We have a lot more data about what happens in startups than any individual founder does. What interest would we have in mischaracterizing it?
Ryan has also been a master of bootstrapping businesses upon business. He built Carsonified on the foundation of simple workshops he ran, he built ThinkVitamin on the foundation of Carsonified and he built Treehouse on the combination of both of them.
I say that not as a critic but as an admirer. I think he's done a first class job of building his reputation, wealth, influence and expertise through all of these.
However I think it's somewhat disingenuous for Ryan to state that because he has done Treehouse on his own, "so too can you". It's what the people want to hear and it will bring the enthusiasm of the bulk of HN readers who are going it alone.
However the risk for most startups is not that they will exit for millions and the CEO will only own a paltry 20% of the company rather than 70%. It's that they will die. It has taken me many years to realise it but the presence of a true co-founder dramatically reduces this likelihood.
It feels odd writing this all these years later because I knew Ryan at the very start of my career and almost the start of his. I then was a single-founder, he was working with Gill. I feel like we've passed each other going the opposite direction.
I gave only a small fraction of equity to my first co-founder and paid a high price for that. I have now come full circle and realise the importance of a good co-founder and of an even split between you.
Ryan is right in that he can do it without a co-founder. However if you fit that mold you probably already know that and are running a business quite possibly as the sole influencer already. If you don't then I think there is good reason for the astonishing faith of the valley in the co-founder. There is a degree of group-thought, sure but there are a lot of very, very sound reasons not to go it alone.
"I funded the business with cash from my previous business"
Ryan has thoroughly convinced me that if you've run some successful businesses in the past, it's probably better to go it alone your new one.
However, I don't think he convinced me that PG was wrong (and I'm not sure he was trying to), just that PG's advice doesn't necessarily apply to serially successful entrepreneurs. All of PG's cautions about the dangers of going it alone still seem completely valid. However, it's not like there aren't dangers to having a co-founder (the marriage analogy, though a little cliche, is cliche because it rings true).
I suppose, as with all things, the thing to do is take stock of your own particular situation and weigh the risks. But if you don't have direct experience overcoming at least some of challenges PG refers to, a co-founder still seems like the more sensible route.
Wow, pg is so wrong. Whenever I get an idea I want to execute it myself. Bringing in friends is not something I even consider.
Being a single founder is bloody hard. Mostly though it is lonely. Nobody to talk with, nobody to bounce ideas around and debate features or implementation with. Should we use MongoDB or Riak? Being a single founder you make all the decisions. Also investors believe if you can't convince anybody else to join your company, than its probably a bad idea. I don't necessarily believe this, since I am myself a single founder.
So, why is finding a co-founder hard. I moved up to San Francisco over a year ago, left my pool of friends, and drove up in my car with everything I owned. Finding people in San Francisco that are either not already doing their own startup, or already working at a badass company is extremely difficult. Even more, there is the catch-22, I don't have any capital to pay you, but I have equity. Again, not a really convincing proposition for a rockstar developer or designer.
Startups are hard, the hardest thing you will probably ever do. So being a single founder is just not mentally healthy and as productive as having co-founders.
I'm sure you can do it alone, but I wouldn't want to.
In other words, sometimes, it's not your choice to be a solo co-founder. Many people have compared finding a co-founder to finding a spouse. In both life decisions, I don't think anyone seriously advocates for "sucking it up, and going with the least bad option."
Sometimes, you're poorly geographically positioned, or in a "strange" market, or later in life (friends are already "matched up" or in secure jobs), etc
For myriad reasons, you could sincerely try to recruit a co-founder and come up short.
The question then becomes ... do you make the best of it and go for it anyway?
Or, is the lack of a co-founder a signal (to yourself and others) that your idea / plan is unworthy?
I hope the answer is the former because that is what I am doing. Someone remind me to write this article when I figure it out.
I think either way is cool, I'm happy to share 50% with my co-founder because money isn't my primary goal and he's a fun and clever guy to work with which makes the journey even more enjoyable
I'd love to see data to the contrary versus an (admittedly inspiring) anecdote... All of the data that I've ever heard about (from PG and other sources) seems to support that ideas that people who find a co-founder have a better shot.
Best part is focus, clarity, and instant decision making. If you feel you have a great idea, just go for it. Don't waste time convincing others.
Also, I think a lot of people look for funding, while they don't even need it, but that's another issue..
> We've grown from three people to 54, and $0 revenue to $3.4m+, all in just two years.
I'm completely naive about these things and I'm not involved in business, but isn't this very risky? That equals to only 63k/head revenue. I guess this is banking on future growth but is this a standard pattern for a growing startup?
I thoroughly believe doing it alone (even if you're REALLY good) is a .01% chance, and doing it with complementary talents that have skin, heart, reputation in the game brings that up a ton.
That being said, congrats on being in the 0.01% of that equation.
First hand experience tells me too, that starting up a company alone is not only really hard, but slower as well, which these days speed is more crucial than ever.
I have to agree on common wisdom and recommendation here that if you want to start a company and create something with impact try to partner up. Finding the right partners is another whole chapter by itself.
That said, upvoted!
I'm looking for some feedback on my yet unfinished book - felt like this was a good time. The most developed chapter right now is "About flow" so I'd really love your thoughts on that one.
You can get it for free with this coupon code: HN0.1
1) Access to resources - be that free internet, the home computer or faster internet.2) TZ, its the internet and opearates on all TimeZones and with that people interact across timezones and with that night seems to always cover many cross-over times.3) Distractions, there are less distractions, less noise and with that easier to focus.4) Coffee overshoots, with that the late hours make productive time.5) Whatever reason they want, code knows nothing about daylight.
As for the sample of your book I glanced upon I would wonder if any programmer would want to read it, and any manager who would gain from even a hint of insight into programmers, would not be motivated to pick such a title.
If anything it is more a chapter subject for a larger book on how to deal with modern persona's in a work enviroment.
That would be my approach, but my main reason for coding late at night is covered in all the above though less distractions being the primary. Now if you had a chapter on how to justify too your boss that you will be working weird hours, that would be something a programmer would be interested in.
And apparently I do 60% of my work on wednesdays.... wtf.
Have you investigated the history of "second sleep" for clues?
Also try looking at polyphasic sleep, software like RedShift, and products like the Zeo for ideas and people who like night/morning work.
"Perhaps there's just some worrying stuff going on and you aren't Irish enough not to worry about it."
What does this mean? Never heard that expression. Anyway, aren't the irish traditionally meant to be neurotic and guilt-ridden?
Writing good code wrt memory locality is SUPER important for writing high performance code, whether its in memory work, or larger than ram (eg for the DB). Also a fun exercise to try to understand how!
These unaccented Roman letters appeared with the frequency you'd expect in a European language. But they don't represent lettersâ€"they mark the spaces between words.
To clarify, it's like taking "SthisEisCtheRfirstEmessageT" and assuming all the capitals just indicate spaces.
* to put it in a less-polite way: how the F else would you solve a problem like this, with non-computational methods?
...maybe the symbold used as spaces are not actually random and there's another message hidden there, with another cypher, offering the writers of this "plausible deniability" regarding its existence: they could only give the way to decipher the first level of encryption and say that's all there is, while the really important information was hidden in the "space characters"...
(... now putting my tinfoil hat back in the closet :) )
Take a walk down some of the older lanes in London, say near Borough Market or back up towards Southwark, or the other side between Brick Lane and Petticoat Lane, and imagine yourself back in the 1700s.
Coffee houses, close groups having meetings, private rooms upstairs in narrow houses. The feeling that true knowledge was being passed on. The meaning people found in the processes of the primitive technology.
It strikes me that the boring bits of the decoding (tokenising the symbols, entering the tokens) could be farmed out using a web site hosting scans of texts. The computational resource could perhaps be spare cycles on a PC with an appropriate application. Scope for lay science of a particularly interesting kind, and the refinement of algorithms as they are applied to a larger corpus of texts.
Another poster mentioned the Voynich manuscript. It's available on archive.org if anyone wants to try their hand:
Here's a list of others:
I feel kind of sorry for them, that at the end of their journey they found what was essentially a Rosetta Stone for the code they were decoding.
But I'll take my own fanciful stab.
I don't foresee either an energy or a climate crisis. There is a hard limit on how expensive energy gets because at some point you can turn totally renewable energy into a fuel of some sort, ideally taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to do it. It's not cost effective now because energy is so cheap. But like I said: there's a limit to how expensive it can get.
The bigger problem (IMHO) is going to be certain elements and metals that aren't so easily replaced. I agree with the author that getting certain elements from space is going to be economically tricky (rather than technologically tricky) compared to how cheap it is to pull stuff out of the ground.
You can recycle iron to a degree but a certain amount is lost through corrosion/rust. Rare earth elements are harder to replace.
I do foresee there being a lot less of us and that is probably going to be a traumatic change.
Sadly I don't foresee a huge presence in space. The energy costs, particularly when you look at even the most optimistic models of interstellar travel in particular, are just too extreme even with perfect mass-to-energy conversion.
Change like evolution is often perceived to be smooth but it's not. Our world like life itself is shaped by key, often small, events. Europe in 1914 was a powderkeg in 1914 but one man's death triggered a sequence of events that resulted in World War One, the armistice for which sowed the seeds for World War Two. One could argue that if the Archduke had lived something else would've triggered the war and you may well be right. Still how different might the world be if, say, JFK was killed by a chance bullet in World War Two?
As far as longevity goes, that's a tough one. I expect there'll be a certain class of people who live much better and longer than others but then again the history of the world thus far is those kinds of technological advancements always trickle down eventually. Living forever? I have my doubts.
Artificial intelligence as always is the sleeping giant of the future. I believe that to be inevitable and the effects could be profound to put it mildly.
I too believe the nation states of today mostly won't exist in 500 years.
I don't speak about nanotechnology or even brain-uploading and synthetic sentience, I speak about rather more mundane trends that are almost certain to continue.
For example, manufacturing. Today manufacturing is still rather similar in nature to the way it was in the 17th century, we just have a whole crap-ton more of it and it's easier to ship manufactured goods around the globe. But I believe we are reaching an inflection point on manufacturing. We will soon reach a point where manufacturing becomes entirely automated for huge classes of devices. All you'll need to do is upload a set of files to a server somewhere and press a button and then a factory will produce whatever it is you've designed, on very short notice and in arbitrary volumes. This alone is a transformative technology, but let's take it a step further, toward fully automated creation of machine tools and to factories themselves. The idea of an assembly line as this huge, fixed entity is due to the nature of our manufacturing technology, but it's possible that manufacturing facilities will themselves become disposable (likely recyclable) and transient. Manufacturing won't be something that people consume, it will be something that people do. More so, the ability of a small amount of capital machinery to boot-strap into the manufacturing capabilities of a developed nation will rapidly eliminate almost all remaining undeveloped parts of the globe. Imagine what happens when you can ship a few containers of equipment to, say, antarctica and start building out factories, tractors, automobiles, houses, etc, etc. with only an input of crude raw materials.
How this will transform the world is beyond me, but it will certainly change our perception of wealth and scarcity and the people living in a world with this technology will be as unfamiliar to people of today as people of today would be to stone age tribes. And this technology is not a 500 year technology, it'll likely arrive in the next hundred years at most.
Let's talk about drugs and surgery and self. Modern medicine is at best a century old, and in some ways perhaps even less. There will come a time, certainly within the next 500 years, when medical technology in the realm of mood alteration, behavior alteration, and cosmetic surgery are at a level which we would describe from the perspective of today as nearly perfectly effective. Imagine what happens when people can change their personalities and their mental capabilities at whim? If you find you're depressed you can fix that, effectively and permanently. If you have a mental illness such as, say, schizophrenia or pedophilia then you can fix that too. And if you are dissatisfied with your mood or your personality you can change that too. Do you want to be an alpha personality? Do you want to be a thrill-seeker? Do you want to be bubbly and happy all the time? Easy peasy. Do you dislike the way your face or body looks or works? You can change that too. You can have a stunningly attractive and physically fit body with ease, and you can look like a movie star.
To say that this will change society is a gross understatement. In many ways I think this will be a bigger challenge to the world than any other technological or environmental challenge. To be honest I think it will be a larger challenge for our species than even trying to co-exist with thermonuclear weapons.
As for space, I think it will affect our future a great deal but perhaps not as much as these other things. One thing a lot of people get wrong about space is imagining that it's hard. It's not, we've just been doing it very, very badly. For the same exact amount of money the world has spent on space so far we could have easily built orbital cities and moon bases housing hundreds. Not with revolutionary technology, not with some alternate and hugely more cost effective programs, but merely with applying proven and existing systems and technologies in a sensible way instead of the haphazard way we have done so the last 4 decades or so. For example, for the same cost as the Shuttle program we could have continued launching Saturn Vs (at least 150 of them) which would have allowed us to easily put living quarters for hundreds of astronauts in Earth orbit and to build out moon bases (or Mars bases, frankly) quite easily. There are two other important factors people miss. First, once you have a substantial off-Earth industry then it's no longer reliant on the cost of launch from Earth's surface. You only have to launch the equipment for an automated space mining operation once, afterward you only need to keep it operational. The potential return in terms of mass launched from Earth vs. resources returned to Earth or to Earth orbit could be a great many orders of magnitude (millions or billions), much like it is for mining equipment here on Earth. Second, the world of the future will be unimaginably wealthier than we are. The parts of the world which are today developed will be even wealthier in the future, and much of the developing world will have developed within the next 100 and certainly 500 years. Even without factoring in technological and industrial advances which could make orbital launch cheaper (incidentally, things which are already running at a rampant pace of advancement even today) the simple factor of having a much, much larger total economy will mean that the amount of resources for space exploration will be larger than today by a factor of tens to hundreds. The idea that this doesn't translate into a substantial permanent off-Earth human population is, to me, patently ridiculous.
Overall, the idea of trying to predict the world of 500 to even the tiniest degree is probably a losing prospect, but it should be an interesting ride regardless.
"In the future your major political affiliation will not be the nation state or even the corporation. It will be your IT infrastructure provider IE Apple, Google, Microsoft or their 2512 counterparts."
would be an absolutely /awesome/ sci-fi novel.
Of course, for it to be realistic, consumer needs would have to grow dramatically faster than moore's law. As it is now, it's too easy to start a new consumer IT provider business, the infrastructure is too cheap. I spend rather more compute resources per customer, dramatically more than google, and I've got two thousand customers, me being some nobody kid.
If current trends continue (e.g. consumer demand for compute power trails moore's law by quite a lot) the per-customer cost of providing IT infrastructure will be so low that those providers will not be able to demand much by way of payment, otherwise some kid like me will show up and do it cheaper. If you notice... most of the online consumer infrastructure providers, right now, are not in a position to charge their customers anything at all.
to take time out from writing his latest novel to post the interesting blog post shared here. Thanks too to the HN participants who shared the link and have commented already while I was coming back from work. I especially like about this post that Stross looked back at Earth 500 years ago to show readers what time scale he is talking about, and that he was boldly definite about technological and social changes.
I will be boldly definite in disagreeing in part with one of Stross's conclusions in this interesting post. Stross writes, "I'm going to assume that we are sufficiently short-sighted and stupid that we keep burning fossil fuels. We're going to add at least 1000 GT of fossil carbon to the atmosphere, and while I don't expect us to binge all the way through the remaining 4000 GT of accessible reserves, we may get through another 1000 GT." I fully agree with this premise. There are no effective incentives in place today, nor any likely in the next few decades, to prevent further consumption of fossil hydrocarbon fuels, and that will surely result in a substantial increase in atmospheric conentration in CO2.
Stross's next step in prediction is, "So the climate is going to be rather ... different." That's a safe prediction any time, because over 500 year time scales, we have often observed climate change in historic times. Over longer time scales, but since Homo sapiens populated much of the earth, rock art in the Sahara Desert shows that the Sahara was once much less arid than it is now, and cave art in Europe shows that the climate of Europe was once much more frigid than it is now.
Stross goes on to write, "Sea levels will have risen by at least one, and possibly more than ten metres worldwide."
An interesting series of online maps shows projections of flooded land based on various degrees of sea level rise for places of interest such as New York City,
the Netherlands and England,
and Chesapeake Bay.
In all cases, the maps default to showing seven meters of sea level rise and do not project any civil engineering projects to protect existing infrastructure.
Having read Matt Ridley's blog post "Go Dutch"
back when it was published, I wonder if the most dire predictions about the Netherlands are true, or if the Netherlands, the land of polders,
can continue to be "living proof to climate pessimists that dwelling below sea level is no problem if you are prosperous."
Stross writes, "Large chunks of sub-Saharan Africa, China, India, Brazil, and the US midwest and south are going to be uninhabitably hot."
I live in the United States Midwest, and my mother grew up in a hotter part of the United States Midwest during the Dust Bowl era. Most of her family is still near the family farm on the windswept Great Plains. I don't expect any part of the earth to become uninhabitably hot. We have, according to the best developed models of influences on world climate, a sure prospect of a generally warmer Earth, warming currently lethally cold areas into areas that will be habitable. My experience living in subtropical east Asia suggests that we will have more warming of cold areas than turning hot areas into unbearably hot areas from global warming.
Stross continues, "London, New York, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Mumbai â€" they're all going to be submerged, or protected by heroic water defenses" and my prediction is that New York, at least, will be fully protected by civil engineering projects. New York City is sufficiently prosperous to attract some of the world's brightest minds to live there (I know some young people who have moved there recently) and the current city administration actively encourages making New York City a technology hub. New York will thrive, whatever the climate.
Stross wraps up this prediction by mentioning, "Venice and New Orleans (both of which will be long-since lost)." Venice and New Orleans have been in long-term decline for quite a while, from bad governance, and will surely suffer further relative decline, regardless of sea levels. There will still be a great port at the mouth of the Mississippi-Missouri river system, and it will be a thriving and cosmopolitan city, but it may well be in a different place along the river delta from the current location of New Orleans. Venice may basically vanish.
There is much more interesting content in Stross's post, but allow me to explain why I think the high end of global warming predictions (and thus the high end of sea level rise predictions) is unlikely. We already have a known model for induced global cooling from the "natural experiment" of volcanos erupting and ejecting much dust high into the atmosphere. If the climate change we now experience produces more pain than gain (where I live, at 800 feet above sea level in a continental dry, cold winter climate zone, global warming has so far mostly produced gain), then there will be political and economic incentives to sequester greenhouse gases, or directly shade the Earth with high-altitude dust, or to do whatever else science discovers to slow and perhaps eventually reverse global warming. Over a 500-year time span, I would expect enough of an increase in understanding of climate models to bring about a world climate that is more moderate in more places than today's. Thanks for the chance to think about the far future.
Hard takeoff scenarios seem to be unlikely (no self-improving AI going from human project to godlike status in a couple of hours while rolling its own molecular nanotechnology foundation). The reasons for this are the same reasons that make rapid global takeover of the internet by a viral monoculture unlikely today: results take effort, some results are opposed, some results are intrinsically hard, no breakthrough happens in a vacuum.
But: by 2040 it will be possible to emulate human brains the hard way. By all means tell me that every human culture will refrain from taking full advantage of all that can follow from that over the decades that follow. The economic benefits of human and built-from human intelligences instantiated to order are incredible. The possibilities spiraling out from that are so much greater than everything that has come before that it becomes very, very hard to say what comes next.
You could see a world in which there are trillions of entities of human and greater intelligence by 2100. With their own cultures, so much greater and broader and more varied than ours as to make us the first snowflake in the blizzard. They may or may not have access to molecular nanotechnology and as much of the solar system as they care to begin making over by then. What will they build? How can you say? Culture determines creation.
Equally, you might not see that world. But it looks most plausible to me that software life will erupt from our culture in much the same way as we erupted from Greek tribes thousands of years ago - but much more rapidly. If you can show me you can sensibly predict the details of today's world by an examination of the Mediterranean Bronze Age, then I might be more inclined to think it possible to talk about what lies on the other side of emulated human intelligence.
"GM mangroves that can grow in salinated intertidal zones and synthesize gasoline, shipping it out via their root networks, is one option."
That one sentence overloaded my system with a visual day-dream about the potential for our future - the way it's written evokes that famous Bladerunner line:
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. . ."
A few dozen words in both quotes that evoke such richness. Beautiful work.
Here is a quick TED talk and a transcript of the opening to get you going.
"When I was a student here in Oxford in the 1970s, the future of the world was bleak. The population explosion was unstoppable. Global famine was inevitable. A cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was going to shorten our lives. The acid rain was falling on the forests. The desert was advancing by a mile or two a year. The oil was running out, and a nuclear winter would finish us off. None of those things happened, (Laughter) and astonishingly, if you look at what actually happened in my lifetime, the average per-capita income of the average person on the planet, in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has tripled. Lifespan is up by 30 percent in my lifetime. Child mortality is down by two-thirds. Per-capita food production is up by a third. And all this at a time when the population has doubled."
One of the problems with making predictions like this is that technology begins to compound and affect itself in weird ways - a book I have discusses how once you have proper mind-machine interfaces and can copy a person at will, one of the most efficient ways to travel becomes transmitting yourself at light-speed and getting a new body once your persona has been downloaded at your destination, rather than traveling in a physical body. This is something I had never considered before encountering it in that book, as much as it is a logical step from cybernetic brains and being able to back yourself up.
Similarly, racism, sexism and language issues being to disappear as you approach a higher level of computer integration. Racism and sexism become quaint ideas when most people can change to a body of the opposite sex whenever they want, and skin color becomes a matter of aesthetic choice. You might end up with wholly different types of racism (or perhaps species-ism) due to deliberate genetic changes to adapt to different environments resulting in wildly different types of humans, or due to experiments to bring certain species to human levels of intelligence (apes, dolphins, octopi?)
I find it interesting that he would have geopolitical boundaries exist at all. The idea of nations may well be an outdated one a couple hundred years hence. As we continue to improve our abilities to manufacture and grow things on ever smaller and more controlled scales, there may come a point where we no longer need massive structures of human organization like nations, corporations, etc. On the flip side, these things could become more ingrained and efficient such that we approach hive-like efficiency/societal structure (group minds etc.)
I suppose I find most of these speculations rather tame. I think that things will change a lot faster, and in a lot bigger ways, than described here.
It is really really hard to predict past a point where the energy problem becomes 'solved.'
I also expect that all of our computing / electronics devices will be essentially 3D printed out of carbon in various forms (tubes, balls, graphene) providing the various roles of switch, conductor, gate, and substrate. Those will be connected by a mesh of networking that is a couple of gigabits wireless and perhaps a terabit when hard connected. The low marginal cost of bandwidth will make it pretty much non-blocking bandwidth everywhere.
I expect we'll be eating a manufactured food product that is tasty and nutritious and the domestication of livestock and the use of any other living organism (including plants) will be considered 'quaint'. No one will have to go hungry because the combination of low cost energy and the ability to assemble food will allow for free 'food' (although not designer, "high end" food).
I think the more interesting question though comes from biology, which is to say if we have completely decoded cellular biology then there won't be any excuse for being sick or not 'healthy' (and by that I mean optimal function of all organs including the brain). At some point during the development of that capability the aspects of ones genetics which determines sexual orientation will be completely mapped out and understood and there will be a big debate about what we do about that, do we 'cure' homosexuality, do we offer to make everyone 'omnisexual' etc. There will be huge and heated debates about what is and what isn't normal.
There's almost no way to try to predict what life will be like in 500 years (try the predictions people had 500 years ago!). When I think about this, the most interesting questions are philosophical. If ou didn't have to die and could simulate whatever pleasure you desire whenever you want to, what will the point of living be? What will the definition of a human, a life and consciousness be if you can simulate/augment it using computers?
$25 million is less than 1/100,000 of what we spend on oil per year. If every American chipped in 8 cents, we could double the incentive.
Sounds like a kickstarted project I could get behind.
This is a pessimistic, probabilistic, poorly thought-through vision of the future. The Elon Musks of the world will steer things in a different direction.
Europe changed when explorers "discovered" the new world. Saying you are only going to focus on "this planet" is like saying I am only going to focus on the "old world" when talking about earth 500 years ago.
In my mind the rest of the article is pointless because the author is using the old world way of thinking about this planet.
The fact is the exploration of space is very similar as what happened 520 years ago. What happens when the price of getting to orbit drops significantly because of reusable rockets? Already there are companies that are planning on mining astroids. Saying that this is not going to effect earth in a major way is not really looking at where earth will be in 2512.
Space exploration is going to define the next 500 years of humanity and of this planet just as exploration of the new world defined the last 500 years.
500 years is simply a long, long, long time from now in terms of human progress. I think the energy description provided here might possibly fit a model of our energy mix 100 years from now. However, it's very unlikely to be the one we follow 500 years from now, simply because the basis for energy-related discoveries dictates that every few decades an entirely new form of energy is discovered and gets subsequently iterated upon until economically viable. It simply isn't factually reasonable to assume that we have already discovered all possible forms of energy production.
By the way, i did energy-related research which is why i wanted to point this out. Regardless of these flaws, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that essay.
tl;dr: energy-predictions 500 years out are not reasonable because of Vinod Khosla's theory of energy black swans.
The ease and volume of communication is bound to increase. Perhaps we communicate through technological telepathy, with anyone we want to. We share thoughts and senses with groups of people and solve problems by adding more brain power. The Mythical Man Month is no longer mythical. Learning and "news" become instant. Communication is probably faster than the speed of light.
Physical objects are only slightly constrained to their form and location. They can be transformed and moved almost as easily as energy can. Having something only requires thought and currency.
Assumptions: I think a lot of what we "know" is going to be wrong. It's just a thing which seems likely to me. Not in a "things fall up now" sort of way, though a little of that, since the laws of physics have been revised quite a bit, and I don't see that trend stopping. But more in a "We were pretty much crazy to think these things" way. You know about alchemy's position politically today, and how some of the church's actions were perceived? Some things which we consider important today are going to be treated like that.
History: We'll be better at this. Assuming historians haven't mysteriously vanished as a profession, I think we're going to know more about history in the future, and knowing more about the present in the future. As a collective, I mean, not every individual.
Screwing the world up: Will happen a lot less. We gained raw power in the last 500 years, we're going to learn wisdom now. Or die. That's a possibility, its been discussed. But I'm assuming we survive.
Culture: Will have finally recovered from British expansionism. There will be lots of strong local cultures again.
Government: Will be competent. And not vitriolic. I'm predicting a break from history again.
Population: Will be ignored. Won't be a problem.
Tech: People will get what they want here. Even if what they want is something they've never heard about. And if they don't want it, that will stop it. We got the atom bomb because we wanted to kill people. That will happen less. No flying cars, but maybe hover-boards. Lots of the stuff that we usually relegate to philosophy, or say that is impossible to know, and won't affect anything even if we know it will be known and become part of science. And we'll be better, way way way better, at biology and ecology.
Intelligent Aliens: Will be found, will be relevant to some people's careers, but won't be all that important. Not the main driver of events.
Planet: Will be better, much better. Things will turn around here. People will care about it. The majority doesn't really care about it now, except in a kind of abstract way as it relates to government. But they will care about it later.
Intelligent Aliens: Will be found within a hundred years, won't be important until at least 200 years in.
How do people still believe in run away global warming? There's been absolutely ZERO warming for the lat 16 years, the Earth warmed for 15 years before that, then cooled for 40 years before that. Cloud formation, the major environment influencer of global climate, now seems to stem from cosmic rays.
I do believe space travel, specifically mining, will become much more prevalent. This will eliminate any resource problems. As for energy advances in solar technology and nuclear (fusion or fission) should drastically lower the cost of energy by an order of magnitude from today's prices.
Fusion seems to be inevitable. I can't say I agree with people who say it'll never be competitive with other energy sources. All that has to be done is to solve the engineering hurdles required to make fusion scalable, and perhaps to add the capability to use fusion reactions that make use of a greater variety of elements. (And yes, those are huge challenges, but we're talking 500 years of advanced engineering operating on something that already works in a simple prototype system.) Once that has been achieved, fusion power can outperform >any< other terrestrial energy source (except perhaps fission), as a matter of physics. I imagine the economics of that will fall into place once that massive supply of energy is made potentially accessible, since there will undoubtedly be demand for titanic amounts of cheap and reliable energy.
Am I the only one who read this and went "Wait, 10 half-lives... that's 1/(2^10)... that would mean about 1 in 1,000 survive -- not 1 in 1,000,000."?
It seems he bet everything on climate being out of control.
First off, a human settlement on Mars, while technologically challenging, would need a relatively small initial population to get started sustainably (say, 2000 people). All of the advancements in food and energy production mentioned in the article could be used to provide for a colony there.
The OP talks about genetically engineered animals for food production, but they could also be engineered to better work and thrive in space-based industries; collecting raw materials, zero-gravity manufacturing, energy collecting, etc. Sophisticated, autonomous machines could do all that as well, so that actual humans have very little need to spend much time out in space, other than traveling between planets and settlements. Or perhaps all travel is virtual, using telepresence to see the solar system.
Machines built in space don't have the costs to get up there in the first place, other than the initial factories and material harvesting equipment.
Great thought-exercise, though. I love thinking about this stuff, and I think our generation has to start anticipating these changes. Some other commenters pointed out this all may happen far sooner than 500 years, so we just might need to be ready.
So in short C. Stross painted a rosy future where technology - like in the past - solves everything. But he overlooked game changers like the permafrost bomb, a burning Amazon rain-forest and all upcoming social implications.
I'll give an example: In 2010 the jet streams stucked over South Russia and Pakistan and brought heat over Russian fields and devastating floods in Pakistan. As a result food prizes exploded, Russia stopped exports leading to food riots in the Arabian world and finally sparked revolutions.
Sure, there is no proof of one event based on the other. Anyway, there is no science available to estimate social consequences of climate change, but does that mean it will have none? Just think of the secured gas transports in NYC after Sandy. How many days longer with limited supply and it would gone worse? Now, answer one question: Which technology stops gas riots?
Eventually the author is not wrong with his vision of 2512, but what scares me are the next 50 years with an unleashed economy going frenzy over excluded environmental costs.
Over the past 20-30 years, computers have completely changed the way people interact with the world. Most highly-educated people's lives center around their iPhones, laptops, iPads, etc. As time goes on, automation will likely continue to advance. As computers surpass humans in efficiency for more and more jobs, what role will the uneducated play? Clearly, wealth will continue to concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer highly educated individuals. Will the rich exploit the poor, or will the need for consumers cause the wealthy to redistribute wealth just so that people have money to buy their goods? Will ordinary people end up like the passengers of the spaceship in WALL-E? Let's go a step further: if the so-called singularity occurs, what is the need for people in general?
It's fine and well to speculate wildly about technological advances, but the future of the human race is ultimately about humans. If you're going to ignore the human aspect, do it completely. Don't trivialize millions of deaths in the race to talk about how cool nuclear fusion will be.
"Sea levels will have risen by at least one, and possibly more than ten metres worldwide."
"Fission: will be in widespread safe use or completely taboo."
For example, if innovation happened in flight and most people could fly at hypersonic speed within 10 years, the world becomes even smaller. Cure most cancers within 10 years instead of 50 and maybe the "next Steve Jobs" will get another 2-3 decades.
There are lots of big problems that would could solve decades sooner if we could find better ways to innovate now.
The followup is how are you intending to step between customers filing chargebacks and their banks which are a phone call away?
I applaud making it easier for people to file chargebacks but shame on your business model.
Edit: after reading the explanation given below perhaps the business model is not as bad as it first seems - if that's the case, you need to make it more clear! It looks like you are encouraging people to file chargebacks and then shaking down the merchants for money with the threat of the chargeback getting filed if they don't pay you.
You're probably going to get a cease and desist letter at some point if you haven't already talked with the various financial institutions and have contacts there... you're almost certainly violating their terms of service (and maybe people filing through you are too).
You might want to be proactive about reaching out and making some contacts with the financial institutions.
Or maybe not, maybe it's OK. Just uninformed intuition there.
Also, you probably want to add some pretty serious language in bold saying "You must be telling the truth, not telling the truth here can cause serious harm, etc."
You probably also want to do some basic confirmation of a person's identity so you don't get whacky results. Ask for a phone number maybe, and occasionally spot check calls? I could see this being used for pranking, harassment, or inappropriate use (disgruntled employee, uninformed spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend, etc).
In those cases I assume the merchant has better things to do as well, and it seems like a service like this could offload some work from their support staff and, by adding things like exit surveys, turn those small number of bad experiences into positive, constructive experiences for all parties.
Most people don't realize how easy a charge back is.
Most customers don't know what a chargeback is. Those who do will never find your site. Only if you sell your service to the credit card companies will this work.
It's caused by the convention of the Android datepicker to store month values as 0-11 instead of 1-12.
Dates are given in 1-31 as expected; and years are given in e.g. 2012 as expected; but months are given in 0-11 which is totally inconsistent with how people normally number months and how the rest of the API works.
So for January 1st, 2012, printing 'getDate()', 'getMonth()', and 'getYear()' would yield '1-0-2012'. It's a badly designed API and I'm surprised there aren't more instances of this breaking.
(I ran into this once in our codebase, but we managed to fix it pretty quickly).
"It's only broken in the People app (like #29 said, Calendar is fine).
I'm running JOP40C, and I can confirm this bug (in the People app) with all date formats."
Did anybody notice heavy CPU load?
can work with existing technology
long travel time, a century or so to the primary observation point (500-750au) but can visit several distant icy bodies before that point
100x magnification for infrared and visible-light (50-80x for radio and microwave) (only for object directly opposite the sun though)
a good precursor for an interstellar mission and
good study platform for the interstellar medium
it's a photometric redshift derived from the lyman break. rest-frame ultra-violet emission less than 912 A is "completely" absorbed by intervening neutral hydrogen, and between 912 and 1216 A partially, in lines. so objects are dark at shorter wavelengths than 1216 A (in the frame of the galaxy). their observations show that in our frame there's no emission short of 1.46 um (infra-red). and 1.46e-6 / 1216e-10 ~ 12 = 1+z, so redshift is approx 11.
if it's correct (photometric redshifts are not as reliable as those obtained from spectra, but are technically easier to achieve, and this is really pushing the limits of what is possible - my partner, who is still in astronomy, is sceptical that this is real), then it's the most distant object known.
i guess the above isn't very clear. i'll try again. hydrogen gas just floating around in space absorbs ultra-violet (UV) light. so you don't see much UV from galaxies.
now distant galaxies are redshifted so much (by expansion of the universe) that the UV ends up in the infra-red (IR). so what you observe are things that are only visible in the IR - everything shorter (optical and UV) in our frame was absorbed (UV) in the galaxy's frame.
so one way to find extremely distance objects is to find things that can only be seen in the IR. what you're actually seeing is the redshifted optical; what you don't see in the optical is what, in the galaxy's frame, is absorbed UV.
but these galaxies are very faint, so they are hard to detect. using a gravitational lens boosts the brightness and so makes this technique more powerful.
i'm not sure that helps (a diagram would make things much clearer). the technique, well, the resulting objects, are called "lyman break galaxies". but i haven't found a good reference googling.
I, and several of my colleagues, have been running dozens of OpenBSD systems for about 10+ years. In particularly, OpenBSD had an elegant IPv6 Firewall/failover mechanism about 5 years before Cisco finally decided to port Active/Failover to their ASA platform - so we were forced through sheer necessity to deploy OpenBSD in what was otherwise an all Cisco shop. Further to that, OpenBSD's ability to track several hundred thousand shortlived UDP sessions state fully on inexpensive x86 systems saved us several 10s of thousands of dollars over the equivalent Cisco systems.
At one point, all of HPs internal infrastructure was transitioned off of the Cisco ASA onto OpenBSD firewalls - OpenBSD is reliable, and industrial.
Needless to say, I'm a fan of OpenBSD and consider it critical to the various infrastructures that we deploy.
I've never been tempted (nor, to my knowledge, have my colleagues) to even consider installing X-Windows on an OpenBSD system. So the entire thesis of this article is beyond silly to me.
If you look at his original:
-) "Those vendors say "we're not in the distribution business, distributionproblems will be handled by OS vendors. We can break compatibility toadvance, and not think about it, this is not a problem." [...]
"This is a mindset we need to fight, and this has to be a grass-rootsmovement."
-) "in some cases, you even have some people, who are PAID by some vendors,agressively pushing GRATUITOUS, non compatible changes. I won't say names,but you guys can fill the blanks in."
-) "Either you're a modern linux with pulseaudio and pam andsystemd, or you're dying."
Not being a BSD guy myself, but being a fan of minimalistic linux systems, being a fan of keeping dependencies low, of not necessarily throwing out software that has done it's job for 10+ years to just get the newest gadget in, i actually think he's right with many things he says.
But, credit where credit is due: Around 2005-6, I chose to run OpenBSD on my desktop computer at home because its support for wireless network interfaces was far and above better than Linux or any other open source OS. At that time, getting on my home network with Linux was a complete no-go, while OpenBSD worked flawlessly out of the box.
At that time there were several OpenBSD devs doing the hard, ugly work of reverse-engineering the crappy binary blobs that were accepted in mainstream Linux distros (and FreeBSD), and instead turning out reliable, open-source drivers.
Today I find Linux more practical to run on my laptop, but I really hope OpenBSD never goes anywhere. We need different approaches like theirs. (Actually, the non-availability of Flash was a big reason I switched back to Linux, and that's becoming less of an issue with HTML5...)
"Just as the original song professed its love for Brazil, "World, you'll love my Linux" is the passionate call of an idealistic dreamer who can't bear the thought of software that will only run under Windows, and yet loves the situation with software that will only run under particular Linux distributions.This problem has proliferated itself into the standards bodies, with Posix adopting Linuxisms ahead of any other variant of Unix.
Posix and Unix have made it where you can write reasonably portable software and have it compile and run across a multitude of platforms. Now this seems to be changing as the love for Linux drives the standards bodies into accepting everything Linux, good and bad.
We also are faced with groups writing software that only works with particular distributions of Linux. From this we get software that not only isn't very portable, but often not particularly stable. Our idealistic dreamer in the song loves running one, or more than one distribution of Linux for a particular purpose. Unfortunately, the rest of us are left with the unattractive choice of doing the same, or relying on herculean efforts to port software that is being actively developed in a way to discourage porting it to other platforms."
OpenBSD was my first unix, and as much as I tried to contribute, I didn't last through their toxic developer community long enough to be a useful contributor.
This high bar is required to keep the system as secure as they want, but the trade off means scaring off devs, which is the real core of the bsd/Linux divide.
I have built a firewall from an old slow 1U Sun Netra "server" with OpenBSD/spark64 and it is still in production after almost 7 years? Why? Because punks cannot hack it with Linux/x86 exploits.) Because it has enough resources to be a gateway (firewall, openvpn, secondary dns, etc.)
Well, nowadays you anyone could buy a $50 box with linux flashed inside to do some fire-walling and some routing, and the art of making BSD-based gateways and servers almost disappeared.
Nevertheless OpenBSD is a multi-platform network server, secure and stable, in the first place. Modern X11 is irrelevant.
btw, they finally implemented kernel pthreads in the last release, so, our postgres...))
The lwn article here is pretty vacuous.
edit: I'm happy to see some people in this thread already coming to OpenBSD's defense. It is really really fine software, built by a team of really smart people. If you haven't donated to the project, or at least bought one of their CD sets, please do. It does help.
So BSD is being marginalized for other reasons, not desktop software.
Now with the advent of ARM, the sence to have open source drivers becomes more palatable and hopefully sainer. More options for your hardware to run upon and be sold upon is more sales. If you open source things and let the community help then they help and you get more win win. It is the area's were companies want to protect IP they have above and beyond the patent protection. There are cases if they are using others IP in there product which they pay to use that prevents them from releaseing the source and at best able to do binary blobs. If we had binary blobs that you could add your own wrapper around and accomodate a OS's needs, then you would still have more platforms than not open to you.
But this realy is mostly down to fancy networking cards, graphics cards and anything with a radio in it mostly. But there are always options and with the right purchaseing you can vote with your money. Support the ability to change your OS even if you don't plan on it today, think of the children :).
that is most certainly true, but I am wondering, has any of the work done in BSDs in recent years influenced linux development in any way?
Well, yes, that may be true. But the important thing to keep in mind is that you aren't losing anything here. Yes, Google may be using your GPS data to improve its maps. But that doesn't mean you are having any less fun playing the game because of it.
This is, I think, one of the things that's deeply fundamental to Google's culture and really great about the company: Google is always looking for non-zero sum solutions. Where many companies think, "What's the most I can take from my customers to make us money?" Google thinks, "How can we maximize the sum of both us and our users?"
Look at ads, for example. Where many sites are constantly playing, "what's the most ads I can cram into my site before people start leaving?", Google is thinking "how can we make the ads as relevant as possible so that users actually want them to be there?"
Or am I completely lost?
Is trying to be profitable now considered a bad thing? Is selling a startup to big company that will close it down the only exit strategy that HN praise?
I know that some people feel betrayed by twitter for cutting something that used to be free. But what should twitter do? Jeopardy its own business in order to make others happy? That's not how business works.
1) You ruin the experience because of the business model. People switch to a competitor that is annoyances free as you were.
2) You ask for money. People switch to a competitor that is free as you were.
3) You invent a business model that is an added value for users instead to be a problem. You win.
To make "3" working you need to be open minded and design the business model for months, with creativity, thinking at your users. It's hard but you could do it, but unfortunately there are this guys that gave you millions that will ruin this process. So "3" is very very very hard for Twitter IMHO.
Also, Twitter has 1500 employees. That's absurd.
It contains nothing we didn't know before, it's not interesting at all and there's no value in it. David just talks shit about another company.
I have an user, I can acces the site via a simple text-based protocol, who cares what weird client I'm using?
This way we will finally have something we can settle on, we will have multiple competing clients and no censorship or arbitrary rules, and no monetization.
Only problem is that it may be a harder technical problem than it sounds.
Big consumer IPOs which tank hurt investor confidence across the market, and particularly in the tech IPO sector in the future.
I wonder how many other "obvious" solutions I'm missing like this?
EDIT for the code I tried, user time is almost 3 times faster, but real time is only around 10% better... I don't understand linux well enough to know why - anyone care to explain please? EDIT Yes, drip had already run. (I picked typical times from about 10 runs each).
$ time java... real 0m1.466s user 0m1.216s sys 0m0.180s $ time drip... real 0m1.378s user 0m0.412s sys 0m0.260s
I really like his quickstart "standalone" installation.
WARNING "drip kill" crashed my system. The kill functions are kill_jvms and kill_jvm (https://github.com/flatland/drip/blob/develop/bin/drip). I'm using an older ubuntu 10.04 LTS.
So I assume it doesn't help if you are launching JVMs very rapidly (like, scripting stuff in a tight loop). Slow JVM launching has pretty much killed languages such as Groovy for scripting for me, because once I start using them in loops things get horribly slow.
time java -jar /home/user/research/jruby-complete-1.6.0.RC3.jar --1.9 -e 'a=1;puts a' 1java -jar /home/user/research/jruby-complete-1.6.0.RC3.jar --1.9 -e 3.65s user 0.12s system 183% cpu 2.056 total
Interesting!! if it runs rails effectively, this could be awesome for jruby.
EDIT: Hmm, I encountered this: "Could not connect to compilation daemon after 300 attempts." but re-running it ("scala") works.
This is exactly what is missing from the banking system. The mortgage madness would never had occurred if banks were forced to retain a portion of every loan (and put that portion in the first-loss position.)
This one made me smile, thinking of the classic characterization of a development manager's primary task: herding cats.
Here's what their compete chart looks like, for what little it's worth (login required, so screenshot instead): http://cl.ly/image/3z1v152G3r1l
For images it should be hidden.
The fact that these mechanisms are available is the reason I use such a system.
Also, if you consider any problems like this happening to a closed source vendor, you may never know it's happened. And don't tell me they don't do it as I've worked for a couple of companies that felt that burying security fuck ups was acceptable practice. It's why I don't work for them any more.
Much respect and defineing the word professional for many.
"We unfortunately cannot guarantee the integrity of any packages available for installation between 19th September 2012 and 11th November 2012, or of any ports compiled from trees obtained via any means other than through svn.freebsd.org or one of its mirrors. Although we have no evidence to suggest any tampering took place and believe such interference is unlikely, we have to recommend you consider reinstalling any machine from scratch, using trusted sources."
Please use passwords for your keys and allow key access only to a small set of known IP addresses.
Also do share other security techniques you're using besides the ones above.
Atta: I built a core-feature Twitter client!
Twitter: Sorry, we're not approving your core-feature Twitter client.
Who is surprised? How is this news? Were you expecting them to not apply their own rules? It seems like a clear-cut case, and concluding "don't build anything for Twitter" is just throwing a temper tantrum.
Exactly, that's precisely the message they wanted you to have.
What's wrong with using the twitter.com on Windows8, do we really need a special client just for Windows 8? This is exactly what the web is supposed to do.
I don't get anyone is surprised, it's Twitter's ecosystem and if you're duplicating their functionality then it's perfectly reasonable of them to not make any special exemption. If you wrote a client that exposed twitter to new markets or something that added value to Twitter then they'd likely give you a higher limit, but that's not the case...
> It does not appear that your service addresses an area that our current or future products do not already serve.
How can your future product already serve an area?
Very good summary by Marco. It's really annoying when these companies have secret policies that have to be discovered rather than are clearly stated. It just wastes people's time to try to discover the policy, having to do costly time consuming experiments to find out what the policy is as if this was an unknown branch of particle physics.
I wonder if this trend between FB, Twitter, etc. is going to ruin the ability for new companies and new platforms to attract free development by third parties?
But I suppose they'd just wind up getting sued.
It reminds me of the craigslist haters, and my response to them. I don't hate craigslist for stopping third parties from using their data because, frankly, it hurts their brand if "druggycriminalroommates.com" starts syndicating their apartment ads.
That said, don't think that I'm some sort of right-wing capitalist fascist. No, I don't think everything should be privately owned and controlled. There are some things that should remain public: internet infrastructure being one of them. My personal belief is that the only real egalitarian, open system is one that relies on that infrastructure, and ONLY on that infrastructure. This vision requires that people either a) run their own servers, or b) pay money to someone else to run servers (or parts of servers). (Other possibilities for payment exist, of course, such as bartering information for service, etc.)
I mean, twitter is free to control, the OP is free to complain about that control, but the solution presented (don't develop anything for twitter) is ridiculous and immature.
It would be refreshingly honest and for some people/clients it could work, plus it could earn them some of the needed cash.
What happened to innovation? All I see these days is a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. Hell even the memes these days are derived from other memes.
This is just shitty all around. Sometimes I wish I could buy 1,000 twitter tokens for some price and use it in some "core-feature" 3rd party app because twitter sucks at implementing the very core features.
Seems a sensible position to me (old guy, non-coder and won't use twitter or fb).
I see the need/desire for hackers to make things useful and unique in a way that they envision things but you will never hear me apologize for my remarks on this subject. If you are building your business or product depending on someone else's and are not a form of contractual partner you can be kicked in the ass down the line and there's no accountability to you they owe.
If you're working against Twitters interest already then why not go for broke?
Although, it still kills the advertising cash cow.
At least, for now. Twitter has shown they are willing to be hostile towards their developers. Even if I fit in the "don't take their eyeballs" category, I wouldn't build on their platform because I don't trust them.
Why do you need another client? Just go to the People Hub and click What's new. Need to reply or retweet? The buttons are right below the message. Need to see mentions or replies? Click Notifications.
Late arrivals like identi.ca might not be as polished, but they offer a similar product, with open APIs. Being based on open and federated standards like status.net, it's extremely unlikely that identi.ca will ever get the ego trip twitter got, and in fact is much more likely that it will be more open over time, and more useful even if other competition arises. What it doesn't have, and what we (consumers as well as devs) can help with, is by heading over there and giving them users and status and content.
Businesses that rely on twitter will have a contractual relationship with twitter , meaning less uncertainty ,less competition ( since you'll have to pay upfront to access twitter's data , less clients ).
That's the solution that makes sense , instead of this half baked situation twitter api developers are in.
You can grab the source for these and play around with them, tweaking values to see how things work.
One of my favorites is Sand Traveler. The underlying algorithm is relatively simple, but the results are stunning.
It also exports to Android apk files, so you can build Android apps with Processing.
Would love to see a retina iPad version of this.
Trunk on fire:http://new.weavesilk.com/?cz63
I do a fair bit of generative music stuff, so I'm impressed with that part as much as the pretty colors: http://new.weavesilk.com/?czw6
And Ctrl+Z would be nice.
Simply doodling, when out pops the angel of death. Lovely :)
Here is a heart: http://new.weavesilk.com/?d38q
It is very well done, and what you can make with it is very impressive. Good work!
Very awesome. Needs undo!
http://new.weavesilk.com/?d6v4(needs 1920x1200 or above)
Why not extend it to also cover radial symmetry - should be easy to add and you can let the user set the angle etc...
Or it may just be a mess.
The Ecmascript spec leaves the object attribute iteration order undefined (though it appears most implementations iterate in the order attributes are added).
In terms of the module, can't really comment much on your code. It looks clean and well written. I'll try and run it during my free time to get a good feel for it. Well done. Now go back and build something bigger.
PS. Shoot me an email (in profile). You might enjoy hanging out with the Nuuton team.
A few weeks ago, there was the 14 year old who posted their rad iPhone game on HN. Their post did inspire me to post my own work. I have a tiny hope that someone else who's doing something like I am will see this and post their own work. I doubt it, but you never know! :D
The age is not relevant. Imagine someone of 36 made this module and included his age. If he had gotten into programming at 35 and this was some kick-ass thing, then yeah that would be kinda neat. Now you could have been programming for five years or so, which gives you a big advantage.
If you had been twelve or so, then I'd say it rocks. But fifteen is a fine age to develop something.
I don't mean to discourage you at all, just let the product speak and not your age.
I'll take a million hackers showing their projects and trying to win brownie points with their age than a single freakin smart phone troll blog post any day of the week.
I'm going to evaluate this when I get home. If it works as described, I think I'll be integrating this into an imaging service we're building. The interface looks great.
Keep coding man. This looks really good.
Congratulations, and ignore the haters. Remember that it doesn't matter what you think or say, it matters what you do. Creating software is more important than talking about it.
But yeah, this is a really cool little module, congrats.
Why I like these words: It's not enough to be able to write code, or even to package up a module for a framework. Knowing that you can't do everything, and that you should not try to do everything, with a single module, is a promising sign in and of itself. Having a clear goal to reach makes getting there all the more possible.
I'm 13 and I've created a node.js command line app (http://gtmtg.github.com/view-test) and an iOS control (http://gtmtg.github.com/MGDrawingSlate) among other things, but none of them are nearly this advanced...
Again - looks really cool...
And my vision is pretty decent.
I know you're probably using a default or something, but it's really bothersome to someone like me to read it.
Great job on the project itself, though.
I remember when I was younger and discovering ImageMagick - a perennial favourite for building little tools on top of.
>>> His announcement was formatted as a direct reply to the official Twitter account.
This means the announcement would only be seen by his followers that also follow the official Twitter account. I don't get the feeling he did this on purpose. An experienced Twitter user would know to add a â€ś.â€ť at the beginning of his message so that his followers would see it. >>
It seems a bit pedantic. But when top-down leaders don't get even the basic details of their operations right, then there are a lot of other big-picture things that they seem to get wrong as well. In the case of MySpace's crushing defeat by Facebook, the difference really was in the details, not in the overall ambitions of the two companies.
Signed up for twitter on the day it launched(I think) and did not know that. Twitter is a painful product to use. It isn't made for humans.
Twitter doesn't have to show a username in tweets; they can easily translate it to the name.
Twitter doesn't have to require each reply to appear like an out of context note. They can easily group them as complete conversations(like facebook allowing comments).
Twitter doesn't have to make lists so hard to use. They can easily make it very similar to facebook(except on twitter there is much more need to use this since they do not filter out tweets).
Twitter doesn't have to insist on this 140 char limit that looks funnier every coming day and result in butchered communication.
Twitter doesn't have to subtract 100 characters if I post a URL that is 100 characters; it could automagically shorten it or not count against the 140 at all. Instead, I am forced to manually use bit.ly to shorten it.
Twitter doesn't have to show me a stream filled with url strings; it could easily show the title of the page or something similar to facebook.
Dear Twitter, PLEASE stop this stubbornness in your product philosophy. It is hurting your users and it is hurting Twitter Corporation.
I think it's important to read the post with that context in mind.
Dalton raises some interesting questions. What exactly is twitter ? And perhaps more importantly what does Twitter think it can become? The churn in API restrictions, usage and messages certainly can be confusing.
While I don't necessarily agree with his wording in every blog post, this is an awesome interview.
"a media company writing software that is optimized for mostly passive users interested in a media and entertainment filter."
What's wrong in being media company? We all agree that software is eating the world, so why is it bad if Twitter is "disrupting" real-time media consumption? I loved Twitter's Olympics coverage. Even though I was thousands of miles away from London, I could feel the excitement.
Same for Hurricane Sandy. It was so useful to get latest news update in such a terrible time (for everyone involved). I was caught in another disaster few years back and the biggest problem was not getting important news updates from credible agencies/people. Twitter solved that problem for Hurricane Sandy coverage.
Twitter/FB are becoming like "breaking news" for every news. Be it earthquakes, celebrity gossip, world cups, olympics or new product launches!
My main problem is my diverse interest in different subjects and twitters current inability to let me organize and follow what I like.
I'm following approx. 200 people divided 30% technology, 30% cycling and 30% friends/locals. For me, it would be impossible to imagine following more than 250 or 300 people with todays interface - because they are all thrown into each other and reading the raw feed is a clutter and mess of subjects.
You would think, considering their main goal is to get people following their interest, that they would get this part of the interface right. But the contrary - it is what is worst with twitter.
The solution (and problem) I'm hinting to is of course lists and as Facebook, G+ and virtually every other social network already have found out: people like to organize interests, people and subjects into different "buckets". Facebook had a lame interface for this many years, but does a better job now.
My point is, as an experienced twitter user, I know where the pains are and my first day in office I would make sure that the accessibility of lists were greatly improved.
The second day I would use to fix a decent conversation view and comprehensible reply scheme.
EDIT: To point out the inaccessibility of lists today, here is the general way to read up on a subject: tool-icon > lists > choose list. That's 2 clicks too many.You could also use the shortcut "gl" and spare 2 clicks, but still, it is 1 request too much and way too complex for the regular user.
He's been using it for a long time to consume news and information. Ok, makes sense. Yet this is apparently objectionable or at the very least damming. I think it's damming because he says he's a consumer not a producer of tweets. Is this news to anyone?
"Admit failure and give up on trying to get normal people to tweet" The balance in twitter's tweet creation and consumption happened organically. Kudos to Twitter for allowing it to happen vs forcing unnatural acts? "You should tweet more!" I don't look too closely but it seems like it's been an open secret for 2 + years that 80% of all tweets come from 5 - 10% of users or whatever.
I guess I wouldn't call it a pivot if Twitter is focusing heavily on the 10% that do 90% of the tweeting vs trying to get the other 90% to tweet more.
The best way to consume â€śnews and informationâ€ť.Important content is mostly created by media companies, whether they are blogs, television, radio or movies.
The main reason that â€śnormal usersâ€ť would write messages is as a backchannel to discuss media events such as the Olympics, Election Coverage, or a new television show. â€śNormal userâ€ť tweets are something akin to Facebook comments.
Even though this backchannel exists, it's not expected that brands and celebrities are supposed to pay much attention to everything that is said. Chernin himself hasn't replied to the numerous replies he received."
That's funny because that's how I used Twitter from the beginning (5 years ago).
Do people really need a short-form messaging platform for communication?
They cover everything from the early days of Excel's API to the downfall of myspace and the rise of YouTube and Photobucket, and how twitter took off. It's worth your time.
What are you saying? Fourteen year olds and ethnic minorities use this website. How normal can you get?
"An experienced Twitter user would know to add a â€ś.â€ť at the beginning of his message"
Thanks for the protip, Dalton.
The readme of the first public release says:
nv.d3 - v0.0.1
A reusable chart library for d3 by Bob Monteverde of Novus Partners.
The license later said that the copyright belonged to Novus, (not Montaverde), under the GPL v3.
This means that they couldn't (nor could anyone) use the Free contributions in closed source products.
Since Montaverde is responsible for ~95% of the code (https://github.com/RobertLowe/nvd3/graphs/contributors) and he sounds embarrassed by the ordeal, it looks like a dick move by someone above him at Novus.
What prevents other open source projects from being taken down with a "management did not authorize this" notice? For example, what prevents Twitter from saying Bootstrap was released by a rogue employee, invalidating the open source license and rendering millions of websites in copyright violation?
What happens to the commits by other authors to the source tree? Do they own the copyright to their commits, even if they modify invalid open source code?
How does the open source community react when this happen? Do they fork and pretend the source code is legit open source? (from reading the discussion, it seems like many developers have already forked the code and encouraged others to work off it)
Perhaps there are reasonable solutions to these, but I'm interested to see how this story unfolds, since it may affect how people think of companies open sourcing code in the future.
Are there any other notable examples where a project was 'open' for such a long period of time and then the company that claimed to own the copyrights tried to un-open it? It seems like there's a huge potential for nasty side effects when something like this happens. 9 months is long enough for lots of people to start relying on a library that's been released under a permissive license like Apache2 and then suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because a vendor either did a terrible job of protecting their copyrights or decided to take their toys and go home.
EDIT: Now that I thought about this more, since they pull out the finance part of the library before, it is very likely that they _did_ know about the library being open sourced. Makes it much harder to believable the story.
However, with bits, things are different. Bits can be copied, they can't be stolen, and bits aren't unique things whose possession can be controlled. Thus, the idea of copyright is to "own" the copyrighted works so as to control making copies of it. The company tried to assert that it owns the library and extrapolate from there that they could control the bits that represent copies of the library. But if the thing companies intend to control is the idea or "the works" instead of the physical bits then we're faced with another dilemma.
Consider if the leaked thing was a trade secret, which is an idea with no physical presentation. The trade secret was published without permission by a rogue employee and thus it wouldn't be a secret any longer, then how could the company possibly claim it could be restored somehow? How could anyone who had read about the trade secret explicitly unmemorize it? There are no physical copies or bits to destroy, the idea would simply live in peoples' minds and eventually travel to the company's competitors. The cat's out of the bag, what can you do.
I think that in this case, the only plausible view of what actually happened is just that. The culprit is the employee who should be liable for the damages if it turns out that he actually did publish the source code without a permission. (Based on the comments even verifying that is still uncertain.) Similarly, if an employee smuggles in GPLv3 code in to the company's codebase then the company can't just shrug that off, and must release their proprietary source code as GPLv3.
Both are quite harsh conclusions. It seems that for any company larger than a few dozen people would eventually bump into one of these two cases. Employees would have to require written permission from their managers to release source code. (What if their managers didn't have the permission to give that permission?) Companies would have to audit all new source code before adding it to their version control system. (Nearly an impossible task unless commit lag of months would be considered agile in their line of business.)
In practice, things don't workâ€"â€"neither way, as long as copyright is removed from the realm of bits, data, and software and the concept of intellectual "property" is disintegrated from the beginning. WHen companies stop relying on those delusions and base their business on things that actually work on real life, they are relieved of much suffering.
NVD3 is one of many chart libraries that placed more emphasis on design than robustness. Having gone through many charts I wonder if any of these developers have heard of the Profiles tab on web inspector.
Something like NVD3 can be used on a static page that isn't live updated for a short time. But a long living application will have problems.
In other words don't worry. NVD3 wasn't very good. Go look at the d3 basic chart examples on the d3 example's site. It is not hard to build graphs with d3. You don't need NVD3.
Having said this, I thought the NVD3 editor was pretty cool. Better than the actual library.
They could have used this to their advantage by simply allowing it to stay open but requiring that their company/brand name be used in the project (like Twitter Bootstrap), thus allowing the company to be seen as a supporter of the open source community without much effort on their part. Now they look the exact opposite of that, by doing something that would require huge effort and resources to achieve/maintain.
Specially taking into consideration how much better OCaml is suited for compiler development and the existence of LLVM bindings for OCaml.