Explaining Windows 8 PC Sales Over the Holidays - <AUTHOR> http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/explaining-windows-8-pc-sales-over-holidays <comment><USER2> So unit sales are down and margin is down and Windows' perceived value is down and the new touch paradigm isn't adding perceived value and the app store revenues are barely calculable but we shouldn't call Windows a flop because it might go back to the way it was when it was being firesaled on garbage low-end netbooks that further degraded the mainstream PC experience if the industry would just cut those fat cat 4% margins further. K.

<comment><USER3> This is typical of winsupersite.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't buy the notion that people willingly pay 700 € for an ipad (plenty of people going for a higher model), but would reject a 700 € price tag for a touch-enabled laptop.

The basic problem in my opinion is that if you spend 400 € you're ok with plasticky rubbish, but if you spend 700 € you want to have a quality product. The 700 € laptops feel just as bulky and plasticky as the 400 € laptops, so nobody buys them, especially since most of them don't even have touchscreens. The solution is not for prices to go down, it's for build quality in the sub-1000 segment to go up.

If a 499€ retina ipad can feel great in your hands, then there is no excuse for the fact that the cheapest windows 8 touch laptops that feel nice in your hands have 4 digit price tags.

<comment><USER5> Actually, there is.

They have larger solid state drives (or, ugh, hard disks). They have far more memory. They have fans. They have FAR more expensive CPUs and chipsets. They have ports and other connectors. They are physically larger, so something like machining a chassis out of aluminum is more expensive because the size of those billets is much larger. You need a physically larger display. You need more backlights. You need a bigger battery. You need a keyboard and pointing device if it's not only reliant on touch. You may even need an optical drive.

The component costs are much higher. You could only sell at 700 if you wanted a nonexistent margin.

<comment><USER4> Hard disks don't increase the price tag over 16 gb ssd, memory is cheap. The fans, ports and connectors are all in the 400 € machines, so they obviously don't add much to the price tag. Larger display, ok, but how much more could a 13" standard-res touchscreen cost when retina ipads have 10" touchscreens? The case doesn't have to be aluminum to feel nice, there are plenty of plastic phones and tablets that feel nice that prove this for me. You don't need an optical drive. The only price drivers i see are the battery and the chipset, and possibly an ssd instead of a hard disk. I don't buy the story that you can't build nice laptops for 700€ when the BOM cost of the retina ipad is less than 300€.

Anyway, there are sub-1000 touchscreen machines that are nice, like the dell xps 12, but its obvious the vendors consider touchscreens a premium feature. They're wrong. Laptops no longer have the luxury of not shipping with touchscreens, at any price point. Even apple gets this wrong, something which amazes me. Imagine someone trying to sell a tablet with a trackpad instead of a touchscreen. The very idea is ridiculous. Every reason you want touch on your tablet also applies to your laptop.

<comment><USER6> Why the fuck do I want to touch my laptop (or phone or whatever to be honest).

It gets dirty and stops working, you end up with curled up hands, even the best ones wobble like an old person when you push on them, you can't type on the things as they are completely non tactile, the touch resolution is so bad that all you can do is finger paint badly, doesn't work with gloves on, and everything is not designed forbthe touch screen apart from metro which is just fucking horrible and the list goes on.

Its like fixing a watch with jacket potatoes on your hands.

I've tried every touch device out there and they are abhorrent productivity saps.

I want a laptop with a normal screen.

I am actually the majority non-consumer of media opinion - you know the people who use the machine to do work.

The only reason we have touch screens is hype

<comment><USER7> An anecdote: I've been using my iPad everyday since I bought it. Laptops and desktops much less so (though mainly because I don't have a good work set-up atm.) Recently I was on my Macbook and someone called me on Skype. Incredibly, it took me around four seconds of prodding the "answer call" button on screen with my finger before it struck me that I wasn't working with a touchscreen!

Anyway, I'm sure that won't answer all of your objections, and while I agree with you in principle - about screens wobbling for instance - I have to reject your claim that a touchscreen laptop is totally useless. At the very least, with a well-thought out new interface paradigm, you gain small-to-medium boosts in everyday productivity while losing nothing in base functionality. You only add a new interaction option while taking away none of the previous mouse-and-keyboard functionality. That's why nobody is proposing taking away keyboards from touchscreen laptops - because clearly physical keyboards are better than touchscreen keyboards. So your argument about touchscreens being bad for typing are moot, because everybody is going to just use the keyboard in that instance.

I do see a lot of use for touchscreens on laptops in the sort of situation I described earlier - pushing large, clear buttons on screen. This is actually a case where current laptops are miserably unfunctional. Even on a plush, responsive trackpad such as a Macbook's, remotely manipulating a small cursor from one arbitrary spot onscreen to another arbitrary spot and clicking is very inefficient. Being able to simply reach out and tap the screen on the exact spot is much better. This use-case for touchscreen laptops could become even more widespread if popular software begins to follow Microsoft's design cues with large, clear buttons.

<comment><USER6> The problem is that all user interface paradigms that work with touch are fundamentally incompatible with a keyboard and vice versa.

Can you operate IOS from a keyboard entirely? No.

Can you operate windows from a keyboard entirely? Yes.

Can you operate windows 8 from a keyboard entirely? No.

The paradigms are so disparate it's unreal and they will never work together without massive compromise.

The MacBook touchpad is only so large because its impossible to use the keyboard to drive OSX. Its a crutch. However it easier to position with a pointing device than a finger on its own as you can scale movements.

Metro is shit - in typing this on a lumia. Its horrible but my other half is on Facebook on my Lenovo t61 (she uses only the keyboard and clitmouse which is incredibly accurate with some practice). Nokia 6303 is in the post.

<comment><USER7> Hmm.

1) I'm not sure that I agree with you that touch and keyboard/mouse don't mix. Perhaps nobody's come up with a good mix yet. At the very least, what is to stop us from writing software that recognises when input modes change and shifts to suit the new mode? We can write responsive websites that shift to fit different screen sizes.

2) Maybe you can't operate W8 from a keyboard, but you can operate it a hell of a lot better than iOS. At least Microsoft tried to make something that works with both. In Metro you can select tiles with the keyboard arrow keys, search with the Windows key, go to desktop, switch apps, all with keyboard shortcuts.

3) Perhaps the paradigms seem unreal and disparate at the moment, but is that any reason to give up on a future where interfaces are fluid, responsive and seamless across multiple devices and input modes?

4) I agree with you that it is easier to position a pointing device with a trackpad. But that's the whole point of a touchscreen - you don't need to position a pointing device. Rewrite the apps to make them larger and finger- friendly, and forget pointing devices. If you want total accuracy just plug in a mouse. You can do it with the Surface, so what's the problem?

5) I have a Lumia 800 too, and I quite like it. I don't think it's good enough for Microsoft to become a real competitor to Android and iPhone, but I definitely don't think it's crap. Anyway, it doesn't mix interfaces at all - Metro on Windows Phone is touch only. So, why don't you like it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Let me explain it in one paragraph:

The sales weren't there because people didn't buy the product. The era when anything that MS put out was an instant success is over. Now someone needs to go tell Ballmer that the bar has been raised. Beware of flying chairs.

<comment><USER9> _The era when anything that MS put out was an instant success is over._

When was that era? The same year MS shipped Win95 they also shipped BOB.

XP and Vista both started slowly and of course ME never sold well.

The difference now isn't that Win8 isn't an instant success, but rather there are other products that are.

The underlying difference is that Win8s competition are actual competitors rather than simply the previous version of Windows.

<comment><USER10> Windows 7's success throws people off. I would guess that XP's age (and Vista's perceived flaws) lead to an unusually large number of tech-savvy people quickly upgrading to 7. The same people would encourage others to upgrade as well, if only for the security benefits. Windows 8 does not give the technically inclined as much reason to upgrade. And as you say, Windows 8 has actual competition, among them the much simpler to use iPad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Some interesting points made in the article, most prominently the argument that the low price point of Win7 netbooks changing consumer expectations of how much a PC should be and what the quality is.

However, I don't agree that PC prices have to come down to make Windows 8 a success. I believe the main reason why Win8 PC sales are low is because we haven't seen very many touch based laptops at all. Take a look for yourself and see if you can find one you'd buy ignoring whether you like win8 or not.

There are only 3 currently available touch laptops a sane person would consider:

\- Lenovo Yoga \- Acer S7 \- Lenovo X1 carbon touch \- Asus UX31a Touch

So despite the typical advantage Windows has had in the past with a Tom of breadth in make and models, its just not the case at this point with Win8 touch laptops.

If OEMs pump out more high quality touch laptops, we will see sales spike. Prices don't even have to come down.

<comment><USER12> All of those machines are over $1,000. Looking at the history of Windows PC's vs Macs, Apple has always dominated that $1,000+ market. Microsoft has no chance with devices at over $1,000, and they have increasingly smaller chance at the $500-$999 market, too, because of the iPad and also Android devices. This is not just a theory. It's happening right now, and these holiday sales show it, too.

I think Microsoft only has a short window of opportunity in the sub $500 market, but that one is rapidly being eaten by Android, and the fact that (regular) Windows licenses cost $100-$200, and that Windows machines need expensive Intel chips to run properly (especially for the more "bloated" x86 programs), their future isn't looking too good there either.

PC sales "growth" is not going to come back, and so far Windows hasn't made a big impact in the touchscreen market (or so called "post-PC" market) yet, so I expect Microsoft's Windows business to be on a decline from now on, and the decline might happen faster than anyone is expecting. The same goes for Intel (Otellini was smart to get out now).

EDIT: @kenjackson - I can't reply to you it seems, but Apple owning the over $1,000 market is not that new. This is from 2009:

[http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market- for-1-...](http://betanews.com/2009/07/22/apple-has-91-of-market- for-1-000-pcs-says-npd/)

It also seems the average price of Windows notebooks used to be $700 back then. Now it's under $500. I don't think the average price for Windows notebooks is going to go back up again.

<comment><USER9> Apple dominating the $1000+ market is a relatively new phenomenon. EDIT: By relatively new I meant the past decade. All my laptops in the through about 2002 were $1200 Windows laptops. I suspect the crossover happened probably around 2005.

This article explains the Surface pricing. MS wants the ASP that Apple gets. Unfortunately there's no way to get ppl to walk into a best buy and spend $1300 on a Lenovo Carbon, when there is a $400 ASUS right next to it (but isn't touch screen).

The genius of the Apple Store (and the Apple model in general) is that there is no low end laptop to compete against their line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Removing the Apple-centric cruft, the article is right about price perspective for win8 consumer laptops.

For orporate/enterprise use, the story is albeit different, Win8 is too novel for the ITs to start migrating when everybody already -unwillingly- upgraded to win7 from winxp. In 2 years, Windows 9, will have a better corporate chance. The underdogs such as business tablets, ChromeOS and Linux based PCs have a small chance in corporate area too.

<comment><USER14> It's not "too novel," it's too radically different and tailored/designed for purposes perpendicular rather than parallel to the needs and interests of their core userbase. What does Windows 8's new UI offer the millions of workstations Microsoft wishes it to be deployed to that isn't a setback/obstacle to productivity? Employees don't need that change, and the IT managers most definitely won't be quick to recommend a radically-overhauled OS they are not intimately familiar with.

<comment><USER13> yes, your analysis makes more sense than mine. tough years ahead for microsoft, as everyone smells already.

<comment><USER15> In the consumer space yes, its going to get ugly for MS very quickly.

In the enterprise space not so much, at least not for a few years. Most companies just finished their migration from Windows XP to Windows 7 so were expecting to sit out upgrading to Windows 8. So plenty of time for Microsoft to right the enterprise side of things.

That said if they don't have a compelling solution for the enterprise when the time for upgrades does come then its probably game over for them. The smart move would be for them to separate the consumer and enterprise lines so that the rot in one doesn't take the other down. Sadly I think Balmer's hubris is going to prevent that from happening so I can't see a way out of the inevitable downward spiral unless he gets shown the door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There was hardly anything on sale with Win 8 during the holidays. I think it's too soon to assign any reason until "everything" is out there and then sales are measured. Despite Asus unveiling a bunch of stuff back in late October -- like the dual-screened Taichi -- just about none of it got into stores in time for the holidays (their RT tablet did, but I doubt anyone who wants Windows will settle for RT).

</comment><comment><USER17> If people are still using Windows XP there's no surprise in the slow sales of Windows 8 because Windows 7 rules the PC and now the new changes are supposed to be in the tablet form factor though there are enormous improvements in the core operating system but people hardly care about it.

It's too early to say but I believe, at least the first version of Surface is a failure.

</comment><comment><USER18> I am a little puzzled because the two Best Buy stores close to my house were seemingly sold out of almost every Win8 laptop after Christmas. Though I suppose this could be explained as Best Buy reading the tea leaves well and intentionally understocking.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think Thurott is asking the wrong questions here. He says that Windows machines are too expensive - that Microsoft needs to retreat from its tactic of seeking a higher ASP. But the elephant is the room is clear - Apple manages to sell truckloads of laptops with a far higher ASP - and with no touchscreens to boot. Why are people willing to splash out for an Apple machine, but not for Windows? I think the answer is clearly prestige. For people like us, when we choose a new computer, we tend to buy sausage over sizzle (which is not to say that the allure of sizzle isn't lost on us.) So we're willing to spend fairly large sums of money on either Apple or Windows machines, whichever lets us do what we want to do best. We're educated, we're willing to research and understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of different OSes, different laptops, custom-built desktops, different components, etc.

Naturally the vast majority of consumers are nothing like us. They know little to nothing about computers, and because there are so many options out there in computers, they feel extremely anxious because they have no idea how to choose one. As a result, they buy sizzle, because sizzle makes them feel less anxious about buying something. Who has the best sizzle? Apple. Are Apple products really the best? Doesn't matter - Apple makes their customers feel safe spending money. If you hear non-tech literate people talking about computers, who are they talking about nine times out of ten? Apple. Or maybe Android. Windows? No. Touchscreen laptops? No. Not even the best new W8 models - eg. the Yoga. They're there in the shops, the ads are on tv, but no normal people are talking about them. They're all busy talking about the iPhone 5, or the iPad.

Microsoft's selling strategy - a rough-around-the-edges OS sold on hundreds of different OEM machines, 95% of which are pretty crappy for all sorts of different reasons - bad build quality, shitty trackpads, rubbish battery life, bloatware, poor customer support - has ruined their reputation among consumers. The stain of generic, confusing, quality-agnostic OEMs has polluted their brand. All the time Microsoft was busy selling whatever crap people would buy, Apple was selling only a handful of carefully-chosen products. Apple sold less in the short term, but their restraint is paying off massively now, because they never polluted their brand. They still have a brand they can sell. Microsoft doesn't, except for Office maybe.

The neat thing about how Apple's strategy works is that their lower-priced products don't compete with the rest of their range. Consumers don't buy iPod Touches instead of iPads, or iPads instead of Macbooks. Kids buy iPod Touches, which is as much as they can afford, and then their iPod Touch makes them aspire to buy an iPad. Then they buy an iPad when they can afford it, and again they aspire to a Macbook. Apple protects its high-end products well. Importantly, at every stage, at every income point, consumers are willing to prioritise buying an Apple product. Even iTunes and the App Store help Apple skim the cream off consumer's disposable income. It's a great system, with desirable, non-competitive products at every price point.

All the while computer stores are filled with masses of generic Windows boxes, competing against and drowning out some of the better, less-generic models - and nobody really cares. Microsoft has rushed right into its next-generation OS, launching it on as many different PC models as possible, trying to accelerate its app ecosystem to life as quickly as possible. I personally think Microsoft should have taken it slower, though maybe things will improve over time - Microsoft has a knack for persistence. I can however see Microsoft trying to do too much too soon, missing the opportunity for a real refresh, perpetuating the same problem of appearing try-hard and incoherent to consumers, tainting it app store with prolonged early irrelevance, failing to create a splash which a next-gen OS could have made, and giving Apple plenty of opportunity to watch and learn.

Thurott's advice is to drive for even-lower prices - polluting an already tainted brand even further. I would argue the opposite is necessary. Microsoft needs to cut the cruft, somehow, take its time, dial back its strident "look how great we are!" marketing, and develop some real, quiet, unforced confidence. If you're quiet and confident, and its clear you respect yourself, you don't need to run around trying to get people's attention. People will pay attention to you, given time. Patience pays off. That's the lesson of Apple I think.

That's why I think Ballmer is not a great CEO. He never quits yelling about how great Windows is, how everything is fine in Microsoft land. There's no humility.

<comment><USER19> Microsoft needs to do its own hardware, and it needs to copy Apple's focus on the fundamentals as much as possible. I think Surface RT really gives you a glimmer of what's possible, but they made some mistakes with it. On one hand, the industrial design is there. It's a beautiful product, light, thin, and doesn't look like a rip-off of an Apple product. The guts have some key design mistakes (Tegra 3 just isn't up to the task, a $500 tablet with a Retina screen is inexcusable), but that's something they can fix in the next revision. On the other hand, they're not copying Apple enough. Surface RT has a great pitch: it'll run Office. That's it's fundamental feature. Given that, it should have been perfectly executed. Instead, it shipped as a desktop-mode app with some touch facilities grafted on, and it shipped with performance problems that all the reviewers noted (even if it was somewhat alleviated with a later patch). Apple never would have shipped a product where the #1 feature of the device was so unpolished. Shipping late would've been far preferable to shipping "on time" with a product that further damaged the brand.

<comment><USER7> I think the problem at this point is that Microsoft seems to be interested in only one thing: winning. People don't care for companies that no longer care about making great products, and just care about beating the people threatening their turf by making great products themselves...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Plenty of people are buying Chromebooks and Nexus devices. In fact both Samsung and Acer Chromebooks are out of stock and Nexus devices are obviously out of stock. And of course, Apple owns the $1000 and above market. So obviously fewer people are willing to pay Microsoft premium for the dubious upgrade to Startrek interface.

</comment><comment><USER21> Netbooks were originally intended to ship with Linux pre-installed, but to microsoft that meant letting consumers have an actual, real choice, and ballmer wouldn't have any of it (am I the only one who remembers a ms-asus join-venture site about netbooks called itsbetterwithwindows.com?) Anyway, netbooks stopped shipping with Linux preinstalled, which caused them to quickly nosedive into irrelevance.

TL;DR microsoft should have left the netbook market alone. They didn't. Fast- forward a few years, and it's biting them in the ass.

Justice exists.

<comment><USER22> I get the poetic justice part, but explain how netbooks shipping with Linux would have kept them relevant?

<comment><USER21> Linux would have kept netbooks relevant by keeping them usable. It turned out netbooks are powerful enough to run a browser, an IM app and a few widgets, but as soon as you throw AV software on top of that, they screech to a halt.

<comment><USER23> Yes, but

Shipped versions of Linux were simply AWFUL

Even Ubuntu "netbook edition" was terrible! It needed a good video card to run (and compatible drivers, etc) meaning it was a crapshoot.

What MS could have done is kept licensing Windows XP for them, which was good instead of "Vista" and then 7

So yes, if I get a netbook I'm customizing my linux installation, because default ones are bad.

<comment><USER24> Ubuntu netbook was pretty decent compared to the shit that came with them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The manned elevators of NYC (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/nyregion/manual-elevators-operators.html <comment><USER2> Cool article. Ive done alot of specialty flooring jobs in the city and have been in some amazing buildings. They forgot to mention the amount of service elevators that are required to have a operator. My favorite was 20 broadway, rockafella standard oil building. There service elevator was 100+ years old, you could maybe fit 4 people in it. You have to take 1 elevator down then walk accross a super creepy basement with random staircases that lead to arch doorways of brick, broken concrete.Really cool stuff. The operator was a real bundle of joy too. If you juiced him, he would get you and your tools up before anybody else, ive seen this quite a few times. The floor i was working on too was intresting, it was a old lawyers office, there was an illumaniti triangle designed in the orginal concrete from 1928, and they made a big deal about not touching it the entire project (it was cracked, had holes) I ended up repairing it on one of the last days.

<comment><USER3> [http://deadword.com/site1/pay/work/stories/004/index.htm](http://deadword.com/site1/pay/work/stories/004/index.htm)

<comment><USER4> No pictures and only tangentially related but interesting anyway.

<comment><USER3> I intended to quote this passage, but had phone problems:

"And then, after the service entrances, you have to ride in the service elevators. These are some of the scariest places in the world, if you ask me. New York is full of old ones that are operated by cables. And the high rise types are like being inside wind tunnels--try riding in one with too much weight. We had to lift this 1000 pound marble slab into the elevator of the UN apartment building because it was too long to go straight in. It took about six of us to lift it. Then, while it was leaning against the elevator wall and we were underneath it, the car started to drop erratically because of the weight. We got stuck in there for almost an hour; the whole time was spent thinking we were going to die, telling stupid jokes about disaster movies and trying not to shit in our pants. This was done for this bachelor type who had nothing but Hawaiian shirts in his closet. Family money from aluminum, I think.

The service entrances and elevators make you realize that you are part of the lower class and I guess, in that, the architects have succeeded in some perverse way. I mean, you feel like a service person when you are in them--you know where you are and why you're there. It's very humiliating--as is being treated like shit by the owners and the doormen and everyone else--but it makes a certain amount of sense, architecturally. I just wish I could make every architect who designed a small elevator or a dangerous service entrance come on the truck with us for one day, so I could show them what idiots they are. I have a real distaste for architects now. Look at all the ugly buildings in New York City and remember: they are worse on the inside."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently learned something interesting. How many elevators do you think the Empire State Building has? Take a guess. I won't give away the answer here. It surprised me too.

Interestingly, One World Trade Center has the same number. I thought maybe it was a thing to have that many elevators in a sky scaper, but the Sears Tower (alright, Willis Tower... still can't get used to that) has about 40% more!

<comment><USER6> After spending much of my childhood playing SimTower (aka Elevator Sim 1994), I'm not too surprised by the number!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _He fetched a stovetop espresso maker known as a moka pot. "This thing," he said, "makes a better cup of coffee than that one," and he pointed to the Keurig on the counter._

Seriously, a true hallmark of quality. I'm not surprised.

<comment><USER5> My wife makes her coffee in a moka pot. I still prefer an aeropress for mine. But she's making cafe con leche and I drink mine black.

You can make good cafe cubano using a moka pot too, but it's not really a proper substitute for an espresso machine.

Just about anything but maybe a percolator makes better coffee than a Keurig.

<comment><USER8> Nah, percolators make better coffee too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Grew up in one of these. It was hell to keep the damn thing running, half the time it was out of service and we used a similar service elevator.

The elevator men would sometimes let kids run the thing, a bit scary but a ton of fun. There's no automation, you had to eyeball the stopping point. If you went too far, it hit some sort of emergency brake.

Good times.

</comment><comment><USER10> My cousin used to live in a place on the upper east side that had a manned elevator. It was the first time I've ever been in one, and initially it felt a bit awkward but a ride or two later I was got used to it and then wondered why not all elevators are manned. So nice to have a brief conversation with someone about nothing at all. I also got to experience the operator calling out to folks waiting on another floor. Such a cool experience.

<comment><USER11> > _So nice to have a brief conversation with someone about nothing at all._

On the other hand, I as an introvert, treasure those moments where nobody is around me at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you're in Toronto, the Fifth grill has one too. It is such a long ride for such a short distance but pretty cool. The elevator is about a hundred years old

</comment><comment><USER13> I found it quaint that NYC buildings skip the 13th floor.</comment>


Hackers Stalked Bangladeshi Bank for Two Weeks Before Heist - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-18/hackers-stalked-bangladesh-bank-for-two-weeks-before-big-heist <comment><USER2> > These threat actors appear to be financially motivated,

Duh.

<comment><USER3> Not always as clearcut as you may expect.</comment></comment>


Vaping 'can damage vital immune system cells' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45170756 <comment><USER3> Key point from the article:

"Any smoker considering e-cigarettes should switch completely without delay."

<comment><USER4> Or:

You could just survive 24 hours without smoking, after which physical challenge is over. From there on it is just a fight against your brain, and also being aware of the root issue that made you pickup smoking.

\- ex-smoker

<comment><USER4> Why the downvotes? I was a smoker for twenty years, this is exactly how I quit smoking.

<comment><USER5> If you have not spoken about this with other people who have quit/are quitting, you should.

If you _have_ spoken about quitting with other people who have quit or are still quitting, you would have found out that it is much harder for them than what you are proposing. That, or some vanishingly small chance was hit and you have only people around you who found quitting easy but somehow still smoked a lot before doing so.

<comment><USER4> I never claimed it was easy. I clearly stated you have to be aware of the root issue that caused picking up smoking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In this experiment, vapor "caused inflammation" and "impaired the activity of alveolar macrophages, cells that remove potentially damaging dust particles, bacteria and allergens."

So it's not great for lung function, but sounds orders of magnitude less bad for you than smoking cigarettes.

Anecdotally, I quit vaping recently, as I'd grown frustrated with the 'chasing the dragon' aspect (I was using its stimulant properties to help manage my ADHD). I now find I get winded much less easily and generally have a little more energy, which I've attributed to slightly improved lung function.

<comment><USER7> Off-topic: What did you end up replacing vaping for to help manage your ADHD? Or have you not found/(considered looking for) a replacement?

<comment><USER6> Firstly, I'm prescribed Vyvanse, which I find helps a _lot_ — it's certainly my primary treatment method. I viewed the nicotine as a smaller, as-needed aid in persevering through long projects.

When I stopped (because I had my wisdom teeth extracted), I used a nicotine patch for a few weeks; however, I eventually found that simply being a little more physically active helped enough that I no longer feel the need for that extra cognitive "push".

<comment><USER8> Your story sounds much like mine - I took up vaping when I didn't have access to Vyvanse (between jobs). It helps, but I found I liked it enough to continue.

These days I use 6mg/ml juice, and use ~5ml per day on average. I've not found any real negative effects after about a year. I go increase and decrease my intake periodically, and the worst effect I've had is a "stuffy" feeling in the morning when I hadn't vaped anything the evening before. Even that doesn't seem to happen when I'm in a period of decreased usage; I've stopped for a day or two before and didn't really notice.

FWIW, nicotine _does_ work as a cognitive stimulant, at least for me. It's nowhere near as powerful as Vyvanse, but it's effective enough that it helps me "get back in the flow" when I'm not interested in something but need to get it done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think it could be safely assumed that vaporizing nicotine and propylene glycol would lead to some negative health implications. Still, great job by the researchers in building precident.

That being said, I'm personally curious above the health implications of dry herb being vaporized at a controlled temperature, that prevents any combustion, and controls the release of carcinogenic materials like Benzene/ammonia.(produced at around 400 degrees by marijuana vaporization)

Think of a scenario like this: what if one uses a Volcano Vaporizer with dry herb (marijuana). What are the negative health implications there at certain, controlled temperatures? What about the beneficial implications? Do they cancel out?

Or are the negative health implications on par with the sensationalized articles about eating cured meat giving you a whopping 2% overall increased risk of cancer? Basically, I'm very curious if there is a way to drastically reduce the risk of vaporizing with the controlled vaping of dry herbs vs. these e-liquids containing nicotine/other nasty things.

<comment><USER10> With marijuana cartridges, I have been wondering what kind of temperature something like a 1100mAh c-cell battery maxes out at; because they can get _hot_.

I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.

<comment><USER11> > I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read > vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.

Pure MMJ extracts are a different beast. This is almost definitely related to PG/VG base used in electronic cigarettes. PG is used to kill airborne bacteria in hospitals for instance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I applaud that they state it's still safer than regular cigarettes. I gifted a friend who is a smoker with an e-cig package. A couple of months later he is still smoking cigarettes as he thinks these may be more dangerous..

<comment><USER13> What does he base that conclusion on?

<comment><USER12> Silly headlines like e-cigarettes not as harmless as thought, etc..

<comment><USER14> Even this expert phrases it in a way that gives an impression that is completely contrary to reality:

> "I don't believe e-cigarettes are more harmful than ordinary cigarettes - > but we should have a cautious scepticism that they are as safe as we are > being led to believe."

I don't believe that crossing the street is more dangerous than cliff-diving, but we should be cautiously skeptical that it's safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "They caution the results are only in laboratory conditions and advise further research is needed to better understand the long-term health impact - <USER2> changes recorded took place only over 48 hours."

<comment><USER16> Are we supposed to look negatively upon this study because they say "more research is needed"? Sounds like good science to me.

<comment><USER17> In the right context, it's good science. The issue with this, and most science reporting, is that the context is missing or otherwise difficult to understand.

This is quite preliminary work, using cell cultures instead of actual organisms. It's quite common for effects seen in cell cultures to be very different from what is observed in whole, living tissue. But it can still be very useful for research: it can identify key diagnostic metrics, suggest mechanisms, and otherwise guide future research.

One issue here is that we already look at general lung function quite well: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2)

This study examines the general lung function of _non smokers_ who began vaping, with metrics taken from the start of vaporizer usage. This is about as direct as you can get, though is still an observational study (i.e. they did not randomly assign people to start vaping, for obvious ethical and adherence issues).

The synthesis of these studies would be to include more analysis of lung immune function. The results already suggest that inflammation is not an issue as suggested by the cell culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One thing I'm confused about with vaping:

There is plenty of information about vaping w/ e-cigarettes. The negative effects and what not.

However this information is not extended to vaping marijuana. I understand that e-cigs use oil/liquid of some sort. In the marijuana world there is dry herb vaping (heating the plant until it vaporizes), oil, wax, etc. I imagine some of the e-cig issues extends to marijuana for oil and wax perhaps but does dry herb suffer the same consequences.

I've tried researching this information but usually all the comes up are "e-cigs are bad" or "vaping vs smoking marijuana" articles. It would seem marijuana is relatively hush hush in this category.

<comment><USER19> Part of the reason you see less research on marijuana is because there are more obstacles to doing such research. Here is a 2017 National Academy of Sciences report on the topic:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/)

<comment><USER20> > [...] the federal government has not legalized cannabis and continues to > enforce restrictive policies and regulations on research into the health > harms or benefits of cannabis products that are available to consumers in a > majority of states

FFS, if I would want to invest into something that has barriers to conduct a research, I'd give zero fucks about the law. Zero. These governments drive me nuts.

<comment><USER21> This is not a position that can be taken by people who intend to publish research under their own names. It'd be akin to signing a confession.

<comment><USER20> Correct. This is exactly what I wouldn't care about. You first create it and then you let it evolve on its own. Like Bitcoin. Anonymously.

<comment><USER21> Unpublished anonymous illegal drug research isn't exactly in short supply. Credibility is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've been wondering about the safety of vaping.

Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you.

<comment><USER16> > _Glad to see it 's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill > you._

I think inhaling _anything_ into your lungs will probably affect them negatively. But it wouldn't surprise me if vaping was healthier than LA (or Beijing) air. Everything in moderation.

<comment><USER23> [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the- econo...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the- economist-1-day-in-beijing-is-still-not-equal-to-smoking-40-cigarettes/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Though I've grown up surrounded by drug use, I still find it shocking and fascinating to read people's comments about their addiction.

It's hard to fully grasp the mind-fuck of being reliant on your own self destruction.

</comment><comment><USER25> Seems intuitive to me-- anything you ingest into your body has potential for harm. We pay a price every time we take something in.

Vaping and marijuana are two hot topics these days. They're less costly than tobacco and alcohol, but are certainly not free.

In the end, we all decide how to spend our lives. Some pleasures are worth the cost, others are not.

</comment><comment> blubb-fish for a second I was worried that this refers to vaping weed - my little VapCap M can't do no harm ...

</comment><comment><USER26> And it is known by the state of California to give cancer to rats - just like anything else in California

<comment><USER24> I've never understood the point of those signs that say "Some products in this store are known by the State of California to cause cancer".

What is the law that requires them to tell customers they are at risk but not have to disclose which items put them at risk?

<comment><USER27> [https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc- sect...](https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc- sect-25249-6.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> More than smoking damages it?

<comment><USER29> They don't mention immune system cells specifically, but they do say vaping is still much less harmful

> However, Public Health England advises they are much less harmful than > smoking and people should not hesitate to use them as an aid to giving up > cigarettes.

-

What annoys me, though, is that while cigarettes are banned on most public places here (in France), people tend to use e-cigarette anywhere from work (open space) to transports, restaurants, bars, etc.

If they can't stop smoking, it seems to be better for them to be "vaping", but they should stop forcing us to endure their chemicals (although I'm not sure if this can be toxic for people around - but that's more or less the point too: we don't really know what it does to our body, so it shouldn't be allowed everywhere).

We've already fought cigarettes (well, I'm an ex smoker so I shouldn't really say "we" here), we shouldn't have to start over again for another form of smoking.

<comment><USER30> >The review concluded there was "overwhelming evidence" they were far safer than smoking and "of negligible risk to bystanders"

<comment><USER12> Remember the days when people were smoking in offices, univs, hospitals, etc? Vaping is 100x less disgusting, less harmful. I see people vaping and it doesn't smell, they don't leave ashes and butts everywhere and it doesn't bother me at all. The second hand nicotine vapor is not "a thing" unless you go to a room where a visible cloud of e-cigs vapor is present. I think we are much better off with people vaping than smoking. The only problem is that kids might start vaping because a lot of these juices are fruit flavored.

<comment><USER29> There are e-cigs that do smell, the one in my previous company "vaping" in the open space used some kind of flavor that had a strong [unpleasant] smell, even over 5 meters away.

Overall it's a great improvement. I just hope this improvement doesn't come with regressions (more [e-]smokers, especially in public areas and maybe in newer generations) precisely because it is so great an improvement.

<comment><USER12> You're absolutely right and those are somewhat bothersome. Also there are some units, the bigger ones I've noticed, that have the ability to create a thick dense cloud of vapor as if an invoked spirit is about to materialize into Alladin. These are not cool at all.

At the same time i saw small electronic cigarettes that people use discretely and I think that's a big win to the old nasty and stinky analog cigarettes.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: $ echo 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com | sudo tee -a /etc/hosts - <AUTHOR>

Also:

   127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
   127.0.0.1 www.hosted-pixel.com
 Unlike many I don't object to advertising.  What I object to is analytics.
I'm completely cool with webmasters who analyze the log files of their own servers, but I regard it as morally reprehensible that analytics services correlate visits between multiple websites.  Consider the problem faced by closeted homosexual evangelical Christians, for example.
There are lots of ways to ferret out the hostnames of web bug servers, however the "user-friendliest" way is to use a really, really old version of Safari.
Open the "Activity" window then visit a few of the more-popular websites.  The kind of websites that your Mom likes to hang out on.
The activity window lists the URLs and file size of each resource that goes into a web page.  The web bugs will commonly have huge, long URLs full of query parameters, with images being either 43 or 60 bytes.  Javascript "source code" will typically be one single byte of whitespace.
"Don't Be Evil" indeed. <comment><USER2> yeah, well, google has made it difficult for 3rd-party analytics tools to collect query data so analytics is really the only thing you can use.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm completely cool with you knowing what queries I used to give you a search engine referral. Unfortunately google was the respondent in a lawsuit by someone who objected to that.

My gripe is that you can use analytics to discover my personal traits.

For example today I felt great joy that Starbucks was playing many of my favorite songs - some that I had not heard in years. How did they know? I always pay cash!

But then I speculated that they're logging my computer's MAC ID then somehow using that as a key, with the eventual result that "Red Right Hand" by Nick Cave and the Black Seeds starts playing.

<comment><USER3> > _For example today I felt great joy that Starbucks was playing many of my > favorite songs - some that I had not heard in years. How did they know? I > always pay cash!_

Startucks doesn't just play a set playlist from the radio?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't actually know how they get their playlist, but I expect it's chosen in part by professional DJs, and in part by analyzing coffee sales.

That is, while I may enjoy hearing Red Right Hand that doesn't mean I bought a coffee in response.

However the dreary playlists of ClearChannel FM radio was the direct result of determining what music produced the most ad revenue. In the long run though I stopped listening to the radio; at home I listen to recorded music or else I listen to whatever a wifi spot is playing.

I would be very interested to know whether all the starbucks locations play the same songs, or whether they're individually tailored to each location. I speculate that it's something in between, that is the locations have a choice of one of several different playlists.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tumblr, Why Can't You Embrace Search Engines? - <AUTHOR> http://datainsightsideas.com/post/35695346

<comment><AUTHOR> David Karp responds to the discussion. Check post.

</comment><comment><USER2> Why can't they embrace comments?

<comment><USER3> I think they chose not to include comments as a feature, and to use 'rebloging' instead. The trouble is to reblog you have to also be a tumblr user. At least you can easily add disqus comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you see Ryan's post on Disqus?

[http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/05/15/disqus-after-5-days- on-...](http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/05/15/disqus-after-5-days-on-disqus-im- turning-back-to-wordpress-comments/)

I agree with him.</comment></comment></comment>


Why you should totally switch to Kotlin - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/why-you-should-totally-switch-to-kotlin-c7bbde9e10d5 <comment><USER2> tl;dr: Highlights of Kotlin the language, form simplest to most advanced.

</comment><comment><USER3> .</comment>


Bitcoin firm gets approval to operate in Switzerland - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-bitcoin-xapo-idUSKBN15B1QB <comment><USER2> In Switzerland you can buy train tickets with bitcoin ([http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/services/further- servi...](http://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/services/further- services/bitcoin.marketingurl_$$$en$$$bitcoin.html)) and pay for government services with bitcoin ([http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/crypto- valley_zug-first...](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/crypto-valley_zug- first-to-accept-bitcoin-for-government-services/42143908)).

Also, many fintech startups a hiring engineers like crazy.

(I live in Zurich and I am a well-connected programmer. If you are thinking to get a coding job here, feel free to contact me. You find my email address in my HN profile or here: [https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i- moved-t...](https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/eight-reasons-why-i-moved-to- switzerland-to-work-in-it-c7ac18af4f90))

<comment><USER3> Just to clarify, you cannot by train tickets with BTC, but you can buy BTC from train ticket machines. This service has been available for just a few months, and is provided by sweepay.ch.

BTC seems to be culturally accepted, and Switzerland is the home of Buterin and Ethereum as well.

I've also heard that some Swiss banks may soon incorporate BTC wallets into their e-banking solutions (they'll hold your keys for you).

Just thought I would finally add, I have a small service business in Vaud, and have been accepting BTC since 2013. I have yet to have a single person transact. Everybody pays with debit cards.

<comment><USER2> When posting, I was actually not sure about exactly this point.

Thanks for clarifying!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Switzerland's financial industry is really in need to reinvent itself (due to the banking secrecy being effectively gone). Not that I have much knowledge of the bitcoin economy, but offering services around this in a legally stable and trusted country seems to be a good idea. Swiss traditionally have a strong distrust in centralized authority (for >500 years it was a very decentrally organised alliance of 'city' states). I could even see replacing the Swiss Frank with a digital currency in the long run. In the digital age, giving much power back to localized states seems more and more compelling to me. Don't like health insurance system in city A? Hey their neighbouring town has you covered.

<comment><USER5> > _Switzerland 's financial industry is really in need to reinvent itself (due > to the banking secrecy being effectively gone)_

I take it you are neither Swiss nor familiar with our banks. The selling point isn't, and shouldn't be, secrecy. It is competent execution. At this, UBS, CS, Pictet _et al_ are still king.

<comment><USER6> >The selling point isn't, and shouldn't be, secrecy.

I'm definitely not Swiss nor do I know much about the banking system there. But in the US the secrecy of Swiss bank accounts was widely considered the only reason to have an account there. This was a Swiss stereotype in the US for a very long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Xapo's blog post (who are the firm referenced by Reuters) about it: [https://blog.xapo.com/xapo-regulatory-status-in- switzerland/](https://blog.xapo.com/xapo-regulatory-status-in-switzerland/)

</comment><comment><USER7> W00t! W00t! Can't help but admire the Swiss. Their embracing of capitalism and the closest thing to laissez-faire should be emulated by all.</comment>


List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_The_Walt_Disney_Company <comment><USER2> This is from last April, but Cartoon Brew did a nice mockup of the assets owned by Disney in a fun way, along with a small write-up.

[https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/chart-every-company- that-...](https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/chart-every-company-that-disney- owns-172130.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Any specific context to this post? Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER4> The context is probably this "Disney blocks John Oliver's new episode critical of India's PM Modi" [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22415535](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22415535)

Someone was taken by surprise when they learned that Disney owns streaming service in India with 350 million users and the streaming services is just subsidiary of Disney owned Star India Private Limited who owns over 60 channels and "has 790 million viewers a month across India and more than 100 countries".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_India)</comment></comment>


Finnish Filmmakers Gave a Drone a Chainsaw - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/finnish-filmmakers-gave-drone-chainsaw <comment><USER2> As someone who has personally used a chainsaw for many years I saw that video with interest but realized quickly it's faked. It takes a substantial amount of force on a chainsaw to keep it cutting. A real chain saw is a relatively heavy device. I see no evidence in that video that the chainsaw is in fact cutting anything while only under the forces afforded by the drone. Every cutting shot is from closeup and I did not see a single shot of it cutting from a distance. Either it's very poor choice of editing since it doesn't show what the whole video purports or it's a fake.

<comment><USER3> That is a pretty substantial drone they are using - it looks like the kind that can carry RED ONE cameras, which are about the same weight as the light weight chainsaw they used in the video.

Regarding the amount of force required to cut things: they are only cutting snow and small tree branches.

I think you are being overly paranoid here.

<comment><USER4> Red One with lens was about 13-15 lbs although I don't remember a Red One used on an octocopter. Red Epics were out by then which brought the weight down to under 10lbs.

Chain saws without blades are around 10 lbs?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is something I often thought about, for the purposes of tree pruning. What if you could point a laser-like LED beam to the location you want cut on a 55ft-high pine tree, and have the drone-chainsaw cut that exact location? That would beat using cranes or bucket lifts to hoist a person with their chainsaw way up in the air.

(Of course the ground would still have to be cleared of people, as a branch would be falling down and in case the chainsaw/drone combo malfunctions.)

<comment><USER6> Around here, they have used helicopters for years to prune trees away from high-line power lines. That chainsaw is like 10 feet long and hangs straight down from between the skids. The pilot hovers and inches forward alongside the lines, and the tree limbs fly!

Its got to be the coolest job ever - helicopter chainsaw operator. I put it above even wrecking ball operator.

<comment><USER7> Here's a video of the helicopter chainsaw

[http://youtu.be/Mfz1YrpMbBg](http://youtu.be/Mfz1YrpMbBg)

<comment><USER6> Wow very different. Mine had no cable or a very short one - the chainsaw was directly under the helicopter.

<comment><USER8> More like this? [https://youtu.be/rF1vfMM3W08?t=133](https://youtu.be/rF1vfMM3W08?t=133)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Combine this with a vulnerability that allows you to take over a professional drone and it could get messy.

[https://www.blackhat.com/docs/asia-16/materials/asia-16-Rodd...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/asia-16/materials/asia-16-Rodday- Hacking-A-Professional-Drone.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> If anyone is interested in some more drone chainsaw action, they should check out when Jamie from Mythbusters attempted to make one of these: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fe9IDx3vCs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fe9IDx3vCs)

He was unable to get it to work effectively or safely, though his drone was not as heavy-duty as the one from this thread.

<comment><USER11> Could this video be fake, though? Hitting the snowmen in that speed should seriously alter the movement of the drone. And can you get enough force to actually cut through a branch from a drone?

<comment><USER10> Based on the video from Jamie, I would say yes, it is probably a fake. But that's just my thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's kind of the 21st century evolution of this[1].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuJGhe4oGw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHuJGhe4oGw)

<comment><USER13> I've done some pretty crazy things with a chainsaw but that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is a dangerous experiment. Luckily it only hurt a snowman. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> This article is redirecting me to an error.

<comment><USER16> If you're also in Australia, popsci.com has some idiotic redirects to popsci.com.au that throw errors when they can't find a localised version of the article you're trying to reach.

I don't think I've ever had one actually work.

<comment><USER15> Seriously, this deserves an automatic penalty until they fix their issues. Business Insider do the same thing.

What's to localise though? We speak English!

dang... if you're reading this, anything you can do? _Very_ frustrating for the many Australians who read articles on HN.

(a side note: when are U.S. sites going to stop treating Australians as second class citizens? We are a pretty wealthy nation filled with people willing to participate in the online world in a meaningful way, and yet we are constantly screwed over either in terms of pricing or just plain being blocked from stuff we are willing to actually pay good money for).

<comment><USER17> > a side note: when are U.S. sites going to stop treating Australians as > second class citizens?

Once we figure out how to digitally accept kangaroo pelts as payment.

<comment><USER15> Cool, so we'll just continue pirating your content and bypassing your filters at record levels then :-)

<comment><USER18> That's actually a most generous and humane service you provide the world. Seriously.

<comment><USER15> I don't know if I agree with the pirating business (I don't do this) but certainly I don't think it's unethical to bypass geoblocking which I find borderline racist - and definitely greedy in the worst sense of the word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So, better than sharknado?

</comment><comment><USER20> the perfect weapon for the next zombie video game

</comment><comment><USER21> I really dislike filmmakers doing this kind of stupid stunts (Ok I admit I hate the film makers tries do deceive even more . Like the idiots who make eagle taking a child or flying wing man etc.). Why not put a Ak-47 or a hand grenade to the damn drone? You would get more attention.

<comment><USER22> Some background from a Finnish news article [0]: these guys are experienced, professional RC and drone camera operators and the copter is a professional quality photography drone. They describe the copter as a "5 horsepower circular saw" which is "pretty dangerous even without a chainsaw attached". Indeed, you have to operate such machinery with caution and respect. All in all, it looks like they were operating with caution and in an isolated area without causing any risk to outsiders.

Silly and pointless? Yes. Reckless and stupid? Perhaps not. Fun to watch? Hell yes.

[0] [http://nyt.fi/a1459480177666](http://nyt.fi/a1459480177666)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why did this have to be built and can't we just imagine things anymore?

<comment><USER24> It appears you've accidentally wandered into hacker news. Welcome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This should be illegal everywhere. I'm really afraid of the not too distant future when drones are cheap and autonomous enough so that they are able to be controlled by a small crazy group and used to harm lots of people. I don't think we as a society are prepared for it.

<comment><USER26> I seriously want to start a drone defense company.

<comment><USER27> DoD won't appreciate the competition :-)

<comment><USER28> DoD outsources most a lot of that work. Though, they'd probably prefer a machine gun.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon to Open Retail Location in Seattle. Books (Mostly) to Start - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/2/9661556/amazon-books-first-physical-bookstore-opening-seattle <comment><AUTHOR> The NYT is reporting that Amazon is also expanding their employee benefit program --> [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/technology/amazon-adds- new...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/technology/amazon-adds-new-perks- for-workers-and-opens-a-bookstore.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Amazon's Press Release --> [http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/ref=pe_2270130_15413393...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/ref=pe_2270130_154133930_pe_button/?node=13270229011)

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting. The angle that all the books are rated 4+ stars is clever (see the press release). I wish it was easier to try Amazon's hardware, and this seems like a step in making that possible. But I was surprised it's so book focused.</comment>


HackingTeam hacker is back, this time recording a compromise - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbI74ti0yY <comment><AUTHOR> The linked video is an edit as youtube supposedly removed the original which had police officers details in it. [1]

You can find the original video in the reddit. [2]

PhineasFisher's motivation behind the hack on pastebin. [3]

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/4k7y0q/video_of_hac...](https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/4k7y0q/video_of_hack_on_catalan_police_union/d3czxup)

[2] [https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/4k7y0q/video_of_hac...](https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/4k7y0q/video_of_hack_on_catalan_police_union/)

[3] [http://pastebin.com/raw/HbyAKhvB](http://pastebin.com/raw/HbyAKhvB)</comment>


Archaeologist explains innovation of 'fluting' ancient stone weaponry - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-04-archaeologist-fluting-ancient-stone-weaponry.html <comment><USER2> I know that phys.org is probably looking at this from physics angle but I wish they had more detail on what is being discussed. Knapping [0] as in shaping tools is nothing unique.

"explain the flint knapping technique of "fluting" the Clovis points, which could be considered the first truly American invention."

American as in North + South America [1] but it's not a universally accepted idea that the origin was there[1].

It is also more likely that the fluting was done to make it more useful for projectile use. The ones that were not fluted might have broken and hence we don't see record for it as much. Not sure if circumstantial bias is a term but we shouldn't come to drastic conclusions.

"It's amazing to think that people 12,000 years ago were flaking shock absorbers and engineering stone weapons in a way that it took 21st century modern engineering to figure out," Eren said.

They weren't designing shock absorbers, their design just happen to have that as a secondary function if the experiments done suggests it does.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapping)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_point)

<comment><USER3> > it's not a universally accepted idea that the origin was there.

The section in the linked WP article discussing the origin of the technique does not contain any references. you seem to be familiar with the topic, do you know of any other resources for this claim?

Academic articles like this make me miss my university account access.

<comment><USER2> Well, had to read about stone tools from about ~2 million years ago (mya) to 1 mya and the problems of trying to figure out what they signify. This one is more recent ofcourse but archaeological record jump implies there is missing information. (No fluting to suddenly a lot of fluting for example).

"The vituperative debate ended only when strong evidence for a pre-Clovis settlement turned up in Chile in the late 1990s." "Clovis may no longer be the oldest American culture, but it remains the oldest American culture we know much about."[0]

This article talks about how the smaller "clovis" was probably part of projectile weapon like a throwing spear as well.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

[0] [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-clovis-point- and-t...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-clovis-point-and-the- discovery-of-americas-first-culture-3825828/)

[1] [http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/taima-taima- text3....](http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/taima-taima-text3.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> The fluting looks like an affordance to attach a spear stem or arrow stem to. To my admittedly "know nothing" self, calling it a shock-absorber might be over-thinking it.

<comment><USER5> The distinction is in the language, not the fact. When someone says what that feature "is for" it's in the same sense that a biologist talks about what a particular organism feature "is for" despite the fact that the organism clearly didn't design it.

The flute may well have been intended to make the head easier to attach, but that's not the point. If such a head were brittle and failure-prone (per the hypothesis in the article), its users would have collected less food and left fewer descendants to use their particular favored technology.

The fact that the technology was pervasive and widespread means that it has some clear advantage. And it's the advantage the archaeologists are looking for, not the intent. And it turns out, I guess, that such heads turn out to be less fragile on impact because the longitudinal force is better distributed. So these heads are more likely to drive deep and deal a fatal blow, leading to more food for their users and more children to instruct in spearmaking, and ultimately more spear heads in the archaeological record.

<comment><USER6> > _" It's amazing to think that people 12,000 years ago were flaking shock > absorbers and engineering stone weapons in a way that it took 21st century > modern engineering to figure out," Eren said._

Engineering implies forethought. If they didn't want to imply forethought, they should have used different words.

<comment><USER7> They did use some different words, "perhaps first made by accident."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting - upon seeing the images I felt reminded of the grooves which were added to swords to improve stability, while reducing weight.

And I want to make some of these now - does anyone know which stones (besides flintstones) can be used? They're hard to find in my area.</comment>


Decoupling Rails forms from persistence - <AUTHOR> http://abernardes.github.io/2014/10/07/decoupling-forms-from-persistence.html

<comment><USER2> I like this article. If you are going to write more on the subject, I'd like to read how you handle uniqueness validations with FormObjects

<comment><AUTHOR> I do plan to write more on validations. I just have some ideas I'd like to battle test first :)

Thanks for your comment.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Rate my site (DebateZone) - <AUTHOR> http://rails.flubba.webfactional.com

<comment><USER2> I like the concept.

You should categorize because someone people wouldn't care about certain issues but will fight tooth and nail for others.

Like us being entrepreneurs, we would have an opinion on "fast fail", so we would want to get to these topics more quicker than something related to politics or sport.

Categorising allows you to focus resources on which categories drive the most traffic to the site.

Also, try to be more specific in seed content. Having broad topics thesis doesn't make for good arguments. For instance "which team is better Lakers or Celtics", may become "which team would win 2010 champion-Lakers or Celtics". It's narrower and more focus which makes for an easier argument. Broad categories require much wider and deeper knowledge to begin to address the debate.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I already have categories (called "zones" to fit the name), but do you mean add tags or something similar in addition to the broad zones?

<comment><USER2> Nice, then make it more promient and maybe even call it categories.

People have a scanning behavior when they are looking on sites so they are looking for certain keywords and "zone" might not be apart of it <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for that link, very interesting stuff. I increased the font size of sidebar lists, and I might change the word to categories eventually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> With the up vote and down vote arrows, have one or the other light up when you mouse over a specific one, instead of having both light up. It will make it clearer which arrow you are about to click.

I like the layout of the two sided debates over the debates with more than two sides. The two sided debates have the sides and results right in the middle at the top of the page. On debates with more than two sides, having the sides and results off to the right makes them easy to miss at first. The first debate I looked at was a more than two sided debate and because of the layout, I was a bit confused on what the sides of the debate were. It seemed like the comments were the sides because of their placement and the up/down vote arrows.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input, I just made the quick css change. You're right about the multi-side layout, but I couldn't really think of any other way to do it. Actually, I think if I put all the sides above the arguments horizontally they would be easier to compare and more visible. I'll test something like that out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My friends started a debate site a while ago, and I'll tell you what I told them.

For an part-time and fun project this is a very cool web app. I like the simplicity and it seems like a fun way to talk about various issues.

As a startup idea, you would do better finding an idea that doesn't revolve strictly on creating a web community from scratch.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree, and it is a part-time project I made for fun. Now I just want to get some users, and eventually make a few cents off of ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Oh yea have anonymous posting.

People would like to post stuff quickly without having to signup. Eventually, they will realize that "hey I want to track what i posted", so they sign up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, I'll probably add it some time this week.

<comment><USER5> anonymous posts can very quickly change the atmosphere from thoughtful to spiteful, and it makes spamming/trolling much more difficult to stop. So you have to weigh those costs w/ the benefit of one fewer barrier to posting.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, they're great for a site like 4chan. I think I'll just keep arguing for users only for now.

<comment><USER6> I'd argue for the opposite, allow anonymous in the beginning (during "bootstrap mode"), to minimize hurdles for new users, and switch to users only when anonymous users become a nuisance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Just want to let you know, that I've implemented this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Allow pictures to be uploaded with your debate thesis. Sometimes a picture or video can say more than words can.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea, do you mean like a picture for each side of a debate?

<comment><USER2> An optional picture so users can see what the division is about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the logo.</comment>


Jottacloud: Dropbox alternative from Norway - <AUTHOR> https://www.jottacloud.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I noticed Jottacloud on the Drop Dropbox thread and gave it a try. I've been running it on Windows for the last couple of hours with a copy of the files I used to keep at Dropbox and the only difference I noticed so far is how Jottacloud uses around 25% (~16Mb) of the RAM Dropbox was using before (~64Mb). Can't say it makes any difference on my MacBook Air.</comment>


What happened to tablet sales? - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/21/what-happened-to-tablet-sales/ <comment><USER2> Tablet manufacturers are finally coming to grips with the fact that their devices have a much narrower range of use cases than they'd thought. Tablet operating systems are unsuitable for content creation, as their application compatibility and multitasking leave much to be desired. But they're simultaneously too big to be ubiquitous. It's almost as much hassle to carry an iPad as it is to carry a laptop. In both cases, you need some kind of backpack or external carrying case.

The main use that tablets have is as e-readers and "second screens" for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Given that those are hardly taxing in terms of computational resources, it's no surprise to see that most customers buy a tablet and then never upgrade it. Tablets simply don't have the "killer apps", like games, that PCs used to drive their upgrade cycles. Nor do they have the carrier-driven two-year upgrade cycles of phones.

</comment><comment><USER3> But tablets were going to ruin the pc market.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/25/tablet- pc...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/25/tablet-pc-market- analysis)</comment>