Apple takes legal action against small company with pear logo - <AUTHOR> https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-legal-action-pear-logo/ <comment><USER2> I actually had something somewhat similar happen to me, but with Twitter.

[https://breue.com/twitter](https://breue.com/twitter) [https://breue.com/86851616.pdf](https://breue.com/86851616.pdf)

I was working on a project called Scoper, which let you do video streaming. It had done fairly well at SXSW, and we had a decent amount of users. Just before we thought we were gonna be awarded a trademark for the name, we got a not so friendly letter from Twitter's counsel at Fenwick and West, telling us we were infringing on their "Periscope" brand, and listing some pretty clear demands. We never really thought of our app as a competitor to Periscope.

Our lawyer let us know that they had no strong grounds against us, but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford. We told Twitter we knew they had weak grounds and that the case would just drag on, and we would rather save both sides money, if they would just buy us out.

They gave us a super low amount of money to drop the trademark application, transfer the domain, all brand related stuff, and remove our app from the App Store. It was kinda depressing, but it could have been a worse outcome.

To be fair, this wasn't outrageous like this pear logo case, but it was just a feeling of being bullied and knowing you don't stand a chance.

<comment><USER3> > Our lawyer let us know that they had no strong grounds against us, but would > drain us in a legal battle we could never afford.

This is a clear failure of our justice system.

<comment><USER4> It is definitely not a perfect system. The problem is society in general accepts this behavior. It is an absurd claim on its face. They should face social pressure for this behavior. The only thing that I think could make our various systems better is to change what we accept; outside of those systems. The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually cared, it would stop once the spending decreases following the exposure. We are seeing that in other arenas.

I remember reading about a culture in east asia or the pacific where farmers did not have written contracts and usually had very little problems. Everyone knew what was expected and fell in line. If a farmer were to break with the norm, I am sure it would have resulted in them being ostracized.

I hope one day we expect more from each other, and expect more from ourselves.

<comment><USER5> At the core of the problem is that society is not allowed to not accept this behavior. The systems by which Apple et al abuse their positions to harm small businesses and "the little" guy are literally enshrined in our legal and administrative code. Government decisions of the last 30 years, often regardless of party, have resulted in the single largest consolidation of corporate power under six umbrellas (Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Netflix) in Silicon Valley history.

Extraordinarily lax antitrust laws (in both Republican and Democratic administrations, you'd expect the Dems to be tougher on this but follow the money trail and it's simple to see why), a general disdain for shareholder activism, and corporate culture in _all_ of the aforementioned companies prioritizing the needs of advertisers over the needs of the end user.

> The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If > cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually > cared, it would stop

I would have agreed with you fifteen, maybe ten years ago. The point of no return has been passed. Apple and Amazon alone are worth enough combined for public opinion to matter nil in terms of their actual business practices. They could suffer millions of dollars in bad press and shareholders would continue to invest and consumers would continue to buy product. Look at TSLA as a fantastic example -- Elon consistently sticks his foot in his mouth and makes a mockery of himself but TSLA short sellers continue to lose big time.

The only solution at this point in my view is a fundamental overhaul of antitrust law and safeguards to ensure competition in cutting edge industries, and collectivization of essentials like public internet and public utilities so the profit incentive doesn't get in the way of service. We're already seeing how terrible the outcome is with the Post Office, we don't need any additional privatization in the world of tech.

<comment><USER4> [http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the- usp...](http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not- a-government-agency/)

The postal service is not private in any way shape or form.

<comment><USER5> I am well aware, but the inefficiencies posed by regulatory capture are often used as an excuse to privatize state property, in this case the USPS and the situation with the PMG intentionally hobbling it to make that very case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not the first time Apple has taken action against a company using a pear!

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Clones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Clones) :

> _Another European Apple II clone was the Pearcom Pear II, which was larger > as the original as it sported not eight but fourteen expansion slots. It > also had a numerical keypad. Pearcom initially used a pear shaped rainbow > logo, but stopped after Apple threatened to take legal action._

Here's one of their ads:

[https://www.apple2history.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/04/pea...](https://www.apple2history.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/04/pear2.jpg)

In that case, the situation was much clearer, though. The product was a clone of an Apple computer, so no question they are in the same market. Also, Pearcom's pear logo had a rainbow color scheme like the Apple logo did.

<comment><USER7> Apricot did quite well.

<comment><USER8> And Acorn (fruit of the oak tree), Tangerine, Blackberry and of course the Raspberry Pi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bored, overinflated legal team reaching for anything to do to make themselves feel important. Similar to how UX teams need to redesign everything, including the logo, every few years, even though everything works perfectly and is easy to understand. How do I justify my existence and my job?

<comment><USER10> And then we end up with flat design and as it is the smallest amount of work, it's where the design gets stuck forever.

<comment><USER11> Flat has some legs based on visual complexity. Our eyes are great are recognizing shapes. Where things go wrong is everything being flat. I like material design's use of shadow to communicate depth.

But I agree, some teams take it too far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is wrong.

It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money.

Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports leagues.

<comment><USER13> > It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money.

This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.

<comment><USER14> You do have the right to a court appointed attorney for criminal cases, though, right?

I'm not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I'm just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?

<comment><USER13> I do not believe that there is a right to a public defender, though they are often available. There is no corresponding right in civil cases, and the government files many of those as well.

<comment><USER15> Sixth Amendment provides right to counsel for criminal prosecutions. It's the rare positive right - if you do not have lawyer, or cannot afford one, the state will provide one. (Generally an overworked, underpaid one...)

<comment><USER16> Random anecdote - I sat as a juror on a felony trial where the defendant was represented by a public defender. Before it started I pictured a bumbling public defender with bags under their eyes from lack of sleep.

I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared.

Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.

<comment><USER17> Maybe it was a lawyer doing their required pro bono hours (I think large firms require X hours of this kind of public work).

<comment><USER16> That does happen, but it wasn't in this case. I looked the defense attorney up and he had been with the public defenders office for a few years.

Not claiming all public defenders are that good. Just that I was surprised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Now Apple Inc. is literally com-pear-ing Apples to Pears.

Maybe the offending characteristic of this is the leaf. But really is Apple Inc. seriously complaining that a Pear is similar to an Apple?

Unfortunately, they will still win this legal fight anyway.

<comment><USER19> _Now Apple Inc. is literally com-pear-ing Apples to Pears._

...

Going to need you to get your things and come with me.

But also as another commenter said I think/hope Deadmau5 v Disney comes up in arguments because I agree: this is seriously petty of Apple's legal team but I'd love to read their actual complaint if anyone finds it (personal pet peeve of mine when outlets report on "someone is taking legal action against someone else" with nothing but a few quotes and statements from someone party to the action. Could we at least see the demand letter?)

<comment><USER20> There is no lawsuit, this is a trademark opposition. It's an administrative process through USPTO. It works through an administrative court that has some resemblance to a civil suit but the whole thing has a much more standardized procedure. Instead of a complaint letter, there is a notice of opposition that's usually pretty brief.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm genuinely curious as to _why_ Apple is doing this, from a business perspective.

I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them, so in most cases like this the company is just following the law.

But it always relies on a certain level of consumer confusion, e.g. that some demonstrable percent of consumers see the logo/name and genuinely assume it to be associated with the opposing company.

But "Pear" has zero confusion with "Apple", and the logo is likewise completely different.

Companies generally do their best to NOT pay their lawyers to do frivolous things, because there are more important things to be paying their lawyers to do, and companies aren't charities.

So since Apple has no legal necessity to go after Pear here in order to protect their trademark, and they clearly have no business interest in harming a meal planning app since Apple's not in that business...

...what gives? Why is Apple spending money on this? Apple's a business. What's the business incentive?

<comment><USER22> So it is a requirement that when you have a trademark, you must defend that mark. Oftentimes they contract a law firm specifically to monitor the trademark. If anything even hints at their mark, they file opposition. Filing opposition is cheap and easy.

How far they go from there depends on how strong their mark is and how strong they feel they have a case to successfully oppose you.

It costs very little to initiate an opposition just a little bit of time and $500. Many trademark filers drop the trademark at this first stage.

<comment><USER23> Surely there are provisions in or affecting such trademark law such that you cannot overstep bounds of reasonableness, e.g. by going after anything with the colour red just because yours is also red?

(IANAL)

<comment><USER24> T-Mobile is known for sueing companies who have a magenta/pink logo.

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- switch/wp/2014/02/10/court-says-t-mobile-owns-the-color- magenta/%3FoutputType%3Damp&ved=2ahUKEwiP-5Pv5I3rAhWB_KQKHXfsB8QQFjAGegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2BCEe66Wdws1Ij45PzXcl2&ampcf=1)

<comment><USER25> Colours can be trademarks (at least in Europe).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Apple is experienced in bullying small businesses outside of their industry [1]. They sued a cafe because of its name "Apfelkind" (apple child) and its usage of an apple in their logo. Luckily Apple lost that case.

1: [https://dw.com/en/german-café-owner-takes-on-apple-and- wins/...](https://dw.com/en/german-café-owner-takes-on-apple-and- wins/a-17138587)

<comment><USER23> Imagine what it must feel like to be Apple legal counsel. Just going around searching for businesses that have nothing to do with Apple that you can capitalistically bully out of existence.

It would have to feel like you have no compassion or empathy in your body whatsoever.

Tim Cook directs these people.

<comment> globular-toast It probably feels good. They are well paid and have no heart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For anyone allergic to websites with chum boxes and endless ad tracking garbage, here is the article without that: [https://beta.trimread.com/articles/31694](https://beta.trimread.com/articles/31694)

<comment><USER28> You should put the URL in the URL structure so it exposes it on the link like how Apple news and amp does.

Currently it looks like you're stripping that information and replacing it with an id.

You could even do something that I did about 7 years ago that people hated for a reason I still do not know and I abandoned, which is if a url is just an id then you create a stub from the document title and use that in your url structure instead. Then it communicates the purpose of the content in those cases as well. Here's the code [https://github.com/kristopolous/linkgo.es](https://github.com/kristopolous/linkgo.es)

<comment><USER27> I agree - I have more expressive URLs on the roadmap. Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not saying this is what happened, but it occurs to me that just saying this is happening is a pretty good PR splash.

This came to mind since neither the story or petition has a screenshot of a threatening email or letter from Apple.

Edit: Appears Apple is opposing it. Found this by trawling around myself: [https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP](https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP)

You can start there and find links to download the legal letters from Apple.

<comment><USER30> I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting Apple is not pursuing legal action against this company?

Or that they are using the fact that they are being sued to raise their own profile? The second is clear, but it's probably their best play - when life gives you lemons and all that. I don't see what that has to do with threatening emails though.

<comment><USER31> Is there actually any evidence that Apple has pursued legal action against them?

<comment><USER30> Yes, this is their notice of trademark opposition: [https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice- of-...](https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice-of- Opposition-v-Super-Healthy-Kids-Inc)

<comment><USER22> For more perspective, here is their answer to the opposition suit. [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=87315348&docInd...](https://tsdr.uspto.gov/caseviewer/pdf?caseId=87315348&docIndex=0&searchprefix=sn#docIndex=0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I never understood when Americans threaten people with court expenses in TV series or real life. I was under the impression that no matter the case, if you are unable to afford representation, a state lawyer is appointed and does a barely passing job. Wouldn't a barely passing job be enough for a judge to throw a case like this away?

I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.

I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.

<comment><USER33> You are kidding right? You are guaranteed representation for a criminal trial. Not a civil trial. How could that ever work??

<comment><USER34> I dont see why it couldnt work.

You could say that plaintiff has to pay for a crap lawyer for other side (there are complicated consequences, makes it harder for the little guy to access the legal system, etc). Or you could say the state has to provide one always (if the state pays for my doctor [i am not an american] than its in theory possible for them to do this.

Whether or not they should is a different question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Apple once sued a small Polish online grocer "a.pl" [0] They lost.

[0] [https://www.pcworld.com/article/262202/apple_vs_a_pl_tech_co...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/262202/apple_vs_a_pl_tech_company_sues_online_polish_grocer_over_logo.html)

<comment><USER36> Who does "they"refer to?

(Anywhere where I can read about the outcome? The article doesn't seem to mention)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> In other words, if I sell apples (or pears for what we know), I can't register my name with the actual product in it (which is a common word and a product of nature) or a big, fat bully will just destroy my business like an angry child. What can I say, great company and great system too.

<comment><USER25> You can register it, and there's no problem vs Apple Computers trademark. The issue is that there's insufficient downside for Apple to prevent frivolous abuses.

Arguably they sue small businesses to create an environment in which you're afraid to do anything close to Apple's actual IP; small businesses are probably just collateral to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> For what it's worth, back in the day Acorn Computers had an acorn as logo and manufactured both computers and their own RiscOS Operating System, and their name was chosen with the intended purpose of appearing before Apple Computers in a phonebook. I don't recall of any lawsuits from Apple; probably because back then that would have been painful for them as well.

It's easy to bully others when one expects no retaliation.

<comment><USER39> For some history, Acorn Computers (among other things) designed the Acorn RISC Machine processor or ARM for use in their personal computers. This is the forerunner of the ARM processor used in almost every phone today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Since, unlike copyright law or patent law, trademark law is the one that does require plaintiffs to actively defend their mark or risk losing protection, there's always a bit of a gray area where two marks may not look terribly similar, but one can reasonably justify taking action.

This instance, however, falls far outside that area.

</comment><comment><USER41> Who would see those two logos and think that they're from the same company? The only 2 similarities is that the logos are representations of fruit, and that they both have a little oval shaped leaf on them.

</comment><comment><USER42> Reminds me of that time when Caterpillar was suing a coffee shop for the word "cat". (original story: [https://smashnotes.com/p/cat-cloud-podcast/e/being- sued-by-c...](https://smashnotes.com/p/cat-cloud-podcast/e/being-sued-by- caterpillar-inc)).

I can understand why big companies do it, they want to protect their brand and make sure they are the only ones who are associated with any words remotely close. As a business, it makes sense. But then again, for the rest of us, it's really weird that one company want to own a fruit, and another a house animal.

Could it be that trademark system, when establish, simply did not see this coming? What's a good solution, from a legal perspective, something that gives companies a way to defend their brand, but within "reasonable" powers, where simply gobbling all words in the space is probably no longer reasonable?

<comment><USER37> it's not understandable, it' bullying and it's a threat to every business and it just reinforces the domination of those big brands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Suppose Apple loses. Will they then start messing with the app approval process for this company out of spite?

<comment><USER44> they can outright ban the app without any reason most likely. but will take another PR hit, not worth it

<comment><USER45> > but will take another PR hit, not worth it

Was _this_ PR hit worth it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is the definition of bullshit work applied to Apple legal teams. Busywork to justify their costs and pay.

</comment><comment><USER47> Lol, I guess fruits are banned in the tech world until further notice, unless you are part of a team inside Apple. The U.S. needs to implement the judical system like in Europe, where the loser pays all the legal fees. In the EU, you have literally examples of persons who single handedly took their own country to court all the way to the Strasbourg.

<comment><USER48> The loser should pay all legal fees, but they should also be capped to something reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> How long until Apple kicks them off the App Store?

Hey Tim, try to remember what you said at the hearing.

Also, there isn't much leadership when you allow the company lawyers to bully small developers. Doesn't really seem like you're in control of the ship.

</comment><comment><USER50> These people are complete fools to waste thousands of dollars and have to lay someone off.

In the same predicament, I would not spend a penny at all on the harassment. I would not respond to it at all.

However, I would create a web page divulging every piece of communication I received, and/or forward everything to any media outlet willing to listen.

It's _very_ difficult to get actual money out of someone who doesn't want to pay, or get them to change their behavior (like stop using a certain logo).

The lawyers are just hoping people will get scared of a bunch of words in a threatening letter.

</comment><comment><USER51> Imagine if Apple records had sued Steve and Woz, we wouldn't have Apple Computers today. This is just wrong on so many levels.

<comment><USER52> Are you being sarcastic?

<comment><USER53> Apple computer and Apple records are in two different industries. It wasn't till Apple opened a music store online "iTunes" that Apple records sued (again) and got a settlement.

Apple seems to think people will confuse fruit types and they make some claim about "apple health"

Because a lot of orchards use logos that look a lot like apples (and you know an Apple a day...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Lol. These logos look nothing alike. What a waste of legal fees.

<comment><USER55> There is no waste of legal fees if you are a lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Sad, considering their history with Apple Corps, but not surprising.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)

> The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple > Corps. This amount was later revealed to be $80,000. As a condition of the > settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business

<comment><USER57> It seems that Apple has breached the agreement not to enter the music business.

<comment><USER58> In 1991, the two Apples signed an agreement dividing up use of the trademark. In short, this 1991 agreement allowed Apple Computer to do pretty much everything other than sell physical copies of music. While Apple Corps sued in 2003, the Judge ruled solidly in Apple Computer's favour.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#1991)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> There should be a"Kickstarter" type of platform where small companies can form a ring of defense against big bullies. In case of some absurd legal action everyone can contribute to help with the legal fees etc.

<comment><USER60> Now there's a good idea.

<comment><USER61> Its called liability insurance. It is very inexpensive and can be a great equalizer.

<comment><USER60> So, what you are saying that all these little firms did not have liability insurance?

I'm assuming that the said liability insurance that you are talking about comes with, not too many fine prints and will cover thing like lost business revenue etc.?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> This is in bad taste from Apple.

<comment><USER63> Rotten. It's going to go pear-shaped clearly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> All your fruit are belong to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER65> In what other countries than America would this sort of thing work? (Not a rhetorical question.)

<comment><USER66> Germany and _tam tam tam_ Apfelkind won! [https://www.dw.com/en/german- caf%C3%A9-owner-takes-on-apple-...](https://www.dw.com/en/german- caf%C3%A9-owner-takes-on-apple-and-wins/a-17138587)

Ok, you're right, it didn't worked, but Apple tried.

<comment><USER65> Seems that in Germany too Apple was able to make the decision to resist quite risky. So maybe the question should be: is there any country where the target would be better protected and wouldn't have to risk so much to resist?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I wonder if this could be a good business move by PrePear or future companies.

They could turn this into a David/Goliath battle and get some huge social media awareness for their business and goodwill via doing the 'right thing' and standing up to the bully with some well prepared posts and updates. That at least to me attracts my sense of justice and would steer me to giving a companies services a chance where relevant.

Even if they capitulate after expenses start to grow, it could be a solid marketing strategy to at least attend the first hearing.

So, maybe doing a fruit logo for your next startup isn't such a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER68> Anti-bullying law is seriously needed. Awarding the bullied who triumphs 10 - 100x their legal fee that attracts interest every day the bully refuses to pay by going to a higher court.

<comment><USER69> Trademark law, unfortunately, requires vigilance that looks a lot like bullying.

<comment><USER70> Only where it's applicable. A meal planner company that has a logo that looks little like an apple logo doesn't really fall into this. If it was a phone shop then sure, but this is well outside of the needs-to-because-law scope and into the bullying scope.

<comment><USER25> Even if it were a phone shop there's zero chance of confusion, this is a frivolous suit and purposeful waste of court time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I doubt they intend to actually succeed but are just making sure to set down that they're protecting their trademark So a company doesn't start with one fruit branded trademark and then expand into more fruits before expanding into an Apple trademark to complete the set.

This is a consequence of the "use it or lose it" trademark system.

<comment><USER71> Is there really a plausible world in which Apple, the world's most valuable company and one of it's most recognizable brands, might be determined by a court to have neglected to affirmatively defend its ubiquitous trademarks merely by failing to persecute a tiny company with a significantly different but also fruit-themed brand?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Ha.. fiction becomes real. In the iCarly/Victorious/et al (Dan Schnider) universes the kids all use PearPads, and all the technology they use is Pear branded as an obvious Apple reference...

</comment><comment><USER73> Always pretty rich when Apple goes after a firm for copyright infringement on a logo having spent 29 years in dispute with Apple Corps over the exact same matter.

</comment><comment><USER74> Perhaps Apple has hired topologists as their legal counsel?

</comment><comment><USER75> If the law keeps harming the majority of people, society will devolve into anarchy. If the law starts to not make sense, judges will allow themselves more room for interpretation and this will be the ideal environment for mafias and factions. This will not be good for corporations - Without rigid laws backed by sensible moral grounds, corporations will split up and be devoured from the inside.

</comment><comment><USER76> What's really interesting is how quietly apple tiptoed around the "the pod" by line 6 - a music device which existed before the ipod.

</comment><comment><USER77> Bill Burr has a bit where he talks about Steve Jobs eating "some kind of pretentious fruit, like a pear." Life imitating art I guess.

</comment><comment><USER78> There's a certain OS designed to look like Mac OS, which uses a pear as their logo. Obviously I'm not going to name them. I don't want to give Apple any ideas. It seems like any company with a fruit logo is in danger of a lawsuit anyway. If you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

</comment><comment><USER79> This reminds me an episode of Arthur cartoon. In it, a laptop sported by one of characters had a pear logo with obvious connotation.

Another meme from Arthur that comes to mind is a store named "One Percent".

I bet lots of details like this escape the target audience's attention... at least in this pre-schooler's case.

<comment><USER80> Also: [https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company](https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Reminds me of Monster Cables going after Monster Miniature Golf; haven't bought a Monster cable since.

</comment><comment><USER81> I know it's popular to hate on big tech here on HN, but I'm willing to bet there's more going on here. There's literally dozens of companies with fruit logos on the Apple Store: pineapples, bananas, lemons, and many more.

Either this is a PR stunt or there's more at play.

<comment><USER82> Or fruits are just a really common things in the world...

<comment><USER83> The point was that Apple didn't go after the others

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> This comment section is sure to be filled with people who funded Apple by buying one of their products. If you read the article, think what Apple's doing is wrong and still continue to buy their products, well buddy you're part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER85> I'd like to see the actual complaint.

I traced this mark application through its two year application and approval process and PrePear had its application suspended once for possible confusion with a Hong Kong based app company called Pear Technology Limited but nothing from Apple.

</comment><comment><USER86> Well, I could vote with my dollars, but I guess I already do - never bought an Apple product...

</comment><comment><USER87> Apple at one time had a trademark problem with some '60s band. That one was settled.

<comment><USER88> With an explicit agreement to not participate in music business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> It would be nice if they had some way to send them cash. I have no interest in their application, but this action is frivolous and without merit, and Apple should lose outright if it ever makes it to a court.

</comment><comment><USER90> Wouldn't it be more viable to change the logo temporarily instead of laying off staff, gain some more traction, then revamp the logo a year from now when you have more secure finances?

<comment><USER30> Rebranding is extremely expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> THIS is why I hate Apple. This company has nothin to do with Apple, so they have no reason. This isn't the first time they've done something like that either.

</comment><comment><USER91> I wonder why Apple doesn't have a problem with the Orange company. Maybe Apple is just afraid of fighting someone within their own weight class...

</comment><comment><USER92> Direct link[1] to the change.org petition.

[1] [http://chng.it/Zw7QxgwGCS](http://chng.it/Zw7QxgwGCS)

</comment><comment><USER93> Failure to police can weaken trademark. For famous trademarks (like Apple) there is additional legal concept called "trademark dilution" where trademark owner can forbid use of the trademark in unrelated products and services.

Big brands take even the weakest cases just to be sure. For example, if you want to start robotics company with 'droid' in the name, you get letter from Disney lawyers.

</comment><comment><USER94> Fuck these websites that hijack your browser history when you scroll down.

Can we ban links to sites that do this?

</comment><comment><USER95> Anyone remember PearPC, the PPC emulator for x86? I wonder how that runs on a modern Intel cpu.

</comment><comment><USER96> Tbf, they do have the _exact_ same leaf shape. Shame on them.

</comment><comment><USER97> They don't even look remotely similar and aren't in same industry. WTF

</comment><comment><USER98> I don't think they are similar. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

</comment><comment><USER10> Next: Apple removes Prepear from AppStore and bans developer accounts.

</comment><comment><USER99> Does Apple own all the fruit?

If yes, can I use a tomato as my company's logo?

<comment><USER100> hahaha i loved your comment. really unbelievable shits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Stanley Kubrick would name its homicidal computer ZOOKD today...

<comment><USER102> Nah, Apple might be rich but they're not dominant like IBM was back in the day. More likely he'd call it one of these:

       hpphmf
       iqqing
       jrrjoh
       ksskpi
       lttlqj
       muumrk
       nvvnsl
       owwotm
       pxxpun
       qyyqvo
       rzzrwp
       saasxq
       tbbtyr
       uccuzs
       vddvat
       weewbu
       xffxcv
       yggydw
       zhhzex
       aiiafy
       bjjbgz
       ckkcha
       dlldib
       emmejc
       fnnfkd

weewbu sounds catchy, a bit like [W]eibo.

lttlqj - little QJ, would work. Otherwise iqqing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Note how they have ignored the Raspberry bleeping Pi.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is there any evidence that this is actually true?

I see none at all presented - not even a quote or statement from a cease and desist.

It seems implausible that Apple could win this, and implausible that they'd even see reason to take action.

Perhaps they haven't.

<comment><USER30> Yes. Here is their trademark notice of opposition. It's as ridiculous as it sounds.

[https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice- of-...](https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice-of- Opposition-v-Super-Healthy-Kids-Inc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Isn't that like comparing apples to pears?

</comment><comment><USER105> Tim Cook's Apple, same as the old.

</comment><comment><USER106> I'm the only fruit around here!

</comment><comment><USER107> It seem more like the legal dept went ahead on this one without higher up PR oking this

</comment><comment><USER108> Shouldn't Libertarians be outraged by this kind of thing? No better way to screw up competition than to make it impossible to win against a much larger company in court...

</comment><comment><USER109> Sosumi

</comment><comment><USER110> The future is a few multi-trillion companies period. This can be good/bad depending on how you view capitalism.

</comment><comment><USER111> Apple employees must be so proud.

<comment><USER112> HAH, imagine a FAANG employee experiencing personal responsibility!

"I only work on infrastructure. I have no control over this. I just want to do my job."

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> That is one rotten apple.

</comment><comment><USER114> Raspberry PI

</comment><comment><USER115> When you buy Apple products you promote their behavior.

I consider it similar to buying BP gas.

</comment><comment><USER100> that's so sad :(

</comment><comment><USER116> How is the logo not a clear parody?

Edit: I see, they just sit on you until you change it because they can afford to buy out the courts.</comment>


German intelligence agencies can decrypt PGP (Google translate) - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2Fnews%2Fbundesregierung-deutsche-geheimdienste-koennen-pgp-entschluesseln-1205-92031.html

<comment><USER2> Most likely they just don't know what they're talking about. This is a government answer to a question posed by parliament, which means that it probably went through a lot of hands, most of which don't even know what PGP stands for, let alone what the technology does.

The statement itself is very vague anyway, saying that "it depends on the strength and the quality of the encryption". Which most likely translates to: they cannot actually break PGP, but they have some tricks to get key material via other means, and then obviously they can decrypt.

<comment><USER3> In addition to weak keys, I would not be surprised if most of the time they actually just steal the keys off the subject's system (and install keyloggers for catching the passphrase). The "Bundestrojaner" (federal trojan) has been widely reported and even if the police no longer use that particular software, I'm sure the secret service have their own, similar tools.

The other thing is that often, knowing _who_ the subject is talking to and _when_ is probably half the battle. PGP doesn't intrinsically protect against that.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. No matter how complex they key, phyiscal security can nearly always be broken. From mysterious breaks ins to _we have ways of making you talk_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Note that "depending on the type and quality of the encryption" can mean "if you use 512-bit keys" (or e.g. use weak entropy to generate the keys). Indeed, that's the likely explanation - if Germany really figured out how to decrypt best-practice PGP, they wouldn't be blabbing about it.

(Also note that the Subject: line is unencrypted by design.)

</comment><comment><USER6> Understand that Western governments have had legal access to rubber-hose cryptography for some time. Inasmuch as a person may be beaten with a rubber hose until the passphrase is revealed, I've no doubt they are able to break PGP.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the title sounds much to factual for such a vague statement. They that they are _in principle_ able to decrypt _such encryption_ , that can mean anything from "we can if the key is weak" over "there is a law which permits us to install a backdoor on your pc" to "we can beat you up until you tell us your password".

And it is in the best interest of german intelligence agencies to make such a vague statement. If they would admit that they are unable to break pgp, that would be taken as a software recommendation by everyone who is afraid of them.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Can decrypt" is a phrase that gives many interpretations

For example, SSH, can you do a MITM? Can you decode a pcap dump? Only for a specific crypt?

Same thing with a PGP, if you have resources you can certainly throw several machines at a dictionary attack and can come with a decryption for most cases (after a long time).

<comment><USER9> > "Can decrypt" is a phrase that gives many interpretations

It's also not the phrase that Google translate gives me - I get "at least partially and / or evaluate", which could refer to lots of things, eg. traffic analysis.

Also... anybody with a copy of PGP (or GPG) can decrypt PGP'ed messages. PGP would be rather pointless otherwise.

Edit: Also there's a pretty good chance it's just plain old fashioned bollocks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know if this is true? Is it a side-channel attack? The translated English is pretty hard to make sense of.

<comment><USER11> No, it's not true. Some minor news outlet misunderstanding things.

<comment><USER12> Or some major politicians :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The answer given is so vague and devoid of meaning they could just as well have answered with a "Some times may be". I don't see any reason to be concerned about the security of PGP.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does now every crap get voted to the top on HackerNews?

</comment><comment><USER15> The NSA have been saying for years that PGP was just that - "Pretty Good"</comment>


Chromebook SSH, how to go ahead with that? - <AUTHOR> So, i have a Chromebook, setup with a simple Debian CLI. How would one go ahead to set up SSH and use secure-shell with tmux and stuff set up ? <comment><AUTHOR> Scrap this. SSH worked just fine. The stupid tmux config is a little messed up.</comment>


After Google Pressure, Samsung Will Dial Back Android Tweaks, Homegrown Apps - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/01/29/after-google-pressure-samsung-will-dial-back-android-tweaks-homegrown-apps/

<comment><USER2> "Google has apps for pretty much all the most important functions on a phone or tablet — email, messaging, maps, storage, browsing, reading the news, finding and consuming media — and they are interlocked so that tasks flow naturally from one app to the next."

Interlocked?

Wouldn't it be great if there were tech journalists that knew the first thing about Android?

<comment><USER3> They all use iPhones and Macs, so they probably think that locked down devices are the norm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We joke about Apple controlling their software, but Google is moving toward the same. The Android fracturing is getting to them.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if Google's Motorola sell off was a part of this bargain. It seems oddly coincidental.</comment>


Euclid, the game - <AUTHOR> http://www.euclidthegame.com/Level19/ <comment><USER2> The landing page for new users is the tutorial: [http://euclidthegame.com/Tutorial/](http://euclidthegame.com/Tutorial/)

Otherwise the site redirects to the next uncompleted level {in the case of the parent, level 19}.

The Github repository: [https://github.com/kasperpeulen/euclidthegame](https://github.com/kasperpeulen/euclidthegame)</comment>


13 Programming Languages to Learn in 2017 - <AUTHOR> http://usersnap.com/blog/programming-languages-2017/ <comment><USER2> It's very nice to know what are the latest trends for 2017, but in my opinion it's better to know a few languages than trying to learn 13.

I do think that giving a look at other languages gives you a wider perspective and may help you become a better programmer, but don't you think that learning a lot of something makes you way more productive than learning a bit of everything?</comment>


A New Chip Tells Farmers When to Water - <AUTHOR> http://modernfarmer.com/2014/06/inside-job-new-chip-tells-farmers-water/ <comment><USER2> I actually did an internship on a grape farm in the early 90's. Getting a degree in agonomy I was all hyped on modern technology and exited about tensiometers. The 20 year old me wanted to install them, but was shut down by the old Hispanic foreman during the meeting. He had been growing grapes for 30+ years. When I asked him how he decided when to water he said... simple. See these weeds growing under the grapes? (it was a type of pigweed I believe) When they start to droop it's time to water. Turns out, the grapes roots are deeper and the vines much larger than the weed, so this was in fact a free (and pretty accurate) tensiometer.

I love tech. And not to be a cynic, but I kind of doubt many serious "farmers" read this magazine. The old foreman maybe converted me to a degree of traditionalism. There doesn't need to be a tech solution for everything. Sometimes simple time tested solutions are better.

EDIT: One more point. Suppose one was able to figure out an individual plant's water needs. I don't know of any irrigation system that would let you meet it. The block, patch, field, whatever gets watered all together. Unless you send people to adjust individual emitters or something. And, if you are doing that you have undoubtedly spent far more money than you will ever make back in increased yields or water savings. This "modern farmer" magazine kind of drives me nuts and I see it posted here on HN frequently.

EDIT2: I guess I'm at my commenting limit so I'll leave the reply here. I agree with poster who says tech is necessary to feed more in the future. But this chip, in a production setting, is a non-solution looking for a problem. And there is way too much stuff like this that people think are "breakthroughs".

People have trouble comprehending scale when it comes to agriculture. A tray in a hydroponic gardens, even a roof full of hydroponic gardens... cool, but it isn't going to ever provide a significant portion of the worlds food. And it is way too expensive to set up and maintain for what it provides. Now... for specialty applications and a few off-season vegetables it's fine. But many thousands of acres and lots of water are required to produce the real bulk of our food... i.e. grains. The aquaponics systems pictured in the links below wouldn't even sufficiently feed the two guys in the picture. And... examining the moisture usage of individual plants per watering cycle... great for research or hobbyist or specialist crops, not practical day to day production agriculture. That's my point.

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, simple, time-tested solutions likely won't get food production to the place it needs to be in 30 years.

<comment><USER2> Not to be deliberately morbid but there is a time tested solution to not enough food that re-appears again and again throughout human history. It's called famine and has been a tremendous regulator of human overpopulation.

Maybe we can beat famine back forever. But I'm not counting on it. The whole situation is actually pretty tenuous. You don't see a lot about it on the news, but I understand the Horn of Africa has been experiencing massive famine over the past several years and hundreds of thousands have died from lack of nourishment. From an outside (rather than personal) perspective, this is just part of the cycle. In the first world we have beat famine back over the past century and the third world has enjoyed much of the benefit of this as they import much of their grain staples. But, we have sucked the aquifers dry, damned up most of the rivers and overallocation the water, are running short of essential nutrients like phosphorous and the whole thing is oil based. So, I am guessing in spite of massive efforts, the cycle of famine re-appears around the world again. Maybe next time around we can make our political/social systems a bit more efficient and forward looking which is, in my opinion, the only way to eliminate famine forever. But I'm not necessarily counting on that either.

<comment><USER2> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus)

relatively speaking, does it matter if we run out in 100 years or 300 years? the point is... we are on an unsustainable path in food production.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminded me of 2008: [http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-12-04/how- to-make-t...](http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-12-04/how-to-make-the- drought-in-the-south-pay)

[Spoiler alert] soil sensors + telemetry + spectrum = Internet of Things [/Spoiler alert]

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting-- tensiometers have been used in soil for a few years now, but never implanted into the plant. Tensiometers basically measure the pressure change caused by plant roots soaking up water.

</comment><comment><USER6> so dumb question, would not some forms of spectral analysis or similar work? This chip solution seems a bit too work intensive for most crops, would not large fields be a bit much for installs?

for my dumb question I found this [http://isda.ncsa.illinois.edu/Hyperspectral/hyperAgricultur....](http://isda.ncsa.illinois.edu/Hyperspectral/hyperAgricultur.html)

<comment><USER5> Spectral analysis (via drone, satellite, airplane etc) is good but won't give you the resolution of 1 chip per plant. It does seem labor intensive to implant every plant, but not impossible. Even large farmers trim and take cuttings from individual plants.

<comment><USER7> You can get plenty of resolution off an airplane. I have seen aerial imagery of sufficient resolution to do stand count analysis, which is basically counting individual green shoots of corn in the spring.

As another poster mentioned, though, spectral analysis shows problems in the leaves of the plant, where it is too late: if your plant is yellowing due to lack of water or nutrients, you've already decreased the potential yield from that plant. It's better to detect deficiencies in the ground.</comment></comment></comment>


FCC's Approval of SpaceX's Starlink Mega Constellation May Have Been Unlawful - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fccs-approval-of-spacexs-starlink-mega-constellation-may-have-been-unlawful/ <comment><USER2> The article references language in section 1508 of NEPA to as a possibility of why the FCC might have needed to perform an environmental review; however, if you read the quoted language in context of the full section it seems to require a tortured reading of the section to apply it in this case.

<comment><USER3> ""Astronomers are having these issues [and think] there's nothing they can do legally," says the paper's author Ramon Ryan, a _second-year law student_ at Vanderbilt University."

Emphasis mine. And that's their lead-off quote. The sense I get from the other quotes in the article is that the people in question probably really did say that, but that they probably don't believe this is a viable legal avenue either, the journalist is just selectively quoting the "But I suppose with the right combination of unlikely events it could be a possible legal avenue" hedging they made. But I admit that's a personal impression of mine, not something I can prove. I'm just inferring it based on the tepidness of the other quotes.

However, I don't blame a student for putting out a paper. I blame the Scientific American for constructing such a thinly-based article, because the real reason is that they want the controversy stirred up, or it's what they personally wanted to say even though the factual basis isn't really there to support it. This sort of crap is why journalists aren't trusted. Story-first, evidence later; it's like they're the equal and opposite reaction to scientists existing in the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just really don't care at all. People abuse the hell out of the NEPA just to shut down or slow down things they don't like. Rarely is it ever actually about the environment.

<comment><USER5> And I'm curious how much of cable ISPs and totalitarian governments lobby is behind the anti-Starlink hype.

<comment><USER4> Musk also seems to spawn hordes of naysayers and pessimists who would rather revel in his personal failure than see a better world brought partially by his successes.

I am not sure exactly why people react this way. Are people also following around Bill Gates vocally hoping his ventures into vaccination and energy go belly up?

<comment><USER6> I think part of the reason why Musk and his ventures attract vocal opponents is that he's challenging entrenched interests and making good progress at it.

To speculate, there might be financial movitations for negative PR campaigns, for example from the oil and traditional automobile industries.

<comment><USER7> Oil companies, energy companies, automobile companies and their endless suppliers, banks hate him because of PayPal, defense contractors might hate him if SpaceX takes over some contracts they'd otherwise have. Other battery manufacturers. The several other self driving companies (or divisions I guess since they seem to all get acquired). I don't know, the list is probably endless.

Edit: light rail companies and their supporting infrastructure companies

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Finding a way to avoid red tape seems like a massive cost and time saving.

I remember seeing something similar with The Boring Company. Avoiding red tape by getting the city to agree the depth was great enough to not need look into environmental impact.

<comment><USER9> What's costly in California isn't the EIR, but the subsequent lawsuits. Boring Company got an exemption in Hawthorne because they were tunneling under a relatively poor neighborhood and nobody showed up at the public hearings to challenge the exemption. Poor people have neither the expertise, resources, nor inclination to game the system, at least not unless there's a local community activist.

But rich people do, and that's what happened with the Dodger Stadium project: NIMBYs arrived and the city immediately caved. So now Boring Company is doing the EIR. But, again, EIRs are easy. It's exceptional that something major is found, like an endangered species; usually it's simple, basic stuff; the kind of stuff originally intended to be remediated with the reports. There's a whole industry of professionals that come out, run tests, and write it up with little friction. But under California's CEQA, NIMBYs can challenge it endlessly in the courts without repercussions. It's a complete absurdity and has nothing to do with environmental impacts. But the law can't be changed because the rich and powerful know full well that its function is to permit neighborhoods and special interests to block projects, and they won't give that up.

Boring Company will never get an exemption where an exemption would truly matter.

<comment><USER10> > Boring Company will never get an exemption where an exemption would truly > matter.

If California wants to prevent growth and keep repeatedly shooting itself in the foot for decades to come, it's a choice. It makes that market less competitive. People seem to imagine that silicon valley will remain the dominant tech hub of the world forever, but that could change. Maybe, eventually, it's California that won't matter anymore.

<comment><USER11> > Maybe, eventually, it's California that won't matter anymore.

California's economy is the fifth-largest in the world. It's a whole lot more than a tech hub.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not to ask the dumb question, but what's the tangible environmental impact of having satellites visible at certain during the night in an unpolluted sky that in-theory burn up when they're decommissioned much like any meteor might?

I don't mean the impact to human projects e.g. astronomy or even to human culture. I mean to the actual environment itself and the life surrounding us, since the argument seems to make the claim that there's a detrimental environmental impact.

> In its reasoning for its categorical exclusion, the FCC states that its > actions "have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment > and are categorically excluded from environmental processing." Ryan says > that the FCC may have been wrong in this assessment, however. "The FCC has > never performed a study showing why commercial satellites deserved to be > classified as categorically excluded from review," he says. "And the > evidence shows that these satellites are having an environmental impact. If > the FCC were sued over its noncompliance with NEPA, it would likely lose."

For instance, the obvious environmental impact of this case cited in the article:

> National Institutes of Health [was] defeated by environmental groups on the > question of the lawfulness of the agency's approval of genetically modified > bacteria for crops without proper review

because of the unknown risks of engineered genes leaking into the gene pools of their respective organisms and potentially drastically impacting life.

> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lost a case in which it had approved licenses > for gambling barges in Mississippi without proper NEPA review.

Seems easy, substantially increased traffic to the boats has a tangible environmental impact e.g. pollution, littering, etc.

But I fail to see the same argument here... and I do desire to be enlightened. There's probably something extremely simple that's just whooshing over my head.

<comment><USER13> Some animals navigate using stars: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/)

Starlink could potentially disrupt that. Most likely it will not, but who knows.

One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste.

From legal perspective, I guess it's hard to argue that there is no impact, if you do not asses the impact.

Overall, I don't think there is not much cause for concern for non-human activities. And even for humans it's about astronomy and moving dots on night sky outside urban areas.

<comment><USER14> Artificial lighting on the surface has a far greater impact on wildlife.

<comment><USER15> But that doesn't say anything about the impact (or lack thereof) of StarLink on wildlife.

<comment><USER16> It does say something about a precedent though.

I like protecting the environment, but the proposed scenario seems pretty implausible to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Do the satellites disrupt telescopes world wide? If that's the case it's pretty tough on observatories that were recently built, at (apparently) a tens of millions of dollar price tag, that are now impacted by the decision to launch without proper oversight.

Obviously having more accessible internet for the rest of the world is a positive.

Ref: [https://www.space.com/8791-giant-telescope-50-million- fundin...](https://www.space.com/8791-giant-telescope-50-million-funding.html)

<comment><USER18> Not only internet, but Starlink funds Starship and gives it enough payload to start amortizing the rockets. With Starship launch prices at scale, astronomers can have all sorts of space telescopes at their disposal, and it won't cost much.

This isn't only because launch will be cheaper. Space hardware is expensive mostly because it has to be both durable and lightweight. If launch is cheap, it's fine for the hardware to be heavy, and if it breaks then it doesn't cost much to replace it.

Beyond astronomy, Starlink revenue and Starship are the keys to becoming a real space-faring society.

<comment><USER19> I really don't think it's a good thing for a company to cause problems for ground-based astronomy in the name of selling space-based astronomy.

<comment><USER18> It's in the name of expanding civilization beyond this planet, but sure, space-based astronomy is one part of that.

However, I'm not claiming SpaceX will be selling space telescopes. They'll just provide really cheap launch services to anyone who wants to launch one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember seeing the actual satellite being deployed live last year, I also remember talking about it with my colleagues at the time (all in IT), none of them had heard about Starlink.

It seems to me they tried to make as less noise as possible, once already deployed it is harder to go back. I might be completely wrong but from my perspective it really looked like "first we deploy the satellite then we take care of advertising / telling people what this is about"

<comment><USER21> Elon does not like to spend much on marketing/ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> They need to consider that other countries might launch satellite constellation too, such as China [http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/03/c_138195322.htm](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/03/c_138195322.htm)

</comment><comment><USER23> Can someone help me understand the difference between illegal and unlawful?

</comment><comment><USER24> You mean there may actually be some hope?? Wonders never cease...

</comment><comment><USER25> Just start the satellites from another country.

<comment><USER26> Doesn't work that easily, unless SpaceX also moves to another country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The FCC will likely say: "Choose between high speed internet in rural areas, and astronomer inconvenience"

</comment><comment><USER28> Another NEPA issue this week was the fuel dumping by Delta Flight 89 - [https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/delta-777-dumps-fuel- on-s...](https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/delta-777-dumps-fuel-on-school- during-emergency-return-to-lax/)

I feel that aviation regulators should have addressed this a hundred years ago. No aircraft that's above its maximum safe landing weight should ever have been allowed to take off.

(I realize it's inconvenient to impose this regulation today. Maximum safe landing weights can be a hundred thousand pounds less than maximum safe takeoff weights.)

<comment><USER29> All planes can land safely at their MTOW. However, doing so may cause damage that needs repair before a subsequent flight. It also means you need more runway, which can limit your options or reduce safety margins.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who's making money during the election madness? - <AUTHOR> Lot's of attention on social media, traditional media, etc. Who's cashing in on all this? Who benefits the most? <comment><USER2> A black guy selling "Make America Great Again" Merchandise. Like seriously. Saw him on CNN too. Source => "Meet the man making money off Donald Trump" [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/27/meet- man-making-money-off-donald-trump/89476416/)

Trump's campaign also cashed in on it. Related: "Anything with Trump name is selling fast" => [http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/trump-name- sell...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/news/economy/trump-name-sells-hat- tshirt/)

<comment><USER3> >A black guy selling "Make America Great Again" Merchandise. Like seriously. Saw him on CNN too

Probably you shouldn't watch CNN too much about politics.

<comment><USER2> > Probably you shouldn't watch CNN too much about politics.

Never said I did. I was scrolling through the channels on my TV and happened to see it. It caught my attention cos it was a black guy selling pro-Trump stuff at, and to a hostile all-white crowd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After Brexit, I waited for the inevitable market overreaction. I took long positions in British ETFs. When the market recovered from the post-Brexit slump, I made money.

I'm betting that Trump _isn 't_ the disaster that the markets are currently predicting. I plan to do the same thing today.

<comment><USER5> Damn, I wanted to do the same, but I only had spare change free.

How are you betting against the "Trumpocalypse"? Is there anything more specific than broad market ETFs?

<comment><USER4> For the Trumpocalypse, I'm just carefully timing my purchases of SPY and a couple of others.

My general strategy is to accumulate SPY and a few other securities, so in reality I'm just reallocating my broader portfolio in the direction of SPY right now, and moving some purchases from the future to today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Both social and traditional news media are structured to cash in on unique/improbable/dramatic events automatically. Look forward to a surge of retrospectives from all sides competing for attention that is monetized through ad spend.

As far as the advertisers? The ad buyers will be able to funnel outraged/ecstatic dollars into various foundations and funds. The various big brands will most likely begin shipping "feel good, come together" style ads that ostensibly encourage "healing" while simultaneously improving brand perception/equity that drives sales.

The small fries are the bookies, the forex traders, and the merch hawkers.

<comment><USER7> > Both social and traditional news media are structured to cash in on > unique/improbable/dramatic events automatically.

How so, politician? Anything by design? Or simply the human nature to consume more media in "watershed" events? This could explain some of the media positioning in the last 18 months or so..

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> All private media (print, radio, and TV) make a lot from ad buys. At the local level, political consultants and mailhouses (those who print and send those glossy mailers -- the original tree-killing meme) make their living off elections.

<comment><USER9> In the long run, it's going to be an absolute bloodbath though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There was a news article about teens in Macedonia making up to 3k a day by writing clickbait/gossip articles on Trump and cashing in on ads.

</comment><comment><USER11> A friend of a friend had the chance to take out $1000 on 1000:1 odds 18 months ago on Donald Trump being president. He should have taken it...

<comment><USER12> Wtf? Why would anyone not take this bet? Even if you didn't think Trump was going to win (I didn't) this is obviously absurd EV.

<comment><USER13> Because $1000 is a lot of money for some people

<comment><USER14> No its I give you ten dollars, if trump wins you give me ten thousand dollars, else you keep my ten.

<comment><USER13> I was under the impression that it had to be $1000, but it doesn't matter anyway. If you bet $10 on everything that seems highly unlikely but may pay out a lot, you will end up losing money very quickly.

<comment><USER14> Why do you say that? its called selling risk premium... I don't see many insurance underwriters blowing up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Day traders. Gold rallied. US dollar and the Mexican peso plummeted.

I and many others made a decent amount.

</comment><comment><USER16> Doomsday prepper websites

</comment><comment><USER17> Bookies taking bets on the election.

Only a moron would have bet on trump with 80% chance of a Hilary win estimated. Heck, even trump clearly didn't think he would win judging by his claims the election wold be rigged before it began.

<comment><USER18> Only a moron would believe such odds, especially after happened to Brexit (odds were the same on the night before the result).

<comment><USER17> Up until a few hours before trump took Florida, the traditional news sites were discussing how big a sweep for Clinton and if Republic would loose the house.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was honestly going to place a bet on Hillary winning the election, I thought it would be a guaranteed way to make money. I didn't end up doing it. Honestly I actually wish that I did, even in hindsight.

<comment><USER20> You, given perfect knowledge, would choose to lose money? You must have more money than sense.

<comment><USER19> Yep, just $100 or so. I'm not a US citizen, so I can't vote. It would just be a statement. In fact, maybe I'll donate $100 to a climate change NGO right now.

There we go, that's a better statement: [https://imgur.com/a/lPWRw](https://imgur.com/a/lPWRw)

<comment><USER20> That makes more sense. I'm glad we had this discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Biotech ETFs are way up today (almost 10%) - it looks like with the fear of Hillary capping medical costs now gone, a lot of folks are seeing more long term value:

[http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IBB?ltr=1](http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IBB?ltr=1) [http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XBI?ltr=1](http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/XBI?ltr=1)

</comment><comment><USER22> I made about $200 trading a small amount of money on the forex markets while I watched the live coverage. I was surprised the yen didn't drop that much, but I also missed the article about the BOJ saying they would intervene.

</comment><comment><USER23> I could bet these guys made some money: [https://senddickstodonald.com/](https://senddickstodonald.com/)

<comment><USER24> Oh wow. I would _really_ like to be a fly on the wall to see what kind of mail the White House has been receiving for the last however many years...

Although it probably gets old after a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I put £60 on at 7/2, which was particularly good as it was £30 from me and a £30 matching bet from the bookmaker as a new customer.

</comment><comment> martin-adams YouTubers making parody videos. Social Blade estimates a viral video of about 6m views could earn between $3k to $23k in ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER26> Folks shorting stock futures.

</comment><comment><USER13> Alex Jones and friends.

</comment><comment><USER27> You could probably have made some spare change if you got a few decent domains and hired some people to right blogspam for you all throughout this election.

</comment><comment><USER28> Pretty much anyone who benefits from more loose monetary policy from the US. UK stocks heavily exposed to the US market are up 4-5% (or at least, mine are.)

</comment><comment><USER29> stock brokers will have a sweet day tomorrow while the market crashes.

</comment><comment><USER30> Attention--w-h-o-r-e-s make money during such events.</comment>


Misinformation Has Created a New World Disorder - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misinformation-has-created-a-new-world-disorder/ <comment><USER2> It's not as though the mainstream press are blameless. Maybe they wouldn't have lost their position if they weren't blatantly peddling propaganda. In places like the UK and Canada, the top news agencies are literally government owned. CNN is hilariously biased. Western news outlets have been caught time and time again misleading people.

Alternative news sources are far from perfect as well, but in an age where everyone is trying to mislead, it forces people who want to be informed to actually take in events from multiple outlets and try to discern where truth lies for themselves. Maybe it's my Slavic upbringing, but I was taught to be sceptical of everyone and everything.

Also, information can't be weaponized cheaply. If one side has access to it, so does the other. They counteract each other. In the end, people still have to discern news for themselves.

Finally, it's quite hilarious to hear news outlets trying to convince us that today we're misinformed, and if only we do a few things to 'fix' the system, we can get to a point where they're our only source of news again.

<comment><USER3> Do you have any solutions? It's clearly evident that most of the public wants and pays for sensationalism and bias rather than facts, hence as a business, it's not viable to provide objective truths.

It's easy to blame "the media". It's harder to look at ourselves, relatives, friends, neighbors, and community and say we haven't really done anything to incentivize good sources of information to exist.

We pay nothing for quality journalism and expect everything. I'm actually impressed with what we do have at least for now.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure there is a 'solution' per se. I'm not even 100% convinced any of this is a problem. If we allow a single outlet to become our filter for what's true and false, then they wield too much power over us and history shows at some point in time they will exploit it.

If someone wants to be informed, I'd say go out into the world, talk to people and experience things, but even that has its limits (one person can only see so much). You can take in many different sources and try to filter out the noise, but that takes a lot of time. I try to be informed on topics that matter to me but I'll gladly admit that some topics simply don't matter to me so I don't put in the effort.

In the end, maybe this _is_ the inevitable result of our system. It's far from perfect but I still think it's better than some alternatives.

<comment><USER4> It seems like the issue is that it takes a lot of time and effort to be informed enough on any topic to make a good decision on it, and people are limited on how many topics they can be reasonably informed about. However, we have an expectation that people should take a stance on any particular event happening in the world when asked for their opinion. The default answer to such a question shouldn't be yes or know, but I don't know, and there shouldn't be any shame attached to not knowing because no one can know everything.

Also, another part of the problem might be how news media implies that by consuming their publications in a few minutes you can be just as informed as the expert who has been studying a topic for years, and how they overinflate people's confidence in what little they know.

<comment><USER5> > '...you can be just as informed as the expert who has been studying a topic > for years...'

Reminded me of the BREXIT vote.

<comment><USER6> Reminds me of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Back in the early 90s, I was very optimistic about the potential for Internet- mediated "citizen journalism" to counter misinformation delivered by the mass media.

I was such a bloody idealist. The distinction between democratic populism and mob violence is iffy in practice.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not a single example of leftist/liberal misinformation in the piece. Either the left are as pure and innocent as a newborn kitten, or this article is itself misinformation.

<comment><USER9> I'll tell you something interesting.

Yesterday a replicated version of GPT2 was published to the wild[1]. I've been playing with the model quite a bit since then and found something unexpected.

If you give it a right-wing US politics prompt, it performs so well that most of the output could pass for a coherent human without any editing. An example prompt would be

> The only way to save America is to vote for Donald trump. The democrats have > failed us

If you give it an inverse left-wing variant of the same prompt, it mostly returns incoherent output and sometimes actually flips back to the right-wing narrative. An example would be

> The only way to save America is to impeach Trump. The republicans have > failed us

How well this model performs depends on how much training data it had access to. And this model was mostly trained on Reddit comments. So even this early on, OpenGPT is clearly highlighting biases in Reddit comments. Reddit is traditionally known as the bastion of the left, so the fact that OpenGPT is much more effective at generating right-wing propaganda is indicative of something. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess what.

[1] [https://medium.com/@vanya_cohen/opengpt-2-we-replicated- gpt-...](https://medium.com/@vanya_cohen/opengpt-2-we-replicated- gpt-2-because-you-can-too-45e34e6d36dc)

<comment><USER10> It could simply be a consequence of the poor inversion - I don't recall seeing many left-wing news that start with "How to save America". You're effectively giving it conflicting input.

<comment><USER9> You're welcome to propose a better _inversion_ and I'll check the output and report back.

It does need to be an inversion though, not a complete change of prompt.

It's a general theme with this model though. When you try to get it to do left-wing propaganda, it has a tendency to flip back to right-wing because of the bias in the training data.

<comment><USER10> But the difference between left and right-wing stories _is_ a complete change of prompt. By requiring an inversion, you're basically requiring a malformed prompt. Which is moot anyway because:

> Reddit is traditionally known as the bastion of the left, so the fact that > OpenGPT is much more effective at generating right-wing propaganda is > indicative of something. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess > what.

There are _so_ many ways to interpret this: 1) Reddit may not be such a bastion of the left as you think (several posters claimed so here) 2) Just because a story is right-wing doesn't make it propaganda. 3) Reddit _could_ be a left-wing bastion, and _therefore_ share right-wing propaganda to mock it or hate on it. Just like right-wing sites like to highlight all those "Dear White People: Please Stop" stories by Salon et. al.

<comment><USER9> I'm sorry you said the inversion is poor so I assumed you had a better one in mind.

Please, give me a pair of left/right wing variants of the same general concept that you think are not 'poor' and lets have a look at what that yields.

Otherwise stop saying the inversion is poor or malformed.

<comment><USER11> The questions in [http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/eigenvectors?surveyid=175...](http://politics.beasts.org/scripts/eigenvectors?surveyid=1753513807) might make a good start, with the addition/removal of "not". Although I'm not convinced that word-handling AI handles "not" correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fidelity to reality.

I think that Wendell Berry's "Standing by Words" is relevant

> In his keynote essay, Berry argues that "we have seen, for perhaps a hundred > and fifty years, a gradual increase in language that is either meaningless > or destructive of meaning." Furthermore, he continues, "this increasing > unreliability of language parallels the increasing disintegration, over the > same period, of persons and communities."

~[https://www.enotes.com/topics/standing-by- words](https://www.enotes.com/topics/standing-by-words)

Mom talks about how TVs weren't even a thing when she was a girl. She remembers seeing the first one in the store. Back then they only broadcast for a few hours in the evenings.

Now you can't ride a bus without someone watching TV on their phone.

Nothing on those screens is real. Not even HD surround sound Nature shows are actually real. We are living in a hyper-mediated world.

Align yourself with reality, it's _nice_ out here.

<comment><USER5> Hmm. In the world you envision I see lower employment because there's just less work.

Hard to infinity divide and recombine labor in the 'real world' of butchers, bakers, construction, grocery stores, mechanics, retail, bus drivers.

Whereas movies, television, streaming, toys, video game tie-ins need a lot of busy people.

I see much more work in software and hardware and security and seo and e-commerce and recommendation engines and social media.

Not to mention JavaScript, Go, Rust, Python, agile-long live agile; down with agile.

Haha. You had me going for a minute.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." -Thomas Jefferson

Everyone seems to talk a lot about governments, but at some point we may need to explore whether being informed about non-government entities may be just as important in this context.

I would argue that being informed about government is important for preserving a democracy, and being informed about industry is important for preserving a free market. Information inequality threatens the integrity of any system that relies on a group to make decisions, whether it's a town hall meeting or a shareholder event. By the vote or by the dollar. It creates inefficiencies that are exploited by the information-wealthy.

As regrettable as it is to think this way, I am not sure there is a technological solution to the problem of misinformation. In the very near future we may only want to connect to the internet for entertainment, irrespective of truth. Critical thinking will still be alive, but anyone who engages in it truthfully will probably limit their thoughts to people, things, and events in their immediate surroundings.

Later, when we're honest with ourselves, we'll have another chance to be honest with each other.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is a good list of different type of issues being produced.

I think there is a need of tracking it the same way we track software bugs. I thought Tristan Harris's Ledger of Harm's was a good attempt. Looks like this author is doing a similar thing. Should all be merged into some kind master list that software architects can stay aware of.

The idea of a "9/11" Test, getting software devs to think about how their tools and features will be used during a 9/11 type event is a good suggestion.

I had a boss once who would ask the team, 'how would the most shadiest character you personally know, use this proposed feature?'.

<comment><USER15> > I had a boss once who would ask the team, 'how would the most shadiest > character you personally know, use this proposed feature?'.

I mean society is based on trust and faith, with that kind of reasoning you'll only come up with the most paranoical and authoritarian design schemes.

<comment><USER16> Human's always game every system we ever develop. It is reasonable to recognize this when you design systems.

I have a f2p game and it is unbelievable how clever some of the free players are at figuring out ways to get everything for free.

<comment><USER10> > unbelievable how clever some of the free players are

You have my curiosity.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook 2FA is to mitigate data regulations and better tracking - <AUTHOR> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1101402001907372032.html <comment><USER2> Did anyone ever question this? Of course they want the phone number to identify you across data-sets. That's why some of us get a new phone number for each service that's important enough. I even made myself an android app that allows my "burner phones" in the basement to send xmpp messages to my real phone with these 2FA messages.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Apple should offer unlimited additional phone numbers that work as inbound > SMS lines only.

That's a pretty funny: the next front could be a battle between FAANG (each of whom need the others) for/against privacy.

I hope A do this.

</comment><comment><USER4> Another post on HN as we speak, titled "Facebook claimed phone number was only for 2FA. Now it's searchable."</comment>


What You Can't Say(2004) - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html <comment><AUTHOR> I just like this article,probably one of my favorites.It was true 13 years ago and it is still true now.</comment>


Finally, multiple synchronous replication for PostgreSQL has been committed - <AUTHOR> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=989be0810dffd08b54e1caecec0677608211c339 <comment><USER2> Is this similar to Oracle RAC? I think RAC fully commits transactions to all nodes in the cluster (or at least N nodes in cluster)?</comment>


Things Nobody Told Me About Being a Software Engineer - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/anaulin/things-nobody-told-me-about-being-a-software-engineer-3pa5 <comment><USER2> As the author says, Programming is a lot more fun than software engineering.</comment>


Are cooks earning minimum wage? - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/158435219/tip-the-cook-app?ref=category_newest <comment><USER2> True story from Oakland: Minimum wage raised to $15. Servers all double their base wage and still get tips. Cooks and bussers all stay exactly where they were, generally at $15.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Reservoir Dogs Tipping/Gratuity Scene [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sbYy0WdGQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sbYy0WdGQ)</comment>


Ask HN: Why do you blog? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I always struggle with finding subjects for blog posts:

if it is something I already know, it looks too simple to write about; if it is something I know a little or nothing about, I am afraid my learning notes will be not good enough.

In both cases I don't want to show myself as some noob :)

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Being able to effectively communicate technical topics using English is challenging. Technical writing is a talent.

2\. It helps me communicate better professionally, whether verbally or written.

3\. It's nice to share knowledge when you learn something new, especially something you think can help many other developers.

4\. It's another thing to show off and market to potential employers.

5\. For me, writing things out makes everything more clear in my head, and hopefully the reader's as well.

6\. It holds me accountable to continue learning new things. I force myself to write 3 technical blog posts per week, and I can't do that if I'm not learning new things.

</comment><comment><USER4> I used to run a blog with a classmate where we'd write about politics and other socially relevant themes. For me, posting an article there meant taking time to develop my own thoughts and opinions on a given issue; as well as giving me practice in how to craft words and sentences into essays. I also enjoyed the discussions we would have in the comment section after each post was published, although we never did attain the number of readers we had hoped for.

</comment><comment><USER5> Not currently blogging but it's an excellent way to get your name out there. It gives you a lot of credibility when applying to a job or finding clients. It can also help a ton of people. My old blog had around 5000 visitors per month (and I didn't even post any new articles for a few years). Most of them just came through stack overflow and Google and were interested in solving their problems with the solution that I described.

</comment><comment><USER6> To have a place on the internet which you can call your own. Sure you can create a website, but blogging is a shortcut easy way out for me without any cost. It helps me clear my mind and lets me share my thoughts and information with others.

</comment><comment><USER7> I started blogging because I believed that content was a way to get traffic, but I could never find the energy to write with that mindset.

Now I blog because I want to spread my ideas and educate people, that get me to the keyboard easily and words seems to flow from my fingers :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Blogging helps you clarify your ideas by forcing you to explain them to someone else.

</comment><comment><USER9> Exposure. You blog about things you're good at, to gather more followers and gain credibility in your field.

</comment><comment><USER10> I blog for several reasons, some of which are:

\- marketing

\- honing my writing skills

\- getting better at conveying a message and explaining complex concepts in simple terms

\- structuring my ideas and thoughts

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm the only one in family that is living abroad. I am using blog to keep them updated with my day to day life.

</comment><comment><USER12> To explain something complex I learned that most people may not know.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why wouldn't you? I am always amazed by the reach of blog posts

</comment><comment><USER14> I wanted to learn a new technology so I built a blog with it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Because I want to continually get better at teaching.

</comment><comment><USER16> Express my mind, even if not many people read it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Because we can.

</comment><comment><USER18> Because.

</comment><comment><USER19> Blogging is sharing information with people, it's that simple. Now it depends on what you what people to know about.</comment>