8 ms·

I remember very clearly when something or other about this company got posted here awhile ago and almost immediately thereafter someone submitted a blog post ex

I remember very clearly when something or other about this company got posted here awhile ago and almost immediately thereafter someone submitted a blog post explaining in basic physics terminology that the company's premise was in no uncertain terms total bullshit, and reamed the entire startup community for heaping attention and praise on them without thinking through what (to the author) were obvious faults in their plan. I enjoyed that piece. I like it when the discussion reverts to basic math and physics to resolve points of contention. At any rate, it continues to amuse/distress me in the time since then that the company is still around and still has investors, etc. Do people still not get it? It won't work. On some level, moreover, it disturbs me that people are actively pursuing a technology that would effectively be torture to household pets. Does that mean nothing to anyone? Do they get that dogs and cats would be able to hear this as a siren in their skull?

minimaxir 10y ago
Link to HN discussion of referenced blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091
- codezero 10y ago
  I'd love to know the name of the company they're referencing is.
  - alanh 10y ago
    Ubeam, of course. I guess you are referring to the top comment by cperciva, about the company that banked on communications speeds surpassing the speed of light? I’m curious, too.
    - codezero 10y ago
      Yep, specifically the company cperciva referred to in his comment.
      - cperciva 10y ago
        I'd tell you if I could remember. But this was 15 years ago and there were a lot of very similar-sounding companies with very similar ideas so doubt I could even pick it out of a list of names, never mind remembering it unprompted.
        codezero 10y ago
        Fair enough :)
Gratsby 10y ago
At some point every piece of technology that we use was impossible. It's very easy to sit on the hilltop and say "it's not possible". What's not easy is climbing the hill anyways and figuring out a way to make the impossible happen. I'm not here to defend this company. I don't know a thing about them or their technology. I'm just saying... "what kind of world would we live in if we never looked past what we thought was possible?" EDIT: I think that a few of you have missed an important piece of this post, so once again... I'm not here to defend this company. I don't know a thing about them or their technology.
- kiba 10y ago
  It's physically impossible, different from extraordinary difficult.
  - Florin_Andrei 10y ago
    Yup. Some things (not all) are impossible in a literal sense. Want to extract 2 kW / m^2 from solar radiation somewhere near the Earth? Won't work, the Sun doesn't pump out that kind of power density (the max is 1.whatever kW). Literally impossible.
    - thrownaway2424 10y ago
      Can't I just put a lens above the surface to concentrate it? I think you picked a poor example.
      - gvb 10y ago
        No. Your lens is the collection surface area. Trivia: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Solar_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Solar_constant The sun puts out approximately 1.361 kW/m²
      - theresistor 10y ago
        The lens wouldn't be "somewhere near the earth".

minimaxir 10y ago

Link to HN discussion of referenced blog post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091

codezero 10y ago
I'd love to know the name of the company they're referencing is.
- alanh 10y ago
  Ubeam, of course. I guess you are referring to the top comment by cperciva, about the company that banked on communications speeds surpassing the speed of light? I’m curious, too.
  - codezero 10y ago
    Yep, specifically the company cperciva referred to in his comment.
    - cperciva 10y ago
      I'd tell you if I could remember. But this was 15 years ago and there were a lot of very similar-sounding companies with very similar ideas so doubt I could even pick it out of a list of names, never mind remembering it unprompted.
      - codezero 10y ago
        Fair enough :)

Gratsby 10y ago

At some point every piece of technology that we use was impossible. It's very easy to sit on the hilltop and say "it's not possible". What's not easy is climbing the hill anyways and figuring out a way to make the impossible happen. I'm not here to defend this company. I don't know a thing about them or their technology. I'm just saying... "what kind of world would we live in if we never looked past what we thought was possible?" EDIT: I think that a few of you have missed an important piece of this post, so once again... I'm not here to defend this company. I don't know a thing about them or their technology.

kiba 10y ago
It's physically impossible, different from extraordinary difficult.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  Yup. Some things (not all) are impossible in a literal sense. Want to extract 2 kW / m^2 from solar radiation somewhere near the Earth? Won't work, the Sun doesn't pump out that kind of power density (the max is 1.whatever kW). Literally impossible.
  - thrownaway2424 10y ago
    Can't I just put a lens above the surface to concentrate it? I think you picked a poor example.
    - gvb 10y ago
      No. Your lens is the collection surface area. Trivia: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Solar_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Solar_constant The sun puts out approximately 1.361 kW/m²
    - theresistor 10y ago
      The lens wouldn't be "somewhere near the earth".