Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Animats's comments login

So who was prepared for this? Pornhub:


    Name Server: ns1.p44.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns2.p44.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns3.p44.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns4.p44.dynect.net
    Name Server: sdns3.ultradns.biz
    Name Server: sdns3.ultradns.com
    Name Server: sdns3.ultradns.net
    Name Server: sdns3.ultradns.org

    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.ORG
    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.NET
    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.COM
    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.BIZ
    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.INFO
    Name Server: PDNS196.ULTRADNS.CO.UK

Looks like Pagerduty just dumped Dyn:


    Name Server: NS-219.AWSDNS-27.COM
    Name Server: NS-1198.AWSDNS-21.ORG
    Name Server: NS-1569.AWSDNS-04.CO.UK
    Name Server: NS-739.AWSDNS-28.NET
Pagerduty annoucement: "If you are having issues reaching any pagerduty.com address please flush your DNS cache to resolve the issue."

Github just added AWS DNS:


    Name Server: ns2.p16.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns-1283.awsdns-32.org.
    Name Server: ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk.
    Name Server: ns-421.awsdns-52.com.
    Name Server: ns1.p16.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns4.p16.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns3.p16.dynect.net
    Name Server: ns-520.awsdns-01.net.

When your business depends on your infrastructure being up and running you try to prepare for anything. Then again Twitter is down so...

Twitter is still 100% on Dyn.


    Name Server: NS1.P34.DYNECT.NET
    Name Server: NS4.P34.DYNECT.NET
    Name Server: NS2.P34.DYNECT.NET
    Name Server: NS3.P34.DYNECT.NET
They're probably using some geographically based DNS distribution scheme which they can't quickly move to other DNS servers.

Twilio just dumped Dyn, and is now available again.


    Name Server: ns3.dnsmadeeasy.com
    Name Server: ns2.dnsmadeeasy.com
    Name Server: ns4.dnsmadeeasy.com
    Name Server: ns1.dnsmadeeasy.com
    Name Server: ns0.dnsmadeeasy.com

Amazon was Using Dyn, now they added also UltraDNS too:

  Name Server: pdns1.ultradns.net 
  Name Server: pdns6.ultradns.co.uk 
  Name Server: ns3.p31.dynect.net 
  Name Server: ns1.p31.dynect.net 
  Name Server: ns4.p31.dynect.net 
  Name Server: ns2.p31.dynect.net

Digikey just dumped Dyn, and is now back up.


    Name Server: cbru.br.ns.els-gms.att.net
    Name Server: ns2.digikey.com
    Name Server: cmtu.mt.ns.els-gms.att.net
    Name Server: ns1.digikey.com

ultradns.biz has been down as well.

"ultradns.biz" is not responding to pings, but their DNS servers are responding to DNS queries properly:

    > server pdns196.ultradns.biz
    Default server: pdns196.ultradns.biz
    Default server: pdns196.ultradns.biz
    Address: 2610:a1:1015::e8#53
    > pornhub.com
    Server:		pdns196.ultradns.biz
    Name:	pornhub.com
Right now, if your site is in trouble, I'd suggest getting UltraDNS service and AWS DNS service, and some obscure service as well, and put them them all in your domain registration. DNS service is cheap. Get some redundancy going. We have no idea how long this DDOS attack will last. It's not costing the attackers anything. They might leave it running for days.

Github is currently inaccessible. Can you still compile Rust programs that depend on Github files?

First of all, the only thing that'd matter is for modifying your dependencies at the moment. If you've previously built the project, and don't touch your deps, GitHub won't be hit.

Second, Cargo only depends on GitHub for the index. For more: http://integer32.com/2016/10/08/bare-minimum-crates-io-mirro...

That includes a link to a mirror run by integer32.

If you need to, you can edit your hosts file to include github's IP addresses (mentioned elsewhere in this thread): github.com assets-cdn.github.com

I was a big fan of ICMP Source Quench in the early 1980s, but it wouldn't help now. It doesn't have authentication.

Dyn, Inc. is toast. They created a central point of failure for the Internet. Major sites will stop using their services within hours.

Things need to get more distributed. Don't load Jquery from some central site. Don't load fonts from Google. Make sure your site will work if all the trackers and ad sites are not responding. Use multiple independent DNS providers.

It's also time for serious litigation. Find some vulnerable IoT device being used for the attack, and sue the retailer, distributor, and manufacturer for negligence. Junk IoT manufacturers need to feel fear.

Junk IoT manufacturers need to feel fear.

We've reached the point where any clueless business type who pooh-poohs and wishes away security concerns needs to get the idiot bit flipped on them. Today's networked computing environment has reached the point, where this stuff is toxic. It might have been okay for a few isolated frontier weirdos to play with mercury to extract gold, but then when that became a full blown industry, it resulted in toxic consequences we are still dealing with over 150 years later. Maker hipsters playing with a few hardware hacks did little harm. Now that IoT is becoming household, the situation has changed in an analogous way.

Selling insecure devices (be that IoT, wifi routers, etc) is almost like aiding and abetting, in the context of DoS attacks.

If they had to recall all vulnerable devices I am sure they would take security a lot more seriously.

capitalism just isn't ready for prime time

It's the worst way to organize an economy, after every single other way we've thought of so far.

Please. Dyn has performed pretty well in the past, and any other provider (be it UltraDNS, CloudFlare or anybody else) would be a single point of failure as well.

As you said, the only protection (somewhat) is to have redundant/multiple DNS providers. Doesn't mean Dyn can't be one of many.

Dyn is still one of the biggest and hardest to hit providers, so I'd be surprised if they're broadly abandoned. Redundant providers are pretty much the only fix available to users, but it's still sensible to be redundant via the the best providers out there, and that still means Dyn.

They had one job. To stay up no matter what. That's the only justification for using Dyn. They failed.

Yes, they did. But, depending on the details of the attack, I am not sure if any other provider could have withstood the attack without problems. In other words, I doubt there's a single provider/alternative.

Unless you have a good argument why they are less likely to stay up than the alternatives, I don't see how this would lead to their end. Unless you take it as an argument to abolish ALL DNS servers and start mailing host-files around...

People have been painfully reminded why using multiple providers is best practice, will re-evaluate if that's worth the expense and if yes add other servers. Dyn will easily survive unless some massive blunder is exposed in the aftermath.

The alternative, not being one of the bigs, has a lot less chance to be hit. I would leave dyndns the same way I'm leaving cloudflare.

No matter what is pretty tough. And it's not like they're an insurance company that can re-insure their risks.

The people who depend on DNS have one DNS-related job: to mitigate risk relative to their potential losses and existence.

Would anyone else have stayed up, though? This isn't just going to be a fear response, the risk assessment will be to ask "what could have prevented this?"

Lots of people will quit using Dyn as a sole DNS, but I don't see any reason they'll quit being involved in people's multiple DNS solutions.

Dyn is toast as a single DNS provider. The big boys are just going to move to using two or three providers' nameservers rather than just one.

Dyn will almost certainly remain as one of those two or three.

> load fonts from Google.

Not sure, but isn't this yet another beacon?

It's hardly dire if the custom fonts don't load for a few hours.

can you imagine the cost of doing and having everything nX times ??

Presumably about n-fold higher (marginally) than without redundancy. Not counting the cost of this sort of outage, which could swing the equation strongly in favor of nX

Log out of Google. Now. And delete all their cookies. Consider deleting your Google account. Put your mail on an IMAP server. Your ISP probably offers one.

(I don't use a Google account. My last login to Google was in 2015, and that was to update a browser add-on.)

Your ISP probably offers the most basic mail setup you can build with the lowest effort. Your ISP as no reason to give a world class mail service because that's not something they're good at or that they could make money from. It's just one something they think is expected nowadays. I don't think this is wise advice from a privacy point of view, considering your ISP knows all your internet habits including all your connections to any service you'll ever use and that most ISPs don't have your interests in mind.

"digikey.com", the big electronic part distributor, is currently inaccessible. DNS lookups are failing with SERVFAIL. Even the Google DNS server ( can't resolve that domain. Their DNS servers are "ns1.p10.dynect.net" through "ns4.p10.dynect.net", so it's a Dyn problem.

This will cause supply-chain disruption for manufacturers using DigiKey for just-in-time supply.

(justdownforme.com says the site is down, but downforeveryoneorjustme.com says it's up. They're probably caching DNS locally.)

Who's big and a steady money-loser? Twitter? Uber? Who else?

Investors may demand liquidation before money-losing companies with cash run through all their capital. Stockholders have the power to force that, unless there's some two-tier stock deal such as Google and Facebook have, but Twitter does not.

What's the next big thing?

- Self-driving cars that actually work are about three years from commercial deployment. What businesses will be created around that? Automated parking garages? Car-sharing? LIDAR manufacturing?

- In a few months, the Chevy Bolt will be shipping. More charging stations will be needed. Over the next decade, a need for a huge number of charging points will appear. Somebody has to build those.

- Surveillance cameras, including car dashcams, coupled to face recognition and AI. Big Brother where something is always watching. But who? Google? Samsung? ADT? G4S? NSA?

- The blue-sky possibility: Lockheed-Martin's Skunk Works succeeds in building a usable fusion reactor. They're not saying much other than that they've made enough progress to justify investing more of their own funds. The Skunk Works has a good track record of doing things others thought impossible. (The U-2, the SR-71, the F-117, the F-22, and probably some things that haven't been made public yet.) If that works, the world changes in a big way.

Probably not the next big thing:

- Virtual reality. There's still no killer app, and we're into the holiday shopping season. The hardware problem has been solved, and nobody cares. It's the new 3D TV.

- 3D printing. There are lots of good 3D printers, and they're bought by the same people who buy milling machines. They're a useful industrial tool. But home printing? Not happening.

- Internet of Things. It's mostly gimmicks so far. IP-addressable lightbulbs just aren't that useful. There's going to be a lot of crap manufactured, but it may just be a fad like hoverboards and CB radio.

- Hydrogen-powered cars. This is Toyota's answer to electric cars, and they're on sale now in California. They've sold about 700 of them in the US so far.

> - Virtual reality. There's still no killer app, and we're into the holiday shopping season. The hardware problem has been solved, and nobody cares. It's the new 3D TV.

I really don't get the negative vibe on HN. VR headsets are in the market for six months now. One of them is still incomplete. Both are price-targeted at the very top of the market. Sony's, the first consumer headset, hasn't seen its first holiday season. VR games are still in the exploratory phase. Yet, with all of these signs of current and active hardware, software and market development, there's enough hubris to call the death of the technology.

It's like saying that the electric car concept is crap because the Tesla Roadster has crappy range, no boot and sold only a thousand units.

I think there are killer apps for VR, mainly Telepresence.

I've been trying to make it work but it's not something you can really bootstrap (well, you can, but it's taking me a long time :P ).

Some validation: "When I was asked to see a 360-degree, fully spherical panoramic picture of The Colosseum in virtual reality, I thought, “meh, what’s so special about a picture?” I finished some work, perhaps made a cup of coffee or two, before I made my way over. Well, I was wrong. I’ve never been to The Colosseum, but I was blown away by how much it managed to make me feel like I was there"

Jeff Atwood:

"Adding hands to VR was revelatory, the one bit of VR I've experienced to date that I can honestly say I was blown away by.

Add hands, and suddenly you are there because you can now interact with that VR world in a profoundly human way: by touching it. "

People from the USA are not so used to these problems, but I live it every day - I work remotely, I have family in 4 continents, a lot of what I want to buy is not sold in my country so I have no way of knowing if it's what I actually want, and a long list of etceteras.

Uhhh no it's not. There is a clear need and market demand for more efficient cars. The Tesla issue is one of cost, which Tesla has been doing a good job of slowly knocking down.

Contrast this with a device that pretty much no one wants, and everyone agrees is either humorously nerdy or frighteningly dystopic.

Hindsight is always 20-20. Back before Tesla's success, it wasn't as clear as you paint it: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415070,00.asp

Where did I say anything about Tesla's success? I said that the need for a more efficient car was clear. There was a clear need and Tesla is one attempt (which has been shockingly successful) to fill that need. Contrast this to VR which... what exactly is the problem?

Individual implementations (Tesla/Leaf vs Vive/Rift) aren't the topic here. It's that both Tesla and Leaf were solving a problem nearly everyone agrees was there. What is VR solving?

Also your own linked article talks about how great Tesla is, how serious the need for something like it is, and then says "the only thing is it costs $94,000." So basically reiterating my point.

> Contrast this to VR which... what exactly is the problem?

One can be successful company without solving a concrete problem (that existing products have), but simply producing something people want - in particular in entertainment sector.

And I admit: I would the much more immersive applications that VR offers. I also would love to experiment with building/"playing" completely new kind of applications/experiences that simply first become possible by VR. Unluckily I have much too little time and money. :-(

Sure, but there's no indication that the "market desire," so to speak, is anywhere near significant enough to warrant the amount of attention it's getting.

>"Contrast this with a device that pretty much no one wants, and everyone agrees is either humorously nerdy or frighteningly dystopic."

Wow, "no one wants" "everyone agrees"

You have a serious problem attributing YOUR PERSONAL OPINION to a larger group, this is a really nasty fallacy and it makes your argument look very weak.

You don't have to lie and inflate your opinion by saying "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME" multiple times.

Just give your opinion and the reasons for it. If everyone agrees, that'll be evident, not something you need to inform us of.

P.S. LITERALLY everyone does not agree with you. LITERALLY more than no one wants VR devices. LITERALLY everyone does not agree that the devices are humorously nerdy / "dystopic"

Point taken, I'll edit appropriately.

Edit: Actually no I won't... I can't edit anymore. But yeah, you're right, I'm being a bit rhetorical :)

Just wait until pornographic content becomes widely available. From history, we know it can make or break a technology :)

"a friend" of mine, recently used google cardboard which was gifted to him for some VR alone time. From what I've heard, once there's more content, there's no going back!

"Oh this thing on my coffee table? I didn't know people even use these for porn! No I've never used it for that. I really like the uhh... rollercoaster simulation..."

Mass market adoption is just right around the corner, I'm sure of it. Sarcasm aside, I'm not certain that it will never happen. It just seems like it's getting way more attention than it deserves.

I also think that the big players' involvement (namely Google and especially Facebook) is not doing VR any favors at all. Even the non-techy consumer class doesn't trust Facebook and I think they're right not to be interested in giving them a monopoly over their FOV.

I think the niche applications of VR or AR will be incredible. Things like engineering or medicine or maybe even data science will be forever changed by a successful VR platform. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be anyone's goal.

"Oh this thing on my coffee table? I didn't know people even use these for porn! No I've never used it for that. I really like the uhh... rollercoaster simulation..."

Clearly you're talking about a VCR, no wait, DVD player, no wait Laptop.

Movies already existed and were wildly popular. The question was how to move them into the home.

VR is not wildly popular outside of the home, or anywhere else for that matter.

Unless you're implying that Rift solves a distribution problem? It doesn't, obviously.

>The question was how to move them into the home.

And in fact, movies were already in the home and had been for a long time. [1] (Of course, by the time VCRs were mass market, there was cable too.) So the question was really only how to watch movies in the home on your own schedule.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Saturday_Night_at_the_Movi...

Sales numbers are still not-revealed, but by now they should be in the 200k to 300k units of Oculus+Vive units. (Vive sold 160k up until end of August, Oculus is pretty much a black box)

Oculus plus Vive should breach the half-million unit mark in the holiday season. Sony scaled up production reacting to launch demand, so I'd wager they should move another half million units. This new market should move a million devices in three quarters.

These are impressive numbers for any first generation. For reference, the first generation iPhone sold 5.5 million units. Not that it would ever be expectable for a non-personal device to ever reach iphone levels of adoption.

Long text to say that, if this is something that no one wants, it's a very special something that no one wants.

>Internet of Things. It's mostly gimmicks so far

There's a huge amount of IoT happening in the industrial sector. For example, I just listened to a presentation about how container delivery and loading is being optimized in Hamburg using various sensors and command/control systems. It's just the consumer stuff that's mostly solutions in search of a problem.

I almost wish we had a different name for consumer and industrial IoT. Most of the consumer stuff is silly and ends of derailing so many IoT conversations.


Industrial grade IoT is an odd patchwork of devices all over the spectrum. Practically all of them exist in walled gardens if they're publicly accessible at all.

There isn't a big, cohesive IoT project that is solving all the problems. That's largely because people are still feeling out what is and isn't useful with these platforms. Don't mistake that for it not happening at scale.

/Averaged about 20 deployed devices per week since July

But this is extra stupid, because "industrial automation" (which is what we used to call it) has been a huge business for decades.

There's a lot more than traditional industrial automation going on though. Yes, a lot of today's IoT is "stuff we've been doing for a while" under a new name. But there's also a level of instrumentation, real-time control, and analytics that goes significantly beyond "tell me if this process is drifting."

> The hardware problem has been solved, and nobody cares. It's the new 3D TV.

I disagree with this: 1) the only VR helmet which is confortable to wear is the PS headset which is tied to an underpowered console..

2) The resolution of the screens is still not good enough and it won't be good enough until you can read confortably text using VR glasses which will allow new use case..

3) a good VR helmet should have a camera to allow you to interact with the real world without taking off the helmet and currently only the Vive has this camera.

Once all these 3 points are solved and the price of the PC to drive the VR glasses is not too expensive then you could say that the hardware problem has been solved. And until this point is reached, we won't know whether the VR will be a success or a fad, currently it's only really interesting for 'enthousiast' so success or lack of success of current hardware isn't really an indicator of the future of VR (a bit like smartphones: there were many bad web browsing phone before the iPhone arrived).

As for 3D printing, IoT and hydrogen powered cars: I agree.

VR helmets still have the problem of focus: your focus will always be at infinity, even if the objects are virtually nearby. And this problem causes headaches, and may cause developmental problems with children (who may lose the ability to focus properly in the real world).

This is only due to current screen limitations. If someone can pull off a practical light field display, focus and convergence should work together just like they do in the real world.

Real light field displays have already been demonstrated [0] [1]. As another example, the hype around Magic Leap seems to be largely due to some novel light field display technology using an oscillating optical fiber as a light field scanner.

[0] http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~dlanman/research/compressivedis... [1] http://www.computationalimaging.org/publications/the-light-f...

Internet of Things != Smart home

I also often tend to forget that, but unlike the Smart home, where I agree with your opinion, IoT for industrial applications like remote monitoring and failure prediction of mechanical parts seems to develop pretty well.

IMO it's not fair calling industrial applications IOT, in the sense that most of the places where you'd need logging of a sensor value already have sensor coverage, only via an unsexy dedi microcontroller instead of an ESP-XYZ chip with fancy marketing. IOT is the term you use when youre trying to capture consumer wallets.

  > IMO it's not fair calling industrial applications IOT
The buzzword you are looking for is "Industry 4.0" :-)


IMO IoT is just as vague as AI, which is being widely used for anything from NLP to deep learning.

Particles' website [0] also uses IoT as an all-encompassing term, using specialized terms like "Smart Home" and "Industrial Internet of Things" where applicable.

[0]: https://www.particle.io

> - Internet of Things. It's mostly gimmicks so far. IP-addressable lightbulbs just aren't that useful. There's going to be a lot of crap manufactured, but it may just be a fad like hoverboards and CB radio.

(Consumer IoT rant follows)

Current consumer "Smart Home" products always remind me of the old joke about the guy who lost his keys in a dark corner and then goes to look for them under the streetlight across the street - "because the light is better there".

I think there actually are a lot of household chores where automation would really shine - such as cleaning up, doing laundry, doing the dishes, many aspects of cooking, etc.

Of course those tasks are far too complex to be automated to any satisfactory degree as of today - but oddly, there doesn't seem to be much interest in research either. Instead, the industry seems to be running after seemingly low-hanging fruit that on closer look are not even fruit at all: Their products seem driven by what is easily doable with today's technology and what data the vendor would like to collect. Whether the use-case that the product satisfies actually exists seems to be unimportant. Then people are surprised if such products don't sell.

My favourite example is the wifi-enabled water boiler: I could imagine a lot of tasks that involve boiling water and that I'd love to automate: If you live alone and could walke up to an already prepared cup of tea/coffee/porridge would be nice. Yet the makes of that product chose to automate the one aspect of those tasks where automation brings the least benefit: Flicking the switch on the water boiler.

I believe when we're capable of building a "laundry bucket/washer/dryer/wardrobe" combo where you put your dirty laundry in the bucket and it magically ends up in your wardrobe the next day, smart homes will become useful. Not if we stick to light bulbs that need internet access.

The thing is that to deal with most of the household tasks that most of us would like to have handled by someone you're effectively talking about having the robotic and AI equivalent to a human housekeeper. Which would be great but you have to make quantum leaps in both robotics and AI.

I'm more hopeful in the near term of an AI virtual assistant that can intelligently at least deal with things in the digital space.

Your requests are areas of active academic research in robotics: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/19/407736307/robot...

> Virtual reality. There's still no killer app, and we're into the holiday shopping season. The hardware problem has been solved, and nobody cares. It's the new 3D TV.

The hardware problem is not yet solved until 8K (or even 4K) displays (and processing power for them) are widely available. The current generation uses too low-res displays for wide FOV.

I do think the main things holding back the killer app are software and data though, over hardware. I see a killer app for VR (or AR) being online shopping, specifically for things like clothing that you have to see 'in person' to choose. Imagine being able to buy clothes online, and see how they actually look on a life-size copy of yourself right in the same room. I can't imagine something like that not existing someday, and once it does, I expect I won't be the only one to buy the vast majority of my clothes online (like I already do with almost everything else).

I'm not sure that a home shopping network that requires a top-of-the-line GPU like the NVidia Titan will really be viable, at least until we've taken a few more jumps on Moore's Law that it seems are getting harder and harder to achieve.

It's much harder to have a killer app when the technology isn't universally appealing yet. When (if) you can get 8k high frame rate displays, gigabit+ internet connection and better graphics card at a price that will make enough people buy it, then it will make sense to produce good content. We are probably not there yet for some time though.

> Probably not the next big thing:

> [...]

> - Internet of Things. It's mostly gimmicks so far. IP-addressable lightbulbs just aren't that useful. There's going to be a lot of crap manufactured, but it may just be a fad like hoverboards and CB radio.

The killer applications of IoT do not lie in home appliances, but in industrial context.

Absolutely. Look at shipping and logistics: http://www.dhl.com/en/about_us/logistics_insights/dhl_trend_...

Apropos those not the next big thing:

- Virtual reality: what time-frame are you talking about? The hardware problem has not been solved. Yes, it's better than in the 90's, no it's not good enough. VR can be big, it will also take a while.

- 3D printing: The disruption 3D printing promises is reducing the "industry" size (both physical and in capital terms) and exploding the variety of real-world products available. This is huge, and is happening, if a bit slowly. The 3D printer market itself is a small detail.

- IoT: I'm mostly vocal for not plugging your "things" on the internet... but "It's mostly gimmicks so far" is what people said about every big market change just before it exploded. I really don't know how you could be wrong (and 5 minutes ago would say you weren't), but that answer does not bring me any confidence.

- Hydrogen-powered cars: Yep, those are really stupid. Won't go anywhere.

"3D printing. There are lots of good 3D printers, and they're bought by the same people who buy milling machines. They're a useful industrial tool. But home printing? Not happening."

I don't know of many people using 3d printing as exclusively for self-use. Most are people making toys, games, or components for machines which they sell to other people. So, I don't see how 3d printing has been a failure of anything other than idiotic futurists that think it's the ST:TNG replicator (it's not). If anything, I think 3d printing has taken off like gangbusters with small manufacturers and small businesses. They reap the benefits of having a small plastics manufacturing machine that doesn't need vacuum mold dies swapped out or machined by specialized tools. Just because VCs can't turn it into an firm with a successful IPO doesn't mean it's a failure is all I'm saying.

Aren't you saying exactly the same as the comment you reply to? (great for business use, not all that useful for private use)

and a few years back there were a lot of printer makers proclaiming loudly that everybody would want to have a 3D printer at home and home printing would be "next big thing". Reality is a lot slower (there is some uptake in hobbies outside "tinkering with technology", and they are sold in mainstream-y sales channels now)

Not sure if that's what you're implying but the quality of 3d printed objects for mass consumers (toys, games, ...) is still too bad and the price way too high to be successful anytime soon.

Does anyone know if there is a better tech than 3d laser sintering for metal models? Titanium poured into molds for some of those titanium hammers is also interesting.

Is there a cost efficient alternative that would "just do"?

> Hydrogen-powered cars. This is Toyota's answer to electric cars, and they're on sale now in California.

I believe that cars use hydrogen in fuel cells, which makes the hydrogen just a component of a different battery technology (the rest of the car still being electric).

> I believe that cars use hydrogen in fuel cells, which makes the hydrogen just a component of a different battery technology (the rest of the car still being electric).

Hydrogen can either be used in full cells (for this your statement is correct) or in hydrogen internal combustion engines:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_e...

>Self-driving cars that actually work are about three years from commercial deployment.

Anyone who builds a business based on fully autonomous vehicles being available in three years is in for a rude shock. 30 years is probably more like it.

One of the reasons Uber is "losing" money is because they've made a huge bet on autonomous vehicles, buying the entire CMU robotics department, and Stanford, the winner of the 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge isn't far from Uber's headquarters, either.

30 years ago was 1986; I don't know about you, but my Internet usage looked a lot different back then, and computing power was drastically different. Fully autonomous vehicles may still be a ways off, but imperfect partially autonomous is already here, with Tesla leading the the way for high-end consumers.

It's going to work fine in confined spaces, i.e. loading/unloading cargo, transporting goods inside industrial parks, even pre-defined drone paths for item delivery with collision avoidance etc. And the more self-driving cars there are, the more could they be globally orchestrated with phasing out human factors. Cars are now full of sensors and increasingly communicate with each other. Imagine they would notify each other about their trajectories, state, etc. when they get closer/pass by.

Most of the luxury car makers have Level 2 systems shipping now. Google and Volvo have good Level 3 systems in test. Volvo plans to deploy 100 Level 3 cars next year. Google and Chrysler are building 100 Level 3 minivans in Michigan. Level 3 isn't that far away.

While true, Level 3 will be a (very) nice capability once available. And I agree it's relatively close. But you're probably not enabling new businesses (for general road use) until you have full door-to-door autonomy. Which was what the original comment was talking about.

Sorry to be blunt, but likening the Internet of Things to CB Radio and Hoverboards is extremely myopic. All of the above concepts you referred to are arguably within the IoT, IP-addressable lightbulbs is one minuscule point of value that can be derived from gathering and processing information on the Internet. You should think about it more like this: there's an infrastructure layer, a hardware layer and a software layer...those changing and advancing three points of technology will provide waves and waves of oncoming new business models and value for decades.

> Who's big and a steady money-loser? Twitter? Uber? Who else?

I think you forgot Lyft and Snapchat, and probably AirBnb, although I don't know about that last example. There are probably other companies that fulfill the bill, although I can't think of them right now.

Amazon, of course. But I guess they're an outlier amongst outliers.

Exactly the same people care about VR who have always cared about VR - VR enthusiasts. I think that VR apps will have to be extremely compelling for normal people to be interested. I also have an idea that the people most likely to want to escape LR (Lousy Reality) are least likely to be able to afford VR right now.

> Exactly the same people care about VR who have always cared about VR - VR enthusiasts.

This might hold in the consumer sector. But I can easily imagine that in the "professional" sector this is quite different. I see for example lots of potential in job training for possibly dangerous jobs or in the design/modeling/CAD sector.

As a programmer, I'm interested in VR as an alternative to purchasing multiple 4k monitors. I haven't seen anything though.

I don't think the VR hardware problem has been solved. Until there's very good inside-out tracking, I don't see this becoming a mass market technology.

> Virtual reality. There's still no killer app

How about being able to remotely be present at e.g. music or sports events? And have the best possible seat?

"Killer app" means something that makes it a must-have product and drives mass adoption.

Mass adoption is the defining characteristic, so the absence of mass adoption indicates the absence of a killer app.

Internet of Things. Remember this, "Genysis is Skynet".

Functional fusion reactors are already moving into the early stages of mass production:


And I've got a bridge to sell you.

> - Virtual reality. There's still no killer app, and we're into the holiday shopping season. The hardware problem has been solved, and nobody cares. It's the new 3D TV.

Amen brother. Current VR implementations are hot garbage. Not nearly enough pixels to be immersive, they make you sick and send you careening into walls.

I see a lot of potential for racing games and that sort of thing, but until we fix the more serious issues of mobility I just can't see this going many places.

Give me my office chair and my 4K display any day.

There's a long history of this problem. Bletchley Park Manor House[1] meets most of the criteria listed for a 9th or 10th level McMansion. Three or more window styles. Turrets. Bad columns. Faux balcony. Patchwork masonry. Roofline soup. Oversized pediments. Oversized transoms. House is out of scale.

They avoided the two-story entrance. It's not big enough for one.

(I visited before it became a big-time museum, and had a guide who was more into the architecture than the cryptanalysis.)

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Bletchle...

An even older example: Palacio da Pena, Sintra, Portugal


But...that's old.

It's almost inevitable that old buildings evolve in strange ways. According to the wikipedia article, it was a monastery, cathedral, and palace. Parts were hit by lightning and rebuilt; I'm sure others also needed repairs from other disasters, wear-and-tear, and changing usage.

The fact that an old building ends up like that doesn't mean that new buildings should start looking like that. Imagine if someone said "this legacy code is an absolute mess, so this new project can be a spaghetti-coded disaster too!".

It looks like something you would find at an amusement park.

I remember reading that the building of the Disneyland in Europe was more costly than the one in the USA because they had to use real materials and kind-of-real construction processes, for customers are used to real historical stuff everywhere and would be shocked by bad quality replicas; whereas plastic and crude fake construction was okay for Americans, they would not bat an eyelid.

From the article: "The entire premise was to piggyback on Stripe and allow Stripe users to specifically create rules to prevent and reduce fraud and chargebacks."

That's usually a bad business concept, unless you have patent protection. If you get successful, the big guy takes your idea.

Have you seen Baremetrics (Subscription Analytics & Insights for Stripe, Braintree and Recurly). They started off only supporting Stripe for a long time. Their current MRR[1] is hovering around $59,000, so I'd say that works.

[1] https://demo.baremetrics.com/

Not really. If that were the case, using the API of a company to build a business on would always be a bad idea. If it's a good idea, and you can execute quickly (something big players generally struggle with, for reasons good and bad), getting traction with users is the key.

Not always a bad idea, but always a huge risk. You're farming out your core competency and are 100% subject to the whims of whomever controls that API.

I would think the idea is usually to get aquihired.

"Super 8 video recorder?"

The big plastic thing around the small lens to Make It Look Like A Camera is kind of silly.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact