Why I'm Breaking Up with the Apple Watch - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/fashion/why-im-breaking-up-with-the-apple-watch.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0 <comment><USER4> This article felt very weak and empty. The biggest complaint seemed to be that other people noticed she had it, and started small talk about it. Oh the horror. It's an article in search of minor reasons to not like the watch. I don't care if it wasn't life changing to you. Not newsworthy.

<comment><USER5> I think there's some substance here. My impression from reading it was that the watch was purchased as a fashion device, but it's still too much of a gadget to really be one.

<comment><USER6> A fashion item means the wears _wants_ people to see it worn. If people are asking questions it means the watch did the job the user wanted.

<comment><USER7> That's partially true. But it's also about how it makes you feel. Will most people be able to tell $250 Thomas Pink shirt from $25 shirt? Probably not, especially if the $25 one has good fit. But plenty of people plunk down $150-$250 for a shirt because they appreciate its feel, workmanship, fit, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For what it's worth, I've been wearing an Apple Watch from the start and have never been "defined by a talking point on my wrist." Most people seem to either not notice it or not care.

Honestly, I've seen so few Apple Watches in the wild, despite owning one _I 'm_ more likely to ask people about their experiences if I see someone wearing one. Because it's led to some interesting conversations.

But, anyway. Many of the problems listed will be solved over time. Some won't. The Apple Watch as it stands is, in my mind, a beta-level product. It's very imperfect, but it's attractive if you're an early-adopter sort.

(Side note: For some reason the title of the article really bugs me. Like it's out to make a really dramatic moment out of the fairly mundane decision to stop using a gadget. When I replaced my old phone with a newer model, I didn't "divorce my old phone." When I rent a Zipcar I don't have a "torrid afternoon affair, after which we vow to never see each other again.")

<comment><USER9> The reviewer was full of shit, I've had mine for over a week and most people don't even notice and I'm more than happy to answer any questions they may have even though I'd just as well prefer that it was completely ignored. This headline is just one of many click-baity headlines by people that never gave the watch a chance or just want to get as many eyeballs as possible regardless of their actual experiences.

<comment><USER10> > The reviewer was full of shit, I've had mine for over a week and most people > don't even notice

Do you realize yours is not the only perspective in the world?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> TL;DR - The watch is too flashy for the user. It didn't wake up reliably when the user looked at the watch. The user prefers to unlock their phone to do mundane tasks. The user feels like the step tracking and health functions of the watch are a burden.

If there was ever a product that was not right for a consumer, I think this writer has found one...

Personally I love my A.W. I have had 1 single person ask me about mine, that is it. (Which is good, because I didn't purchase it to be flashy)

Also, I think it would be a bummer if it didn't show its watch face when you look at it. I have heard mixed reports on this functionality. For me, it works really good, I never feel like I'm waiting for it to wake up. Maybe not everyone looks at their wrist in the same motion that is enough to trigger it. Definitely happy it doesn't activate while typing here.

Lastly, if wearable activity technology is not exciting, it seems like a significant portion of the "reasons" to buy one diminish. I was an avid fitbit/jawbone user before the A.W.

</comment><comment><USER12> My wife has been wearing the LG G Watch since October. She has a petite frame and so it's pretty big on her. Occasionally people will ask her if it's the Apple Watch (this started happening as soon as the Apple Watch was announced, long before it shipped), and when she tells them it's the "G Watch" they lose interest. So at least for her there's not a "conspicuous consumption" problem like the OP is worried about.

She wears it because it's indispensable [1] for her, as a busy mother of small children, to know when someone is calling or she gets a message. She doesn't carry her phone on her person around the house, it ends up on a counter or table somewhere. In addition, she uses the find-my-phone feature at least once a day.

[1]: The other mothers in the neighborhood use SMS to ask her to send their child sent home if they are over playing and it's time for dinner, or what- have-you, so there are communications that are time-sensitive.

</comment><comment><USER13> She mentions that a lot of cool stuff about the watch is moot as it is generally in screen off mode. A lot of the value in a watch is being able to cast a sly glance towards it to see what time it is without anyone else noticing (e.g. in a boring meeting).

Having to do an ostentatious mime to awaken the screen rather defeats this purpose.

<comment><USER12> I can understand that it'd be frustrating to have a blank screen. It's surprising that Apple couldn't keep the screen on all the time like the LG G Watch series has been able to do. I get 24 hours of battery life with the feature enabled (it's on by default).

Does someone have insight into why Apple can't do what LG has been doing for a year? Is it patents, a larger battery, better software?

On a related note, I hope that someone will release an android wear watch with an epaper screen. I miss being able to see the screen easily in direct sunlight like I could with the pebble. Maybe some sort of hybrid (multi- layered) screen would be possible.

<comment><USER14> It would be interesting to see what Vanessa Friedman would make of the Pebble. It's still too large, as that's one of her complaints, but I imagine it won't jar like the Apple watch as. And it's pretty nondescript too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sure, the smartwatch or fitness tracker is not for everyone - I would never consider someone a luddite for not wanting a smartwatch or even a smartphone. And true, for some people, the statistics/tracking does indeed descend into "a numbers-driven neurosis", but for others it's a great way to provide an incentive to remain active, even if it does feel like a cheap gamification trick.

I don't buy this part though:

 _"Why is that more embarrassing than endlessly looking at a phone?" my friends said when I complained.

It's a valid question, but after some contemplation I think the answer is simple: A phone is hand-held, and we are used to seeing people read things held in their hands. Like, say, books. But seeing somebody staring at her wrist (or merely sneaking a surreptitious glance at it) telegraphs something else entirely: (1) rudeness or (2) geekiness._

The "rudeness" or "geekiness" aspect is entirely contextual. When you're meeting with someone face-to-face (for dinner, an interview, whatever), constantly glancing at your {watch, phone} is an indication you'd rather not be spending time with them or that there is something else more important on your mind. The exact device through which your inattention for someone else is conveyed is of less concern than the human behavior underlying the action.

</comment><comment><USER16> > I gravitate toward clothes that are not identifiable by season or designer > and do not appear in any advertisements I have ever seen.

I don't understand why someone who goes out of their way to find unidentifiable things would even consider buying an Apple Watch.

<comment><USER17> Probably because it's a pretty unique device that she really wanted to try. She was willing to take the risk.

There are other smartwatches on the market, of course, but it sounds like she doesn't like the appearance of any of them, so the AW was the only viable option for her ("no matter how attractive the Apple Watch is in the context of other smartwatches or smartbands, no matter how much of an aesthetic advance its rounded corners and rectangular display, [...]").

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> A person who self-admittedly is uninterested in branding in her fashion buys the most readily identifiable product in years from the largest brand in the world and she's upset about it?

It's not the Apple Watch, it's her.

<comment><USER19> While a bit crude, I think you summarized the _primary_ reason the Apple Watch was not a good fit. The author specifically shies away from displaying brands which doesn't fit well with the Apple approach of memorable design+branding.

Also, unless you're referring to a specific bug, it's always going to be "him" or "her" and not the watch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article touches upon something I've thought about - and the reason I don't really believe in the Apple Watch: A phone is something you pick up, work with and then put back - in the pocket, on the table or similar.

A watch is something you choose to _wear_. That'e the reason that watches have almost always also been seen as a fashion accessory. And you choose to wear a fashion accessory because of the statement it implicitly make about you (for wearing it). And that statement needs to be highly individualized _exactly_ because you choose to _wear_ it.

When everyone wears the same, we call it a uniform. That goes counter to the inherent desire to express our individualism through what we choose to wear. While a specific accessory may signal that we're part of a certain group or belong to a certain segment, few modern people want to be viewed as primarily uniforms. A uniform is something that some of us _accept_ to wear in certain situations, under certain circumstances. But it is generally taken as something that _erases_ individualism. Indeed that is the purpose of a uniform.

There is a risk that the Apple Watch will be viewed as a uniform - <USER3> that signals _lack_ of individuality rather than ideals about independence and confidence. If Apple Watch become something that is perceived to be worn by people who are seeking acceptance from belonging to some imaginary club, it becomes a uniform. And a uniform will be shunned by the fashion-aware who want to express ideals such as individualism, confidence and freedom.

<comment><USER8> > There is a risk that the Apple Watch will be viewed as a uniform - <USER3> > that signals lack of individuality rather than ideals about independence and > confidence.

This is why Apple's being pretty aggressive with the selection of watchbands and metals on the device itself. Right now the fashion side of the Watch is being hindered by technical constraints: It's got to be kind of thick and bulbous just to contain all the guts and battery. Apple will slim it down to just a thin screen given a few years. It'll probably still be rectangular, but the watchbands will be what people see more than anything. And there will be a million options for individuality.

People individualize their iPhones pretty well with cases and lock screen backgrounds. They'll do similar things with watchbands and watch faces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > The watch threatened to drag me back into a numbers-driving neurosis, and > that's a temptation I'd rather not have.

This is why I stopped using MyFitness, and I stick to rather unobtrusive pedometer apps for my phone. My personality has a very strong rebellious streak, and the phone becomes a parent-by-proxy, scolding me for not doing what it (or society) told me to do.

<comment><USER22> Private wearables would benefit from open software that can be customized to reflect the local agency of the human person.

Replace remotely authored committee nudge policies with asynchronous versions of your past or future self.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Because no matter how attractive the Apple Watch is in the context of other > smartwatches or smartbands, no matter how much of an aesthetic advance its > rounded corners and rectangular display, it still looks like a gadget.

Which is why I wear a Moto 360 with a metal band. Because it looks like a watch. And it's not a conversation starter unless someone sees me using voice control (it's pretty good at picking up commands _sotto_ voice, but I still look like a fed talking to a microphone in my sleeve).

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't have an Apple Watch, but I'm using Android Wear for 6 months now - Yes, it takes a while to get adjusted to forming a relationship with your watch. But you get there. The bond you form with watch _feels_ to be deeper and more trusting. That maybe intimidating at first.

The author gave up a great device because of peer pressure, and came online to rant about it. Yes, it does start conversations, people ask you what is it that you're wearing. That problem would be slimmer with Apple Watch than Android Wear.

So what? It's an amazing experience to own a smartwatch. And people are genuinely excited about your new gadget, not judging on you. From my experience, they really want to know, and find out how I got one.

It is not yet a fashion statement, but the upsides outweigh the downsides.

</comment><comment><USER25> People are too distracted by my Google Glass to notice my Apple Watch.

</comment><comment><USER26> To her point on fitness, even if I know exactly how much I'm doing and whether or not I'm in shape I actually do want something unobtrusive recording my vitals so that I can have a baseline in the future to compare against in case something truly is wrong, especially knowing what factors have changed over time and maybe being able to correlate them.

</comment><comment><USER27> "I do not want to be defined by a talking point on my wrist"

Meh, this won't be an issue in a few months, depending where you're located. In San Francisco, for example, Apple Watches are not a rare sight, so it's unlikely to prompt conversation. It happens to me maybe once or twice a week.

</comment><comment><USER28> It was hard reading that article. I really didn't like the anthropomorphic structure of the article at all. So weird.

The potential of the tech is clear with WatchOS2. There will be interesting times ahead.

</comment><comment><USER29> So the writer didn't like it because it's too geeky? She's too cool for tech gadget.

</comment><comment><USER30> Now I really want to buy them. I like when things looks geeky and beautiful simultaneously.

</comment><comment><USER31> Well, that was a short date.

</comment><comment><USER32> This seems a fair critique to me, in that the clash between fashion and tech / geek / gadgets is real. For some people, blending all of that will make sense. I don't think it makes sense for enough people for the watch to mainstream like the phones have.

Take some of the commentary below as just my own idle thoughts, fantasy as to what might actually make sense. We aren't there yet, but we are close to taking some steps...

For me personally, it's compelling as an advance in what a watch can do. Of course, I was the geek back when I wore watches too. Had multi-function ones, and the best features were solar, with sensor to display light level (rare Seiko), and the variety of increment timers, alarms, and such. Had a calculator one for a while too. Used it a lot.

Some of those have aged well. I've an old Seiko that just screams "80's era peak digital tech", and it's beautiful. Machined case, reasonable display, nice band, etc... Once in a while, I'll wear it for fashion today. I no longer care about the functionality.

When I got past the simple pager and decided to carry a phone, I realized I don't like a lot of personal tech dependency. Having a phone and a watch, along with other potential things to carry around was too much. Something had to go, and that thing was the watch.

I've also realized the real appeal of wearables to me would be some sort of other interface, sci-fi at present (I think), where I can interact without looking at the thing somehow. It having a display is nice, but as a primary use case, not attractive to me anymore. I've a phone for that, and my Note 4 is a powerful phone! There are days when it's my only computing device, and I'm very happy about that development.

Someday, when the wearable can interact on a more personal level, say by stimulating nerves, or doing some other kind of thing, I see the potential for that private comms channel being really useful. Maybe meet somebody, query the phone for some info, get it, and all the while being able to engage them personally without having to pull out some tech, or interact with a thing they can see. Or maybe, it can notify me when somebody I really need / want to interact with enters the room, or is present via some other means. Maybe I could just quietly ask for help too, a 911 call without announcing it's been made.

To me, that's where wearable needs to go; otherwise, why not just have it on the phone where every other thing is?

Long ago, I learned morse code for a HAM radio license. Honestly, if I could get a wearable that would pulse to me at some reasonable rate, and I could pulse back at some reasonable rate, it would be enough to be super useful with the right software. Think text / command line type interface, with some data ending up on the display for various reasons too. Yes, this idea is primitive, and not something most ordinary people would find appealing, but I can't shake it due to my own experiences.

For people who have mastered morse, they can take it in nearly any form. Blinking lights, sound, vibration, taps on the shoulder, whatever. It just works, and they get 30-60 words per minute doing that. I've been around these people, say at a camp fire or some other event, and they literally are following a conversation via a blinking light nobody else there is aware of. I got a sense of what it would be like to be deaf, and found that potential compelling. The idea of having a comms channel with a device like that, personal, private, non intrusive to other interactions is where things become part of us, not just some thing mounted for handy interaction.

Using a watch still takes my sight, and sometimes my sound, and my hands. Using a watch with voice interaction is cool in some contexts, like when I'm using my hands, but not so cool in a social context, where using hands can work because one is speaking, etc... It's all a distraction, or rude, or public. Besides, a phone can do that stuff now.

And in that sense, forget the wrist! Just gimme something I can interact with on a more basic level, and I'll gladly learn that technique just as I did code, and would use it frequently enough to be worth the bother... or more realistically, the implant or whatever it takes to make it happen.

On that note, a friend has the little magnet implanted in their finger. It was done in a bio-compatable way, and they've had it for a long time. You can simulate this by wrapping a small, strong magnet in tape around a finger, or some other part of the body. It only takes a little while for your body to self-identify with this new thing, and it becomes a sense quickly. Feeling fields, invokes visuals much like thinking about things does. The minds eye opens up a little. This experience was compelling enough to make me very seriously consider getting one. No joke.

Say that magnet was in the wrist, or near it, just as a point of discussion for how intimate tech could work?

Now, that watch can communicate a lot of things, and do so quickly. Vibrate, pulse, low frequency, high frequency... those all become distinct, easily differentiated things quickly. Of course, it's mostly one way, unless it were near a muscle, or the watch could pick up signals for fingers, or some other basic movement... Pulse it in specific ways, and directions / vectors can be communicated too, due to the small motion of the magnet, and how one's mind tends to map that sense point in space and with relation to the body. Think Google navigation with no visuals. Just walk around, and get the nav data streamed a piece at a time. Turn left, go faster, turn right, look one way, look the other, as it gets closer, pulse stronger, etc... I would use something like that near constantly.

That's where this stuff needs to go IMHO, and we just aren't there quite yet. Just having a spiffy touch gadget on a wrist really isn't all that compelling to me, given I've got one that is more powerful, easier to interact with and higher throughput comms wise in my pocket, that I can set on a table, share with friends, and so forth. Perhaps it makes really great sense to pour more R&D into the watch / skin interface. People can learn a lot and adapt quickly. Maybe a light zap, or a grid of things that can zap might be expressive enough to be useful. Now that I write this, I'm seriously tempted to make something and try exploring what can be triggered with a simple metal to skin interface.... and what can be sensed too.

Don't get me wrong either. The tech in the watch is clever, and I'm very seriously impressed with what Apple has done in terms of packing power into small places. Damn cool. Just not useful enough to commit to wearing.

Plus, it's just another thing to recharge. I've already got a computer and a phone to manage...

<comment><USER33> Interesting thoughts. We're building a device along the line of what you're thinking. PM me and we can talk more.

<comment><USER32> I don't see that option. Perhaps you can PM me?

<comment><USER33> Sorry, my mistake forgetting that HN does not have PM capability. You can email me at firstname.lastname@example.com, and we'll continue from there. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Like, for example, that I do not want to be defined by a talking point on my > wrist.

Ok stupid reason

> But when I started wearing the Apple Watch (the 38-millimeter case with a > Milanese Loop band, which is the smaller size with a flexible stainless > steel bracelet), it became a subject of conversation no matter where I was: > in meetings at work, at the bagel store, at my son's track meet. It has been > so everywhere, marketed to so many people, there was just no mistaking it.

So buy the sport, I've had mine for over a week and only people who knew I was getting it even noticed. I wore a pebble for over a year before so that might have some impact but even then very few people asked about that. That said owning a pebble was made me fall so hard for the Apple watch. Everything the pebble did (other than battery which I don't care about, if it lasts a day I'm fine and mine is consistently at 50% when I go to bed) the Apple watch does better. It's equal parts just better UI/UX and Apple being able to "cheat" by having direct access to the OS that pebble never got.

> Not only does its face effectively span the width of my forearm, but the > cool little screen saver that so many reviewers have lauded — the Mickey or > the butterfly or the galaxy (which is the one I have) or the pseudo-watch > hands (the one that, notably, is always on in every picture of the watch, > and actually makes it look like a watch) — is also functionally sleeping > most of the time.

So you just bitched about calling out the fact that "look at me I have an Apple watch" and now you are mad that the display isn't on constantly so that.... you can show it off?

> Not that it would do much good. Typing doesn't awaken the picture. Even when > I rock my arm back and forth energetically, it often takes a few tries > before up the earth pops. The default position is blank.

I was used to the wrist shake to get the pebble backlight to turn on which doesn't work on the Apple watch but it took less than a day or two to get the gesture down to turn the screen on. This is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. I can rotate my wrist ever so slightly while typing to see the screen just fine and 99% of the time when I look at my watch it turns on. On rare occasions I have to "re-gesture" but I'll trade e-ink and always on (I've seen the new pebble screens in person) for this gorgeous display with much sharper colors and text.

> Just as my default position when trying to read an email or the text of a > headline on the small screen involves raising my wrist to near eye level

Are you joking? Get some glasses, you have a problem. I can read my screen perfectly and often better than I could my pebble.

> or, if a phone call is involved and my actual phone is not reachable, > talking into thin air. If your children or acquaintances come upon you, it's > pretty much an invitation to ridicule.

Get over it, either don't answer calls on your wrist when with company (sounds like you deserve the ridicule). I rarely answer calls on my watch and only do it when I'm alone and my phone isn't right beside me which is rare.

> It's a valid question, but after some contemplation I think the answer is > simple: A phone is hand-held, and we are used to seeing people read things > held in their hands. Like, say, books. But seeing somebody staring at her > wrist (or merely sneaking a surreptitious glance at it) telegraphs something > else entirely: (1) rudeness or (2) geekiness.

Wow... is this supposed to be a big joke? Glancing at my watch is WAY less rude than pulling out out my phone while talking. As for geekiness again, get over it, it will be commonplace soon enough this is what you have to deal with as an early adaptor. Poor you, you bought a $600+ device and you have to deal with people poking fun at you, get over yourself.

> This doesn't seem to have bothered the tech writers, most of whom wrote > persuasively positive reviews of the gadget, primarily based on what it > could do for you. And it is certainly more subtle than Google Glass, though > I am not sure that is saying much.

.... The only thing these devices have in common is they are both "wearables" that's where the similarities end. Don't even try to saw wearing an Apple watch is akin to wearing Google Glass.

> And the small screen is simply too small to really read on, so I've been > more annoyed than happy when it alerted me to texts from my loved ones; and > when I saw a headline, all I wanted to do was find the rest of the story.

It's the best screen I've seen on a watch yet and I have no issue getting the info I need from the text displayed or using the digital crown to scroll down

> Besides, the busywork the watch's apps can replace — handing over airline > boarding passes, opening hotel room doors — seems less like an advance than > a loss of control. Call me a Luddite, but honestly, I don't mind unlocking > things with my actual hands. The new watches announced this week may change > the situation, but I am not sure I have the patience to wait.

Ok, you're a luddite. The less I need to pull out my wallet or phone the better.

> Likewise (and I know this will be heresy to anyone really excited about the > coming Fitbit initial public offering), the fitness-app aspect — the > tracking of my steps, the measuring of my heart rate, the telling me to > stand up when I am in the middle of an article — seems more like a burden > than freedom.

I disagree, it reminds me to take a break and walk around the office or if I'm at home I'll get up, move around, do some jumping jacks, etc. All things I didn't do before. Sometimes I'm in the middle of something so I wait till I'm done before I get up but over all I'm very pleased with it reminding me to get up and move around.

> But here's the thing: The watch isn't actually a fashion accessory for the > tech-happy. It's a tech accessory pretending to be a fashion accessory. I > just couldn't fall for it.

And as someone who doesn't give a shit about fashion I am on cloud nine. I was utility not some vain attempt to show off I have an Apple Watch. This reviewer complains about people noticing and asking about the watch and then complains that it's more of a tech device than a fashion device... You can't eat your cake and have it to.

The reviewer doesn't even mention things like siri on the watch which I have found to be one of my favorite features and coupled with the advances siri is going to be making in iOS 9 really makes the watch shine. Even now for reminders, timers, unit conversions it's awesome and I don't have to walk across the room to where I left my phone while cooking, I just raise my wrist and ask my question.

Overall this is a terrible review with straight up inaccuracies and focusing on things that to an average user are either not an issue or not a big enough one to outweigh the gains.

I plan on wearing a smartwatch of some kind until some other tech ellipses it and right now (at least for iPhone users) the Apple Watch is the best option on the market.</comment>


Show HN: A Multi Purpose Debug Visualizer for VS Code - <AUTHOR> https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=hediet.debug-visualizer <comment><AUTHOR> I need your help! If you like the idea of this extension, please express your interest in [1]!

Without a proper API from VS Code, this Debug Visualizer cannot unfold its full potential. Right now, you need to install a forked debug adapter for NodeJS to get the extension working.

Thanks!

[1] [https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/78663](https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/78663)</comment>


Facebook Knows You Better Than Anyone Else - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/science/facebook-knows-you-better-than-anyone-else.html?referrer=

<comment><USER2> Not particularly surprised by this given the fact that using Facebook is essentially providing them with a wealth of free data. Every time you show interest in something, congratulations, you are helping a computer to profile you better than a person can.

Implications good and bad, meh

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never had a Facebook page. Which is probably reveals something about personality in and of itself.</comment>


Filament (3D renderer from Google) for the Web - <AUTHOR> https://prideout.net/slides/filawasm/ <comment><AUTHOR> If you missed the earlier post about Filament and it's gorgeous documentation, here are a few links for you :)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17684286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17684286)

[https://github.com/google/filament](https://github.com/google/filament)

[https://google.github.io/filament/Filament.md.html](https://google.github.io/filament/Filament.md.html)

[https://google.github.io/filament/Materials.md.html](https://google.github.io/filament/Materials.md.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> First I read this:

        Small: written in C++ with very few dependencies

And thought "Cool, let's play with it".

And then on the GitHub page they write:

        Building Filament

        Prerequisites

        To build Filament, you must first install the following tools:

        CMake 3.4 (or more recent)
        clang 5.0 (or more recent)
        ninja 1.8 (or more recent)
        To build the Java based components of the project you can optionally install (recommended):

        OpenJDK 1.8 (or more recent)
        Additional dependencies may be required for your operating system. Please refer to the appropriate section below.

        To build Filament for Android you must also install the following:

        Android Studio 3.1
        Android SDK
        Android NDK
        Environment variables
        Make sure the environment variable ANDROID_HOME points to the location of your Android SDK.

        By default our build system will attempt to compile the Java bindings. To do so, the environment variable JAVA_HOME should point to the location of your JDK.

        When building for WebGL, you'll also need to set EMSDK. See WebAssembly.

        IDE
        We recommend using CLion to develop for Filament. Simply open the root directory's CMakeList.txt in CLion to obtain a usable project.

        Easy build
        Once the required OS specific dependencies listed below are installed, you can use the script located in build.sh to build Filament easily on macOS and Linux.

        This script can be invoked from anywhere and will produce build artifacts in the out/ directory inside the Filament source tree.

        To trigger an incremental debug build:

        $ ./build.sh debug
        To trigger an incremental release build:

        $ ./build.sh release
        To trigger both incremental debug and release builds:

        $ ./build.sh debug release
        To install the libraries and executables in out/debug/ and out/release/, add the -i flag. You can force a clean build by adding the -c flag. The script offers more features described by executing build.sh -h.

        Disabling Java builds
        By default our build system will attempt to compile the Java bindings. If you wish to skip this compilation step simply pass the -j flag to build.sh:

        $ ./build.sh -j release
        If you use CMake directly instead of the build script, pass -DENABLE_JAVA=OFF to CMake instead.

        Linux
        Make sure you've installed the following dependencies:

        libglu1-mesa-dev
        libc++-dev (libcxx-devel on Fedora)
        libc++abi-dev
        ninja-build
        libxi-dev
        After dependencies have been installed, we highly recommend using the easy build script.

        If you'd like to run cmake directly rather than using the build script, it can be invoked as follows, with some caveats that are explained further down.

        $ mkdir out/cmake-release
        $ cd out/cmake-release
        $ cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../release/filament ../..
        If you experience link errors you must ensure that you are using libc++abi by passing this extra parameter to cmake:

        -DFILAMENT_REQUIRES_CXXABI=true
        Your Linux distribution might default to gcc instead of clang, if that's the case invoke cmake with the following command:

        $ mkdir out/cmake-release
        $ cd out/cmake-release
        # Or use a specific version of clang, for instance /usr/bin/clang-5.0
        $ CC=/usr/bin/clang CXX=/usr/bin/clang++ \
            cmake -G Ninja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../release/filament ../..
        You can also export the CC and CXX environment variables to always point to clang. Another solution is to use update-alternatives to both change the default compiler, and point to a specific version of clang:

        $ update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/cc cc /usr/bin/clang 100
        $ update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/c++ c++ /usr/bin/clang++ 100
        $ update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/clang clang /usr/bin/clang-5.0 100
        $ update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/clang++ clang++ /usr/bin/clang++-5.0 100
        Finally, invoke ninja:

        $ ninja
        This will build Filament, its tests and samples, and various host tools.

        WebAssembly

        The core Filament library can be cross-compiled to WebAssembly from either macOS or Linux. To get started, follow the instructions for building Filament on your platform (macOS or linux), which will ensure you have the proper dependencies installed.

        Next, you need to install the Emscripten SDK. The following instructions show how to install the same version that our continuous builds use.

        cd <your chosen parent folder for the emscripten SDK>
        curl -L https://github.com/juj/emsdk/archive/0d8576c.zip > emsdk.zip
        unzip emsdk.zip
        mv emsdk-* emsdk
        cd emsdk
        ./emsdk update
        ./emsdk install sdk-1.38.11-64bit
        ./emsdk activate sdk-1.38.11-64bit
        After this you can invoke easy build script as follows:

        export EMSDK=<your chosen home for the emscripten SDK>
        ./build.sh -p webgl release
        The EMSDK variable is required so that the build script can find the Emscripten SDK. The build creates a samples folder that can be used as the root of a simple static web server. Note that you cannot open the HTML directly from the filesystem due to CORS. One way to deal with this is to use Python to create a quick localhost server:

        cd out/cmake-webgl-release/web/samples
        python3 -m http.server     # Python 3
        python -m SimpleHTTPServer # Python 2.7
        Each sample app has its own handwritten html file. Additionally the server folder contains assets such as meshes, textures, and materials.

(I only copied the parts that seem necessary to get the web version working.)

Now I am confused. I thought it would be a few cpp files that I can compile to webassembly and thats it. Is the above really considered a small lib with very few dependencies?

<comment><USER3> For a multi-platform C++ project, these are quite reasonable prerequisites, as bad as it looks at first glance.

Also AFAIK, to dabble with the web version, just download filament-*web.tgz file here: [https://github.com/google/filament/releases](https://github.com/google/filament/releases), this contains a .wasm and .js file you can copy into your project (and soon this will most likely be on npm).

Expecting a JS user to compile an emscripten project would be a bit much to ask ;)

<comment><USER4> > For a multi-platform C++ project, these are quite reasonable prerequisites, > as bad as it looks at first glance.

For anything C++ coming out of Google, it's _shockingly_ reasonable.</comment></comment></comment>


How Drugs and Paranoia Doomed Silk Road - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-drugs-murder <comment><USER2> It'd be nice to read something about Silk Road written by someone who isn't a drug war fanboy. It gets annoying to read all the paternalistic and contemptuous banter that the author fires off at anyone who dares defy his fundamentalist prohibitionist ideology:

> college-aged line of argumentation

> precocious and edgy libertarian.

> that he had been held accountable for his decision to destroy other people's > lives in order to protect his business, rather than being able to look the > other way, as so many successful tech C.E.O.'s do

> If there was one thing that stood out, it was Ulbricht's inability to see > how his creation was being used for evil, even when he was the one > committing the sin

> In the Age of Trump, Silicon Valley's job is no longer to move fast and > break things. Instead, it is to consider how its technologies can be used > for horrendous evil. Sadly, Ross Ulbricht didn't learn this until he was > sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison.

<comment><USER3> I mean, they were selling fentanyl. You don't have to be some sort of hard- line prohibitionist to think that making your living selling fentanyl to kids over the Internet is not in society's best interest.

<comment> wu-ikkyu The mass production and overperscription of opiates by Big Pharma is not in societies best interest either. Where do you think that Fentanyl came from?

<comment><USER4> No, it's not. But being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized.

Saying, "But what about Big Pharma, huh?" isn't an effective argument, as many of us against Silk Road are also against their practices, and we'd like to see government agents investigating them more, as well.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >being against Silk Road selling it doesn't mean we also don't want Rx sales to be more closely scrutinized.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that, I'm just trying to find the root problem rather than attacking a branch of it that will grow right back - which seems like a waste of time to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > But Ulbricht wasn't simply a precocious and edgy libertarian. He was also a > gifted, self-taught computer programmer.

Is it just me, or is the word "gifted" thrown around a bit too easily these days?

<comment><USER6> Right. How can he be both gifted and self-taught at the same time?

<comment><USER7> Wait what? Why are those at all exclusive?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whoa, that took a weird turn at the end:

> But why would North Korea or Iran build a nuclear weapon when either can > drive countless cars into one another at 100 miles per hour?

What in the world is that about?

</comment><comment> angry-hacker I only ask why is it necessary to write that garbage:

... it is a recruiting device for ISIS and undeniably helped elect Donald Trump. Similarly, Tinder was originally intended to allow unattached college kids to meet one another and maybe go on a date. The service has since been used by chauvinists to prey on women. Facebook's newsfeed, likewise, was infiltrated by Russian operatives who fabricated stories that were used to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

<comment><USER9> > [Tinder] has since been used by chauvinists to prey on women.

Um, how about all the women who use it to 'prey' on men? Who writes this drivel?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is just a teaser for the book obviously... as all this has already been written about multiple times over elsewhere. Perhaps the only additive here is the parallels they draw to SV starups in general and how business itself has become increasing ruthless and universally corrupting; turning wideeyed entrepreneurs into ravenous cash-eating beasts. Seems to beg the question to whether Ross was any different...</comment>


How a Gang of Hedge Funders Strip-Mined Kentucky's Public Pensions - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2018/10/21/kentucky-pensions-crisis-hedge-funds/ <comment><USER2> My mom is retired and part of the Kentucky Retirement System.

Fun fact most people don't know about some of these- you forfeit your social security benefits when you participate. Because of this my mom cannot draw my dead fathers benefits.

[https://www.courier- journal.com/story/news/education/2018/03...](https://www.courier- journal.com/story/news/education/2018/03/20/kentucky-teachers-pension-reform- social-security/438031002/)

<comment><USER3> _The reason Kentucky teachers don 't get Social Security dates back to 1935 when the Social Security law was enacted, leaving out state and municipal employees, said Beau Barnes, deputy executive director of the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System, or KTRS...Teachers do not pay into Social Security but pay into their state retirement systems._

It sounds like that was a conscious choice. It's not like it was taken away from them.

<comment><USER4> With the implied understanding that the pension would remain solvent, and not strip mined by financial predators.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Kentucky's pension is screwed for all of the same reasons many other public pensions are (in order of importance):

\- Overpromising of benefits

\- Underfunding mechanisms that allow deferral of contributions

\- General mismanagement (I can assure you the best and brightest investors and fiduciaries don't work at public pensions)

\- Corruption (ie related party deals)

The idea that "evil hedge funds" are responsible is silly. This might make for more clicks but the investment committee made the decisions to invest, so blame them. This isn't about hedge funds.

I've long argued that public pensions should be illegal. There are too many areas of interest misalignment. Things that can be abused, will, and public pensions are perfectly designed to facilitate these kinds of shenanigans. Anyone looking for what the next great crisis will be, this is it.

<comment><USER6> Well the direct mechanism in this case is hedge funds paying "placement agents" which fund the corruption, so they do have responsibility, even if they are not solely responsible.

<comment><USER5> The placement agent would be powerless if not for the pension board's incompetence and corruption, otherwise it wouldn't matter if the pension was being pitched by the marketer or the fund manager itself. Don't get me wrong, it's a game that hedge funds are playing and I despise it, but the disease is what goes on in the board room of the pension.

All of this is a sideshow to the egregious overpromising of benefits and underfunding mechanisms.

<comment><USER7> This sounds like the same debate we have about security. _But sir_ , said the fox. _I am innocent! For the hen coop was left unlocked!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why do American politicians allow their people to be conned into thinking that there will be some "automatic" growth somewhere in their state/country that will automatically yield benefits in their pensions?

That lie, that something in the US will ALWAYS lead to gdp growth is the root of all yield chasing fiascos of American pension underfunding. There is no way that gdp will increase without a rise in working age population (especially with no immigrants) or a dramatic increase in automation which can be taxed.

FYI for any youngsters who don't realize what a con job this is: The recent tax cuts have created massive deficits which will collapse debt availability and thus economic growth and thus tax revenues and thus social security payments when you get unemployed (or old).

</comment><comment><USER9> When it comes to pension funds, investing in anything volatile like hedge funds is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. I'm kind of flabbergasted it's even allowed in the first place. Pension funds should have steady, modest gains year over year and minimize risk of dips as much as possible.

<comment><USER10> That's cool, so US bonds only then?

<comment><USER11> Don't BR ridiculous. There are lots of mutual funds that don't experience the swings that many hedge funds do.

<comment><USER12> There are many hedge funds with much lower volatility than the average mutual fund. Hedge funds are not inherently more or less risky than mutual funds, they are just actively managed instead of passively managed.

<comment><USER13> It reminds me a story in rare no-nonsense books on stock trading about 90% people losing money or doing less than stock index because of trading fees while activelly managing it. The ability to make good money in stock markets is a rare talent and hedge funds only make hedge fund managers rich, most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article was a sad, and infuriating read. The knee-jerk-response part of me would want these pension funds to be set up as an allocation of 'dumb'/passive index funds based on an individual's retirement date to not have to deal with greed on the part of human decision-makers, but there might be catastrophic issues with that too.

Edit/Follow-up: I guess there are two more sane alternatives:

1) Let public-sector workers manage their retirements privately e.g. 401k-style .

2) Let state and municipal public-sector workers opt-in to the federal pension system for federal public sector workers.

<comment><USER15> There's no reason government employees should get taxpayer guaranteed annuities. If the government employee unions want annuities upon retirement, they should be purchased from insurance companies. That way taxpayers can be certain there were no shenanigans in underfunding or mispricing or malinvesting. It would also create more transparency in how much people should be paid in government vs non government jobs.

It would also make government budgets a lot easier to understand and harder to fool taxpayers.

<comment><USER16> A long time horizon is supposed to be what governments are good at. No reasonable employee would trust a private insurance company to still be in business by the time they come to require, absent a governmental guarantee - and if something is both paid for by the government-as-employer and guaranteed by the government-as-regulator, what is bringing in a private company supposed to add to the mix other than taking profits?

<comment><USER15> It adds transparency and accountability. And it's up to the government employees if they want to bring in a private company. As a taxpayer, and employer of government employees, I would like a clear accounting of how much payroll is.

I don't want politicians buying union votes with unsustainable promises that get kicked down the road 20 years later, and I don't want to hear "my predecessors didn't properly fund the pensions". You create a system loopholes and bad incentives, of course they are going to be used.

The solution is simple, time saving, and efficient. If a private entity can't afford to offer annuities without the power to increase taxes, then they are obviously a very, very expensive benefit, so why should only government employees get them?

<comment><USER16> > If a private entity can't afford to offer annuities without the power to > increase taxes, then they are obviously a very, very expensive benefit, so > why should only government employees get them?

Because the government can provide them more cheaply than a private entity by its very nature - shouldn't it make use of that competitive advantage? Better pension schemes are one of the ways government are able to offer a competitive employee compensation package despite substantially below-market headline salaries; if you replaced the guaranteed annuities with their market dollar value that would mean costing the government more to be able to hire the same people, offering government employees less value overall and so getting lower- quality employees, or both.

<comment><USER17> >Because the government can provide them more cheaply than a private entity by its very nature

Please justify this. Public sector is not known for it's low overhead of efficiency.

<comment><USER16> > Please justify this.

The point is the government is already "too important to fail" and already bearing the costs of having to still exist in hundreds of years' time (in terms of plans, processes, backstops and all that).

> Public sector is not known for it's low overhead of efficiency.

True enough, but neither are large private financial institutions.

<comment><USER18> None of what you've said explains how a government can offer an annuity more cheaply than a private company.

<comment><USER16> For a private company to offer an annuity _that an employee can have the same level of confidence in_ , the private company would have to do those too- important-to-fail things, and would have to include the costs of them in the cost of the annuity, which the government does not.

<comment><USER18> I'm not intentionally being dense, but I legitimately do not understand why the government would not need to wrap those costs into the annuity. They still need to get paid for, no?

<comment><USER16> They're costs that the government already has because it already has to continue to exist, have failovers to the failovers and so on. Whereas the defining characteristic of a private company is that it can, ultimately, go bankrupt and be wound up with little recourse.

<comment><USER17> Please provide an example of these "continues existence" costs that the government is immune to.

>Whereas the defining characteristic of a private company is that it can, ultimately, go bankrupt and be wound up with little recourse.

Wall street already has countless mechanisms for pricing risk into things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If any private company wanted to sell a financial product akin to public sector pensions they would be arrested and charged with fraud. Come to IL -- plenty of pension games to play here

<comment><USER20> the big story in Illinois is that even with proper management the Chicago pension system will be broke in about two years. however we cannot just vilify Illinois as many public employee pension systems have been built upon promises that are not sustainable and will leave millions with no real retirement as each fund implodes

<comment><USER21> the big story in illinois is that the state, across both parties and multiple governors, underfunded the pension to a tragic degree and now its at crisis proportions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The problem isn't with hedge funds, it's with dumb money (or corrupt money). I'm not sure why people are laying the blame on the funds, I'm sure they wanted to produce good returns as much as anyone else.

The blame solely lies on the incompetent pension fund managers. There are plenty good choices for alternatives in the market that are accepting new money (AQR or 2 Sigma or Bridgewater come to mind).

It's 100% on the pension fund managers that they squandered the money on some no-name fund with no track record.

</comment><comment><USER23> As a resident of Kentucky, I can state that it has many issues. Of course, nationally, there are also many issues. Most of these issues boil down to "How do we put money in our pockets" at the expense of someone else. Until that stops, the issues won't stop.

</comment><comment><USER24> So there's a lot going wrong here, pay-to-play, investment in hedge funds that no-one had ever heard of, investment in funds that ended up performing poorly, etc. However that isn't the real problem here - the real issue is decades of under-contribution to these funds by the state government.

<comment><USER25> This article isn't really about under-contribution. It's about corruption. If your response to an article about corruption is to change the subject, then it's unlikely that we'll see improvements.

<comment><USER24> The corruption is appalling but also easy to fix. The threat to people's retirement is not happening because of the corruption though - if this was a fully funded scheme and the board was taking kick-backs to steer business from one fund to another one it would still be appalling but it wouldn't risk tens of thousands of people spending their old age in dire poverty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> TL;DR: dodgy hedge funds bribe politicians to invest public pension pots with them.

I don't know why they don't just switch to private pensions. In theory public pensions should be less risky because the investment risk is spread between lots of people, but in practice it seems that the risk of management looting the fund is a much bigger concern, and one that you don't have with private pensions.

<comment><USER27> Colloquially in the US pension fund == defined benefit plan managed by your employer. A public pension would be managed by the government for governmental employees & a private pension would be managed by a private company for its employees.

Defined benefit pensions largely only exist in the public sector in the US because they are phenomenally expensive. The reason public employees don't want to switch is that these are _huge_ perks.

<comment><USER26> By private pension I mean a self-invested one. Essentially a trading account that you control.

In the UK they're called Self Invested Private Pensions.

<comment><USER27> 401k, IRA, 403b etc in the states

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> TLDR: politically appointed trustees of a pension fund systematically invest in somewhat-fraudulent investment schemes, which _shock horror_ had some questionable financial returns (they were in fact quite large, but with a minus in front). This is, obviously, the fault of all bankers on Wall Street, not of the appointed trustees or of the politicians appointing them.

</comment><comment><USER29> Desktop version: [https://theintercept.com/2018/10/21/kentucky-pensions- crisis...](https://theintercept.com/2018/10/21/kentucky-pensions-crisis-hedge- funds/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Pensions are Ponzi schemes, plain and simple, with government playing the role of Ponzi.

Buried deep inside the idea of a government pension is the idea that individuals are incapable of saving for their own retirement. That government needs to care for its people in old age because they won't take the necessary steps themselves.

Questionable assumptions aside, this article and many, many more like it demonstrate that _government_ is incapable of caring for people in their old age, making many of the same mistakes with "investing" that individuals will. From the federal government down, officials have shown no reluctance to raid pensions to fund pet project, resulting in chronic underfunding.

Inflation supplies the energy to keep this toxic cauldron bubbling along. It's not enough to simply "put money aside for retirement." Instead, you need "investments" that will at least keep up with inflation. Savings accounts are out.

Enter investment "advisors," all too willing to tell an individual (or government) what to do - for a fee.

Edit: the downvotes are amusing, but a comment explaining why would be more interesting.

<comment><USER31> Well, you're not wrong. You're just pointing some inconvenient truths.

1\. Most people _are_ incapable of saving for their own retirement, because they either lack the discipline or the skill set to do so.

2\. Because of (1), people want the government to take care of it. But government does a mediocre job of most things.

3\. Elected politicians have an incentive to get in bed with unions of government employees and screw taxpayers by cleverly mis-evaluating the present cost of future retirement payout streams.

4\. Bad actors in the world pray on everyone involved: the employees, the pension funds, the government, individuals, etc, to get management fees from the corpus of retirement programs.</comment></comment>


Buy Shanghai! - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_marx?currentPage=all

<comment><USER2> The truth about Shanghai: I spent a few weeks there just mingling and trying to understand the people, and what I dislike about Shanghai is this elitism that seems to exist among the foreigners living there. I went to some clubs and it was ALL foreign people - and mostly young. Not even the chinese girlfriend on the hand.

For the young and foreign, Shanghai is a playground. A place to live 10 times better than back home for half as much.

The chinese people and the foreigners seem to be living in different worlds. Shanghai seemed to me a bit like how one would imagine it in the 20s - with a cream of English expatriates and large mass of locals, both of which do not mingle with each other.

It was so different in other parts of China. In Sichuan, there were very few foreigners, and those that were there would be in groups of chinese people. In Shenzhen, the foreigners would be clearly business men looking to buy electronics or strike some deals and go home. In Kunming, the foreigners would be tourists.

Shanghai reeked to me of old world colonialism. The people were less friendly, less open and more jaded.

Through my travels in China, Shanghai was very frankly the place I liked the least.

(Hong Kong was great though, it has more foreigners than Shanghai probably, but people seem to have more of the attitude of do-your-thing-I-do-mine)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, there was definitely a surplus of snotty expat i-bankers (even compared to NYC). Shanghai is the ultimate party city.

<comment><USER4> China has some of the best party spots on the planet. Especially if you have a little Mandarin you can have one _hell_ of a time and as much XYZ* as you could possibly want.

* Where XYZ includes women, liquor, food, music but not high speed Internet, political freedom, clean air or urbane conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I just got back from Shanghai last week. Curious urban planning-- whatever you want, there's a street for it. My personal favorites: the industrial supply street, dye street, and the outdoor (!) air-conditioner market.

One of the side effects of this policy (pointed out to me by an architect acquaintance) was that when you go to the new "residential" areas (post-1985 or so), there is literally _nothing_ but residential nearby. No stores, no cafes, maybe a kede (chain convenience store) if you're lucky. This is in stark contrast to the older, more integrated shikumen/hutong style of living, where residential and commercial are well-integrated (see nick ourossof's article in the nytimes about the demise of the hutong in Beijing).

<comment><USER5> I keep reading how pollution/smog is a major concern for the upcoming Olympics. Was it that bad?

<comment><USER4> Shanghai is not Beijing, it's reasonably clean. Beijing takes pollution to a whole new level and then once more.

/lives in Beijing //hack, cough, sputter

<comment> daniel-cussen Well, at least it's helping your hacking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The development of China is a fascinating subject, but this article isn't about that. It's shopping porn.</comment>


Diggy: open source JavaScript game engine (with example game) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lostdecadegames.com/diggy-open-source-javascript-game-engine-with

<comment><USER2> "Note: I am abandoning Diggy because it turns out I'd rather be making games using canvas. Go figure."

Github source: <http://github.com/lostdecade/diggy>

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that's the primary reason I open sourced it, so that if others find it useful they can fork and go nuts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I started a Canvas based game framework of sorts a while back:

<http://github.com/ashleyw/Game.JS> …super original name, I know!

You do all the drawing yourself, it doesn't add another layer as such to that, it just helps with scheduling background tasks, keeping a smooth time stepping, sounds, etc. It's very buggy though, with very little documentation and no tests…but please do check it out if you're thinking about creating a Canvas based game soon, it's not that complicated! :)

(btw, it doesn't require Ruby, I just use sinatra to serve all the files easier!)

</comment><comment><USER4> The link has auto-playing music. _I kid you not._

... and the app just exceeded its quota.

<comment><AUTHOR> The auto-playing music is the JavaScript game itself, embedded in an iframe, sorry :(

Quote resolved, server back up!

<comment><USER4> It's more the fact that it wasn't disclosed - in case people are sitting with headphones turned up. :)

Dammit, and now the wait for _Puzzle Quest 2_ will be even more unbearable.

<comment><AUTHOR> My bad, I probably won't have audio at all (initially) next time, but I'll definitely mention it either way. Thanks for the tip!

Also: Puzzle Quest 2 is out now! I've been playing it on DS :)

<comment><USER4> True, alas not on iPhone, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The demo just shows "Loading audio ..." and seems to do nothing. Not sure how long I am supposed to wait. Have waited at least 10 seconds.

<comment><USER6> Let me guess, you've got a flash blocker of some sort? The game audio uses an intermediary layer of flash, but doesn't timeout if flash fails to load.

<comment><USER5> Ah hehe, yes that was it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed, thanks for pointing that out!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sidenote: excellent background music. Goes well with the mood of the game.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll let Josh know! BTW it might interest you that he put his music up for sale! [http://joshuamorse.bandcamp.com/album/bombada-original- sound...](http://joshuamorse.bandcamp.com/album/bombada-original-soundtrack)

He's great, I'm a big fan of his.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So where are the libraries for making games with canvas? There's Akibahara, but it's pretty opinionated (not that there's anything wrong with that) - I'd love to see more diversity of approaches.

<comment><AUTHOR> As warfangle pointed out, I'm not working on Diggy anymore. Reason being: I'm working on a canvas JS engine now! :D Might have something ready for other developers in a few weeks ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Would be nice to have more difficulty level <http://elv1s.ru/i/bombada- score.png>

</comment><comment><USER10> Curious, did you ever get it running in Titanium?

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope :( I couldn't get Titanium Mobile to push to either my iPhone or my Android (and can't afford the $200/month support). Bummer, maybe someday.

<comment><USER10> hmm... What version were your using? I may give it a go if you don't mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was using Titanium Mobile 1.1 I think. Yes, please do! I'd love to know how that goes :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


PR2 autonomously pairing socks - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFkIHPrzS_8

<comment><AUTHOR> More laundry automation:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMBOwWEPUbc&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMBOwWEPUbc&feature=related)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glAXAMonops&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glAXAMonops&feature=related)

And getting beers from the fridge:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3Cq0sy4TBs></comment>


Show HN: 2020VISION.EARTH - <AUTHOR> https://www.2020vision.earth/ <comment><USER2> > Install solar + battery

Do you have battery and solar installed? You must be one privileged person. I have never once lived anywhere where I could even if I had the money to. Most people in the world do not live in free standing houses and I would hazard a guess that most countries in the world do not have open grids where you can choose who you buy electricity from.

> Petrol cars commuting every day

Most people in the world don't own cars.

> 'Free shipping' and 'Cheap flights' vs Learn actual costs

Eh, I mean, what? Are you saying people do not know what they are paying for flights? Because, eh, I do know what I pay for flights.

Are you saying online retailers should online retailers not be able to offer free shipping or they should tell you how much the shipping would have cost if it was not free? Why?

What is happening here?

> Enact all possible solutions

Except nuclear I bet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha oh ok, I see.

Nuclear would be great, maybe not on fault lines.

<comment><USER2> Look, I get the sentiment, and it is nice, the thing is though that the advice is not really applicable to most people on the planet and even if everybody that had those options available (i.e. were doing what is on the left and could do what is on the right instead) I don't think that it would solve our problems. Nuclear would go a lot further - but sure - not on fault lines.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for engaging with this.

The idea is the format, domain, open source, to chip away at some major emission sources. If people liked the format it might have lived!

Who I had in mind for the first cut were the affluent - people with an internet connection, from countries with high per capita emissions.

I find the point relevant that the solution isn't going to be 1 magic thing (ie sequestration or nuclear) but by chipping away on all fronts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hoping for early suggestions/contributions. Maybe the first cut is too wordy or polarising.

[https://www.2020vision.earth/](https://www.2020vision.earth/)

Repo: [https://github.com/danfo/2020-vision](https://github.com/danfo/2020-vision)</comment>


Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in April 2016 - <AUTHOR> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2016/05/04/most-reliable-hosting-company-sites-in-april-2016.html <comment><USER2> where are digital ocean and AWS? Does this not count VPS providers?</comment>


How installing & managing apps should have been on Windows 7 - <AUTHOR> http://inttips.com/allmyapps-everybody-wants-app/

<comment><USER2> Well that's the ugliest implementation of a package manager I've ever seen.

But that is the answer. A package manager. Simplified installation for users, keeps things secure (as long as vendors push updates to the repos) and probably makes Microsoft some cash from selling stuff.

But it's certainly not a new idea.

<comment><USER3> Maybe you'll like our upcoming v2 implementation better? <http://static.allmyapps.com/images/uploads/allmyapps_v2.jpg>

<comment><USER2> Honestly? Not really...

I don't know where to look between the logo, tiles, sidebar filters, sign-up button, big text "tabs", forced uppercase, forced lowercase and that mysterious white pane at the bottom.

It all sort of makes sense and doesn't at the same time. It's a really hard one to explain. I think a first step you need to look at the typography. It's all over the place. If that's a Windows style convention, there's no saving the human race.

It's also not that useful to just have a massive tile-spread of things at the topmost levels. Keep editorial and design control over the first "Find apps" screen. Also make sure you're not suggesting things that people already have on those screens.

And why are there things without icons?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm the CEO of allmyapps. Needless to say I 100% agree that it is how installing & managing apps should have been on Windows 7! We are on our way to v2 now... let me show you a screenshot of the upcoming version [1] (it is a HN exclusivity btw!)

While the current version (1.5) is .NET/WPF based, we've switched to full C++/Webkit for v2. Results are impressive: launch <2s even on the crappiest PC we could find, <40Mb of memory footprint... and, best of all, the UI is just "fast and fluid"(tm).

[1]<http://static.allmyapps.com/images/uploads/allmyapps_v2.jpg>

<comment><USER4> That actually does look better, thanks for showing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Prefer ninite.com. (no register. All essentials on 1 page.) But this wins visually.

<comment><USER3> I forgot to mention that v2 of allmyapps won't require signup anymore.</comment></comment>


The world's first poop database needs your help - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/29/20937108/poop-database-ai-training-photo-upload-first-mit <comment><USER2> Know shit?</comment>


Why I Printed My Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/printing-facebook-user-data-scrapbook.htm <comment><USER2> Link is broken, should have an .html extension, not .htm</comment>


US busts Google, Apple, Intel over secret employee poaching pact - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/us-busts-google-apple-intel-over-secret-employee-poaching-pact.ars

<comment><USER2> I tend to lean more conservative but I have to say that the government cracking down on this seems like a good thing. I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good.

However I don't have a great understanding of all the issues at play here, so I may be wrong. Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?

<comment><USER3> _I have a hard time seeing how companies creating agreements to help reduce competition for employees is a net good._

If you're an employee who has invested money and many years building up skills and education to become valuable to companies you might have a different view.

It's a coincidence this article comes on the heels of AngelGate, where it was Angels seeking to form anti-competitive agreements for their own benefit -- and less benefit for entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER4> I parsed your response five times, and I think you've got it backwards. The OP was stating that he thinks this is negative for employees.

<comment><USER3> You're right, the OP and I have the same position. I read the comment quickly and focused on the "Anyone have any experience as to why this is good/bad?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of our client contracts include mutual "no poaching" clauses. Obviously we are a lot smaller, but what determines when this is OK and when it's not?

<comment><USER6> You and your clients are presumably not peers. While it might make sense for some of your employees to jump to or from them, it's not nearly the same as jumping to a competitor of yours.

Of course, if you aren't in California you can lock them down with a non- compete, but then again that's why (I think) Silicon Valley has been so consistently and overwhelmingly successful (it's the one absolutely unique advantage it has).

<comment><USER7> This is something I've been harping on about lately but no-one seems to listen. Silicon Valley is the only place I know of where it is illegal for a company to restrict the work you do after hours and without company resources. This is such a massive boon for people trying to create their own startup. It means you can work on a project on the side until you are ready to commit without having to worry about your current employer stealing your IP.

<comment><USER6> No one listens because it only _directly_ helps competitors, and of course startups by definition are not entrenched businesses.

Few are wise enough to realize the advantages of an overall healthy ecosystem, and the giants like Intel, once they became giant, only want that to a limited extent anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Govt cannot monitor day-to-day illegal & immoral activities of big corporations. It is better to breakup these corporations into smaller entities to promote competition and solve unemployment crisis.</comment>


AWS Lambda Firefox - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/karolistamutis/firefox-aws-lambda <comment><USER2> > This is a docker based build environment that produces a modern version of > Firefox (tested with latest stable 66.0.3) built and packaged in a way > suitable to running in AWS EC2 Amazon Linux 2 AMI or to be used as a layer > for AWS Lambda, to run serverless testing for example.

I literally said "What?" with a giggle when reading this. I'm amazed about what have happened, but more intrigued by why it happened. Is the use case here being able to use it for testing or something similar?

<comment><USER3> Many people have been running headless Chrome in AWS Lambda functions for a while now. Use cases include testing, screen scraping, screen capture.

<comment><USER4> I was employed once at an insurance brokerage that had to automate insurance quotes from carriers that did not provide any sort of API. So we used a type of page automation with a headless browser, and manually wrote the code to automate entering data into each textbox and clicking each button in sequence, adding wait times as needed for the next page to load.

Would recommend avoiding this at all costs.</comment></comment></comment>


The Illusion of Control - <AUTHOR> http://zenhabits.net/control/

<comment><USER2> There is a whole field in engineering called "control theory". You can build controllers for both deterministic and stochastic systems. There is also such a thing as "adaptive control", which attempts to learn about and compensate for changes in the system.

People are controllers. It's what we do. In fact, control is a requirement for life. Rocks don't control anything, but fish absolutely do. They control what they eat, they control how their bodies move in the water. They attempt to control -- often unsuccessfully -- whether or not they are eaten by predators.

If you had titled your article "The Illusion of Perfect Control", I would be in 100% agreement. But just because something isn't and can never be perfect doesn't mean that it is an illusion or doesn't exist.</comment>


Show HN: Postman: "weekend project" Chrome extension for instant link sharing - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=209439802416684

<comment><USER2> Awesome project!</comment>


V8 Engine in PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/plv8js/wiki/PLV8 <comment><USER2> Well that's even more interesting than v8 in PHP. Ignoring the obvious question of performance, are there any use cases that are unique to this approach? I can see procedurally generating data or writing business logic in the db, but I'm not sure whether those ideas are that limited by the current alternatives. Perhaps in situations where it's difficult to put a layer between the DB and the consumers of the DB.

<comment><USER3> Most apps we write at work are boring data entry apps.

You have a form, you enter data, the data is somehow aggregated and presented to you in some other form or the data is sent off to some other service that then processes the data in some other way.

Removing a layer between the JS frontend and the DB just simplifies the whole stack: if postgres can do something like

       (select * from employees).to_json

and send it to the JS frontend that's already half of the app. The other half would be

       var record = {"empId": 2, "empName": "Franz"}
       insert into employees (emp_id, emp_name) values (record.empId, record.empName);

No java, .NET, ruby or python required. Plus it makes the sysOps happy: they have less stuff to handle.

<comment><USER4> What was the handwaving "send it to the JS frontend"?

Are you suggesting you allow the client-side JS app to call directly against the Postgres DB or is there another approach you had in mind?

<comment><USER5> I don't see how that differs from allowing a thick client written in wxPerl from directly connecting to the database. It seems quite useful in many cases.

One thing to keep in mind about PostgreSQL is you can do a lot of traditional middleware tasks (including message queues) in the database back-end with transactional control. These can even be hooked into other applications Remember, you can put a lot of what would otherwise go in a middleware layer in the database itself, especially with features in PostgreSQL like LISTEN/NOTIFY.

There are some limitations of this approach, but in general, I have found it ideal, but it requires thinking about your database differently. Instead of a data store on the bottom of the stack, you have an intelligent data storage and queuing system in the center of your environment.

<comment><USER6> One of the interesting changes in our reality, is the case for increasing scalability by having a middleware layer that does all the work has become quite weak. It's much cleaner to partition your systems and work that way.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's just that the performance case for middleware has become weak. It's also that traditionally you pay per connection some sort of license fee. So if you are running Oracle or SQL Server, and you want to add additional clients that, say, do additional process on notification, that means additional license fees. This isn't a problem on PostgreSQL.

It means there are choices between the traditional ones of putting everything in the database or in the middleware.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Manual by The KLF - <AUTHOR> http://www.kamita.com/misc/klf/klf-book-themanual.txt

<comment><AUTHOR> This text previously appeared on The KLF website and offers advice useful to muscially inclined start-ups. This includes getting the zeitgeist and inspiration; the importance of quitting your day job; being underfunded and simple workarounds; how to get expertise and observations on the decreasing cost of technology. The latter benefits from 1988's hindsight. More than one band has publicly attributed their success to this guide.

</comment><comment><USER2> "Their most successful records will kick into the chorus with a line which encapsulates the entire emotional meaning of the song. This will obviously be used as the title. As soon as Rick Astley hit the first line of the chorus on his debut single it was all over - the Number One position was guaranteed:

"I'm never going to give you up"

It says it all. It's what every girl in the land whatever her age wants to hear her dream man tell her. Then to follow that line with:

"I'm never gonna let you down I'm never going to fool around or upset you"

GENIUS."

And from Rick Astley, we get Rick-rolled.

Sometimes, I think the stuff in the business of music are mimicked very closely in the startup world. It sometimes mirrors more closely than I'd like to admit.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've always loved this story. I come back to it every few years (I've been on the Internet since '93, and I've stumbled upon it, or sought it ought, at least a half dozen times). I don't write songs much anymore, but it applies to taste-making in any industry.

</comment><comment><USER4> i remember being part of that 10 CD for a penny thing and i got KLF cd and it was awesome, well worth the month of crappy metal cd's i received afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER5> The manual by Lazyboy: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6f3oxgatbE>

:-)

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.myplaylist.biz/music/watch-now.php?ref=9872> klf playlist.</comment>