6ren

Love the serendipity moral; loved surviving the vicissitudes. The story reads well.

There's a lacuna between Codentical and Parallel X: 1. people willing to pay for it; 2. a spark went off; 3. "validate before you build"

You say you did have paying users, so why did you stop? What was the spark? I'm guessing that there weren't enough paying users - but that's not stated. This makes an inexplicable gap as you race down the homestretch of the story. It's not a huge problem, but since the rest of the story is so great, it's a shame to mar it.

Also, the story would be absolutely compelling if you mentioned the specific CPU, GPU and task that gave the incredible speedups. Your reader wonders, "Why aren't they mentioned?"

(not parent) Yes, since highend GPUs have 1,000's of cores, it makes sense (though I wouldn't expect one GPU core to be faster than one CPU core.)

Please, could you quote the CPU and GPU for which you got that 350x speedup? Also, for the 1000x speedup.

(also, it would be interesting to know the CPU/GPU that gave the original 1 hour to 0.2 sec (18,000x speedup) - I'm guessing other factors like network latency, low-end CPU + high-end CPU, optimized code etc were part of it.)

Search engines have zero switching costs, so mainstream PR is a key competitive advantage for Google (not engineer PR). Their massive capital investment in server farms (esp. for google suggest) is another.

20% time was a long-term strategy to lead new technologies instead of being disrupted by them. Google+ is a short-term strategy to avoid being disrupted by facebook. Long-term self-interest is often close to "good" (so close it may be why it's good).

oblig snark: Instead of turning evil, Google be like Sun - die, and be reanimated by evil piecemeal.

Please cite examples of technologies that kids embraced and did not become successful.

Looks small enough http://www.primesense.com/solutions/3d-sensor/ (see "embedded" photo at bottom). Apple can probably help miniaturize it further; also process shrinks.

New input devices open new possibilities. Just vaguing: 3D sculpting; with the device propped up, any surface is a keyboard; 3D photographs.

Ideally, couple it with a holographic display...

EDIT mobile applications "augmented reality gaming, virtual shopping, Real View™ measurements, 3D scanning and printing, photography enhancement" (http://www.primesense.com/market/mobile/), engadget article (http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/15/primesense-demonstrates-c...)

Weirdly, I'm getting about double the framerate on the second, more complex demo (with volumetric light beams).

1. reasoning from first principles is a really cool, powerful and awfully difficult. Most importantly, it forces you to consider what the question actually is (see Douglas Adams).

2. the BOM cost is an interesting perspective, but is a terrible example of the above, because it doesn't go back to what the problem really is (energy), and also excludes every solution except batteries made of the same materials, and therefore likely based on the same principles.

3. the analogy to BOM for software is information (what do we know? what do we want?). While this is closer to true first principles than BOM, it assumes the problem statement, and thus precludes reconceptualization - changing the specification, changing the requirements, changing the context.

BTW describing a startup as the "x of y" is a way to communicate it succinctly, and not necessarily what it really is. It's ad copy.

Not sure if this salacious writeup, image and title are really helping them, but publicity is publicity I guess. At least the site doesn't present itself as a hook-up/prostitution service. http://www.easynest.com/

Sharing a room is pretty standard for backpackers/hostels, also for overnight train and ship travel. Actually, this service would be convenient for Why Cruise Ships are My Favorite Remote Work Location (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6697416), where he's sharing the cabin with a friend.

http://jsfiddle.net/hYfN3/197/

    elm.onkeydown = function(evt) {
        evt = evt || window.event;
        var keyCode = evt.keyCode || evt.which;
        if (keyCode == '13') {
            var nextid = this.id.charAt(0) + String.fromCharCode(this.id.charCodeAt(1)+1);
            document.getElementById(nextid).focus();
        }
    };

disclaimer: I don't know JS

I don't think there are any laptops comparable to the Acer C720 performance (Haswell) at a comparable price. It benchmarks at about half a 2013 Macbook Air (also Haswell). That said, I'd whack ubuntu on it, and love it as a netbook.

But I do doubt chromebooks will be big hit, they're neither fish nor foul, since tablets stole netbooks' market.

Your edit is much clearer than "you know it when you see it" (Justice Stewart), which pretty much represents giving up on any formal definition.

I like your suggestion of detecting trolls by whether they actually transmitted/helped anyone with the invention. There's a problem in patent law, that you're infringing even if independently invented it. (Copyright is different, you only infringe if you actually copied - though see "unconscious copying"). Your suggestion could be implemented, I think, just by getting rid of that. Which might be a good thing, though difficult. It's a big change (though copyright case law and legislation would provide some guidance.)

Of course, inventors need to be able sue people that they didn't help produce it, so the copying part is important.

Alternatively, make it a requirement that you have to make prototypes and put it into production. This is also a big change (though, in the past, a prototype was a requirement). But I think it would be easily gamed, with shell production companies. From the other side, for real inventors, what if production requires substantial capital investment? The producer just refuses, and the patent fails. Maybe other requirements could avoid this, but seems tricky.

I'm not clear which two "groups" you mean, or that they'd divide.

There is a class divide for human "breeding", with expressions like "marrying below" etc. But more importantly, people marry people they meet, who tend to be in their social group. So I guess this does come down to a class "race".

Aside: I expect specific surnames having the same economic value over time is a consequence of that class strata having the same value over time. i.e. it's the class, not the specific lineage. But I agree that if was due to the lineage, not the class, it would indicate something else passed on (money, influence etc) other than genetics. Of course, in practice all these factors are present to some degree and hard to disentangle.

Tangent: I think many people take political solace in us all being genetically more-or-less equal - but I think the true source of equality is that we can all think and exchange. We can create things that didn't exist before, solve problems we haven't seen before. I don't mean scientific breakthroughs, just the trivial problem-solving we all do, every day, to function. From making a joke to baking a cake. And we can communicate and trade, to combine our strengths and work together - which benefits each of us more than zero-sum conflict. Who cares who's at the "top"?

This philosophy enables aliens - of all kinds - to be "one of us" instead of "the other".

It clutters the code.

Tests are a form of documentation, but too much in the code, like too many comments, obscures. Higher level unit tests (acceptance tests) can be quite long, especially if there's a lot of setup - unlike their example code. Literate programming tried embedded documentation, but didn't catch on (even with Knuth's backing). Embedding tests makes them easier to keep in sync, but tests are already kept in sync by (hopefully) failing when not. However, their idea of automatically running tests is interesting, so there's no infrastructure to set-up, run etc (though you'd want to be able to disable them).

Nice for teaching.

They don't seem to account for non-socioeconomic factors like genetics and nurturing.

I'm not saying aristocrats are a master race, just that if your ancestors won competitions, you may have inherited whatever genetic factors helped them. These might include abilities for collaboration, "reading" other people, intelligence... and perhaps competitiveness, controlled aggression and ruthlessness.

Nurture would include very basic care of infants (e.g. talking to them), and general ways of thinking and attitudes. It's easier to be "successful" if you reach your basic potential by having your developmental needs met. You'll tend to raise your children the same (partly because you've experienced it, partly through oral tradition passed on from grandparents).

NB: I'm not saying "social success" is necessarily a good thing, nor that the factors leading to it necessarily make a better world, just noting what explains the data. Of course, maybe this article is only measuring social mobility, and not claiming social position as complete causation.

True. I think this is what's bugging me: drawing a lit version implies information about 3D shape; in particular, the artist has to reason/see in 3D. So, in a sense, it is a new method of entering 3D information, that works especially well for traditional 2D art styles.

Why not have the artist enter height directly, instead of shading from several different angles? It seems like less work (because there's less information to input); though possibly doesn't mesh as well with how 2D artists work... whereas shading is part of the tradition.

There's something I'm not getting here (that might lead to a better way of doing it, or not).

My thought was that you'll often light from a typical angle, and use familiar (or even stylized) techniques for that specific angle. To put it in extreme terms, you might only know how to draw with that lighting.

For unusual lighting (e.g. uplit), even an excellent artist would have to give it more attention. Similar to drawing a character from an unusual perspective. At any rate, drawing several unusual lighting angles will exercise one's talents more than using the same standard one.

It's literally looking at it in a new light.

Don't you have to be incredibly skilled to draw lighting from different directions? I'm thinking "yes" - but artists are incredibly skilled.

  The free version will do everything the hobbyist version can do, but without the
  ability to export assets [...] needed for game use – however, the user will be able
  to export (watermarked) animated gifs showing off their artwork.

Great pricing scheme! I hope it works because I'd like to use this scheme too.

They are having more accidents than other electric cars (3 vs 0), and it certainly seems that having four times as much battery power, and lining the base with them, is the problem.

There's nice spin you could put on this, which is likely true: people who have Teslas drive them more, because they are fun, cool, excellent - and have 4 times the range and power. Secondly, with more power, you will drive faster, hence greater likelihood of accident, and of greater severity.

But Tesla's gotta fix this. For PR reasons, and to be making a great car. There's always going to be unforeseen problems with new tech, the only issue is how you handle it.

It's a bit of a shame though: low slung batteries give low center of gravity and great handling and stability. Thicker armour adds unnecessary weight. Perhaps armour that deflects rather than stops? Perhaps a different failure mode for the batteries; built-in extinguishers? (i.e. the issue is fire, not car damage. Ideally, solve both).

  It makes a lot of sense to just a build a piece of it first — but that piece needs
  to be representative. You can’t just hack something together.” He calls this
  prototype a “publishable first playable,”

A better explanation of MVP than most.

I'm seeing a pattern, a cycle between hubris and humility.

When Nintendo ruled, Sony broke in by courting game developers. Then, they became arrogant, and made the best hardware they could, they was difficult to use. Thus, Microsoft won, simply because it was easier for developers. It was then amazing to see how arrogant they had become with the xboxone trying to squeeze everyone, in every way - similar to how they removed the ability to cancel xbox live online.

What Microsoft didn't realize is that they didn't win - Sony lost, by shooting themselves in the foot. But in this generation, if PS4 is easy to develop for, cheaper, more powerful, and not trying to squeeze every cent and control every aspect... things will be different.

Of course, Microsoft will see their mistake and adjust (as they've done many times). But while they can drop prices and relax controls, it may be difficult to make their console more powerful. Also, next year, mobile devices should reach GPU parity with last gen consoles... and with their faster iteration cycle, match PS4/xboxone three years after that. (unlike CPUs, GPUs scale really well).

Now you have three problems.

(But along with relational algebra, they are among the few abstractions that work really well)

Counterpoint: he notes our techniques are based on writing, but it goes deeper: our symbolic writing (including mathematical notation) is based on speech, for which we have dedicated linguistic structures in our brains, much as we have a visual center. It is deep-seated, and many have argued fundamentally entwined with sapience. Thus, even if it's not theoretically the best way, it might be the best way for us. But I'm going to argue it is the theoretically best way:

Linguistic descriptions have a key advantage over pictorial in that they represent or reference rather than show. This enables them to be compact, and omit unnecessary detail. (Of course, showing rather than telling is a strength of visual representation).

Yes, you can have a hierarchy of visual systems, and zoom-in or hide. But a fundamental problem here I think is in choosing the hierarchy - that is, the way the system is modularized.

Different modularizations of the same system are often appropriate for different uses of that system, or for considering different aspects of it. For even a slightly complex system, there are a huge number of different modularizations possible, and not all of them are useful. Often, you'll start with a poor one, and eventually have insights moving you towards the ideal one. (Of course, sometimes the "right" modularization is obvious, especially for well-known families of problems).

All this is very difficult. My point is that it is easier to switch modularities linguistically than pictorially, by changing your concepts. Without the right modularity, it's difficult to pictorially show just the aspects of interest instead of the whole picture. In contrast, one can linguistically omit detail by referencing it (implicitly, as a separate module).

Maybe it's possible to do this visually, though I suspect it thereby would have become linguistic!

[Though the above is a counterpoint, I'm very impressed with the talk. He's working both ends of abstraction, with concrete working software demonstrating cool useful practical techniques that, while not universal, would be helpful in many domains; and also framing it within, and using it to illustrate, the deep universal and philosophical idea of unthinkable thoughts. BTW e.g. uncomputable numbers.]