Sandstorm is returning to its community roots - <AUTHOR> https://sandstorm.io/news/2017-02-06-sandstorm-returning-to-community-roots <comment><USER3> Oh dear :( Sorry to see sandstorm go. I attribute the failure to many reasons:

1\. The UI was very sloppy. For the user, one had to learn many new concepts (what is a webkey? why do apps not work on mobile?)

2\. New app developer model meant that it was impossible to create apps easily without insane complexity. If you see all the apps, they had to fork from the main code base and generally lagged behind because packaging for sandstorm required a LOT of work.

3\. The web frame that they added around each app was annoying. This frame could not be disabled and thus made many use cases like having a public forum, blog impossible.

4\. Their own infrastructure was not self-hosted including using github (when gitlab exists), google groups (when nodebb app exists). They continued to use irc despite having a rocket.chat app as the main showcase. They should be dogfooding.

The alternatives today are at [https://github.com/Kickball/awesome- selfhosted#self-hosting-...](https://github.com/Kickball/awesome- selfhosted#self-hosting-solutions). I recommend [https://cloudron.io](https://cloudron.io). They focus simply on installing things and don't invent a new developer model (it's based on docker)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the feedback!

1\. We know the UI needs work and have plans to improve it. We are very aware that webkeys are not user-friendly; they were always meant as a stopgap measure while we build better UI. Some things about mobile here: [https://github.com/sandstorm- io/sandstorm/tree/master/roadma...](https://github.com/sandstorm- io/sandstorm/tree/master/roadmap/platform/mobile)

2\. The amount of work an app port requires varies a lot depending on the type of app. Self-contained apps that don't talk to the outside world can often be ported in a few minutes. But, indeed, some apps need work to integrate with the appropriate Sandstorm APIs. We've been working to make this easier by, for example, setting up an HTTP proxy inside the app which can make communicating with external OAuth services mostly transparent, while still respecting the Sandstorm permission model. With better tools we think we can automate most things, we just haven't gotten there yet.

3\. There are multiple Sandstorm apps which let you post e.g. blogs with no Sandstorm UI frame around it. We have some features in-progress which extend this to more apps. But note that part of the goal of Sandstorm is to generalize a lot of the UI such that apps don't have to repeatedly build the same things, like login, access control, notifications, etc. We need to hang that UI somewhere, hence the need for that frame. But we have ideas that will make it look a lot more like an integrated part of the app UI in the future.

4\. We dogfood a lot. We write design docs in Etherpad, manage tasks in Wekan, etc. Our github, google groups, and IRC existed before Sandstorm was functional. The main reason we haven't switched over is because switching is costly and it seems like there are better things we could do with our time.

<comment><USER3> I apologize for not thanking you for the project and just criticizing. Thanks for the amazing project, Kenton. I meant for it all to be constructive and I hope you take it well.

About 4), please do consider the fact that this is the exact same issue most of your users face. We have existing wordpress blogs, forum that we would like to migrate but cannot. Most apps have import/export which is broken (including wordpress which is supposedly mature) :/

<comment><USER4> I agree, import/export in Sandstorm rarely works today, and that's a problem. It's one of those things that we've wanted to address but haven't been able to get to, because there are so many things.

But we're getting close on this one. We recently made some big strides implementing the Powerbox, which allows apps to request permissions to talk to each other and to the outside world. We've also implemented the basics of the in-app HTTP proxy which allows HTTP communications to feel transparent. With a little more work, an app like Wordpress could make a powerbox request to connect to your old Wordpress blog in order to migrate data.

Honestly, a _lot_ of what's wrong with Sandstorm boiled down to "we need the Powerbox to do that, and we haven't had time to fully implement it yet, because we need to focus on things that generate revenue in the short term." We finally implemented some critical pieces of the Powerbox in the last month (app-to-app powerbox is now functional) and, as the Powerbox was always my favorite part of the whole design, I'll probably be working on it more soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sad to know the business did not work out. Sandstorm is a wonderful piece of software, I was able to install and play with it without too much trouble. I hoped that would be the project that would take open source software to new heights.

Software (at least software for consumption, mot for creative work) moves from desktop to cloud + mobile devices in droves. And there is no widely successful FLOSS app ecosystem that works in that direction. Basically I want to be able to get a server, install it at home or maybe in the datacentre, and I want to be able to install FLOSS server-side software that works through the web browser and mobile apps. Think my own pinboard.in, feed reader, IRC or Slack- type server, dashboard etc. Sure you can do it with Linux right now, but the amount of work you have to do configuring all this is well beyond the simplicity of 'apt-get install'. The closest thing to this is what QNAP and Synology do, but their systems are proprietary.

Sandstorm has the potential to be that system and did a lot of things well, package installation experience probably the most notable. What I did not like is the grain model. I understand the security reasons behind it, but it felt like a straitjacket and URLs were ugly. There was no accompanying mobile apps (not Sandstorm's fault per se, but something to think about when building systems like that in the future)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is avery sad thing to hear and one can only wish the best of luck to the open source project. I think especially in current times, user-friendly alternatives to the cloud are badly needed.

By the way, I really appreciate the honest style of the message. Sentences like

 _Unfortunately, Sandstorm the business has now run out of money, and we have been unable to raise more._

are refreshing in contrast to the usual "the next chapter of our journey" speeches.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sad to hear this news, but also excited to hear that Sandstorm is continuing as an open source project.

I'm mainly excited because Sandstorm makes indie web apps viable. I've been amazed to see how quickly members of the Sandstorm community can spin up sophisticated apps like collaborative editing or file sharing. If you have a framework like Meteor to handle sync, and Sandstorm handles authentication and sharing, then you can make a serious multi-user app in a weekend.

Even better, once you've made your app, you don't have to worry about security or scaling. So a junior developer could make an app which stores my sensitive financial information, and I'd still try it because I trust Sandstorm to keep my data safe even if the app is poorly written.

Sandstorm's foundation is solid, and I think a few UI and developer-happiness improvements will make this a reality. Wishing the team all the best!

</comment><comment><USER8> So sad to see yet another blooming Open Source technology make a business/financial shutdown statement. I've been a fan of how much kentonv has hustled, not only in code, but also being a role model about being fearless to get out and post to HN about his technology. Very impressive.

I'm in a similar place, and just recently wrote an article on the RethinkDB/Parse shutdowns and spoke on the Changelog podcast about it as well: [https://hackernoon.com/the-implications-of-rethinkdb-and- par...](https://hackernoon.com/the-implications-of-rethinkdb-and-parse- shutdowns-c076460058f7#.rvz4w04lz) .

Given what I say there, I actually want to encourage the sandstorm team to not give up yet - they are in the right space. Maybe wait out a year, and then hustle some marketing/bizdev/enterprise/government sales, they are in the right space and have some big opportunity ahead. Sometimes, being too early can bite though, but please please try again - don't give up.

As a great example of this, look at Bitcoin. Crypto currencies were all the rage in the 90s and went nowhere. A decade and a half later... the market timing matched up, and it exploded.

<comment><USER9> I read the article and my key takeaway was that licensing was a significant culprit. But Parse and Sandstorm are different. Do you think there is something systematic to open source or to VC-backed startups or to developer tools or something else?

<comment><USER8> Great question, if I were to tackle it, I would take it like this:

1\. Parse, to non-developers, was a wild success - not a failure. An $85M exit ( [https://angel.co/parse](https://angel.co/parse) ) on a $7M investment, that is a 10X+ return in 3 years. This doesn't seem to be talked about much, especially compared to the darling Firebase.

It represents exactly what an affluent ecosystem would want: A business savvy and technically proficient team that can be sold off to the highest bidder that investors vet. However, it is a "shut down" in the eyes of developers because the tool was overlooked.

2\. Sandstorm is so advanced that it isn't quite understood yet, partly because nobody has invented the catchy phrase for it (even if they did, the timing is still too early). While most first-world users now have multiple devices, they only use 1 at a time, and they don't see these two problems: (A) They don't know their devices should sync more than what Apple tells them they should (B) They don't know that their devices, which they own physically, should be their private servers for all their services.

That is why I think Sandstorm shouldn't give up, because with the addition of 5B+ new people coming online, I don't care how scalable Google/Amazon/Apple/Microsoft are, things are going to be a lot more powerful/reliable/customer-satisfaction if people own and run their own services (fully automated by things like sandstorm). This isn't just a privacy/ownership thing, it is a customer expectation "thing" \- using a service is like using a public bathroom, but owning that service is like using your apartment's bathroom. It doesn't matter how gross/nice any 1 experience is, ultimately the consistency of expectation wins out.

So yes, there is something systematic to VC-backed startups (like Parse, they're ultimately a hiring/resume gig - or randomly big industry creators, like Dropbox, Uber/Lyft, AirBnB), and there is something systematic to Open Source and developers (we often value different things). Developer Tools aren't particularly unique, other than the fact that they are either industry causing/creating architectures, or unfortunately on the tail end of a dying architecture. They are black and white in their success, high risk, with no middle ground - and since risks often fail, and humans are loss averse, the failures often seem to outweigh or overwhelm the successes. The important thing to remember though is that the winners cause and create prosperity for entirely new industries/sectors, for people and companies around the world, and for generations to come.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh no! I really believe sandstorm (or something like it) is what we need the future to be. Rather than having everything get sucked up into Google, Facebook, Apple, or these other few centralized services, imagine where everyone has a personal (or family, or church group or whatever) server, and they can one-click install their email apps, their document apps, etc.

The basic issue is that everyone wants "cloud" apps, so that their emails and chats appear on their phones _and_ their tablets or home computers. But unfortunately it seems we leapt straight from the PC paradigm where your email is stored on your computer straight to the "centralized, 3rd party cloud" paradigm, where Google owns all your stuff. But with a "cloud" that you still control, tough problems like end-to-end encryption fall away, since it only needs to be encrypted from one person's cloud to another, while the messages themselves could be synced between all the user's connected devices.

Linux was a beautiful, world changing thing. If we could establish an open- source platform seeking to replicate a lot of things Google and Facebook do now, but without the privacy implications, that could be equally world changing.

Sandstorm, at least as far as I understand it, definitely has the vision right, so I'm hoping despite Sandstorm for Work not panning out, the technology will continue to grow.

</comment><comment><USER11> I just don't see a big market for hosting FOSS apps. There are few apps, if any, that are better than a commercial equivalent already on web/iOS/android with support teams, marketing, etc. Ordinary people don't have much qualms about using a commercial service despite all the privacy warnings in the world: just look at the 1B+ users on Facebook.

So if we're left with a small crowd who does care, they're also largely the same crowd who feels comfortable getting a DO droplet and apt-get installing whatever app.

I fee bad for the sandstorm guys, seems like they put a lot of energy into it, but they approached it as an engineering challenge rather than from a market research "build what people want" challenge.

<comment><USER4> It's definitely true that we've been more focused on technology than market research, and that this is a huge factor in why our business didn't work.

However, I don't believe you can really make revolutionary changes based on the "lean startup", "do lots of market research and test everything with metrics" strategy. It's absolutely a great way to make incremental improvements -- even big ones -- but not paradigm shifts.

Sandstorm's vision is a long-term one, and it actually isn't primarily focused specifically on self-hosting, privacy, or even FOSS, but rather on creating infrastructure that allows decentralized software to stand on equal or greater footing compared to centralized services. There is a lot of work that needs to be done for this to function, and you can't justify it by saying "look, these customers asked for it" \-- you justify it by laying out the vision and saying: "Look, there will be these clear enormous advantages if this works."

For reference, here's our technology manifesto: [https://sandstorm.io/how-it- works](https://sandstorm.io/how-it-works)

This is always a tough sell, because people rarely agree on hypothetical outcomes that can't be measured in advance. And if it were clear, someone would be doing it already. So, I don't expect you to agree. But I'm going to keep working on it.

<comment><USER11> "allows decentralized software to stand on equal or greater footing compared to centralized services."

While that's great from a CS/FOSS/EFF/hacker perspective, the question is what's necessary for such software to be on equal ground in the eyes of ordinary users? My guess is that the decentralized/centralized split isn't (yet?) it, but rather the UX and functionality. Few open source end-user apps are entirely original and cutting edge; most are poor knockoffs of commercial products or are failed commercial products that got open sourced.

To me that's why sandstorm didn't make much sense. I applaud your efforts, I really don't want to rain on your parade -- I poured my sweat and tears into a startup that failed as well so I get it -- I'm just reacting to what seemed like not-honest-enough reasons for failure on the website. It's really important to know what didn't go right for next time lest you make the same mistakes again.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like you're assuming that Sandstorm is a platform strictly for open source software, but that was actually not our intent. In the ten-year vision, there is a thriving ecosystem of both open source and proprietary / paid applications that build on the platform because it provides many advantages both to developers and to users, allowing for better-quality apps.

We've used open source apps to seed the app market, because we can do that without the upstream developers' help. We also are big fans of open source ourselves, obviously, and I feel open source is especially disadvantaged in a SaaS world, so Sandstorm will make it more competitive. But in the end what I really want is high-quality decentralized software in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> ar-jan Sorry to hear this! :( I use a self-hosted Sandstorm instance almost daily, and I'm very happy with it.

I don't really agree with some of the critiques posted here regarding the UI and UX. Sure, it could have used further improvements, but I feel it's simple, functional, and intuitive enough. Not at all a critical shortcoming imo (well, perhaps for use cases where mobile support is essential).

For me a limiting factor is that some of the apps do not have feature-parity with their regular version. In particular, plugin support, which is very important for example for WordPress, ShareLaTeX, and IPython.

Another thing is the pace in which new apps are packaged for Sandstorm, and the trust that there will be regular and timely updates. Of course this also depends very much on the community, and the ease with which things can be packaged, but it felt like app porting lost a bit of momentum.

Regarding the future of the project, are there any other potential avenues for financing further development, other than buying Oasis hosting?

I very much want to see this project continued!

<comment><USER4> I'd love to see the community using Bounty Source or the like to finance projects, e.g. packaging particular apps.

For my part, I don't need any financial incentives -- I'll keep coding regardless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So the paid offering of Oasis still exists and you are advertising it in the end of the blog post.

It is not directly said in the post, but it sounds like you are trying to still make it work in the long run by minimizing the team and going with the slow organic growth that you have?

No criticism intended there, I personally think that would be great and in the long run probably the most healthy way to make something so idealistically grounded like Sandstorm work.

<comment><USER4> Yes, exactly.

Oasis brings in enough revenue to cover Sandstorm's serving costs (for Oasis itself, Sandcats, updates, etc.). Oasis is also very low-maintenance for us, since Sandstorm in general is designed to be easy to maintain. So there's no reason to shut it down.

Our other paid offering, Sandstorm for Work, brought in very little revenue, so it made more sense to make it free to drive growth.

I do believe there's a future business in Sandstorm, perhaps centered around the app market and supporting paid apps. I believe that as long as we keep improving Sandstorm, a few years down the road we may be in a place to revive the business. But mainly I want to keep working on it because, honestly, I really enjoy it, especially now that I don't have to think about boring business-y stuff. :)

<comment><USER13> I really hope this works out! I've yet to use Sandstorm in anger - but I strongly believe the "correct" model for a project like this is offer paid hosting managed by system experts (ie: you, the creators) - along with an easy back-and-forth transition path from self-host to paid hosting and back.

Charging for ldap always felt a bit wrong to me - supporting open federated standards is kind of a selling point of Sandstorm in the first place - <USER2> it out felt like "demanding" payment rather than providing a tantalizing service I'd want to pay for.

People point at wordpress - which are a successful business built on a rather terrible code-base, along with a rather nasty walled garden with a half-open gate (the theme ecosystem). A better model might be Ghost - they also offer paid hosting, but doesn't draw such a hard line between self-host and "ghost host" IMNHO. (I don't know how well Ghost works in terms of revenue, though).

Would you be able to share some number wrt. hosting costs and current recurring revenue? How many paying users do you have, and how many more would you need to pay for the size of team you'd like?

<comment><USER4> On Oasis, we have 2132 monthly active users and 284 paying users accounting for $2376 in monthly revenue -- although some of these users are still paying from credit they received by supporting our Indiegogo campaign, so the physical revenue number is lower (and isn't on my dashboard for some reason).

Our hosting costs from Google Cloud are confusing because currently we have some startup credit (which will expire in about six months), and the way they account for that in invoices is weird... But if I'm reading right, we spent $1552 in January, before applying the credit. We also pay for $35 for Cloudflare, $35 for G Suite, $25 for Github, $80 for Sendgrid, $50 for Mailchimp, $50 for eShares, and probably some things I'm forgetting at the moment. So, around $2000 monthly. We also pay an undisclosed but surprisingly small amount for Sandcats.io TLS certificates which we pass on free to users.

To support any full-time developers we'd need Oasis paying users to increase by at least 10x, so something like 2500. Yesterday was a very big news day for us, which resulted in 6 new signups.

<comment><USER13> Thank you so much for taking the time, and writing such a candid reply.

Also:

> Yesterday was a very big news day for us, which resulted in 6 new signups.

Ouch. (otoh, a steady 2% daily growth is nothing to sneeze at - you'll be at 10x in 116 days!)

In all seriousness; best of luck. I think there should still be a bright future for sandstorm - a few more rounds of polish, a bit of luck and pr and sustainable growth should be very much in reach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is something that I would love to see happen with open source projects:

1\. company is created around the project 2\. other companies started using the project and find it handy 3\. companies need maintenance and support: consulting companies start opening up shop and serving them 4\. parent company gets more customers because they're the first/official supporting company

This similiar to the Wordpress model I think and they're fairly successful, they've got a whole ecosystem.

 _We have added the Sandstorm Technology Roadmap to the Sandstorm repo, where you can learn about everything Sandstorm has built and plans to build._

Perfect, now another company can take a chance on raising VC funds for this or bankrolling it themselves.

<comment><USER15> > This is something that I would love to see happen with open source projects:

That won't happen. But not for lack of trying!

My consulting company, Paragon Initiative Enterprises, has produced over a dozen high quality open source projects that make it easier to write secure PHP software.

For starters, we wrote an entire CMS that has secure automatic updates baked into its core as a first-class feature (including for extension developers): [https://paragonie.com/project/airship](https://paragonie.com/project/airship)

Worried about SQL injection? EasyDB makes it easy and intuitive to use prepared statements. [https://github.com/paragonie/easydb](https://github.com/paragonie/easydb)

Need Content-Security-Policy headers quickly and easily? You want CSP-Builder: [https://paragonie.com/project/csp-builder](https://paragonie.com/project/csp- builder)

Want all the security of libsodium with an even simpler interface and a separate class for dealing with the filesystem? Check out Halite: [https://paragonie.com/project/halite](https://paragonie.com/project/halite)

Want to stop CSRF (including replay attacks)? [https://github.com/paragonie/anti-csrf](https://github.com/paragonie/anti- csrf)

Want to quickly examine the differences between two PHP Archives (e.g. for reproducible builds)? [https://github.com/paragonie/pharaoh](https://github.com/paragonie/pharaoh)

We even wrote the community's accepted interface for generating cryptographically secure random numbers in PHP 5 projects: [https://github.com/paragonie/random_compat](https://github.com/paragonie/random_compat)

And coming soon (pending an audit), a pure-PHP implementation of libsodium that will likely be adopted by WordPress so its automatic updates are Ed25519 secured: [https://github.com/paragonie/sodium_compat](https://github.com/paragonie/sodium_compat)

And even more: [https://paragonie.com/projects](https://paragonie.com/projects)

Guess how many clients we've gotten from all this open source software we wrote over the past two years that demonstrably improves the security posture of software written in PHP?

Zero.

My solution: Our next project isn't going to be OSS, and it's unlikely that any of our future ones will be unless it's intended to be a giveaway.

The open source + consulting business model may sound good in theory, but it simply doesn't work. (Though, I will grant that it's possible that the "consulting about someone else's open source project" is more sustainable, due to near-zero investment in said project itself.)

<comment><USER14> The reason I mentioned it is because it has worked for Wordpress, Drupal and Magento in general. There's countless shops that build plugins and themes for those and are hired for things ranging from small changes to full-scale development.

I would love to see that happen with Sandstorm or other projects because maybe the consulting model doesn't work for the parent company but I'm sure there's hundreds of smaller consulting firms that would love to support it.

<comment><USER15> Generally if a whale ends up dead on a beach lots of parasites feast upon its bloated corpse.

But that's not to say we need more beached whales.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just this week, I was on the fence about whether I should get a hosted environment of Sandstorm on the Basic level. Your sad tale of failing as a business gave me the push I needed and I just subscribed.

Sorry to see it go this way, and sorry I couldn't help sooner.

<comment><USER4> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sorry to see the business fail. I was recommending people to check out the project since the day I learned about it here. I hope the development will continue without problems though :).

A quick question, if I may: say I want to test Sandstorm, first on Oasis, but then I want to migrate to self-hosting. Is there a way to move all the data I stored on my Oasis instance to the self-hosted one?

<comment><USER4> Yes. You can click the "download backup" button in the top bar when you have a grain open to download a zip file of all its contents. You can then upload that to any other server to restore the grain there.

Currently there is not a mass-download or mass-transfer feature; you have to do each grain one at a time. But you probably won't generate that many grains if you're just testing it out, so it ought to be OK. We plan to add mass- transfer in the future.

See also: [https://github.com/sandstorm- io/sandstorm/tree/master/roadma...](https://github.com/sandstorm- io/sandstorm/tree/master/roadmap/platform/grains#backup)

<comment><USER17> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think Sandstorm missed out on a potential business opportunity that I will call, for lack of a better term, SaaS as a service.

Here's what I mean. Suppose I develop an application that fits nicely into Sandstorm's grain-based model. But I don't want to give it away. And just as important, I don't want my users to have to deal with this weird Sandstorm thing. I want to sell the app as a SaaS subscription, like so many other web applications that people are used to. Yet, I don't want to deal with recurring billing, hosting my users' data, 24/7 availability, etc.

So I develop my product as a Sandstorm app, then pay Sandstorm to host it under my own domain, with Sandstorm being invisible to the user. As far as the user is concerned, it's a SaaS product that I'm providing, like any other SaaS product. But I don't have to implement recurring billing, back up users' data, worry about availability or security, etc.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

<comment><USER19> I think you are talking about developing a market place. Very different ball game than sandstorm.

<comment><USER20> IMO closely related though.

I wanted something like this: crowdfunding of apps, preferably open source.

But while I though it could fit well in on top of sandstorm I understand it would be hard to pull of in a balanced way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Regarding open sourcing previously paywalled features:

> We no longer have a business model to protect, so the code can now be set > free.

I'm pretty sure this is a big decider in whether a company open sources a piece of software.

<comment><USER4> Technically our "paywalled" features in Sandstorm for Work were actually open source all along. The paywall existed in official builds but you could easily remove it in a custom build.

The line you quote is actually with regards to Blackrock, which is our scale- out technology, which we never got around to selling (except indirectly by using it to run Oasis).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am always a little nervous when the status of a project I rely on changes, but I'm pretty confident Sandstorm.io as a platform is still just beginning.

<comment><USER20> Seems they have - at least for now - given up the commercial project.

I would have loved it if they were successful and made a small fortune so as to encourage more innovative in this niche.

That said, seems they are once again proving what they are made of and making everything available as open source.

<comment><USER4> I indeed wanted Sandstorm to succeed as a business in order to support Sandstorm's development -- but to me the business was always a vehicle rather than the end goal. For now, the business hasn't worked. I'm actually somewhat relieved, as I've always felt more comfortable building pure-open-source projects rather than business-driven ones. The contortions we went through to try to get revenue felt very unnatural to me.

<comment><USER23> Have you considered using [https://www.patreon.com/](https://www.patreon.com/) ? If there's enough interest among the people using it maybe you could pay for one full time developer. I know of multiple projects where this has happened like Vue.js and Hapi.js.

<comment><USER4> It's unlikely that we'd collect enough money to pay a developer in the near term. Developers are expensive. But if people want to contribute financially to the project, the easiest way is to sign up for Oasis. This avoids the 5% fee that Patreon charges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How simple is Sandstorm to run? I want to use something like sandstorm, but i want _stupidly_ simple deployments, even if at the cost of features. Eg, my killer "sandstorm" like feature would be a single binary, or perhaps 1 binary per service type, that i run with no auth, not exposed to public, a single backup dir, no config, etc.

I want low maintenance from the user side. How much does Sandstorm fit this?

Also, as a side note i feel quite sad for Sandstorm. It's a difficult concept to monetize even if for continued development. Ie, even if i can be convinced that this will be "easy enough" to use, i'd be hard pressed to pay for a service.. i want to keep it on my network, that's the point to me. I'd have to donate, i suppose. Which is unfortunate.

Perhaps they could offer an encrypted backup solution? Eg, i want to self host, but they could easily store an encrypted and versioned backup of my entire sandstorm db? I'd pay for that! I'm doing that from someone anyway, why not sandstorm.io?

<comment><USER4> > How simple is Sandstorm to run?

Extremely so. Installation is via an interactive process (no config files) and optionally automatically provisions DNS and TLS certificates for you (if you choose a hostname under sandcats.io). Once installed, Sandstorm auto-updates without any intervention. Apps are installed as easily as installing apps on your phone, and also auto-update. The system is intended to be feasible for non-technical people to manage.

I suggest trying it out. :) [https://sandstorm.io/install](https://sandstorm.io/install)

<comment><USER24> Do you have any plans to monetize users like me? Eg, i want to run it at home behind a firewall. I'd love to purchase _something_ , but not at the cost of privacy/etc.

How do i fit in your long term goals?

<comment><USER4> Well, we had a product called "Sandstorm for Work" which was self-hosted and which people could pay for, and a lot of people said they'd love to pay for it, but very few people ever did. :/ So now we've removed the paywall and the Sandstorm for Work premium features are available in all self-hosted Sandstorm servers for free.

If you'd like to help the project monetarily, you can sign up for an Oasis account, even if you intend to primarily use Sandstorm self-hosted.

That said, at present, we've stopped worrying about monetization and are only worried about making the platform better and getting more users. Simply installing a server and using it helps us! The more users we have, the more interest there will be from developers, and vice-versa.

<comment><USER24> Sounds good, really appreciate your time on this! I'll give this a try this weekend :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I tested Sandstorm just last week, the technology maybe cutting edge but sadly the UI design /UX was from the the 90s. The various apps did not gel with either sandstorm frame or other apps at all (conceptually, not technically), almost as if they are iframed and glued together.

Hope the team spends time and polish the presentation layer.

<comment><USER4> One thing we want to do to improve the UI is to remove the current black topbar and replace it with a top bar that melds better with the app. Most web apps these days have a colored topbar that contains a name, logo, document title, share button, account settings button, etc. In Sandstorm you see a lot of apps still having such a topbar of their own, but then the Sandstorm topbar lives above it, and half of the usual topbar functionality actually ends up in the Sandstorm top bar, confusing people.

In order for Sandstorm to defend against app security vulnerabilities, we can't simply let the app handle its own access control, so we do need a place to hang this trusted UI.

What I'd like to do is have Sandstorm render a modern-style colored top bar with all the usual elements an app would put in it -- with the ability for the app to customize the color and contents to some degree. This top bar would feel like part of the app, but would be trusted, so we could put access control and account settings there, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm glad to hear the plan is to continue the dream. When I first heard about Sandstorm I thought it was a _fantastic_ concept. Unfortunately it wasn't user-friendly enough and I walked away.

I'd always peak at updates whenever the name popped up but I was waiting for it to be more user-friendly. Outside of what sounds to be a lack of a sales/marketing team - the UX/UI is what prevented me from forking over cash.

I hope it works well enough to try and bounce back for a round 2. Best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'd love to see a meta-analysis of OSS-oriented companies that have succeeded vs. those that have failed and what they did.

<comment><USER22> The best thing, IMHO, is that pretty much every OSS-oriented company that has "failed" has left behind valuable work for the community. And non-OSS-oriented companies that failed largely have not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> So the business has failed but the managed hosting is still available? What does that mean? Who keeps it running?

<comment><USER4> I do. (With help from some trusted people if I'm unavailable.)

Oasis pays for itself and Sandstorm is intentionally designed to be low- maintenance (for the benefit of self-hosters), so keeping it going is actually not very hard. We don't foresee any need to shut down any of Sandstorm's services.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for clarifying. So you are going to run Oasis full time all by yourself ? Would be great to put this as part of your post since it's not clear how much one can depend on Oasis.

<comment><USER4> I will handle most of it, but there will be fallbacks when I'm not available.

FWIW, Oasis takes only a few minutes of work per week to operate...

<comment><USER20> _FWIW, Oasis takes only a few minutes of work per week to operate..._

Well, today I learned. A bit humbling I guess as someone who typically use more hours to support smaller infrastructure:-]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As an aside, how easy is it to create your own apps for Sandstorm?

 _edit_ : Found this, [https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/vagrant- spk/packaging-tu...](https://docs.sandstorm.io/en/latest/vagrant- spk/packaging-tutorial/)

</comment><comment> dyu- Saw this coming :-/ I anticipated this one after app.net shut down. Next one up, cozy.io?

</comment><comment><USER28> If only sandstorm sold a box with it pre-installed. Kind if like a Pogo plug.

<comment><USER29> Pogoplug did stop selling their hardware years ago. So it probably wasn't working out either :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQaBWziYvY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HQaBWziYvY) I can't help it...</comment>


Thoughts on software piracy by an indie dev - Tuna-Fish http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3550556/ive-found-my-software-as-cracked-download-on-internet-what-to-do/3551975#3551975

<comment> Tuna-Fish I like the idea of using DRM to redirect pirates to a suitably prepared order form -- does anyone here have any experiences of similar tactics?</comment>


Monorean: Cheat on tests with absolute discretion - <AUTHOR> http://www.monorean.com/ <comment><USER2> I can't help but think this must be useful for something other than cheating, but I can't think of anything off-hand.

</comment><comment><USER3> And all I need next is the tiny brain that I can use to cheat in my job after I graduate by cheating.</comment>


How Google Sees you from an Advertising Cookie. - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/ads/preferences

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting things noticed -

1\. My interests are categorized into particular sections. More the nesting; more accurate it is. (Deeply Nested in categorization is a subset of your niche?)

2\. Also cookie sees me differently in my ipad and Android phone. So, its not the same cookie shared across multiple devices(using the same google account).

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting he knows everything about me.</comment>


Alchetron- Free social encyclopedia for world - <AUTHOR> http://alchetron.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> What is Alchetron ?

Alchetron.com is a free social encyclopedia for world where you can create, organize and learn easily using topics.

With Alchetron you can search & share thousands of organized topics which can be anything and everything like biographies, free courses for students, news, moms cooking receipes etc. the possibilities are endless .

Watch the video below to know more

[https://youtu.be/KQqfsK4KS60](https://youtu.be/KQqfsK4KS60)</comment>


Arthur C. Clarke Predicts the Future in 1964 … And Kind of Nails It - <AUTHOR> http://www.openculture.com/2011/09/arthur_c_clarke_looks_into_the_future_1964.html

<comment><USER2> I really wish there was more information available on the meeting that Arthur C. Clarke, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and some rocket boffin had in an Oxford pub to discuss the morality of interplanetary colonization - Lewis and Tolkien opposing, Clarke and Val Cleaver in favour.

Clarke wrote of the meeting:

 _Needless to say, neither side converted the other, and we refused to abandon our diabolical schemes of interplanetary conquest. But a fine time was had by all, and when, some hours later, we emerged a little unsteadily from the Eastgate, Dr. Lewis's parting words were "I'm sure you are very wicked people but how dull it would be if everyone was good."_

[http://www.cthreepo.com/blog/2009/04/arthur-c-clarke-vs- c-s-...](http://www.cthreepo.com/blog/2009/04/arthur-c-clarke-vs-c-s-lewis- and-j-r-r-tolkien.shtml)

[Edit: Link to some details on Val Cleaver: [http://www.bis-space.com/what-we- do/the-british-interplaneta...](http://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/the- british-interplanetary-society/history/bis-presidents/arthur-valentine-val- cleaver-obe)]

<comment><USER3> This is not entirely related, but Lewis and Tolkien belonged to an interesting group of authors who often held discussions at pubs near Oxford.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inklings>

<comment><USER4> And, completely unrelated, having studied in Oxford for 4 years, and having been in that (and many other) pub in Oxford, I can categorically state that discussions of themse varying from the philosophical and scientific to the mundane are regularly held throughout all the pubs of Oxford.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One of the things Clarke got wrong was his contention, expressed in at least a few of his books, that instant global telecommunications would eliminate the need for people to live in close proximity in cities. Despite the proliferation of low-density sprawl around many North American (and some European) cities, density is still a principal driver of innovation and big cities are, if anything, even bigger and denser than they were when Clarke made this prediction.

 _Edit to add_ \- One more thing: in case anyone here doesn't already know, Clarke invented the concept of geostationary communications satellites in a 1945 article he wrote for _Wireless World_. <http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/>

<comment><USER6> Wait for robotic cars, and the subsequent explosion of time-shared rent-a-cars (imagine if ZipCars could be really truly computer-scheduled), robotic public transport and mixed transport (freely intermixing various transport types), even cheaper robotic delivery services, and the still-improving telepresence software and cheaper hardware. We're still at the beginning of that moreso than the end. Driving to the city half-an-hour away is annoying when it carves half-an-hour out of your day, but if you just click to order a car, get in and continue doing whatever it is you were doing before, and just arrive half-an- hour later it'll feel much less like it was An Event to go to the city. Or going from the city to something half-an-hour away.

<comment><USER7> Robotic cars will make it even easier to live in cities. Cabs will actually go robotic and be the preferred use of cars because they will actually get much cheaper than owning one.

In fact cabs are already cheaper than owning a car where parking space is very expensive, but robotic cabs will reach a whole new level of cheapness.

Cars and engines are going to get a lot smaller when you don't need to accommodate a driver or the need to speed. Think rickshaw size with a top speed of 35 mph.

Mopeds get 120 mpg. That's like 4 cents a mile. Door to door for a dollar a trip will be a reality and make mass transit AND the traditional automobile industry increasingly irrelevant.

<comment><USER8> Some interesting points, but I think robotic cars will/would be a bigger enabler for exurbs than for actual city dwelling. Get yourself some acreage at the edge of some teeming metropolis, have 60-90 minutes of uninterrupted time each way in your little cocoon to do as you please, have face time in the office once you get there.

Use the commute time to telecommute and shorten (or extend!) your in-office work day, or spend it pursuing solitary leisure activities and work a normal- length day at the office.

This would be awesome.

<comment><USER5> You still have to power the thing. Declining oil production and the limitations of battery power are going to be a severe limiting factor that will influence the way we roll out self-driving automobiles.

<comment><USER6> Fleets of self-driving vehicles nearly eliminate the problems with battery power; they can easily schedule when they need to return to the station to swap out their battery packs for fresh ones.

I still think technology is winning the resource depletion race, even if we ignore the fact that it's really starting to look like oil production isn't actually near the end of its road yet. And if we don't ignore that, the likelihood that gas (or more broadly "energy") will just be "too expensive" for people to want to jaunt about anytime in the next 20 years seems to be decreasing rather than increasing. A great deal of our current apparent shortages of various things are 100% self-imposed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> E. M. Forester (1 January 1879 – 7 June 1970) predicted the Internet. Right down to blogs, and the crappy compressed quality of many voice comms and video chat.

<http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html>

<comment><USER10> s/Forester/Forster/ please.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Regarding ability to predict the future: There is a huge amount of survivor bias involved. Given how many people predicted incorrectly (just look at 1950s Pop Sci covers), somebody was bound to be somewhat correct. We only know _his_ prediction because it came true; how many other predictions of his haven't?

Clarke was an amazing writer, and there is no question he had an eye for possible futures. I wish I could write half as well.

</comment><comment><USER12> I found interesting that most predictions of the future always focus in the technological high-end.

For the very big majority of people in 1964 the really big change was moving from rural environments to the slums of Mexico City, Kinshasa, Mumbai or other 3rd world big town.

<comment><USER13> That prediction by clarke means that today million of relatively poor indians work for companies in the U.S. and make better living.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Another terribly interesting sci-fi author was Jules Verne. He made many predictions about the future in several of his works.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_in_the_Twentieth_Century#Predictions)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a fuller version here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT_8-pjuctM&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT_8-pjuctM&feature=related)

The next prediction gets a bit more far-fetched, by suggesting bio-engineering chimpanzees as some form of slave labour.

<comment><USER15> In 1964 he predicted the concept of ape slave labor which was the basis of the plot of the novel "La planète des singes" (Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle printed in 1963.

<comment><USER16> No time to research this myself, but are those dates around the wrong way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Clarke was right, about the technology. He was, unfortunately but rather predictably, so very wrong about people's willingness to adopt the technology. Currently, I'm looking to move from one very large city to another, even larger, city and all I want is a job that is willing to let me work remote from my new home. Unfortunately, because the new city is not one of the "blessed" cities where people expect software developers to work, I'm having an extraordinarily difficult time finding a good opportunity.

Even when there is no financial reason, no technological reason, people are still, inherently, unfortunately wary about people working from "just anywhere"...

</comment><comment><USER18> He just didn't factor in some human tendencies that limit the adoption of the remote work model. To get around those another 50 years could not be enough.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you're actually interested in what Arthur C. Clarke thought about the future, may i suggest his book "Profiles of The Future", from whence we get Clarke's 3 laws, including the well-worn "any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."

Not only does it contain lots of predictions like the ones in this video, but also fascinating analysis about the whole future-predicting business, including gems like this:

"Anything that is theoretically possible will be achieved in practice, no matter what the technical difficulties, if it is desired greatly enough."

</comment><comment><USER20> It's not that hard to make predictions like this and have them be eventually confirmed true. In fact, the weakest predictions often seem the most prescient since they are achieved the farthest into the future.

I'll just go on the record here with flying cars, 300 year lifespans, portable holograms, human-embedded electronics that give superhuman sensory abilities, etc...

</comment><comment><USER21> The site appears to be down. Here's a slightly more in-depth article from Singularity Hub from this time last year: [http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/01/retro-futurism- arthur-c...](http://singularityhub.com/2010/09/01/retro-futurism-arthur-c- clarkes-predictions-from-1964-video/)

<comment><USER22> It's working here, but in any case, the crux of the article is this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOaZspeSBZU&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOaZspeSBZU&feature=player_embedded)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In Imperial Earth, Clarke's minisec pretty much describes the ipad.

<comment><USER24> Was that also the inspiration for the flat screen used to watch the BBC in 2001?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The references to Clarke and Friedman in the same blog post makes me cringe. One is a writer, the other one isn't, by any critical metric.

</comment><comment><USER25> So what are your predictions for 2050?

<comment><USER26> 1\. I'll be dead.

2\. Government and corporate surveillance of the individual will be so common place that it will seem weird that people in the past went through most of their lives unobserved.

3\. Corruption in American government will be beyond rampant, and no one will even bother to complain about it anymore. It will be almost like Indian society where individuals have to pay bribes for any government contact, except the bribery will still only be available to corporations and individuals rich enough to operate as corporations.

4\. Access to health care/health insurance (they amount to the same thing here) will be worse than it is now, and we will still crow that ours is the best healthcare system in the world.

5\. The reported unemployment numbers will be at or above 20%.

6\. Public schools will have deteriorated so badly that only the poorest of families will educate their kids there. That group will however be more than 50% of kids.

7\. The car culture will have disappeared. Most of us will use public transportation, which will cost about what it costs now to operate a car.

8\. 2050 will be the Year of the Linux Desktop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess it's a good thing he's been wrong about the equalisation of the sexes - both men _and_ women may not commute today.

<comment><USER28> "Man"/"men" is the neuter (unsexed) pronoun for people in English. "He" is neuter for all animate objects (animals and people), and "she" is neuter for inanimate objects.

<comment><USER29> > _"she" is neuter for inanimate objects._

I had never considered that English has genders for objects. Airplanes, ships, and cars can be feminine objects (by convention of calling them "she"), but I can't think of other (common) examples inanimate objects referred to by "she". My telephone is an "it", not a "she". Perhaps "she" only applies to anthropomorphic inanimate objects?

<comment><USER28> Nope, it works for anything. You don't have to anthropomorphize a boat to call it "she". Countries are also referred to as women in general. But these are all just defaults. You can use masculine pronouns for any object, boat, or country, if you want to emphasize some masculine traits.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How municipalities in St. Louis County, Missouri profit from poverty - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/

<comment><USER2> Good article. The irony is that the excessive charges levied against people who can't afford it continue to fund the cycle. [http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov- fe...](http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson- missouri-court-fines-budget.html)</comment>


For HN: A good laugh at PI (pie) - <AUTHOR> http://popstrip.com/why-pi/

<comment><AUTHOR> Also begs some interesting questions on Pi, infinity, universe, God (if your inclined), etc. Just a "funny" for HN in times of stress.</comment>


Bluetooth 4.2 to bring Internet connectivity and increased speed - <AUTHOR> http://www.bluetooth.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/4-2/bluetooth4-2.aspx

<comment><USER2> One major piece of news is that this new spec fixes the broken key exchange during the pairing process, which made Bluetooth devices vulnerable to passive snooping. [1] It now uses ECDH for key exchange. [2] This is big because one of the main proposed use cases for BLE is medical devices, and now they can be secured.

[1] [http://lacklustre.net/bluetooth](http://lacklustre.net/bluetooth)

[2] BLUETOOTH SPECIFICATION Version 4.2 [Vol 2, Part H] p. 1342</comment>


Tesla Unveil Disappoints, Costs Elon Musk $500M - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/10/10/tesla-unveil-disappoints-costs-elon-musk-more-than-500-million/

<comment><USER2> The article fails to mention exactly why the unveil should be seen as disappointing. I'd also expect a financial publication to understand the distinction between actual losses and theoretical ones. Elon has not lost $500M, his stock has just fluctuated, as stocks are apt to do. Lackluster article all around really.</comment>


Arcade City: Decentralized, Blockchain-Based Answer to Uber - <AUTHOR> http://cointelegraph.com/news/116100/arcade-city-decentralized-blockchain-based-answer-to-uber <comment><USER2> This feels like an entertaining distraction by someone who massively underestimates their need to provide support to both drivers and customers.

Uber's GPS mapping soloution doesn't work as magically as it needs to. Things change pretty quickly there. I don't think this could succeed without traditional support infrastructure.

Also, block chain updates over mobile? What is the data plan of those drivers going to look like?

<comment><USER3> Assuming that it is even necessary to use ethereum for a distributed uber -- I see no need for the driver to maintain a copy of the blockchain, and certainly not in the vehicle. Groups of drivers who trust each other IRL could, for example, cooperate to finance a single full node and then make calls to that service to verify payment.

Presumably, drivers could also use third-party mapping software / services, dispatchers, whatever aspects of the biz are not handled by the decentralized protocol.

<comment><USER4> so now drivers need to host their own cryptocurrency pool?

<comment><USER3> What is a cryptocurrency pool? Are you thinking of a mining pool? No, there would be no need for that. Why would a taxi driver need to mine bitcoin?

Let's ignore that taxi drivers could avoid using any cryptocurrency. It's possible to have the ride hailing and rating systems done without bitcoin.

If we assume that bitcoin or a clone is the right network to use for the dispatch and ratings systems, then someone the taxi driver trusts has to run wallet software to verify that transactions are valid. It might be a good idea for them to have their own node for certain functions as well.

Wallet and node software could be run very cheaply in the taxi driver's home, or even in a project shared between drivers. So the objection about mobile bandwidth is easily overcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ironically, the driving force behind Uber's popularity is its centralization and uniformity. Uber replaces the hodge-podge of thousands of different taxi operators with a single company that offers a single app with a single billing system everywhere in the country, while holding drivers to strict vehicle and service standards.

<comment><USER6> I don't know if that's the reason for uber's popularity. I think it, along with other ridesharing sites, are just another option in addition to taxi, car rentals and public transportation.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't discount OP's comment at all. It's the main reason I use Uber. I couldn't care less about it's service vs. taxi's, or ridesharing, or most other things. The things I like about it are:

1) I have a single app that I can request a car in mere seconds in just about every major city

2) Payments are handled automatically

That's it. And #2 is an added bonus. #1 is the killer feature for me. I don't have to stand around trying to hail a cab, nor do I have look up a cab company's number to call a car and hope they have one available within a reasonable timeframe.

<comment><USER6> I'm not discounting it; just treating it as conjecture.

I myself think it's important to look around at different options when looking for transportation and lodging.

<comment><USER8> This is a little like "conjecturing" about the reason people liked iPods more than CD Walkmen. Even in places with very good cab service (NYC and Chicago), cabs are a fucking pain to work with, and Uber is incredibly simple to work with.

<comment><USER6> It's more like conjecturing about the reason people go to IHOP over a fancy restaurant.

I'm sure people's reasons are more complex and vary from time to time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Uhhh what? Blockchain blockchain blockchain! And uber!

How in the world are these connected. He's presenting it like its this obvious thing that needs to be connected when it's not clear at all why any blockchain needs to be involved.

<comment><USER10> Why is there always a highly up-voted comment in every thread that expresses befuddlement at the utility of the blockchain? I thought HN was all about forward thinking and experimental ideas, instead of throwing up hands in ignorance.

Admittedly, the article is light on technical details, but if you understand how blockchain technology works, you could easily deduce that a likely use case for this would be a service for connecting drivers to passengers without a middleman and without the regulatory burden that often prevents these services from proliferating in certain markets. A more fleshed out general case of a decentralized marketplace is OpenBazaar, which creates a marketplace with no middleman that can't be taken down.

There is no reason a blockchain based app couldn't be implemented. Whether this guy is actually on the right path or not is hard to say based on the article.

<comment><USER11> > There is no reason a blockchain based app couldn't be implemented.

I don't think anyone is doubting this bit. It's the overwhelming current trend of forcing everything onto the blockchain, whether it improves the application or not. The interesting questions (frequently not answered) revolve around _why_ one should do this.

<comment><USER12> To me, the supposed benefit of using blockchain was so obvious as not to require stating: Removal of any central authority over connecting customers to service providers. And you might not want Uber tracking your travels, for example.

There are good arguments for centralization, too. Not saying the blockchain argument win out. Just saying, the benefits are the same as for every other blockchain application, and well understood.

<comment><USER13> > And you might not want Uber tracking your travels, for example.

Surely a blockchain would only change that to _anybody_ being able to track your travels, though?

<comment><USER10> The whole system wouldn't have to sit on the blockchain - only the parts that are needed to put out a request. The only part that would need some thought is the initial location. One option would be to put out a general location, within 10 miles, then only give exact location to those who request it and have a proven record of being good drivers. That's another problem as well - how do you create a ratings system on the blockchain that can't be manipulated? Perhaps a page-rank style algorithm could do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Building out both sides of a two-sided market is extremely hard. While this decentralized system might be appealing to drivers, Uber and Lyft have created such a great experience for riders, that I don't see a compelling reason for riders to move to this system -- even if moving to this system is as easy as downloading Arcade City. And without the riders, the drivers won't give it very long. That said, chicken-and-egg scenarios exist in every industry, and get hurdled all the time, so I'll be interested to watch how it goes for this one.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not entire sure many of the Uber drivers realized they are just a temporary stopgap until self driving cars are a reality. Uber I'm sure will be one of the first, if not _the_ first, company to have a massive fleet of self driving cars.

At that point their costs will be so low they'll be able to undercut anyone still using human drivers.

<comment><USER16> They are a stopgap in a similar way McDonald's employees are stopgaps until full automation. It's a long way out; and, even if it is closer than expected, that type of employee hasn't exactly invested a lot of their life into training for the job so it's not like they are getting screwed.

<comment><USER17> I suspect Uber will actually beat McDonald's to automation. I tried to find any evidence that McDonald's in trying to automate their restaurants, and all I could find was a joke news article.

<comment><USER18> One thing they do now is put the drive-in order-taker off-site at a call center.

I guess not so recent, considering this article is from 2006: [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/technology/11fast.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/technology/11fast.html?pag&_r=0)

<comment><USER19> This could be something worth fully automating -- they have a limited number of options on the menu, and a less-limited but still defined number of permutations on those options. That problem space may be small enough for converting text-to-speech. The downside is that you'd still have to have someone on-call to try to rework any order statements the system has a low reliability score on.

<comment><USER20> I don't understand why they don't have an app yet for ordering (at the drive- in and maybe delivery too).

The combination of app-based ordering and drive-through delivery is one I strongly believe to be underutilized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> End users don't know or care what a blockchain is.

</comment><comment><USER22> Someone decided to write an uber-replacement on top of Ethereum. This is a lot cooler than the kickstarter replacement they had in the tutorials.

Looks like this is where the development is headed. I really didn't want to have to learn Go; is there a rust implementation yet?

</comment><comment><USER6> This is really cool. There is very little technical details in the article but I gather they already got a system in place, it's using etherium, it's decenralized, and the people behind it have been uber and lyft drivers.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is great ! Not perfect probably right now but none the less a great start. I was talking about something like this a few weeks back and thought it would be in next few years I see a similar product. But it has just been weeks since that discussion. I truly believe that side chain has answer to such open solutions and I am very excited to see things being built.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love the thought behind this. The biggest threat to Uber is not Lyft or taxis or any competitors, but the emergence of a decentralized, p2p ridesharing platform. Ridesharing companies already call themselves "p2p" but that's a farce. There is nothing p2p about a single $XXX billion corporation controlling millions of rides.

In the Uber/Driver relationship, it seems at first glance that Uber has all the power. But in fact, the drivers have far more leverage. A single driver can drive for multiple apps, and in fact a significant percentage of the drivers I meet are simultaneously using Uber and Lyft.

Currently drivers using multiple platforms are pretty much only using Uber and/or Lyft. There is no third competitor. But if one emerges, especially with superior driver incentives, drivers will use it, even before any riders are on the platform. Even if demand on a new app is sparse, drivers have no reason _not_ to download it and run it on their phone alongside Uber and Lyft. In the meantime while they wait for supply to grow, they can just continue using Uber and Lyft. But if this "third competitor" offers far greater incentives than Uber and Lyft, then once it's supply side achieves parity with its demand side, drivers will prefer it to Uber and Lyft.

So what does a "third competitor" look like to Uber or Lyft? It looks like a company (or something else!!) that gives 95% or more of revenue to its drivers, i.e. operates on minimal margins.

What are the requirements of a true p2p ridesharing platform?

\--

\- Bare minimum dependency on centralized third party resources

\- Decentralized reputation and dispute resolution protocols

\- Decentralized payment system, possibly involving an auction model

\- Equilibrium of supply and demand

\- Legal compliance without a dependency on a centralized market maker

\--

No technological barrier exists to any of these requirements.

The most difficult aspect of a p2p ride sharing platform would be legal compliance. How do riders vet drivers, and how do drivers insure themselves? Perhaps the solution is a third party, uninvested in the ridesharing platform, that controls the reputation, dispute resolution, and insurance system. Asking the ridesharing platform to carry those responsibilities will only result in bloat and overhead costs that cut into the margins of drivers. Whereas if a third party manages legal compliance, drivers can price the cost of it into their own driving services, instead of the platform "passing down" the cost to drivers (and exaggerating its magnitude).

The second most difficult aspect would be bootstrapping supply and demand. The supply side is relatively easy, as long as the driver onboarding cost is low. The demand side is more difficult, because people _trust_ Uber and Lyft. Building that trust in a decentralized system would not be easy, especially without legal compliance.

I challenge someone to create the Napster of ridesharing. No central servers allowed, mobile clients only, no financial overhead per transaction. The next step would be to create the trusted third party responsible for legal compliance.

A p2p platform that achieves supply/demand parity and solves the legal compliance problem will destroy Uber and Lyft, because the centralized costs of a p2p platform are zero. The drivers price their own services and have incentive to find the most economically efficient legal compliance. Therefore prices are lower than Uber and Lyft, so ultimately people will prefer p2p over centralized.

sidenote: I'm from the Portsmouth area. If anyone at arcade city is reading this, reach out! :)

<comment><USER25> Yeah, except Email and Jabber/XMPP are decentralized answers to Facebook and Google Hangouts.

Catch-call centralized solutions move faster than decentralized standards. Furthermore, decentralized standards don't make money. Ray Tomlinson (inventor of SMTP, the email protocol) isn't filthy rich, and yet everyone uses it.

So without the money incentive, and with the slow standards process (RFC is the closest to a "standardization" process for the internet)

Besides, everyone just uses Gmail anyway, centralizing into a single, catch- all platform for convenience. Decentralization may be good for people in general, but it seems like a terrible business move.

<comment><USER24> Maybe the business opportunity is in the third party legal compliance system. A viable business could build out a solution that works across platforms, including Uber and Lyft, and then once enough drivers are using it, they could release an open source, decentralized ridesharing app that allows flexible pricing and higher profits for drivers than the centralized model.

Its core business value would be the facilitation of legal compliance. The p2p ridesharing app would simply be another reason for drivers to use the compliance platform.

<comment><USER25> You aren't going to cut costs by making Uber and Lyft the middle-man.

Its just like jet.com. You'll burn money trying to make volume, and then you run out of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I just want to mention. It looks as though this site is violating the same orgin policy (is proxying it ads).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same- origin_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-origin_policy)

<comment><USER11> The same-origin policy is not an optional choice that can be "violated".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ethereum, while interesting, is even more obscure than Bitcoin. It's not well tested, and by their own admission is not production ready.

[https://www.ethereum.org/](https://www.ethereum.org/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Does this mean that the Blockchain will contain every taxi request ever made using this system? That's going to get pretty unwieldy after a while.

<comment><USER28> Side chains, lightning network, and other off-chain transactions can solve this problem.

<comment><USER29> Shame they don't exist yet. But I often hear how lightning will solve everything.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Health AI? - <AUTHOR> About two weeks ago, I thought I came across a submission to HN or Show HN to do with Health AI. It wasn't this one: https://www.humandx.org/. I think it was one that was already up and running. Unfortunately, I closed it before bookmarking it. Now I cannot find it. Can anyone suggest a link? <comment><USER3> Have you tried hn.algolia.com?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx, couldn't find what I saw previously, but I found a few other leads. Didn't realize HN's search allowed one to order search results by date - <USER2> was helpful to find recent links.</comment></comment>


(Chicago startup) puts "Photoshop" behind CDN - <AUTHOR> http://redid.net/

<comment><USER2> > "Photoshop"

You mean imagemagick ?

[0] [http://www.imagemagick.org/](http://www.imagemagick.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Confirmed. With few exceptions like 9-Patch or SVG, ImageMagick is our workhorse.</comment></comment>


MIT's Liquid Metal Stores Solar Power Until After Sundown - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/mit-s-liquid-metal-stores-solar-power-until-after-sundown.html <comment><USER2> TFA is pretty thin on info. The "$500/kWh" goal seems to come from Musk's battery marketing rather than something inherent to this technology. And the technology itself isn't even hinted at. The description of "earlier versions" seems to imply a chemical reaction like regular batteries. However, speculating based on "liquid metal", maybe they've identified a metal with a melting point around ambient temp (or ambient temp of a sufficiently insulated vessel)? With high enough specific heat (typical for metals anyway), it could soak up energy by melting, and release it by freezing.

<comment><USER3> Very thin:

        "Sadoway, who is also the John F. Elliott professor
        of materials chemistry at Massachusetts Institute of
        Technology, wouldn't say what goes into liquid-metal
        batteries."

Here's a description from an earlier article -- same idea with different materials:

        "After hitting upon the idea of the liquid-metal
        battery, Sadoway searched for the perfect electrodes:
        he ended up choosing magnesium and antimony because
        they are cheap and separate naturally when in liquid
        form, the lighter magnesium rising to the top. A
        liquid-salt electrolyte rests between the magnesium
        and antimony electrodes, creating a cell with three
        layers."

[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511081/am](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511081/am)

So it's a chemical battery where the electrodes are liquids. (FWIW: Magnesium melts at 650 °C).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope this works out, but it bothers me when inventors use slick lines like "If you want something to be dirt cheap it needs to be made of dirt." It suggests to me they've been spending more time polishing their TED talks and investor presentations than in the lab.

<comment><USER5> Hm, not really. I see what you mean, but that's the kind of thing you start thinking about in the shower or when you're stuck on the real problem and need a break. Even before that, it's been circulating in your subconscious and may just pop out whole. It's not evidence either way of their technical ability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They claim under $500/kWh, but classic lead-acid costs only $170/kWh.

Source: [http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery- Energy.html](http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html)

<comment><USER7> I would guess those aren't deep-cycle batteries, and can be damaged by draining them even a few times.

<comment><USER8> Nothing a good controller couldn't solve.

<comment><USER9> Are you being serious here? (I cannot tell.) A controller cannot prevent structural damage to the electrodes. I once did research on using lead acid for grid applications. Shallow cycling doesn't save you much. You may double your cycles but if you get just half the energy from each cycle, then the battery's lifetime energy return is not all that dramatically improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In 2012, McKinsey & Co. reported on hybrid-electric, plug-in hybrid, and battery-electric vehicle (EV) competitiveness [1]. The focus was the impact of rising petrol and battery prices (measured in dollars per kilowatt hour).

U.S. gas prices are, as of 3 March 2014, around $3.48 per gallon [2]. This means EVs need battery prices south of $300/kWh. Even hybrid-electrics want no more than $400/kWh. The $500/kWh mentioned in the article, around Tesla Motors's costs, is not game-changing for automobiles.

[1] [http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/...](http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/battery_technology_charges_ahead)

[2] [http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/](http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/)

<comment><USER11> Just as a side note, Tesla Motors's battery costs are probably lower than this. (In the region of $200-$400/kWh)

[http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17590-Model-S-...](http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17590-Model- S-Battery-Pack-Cost-Per-kWh-Estimate)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's cool that this new storage system is 1/3 the cost of current battery technology, but I wonder what the environmental impact of "liquid metal" batteries would be. The article says one of their prototypes used antimony, which is toxic, with effects "that are similar to arsenic poisoning"[1].

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony#Precautions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony#Precautions)

Lithium-ion batteries, at least, "contain no toxic metals"[2].

[2]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium- ion_battery#Environment...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium- ion_battery#Environmental_concerns_and_recycling)

<comment><USER13> Lithium and lithium compounds can be toxic:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Precautions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Precautions)

The batteries envisioned by Ambri would be enormous, shipping-container-sized things sitting (stationary) in the same place (e.g. electrical substations) for decades. If one cracked open, it would be a bad day at the plant, but nothing like a nuclear reactor meltdown. It could probably be back to normal in days or weeks.

The fact that the Ambri batteries are made using abundant materials means that those very materials are already present, in vast quantities, in the environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How much energy has to be used to keep the metal liquid? Can you switch the heating system off and let everything solidify without damage if you don't plan on charging or discharging in the near future? (Likewise with unexpected power outages.)

</comment><comment><USER15> > Earlier versions used molten magnesium and antimony

I once calculated about how much magnesium and antimony would be needed to run the world on solar, using these batteries for storage. Based on the numbers I found in articles like this, and a little wikipedia, it came out to a thousand times our annual production of one of these metals, and ten thousand times our annual production of the other.

For a similar calculation using lead-acid batteries, see this post at Tom Murphy's Do the Math blog: [https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2011/08/nation-sized-ba...](https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems like this is a similar setup but different chemistry along the lines sodium-sulfur batteries (which are a molten salt). I had thought sodium-sulfur batteries were already at or better than $500/kWh; pretty sure new generations will be. There's already several hundred MW of NaS installed already.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm pretty sure one of my high school friends is an engineer at that compnay. He lives in boston and told me he's working on batteries for a company backed by Bill Gates. That's pretty awesome</comment>


Ask HN: Why LAMP for the next Social Network? - <AUTHOR>

The very popular LAMP setup is persistent in the community. Its open source, its widely available and after all, past Social Networks have done just fine using Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.
Why PHP? Why not something more elegant like Python or Ruby?  My strength is PHP. Should I stop being choosy and just get hacking? <comment><USER2> Lamp hasn't been lamp for a long time. Apache is interchangeable with lighttpd or nginx. Php can he replaced with perl, ruby, python or any other language you are productive in. Lamp describes a layered infrastructure design that is simple and scales well to a point. I don't imagine the language you choose will be a bottleneck in frontend web serving. Alot of it comes down to interaction wih your datastore. In that case it's largely down to how the data is structured.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Your outline makes what I didn't know quite clear. Maybe the question I should be asking is should I build using PHP, Perl or Python?</comment></comment>


Could Formula E ever rival Formula 1? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-14?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/formulaerival <comment><USER2> _" In addition, spectators will be able to interact with the cars using social media. The talk is of allowing them to award drivers extra goes on their "push-to-pass" boost buttons"_

Well, that sounds wide open for abuse. Also, I am not sure how the bookies would deal with something like that when calculating the odds. _" Well, this driver is better, but the other one has a huge following on twitter, so the odds are in their favour..."_

<comment> k-mcgrady "In addition, spectators will be able to interact with the cars using social media. The talk is of allowing them to award drivers extra goes on their "push-to-pass" boost buttons"

That's the most stupid thing I've heard all week. No matter how it's implemented it's silly. Fans shouldn't be able to influence the result of a race.

<comment><USER3> Oh God .. what a dumb idea. Until I got to that bit it sounded great. Whether it's FIA or someone else, if it can get a following then the innovation the teams will develop will be massive for electric cars. And that it IS FIA that's organising it, it's got a good chance of being at least very interesting.

But if you're going to let the audience VOTE on the outcome I might as well go watching survivor. Maybe they'll let us vote asshole drivers off the island?

<comment><USER2> Ideas this mindbogglingly stupid are a good reminder that the FIA, like many other wealthy pursuits, would appear to be mainly fuelled by a high octane mixture of alcohol and cocaine. I cannot see otherwise how something so dumb would have made it past a single meeting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rival?

No.

Leaving aside the massive world wide following and it's deep history and legends...

What will continue to happen is that F1 will get more and more electric over time. The new regs for 2014 are for a smaller engine, supplemented by larger KERS, pushing for fuel efficiency. Long term, I see that trend continuing. Burning up shed loads of fossil fuels to merely race will get more and more difficult while normal car drivers and manufacturers have to deal with efficiency. F1 will evolve in the electric direction.

That is not to even begin to suggests FE is a waste of time or anything like that. I'm massively looking forward to it, might even allow the word "excited". Much of it will run in the F1 off season. It can run in any major world city resulting in potentially fantastic visuals. I really like that you can hear the tyres working. All you hear now is engine, and that actually doesn't tell you much about the driver. Hearing the tyres tells us a lot more. For me FE is a fascinating supplement to F1 which could or should help F1 get more electric. Both technology wise, and in the PR battle with olde skool F1 fans. It can prove electric racing works.

Equally, there are parts of FE that I don't like, but mostly they are things that will evolve and be solved over time, like the car swap thing, or PR type things like the social media voting for boosts nonsense. But the basic idea of trying to create an electric open wheel racing series is fundamentally right. I really hope it can gain enough traction to keep going.

Actually, a final thought. I might be completely wrong...

There is a chance that FE, if run and marketed right could be made to appeal to the Need for Speed generation. Run races at night. Bright lights ever where; scenery, under-lighting on the cars and all that glitz. Lots of music, and off track entertainment. Get game/software developers, ICE manufacturers, and the likes of Red Bull involved. Make it all look like a Fast and Furious race night, or X games events. Go heavy youth, apps, social media, and so on. Make sure it's on free TV with cool youth friendly presenters hyping it all up. If it gains a following from the ground up, it could become incredibly popular.

So, essentially forget F1 and F1 fans. In fact, I wonder if the mistake is the open wheel F1 look a like thing, which draws unhelpful comparisons. Maybe they'd be better off racing electric cars that at least resemble the kind of cars you can buy? Electric chassis with light bodies resembling current road cars?

Dunno. But whatever the case, Im in. I'll probably always watch F1 (not to mention many other racing series) for better or worse, but FE is very much a welcome addition for me.

<comment><USER5> F1 has been pushing for fuel efficiency, however, costs continue to rise. It's a problem in F1.

<comment><USER6> Specialized labor, specialized materials. Teams wanting "cool factor" for support infrastructure. And driver salaries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Frankly it's more likely that in 30 years F1 will be electric. F1 is the premier series (it's kinda in the name), FIA would just change the formula or merge the classes if F-E was on its way to dominance.

It's probably going electric eventually anyway.

</comment><comment><USER8> Probably not. Too much money and power invested in F1, and even despite the boring Tilkedromes that have come to dominate the schedule, it'd be hard for Formula E to compete on quality of tracks. More likely, we'll see a continued progression towards increased use of hybrid systems - more powerful KERS, bigger batteries, decreased fuel tank size - which might at least cause Formula E to become a useful feeder series for drivers (perhaps if the driving style starts to become dramatically different?) and especially for engineers.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is really interesting. But, please, drop the extra speed for the most tweeted!

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, the problem with F1 is the FIA. This is the body that owns F1. They are a bunch of dinosaurs who haven't figured out how to embrace the internet yet. Here in the US I can't watch F1 races unless I pay for an expensive cable/satellite package that includes the Speed channel.

I really enjoy F1 and used to watch every race back when I had the Speed channel but we've cut down our satellite package to the bare minimum necessary to have local stations, mostly for local news (now questioning that). With Netflix, Youtube and other Internet-based media sources there's plenty to watch and quality is often better than broadcast television. I wish the FIA would let go and bring the races to the Internet with all the wonderful tools and flexibility this could offer.

I love the idea of Formula E, but if it is going to be guarded behind the same kind of irrational thinking it will not reach as wide of an audience as possible.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bernie Ecclestone is F1: he made it into something more than motor racing by negotiating the sale of the TV rights for the benefit of all of the teams (and his pocket).

For FE to eclipse F1 then something major has to happen with the TV rights. At the moment it does not look like FE will have the big star names and the legendary teams. Even if the racing is really good then it will need more than that 'natural appeal' \- there is plenty of good racing in lesser formulas as it is but this does not translate to a sizeable TV audience of avid fans. F1 has great spectacle value that no other formula has, FE will struggle to attain that and will consequently be an also-ran formula.

</comment><comment><USER12> _And just as its premier race series has helped drive innovation in the engines, brakes, suspension and aerodynamics of everyday cars_

are there any statistics / studies on this kind of thing? or the similar claim from space exploration?

i don't dispute there are useful advances, but i wonder whether they would have been made anyway (perhaps at a lower overall cost, if "cost" can be at all well defined).

[edit: i see from the comments below that maybe i need to repeat _i don 't dispute there are useful advances_ and the question _are there any statistics / studies on this kind of thing?_]

<comment><USER13> Brakes and Tires are two big things where advances have come from racing. Audi's FSI technology was originally built for the Audi R8 LMP.

<comment><USER14> Amusingly: Audi didn't tell anyone about FSI until after the chequered flag. "Oh, by the way guys, we used this unproven technology and just won."

<comment><USER13> They have done that a couple times, Variable Turbine Geometry comes to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It will be interesting to hear how much noise an F-E car will produce. It's a big part of the atmosphere at an F1 event. I've seen some TTXGP bikes race and it is eerily quiet.

</comment><comment> DanI-S F1 is as much about the drama and the personalities as it is about the cars and the technology. If they can attract some big name drivers, there'll be an immediate audience.

<comment><USER4> Big name drivers would provide a big boost, but I also think McLaren and Williams involvement will help get quite a few F1 fans interested to start with. Keeping them might be tricky. But if they do, then numbers could build.

Im not sure though how F1 people would react if FE started actually did start to or look like potentially rivaling it.

Personally, I don't want to compare the two, even though it is tempting. Ideally, I want FE to find it's own niche and be successful, then hopefully grow in to its own big thing. Hopefully it will attract its own new sponsors, fans, heros, etc, and not be seen as a rival.

</comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Of course but it's highly unlikely.

F1 is slowly becoming more energy efficient and therefore more relevant again. The changes being introduced next year are massive (1.6-litre turbocharged V6 engines, a much improved energy recovery system providing an extra 160bhp for about 30 seconds per lap, maximum fuel limits) and have already encouraged Honda to return as an engine supplier.

F1's long history and worldwide popularity is also a big factor that will be hard for any new Formula to compete with.

<comment><AUTHOR> F1 is certainly improving but F-E seems very promising nonetheless. If we can get more constructors to actively develop their electric engines through F-E then we could see some real benefits throughout the automotive industry.

Assuming F-E gains in popularity, it would be a huge boost for the likes of Tesla to take part in this sport. I am glad that the FIA is seriously considering F-E as an alternative to F1. Moreover, I don't mind shorter races - I find these 3 hour F1 races really boring these days.

<comment> k-mcgrady It's definitely good to see a Formula aimed at developing electric engines. I just don't think it will take off. If it looks like it will F1 will just move more in that direction and lure the engine developers away from FE.

>> "I am glad that the FIA is seriously considering F-E as an alternative to F1"

I don't think they're considering it as an alternative. There are lots of FIA sanctioned Formula (e.g. Formula 3, A1GP etc.).

>> "I find these 3 hour F1 races really boring these days."

An F1 race is limited to 2 hours max, usually coming in around 1 hour 40 mins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Given the recent little rifts in the AGW-climate observations, what are the odds that the whole electric car movement loses steam within the next ten years?

<comment><USER17> AGW or no, I don't know many people betting fuel prices [1] will go anywhere but up.

[1] [http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52645000/gif/_52645454...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52645000/gif/_52645454_fuel_prices464_2.gif)

<comment><USER16> You probably don't know many people who bet on fuel prices then. The current price is the best guess for the future price, and that's true with both oil and gasoline. This means that there is almost always a 50/50 chance that any future price will be higher or lower (barring seasonal adjustments, of course).

[http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined- products/rbob...](http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined- products/rbob-gasoline_quotes_globex.html)

[http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/light- sweet...](http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet- crude.html)

 _" With the combination of new supplies of oil, an aging U.S. population and the permanent demand destruction we have seen means that baring [sic] a major disruption of global supply gas prices have put in what should be a historic peak."_

[http://www.futuresmag.com/2013/04/09/gasoline-sees-calls- for...](http://www.futuresmag.com/2013/04/09/gasoline-sees-calls-for-long- term-top)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> F1 is special in that it is the most fervently followed spectator motor sport. It is not just about the cars and the tracks and the action.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure what fervor means here, but in 2009 F1 events had a total attendance of about 2.8 million. Whereas NASCAR had a total attendance of about 3.8 million.

<comment><USER4> Got any TV numbers to compare?

In 2009 F1 breached 600 million. (First figure I found)

NASCAR? I couldn't find a number to quote.

Also, how many F1 races? How many NASCAR races? Im not sure attendance compares.

<comment><USER19> I can't find one either: but I'm not sure "I saw it on TV" is as good a measure of "fervor" as "I paid good money to attend it in person."

As to number of races, surely a moment's thought will convince you of the speciousness of that argument. That's like saying "Sure, The Dark Night had a bigger take than Moneyball, but it was on so many more screens."

Not that I am remotely interested in NASCAR...

<comment><USER4> Attendance wise, NASCAR is local. Its in one country and sort of moves locally. F1 drops down in countries, then disappears. The whole thing is different. Frankly, I think its pretty hard to properly compare the two in any reasonable way. Its pretty much like comparing hockey with basketball, there are similarities, but they are totally different sports.

BTW, I am one of those rare things, a British NASCAR follower. Not exactly a "fan" as such; I enjoy it, but I'm not knowledgeable beyond the obvious. That said, F1 is my main thing. One of the reasons NASCAR appeals to me is the almost complete contrast with F1 (and Indycar, which I also watch).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> _The SRT-01Es will also use electronic generators to make a whooshing noise, at least when in the pit lane to alert mechanics._

</comment><comment><USER5> Excited to see how this will pan out</comment>


A Jetliner For A Fuel-Starved Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/jetliner-fuel-starved-future

<comment><USER2> Looks like there is a mistake in the article. The new plane will "burn 70 percent less fuel than a Boeing 737", however, the numbers immediately below indicate that it will actually burn 70 percent of the fuel a Boeing 737 does - 30% less fuel.

<comment><USER3> Also, as a rule of thumb, fuel consumption per unit distance is proportional to speed squared. According to the chart, the "Double Bubble" cruises at 490 MPH, while the 737 cruises at 596 MPH. The "Double Bubble" achieves 145 MPG, while the 737 achieves 100 MPG.

(490/596)^2 * 145 MPG) = 98 MPG

737s are already on the slow end of airliners, but it seems like all the fuel savings in this design study come from just flying slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe (depending on the config)a 737 burns 850 to 2000 g/hr. Wide range based on if it's the 737-400 or a different variant, if it's climbing, fully loaded, etc. It is not, however, near what is stated in the info graphic.</comment>