Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ferno's commentslogin

We don't have any advertisers using our custom tech currently, so sadly no real screenshots ;( We're backfilling fullscreen images to get started, and optionally overlaying text in seperate layers with a parallax effect, along with our loadscreen elements.

The ads are coded in JS, and take advantage of JS middleware we've created which interacts with the native engine. Currently we support only 2D, but you can essentially make and animate anything you want. Physics can be enabled/disabled at specific times, etc.

It looks very, very cool when fully taken advantage of. If anyone is interested in designing a real-looking ad (not just a tech demo), feel free to contact us :D


I started working on something similar to this, and left it as another object to gather dust on my SSD after it proved like a very inelegant way of making web apps/sites. Dunno, might have just been doing it wrong, but OJ seems very similar. Blog post on it here: http://www.spectrumcoding.com/projects/xalt/2013/06/27/xalt.... and repo here: https://github.com/Mirceam94/xalt


Well, sounds like too much too soon. You'll most likely fail new-year-resolution style. Don't try forming so many habits at once; I once tried this, and it is not the best approach. 'Just do it'. Don't write about it, don't make lists of changes every day, just do it. There is no such thing as burnout if you have a goal and 'just so it'.


Although they both improve your aerobic fitness, running does so to a much greater extent than cycling. I cycle a fair amount, and no matter how much I push in terms of speed, cycling doesn't really get me panting.

On the other hand, running for 40 seconds gets me huffing and puffing like a 70yr old 2-pack/day smoker. Is it just me, or is running much more aerobically intense than cycling? Yes, the post states you burn more calories running, but it appears it also has a dramatically larger aerobic benefit. Or so my experience tells me.


What about waiting for something drastically bad to happen? That'll wake people up, won't it? I think the issue here is that the US populace on average is much too complacent. People don't "care", they don't see how it affects them, etc.


There's a great podcast called Hardcore History[2] which has some significance here. There's a podcast titled something similar to "Justifiable Insanity" that talks about the end of WW2. People got into the mental trap of "Well, if we do something particularly heinous, they'll HAVE to surrender!". This lead to things like firestorms of Dresden and Hamburg, which had immense (esp. for the time period) death tolls.[0][1] So, be careful with the tactic of "Well, if something REALLY bad happens.."

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_War... [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War... [2]: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive


Mother of god.


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

Search: