60fps scrolling using pointer-events: none - <AUTHOR> http://www.thecssninja.com/javascript/pointer-events-60fps <comment><USER2> I'm a bit surprised browsers do in-scrolling events: browser performance has been under heavy optimization for years and switching to "panning mode" with no events emitted while scrolling would seem like a splendid candidate for something like a "Turbo mode". Alternatively the change to disable events could've plausibly been written as a fix to usability bugs caused by in-scroll hover events.

This is because I'm not sure if, since -94 or so, I've seen a single case where event handling while scrolling would have actually added to browsing usability at all. It consistently creates two kinds of problems: first laggy scrolling as elements with heavy events handlers get focused and unfocused and secondly crazy behaviour when on-hover menus will open abruptly while scrolling and the state of the page ends up messed up when the scrolling stops.

It makes sense to scroll like it happens in mobile devices: the input events drive the scrolling only and the page just pans around as long as the fingers move on the screen, and the browser effectively returns to interactive mode when the scrolling stops.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm. I can only see a minor performance increase in Chrome. Safari is dead smooth regardless of the option selected, and Firefox is pretty hanky even with events disabled.

This is probably a useful technique for specific situations where scroll events are causing issues, but it's definitely something that should generally be handled by the browser, rather than the developer. Still, Safari's awesome performance suggests that there's room for improvement in browsers' handling of this situation.

</comment><comment><USER4> Considering I was just googling about, wondering why I had such awful scrolling FPS, seeing this prompted me to just make a userscript [1]. Just load it up in greasemonkey. Tested in FF2x.

Works on all pages, just adds the pointer-hover: none to the body element. Using modified code from the article. Quite useful, really. I'm surprised at how often I subconsciously guide my cursor away from content while scrolling pages to prevent hover effects popping off.

[1] [http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/185715](http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/185715)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've noticed Safari delaying hover events while scrolling, presumably for this same reason. It seems like something the browser should handle. Individual sites shouldn't be forced to hack around the issue.

<comment><USER6> I disagree -- some apps are better when hover effects appear instantly, even in response to scrolling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Perhaps this is a dumb question because I don't know much about browser performance optimization, but why is a modern browser unable to animate one hover effect over the currently pointed to box at 60 fps as you scroll down the page? That does not sound particularly computationally intensive.

<comment><USER8> I know, right? Quake seemed to manage this stuff on my plodding beige box back in the day without sweating.

The excuse I hear from people who understand this stuff properly is that the quake engine didn't need to have a top of the line text rendering engine running on every surface, and this is what makes visual effects in browsers so expensive.

<comment><USER9> Quake required a 75mhz Pentium, and you were lucky to get 20-30 fps. I don't remember getting anything like 60fps until a few years later with GLQuake and a Pentium II.

<comment><USER10> not true, I used to play on a 486DX, you did need a whopping 16mb of ram for it to run acceptably though.

<comment><USER9> I think we're both right. :)

I believe the official system requirement was a Pentium 75, though in reality you could run it on a 486DX pretty well if you had a VESA local bus video card, etc.

(I think I remember running it pretty horribly on a 486SX, like 3fps...)

Oh, the memories!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It looks to me like Firefox already does this, only better - when scrolling stops, it not only reënables hover, but also applies its effects immediately. With the JS solution, anything the cursor lands on will only hover once the mouse moves again.

</comment><comment><USER12> So this is from HTML5Rocks, I go to their site and in the footer. "This is a Google Project"

I want to subscribe to their articles, Twitter? No, Google Plus? No,... they only have RSS.

Now I wish there was a Google product that works with RSS.

<comment><USER13> Why are people obsessing over Google Reader as the only way to subscribe to RSS? There are a ton of alternative RSS readers around. I'm currently [http://feeder.co/](http://feeder.co/), it's a Chrome extension.

<comment><USER14> But HTML5Rocks is a Google project. It would make sense for them to use Google's replacement for RSS which is Google+. Instead they are continuing to use RSS.

<comment><USER13> Since when is Google+ a "replacement for RSS"? Since when did even Google announce that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> why is hover detection slow? i know browser devs are way behind the times... but three things:

* the browser can implement this optimisation

* spatial partitioning maybe is a much better general solution. the 2d aabb case is extrememly fast and can handle checks against 10000s of boxes per ms with good memory layout

* stagger checks across frames if more optimisation is needed when there are say, 100000s boxes to test (maybe? i'm skeptical even that would be especially slow)

</comment><comment><USER16> Not much of an effect on my site's timeline (Chrome 31), maybe even a little worse than not having it.

Perhaps the demo "paints" a false picture considering that most sites don't have the same simplicity/symmetry of hoverable elements.

</comment><comment><USER17> Opera probably already does something like that as scrolling in it is smoother than in FF on my machine even with the "disable hover"

<comment><USER18> Firefox seems to be exceptionally slow with rendering the drop shadow already, i.e. even scrolling without any hover is awfully slow here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I still read !important as "not important" sometimes. Was probably a poor choice of a keyword for that purpose.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, who decided "!" meant "not"? That's just weird ;)

<comment><USER19> Well :) I like that more than something like this, in the spirit of Objective-C:

[a isNotEqualToIntegerWithSign:b]

(a parody of course)</comment></comment></comment>


We Can Do Better - <AUTHOR> http://www.ea.com/news/we-can-do-better <comment><USER2> They could've "done better" by actually saying what they will do to improve things. This was an absolutely atrocious PR piece. It didn't address any of the issues people were having.

"45 million registered users are proving them wrong."

Such a goofy and useless statistic. When you require registration for your products, that doesn't mean people are satisfied users of your service, it means you got a lot of people to sign up. It's not an accurate metric for how many people actually _enjoy and use_ the service.

Continuing...

"Some people think that free-to-play games and micro-transactions are a pox on gaming. Tens of millions more are playing and loving those games."

Again: just because you have a bunch of people willing to pay you money for your crap, doesn't mean it isn't crap and you couldn't be doing better.

This sort of defense mechanism doesn't even address the problems people are having. It's almost insulting to everyone who does, legitimately, have a gripe with EA as a company. Those folks angry with EA's principles, games, or for simply not getting the value of what they paid are being cast aside.

It's extremely obvious they're less concerned with addressing issues and more concerned with telling everyone about how many users they have or what their sales are:

"But here's the truth: each year EA interacts with more than 350 million gamers; Origin is breaking records for revenue and users; The Simpsons: Tapped Out and Real Racing 3 are at the top of the mobile charts; Battlefield 3 and FIFA are stunning achievements with tens of millions of players; and SimCity is being enjoyed by millions of passionate fans all over the world."

It seems possible to paraphrase the entirety of this press release: "We recognize a lot of people hate us, but hey, we've got a lot of other people paying us who aren't you, so we can't be _that_ wrong, can we?"

<comment><USER3> As a non-gamer, I don't get it.

Why do people buy EA games if they hate them so much?

<comment><USER4> EA has a LOT of money to throw at games. They're one of the few publishers that can play at that level and put out blockbuster, ridiculous budget games. People like the polish and shine of big-budget games, some of which are genuinely not possible with less money.

Unfortunately, there's also an aspect that consumers don't get a whole lot of choices. Movies are a decent comparison to that. Why are there so many bad sequels that everyone hates? Cause they still buy tickets. Any movie > no movie.

Plus, EA used to make great games.

<comment><USER5> EA still does make great games, sometimes. Their problems tend to be more toward customer-hostile actions (see: SimCity, the myriad Origin customer service horror stories, the letter that spawned this thread) and their tendency to eat smaller studios that were fan favorites before their acquisition (BioWare, Maxis, and so on). That last one is important to understand the vitriol thrown at the company, I think; it's a bit galling to see a franchise like SimCity, that touched so many people's childhoods (like mine), become the joke that it has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Spin 101: Muddy up the legitimate complaints about Origin and the fumbled _SimCity_ launch with anecdotes about conservatives carpetbombing the company with hate mail regarding LGBTQ playables. Notice that was the last bullet point; you move forward to the next paragraph thinking "wow, that's terrible," and you're shocked enough about that to start forgetting the first bullet points. The next paragraph then doubles down on the LGBTQ hate. You've completely forgotten the _SimCity_ bullet point now.

Oh yeah, and without you realizing it, he just lightly compared your complaints about _SimCity_ always-on to gay bashing and not liking the choice of a cover athlete for a sports game. Apparently, EA considers all of them equally frivolous. How 'bout that, huh?

This is a pretty good example of how to tell your customers that they're wrong but not leave them feeling like you did so (he did get pretty direct on the DRM point, though, which is interesting). Just look at the love pouring in on the comments over there already, which shows you that it's working in the general case. Not to mention completely omitting what you're going to do about the problems, but cleverly disguising the omission itself.

A final thought, all of that aside: If I were Will Wright, I'd be genuinely sad about what happened to SimCity regardless of the circumstances of the Maxis sale. He left EA in 2009, which makes you wonder how long this _SimCity_ has been in development; I'd wager about three years. That's a hallowed franchise in gaming, in my opinion, a unique IP that stood among the ranks of _Civilization_ in its own way for many years and spawned really fun games like _SimTower_ and _SimAnt_ , and after this it will never be the same.

<comment><USER7> Wow. That LGBT bullet point and statement left me mouth agape.

No matter what opinions and thoughts you have on gay marriage and LGBTQ issues, it's blatantly obvious that there is a current cultural shift in the US. In a max of 10 years, and probably much sooner, gay marriage will undoubtedly be legal. And right now, it's more socially acceptable to support gay marriage and hold progressive LGBT views then to not.

So when EA tries to play the 'we will not back down from our core principles!' card, it comes out sounding like a lame cry to try and drum up some good feelings towards EA.

Then the conclusion "The tallest trees catch the most wind. At EA we remain proud and unbowed." just reenforces this.

A poor decision by EA to write and post that statement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I stopped reading right here:

"Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It's not. People still want to argue about it. We can't be any clearer – it's not. Period."

He's flat out lying. I have no interest whatsoever in what he is saying. SimCity can technically run offline, gamers want to run it offline, but EA won't let you run it offline because you could then pirate their software. They should just demonstrate some courage and admit it.

<comment><USER9> I suspect the argument is more "It's not DRM, it's amazing social interaction, that benefits everyone!" (read: Nobody would use it if it was optional)

<comment><USER10> I think I believe them: the game they wanted to make was one where the "continuous, integrated online world" was integral to the way people played SimCity: only the final product didn't do enough to justify their original intention.

<comment><USER11> But it is not a question about "belief" (unless you extrapolate that to mean future actions). SimCity has been hacked to demonstrate its completely offline nature.

Source: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21802508>

<comment><USER10> I've no doubt that it can run like that (and given SimCity works for ~30 mins or so without connecting to SimCity's servers, it's no shock to anybody who actually played the game at launch); but that doesn't mean that their intent when conceiving of the game wasn't for the online aspect to be utterly central and integral to how they wanted people to play the game. The always online "requirement" could absolutely have resulted from that desire rather than DRM.

If it was just a matter of DRM, then it's plain inconsistent with how they're approaching DRM with every other PC release they've done recently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While there are a few valid points raised, by and large this screed reminds me of the last time I worked in IT in a large bank, and took the annual employee satisfaction survey.

The IT function had the poorest scores across the entire bank, and the CIO took quite a bit of heat for it from the rest of the CxOs.

His approach to tackle the poor employee satisfaction scores was to call an IT-wide "town hall" and explain to each of us why we were wrong in being dissatisfied...

<comment><USER13> I agree. The whole letter is one of the best documentations of large- corporation dysfunctional defensiveness I've ever seen.

It's perfect. And not in a good way.

The sad thing is that by putting something so self-deluded and defensive out in public, he's guaranteeing a death spiral for corporate morale and corporate recruiting. It's awful leadership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What a completely and utterly tone-deaf response. "The tallest trees catch the most wind". So EA is hated because it's big? What about Valve? Why doesn't Sony get the same hate?

More than anything, I'm confused as to just who his intended audience is, here. Certainly none of the gamers who have had long-standing issues with EA for years would find this "mea culpa" convincing. The only people I can imagine would be convinced or swayed by this would be EA employees and management. Is it part of some internal political battle being played out in public?

Either we're not the intended audience for this message, or the C-levels at EA really are so delusional and detached from their customers that they think they can rub a little PR pixie dust on their reputation and make it all better.

</comment><comment><USER15> This reads exactly like the way a high-level exec of a massive company would think - numbers focused without truly understanding the issues that people might have with the company. Unable to separate mindless complaints that should be ignored out of hand (cover choice for Madden) versus the always-on or free-to-play mechanic which represent legitimate complaints. EA is not one of the worst companies in America by a long shot. But they have very little respect for the consumer.

Today on HN I see a link to a Gamasutra article where industry people are talking about just how incredible some of the LucasArts games were (20 years ago!) and another link where one of the heads of EA is making excuses for why people hate his company. Some of his points are valid, and people can be immature and ridiculous in their reasoning (or downright horrid). But he overlooks some of the valid complaints that people have with EA. And they _are_ valid. He's throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've always found defensiveness really unattractive, especially in companies. Unless you are bringing new facts to bear, any piece that tries to make the "we're not so bad as all that" argument will probably be unsuccessful at winning hearts or minds.

<comment><USER17> Yeah. When has trying to convince critics that they're wrong _ever_ worked? EA/Maxis keep trying.

They simply can't win this one. They're in the wrong, and for the most part they probably know it. If they can't say anything positive, the best response would probably be radio silence until everything blows over. Stuff like this only fans the flames.

<comment><USER16> Or just honesty . . . I don't know how it would blow over in the press, but personally I would find it really refreshing if they just said, "Yeah, it's always online because you fuckers pirate too much. Deal with it." I guess that the gamers would probably not like that very much though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies > responsible for the biggest oil spill in history, the mortgage crisis, and > bank bailouts that cost millions of taxpayer dollars.

Thing is, customers don't have a love-affair with the products of those other companies. We do with EA's products at their best. A great game is a treasure, personal, forming great experiences and memories in almost the same way a child or puppy does.

So when a game maker fails so epically, betrays their customers so thoroughly and completely, it tends to spark a serious reaction. A reaction more akin to a friend betraying you and selling you out.

As for oil spills: I can envision how that might happen through mere incompetence and laziness. I have more trouble envisioning how EA can do what they've been doing through mere incompetence; it's far more baffling than that.

</comment><comment><USER19> Do gamers enjoy paying an extra fee to play used games online? There seem to be no end to the accolades thrown your way for centralizing multiplayer on EA servers and shutting them down a year or two after game release.

In case you really are kidding yourselves with this press release, you are likely being voted the worst company because your millions of customers are suffering your "innovations" -- not enjoying them -- in order to play series they've come to love: Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and SimCity. You are cashing in the stored value of these brands, not building on them.

But look, Microsoft was hated for a long time, too, and it didn't seem to hurt them any. Well, except maybe in the instances where they got into telling their users what they wanted instead of finding out what they wanted. It's not like you folks are going down that road, right?

</comment><comment><USER20> "The tallest trees catch the most wind."

I hated the article starting there.

It is cowardly, evasive and deceitful. It completely ignores the issues people have with EA.

<comment><USER21> They might as well have put up an image macro containing "haters gonna hate".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The basic message seems to be: _We're doing fine in terms of strategy, if not execution._

The mea culpas are limited to basically fumbling implementation details: games falling short of expectations, server end-of-life schedules, the botched SimCity launch. But not the fact that SimCity is always-online (which we're told is not DRM), or the question whether games need to be set up in a way that EA has the ability to disable multiplayer functionality.

Those are strategic decisions, which like F2P games and micropayments and building their own online distribution platform, they are on the right path. Putting those issues along with different sorts of controversies such as LGBT content in games seems a bit odd.

All in all, the opposite of an apology, really.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are obviously many reasons to hate EA, but it is FAR from the worst company in America. Overall EA has had a positive effect on the economy and created many jobs (even if they are not "great" jobs). Many other companies have taken govt. bailouts and/or gambled tax-payer money. Let's be civil and have some perspective.

<comment><USER24> As a former employee of EA (Tiburon) during the EA spouse days, I feel entitled to say it's okay to hate EA.

<comment><USER23> I agree with you - like I said, there are many reasons to hate EA. :) But still I would not vote it for the worst company in America...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For anyone wondering how the 'Worst Company in America' is decided upon, check here [http://consumerist.com/2013/03/18/here-are-your- contestants-...](http://consumerist.com/2013/03/18/here-are-your-contestants- for-the-2013-worst-company-in-america-tournament/).

So it's basically a bracket. Not the most well-thought-out approach. Who picks the companies that are even eligible? Why not just have one big poll at the start? Even if they took that approach, I think it's clear EA would still 'win' since there is definitely a votebomb-like effect (much like what happens with MetaCritic ratings occasionally). Clearly the type of people that were aware of this poll in the first place mainly reside on videogame forums (Neogaf, /r/gaming etc), so the mob mentality is natural. Who can honestly say they were aware of this poll?

If you knocked on the door of every household in America and asked them who they thought was the 'Worst Company' in the world, it certainly wouldn't be EA.

I am not defending EA as such, I don't agree with some of their business practices, but there are copious amounts of hyperbole and for people to be treating this like an accurate study is ridiculous.

There is certainly a first-world problems vibe when a videogame publisher wins a poll like this.

<comment><USER26> Every year The Consumerist opens submissions for a week or two. Readers submit companies and the 16 finalists are chosen (not sure if it's pure numbers or there is some editorial discretion).

At that point it's all voting by readers.

It's easy for someone like EA to get high in a bracket like this. They've pissed off a lot of people who are active on the internet, and they've been against some easy targets. AnheiserBusch/InBev isn't a company that people line up to hate (unlike Walmart or some other perpetual nominees) and Facebook, despite often acting creepy as hell, is loved by millions and millions of people.

On the other hand, EA keeps making enemies; and their last dustup was just weeks before the content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Hey Internet, I know you don't like us, but just so you know, you are wrong about your complains, and we are doing just fine"

Well, what a brilliant piece of PR there.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can they do better? If so, why aren't they, and how do they propose to do so? Nice to see they realize that everyone hates them... Now if only they'd provide something other than useless rhetorical spin. Good example of how NOT to run a company.

</comment><comment><USER28> They're clearly not the worst company in America. They're pretty bad though, and don't seem to contend that at all. Strange PR piece.

</comment><comment><USER29> Jiminy Christmas. Can you get a better illustration of the seething entitlement of gamers than EA being a finalist in a worst-companies bracket that included ABInBev, both AT&T _and_ Verizon, Ticketmaster, credit-reporting agency Equifax, United Airlines, Carnival Fecal Coliform Cruises, Comcast, yes, really, Comcast, Walmart, and Bank of America?

There is no parallel universe in which EA is worse than half these companies. The result we have now brings discredit to the whole enterprise of worst- company contests.

If EA's COO had a soul, he'd write a long-form blog post about how bad United Airlines, Ticketmaster, Equifax and BofA are.

<comment><USER30> I think it was "most hated" rather than "worse", you're right there are lots of companies much worse than EA.

OTOH I think that people feel that video games should be a source of joy and pleasure so feel especially betrayed when a game company turns around and sprays them with this sort of corporate BS.

It's like if my bank sends me a letter charging me for not having enough money + another charge for sending me the letter I just expect that because they are a bank, I just accept them as a necessary evil. They don't exist to make me feel good.

OTOH a video game company's raison d'être is to make people feel good so if they are attracting hate then they're _really_ fucked something up.

<comment><USER29> Who hates a video game company more than a credit agency, or the cable company that packet shapes and MITMs your Internet connection? Just don't play the game, and you never have to think about them. You can't say that about Equifax.

<comment><USER31> You can't think of any age group who doesn't have to think about Equifax but happens to be large buyers of EA products?

<comment><USER29> I doubt most of the voters in that poll were under 17. But maybe.

<comment><USER31> You just need to thread on some popular forum pushing people to vote. After the Time's Person of the Year and other 4chan-influenced polls, you shouldn't assume there's anything valid about online polls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> " Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It's not. People still want to argue about it. We can't be any clearer – it's not. Period."

This was by far the most aggravating part in his entire "Defense"(as in reading this made go to the consumerist and vote for them as the worst company in America)

Ok maybe he's right, maybe it's not DRM. He provides no proof of it but maybe he's right. What doesn't address was the always on line requirment, for whatever reason they decided it was necessary to put in the game, was broken making the game broken. Essentially they sold a broken product.

</comment><comment><USER33> I was excited by the prospect of seeing a new CEO come in and possibly change the culture of EA, but after reading this piece I'm thinking that idea was probably naive. This lack of user empathy seems pretty pervasive.

<comment><USER10> Peter Moore isn't the new CEO, he's been COO for a couple of years, and usually comes across as pretty straight-talking.

<comment><USER33> I understand this. I meant the lack of empathy obviously goes beyond the CEO and wouldn't be an easy problem to fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "At EA we remain proud and unbowed."

Enjoy until you go bankrupt, dear Mr Moore.

At the beginning I thought it was good piece of humble thoughts: What did we do wrong ? How can we improve ? Then I realized it was exactly the contrary. Atrocious.

</comment><comment><USER35> Maybe listen to the complaints and adress them instead of just dismissing them as wrong. This article just made me upset, they would of done better just shutting up.

</comment><comment><USER36> Here, I will translate the PR into English. Ahh-Hem, "Go fuck yourselves. Lots of love, EA"

</comment><comment><USER37> Man, talk about not getting it.

I don't think EA deserves to be voted the worst company in America by a long shot. But I do think they need to be publicly shamed to the point that they actually listen to why people don't like them (I don't know if public shaming helps people realize things, I'm not a parent, but it seems like a good idea). Their otherwise interesting products are made far less compelling in order to satisfy business requirements. It's just dumb business. Meet your business objectives in smarter ways while creating smarter products and people will like you more.

In the field of entertainment software, the user experience is paramount. There's also something to be said for letting customers feel like they "own" their games rather than simply leasing them until you close your servers. If you take this away, you'd damn well better provide some fantastic value in its place. To think that people resent you purely because of your choice of cover atheletes, micro-transactions or support of LGBT rights, polarizing as these can be, is evidence of the same sort of thinking which pervades your product development.

</comment><comment><USER38> Christ, what an asshole.

"An annual web poll shows that once again, Electronic Arts will be named the "Worst Company in America".

We at EA understand that we provide a lightning rod for many in an industry that has undergone massive change and experienced a great deal of consolidation. We've acquired beloved game developers, we've put storied franchises to rest, and we've sheparded evolutions in gameplay and game design that have been met with skepticism and rejection.

But please believe, we're on the player's side.

Tens of thousands of EA employees show up to work every day to create incredible new experiences and polish fantastic new things that the world has never seen.

You, your family, and your friends entrust us with time, attention, and money in return for fantastic experiences with characters you love and places that are realer than real. It's an honor to work in this industry.

We love these shared stories and adventures, and truly understand what makes videogaming special to hundreds of millions of people every day.

That said, we are a business, and all businessess will make mistakes, fail to meet expectations, and poorly communicate. We're no different.

XXX EXAMPLES XXX

Videogames are unique in that the business environment changes more in six months than most other industries change in decades, and we've struggled to adapt to the new realities just like hundreds of other videogame developers.

We feel it's essential that we have an online content distribution system of our own, called Origin. It's clear that we've fallen painfully short of industry standards in terms of technical execution and customer service, and we most certainly are not meeting our own expectations.

XXX INSERT HONEST FIXES HERE XXX

We also feel that we're failing to incorporate our customer's frustrations, concerns, and desires into the development of our franchises. When some player were disappointed with Mass Effect 3, they had nowhere to voice their opinions where they felt they would be heard.

Thus, as of this week we will be employing ombudsmen for each of our major franchises. They'll be superfans who know the games inside and out, and their sole responsibility will be to communicate with you about what's happening with the development and care of your favorite series and franchises.

FIFA - @Matthiew Mass Effect - @Jennifer SIMCITY - @Alyssa

XXX ETCETERA XXX

Feel free to vent, praise, be angry, you name it. They'll be listening. But always be respectful. We're here to have a good time together.

Finally, we understand that server shutdowns are a necessary part of the life of any game. No party goes on forever. But we don't want to shut off the lights too early, and we don't want customers to wonder how long the game they've just purchased will be fully functional and connected.

So today we're instituting a 3 year server guarantee on every network-aware and network-based videogame we sell. You can purchase an EA game and rest assured that you'll have friends to go on adventures with for a long long time.

For what we've failed in, we are truly sorry. We strive to delight one and all, but we can never be perfect. For those who feel we can never do right, you'll find dozens of other talented studios who you can have a more fruitful relationship with.

We don't feel there's any shame in being #1, but we do feel there's a great responsibility in it.

Let us bring you the best games on Earth, tell us plainly and clearly when we're not meeting that expectation, and let's all have fun together.

\- EA CEO WHATEVER"

I wrote this in literally twelve fucking minutes. What a prick.

<comment><USER18> Seriously, good job. Why is it so hard to be honest with customers once a company grows past a certain point? Does the money corrupt, or am I naive, or both?

<comment><USER38> I dunno. Maybe ten years around Steve Ballmer terminally fucked him up.

The fundamental problem is that his post was targeted at the 10,000 industry and customer elite, none of whom feel like giving the Titan much respect because nobody fundamentally likes the #1 guy.

Who he should have been writing to were the 350M people he claims to support. When you're selling sweet-smelling electronic vapor, you use sweet-smelling words to gently remind people that comparing a videogame developer to ACTUAL HITLER is insane and insulting. That a substantial portion of the market is composed of profound assholes is beyond the point.

You don't play at their level, you don't speak at their level, and you don't engage in CEO Ego-battle 3000X. It's just fucking videogames.

Their true customer is a 15 year old girl playing Simpsons on her Samsung. He should be writing to her.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> At the risk of sounding like a grouchy old fart: I still mourn the loss of the old Electronic Arts -- the company that Trip Hawkins founded in order to let the imagination of _artists_ run wild through the nascent world of personal computing. I grew up immersed in EA classics like Skyfox and Archon and Adventure Construction Set and [pause to genuflect] M.U.L.E. The brilliant men and women who crafted these games were actually celebrated in the packaging. You got the sense that the game you bought was truly a creative labor of love. At the time, EA's slogan was "We see farther." Today's EA is by comparison unrecognizable, a giant that has grown too big to care about anything that the original EA cared about, a company whose slogan might as well be "We see the bottom line."

</comment><comment><USER30> What exactly do EA hope to achieve with posts like this?

Have they not heard the phrase "the customer is always right"?

</comment><comment><USER40> So after being voted worst company in America and writing a post "We Can Do Better" the only thing they acknowledge doing wrong is having the SimCity server crash. ... Companies like GitHub and Google write these posts monthly without such dramatic intros and PR fluff.

</comment><comment><USER41> Stupid website won't even let me comment. First I have to sign up. Then it snubs me with a short character count. Finally it won't even do anything when I press "ADD COMMENT". I've tried both Firefox and Chrome with and without javascript and no luck. Well here:

"The customer base as a whole is annoyed because you release buggy unfinished games with horrible DRM. Not because of your LGBT policy.

Your post doesn't sound sincere to me. It doesn't even sound apologetic. It sounds arrogant and like you're saying we shouldn't be complaining instead of admitting your mistakes. You don't address people's real complaints.

I want my wasted money back; not a free game. I don't want to have to use Origin. I want actual customer support and a longer character lim-"

</comment><comment><USER42> I cannot forgive EA for the NFL Licensing deal that ended NFL 2K. You shut down better games to push inferior products.

I believe gaming would be in a much better place overall if EA did not exist, despite many early hit titles.

The overall effect on gaming as a whole has been negative.

<comment><USER43> specifically in this case with Madden and NFL2K you are absolutely right. It's not even that nfl2k was any good or not. It's just that the loss of competition gave the various madden dev teams over the years ZERO motivation to do what the hardcore madden gamers wanted them to do to improve the game. yes they (we) are a minority and they want to sell as many copies as possible, but seriously, even in their own house Madden is subpar compared to FIFA. FIFA had online multiplayer a good 3 years before Madden. It took Madden about 7 years into "Next Gen" consoles (PS3/x360) to revamp online franchise even though they actually promised it every year. instead they focus on "Presentation" like hand warmers. please. And they justify their decisions by "Telemetry" aka usage stats, but those are extremely misleading. A couple years ago they put out a half-baked online franchise with horrible bugs. Their "telemetry" told them very few gamers used that game mode, so they decided to scratch it and try to completely redesign online franchise from scratch, again. Well of course nobody used that game mode! It was broken!... ay ay ay, dont get me started...

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> EA is my first blacklisted company. I stopped piracy last year and now every piece of software on my laptop is purchased or Open Source and Free. This in a country where software is still thought to be free by most people.

BUT I am pirating EA games. Their policies are anything but customer friendly! So while have a 70 game library on Steam, I still have pirated Lord Of The Rings: Battle For Middle Earth 2 and Mass Effect series.

And I can play my games when I want, the way I want without that draconian policy of always on DRM in a single player game.

I am sure I am not alone doing this. With Sim City, they have pissed a lot of people. And with PR like this, they are making this worse.

</comment><comment><USER45> For reference, a list of discontinued EA titles:

<https://www.ea.com/1/service-updates>

</comment><comment><USER46> I don't care much about gaming, but even my casual reading about EA has left me with the distinct impression that you (addressed to EA "Management", I guess) have been exploitative... erm, "jerks" for years. (I had a less PC word in mind.)

Spare me your Johnny come lately mea culpa. Clean up your act, or don't. I don't give a fuck what you have to say.

</comment><comment><USER41> Here is the poll. Now you can go vote for them as the worst company. (I wish they'd linked to it with "bring it on".)

[http://consumerist.com/2013/04/05/worst-company-in- america-s...](http://consumerist.com/2013/04/05/worst-company-in-america- semifinals-ea-vs-ticketmaster/)

<comment><USER47> Wow. So of all the companies in the US, the "worst" one will be either EA or Ticketmaster? Not Lodsys or any of the other patent trolls; not any of the banks or oil companies; not any of the weapons manufacturers or dealers. A video games company or a company that sells tickets to gigs online. OK.

<comment><USER41> On the internet, out of the companies that people interact with that were entered for the poll. Yes, those would seem to be the worst.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> kostya-kow Good.

EA is scared, and taking the threat seriously. They are not scared enough to actually address the issue (instead of doing fake PR speeches), but hopefully it will soon be too late for that.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

</comment><comment><USER48> The only thing that was somewhat hopeful in this piece was the title. It just went downhill from there.

There was nothing, absolutely nothing of value that they said. Not a word about improving the customer experience in any concrete way.

</comment><comment><USER49> > Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. > It's not. People still want to argue about it. We can't be any clearer – > it's not. Period.

And you lost me. Zero credibility.

</comment><comment><USER50> Maybe have a call with the Microsoft's Xbox division to let them know about the potential pitfalls of "always on" ... err... feature.

</comment><comment><USER51> I wasn't aware of the poll. Just voted for EA after reading "bring it on." And here I was hoping for something apologetic...

</comment><comment><USER52> On the bright side, I don't think EA could possibly be as bad at game production as they are at public relations.

</comment><comment><USER53> This wasn't an apology, it was an excuse.

</comment><comment> Aco- the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.... and they can't even do that

good luck with that one EA

</comment><comment><USER54> Hilarious. The world hates you because of how you treat PEOPLE. Yer a record label, idiots - you fuck people over for fun and profit: coders (artists - remember when you pioneered thinking of coders this way?) and players (you understand the analogy at this point, right?)

</comment><comment><USER55> I follow a fairly large number of conservatives / Tea Party and libertarians (who would complain about the conservatives in this context) on twitter and the only mention of EA has been Sim City's problems. Must be the same people bitching to the FCC about TV shows.

<comment><USER55> gotta love down votes for a post like this - shows the intolerant politics of some folks

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Does Peter Moore still have his GTA4 and Halo 3 tattoos?

</comment><comment><USER57> I think WCIA is an awesome concept and we should do more to tear down, embarrass, and ultimately dismantle bad companies.

That said, the idea that EA would win a WCIA bracket with _Time Warner Cable_ and _fucking airlines_? Makes a mockery of the whole concept.

Especially now. Yes, AAA games are pure dogshit. No question there. Just awful. It's easy to get nostalgic for 1995. Chrono Trigger was excellent, so was Final Fantasy VI. Terranigma-- also great if you could get it. Back then, we only had great games because someone made them for us. We had to get them from Japan, for the most part, because as bad as Japan's corporate conformity is, it's nothing like US-style executive meddling. (Japanese understand capitalism enough not to let incompetent execs ruin the show. The US has rich fatasses who see executive sinecures as a birthright and have the fertilizer- Midas touch: everything they touch turns to shit.) That meant we had to wait for Ted Woolsey to translate them, and he was not a bad translator (actually, his talent is neat and quirky) but he worked under insane deadlines. You spoony bard! Anyway...

But it's two-thousand-and-fucking-13 and if you don't like the games that exist, _make one_ that is better instead of pointlessly voting in some poll. Show those fuckers up. (Actually, they're as smart as you are. Some, much smarter. They make crappy games because they have bills to pay and moron bosses. You'll understand when you're older.) Build a 2D RPG, a German-style board game, or a casual game, and get it out there. Or don't, and stop complaining that no one is making good games when there's nothing stopping you.

EA doesn't even belong on the top- _75_ list of worst companies. Where's Xe/Blackwater? Tear them down instead. They convinced the US government to fight an illegal war for their profits, and their CEO is a literal fucking fascist. _That_ is WCIA material. Electronic Arts worse than fucking _mercenaries_ in the 21st century? Seriously, the world needs to get a fucking clue.

<comment><USER58> I am pretty sure most people voting in the polls a very much aware of this. But voting Xe as worst company of the US? Who would care? Everyone already knows they are that bad and nothing has happened.

On the other hand to vote EA as the worst company has a tiny chance of proving a point. There are lots of people out there who buy AAA titles without thinking and if some of them stopped buying the latest AAA crap EA just might have to start care about quality a bit.

Now I personally avoid this kind of bogus polls, but I see why it can make sense for people who do have a clue to still vote for EA:</comment></comment>


Spotting Photo Fakery via Dino A. Brugioni, CIA, 1969 - <AUTHOR> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1156875-spotting-photo-fakery-via-dino-a-brugioni-1969.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is mentioned in the OP's summary description, but just worth re- mentioning that this document comes from the CIA's professional journal, "Studies in Intelligence", a publication created to "support the development of intelligence as a professional discipline"

It was published in 1955 until 1992 (or at least, declassified), and 1400+ documents in this collection are available at the Archives.gov website. You'll even find some early NSA documents in it.

Description of the series: [http://research.archives.gov/description/6922330](http://research.archives.gov/description/6922330)

Edit: for some reason, I'm unable to perform searches within the aforementioned publication on Archives.gov...it gives me a "Search time exceeded" error...I don't know if that means the query timed out, or my browser/IP has spent the daily quota of archive browsing, or if archive.gov is feeling the HN effect...in any case, the articles I skimmed through are pretty fascinating and well-written. A few that might be interesting to HNers:

\- Observations on the Double Agent: [http://research.archives.gov/description/7283476](http://research.archives.gov/description/7283476)

\- What it's like to be a CIA trainee: [http://research.archives.gov/description/7284002](http://research.archives.gov/description/7284002)

\- Notes on how to estimate things: [http://research.archives.gov/description/7283640](http://research.archives.gov/description/7283640)

\- Deducing the Soviet's atomic energy capability from a photo [http://research.archives.gov/description/7283639](http://research.archives.gov/description/7283639)

\- Using Bayes Theorem for intelligence work [http://research.archives.gov/description/7283645](http://research.archives.gov/description/7283645)

</comment><comment><USER2> False captioning seems to be too easy to trace today with google image search and the general availability of photo materials in the Internet.

For example in the current conflict in Ukraine, Russian media has employed a lot of fakery, but the overwhelming majority of the times they were caught, they used false captioning.

Today it seems that no one will believe a clumsy photoshot jobs, however false captioning is potent as ever.

For examples see these sources:

[http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/03/05/ukraines- activists-...](http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/03/05/ukraines-activists- debunk-russian-myths-on-crimea/)

[http://www.stopfake.org/en/](http://www.stopfake.org/en/)

<comment><USER3> From the article..

"Communists do not follow the rules when it comes to captions"

(For some reason this line in the article almost doubled me over with laughter. I guess it's hard to remember how bad the red scare actually was, but the repeat blanket statements about "communists" just struck me as funny.)

<comment><USER4> 1969 was not anywhere near the "red scare" which was in the early 1950s. Anyone living in 1969 would have been well aware of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, in which a nuclear war almost broke out, and the USSR's brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 to crush the pro-democracy protests there. Pretty much the opposite of "funy."

Anyone reading this document would have known full well that "communists" in this context meant government officials of the USSR, North Korea, or China. All of those regimes had (and two still do) highly censored presses that were indeed not "careful with captions" \-- or the lives of people who dared to expose the truth about the government in general.

<comment><USER3> Please settle down my friend.

I'm not suggesting the Russians didn't abuse the Czechs.

It's just the blanket statements and rhetoric (yes, it is rhetoric) used in the article strike me as funny

<comment><USER4> Do you also read the Diary of Anne Frank and then post "LOL this girl really thought the nazis were after her haha" to Facebook? Because that is how you are coming across here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> TL;DNR: it's a shop! You can tell by the pixels.

In all seriousness, it makes a ton of sense for the spooks be able to both spot and create good fake pictures. I'm sure it is a valuable trick of the trade in an industry where intrigue and blackmail are the norm rather than the exception.</comment>


A Drop of 4 Degrees Made a Big Difference for a Garment Maker's Bottom Line - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/07/23/629871725/why-a-drop-of-4-degrees-made-a-big-difference-for-a-garment-makers-bottom-line <comment><USER2> While I'm glad that this experiment was done, because it resulted in better conditions for the factory workers, it bothers me that experiments like this are necessary in the first place. I get that managers and owners, _qua managers and owners_ , are concerned with maximizing productivity, but it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of humanity and common sense that productivity will increase when labourers are treated as human beings, with basic needs being met for their general welfare, rather than as beasts of burden.

Color me unimpressed at the discovery that productivity increases when workers have something as luxurious as proper lighting and air circulation so that sweat isn't pouring down their faces while they're sewing blue jeans for H&M with the utmost concentration lest they break their finger or hand in a machine.

<comment><USER3> Putting it in terms of cost & productivity is very clinical, very inhuman, but it's also virtually unassailable. Nobody will argue "We should continue to treat people badly _and_ make less money". So to me it seems like the gold standard result. You don't have to argue ethics, morals, or worry about people cheating. Because you've just made humane treatment of workers economically rational.

<comment><USER2> You've missed my point. I'm not saying that putting it in terms of cost and productivity _isn 't_ virtually unassailable. I'm saying that it's ridiculous that this experiment was necessary to convince management that ensuring the basic welfare of its workforce would improve that productivity.

Just as it's obvious that productivity isn't maximized if workers aren't permitted to sleep or eat lunch (and we don't really need studies to know that), so it should be obvious that productivity isn't maximized when working conditions include stifling heat with no air circulation while you're at risk of maiming yourself at a sewing machine. This is a sweat shop we are talking about.

I've explicitly couched my comments in terms of worker productivity, so I'm not exactly talking about ethics. But ethics is certainly the subtext here, because I think it's obvious that humans perform and live better when they're treated the way they ought to be treated, with their basic needs being met.

Commonsense ethical rules aren't arbitrary; it isn't a coincidence that people fare badly, and perform poorly, when they are treated badly and are made to work and live in squalor.

<comment><USER4> I would go on a limb an say you have never been to India?

I'll let someone else play hobby-anthropologist as to the reasons why, but complete disregard to the plights of the poor is _rampant_ among the middle and higher class Indians.

<comment><USER5> I'll take the armchair anthropologist bait. It's rampant because there are so many of us.

If you see a homeless man rotting away, your heart goes out to him. If you see ten thousand of them, then...meh. Human empathy is finite unfortunately, and available in vanishing quantities among the Indian rich. The Indian rich are vile in a way that cannot be adequately described in words. Those of us who've made it outside India and are living abroad often like to discuss the vast differences in the value of life in the west vs east, and also the much higher dignity of labour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sometimes it's useful to remember just how privileged we are to be working in tech...

...many of us get microkitchens with as many La Croix and "delightful" snacks as we can consume. While for others, just a switch to lamps that produce less heat is a major life improvement.

<comment><USER7> speak for yourself, I work as a full time engine mechanic for a regional chain of repair shops. \- its a full time battle just to convince some management that OSHA is real. earplugs and gloves were a luxury item under my last boss.

\- one of our managers stole tools all the time and fired a technician just to cover his ass. That technician burned his car to the ground with a road flare in a mcdonalds parking lot.

-our former owner was arrested for illegally dumping waste chemicals in a protected habitat, and instead of just paying the fine the madman elected to serve 4 years in prison.

\- I was asked to testify against her.

\- two words: angry boomer. The number of times I've had a child of the greatest generation grab me by the collar and scream obscenities at me for something stupid borders on the absurd. Ive had one of them corner me in a hallway and refuse to 'let me go' until I discounted the work on his daughters car.

\- People shit on you for doing this job, or openly remark that you're incompetent. Fun fact, my coworker in paint and body has a doctorate in mathematics from Pepperdyne. My transmission tech team lead was a former Formula 1 race mechanic. I build my own Linux containers and run my own Kubernetes cluster. We arent all just sweat and wrenches.

<comment><USER8> >> two words: angry boomer.

Yup. In my early 30s I had one challenge me to a fight after a lifeguard ejected him from the "fast lane" for swimming too slowly. I said I'd meet him in the parking lot, then left the back way. I still wonder whether he showed up. I assume something was wrong with his meds. While riding in a group of 20+ sportbikes we had another try to start a fight with us at a gas station. Twenty people on bikes dressed like power rangers and this old man starts throwing punches because he was stuck in line behind us. We laughed and rode away.

<comment><USER9> Any theories as to why those "boomers" are so angry?

<comment><USER10> Many people tend to be less patient with age (rather than more patient). They see younger people as a disappointment and treat them as such.

I have to wonder though if millennials won't get to the exact same point. If feels like this is the classic generation divide rather than a specific "boomer" issue.

<comment><USER8> There is an idea among boomers that they literally own the past, and all things that spring from it. For instance, they talk of social security not as a government program but a property right, something personal that they own. Reductions in it therefore aren't cutbacks but theft. If you feel you are being stolen from, it is easy to see anyone else receiving benefits from government as collaborators in that theft.

They also cling to 1950s ideas about work and religion. They really do believe that hard work brings prosperity. So young people who aren't succeeding obviously just aren't trying hard enough. We know the world is more complex. They don't. When those ideas are challenged, say by a group of young people inventing cellphone apps rather than toiling in a shoe factory, their internal conflict expresses as anger.

The anger at us motorcycles I chalk up to reduced mobility. Old people feel trapped in their bodies. Movement is difficult or even painful. So they are jealous of those motorcycles whipping by them on the highway. Another manifestation of this are the "stand your ground" laws that literally protect one's right not to move away when confronted by a more mobile person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> An alternative way at looking at this is that, if you are pushing your employees to their physical limits, you can squeeze more out of them if you can prevent them from becoming overheated.

This is a negative way of looking at it, but I think, unfortunately, that it is realistic. Beyond the short term, the only way this will benefit the workers is if there is something external to limit the ways it can be exploited solely to increase productivity. Otherwise, the market will do its thing.

<comment><USER12> Not working in 85+ degree temperatures is a benefit on it's own.

<comment><USER13> Back when i was in high school, i did a summer job in a building without A/C. We got to do nothing if the temp hit 97, or whatever was the local regulation. small "pleasures".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a really interesting article! I recommend anyone just checking out the comments to take a look -- it is quite short.

I wonder if there's a real opportunity here. Buy up Indian manufacturing firms with significant books of business and introduce productivity enhancing changes like LED lights. Of course, this is a simplification, but if the effect is as pronounced as described in the article, it seems like a fantastic opportunity.

I rarely see news about how business operates, or stories of business success and decline in India. Does anyone know where I could read more?

Thank you to the moderators for boosting this story after 3 days, it definitely spiked my curiosity. I presently import a few products from China and love learning about the challenges these manufacturers face.

<comment><USER15> There are plenty of small businesses in India going through productivity transitions and becoming bigger exporters. Air conditioning has been the easiest gain in the last 2 decades.

More recently it is mobile payments and computerized inventory and financing. The companies making these investments quickly become local franchises or quality exporters who can charge more.

Of course the owners and employees are richer for doing this, beating competition.

<comment><USER16> Do you have some example companies to read about?

<comment><USER15> These are really small neighborhood businesses. I remember walking down the streets and there were some local sweet shops with delicious street food. They used to sell it for Rs 5 (less than 10 cents) at the time.

Add some inflation, air conditioning, hygiene (using gloves for example), seating, led lights and these things cost Rs 30 now (50 cents).

You'd think the price would shirk customers off especially since competition was selling the same stuff for Rs 10.

But no. They got featured in local TV a few times, got large contracts to supply these food items to events. They mechanized their production keeping their recipe the same and franchised their brand, opened websites, created presence in malls and started exporting these foods outside India as a packaged food item.

All this in 15 years.

[http://www.jumboking.co.in/](http://www.jumboking.co.in/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > The company, Shahi Exports, has more than 50 factories, employs about > 100,000 workers and supplies brands that include Gap, Uniqlo, Zara and H&M. > Some of these brands had encouraged the company to be more environmentally > responsible by switching out the fluorescent tube lights in its factories > for LEDs that would consume about one-seventh the amount of energy.

Maybe Americans and European yuppies can pay a couple of extra bucks for their Gap t-shirts and Gap can insist that Indian factory owners install air conditioning instead?

<comment><USER18> _…switching out the fluorescent tube lights in its factories for LEDs that would consume about one-seventh the amount of energy._

Something is wrong here. Fluorescent tubes to LEDs is more like a ½ savings. I suppose if you reduce overall lighting and provide task lighting you could get to 1/7, but the technologies aren't that far off in efficiency.

Check luminous efficiency in Wikipedia for a nice table. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy)

<comment><USER19> The fluorescent systems in there are likely older and less efficient, so at the lower end of the range. For this kind of industrial setup you can probably do more efficient DC directly to the lights with fewer and more efficient conversions from AC, and there may be other improvements available (solar tubes, dimmable LEDs, task lighting, etc.). 7x seems high but likely achievable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if the spectrum difference in the light sources would also have an effect?

<comment><USER21> As a fictional example, in Asimov's "Prelude to Foundation" one of the locations (Dahl, a geothermal power district) offset the sweltering heat by running dimmer, reddish lighting, which apparently had a psychological effect on the inhabitants' perception of temperature.

In real life, I wouldn't be surprised if offices choose to run high-colour- temperature lights in order to keep workers more awake and less drowsy (the exact effect that software like F.lux tries to offset).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "There have always been these theories that part of why the Northern Hemisphere grew faster than the Southern Hemisphere was because of temperature issues," — it could also because the weather is nicer outside so we go surfing instead of working?

I'm from tropical country, and there's a saying that you can literally plant a stick and it will grow up a tree. Unfortunately it makes us lazy.

</comment><comment><USER23> I wonder if the opposite is true? In my region low income people work seasonally in fish plants. Although now many fish plants hire people from outside the country because they can pay them less.

The fish plants are wet and very cold the workers wear rubber gloves and often have their hands in ice. If 30C is the heat stress threshold is there a cold stress threshold?

</comment><comment><USER24> It's really great when a change like this aimed at improving workers' lives ends up helping company profits overall. It helps give credence to the idea that treating your employees well is not only a nice thing to do, but that it's better from a financial standpoint as well.

</comment><comment><USER25> Link to the text only version: [https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629871725](https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=629871725)

I still think NPR should consider redirecting to the requested article. Can't be that hard, can it?

</comment><comment><USER26> Nice, always exciting when academia produces immediate impact.

</comment><comment><USER27> > Decline and visit plaintext site

This doesn't count as opt-out by default behavour for tracking. Have any complaints been made in the EU toward NPR?

EDIT: Glad this is getting some attention, whether it be upvoting or downvoting.

<comment><USER28> GDPR is criminalizing all websites because compliance is impossible. It puts european officials in exactly the possition they want to be in, everyone is breaking the law an enforcement is a matter of who their friends are.

Majors websites are taking steps to remove access from eu. This will only get worse. Be prepared to live in the environmet your politicians have created, or be prepared to come back to planet reality.

I speak personally, as a technical architect for international sales organization. People who basically are not in that position don't realize the way the law is written that compliance is not feasible. You are simply gambling that the shakedown form the enforceres won't be to bad.

<comment><USER27> > GDPR is criminalizing all websites because compliance is impossible

I disagree, compliance isn't particularly difficult unless you're going out of your way to do something harmful to your users.

> be prepared to come back to planet reality.

Please refrain from hyperboly, I'd much rather a civil discussion about this.

<comment><USER29> > compliance isn't particularly difficult unless you're going out of your way > to do something harmful to your users.

Please stop spreading this FUD. There are tons of architectures (e.g. Apache Kafka) which were totally sane and require total reorganization to become compliant. Dismissing this as "not very difficult" and adding a snide little attack on anybody who disagrees is untrue and an ad hominem to boot.

Complying with GDPR is costly and significant work. If implememtations match legislative aspirations, it could also be a significant boon to consumers. However, legitimate questions about the level of compliance, particularly from companies with unscrupulous business models leave it currently vague whether the boon will be realized in full, in part, or not at all.

Though I know hacker news discourages political discourse and meta, I would interject - almost all political topics have upsides and downsides. Pretending that the downsides don't exist on any policy isn't passionate advocacy - it's just degrading the level of discourse.

<comment><USER25> I think you have the definition of FUD backwards</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Huawei Mate 30 phones launch without Google apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49754376 <comment><USER2> Would've been a golden opportunity to get a billion users onto F-Droid's store, but, more likely Huawei will simply launch with their own, tightly- integrated "Huawei app store". It may even be _worse_ from a security perspective, since there is zero expectation that the apps Huawei provides through their own store should be FLOSS.

<comment><USER3> Now app developers have a big incentive to avoid Google Play Services and run on open-source Android. That lets them run on Google, Huawei, and F-Droid platforms.

Time for a dev forum on migrating away from Google Play Services.

<comment><USER4> You could say the same about Vulkan vs Metal, or Chrome vs the world, or Windows vs the world. The bulk of developers are going to target the subset of technologies that let them do what they want to do in the easiest way possible while targeting the largest userbase. I assume this isn't going to change the playing field in a significant way.

<comment><USER5> Usually a good incentive for devs is a higher cut of the sales. But I'm not sure how much Chinese users usually contribute to a dev's revenue stream compared to US or EU users for example.

I remember reading a while ago that iOS is an attractive OS to target because the users tend to spend more in apps than the average Android users. If the average Chinese users spend even less it may be a disincentive. Not sure if this is still the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A phone without Google or Apple? I'm no fan of Huawei but credit where credit is due.

I'm still waiting for a reasonable phone that will allow me to install my own OS and, more importantly, dump the OS and go with something else when it annoys me.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, because a phone imaged by an entity controlled by the CCP is better than a phone without Google or Apple.

I'm no supporter of either Apple or Goog, but applauding a mass spyware device from the CCP would be satire a couple years ago.

It's not like they have a track record of subverting phones for targeted genocide or anything[1]

[1] [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/09/massive_iphon...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/09/massive_iphone_.html)

<comment><USER8> Dude the US spied on the undersea fiber to steal contract from companies in my (democratic) country.

Say what you want about the chinese, but they're not the only ones playing that game.

<comment><USER9> > but they're not the only ones playing that game.

The original comment is literally comparing Huawei favouably to US counterparts, though

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >"It forced us to use the HMS [Huawei Mobile Services] core."

This is the major failure I see here. Basically, no one wants Huawei's blobby bloatware with system level privileges any more than Google's blobby bloatware with system level privileges. If the world thinks that you are a Chinese spying company, you do not combat that by shipping more crap. They had a good opportunity to either extend AOSP or to make HMS open source. Instead, they imitate Google poorly.

<comment><USER11> There's plenty of people of simply don't care about that, they just want a cheap and pretty phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Quite impressive hardware. The fact that 5G is integrated in the SoC is a first, display looks great too.

I'm sure you can still use apps like YouTube and Gmail via the phones browser, that's what I do on my iPhone.

<comment><USER13> Yeah bought a Huawei tablet & thought same. Good bang per buck on hardware even with questionable associations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> After seeing the iPhone11 Pro, Pixel 4, and the Mate 30 Pro I have to say that the Mate 30 implemented the 3 camera the best. Its less of an eyesore being in the center of the device instead of the top left corner.

Also, the bezel around it makes it look like a device that's a phone and a camera instead of "hiding the fact" that its a phone that happens to have photo capabilities. I really like the design.

Too bad for the lack of Android/Google apps, for I would have considered getting one.

<comment><USER15> >Its less of an eyesore being in the center of the device instead of the top left corner.

I genuinely have no idea what the back of my phone looks like. All I'm concerned with is the quality of the photos it takes.

<comment><USER14> I somewhat agree. Yes, the back isn't that noticeable when actually using it. But its noticeable now. Even to the point where people I know who loves their iPhones say that its "ugly".

Apple is not known to make "ugly" devices. Their devices are practical and engineered thoughtfully.

Having the camera in the top left corner as opposed to the center seems like a mistake to me. Especially since they are promoting the camera to be a significant upgrade. Put it front and center!

Apple's history on device (at least with Jobs) always was have a fully functional revolutionary machine that was easy to use and beautiful inside and out. They've been that way since the Macintosh. The look was much user- friendly and approachable. They even signed the inside of the box as if they are presenting a piece of art. Even the font-face they introduced was to promote artistry in the technical world.

My point is, the iPhone 11 is an amazing device, but the look of their biggest new feature, the cameras, does not fit well with their history of artistic prowess. Steve Jobs would have never OKed this design placement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Now all this means is the user needs to install themselves rather than use the pre-install bloatware. A clean start might actually be preferrable for a lot of people

</comment><comment><USER17> I find it hilarious when reading news like these to remember that the official stance of US government is that their national security is endangered if that phone ships with Google Play.

EDIT: It actually is national security ([https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google- amp/news/tru...](https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google- amp/news/trump-says-he-doesnt-want-to-do-business-with-huawei-due-to-national- security-threat/))

<comment><USER18> I am not an expert, but I doubt that this is an accurate characterisation of the reasons for the ban. Isn't this more about intellectual property issues and economic disagreements?

<comment><USER19> I think it is mostly political. When one uses Google Maps, he tells USA's 3-letter-agencies when they are. If Huawei replaces Google Maps with "Huawei Maps" then USA stops getting that info, and China gets that info. Now apply the same for emails, text messages, etc.

I believe that even "innocuous" games (started playing AFKArena lately) collect the IP address of my phone and tell the lovely Chinese gov who I am, where I am, etc. (AFKArena policies have the word Tencent a lot in them).

<comment><USER20> You imply security agencies have direct uncontrolled online access to Google maps personal data today, this is not true. There is due process to access private data and you can always have the option to enable, disable, delete it. Lets stick to the facts.

<comment><USER19> You imply that they don't. If the Wikileaks/Snowden story, the AT&T (room 641A) story taught us anything is that we cannot place any reliance to any due process and that 3-letter agencies harvest anything they can, any way they can, without any respect to privacy (big laughter here) and due process.

I am not trashing security agencies. I am merely stating that lines in the sand never seem to stopped them before and most likely won't stop them now (or in the future).

Whether it could be the AT&T case, or a bribed sys/net admin, "they" want it all and they got the budgets to get it done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > firm had set aside $1bn (£801m) to encourage developers to make their apps > compatible

It also launched without Google Services. This could be great push towards completely open sourced Android platform.

<comment><USER22> Reminds me of a time MS was paying hundreds to thousands of dollars for garbage calculator/flashlight Windows Phone apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well I think that makes the phone more attractive. Something that doesn't report everything I do to Google.

Huawei should market the shit out of that.

Blackphone (maybe used to) sell a hardened version of the Android phone without the google spyware but version 2 was really expensive and made in small quantities.

This Mate30 will be mass-produced. They could make this the favorite privacy phone. (Well privacy from the US surveillance state)

<comment><USER24> Yeah instead you get a device that reports everything to the Chinese surveillance state which is much worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Excellent specs and cheap compared to the competition.

I am sure some enterprising folks on XDA will come up with a nifty easy utility to "googlyfi" your new Huawei phone.

Also won't surprise me if some phone shops will take the initiative and do it out of the box before selling it to you.

<comment><USER26> As long as Huawei continues to ship phones with locked bootloaders that can't be unlocked, that is simply not going to happen.

[https://www.xda-developers.com/xda-huawei-decision-stop- boot...](https://www.xda-developers.com/xda-huawei-decision-stop-bootloader- unlocking)

[https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-mate-30-google-play- st...](https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-mate-30-google-play-store- challenges)

You won't be able to root Huawei phones, much less customize the stock OS to any meaningful extent. You also won't be able to change the OS (to something like LineageOS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I guess that's a feature..plus the iPhone camera seems a joke in comparison with mate pro.

<comment><USER28> Ditto for the Galaxy Note 10

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Did Huawei not see what happened with the Amazon Fire Phone or Windows Phone? If you launch a phone with an anemic ecosystem, it will fail.

<comment><USER30> They are pressured to do this, if the US wasn't so dickish about it they would just release a certified Android.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Will it have a locked bootloader?

Previous Huawei phones have all had a fairly robustly locked bootloader. Now it seems there is quite some incentive for them to make the bootloader unlockable to make inserting GMSCore easier...

One could imagine an underground network of US based people reflashing these phones to have Google services.

<comment><USER10> You don't need an unlockable bootloader for that. They ship stub packages that can be updated later by the user [1].

[1]: [https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-mate-30-google-play- st...](https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-mate-30-google-play-store- challenges/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> [https://twitter.com/cybnox/status/1174722533377085444](https://twitter.com/cybnox/status/1174722533377085444)

This is probably a key conversation. In other words, we don't really know yet what part of GMS dependent apps will or will not work.

</comment><comment><USER33> It´s going to kill overseas sales for them. Both me and my gf have Huawei phones, but the next phone will be a Xiaomi.

Fortunately the U.S. didn't kill all Chinese manufacturers, Samsung and the rest are overpriced compared to them.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is quite interesting. I assume there are 3rd party alternatives for most of the essential Google apps which lets you access the google service like Gmail or YouTube

<comment><USER35> You can access GMail or YouTube from your browser. I don't install the apps on my phone.

<comment><USER19> The worse soy on our Android phones is Google Play Services. For some magical reason when I firewall the Google Play Services I stop receiving ANY notifications (Signal, emails etc.). For some reason all these are routed through Google. I wonder how much of a coincidence/mishap is that in the architecture.

Does anyone know why, if I can bypass it?

<comment><USER36> Play Services does handles all push notifications. The 'some reason' is battery life, because your phone shouldn't maintain 30 long lived connections.

From the privacy aspect, I believe all notifications are end to end encrypted actually. Same as Apple.

<comment><USER19> Encrypted, but that's on transit. Does Google read everything, or the only thing transfered is the alert and NOT the Signal/text/WhatsApp message itself?

<comment><USER37> Signal is e2ee so Google Cloud Messaging should only get the alert itself, then the encrypted message is downloaded from the server and decoded on device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> 27 w wireless charging!

<comment><USER39> I assume this is going to generate excessive heat. My understanding is that batteries age poorly from heat stress. So, I am curious what routine 27w wireless charging is going to do for battery life.

<comment><USER40> I was just looking and could not find anything concrete but did see it was expected to use a non-removable battery. That is not a huge problem as long as they designed it to be fairly easily changed and if that is the case then I would gladly trade battery life for fast charging. I guess time will tell on this one but good question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Why are the Facebook apps not blocked by the blacklist?

</comment><comment><USER42> For some this will be bad news, but for others - this they will view as good news. So mixed blessings, though for you common core users - they will see this as bad.

However - eventually services and the phone will be separate and eventually end up with phones like we did with the browser selection option thrust upon you giving you the choice, even if you choose to go with what you had originally.

Fun times ahead and in the end, I feel that the consumer will get a better deal in the end and as geeks who love to hack away at our phones - may get an easier life.

</comment><comment><USER43> i'm no expert but it's a check list of where google can be found:

1.Your phone Operating system 2\. gallery manager. 3\. E-mail. 4\. Google music player. 5\. google video player. 6\. Youtube app.

there's more but your time is precious and maybe you allready know all these but don't care.

let's imagine your phone was a person.. he had like gazillion types of cancer. from birth.

</comment><comment><USER44> Video of our team's analysis on this subject: [https://youtu.be/3bl4pXd2Sqc](https://youtu.be/3bl4pXd2Sqc)

<comment><USER45> Might be a good idea to mention what is your team.

<comment><USER46> Applico and they don't seem to understand how the Chinese phone market works.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to Visualize the Gist of C(ode)? - <AUTHOR> hello häckers,
i have a passion for graphs, and while writing docs (for my naive/noob c code) i was looking at the generated doxygen/graphviz function call-graphs and started to wonder, could we graph variable "calls"?
some inkscaping and couple prototypes later...
https://github.com/oskude/cvag

  - does this (or better) already exist?
  - how does one visualize the gist of c(ode)?
 cheers.oskude <comment> tekcyb-org Hello hn

Our DB will run on 2005 or later but we recommend grabbing 2017 and 2019 as they have some useful functionality for our other services like iW8 or Backup. We typically do the server transfers at $120 per hour. Normally, we finish the transfer in one to two hours. iW8 and Backup customers are free if done during our open hours. After hours support for iW8 and Backup will be billed at the same rate. You can do the transfer yourself if you'd like to. Below are steps to transfer the server: Locate database files and copy the following two files - WeighingSystem.mdf & WeighingSystem_Log.ldf Install SQL, allow TCP/IP on static port and named pipe connections. Attach DB. Install software on new PC, choose Advanced Installation, select your DB. Copy the following directories over: i. Recipts (resides in the executable's directory),

                                                                 ii.      Media files                          (path in Settings -> Parameters -> General)

                                                               iii.      Scales                                    (if using scale on new PC, resides in the executable's directory)

                                                               iv.      Cameras                               (if using, resides in the executable's directory)

                                                                 v.      Moisture Reader              (if using, resides in the executable's directory)

                                                               vi.      Invoices                               (if using, resides in the executable's directory)

                                                              vii.      Law Export Path (if using, path in Settings -> Parameters -> Exporting

Update connection strings for ALL PCs to new server on login screen. i. Click Options, press insert key on drop down menu that appears to get access to SQL connection settings.

Update ALL PCs Media Path and Law Export Path if applicable. If you have devices to use on new server, we can install drivers needed to get them to work with new PCs. See step 'E' and 'F' above to point the client PCs to the new server

</comment><comment><USER2> Reverse engineering is a discipline where these kind of graphs are important, but YMMV. Have you seen the way radare2 represents[1] calls in the console? There are even web front-ends for it.

[1] e.g.: [https://www.megabeets.net/uploads/packedup_vv_vs_vp.png](https://www.megabeets.net/uploads/packedup_vv_vs_vp.png)</comment>


Does your programming company helps students-in-need? - <AUTHOR> http://www.edoctrina.org/about-us

<comment><AUTHOR> From their website:

"The members of the eDoctrina team are dedicated to: * Putting the best educational tools in the hands of the nation's teachers and students. * Sending a majority of its profits back to students-in-need."

IMO, it's a great example worthy of imitation.</comment>


GitHub is now SSL only - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/#!/github/status/29534618326 <comment><USER2> Note that this may break any API libraries. For example, github2 broke. I have patched it: github.com/irskep/github2

Yes, I need github2 bad enough to patch it within two hours of it breaking. Otherwise the "Steve's last 10 Github commits" stream won't display on my site! The horror!

Edit: Scratch that. Apparently I was cloning from the wrong repository and the up-to-date version works fine.

<comment><USER3> Sometimes it isn't so obvious what the canonical repo is, right? That could use improvement, generally, on GitHub. E.g. a low-friction way to say, "hey, this is just a fork I made to fix a bug — don't clone me!" etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Awesome, hopefully other big sites will follow suit. I wonder if the hype around Firesheep was part of the motivation to make this change.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes it did: <https://github.com/blog/737-sidejack-prevention>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bonus meta points for using HTTPS for this item's Twitter link.

<comment><USER6> Yet, my Chromium is complaining that there is un-secure content.

A quick resource inspection shows that the triangle image that links the content body div to the twitter logo (right under the W in twitter), is being transmitted over http, not https.

I've always been a little paranoid on the internet. Firesheep has increased the paranoia, and a 21x11 pixel image coming from twimg.com just broke all the trust in Twitter I had.

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitter is terrible about including non SSL assets and always has been.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That is a good start. Although I am not a paying user (which would have TLS if I am one), that makes everyone protected from the benefits. I also hope that they would not suffer from performance issues, as I've see several loading problems since the change.

<comment><USER8> We have always implemented SSL regardless to your paid or unpaid status. This is an unfortunate inaccuracy in Eric's Firesheep followup post that he refuses to correct.

Previously, SSL was only implemented on private facing pages, such as (everyone's) dashboard, (everyone's) account pages, (everyone's) repository admin pages and all pages under private repositories.

I know it's a small difference (private vs paid), but GitHub would never hold security hostage for money — the thought of that makes my skin crawl.

<comment><USER9> Back when github first launched, SSL protection was only included on private repositories.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20080621111340/http://github.com/...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080621111340/http://github.com/plans)

Although I may be misunderstanding something.

<comment><USER8> Well, first off... that's a _really_ old archive (come on now). The problem there was that the wording was wrong (private repositories vs paid accounts).

<comment><USER7> Thanks for correcting me on this regard. Now it is nice that TLS is mandatory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That link shows me a 404. This worked instead: <https://twitter.com/github/status/29534618326>

<comment><AUTHOR> Might be a hiccup in #newtwitter. It works fine for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wouldn't it also make sense to have HTTPS as default for the read-only clone URL? I for one always replace "http" with "https" before cloning.

<comment><USER12> I don't know. The code you are cloning is already public (exception: private repos), so it leaking to a third party is a non-issue. Additionally, a MITM changing the code on-the-fly to give you a troian horse is quite impossible to pull off as this would completely change revision IDs which you'd notice.

The reason for public http cloning be there at all (as opposed to the git protocol) is restrictive firewalls (git's http support still isn't perfect), which are more likely to cooperate with http as opposed to https

<comment><USER6> Is the git protocol unencrypted as well for read-only public repos? I should probably know the answer to that already, but I'm coming up blank.

I guess a solution (for a non-issue) of pulling public repositories would be to fork the repo over the secure GitHub interface and then pull your fork over ssh...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> GG Firesheep</comment>


Ask HN: Why the apple color is white on Mac book? - <AUTHOR> I could not figure out why Apple logo color is white on Mac books? Could it have been designed either Red or Green right? <comment><USER2> The light on Macbook Pros is just the other side of the backlight on the screen. If it was red or green, the screen would also be red or green.

This also means you set the brightness of the screen to zero, then get a torch, shine it through the apple on the back, and see what is on a small portion of the screen.

<comment><USER3> You could use a colored lense to filter the backlight output delivering any color even with a white backlight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a design decision. Of course it could have been red or green but those colours simply don't look as good together with silver / metallic grey.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's no longer white on the 2016s

<comment><USER6> I think you should clarify and mention that it doesn't glow at all. As a side note this is rather easy to google the OPs question that is.</comment></comment>


Getting your users on-board - thoughts on Quora, Path.com, Instagram etc. - <AUTHOR> http://www.contrast.ie/blog/getting-your-users-on-board/

<comment><USER2> Quora lost me. It was a great place that attracted interesting people who were spending time answering insightful questions with compelling responses. Now, unfortunately, it seems to me that it has become yet another marketing channel, packed tight with cruft.

Good? Bad? I don't know that I can or would make such a judgment. All I know is that Quora has become a slightly less obnoxious Yahoo! Answers.

<comment><USER3> You raise an interesting question, that the article (or perhaps a followup) could address. How do you ramp up without becoming just another PR vehicle?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the things that goes unmentioned and I think that this is an important thing, even for facebooks valuation that we have all been talking about:

With the right feedback loops companies can ramp up quickly like never before is true. But those same loops are in place for the site to down down very quickly too.

In the valuation for such companies analysts often use a multiple times revenue (or users etc). This multiple is based on the old school model that it took time for companies to die, for competitors to emerge etc. Doubt that is true anymore. One bad move that pisses off the community and people will leave in droves too. Digg anyone?

<comment><AUTHOR> It went unmentioned cause it wasn't really relevant in the article.

The danger all of these type of applications face is that it's very very hard to tell if you're delivering anything of value, when you're not charging money.

Some people just delete their account. Some people stop logging in. Some people log in but far less often. Some still log in as often, but are bored when doing so. Some do it, but are really just waiting for the next big thing.

The risk of the high valuations is that all of these guys look like potential users, people who will click adverts.

Bebo had a shit load of active users when AOL shelled out $850,000,000 for it. The danger is that no one ever checked if any of the users actually gave a shit about Bebo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I visited Quora a while back. It had a login page, nothing that really described what it was, no examples. I figured it was a walled garden that invited participants. From the front page, you still can't tell what it is or why it is worth taking the time to sign up. Maybe it is a decent service, but, they lost me on the landing page.

Path.com, maybe I'm stupid, is it a dating site?

Instagram was interesting and I was able to figure out what that site was almost immediately. Since I was around when the SX-70 Land came out, their design and presentation actually was interesting. Too bad I use Android.

A landing page should tell me precisely what you offer, in quick and simple terms so that I can see how that site is going to benefit me. I'm not going to sign up - no matter how easy it is - to investigate whether this site has anything of interest.

I'm still unsure what path.com is other than a hyper-local facebook newsstream.

Maybe Quora and Path are still in stealth mode and doing the google invitation rollout, but, Instagram does look interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Quora makes plenty of sense once you're in, but I agree overall, and Path.com is certainly over-doing the vague pitch way too much.

<comment><USER5> But there is nothing on that page that would ever entice me to log in. Just a very vague statement. Is it technical? is it health? general? I understand if they are trying to keep it below the radar until they are ready to release, but, I see nothing there that would make me create an account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have never logged into Quora. Yet I find the fact that a few of the people answering the questions are authoritative sources fascinating. So stuff like being deluged by a stream of activity from people you follow on Quora is irrelevant for me. In a way, I think Quora stands out because its community of users acts as a sort of imperfect funnel for quality. Interesting questions and answers may become popular. With Twitter, it's hard to see what is relevant. But with Quora, if someone passes along a Quora link you almost know it is going to be good. Especially in the narrow niche of technology and Silicon Valley. Twitter is too democratic; Quora is more republican.

Also, clever name.

</comment><comment><USER7> I haven't explored Quora much yet, but Instagram, as you pointed out, has built in some great features that have helped them grow so quickly.</comment>


Internet Blackout in Belarus What's Happening There? - <AUTHOR> https://utopia.fans/censorship/internet-blackout-in-belarus-whats-happening-there/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hope guys will be okay..</comment>


Everything is broken (2014) - grey-area https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1 <comment><AUTHOR> Great article. This is the only way I can think about security. It leads to only one conclusion. Nothing connected to a network is secure, therefore nothing connected to a network is private. That's kind of sad actually, but it's the maximum claim I can make about the security of any system, including ones I manage and work on every day. If you need guaranteed security and privacy, the only thing to do is to keep things offline. Otherwise, it's just a matter of degree of ease of access to what is essentially public information.

</comment><comment><USER2> You know that feeling when, at some point, you realize you could have just died there, and suddenly you are overwhelmed with all the things that could kill you that are out there? This article feels like that.

There are relatively few ways to take over a western electric phone ([http://www.ericofon.com/catalog/classic3/images/2554/2500we_...](http://www.ericofon.com/catalog/classic3/images/2554/2500we_re.jpg)) it goes off hook by putting a load on the line, it dials by sending tones in- band. There are ways to subvert it of course but if you care to learn them you can figure out whether or not your device has been subverted. Of course there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to subvert an iPhone (or Android phone) without the user being able to tell, ever.

The fundamental difference is of course complexity, and _programmability_ which adds an exponential factor to complexity.

</comment><comment><USER3> good article, it reminds me of [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/EverythingsBrokenAndNobodysUps...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/EverythingsBrokenAndNobodysUpset.aspx)</comment>