fullstackchris

cmon guys it's mid may, it's peak grass pollen season (in the northern hemisphere)... that has nothing to do with vaccines. smh, anectdotal this, anectdotal that

Ah, there was some guy on a podcast, I think Sam Harris or Tim Ferriss, that was writing a book and / or publishing on exactly this type of research. They reviewed like 500 some startups and how they failed (or succeeded) it was one of the first scientific based studies like that... would love if someone browsing could comment the name if this rings a bell, I'd have to hunt it down...

Thanks for the kind words. Paypal - a good idea! I can probably add it, but I'll have to take a look. The whole subscription model is tied to Stripe currently, so it will take some refactoring.

Hi Hacker News!

As an options trader myself, I’ve recently become interested in using “the wheel” trading strategy, where you continually write options (starting with a put, typically) to earn premiums on companies you perhaps would like to own stock in anyway, even if the trade goes against you. (It’s worked well for me, though NONE of this post or ANYTHING on wheelscreener.com should be considered investment advice!)

My problem was that I was always stuck using complex or janky UIs to hunt down high credit vs. low collateral options (yes, even with you, Robinhood). I couldn’t find a tool where I could search and filter all options across the entire market.

So I built The Wheel Screener to analyze all the contracts out in the market, prioritizing those which have high premiums and are perhaps not perfectly priced by market makers. It's both mobile and desktop friendly, and should make finding interesting option contracts a breeze!

I would love to hear your comments and critiques, even the most critical! >:)

Also any weird behavior or bugs you find, of course.

What about the premium model and pricing? Would you personally pay $5 a month for the full dataset and the premium features? What features would you need to be willing to pay $5 a month? I’m excited to make many many more features for the premium members! (And maybe a few tidbits here and there for the free and public versions along the way as well :) )

Full tech stack for those interested: Gatsby / React / TypeScript frontend, .NET 5.0 with PostgreSQL backend, Netlify + Fauna DB for user management / auth / devops, Stripe for payments.

I'm around all day / night to answer any questions and comments!

Cheers!

-Chris

Shamelessy perused my most recent side project to see if I had any of this language on my pages. Luckily none such words were found!

All true, and going even further, the sentences following that also falsly assume that most people _want_ to read the highest quality sources. Wrong. To use the author's reference to Twitter as an example, a lot of people, even very intellectual ones, use Twitter as just a way to "let steam out" so to speak, and other users only engage with content that charges them emotionally. Now adays we have days of rage, reaching major media coverage, based on trivial crap like the title of the First Lady to-be, or hell, even the picture taken for a frickin Vogue cover.

Also as you said, the publishers and advertisers have a lot of the power, and they know exactly how to push the buttons of our human biases and clickbaity titles to get clicks, regardless of the quality of the actual things they are advertising.

EDIT: I commented too quickly. The author quickly indeed verifies that the opposite is happening :)

> Gresham’s Law, a finance concept which states that bad money drives out good money until only bad money is left. Gresham’s Law can explain why the median consumer reads low-quality information online

I disagree. I think it has way more to do with the fact that creating noise or uniformed posts, content, etc., even up to the point of sloppy journalism, is produced in such a higher quantity than good and information-rich sources just because it is easier to produce.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Or, in this case, ignorance / laziness as a substitute or part of that stupidity.

Quite a while ago, I thought up of what I though would be a simple system that has a net positive energy output (it already sounds ridiculous, I know, but I just can't see what concept I am missing) that follows this principle. I finally have a relevant article I can share it with here on Hacker News!

The gist of the system is as follows:

1. let a hanging weight freefall under gravity to spin a generator. (via a pulley connected to a chain drive or gears etc)

2. The power generated by the generator is stored in a battery

3. The weight is pulled up very slowly back to its drop position using a DC motor that uses power from the battery (the DC motor could be actually the generator itself but likely a specially tuned one for slow lifting will be better)

4. Repeat. The system lifting / reset process requires less energy than the energy produced by the drop, so there will slowly be a net buildup of charge in the battery.

Super simple numbers example:

PE of a 100kg mass falling 2m:

PE = (100kg)(9.8m/s2)(2m) = 1960 J

The mass falls at a near g acceleration - I know it won't be exactly g because of the moments of inertia of the generator and generating drive apparatus - but it would be quite close to g. At this acceleration the mass falls for ~0.63s, so the theoretical max power we can hope to extract using the generator is:

P = W / t = 1960 J / 0.63s = ~3000 W

Even if we consider a horrible electric generator with only 50% efficiency (just to be even more conservative and fair, and to capture any losses we've forgotten), we should hope we can get at least 1500 W from the drop.

The "trick" of mine is mentioned in that very slow "reset time" for the weight. That is, use a DC motor to pull the weight up, but give it a long time to do so. In this way, the power used to lift the weight back up to its dropping point is much less than what was produced by letting the weight fall and spin the generator.

Using the same numbers from the example above, if we let the lift time be, say 20 minutes (=1200s) and since we know the W of the lift is the same as the drop PE, then the power needed to lift the weight back to its original drop point is:

P = 1960 J / 1200s = 1.63 W

That means we produced about 1500 W (even with our crappy 50% efficiency generator), and only need ~2 W to reset the system. Assuming you put a nice battery between the generator and the dc motor - you get a net positive storage of energy over time.

Does anybody see any glaring issues with such a system and my analysis? I know when anything in physics appears to be a free lunch, something must be wrong. (Though if you consider these long 'cycle' times, it isn't really a free lunch)

Perhaps I don't understand exactly how DC motors / generators really draw or produce power in the real world - Physics 101 was a long time ago for me :)

The trick to my proposed system, which systems like those in that of the linked article don't do, is my slow reset time. Obviously not feasible for massive applications or load balancing, but a net power storer nonetheless.

Yeah looks great but a combined credit or debit card would be better.

There's an entire site dedicated to this:

http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/

oh wow, i didn't realize this. i had figured that these structures would be forbidden on an energy based standing. clearly not the case!

But isn't there a major flaw here? If you require all 3 components (proteins, RNA, and lipid bilayers) as what classifies "life", then what necessarily created _those_ components? Aren't only basic compounds and elements the only thing naturally occuring in the universe? So where did the amino acids and fats come from? It's back to the chicken or the egg problem.

Honest question here, is the mechanism in those mRNA treatments totally different? I can't imagine there is a 'spike protein' you can focus on with cancer - but perhaps I am totally wrong.

what are the chances this "shock" is peaceful? Anyone have ideas? Unfortunately, it may be not very high (though I am optimistically hoping we can figure something out!) A very cool atlantic article I read following a similar line of thought, highly recommended read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-his...

I'd say it's ultimately hard to argue if these more random constraints (compared to Conway's game of life) are more _helpful_ or _harmful_ towards the ability to produce life or life-like structures.

> Carbon taxes unquestionably fall hardest on the poor

what? how? if we're talking about the real poor, they typically don't even have a car, take public transportation, or even walk.

meanwhile the very wealthy have private jets or yachts and would be paying a significant carbon tax when using those. so I'm genuinely curious how you got to

> Everything from the products purchased by the poor to their modes of transport are more carbon-intensive than the rich.

Not fending for triplebyte at all here, but what do you all have in your Triplebyte account that isn't on the web somewhere already anyway?

I understand the anger by some users, but why punish those (like myself) who were quite interested in having a public Triplebyte profile?

I think they should go the middle road: make it opt-in. If you do nothing, nothing changes, but if you want a public profile, you can get one!

so what do we call undesirables like anonymous and so on?

> only hackers read source-code

maybe I'm behind the times, but is 'hacker' now colloquial to mean 'anyone who codes'? Plenty of normal software engineers / devs, who are by no means 'hackers' (myself included) read the source code.

That's what I'm saying. (Probably going to get downvoted to smithereens) but how can COVID-19 _which is of the same nature of thousands of other known corona viruses_ be so diabolically different than the ones we know about?

I'd bet all these worst-case symptoms are _also_ present in those hit badly by the flu or other corona viruses.

Indeed, after some googling, same is true for H1N1:

https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/nr/H1N1Patients

and the flu:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/984071

These type of articles posted by OP are mostly clickbait. While they ARE true, it's also true for all similar diseases.

hopping on the train here - does anyone know an editor that can do editing of postgres enums? (i know you can't 'edit' an enum in postgres, but i would love a GUI that would 'allow' this. (i.e. in the background DROP CASCADE the enum, create a new one with the same name and new value, as well as restoring to previous dependencies that the old enum had)

A bit late to the party but I'm going to suggest something entirely different.

At my shop we often use a setup comprising simply of a develop branch, a staging (test) branch, and of course master (as the live productive branch), and we have build processes for both staging and master, which may differ slightly based on the test vs. live environment.

We only use separate branches for possible new breaking features that could cause hold ups in this chain. Otherwise, the work flow is develop on develop (obviously :) ), test on staging, and merge to master once all tests pass.

Indeed, we're a small shop, but I can't help but recommend having these three key branches. Even at a larger organization I could see this working, only maybe having more separate feature branches as branched off from the develop branch.

I think about this stuff from time to time... If we think out into the future (50-100 years?)... will there eventually be such a huge footprint for frameworks / packages that there is nobody who remembers how some of the old dependencies were written? Interesting to think of a future bug where nobody would know the solution because it lies so deep in a dependency somewhere :)

This is huge, and what plagues a lot of software engineers / product developers to this day. You may find a super cheap software company somewhere out in the world - but if the project is anything more than something like a webpage with jquery (as most modern projects involving software are) you end up spending more on fixing, re-fixing, and billing than you would have if you had just paid one time for the more expensive company / service / consultant that is well vouched for or acreddited

a few from product hunt product i occasionally look at that are fun:

http://problemoftheday.co/

https://ideasareworthless.io/

I know this is like a hindsight 20/20 thing, but it would seem to me the only 'problems' left to solve are just the really hard ones (even on the scale of a decade): fusion, unified field theory, intelligent / extraterrestrial life, becoming multi-planetary species, etc.

My feeling is that biotech or nanotech have the most room for something revolutionary or unforseen to be produced

Funny thing is this will be the only correct prediction in the thread come 2030

Its taken 10 years (and counting) just to get drivers to be replaced by AI - I would guess it will take at least twice as long for things like judges to be replaced by AI

(serious) I don't get the reference, do you mean a stall in AI progress or a brief overall industry-wide disinterest in it?