performance based EV <comment><USER2> Neato. If I were GM I'd have some pretty serious issues about the name, though. Take the name of GM's own electric car and add a prefix meaning "over"? Seems a bit questionable from a trademark point of view. You can't call your soft drink "ubercoke", can you?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point we will see how that pans out in the courts

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Link with more details: [http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/tg-drives-the- citroen-sur...](http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/tg-drives-the-citroen- survolt)</comment>


The radical idea of a world without jobs - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/19/post-work-the-radical-idea-of-a-world-without-jobs <comment><USER2> "Work is badly distributed. People have too much, or too little, or both in the same month. And away from our unpredictable, all-consuming workplaces, vital human activities are increasingly neglected. Workers lack the time or energy to raise children attentively, or to look after elderly relations. "The crisis of work is also a crisis of home," ... This neglect will only get worse as the population grows and ages."

This is the real message of the article. Its not about giving everybody a robot butler, its about reorganising society to allow us to do all of the things that need to be done. We don't need to have lots of people working long poorly paid shifts at Wallmart, but we do need people to look after the young and the elderly. At the moment we have a tendency to look at working class people who dont work as morally lacking, when often they have quite a lot of useful (non-paid) things to be getting on with. We need to change the way we think about what makes somebody a useful member of society

<comment><USER3> These conversations I feel always seem shallow to me. Automation is definitely helping to free us from a lot of work.. but the world we live in today feels like a preview of what an automated world feels like. In reality, our material lifestyle is still supported by a very large number of people working away in countries most Americans can't find on a map for extremely low wages.

If we're going to talk about "reorganizing society", it should factor in EVERY person in the world. Not just the lucky 10% in first world countries.

<comment><USER4> Do you know that 8 people in the world have as much wealth as 3.6 BILLION people. That inequality is STAGGERING.

Where do you think the problem lies?

<comment><USER5> Well, using figures from [http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the- world/](http://time.com/money/4746795/richest-people-in-the-world/), if we take the top eight, sum their fortunes (conveniently expressed in billions), and divide by 3.6, we find that a maximally equitable redistribution would allocate, to each of the lucky recipients, the princely sum of $165.38 US.

So, I'm going to guess the problem may lie somewhere other than with eight really rich people. But we don't really need to do the math on this one, do we? It doesn't even pass the sniff test - "these eight people are LITERALLY THE WORST" is just far too uncomplicated a proposition to accurately reflect the reality of a human world which, though many things, is never simple.

<comment><USER4> You're not extrapolating.

Thats just the top 8 people...Take the sum of the rest of the the global 1% or even 10% and do your math...

OH nm, the math has already been done.

280 trillion in global wealth / 6 billion people = 46k per person

And the top 10% has 86% percent of it, and the inequality is just growing exponentially.

I'm not advocating that wealth should be equally distributed OR that capitalism is all bad..however, that in-equality is STAGGERING....unregulated capitalism with no income redistribution is a one way ticket to a third world PLANET.

[https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news- and...](https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and- expertise/global-wealth-report-2017-201711.html)

<comment><USER6> Unregulated capitalism is not what's causing the massive inequality we see today. It's the financial and monetary policies. I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations but the ones we have are centralizing wealth into the biggest corporations. If you look this modern massive growth of inequality doesn't really start until the 1970's after we whet off the gold standard and theirs an uptick in inequality every time the fed decides it needs to pump a bunch of money into the economy.

<comment><USER4> Do you have examples of these 'financial and monetary policies' you're referring to?

What I see is that Wal-Mart makes a ton of money and their employees have to be on food stamps and still work 80 hour weeks while the owners reap all of the profit.

To me this is simply unregulated capitalism which nowdays has become thinly masked slavery.

<comment><USER7> Walmart employees don't work 80 hours a week...that's absurd, most can barely handle a 4 hour shift. All in all people get what they're worth, want to earn more money? Bring more valuable talents to the table.

<comment><USER4> False.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm stuck in a dead end job right now. I will never be granted a shred of decision making capacity or autonomy.

It is a waiting game. Waiting for more assignments. Waiting until 5PM. Waiting for my paycheck. Waiting to get fired. Waiting to retire. Waiting to die.

( _n_ * (Commute. Sit. Wait. Commute. Eat. Sleep.)) Die. Where _n_ == the days I have left in this world.

The things I work on feel like absurd, meaningless boondoggles with no head and no tail. So here I am spinning my wheels as I hurtle toward a grave.

That I know this is my reality forces me to deeply question the society I participate in. If I am so bound, restricted, constrained in my actions and daily routines, why not just cut to the chase as die already. The repetitive script for how my invarient pattern of living shall progress is obvious. Do I really need to live through it 10,000 more times?

<comment> aaron-lebo What makes you stuck? You sound like you've accepted your fate. If you want to change things, just do it.

If your reality is so bad that you want to die, then how is taking action to potentially change things worse? A big part of this discussion is people want meaningful work and a meaningful life, but they want other people to give it to them. Why is that expected?

<comment><USER9> Meaningful work doesn't grow on trees.

<comment> aaron-lebo Anything can be meaningful. You might not think making sushi for 60 years is meaningful, but a guy named Jiro does.

Even if you have to have an "interesting" job, most people aren't but a few years of schooling out. Hell, we're in tech where you're a few years of study and practice from being world class and/or making hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Yeah, you've got to work at it, but that's really meaningful work.

<comment><USER10> Honestly, retail or food services is probably more meaningful than the sort of "bullshit jobs" [1] that people are complaining about here.

[1]:[https://www.strikemag.org/bullshit- jobs](https://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In a world without jobs, there would still be projects. It's a fallacy the idea that people will not create things if they're not compelled by the risk of starving to death.

The problem preventing a jobless society is the reverse: what happens to you if your personal projects are not valued by society enough to pay you for them, and therefore you can't sustain yourself from them?

Someone without the skills to create marketable projects can decide to work towards projects created by others, and be compensated for it; that's what a "job" is.

For a jobless society, you should be able to pursue your own projects without starving in case that they do not sell. These projects may involve pursuing leisure, starting charitable deeds, or taking care of your family, all without the direct beneficiaries paying for it. For this to happen, we should:

1) find a way to provide a basic livelihood for everyone in that situation (Basic Income is the most talked about); and

2) value people pursuing their own projects, more than we value people being the most productive* they can possibly be.

*(where "productive" is defined as "building stuff that people will pay for". This is the most common understanding of productivity, but I find it somewhat circular).

In essence, in order to exist, a jobless society should value you being happy more than it values you accelerating the velocity of commercial capital. This doesn't require radically new economic theories; but it requires an adjustment of the parameters by which we measure "efficiency" in what we consider an "efficient economy".

<comment><USER12> I don't necessarily see it as a fallacy. Not because people are compelled by risk of starving to death but because why would they create when an AI or a machine can do it better? What would be the point? I tend to agree with Orwell:

"No human being ever wants to do anything in a more cumbrous way than is necessary. Hence the absurdity of that picture of Utopians saving their souls with fretwork. In a world where every-thing could be done by machinery, everything would be done by machinery. Deliberately to revert to primitive methods to use archaic took, to put silly little difficulties in your own way, would be a piece of dilettantism, of pretty-pretty arty and craftiness. It would be like solemnly sitting down to eat your dinner with stone implements."[0]

If a society is jobless thanks to automation, I see this as the inevitable fate.

And as for a society that values my happiness; I don't see being happy as a worthwhile goal for an individual to aim for. To be happy and content for a long period of time is, in my eyes, akin to being dead in the water.

[0]: In "The Road to Wigan Pier" by George Orwell (I think it's chapter 12?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is interesting that the article's discussion of the history of work begins with Marx, as the modern conception of work lies in the industrial revolution, of which he was a crucial byproduct. His entire Weltanschauung _presumed_ that organized work was the default activity of humans, and with that as a given, proceeded from there. Modern economics, including neoliberal economics, uses his vocabulary by default, making discussions of alternatives, in a weirdly Whorfian way, hard to have.

This article also correctly places the roots of the conception of work as the core of human identity as side effects of Europe's Protestant movement. Amazingly, given that this is the Guardian, they failed to invoke the lazy trope of "colonialism" for the spread of this culture worldwide — for in this case it is accurate. The British empire, in particular, once it became run by the government, spread this model to the "lazy natives" as part of a cultural package. (It is no coincidence that the standard worldwide business attire — as with military uniforms — is based on 19th century British aristocratic fashion).

The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI. Just as our conception of work is modern, our conception of money as a reserve of wealth is modern. Even back when Augustus personally paid off he national debt, the conceptions of money and power were backwards to where they are today ("Plutocrat" is another Industrial Age idea). Money was a way to show off your power, not a way to acquire it.

But money also serves a more much more important function as a signalling mechanism (a change in price indicates that there is more demand for T-shirts and less for TV sets) — one of the many fatal flaws in communism was a failure to understand this, and the current obsession with banking in the western economies demonstrates a related misunderstanding. When we have a robotic economy with a marginal cost of production close to zero, why should "wealth" reflect a bank balance? What would be the point of accumulating one?

<comment><USER14> _The final piece of course is the cultural reform required for UBI._

What will you spend your UBI on if the goods and services are not being produced, because no one is being paid to do them?

<comment><USER13> Let's the robots do them. If I want a person to play me music i can find someone who'll do it at mynclearinprice, or play the music myself. Or be happy with the robot produced music (which can hardly be worse than the focus group produced pop music of today)

<comment><USER14> _Let's the robots do them._

Or the unicorns? I mean, as long as we are just handwaving this stuff.

<comment><USER13> My employer is working on robots with semantic understanding. Can't help you on the unicorn front, sorry. You'll have to do that on your own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Unpopular opinion: It is easy to work less or nearly work nothing and still get by fine (in the context of the modern western world!), the issue is more that people spend their money in bad ways and make bad long term decisions. If you live reasonable and don't spend money on things you don't need you also don't need to work so much...And I often heard from people now "I don't even know why I work so much, I don't need the money". I am sure most people would prefer to work less if the system would allow it.

<comment><USER16> You've lived a charmingly sheltered life if you believe the majority of people live in that situation. The social support and education that allow people to easily survive while hardly working are not evenly distributed throughout society.

<comment><USER15> I live in the most corrupt and poorest country of all Western Society, I come from a poor family, my whole life was fighting, I have been starving, I have been freezing (couldn't afford heating, sleeping bag in winter). I don't blame anyone, I don't expect anything from society. I spend years acquiring skills, knowledge and experience and now it pays off. The whole knowledge of the world is available online to anyone, if someone can't make something out of that then they have to try harder.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In general, I think this world will benefit from more radical humanistic ideas, even if they aren't ever realized.

Let's not leave the radical alternatives to the racists and nationalists.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't see how a jobless steady state is compatible with the zero-sum game that is the natural desire, in all of us, for power and sex.

<comment><USER19> Yes that is in essence all that needs to be said. Work is just one manifestation of competition between individuals driving us to outdo others.

Of course if we weren't occupied by work all day then we'll find something else to compete in and "stress" ourselves about. And don't we already do this to some extent through innumerable athletic/mental feats like climbing mountains, and other ways that are essentially displays of wealth like a vacation in Haiti and so on. This is a simplification, one can successfully argue that many of these activities have "inherent" benefit besides signaling but that aspect is usually not spoken of at all so I emphasize it more here.

So the stressors of everyday life (whether they come from work or other means of competition) are an inescapable fact of human life. Too bad if you don't like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> UBI is really only a stopgap to preserve the scaffolding of the existing system (and its inequality). What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

<comment><USER21> > What we really need is Fully Automated Luxury Communism.

This Time It's Different, honest.

<comment><USER22> Every time it is different. How does this post contribute at all? Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing advances of technology? It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion to post a pithy "lol communism suxx" response.

<comment><USER23> The original communist claim was, essentially, that we could build paradise if only the workers/people owned the tools. That... didn't work out.

Now the claim seems to be that it will work if only the people own the automated factories. That's close enough to the same claim for "this time it's different" to be a valid description of the claim.

> Are you really saying things stay the same despite the HUGE, game-changing > advances of technology?

Agriculture was a huge, game-changing advance of technology. So was industrialization. We've seen them before. So claiming that _this_ huge advance will make work obsolete requires a bit more than "but look, there's a huge advance!"

> It's like you just dismiss all the information and discussion...

I've seen lots of discussion, but not much information. Rhetoric, but not information.

I mean, yes, factories are becoming more automated. That's true. It's not leading to a world where nobody needs to work, though. (Current US unemployment is below 4%. That's not looking like evidence for a world where nobody needs to work.)

<comment><USER22> > Current US unemployment is below 4%.

What does this even mean? It's a very specific metric, not sure it is backing up your argument in the way you think. There are a lot of discouraged or under employed workers who would disagree that things are not changing in a fundamental way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Am I the only one who likes work? And I don't mean my job, just work in general.

<comment><USER25> No, everyone likes work. We call it "hobbies" when its not formally productive and "vocations" when it is. Capitalism, as a system, is awful at allocating this work that people love to the people who love it. They either can't at all, or they are forced to fit it around wasted time, or they have to gamble on trying to build it up from nothing, and often losing their stake and their beloved work.

<comment><USER24> If everyone did what they wanted to do all of the time, the world would simply cease to function.

<comment><USER26> The utopia vision as I understand it behind UBI is that automation takes care of most / all of the work people don't want to do.

I think the biggest challenge to this utopia vision (assuming automation gets to this point) is more that, frankly, labor is not wealth. Land is land for instance regardless of what is automated or not. Rent seeking for various things is rather common, most of which automation will not touch. I can envision strong resistance to any sort of UBI scheme from this group (some of this group frankly seem to not even care for our current safety nets now).

Before we go through a true "post work" phase, we'll probably go through a phase where service oriented jobs are the norm -- this is also harder to automate away completely, although probably not near impossible like tackling assets and rent-seeking. The main problem here is that this side of the workforce is currently rather undervalued IMHO. So if one wants improvements in the world of work, I personally think putting more efforts here would be better vs. banking on UBI.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> In regards to UBI, I was disturbed by a comment that Jaron Lanier made in the latest Ezra Klein Show [1] (starting at minute 55).

He said that some "known" Silicon Valley folks have expressed that the recent opioid epidemic is a positive because these addicts aren't needed will fall out of the workforce, thereby making the transition to the "world without jobs" easier.

[1] [https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier- intervie...](https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897738/jaron-lanier-interview)

</comment><comment><USER28> Work is power.

The obsolescence of humans in the workforce means that we are gradually being stripped of the power to put a roof over our heads and bread in our plates while capital becomes independent.

At this point, feeding non-productive humans still benefit the economy (by preventing riots and allowing the productive individuals to contribute), but if the vast majority of humanity does not participate in the economy anymore, I don't see why the market would keep on feeding it. And at that point we would be so dependent on automation that we'd all starve to death.

<comment><USER28> Seeing the score jump up and down, this seems controversial, I'll expand a bit:

Our economy is a dissipative structure, not unlike fire, nuclear chain reactions and living organisms. It consumes energy (dissipates it, actually, increasing total entropy) in order to perpetuate itself.

Its real currency isn't money, but energy. Money and finance are tools to set its goals and direct its actions.

Fundamentally, supply is energy/matter/recipes to transform either.

Demand stems from survival instinct and reflexes. Humans demand material security, the market provides it in exchange for labor. The economy demands to be kept running through our work and keeps us mostly safe in exchange.

Those instincts/reflexes were acquired by anything alive thanks to evolution.

Currently, companies are subject to heavy selection pressure. They've been morphing at an impressive pace thanks to technological progress, becoming ever more efficient thanks to automation. Only the most efficient stay afloat. At some point, feeding humans will not be the most efficient way to keep themselves up and running, and when that occurs, we will be too dependent to survivie without them.

The primary and secondary sectors are becoming autonomous fast (autonomous tractors, trucks and mining equipment), and so is the industry. The tertiary sector is only useful as long as humans themselves are useful to the first two sectors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I want a world where it is more clear what we should work on. Most startups come up with solutions looking for a problem. Yet if people or companies formulated their problems more directly, we wouldn't have to guess at them. As a consequence, work would be more meaningful and more effective.

<comment><USER30> What people want, say they want, and how they act are separate things. For example, no one has ever said "I want to spend hundreds of dollars on a pointless mobile game", yet that is what a lot of people end up doing. Conversely, people have plenty of problems that they are not willing to spend (enough) money on solving, at least not until it is socially common to do so.

However, I think you're on to something here -- something like a reversed kickstarter; anyone could post something they would want to have and how much they would spend on it, more people could join the campaign and creators could get to work on solving it. Probably people already tried it, but off the top of my head I can think of about 10 reasons why it won't work...

<comment><USER31> In a weird way, how a lot of corporate tenders work. Like a "social RFP" if you will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The idea of post-work is interesting, but the future in my mind looks more like "pre-work." By that I mean a generalized return to the way economies functioned before the Industrial Revolution, rather than a transcendence into some vague new way of life that's radically different than anything experienced before.

With my limited understanding of history, I understand that jobs still existed before industry. Extreme wealth inequality existed as well. The difference is that most wealth is inherited, except for artisans and administrators, who concentrate mainly in cities, and traveling merchants. And the concept of a job being something that defines who you are and carries your entire family from poverty into affluence will probably die out. It's already dying to an extent.

</comment><comment><USER33> Comes down to urban planning, the west is depressing because you move from box to box in your mobile box. If the systems were less efficient we would rely on each other more and perhaps feel useful, a third world city is a great place to live, mentally.

<comment><USER34> A former Turkish colleague who moved from Turkey to Germany told me the same. The material side of things is covered well in Germany. And because of this, because basically everyone has all their needs covered by the system, people do not need to rely on each other – and they don't. The vast majority has the means to help themselves and never have to ask anyone else for help.

My colleague felt alone, even though he lived with his girlfriend. I think our material abundance fosters isolation. There is no reason go to your neighbor and knock on their door. You live isolated in your home, you move anonymously through traffic, you work in a closed environment, you go home, and the cycle repeats. There is little room for accidentally making friends or even just having conversations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The world will never be without jobs; work will just become detached from financial productivity and wellbeing

<comment><USER36> It already it. Most people middle class and up work way more than they strictly need to for simple wellbeing. It's just that our standards and expectation for wellbeing shifts, and shifts quickly.

<comment><USER37> I'd say "are in the workplace way more" ...

>"Now, the workday is ripe for another disruption. Research suggests that in an eight-hour day, the average worker is only productive for two hours and 53 minutes." [https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the- aver...](https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average- worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html) //

Other studies show the most productive workers take long breaks (~25% of working time).

<comment><USER38> I feel that's more a symptom of people doing work they loathe. When there's intrinsic motivation for doing work, people are productive for the overwhelming majority of the time spent working, and breaks magically evaporate.

<comment><USER39> The trouble is when you start doing something for money it always seems to drain any intrinsic motivation you had.

<comment><USER40> Not at all. I think too many technologists (including myself these days) sit behind far too many layers of abstractions.

Coding a quick Perl script to solve a real world problem on a factory floor and watching a dozen machinists start grinning and get way more productive is something I've been paid to do, and I never got unmotivated by. One of those jobs where you simply stay until the job is done, and don't feel put out in the least you got home at 11pm.

It's when you're slogging away 12 factors removed on some crap you know is utterly meaningless to anyone - even if it's in tooling you like - that's when I get severe motivational problems. I'd rather work as a cashier at a gas station where at least I can see the effect I have on society with my labor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> There is literally no argument given in this sprawling diatribe for _who is going to provide for society_.

Unless there is some new slave class that's going to do our work for us, your can't have productive society without _someone_ working.

There are simply too many humans and not enough resources for everyone to homestead or farm, and even then, people have to work for themselves, and it would end up in _more work_.

<comment><USER22> The tools are providing and will provide. They do not provide 100% of the labor, but their share is increasing.

Re: your second point, homesteading or farming on the individual level makes no sense, that is why farming is specialized and scaled up. Why would this no longer bte the case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> >And finally, beyond all these dysfunctions, loom the most-discussed, most existential threats to work as we know it: automation, and the state of the environment. Some recent estimates suggest that between a third and a half of all jobs could be taken over by artificial intelligence in the next two decades.

I've yet to read any research without crippling flaws that suggests this kind of prediction isn't rooted in fantasy.

To take one example, look at [https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Fut...](https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf) section on call centers and imagine that Comcast applies ML to the next call you make with them. How well would that work?

</comment><comment><USER43> Forceful reorganization of society inevitably turns into bloodshed in 100% of cases, and that rarely improves standards of living. The human civilization is in a state of constant chaos and nobody can tell or influence where it will be taken next. Accidental discoveries and pointless inventions have shaped our culture, and with it our minds and way of life with nobody being able to predict or control them. It's like a childhood fantasy - when I'm the king I'll make you all...

Society cannot be ruled in a top-down manner, period.

<comment><USER16> Reorganization of society need not be implemented in a top-down manner. Encouraging small changes in the activities of individuals can gradually sum to major changes over time. We have the brainpower to enact a project of this type, not every revolution has to be at gunpoint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> An viewpoint I want to raise; what about representation? Traditionally, those who work and make money have been in some way represented in the state and the general fabric of life. Those who don't, are generally don't, or rather, someone else represents for them.

I'd all for a universal paycheck, if it weren't for that nagging suspicion that it won't work out like in Star Trek. That the powers that be will decide something altogether unpleasant for the non-working majority.

</comment><comment><USER45> If work were disconnected from the profit motive then the quality of work would dramatically rise. The need to make money entails mediocrity and holds us back. Those with a love of their work aren't motivated by money and their love always leads to great works.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is a good first -radical- approach, although I'm sure that the way to go is a world without money (or any exchange currency for that matter).

Instead,a world where you "work" in anything you really like (without having to worry about getting paid or not), where everything is virtually "free" and achievable, as long as you mantain an active "working" status. Think of it as a 1 - working, 0 - not working. If you are in 1 status, you can acquire anything you need (and even want) in modic proportions.

More to elaborate later on.

</comment><comment><USER47> Some choice quotes that will show you this great society these people are thinking of. Notice it is mostly a rehashing of socialism, communism, and anarchism, and most post-workists are radical leftist hoping to to make another push into society:

> In 1884, the socialist William Morris proposed that in "beautiful" factories > of the future, surrounded by gardens for relaxation, employees should work > only "four hours a day".

> that life with much less work, or no work at all, would be calmer, more > equal, more communal, more pleasurable, more thoughtful, more politically > engaged

> Graeber has a point: "I do think there is a fear of freedom – a fear among > the powerful that people might find something better to do than create > profits for capitalism."

> Graeber argues that in a less labour-intensive society, our capacity for > things other than work could be built up again. "People will come up with > stuff to do if you give them enough time. I lived in a village in Madagascar > once. There was this intricate sociability. People would hang around in > cafes, gossiping, having affairs, using magic. It was a very complex drama – > the kind that can only develop when you have enough time. They certainly > weren't bored!"

(Or just supporters are absolutely nuts like this one.)

> "The postwar years, when people worked less and it was easier to be on the > dole, produced beat poetry, avant garde theatre, 50-minute drum solos, and > all Britain's great pop music – art forms that take time to produce and > consume."

> "You get your UBI payment from the government. Then you get a form from your > local council telling you about things going on in your area: a five-a-side > football tournament, say, or community activism – Big Society stuff, > almost."

> One common proposal is for a new type of public building, usually envisaged > as a well-equipped combination of library, leisure centre and artists' > studios. "It could have social and care spaces, equipment for programming, > for making videos and music, record decks,"

> "Instead of having jobs, we're going to do craft, to make our own clothes. > It's quite an exclusionary vision: to do those things, you need to be able- > bodied."

> With people having more time, and probably less money, private life could > also become more communal, she suggests, with families sharing kitchens, > domestic appliances, and larger facilities. "There have been examples of > this before," she says, "like 'Red Vienna' in the early 20th century, when > the [social democratic] city government built housing estates with communal > laundries, workshops, and shared living spaces that were quite luxurious." > Post-work is about the future, but it is also bursting with the past's lost > possibilities.

Telling people they will have less money and resources - they will have start sharing housing, but they'll like having less.

<comment><USER48> > _Some choice quotes that will show you this great society these people are > thinking of._

Are those quotes supposed to fill me with disgust or something? Most of them sound quite nice.

<comment><USER47> Yes. Drum solos, affairs, and magic should make you question your sanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> What do people do if they are not working?

You better have something for them to do, because (and I say this in a non- religious way) idle hands are the devil's playthings.

</comment><comment><USER50> This glorious utopia will last for all of five minutes until the last surviving SJW decides robots need rights.

And honestly, would xir be wrong? If we ever get to the point where robots can fully take over most human jobs even intellectual ones, we will have had to reach a level of artificial intelligence where even many not so radical religions and philosophies will wonder whether we are exploiting them.

When Tesla delved and Google span, who was then the gentleman?

<comment><USER51> This gets into how you identify a human (I'm saying for the sake of simplicity that humans are the only things eligible for rights, and ignoring animal rights and such) Is there something inherently human about humans? How about coma patients whose functions are limited? Is there some necessary set of functions a thing must have to qualify as a human? That seems to get into dangerous territory for some handicapped people.

The reason this matters is it's conceivable that an AI in a robotic frame could emulate practically all the behaviors we associate with a human (including behavior to display artifacts humans interpret as emotions, like smiling or crying). At that point, is such a thing a human? Or is it merely a fully-realized model of one? Does it make a difference?

This is the subject of tons of speculative science fiction. From a strictly computer science perspective, though, you can easily define a "square" class that fully implements all the behaviors of the geometric concept of a square. That doesn't make instances of it a square, though. They're merely digital models of squares. This is also the significance of the famous "There is no spoon" scene in The Matrix, when Neo has a realization that everything in the Matrix is a model which he can reach into and alter the properties of. Therefore, there's a strong argument to be made that from an objective perspective, even an AI that perfectly mimics human behavior is just a perfect model and not a human. However, humans being emotional creatures the objective argument will almost certainly not matter in that scenario.

This also has implications for the science fiction concept of "copied personalities", which Black Mirror loves playing with. If you make a digital copy of someone's mind, do they still have rights? I'd argue no for the above reasons, but again, there's an emotional angle which will usually override the scientific angle.

<comment><USER52> You've pretty much described the Chinese room argument. That aside, we have the power to limit such coming robots to be 'dumb' in a sense, where they are only capable of doing the tasks given to them. Let's hope we can manage that.</comment></comment></comment>


Fractal Design Launches Define R6 Casing With USB-C - <AUTHOR> https://www.usbctoday.com/fractal-design-launches-define-r6-casing-with-usb-c/ <comment><USER2> Looks like the sites down, but if anyone's considering it I've got a Define R5 and it's the best case I've ever bought. So much noise deadening and unlike my coolermaster full tower it had a hole in the back of the mobo area so I could mount a new CPU cooler without taking the mobo out. And 9 drive bays, which is the main reason I got it. Very well thought out.

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah, something went wrong, I didn't expect that many visitors all of a sudden, so went out of memory, etc. Is fixed now, thanks for letting me know.

We're planning on a doing a review of the case soon if you're interested, we're trying to do a USB-C only build.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Direct link to press release:

[http://www.fractal-design.com/home/news/expand- define-r6-lin...](http://www.fractal-design.com/home/news/expand- define-r6-line-with-usb-type-c-model-and-new-accessories?page=1)

<comment><USER4> I find it hard to distinguish on the pictures, but does this casing have no actual USB-A on the front, only USB-C?

<comment><USER2> [http://www.fractal-design.com/home/product/cases/define- seri...](http://www.fractal-design.com/home/product/cases/define- series/define-r6-usb-c)

Looks like 1 USB C and 4 USB A ports.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, disappointing. I was looking forward to a case that does away with USB-A, and only has USB-C. Huge inconvenience of course, but it would force one to completely move over.

It's been 15 years ago since I built my own PC, though. Laptop-only nowadays, which is incredible with Thunderbolt 3.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're also a bit surprised that

1) it has only 1 USB-C connector 2) it still has USB-C 2.0 connector. It's probably cheaper to implement, and maybe(??) there are devices which don't work well with USB-A 3.0. Not 100% sure though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can recommend Fractal cases as well. I've got the R4: Great minimalistic design, almost totally silent, plenty of room for drives and other stuff.

</comment><comment><USER6> These are the best PC cases I have ever owned.</comment>


We tried Slack. And Failed. - <AUTHOR> http://antonpug.com/blog/2015/6/2/so-we-tried-slack-and-failed

<comment><USER2> Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you guys. I definitely prefer the new world where communication goes through Slack rather than email.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did your team ever just pick it up and adopt it, or did you face challenges?</comment></comment>


U.S. Said to Seek a Chrysler Plan for Bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/business/24chrysler.html?_r=3&hp

<comment> old-gregg Ugh... How is it that my future pension of $0 per month is less troubling to US government than pensions of ex-workers of a troubled auto maker?

Seriously, pensions? They expect pensions... What are they, from Mars or something? Who else gets pensions in this country?

<comment><USER2> Not many people - most get 401ks, which are a poor substitute (and incidentally, not originally intended to be used for retirement savings).

As for why they get pensions and you don't, it's mostly due to them being organized and having been around for a while. One of the biggest things that unions, when doing collective bargaining, argue for is that all members be treated the same way, as opposed to workers being treated differently depending on how long they've been there. This isn't to say that unions don't like seniority - they love it - but that after X years of work Joe will have the same benefits that Jack, who's currently worked X years, has now. This is one of their main things they offer to their members: _look at what we got Jack, in X years you'll have it too_. As a result, every time they redo their contracts, all the new guys get pensions not because people in other jobs get them, but because the other guys in the bargaining unit have it.

As for why they got them in the first place, that's what being part of a large union in a blue-collar field does for you.

Why does the government care? Because most large unions have well-oiled political machines attached to them. Union members have a disproportionately high voting percentage, and are very loyal to what their union recommends. They can get 500 people to do anything political (run a phone bank, show up at a rally, write letters, etc.) very easily and efficiently, which comes in very handy if you're running for something.

From their point of view, the bottom line is that they worked for years with an understanding that part of their compensation would come in the form of pensions, and now (through no fault of their own) the company is dying and can't afford it, because they managed their money poorly. From the government's point of view, it's about a bunch of people that are very politically active and soon to become a lot poorer and on social security.

<comment><USER3> _and now (through no fault of their own) the company is dying and can't afford it, because they managed their money poorly_

For example, by giving their workers pensions and other compensation far exceeding their market value.

<comment><USER4> You do not understand a very basic fact about pensions; namely that they are an obligation that the company has.

Your statement makes as much sense as saying that the company is in financial trouble because they have paid loans back in years past.

For the company to default on the pensions that they owe is just as bad if not worse as if they were to default on their line of credit with a bank.

<comment><USER5> They shouldn't be an obligation that the company has, that's what makes them suck. They should be separately held funds that can survive beyond the lifetime of the company (like 401k plans). To make them company obligations is to invite disaster. It's analogous to the situation at GM where each current worker covers the health care of 10 other people. If you want a pension plan because you trust and want to pay pension plan administrators to manage your assets, it needs to be a separate financial entity from the company itself.

<comment><USER4> Think of it this way, the fact that it's an obligation is interface; that it was not implemented as a stand-alone fund is the responsibility of the managers. And given what has happened in the financial world in recent years... it's quite possible that stand-alone funds would have been completely wiped out through mismanagement or outright theft.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Letter from the Publisher of Nautilus - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/a-letter-from-the-publisher-of-nautilus <comment><USER2> Whatever else may be said, I'm glad to see an adult taming responsibility for their own errors like...well, an adult.</comment>


The Possibilian - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger

<comment><USER2> Here's some background on David Eagleman.

Eagleman gave a talk at TEDxHouston a couple of years ago: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A>

After watching that video, Sam Harris asked Eagleman to debate via e-mail. Eagleman accepted, but never responded to Harris's first message: <http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/whither-eagleman></comment>


ULID: Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable Identifier - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alizain/ulid <comment><USER2> For what it's worth, the UUID RFC actually has a provision for using random bits instead of the MAC address in a version 1 UUID [ref], which results in a similar, but incompatible structure as to what's proposed here.

I'm not sure what this new, incompatible format buys over that one, other than a different allocation of bits between the time and random fields.

[ref] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.5](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.5)

ULID:

      0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      32_bit_uint_time_low                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     16_bit_uint_time_high     |       16_bit_uint_random      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       32_bit_uint_random                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       32_bit_uint_random                      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

UUID, version 1:

      0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          time_low                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       time_mid                |         time_hi_and_version   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |clk_seq_hi_res |  clk_seq_low  |         node (0-1)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         node (2-5)                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

<comment><USER3> Over time, UUID has been massaged and adapted to fit many different applications, with the actual similarities between different versions whittling down to 2:

      - data types used in binary representation (in order: u32, u16, u16, u8, u8, u16, u32)

      - canonical string representation (xxxxxxxx-xxxx-Mxxx-Nxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx)

I am of the opinion that this has diluted the usefulness of UUID, especially in specific circumstances. With this in mind, ULID was designed for applications that require the following:

      - distributed ID generation amongst loosely coordinated servers (ie. those that don't have incentives to maliciously manipulate timestamps)

      - sortability of items with assigned ID without any additional information (ex. no additional db joins/requests)

Finally, ULID was designed with the explicit intent of being as character efficient as possible, for use in URLs and such. By using the Base32 alphabet, it uses fewer characters than UUIDs, optimizes for human readability/clarity (Crockford's modifications) and remains case-insensitive.

For any API driven web-app where both the client and server can generate new data, ULIDs can be ideal. A lot of people are already using something similar. I thought it would be nice to standardize it as a drop-in replacement.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just being curious, I ported it to Go [0] to benchmark it.

[0] [https://github.com/imdario/go-ulid](https://github.com/imdario/go-ulid)</comment>


A DIY M&Ms and Skittles sorting machine - <AUTHOR> https://willemm.nl/mm-skittles-sorting-machine/ <comment><USER2> Here's the commercial version.[1] This machine is sorting peas by color. Peas. Individual peas. Each individual pea is examined by cameras for size, color, and looking like a pea. Rejects are kicked into the reject hopper by an air jet. There are machines like this for most fruit. Typical throughput is a _ton per hour._ Most fruit and berries go through such machines today. That's why the fruit at the supermarket is so consistent.

The process looks like magic. Color-mixed items go in, and single-color items come out, on a line going so fast that no human can see what's happening. It's amazing to see computer vision systems that fast.

These machines work by putting the items on a conveyor belt, then dropping them on a much faster conveyor to spread them out. The fast conveyor goes past cameras, and at the end, launches the items into free flight for a few inches. While in flight, computer-controlled air jets knock out the rejects.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyGR6A5MWG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyGR6A5MWG0)

<comment><USER3> A friend of mine works for a consulting company specializing in optics. They invented a machine for one client which sorts wheat grains. The machine does spectrography of each individual grain, looking for moulds and fungi as well as heavy metals and more. It's a big rotating drum with small chambers for each grain. After doing the spectrography it shoots each grain off into either the selected or rejected direction.

But it doesn't just reject every bad seed, instead it will optimize to keep within legally accepted limits.

<comment><USER4> > But it doesn't just reject every bad seed, instead it will optimize to keep > within legally accepted limits.

This is just... I guess the emotion you feel when reading the last paragraph defines you as either technical guy (outrage / resignation, depending on your age and experience) or managerial guy (pure delight).

I am guessing there is a switch that makes it sort properly, you know, for VIP?

<comment><USER5> In the 1970s, the USA sold a large amount of wheat to the USSR in a famous deal.

The contract stipulated that the wheat would contain something like <1% sand. US wheat at the time had effectively no sand at all, so they mixed in 1% of pure sand, staying just within the contract terms.

(I heard this from a friend whose friend knew something about it; in searching I can't find a source online, so the story might be apocryphal. I also might be off on the precise percentage.)

<comment><USER6> That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do. I wonder if capitalism is to blame, as I would certainly blame capitalism, or good old fashioned egotistical rivalry that I'm told was common in many areas of life then between the USSR and the US.

I'd say that feeding humans or even livestock is more important than profits. Or at least, it ought to be.

<comment><USER7> Or classical capitalism, because 99 ton of wheat plus one ton of sand is one ton of wheat cheaper than 100 tons of wheat. Sand is heavy and cheap.

<comment><USER8> I just happen to have bought some sand recently, and it isn't _that_ cheap. Especially not the type of sand that you'd feel comfortable mixing into food.

Where I am, a ton of sand aggregate using in construction is ~$100 per ton. The better sand used in gardens, the brown sand (it's used to repel water so you don't over-water crops) is more than than.

Considering the wheat/ton spot price is $160 per ton at the moment, I don't think the actual prices would be too different.

[0] [http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&month...](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat&months=60&currency=aud)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What a nice job this person did.

Coincidentially I'm working on something similar at the moment only with an order of complexity that is several magnitudes larger than the one on display here (39000 different shapes, several 10's of possible colors). But my contraption doesn't nearly look as nice as this one and definitely is not ready for any kind of production.

I've been working on this for the last two years or so, it has just about every bit of my skills exercised (optical, mechanical, software, electronics) and every time there is a minor breakthrough I feel like throwing a party.

Likely this piece of gear will never see the light of day in a commercial setting but it's the most fun I've had in a long long time.

Disillusioned with web programming (security _really_ spoiled the fun I used to have making web stuff) I figured I should do something that will make programming fun again and at least on that count I have succeeded.

And on another note, I've gained a lot of respect for the visual cortex and it's preprocessing capabilities.

<comment><USER10> Just remember that the moment you stick an Ethernet port or WiFi connection on it, security becomes just as important again.

<comment><USER9> Networking this particular device is useless so not planning on that, but yes, you're 100% right. Many producers of SCADA stuff and industrial controllers that worked just fine as long as they were isolated have found this out the hard way over the last couple of years. And I don't doubt that there are many still to come, insecure protocols, world-open ports whose only protection is that probably nobody knows what sits behind that port.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Top marks for: 1\. Showing a diversity of maker skills 2\. Making something that actually works 3\. Industrial design savvy 4\. Entertaining video

You've given me some motivation to get off of HN and work on one of my side projects for the rest of today.

<comment><USER12> Mechanically, it could have been done a bit simpler. This is an old project that has been around a long time:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku9PKRoH1CE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku9PKRoH1CE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Now that green skittles have changed from "lime" to "apple" (my lawsuit regarding calling the flavor assortment "original" will be filed any day now), I need a machine like this to sort the green ones into the trash where they belong.

<comment><USER14> Flavour-based sorting? That's Version 2.0!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Your video is even more compelling: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceGlMV4sHnk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceGlMV4sHnk)

<comment><USER16> So is the write up. My favorite part:

> I started working on this machine in May '16 and only finished it in > December. It took a lot of time to design and build the machine, and I kept > optimizing the parts and software after the first prototype was done. > Including all prototypes and spare parts, I spent nearly €500 on this > machine. Well worth it, considering everything I learned.

[https://willemm.nl/mm-skittles-sorting-machine/](https://willemm.nl/mm- skittles-sorting-machine/)

<comment><USER17> Thanks! Url changed to that from [http://imgur.com/a/M539W](http://imgur.com/a/M539W).

<comment><USER16> Google cache is here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://willemm.nl/mm- skittles-sorting-machine/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fantastic job! Functional and beautiful at the same time.

This is the kind of stuff that I love to read about in the mornings.

I know this machine will not solve world hunger or bring about world peace but I know this would bring peace to my family.

I apologize in advance but I am going to "borrow" your design and work with my kids to recreate this.

Thank you for giving me something worthwhile and productive to do with my kids today. Atleast give them something inspiring and fun to look forward to.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is really cool! I love how it lights up with the color of the candy it's sorting each time.

I'm curious, have you tried putting both Skittles and M&M's in the same batch? I'd be interested to see if it determines that the purple Skittles and the brown M&M's are the same color, for example

</comment><comment><USER20> This is still an awesome project, but anyone else notice the machine makes a mistake? @ 1:10, in the background, you can see a purple skittle with green ones.

(Technically it we don't see it make the mistake, but it probably had made a mistake...)

Awesome job! Any stats on its error rate?

</comment><comment><USER21> I wish I had a link, but this reminds me of a machine that was at the OMSI Maker Faire in Portland last summer that measured the shininess of pennies and then directed them into a large board with columns (kind of like a giant connect-four board).

The machine sorted the pennies to match a greyscale image given as input, so that the final output is a penny mural ready to be encased in epoxy.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've often idly thought about such a machine but this is much more beautiful than anything I would come up with, well done! I expect you'll be working on some statistical analysis on M&M color distribution now that you've got this part finished?

Also, what's the difference between processing M&Ms and Skittles? Is it just the expected colors?

</comment><comment><USER23> Here's the google cache: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nt1C4j...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nt1C4j4CvjYJ:https://willemm.nl/mm- skittles-sorting-machine)

</comment><comment><USER24> The perfect machine for when you're hosting Van Halen concerts: [http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp](http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp)

<comment><USER25> I bet he could sell a budget version which only removes one color and sell it to every concert venue in the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's brilliant! Well done for such a fantastic job designing the hopper and sort units. Plus the sound it makes while sorting is very pleasing. :)

</comment><comment><USER27> I remember doing the same thing in my Digital Electronics class in junior high. Except it was marbles, and we used BASIC.

</comment><comment><USER28> You could probably sell one of these into every concert theatre in the world. I'm wracking my brain and exercising my google-fu, but I can't seem to find/remember which famous musician wanted only one color of candy on their rider. Or was it everything except the green ones. Or something like that.

<comment><USER29> van halen _-_

apparently they don't want the green ones : [http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp](http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp)

<comment><USER28> silly me, forgot to check snopes. Thanks for the link!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> You know what would be even better? Sorting the difference between M&Ms and Skittles :)

</comment><comment><USER31> I didn't see it anywhere but are you willing to provide the 3D printing files?

</comment><comment><USER32> Mars, Inc. could save us all a lot of trouble by pre-sorting them at the factory!

</comment><comment><USER33> If you are into this kind of things, check out the pebble sorting artistic installation, Jller: [https://vimeo.com/167126696](https://vimeo.com/167126696)

</comment><comment><USER34> Am I the only one who read the headline and thought the machine was created to undo this monstrosity?

[http://imgur.com/kXfGutB](http://imgur.com/kXfGutB)

</comment><comment><USER35> A lego sorting machine by shape and color would be so great

<comment><USER3> This one is pretty impressive. :-) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Gs6-6p7qw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Gs6-6p7qw)

<comment><USER35> Impressive indeed ! I meant something that can be used at home. Like this M&M one

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> For our high school end of year CDT (Craft, Design and Technology) project, my best friend built a snooker ball sorter. It was awesome.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is very cool. Well done and great write up.

I don't think I could punch that much effort into something i wasn't going to commercialize.

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone here found a good pill sorting machine yet? All the ones I've found just seem to be vaporware.

</comment><comment><USER39> Very cool - thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER40> Thank goodness this problem is finally solved.

</comment><comment><USER41> This one is so fast! Nice Job!

</comment><comment><USER42> Very cool</comment>


Quantify Thyself - Apps and websites I'm using to track my behavior - <AUTHOR> http://martymatheny.com/blog/2013/5/8/quantify-thyself

<comment><USER2> I've been using Moves [1] for the past few weeks and really like it. Nice daily summary, and it simplifies my daily movement. Though, it's not without flaws, that at times I can bicycle fast enough and trick it into thinking I'm in a car. I don't run so I can't speak for that functionality.

[1] <http://www.moves-app.com/>

<comment><USER3> I like it and have been recommending it too, but it desperately needs a better data export (i.e. _any_ data export). Concerned that so few quantified self apps actually let you have your data (I'm looking at you fitbit)!</comment></comment>


Applied Neural Networks - <AUTHOR> https://gooddebate.org/2017/12/applied-neural-networks/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone! I just finished this post, please enjoy it and let me know if you have questions or suggestions (especially regarding the math portions, of which I have a hard time understanding anything beyond year 2 calculus!).

<comment><USER2> Thinking about noise reduction I come up with low pass or band pass filters and using multiple microphones to correlate the signal. However I have no experience, at all.

In the most simple case, simply adding two slightly separated signals should not increase the noise. The problem is, the helicopter sound itself is very noisy, so I'm not sure this would work well. A lot of microphones might be needed, increasing the cost many times.

For low pass filtering, there are mufflers for microphones, did you have those?

Edit: and of course that's not really getting any points in the computer science department.

<comment><AUTHOR> We did think of mufflers, but we didn't have them as we were using a dataset collected by another researcher, who used the same system in a quiet environment, then in a windy 'real world' environment. We used this data for training, testing and validation, but didn't have the equipment or time to make a new dataset :(

But this is probably the most practical solution, the data we have doesn't allow for it however. This could be used in the real world and the system could be more accurate, however in a crowded environment there will be other sounds the microphone will pick up, so some type of noise filter would be needed anyway.

<comment><USER3> From a purely signal point of view, if you have a good characterization of the drone sound (your training set) and of the noise, then the appropriate filter would be something along the lines of a weiner type which statistically maximizes the SNR. Preventing your microphone from saturating when measuring the wind is very important as well, and a good use of a wind blocker or muffler.

If your microphone saturates its input that will distort the spectrum of the signal you are measuring.</comment></comment></comment></comment>