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?"

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.)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6760351

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

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.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6749505

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6749431

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

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...)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6749121

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6749075

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6748947

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

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.

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.

    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();
        }
    };

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6717622

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

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

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.

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".

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.